Do you believe in God?

[TP1]

Guide to becoming famous in the pre-electricity era.
1. Write up all your crazy dreams and ideologies on scrolls or paper (whichever is more common at the time)
2. Claim to have been guided by [insert deity name here]
3. Earn instant Prophet status and guarantee your name in future 'Greatest Hit's' books AKA "holy-scripts".
👍 Kudos to you! Now you have a following and eternal fame 👍

Is this idea too farfetched or did I hit the nail with laser precision?

 

[XoravaX]

Back to the pick and mix approach that the church itself can't agree a consensus on.

Given that if one believes then obeying God's law is fundamental to getting into heaven it seems as if your God is making as deliberately difficult as possible to meet the required standard as its not been made even remotely clear what that the required standard for entry into heaven is.

Eh, people are free to interpret the requirements as they wish, and they'll see if they got it right. Also, see later, Luke 10:25-28.

Everything in this world is interpretation, after all. I can't know how your eyes and brain see the colour blue, for example.

Oh and if God is all powerful why did he get it so wrong that he's had to start again not once, but twice. As no matter which way you cut it the Abrahamic faiths all have the exact same God.

Situations change - the rules that were needed 4000 years ago might be redundant, don't you think? Now that Christianity allows for more variability, it can be better adjusted to the given situation. If people have God's word for something (now think for a while you believe in God), and it's clear "don't do", would you do it if you knew you would be punished, and what you would think if you knew you will never be forgiven? Now think you are given the freedom to interpret a somewhat obscure message your way, that God gives the decision to you, and if you make the "wrong" one you are forgiven.
Which of them is better? Like if a hangman hanged an innocent person under the belief that the person was guilty, but it turns out that the person wasn't. Under the strict interpretation of Leviticus the hangman is now guilty of a murder and to be executed himself - but not if the people are given the freedom of choice. In hard conditions, where extreme loyalty to the nation or such is needed, the harder line may work, but under peaceful conditions that is cruel and stupid.

Ok, not the best explanation, but I hope you got the point.

Then explain to me why is wheeled out on such a regular basis in regard to homosexuality.

Doing that doesn't necessarily conflict with the Great Commandment or the Golden Rule. For you it might, but for some it doesn't.

Oh and nothing at all in those two passages specifically rejects the OT at all.

Indeed, it doesn't. It just says that the Great Commandment is enough. "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

So which of you will get into heaven?

To what I see it, everyone who believes in God, at least. I know there is a moral problem in not granting it to people of non-Abrahamic beliefs, agnostics and atheist who follow similar ethics, but it's not in my hands. "Unknown are our Lord's intentions", as is said.

Here is something to consider:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

Well, this is pretty close to that if you believe and try to avoid doing wrong, or something along its lines. I don't see how someone could believe and always try to intentionally do what is wrong, as it's fundamentally against the religion itself, so virtually "belief is enough".

Burden of proof doesn't work like that. You can't dis-prove that I'm actually an alien from a far flung galaxy. If I make that claim however I would hold the burden of proving it.

Their are no God's and zero evidence to a scientific standard that can prove otherwise.

God is no science.

What you and SCJ have is faith. You believe that a God exists, something that I have no issue with, what I take issue with is when this faith and belief are passed off as proof.

They are not proof and fail at the very first hurdle, falsifiability.

Indeed, you're right, nothing of this is proof in the very scientific sense of proof. Though, there is proof in the religious sense, to which he and others refer (and why it doesn't fail to everyone), and due to lack of any watertight counter-evidence that proof is just as tight as it can be. It's belief, the reason there are religions in the first place. If you don't want to believe, well, I can't help with that.

But remember that God's existence alone doesn't conflict with science, being the reason why anyone can't say that "there is no such thing as God" as nothing more than an opinion. What is outside science, can't be given scientific answers either. You can say it as a hypothesis, but not as a scientific fact.

However, I don't like the whole concept of mixing religion with science.

Personal accounts aren't evidence, because they cannot be verified. Scripture cannot be considered evidence, because it's just the written word of people's personal accounts, no more than you'd consider The Tiger Who Came To Tea evidence of an actual tiger that actually went to a little girl's house for tea (and at least we know tigers actually exist...).

And if you can't verify it, it isn't evidence. Famine's definition of evidence is the only definition, not just a "narrow definition".

No it isn't, that's scientific evidence. Feel free to limit the word "evidence" to scientific evidence only , but there is something, I call it "religious evidence", which is the scripture and such. Though, that needs a bit of belief to be tight. It's enough to those who believe, but it's not tight enough for those who don't. It kind of isn't evidence to those who don't believe, but it is to those who do.

[Under this post]

Well, measuring the probability is pretty hard if there is only "it is or then it isn't". A 50/50 may be the wrong approach, really such a probability doesn't exist due to inability to base it on anything (scientifically). Bringing probability to this is once again the common not-to-do, mixing science with religion.
It's just a hypothesis versus belief.

 

[Exorcet]

I wouldn't have said that if I wanted to disprove God's existence.
Though, that works brilliantly for saying that there is a fifty-fifty chance for the existence of any supernatural being (god) that can't get any scientific evidence, neither for nor against.

I wouldn't suggest that you try to disprove a non-falsifiable thing, you'll never get anywhere.

Secondly, your understanding on probability is a bad as SCJ's. What I said works brilliantly for saying that God has a zero percent chance of existing, which is not 50%.

Maybe this will help you understand, imagine a 100 sided coin. 99 heads and 1 tails. You would argue, going by your comment above, that there is a 50/50 chance of getting heads of tails, which is clearly wrong. There is a 99/1 split between heads/tails despite there being only 2 choices.

We could also consider the game show paradox. You have 3 doors, one of which contains a prize. You pick one of the doors, but then the game show host opens one of the doors you did not pick and reveals that the prize is not there. You would argue that the two remaining doors have a 50/50 chance of containing the prize, however the door you picked has a 33% (or 1/number of doors) chance of being the winning door, while the other closed door has a 66% (or [number of doors - 1]/number of doors)chance.

Also, if the coin were to apply to God, we would have a large finite number to an infinite number of cases where God was not proven to exist and zero cases where God was proven to exist.

...

You missed a couple of things, namely that science is not unable to detect spiritual things (and an explanation of these things would be nice) if you (or anyone) is able to detect them, and that being nonfalsifiable hurts you case and doesn't help it. By saying God is nonfalsifiable, you're basically saying that believing in him is pointless.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Female slave-wives won in war? That's okay with you?

Female slave-wife won in rape? Well, at least he had to buy her from her father...

Takes the term "sister-wives" quite literally, doesn't it? Only cost him 7 years of work...

I thought all you had to do was believe in God and take Him as your Lord and Saviour and you got into heaven? It says there that even if your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents had a forbidden marriage then you cannot enter heaven.


=======

I can keep going, but I think you get the idea. Is this the infallible word of the Lord? Do you follow these rules to a T?

You need to read the whole book.

All that was superseded under the establishment of final atonement and the the new covenant.

As far as I know I am not of jewish decent, so I wouldn't be covered under the old covenant anyway.

That is all what was applicable at the time, under the law.

Ah I see your not bothering to reply to Famine as he has already clearly answered this point, so I will simply quote him:

Oh course this exact point has already been raised by myself and others, you simply ignore it and repeat the same line over and over again.

You insure against event that have a history of occurring, and therefore have evidence of the probability of them occurring to you. No evidence of God occurring has been presented.

I have to repeat it over and over because you still haven't presented any evidence that the occurance will happen to you?

There is evidence of an accidental occurance, but absolutely no evidence to implicate any individual, none whatsoever.

If there is any, then all you have to do is show it to me.
Until you do, it clearly stands that you have acted to protect yourself on a mere possibility.

You can continue to sidestep, accuse, assume, or any other dodge tactic you wish.
That does not change the fact of the matter.

Now you can easily defeat all of us on this point by providing evidence (to a scientific standard) that God exists.

That is a absolute ludicrous suggestion, akin to saying, if the sun does not come up tommorrow, that would be evidence.
A rather convenient one you Atheist like to hide behind.
Its already been established that Science does not recognize anything that it cannot see, is not physically detectable, or understand.
God is a spirit, and even declares no one has ever seen him.
However God is far from undetectable.
Likewise he is only approachable on a individual basis, so to insist on scientific evidence for God, from a almost entirely Atheist community, is like saying, show me some peaches from that apple orchard.

Which is rather illustrative of the issue with your standard of evidence.

Atheist.

Likewise, so is your stance, except when it comes to insurance.

No you haven't because you are working on the assumption that God exists (scientific evidence for the existence of insurable events exists, none does for God).

It's anything but an assumption for me.

What "other than creatures"? Do you not accept how crude oil originated?.

Make that other than live creatures.

Well the main reasons books get edited is to remove inaccuracies and refine clarity..

Well there you go.

If God was indeed the author and he failed first time in these points then how can he be infallible?.

The book was written in chapters over time.
Then later assembled.

Thats your assumption.
There is nothing to say it wasn't done exactly as he wished.

No your working with a version that has been subject to multiple translations and re-writes and your interpretation of what it says and a massive set of assumptions about me as an individual.

Well, you can view it that way if you wish.
If its any concilation, carnally, I come up just as short as anyone else.

You are in no position to pass judgement on my moral standpoint with no real knowledge of me and using a reference paper who's author you can't prove and you have acknowledge (as its been edited) has required clarification over the years.

See above.
You are correct in that I am in no position to pass judgement on you.
As I indicated, I'm just passing on what the one who has declared he is, has to say about it.

So its either your interpreted view of my morals (based on partial data as you don't know me) or you have a direct line to God. Argue all you like your either talking to God or talking for him (which would seem a tad presumptuous.

I have a direct line to God, but not as it concerns you.
Once again, I don't talk for him, thats why he authored a book.
The book has his words, not mine.


You know some of you guy's posts give the distinct impression of a mad scientist,
holed up in some remote laboratory somewhere, living in the single dimension of the world of Science.
There's no good, no evil, no other dimensional realities, that life is lived in.
Perhaps you should get out more often.

 

[Quackjack]

What I see in this thread anymore

 

[Famine]

Sorry but I don't follow you here.

You've defined humanity according to sin. "We are all corrupt", you said. Now you claim a 10 month old - or a child under around 2 years old - cannot be guilty of any sin or corruption, excluding them from humanity. Since we know (and the Bible judges) murder to be the act of causing the death of another human, you've determined through the lack of sin that infants of this age are not human and may be killed without it being murder.

Should make for a fun day down at the anti-abortion rally, if nothing else.

That has no bearing on the fact there are other forms of knowledge.
Such as, already mentioned spiritual, additionally relational, carnal, emotional, tactical, strategic, etc.
There is also wisdom which is the recognization and application of knowledge, which is not limited to science by the way.

Since "science" specifically refers to knowledge, then it rather is.

Sure it is.
Limited is probably a better way to describe it, though.
This is proven out by it's inability, or refusal to recognize the spiritual.

Science is wholly capable of recognising "the spiritual" and actively invites attempts to demonstrate it. Sadly, "the spiritual" refuses to recognise the scientific method's creditials and always seeks to define itself by non-falsifiable terms, despite the invitation.

This is not a failing of the scientific method, which has a 100% track record of describing all things that exist, that are non-falsifiable and that can be known. This is a failing of "the spiritual" in all its forms.

The only mechanism for you apparently, but not for everyone.
You mean eventual success rate.
Obviously you are not counting errors along the way.
It maybe the closest thing, but certainly not the only thing.
It is forever stuck in attempting to explain two dimensions from one, the physical.

Sadly, the entirety of existence is physical. Using the scientific method we can describe and understand all that exists and all that can be known. If the scientific method cannot describe something, that thing can never be known or does not exist, or both.

If it cannot be known by the scientific method, it cannot be known by any method - and cannot be said to exist.

How so?

Existence = all that exists.

You personally do not recognize anything as evidence, unless it conforms to your predetermined standard, so it would not be of any use to pursue that.

That standard being "all that can ever be known and all that exists".

But yet you will insure yourself on nothing more than a possibility.
That being the case you should be able to consider the possibility of God.

I did. On available evidence the possibility is 0%.

It that case, for you it would have to be the last.
In my examination thus far, it is the absolute foundational epitome of truth, and in reality it cannot be falsified.

That which is non-falsifiable cannot be known and does not exist.

It's kind of a trick question, really.

I can further testify to the fact, that it absolutely exists and is knowable.
BTW there are hundreds of millions of people who can testify to the same thing.
Oops, let me guess, thats just not scientific enough.

Testimony is not evidence. Scores of people claim they saw a plane heading for the Pentagon miss it and then vanish - and have testified this. Billions of people worldwide will testify that your God is the wrong one and the Bible is incorrect. Where do you draw the line - and why?

Yea, as long as its physical.

Only by your narrow definition.

Again, that definition being "all that can ever be known and all that exists".

You aren't even close on this one.
Apparently you have not bothered to compare the two.
It involves claims, consistency, and atonement, not language.

You should probably have a whack at reading the Qu'ran before you claim others haven't bothered comparing them. Have fun learning the Arabic you need to read the original version and the Greek, Latin and Sanskrit you need to read the "original" version of the Bible.

We know why you prefer the Bible/God to the Torah/Yahweh or the Qu'ran/Allah. It's because you can read English.

They sure are.
But they are only evidence of occurance and frequency which determines probability.
There is absolutely no evidence beyond that.
Or to who, individually may or may not be involved in the occurance.
That remains a possibility only.

Calculated from the evidence. That's what probabilities are.

Thats strictly your opinion since you refuse to recognize any evidence presented.

None has been presented. Feel free to present evidence. Remember that the scientific method evaluates "all that can ever be known and all that exists", so hearsay isn't actual evidence unless accompanied by it.

Not quite.
We have historical record for both.

Your historical record for the first is the Bible authors saying "Look! God said it first!". That'd be akin to me writing a book about 9/11 and claiming I predicted it...

For the second... it's a little odder. Remember that the tribes of Israel were Jews, Israel is a Jewish state and that the "prediction" also appears in the Torah (without the fluff of the NT). It's worth noting that no time frame is presented and no ancillary "predictions" are made - you'd think Yahweh would have spotted World War 2 and the extermination of the Jews before they got a country out of it. I once got a fortune cookie that predicted I'd get a job...

Circumstances do not have anything to do with the validity of the predicted outcome coming to pass.

They really do.

You'd be awesome at a John Edward stage show.

Its already been established that Science does not recognize anything that it cannot see, is not physically detectable, or understand.
God is a spirit, and even declares no one has ever seen him.
However God is far from undetectable.

If God is detectable, why is the scientific method - which is applicable by a group of any size, even 1 - not a suitable tool for detecting it despite being a suitable tool for 100% of other things that can be detected.

Likewise he is only approachable on a individual basis, so to insist on scientific evidence for God, from a almost entirely Atheist community, is like saying, show me some peaches from that apple orchard.

Why is God incapable of showing himself to groups of people who don't believe it exists?

Incidentally, one assumes Saul really liked peaches.

 

[Exorcet]

I have to repeat it over and over because you still haven't presented any evidence that the occurance will happen to you?

