Understanding/evaluating religious/theistic claims.

[lightgigantic]

your argument , yes, I do agree with that.

Grumpy

yes we have already been through this but I feel its time to address points of discussion rather than continuing the amiable exchange of pleasantries of admiration that you insist on bestowing upon me

 

[wynn]

You are sooooo adorable, LG!

 

[lightgigantic]

You are sooooo adorable, LG!

Sometimes I find the constant gushing of praise from contributers to impede the rigorous investigation of subjects.
Don't you?

 

[wynn]

Absolutely!
Oh, the sweetness!

 

[wynn]

Am I certain that there's no god? Of course not, and I've never said anything to the contrary. However I've not seen a single thing that would necessitate god as an explanation nor any direct evidence that a god exists regardless of whether one is needed or not. So why should I believe?

Indeed, why should you believe?
Do you know?

 

[Grumpy]

You two should get married, but for the love of your non-existent gods, no children.

 

[wynn]

I don't think that hypothetical non-natural beings are knowable by natural means. That's simple enough.

That's a truism.

The veiled implication might be true in my case, I make no boasts of spiritual maturity, however one might choose to define that.

I was speaking in general; in general, maturity is something desirable (there is even mathematical maturity), and is conceived of with characteristics such as goodwill, stability, sanity, relative independence.

Science typically addresses itself to non-human objects and it strives for objectivity. You're doubtless right that probably isn't the best way to relate to somebody person to person. This sounds like a peculiarly personal-theistic variant on my argument that science might be unable to perceive the 'inner' experiential point of religion.

Not just the "'inner' experiential point of religion", but of humans and human relationships in general.

When relating to a person's "pain," would you find something like this

sufficient?


Do you find that something like this

is the be-all and end-all of your softer feelings for someone?

If you love someone, would you send them that picture via an sms, or for their birthday, while yourself not showing up?

Obviously, there is a lot more to persons and their relationships than science is even able to adequately investigate or represent.

 

[Arioch]

Wow, to think that LG would be foolish enough to openly quotemine someone on this thread. Even I'm surprised by that.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

I wish I knew a reason, but the one's that theists keep telling me are either deepfried bullshit on a stick or just genuinely unconvincing. Given that I have no valid reason to believe in god I've chosen to withhold judgment until I do.

Oh and nice straw man argument by the way. Love the way you just abuse the tiny bit of neurology you do know.

 

[lightgigantic]

Wow, to think that LG is both a scholar and a gentleman, yet he continues to insist that we don't inundate discussion topics with congenial expressions of gratitude for his being in order to sustain thorough investigation of ideas. Even I'm surprised by that.

Please. As much as I appreciate your genuine heartfelt interest in my well being, I beg you to not become too exasperated at the thought of having to discuss topics with me while refraining from complimenting in numerous ways

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

Lulz, you really are full of yourself aren't you? At least when I "edit" someone's post I not only state openly that I've done so but give the reasons why. Keep it up though, it's nice of you to dig your own grave.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

I fully appreciate the humility of your request to refrain from espousing how glorious I find you remarkable qualities. I understand that you are making this request in order to maintain an on track discussion of topics relevant to the OP ....yet even though I understand these two points I still cannot refrain from constantly showering my heartfelt praises of esteem and gratitude towards yourself

As much as I acknowledge and appreciate your kind words, I guess it might help to constantly go back to the OP and re-discover the purpose of the thread. Then when you go to post a contribution, insure that it has at least some relevance to points being discussed. Gradually, gradually you may come to learn how to offer substantial contribution to points being discussed instead of constantly dwelling on the kind words one friend often shares with another.

 

[kx000]

1. Ask question
2. Do background research
3. Construct Hypothesis
4. Test with an experiment
5. Analyze results draw conclusion
6. Report results

Question, is God real? Social findings, some men believe in God, some do not, NO ONE knows. It is undoubtable that God is real in the sense of the imagination, but as far as real as your or I, or real in a similar way as to you or I remains to be unseen. My hypothesis is that it is by YHWH's own doing that he can not be known to man, that if he wished to be known he would be known. It is my thought that part of God's grand plan is to test his children without the light of Knowledge (of God) to see who is true and false.

How does one test this? Conclusion, God may or may not be real, this is no way of telling here, or into the future. Even when Jesus returns with all the knowledge in the universe we will not be able to tell the truth of God with palpable evidence. There is no photo of Jesus from 0 AD. There is no doctrine of God.

 

[kx000]

Indeed, why should you believe?
Do you know?

The faithful never chose to believe s/he just does. The only reason to believe is that you truly believe.

 

[wynn]

The faithful never chose to believe s/he just does. The only reason to believe is that you truly believe.

Yes, I tend to agree.

 

[Jacksonk]

Atheists put away God as a Creator in everything. It is more coherent with the recognition that once time ( as we know it humans) once began, no matter if there was a big bang or not.