Do you believe in God?

[SuperCobraJet]

@SuperCobraJet, yes, acceptable evidence IS limited to things that actually exist. Glad you joined the rational world at last! Welcome!!

Apparently you missed the important point.
All of those things most assuredly would exist, but there was no(by the great standard) evidence for them.
The example clearly shows the absolute futility of requiring, the great standard to prove the
existence of anything.
In that, as claimed, it is biased, but even more importantly, undependable.
And that is the case with physical things, much less spiritual.
Further, if it is that deficient, what is it missing with regaurd to past and present things?

Discussions. Discussion everywhere.

On a discussion forum too..

How about that.
Under the heading of opinions too.
Extraordinary.

On the contrary. I've had many a discussion with theists who are quite happy to accept that god can't be proven and accept that for what it is, belief.

Its SCJ's fundamentalist view that god can be proven, but in some magical way that defies the standard that has been used to prove everything else. If that wasn't not fun enough, it then gets expanded to a superiority for his culturally biased religion over all others. Based on a magically indefinable way again.

He claims proof, but is unable to provide it and seems quite a fluster that we don't just accept 'because I say so'.

Thats not entirely correct.
Not necessarily that God can be proven, but that there is evidence for it.
The superiority factor is your interpretation.
I just know it offers something unique, and thats evident as well.
That something, I have recieved along with millions of others.
If that makes it superior, then so be it. Since I didn't originate it, I have no control over that.
It is not magical or indefinable, but exactly what it says it is.
The only proof is by personal testimony, which is also as described.
I'm not flustered. I've been here before, so I fully expect it will not be accepted.
Nevertheless, you should look into it, you maybe surprised at what you discover.

I didn't say they were all the same - I said that the same amount of evidence roughly exists for all of them.

I was speaking in terms of validity, which I thought is what you were inferring.

Could exist, currently doesn't or has not been proven. A rather siginifcant point that is utterly lost on you.

To the contrary, not at all.
Again since earlier you would not answer the question of possibility, I assumed that you were saying that it could not exist.

So did the internet, the internal combustion engine, the aeroplane, modern metallurgy techniques, open heart surgery, antibiotics, jet propulsion, etc exist in 1800?

No they did not.

Does the lack of evidence for them in 1800 then preclude them existing at a later date?

No it does not.

Seriously, you just claimed that we should be able to provide evidence of things before they were created.

Really - you did that!

Nevertheless, the point was to show the glaring inadequacy of the standard, in relation to existence.

You are also still missing the point by such a margin its almost mind boggling. A lack of evidence to a scientific standard does not mean that something doesn't exist, as an atheist that is the one and only core point. Its a absence of belief in gods, not a belief in no gods. Do you know what every single one of the things you have been so absurd about have in common? The scientific method was the core methodology behind discoveries in every single one of them. This method you say doesn't work and is fallible is the reason why they work (and the reason you are able to post here).

If you would, please elaborate on "not a belief in no Gods".
What exactly does that mean?

I would refer to the discovery aspect, as the combination of people, belief, and science.
Hey, don't get me wrong, warts aside, science is a wonderful thing, in its assigned element.

It can be used to prove every single damn one of them, now how about doing that with god? Do so and you have me (as I have said so many times its unfunny), the thing is you can't so its back to magic, 'cos I say so' and a lack of critical thinking on a stellar scale.

Sorry, but God is not going to afford you that.
Its not about science, or conclusive proof, or even logic to much of an extent, or reason.
Its structured around interest. Thats because its relational.
I've mentioned this before, in that it is similar to the dynamics between a man and a woman.
Its about interest, attraction, you could say even arousal to an extent.
But on a different level, minus the obvious carnal aspects, between a man and a woman.
However the same in the personal aspect of having a relationship with one another.
I said sometime back it has been purposely structured that way.
Quite simply, God does not want your interest, because there is scientific proof, he exists.
That would be an undue external influence, forcing you to him, out of the wrong motive.
Rather it is of the heart, and must be pursued that way.
Like I said, its unique, knowable only on a personal basis.
Thats all I can tell you.

In 1800 they didn't exist. They weren't created until later.

