Evidence for god? Convince me! [CHALLENGE]

[Mudhammam]

If the universe were only a bit differently, life couldn't exist. Many factors have to be correct in order for Stars to really work for example, including subtle resonances in nuclear scattering, so obviously somebody knew what they were doing when the laws of nature were chosen. The anthropic principle is obviously ndo defence because in order for it to explain anything, you need many univereses with different laws, and there's no proof for that either
As for which God is the right one, since we are obviously the dominant and smartest species in the known universe, whoever made it is probably like us. That makes the judeo-christian god the perfect candidate, although some others are also raving lunatics, so it's hard to decide.

---

By the way, I'm enjoying the little spat between fr0do and Jacomb(Smooth). Fr0d0 is right though, Jacob seems to embrace some ridiculous form of Solipsism that basically amounts to, "if it feels good, do it." God can be a tree, if that's what you prefer. God is everything.

Or in other words, God is nothing.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@ Jacob & Fro do, stop it. You sound like those AF members that GTPIAK over the definition of atheist.

[*Deidre*]

I've read articles whereby some scientists strongly speculate that "life" may have originated on mars and somehow (asteroid?) made it to earth. It is a plausible "concept" (not quite a theory) and if that were the case, what might that do to the whole Creationist "argument?"

In other words, we don't know everything and religion tries to fill in what we don't know. But, that would be a challenge for Creationists.

[MindForgedManacle]

Bollocks

Ugh I guess I must elaborate...

I hate superstitious idiots, and you appear to be one. Sorry.

People come to BELIEVE in God through faith.

OP: no one can have transferable evidence of God, as that would be illogical. God is metaphysical by definition. ie not physical. If you want to chase that definition I suggest that you put in a little work and find out what it is your trying to discuss. At the moment your question doesn't address the subject at all.

This is a contender, amongst stiff competition, for the stupidest thing you've said on the forums. The "meta" in "metaphysical" is not about being non-physical, but about being ABOUT the physical, or rather, about existing things. Reality can be analyzed metaphysically, but are you really going to say - to be consistent with what you said about God - that reality is not physical?

What is Faith:

Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

As usual, the arrogance of soome Christians comes to the fore. There is no "the Christian view" on just about anything in Christianity, throughout history. This is almost painfully obvious, with a simple gesture to the fact that there have been more than 30,000 denominations of Christianity being a powerful argument in suppirt of this on its own.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

There's that arrogance again, of seeing one's own views on a theological concept and claiming it to be "the" view of Christians.

Further, this is to ignore one of THE heaviest hitters in Christian philosophy, Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was had the view that, no, faith is NECESSARILY irrational. Kierkegaard coined the phrase "leap to faith", which was popularized as the "leap of faith". The reason Kierkegaard thought faith HAS to be irrational is because it is ONLY the irrational allows for the circumstances under which faith is meaningful, can truly flourish and can be. If faith is rational, to Kierkegaard it reduces it to absurd uselessness. There is no virtue in Abraham faithfully assenting to God's command to sacrifice his only son if it were rational. For Kierkegaard, the affirmation of faith in despite its necessary irrationality is the whole point of Christianity.

And it's not just Kierkegaard, Pascal and Wittgenstein took similar views. So, with Kant there's an ambivalence towards rationality from Christianity, and with Kierkegaard, Pascal and Wittgenstein we have an outright rejection of the rationality of faith, from some heavy hitters in philosophy and Christian theology. So please, learn your theology and don't make these hugely broad claims, because don't reflect some definite view necessary to be a Christian.

[The Valkyrie]

I've read articles whereby some scientists strongly speculate that "life" may have originated on mars and somehow (asteroid?) made it to earth. It is a plausible "concept" (not quite a theory) and if that were the case, what might that do to the whole Creationist "argument?"

In other words, we don't know everything and religion tries to fill in what we don't know. But, that would be a challenge for Creationists.

"God sent the asteroid on its way to Earth and once life started he created life in their current forms"

Sorry, channeling my inner idiot . . . I mean creationist.

[Whateverist]

Panspermia just kicks the question down the road. Where did that other place get life? Eventually it was either created (not) or was built up from non organic substances (obviously).

[*Deidre*]

I've read articles whereby some scientists strongly speculate that "life" may have originated on mars and somehow (asteroid?) made it to earth. It is a plausible "concept" (not quite a theory) and if that were the case, what might that do to the whole Creationist "argument?"

In other words, we don't know everything and religion tries to fill in what we don't know. But, that would be a challenge for Creationists.

"God sent the asteroid on its way to Earth and once life started he created life in their current forms"

Sorry, channeling my inner idiot . . . I mean creationist.

LOL!

''Creationism for Dummies.''

[The Valkyrie]

"God sent the asteroid on its way to Earth and once life started he created life in their current forms"

Sorry, channeling my inner idiot . . . I mean creationist.

LOL!

''Creationism for Dummies.''

Well, creationism IS for Dummies . . .

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If the universe were only a bit differently, life couldn't exist. Many factors have to be correct in order for Stars to really work for example, including subtle resonances in nuclear scattering, so obviously somebody knew what they were doing when the laws of nature were chosen. The anthropic principle is obviously ndo defence because in order for it to explain anything, you need many univereses with different laws, and there's no proof for that either
As for which God is the right one, since we are obviously the dominant and smartest species in the known universe, whoever made it is probably like us. That makes the judeo-christian god the perfect candidate, although some others are also raving lunatics, so it's hard to decide.

Are you saying that life began on Earth as as soon as the Sun when on line?

[fr0d0]

The "meta" in "metaphysical" is not about being non-physical, but about being ABOUT the physical, or rather, about existing things.

Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after" or "beyond") is a prefix used in English (and other Greek-owing languages) to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.

---

So please, learn your theology and don't make these hugely broad claims, because don't reflect some definite view necessary to be a Christian.

I think you've failed to understand the quote. It already deals with dissenters. Ryft is/was a hugely respected member here. I've linked the original discussion.