hmike
If you cannot disprove the existence of God, you must allow the possibility that He exists
Meaningless counter; anyone who knows anything knows you cannot prove something that isn't there isn't there as you only have the absence of evidence. This is neither big nor clever, and means nothing, it's just a consequence of things you have cannot find.
I lost my keys. Does the fact I can't find them prove they don't exist?. LOL
My 16' high invisible purple kangaroo friend cannot be disproved; you gonna allow for the possibility of his existence
However, there is meaning in my counter to you; if you cannot prove the existence of a god of any description, you must allow the possibility that no such entity exists.
trevor
Then appreciate the manifestation of the invisible artist or artists.
I refuse to personify decent with modification, even if it does result in clever and beautiful things
Qcmbr
LDS don't belive in spontaneous generation of a God either.
Oh, don't get me started on LDS beliefs of origin.
I know perfectly well that good Mormons once expected they would become like god, of which there are many (Book of Abraham 4:3ff, Doctrine and Covenants," 132:19-20, Gospel Principles," 1981 edition, Page 290.), and start producing spirit progeny which they would put into bodies in a new world, just as human babies were once spirit babies of the God of our world and his wife. But this belief has apparently been new-lighted a bit.
But anyway, we can discuss your beliefs another day.
I'm getting at the illogic nature of saying life cannot spontaneously generate when at the end of the day the FIRST of the chain of LDS Gods had to have an origin, under all laws of logic, even if you don't want to agree. To say therefore, that life cannot spontaneously generate when your beliefs require that the first god or creator or designer spontaneously generated is illogical.
However, I did notice whilst refreshing my memory that the LDS are neutral on the topic of evolution, on pre-Adamic man, the age of the Earth etc. As an aside to you on our normal topic of conversation; if your beliefs allow that human spirits are produced by god on Kolob and then inserted into human bodies here, why don't you believe that pre-speech humans were the results of evolution, and that the birth of speech heralded the first insertion of a spirit baby from Kolob into a non-speaking Homo (not you EvilForce, you can't ever shut up ) and produced modern man, H sapiens with the funky sunken voicebox for speech, and that later God started recorded his dealings with humans. Great thing about Mormon beliefs is that with a back-story like an episode of Star Trek; Next Generation you can actually accept most of the gamut of modern science regarding evo-bio (although North Americanarchaeologyy is not as kind a mistress to your doctrines).
For those who said that God is an invisible God what about those people who saw God
Jesus was seen by many witnesses and he claimed to know God / be God.
Many prophets have seen God and recorded that experience in scripture.
And what about all the other gods people have seen on Earth? Vishnu? Shiva? Zeus? Odin? Is there a desputed claim on Earth by various God's who want to send their spirit babies here? Are they all the same thing being interpreted different ways by different cultures? If god's 'brand penetration' is so low, he needs a decent Advertising Agency and consistent world-wide branding.
You don't have Coca-Allah, Coca-Jesus, Coca-Vishnu and Coca-Buddha. You have Coca-Cola
Just for the arguement - this whole debate is exactly why JS vision was so important to the LDS faith - it clearly defined God as more than our invisible friend.
Just as OTHER visons by OTHER prophets clearly defined god as OTHER things. What makes you think your prophet is right and the rest are wrong? If all prophets are saying the same thing but it gets garbled and LDS is the least garbled, isn't god being shockingly careless with information that can effect the outcome of of people's eternal lives? Where is the justice Qcmbr?
Then you have to add to the mix the millions of people who have had spiritual experiences - now this was my point about what evidences would be allowed - materialists would be inclined to reject anything of a spiritual nature as unprovable. There are however several instances of spiritual experience that have been shared (Toronto Blessing).
Read this; http://www.geocities.com/Bob_Hunter/emma.htm. Then do some research on mass hysteria.
Deputy Dog
We know God exists by the impossibility of the contrary
Oh, okay then.
Seriously, as you are a presuppostionalist you will think this is a persuasive argument. Anyone who is not a presuppostionalist will think you have selected a non-optimal orifice for communication.
Cornelius Van Til
Whooop! Whooop! Presuppostionalist Alert!
People, there is no point in debating with someone who already thinks they are right because, to them, their presuppositions are by definiton right.
They don't need proof. They don't need evidence. All that stuff is for wimps. Presuppostionalists are tougher than that; they are right because they say they are right. How unreasonable of us to ask more! I mean, I am sorry to lampoon, but Jesus F'ing Christ, presuppositionalism give one so much material!!
You may as well hammer nails by head-butting them than have debates with presuppositonalists; you'll achieve slightly more for less pain than debating with someone whose philosphy makes debate useless.
The fact that you want to debate this topic, proves that you know God does exist.
Who was better with a light sabre; Obi Wan Kenobi, Qui-Gon Jinn, or Anakin Skywalker?
The fact that some people want to debate that topic DOES NOT prove people who want to discuss that 'know Jedis exist'.
The only difference between the Bible and Star Wars is that everyone accepts Star Wars is just a story, whereas - despite all the strong indications it is a story (Global Floods, Confused Tongues, Supernatural Plauges, Parting Seas, Burning Pillars, Massive Battles, Live Dead People, Magic Powers) some people still think the Bible is not a just story but is an accurate historical document.
JamesThomas
Can anything outside of consciousness itself, be proven to exist?
I see your point, but can consciouness itself be proven to exist as we percieve it? There is no adequate exclusion to us not actually being conscious even though we think we are. Many people have had pets who 'thought' they were human. One can write a computer program, that within its limits, is conscious. We could just be very good computer simulations or part of a dream state of some unknowable sleeper. If this is the case our suppositons about everything would be of the same level of accuracy as the suppositons of someone who at a Renascence Fair who assumed it was the same outside the convention building... see Red Dwarf (British comedy series), specifically the one about the android servant )Kriten) and his (programmed) ideas about robot heaven... a very funny handling of the subject.
tetra
The fact that you want to debate this topic, proves that you know God does not exist.
Nice one. There's nothing dumber than an argument that can be 180'ed so simply. Unfortunately the people who use such arguments seldom comprehend the meaning in this fact.