Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[Jan Ardena]

Jeremyhfht,

Depends on the atheist. I for one would gladly punch in the face any atheist that up-nose ignores possible evidence.

Given the description of God, what evidence would you require in order to accept the possibility of God.

I would, on the other hand, join them if someone kept spewing verses from the bible. We have reasons for doing so. Try asking.

What's wrong with quote scripture in the pursuit of understanding?

I, on the other hand, prefer to deal with it directly. I don't ignore it, I rebut it. If it's incorrect.

That remains to be seen.

I'm an atheist, and I say So far given the evidence I've seen, you can't prove God exists.

Which evidence justifies this conclusion?

This doesn't mean you'd never find something that could be actual evidence.

Maybe the evidence is there, but you can't see it (can't see the forest for the trees?). Have you ever thought about that?

If you wish to gather evidence for god, start with history.

Why?

And start with atheist viewpoints, that way you'll get their side of the story, AND your own. This way, you can make educated choices.

Your side of the story is very simple, you don't believe in God, for whatever reason. Education is as useless in this context, as it is in creating beautiful music.

Jan.

 

[heliocentric]

heliocentric
“
isn't that how one qualifies any sort of knowledge (at least generally) - like for instance you qualify a doctor who has behaved in a certain way at medical school around text books, cadavers and the like (of course you could go into specifics, like for instance how well they studied etc, just like you could further clarify the quality of a religious persons prayer etc)

All that qualifies is whether or not someone is 'acting' religious or not, thats my point - it doesnt qualify their reported experiences, or say anything about the quality of their experience.

and if such and such mystic is sinless and self controlled, you have the genuine article

Again all that really shows is a well developed sense of morality - it doesnt confirm the validity of claimed communion either way.
Also if the morality they conform to is derived from reported communication with god(s) then we're caught up in a never-ending tautilogical loop!

why do you consider god subjective, particularly if it is the claim that god (or at the very least, the nature of god) can be perceived

Whether or not god exists is a hot potato, however even assuming that a god or gods 'do' exist, how could perception of God be anything other than subjective since we have never objectively recorded communication with God?

if god is not capable of being perceived objectively, he is impotent, thus the whole discussion on god (omnipotent) etc becomes ineffectual

That logic doesnt really pan out, there are other options - we simply might not of objectively found a way to measure/objectify God. Or the other option is - God might not exist atall!

hence its not uncommon for authorities to be authorized by other authorities - like for instance, unless you became an expert in physics (ie you became an authority) it would be very difficult for you to either refute or confirm claims made in physics

But we're simply back where we started - the problem with authority and inter-referenced authority that soley relies on subjective experience is that theres no way it can be objectively verified.
A doctor could verify hes a doctor by making an objective diagnosis - which is confirmed to be correct via objective means. i.e. a doctor could diagnose you with cancer and another doctor can xray you and find the growth in your body. The xray is your 'objective proof'.
Likewise a physicist can demonstrate his authority via objective testing of his theories - i.e. einstein is commonly believed to have been one of the greatest authorities on cosmology that has ever lived.
We can derive his exceptional authority by the third-party objective measurement of his theories which back up his ideas; and the degree to which his theories seem to have matched up so well with objective measurements.
I fail to see a way that authority can be derived within religion in the same way.
Infact the means that authority is aquired within religion seems to part ways so dramatically when compared with any other disciplines that i really feel authority isnt a quality/quantity that can ever be accurately used to quantify religious doctrine or belief.
I think most people (even the highly religious) would infact agree with this assesment. Which is why i think so many religious people use 'faith' and 'personal resonance' as terms to rationalise the underpinings of their belief rather than 'authority'.

if however there was a claim with the alien watchers that "this is how you too can also come to the point of direct perception of aliens" we would have a similarity - bonafide knowledge comes not only with claims of truth but also claims of processes that enable one to perceive that truth (as in the case of bonafide religion and bonafide science)

I think mystics can definitely point towards ways in which to gain similar subjective experiences, i wouldnt argue with that.
Nirvana for instance is a very real state of consciousness that almost anyone can achieve.
The problem i think comes when mystics use those subjective experiences to make very specific claims - i am the chosen one/son of god etc.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

Ah, Jan. How nice to see you here of all places. If by "nice" I mean "chewing on broken glass".

Jeremyhfht,

Given the description of God, what evidence would you require in order to accept the possibility of God.

I'm sorry, but no. There are millions of descriptions of God. Define it first, then we'll see.

What's wrong with quote scripture in the pursuit of understanding?

What's wrong with quoting a fictitious book that has no real application to reality?

Which evidence justifies this conclusion?

There is too much to list. You've been on other forums I've had debates on, so you get a small jist of how much there is. Don't play.

Maybe the evidence is there, but you can't see it (can't see the forest for the trees?). Have you ever thought about that?

