Do you believe in God?

[Denur]

The book of Job tells us that God can and does limit Satan's freedom of action.

Which verses should I be looking at?

The Bible is authoritative, remember? Produce a text which says that Satan can impersonate God.

You believe that the Bible is authoritative. The book could still be written by the Devil and he would of course make sure that nothing in the book could lead you to thinking just that.

 

[Danoff]

To illustrate this with an example from my own book:

Let's take a day where I've decided to meditate. I drop the kids off at 8:30am and head into the hills. By the time I get there and I'm set up it's about 9:30ish. I start with my meditation. Then, all of a sudden, and to me only moments later, my alarm rings, I'm suddenly "there", and I have all these wonderful feelings and thoughts running through me. Yes, it would be right to say I am having an experience then and there, I am observing an experiene then and there, yet, that wasn't the point. The point was that seeing my alarm rang it's already 3:00pm, and I have absolutely no recollection of what happened for at least the last 5 hours. In my mind, I have not made any observation within the last 5 hours. Yet, based on what I know from previous experience, and from countless other accounts of meditation, I make the connection that the thoughts and feelings I now have didn't just pop into existence, but are the effect (or as I've previously called it, residual effect) of the meditation.

Yet, even though I can observe these effects, I cannot at all say, in any meaning of the word, that I've observed the meditation.

I don't have a reason to doubt the meditation really happened, because I'm still sitting in the same spot I sat 5+ hours earlier when I started to meditate.

So, to get back to the question with respect to this concrete example. Are you saying that if you observe the effects, i.e. wonderful feelings and thoughts, you are observing what I consider to be the cause, i.e. the meditation?

Do you see here what my issue is?

You're perceiving an event (unconsciousness) by observing the effects of that event (change of time, change of sun position, hunger, thirst, others wondering where you've been, etc.). If you feel euphoric after your meditation, that too is an effect (which you're attributing to the meditation because of temporal correlation).

If it then exists you mean?

No. It exists because you perceive it - even if it only exists as perception.

Indeed. Because we have no reason not to. And that, of course, is the crux of the entire matter.

Lots of reasons NOT to believe your meditation was a God experience. Also lots of reasons NOT to stop accepting reality.

 

[doctorrg]

You're perceiving an event (unconsciousness) by observing the effects of that event (change of time, change of sun position, hunger, thirst, others wondering where you've been, etc.). If you feel euphoric after your meditation, that too is an effect (which you're attributing to the meditation because of temporal correlation).

Fair enough, Danoff, based on the rather broad understanding of perception that you've brought up earlier, there's nothing wrong with what you've said here. I guess there'd be nothing wrong with saying that one is observing his/her own unconsiousness either, or would there be? Even though it does sound rather odd.

No. It exists because you perceive it - even if it only exists as perception.

Because there is no reason for it not to exist, yes, we've been through this.

Lots of reasons NOT to believe your meditation was a God experience.

For you and me both, but that wasn't the point, or was it now?

Also lots of reasons NOT to stop accepting reality.

Absolutely.

We do not stop, because we have no reason to stop. And that's just it. That is, of course, entirely human. You need a reason to stop. A lack of reasons to not have started in the first place simply isn't sufficient.

 

[Danoff]

We do not stop, because we have no reason to stop. And that's just it. That is, of course, entirely human. You need a reason to stop. A lack of reasons to not have started in the first place simply isn't sufficient.

Regardless, we have lots of reasons to accept reality at face value. Every time we drop something and it hits the ground our reasons for accepting reality are reinforced. Every time the sun comes up our reasons for accepting it are reinforced. We'd need a reason to think something was awry - such as the sun not coming up suddenly - for us to start questioning whether our reality is what it appears to be. This has happened many times in our history, and each time we come to terms with the fact that reality is not exactly what we thought it was, but that it is still an understandable reality. People thought that the earth was the center of the universe, that angels inhabited the clouds and that caves were crawling with demons. People thought that the earth was flat and that you'd fall off. These ideas eventually fall apart when hit with observations that contradict them.

So what's the conclusion of all of this? We just agree on everything? I take it you're an atheist then.

