Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Watson]

And which cannot be produced, as has been established quite often on this forum. However, I can accurately predict what those who deny God, and those who believe in God will do given certain scenarios to a pretty close point.

[Caecilian]

And which cannot be produced, as has been established quite often on this forum. However, I can accurately predict what those who deny God, and those who believe in God will do given certain scenarios to a pretty close point.

And the point that you're making here is...what?

[Watson]

Looking at things through the eyes of God as best as I can, I can accurately predict behavior in certain people who deny or accept God. Just as, if someone were to deny their own arm's existence, I could accurately predict they would act in a certain way, such as only using the one arm they accept and leaving the other limp at their side.

[Caecilian]

Looking at things through the eyes of God as best as I can, I can accurately predict behavior in certain people who deny or accept God. Just as, if someone were to deny their own arm's existence, I could accurately predict they would act in a certain way, such as only using the one arm they accept and leaving the other limp at their side.

On one hand, you stress how god is infinite, ineffable, omniscient etc etc

Then you turn around and start talking about 'looking at things through the eyes of god'.

This is self-contradictory.

[Watson]

Looking at things through the eyes of God AS BEST AS I CAN, I can accurately predict behavior in certain people who deny or accept God. Just as, if someone were to deny their own arm's existence, I could accurately predict they would act in a certain way, such as only using the one arm they accept and leaving the other limp at their side.

On one hand, you stress how god is infinite, ineffable, omniscient etc etc

Then you turn around and start talking about 'looking at things through the eyes of god'.

This is self-contradictory.

This, on the other hand, is not. The safe-guard to when I am not able to look through the eyes of God very well is where the forgiveness part of Christianity comes in.

[Caecilian]

This, on the other hand, is not. The safe-guard to when I am not able to look through the eyes of God very well is where the forgiveness part of Christianity comes in.

You're still talking crap here. If god were truly infinite, ineffable, eternal etc etc then you wouldn't be able to look through his eyes at all.

In any case, if god 'is' nature/ the universe etc does it really make sense to talk about 'looking' or 'his eyes' in the first place? I think not.

[Watson]

You're still talking crap here. If god were truly infinite, ineffable, eternal etc etc then you wouldn't be able to look through his eyes at all.

*ahem* Jesus Christ? Where is your proof that you wouldn't be able to see through His eyes, or for that matter, any infinite, ineffable, eternal being's eyes?

Secondly, it's a lot easier if you can see the goal at the end to see the point of the means.

In any case, if god 'is' nature/ the universe etc does it really make sense to talk about 'looking' or 'his eyes' in the first place? I think not.

He has 'eyes' in a different sense than you or I having 'eyes.' You must look not with your eyes, but with the part of you that is one with God to see through His perspective. So yes, it does make sense.

EDIT: I just love being engaged in more than one debate at a time! It gets my heart pumping!

[Caecilian]

You're still talking crap here. If god were truly infinite, ineffable, eternal etc etc then you wouldn't be able to look through his eyes at all.

*ahem* Jesus Christ?

What about him? IIRC he was supposed to have '2 natures in one person' or some such twaddle. Its the divine element of his nature that we're talking about here.

He has 'eyes' in a different sense than you or I having 'eyes.' You must look not with your eyes, but with the part of you that is one with God to see through His perspective. So yes, it does make sense.

Pseudo-philosophical verbiage.

[Welsh cake]

*sigh* I can't begin to understand why you'd be so intentionally wrapped up in such a silly exercise of self-deception

Speak for yourself.

I've been honest with you from the start: I was formerly a Christian, now currently an Atheist.

God, as I have come to know Him and understand Him, is a part of every one and every thing. That means that He is just as much a part of you as He is a part of me. So, from my beliefs and my perspective, denying God's existence is like denying you have an arm or a leg; it is simply ridiculous.

Well there's a nonsensical hypothesis: stating this 'God concept' is a part of me is more or less claiming there's this really attractively sexy woman in my bed right now - I'm not denying her presence, she just isn't fucking there Watson! Much to my dismay and frustration.

No, I was not trying to impress anyone at all. I was trying to illustrate the ways in which God works and how He can be revealed to a person, even an Atheist such as I considered myself.

This is getting tiresome. Did you or did you not previously believe in god(s) at that time? You can't "consider yourself" an atheist whilst simultaneously holding onto theistic beliefs, that's a contradictory position.

This is because the problem with discussing religion and God with any Atheist is that they simply do not understand God. Thus, to get anywhere in a dicussion with an Atheist, theists and believers must first educate them on how God works, then move on to other topics of discussion.

I'm afraid before you can start "educating" others, you first need to define what this god thingy you propose actually is, and that is, you must provide a clear positive ontology for the God concept you think is real.