This is a similar "verse" most theists state. If the evidence is there, why have I never had it pointed out? If your evidence is "look around you", then just don't bother replying.

Why?

you'll get an understanding of how much the bible varies from actually documented history (non-religiously biased of course). As well as how similar some biblical stories are to other cultures, depending on location.

There is also the advantage of learning some key points. Like the fact there's no evidence that Jesus existed.

Similarly, you'll also learn there's no geological evidence for a global flood. And, if you think about it, there are too many animals to fit into an ark. Then you can learn about how many other cultures, in very different ways, have creation stories that all say different things.

All in all, it helps to open your eyes to the fact your religion is far from unique, and far from historically valid.

Your side of the story is very simple, you don't believe in God, for whatever reason. Education is as useless in this context, as it is in creating beautiful music.

Jan.

or so you think it is. The reasons are far more complex then the end result.

By the way, I'm dabbling in composing and writing music. Know how? By using my intelligence to know what would end up with the best result. So far it's successful.

Your analogy is useless.

 

[Sarkus]

its quite simple
If you can see dirt but you cannot see your mind, doesn't that make dirt inferior (or a lower substance in terms of perceptability) than mind?

An artificial difference that makes an assumption that is not proven. It is thus an invalid term to use in such discussions unless both people accept the assumption.

extrapolation means you see something and apply that seeing to a situation that you have not seen to form an understanding or truth, hence the basis, while initially based on something seen, ultimately is based on something we have not seen

But the logic being used is all based on physical evidence entirely - whether you can consciously recall the observations or not.
You are not being grand enough in the scope of your "evidence" - you are expecting it to be at that instant only and not accepting that such physical evidence is observed from the moment one's senses operate.

I am talking about how a patient can determine and receive the benefit of medical truths via the medium of the doctor (authority) - it s certainly different from the means that the doctor uses to determine and receive the benefit of medical truths (empiricism) - hence the distinction

It is an artificial distinction - because you do not include sufficient scope to your evidence-gathering. If you limit the evidence that one can include you generate the need for these artificial distinctions.

never the less by accepting the correct authority in the correct circumstances one gets a benefit that is not different from direct perception (ie cured of sickness)

BUT THE AUTHORITY IS NOT THE EVIDENCE! That is the point!
The evidence is the "direct perception" - the being cured.
Everything else is merely assessment of probability based on previous direct perceptions of evidence.

I am not trying to argue that hearing from authority is empiricism - i am arguing that if one hears by authority one receives the identical benefit of knowledge gleaned by empiricism at the end of the day

Then this confirms you are making artificial distinctions merely because you do not encompass into your models the entirety of the physical observations made up to that point.

but the special quality of hearing from authority is that it enables an unqualified person to receive the benefit of knowledge available in empirical fields to those who are not qualified in such empirical applications - in other words by hearing from authority, a person totally unfamiliar with standards of medical practice can become cured of their disease

And it still remains that AUTHORITY IS NOT EVIDENCE.

that evidence is never arrived at however unless the patient understands the 'truth' of medicine by hearing from authority - hence hearing from authority stands as a distinct method of acquiring the results of knowledge than empiricism

No it doesn't!
All "hearing from authority" can do is provide you with possibly correct information. Your assessment of the credibility of the authority, based purely on physical observations made from birth, gives weight that one places on this information from the authority - and it may even be information that they pass on to others without further testing (which is what we generally do at school - taking things on faith). But the AUTHORITY is NOT EVIDENCE that the information is correct.

you misunderstand - the fallacy of accepting the self as ultimately a bunch of chemicals makes the notion of legal responsibility non- existent .... discussing this issue regards no discussion of god (the idea was even originally coined by Roger Penrose, who has no stance on the notion of god)

Let's just leave it at the fact you have misunderstood the term "God of the gaps" in this context - as it had zip to do with religion (other than being the origin of the term).

well choose any society you can think of - would you live in a society where notions of reward and punishment (which are pertinent to the sense of legal responsibility) were disregarded since it was accepted that the self is ultimately a bunch of chemicals?

Logical fallacy. You have no idea what a society would be like under such different understandings of "self". To thus present an either/or argument is thus a fallacy.

Its hard to imagine how such a society would even get going since there would be no distinction between a murderer, thief or rapist and a philosopher,shoe mender or king

Continuation of the same logical fallacy (as per above) plus an argument from incredulity.

[qoute]actually it is an argument by Penrose, who is an established logician with a masters in PHD (and not affiliated with any sort of creationist outlook either I might add)[/quote]Irrelevant where your ideas came from - it is how you use those ideas and the words you use to convey them.

