A1 Wants To Learn :)

[Avandris]

disillusioned, you have a wonderful way with words! Thank you for putting it far better than I ever could! Upvote for you my friend!

[mymistake]

A1 if you really wanted to learn then you wouldn't mock knowledge as "caw caw" or "red herrings".  You can't understand because you refuse to accept the consequences of understanding.

 

 

You confuse acts of literature with acts of reality.  Of course Luke Skywalker can use the force to move objects with his mind . . . in a story.  That doesn't make Luke Skywalker real.  Likewise of course God can send a global flood that wipes out all life on Earth . . . in a story.  That doesn't make God real.  You have zero evidence that God is real.  Meanwhile I have thousands of museums and thousands of libraries full of evidence that it is human nature to create gods.  The evidence clearly shows that all primitive cultures invented gods.  You pretend one of those primitive gods is real but your choice is arbitrary.  You can't show why your favorite one is better than any other god invented by primitive cultures.

 

Again you won't get it because you can't accept the consequences of the truth.

 

I can assert that God didn't do things outside of the story.  I can do this in full confidence for the same reason I can assert that Superman is not real.  There is far more evidence that your God was invented by humans than there is that Superman was invented by humans.  I know it is the truth.  Whine about it all you want and mock it if you like but you have no evidence.

 

So how do I know God didn't help you find that parking spot near the front of the mall?  Save reason I know Odin didn't do it.  Same reason I know Ra didn't do it.  Same reason I know Chukthu didn't do in.  I"m not going to look up the 40,000 gods invented by humans and name them all.  Luke Skywalker didn't help you get the parking space.  Darth Vader didn't do it.  Superman didn't help you.  Wonder Woman didn't guide you.  None of these people can be shown to exist.  You are simply being irrational.  You got to the parking lot at a time when the space became available.  It was a coincidence.  It happens to atheists, agnostics, anti-theists, pantheists, deists and all sorts of other people too.

 

And next time you lose your car keys only to find them five minutes later exactly where you put them it isn't a miracle either.  Gee, you found your keys in the front pocket of your other pair of pants.  God must be for reals!  Give me a break.

 

Feel free to refuse to learn.  Let the willful ignorance flow through you.

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

None of the above is persuasive toward belief in God.

 

At most you're claiming that someone can't prove that there is no God.

 

It's not necessary, however, to posit the existence of a term in an argument in order to talk about it. We talk about Hamlet, but one of the assumptions that we all bring to such talk is the assumption that Hamlet does not exist.

 

If you standardize an argument about God, you use some symbol to stand for members of the set of all things that have the properties that you're ascribing to God. It may turn out that there is no X such that it has those properties.

 

 

 

Bravo! ficino. Not only is A1 claiming that someone can't prove that there is no God, he is also, as a necessary correlation (and almost certainly unwittingly), claiming that someone also can't prove that there is a God--or at least that this posited God is and behaves a certain way. Bravo! to mymistake for laying this out clearly: 

 

 

So how do I know God didn't help you find that parking spot near the front of the mall?  Save reason I know Odin didn't do it.  Same reason I know Ra didn't do it.  Same reason I know Chukthu didn't do in.  I"m not going to look up the 40,000 gods invented by humans and name them all.  Luke Skywalker didn't help you get the parking space.  Darth Vader didn't do it.  Superman didn't help you.  Wonder Woman didn't guide you.  None of these people can be shown to exist.  You are simply being irrational.  You got to the parking lot at a time when the space became available.  It was a coincidence.  It happens to atheists, agnostics, anti-theists, pantheists, deists and all sorts of other people too.

 

And next time you lose your car keys only to find them five minutes later exactly where you put them it isn't a miracle either.  Gee, you found your keys in the front pocket of your other pair of pants.  God must be for reals!  Give me a break.

 

Feel free to refuse to learn.  Let the willful ignorance flow through you.

