God does exist...

by czarofmischief 348 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  rem

  Love Truth,
  
  >>Again, that?s not the case- it was not irrelevant, and there are others discussing and defining their faith per the definitions I posted.
  
  The problem here is that you are confusing how "others" define faith with how atheists are defining faith in this discussion. It matters not one jot if LT defines faith for him as #4 if all of the atheists in the discussion are specifically defining it as #2. Bringing in other definitions to apply to atheists is irrelevant since no atheist has objected to the use of the other definitions of "faith" being applied to them.
  
  To say that an atheist has "faith" in those other senses of the word is misleading because we (as atheists) were specifically discussing belief without evidence. This just muddies the water of the discussion since now you have made the definition of "faith" ambiguous to pigeon hole the conversation for your benefit, hence the red herring.
  
  Ask any atheist on the board what definition of faith they are referring to. It's *their* definition that matters in this discussion, not yours, since you are the one making the claim that they have faith. The only definition of faith that is objectionable to a skeptic/atheist is #2, so there is no point in dragging in extra definitions.
  
  Hope that made sense! :)
  
  Also, I'm wondering if you have ever read David Hume? His treatese on Natural Religion is an eye opener on the philisophical difficulties of positing a creator based only on the physical evidence of creation. (I realize you referred to answered prayers too, but to me that is second-hand revelation (refer to Thomas Paine). Also, is the fact that I have no evidence of god answering my prayers evidence against his existence?)
  
  rem
• 

  LittleToe

  REM:
  Just one point of qualification. Since it is the believers who are stating that they have "faith", it is for them to define what they meaan by that, not the atheists.

  Just my 2p - as you were...
• 

  donkey

  Since it is the believers who are stating that they have "faith", it is for them to define what they meaan by that, not the atheists.

  In other words: my imaginary friend is real and you cannot see him without the 3d specs and I am not going to tell you what 3d specs to use...
• 

  patio34

  Little Toe,

  REM:Just one point of qualification. Since it is the believers who are stating that they have "faith", it is for them to define what they meaan by that, not the atheists.

  Except when the believers say that the evolutionist/atheists need as much "faith." Then it's not for them to define.

  Pat
• 

  Love_Truth

  To rem and donkey,

  No, belief in Creation is as supportable as belief in evolution, using the same evidence, but coming to different conclusions. Evidence that God exists does rest on the seen, as wel as the unseen.
  

  Farkel, acsot, and dansk,

  Yes, I too agree that asking someone to prove God doesn't exist is off the wall. You'll find that I've not done so.

  pat and rem,

  I agree with excluding the statement "atheists have faith" if we're talking solely about definition #2. However, in the common usage of the word "faith", atheists do indeed put faith in something(s) else, other than God or gods.

  LittleToe,

  Thanks for chiming in- this thread is about why we (theists) believe God exists, so being constrained by unbeliever's definitions is as off the wall as atheists being asked to prove he doesn't exist using believer's definitions.

  Love_Truth- Carry on then.
• 

  Abaddon

  Good afternoon Loves_Truth

  IMO, you have said enough in this thread and in others for me to come to my conclusion that you will always find a way to explain away God, even if he appeared to you. You said as much yourself with your reference to hallucination. The cynic and skeptic in you requires nothing short of a 2 x 4 upside your head, just to get your attention, Afterwards, given time to heal, you would convince yourself it never happened, that it was a figment of your imagination

  Next time I use humour in answering a question I will PM you a personalised explanation to you don?t make yourself look silly by taking a humorous aside seriously. Pity you shy away from addressing what I really said with regards to what would be satisfactory evidence, but if you did that you?d have to accept my criteria for determining existence was quite reasonable and in line with the evidence I would accept as proving the existence of other things. Of course, I can equally say that you are mentally weak, and are kidding yourself about god as you can?t accept you will probably cease to exist at some point and need fairy-tales to stop you being scared. I can equally say that your insistence on YOU being right (despite your particular creed being indistinguishable in demonstrable rightness from the rest of them) is a product of you desperately needing to feel important.

  I?d far rather we dealt with issues than platitudes, but suit yourself, religion?s strength is in platitudes and I suppose it is fair you play to your strengths.

  So, maybe for your sake, God will grant your wish and present you with a ?flaming daffodil?, lol, to get your attention. I can only hope you wouldn?t explain it away as a figment of your imagination. Remember, God might not allow the video recorder, as it requires faith to please him well.

  YOU say god requires faith. You use the Bible as evidence of this, but the Bible?s an inaccurate book see below), so such opinions are as likely to be based on man-made fantasies as the account of Creation and the Flood are obviously man-made fantasies. Now, if you say god wouldn?t allow documentary evidence of his existence, you neatly plop yourself into the same group as UFO nuts, who never have anything that is indisputable proof of what they say, but expect you to accept it anyway..

  I assert there is no proof (of an objective nature) that god exists. This is a pretty widely accepted fact.

  And I assert there is proof of an objective nature (Creation and physical laws) that God exists. This is also a pretty widely accepted fact.

  That is a presuppositionalsitic interpretation that ?Creation and physical laws? are proof of god, a sort of ?I exist therefore god does?. You have no evidence that these things are a result of a creative act; even the Biblical account departs from the physical evidence. I can show you lots of evidence that support naturalistic processes.

  Belief in Creation, IMO, is more provable based on observable evidence than evolution theory is. However, even if the gaping holes in evolution theory were filed in, it would not negate Creation- it would simply explain a different view of how creation was accomplished, not disprove Creation.

  The first sentence is an opinion, and your opinions are as likely to be based upon wishful thinking as facts, thus my lack of respect for them. Your second sentence reveals your ignorance of evolutionary theory, and you finish that sentence of with an admission that even if we had a perfect evolutionary record you would still believe in god anyway, even if there were no evidence. But I already know that...

  You seem to assert you have the correct understanding of the Bible and that there is only one way to god and those not following that way will suffer adverse consequences. Seems the Universe, in your head, is whirling around you.

  Wrong. I assert what I believe to be the ?correct? understanding of the Bible. Should I not believe what I assert? I have not said there is only one way to God- in fact, in recent thread started by Sirona, I stated that I believe that following Jesus Christ?s teachings is more likely to provide salvation than not following Him. Again, I believe it is ultimately up to God to judge each of us as individuals.

  Take your blinkers off, take a step back. What about non-Christians? Do you just ignore the bits of an argument you can?t answer satisfactorily or are you actually so closed minded you don?t understand the arguments?

  God still is the best explanation we have. (We obviously define ?we? differently). There are no ?better ones? just different ones, all requiring ? an impossible amount of explaining, rather than actually being a solution?.

  Obviously 'we' disagree. I can show theories that explain how the Univese came to be, and how it developed from that point. Many of these are experimentally verifiable or well attested to in nature. You, on the other hand, waze a historically inaccurate book about, say its god's word, and say that your interpretation is the right one, without being ablke to prove it. In what distorted Universe do those two stances qualify as equally valid explanations? That is a rhetorical question, shall I post the definition for that too?

  That?s not a rhetorical question, as it begs an answer. The same theories you can show (or other generally accepted ones) that are verifiable and well attested to can be used to verify Creation, which in turn, supports, nay, proves, the existence of God,. That you choose to believe the evolution theory conclusion is your prerogative; that I choose to believe the Creation conclusion, based on the same evidence, is my prerogative.

  Yup, with the difference mine is based on what?s there and yours is based on something there is no proof of being there, other than presuppositionalistic assertions you charmingly regard as ?proof?. We can go round this as many times as you want, but god is not as provable as hydrogen, and is not needed to understand why the way things are. God is a valueless-added-tax on human credulity. And of course, you have the lethal weakness of destroying all your arguments against a naturalistic origin of the Universe if you try to explain how god came to be.

  Again, I must remind you that the two, in any case, are not mutually exclusive.

  Ah, but you?ll notice I?ve never said they weren?t. I have asserted there is no objective proof of god, and your presuppositions aside, there isn?t. I have said the Bible is inaccurate. It is (see below). I concede there may be a creator, but contend there is no clear communication from god to man, and definitely no communication which could be described as the revelation of a single ?truth? required for ?salvation?. I also contend that all creation myths are just that, myths, and that all the evidence points to all development after the initial Big Bang being by naturalistic processes? which means Adam and Eve, as with the rest of the account of Creation, are just mythic. Given the above, I find it most likely there is no creator, or that, despite our conceits to the contrary, there is a creator but there?s no revealed one-way.

  Next, you talk about a theoretically ?historically inaccurate book?, the Bible. It has not been proven historically inaccurate.

  I can show you the evidence showing that the Flood account (that?s meant to be history) is inaccurate, as is the Creation account. Also, as was interestingly revealed by Leoleia?s thread on the Nephilim, a race of super-natural hybrids that were meant to have been destroyed by the Flood were alive and well in the Levant at the time of the first Israelite invasion of the area, at least according to the Bible.

  The general theory of evolution is disputed. Millions dispute it. ?The Devil is in the details?, and those details are at the heart of the disputes. There is no proof of one species becoming another; the fossil record does not show incremental, slow change in organisms of any type. Rather, the fossil record shows a sudden jump from one genetic organism, species, or type, to an appreciably different one.