Here is a quote from Roger Penrose

The issue of "responsibility" raises deep philosophical questions concerning the ultimate causes of our behaviour ... is the matter of "responsibility" merely one of convenience of terminology, or is there actually something else - a "self" lying beyond all such influences - which exerts a control over our actions? The legal issue of "responsibility" seems to imply that there is indeed, within each of us, some kind of independent "self" with its own responsibilities - and, by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance, environment, or chance. If it is other than a mere convenience of language that we speak as though there were such an independant "self", then there must be an ingredient missing from our present day physical understandings. The discovery of such an ingredient would surely profoundly alter our scientific outlook"

Notice his use of the word "if", and the way he merely asks questions.
There is no statement of fact here - merely his ideas.

I guess now you will say it is a fallacy of authority

To accept his claims as fact - of course it is. I would seriously question your intellectual capacity if you failed to realise this?

it certainly does, as indicated by penrose

Guess what, LG, to accept his statements as anything other than interesting ideas is... yes, that's right, a LOGICAL FALLACY.

I don't think so, because the self is understood to be ultimately atomic (in the sense of singular) as opposed to a bunch of chemicals not much different from any other bunch of chemicals one could encounter in another body

Understood by who, exactly? Everyone? Just a few? Many?
Once again you resort to unsubstantiated claims of fact.

I agree - therefore if the findings of so called science indicate something absurd to be taken as a truth (that ultimately the self is a bunch of chemicals) it can be safely disregarded

Rubbish! You obviously do not understand Occam's Razor or logic. Your assessment of what is "absurd" introduces subjectivity into the matter. Logic cares not what is absurd or not. The more logical assessment is that we DO NOT YET FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF SELF!
To jump to the "non-material" is irrational.

you don't get it
how is that possible when a view that only involves matter is totally absurd

Logical fallacy. Commonly called "false dilemma fallacy". Look it up.

Its an argument from penrose actually

Ah - buck-passing. His conclusion, even in that quote you gave, is merely that we do not yet fully understand "self".

if you don't want to come across as fearful or incredulous you should try a different method rather trying to ad hom it into a corner

You are the one that is coming across as both fearful and incredulous. And please indicate where I am "trying to ad hom it into a corner"? Do you understand the term "ad hom"?

the example doesn't even require a discussion of god

Are you deliberately ignoring what I say in my posts?
However, I have already clarified this somewhere above - and I'll put it down to you merely misunderstanding the phrase "god of the gaps" in this context.

it requires a discussion on why the atomic reductionists insist on naming something they can't perceive - in a gappy fashion too I might add

I don't understand your point here - please elaborate.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

I do not choose to believe God does not exist. I merely choose NOT TO BELIEVE.

Others "merely choose TO BELEIVE".

I don't demand physical evidence - just evidence. The scientific method is not only interested in the physical - it just so happens that no evidence for the non-material has ever been produced.

Science is a study of mater, not non-matter.

You think anything we see in nature is evidence of design?
Please provide an example - and then show how this is evidence of design.

Already have, nature.

How can I specifically state what constitutes as evidence for something that I have no evidence of? That's just absurd!

Hence why I say, your reason is that you don't believe.

However, it is not a scientific fact that life ONLY comes from life.

What is the evidence for this?

So again I reiterate that you seem to be suggesting that the lack of evidence for abiogenesis, or for the origin of life, is evidence for the existence of God?

No. The fact that life only comes from life (as far as we know) provides good reason to believe God exists.

Lack of evidence is NOT evidence!

Try telling yourself and other atheists that.

You can play around with words all you want but you need to understand the basic principles you're dealing with here.

You don't believe God exists, due to lack of evidence, according to your testimony?

You are the one who seems to be grasping onto a lack of evidence as being fuel to your "God of the gaps".

I don't need to use a "God of the gaps" to justify my belief in God, if that is what you meant. There is simply no need.

I can
discuss it, no problem, but your lack of understanding of the subject matter, permits me to conclude that such a discussion would be a waste of both our time.

Typical elitist theist get-out clause.

Why is that elitist?
You equate belief in God, with the childish belief of santa clause and tooth fairy. While this is amusing, it is idiotic, which is why you need to understand the difference in beliefs. Or you can stay ignorant and amuse yourself with cheap shots.

What other reason is there that is stronger than not having any evidence?

In this case, intelligent understanding of what evidence is needed.

At what point does the scientific method ever claim to only be regarding the physical/material?

What else could it possibly regard?

The fact is that no evidence for the non-material has ever been produced.

How could the scientific method percieve such non-material to observe and test?

Thus people assume that "science is only about the material".
This is rubbish.

Modern science can only deal with matter, get over it.

But instead you feel content in claiming the scientific method can not cope with the non-material.

Describe how the scientific method could observe a non-matter, in such a way as to work with it?

Who says evidence has to be physical?? It just so happens that 100% of the evidence for anything is currently physical.

Its not a coincidence, it is 100% physical because that is the correct genre, it can never be anything else, lest it is not modern science.

So you freely admit there is no evidence for God?