 

[doctorrg]

Regardless, we have lots of reasons to accept reality at face value. Every time we drop something and it hits the ground our reasons for accepting reality are reinforced. Every time the sun comes up our reasons for accepting it are reinforced. We'd need a reason to think something was awry - such as the sun not coming up suddenly - for us to start questioning whether our reality is what it appears to be. This has happened many times in our history, and each time we come to terms with the fact that reality is not exactly what we thought it was, but that it is still an understandable reality. People thought that the earth was the center of the universe, that angels inhabited the clouds and that caves were crawling with demons. People thought that the earth was flat and that you'd fall off. These ideas eventually fall apart when hit with observations that contradict them.

We do have lots of reasons.

So what's the conclusion of all of this?

That we need a reason to stop. We don't just stop because there is a lack of reasons to have started in the first place. Just because we have no reason to believe in something, doesn't mean someone else has a reason not to believe in it.

We just agree on everything?

Not sure. If I did believe in God, I doubt I'd have a reason to stop. All I'm seeing are reasons to not have started believing in the first place, and I hardly find that sufficient. Do we agree on everything?

I take it you're an atheist then.

I honestly don't know which bucket I'd throw myself in, but I'm certain that's what Dawkins would call me. I'm sure I've said as much before, in this very thread, though it might be a hundred or so pages back by now.

 

[HeelDriverPRO]

God doesn't exist. Why do people belive in thissort of......... silly things?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Either way, they still got Raptured, along with every other Believer since.

No, they didn't. The Rapture refers to Jesus' supposed second coming. So nobody has been raptured.

We are the generation that will actually see Jesus return to Jerusalem as He says.

Source? An actual one, thanks, not a jumble of words that can be interpreted to mean any particular generation as the reader deems fit, but one that specifically mentions a handful of years into the third millennium.

That's the major difference which you miss out on. I've said it many times before, if you possess a Godless heart, why would you want to understand anything God says through His word, and even His Spirit?

That's a good question. Here's something you've said:

It won't, if you have other agendas in your heart, other then wanting to know God.
I had that same issue for 30 years, until I truly put aside the material things my heart desired.

Or, a little later:

If you have already broke commandments 1 and 2, how can you possibly come to know the Lord?

So, at some point, you didn't know God. I suppose that forces the question: how can you possibly come to know the Lord?

It didn't happen in their life time, so obviously they would have known it wasn't their generation.

That is some supremely shoddy logic.

Yes, gravity does require belief. No one knows what it is. It's just guessing, like everything else they not sure about.

Gravity does not require belief. It happens regardless of whether one believes in it. And there are mounds of testable, verifiable evidence to support it.

The complete lack of understanding of even the most basic foundations of science has me wondering how you manage to use a computer.

It won't, if you have other agendas in your heart, other then wanting to know God.
I had that same issue for 30 years, until I truly put aside the material things my heart desired.

My only agenda in this life is to know as much as I can during the life I'm currently living, and to live it well. God, at least in the Christian sense, does not provide that. Science has provided knowledge of the world around me, while religion does the equivalent of covering its eyes and ears and yelling "na-na-na-na-na" at anything that doesn't line up with its silly stories. That is not progress.

Man cannot serve God and mammon.

Ironic then, that the Catholic church is amongst the richest organizations in the world.

That's in prophecy near the end times:

And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.

Lawlessness doesn't abound in Germany. Less people follow Christianity than before. These two things are not the same.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons

Is this the Spirit in the book that could very well be the writings of the Devil himself? It'd certainly make sense for him to warn against looking elsewhere, religiously.

I think @Famine is on to something.

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.

Sound teaching? Like the idea the Earth is 6000 years old?

Yep. Sound.

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

This is remarkably similar to the cold reading techniques favoured by psychics. This isn't some great insight, a warning sent from a higher power. It's a vague collection of negative aspects of civilization that have existed in each and every generation.

1. Here are some logical reasonable clues for the beginning of sorrows:
   
   http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...cientists.html (Well, it was written 2000 years ago, but thanks for the reminder)

Are you really using an article that pretty clearly follows the scientifically accepted time line of the Earth as corroborating evidence for your Bible stories?

I just get that funny feeling that people sitting comfortably at home playing games, see an improvement in mans way of living on earth. Unsurprisingly. God saw it differently, and took the time to warn us and prepare us.

Right. God overlooked the Dark Ages, but now is the time he'd be concerned.

 

[sammy neuman]

But anyone can produce a text that says Satan can impersonate God. I can do it right now.

"Satan can impersonate God."