 

 

 

 

If someone claimed God did x and you say God didn't do x ......the question is then how do you KNOW that God didnt do x? I like ur above example because u had an explanation... For people claiming God didn't do X without a substitute explanation are they then relying on faith if not what are they relying in to posit a positive statement such as God didn't do x....they would have been better off saying I Dont know.m.is this correct?

 

Not exactly, but you're getting closer.

 

Let's say you are claiming "God did x". I don't need to actually demonstrate conclusively that God did not do x in order to say that He probably didn't. It seems to me that we must ask ourselves which is more likely: that the creator of the universe has just suspended natural law, or that we are under a misapprehension. Given that every single question of this type which has ever been answered has turned out to have a more satisfying natural explanation, why on earth would I assume that God did something simply because I don't yet know what this alternative explanation is?

 

And Bravo! to you as well, disillusioned. I can't quite figure out why Christians insist on misunderstanding simple logic about probabilities, and about how normal people use inferences to the best explanation to figure out things. Even Christians themselves use this kind of inferential logic all the time--unless it touches too closely to their religious belief, then all of a sudden it's "Nanny-nanny boo-boo stick yer head in doo-doo, you can't prove it WASN'T God, so there, you big dummies."

 

Classic.

[disillusioned]

Thanks Avandris and StJeff for the kind words.

 

StJeff, I think you raise a very good point. Christians are quite happy to accept the validity of reason, as long as it suits their purposes. The minute someone uses reason to demonstrate that their beliefs are absurd, they return to expound once again upon the frailty of our understanding.

[mymistake]

Can't and didn't yes I see they can be used different be they can also be used the same but see what your saying.... That if someone does say Merlin didn't do x then this automatically assumes they do know what x is or caused by x or caused x.

 

 

 

If someone claimed Merlin did x and you say Merlin didn't do x ......the question is then how do you KNOW that Merlin didnt do x? I like ur above example because u had an explanation... For people claiming Merlin didn't do X without a substitute explanation are they then relying on faith if not what are they relying in to posit a positive statement such as Merlin didn't do x....they would have been better off saying I Dont know.m.is this correct?

 

3 thoughts

 

1

you don't know what he can't do(because you Dont believe Merlin exist so logically you don't believe Merlin actually CAN do anything since Merlin doesn't exist to do it) so if you Dont believe Merlin can't do anything then you cannot lump together lack of believe with a positive phrase i Know Merlin didnt do anything at the same time

 

2. You Dont know Merlin's limits and capabilities even on an meta-level due to reason one because you don't even think Merlin exist. Yet you can make a positive negative claim about know he didn't do something. You need to believe and know what Merlin CAN do to know what he Cannot do or his capabilities just because you have an explanation doesn't mean Merlin is removed from The equation because again this assumes you know how Merlin interacts with the natural world.

 

3

If I Dont know you and a friend says you can play piano and I respond with No he can't!

This is an very rash judgement because if I Dont know you or who you are how could I even make such. Bold assertion?

 

 

 

1 & 2  So you accept that Merlin put a hex on you?  I have the cure but it is expensive.  Let me know if you are willing to pay.  I can't afford to give the magic away for free.  You have to cover my magical research cost.

 

 

3  Ah, but playing the piano is a mundane claim.  Plenty of people can play the piano.  It isn't a big deal.  Here you are not claiming that you have a friend who is a human being age under 110 who can play the piano.  You are claiming that you have an invisible, undetectable, magical friend who cares about you, communicates with you telepathically oh and by the way he is also eternal and he created the whole universe.  That is not playing the piano.  Your claims about God are beyond preposterous.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

How can you say Something ISNT capable of doing something if you DONT know its capabilities?

 

Give me an example of NOT knowing what Someone or something CAN do..... and then based on your LACK of knowledge of what they CAN do, then assert what they CANT DO?

 

 

Its quite simple, the it we are talking about (God) has no capabilities because it does not exist. A fictional being is incapable of doing anything in the real world. 

 

 

 

At least that's how I see it, and I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for everyone on this forum.

