Burden of Proof

[Godless]

Emperical proof, that no one would be able to refute, that scientifically, metaphisically, and objectively can be shown that such an entity exists. Not empty claims, not "faith" realated answers, not ancient books,quides, or simply "because I say so"

Godless.

P.S. Jcarl, I wrote a small article; Sharks of The Coral riffs you can find it @ free thoughts, it is completely metaphor, it is quite interesting, I'm testing my writing skills, see what you thing of it!. Ok! Thanks..

 

[jcarl]

Emperical proof, that no one would be able to refute,[/B]

Isn't Emperical evidence a subjective type of evidence? I have empirical evidence that God exists: I have felt him at work within me and have seen the fruits of it. Doesn't sound very scientific does it? But no one can deny what I have felt.

that scientifically, metaphisically,

If its metaphysical, isn't it unprovable by scientific standards? If God is metaphysical, then isn't He outside of this world and thus scientifically undetectable?

and objectively

This is the biggie. However there will never be evidence that will silence all skeptics, because some people are so arrogant in their belief that no matter what you throw at them, they will still stand, cemented in their beliefs. To ask for objective evidence also isn't very practical to ask for b/c I know of no one who has no concept of either atheism or thesim. Therefore, to show anyone "objective" evidence would be, to varying degrees, a study in confirmation bias on BOTH sides. Am I making sense?

And if something is empirical then it cannot be objective.

P.S. Jcarl, I wrote a small article; Sharks of The Coral riffs you can find it @ free thoughts, it is completely metaphor, it is quite interesting, I'm testing my writing skills, see what you thing of it!. Ok! Thanks..

An interesting read. Tell me, who is the shark?

 

[Siddhartha]

This is the biggie. However there will never be evidence that will silence all skeptics, because some people are so arrogant in their belief that no matter what you throw at them, they will still stand, cemented in their beliefs. To ask for objective evidence also isn't very practical to ask for b/c I know of no one who has no concept of either atheism or thesim. Therefore, to show anyone "objective" evidence would be, to varying degrees, a study in confirmation bias on BOTH sides. Am I making sense?

And if something is empirical then it cannot be objective.

Objective evidence is objective evidence. Whether the fool of a skeptic will choose to disbelieve is his problem. I'm an atheist but if you showed me evidence of God I'd preach his word till the day I died.

 

[jcarl]

What then would constitute objective evidence? Could you give me an example of what objective evidence would be?

 

[Godless]

Well it seems like sci-forum is having technical difficulties. But I've found that god is not love, nor is love, god ok!.
Using only logic, wich is not given by god, cause god cannot use logic:

God Is Love

God is love
God is the source of love
Without God, there is no love
These are frequent assertions of monotheistic religions. Attributing mankind's most potent and pleasing emotion to a benevolent deity is a traditional and natural maternal instinct for those who believe in a white light god, as all their feelings of humility, power, grace and love are personified in their god.

God is Love: Hurtful
When two people love each other truly and deeply, the "God is Love" statements are hurtful. Instead of feeling pure love comes from the person, themselves, they feel it is "from God". It is hurtful to think that if they did not believe in love from God, they would love you less. That they attribute some of their love to someone else, that takes away some of the purity and honesty of love.

To say "God is the source of love" is to deny human love, love between people. It makes love cheaper, more arbitrary and less personal and caring. Humans beings themselves are the source of love, and love between people is due to their own feelings, to take away their responsibility for this feeling and say that it depends on God is inhuman. To love someone purely with your heart and emotions is good, but to have to explain it away or want to take less responsibility for feeling and wanting that love is hurtful.

God is the source of love: Makes you feel unloved
Feeling strong love for a person and feeling loved in return makes our very cells and limbs feel good. To think that our bodies generate such love for another person, and that they do to is true love. But to say that God himself is responsible for this reduces the worth of those feelings and makes the individual's love less strong.

If you love a person, you love them for who they are, and not because God inspired it! Love comes from your own choice and will. To say that God Is Love is to deny love the good power it has. You want the person you care for to love you, and that love to be from them and not due to religion, theology, social pressure or false sources, you want it to come from their will, not from God's.