I could publish it in book form, but it wouldn't really change the fact that I've just made it up on the spot.

Surely the only thing you would actually accept would be a text that says that Satan can impersonate God, and has the same or similar level of authority as the Bible.

Given that the Bible is at the top of the food chain, authority-wise, I don't see a Christian accepting any text as being even equivalent to the Bible, let alone able to override it. As such, this is not falsifiable, as your axiom (the Bible is authoritative) prevents any other text from providing what you need.

This is pretty simplified, and I'm not a Christian so I couldn't say, but I suspect that if there really is something that you would accept as "proof" of Satan's ability to impersonate God, even within established Christian beliefs, then you'd have to provide more definition than simply "a text that says Satan can impersonate God". I don't think you, or any Christian, would actually accept that, and nor should they.

You are correct...To a fundamentalist of any type, their 'sacred writings' are the final authority, and the Truth. To a Bible-literalist Christian (and probably myself, though I am not a literalist) only a text, or rather, a verse (perhaps 'text' is unclear) from the Bible is acceptable as proof that Satan can impersonate God.

Which verses should I be looking at?

You believe that the Bible is authoritative. The book could still be written by the Devil and he would of course make sure that nothing in the book could lead you to thinking just that.

Job1:14
I know that God exists, but my evidence is subjective, hence not admissible as such. I believe that the Bible is an authority, but:
The presumption that God and Satan exist underlies the original question, therefore I can use the presumption that the Bible is authoritative as proof, and specify that any disagreement can only be proved by chapter and verse from the Bible.

 

[LeMansAid]

God doesn't exist.

I'll give the standard response - Can you please show us your evidence?

Militant non believers are on their way to becoming as annoying as militant believers. When atheism gives way to Atheism, the Theists can justifiably point the finger at it being a religion, and of belief. Then the Theists become annoying in greater numbers.

If you don't believe in God, just tell us that thanks. Telling us that God doesn't exist is a baseless statement, and I don't appreciate the indiscriminate noise of it.

 

[Scaff]

I'll give the standard response - Can you please show us your evidence?

Militant non believers are on their way to becoming as annoying as militant believers. When atheism gives way to Atheism, the Theists can justifiably point the finger at it being a religion, and of belief. Then the Theists become annoying in greater numbers.

If you don't believe in God, just tell us that thanks. Telling us that God doesn't exist is a baseless statement, and I don't appreciate the indiscriminate noise of it.

Why did you miss out the rest of the post?

Had only what you have quoted been said I would have agreed with you, however given the full post and context of belief in God being 'silly' (not the word I would use) infers a less militant stance than the partial quote you have used.

 

[LeMansAid]

Why did you miss out the rest of the post?

The first sentence was not reliant on the second, and I had no interest in addressing the question - only the statement of fact. Also, I didn't actually call the poster militant.

When someone puts forward a conclusion on something that cannot be concluded, it's just empty provocation. Doesn't matter which side it comes from.

 

[Denur]

Job1:14

Job 1:14New International Version (NIV) 14 a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were grazing nearby

What does this have to do with God having control over Satan?

The presumption that God and Satan exist underlies the original question, therefore I can use the presumption that the Bible is authoritative as proof, and specify that any disagreement can only be proved by chapter and verse from the Bible.

Very true. If the Bible actually is what it claims to be. And that cannot be proven from its own content alone.

 

[LeMansAid]

Job 1:14 - a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were grazing nearby

Yeah........ think about it.

 

[High-Test]

Either way, they still got Raptured, along with every other Believer since.

Really? Even the jackasses?

We are the generation that will actually see Jesus return to Jerusalem as He says. That's the major difference which you miss out on. I've said it many times before, if you possess a Godless heart, why would you want to understand anything God says through His word, and even His Spirit?

Quite possibly for enlightenment. Otherwise, we're trying to understand the various brands of lunacy to which people subscribe. I've got mine, you've got yours, @Slash has the Ford Motor company. Supposing we understand the brands of lunacy, we might be able to combat them if they begin wielding automatic weapons and call for certain things/people to be destroyed, i.e. Justin Bieber, the Pontiac Sunbird, IBTL posts.