Time and time again, you've been given that evidence. The probability of needing insurance is non zero.

Until you do, it clearly stands that you have acted to protect yourself on a mere possibility.

And all this time, you've been saying things you don't understand. Stop trying to make God equal to a car accident by abusing the word "possibility". Yes, both God and an accident are possibilities if you look at it in the absolute most basic sense. However what matters is the probability of those possibilities. Car accident > 0, God = 0. In other words, Scaff or any other individual has a reason to buy car insurance. No one has any reason to take precaution against going to hell.

You can continue to sidestep, accuse, assume, or any other dodge tactic you wish.
That does not change the fact of the matter.

This applies perfectly to everything you've said lately. Please, stop this and get back on track with conversation.

Its already been established that Science does not recognize anything that it cannot see

You mean like atoms? You mean like Higgs Bosons? You mean like energy? You mean like dark matter? You mean like EM waves? You mean like...

is not physically detectable

These are the only things that can be detected. So, is God physically detectable, or not detectable at all (ie no one has ever sensed him)

God is a spirit, and even declares no one has ever seen him.

Who care, the entire human population could have blind in the past, now, and forever. Science would be the same. It does not rely on sight.

However God is far from undetectable.

Good, that means that we can analyze him with science. Now you can conduct an experiment and show us that he exists.

Likewise he is only approachable on a individual basis

And the steps to approaching him are?

so to insist on scientific evidence for God, from a almost entirely Atheist community, is like saying, show me some peaches from that apple orchard.

No, insisting on scientific evidence for God is like asking "how do you know God exists?". You can only answer with scientific evidence. If you can't answer with scientific evidence, you actually don't know anything about God.

You know some of you guy's posts give the distinct impression of a mad scientist,
holed up in some remote laboratory somewhere, living in the single dimension of the world of Science.
There's no good, no evil, no other dimensional realities, that life is lived in.
Perhaps you should get out more often.

Irony, 400 metric tons of irony.

Well, measuring the probability is pretty hard if there is only "it is or then it isn't".

Actually no, to get a probability, all you would have to do is run an experiment. As far as the God question goes, the experiment has been running for nearly all of recorded human time. Over that time, no instance of God has been found. So the probability is 0/number of trials, which is 0%.

"It is or it isn't" is common everywhere, but it does not always imply 50/50. For example, on the simplest of terms your computer will either turn on when you push the power button, or it will break. No one would buy a computer where those two have an even chance of occurring.

Bringing probability to this is once again the common not-to-do, mixing science with religion.
It's just a hypothesis versus belief.

They are perfectly mixable, science is applicable to anything we can know. If people claim to know God, then God must be scientifically verifiable. There is no way around this, however people love to segment God by using the word science, as if the word implies some sort of restriction.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Then provide evidence of God.

Personal accounts aren't evidence, because they cannot be verified. Scripture cannot be considered evidence, because it's just the written word of people's personal accounts, no more than you'd consider The Tiger Who Came To Tea evidence of an actual tiger that actually went to a little girl's house for tea (and at least we know tigers actually exist...).

And if you can't verify it, it isn't evidence. Famine's definition of evidence is the only definition, not just a "narrow definition".

Sorry, your explanation is completely true, but likewise completely useless, as pertains to the situation in this thread.

The evidentiary status of a personal account, is the same prior to verification.
It is either correct, incorrect or partially one or the other.
Verification confirms which it is.
Not only that but collaborative testimony is also evidentiary.

For instance, if you are driving along approaching a bridge and someone waves for you to stop and tells you the bridge is out, they may or may not be telling the truth, but I doubt there is one person who would not take their testimony under extreme advisement and proceed accordingly, at the least, realizing its possible the bridge is out. I might add, the last thing anyone would probably say in that situation would be: "Well show me some proof the bridge is out".

The more people there are that agree and tell you the same thing, the more likely you are to take their testimony seriously and the chance of validity, automatically increases.

As I pointed out with the insurance example, contrary to that and the above example, personal testimony to the exsistence of God and the personal eternal ramifications(bridge and insurance), are met with a complete unbelief that such a thing is possible.

Unfortunately, as with the examples, verification is in the future and and it maybe too late when that takes place, to reorder priorities and prevent serious loss potential.

 

[homeforsummer]

No it isn't, that's scientific evidence. Feel free to limit the word "evidence" to scientific evidence only , but there is something, I call it "religious evidence", which is the scripture and such. Though, that needs a bit of belief to be tight. It's enough to those who believe, but it's not tight enough for those who don't. It kind of isn't evidence to those who don't believe, but it is to those who do.

That's still not evidence, by any accepted, typical definition, though. As above, it's no more evidence than a picture book about a large feline coming to dinner is of such an event actually happening.

Noun
1. That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: "His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever."
3. (Law) Data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

Verb (used with object)
4. To make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: "He evidenced his approval by promising his full support."
5. To support by evidence: "He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters."

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

By which of any of those definitions does the bible constitute "evidence"? It certainly isn't proof, as we've established many times. It doesn't "make plain or clear" - the bible is about as plain and clear as a muddy puddle.

You might consider it "the testimony of witnesses", but again we've established that the bible has been repeatedly translated and selectively compiled, so you'd need more faith to believe the bible is accurate than you would to believe in god. God's case would almost be stronger without the bible as "evidence".

"Testimony of witnesses" could also be applied to individuality experiences, but then we come back to the same problems with that - nobody can verify anyone else's testimony. If it were a court, as in the third definition above, it's as good as the prosecutor saying "he did it" and the defendant saying "no I didn't". In the absence of any other evidence, the prosecution wouldn't be able to build a case.

That millions of people claim their own version of events isn't really sufficient either. Thousands of people have been abducted by UFOs, probed, and then let go on Earth to tell their stories, but curiously it's always those a few pages short of a novel who seem to experience them. Or people who live near airports, funnily enough.

People saying "I've experienced God" can be sure they're recounting an actual experience, but it's simply their evidence-free word. It remains unprovable with a hundred, a hundred thousand or a million saying it, just as it is with people in Arizona getting probed by aliens.

The evidentiary status of a personal account, is the same prior to verification.
It is either correct, incorrect or partially one or the other.
Verification confirms which it is.
Not only that but collaborative testimony is also evidentiary.

As above - only if it can be verified. In what way is two people saying something happened evidence, if there's no other way of proving that the event happened? They might just be two loonies on the same wavelength.

For instance, if you are driving along approaching a bridge and someone waves for you to stop and tells you the bridge is out, they may or may not be telling the truth, but I doubt there is one person who would not take their testimony under extreme advisement and proceed accordingly, at the least, realizing its possible the bridge is out. I might add, the last thing anyone would probably say in that situation would be: "Well show me some proof the bridge is out".

Poor example. If the bridge was actually out, you could verify that yourself. You might stop just in case, but the phrase "the bridge is out" is testable.

The more people there are that agree and tell you the same thing, the more likely you are to take their testimony seriously and the chance of validity, automatically increases.

Even if a thousand people were saying the same thing, you could take their word for it, but then you could also go and witness it yourself. Numbers are no guarantee of accuracy if the event cannot be verified. See above, re: UFOs.

Essentially you're saying that "so many people believe in God, that he must be real". Sorry, but that's not the case. Plenty of people believe that black people are an inferior race. I guess black people must be inferior, then.

As I pointed out with the insurance example, contrary to that and the above example, personal testimony to the exsistence of God and the personal eternal ramifications(bridge and insurance), are met with a complete unbelief that such a thing is possible.

Sorry, but you're going to have to rephrase that. It actually makes no sense whatsoever.

Unfortunately, as with the examples, verification is in the future and and it maybe too late when that takes place, to reorder priorities and prevent serious loss potential.

And nor does that.

 

[PR1VATEJ0KER]

Here you go.

 

[dylansan]

The evidentiary status of a personal account, is the same prior to verification.
It is either correct, incorrect or partially one or the other.
Verification confirms which it is.
Not only that but collaborative testimony is also evidentiary.

I want to you imagine a situation where a lot of people testify for something that isn't actually true.

Is such a situation possible? Is it possible for someone to claim something that isn't true? What about for a group of people who claim that?

Is it possible for a large group to claim something, and all of them be wrong? Well, according to you, no. But in reality, you can't know. The only way to be sure that everyone is telling the truth and is accurate is to actually test their claims and compare them to their testimony. But that requires evidence.

You're essentially basing your entire argument on the premise that testimony for something inherently makes that think more probable, yet you have no evidence for that. Yes, perhaps you could prove that testimony tends to be in line with reality with ordinary things that are common knowledge, but it could very well be, and seems very likely that testimony is less likely to be true when it deals with less obvious things, i.e. things without evidence. In order to test that, you would have to actually find evidence for the things people claim, or else you simply couldn't know. However, the fact that many people believe in conflicting things is a strong indication that some of these people are wrong.

To make the assumption that people inherently know things that don't have evidence is a flawed assumption that would require evidence to prove, which defeats the whole purpose of testimony anyway. It really is just easier to look for the evidence in the first place.

For instance, if you are driving along approaching a bridge and someone waves for you to stop and tells you the bridge is out, they may or may not be telling the truth, but I doubt there is one person who would not take their testimony under extreme advisement and proceed accordingly, at the least, realizing its possible the bridge is out. I might add, the last thing anyone would probably say in that situation would be: "Well show me some proof the bridge is out".

I can't help but notice most of your analogies deal with bad things, this and the insurance stuff.

What if I was walking down the street and someone told me they had some candy in their van? Should I believe them? It is something I could test after all, so should I do so? Why do we believe people when they tell us about a risk, but not when they tell us about some reward?

The answer is we shouldn't believe either without evidence, and in the second case, evidence that doesn't risk our lives. If I was being truly scientific, I would be going slow before the bridge anyway just to make sure it wasn't out, but it turns out having this behavior all the time is not particularly worth it. People take risks because they would rather have the possibility of harm than waste their life being boring and unable to do anything that involves risk. It's just human nature.

What this means is we shouldn't believe people's claims, but test them for ourselves where possible, and where making that test doesn't itself have consequences that aren't worth the risk. In any other case, when we can't actually do the test, we can't know the answer. It doesn't mean we should believe the person who told us.

The more people there are that agree and tell you the same thing, the more likely you are to take their testimony seriously and the chance of validity, automatically increases.

If I accepted your argument and believed your claim, how would that make the likelyhood of you being right higher? If I count as testimony, my only reason for belief is someone else's testimony. If this actually counted as evidence, then if any small group of believers in something could convince more people to believe, it would continue to grow until almost everyone believed, even though the only people who could possibly have any knowledge of it were the small group from the beginning.

The simple act of allowing testimony to be evidence makes all testimony less credible, as there could have just been one person initially with the belief, and everyone else could have just believed him.

As I pointed out with the insurance example, contrary to that and the above example, personal testimony to the exsistence of God and the personal eternal ramifications(bridge and insurance), are met with a complete unbelief that such a thing is possible.

You're confusing probability with possibility. The existence of a God is possible, but there are so many other conflicting possibilities that the probability of that particular one is essentially zero.

The difference between insurance and God, besides the fact question of evidence, is that I don't have to believe I will be hit by a flood in order to buy flood insurance. There is a possibility I will, and a possibility I won't, but I would rather pay for insurance and not be hit than be hit and not have any insurance. It's a choice based entirely on probability and risk assessment, and it doesn't require me to actually believe a flood is imminent.

For God on the other hand, the only insurance is belief itself. This is stupid. I can predict that the likelyhood of God existing is zero, and thus not actually believe in Him, but I could still decide the risk is too great not to have the "insurance." So what do I have to do? I have to change my mind, and believe. Well, sorry, but that isn't possible. I can't force myself to be sure of something that I already know has such little probability. And yes, belief requires absolute surety, or else it isn't a belief but an acknowledgement of the possibility.

If you're not absolutely sure, it you have any doubt, then it's simply worthless anyway.

Now, as I said, I don't feel I need that insurance anyway, as the other possibilities include Gods that would prefer I be honest with myself than lie to myself, and I'd rather insure myself against that, as it requires less effort on my part and is still just as likely.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

God is a spirit, and even declares no one has ever seen him.

You really should check out 1:25-1:54 in the video I posted.

Edit: I'll even post it again for your convenience.

 

[RalliArt/////]

Many religions have worshiping their god(s) at their core, as do many dictatorships by worshiping the Great Leader (Kim Jong Il was a good example for that), even some nations use a kind of worshiping to mentally bind its citizens (like the daily Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag in USA's high schools). Repetition works in gaining people for your cause subconsciously, be it a religion, a political idea or a product.

I agree.

(Matthew 6:7) "When you pray, don't babble on and on as people of other religions do. They think their prayers are answered merely by repeating their words again and again”

(Matthew 15:8,9) "This people honors me with their lips, yet their heart is far removed from me. It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach commands of men as doctrines".

(Isaiah 29:13) "These people say they are mine. They honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. And their worship of me is nothing but man-made rules learned by rote.”

Than why do so many other Christians claim that they don't know God's Plan? Do they not know the Bible as well as you seem to do, and are merely using lame excuses to hide their ignorance? If there is no Plan, then it makes perfect sense not to know It.

When I said “He doesn’t have everything planned ahead for us.” I was talking about God not predetermining each person’s individual outcome before “The End”. Which is why I then quoted (Mt 7:13,14) and gave some examples of God not using his foreknowledge in the Bible. Compare: (Isa. 24:6; Amos 3:7)

Can he choose to do so?

Yes, there were times when he foretold people’s births, kings ruling, cities destroyed etc. and he used human secretaries to record these. (2 Peter 1:21) I only gave examples where God chose not to know the outcome of certain circumstances as it mightn’t be as obvious.

Because if He can, then what you've quoted and said next, still doesn't make His ignorance right. Closing your eyes for all misfortunes and evil is even worse in my book.

God cannot be accused of the things I mentioned in my last post because of his “ignorance”. God Himself and all the scriptures quoted would be a lie had He known everything in advance.
He didn’t create us preprogramed to do everything he wanted because it would mean a lot to Him if we choose to obey Him freely. Wouldn’t a gift that came from the heart have the most meaning? If Adam and Eve had freely chosen to obey God, their obedience would have meant all the more to him. By obeying God, they’d show their love, gratitude, and obedience, and thus bring added delight to them and God. (Pro 27:11; Isaiah 48:18 Pro 23:15)

After Adam and Eve sinned God’s will to let man rule himself (for a while - Dan. 2:44) shows that human governments are unsuccessful, this adds assurance that God’s way of governing is best for us. (Jeremiah 10:23.) (Ecclesiastes 7:29)

Him not being omniscient/omnipotent would be much more acceptable for me. But at the same time He would cease to be a god and merely become 'quite a powerful being' (without a capital B).

If God was not omniscient or just omniscient, it would mean God doesn’t have the ability to control His power and therefore He would be imperfect and not God as you said, but I’d rather a perfect God then imperfect being.

 

[Scaff]

I have to repeat it over and over because you still haven't presented any evidence that the occurance will happen to you?

There is evidence of an accidental occurance, but absolutely no evidence to implicate any individual, none whatsoever.

If there is any, then all you have to do is show it to me.
Until you do, it clearly stands that you have acted to protect yourself on a mere possibility.

You quite clearly do not understand how probability works (and its not the same as possibility).

Car accidents occur, that is provable to a scientific standard. I drive a car, as such a probability exists of an accident occurring. Ergo I insure (aside from the fact that its a legal requirement in the UK).

The existence of God has not been proven to a scientific standard, as such its a zero probability event.

One has a probability of occurring the other doesn't.

You can continue to sidestep, accuse, assume, or any other dodge tactic you wish.

Odd because my stance has not changed one iota, nor has the standard I have asked you to use to demonstrate God exists.

As such I have not done any of the items I have been accused of.

That is a absolute ludicrous suggestion, akin to saying, if the sun does not come up tommorrow, that would be evidence.
A rather convenient one you Atheist like to hide behind.
Its already been established that Science does not recognize anything that it cannot see, is not physically detectable, or understand.
God is a spirit, and even declares no one has ever seen him.
However God is far from undetectable.
Likewise he is only approachable on a individual basis, so to insist on scientific evidence for God, from a almost entirely Atheist community, is like saying, show me some peaches from that apple orchard.

How is asking you to use the single most established standard of evidence ludicrous?

Its a standard that can be used to prove the existence of everything and has a 100% success rate at doing so.

I find it rather ironic that you accuse me of sidestepping yet when faced with a perfectly valid method of testing resort to insults and petty digs (ones that I notice seem to now focus on my status as an atheist).

Well there you go.

The book was written in chapters over time.
Then later assembled.

So you are happy to acknowledge that human hands have chosen what words of God are right and which ones are not right.

It seems odd that the words of a perfect God should need this doing to them, are they not all perfect?

Oh and given that they edited out the bits that were wrong I do have one question.

Why did they leave in the bits about Jesus given that they are quite clearly borrowed from another religious event (and from another religion) that predates Jesus be over 600 years?


That would seem to be a rather big oversight.

I have a direct line to God, but not as it concerns you.
Once again, I don't talk for him, thats why he authored a book.
The book has his words, not mine.

Then why on earth did you feel you were in a place to comment directly on me?

You know some of you guy's posts give the distinct impression of a mad scientist,
holed up in some remote laboratory somewhere, living in the single dimension of the world of Science.
There's no good, no evil, no other dimensional realities, that life is lived in.
Perhaps you should get out more often.

I get out all the time, had the misfortune of seeing a Christian preacher in town today shouting at little kids about how they were going to hell.

In regard to being a mad scientist, I would much rather spend my life working to understand the universe and using methodology that actually tests theories to destruction that live in the darkness of blind faith.

Sorry, your explanation is completely true, but likewise completely useless, as pertains to the situation in this thread.

The evidentiary status of a personal account, is the same prior to verification.
It is either correct, incorrect or partially one or the other.
Verification confirms which it is.
Not only that but collaborative testimony is also evidentiary.

For instance, if you are driving along approaching a bridge and someone waves for you to stop and tells you the bridge is out, they may or may not be telling the truth, but I doubt there is one person who would not take their testimony under extreme advisement and proceed accordingly, at the least, realizing its possible the bridge is out. I might add, the last thing anyone would probably say in that situation would be: "Well show me some proof the bridge is out".

This testimony can easily be tested to a scientific standard, you go and observe the bridge. It also meets the standard of falsability.

As such while the testimony alone is not evidence to a scientific standard, it can easily lead to testing that does meet that standard.

The more people there are that agree and tell you the same thing, the more likely you are to take their testimony seriously and the chance of validity, automatically increases.

Utter nonsense.

That is unless you now freely acknowledge that Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, faeries, ghost, transformers, etc, etc, etc. are all real.

The number of people believing in something has no bearing at all to the validity of it.

As I pointed out with the insurance example, contrary to that and the above example, personal testimony to the exsistence of God and the personal eternal ramifications(bridge and insurance), are met with a complete unbelief that such a thing is possible.

One rather big problem with this (as you actually acknowledge in a minute) is that all of the other items can be tested to a scientific standard, the bridge can be examined to see if it is 'out' how structurally sound it is, etc. The test is also falsifiable.

The existence of God can not be tested in the same manner and as such does not meet the same standard of evidence at all.

Unfortunately, as with the examples, verification is in the future and and it maybe too late when that takes place, to reorder priorities and prevent serious loss potential.

And until such an event happens you have not test that will meet the required standard.

Your evidence is no such thing at all, its personal testimony, faith and belief. All of which I have not issue with as long as they remain that. You can believe that God exists as much as you like, its doesn't provide any evidence that can be subjected to the same testing as everything else in the universe and as such doesn't constitute proof of existence.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Time and time again, you've been given that evidence. The probability of needing insurance is non zero.

You either fail to comprehend, or refuse to acknowledge that the evidence for you personally is absolutely zero. There is none.
You by your own reasoning in light of that, are determining from the probability of the occurance, that there is a possibility that it could befall you.
However, again there is absolutely no evidence to implicate you personally. NADA

And all this time, you've been saying things you don't understand. Stop trying to make God equal to a car accident by abusing the word "possibility". Yes, both God and an accident are possibilities if you look at it in the absolute most basic sense. However what matters is the probability of those possibilities. Car accident > 0, God = 0. In other words, Scaff or any other individual has a reason to buy car insurance. No one has any reason to take precaution against going to hell.

Only by way of personal testimony.
I just hope if you are waiting for verification, by the time you get it, it is not too late for you.

This applies perfectly to everything you've said lately. Please, stop this and get back on track with conversation.

I think you have me mixed up with Scaff.

These are the only things that can be detected. So, is God physically detectable, or not detectable at all (ie no one has ever sensed him).

As I posted earlier, he is detectable through the physical things he has made, which indicate he exists.
However, the determination is individually made.

Who care, the entire human population could have blind in the past, now, and forever. Science would be the same. It does not rely on sight.

So Science is your God?
Is that what you are saying?

Good, that means that we can analyze him with science. Now you can conduct an experiment and show us that he exists..

No, not that way.............

And the steps to approaching him are?.

Personally, as I said.
Whether you recognize it or not, we are spirit beings in a physical body.
There are some requirements:

Hebrews 11:6

Amplified Bible (AMP)

6 But without faith it is impossible to please and be satisfactory to Him. For whoever would come near to God must [necessarily] believe that God exists and that He is the rewarder of those who earnestly and diligently seek Him

Luke 11:8-10

Amplified Bible (AMP)

8 I tell you, although he will not get up and supply him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his shameless persistence and insistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs.

9 So I say to you, Ask and [a]keep on asking and it shall be given you; seek and keep on seeking and you shall find; knock and [c]keep on knocking and the door shall be opened to you.

10 For everyone who asks and [d]keeps on asking receives; and he who seeks and [e]keeps on seeking finds; and to him who knocks and [f]keeps on knocking, the door shall be opened.

No, insisting on scientific evidence for God is like asking "how do you know God exists?". You can only answer with scientific evidence. If you can't answer with scientific evidence, you actually don't know anything about God..

Sorry, but that is one of the most foolish statements, I've ever heard.

Actually no, to get a probability, all you would have to do is run an experiment. As far as the God question goes, the experiment has been running for nearly all of recorded human time. Over that time, no instance of God has been found. So the probability is 0/number of trials, which is 0%..

Obviously none that you would know of.

 

[Famine]

As I posted earlier, he is detectable through the physical things he has made, which indicate he exists.

Oh, this should be good.

 

[homeforsummer]

Obviously none that you would know of.

So where are these experiments? Surely if God were so easily provable the church would have absolutely no problem allowing people to verify it using scientific method?