I freely admit there is no physical evidence, which can be scrutinised by modern scientists, to conclude the existence of God, beyond doubt. I also admit there is no physical evidence for truth, beauty, love, humour.

You freely admit that there IS evidence of a designer (a contradictory position, it seems, that you haven't yet clarified)?

There is a beautiful painting at my local community centre, and at the bottom is a small signature, Philps. I don't know whether that is the artists name, but I know the painting didn't appear by chance, and that it was created by some intelligence, even though I don't have any scientific evidence to back my claim.

freely admit that belief in God is based on zero evidence and is just a matter of choice.

I believe that reason for belief in God is based on evidence both scientific and other, but, there is no current scientific
evidence which points to the existence of God, beyond doubt, that would be recognised by the modern scientific community.
I agree that it is a matter of choice (free-will), and that you have exercised your choice by deciding not to believe.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jeremyhfht,

Ah, Jan. How nice to see you here of all places. If by "nice" I mean "chewing on broken glass".

Thanks. (I think! )

Define it first, then we'll see.

Ominpotent, omniscient, and almighty creator. I think this description will suffice.

What's wrong with quoting a fictitious book that has no real application to reality?

Your opinion, and a poor one at that, There are others who would disagree. Your going to have to come up with a better answer than that.

There is too much to list. You've been on other forums I've had debates on, so you get a small jist of how much there is. Don't play.

There is only so much evidence, choose any one you like. I don't have time to go forum hopping.

This is a similar "verse" most theists state. If the evidence is there, why have I never had it pointed out?

Do some googeling.

If your evidence is "look around you", then just don't bother replying.

So you require scientific evidence?
That would be difficult, as God is not a physical being. That would be like expecting to learn the history of ancient babylon in a P.E. class.

you'll get an understanding of how much the bible varies from actually documented history (non-religiously biased of course). As well as how similar some biblical stories are to other cultures, depending on location.

And how does this equate to "evidence of God"?

All in all, it helps to open your eyes to the fact your religion is far from unique, and far from historically valid.

We're talking about the evidence of God, through learning history here.

By the way, I'm dabbling in composing and writing music. Know how? By using my intelligence to know what would end up with the best result. So far it's successful.

Your analogy is useless.

Ah! Intelligence, design, purposeful application, symetry, coordination, understanding......

Jan.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

Jeremyhfht,

Ominpotent, omniscient, and almighty creator. I think this description will suffice.

Let me explain to you the logical fallacy of omniscience (not to be confused with the "Omniscience Fallacy).

If god knows everything, he then knows who will live, die, how they will, etc. The entire waiting period between the "end time" and such is pointless, as he already knows the result.

Similarly, he is solely to blame for original sin, as he knew it would happen. He is also to blame for Satan's actions.

This is exactly how Fate works. If you know everything, you also know the results, so everything is "Fated" to happen. You can't be wrong.

Omnipotence: If he's all powerful, he wouldn't require sacrifices and the like. Or anything else in the bible where God required something to be done. I could list other things, but omniscience covers a good deal.

Your opinion, and a poor one at that, There are others who would disagree. Your going to have to come up with a better answer than that.

Prove that it's a poor opinion. The bible both defies logic, moral relativism (ergo, LOGIC), science (also logic), as well as philosophy (abstract logic).

It has no realistic basis, and it's historical basis is shoddy at best. If I knew it was allowed, I'd direct you to another forum where I made many fact-filled posts on the subject of biblical historical accuracy. assuming they exist anymore (old forum).

There is only so much evidence, choose any one you like. I don't have time to go forum hopping.

You apparently have no time to do some reading then. There is an abundance of evidence, that is why I choose not to list them. As you could just as easily go to your local library, and pick up some books on biology. as well as logic, moral relativism, philosophy, science, etc.

Do some googeling.

I have. Many times over. Hence my statement. Unlike many others, I DO use google.

So you require scientific evidence?
That would be difficult, as God is not a physical being. That would be like expecting to learn the history of ancient babylon in a P.E. class.

Science relies on logic. It can be said that philosophy and psychology is a science, neither rely on something being physical.

By that statement, you basically say that belief in God is illogical. I do hope you correct it, as if you agree that it is, I'm simply not replying.

And how does this equate to "evidence of God"?

It doesn't. Since there isn't any. Or evidence for bible validity. That was the point.

We're talking about the evidence of God, through learning history here.

Are you referring to an IDEA of a god, based on the bible, or are you referring to the bible specifically? The Christian bible, of course. Be direct in your answer.

Ah! Intelligence, design, purposeful application, symetry, coordination, understanding......

?:bugeye:

 

[NDS]

The only possible evidence of the existence of a God:

1) Physical Miracles - Supernatural or unnatural events which could clearly not occur unless a God caused it

2) Visual Physical Manifestations - God appearing in the form of a physical substance (Pillar of a cloud, bright lights, etc.)

3) Awake Spiritual Visions - Visions of an "angel" or "God" while awake and fully conscious. The problem with this is that there is little way to verify whether it was a mental hallucination or a genuine spiritual vision. One way to verify its genuinity is if multiple people see the same vision.

4) Dreams - This one gets tricky for the same reasons as mentioned for No. 3.

As far as I'm concerned, these are the only 4 possible sources of evidence for a spiritual world, and for a God.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

Evidence of the existence of a God:

1) Physical Miracles - Supernatural or unnatural events which could clearly not occur unless a God caused it

1) These events are never proven to happen. And in most cases, they're debunked (either by Myth Busters or someone else). Documentation of "Miracles" isn't credible either. If you claim it is, you have to accept that other cultures and religions can perform miracles by way of their God(s).

You would also have to accept occult accounts of supernatural capabilities. These are very often not the work of God(S), either.

2) Visual Manifestations - Pillar of a cloud, bright lights, etc.

2) More accurately described as: A sand storm. Aside from this, it was a Pillar Of Fire, not a cloud. Aside from this, these are also non-credible instances. Nor have any evidence other than circular-fallacy evidence.

3) Awake Visions - Visions of an "angel" or "God" while awake and fully conscious. The problem with this is that there is little way to verify if it was a mental hallucination or a genuine spiritual vision. One way to verify its genuinity is if multiple people sees the same vision.

3) This cannot be verified in any manner. If it were, you'd have to concede that precognitive experiences happen worldwide, without anything to do with your God. In fact, many have to do with other Gods.

4) Dreams - This one gets tricky for the same reasons as mentioned for No. 3.

4) The fact you always dream about what you thought before you fell asleep? Yeah. It's unprovable.

As far as I'm concerned, these are the only 4 possible sources of evidence for a spiritual world, and for a God.

As I've suggested, there are 0. While I may seem a bit arrogant in that suggestion, my rebuts to your statements carry with them evidence. Which you may google regarding dreams/etc.

I especially invite you to wikipedia: Circular Logic

 

[NDS]

1) These events are never proven to happen. And in most cases, they're debunked (either by Myth Busters or someone else). Documentation of "Miracles" isn't credible either. If you claim it is, you have to accept that other cultures and religions can perform miracles by way of their God(s).

You would also have to accept occult accounts of supernatural capabilities. These are very often not the work of God(S), either.

I'm not claiming that true miracles (healing blind, water to wine, walk on water, etc.) have ever happened. However, I am claiming that they are one of the only ways to prove a God's existence.

2) More accurately described as: A sand storm. Aside from this, it was a Pillar Of Fire, not a cloud. Aside from this, these are also non-credible instances. Nor have any evidence other than circular-fallacy evidence.

Exodus 13:21
21 And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so as to go by day and night.

You'll notice that "it" actually was both a pillar of cloud and of fire. And I'm not sure how a "sand storm" could be related to a "pillar" of anything. The term pillar seems to allude to a contained physical presence which has a form, unlike a random sand storm.

3) This cannot be verified in any manner. If it were, you'd have to concede that precognitive experiences happen worldwide, without anything to do with your God. In fact, many have to do with other Gods.

You can't be 100% certain that it cannot be verified in any manner. If God talked to you in a vision or dream and told you something was true, this would represent one way.

I especially invite you to wikipedia: Circular Logic

I'm not too sure that circular logic has anything to do with I posted. Evidence is evidence. There is nothing circular about it. If I was born blind, and a man came up to me, touched my eyes, and made me see for the first time, that would constitute as direct perception, and hence extremely good evidence that a God exists (since no man could perform that miracle naturally).

 

[Jeremyhfht]

I'm not claiming that true miracles (healing blind, water to wine, walk on water, etc.) have ever happened. However, I am claiming that they are one of the only ways to prove a God's existence.

I see. My refutation still applies then. As they're no longer an accurate way to prove God's existence.

You'll notice that "it" actually was both a pillar of cloud and of fire. And I'm not sure how a "sand storm" could be related to a "pillar" of anything. The term pillar seems to allude to a contained physical presence which has a form, unlike a random sand storm.

Woah. Totally my mistake. Very sorry.

As for the stand storm, I do believe I meant a dust cloud. Or is it a sand tornado? Anyway...

If you saw the show: Exodus: Decoded on the history channel, you'll know that a exodus did take place.
The pillar of "cloud" thing could have happened in a way, except they were increasingly lucky by a sand storm, or tornado, which held the Pharaoh's armies at bay. I'm merely speculating, though.

You can't be 100% certain that it cannot be verified in any manner. If God talked to you in a vision or dream and told you something was true, this would represent one way.

This is an assumption. Precognitions in cultures are known to be representations. And, if a spirit needed to warn you, it would use an object you would most listen to. This might be God.