Thats wholly irrelevant.
Where is my repeatable, objective and falsifiable evidence?
If you cannot produce it, according to the great standard, it cannot exist.
Now just as then, the standard has no clue what can exist?

 

[Liquid]

I just know [belief in god] offers something unique, and thats evident as well.

Bolded part is conjecture. Absolutely, 100% not fact. It is not evident, you should tell us why it is evident. I'd pretend I don't want to make the link between the words evident and evidence, given that one is a direct derivative of the other, but that would be lying.

And for what it's worth, I have not addressed the rest of your post(s) because it is the same dead end, back and forth stuff as the last 5 pages. Scaff, GBOpossum, Danoff and Imari are already fending that fort. But this one point I have addressed really sticks out.

 

[mistersafeway]

Apparently you missed the important point.
All of those things most assuredly would exist, but there was no(by the great standard) evidence for them.

Was this part of the discussion about personal evidence? I'll assume yes for the purpose of this response, and I think it'd be a safe assumption that if I brought up people who murdered people and claimed God told them to, you'd respond by saying it was Lucifer/Satan/David Cameron/whatever you want to call the ultimate evil.

If you would, please elaborate on "not a belief in no Gods".
What exactly does that mean?

I think he meant not a belief that there are no gods.

Thats wholly irrelevant.
Where is my repeatable, objective and falsifiable evidence?
If you cannot produce it, according to the great standard, it cannot exist.
Now just as then, the standard has no clue what can exist?

No, that's just a possibility, alongside what actually was the case (they didn't exist on Earth yet), and that there was no valid (from the perspective of humanity as a whole) evidence yet, as may* be the case with God/gods/FSM et cetera.

*Notice how heavy a stress I have to put on may, please.

 

[Famine]

Yep. He just said that the scientific method precludes invention and discovery.

Whew.

 

[Liquid]

Yep. He just said that the scientific method precludes invention and discovery.

Whew.

It's a tired and tested trope but... he said that over the internet using electricity and a computer to a potential audience of millions across the globe.

 

[Scaff]

Thats not entirely correct.
Not necessarily that God can be proven, but that there is evidence for it.
The superiority factor is your interpretation.
I just know it offers something unique, and thats evident as well.
That something, I have recieved along with millions of others.
If that makes it superior, then so be it. Since I didn't originate it, I have no control over that.
It is not magical or indefinable, but exactly what it says it is.
The only proof is by personal testimony, which is also as described.
I'm not flustered. I've been here before, so I fully expect it will not be accepted.

So have millions of others for differing religions.

So I will ask again, what objectively is different about yours?

Nevertheless, you should look into it, you maybe surprised at what you discover.

I have and did not discover anything to lead me to the conclusion that it is anything other than myth (much of it borrowed heavily from other, older religions)

I was speaking in terms of validity, which I thought is what you were inferring.

To the contrary, not at all.
Again since earlier you would not answer the question of possibility, I assumed that you were saying that it could not exist.

Assumptions would appear to be a bit of an undoing.

Nevertheless, the point was to show the glaring inadequacy of the standard, in relation to existence.

Which you most certainly haven't done.

All you have done is, once again, shown your ability to totally change the meaning and/or definition of things in an attempt to suit your own needs. The main difference this time is that you have now entered the absurd.

If you would, please elaborate on "not a belief in no Gods".
What exactly does that mean?

It means someone who actively have no belief in gods, i.e. a non-theist.

I would refer to the discovery aspect, as the combination of people, belief, and science.
Hey, don't get me wrong, warts aside, science is a wonderful thing, in its assigned element.

A subject you clearly don't actually understand based on your recent posts.

Sorry, but God is not going to afford you that.
Its not about science, or conclusive proof, or even logic to much of an extent, or reason.
Its structured around interest. Thats because its relational.
I've mentioned this before, in that it is similar to the dynamics between a man and a woman.
Its about interest, attraction, you could say even arousal to an extent.
But on a different level, minus the obvious carnal aspects, between a man and a woman.
However the same in the personal aspect of having a relationship with one another.
I said sometime back it has been purposely structured that way.
Quite simply, God does not want your interest, because there is scientific proof, he exists.
That would be an undue external influence, forcing you to him, out of the wrong motive.
Rather it is of the heart, and must be pursued that way.
Like I said, its unique, knowable only on a personal basis.
Thats all I can tell you.

So magic and because you say so.

Thats wholly irrelevant.
Where is my repeatable, objective and falsifiable evidence?
If you cannot produce it, according to the great standard, it cannot exist.
Now just as then, the standard has no clue what can exist?

Once again you clearly have no idea at all what you are on about.

You do not get to redefine terms simply to suit your position.

 

[RalliArt/////]

I gave reasons.

Where? Show me where you refuted just 1, let alone 300+ contradictions.

Non-responsive.
Non-responsive.

Thanks, you've just highlighted my point.

Why do you think that the Bible is a book worth believing? I'd like to know your train of thought, not just "because it's the word of God";

There's no reason for me not to believe.

I want to understand why those particular arrangements of the 27 letters of the alphabet (plus some numbers and signs) makes it worth quoting instead of replying with your actual opinion/argument.

Luke 21:15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.

You don't seem to mind when Danoff quotes Bible "contradictions" that aren't his.

 

[Scaff]

Luke 21:15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict.

Bats are not birds and rabbits are not ruminates.

I both resist and claim contradiction on these claims.

 

[zzz_pt]

@RalliArt/////



1 Kings: 22

20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.

21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.

22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.



2 Thessalonians: 2

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie



Ezekiel: 14

9And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel.



Jeremiah: 20

7O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.

 

[GBO Possum]

There's no reason for me not to believe.

"There's no reason for me not to believe. (in the Bible)"

Try explaining the story of Noah and the flood to yourself. There are so many impossible things claimed in this myth that it's hard to know where to start.

Some of my favorites:-

• Where did all the water come from to cover all the world's mountains to several cubits deep? (That's fresh water about 5½ miles DEEP!)
• And where did the water go to after the flood?
• How did all the world's animal pairs fit in such a small ark?
• You can't just have a pair of ants or bees to maintain a species, you need a colony. Colonies need space and ventilation as well as food sources.
• How did they manage to breathe through such a small ventilation opening?
• How did Noah get the animals from Australia and return them? (Kangaroos, wallaroos, wallabies, emus, echidnas, platypus etc)
• Ditto the penguins from Antarctica, the Moas and kiwis from New Zealand, the many finch species from the Galapagos and so on...
• How did Noah feed the koalas? (How was he able to harvest enough of the specific eucalyptus leaves, transport them, keep them fresh etc)
• I believe Noah only had seven days warning of the final date for the flood. How did he get all the work done in such a short time?
• Why is there no world-wide evidence of a flood?
• How did the coral reefs survive this inundation? The water pressure alone would kill them.
• Ditto the various oyster variants around the world.
• Sea horses?
• Sea critters which rely on the chemical composition of sea water and can't survive in fresh water.

I guess that's enough to go on with for a while. There are hundreds of other impossible things.

Noah's story is part of the word of God. It's BS. Any BS in the Bible calls into question its overall truthfulness.

 

[zzz_pt]

I like that part of the Noah story when he sends out a dove to see if there's dry land.

The ark didn't have a sail, a rudder or any type of system to steer. Even if there was land 15 feet away from the ark would just pass by it... lol

 

[SniperRed3]

Have you been re-incarnated, or have you been telling little lies for effect?

No, my grandmother in the 60s had a baby girl that died of natural causes. She went to the church looking for comfort, however the priest said, because the baby wasn't baptisted she will burn in hell. Not to mention that my grandmother was a frequent churchgoer up until this point.

 

[Liquid]

If true, what a kind and benevolent representative of his religion that priest was.

@GBO Possum Most of the fish were laughing when the flood came though, they increased their realty exponentially. Winner.

 

[SniperRed3]

He said he was just spreading the word of god. I can't stand people who do nice stuff then say they do nice stuff because of God. I personally don't need a man in the sky as a reason to be nice.

 

[Danoff]

Where? Show me where you refuted just 1, let alone 300+ contradictions.