 

Well you should listen to FreeThinkerz she says that Atheists Arent saying God does not exist but you just did, she dis agrees with you

 

 

 

 

And most of us here would agree that someone can't prove there is no god. Those of us who are atheists are not saying there is no god, we are saying we don't believe there is a god. The difference is important, and is often missed by xians.

 

 

 

 

 

We are told what God is capable of by Christians and the Bible. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. Whether we like it or not.

 

So when we say that God did or didn't or should or shouldn't, we're mocking the concept of God. We're saying he doesn't exist, 

 

 

 

Any way you slice it, the God described by Christians doesn't exist."

 

Well you should listen to FreeThinkerz she says that Atheists Arent saying God does not exist but you just did, she dis agrees with you

 

 

 

And most of us here would agree that someone can't prove there is no god. Those of us who are atheists are not saying there is no god, we are saying we don't believe there is a god. The difference is important, and is often missed by xians.

 

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

If someone claimed God did x and you say God didn't do x ......the question is then how do you KNOW that God didnt do x? I like ur above example because u had an explanation... For people claiming God didn't do X without a substitute explanation are they then relying on faith if not what are they relying in to posit a positive statement such as God didn't do x....they would have been better off saying I Dont know.m.is this correct?

 

Not exactly, but you're getting closer.

 

Let's say you are claiming "God did x". I don't need to actually demonstrate conclusively that God did not do x in order to say that He probably didn't. It seems to me that we must ask ourselves which is more likely: that the creator of the universe has just suspended natural law, or that we are under a misapprehension. Given that every single question of this type which has ever been answered has turned out to have a more satisfying natural explanation, why on earth would I assume that God did something simply because I don't yet know what this alternative explanation is?

 

Of course there are many cases where we already do know the alternative explanation, and in these cases we may speak with more certainty. But in either case, the burden of proof surely lies on those who are making claims about what God is and is not doing. These are very prodigious claims. Those of us who doubt them need not demonstrate that we are reasonable to do so, especially given that it has not been demonstrated that God actually exists.

 

As for your three thoughts, I can't really improve on what ficino said with respect to numbers 1 and 2. Put another way, it is one thing to say that God exists as a concept, and entirely another to say that He exists in reality. We can have academic discussions about God without granting that He actually exists.

 

#3 seems to me to be beside the point. If you are aware that I actually exist, then the claim that I can play the piano is not a particularly odd one. Yet you would be entirely justified in doubting this claim if you wanted. As it turns out, I can't play the piano. This is also not particularly odd. The difference is, in either case whether I can or cannot play the piano could be very easily proven to you. The same may not be said of claims about God's actions.

 

 

Great writing man seriosuly

 

Soo i concede to the fact that i was mistaken that a God must first be demonstrated to EXIST before many many many things can be attributed to him, this halts my argument and it fails. i concede.

 

it then brings me to the next wonder..

 

what kind of evidence would you need to SEE for a GOD to exist, since science deals with the natural only, how could he EVER be demonstrated...like ever? if science only detects the natural no realm for proof is not allowed ot even occure due to the definition of science

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

A1 if you really wanted to learn then you wouldn't mock knowledge as "caw caw" or "red herrings".  You can't understand because you refuse to accept the consequences of understanding.

 

So how do I know God didn't help you find that parking spot near the front of the mall?  Save reason I know Odin didn't do it.  Same reason I know Ra didn't do it.  Same reason I know Chukthu didn't do in.  I"m not going to look up the 40,000 gods invented by humans and name them all.  Luke Skywalker didn't help you get the parking space.  Darth Vader didn't do it.  Superman didn't help you.  Wonder Woman didn't guide you.  None of these people can be shown to exist.  You are simply being irrational.  You got to the parking lot at a time when the space became available.  It was a coincidence.  It happens to atheists, agnostics, anti-theists, pantheists, deists and all sorts of other people too.