The Catholic Church specifically has hundreds of artifacts that supposedly date back to the time of Jesus for example, yet never releases any of them to be tested. I don't doubt that's because they're worried it'll all be discovered to be hokum. After all, testing on the Turin Shroud has been fairly inconclusive up till now.

 

[Exorcet]

You either fail to comprehend, or refuse to acknowledge that the evidence for you personally is absolutely zero. There is none.
You by your own reasoning in light of that, are determining from the probability of the occurance, that there is a possibility that it could befall you.
However, again there is absolutely no evidence to implicate you personally. NADA

Clearly, I am not mixing you up with Scaff. The above is enough proof.

There is absolutely evidence to implicate me personally, that evidence being the non zero probability of the event. This is what makes insurance completely different from faith, and then they are even further distinguished by the fact that faith is challenged by other faiths meaning that selecting a faith does nothing to improve your chances of reaching a happy ending.

Only by way of personal testimony.
I just hope if you are waiting for verification, by the time you get it, it is not too late for you.

Actually no, it is by way of statistics.

I think you have me mixed up with Scaff.

Just to repeat, no.

As I posted earlier, he is detectable through the physical things he has made, which indicate he exists.
However, the determination is individually made.

And the steps to detecting him are? If there is no way to verify his existence, he might as well not exist.

So Science is your God?
Is that what you are saying?

What does that even mean?

No, not that way.............

Yes, you said he was detectable, so the scientific method must apply. Maybe it's the word "scientific" throwing you off. The method is not limited to people who wear lab coats for a living. It works for everything that we can detect. As soon as you said that God could be detected, you admitted that the scientific method could find him. It doesn't matter if you realize this or not.

Personally, as I said.
Whether you recognize it or not, we are spirit beings in a physical body.

Then show the proof, otherwise we're atoms and atoms alone.

6 But without faith it is impossible to please and be satisfactory to Him. For whoever would come near to God must [necessarily] believe that God exists and that He is the rewarder of those who earnestly and diligently seek Him

OK, I've done that.

8 I tell you, although he will not get up and supply him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his shameless persistence and insistence he will get up and give him as much as he needs.

That too.

9 So I say to you, Ask and [a]keep on asking and it shall be given you; seek and keep on seeking and you shall find; knock and [c]keep on knocking and the door shall be opened to you.

And again.

10 For everyone who asks and [d]keeps on asking receives; and he who seeks and [e]keeps on seeking finds; and to him who knocks and [f]keeps on knocking, the door shall be opened.

And yes, that too. However no God. Your hypothesis did not seem to work and it would seem that the instruction in the Bible are not accurate. Now if there was a God and if the Bible was correct, doing the above should lead you to him, right? When it doesn't that shows that there is a problem somewhere.

Sorry, but that is one of the most foolish statements, I've ever heard.

Well if you're content not knowing God, it's not my problem. Faith won't get you anywhere, it will just allow you to be deceived. This applies to both religion and your everyday life.

Obviously none that you would know of.

Sure there could be a case I've never heard of, though it's unlikely given that definitive proof of God would likely spread around the world rapidly, reduce the number of faiths down to one, and be taught as fact in every science class.

 

[Skuh]

Devout atheist. The idea of god I don't find ridiculous, but for it to be in anyway like any representation we have i find ridiculous, and the idea of there being a god but all the religions are wrong they just coincidentally just guessed correctly there is a god. I also find ridiculous. This just reinforces my judgement that there is no god.

 

[dylansan]

The point you are missing, SCJ, about insurance is that you don't have to believe you will be hit by whatever disaster, you just have to think the probability is high enough to be worth insuring against.

I recall even at the beginning of this discussion, someone specifically said they do not have volcano insurance because they don't live near a volcano. Why do you think this is? The probability of them being affected by a volcano is non-zero, yet they didn't think that made it worth buying. Now what makes you think they'd want to put even more effort protecting themselves against something with even less probability, especially when, as we've discussed, there is an equal possibility that a God exists who rewards self-honesty, in which case protecting against the Christian God would be ruining your success with that one.

You don't seem to understand that you don't need to be completely sure you will specifically be hit by a disaster for insurance to be worth it though.

 

[Touring Mars]

Also, if you are certain that a specific event will occur to you, then it wouldn't be insurable. Life 'insurance' is not really insurance, but assurance - everyone is certain to die, but one can insure against an unexpectedly premature death. But, similarly, if you knew your exact date of death, you would not be able to get life assurance either (or atleast, the premiums would be set so that you could not benefit from it, and hence it would be pointless). This is why suicide will void your life assurance policy.

Insurance only works because there is uncertainty, otherwise is cannot work.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

You quite clearly do not understand how probability works (and its not the same as possibility).

Car accidents occur, that is provable to a scientific standard. I drive a car, as such a probability exists of an accident occurring. Ergo I insure (aside from the fact that its a legal requirement in the UK).

The existence of God has not been proven to a scientific standard, as such its a zero probability event.

One has a probability of occurring the other doesn't.

You quite clearly, want to continue to ignore the fact you have a double standard of evidence,
after it has been repeatedly and clearly shown that you do.

The only probability involved, is for the event itself.
There is absolutely no inclusion of you, personally in the event equation.

For you, it is a possibility only, and that is the sum total of what you are insuring on.

The God of the Bible is a possibility as well.
As a matter of fact, 2.1 billion Christians world wide, the largest religion,
say he is more than a possibility.
In light of that, I find it borderline comical, when you make a statement like:

"The existence of God has not been proven to a scientific standard, as such its a zero probability event."

Odd because my stance has not changed one iota, nor has the standard I have asked you to use to demonstrate God exists.

As such I have not done any of the items I have been accused of.

Again, the only thing that has not changed is your refusal to admit you have a double standard.

How is asking you to use the single most established standard of evidence ludicrous?.

I already explained that.
What part did you not understand?

Its a standard that can be used to prove the existence of everything and has a 100% success rate at doing so..

Some things, not everything.

I find it rather ironic that you accuse me of sidestepping yet when faced with a perfectly valid method of testing resort to insults and petty digs (ones that I notice seem to now focus on my status as an atheist)..

God is not one of them.
It's a valid method of testing his handiworks, but not for him.
The Bible is about "him".

So you are happy to acknowledge that human hands have chosen what words of God are right and which ones are not right..

You don't get it.
God chose them and had men pen them.
By way of the Holy Spirit.
The same spirit I have.
Since you don't have it, it seems impossible, for you to comprehend.

It seems odd that the words of a perfect God should need this doing to them, are they not all perfect?

Depends on your standard, or perspective, of perfect

Oh and given that they edited out the bits that were wrong I do have one question.

Since you didn't wright the book, how do you know, they are wrong?

Why did they leave in the bits about Jesus given that they are quite clearly borrowed from another religious event (and from another religion) that predates Jesus be over 600 years?

How so?

Then why on earth did you feel you were in a place to comment directly on me?

I already explained that.
Twice, if I'm not mistaken.

I get out all the time, had the misfortune of seeing a Christian preacher in town today shouting at little kids about how they were going to hell..

He's just warning about the bridge being out.

In regard to being a mad scientist, I would much rather spend my life working to understand the universe and using methodology that actually tests theories to destruction that live in the darkness of blind faith..

Your faith in that is just as blind, if you think its all there is.

This testimony can easily be tested to a scientific standard, you go and observe the bridge. It also meets the standard of falsability..

Your jumping the gun.
Your not at the bridge yet, and can't verify that.

As such while the testimony alone is not evidence to a scientific standard, it can easily lead to testing that does meet that standard..

In a physical sense, yes.
In a spiritual sense, no.

Utter nonsense.

No its generally true.
Thats why, as said, collaborative testimony is more evidential.

