Japeth Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 To say that there is not a God, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no God means the person would have to know all things to know there is no God. Since you cannot know all things (if he did he would be God), then he cannot logically say there is no God. Let me requote you by changing just one word, that of the pronoun "god". Because if not for that one word being introduced by the ancients of long ago (long before Judaism and Christianity) you'd be on here perhaps debating..... To say that there is not a Leprechaun, this is not a logical position to hold since to know there is no Leprechaun means the person would have to know all things to know there is no Leprechaun. Since you cannot know all things (if he did he would be Leprechaun), then he cannot logically say there is no Leprechaun. Can you prove to me without a doubt, that there is not a Leprechaun? Do you feel bad or sinful for not believing in Leprechauns? The way to believe in Leprechauns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically the same thing: a Leprechaun. That would be a way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japeth Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 Then would you say that you are a strong athiest or a weak athiest? Weak. I don't make the claim that there are no gods, I just don't currently accept the claim that there is one based on a lack of current evidence. If evidence arises, I will evaluate it and adjust my position accordingly. Thanks for making the distiction by the way. So many make assumptions on this matter. I appreciate that you didn't. To try and prove Gods existance I need to ask a question Are there such things as logical absolutes? For example... A cannot be both A and not A at the same, time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 No...the debil knew from the begining that people would think like you do! The DAMNED WHORE...reason! Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 The way to believe in Leprechauns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically the same thing: a Leprechaun. That would be a way. Clever attempt to tie the Leprechauns to Jesus with the "witnesses" angle. Problem is, there are lots and lots of people who will swear up and down they've seen them, along with Big Foot, and little ET's. So if anything this attempt to say the Flying Messiah Man has validity through "eye witness accounts", is no different than the eye witnesses to Leprechauns. Nice try though. Next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japeth Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 The way to believe in Leprechauns is to find one, or have pictures of one, or a fossil of one, or a bunch of people who said they saw one, and they all described, basically the same thing: a Leprechaun. That would be a way. Clever attempt to tie the Leprechauns to Jesus with the "witnesses" angle. Problem is, there are lots and lots of people who will swear up and down they've seen them, along with Big Foot, and little ET's. So if anything this attempt to say the Flying Messiah Man has validity through "eye witness accounts", is no different than the eye witnesses to Leprechauns. Nice try though. Next? Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable? Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory? Even if that did happen, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory? What makes that unrealistic? If the book you hold as true really were, then that would be evidence "he" used to do that quite often. So why wouldn't that being still be doing that now? The bible sure doesn't give a reason. And what is wrong with requiring something from god? You think we don't have a right to or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Are there such things as logical absolutes? For example... A cannot be both A and not A at the same, time. thats all rather dependent on what A is. Also, though something cannot be, for instance, alive and dead. It can go from alive to dead or vice versa. And a chat about logic can't be proof of god. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the word proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubilant Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory? So it was realistic for "god" to show himself to Jacob, Moses, twelve disciples but not people nowadays? M'kay. Even if that did happen, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? What you describe sounds like the bible story regarding Paul...how did he know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I dunno why! And mama told me that alligators are mad cuz they can't brush their teeth, and when a bell rings an angel gets his wings!" HA! I loved that movie! "No, YOU'RE wrong Colonel Sanders!!!!!!!" Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japeth Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory? What makes that unrealistic? If the book you hold as true really were, then that would be evidence "he" used to do that quite often. So why wouldn't that being still be doing that now? The bible sure doesn't give a reason. And what is wrong with requiring something from god? You think we don't have a right to or something? Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would you being an atheist be able to accept it given that your presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that you have a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for you to accept a proof for God's existence, you would have to change your presuppositional base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japeth Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory? So it was realistic for "god" to show himself to Jacob, Moses, twelve disciples but not people nowadays? M'kay. He did not show his self to everyone throughout the OT, If he did show you himself how would you know? God gave hundred of prophecies long before he ever walked this earth knowing the human heart would not accept him if he did just show up in a blaze of Glory. Even if that did happen, would you believe he existed or would you consider it a hallucination of some sort or a trick played on you? How would you know? What you describe sounds like the bible story regarding Paul...how did he know? He was blinded and heard a voice from heaven, so Paul could not see the lord and only heard a voice and he still acknowledged him as lord. I dont know how he knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japeth Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Are there such things as logical absolutes? For example... A cannot be both A and not A at the same, time. thats all rather dependent on what A is. Also, though something cannot be, for instance, alive and dead. It can go from alive to dead or vice versa. And a chat about logic can't be proof of god. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the word proof. Do you believe in any absolutes.? or is everything relative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Is it possible that your criteria for evidence is not reasonable? Does your criteria put a requirement upon God (if He exists) that is not realistic? For example Do you want Him to appear before you in blazing glory? Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth..." Hold on now...you are asking God to do something un-realistic! Like prove Himself openly. How silly of you! Japeth, it sounds to me like some people are being...reasonable. That accursed word, created by someone obviously hell bound! I was at Merriam Webster's site http://www.m-w.com . I think it's a modern day 'Jezebel' of an online translation. We all know the last true print of Merriam Webster's dictionary was back in 1840, the "authorized version" or aka "MWD 1840, AV". All modern revisions are quite frankly, damned heresies, that will make anyone who relies on the information look like a fool. There was an 1890 release, the "International Verison", but I read a copy of it and saw it was watered down just so more people would read it. Unfortunately, I must quote the 2007 Merriam Webster online version. Nothing but a lying, damned slut of a revision! I apologize everyone; I just want that "olde tyme" English back! Reasonable Main Entry: rea·son·able Pronunciation: 'rEz-n&-b&l, 'rE-z&n-&-b&l Function: adjective 1 a : being in accordance with reason <a reasonable theory> b : not extreme or excessive <reasonable requests> Considering God can do anything, I think Japeth is right, we are all being un-reasonable with requests for giant flaming glory appearances and miracles. Shawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 In other words, given that you have a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for you to accept a proof for God's existence, you would have to change your presuppositional base. That is utterly ridiculous! Do you even comprehend the meaning of the word "evidence"? Or what it is for? Does a jury walk into a courtroom "presupposing" the defendant is guilty? Some might....but they are not supposed to! That's why a proper jury has 6 to 12 people in it. It increases the probability that three or more walked in without any prior assumptions at all. Burden of proof lies on the Prosecutor. The prosecutor presents the evidence. What would be the point of doing that if everyone on the jury already presupposed the defendant to be guilty or innocent? When was the last damn time you had jury duty? Don't you know the judge starts the proceedings with an appeal to the jury to look at the matter with fresh eyes and consider all the evidence before coming to a verdict? Is he/she wasting their breath? If evidence supported to existence of a supreme being, I would not be an atheist, but I would still be non-religious until it could be ascertained as to whether or not any one religion was favored by said being. Don't you get it? Proving the existence of such a being is only the beginning! Or is existence all you need to charge ahead with the assumption that your particular brand of dogma is THE ONE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would you being an atheist be able to accept it given that your presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that you have a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for you to accept a proof for God's existence, you would have to change your presuppositional base. If this is what you think atheists are, no wonder you're so confused. Atheism is a conditional belief (about, and only about, the existence of a "god" of some type). I believe, based on the best evidence I've been able to acquire, that there is no god. Any person who says they KNOW there is no god, is indeed guilty of a logical fallacy. You can't know the entire universe, so to say you KNOW is indeed wrong (either way, by the way). Such presuppostions as you speak of are the hallmark of fundamentalist thinking (of any stripe) and NOT representative of the majority of atheists. IMOHO, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverclear5 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Do you believe in any absolutes.? or is everything relative There is no belief involved logic. Are you trying to equate physical absolutes with moral ones? Yes, universal gravitational constant is, obviousely, an absolute value. Various other physical constants are absolute values, meaning they have defined and unchanging values. Thats what absolute means. Which absolutes are you talking about? If you mean, is killing always wrong then, no, I don't think so in every circumstance. Therefore I would say that killing is wrong is not a moral absolute. I suspect you would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibby Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 How did god prove himself to you Japeth? Did he come and talk to you......or did you just believe what someone told you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 I dunno why! And mama told me that alligators are mad cuz they can't brush their teeth, and when a bell rings an angel gets his wings!" HA! I loved that movie! "No, YOU'RE wrong Colonel Sanders!!!!!!!" Shawn Poor Colonel Sanders! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would you being an atheist be able to accept it given that your presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that you have a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for you to accept a proof for God's existence, you would have to change your presuppositional base. Would you? You are the one with a presupposition. Most of us would accept God with proof. Would you accept it if God isn't the God your book describes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 How did god prove himself to you Japeth?Did he come and talk to you......or did you just believe what someone told you? .....and it "felt" right? Emotion is based on reason, logic, and the use of intellect of course. Women stay with physically abusive men based on the same "reasoning". "When he's not grounding my face in the cat box, my heart feels so warm and full it brings tears to my eyes. I know he's not perfect, but my heart says he's right for me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin webmdave Posted January 4, 2007 Author Admin Share Posted January 4, 2007 I wonder why God can't heal an amputated limb? I mean, has there ever been a reported healing of someone who had lost a limb? I've heard so-called miracle stories of people re-growing teeth, but never anyone re-growing an arm, hand, finger, little toe... I wonder why miracle healings are always of invisible ailments, or internal bodily problems, or temporarily getting out of a wheelchair (emphasis on temporary.) Anyway, what's up with being unable to regenerate a limb? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Anyway, what's up with being unable to regenerate a limb? God's gotta leave some doubt to test your faith with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japeth Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I wonder why God can't heal an amputated limb? I mean, has there ever been a reported healing of someone who had lost a limb? I've heard so-called miracle stories of people re-growing teeth, but never anyone re-growing an arm, hand, finger, little toe... I wonder why miracle heeling's are always of invisible ailments, or internal bodily problems, or temporarily getting out of a wheelchair (emphasis on temporary.) Anyway, what's up with being unable to regenerate a limb? Its because they are fake miracle healers, If they where real they would be in the nursing homes and the hospitals, not in a tent and you have to come to them and then make excuses when you dont get healed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japeth Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 How did god prove himself to you Japeth?Did he come and talk to you......or did you just believe what someone told you? If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question_was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause_a creation_but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem. In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work!! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position. So God has proved himself through his creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japeth Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God's existence, would you being an atheist be able to accept it given that your presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that you have a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for you to accept a proof for God's existence, you would have to change your presuppositional base. If this is what you think atheists are, no wonder you're so confused. Atheism is a conditional belief (about, and only about, the existence of a "god" of some type). I believe, based on the best evidence I've been able to acquire, that there is no god. Any person who says they KNOW there is no god, is indeed guilty of a logical fallacy. You can't know the entire universe, so to say you KNOW is indeed wrong (either way, by the way). Such presuppostions as you speak of are the hallmark of fundamentalist thinking (of any stripe) and NOT representative of the majority of atheists. IMOHO, So then you believe by FAITH that there is NO god. Since you cant know all things and analyze all evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts