Proof of the non-existence of God

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Why do you keep insisting on trying to deflect by bringing up Acts and Paul that have nothing to do with this issue? Then you accuse me of "avoid[ing] it and toss[ing] the matter back in another direction.
That's really rich. Is there no end to your dishonesty? I've given you the same list of false accusations that were said only to disparage twice now. ...[text shortened]... ed in creating a "no way out" theological puzzle for believers in the Bible."[/b]

Please stop responding to my posts. I've seen this type of stalking behavior to make false accusations and disparaging remarks before. Unfortunately it seems to be common amongst "Christians" such as yourself---------------ToOne------------------------

I know it's awful isn't it ...darn pesky Christians...when will they stop challenging ToO with the truth and keep exposing the games he is playing??

TSK TSK!!!!

(Note- Jaywill , bear in mind I don't even think the ToO realises what he is doing - he's deluded himself into thinking he is the bastion of truth and any flies in the ointment are to be dismissed as "lies" . Give up now and save yourself a lot of time - he's unreachable - the moment you try to engage in a meaningful objective discussion he runs off and cries foul. )

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yes, you keep saying that it's trite, but I have yet to see you give a good reason why.

And why can't a 3rd party tell that a husband loves his wife? In some cases, it's obvious. You don't need to experience that love personally to know it's there. "Impossible" is certainly too strong a word.

Happy New Year to you and yours SwissGambit.

I've already explained why I feel the kiddy/santa point is a somewhat tired, shallow and invalid comparison to make with a complex adult phenomenon. The word "trite" is accurate in meaning but derisory in tone, which I apologise for.

I'm more intersted discussing Knightmeisters point about the husband and wife scenario as this brings up the challenge about "proof" relating to "personal experience". The thread debate is about the burden of proof that god exists and think line of discussion provides a good example of how difficult it is to provide no formulaic empirical proof about something which centers on personal experience.

Hypothetically: Perhaps you know KM's wife and you feel it is "obvious" that she loves him as you said in your post.

I however do not know her, please would you prove her love for him to me?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==========================
If they hadn't, you'd be just as likely to be posting in this thread about how Odin is the head of the gods or that Mithras was the Supreme Being.
==============================

No I wouldn't.

There is nothing in the New Testament about Odin or Mithras.[/b]

Wow - you really are totally clueless in regards to the fact that the Romans gave the legitimacy to Christianity that it needed to survive, aren't you....

Study some history other than the Bible.

Originally posted by chappy1
Of course he wasn't born in December! Everyone knows that. The truth is that no one really knows the exact date of his birth so they picked Dec 25th to overshadow the pagan holiday that used to be there. But Jesus was born it doesn't really matter what day. The important thing is Jesus not the day.

This is not quite accurate. "They" happen to be the Romans, and they picked December 25th so as to get the pagans on board the Christian bandwagon. It was actually rather clever, and it worked. The Christians were not going to object; they had too much to gain from being legitimized by the Romans.

Originally posted by jaywill
====================================
You wouldn't care anything about the New Testament if the early Church hadn't popularized it by any means fair or foul.
==========================================[/b]

That doesn't put Mithras or Odin in the New Testament.

===========================================
You would have been brainwashed in ...[text shortened]... tale here is that you have something to write on this forum which is worth a tinker's damn.

The great irony here is that the people who decided what writings were placed in the New Testament, which you believe in wholeheartedly, are the same people you are criticizing for popularizing the NT by integrating pagan aspects into their religious practices. This was inevitable; having failed to persuade anything but a tiny minority of Jews in Jesus' divinity the early Christians had to attempt to convert pagans. These pagans didn't want to follow early Christian (i.e. Jewish) religious practices like circumcision or the Jewish holy days. So by 300-500 or even earlier, Christian holy days merged with early pagan holidays. Predictable.

This is history of which you seem blissfully unaware.

Originally posted by divegeester
Happy New Year to you and yours SwissGambit.

I've already explained why I feel the kiddy/santa point is a somewhat tired, shallow and invalid comparison to make with a complex adult phenomenon. The word "trite" is accurate in meaning but derisory in tone, which I apologise for.

I'm more intersted discussing Knightmeisters point about the husband a ...[text shortened]... ur post.

I however do not know her, please would you prove her love for him to me?

Of course I will use empirical proof to convince you that KM loves his wife. I'm not sure where you got the idea that empirical evidence was somehow out-of-bounds.

