Where did your god come from?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I bet that every single atheist that posts on this website agrees with me on this willingness issue, though.

So they would all be "honest persons".

I can't speak for every other atheist here but I certainly agree with you.

And I have said as much many times.

I won't start worshipping any god, but if you show me convincing evidence
I will believe that they exist.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Because I have conversed with angels. (Yeah, I know, I know. Laugh it up.)

This has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt that God is real. I realize that this proof is for me alone. That is why I do not talk about it. It was only made possible because of my faith. (Well, actually the timeline is a little off, but I still believe that is why this ...[text shortened]... God may 'move in mysterious ways', God still *knows* everyone's heart. He cannot 'be fooled'.)

I'm not laughing.

The problem is that rationally speaking that isn't valid evidence.

Even for you.

I'm happy to debate why if you're game.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Logically, if he did, we would have seen it by now.

How is it "logical" that if he did possess such a proof, we would have seen it by now?
Perhaps he wants to show it but is suspicious of those who would seek to take the credit for his insight by plagiarising his work, perhaps he debates with you because he wants you to stumble upon the same proof that he himself has found, perhaps he fears world-wide rioting if he takes away the crutch of religion from the masses, perhaps he was given the proof by evil aliens that will burn his eyeballs out should he share the proof and will chop his left hand off if he keeps it secret and he's still trying to decide which is worst!

There could be many situations in which he would have a proof and decide not to share it with you.

Originally posted by Agerg
How is it "logical" that if he did possess such a proof, we would have seen it by now?
Perhaps he wants to show it but is suspicious of those who would seek to take the credit for his insight by plagiarising his work, perhaps he debates with you because he wants you to stumble upon the same proof that he himself has found, perhaps he fears world-wide rioting ...[text shortened]... ere could be many situations in which he would have a proof and decide not to share it with you.

There could also be a million reasons why the earth will fly into the sun tomorrow, too, but just like GF having such a proof and not shoving it down the theists' throats, it's just... not very likely.

Originally posted by Agerg
How is it "logical" that if he did possess such a proof, we would have seen it by now?
Perhaps he wants to show it but is suspicious of those who would seek to take the credit for his insight by plagiarising his work, perhaps he debates with you because he wants you to stumble upon the same proof that he himself has found, perhaps he fears world-wide rioting ...[text shortened]... ere could be many situations in which he would have a proof and decide not to share it with you.

Or alternatively as in real life it's the proof produced by detailed scientific understanding of the universe which sadly few could understand even if they wanted to.

Also most scientists don't go around saying, "hey this work disproves the idea that people have souls" even if it does because
A) they don't think about that kinda stuff when they are doing science, and
B) don't want their funding cut off by the theistic arts or business major who's running the university, or get all the negative publicity and push-back from the religious community at large.

I mean look at the hassle faced by biologists wanting to teach evolution because people think that it's a threat to their religion.

Originally posted by Suzianne
There could also be a million reasons why the earth will fly into the sun tomorrow, too, but just like GF having such a proof and not shoving it down the theists' throats, it's just... not very likely.

Read my last post for my response to this. 😛

Originally posted by Suzianne
There could also be a million reasons why the earth will fly into the sun tomorrow, too, but just like GF having such a proof and not shoving it down the theists' throats, it's just... not very likely.

In that case it is fairly reasonable to suppose ... not logical that ...

Further, if we don't admit the possibility of magic and hold to the notion that we have a pretty good grasp of mechanics at the level of planetary orbits I argue that there are far less than a million reasons why the earth will fly into the sun tomorrow! :]

Originally posted by googlefudge
I'm not laughing.

The problem is that rationally speaking that isn't valid evidence.

Even for you.

I'm happy to debate why if you're game.

Just like John at Patmos, it's not that I had a revelation, it's what the revelation contained that is the proof. Just like the Virgin Mary appearing to the three children at Fatima, it's not the revelation, but what the revelation is about.

I realize that if I don't tell anyone, then it is not proof for anyone except me. Even if I told people, it would not be believed, because it links in with my personal experiences, not someone else's. So yes, it's proof, but only for me.

Originally posted by Agerg
In that case it is [b]fairly reasonable to suppose ... not logical that ...