Therefore, it's still not provable. Only by assumption.

I'm not too sure that circular logic has anything to do with I posted.Evidence is evidence. There is nothing circular about it.

Nay, I was referring to using the bible to prove the bible. Biblical events cannot be proven with the bible for this reason. It had to do with you referencing biblical events, but since you clarified above, I'll ignore it.

If I was born blind, and a man came up to me, touched my eyes, and made me see for the first time, that would constitute as direct perception, and hence extremely good evidence that a God exists (since no man could perform that miracle naturally).

It can also mean that humans are capable of "miracles", or acts of power.

This is where the Occult comes into play. For ever assumption that you can do things by god's hand, I can also say that Occultists can do the same thing without him.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jeremyhfht,

Let me explain to you the logical fallacy of omniscience (not to be confused with the "Omniscience Fallacy).

If god knows everything, he then knows who will live, die, how they will, etc. The entire waiting period between the "end time" and such is pointless, as he already knows the result.

Every living thing is going to die. Not a difficult feat for anyone to know.

Similarly, he is solely to blame for original sin, as he knew it would happen. He is also to blame for Satan's actions.

Eve sinned out of her own free will, if you read genesis.
Satan took it upon himself to disobey God, if you read the Qur'an.

This is exactly how Fate works. If you know everything, you also know the results, so everything is "Fated" to happen. You can't be wrong.

This only makes sense if you have an idea of "everything".

Omnipotence: If he's all powerful, he wouldn't require sacrifices and the like. Or anything else in the bible where God required something to be done. I could list other things, but omniscience covers a good deal.

What makes you think it is for his requirement?
If people kill animals for food, then that is a sin, as such practices does nothing to enhance spiritual realisation. So if they are required to sacrifice the animal, to God, for consumption;
a) it becomes beneficial, to the soul of the anmimal being sacrificed.
b) to the priests, for following the the commandments.
c) and to the rest of society.

Prove that it's a poor opinion. The bible both defies logic, moral relativism (ergo, LOGIC), science (also logic), as well as philosophy (abstract logic).

There are people who have a good understanding of these disciplines, whose opinions are opposite to yours. So why is your opinion right?

It has no realistic basis, and it's historical basis is shoddy at best. If I knew it was allowed, I'd direct you to another forum where I made many fact-filled posts on the subject of biblical historical accuracy. assuming they exist anymore (old forum).

Others will write what they see (as sure as you) as "fact-filled posts on the subject of biblical historical accuracy". So what?

You apparently have no time to do some reading then. There is an abundance of evidence, that is why I choose not to list them.

I do have time to read, but I see no point in chasing up your old arguments, when it would be far easier for you to give one example.

Science relies on logic. It can be said that philosophy and psychology is a science, neither rely on something being physical.

Psycology is the study of the human mind manifesting through human behaviour. Philosophy is is the use of reason and argument in an effort to seek truth and knowledge of reality. Both these disciplines rely on humans in one way or another.

By that statement, you basically say that belief in God is illogical. I do hope you correct it, as if you agree that it is, I'm simply not replying.

I think it is both illogical, and logical.

Are you referring to an IDEA of a god, based on the bible, or are you referring to the bible specifically? The Christian bible, of course. Be direct in your answer.

You're the one who made the statement.

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

Eve sinned out of her own free will, if you read genesis

My dog chewed up a bible of its own free will. With absolutely no understanding of the moral implications of such behaviour, me cursing him and all his future offspring is simply vicious.

If you read genesis you'll see that Eve had no understanding of good or evil. Was it wrong or evil to eat the fruit? Was god "good"? Was satan "evil"? There's no valid way they she could have made the distinction and thus your statement is inherently worthless.

My dog sits there completely unaware of the moral implications of it's actions and unaware that it's testicles are dangling for all the world to see.. Adam and Eve were the same. Would you curse my dog and all his future offspring because of that action? Hmmmm...

 

[Jan Ardena]

NDS,

The only possible evidence of the existence of a God:

1) Physical Miracles - Supernatural or unnatural events which could clearly not occur unless a God caused it

a) "Clearly not occur(ing)", indicates knowedge of everything there is to know about material nature, which nobody has.
b) If it was a physical manifestation, it could be argued that there must be a natural cause, but science doesn't YET have the answer. Much like abiogenesis.

2) Visual Physical Manifestations - God appearing in the form of a physical substance (Pillar of a cloud, bright lights, etc.)

3) Awake Spiritual Visions - Visions of an "angel" or "God" while awake and fully conscious. The problem with this is that there is little way to verify whether it was a mental hallucination or a genuine spiritual vision. One way to verify its genuinity is if multiple people see the same vision.

4) Dreams - This one gets tricky for the same reasons as mentioned for No. 3.

Same as above.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

If you read genesis you'll see that Eve had no understanding of good or evil.