Also note, that Jesus told them the temple will be destroyed, and sure enough, in 70 AD it happened.
Again, a Godless mind won't comprehend that. It just won't work. A man cannot serve both God and mammon.
The disciples would have known that from previous prophecies, Israel would need to become a nation again, and re-claim the temple. It didn't happen in their life time, so obviously they would have known it wasn't their generation.

Okay, so you've admitted that the temple was indeed standing in the lifetime of Josh. Since it was standing, he could not have rebuilt it, and indeed was nailed to a couple sticks of something or other and died about four decades before the Romans burned the place down. Of the messianic prophecies, the fact that Josh didn't rebuild the temple as he was supposed to in Ezekiel 37:26-28 means that he didn't fulfill one of the prophecies, meaning the dude was out.

Interesting. Israel has to become a nation again in order for Josh to come back and rain hellfire, yet organized Christianity 's (or Paulianity's) prime directive from the council of Niceae to sadly recently has been to ensure that there are no people to become that nation of Israel in the first place. How do you reconcile this? It's kaput if there are no people to become a new Jewish Commonwealth. That's what the guy meant in the first place, correct?

Again, a Godless mind cannot understand the word in Spirit.
Jesus said "I am the door". What does that mean to you?

The door to idolatry and blasphemy.

Yes, gravity does require belief. No one knows what it is. It's just guessing, like everything else they not sure about.

Do you believe that "something" started the big bang?

Had to. Great A'Tuin might have the answers.

It won't, if you have other agendas in your heart, other then wanting to know God.
I had that same issue for 30 years, until I truly put aside the material things my heart desired.
Man cannot serve God and mammon.
As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.
"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

Yet render unto Caesar? Or does that not apply?

There is no way you can experience the Presence of the Lord, if you have not let go with the things you desire, that are placed ahead God. It goes against commandments 1 and 2.
If you have already broke commandments 1 and 2, how can you possibly come to know the Lord?

Really? I can't serve God very well if I'm starving, can I? And what about the other 611?

I've noticed that you still haven't grasped the concept that Jesus removed the law of which the Jews were under in the Old testament, by not understanding the verse in Matthew 5:17

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

Right. Josh himself declares that he has not come to abolish the law, he has not come to abolish the words of the prophets, yet he.. abolished them? How, praytell, might that work? Are we talking about Jesus or Richard Nixon? What concept are you getting at? Doublespeak?

Let me try helping you again:

Matthew 11:13
"For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John.

Romans 10:4
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

So, in Matthew Jesus declares that he has not come to abolish the law. Paul says that he did. They contradict, do they not? If so, then, the text is fallible.

Galatians 3:23
But before faith came, we "were" kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.…

Yup. Belief justified the crusades, the inquisition, and all that fun genocidal reverie. So the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) leads to Christ, and once at Christ it can be thrown out? Let's remember where you're going: Straight into the arms of a Jewish carpenter who had two dads. If Jesus is a Christian, meaning whatever that might mean anymore, then he's been breaking those first two commandments for a very long time. Daddy takes those first two rather personal.

Ephesians 2:15
by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace

Again, this comes from Paul, who never even met the guy! Paul is contradicting Matthew. Meaning that one of the two is wrong. In this case, given that one of the two is wrong, the text is yet again entirely fallible and it becomes more and more evident that it was written by people. Do you mean to tell me Moshe wrote down the whole Torah on Sinai?

That's in prophecy near the end times:

And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.

Which law? The one (Daddy came up with it) that Jesus specifically said he wasn't there to abolish, or the ones that Paul made up? If Jesus overthrew Daddy's word, then the lawlessness is self-explanatory. Plus, Didn't Daddy himself promise that he/she/it would never destroy humanity again? Daddy apparently doesn't keep his word. And, in breaking that promise and destroying humanity because 5/7 people on the planet don't believe his boy was their saviour, Daddy's a colossal douche and likely not worth anyone's worship. You can't have it both ways.

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.

Where? What spirit? Sauce?

Religion loses its grasp as it is a form of mechanical solidarity when society advances, and naturally, becomes more complex. When minds are free, they can truly soar. See Durkheim, Émile: The Division of Labour in Society

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. ...

I read about every kind of person mentioned above in Tanakh, many of them straight from the beginning. God was fairly certain even then that they wouldn't succeed. Why bother now?

I just get that funny feeling that people sitting comfortably at home playing games, see an improvement in mans way of living on earth. Unsurprisingly. God saw it differently, and took the time to warn us and prepare us.