The link you gave had a blanket response that was supposed to respond to the first 7 presumed contradictions all in one. It referred to a thousand page article talking about something completely different. That's not a response, that's a cop-out. I do not have 5 hours to maybe find their response. As such, I'm not paying attention to your link. If you want to use that material to respond, you dig through and find the relevant bits.

 

[SniperRed3]

Here's an intresting "debate" I had with an RE Teacher when I asked her about the evidence of God, she replied "you don't need evidence you just believe" Which I replied you know my perfect A* grades I got when I was 4 would you think that is real?" She then Replied there is no evidence so I don't believe you" I then said "These are my views on religon. My story is alot more probable than yours" I was a 🤬 litte 🤬 when I was younger.

 

[LeMansAid]

No, my grandmother in the 60s had a baby girl that died of natural causes. She went to the church looking for comfort, however the priest said, because the baby wasn't baptisted she will burn in hell. Not to mention that my grandmother was a frequent churchgoer up until this point.

Ah, I see. That was a great comment in the homosexuality thread by the way.

In the back of my mind I always had this idea that there was an "age of innocence" thing going on in Christianity. I just started looking it up though, and it seems to be a much more convoluted process than expected, to support the concept Bible-wise. Regardless of that, a decent and communicatively adept person should be able to focus on the pain of another while deftly steering clear of a hellfire condemnation that need not be voiced. What a bastard.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Yep. He just said that the scientific method precludes invention and discovery.

Whew.

If you are applying it as a basis for existence, yes it absolutely precludes it.
Repeatable, objective and falsifiable evidence, is point in time, as well as physically dependant.
As I replied to Danoff, "Now just as then, the standard has no clue what can exist".
Only that which it is capable of identifying at that point in time.
As my example clearly shows, thats a fact.
Under that standard, invention and discovery, can only be acknowledged, once the conditions of the standard are met.
Otherwise by the standard, it does not exist.

It is also a fact that a person can know something that no else knows, or a few know, or many know.
Now if God purposely structured the way to know him through personal or individual revelation only, then it is useless to invoke some other standard of confirmation or evidence. The other standard does not apply.
Its that simple.
The only evidence that can be established in that situation, is testimonial.
The testimony is evidential, but not conclusve as to the scientific standard.

Bolded part is conjecture. Absolutely, 100% not fact. It is not evident, you should tell us why it is evident. I'd pretend I don't want to make the link between the words evident and evidence, given that one is a direct derivative of the other, but that would be lying.

And for what it's worth, I have not addressed the rest of your post(s) because it is the same dead end, back and forth stuff as the last 5 pages. Scaff, GBOpossum, Danoff and Imari are already fending that fort. But this one point I have addressed really sticks out.

It is evident from my perspective, not necessarily yours.
Although if you read the New Testament, it is clearly evident it offers something totally unique, and as far as I can tell, apart from any other religion.

No, that's just a possibility, alongside what actually was the case (they didn't exist on Earth yet), and that there was no valid (from the perspective of humanity as a whole) evidence yet, as may* be the case with God/gods/FSM et cetera.
*Notice how heavy a stress I have to put on may, please.

The essential point is, regaurdless of what the standard shows, yes it very well may.
For me, its more than may.

So I will ask again, what objectively is different about yours?

And I will answer again, what it offers.

I have and did not discover anything to lead me to the conclusion that it is anything other than myth (much of it borrowed heavily from other, older religions).

Perhaps you did not investigate thoroughly enough.
Or maybe, it has not appealed to your interest at this point in time.

Assumptions would appear to be a bit of an undoing.

Perhaps.

Which you most certainly haven't done.

Well maybe you can provide some repeatable, objective and falsifiable evidence to the contrary.

All you have done is, once again, shown your ability to totally change the meaning and/or definition of things in an attempt to suit your own needs.

I haven't changed anything of the sort.

The main difference this time is that you have now entered the absurd.

Whats absurd about it?

It means someone who actively have no belief in gods, i.e. a non-theist.

Why then do you have no belief in gods.

A subject you clearly don't actually understand based on your recent posts.