 

And next time you lose your car keys only to find them five minutes later exactly where you put them it isn't a miracle either.  Gee, you found your keys in the front pocket of your other pair of pants.  God must be for reals!  Give me a break.

 

Feel free to refuse to learn.  Let the willful ignorance flow through you.

 

thanks for the explanation of understanding a fictional character in respect to literature and reality, i was mistaken in my presentation of what i was saying thanks for making the distinction

 

how do you get past Coincidence to....a non coincidence? what are the criteria

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

None of the above is persuasive toward belief in God.

 

At most you're claiming that someone can't prove that there is no God.

 

It's not necessary, however, to posit the existence of a term in an argument in order to talk about it. We talk about Hamlet, but one of the assumptions that we all bring to such talk is the assumption that Hamlet does not exist.

 

If you standardize an argument about God, you use some symbol to stand for members of the set of all things that have the properties that you're ascribing to God. It may turn out that there is no X such that it has those properties.

 

 

 

Bravo! ficino. Not only is A1 claiming that someone can't prove that there is no God, he is also, as a necessary correlation (and almost certainly unwittingly), claiming that someone also can't prove that there is a God--or at least that this posited God is and behaves a certain way. Bravo! to mymistake for laying this out clearly: 

 

 

So how do I know God didn't help you find that parking spot near the front of the mall?  Save reason I know Odin didn't do it.  Same reason I know Ra didn't do it.  Same reason I know Chukthu didn't do in.  I"m not going to look up the 40,000 gods invented by humans and name them all.  Luke Skywalker didn't help you get the parking space.  Darth Vader didn't do it.  Superman didn't help you.  Wonder Woman didn't guide you.  None of these people can be shown to exist.  You are simply being irrational.  You got to the parking lot at a time when the space became available.  It was a coincidence.  It happens to atheists, agnostics, anti-theists, pantheists, deists and all sorts of other people too.

 

And next time you lose your car keys only to find them five minutes later exactly where you put them it isn't a miracle either.  Gee, you found your keys in the front pocket of your other pair of pants.  God must be for reals!  Give me a break.

 

Feel free to refuse to learn.  Let the willful ignorance flow through you.

 

 

 

 

If someone claimed God did x and you say God didn't do x ......the question is then how do you KNOW that God didnt do x? I like ur above example because u had an explanation... For people claiming God didn't do X without a substitute explanation are they then relying on faith if not what are they relying in to posit a positive statement such as God didn't do x....they would have been better off saying I Dont know.m.is this correct?

 

Not exactly, but you're getting closer.

 

Let's say you are claiming "God did x". I don't need to actually demonstrate conclusively that God did not do x in order to say that He probably didn't. It seems to me that we must ask ourselves which is more likely: that the creator of the universe has just suspended natural law, or that we are under a misapprehension. Given that every single question of this type which has ever been answered has turned out to have a more satisfying natural explanation, why on earth would I assume that God did something simply because I don't yet know what this alternative explanation is?

 

And Bravo! to you as well, disillusioned. I can't quite figure out why Christians insist on misunderstanding simple logic about probabilities, and about how normal people use inferences to the best explanation to figure out things. Even Christians themselves use this kind of inferential logic all the time--unless it touches too closely to their religious belief, then all of a sudden it's "Nanny-nanny boo-boo stick yer head in doo-doo, you can't prove it WASN'T God, so there, you big dummies."

 

Classic.

 

 

 

i cant speak for other christians but i am always willing to make amends to my thinking and change my understanding when explained. If i dont understand it fully i ask more questions, i make efforts to get why someone says what they say and do what they do. I personally never do something just becuase i am told, or act just because of something i read i always like to Ask and find out out why and always willing to grow

[par4dcourse]

It's quite simple, 1AscinineTheist1. There's nothing ever done that requires a god. Ignorant men wrote fables to explain what they didn't understand, and ignorant xians read those fables to explain what they still don't understand.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

How can you say Something ISNT capable of doing something if you DONT know its capabilities?