But she understood that she was disobeying the advise of her creator.

Was it wrong or evil to eat the fruit?

She was advised not to, by her creator.

Was god "good"?

As always.

Was satan "evil"?

If someone knowingly decieves you, how would you describe that person?

There's no valid way they she could have made the distinction and thus your statement is inherently worthless.

She could have obeyed her creator.

My dog sits there completely unaware of the moral implications of it's actions and unaware that it's testicles are dangling for all the world to see..

Well, he is a dog after all.

Adam and Eve were the same. Would you curse my dog and all his future offspring because of that action? Hmmmm...

Adam and Eve were human beings, not dogs. You are assuming that they had no knowledge of anything, yet you know Adam is directly from God, and Eve from Adam. How is it that you come to that conclusion?

Jan.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

Jeremyhfht,

Every living thing is going to die. Not a difficult feat for anyone to know.

Avoidance of my point.

Eve sinned out of her own free will, if you read genesis.

Free will cannot exist if someone knows everything. Omniscience implies Fate, since a being knows what will happen before it happens. This is fate. Not Free Will.

Satan took it upon himself to disobey God, if you read the Qur'an.

See above.

This only makes sense if you have an idea of "everything".

Omniscience.

What makes you think it is for his requirement?
If people kill animals for food, then that is a sin, as such practices does nothing to enhance spiritual realisation. So if they are required to sacrifice the animal, to God, for consumption;
a) it becomes beneficial, to the soul of the anmimal being sacrificed.
b) to the priests, for following the the commandments.
c) and to the rest of society.

Quite simple: God would not need this to instill it into them anyway. He senselessly let his own creations become destroyed, despite having the power to not require to do so.

Similarly, he could have acted in every point in the bible: Noah's flood (avert it), Pharoh and the exodus (give him the wisdom), killing millions of innocent people, etc.

There are people who have a good understanding of these disciplines, whose opinions are opposite to yours. So why is your opinion right?

Heh, the people you claim have a "good understanding" of those disciplines tend to, in reality, not have that great of one at all. I've had the "pleasure" of meeting one such person. I for one think the money wasted on him so he could go to college is a sad part of it.

But this begs the fallacy you've just made. Appeal to Authority. Ones Status does not make one right, the content of the argument is what matters.

Try to not make fallacies. I left the other few forums because of the rampant logical fallacies included.

Others will write what they see (as sure as you) as "fact-filled posts on the subject of biblical historical accuracy". So what?

I've read similar posts, and refuted them all. I've never read one that had actual accuracy behind it.

I do have time to read, but I see no point in chasing up your old arguments, when it would be far easier for you to give one example.

Quite easy, I'm lazy (and also have Ganglion Cysts. It's hurting to type even now.), and if you want it you can find it. Perhaps learn some other things in the process.

Psycology is the study of the human mind manifesting through human behaviour. Philosophy is is the use of reason and argument in an effort to seek truth and knowledge of reality. Both these disciplines rely on humans in one way or another.

Yes, and it could also be said that the idea of God relies on humans one way or another.

I think it is both illogical, and logical.

Clarify.

You're the one who made the statement.

Jan.

:bugeye: ...nevermind.

 

[NDS]

NDS,



a) "Clearly not occur(ing)", indicates knowedge of everything there is to know about material nature, which nobody has.
b) If it was a physical manifestation, it could be argued that there must be a natural cause, but science doesn't YET have the answer. Much like abiogenesis.



Same as above.

Jan.

It seems that everyone has a certain level of openness to belief in God, or belief in a specific God. For someone who is desparately searching for a sign from God, or visible proof, then a vision, dream, or basic physical manifestation (cloud pillar, fire pillar, etc.) with suffice as undeniable proof of God. Sometimes, if they are extremely desparate, then a simple string of good luck will do.

For people who are extremely skeptical about God's existence, something extraordinary must occur to prove God's existence. Maybe the clouds could all bunch up and form the phrase "God Loves You" in the sky. Or maybe someone who was paralyzed their entire life from the waist down could suddenly walk again after the appearence of a bright light. Or maybe a skeptic could witness a "spirit" hover over a man born blind and then the man could suddenly see.

There are many things that could possibly occur which would convince even the biggest skeptics.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jeremyhfht,

Avoidance of my point.

How so?

Free will cannot exist if someone knows everything. Omniscience implies Fate, since a being knows what will happen before it happens. This is fate. Not Free Will.

God knows what will happen because he knows the outcome of every choice we make, as we make them, not that we are automated beings.

This is exactly how Fate works. If you know everything, you also know the results, so everything is "Fated" to happen. You can't be wrong.

This only makes sense if you have an idea of "everything".

Omniscience.

I meant if YOU, Jeremy, had an idea of "everything".

Quite simple: God would not need this to instill it into them anyway. He senselessly let his own creations become destroyed, despite having the power to not require to do so.