Well perhaps you can enlighten me.
And BTW, I didn't insist on the standard, you did.

So magic and because you say so.

I would refer to it, as God says so.
I'm just testifying to it.

Once again you clearly have no idea at all what you are on about.

You do not get to redefine terms simply to suit your position.

I'm not redefining anything, just stating fact.

 

[Liquid]

Although if you read the New Testament, it is clearly evident it offers something totally unique, and as far as I can tell, apart from any other religion.

You simply cannot call something 'evident' if you do not offer as to why. It's not evident, it's conjecture.

What does it offer? What makes it so obvious? As @Scaff has consistently asked you, what makes your belief in your religion more valid and true than someone else's belief in a different religion?

 

[SniperRed3]

Religon has always been used as an explanation to unexplainable things. Nowadays science is so evolved it's explaining the previously unexplainable making religon a bit pointless in that respect.

 

[Famine]

If you are applying it as a basis for existence, yes it absolutely precludes it.

 

[SniperRed3]

Some people should stop reading fictional books.

 

[Scaff]

If you are applying it as a basis for existence, yes it absolutely precludes it.

I can now thankfully reduce your nonsense to a single point.

No one (but you) has claimed than the scientific method is the basis for existence.

As such you have redefined it in an attempt to suit your own ends.

It is not the basis of existence, it is the method used to provide proof of existence via valid robust evidence testing; for it to be the basis for existence it would have to be the creating mechanism, which again no one (but you) has said.

You have been linked to information on the Scientific method previously, so why are you still getting it wrong? Is it ignorance or deliberate (and I do expect an answer on this point)?

 

[huskeR32]

Now just as then, the standard has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the sledgehammer has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the sunrise has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the hamburger has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the sneeze has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the yellow has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the anger has no clue what can exist.

Now just as then, the cunnilingus has no clue what can exist.

What the hell game are we playing here? Did I score any points?

 

[GBO Possum]

Why then do you have no belief in gods.

Finally, you ask a question I can understand, and is not lost in ambiguity.

I can't speak for @Scaff, however my answer is simple:-

Because there is absolutely no evidence that any gods exist, and because the stories made up to support their existence make no sense.

For example. The Bible is the "word of God" > The Bible contains the story of Noah and the flood > that story is demonstrably nonsense > at least some of "God's words" are nonsense > I can't trust any "words of God".

 

[Dotini]

Now if God purposely structured the way to know him through personal or individual revelation only, then it is useless to invoke some other standard of confirmation or evidence. The other standard does not apply.
Its that simple.
The only evidence that can be established in that situation, is testimonial.
The testimony is evidential, but not conclusve as to the scientific standard.

Personal revelation, he says.

 

[Danoff]

I wanna to try...

Why then do you have no belief in gods.

"Belief" in the religious sense - to know without question that something is true - is not possible* to achieve rationally. Everything can be doubted*. God himself could come to me dressed in robes, standing 2000 feet tall, look down at me, smite the tree next to me, and say "I am the one true Christian God, do you believe in me now?", and I'd reply "How do I know you're not lying?". How do I know he's not a shroom slipped into my dinner? How do I know he's not a hologram, or part of the computer program that my entire consciousness is trapped in. No amount of evidence is possible to prevent me from doubting my perceptions (even the made up spiritual ones). I could literally have died and gone to heaven and still not "believe" in the way that religious people use the term.

However, you're not using it in the religious sense, you're misusing it (still) in the colloquial sense. You think "believe" - means to kinda think it's probably true. And for that, I require significant evidence - of which I have seen none. And no evidence to the contrary - of which I have seen lots.

*Except the cogito

 

[SniperRed3]

SuperCobraJet how's your relationship with God?

 

[DQuaN]

People who speak to god are religious.

People who say god speaks to them are probably paranoid schizophrenics.

 

[GBO Possum]

SuperCobraJet how's your relationship with God?

@GOD how's your relationship with @SuperCobraJet?

(Tell us all so we can all be paranoid schizophrenics.)

EDIT:- I just checked GOD's profile and he joined GTP in June 2001, but has yet to post anything. And, no surprise, he is not following me. I wonder if he's following SCJ!