Without God, there is no love: Dishonesty and Risk
To think that the other's love for you depends on their continued acceptance of God undermines that love. Love, as the greatest emotion, should be independent of God, his control or power, it comes from within. To say otherwise is dishonest and undermines the value of love and relationships.

Love
To think that love comes from our chemistry, our bodies and emotions rather than someone or somewhere else is in itself loving and caring. It makes our bodies and chemistry special. To deny that or say we are not capable of it on our own (without God) makes our bodies, emotions worthless and love worth less.

"God is Love" is an inhumane and hurtful feeling and statement and undermines the value of love

Now god contradicts logic:

. Logic as a property of the universe or God
Logic is more powerful than God

If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic created God, is all-powerful and restrains God.

If there is no logical reason why God exists, then it holds that the Universe could exist for no logical reason and therefore require no creator.

God's thoughts
If God has logical thoughts then logic is more powerful than God. If God chose to create anything it must have had reasons to do so, therefore logic will have been dictating God's thoughts from the moment of God's inception.

If God's thoughts are logical from our Human point of view, then Human logic (as we know it) is a more powerful governor than God; if God exists it must therefore be a product of logic and therefore did not create logic. If God behaves according to logic that we don't understand (i.e.: Human logic is limited) then God is still behaving according to logic, even if it is logic we don't understand.

If God's thoughts behave according to no logic, then there are no absolutes. It would be possible for god to create a square circle (an all-powerful being that doesn't obey logic would be able to) just as much as any absolute is also obsolete, but this makes a mockery of all our religion, afterlife, lives, thoughts, everything, if this is possible. It means we are completely unable to predict anything of god. It makes god worthless to us, inaccessible.

God, although all-powerful, did not create logic. God requires logic in order to think or create.

An example argument of God's thoughts requiring logic:
The Universe cannot be younger than God or Logic is more powerful than God
If Logic is part of God
A counter argument could be that God is inherently a logical thinker and that logic is part of God and not something that exists on it's own. God has properties such as "benevolent" and also "logical". But this defence of God doesn't work for the following reason:

If God can contain a property of "logical", then the following must be true: That the Universe, that requires no cause or creator, also can contain logic. This means that if this defence is true the Universe doesn't need God in order for logic to exist anyway.

Conclusions
If God thinks logically, then logic must have existed before God and God did not create logic. If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic is more potent than God and restrains God. If there is no logical reason why God exists, then it holds that the Universe could exist for no logical reason and therefore require no creator. If it is true that God exists outside of time and therefore "everything has a cause" does not apply to God then it is equally possible that logic, not God, is what exists outside of time and requires no cause.

2. God can't be 'outside' logic
Outside of Logic
Some theists will make assertions that god is "outside of outside", "beyond logic", "transcends logic", "not subject to logical limitations" or that "human logic is limited" and other similar argument-stoppers. Although this does appear to throw all intellectualizing out the window, kick all theology out the front door and firmly garrison the houses of religion from scientific bailiffs, it actually opens up theism and, in particular, the individual theist, to some further criticisms.

If "Human logic" is insufficient for metaphysics then debating for the existence of God is silly. Because it is by Human logic, thought and mentality that we arrive at the concept of God in the first place

To say that god doesn't obey logical rules, to say that God could create a round square, for example, is to say that the abilities of god are abilites that cannot logically exist

"Beyond logic" is a synonym for "irrational", and admissions of beliefs that are beyond logic is an admission that such beliefs are irrational and logically indefensible
If God is beyond logic, is it not true that atheists are at least somewhat more rational and logical in their beliefs? It seems to be!