That is unless you now freely acknowledge that Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, faeries, ghost, transformers, etc, etc, etc. are all real..

No again.
The religions just signify, the realization, for most people, that there is a God.

The number of people believing in something has no bearing at all to the validity of it.

Bingo.
Likewise, not believing in something has no bearing at all to the validity of it.
Further likewise, the probability of an accident or insurance loss has no validity on it happening to you personally.
It's all in the same category: "a possibilty"
Perhaps we have hit upon another of your double standards?

One rather big problem with this (as you actually acknowledge in a minute) is that all of the other items can be tested to a scientific standard, the bridge can be examined to see if it is 'out' how structurally sound it is, etc. The test is also falsifiable.

Again, in the case of this "thread bridge" it cannot be verified yet, other than personal discovery.

The existence of God can not be tested in the same manner and as such does not meet the same standard of evidence at all.

Yes and no.
Something I said earlier, is, "all evidence is established by way of testimony".
So "yes" in that it must be established that way.
"No" in that the testimony of those restricted to scientific method, have excluded and denounce any other form of evidential testimony.

Your evidence is no such thing at all, its personal testimony, faith and belief. All of which I have not issue with as long as they remain that. You can believe that God exists as much as you like, its doesn't provide any evidence that can be subjected to the same testing as everything else in the universe and as such doesn't constitute proof of existence.

Well now I must ask you, who appointed you God, to declare to everyone else what constitutes proof and what exists and what doesn't?
What puts you in the "all knowing" position to claim what is evidential and what is not?

Thats because "faith is the vehicle" of verification.
Not science
You just got through saying, the number of people that believe something has no bearing on validity.
That includes believing in science as the only evidence of anything.
You must think, belief in science is a one way street to nirvana.
Sorry to disappoint you, it's not.
To the contary, it has unveiled some very scary stuff.

I must admit it is strictly testimonial, but it is not strictly evidentially absent faith and belief.

Amplified Bible
1 Corinthians 12:7

But to each one is given the manifestation of the [Holy] Spirit [the evidence, the spiritual illumination of the Spirit] for good and profit.

 

[Scaff]

You quite clearly, want to continue to ignore the fact you have a double standard of evidence,
after it has been repeatedly and clearly shown that you do.

The only probability involved, is for the event itself.
There is absolutely no inclusion of you, personally in the event equation.

For you, it is a possibility only, and that is the sum total of what you are insuring on.

Despite having it clearly explained to you by a good number of people you are still clearly unaware of the difference between probability and possibility.

The probability of an event occurring can be mathematically calculated, to have a probability of occurring it must use events and actions that can be proven to exist. As such it is irreverent that the probability of the event occurring is below 100%, a probability must contains events and actions proven to exist (else it becomes a zero probability event and therefore impossible). As such using probability to try and prove the existence of something is totally moot.

Now you also claim that I am ignoring myself from the probability of an accident occurring, while at no point have I stated that, in fact it would be impossible for me to not be a factor in the event, but as I exist, can travel in a car and accidents occur (all of which can be proven using the scientific standard of evidence) the probability is above zero and can occur. For that to be the case every factor of the probability must exist/be true or it all drops to a zero probability event (I can't be in an car accident if I don't exist, don't travel in cars or accidents don't happen ever).

As no evidence of God has ever been shown (and we are still waiting for yours) any event involving God has a zero probability event.

Possibility to something totally different, a point that seems to be totally lost of yourself.

The God of the Bible is a possibility as well.
As a matter of fact, 2.1 billion Christians world wide, the largest religion,
say he is more than a possibility.
In light of that, I find it borderline comical, when you make a statement like:

"The existence of God has not been proven to a scientific standard, as such its a zero probability event."

Once again mixing Probability and Possibility without actually understanding the difference between the two.

Oh and once again the number of people who believe in something has nothing to do with if its real or not. Millions of Children believe in Santa, does that make him real?

Again, the only thing that has not changed is your refusal to admit you have a double standard.

Nope, once again this is simply down to you not actually understanding how probability operates.

I already explained that.
What part did you not understand?

You haven't explained it at all, you simply continue to use it instead using a distorted and incorrect version of probability.

Some things, not everything.

Such as?

God is not one of them.
It's a valid method of testing his handiworks, but not for him.
The Bible is about "him".

What a handy escape route, oh and you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible.

You don't get it.
God chose them and had men pen them.
By way of the Holy Spirit.
The same spirit I have.
Since you don't have it, it seems impossible, for you to comprehend.

Which still doesn't explain why he got parts wrong in the first place to need to get them removed.

Depends on your standard, or perspective, of perfect

Does God make mistakes or not?

Since you didn't wright the book, how do you know, they are wrong?

Then let us know why they were removed. I will go for a specific book as well.

Why was the Book of Barnabus removed from the Bible?

How so?

Messiah myths predate Jesus by a good 500 to 1,000 years and the Persian Messsiah figure of Mithra(s) can be dated to 600 years BC, yet share a scary amount in common with him (oh and in a handy bit of co-opting the site of the Vatican is a former Mithra temple).

I already explained that.
Twice, if I'm not mistaken.

No you haven't, you've said its God's statement on my morals but you are yet to explain how this was communicated to you to be able to state it so categorically about me.

He's just warning about the bridge being out.


Your faith in that is just as blind, if you think its all there is.


Your jumping the gun.
Your not at the bridge yet, and can't verify that.

Again, in the case of this "thread bridge" it cannot be verified yet, other than personal discovery.

Explain exactly why I can't continue to drive to the bridge to verify this?

No its generally true.
Thats why, as said, collaborative testimony is more evidential.

No its not and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

No again.
The religions just signify, the realization, for most people, that there is a God.

That could only be the case if you make a massive shift in your standard.

Applying your standard equally you either go with your new stance (which invalidates Christianity's core) or you validate all of the above and more. You don't just get to pick and chose what degree to apply it to based on what you want to try and prove.

Bingo.
Likewise, not believing in something has no bearing at all to the validity of it.
Further likewise, the probability of an accident or insurance loss has no validity on it happening to you personally.
It's all in the same category: "a possibilty"
Perhaps we have hit upon another of your double standards?

And now your contradicting yourself (which certainly doesn't point to double standards for me.

Yes and no.
Something I said earlier, is, "all evidence is established by way of testimony".
So "yes" in that it must be established that way.
"No" in that the testimony of those restricted to scientific method, have excluded and denounce any other form of evidential testimony.

No it can't. Once again you are shifting the definition of evidence based on what you want to prove.

If you use this standard you have to apply it equally and have just acknowledged that because a very large number of children believe in Faeries and Unicorns them must be real.

Well now I must ask you, who appointed you God, to declare to everyone else what constitutes proof and what exists and what doesn't?
What puts you in the "all knowing" position to claim what is evidential and what is not?

Thats because "faith is the vehicle" of verification.
Not science
You just got through saying, the number of people that believe something has no bearing on validity.
That includes believing in science as the only evidence of anything.
You must think, belief in science is a one way street to nirvana.
Sorry to disappoint you, it's not.
To the contary, it has unveiled some very scary stuff.

I must admit it is strictly testimonial, but it is not strictly evidentially absent faith and belief.

Amplified Bible
1 Corinthians 12:7

But to each one is given the manifestation of the [Holy] Spirit [the evidence, the spiritual illumination of the Spirit] for good and profit.

What part of my statement even comes close to claiming that?

Simple answer is nothing, the standard I have used is the established scientific standard (not one I am making up as I go along), a factor that has not changed at all.

Oh and if ""faith is the vehicle" of verification." how come the faith followers of other religions is invalid and only the faith in your chosen religion is valid.

