Riiight. Your counter-examples are relevant, but mine are not.
What would be proof of god(s)?
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
Riiight. Your counter-examples are relevant, but mine are not.
Correct. Because you made a claim, and I provided a counter-example to dispute that claim. You, on the other hand, are apparently trying to provide a counter-example to the claim that people will always be willing to believe something that they haven't experienced if they are provided with evidence - which is a claim that no one has made. But since you're clearly not even able to keep up with the conversation, I think I'll head off for the night.
Sorry about that.
I cannot see how proof of God could be acomplished to the satisfaction of some atheists, because God would be invisible to their methods, and to their naturalistic minds. What would they be looking for?
They have rendered the literature which explains God, as imaginary, therefore not worth using. So what's left?
What do you hope to find?
Asking for proof of God within the realm of a naturalistic worldview, seems to be a ploy to put a rapid end to the discussion, and claim victory. I see no other use for it.
jan.
You are twisting things up.
This is how it started:
We are talking abut different things, you are omitting my point about personal relevance.
True, I am not able to keep up with you, and I am glad it is so.
Last edited:
Nasor,
Actually I meant what I said, but never mind.
It's quite simple, you will accept that God exists on your own terms, on what you view as viable evidence. Yet there would still be no proof that God existed no matter how many biblical miracles took place, as everything could be explained via natural means, whether viable or not.
So whether God exists or not, is not determined by what you regard as evidence. And love is not guarenteed by observing the symptoms you described, even though it may seem that way. This is the experience of couples, who upon the end of the honeymoon period of their relationship, realise that they actually have nothing in common.
I am using love as a metaphor for God.
That's fair enough, as I said it your perogative.
Again, you are choosing to look at it purely from your own point of view.
You will only accept God on your terms, what YOU regard as viable evidence. And the evidence you accept contradicts the nature of God, as described. At first this could seem reasnable, but as soon as you decline to look at it any other way, on account of non belief, then you have chosen what to believe.
Neither could I.
And where are you any different?
You've decided to believe God doesn't exist, because what you have decided is evidence, isn't forthcoming.
jan.
Actually I meant what I said, but never mind.
It's quite simple, you will accept that God exists on your own terms, on what you view as viable evidence. Yet there would still be no proof that God existed no matter how many biblical miracles took place, as everything could be explained via natural means, whether viable or not.
So whether God exists or not, is not determined by what you regard as evidence. And love is not guarenteed by observing the symptoms you described, even though it may seem that way. This is the experience of couples, who upon the end of the honeymoon period of their relationship, realise that they actually have nothing in common.
I am using love as a metaphor for God.
That's fair enough, as I said it your perogative.
Again, you are choosing to look at it purely from your own point of view.
You will only accept God on your terms, what YOU regard as viable evidence. And the evidence you accept contradicts the nature of God, as described. At first this could seem reasnable, but as soon as you decline to look at it any other way, on account of non belief, then you have chosen what to believe.
Neither could I.
And where are you any different?
You've decided to believe God doesn't exist, because what you have decided is evidence, isn't forthcoming.
jan.
In answer to thread's question (and within the presumed power of the Christian version of God) would be a modern miracle. (Miracle defined to be a clear macro-scale violation of physics.)
Now if only I, or a few more experience this "miracle" it could be just some sort of mass halucination, so God if you are reading, and want all to believe you exists, why not transport all fish etc from the great lakes into the ocean (adapting them in mid-flight to salt water) and then transform the water of the great lakes into wine. (Port wine would seem appropriate and I like that.) - I.e. a somewhat bigger "party trick" than the Bible claims you have already done. That would persuade me you are real.
While you are at it, make the rivers that currently flow into the Great Lakes, and any rain or snow falling in, turn upwards with increasing velocity to become clouds, at least until we get the Great lakes wine all bottled. Don't forget to transform the wine back to water as it goes over Niagra Falls so long as there is any flow over them. Thanks, God.
PS This would also clearly show the Moslims that you approve of drinking wine. Then instead of killing them and them killing Christians, both acting in your name, we could live in peace with each other and celibrate the end to this strife. - You are in favor of that, are you not?
What are you waiting for, if you exist, are loving, all powerful etc.? :shrug:
Now if only I, or a few more experience this "miracle" it could be just some sort of mass halucination, so God if you are reading, and want all to believe you exists, why not transport all fish etc from the great lakes into the ocean (adapting them in mid-flight to salt water) and then transform the water of the great lakes into wine. (Port wine would seem appropriate and I like that.) - I.e. a somewhat bigger "party trick" than the Bible claims you have already done. That would persuade me you are real.
While you are at it, make the rivers that currently flow into the Great Lakes, and any rain or snow falling in, turn upwards with increasing velocity to become clouds, at least until we get the Great lakes wine all bottled. Don't forget to transform the wine back to water as it goes over Niagra Falls so long as there is any flow over them. Thanks, God.
PS This would also clearly show the Moslims that you approve of drinking wine. Then instead of killing them and them killing Christians, both acting in your name, we could live in peace with each other and celibrate the end to this strife. - You are in favor of that, are you not?
What are you waiting for, if you exist, are loving, all powerful etc.? :shrug:
Last edited by a moderator:
Would you ever talk in such an idle way to a friend of yours?
Would you ever talk in such an idle way to a judge of the Supreme Court?
Would you ever talk in such an idle way to the British Queen?
My assumption is that you would not. But you do to God, who is so much more than a friend, a judge of the Supreme Court or the British Queen ...
Bah, I'll come in this thread every time I see it alive, just to say this: God requires faith... proof negates need for faith, thus God has made sure there is no proof besides that in the far-flung past. If I tell you that right now something is happening in my house, you have no reason to believe it, besides what I say. It's much the same.
What changed that converted a past necessity or desirability of God providing proof long ago to no need for it now?
Nothing to do with the advance of scientific understanding of what caused earthquakes, lightening, disease etc. I suppose.
spelling either.
Ask God what his intentions were, I can only guess. He's supposed to pop up sometime soon, ask him then. He won't be real friendly, I gather, but it's worth a shot.
Ask God what his intentions were, I can only guess. He's supposed to pop up sometime soon, ask him then. He won't be real friendly, I gather, but it's worth a shot.
Are the Q gods?
Is Trelayne a god?
Is Trelayne a god?
The best proof would be to die, wake up in heaven, and find yourself standing before God.
Simple, an actual god. Not invisible fantasy gods. Produce an actual god and 99.99% of all atheists will immediately convert.
Why do you settle so cheaply? I like books but I don't worship them and they aren't gods nor could they ever contain a god. They are just idle chatter.
Actual god. You say you have one, pony up! Nothing less is acceptible and nothing less should ever, EVER be accepted.
Shoot I'm easy. Pull out a couple angels and I'll at least listen to your theories.
How can you make a metaphor for what you do not understand and have no direct knowledge of?
Bah! Believing is irrelevant. I don't have to "believe" in rocks. Is your god less than a rock?
Last edited:
Thanks for re-stating first sentence of post 71 more clearly.