The Unknown
Some theists will claim that because science cannot explain everything that God must exist. They plead that "the unknown" is cause for theism, and that new facts may come to light that suggest gods exist. However: The unknown, and new facts and new arguments, are just as likely to disprove any given theory than to prove it. Appeals to the unknown are unusable in argument because of this. In addition to this, it is certainly a historical trend that scientific truth and evidence has always encroached upon the beliefs of the godly and the religious, and the exploration of the unknown is largely bad news for religion, not good!
"The consequence is that the conclusions of the science of religions are as likely to be adverse as they are to be favorable to the claim that the essence of religion is true."

Appealing to the unknown appears to merely set a time-bomb on religious belief: At such a time when the unknown becomes explained their belief is no longer defensible. Clearly, this would not be the case and theists continue believing in their respective gods no matter what the evidence. This is because belief is psychological.

3. Conclusion
The conclusion is that the very existence of logic is troublesome for theists.

"With religious people themselves no longer believing most of what they used to, science has largely won and god has become a much more abstract, non-literal being and the same goes for angels, demons, satan and the rest of the Western religious pantheon, retreating into a shodowy world of abstract emotional belief where science may never be able to shed light, but psychologists might"

And as hinted, that psychology (or perhaps even psyciatry!) continues where logical fact no longer explains theists' beliefs.

There is no god:
If God can make plans, think logically or exist, then logic is an arch-power that encompasses God and gives reason for god's existence which appears to refute the idea that God could be the creator of logic. The God as first-cause argument is partially undermined. If there is no logical reason why God exists then it is more likely that there no logical reason why the Universe exists, and that instead of assuming that the organisational force is a 'god', it's simpler and more rational to assume that it is the universe itself. It appears that whether God exists for logical reasons or not a fundamental contradiction occurs. The only answer is that creator-gods cannot possibly exist. Atheism is more logical. This is also true if God is placed "beyond logic". And if it is said that Human logic is incapable of realizing such metaphysical truths, then this also undermines any argument that can be made by one human to another, for the existence of god.
Brought to you by my very good friend:http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/god_logic.html

and me:

Godless.

 

[jcarl]

God Is Love

God is love
God is the source of love

God is the most sincere source of true, unconditional, agape love. Love--agape, phileo, and eros--can come from other sources.

Without God, there is no love

This is a false premise. Love can exist w/o God, two atheists marrying and loving each other proves that(Lenin and Krupskaya loved each other, all the while being atheists to the core)

If you love a person, you love them for who they are, and not because God inspired it! Love comes from your own choice and will. To say that God Is Love is to deny love the good power it has. You want the person you care for to love you, and that love to be from them and not due to religion, theology, social pressure or false sources, you want it to come from their will, not from God's.

Love has 0 to with theology or religion. Where'd you dig this up?

Love
To think that love comes from our chemistry, our bodies and emotions rather than someone or somewhere else is in itself loving and caring. It makes our bodies and chemistry special. To deny that or say we are not capable of it on our own (without God) makes our bodies, emotions worthless and love worth less.

"God is Love" is an inhumane and hurtful feeling and statement and undermines the value of love

The whole idea you have here is that if God is love he is involved in all love. This isn't so. Human love exists w/o God. Now God is the fullest essence of Agape love, but this doesn't mean that He is involved in all human relationships. It doesn't cheapen love anymore that loving multiple members of your family does.

Now god contradicts logic:

. Logic as a property of the universe or God
Logic is more powerful than God

If there is a logical reason why God exists, then logic created God, is all-powerful and restrains God.

If someone comes up with a "logical reason" for God, that doesn't put that logic above God by any means. He would have created the logic and made it available to us. That's like saying a robot can create something that is greater than its Creator. It isn't possible.
Finite-->some proof of infinte>infinite.(Some finite thing comes up with a proof of infinite, which is greater than the infinite)

[Quoet]If there is no logical reason why God exists, then it holds that the Universe could exist for no logical reason and therefore require no creator.[/Quote]

This kind of statement can't get past the "if" part. In order to prove that there is no logical reason for God to exist, one would have to use logic.

God's thoughts
If God has logical thoughts then logic is more powerful than God. If God chose to create anything it must have had reasons to do so, therefore logic will have been dictating God's thoughts from the moment of God's inception.