As I said above, the purpose of my stating Atheists can convert is so I may demonstrate to you how God works and go from there. You misunderstand or find contention with the lesson.

Which is, once again, entirely irrelevant to your earlier claim of being an atheist, people can and often do convert and de-convert. What I'm now asking from you is to make good on your burden of proof: prove God is real. Btw, I'm only asking you because fellow-former-atheist AngelThMan clearly can't be arsed to finish the debate he started. >.>

everyone is born an atheist to begin with!

Wrong. By my beliefs, everyone is born with the utmost perfect belief; a belief not bogged down with religious names and confusion.

You're making horribly false causal connections about cognitive thought processes here; you have to learn about said belief before it can actually become knowledge, or usually you would acquire and accept the dogma uncritically by undergoing religious indoctrination of some kind. For most kids that is simply known as 'Sunday School' at church.

This is why I state that we are born with perfect belief; we have not bee introduced to our own individual likes and dislikes yet, and thus we have not had a chance to form a perspective about the world which could blind us from God and His teachings.

See my previous response.

I reiterate, speak for yourself.

Likewise, I've been honest with you from the start: I was formerly a Christian, now currently an Atheist.

[Watson]

I've been honest with you from the start: I was formerly a Christian, now currently an Atheist.

You've been honest with me based on your beliefs, and I've been honest with you based on mine. It just so happens that my beliefs contradict yours on this matter.

God, as I have come to know Him and understand Him, is a part of every one and every thing. That means that He is just as much a part of you as He is a part of me. So, from my beliefs and my perspective, denying God's existence is like denying you have an arm or a leg; it is simply ridiculous.

Well there's a nonsensical hypothesis: stating this 'God concept'

It's not a God concept; it's just God.

is a part of me is more or less claiming there's this really attractively sexy woman in my bed right now - I'm not denying her presence, she just isn't fucking there Watson! Much to my dismay and frustration.

No, it isn't like that at all. The analogy doesn't work because I can't predict what you would subjectively do if there was a sexy woman in your bed right now- though I can guess- but I can predict what you would subjectively do, or what anyone would subjectively do in certain scenarios if they denied God.

This is getting tiresome. Did you or did you not previously believe in god(s) at that time? You can't "consider yourself" an atheist whilst simultaneously holding onto theistic beliefs, that's a contradictory position.

You are clearly not getting it. My understanding and knowledge of God as it is right now is that God is a part of everything and everyone. Therefore, looking back on my Atheism, I can acknowledge that I was wrong in labeling myself an Atheist, because in my book, it is impossible to be an Atheist. I did not believe in God at the time. My belief is completely irrelevant, however, to His existence and effect on me.

I'm afraid before you can start "educating" others, you first need to define what this god thingy you propose actually is, and that is, you must provide a clear positive ontology for the God concept you think is real.

Which I have done throughout numerous posts on this forum, and which I have completely and entirely supported throughout my entire run here. Not only that, there is a fixed reference if you need to look into what I'm talking about...it's called the Bible! (As well as various other assorted holy books...of, Hell, just go talk to pretty much anyone; they'll share similar experiences with you!)

Which is, once again, entirely irrelevant to your earlier claim of being an atheist, people can and often do convert and de-convert.

No, it is not irrelevant, because my earlier claim that I was an Atheist is shown to be false through the very nature of God. What I am attempting to do now is illustrate that nature to you, an Atheist, so that you may understand why I take the stance that neither I, nor anyone, was ever an Atheist.

What I'm now asking from you is to make good on your burden of proof: prove God is real. Btw, I'm only asking you because fellow-former-atheist AngelThMan clearly can't be arsed to finish the debate he started. >.>

I have never claimed that I can prove to you that God is real- objectively. I can explain to you my subjective experiences with God and His nature, and it is up to you whetehr you believe or disbelieve me on them. When the time comes, you will recognize your own experiences as part of the same branch of experience as mine.

As an example, I cannot objectively prove to you that gravity is real; but I can show you its effects and explain its nature to you in the hopes that you will believe that, yes, it was in fact gravity that caused those results.

You're making horribly false causal connections about cognitive thought processes here; you have to learn about said belief

Do you have to learn that your parents aren't going to kill you as a child? Do you have to learn that your parents are your own parents as a child? No, you do not; these things are instinctual.

Like-wise, what I am stating here is that God is a part of all of life; you instincttually believe in your own life upon birth, you instinctually believe in your parents love upon birth; you do not need to be told to believe in these things. Since God is an integral and ingrained part of life, from my POV at least, you are born with the belief in God right off the bat.

You are confusing 'belief' and 'knowledge.' It seems to happen a lot here.

Likewise, I've been honest with you from the start: I was formerly a Christian, now currently an Atheist.

I know you've been honest with me from the start. I am asking you to be honest with yourself. And in my belief, you can't do that just yet.