I can only prove inductively that she loves him [evidence shows that is more likely than not that she does] by observing words and actions [if she does not speak ill of him to others, but speaks highly of him; if she spends her free time with him rather than out partying with friends; etc. etc.] Yes, I am proving it by experience - but not the direct sort of experience that you spoke of earlier.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Of course I will use empirical proof to convince you that KM loves his wife. I'm not sure where you got the idea that empirical evidence was somehow out-of-bounds.

I can only prove inductively that she loves him [evidence shows that is more likely than not that she does] by observing words and actions [if she does not speak ill of him to others, but s ...[text shortened]... am proving it by experience - but not the direct sort of experience that you spoke of earlier.

I never said empirical proof is out of bounds! Why imply that did?

In fact it's what I'm asking you for isn't it....empirical proof that KMs wife loves him. Like you ask christians for empirical proof.

Stop being evasive.

Originally posted by Badwater
Wow - you really are totally clueless in regards to the fact that the Romans gave the legitimacy to Christianity that it needed to survive, aren't you....

Study some history other than the Bible.

[qs]Wow - you really are totally clueless in regards to the fact that the Romans gave the legitimacy to Christianity that it needed to survive, aren't you.... [/qs]


Impressive sounding generalization there.

Want to me more specific? Which Romans gave legitimacy to Christianity? Nero ? Caligula?

Originally posted by divegeester
I never said empirical proof is out of bounds! Why imply that did?

In fact it's what I'm asking you for isn't it....empirical proof that KMs wife loves him. Like you ask christians for empirical proof.

Stop being evasive.

Who cares if KM's wife loves him? It is her opinion of KM. If she says she does, then I see no reason to doubt her. In KM's example he tried to use god's alleged love as proof for his alleged existence. But we are not questioning the existence of KM's wife. We take her existence as a given. It is entirely within the realm of probability that she does love him, as wives frequently do love their husbands.

Originally posted by rwingett
Who cares if KM's wife loves him? It is her opinion of KM. If she says she does, then I see no reason to doubt her. In KM's example he tried to use god's alleged love as proof for his alleged existence. But we are not questioning the existence of KM's wife. We take her existence as a given. It is entirely within the realm of probability that she does love him, as wives frequently do love their husbands.

But logically knowing my wife loves me , statistically believing it's probable , proving to others that she does is not enough.

Unless I EXPERIENCE that love then I don't really know very much. Knowing via experience is a very different matter.

Originally posted by jaywill
[qs]Wow - you really are totally clueless in regards to the fact that the Romans gave the legitimacy to Christianity that it needed to survive, aren't you.... [/qs]


Impressive sounding generalization there.

Want to me more specific? [b]Which Romans gave legitimacy to Christianity? Nero ? Caligula?[/b]

It's time for you to study some history, since you're woefully lacking in knowledge on the subject.

Originally posted by Badwater
It's time for you to study some history, since you're woefully lacking in knowledge on the subject.

Oh poor me. Woefully lacking in history.

You want me to study like you study, searching for excuses to revolt against God's salvation?

I am not impressed with your history knowledge for all you are doing is hunting for excuses to disregard the Gospel.

Originally posted by jaywill
Oh poor me. Woefully lacking in history.

You want me to study like you study, searching for excuses to revolt against God's salvation?

I am not impressed with your history knowledge for all you are doing is hunting for excuses to disregard the Gospel.

Oh for heaven's sake - it's time to grow up already.

That said, I'm sure your head is implanted firmly in the fortress of your own ignorance, for which only you suffer. Enjoy!

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Earlier you said the following:
[b]"It appears that the 'Christianity', as it is practiced today, is anemic. But why? I don't think we'll agree, but it might be worth the discussion. "

I've stated why some underlying reasons that Christians on the whole are no more moral than the general public. As of yet, you've yet to put forth any reasons that ...[text shortened]... of Jesus. If you don't want to discuss it, why did you propose it in the first place?[/b]

You said:

"It hasn't been my experience that Christians on the whole are any more moral than the general public. It hasn't been my experience that Christians on the whole are any less likely to commit evil. Is this due to the lack of God in the lives of Christians on the whole?"


To which I said:


Yes.


To which you said:

"Thank you for speaking the truth. Those Chistians who continue to sin have no more God in their lives than members of the general public who continue to sin at the same level. This seems to indicate that Christianity as it is practiced is irrelevant. Unfortunately Christians do not follow the teachings and commandments of Jesus any better than the general public - their willingness to profess love and belief notwithstanding. It's tragic."