God's logic is that He does what He wishes. Phil.2:13.

If God's thoughts are logical from our Human point of view, then Human logic (as we know it) is a more powerful governor than God; if God exists it must therefore be a product of logic and therefore did not create logic.

But God does not work in our "logic"

If God behaves according to logic that we don't understand (i.e.: Human logic is limited) then God is still behaving according to logic, even if it is logic we don't understand.

But if His "logic" is His will, then all is settled. No one would say that your supercedes you. The same is with God.

If God's thoughts behave according to no logic, then there are no absolutes. It would be possible for god to create a square circle (an all-powerful being that doesn't obey logic would be able to) just as much as any absolute is also obsolete, but this makes a mockery of all our religion, afterlife, lives, thoughts, everything, if this is possible. It means we are completely unable to predict anything of god. It makes god worthless to us, inaccessible.

Once again we're operating on the hinge of the beginning "if." As before, in order to show that God behaves to no logic would require, among other things, logic. And, since you brought it up, the whole squarecircle thing. It's nothing more than a category mistake, like asking what is the sound/smell of blue.

God, although all-powerful, did not create logic. God requires logic in order to think or create.

What we need to do first is define what that logic is. Now let's use my proposal that God's "logic"--hereafter in quotes--is His will. Now this explains that why we cannot know the things of God unless He reveals them to us. 1Cor.2:11,13,14.
No one can know what someone else's will is unless they are told. How much more so should this be for an infinite God to a finite mind?

2. God can't be 'outside' logic
Outside of Logic
Some theists will make assertions that god is "outside of outside", "beyond logic", "transcends logic", "not subject to logical limitations" or that "human logic is limited" and other similar argument-stoppers. Although this does appear to throw all intellectualizing out the window, kick all theology out the front door and firmly garrison the houses of religion from scientific bailiffs, it actually opens up theism and, in particular, the individual theist, to some further criticisms.
If "Human logic" is insufficient for metaphysics then debating for the existence of God is silly. Because it is by Human logic, thought and mentality that we arrive at the concept of God in the first place

God "logic" is outside of Human logic, so much as finite is seperated from infinite. The only way His will can come into our Human logic is if He allows an aspect of it, His will, to be revealed to us.

The Unknown
Some theists will claim that because science cannot explain everything that God must exist. They plead that "the unknown" is cause for theism, and that new facts may come to light that suggest gods exist. However: The unknown, and new facts and new arguments, are just as likely to disprove any given theory than to prove it. Appeals to the unknown are unusable in argument because of this. In addition to this, it is certainly a historical trend that scientific truth and evidence has always encroached upon the beliefs of the godly and the religious, and the exploration of the unknown is largely bad news for religion, not good!
"The consequence is that the conclusions of the science of religions are as likely to be adverse as they are to be favorable to the claim that the essence of religion is true."

Appealing to the unknown appears to merely set a time-bomb on religious belief: At such a time when the unknown becomes explained their belief is no longer defensible. Clearly, this would not be the case and theists continue believing in their respective gods no matter what the evidence. This is because belief is psychological.

Is it not logical to search for an intelligence cause in the beginning of things? What I'm talking about is Origin Science, figuring out how things started(this is opposed to Operation Science, how things work). What most scientist today are trying to do is explain a singular, unique event--the beginnings of the universe--by looking at it as a normal, repeated/able process. That simply does not work. This is analagous--though not perfectly--to a forensic scientist getting a body with a gunshot wound and concluding that it died of natural causes.

3. Conclusion
The conclusion is that the very existence of logic is troublesome for theists.

Tell me this: to you, is it logical for a holy God to love sinners?

 

[Godless]

You did!! You DID!! Contradict yourself J. Here I'll remind you:

First sentence: God is the most sincere source of true, unconditional, agape love.

Contradiction: Love has 0 to with theology or religion.

Nough said!!

Godless.