If God is all powerful, all knowing, and reportedly kind unto the thousandth generation, why show spite for every human that didn't follow whatever set or rules he/she/it came up with? Supposing that God created the Universe in the big bang, god already had the real rulebook copy-edited and published by the time the universe was the size of a hydrogen atom. We're all bound by physics. If God was responsible for the creation of the universe, then we have been following God's rulebook for the entirety of our existences, belief or not.

And, by god's rulebook, the end times for us will definitely happen when Sol runs out of hydrogen.

 

[Imari]

Do you believe that "something" started the big bang?

Had to.

Technically not.

The Big Bang is when causality broke down. Without causality, then there doesn't necessarily have to be anything to cause anything else.

This is also why we can't know what came before the Big Bang, because all our methods of figuring out things in the past depend on causality, and it doesn't apply in that specific case.

The real answer is we don't know what came before the Big Bang, or if there even was a before the Big Bang in any meaningful sense. And it's entirely possible that we can't ever know.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Then I would strongly suggest that in future you make that a lot clearer.

So do you support the contention of the quote you used, even given the context of the person who quoted it having no intention of being open to new evidence and having already found the truth they wanted?

I originally posted this link as well:

http://www.thoughtfulchristianity.net/?p=312

Both links point out the futility in a "closed mind" argument.

And yet its still not repeatable and all you seem to do when any one says as much is blame them.

Again this is a most unique application, with a most unique approach.
The relational aspects are paramount.
To say it does not work for someone is to call God a liar.
Sorry but I've never found that to be the case.
Likewise, relationally that is not conducive in getting off to a good start.
I can assure you, if there is a problem in it somewhere it's not on his end.
"According to your faith, be it done unto you"

Its rather reminiscent of the charlatans that faith-healers embody so well.

Not all faith healers or those that believe in faith healing, are charlatans.

There's a very important distinction to be made here. Did you "test" before or after coming to your conclusion?

Again this is a most unique application, with a most unique approach.
In that to run the test, you have to approach with faith and belief.
That is prequalifier.
I would describe it more as a long series of tests, one just leading to another and another, wherein you are more and more convinced of the conclusion, and the conclusion being established over the series of tests.

If you tested after, that's fine. It's just that my next question would be - were you prepared to change your conclusion?

I'm not sure it isn't the other way around.
Or are you really prepared to accept the conclusion.


* It is no accident that those are the biggest, boldest, most italicised quotation marks that I have ever used.

 

[DQuaN]

Not all faith healers or those that believe in faith healing, are charlatans.

Perhaps "Idiots" is a better word.

 

[Scaff]

I originally posted this link as well:
Both links point out the futility in a "closed mind" argument.

Not in the post I replied to you didn't. However the new link simply attempts to claim that anyone who doesn't believe is close minded because they will not accept that God/Jesus are real based on..........well at that point it falls apart

Again this is a most unique application, with a most unique approach.
The relational aspects are paramount.
To say it does not work for someone is to call God a liar.
Sorry but I've never found that to be the case.
Likewise, relationally that is not conducive in getting off to a good start.
I can assure you, if there is a problem in it somewhere it's not on his end.
"According to your faith, be it done unto you"

Ahh so its still my fault.

So any time its not repeatable is the individuals fault, even if they have followed the correct steps.

Not all faith healers or those that believe in faith healing, are charlatans.

I made no mention of those that believe in it, I was specific in regard to faith healers.

However if you have some evidence (and real evidence) in regard to faith healing then please provide it.

 

[HeelDriverPRO]

I'll give the standard response - Can you please show us your evidence?

Militant non believers are on their way to becoming as annoying as militant believers. When atheism gives way to Atheism, the Theists can justifiably point the finger at it being a religion, and of belief. Then the Theists become annoying in greater numbers.

If you don't believe in God, just tell us that thanks. Telling us that God doesn't exist is a baseless statement, and I don't appreciate the indiscriminate noise of it.

Can you show us any proof that he does exist? Hes obviously not on the clouds because if he was by now he would of fell to his death and he can't be a ghost and ghosts aren't real

 

[Carbonox]

Can you show us any proof that he does exist? Hes obviously not on the clouds because if he was by now he would of fell to his death and he can't be a ghost and ghosts aren't real

You made the claim:

God doesn't exist.

Now you show the proof.

