Regarding the Existence or Absence of God

[daniel_m]

1) you continue to suggest I have no evidence for God.

This is not true at all. My substantial gathering of evidence convinces me but not you. But of course it's not really relevant whether You are convinced, because you are not me.

Again, this is my belief obviously. But for you to say that I have no evidence is prima facie incorrect. Better to stand by your vehement disagreement.

no, no, no, no. It doesn't work like that. You have evidence? Then present it, so that we can discuss whether it is legitimate or not - we can decide whether or not your evidence constitutes proof. Proof is either proof for all, or it's not proof at all.


2) you think I "need" to believe in God for some reason because of a personal weakness of some sort.

I am a capable guy with a beautiful wife, a happy life and deep confidence in my abilities. I don't need a crutch or a panacea or a mental drug to brighten my dark days (no pun intended ha ha).

In other words, you have purposely chosen to adopt and maintain a completely irrational and logically indefensible position. Good for you.


p.s. still happy to have a beer w/ ya some day if our paths ever cross

You're on! Let's wait till we're rolling in the big bucks and do it in style!

 

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by axeman
Dark,

You continually claim you have all this evidence but
you fail to present it....again.

I think your earlier post described your position well,
and you are arguing semantics at this point.

You do not seem to have any evidence that you
can show anyone else.

From what I understand, your "evidence" is your personal
experience with god. Not "evidence" at all, merely
experience.

But what we are calling evidence, is something that
can be shown to ANOTHER person and rationally accepted.

Do you have any video tape of your experience with god?
Maybe a tape recording? Some eyewitnesses of your
account maybe? Some physical evidence?
A halo perhaps

Do you think any rational being should accept your
personal experience as enough evidence for
the existence of god?

I could introduce you to thousands of people who have
had "personal" experiences they swear are real
from many many belief systems.

None of this adds any weight to wether or not
this is true in reality in any way. Period.


I have seen NO evidence from you that god exists.
Just claims of personal experience which do not
constitute evidence for anyone outside of yourself.

A rational person can not be expected to
accept this as evidence for a claim so grand.
Its not even close.



peace

axeman

Is that the definition of "evidence?" I'm too lazy to look it up, but does it have to be something you provide to another person? Isn't that what "proof" is?

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by thunderbolt


We are all born of original sin. Man sinned against God in the Garden--Adam and Eve. He commanded them not to eat of a particular apple tree. They had every one of their needs met plus total paradise. They didn't have all of the torn feelings we have. The apple tree was called the tree of life. Satan came as a serpent to deceive them into eating the forbidden fruit. He claimed it would give them knowledge and they would be like God. As soon as they ate from the tree, they were immediately aware of their nakedness, good and evil--That's the original sin. God would later confront them about eating of the forbidden tree. He basically said, life would be harder for them--and every generation thereafter-- from that point on. Such as having to work the soil by the sweat of their brows for food, women experiencing pain during child birth and so forth. Also, after this sin, man became mortal beings. Now you know about original sin. Every one of us is descendents of Eve and are born with original sin. That's why we must be born again through Jesus.

So your god was so offended by this disobediance, he saw fit to not only punish the perpetrators but also their descendants for the rest of eternity. Bit harsh wouldn't you think? I guess you god doesn't go for the notion of "let the punishment fit the crime".

Furthermore, only a few chapters later we have god having to make another judgement: what to do with Cain, who has just slain his brother in cold blood.
You might think, if eating the fruit of a forbidden tree is deserving of eternal punishment, what would happen to someone who willfully takes another's life?
Astonishingly, after some stern words and condemning him to be a "restless wanderer" (which he already was anyway), god goes and bestows a mark of protection on him, so that nobody would dare kill Cain.

Holy Smokes! WHat a grave injustice! The desire for knowledge (eating from the tree of knowledge) gets eternal hardship, cold-blooded murder gets divine insurance. What a cruel joker this god is!

And you give me THIS as christian morality? Disgusting!