 

Give me an example of NOT knowing what Someone or something CAN do..... and then based on your LACK of knowledge of what they CAN do, then assert what they CANT DO?

 

 

Its quite simple, the it we are talking about (God) has no capabilities because it does not exist. A fictional being is incapable of doing anything in the real world. 

 

 

 

At least that's how I see it, and I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for everyone on this forum.

 

Well you should listen to FreeThinkerz she says that Atheists Arent saying God does not exist but you just did, she dis agrees with you

 

 

 

 

And most of us here would agree that someone can't prove there is no god. Those of us who are atheists are not saying there is no god, we are saying we don't believe there is a god. The difference is important, and is often missed by xians.

 

 

 

 

 

We are told what God is capable of by Christians and the Bible. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. Whether we like it or not.

 

So when we say that God did or didn't or should or shouldn't, we're mocking the concept of God. We're saying he doesn't exist, 

 

 

 

Any way you slice it, the God described by Christians doesn't exist."

 

Well you should listen to FreeThinkerz she says that Atheists Arent saying God does not exist but you just did, she dis agrees with you

 

 

 

And most of us here would agree that someone can't prove there is no god. Those of us who are atheists are not saying there is no god, we are saying we don't believe there is a god. The difference is important, and is often missed by xians.

 

 

 

 

A1, I said most of us here - not all atheists.  How you could read "most of us here" as meaning "all atheists" is beyond me.  But I guess stranger things have happened.

 

And, not all of us here are atheists.  

 

At the risk of confusing your already confused mind further, there are at least two types of atheist: soft/weak/agnostic atheists (the majority) who say we don't believe there are gods, and hard/strong/gnostic atheists (the minority) who say we believe there are no gods.  There are a few people here in the latter camp, but I'm not telling you who they are, in case I make a mistake about which people they are.  They can tell you themselves if they want to.

 

I (really) hope that clarifies the situation for you.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

 

 

How can you say Something ISNT capable of doing something if you DONT know its capabilities?

 

Give me an example of NOT knowing what Someone or something CAN do..... and then based on your LACK of knowledge of what they CAN do, then assert what they CANT DO?

 

 

Its quite simple, the it we are talking about (God) has no capabilities because it does not exist. A fictional being is incapable of doing anything in the real world. 

 

 

 

At least that's how I see it, and I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for everyone on this forum.

 

Well you should listen to FreeThinkerz she says that Atheists Arent saying God does not exist but you just did, she dis agrees with you

 

 

 

 

And most of us here would agree that someone can't prove there is no god. Those of us who are atheists are not saying there is no god, we are saying we don't believe there is a god. The difference is important, and is often missed by xians.

 

 

 

 

 

We are told what God is capable of by Christians and the Bible. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. Whether we like it or not.

 

So when we say that God did or didn't or should or shouldn't, we're mocking the concept of God. We're saying he doesn't exist, 

 

 

 

Any way you slice it, the God described by Christians doesn't exist."

 

Well you should listen to FreeThinkerz she says that Atheists Arent saying God does not exist but you just did, she dis agrees with you

 

 

 

And most of us here would agree that someone can't prove there is no god. Those of us who are atheists are not saying there is no god, we are saying we don't believe there is a god. The difference is important, and is often missed by xians.

 

 

 

 

A1, I said most of us here - not all atheists.  How you could read "most of us here" as meaning "all atheists" is beyond me.  But I guess stranger things have happened.

 

And, not all of us here are atheists.  

 

At the risk of confusing your already confused mind further, there are at least two types of atheist: soft/weak/agnostic atheists (the majority) who say we don't believe there are gods, and hard/strong/gnostic atheists (the minority) who say we believe there are no gods.  There are a few people here in the latter camp, but I'm not telling you who they are, in case I make a mistake about which people they are.  They can tell you themselves if they want to.

 

I (really) hope that clarifies the situation for you.

 

 

thanks for the clarification appreciate that

 

yea so many types of atheist like many types denominations lol

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

How can you say Something ISNT capable of doing something if you DONT know its capabilities?

