☢The Theistic Response➼ to Atheists saying, "It Doesn't mean God Did it"

[Tonus]

Or as AronRa has said, if God exists outside of reality, then he does not exist IN reality.

[The Joker]

Science has its limits. You can't use a telescope to prove God or get God under a microscope for examination. There are many things science can't prove, Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you, Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science?  Science cannot prove that rape is evil. Atheists, you won't find God that way.

---

Just more examples of trying to talk God into existence.  Funny how God is the only concept that gets this special treatment.  No one posts reams of text trying to convince us that trees or ducks are real, and for good reason - with a bit of looking, we can find a tree or a duck.  Furthermore, no one of even moderate intelligence looks at our find and argues that it is not a tree or a duck.  Everyone agrees on the definitions of 'tree' and 'duck'.

None of this can be said for the God concept.  'Proofs' for the existence of God rely on the specific 'prover' defining God (definitions which have frequently been problematic enough to start wars), and then using less-than-impressive rhetoric to sort of back into the definition.

Colour me unconvinced.

Boru

You forgot God is invisible, unlike a tree or a duck.

[Astreja]

You forgot God is invisible, unlike a tree or a duck.

My guardian dragon says that he can see Me just fine.  

[pocaracas]

Science has its limits.

Indeed it does...

You can't use a telescope to prove God or get God under a microscope for examination.

Nor can you do any of those for Harry Potter, Darth Vader, The Force, Thor and Mjölnir, etc, etc, etc...

There are many things science can't prove, Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you,

That's debatable...

 Science is the only way to really know truth.”

Here, you'll need to define "truth".
To me, a true statement is one that is an accurate description of reality. So truth would be an accurate description of reality.
Accurate, as far as can be ascertained by all of humanity.

Thus far, the best objective method to obtain an as accurate as possible description of reality is science.
That doesn't mean that it is the only way, as you say...
Feel free to propose another method and let the brightest minds among our population analyze it for merit.

How could you prove that statement by science?

 
Philosophy?

 Science cannot prove that rape is evil.

 

Here, you need to define "evil".
It's certainly not a pleasant thing to do, when you're the victim, huh?
Empathy allows us to place ourselves on the victim's shoes and reject such unpleasantness.
Or are you wanting to claim that you are without empathy and refrain from raping people simply because there's an old rule book that claims that such a rule is against the wishes of the god therein inscribed?

The resulting trauma tends to produce an unhealthy member of society. And society endures better the more healthy individuals it has, so it leads to a positive balance for society to punish and discourage behaviors that lead to unhealthy individuals.

Atheists, you won't find God that way.

Who said we're searching?
Science is trying to determine how the Universe works.... how the Universe came into being... if, along that path, a god pops up, then it will be incorporated into science.
If it doesn't (as it hasn't thus far), then it is not considered to be a part of reality - merely a fictional character originating in old old old tales from people attempting to make sense of the world around them.

[The Joker]

Science has its limits.

Indeed it does...

You can't use a telescope to prove God or get God under a microscope for examination.

Nor can you do any of those for Harry Potter, Darth Vader, The Force, Thor and Mjölnir, etc, etc, etc...

Indeed.

There are many things science can't prove, Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you,

That's debatable...

Science can't prove what I am thinking, right now.

 Science is the only way to really know truth.”

Here, you'll need to define "truth". 
To me, a true statement is one that is an accurate description of reality. So truth would be an accurate description of reality.
Accurate, as far as can be ascertained by all of humanity.

I agree

Thus far, the best objective method to obtain an as accurate as possible description of reality is science.
That doesn't mean that it is the only way, as you say...
Feel free to propose another method and let the brightest minds among our population analyze it for merit.

How could you prove that statement by science?

 
Philosophy?

 Science cannot prove that rape is evil.

 

Here, you need to define "evil".
It's certainly not a pleasant thing to do, when you're the victim, huh?
Empathy allows us to place ourselves on the victim's shoes and reject such unpleasantness.
Or are you wanting to claim that you are without empathy and refrain from raping people simply because there's an old rule book that claims that such a rule is against the wishes of the god therein inscribed?

The resulting trauma tends to produce an unhealthy member of society. And society endures better the more healthy individuals it has, so it leads to a positive balance for society to punish and discourage behaviors that lead to unhealthy individuals.

Atheists, you won't find God that way.

Who said we're searching?

You can’t find God because first of all, they aren’t looking; and second they want to avoid him.

For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Romans 1:20 

Science is trying to determine how the Universe works.... how the Universe came into being... if, along that path, a god pops up, then it will be incorporated into science.
If it doesn't (as it hasn't thus far), then it is not considered to be a part of reality - merely a fictional character originating in old old old tales from people attempting to make sense of the world around them.