 

[jcarl]

Love has nothing to do with theology/religion. God's love goes deeper than that. God's love has to do with a personal relationship with Him and Jesus. God's love goes deeper than systematic theology: love is not interested in proofs and such. His love has nothing to do with religion, which is a system ritualistic ceremonies. You're making religion as synonymous with faith, and the two are two totally different things(religion is inpersonal; faith is personal) God's love has to do with faith.
This is a contradiction of words only, a surface contradiction.

 

[Godless]

Jcarl, the assumption that some big daddy in the sky loves us is ludicrous. Why is there evil? why is there suffering?, why do children get rapped?, why do children die?, why are there disasters that kill thousands on whim, this sounds not like love, but VENGENCE!! cause we live destitute lives according to god, we suffer, cuase we don't agree with god, we loose our children, cause a civilization does not follow a god, it gets wiped out, is that love?. Give me a break!!

Godless.

 

[SnakeLord]

Well Godless, the answer to that is very simple.

My son died, 5 years ago now, and it took me quite a while to find out why he had died. Medical science gave their explanation, but to me all advances of humans over the past few thousand years, have no value to the word of ancient shepherds. Here is the real reason my son died:

Exodus 34:6 "..Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

You see, every thing I've done that's wrong: such as smoking, drinking, farting, and praying to god while I had bruised testicles, led to the death of my son.

*yawn*

Anyway, I'd like to quickly comment on some posts made earlier in this thread if I may..

I'll say this and you may take it/leave as you wish: God exists within the spiritual realm. Scientifically speaking one could not create an instrument that would have God show up, and you can't get in a space ship and find him in the uttermost parts of the universe. If you could, then God would be finite and mortal

And yet there he was, sitting on a mountain near Israel. I guess you must be a bit jealous of those old shepherds who didn't need faith - they actually witnessed god. Either as a burning bush, as a mini-god who got himself strung up or any one of a multitude of instances where god hangs around people. Not only that but he often sent angels down to talk to people on behalf of god. You seen any angels around recently?

Of course, much of what god said was given to people in visions or dreams. I was reading about a guy who claimed god had come to him in a vision and told him to go kill all the non-believers. He's now on death row, but he managed to slay many people on behalf of god. Did he have a vision from god? Did the people 2000 years ago? How can you judge the honesty and integrity of these people? (especially of those who died thousands of years ago). Even if they were being honest in their own minds, (such as this mass murderer), have you any position to be claiming they were completely sane? All these people who you believe without question, you'll never know. You'll never see them, hear them, be able to analyze their mental state. As such, you're working on corrupt data. There is absolutely nothing to support any word they have written.

It seems reasonable to say that a higher being could create the universe.

Why?

Also, it seems unlikely, to me at least, that if God didn't exist that we would have even imagined the concept thereof.

Utter nonsense. It's par for the course. People who had very little understanding of how the world actually worked, would naturally try to put a face to things. It's not much of a surprise that Indian beliefs have gods that look like elephants, egyptian gods looked like crocodiles and vultures etc etc. Man simply put a face to something they could not explain- using a template that existed in their surroundings.

Lightning would come down from the sky.. It has to come from somewhere.. right? without understanding the science behind lightning, it's easy to attach a 'being' to the event.

It boils down to lack of understanding. What get's to me, is how many people in 2004 still believe the words of people who knew nothing, over all the information that has been found in the 2000 years after that collection of opinions and stories was written.

There is nowhere in any bona-fide scripture which state that God is a physical manifestation, it is universaly agreed that he is a non-physical person and can only be understood via advanced human intelligence (on this planet anyway). That, basically is the claim.

And who is this "advanced human intelligence"? People from 2000 years ago?...

 

[jcarl]

Jcarl, the assumption that some big daddy in the sky loves us is ludicrous. Why is there evil?[/B]

Free will. Would you rather have no choice in what you make of your life? Would you rather have an existence where you were nothing but marionette?

why is there suffering?, why do children get raped?, why do children die?,

This is the tough stuff. I probably don't have reasons that would satisfy you, but I shall give them anyway:

-Free will. Simple. When you give something a choice, they have the potential of making a great decision or making a horrible decision.
-Because of this, men are the ones who make evil a reality. To blame it on God is irresponsible.

why are there disasters that kill thousands on whim, this sounds not like love, but VENGENCE!!