And don't start the faith in science bollocks, just how many times does that one have to be shot down in this thread alone. I don't have 'faith' in science, science is evidence based and the theories it uses are repeatedly tested to destruction. Scientific theories are revised, rewritten, corrected, destroyed and confirmed on a daily basis by science itself. That's why peer review exists and the standard of scientific evidence requires falsability.

What I have however observed is a noticeable increase in hostility from yourself, one that happened immediately after I told you I was an Atheist, that however is not a factor I am either surprised by or new to.

 

[Dennisch]

All this pages. Still no evidence. Bummer.

 

[photonrider]

Much like convincing the blind about the existence of the rainbow, eh?

 

[Exorcet]

Well now I must ask you, who appointed you God, to declare to everyone else what constitutes proof and what exists and what doesn't?
What puts you in the "all knowing" position to claim what is evidential and what is not?

Why does someone need to be God to determine what's evidence and what's not?

You have to understand that there aren't different types of evidence. You can only prove something by proving it. Humans are limited to experiencing what we can detect for one thing, so immediately all things that can't be detected can be tossed out the window as far as evidence or proof goes.

Secondly, we know that we're not perfect and that what we do detect isn't always what we think it is. We need a way to get around this tendency of error to clearly understand things.

Putting those two together, it's clear that to know of something, we need to be able to detect it and then identify it. The former is easy enough to understand. The latter is done by narrowing down explanations. If more than one explanation exists for a given event, the cause it not known. This applies not only to past events but future ones. If you know how something works, you should be able to predict how it will behave.

In the case of God, we can't make any predictions. You and others have proposed ways of connecting with God, but these proposed methods do not even attempt to rule out causes other than God. Example, ask and receive. If you play the lotto long enough, you are 100% guaranteed to win. Someone who plays the lotto for eternity, wins, and then credits the win to a lucky pair of socks is doing nothing but fooling themself. They simply experienced the rules of probability. Likewise, praying and then having something "miraculously" happen does not imply God. However, if prayers were always answered in a specific manner, then a case could be made for praying.

Just having faith and assuming off the bat that the Bible's text means anything is just keeping you from seeing the truth. The only way to know is to test. "Spiritual" or "Scientific" does not matter, the scientific method is the only way we can know anything.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

The God of the Bible is a possibility as well.
As a matter of fact, 2.1 billion Christians world wide, the largest religion,
say he is more than a possibility.
In light of that, I find it borderline comical, when you make a statement like:

"The existence of God has not been proven to a scientific standard, as such its a zero probability event."

Argumentum ad populum. Just because lots of people believe in it does not make it a valid belief (as already pointed out). So Scaff's statement is indeed valid, no matter how "comical" you find it.

He's just warning about the bridge being out.

Not quite, I'll explain in just a second.

Your jumping the gun.
Your not at the bridge yet, and can't verify that.

And why exactly is it we can't just drive to the bridge? The difference between the bridge story and the preacher, is one can be tested, and one can't. You see, I could drive to the bridge and see if it was out, and if it was I could simply turn around and go home. It is nowhere near the same in regards to the preacher. The kids can't go to hell to see if it's there and then come back and go home. You know why? Because they would have to die to do so. That's the key difference between the two scenarios. One you go and check and then come home, one you die and never come back; the first scenario's validity can be confirmed, while the second cannot.

The religions just signify, the realization, for most people, that there is a God.

That's quite the appeal to emotion argument (I feel it therefor it is true, basically). They could easily be misinterpreting the feeling of wanting it to be true, and the emotions it creates, as "the holy spirit" or what have you, as there being a god.

And talk about double standard. You act as though the 2.1 billion that are christian give christianity validity, but then ignore that if we were to use that same standard of evidence, all religions are valid, though you selectively use it to justify yours.

That standard of evidence creates problems though, which religion is then right one then and how can we tell? Number of followers? The feeling that there is a god? For you, yes, but in reality, those fall extremely short of being the slightest bit of evidence at all.


Also, I'll try this one last time (quoting myself here):

God is a spirit, and even declares no one has ever seen him.

You really should check out 1:25-1:54 in the video I posted.

Edit: I'll even post it again for your convenience.

 

[dylansan]

You quite clearly, want to continue to ignore the fact you have a double standard of evidence,
after it has been repeatedly and clearly shown that you do.

The only probability involved, is for the event itself.
There is absolutely no inclusion of you, personally in the event equation.

You do realize the probability we are talking about is specifically the probability of it happening to you or me. If it was just the probability of it happening ever then it would ne 100% as soon as the event happened the first time.

You know those statistics about how likely you are to die in a plane crash? Those are specifically your odds, approximately (but then all odds are approximations). If you knew you had a 50% chance of dying if you took a particular plane ride, you would probably not take that flight.

These odds can be calculated, and the more data you get, the more accurate the odds. But you can't calculate odds without any data.

And by the way, applying the same standard to two things is not a double standard, it is a consistent standard. Unless you can show that Scaff has different requirements for different ideas, stop making this claim.

 

[Villain]

SuperCobraJet, I submitted a small sampling of Biblical contradictions at your request. I would appreciate it if you addressed the point and answered my original question.

In case you forgot:

SuperCobraJet, as a Christian, how do you deal with the Bible's contradictions?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Despite having it clearly explained to you by a good number of people you are still clearly unaware of the difference between probability and possibility.

Well, lets see.
You clearly have a double standard of what constitutes evidence.

Now you also claim that I am ignoring myself from the probability of an accident occurring, while at no point have I stated that, in fact it would be impossible for me to not be a factor in the event, but as I exist, can travel in a car and accidents occur (all of which can be proven using the scientific standard of evidence) the probability is above zero and can occur. For that to be the case every factor of the probability must exist/be true or it all drops to a zero probability event (I can't be in an car accident if I don't exist, don't travel in cars or accidents don't happen ever).

All of that is sound and well understood, except your concept of application in reality.
Where you continually fail to differentiate is, when it comes to applying probability as evidence to you personally.

As part of your above demographic example, there is a probability of accidents occuring and attributable to the whole group at large, of which you are in.
Using Famine's example of a 2% probability, attributable to the group, that is your probability of an accident within the group.

Obviously at 2% it is overwhelmingly improbable statistically that you will have an accident.
More in the realm of possibility, not probability.
So in reality you are insuring on a 2% probability, or in reality, a statistical possibility.

Now, not only are you insuring with practically no probability, and overwhelming improbability, there is no establishable evidence of any kind, to put you personally in the 2%, and show you will have an accident.
None.

Even if your probability was 50%, this would still be the case.

Now if there is any evidence, as I've requested repeatedly,
Show it to me.

Insurance only works because there is uncertainty, otherwise it cannot work.

Exactly.

You do realize the probability we are talking about is specifically the probability of it happening to you or me. If it was just the probability of it happening ever then it would ne 100% as soon as the event happened the first time.

You know those statistics about how likely you are to die in a plane crash? Those are specifically your odds, approximately (but then all odds are approximations). If you knew you had a 50% chance of dying if you took a particular plane ride, you would probably not take that flight.

These odds can be calculated, and the more data you get, the more accurate the odds. But you can't calculate odds without any data.

And by the way, applying the same standard to two things is not a double standard, it is a consistent standard. Unless you can show that Scaff has different requirements for different ideas, stop making this claim.

You do realize that none of that constitutes evidence.

You can get on plane after plane and fly 24/7 and never be in a crash, regaurdless of what the probability statistics are.
The same for driving or whatever.
Evidentially, they are irrelevant on an individual basis, because there is no way to tell what percentile will happen when or who will be involved.
It is all in the realm of possibility.

supercobrajet, i submitted a small sampling of biblical contradictions at your request. I would appreciate it if you addressed the point and answered my original question.

In case you forgot:

Post
#8254