"Who said we're searching?"

This information was the most important one I ever received from you, Thank You for your honesty, "The Creator is clearly seen," Paul explained to the Romans 1:20. Yet despite all their intelligence and scientific skills, the Gentiles refused to acknowledge the Creator. The problem was not their inability to see Him but their rebellious hearts, which "suppressed the truth in unrighteousness" Romans 1:18. Scripture makes it clear that God’s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen in the creation of the world around us. God is saying that the design and complexity of nature makes it obvious that He exists. But hard hearts often refuse to accept any evidence that the Bible is true, for it makes them accountable to a Just God the creator of the heaven and earth. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Romans 1:20 

[pocaracas]

"Who said we're searching?"

This information was the most important one I ever received from you, Thank You for your honesty, "The Creator is clearly seen," Paul explained to the Romans 1:20. Yet despite all their intelligence and scientific skills, the Gentiles refused to acknowledge the Creator. The problem was not their inability to see Him but their rebellious hearts, which “suppressed the truth in unrighteousness” Romans 1:18. Scripture makes it clear that God’s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen in the creation of the world around us. God is saying that the design and complexity of nature makes it obvious that He exists. But hard hearts often refuse to accept any evidence that the Bible is true, for it makes them accountable to a Creator God. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Romans 1:20 

Why should we believe Paul?
Why should we believe whoever wrote anything in the bible?

The world around can be accounted for without the need of a god. Surely, 2000 years ago, mankind was mostly ignorant about the world around us... but we live in a great era - the era of information.
Sadly, with information comes much misinformation. And a person can reproduce misinformation with an honest intent, for he may think it to be true information.
The question then becomes, how to tell it apart?

[Astreja]

Science cannot prove that rape is evil.

I think it's unspeakably sad that you seem to think that a supernatural legal authority is required before an action can be declared "wrong" or "evil."

What this suggests is that you, like so many other believers, are stuck in the early childhood development phases concerned with obedience to parental authority. (For one example, take note of Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, particularly stage 1, level 1.)

Your idea of morality fails the Rabbi Hillel test:

That which is hateful to you, do not unto another: This is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary — go study.

Seriously, Joker, if you need a razzafracking Bible to justify not being a vicious SOB to someone else, you need a major developmental do-over.

[Minimalist]

Atheists, you won't find God that way.

Then he's not worth finding.  Fuck him.  And his asshole followers.

[The Joker]

"Who said we're searching?"

This information was the most important one I ever received from you, Thank You for your honesty, "The Creator is clearly seen," Paul explained to the Romans 1:20. Yet despite all their intelligence and scientific skills, the Gentiles refused to acknowledge the Creator. The problem was not their inability to see Him but their rebellious hearts, which “suppressed the truth in unrighteousness” Romans 1:18. Scripture makes it clear that God’s eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen in the creation of the world around us. God is saying that the design and complexity of nature makes it obvious that He exists. But hard hearts often refuse to accept any evidence that the Bible is true, for it makes them accountable to a Creator God. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. Romans 1:20 

Why should we believe Paul?
Why should we believe whoever wrote anything in the bible?

The world around can be accounted for without the need of a god. Surely, 2000 years ago, mankind was mostly ignorant about the world around us... but we live in a great era - the era of information.
Sadly, with information comes much misinformation. And a person can reproduce misinformation with an honest intent, for he may think it to be true information.
The question then becomes, how to tell it apart?

Joker, you're allowed to post(exceptions to 30/30).... as long as it's relevant to the discussion.

We should trust St Paul because he is one of the writers in the bible and above all, the Bible is true because of fulfilled prophecies, historical accuracy and archaeology. But me rambling on about it won't prove things like archaeology, so see the evidence for yourself!

---

---

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Science has its limits. You can't use a telescope to prove God or get God under a microscope for examination. There are many things science can't prove, Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you, Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science?  Science cannot prove that rape is evil. Atheists, you won't find God that way.

---

Just more examples of trying to talk God into existence.  Funny how God is the only concept that gets this special treatment.  No one posts reams of text trying to convince us that trees or ducks are real, and for good reason - with a bit of looking, we can find a tree or a duck.  Furthermore, no one of even moderate intelligence looks at our find and argues that it is not a tree or a duck.  Everyone agrees on the definitions of 'tree' and 'duck'.

None of this can be said for the God concept.  'Proofs' for the existence of God rely on the specific 'prover' defining God (definitions which have frequently been problematic enough to start wars), and then using less-than-impressive rhetoric to sort of back into the definition.

Colour me unconvinced.

Boru

You forgot God is invisible, unlike a tree or a duck.

Sez you.

Boru