 

Give me an example of NOT knowing what Someone or something CAN do..... and then based on your LACK of knowledge of what they CAN do, then assert what they CANT DO?

 

 

Its quite simple, the it we are talking about (God) has no capabilities because it does not exist. A fictional being is incapable of doing anything in the real world. 

 

 

 

At least that's how I see it, and I certainly wouldn't presume to speak for everyone on this forum.

 

Well you should listen to FreeThinkerz she says that Atheists Arent saying God does not exist but you just did, she dis agrees with you

 

 

 

 

And most of us here would agree that someone can't prove there is no god. Those of us who are atheists are not saying there is no god, we are saying we don't believe there is a god. The difference is important, and is often missed by xians.

 

 

 

 

 

We are told what God is capable of by Christians and the Bible. Repeatedly. Ad nauseum. Whether we like it or not.

 

So when we say that God did or didn't or should or shouldn't, we're mocking the concept of God. We're saying he doesn't exist, 

 

 

 

Any way you slice it, the God described by Christians doesn't exist."

 

Well you should listen to FreeThinkerz she says that Atheists Arent saying God does not exist but you just did, she dis agrees with you

 

 

 

And most of us here would agree that someone can't prove there is no god. Those of us who are atheists are not saying there is no god, we are saying we don't believe there is a god. The difference is important, and is often missed by xians.

 

 

 

 

A1, I said most of us here - not all atheists.  How you could read "most of us here" as meaning "all atheists" is beyond me.  But I guess stranger things have happened.

 

And, not all of us here are atheists.  

 

At the risk of confusing your already confused mind further, there are at least two types of atheist: soft/weak/agnostic atheists (the majority) who say we don't believe there are gods, and hard/strong/gnostic atheists (the minority) who say we believe there are no gods.  There are a few people here in the latter camp, but I'm not telling you who they are, in case I make a mistake about which people they are.  They can tell you themselves if they want to.

 

I (really) hope that clarifies the situation for you.

 

 

thanks for the clarification appreciate that

 

yea so many types of atheist like many types denominations lol

 

 

Not really, the 40k xian denominations disagree on a range of important and unimportant aspects of dogma derived from a confusing and disjointed collection of ancient books.  The two main types of atheism have clear logical boundaries that can be explained in a simple sentence.  They're not really comparable.

[francesco]

"we are mortal human, we cannot understand or know god fully" said mortal human 

 

 

 

If you DOnt know what something IS.....How can you say what it isnt?

If you DONT know what something can DO......How can you say what it CANT do?

I find this part is intriguing,

so how can you say what it is if you don't know what something is?

and how come you say what it capable to do if you don't know what something capable to do?

[Avandris]

Ah, let me clarify (i should have chosen my words more carefully). What I mean to say is this, I find no compelling evidence to accept that the Christian God is real. In fact, the lack of evidence suggests that this God is a fiction.

 

I'd be one of the agnostic atheists that FTNZ mentions above.

 

Apologies for being unclear, I didn't mean to state things so definitively.

[disillusioned]

Great writing man seriosuly

 

Soo i concede to the fact that i was mistaken that a God must first be demonstrated to EXIST before many many many things can be attributed to him, this halts my argument and it fails. i concede.

 

it then brings me to the next wonder..

 

what kind of evidence would you need to SEE for a GOD to exist, since science deals with the natural only, how could he EVER be demonstrated...like ever? if science only detects the natural no realm for proof is not allowed ot even occure due to the definition of science

Thank you for the compliment.

 

A slight clarification: if things are actually going to be attributed to God, then He does need to actually exist. We were speaking of hypotheticals. I don't need to concede that God exists to discuss what he hypothetically could do if he did.

 

Your new question touches on an entirely different subject. I think you are correct when you say that science could never demonstrate the existence of God. Science looks at the natural world. God is posited to be supernatural. That is to say, the idea of God has been designed in such a way as to allow those who wish to believe in Him to do so, even in the absence of any scientific evidence. Moreover, such individuals may always (correctly) reiterate that science does not demonstrate that God does not exist. This doesn't actually make belief reasonable, however; all it does is make it possible.

