06 Oct 12
11 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe core issue is, "Does God exist?"
I don't think there is a direct answer. Or rather there are so many answers one doesn't know where to start - and some are so obvious that it is clear the questioner doesn't actually want that sort of answer. The question is asked as if he is saying 'what would be the minimum amount of evidence that would convince you of the existence of a creator', and t ...[text shortened]... that strikes at the core of the issue.
What is the 'issue' that this is the core of?[/b]
People who claim God exists, think they have enough evidence based on their own criteria.
People who don't believe God exists claim not to have enough evidence to believe.
Therefore, the question: "What evidence would be enough to convince you that God exists?"
I have seen that most Atheists avoid this question and I believe it's because it requires deep, sincere thought and it puts them in a situation they generally don't want to be in; that being they have no valid reason to continue in their disbelief, if their (reasonable) demands are met. Also, it's even more difficult because any criteria they set forth, could be seen by other Atheists as easily explained away by natural possibilities.
What's even worse is, if the Atheist puts forth a huge list of demands, for example, "God would have to appear out of thin air; transport me to another place; point at a mountain, lift it up, and cast it into the ocean; then make 50 billion dollars appear in my bank acount; then raise my family members from the dead," obviously the Atheist reveals him/herself as being completely unreasonable, exposing their disbelief as a stubborn choice rather than a logical conclusion.
Therefore the question is honestly answered only by an Atheist who us willing to make him/herself vulnerable and accountable. That Atheist would be a rare find, indeed.
06 Oct 12
Originally posted by sumydidThat is simply not true. If you ask theists on this forum you will find that the vast majority of them will admit that they believe despite the evidence. They believe that faith without sufficient evidence is a core requirement of their religion.
The core issue is, "Does God exist?"
People who claim God exists, think they have enough evidence based on their own criteria.
I have seen that most Atheists avoid this question and I believe it's because it requires deep, sincere thought and it puts them in a situation they generally don't want to be in; that being they have no valid reason to continue in their disbelief, if their (reasonable) demands are met.
You are mistaken. The reason why I avoid this question is because it is virtually impossible to answer. Don't believe me? Well you answer this one then: what would you accept as evidence that the god Thor exists?
What's even worse is, if the Atheist puts forth a huge list of demands, for example, "God would have to appear out of thin air; transport me to another place; point at a mountain, lift it up, and cast it into the ocean; then make 50 billion dollars appear in my bank acount; then raise my family members from the dead," obviously the Atheist reveals him/herself as being completely unreasonable, exposing their disbelief as a stubborn choice rather than a logical conclusion.
So, as I said earlier, the real question you are asking is 'what is the minimum amount of evidence required'. The above is not an unreasonable answer if the question is 'give and example of sufficient evidence'. So be more specific in your question, then think about it for a bit and you will realize that it is virtually impossible to answer without actually trying it out.
So I ask again: what would be the minimum amount of evidence you would require to be convinced that the god Thor exists. Lets see if you are one of those rare a-Thorians.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
06 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by sumydidThere is a problem with "People who don't believe God exists claim not to have enough evidence to believe."
The core issue is, "Does God exist?"
People who claim God exists, think they have enough evidence based on their own criteria.
People who don't believe God exists claim not to have enough evidence to believe.
Therefore, the question: "What evidence would be enough to convince you that God exists?"
I have seen that most Atheists avoid this questi e him/herself vulnerable and accountable. That Atheist would be a rare find, indeed.
As a non-theist I do not claim "not to have enough evidence to believe." I merely report that when I introspect, I find no belief that God exists. I am not even sure that "God exists" is a meaningful idea, because the concept of God and of God "existing" seems to be fraught with philosophical difficulties. But I don't hold these philosophical difficulties as reasons not to believe. I simply introspect and find no such belief. I also think that faith would be more important than reasoned belief based on evidence. Both sides seem to disregard important differences between belief and faith.
Your characterizations of atheists may be correct for some atheists. The "vocal" or "activist" atheists such as some of the atheists on this forum, may fit your description. But I think there are many, many atheists who just lack belief and are OK with others having belief and so don't have all those reasons and demands.
If you think that the honest atheist would have a list of the specific things that would make him believe in God, I suggest you expand your definition so that an honest atheist can answer as I have here. Honestly, I don't know what might result in me believing in God.
06 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by sumydid
The core issue is, "Does God exist?"
Therefore the question is honestly answered only by an Atheist who us willing to make him/herself vulnerable and accountable. That Atheist would be a rare find, indeed.
Therefore the question is honestly answered only by an Atheist who us willing to make him/herself vulnerable and accountable. That Atheist would be a rare find, indeed.
What would you accept as evidence that an atheist was willing to make himself / herself vunerable and accountable - or at least had been, at the point of reaching the view that there is not a God? I can give examples of atheists who arrived at that position after strenuous and sincere efforts to make faith work for them. You cannot rely on the circular argument that they cannot have been sufficiently so or they would indeed have encountered God because, apart from anything else, even many presently deeply religious people have described long periods of "spiritual" difficulty despite their best efforts. Trying harder does not work with predictable results, even according to most advocates of religion.