Is it vegence, or is it merely a show that this world we live in isn't worth the stock we put in it?(see Matt. 6:33) Is it vegence, or is it a show that we're obviously doing something wrong?

cause we live destitute lives according to god, we suffer, cuase we don't agree with god, we loose our children, cause a civilization does not follow a god, it gets wiped out, is that love?. Give me a break!!
Godless.

Heb 2:2-3. God gives you a chance, but you reject it. What else is there to do?

I really suggest you check out C.S. Lewis's "Problem of Pain" for some more info.

 

[SnakeLord]

-Free will. Simple. When you give something a choice, they have the potential of making a great decision or making a horrible decision.
-Because of this, men are the ones who make evil a reality. To blame it on God is irresponsible.

My son's free will made him die? I guess that certainly competes with the medical report.. :bugeye:

 

[jcarl]

Sorry Snakelord, both for your loss and for unintentionally omitting you in my last post.
I can't give you a specific reason as to why your son died(perhaps as a sign to you or maybe something else I don't know) butthis I do know: "All things work together for the good to those who love Him." Romans 8:28. I can't see the whole picture, but God can see it.

 

[Godless]

King James Version..

Mathews:

6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

6:34
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

This is the problem with interpretations of scripture, I didn't interpret nothing of vengence from this.

Exodus 34:6 "..Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

And they dare call this Justice?..If this is the case, even Jcarl is fighting a loosing battle, because he will eventually have to pay for the sin's of his father,and that of his father, and that of his father, Jcarl You have a lot of paying to do!!.


It is interesting that you brought up Hebrews:


2:3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

2:4
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

You claim that free will is the cause of evil acts upon men, this may be true, however an earthquake is done by the free will of god, this shows him to be evil not benevolent, to have 40 thousand people pay for the sins of their fathers is not justice, but mass murder.

Thus by conclussion, you believe in an entity that can't be proven to exist, is an evil entity that seeks vengece towards non believers, (btw this gives little chance to believers as well they die in droves) claim that the bible is the source of knowledge (guide) to live by, by this means no one lives by these ideals I've not seen any one stoned to death yet, (though I've heard about them in Islamist states, but not christians.) Even you are doomed to pay for the sins of your father, and his father. accordingly to the written word. So your prayers are in vain falling in silence, death ears to a pathetic being, who gives very little to what your needs may be, or gives a rat ass, about you!.

Godless.

 

[SnakeLord]

Sorry Snakelord, both for your loss and for unintentionally omitting you in my last post.

Don't worry about it, it's of no consequence.

I can't give you a specific reason as to why your son died(perhaps as a sign to you or maybe something else I don't know)

I bet you didn't even notice how you just completely sideswiped and ignored anything that medical science might have to say on the matter. Here is a big part of the problem. You try and sponge things off as "a sign" or some other worthless tripe, in order to somehow lend credence to your ridiculous and groundless beliefs, all the while ignoring the centuries and decades that man has spent learning the facts. I can tell you what happened to my son.. It can be seen to be fact by anyone with even a basic medical knowledge. However, feel free to ignore science, feel free to ignore the facts, and spend your time listening to the garbage of 2000 year old mental cavemen.

If it was a "sign" from this god who wanted to inform me of something, I'm sure it is in his almighty power just to send me a fucking email.

butthis I do know: "All things work together for the good to those who love Him." Romans 8:28.

You think by reading texts dating back several thousand years you can actually make claims to 'knowing' something? Regardless to what you think, there is no good in watching your son die. However, I can't say I do, or ever have loved god, or even believed in his existence... so i guess people like me are excluded from that particular quote. Maybe it was spite after all? Maybe it was my sins that killed him? What do you, with your mass of knowledge, think?

I can't see the whole picture, but God can see it.