  I?ve had enough discussions with people who know zip about evolution not to want to waste my time with any more, and your answer above shows that you could be one of the many lost little sheep who base their ?knowledge? of evolution on the assurances of the biased and unqualified that evolution is wrong. I?m happy to discuss evolution with you, but I insist you take a test first. It?ll have twenty questions, if you get over 70% you know enough to have a discussion about it. If you know less than that I can suggest resources that will help you.

  there is total agreement about all aspects of physics we can test experimentaly, and wide argeement about the theory that we can't test. No one's saying the Univese flew out of someone's arse. Dating is an increasingly precise art... archaeology is more open to disputation by its very nature, but the fact is that theists are held to a different standard as their experimental foundation is non-existant, so your above comparison is a bad one.

  Wrong again. Quark theory is one area, as an example, where there is much disagreement.

  Read what I said; ?there is total agreement about all aspects of physics we can test experimentally?. Are you saying there is dispute about theories that can be verified experimentally?

  The ?Big Bang? theory is yet another. Dating is an increasingly precise art? Not so. There is so much work to be done in that area that any presumption of accuracy, as to whether it is accurate, not accurate, whether it?s getting more or less accurate, is all subject to much speculation. That is a science truly in it?s infancy. Theists ?experimental foundation? is the same as atheists. I look at the same studies and research that is available to everyone else.

  I look forward to you providing examples, as if the examples of dating inaccuracy are the ones I think you?ll provide it?ll be great fun for me and embarrassing for you.

  And ?some nutter? kills both ?in the name of God? and for many other reasons.

  Yours is a specious argument if there ever were one.

  If it's so specious, how come you are incapable of demonstrating how it is not fair, sound or true? Your assertions are worthless, back them up.

  I did so, perhaps you missed it. Analyzing violent crime, the majority of those were not perpetrated by someone who claimed ?God made him do it?. Google it yourself. Or was your point something other than that?

  My point was such a status quo (due to lack of clarity of the supposed divi9ne message) streaches the credulity of what a benevolent god would allow to come to pass.

  The ones I assert are irrefutable (like 'no objective proof of god') are irrefutable.

  I?ve already refuted that statement numerous times in this post (above).

  No you said, in effect, god exists because there are pretty trees. You cling to the con ciet you have equivalent standards of evidence, when you don?t.

  The Global flood has been disputed, true, but it has not been dis-proven. Numerous cultures tell of a Global Flood, and the geological evidence of a Great flood is overwhelming.

  Go on, cite your evidence. Start a thread and show people the truth. If it is overwhelming it shouldn?t take long to crush me under the overwhelming evidence.

  And you still haven't answered, how come if you are right,
  ? why is your arguement indestinguishable from many religionists now and before you?

  OK. My argument is very distinguishable from others, perhaps you?re jumping to your desired conclusion- open your eyes and mind. I am not a ?religionist?, unless you consider my individually following the teachings of Jesus Christ as being one. I think of myself as a non-denomonational Christian.

  I bolded if you are right; what I am saying is that tjhere is no clear evidence that you as an individual have found the path of truth that has eluded humanity up to now as you use the same excuses and sorry ?arguments? as other people who believe paranormal entities have had a direct involvement with the history of Earth.

  ? why god is something it is even possible to have an arguement about the existance of and how this status quo is fair or logical if god is benevolent?

  
  Big question, there Abaddon. Here?s my answer in a nutshell (I?m sure you?ll ?require? more, but this post is rather lengthy already). The first part?s easy- it?s possible to argue about the existence of God because there are numerous conclusions that can be drawn from the observable evidence. Now, on to the tough part- the ?status quo? is fair as explained in the Bible.

  Which you presuppose to be the one guide, QED. You?ve yet to prove why the Bible?s any better than the Quaran, for example, and yet, of those two, only one can be right if you?re literalist. Thus an explanation based on the Bible is just an explanation in your opinion.

  Ah, but there is evidence, just as I pointed out earlier. Same evidence, yet different conclusions.

  We?ll discuss this if you try and prove you claims made above about the Flood. I can?t wait.

  It?s not ?rather obvious?, Abaddon. I (and many others) don?t take the ?Creative Days? literally, as a 24-hour period (how could anyone, in light of the evidence?), rather, each Creative Day was an undetermined period of time. I see absolutely nothing ?mythical? in the Genesis account of Creation.

  If you?ll take my evolution test we?ll discuss this at length.

  Oh, come on Loves_Truth, you know I'm utterly unbothered by your behaviour, I don't respect your opinions enough to care about them, as they are poorly founded in other areas and are no less likely to be equally poorly founded when it applies to me. Insult away, your philosophy of ashes is really not that scarey.

  Clearly not the case, Abaddon- you?re in denial.

  And you?re in deamazon?

  I?ll be the first here to try and keep things civil between us.

  As you started off with the attitude, you starting to stow the attitude is fair, and in this instance I will be glad to follow your example.

  You wouldn?t be having these lengthy conversations with me if you didn?t care about the substance of my arguments or opinions, Abaddon. Be honest, you enjoy a good debate as much as I do.