What evidence do you have that, for an honest answer, an atheist would have to be willing to make himself / herself vulnerable? Why would that have to be the case? Clearly, I can sense you would suggest that God cannot be accessed without that willingness so you might argue that in its absence, God will not be accessed. I could reply with tales told of conversion experiences in which that condition was apparently not met. But that is not my question. I am asking why can an atheist not give an honest answer without meeting that condition. After all, in order to honestly prefer not to use hard drugs I assume you would not advocate that I should try them first before rejecting them?
I ask because without an answer you have posted sanctimonious twaddle.
07 Oct 12
3 edits
Apart from finnegans usual sanctimonious twaddle, I appreciate the responses I got above.
The whole point of the question is, and you have backed me up on this in your responses, (at least you currently think) you won't believe no matter what. Again, and with all due respect, I take this to mean that your disbelief is a direct result of stubborn choice, not logical deduction.
What would it take for me to believe in the god Thor? Seriously? That's easy. A being matching the exact description of Thor would need to appear before me, wielding his magical hammer, and demonstrate all the powers as described in the Greek texts. If that happened I would believe in the god called Thor.
I guess we're about to find out if that was a leading/trap question. If it was, don't bother going down that road because I won't respond, as it's an exercise in completely wasteful, hypothetical stuff that neither one of us has any stake or belief in.
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloI'm perfectly okay saying we can measure those things we see from
Nope. We've been over this ad nauseum.
Here you make a couple of outrageously false claims.
The first outrageously false claim you make is that one cannot apply any system of measurements to a thing if one doesn't know "why" that thing exists. That's blatantly false: the "why" it is here is irrelevant to the application of such systems ...[text shortened]... nt and has no bearing on our ability to come to knowledge on the age of the universe.
beginnig to end without issue; however, not knowing how or when
something like the universe began means that assumptions are now part of
your equation, and if they are wrong your equation's result falls apart. Since
you do not know how the universe began, you don't know what state of
development it started in, you therefore cannot by looking at it know the
markers by which you can say from this point on we can it was this old or
that old. For all you know it very could be that human recorded history is all
there ever was to this place, you assume a great deal suggesting otherwise.
Kelly
07 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidThe whole point of the question is, and you have backed me up on this in your responses, (at least you currently think) you won't believe no matter what. Again, and with all due respect, I take this to mean that your disbelief is a direct result of stubborn choice, not logical deduction.
Apart from finnegans usual sanctimonious twaddle, I appreciate the responses I got above.
The whole point of the question is, and you have backed me up on this in your responses, (at least you currently think) you won't believe no matter what. Again, and with all due respect, I take this to mean that your disbelief is a direct result of stubborn c completely wasteful, hypothetical stuff that neither one of us has any stake or belief in.
bull$hit! Who here has said anything along the lines of "for all X that could possibly be taken to be evidence of "G"od I shall fail to accept the validity of X"???
I guess we're about to find out if that was a leading/trap question. If it was, don't bother going down that road because I won't respond, as it's an exercise in completely wasteful, hypothetical stuff that neither one of us has any stake or belief in.
Similarly, discussion about your own magic friend is also wasteful hypothetical stuff which neither of us actually have any stake in (though unfortunately, too many crazy bas***ds in this world actually believe this chit - so we have to talk about it)
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by finneganMy question was how long was the candle burning, if you had been thinking
One of the arguments against your candle starting and stopping and starting and stopping is by Descartes. In effect you are arguing that God might be setting out to deceive us with confusing evidence. In any case you are arguing that the laws of physics can be switched on and off. In the first case you run into conflict with all notions of God's perfectio ...[text shortened]... aim that you understand God. That is a very big claim and the Book of Job says you are wrong.
you would have known the candle could have been stopped and started it is
after all part of a function of a candle to be used only when needed.
God has not set out to deceive you, it was written how and when it began
if you believe scripture. If that was true, your assumptions about what you
see around you are all on you. We have as a race gotten a lot of things
wrong over time, you want to blame God for all of our errors there too? You
assume the beginning started out by something other than God, and you
accuse God for it looking like that to you! It looks like it looks, you’re the
one saying it has to have started the way you believe it to have been right
or wrong. Reality does not have to fit our interpretations, we have mold our
views to fit reality.
You sound like Obama decrying that the Mitt Romney that showed up to
debate him was not man his ads have been portraying him being to be so
when confronted with the real thing he had nothing, to the point that he was
and is calling Romney deceitful for not being the man his team claims him
to be. Which is very sad!
Kelly
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by finneganWhat in the book of Job are you refering to?
One of the arguments against your candle starting and stopping and starting and stopping is by Descartes. In effect you are arguing that God might be setting out to deceive us with confusing evidence. In any case you are arguing that the laws of physics can be switched on and off. In the first case you run into conflict with all notions of God's perfectio ...[text shortened]... aim that you understand God. That is a very big claim and the Book of Job says you are wrong.