You can't even give credible evidence to suggest this being that you worship even exists, let alone anything else.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Godless,

Hi, i happened to have read in some other thread that you are of Venuzualan origin, I didn't know. It is of significance to me because my sis in law in Venuzualan and i hope to visit there at some stage. Her whole family came over for the wedding and they are lovely people with great spirit.
If indeed you are Venezualan, then your use of the english language is to be commended

I also saw on several occasions, you almost apologising for not being an educated man. For crying out loud man, don't do that, the biggest fools in the world today are educated people. When a fool becomes educated it has the same effect on a different level, as giving thugs guns, money and a ticket that exempts them from the law.
Education is one step up from common-sense, but pales into insignificance when up against wisdom. A wise, educated person is the person to look up to, not trained fools. .

Finally, why have you not responded to my last reply to you. I was hoping to expand upon the subject of illusion.

Jan Ardena.

 

[(Q)]

For crying out loud man, don't do that, the biggest fools in the world today are educated people.

Is that the reason you refuse to get an education?

 

[jcarl]

I bet you didn't even notice how you just completely sideswiped and ignored anything that medical science might have to say on the matter. Here is a big part of the problem. You try and sponge things off as "a sign" or some other worthless tripe, in order to somehow lend credence to your ridiculous and groundless beliefs, all the while ignoring the centuries and decades that man has spent learning the facts. I can tell you what happened to my son.. It can be seen to be fact by anyone with even a basic medical knowledge. However, feel free to ignore science, feel free to ignore the facts, and spend your time listening to the garbage of 2000 year old mental cavemen.[/B]

Medical science can explain the biological processes whereby your son was lost. However the question at hand is why would a God allow your son to die. That is what I'm talking about.

If it was a "sign" from this god who wanted to inform me of something, I'm sure it is in his almighty power just to send me a fucking email.

If God had sent you an email, A) would You have believed what it said? B) Would you have taken it seriously?

You think by reading texts dating back several thousand years you can actually make claims to 'knowing' something?

Truth doesn't transcend time? If everyone applied the social order developed by Confuscious, wouldn't this world be a better place?

Regardless to what you think, there is no good in watching your son die.

To you this might be so, but to someone(God) who sees the whole picture, there might be some good.

However, I can't say I do, or ever have loved god, or even believed in his existence... so i guess people like me are excluded from that particular quote.

You don't love God, you never have, but you don't know if you ever will. Read the whole passage, Rom 8:28-32

Maybe it was spite after all? Maybe it was my sins that killed him? What do you, with your mass of knowledge, think?

To be honest I really don't know.

You can't even give credible evidence to suggest this being that you worship even exists, let alone anything else.

Don't confuse no evidence with evidence you don't accept.

 

[SnakeLord]

Medical science can explain the biological processes whereby your son was lost.

In short: The facts.

However the question at hand is why would a God allow your son to die.

In short: The assumptions of 2000 year old people who knew nothing about biological processes.

In either case, god has no position. There are those that say god cannot be seen, known, or understood - in which case the people of old were merely speculating. If, on the other hand god can be seen, known and understood - then I'm sure he can come down and tell me his reasons himself.. It wouldn't require you to do it, not that you can anyway, from the looks of it.

However, it's all inconsequential. Like I said, one is based on reality, the other is based upon groundless supposition. I can't lay fault upon the people of ancient times: they needed to explain a world that they could not explain: from lightning storms to headaches. For a person in 2004 to rely on their view of the world, is frankly... daft.

If God had sent you an email, A) would You have believed what it said? B) Would you have taken it seriously?

Of course I would. He's god.. I'm sure, being all powerful, he can write an email that I take seriously - or is he not that able?

Truth doesn't transcend time?

In this context.. no. You have no methods by which to validate the claims of these ancient people. You do not, and never will know these ancient people. You cannot comment on the mental status of these people, you cannot even say who these people were, what they looked like, and so on. You cannot show the drug usage statistics of these people.. cactus contains melanin, (basic lsd), and if I did some ancient horticultural research, I'd probably find other drugs that would have been freely available to these people back then.