  I like debate. Let?s have one about the Flood, as I?d love that, and if you want to discuss evolution, let me know and I?ll make you a test.

  Anyhow, as you observed in another thread, I can say the same of you- I?m sure we?d be like old pals over a beer or spliff, or better yet, both. I hold no animosity or resentment towards anyone here. There are some things, like facial expression, body language, vocal inflections, laughter, etc, that are challenging to express and observe readily in such a forum as this

  Agreed, I often point this out in other threads, that face-to-face the biggest opinions would get on well as people with big opinions like the same in others.

  Bottom line, Abaddon- you?re not so bad for an atheist.

  And there are far more unpleasant god-botherers!

  Love_truth- extends hand, not for handshake, but to pass the ?peace pipe?.

  Well, it is more-or-less time to skin up?.
• 

  SixofNine

  Dating is an increasingly precise art? Not so.

  I think you'll find Maverick and Nosferatu disagreeing with you on this.

  ? why god is something it is even possible to have an arguement about the existance of and how this status quo is fair or logical if god is benevolent?

  ........The first part?s easy- it?s possible to argue about the existence of God because there are numerous conclusions that can be drawn from the observable evidence.

  Yes, but an all powerful benevolent and loving god is not one of them, unfortunately.
• 

  LittleToe

  Donkey:
  I agree. However, so often believers charge into a conversation without realising that those they are debating with are using different definitions. It makesh the whole thing very frustrating, as evidenced in this thread.

  Your illustration is a good one, as (IMHO) we all need to fashion our own 3D specs, and some have not done that, hence are not seeing the same object.
  Worse than that - each pair of specs has it's own quirks, so the object looks slightly different.

  Pat:
  Agreed, but then, perhaps they are actually trying to talk about wearing a smilar pair of spectacles. Unfortunately you can't share like that, it would seem.

  Love_Truth:
  For gawdsake, don't get Abaddon talking about the Flood!!!!
  Try weedling out of him what he thinks the weak points in Evolution are, instead
• 

  wasasister

  There is a God. And he is personal. He is in your face. He has a definite personality. He is filled with love, but he tends to withdraw from individuals who are closed. You do not need Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed to talk to him. How can I prove this assertion? Prayer.

  It is the response to prayer that clearly defines God as being real to me. Here's some of the logic behind my thinking....

  This is the "proof" which began a very interesting thread. The arguments have been lengthy and detailed on both sides. I would at this point, however, disprove the existance of God by the same line of logic and reason given above:

  There is no God because my prayers were not answered. No Theist ever believed more than I did during the vast majority of my life. I absolutely knew not only that god existed, but that He dealt personally in my life. I understood His nature and what my place was in his plan.

  Thus, when I sincerely prayed for help with the most serious problems in my life, I expected an answer. I acted in harmony with my prayers, working with all my "God-given" gifts. Things got worse. My mother, the most righteous, saintly person I have ever known, died in agony. I asked her to call out to God to help her endure the pain. She looked at me, completely lucid and said, "Jehovah has left me. He will not listen to me."

  My husband lost his job and our medical insurance. My daughter immediately became ill with mysterious symptoms, requiring numerous costly tests. Our bills mounted and we came close to filing bankruptcy. But, instead of sticking our creditors with our mistakes, I took two jobs and paid off our debts. (Do you realize how many small business owners can't give raises or benefits to their employees because so many people file for bankruptcy? Does God care about them?)

  I continued to respectfully petition God in fervent prayer, year after year. I devoted my life to serving God, as best as I understood Him. No answer came.

  Eventually, I stopped asking and started helping myself. I worked long hours, studied, improved my job skills, increased my income, became debt free.

  I am now blissfully happy and agnostic. I am at peace with myself, with my fellow man, and with the universe. If there is a personal deity, I think he'd be OK with that. If He expects me to follow a certain dogma on pain of death, then I want nothing to do with Him.

  Someone asked earlier if there were any athiests as happy as those who believe in a god. I'm one of them. My life is many times better than it was when I was a devoted follower of an invisible Father. I know that what I do now matters because my life is not a temporary proving ground for the next plane of existance. I don't segregate people into catagories of those who believe like I do, and those who don't. I understand I must work along with my fellow humans to preserve the planet, because God ain't gonna wipe it all out and start over.

  In every appreciable way, I'm a better person.

  Thus, by my equally valid evidence, God does NOT exist.

  Wasa, the happy athiest
• 

  LittleToe

  Wasa:

  Thus, when I sincerely prayed for help with the most serious problems in my life, I expected an answer

  This only highlights my earlier point.
  Prayers are not about shopping lists, regardless of the depth of need.

  They are about developing a living relationship.
  If you don't have that relationship in the first place, how can you expect to get "stuff"???

  I'm glad you have a fruitful and happy life though