 

To address your question more directly, I think that it really depends on what you mean by "God". If you want to know what could make me think that there is a supernatural (ie, something beyond the universe), then I would reply that while science cannot do this, it remains possible that philosophy can. An argument may yet arise which convinces me that something exists beyond the universe. In fact, some days I already think this. The problem, of course, is that I am not particularly inclined to call that something "God". I will say it again: if you are going to try to reason your way to God, then you will first need to clearly define what you are talking about. Otherwise you will be making no sense at all.

 

I think that what you really meant to ask me is what could possibly make me think that the God of Christianity exists. If this is the case, then I will respond as I usually do when I am asked this question: by simply saying that I don't know. Again, if your God exists then He can do whatever He wants. This includes convincing me of His existence. Further, the fact that I don't know what form this revelation might take seems to me to be fitting: I've been told He works in mysterious ways.

[Thackerie]

*Sniffs half-empty sauce bottle*

 

This stuff is rancid, and needs to be thrown out before people catch something.

 

He seems more confused than usual and his writing is more incomprehensible than ever. (I did enjoy his reference to "sperman," who apparently has some relation to Spiderman, though). Maybe he's drunk and/or having some kind of episode? dunno. tis weird.

[FarflungWanderer]

Great writing, man, seriously.

 

So, I concede to the fact that I was mistaken that a God must first be demonstrated to exist before anything can be attributed to Him. I concede that this does my argument in.

 

However, this brings me to my next question..

 

What kind of evidence would you need to see for a God to exist? Since science deals with the natural only, how could he ever be demonstrated? If science only detects the natural, no physical proof could ever be discarded.

 

 

The emphasis is mine, as are the grammatical and spelling corrections. Sorry, I just couldn't take it anymore.

 

 

And this is the problem that I think you're missing. You've come to the conclusion that atheists acknowledge: That God could never be demonstrated through science.

 

This, right there, is what you need to really think on. If God cannot be proven, then why persist in thinking there is a God? If He has no rational explanation, no evidence to His existence outside of the writings of a ~2500 year old mythological history of a people under Persian subjugation and a ~1800 year old compilation of writings and letters revolving a cult branch of Judaism (which cannot be considered evidence, not only because of their gross historical and textual inaccuracies, but also because they lack any supplementary evidence that proves that their supernatural claims are true), then it stands to reason that He does not exist.

[bdp]

A1 has officially become the most annoying Xtian on this site.  Caw.

[duderonomy]

A1 has officially become the most annoying Xtian on this site.  Caw.

 

Yet still one of my favorites so far, FWIW.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

A1 has officially become the most annoying Xtian on this site.  Caw.

At the moment.

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

i cant speak for other christians but i am always willing to make amends to my thinking and change my understanding when explained. If i dont understand it fully i ask more questions, i make efforts to get why someone says what they say and do what they do. I personally never do something just becuase i am told, or act just because of something i read i always like to Ask and find out out why and always willing to grow

 

 

Well, that's a commendable attitude to have, A1. I can't say I've seen you very eager to display such an attitude here, but as long as you feel like you're making the effort . . .

[TheRedneckProfessor]

A1, this is something like the 6th or 7th thread you've started in which you present your "If you don't know what something is, how can you say what it is not?" argument, only to have it soundly and thoroughly debunked by people with much more patience than I.

 

Do you ever get tired of always being wrong about exactly the same thing time and time again?

[Fweethawt]

A1, this is something like the 6th or 7th thread you've started in which you present your "If you don't know what something is, how can you say what it is not?" argument, only to have it soundly and thoroughly debunked by people with much more patience than I.

 

Do you ever get tired of always being wrong about exactly the same thing time and time again?

There is no wrong in the christian mind. There's only different levels of correctness.