Basically, you have no position to be saying what they wrote was truth. Furthemore, many of these 'god sightings' were done so via dreams. I myself have had some bizarre and rather messed up dreams... They are not a valid source of reality. I was flying in one of my dreams, and if I wrote my dream down and put it in the ground for 1000 years, some schumcko might dig it up and actually think humans could fly.

Even nowadays we are often deceived by lies. There are methods, but usually people fail to see the signs of a lie, and the perpetrator gets away with it.

We are also people that like to "exaggerate" a story. Everyone does it. It is natural for humans to make exaggerations to the stories they say, in order to make it seem somewhat bigger and better. The same can most likely be said of these ancient people.

If you add all of these factors together, the bible has no credibility in the world of facts and truth.

If everyone applied the social order developed by Confuscious, wouldn't this world be a better place?

Things of this nature work better in theory, than in practice. Hell, in theory, even communism sounds cool.

To you this might be so, but to someone(God) who sees the whole picture, there might be some good.

Well, I urge you to try it out one day, and see if you still think the same. Sure.. Loads of good can come from it.. my instant 'loss' of parental responsibility meant I could take a long holiday in Egypt, but the fact remains: my son died. While we can waffle on about all the good that will come out of it for me and god, my son is still dead. What 'good' came out of it for him? Let me guess... It was good 'cause at least he didn't have to suffer with all the shit on this planet.. So much for free will.

You don't love God, you never have, but you don't know if you ever will.

While I can't read the future, your statement has no relevance to what I was saying.

Read the whole passage, Rom 8:28-32

I've read the bible many times.. what's your point?

To be honest I really don't know.

Well, next time you're in contact, ask him for me heh.

Don't confuse no evidence with evidence you don't accept.

Ok... what evidence is there?

 

[jcarl]

King James Version..

Mathews:

6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

6:34
Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

This is the problem with interpretations of scripture, I didn't interpret nothing of vengence from this.[/B]

Maybe there isn't any.

And they dare call this Justice?..If this is the case, even Jcarl is fighting a loosing battle, because he will eventually have to pay for the sin's of his father,and that of his father, and that of his father, Jcarl You have a lot of paying to do!!.

First off that reference is not correct. Exodus 34:6-"And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed,'The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth.'

Now Deut. 4:9 speaks of "...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations..."
This can mean several things.
-It can mean that the children suffer from what they see. For example, for a child to see his father in a drunken state is suffering upon the child.
-It can mean that if an offense against God is committed, then God can bring it out on the offspring. However, to take this as a blanket statement for all sin is off base.
Compare with Deut 24:16:"Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin."
The idea is that God can put a curse on somebody, but that doesn't mean that it always or even frequently happens, just that it's possible.

It is interesting that you brought up Hebrews:

2:3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

2:4
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

You claim that free will is the cause of evil acts upon men, this may be true, however an earthquake is done by the free will of god,

God has two wills, that of His heart/desire and what He allows to take place. This is evident in the fact that God allowed for Jesus to be tortured by evil men.

this shows him to be evil not benevolent, to have 40 thousand people pay for the sins of their fathers is not justice, but mass murder.

But that's not what happened, as can be seen in the second Deut. passage.

Thus by conclussion, you believe in an entity that can't be proven to exist,

How can you say for certain that God can't be proven?

is an evil entity that seeks vengece towards non believers

Again I ask, is it vengence or is it a sign that we're doing something wrong?

(btw this gives little chance to believers as well they die in droves)

This is a different discussion altogether, but I'll give you a summary of what I believe: Suffering for Christians is a way for spiritual growth to happen. Hardship, while it may consume things like wood, hay , and stubble , it make s the strong things like gold and silver more refined.

claim that the bible is the source of knowledge (guide) to live by, by this means no one lives by these ideals I've not seen any one stoned to death yet, (though I've heard about them in Islamist states, but not christians.)

THis is because we are no longer under the Mosaic covenant of the Law. We are under the unconditional convenant of grace.

Even you are doomed to pay for the sins of your father, and his father. accordingly to the written word.

No I'm not.