The creation ultimately destroyed themselves, due to the choices they made. They had free-will, just like we have free-will.

Similarly, he could have acted in every point in the bible: Noah's flood (avert it), Pharoh and the exodus (give him the wisdom), killing millions of innocent people, etc.

That would be a contradiction of free-will.

Heh, the people you claim have a "good understanding" of those disciplines tend to, in reality, not have that great of one at all. I've had the "pleasure" of meeting one such person. I for one think the money wasted on him so he could go to college is a sad part of it.

You act like an arrogant fool. I sincerely hope this is not the extent of your everyday character.

But this begs the fallacy you've just made. Appeal to Authority. Ones Status does not make one right, the content of the argument is what matters.

If i'd have stated that God exists because so and so, says so, then you may have a point. My statement only showed that personal opinions, are just that, personal opinions, not articles of fact.

Try to not make fallacies. I left the other few forums because of the rampant logical fallacies included.

Maybe you should get a grip on what logical fallacies actually are, before you make such demands.

I've read similar posts, and refuted them all. I've never read one that had actual accuracy behind it.

Oh! You must be right then.

Quite easy, I'm lazy (and also have Ganglion Cysts. It's hurting to type even now.), and if you want it you can find it. Perhaps learn some other things in the process.

Its ok Jeremy, as I doubt you, or anyone, can deliver the goods for such a request.

Yes, and it could also be said that the idea of God relies on humans one way or another.

Ideas in general rely on humans, but God is not an idea, not from the description put foreward in any scripture.

Clarify.

To believe the workings of nature is designed is, imo, logical.
To have faith, intially, in God, whom you cannot fathom with your material senses, is, imo, illogical. Until of course understanding kicks in.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

NDS,

It seems that everyone has a certain level of openness to belief in God, or belief in a specific God.

That means they are prepared to accept God, on their terms, meaning they are actually closed.
What do you mean by "belief in a specific God"?

For someone who is desparately searching for a sign from God, or visible proof, then a vision, dream, or basic physical manifestation (cloud pillar, fire pillar, etc.) with suffice as undeniable proof of God. Sometimes, if they are extremely desparate, then a simple string of good luck will do.

If they are really desparate, they would read the scripture to gain more understanding.

For people who are extremely skeptical about God's existence, something extraordinary must occur to prove God's existence. Maybe the clouds could all bunch up and form the phrase "God Loves You" in the sky.

Extreme skeptics are not interested in God's existence, their role is to keep down the idea of God.

Or maybe someone who was paralyzed their entire life from the waist down could suddenly walk again after the appearence of a bright light. Or maybe a skeptic could witness a "spirit" hover over a man born blind and then the man could suddenly see.

Makes no difference to extreme skeptics, they are not interested in God at best, and wish to prove his non-existence at worst.

There are many things that could possibly occur which would convince even the biggest skeptics.

They only thing that can convince skeptics is a change of heart, regardless of so-called acts of proof.

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

But she understood that she was disobeying the advise of her creator.

So tell me, with no understanding of good or evil, is disobeying a good or bad thing?

She was advised not to, by her creator.

And advised to by the snake. With no understanding of good or evil how exactly can she distinguish which of them she should be listening to (i.e which of them is good/which is evil)?

If someone knowingly decieves you, how would you describe that person?

A) My description would come from the knowledge of good and evil that I have. With no such knowledge not only would I not know what deception was, but I wouldn't care one way or the other given that I wouldn't know deception was a bad thing.

B) 'No, (1) you will not die. god knows in fact that the day you eat of it (2)your eyes will be opened and (3) you will be like gods, knowing good from evil'

1) They did not die upon eating the fruit. This clearly does not and cannot mean not die ever because they had not eaten from the fruit of the tree of life and thus were going to eventually die one way or the other, (unless they ate from that tree but got didn't let them).

2) Gen 3:7 'Then the eyes of both of them were opened'. This directly proves that what the snake said in (2) was true, not a deception.

3) Gen 3:22 god said 'Now that man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil'. This directly proves that what the snake said in (3) was true, not a deception.

There was no deception from the snake, he told it how it was - and because of his actions you are now able to determine what is right and wrong and are even aware when your naked.

She could have obeyed her creator.

Could have. There is still no valid way she could have made the distinction.

Well, he is a dog after all.

Certainly, and that is how we would be now if it wasn't for the actions of the snake/eve.

Adam and Eve were human beings, not dogs. You are assuming that they had no knowledge of anything, yet you know Adam is directly from God, and Eve from Adam. How is it that you come to that conclusion?

I am not assuming anything. The bible clearly states that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil - which is attested to by gods very own words. Without any knowledge of good or evil there is no way they can make an educated decision on whether to listen to satan or to god. With no knowledge of good or evil you wouldn't be able to make a distinction either.