Further, if we don't admit the possibility of magic and hold to the notion that we have a pretty good grasp of mechanics at the level of planetary orbits I argue that there are far less than a million reasons why the earth will fly into the sun tomorrow! :][/b]

Ok, that's fair, you got me there.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Just like John at Patmos, it's not that I had a revelation, it's what the revelation contained that is the proof. Just like the Virgin Mary appearing to the three children at Fatima, it's not the revelation, but what the revelation is about.

I realize that if I don't tell anyone, then it is not proof for anyone except me. Even if I told people, it woul ...[text shortened]... links in with my personal experiences, not someone else's. So yes, it's proof, but only for me.

Well it's not proof for you either, which was my point.


However, you are correct, it's certainly not proof for me, or anyone else.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Or alternatively as in real life it's the proof produced by detailed scientific understanding of the universe which sadly few could understand even if they wanted to.

Also most scientists don't go around saying, "hey this work disproves the idea that people have souls" even if it does because
A) they don't think about that kinda stuff when they are ...[text shortened]... biologists wanting to teach evolution because people think that it's a threat to their religion.

Although I agree that this is what a lot of Science has come to, I think that is a pathetic state of affairs. I would welcome it if scientists felt comfortable displaying ANYthing they felt was valid, or had significant repercussions.

Now, if your proof is not proof at all, but just more of you thinking you're right and to hell with what ANYone else thinks (ala RJH), then sure, maybe we don't need to hear it. But I still don't think that these thoughts would prevent you from 'shoving such a proof down the theists' throats', either, as I said earlier.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well it's not proof for you either, which was my point.


However, you are correct, it's certainly not proof for me, or anyone else.

But it IS proof for me.

What you mean to say is that it's not proof for you, because you don't believe it. What was shown to me, in combination with my faith, and what I already know to be true, things which have happened to me since then, IS proof, but only to me. Of course I realize that means that in NO way is it proof to you, but it is to me. Of course this also leaves you perfectly free to conclude that I am insane and cease talking with me, but that is your choice. Either way, it's not going to change my mind, my belief or my faith, either.

This brings me to something further I said, I think while you were not here posting, about free will. You already know that I believe God does not show himself or leave proof of his existence laying around because it would violate man's free will. I also believe that this doesn't prevent God from performing miracles such as the pillar of fire during the Exodus or even talking to man, as he did with Moses, because such events do not alter anyone's free will, since these persons already believed in God. This is why I was allowed to be contacted by angels, because I already believed in God. This is also why this doesn't happen to atheists, a group you might think would be most in need of a revelation. Free will is that important.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Although I agree that this is what a lot of Science has come to, I think that is a pathetic state of affairs. I would welcome it if scientists felt comfortable displaying ANYthing they felt was valid, or had significant repercussions.

Now, if your proof is not proof at all, but just more of you thinking you're right and to hell with what ANYone else thi ...[text shortened]... ld prevent you from 'shoving such a proof down the theists' throats', either, as I said earlier.

Actually I have discussed it in these forums before, and will again.

So it's not something I am hiding.

Originally posted by Suzianne
But it IS proof for me.

What you mean to say is that it's not proof for you, because you don't believe it. What was shown to me, in combination with my faith, and what I already know to be true, things which have happened to me since then, IS proof, but only to me. Of course I realize that means that in NO way is it proof to you, but it i ...[text shortened]... roup you might think would be most in need of a revelation. Free will is that important.

Um, no I mean to say what I say.

It's not proof for me for the same reason it's not proof for you.

Personal experience doesn't meet the standards required of extraordinary
evidence needed to justify belief in a god.


No I know your position on free will. We have debated it before.

Your position is nonsensical.

However, that's a different debate, on a subject we will also probably never agree on,
and it's probably best to stick to one of those at a time.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Personal experience doesn't meet the standards required of extraordinary evidence needed to justify belief in a god.

Oh, but it does. My faith is all that is necessary to justify my belief in God. To me. Pile on the yes, "extraordinary evidence" of what was said to me during my revelation (not to mention the supernatural aspect of it), and I believe, yes, I believe, that it does justify my belief in God. And to me, that is all that is needed.

I'm not asking anyone else to "buy into" this. It doesn't matter to me if they do or not. I know the truth.