Can you make a God claim?

[Nope]

It strikes me that the religious people's arguments on this thread to be used to prove the existence of fairies, Big Foot or space aliens.

[John V]

It strikes me that the religious people's arguments on this thread to be used to prove the existence of fairies, Big Foot or space aliens.

This religious person didn't claim to have proof, and noted that Christianity is admittedly a faith.

[abaris]

This religious person didn't claim to have proof, and noted that Christianity is admittedly a faith.

Yes, nothing wrong with faith. But you're saying that are a minority. I had several arguments on this board with the ones claiming to have proof and didn't accept the single truth that you can't prove the existence of any god as you can't prove the existence of fairies. You also can't disprove them, since you can't prove a negative.

[Nope]

It strikes me that the religious people's arguments on this thread to be used to prove the existence of fairies, Big Foot or space aliens.

This religious person didn't claim to have proof, and noted that Christianity is admittedly a faith.

Yes, that is true but how do you turn your brain off? Do you just compartmentalize the portion of yourself that has faith and only ask for proof in other parts of your life? Can a Christian be honest when they condemn other people's religions for being illogical or without substance when they themselves can't come up with any better reasons for their faith? It isn't as if most Christians acknowledge that their faith makes no sense when they actively try to convince people to join their religion. Some Christians use their faith to justify laws against same sex marriage or abortion or even sex education in schools.

Imagine that I try to use the same logic in this thread to convince you that you should follow my goddess, an invisible, blue rabbit. Now imagine further that I am relatively sane in all other aspects of my life but this one belief. Like me, you would probably find yourself curious how I could just accept something as true when I don't use the same lack of proof in other parts of my life.

[Strider]

I really don't see this as a good response. Scripture says that he will wipe the tears from our eyes, but I hope that doesn't mean imposing a kind of willful ignorance on the blessed. I think the better response is this: In heaven we will have command of all the facts, see that the torment of the damned is just, and rejoice in the Lord because he is just.

I cannot understand how anybody could ever come to see eternal torment as just for the billions that are destined to be there if the Bible is to be believed. If hell is real (and it's not), it is filled with billions upon billions of people who didn't accept Christ simply because they were born in a place where Christianity is not the dominant religion and they were never exposed to it. One's locality and nationality play a pivotal role in what religion they follow. It hardly seems just to cast billions of people into hell for not believing in a religion that they know nothing of.

[robvalue]

Especially if they get killed early in life and have never even heard of the "true religion" by then. Which isn't hard to imagine, people don't go out of their way to provide alternatives when it comes to indoctrination.

[Crossless2.0]

Especially if they get killed early in life and have never even heard of the "true religion" by then. Which isn't hard to imagine, people don't go out of their way to provide alternatives when it comes to indoctrination.

. . . or people who used their 'God-given' intelligence to conclude that the claims the ONE TRUE FAITH don't make much sense and that the spokespersons for said faith can't cobble together good reasons to compel belief. That's a justly punishable offence (an eternally punishable offense) according to your creed?

Sorry, but bullshit.

[dyresand]

Especially if they get killed early in life and have never even heard of the "true religion" by then. Which isn't hard to imagine, people don't go out of their way to provide alternatives when it comes to indoctrination.

. . . or people who used their 'God-given' intelligence to conclude that the claims the ONE TRUE FAITH don't make much sense and that the spokespersons for said faith can't cobble together good reasons to compel belief. That's a justly punishable offence (an eternally punishable offense) according to your creed?

Sorry, but bullshit.

If all religions were true well everyone goes to hell.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are no empirical tests for mathematical proofs or the validity of logical propositions.

Of course there are. If you want to test math empirically you can use stones in your hands instead of numbers. If you want to test the validity of logical propositions you can form a logical statement with a demonstrable conclusion known to you, in advance, and see how the yield of your statement aligns with what you have in front of you.

That is, in fact...how all of this was determined to begin with (and particularly with regards to logic how we determined when we had "the rules" right or wrong as we discovered them), and what either of those two systems was created in order to elucidate in the first place. igh:

All knowledge is observational -and therefore empirical- knowledge because we are observational "machines". We have no other choice, that's what our equipment does, and thus it is the -only- thing that our "knowledge" could -possibly- refer to. Logic and math are simply ways of communicating and assessing our observations in a manner that will help us to overcome some of the limits and foibles of our observational "machinery". They both attempt to describe the behavior of the world around us, based ultimately upon observations of -surprise surprise- the world around us. Logic is what it is because the universe appears to behave in the manner that it does. Math is what it is because the universe appears to behave in the manner that it does.

Where do you get this shit, anyway?

[John V]

Yes, that is true but how do you turn your brain off?

I don't. There's much more to the human experience than science. Why do you pretend otherwise?

Do you just compartmentalize the portion of yourself that has faith and only ask for proof in other parts of your life?

There are plenty of parts of my life in which I operate without proof. I've noted that I don't have proof that my wife loves me. I work largely in law. There's plenty of times that I can't get a position to the point of proven. So what? Maybe ambiguity bothers you more than it bothers me, because I don't see the problem.

Can a Christian be honest when they condemn other people's religions for being illogical or without substance when they themselves can't come up with any better reasons for their faith?

I can come up with better reasons for my faith than for others I've studied. This is another instance of black-and-white thinking on your part. You seem to think that, because no religion can be proven, they're all equally unsupported. That's not how it works. Same as in law. Just because I can't prove my case doesn't mean that I can't evaluate different positions and conclude that one is better than others, even if it is not proven itself.

Imagine that I try to use the same logic in this thread to convince you that you should follow my goddess, an invisible, blue rabbit.

As a traditionalist I prefer pink unicorns, but whatever.

Now imagine further that I am relatively sane in all other aspects of my life but this one belief. Like me, you would probably find yourself curious how I could just accept something as true when I don't use the same lack of proof in other parts of my life.

First, I think that, like everyone else, you do accept things without proof in other parts of your life. you just don't admit it.

Second, I really don't care if you believe in the rabbit. Whatever. What's it got to do with me?

That's one way to differentiate beliefs - claimed importance to me. If you're not even claiming that your bunny has an important message for mankind, well, whatever.