"okay, okay" the apologists say, "the book of genesis isn't meant to be take literally".
well, what exactly is the moral we are supposed to learn from all this?
secondly, i wish these guys would go and tell Duane Gish and his buddies at the ICR that genesis wasn't meant to be taken seriously - these guys are using a literal interpretation of it to smuggle their Creatonist "science" into school textbooks.

 

[ElCubano]

Its funny....there are many people who don't believe in GOD, yet pray to him when they find themselves in trouble...Look at all the born again Christians in jail......

 

[axeman]

proof Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.


ev·i·dence Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.




As you can see.... "proof" tends to learn toward
a rational argument of sorts.
Where as "evidence", tends to be a "thing" which
can be shown to someone.


So what im saying is.... these "experiences" dark
claims to have had does not constitute evidence,
since it is not a "thing" which is presentable.

He also has not given us any kind of "proof" for
the existence of god either.


peace

axeman

Originally posted by I Missed Boat


Is that the definition of "evidence?" I'm too lazy to look it up, but does it have to be something you provide to another person? Isn't that what "proof" is?

 

[TriPack]

Originally posted by daniel_m

Compared to christianity - which has been and still is - positively harmful, and deserves all the vicious attacks it gets, the agnostic position is largely a philosophical matter. As such, it is my position that no rational arguments for a supernatural being can possibly be made because, by definition, a supernatural being is beyond the natural universe and thus beyond the only conext of which the concept of understanding is even possible.

If that is true then you, like a cup so full that runs over the sides, there is no room for any more knowledge of deity or religion to be added. By following your conclusion to its logical end, if it is impossible to understand or know deity, then it stands to reason that anyone who says they do must either be a fool or a liar. Does that sum it up?

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by ElCubano
Its funny....there are many people who don't believe in GOD, yet pray to him when they find themselves in trouble...Look at all the born again Christians in jail......

why do you think god was invented cubano?

imagine, you are a warrior in ancient times about to go to battle. wouldn't YOU like to think that your death (very probable) is going to count for something? if someone told you there was a great god in the sky above that would take care of you after you were dead, wouldn't you feel a little better about it?

wouldn't you feel a little better thinking that there was greater reason for rampant plagues and diseases taking away your loved ones?

wouldn't you feel a little better thinking that someone out there in the heavens believes you when you say you are sorry for committing whatever crimes you did, and forgives you?

wouldn't you feel better thinking you know WHY you even exist?
WHY the world is the way it is?

"God" is a great answer to all these things...HOWEVER, that does NOT in any way mean that there really is a god.
And furthermore, history has proven beyond any shadow of doubt that while the idea of god may be comforting in the moment, belief in gods has been the cause of major psychological damage on the personal level, and divisiveness, hatred, mistrust and bloodshed on a global level.

- Big M.

 

[daniel_m]

Originally posted by TriPack


If that is true then you, like a cup so full that runs over the sides, there is no room for any more knowledge of deity or religion to be added. By following your conclusion to its logical end, if it is impossible to understand or know deity, then it stands to reason that anyone who says they do must either be a fool or a liar. Does that sum it up?

As strange as it seems to you, YES!

And if they don't want to be a called a fool, then the onus is most assuredly on their shoulders to provide logical proof for their position. Since none is forthcoming, or even, by the likes of people like you, deemed necessary, belief in god remains utterly irrational.

 

[ElCubano]

Im just saying.....If you don't believe don't come a praying in time of need...thats all....

Can I get a reply anytime soon on the PM???

TheBigMo'FuckCuban

 

[I Missed Boat]

Originally posted by axeman
proof Pronunciation Key (prf)
n.
The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
A statement or argument used in such a validation.


ev·i·dence Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.




As you can see.... "proof" tends to learn toward
a rational argument of sorts.
Where as "evidence", tends to be a "thing" which
can be shown to someone.


So what im saying is.... these "experiences" dark
claims to have had does not constitute evidence,
since it is not a "thing" which is presentable.

He also has not given us any kind of "proof" for
the existence of god either.


peace

axeman

Perhaps it is just me, but in the definitions you provided, it does appear that one can have evidence by way of experience to satisfy one's own belief in something (and it only has to fit one of the definitions of course).