Kelly
07 Oct 12
3 edits
Originally posted by AgergNo one said those exact words, nor do I claim such. The only people willing to give a response, are like those above, saying they can't answer the question. It's only logical to assume they can't answer because they can't think of anything that would satisfy their requirement to believe. My deduction was completely logical, and I guess I struck a nerve, based on your emotional response.
bull$hit! Who here has said anything along the lines of "for all X that could possibly be taken to be evidence of "G"od I shall fail to accept the validity of X"???
Originally posted by Agerg
Similarly, discussion about your own magic friend is also wasteful hypothetical stuff which neither of us actually have any stake in (though unfortunately, too many crazy bas***ds in this world actually believe this chit - so we have to talk about it)
Wow. So because we disagree, I'm a crazy bastard? You might want to get some help with your negative thought patterns. And fyi, your apparent complete lack of objectivity is a sure sign of certain social disorders, most notably, narcissism.
The reason God is a valid discussion topic is because at least one of us believes in God. Thor is not a valid discussion topic because neither of us believes and therefore neither of us have a stake in the result of a debate about Thor's existence.
Try to keep up.
Originally posted by sumydidNo one said those exact words, nor do I claim such. The only people willing to give a response, are like those above, saying they can't answer the question. It's only logical to assume they can't answer because they can't think of anything that would satisfy their requirement to believe. My deduction was completely logical, and I guess I struck a nerve, based on your emotional response.
No one said those exact words, nor do I claim such. The only people willing to give a response, are like those above, saying they can't answer the question. It's only logical to assume they can't answer because they can't think of anything that would satisfy their requirement to believe. My deduction was completely logical, and I guess I struck a nerve, b er of us have a stake in the result of a debate about Thor's existence.
Try to keep up.
Sir...your posts are never logical - sometimes arse-kissing (wrt theists you'd normally be at odds with but since we are the common enemy in your eyes, its all ok), sometimes disjoint from the conversation at hand... but never logical.
btw, "along the lines of" =/= "exact"! 😵
Wow. So because we disagree, I'm a crazy bastard? You might want to get some help with your negative thought patterns, as well as your apparent complete lack of objectivity which is a sure sign of sociopathic disorders, namely narcissism.
No you're a crazy bastard because you are a fundamentalist whack-job who elevates magic, fairy glitter, and twinkle dust above all that is scientific and/or plain common sense.
The reason God is a valid discussion topic is because at least one of us believes in God. Thor is not a valid discussion topic because neither of us believes and therefore neither of us have a stake in the result of a debate about Thor's existence.
Try to keep up.
and then the reason Thor is a valid topic is, in a structural sense, it is no different to your "G"od. Both are magical mythical beings without a shred of credible evidence to support their existence. It just so happens believers in your "G"od were (and arguably still are) far bigger bullies than believers in Thor (which is on of the main reasons why Christianity is so widespread)
07 Oct 12
3 edits
Originally posted by AgergAnd to think *I* was indicted for using generalizations. I'd love to hear all the things that science has proven, that I have rejected. Got any relevant examples?
No you're a crazy bastard because you are a fundamentalist whack-job who elevates magic, fairy glitter, and twinkle dust above all that is scientific.
Your beef is with billions and you are in the vast minority. But I don't fault you for thinking your beliefs are superior to 90% of the people around you.
Again... I think your attitude of superiority over the vast majority of mankind, your accusing others of things you only imagine/wish they had done, and your propensity for lashing out with emotion and insults when people disagree with you----are strongly indicative of an underlying condition. As friendly advice only, you might want to get it checked out.
I'm happy to discuss the subject of God, but when the debate jumps immediately to playground tactics and namecalling the instant we disagree, then the debate ends and all that results is wasted time. I prefer to spend my time tackling the meatier subjects with people who are truly interested, rather than waste my time fending off childish, unwarranted attacks.
So we're done here, unless there is anything of substance you'd like to discuss.
07 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sumydidIt is rare that I communicate with posters as I did above, but some of the dishonest ones really piss me off...you're one of them.
And to think *I* was indicted for using generalizations. I'd love to hear all the things that science has proven, that I have rejected. Got any relevant examples?
Your beef is with billions and you are in the vast minority. But I don't fault you for thinking your beliefs are superior to 90% of the people around you.
Again... I think your attitude of ttacks.
So we're done here, unless there is anything of substance you'd like to discuss.
I agree, we're done here.
07 Oct 12
Originally posted by AgergIt appears, by your own admission, you are wasting your time on this forum and should move on to something more worthy of your time and effort. Isn't that so? 😏
[b]The whole point of the question is, and you have backed me up on this in your responses, (at least you currently think) you won't believe no matter what. Again, and with all due respect, I take this to mean that your disbelief is a direct result of stubborn choice, not logical deduction.
bull$hit! Who here has said anything along the lines of " ...[text shortened]... crazy bas***ds in this world actually believe this chit - so we have to talk about it)[/b]