14 Apr 13
Originally posted by AgergYou can affirm anything you want all day long.
I argue that if I am bound to the same level of proof as you are when you say that "no such proof will be forthcoming [from me]", it is perfectly reasonable on my part to affirm that "G"od does not exist.
Just don't tell me you've 'proven' something which cannot be proven.
14 Apr 13
Originally posted by SuzianneFeel free to explain what given is false. Until then, you are just bluffing.
Your proof is laughable. In the extreme. If one's 'given' is false, the entire proof is rendered false.
In fact, I have proven that God cannot be proven to exist, or to not exist.
My proof, while not airtight, is vastly more sensible than your proof.
Well then, go ahead and present your proof.
14 Apr 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobJustify? Really?
But by the same token, how can you justify raising your kids to be Christian or trying to make your mailman Christian, when you yourself cannot prove that the Christian God does exist?
"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." -- Galatians 3:14, KJV
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -- Ephesians 2:8, KJV
"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." -- 2 Timothy 3:14-17, KJV
We are justified through faith, no other justification is necessary.
And kids 'get it'. Even if you don't. They usually don't get tainted with this "prove it" crap until they're much older.
14 Apr 13
Originally posted by SuzianneAnd kids 'get it'. Even if you don't. They usually don't get tainted with this "prove it" crap until they're muchy older.
Justify? Really?
"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." -- Galatians 3:14, KJV
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -- Ephesians 2:8, KJV
"But co ...[text shortened]... They usually don't get tainted with this "prove it" crap until they're much older.
That's because we expect kids to grow up!
14 Apr 13
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe atheist have no problem believing something extraordinary about reality. Most of them already say they believe in the theory of evilution, which is more than extraordinary.
You are definitely right to call Agerg on his B. S. The statement "God does not exist" is a positive statement, meaning the burden of proof is on him. Since no such proof will be forthcoming it is perfectly within one's rational right to call his claim what it is: B. S. He may be right or wrong, but the point is, he doesn't know whether he is or ...[text shortened]... have a right to believe as they do, provided they keep it to themselves. 😉
14 Apr 13
Originally posted by SuzianneGet with the program would you for goodness sake Suzianne, i was parodying a parody as it turns out.
Justify? Really?
"That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." -- Galatians 3:14, KJV
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." -- Ephesians 2:8, KJV
"But co ...[text shortened]... They usually don't get tainted with this "prove it" crap until they're much older.
As Agerg also pointed out, kids eventually grow up and stop believing in ancient myths.
14 Apr 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobParody aside, I assume some (including you) would think it a reasonable thing to ask of theists. Just cutting off that stampede at the pass.
Get with the program would you for goodness sake Suzianne, i was parodying a parody as it turns out.
As Agerg also pointed out, kids eventually grow up and stop believing in ancient myths.
And no, 1) it is NOT a myth (ancient or otherwise), and yes, 2)kids do eventually grow up and too many of them lose their childish wisdom and become jaded. This is something we adults do to them and it's simply regrettable. Children are closer to God than are adults (through time, if nothing else) and a lot of them still retain traces of their pre-mortal existence.
14 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergPlease stuff your use of the word rigorously. I'm not a 'rigorous' person.
Please prove, rigorously, that it cannot be proven...thanks in advance :]
There is no need for faith if God can be proven or disproven. Since man's salvation depends entirely on faith, the existence of God can never be proved, or disproved. QED. 😀
14 Apr 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere's your argument:
Proof by its nature doesn't need to be convincing, it just needs to be logically sound - which my proof is.
Why must we assume that if God exists, he must be comprehensible?
I made no such assumption. I claim that an entity cannot exist that matches an inconsistent definition.
Given this, it is not at all surprising that the appearance of using the theist technique of hiding the evidence and demanding that they believe regardless.
P1: If an entity possesses a contradictory description, then it cannot exist.
P2: The Bible contains contradictory descriptions of an entity.
C: The entity described in the Bible does not exist.
It is a valid deductive argument (modus ponens), but you haven't established the truth value of the propositions yet. By declaring that your argument is sound, you are saying that you've done all of this work, but, of course, you haven't.
Regarding P1, why assume that an entity with a contradictory description cannot or does not exist? I already provided a reason to doubt this proposition: if our language is metaphorical, then it can only be inexact when used to describe what is non-physical. A non-physical being can be everywhere, and yet nowhere (in the sense that we cannot detect its presence physically). This is a contradictory description, and yet it is possible for such a being to exist.
It is far from clear whether your argument is sound or not, I'm afraid.
15 Apr 13
Another example is "light", which behaves both as a particle and as a wave. Is it possible that both a particle and a wave accurately describe light? This would undercut the first premise of your argument. If your argument is sound, and we accept the contradictory description of light, then we would have to conclude that light does not exist. I doubt you'd be willing to accept that. Why, then, in the case of contradictory descriptions of God?
15 Apr 13
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf one were to say light is a wave and light is a particle then that would be contradictory. But saying light exhibits wave-like characteristics and particle-like characteristics is not contradictory.
Another example is "light", which behaves both as a particle and as a wave. Is it possible that both a particle and a wave accurately describe light? This would undercut the first premise of your argument. If your argument is sound, and we accept the contradictory description of light, then we would have to conclude that light does not exist. I doubt you'd be willing to accept that. Why, then, in the case of contradictory descriptions of God?
15 Apr 13
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59What if I say that God exhibits immutable-like characteristics and omniscient-like characteristics, would this also, then, not be contradictory? Strictly speaking, a God who cannot change (who is immutable) cannot know changing truths (via omniscience) -- a contradiction. Is it possible for God to be partly immutable and partly changeable? Of course, and this position is well-represented in Process theology. Either way you slice it there doesn't seem to be very good reason to conclude, based on apparently contradictory statements, that God doesn't exist.
If one were to say light is a wave and light is a particle then that would be contradictory. But saying light exhibits wave-like characteristics and particle-like characteristics is not contradictory.
15 Apr 13
Originally posted by epiphinehasIts not an assumption, the assumption was that it was obvious and would not need further explanation, but that does not mean I did not 'do the work' myself.
Regarding P1, why assume that an entity with a contradictory description cannot or does not exist?
I already provided a reason to doubt this proposition: if our language is metaphorical, then it can only be inexact when used to describe what is non-physical.
There is nothing wrong with inexact language, but I did not discuss inexact, I discussed contradictory.
A non-physical being can be everywhere, and yet nowhere (in the sense that we cannot detect its presence physically). This is a contradictory description, and yet it is possible for such a being to exist.
No, it is not possible, if those descriptions are valid (which they clearly cannot be). So they must be either inexact as you say, or the being does not exist. If they are inexact, then your definition is incoherent in that we simply have no idea as to what you are talking about (and it is quite likely that you have no idea either).