To which I said:

The thing is though, you and I are worlds apart doctrinally.

Yes it's true. It appears that the "Christianity", as it is practiced today, is anemic.

But why? I don't think we'll agree, but it might be worth the discussion.


To which you said:

"A couple of things come to mind:

1) Many Christians are taught and believe that it is impossible for them to stop committing sin. This goes against what Jesus taugt in John 8:32-36.

2) Many Christians are taught and believe that they have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" even though they continue to commit sin. Jesus never taught this and in fact this goes against what Jesus taught.

3) Many Christians are taught and believe that they are
"accepted by God the way they are" even though they continue to commit sin. Jesus never taught this and in fact this goes against what Jesus taught.


The above hinder Christians from being born of the spirit, i.e. truth, love, compassion, justice, etc. Instead they remain born of the flesh, i.e. self-centeredness and therefore continue to commit sin. They don't feel compelled to continue in the word of Jesus until such a transformation is complete.


Why do you think it so?"

To which I said:

To be honest, I'm sort of confounded by your line of reasoning.

Not to debate with any one point you make, but at what point in life are we accepted by God?

Is it when we stop sinning? I've never heard of anyone that ever has. I've never heard anyone ever say they have stopped sinning.

To which you said:


"You are accepted by God once you are born of the spirit, i.e. truth, love, compassion, justice, etc. A symptom of this would be that you would no longer continue to sin. You would be one with God, so sinning would never be an option, just as I assume rape is never an option for you.

Perhaps you've never "heard of anyone that ever has", because so many are hindered by the points I made above. The problem is that because of what they have been taught and believe, they don't seek God with all their might. They are content to remain as they are.

Why do you not believe the words of Jesus instead of your limited experience?
"The truth will set you free."
"Seek and you shall find.""

To which I said:

How does one become "born of the spirit"?


To which you said:


"Earlier you said the following:
"It appears that the 'Christianity', as it is practiced today, is anemic. But why? I don't think we'll agree, but it might be worth the discussion. "

I've stated why some underlying reasons that Christians on the whole are no more moral than the general public. As of yet, you've yet to put forth any reasons that you may have. For that matter, you have yet to discuss the reasons that I have put forth either. Instead you've only been asking questions about my interpretation of the teachings of Jesus. If you don't want to discuss it, why did you propose it in the first place?"

Really now! It should appear plain to all who will take the time to read this post, that you have skirted my question, and have brought the whole discussion around in a full circle.

You are quite disingenuous.

I'll give you another chance.

How? How does one become "born of the spirit"?

Originally posted by josephw
You said:

[b]"It hasn't been my experience that Christians on the whole are any more moral than the general public. It hasn't been my experience that Christians on the whole are any less likely to commit evil. Is this due to the lack of God in the lives of Christians on the whole?"


To which I said:


Yes.


To which you said:

"Thank ? How does one become "born of the spirit"?

[/b]There's nothing at all disengenuous about it. The topic is "Why is it that "Christianity", as it is practiced today, is anemic?", not "At what point are we accepted by God?". I'm just trying to get you back on topic.

I answered the question as follows with the salient points in bold. Now, if you were questioning whether or not Christians are taught and believe the three points below or the affect those beliefs have on moral character, that would be on topic.

All you've done thus far is ask questions that are tangentially related at best which you acknowledged when you asked the following, "Not to debate with any one point you make, but at what point in life are we accepted by God?".

As it stands, you haven't answered my question on why you think it so and declined to discuss my points and you're crying foul because I want to bring the discussion back on point? Talk about disengenuous.

[i]"1) Many Christians are taught and believe that it is impossible for them to stop committing sin. This goes against what Jesus taugt in John 8:32-36.

2) Many Christians are taught and believe that they have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" even though they continue to commit sin. Jesus never taught this and in fact this goes against what Jesus taught.

3) Many Christians are taught and believe that they are
"accepted by God the way they are" even though they continue to commit sin. Jesus never taught this and in fact this goes against what Jesus taught.

The above hinder Christians from being born of the spirit, i.e. truth, love, compassion, justice, etc. Instead they remain born of the flesh, i.e. self-centeredness and therefore continue to commit sin. They don't feel compelled to continue in the word of Jesus until such a transformation is complete.

Why do you think it so?"