 

[HeelDriverPRO]

L

You made the claim:

Now you show the proof.

I've already explained so where's the proof that he does exist?

 

[HeelDriverPRO]

Now can people stop asking me to prove it again?

 

[Famine]

Please don't double-post. Edit your post if you are still the most recent poster in a thread and think of something new to add.

Which in this case seems to be a link from Google, to Reddit, posted in image tags...

I've already explained so where's the proof that he does exist?

No, you're not following.

You made a claim. It's not anyone else's responsibility to prove your claim wrong, but for you to prove it right.


I am happy to accept that there is no evidence for any given deity's existence. Though many deities have non-falsifiable qualities that render them non-existent as described, this is not the same thing as evidence that they do not exist.

If you wish to claim that a deity does not exist, you need just as much evidence as someone who claims that it does. You need to apply the same tests - which must be falsifiable - and produce evidence to the same standard.

A picture from Reddit is not evidence.

 

[Imari]

However if you have some evidence (and real evidence) in regard to faith healing then please provide it.

I sense the theme of the next five pages of goal-post shifting and word redefinitions coming.

I've already explained so where's the proof that he does exist?

So no such thing as aliens in your universe either, eh?

Just because something hasn't been observed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means it hasn't been observed. Admittedly, sometimes people use the verbal shortcut that something doesn't exist if it hasn't been observed, but in a thread like this you should probably be more accurate about what you mean.

There are more valid reasons to doubt the existence of the Christian God than "I haven't seen him". That method rules out all sorts of things that probably exist but haven't been observed, and so isn't really what most people would consider a useful heuristic as it pretty much guarantees you'll be wrong sooner or later.

 

[LeMansAid]

@HeelDriverPRO Sometimes it's just semantics at play, but you did make a point of posting here. It wasn't that someone asked you a question, and you gave a response.

So, let''s put the terminology aside for a moment. Why did you feel the need to post? Did you think that someone may be intrigued by your view? Did you think it might change someone's view?

 

[HeelDriverPRO]

I sense the theme of the next five pages of goal-post shifting and word redefinitions coming.



So no such thing as aliens in your universe either, eh?

Just because something hasn't been observed, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means it hasn't been observed. Admittedly, sometimes people use the verbal shortcut that something doesn't exist if it hasn't been observed, but in a thread like this you should probably be more accurate about what you mean.

There are more valid reasons to doubt the existence of the Christian God than "I haven't seen him". That method rules out all sorts of things that probably exist but haven't been observed, and so isn't really what most people would consider a useful heuristic as it pretty much guarantees you'll be wrong sooner or later.

Come on no one belives alians exist no matter how many police video clips that you see on the tv it always turns out as an act.

 

[HeelDriverPRO]

@HeelDriverPRO Sometimes it's just semantics at play, but you did make a point of posting here. It wasn't that someone asked you a question, and you gave a response.

So, let''s put the terminology aside for a moment. Why did you feel the need to post? Did you think that someone may be intrigued by your view? Did you think it might change someone's view?

No someone told me to prove it and it was kinda obvious so i didn't really need to say anything.

 

[LeMansAid]

No someone told me to prove it and it was kinda obvious so i didn't really need to say anything.

No, you made an unsolicited post. I'm wondering what your motivation was.

*You double posted again.

 

[Famine]

someone told me to prove it

I also told you to not double-post, but you seem to have paid no heed to that.

it was kinda obvious so i didn't really need to say anything.

Actually you do.

No matter how "obvious" something seems, it's no more or less true than something else unless it has a weight of evidence. You've brought no evidence - you just repeatedly say that other people need to bring evidence against your claim, which is not how it works.

In order to provide evidence either for or against the existence of a deity, you need to come up with a question (hypothesis), then create a test to prove that you're wrong (falsifiability). If you prove yourself wrong you need a new hypothesis and if you don't you need a new test. This is how all knowledge works - and it doesn't matter how much you think you know, because you can always come up with a test to prove yourself wrong...

... unless your position is a belief, in which case you can't. If you can't prove it wrong, it's not knowledge.


Just as our theists here believe that they are right and do not need evidence (which would require them to create a test to prove themselves wrong, which they're are unwilling to do [even if they could - which they can't as their deity is non-falsifiable as described]), you seem to believe you are right and do not need evidence - because you think that the lack of counter-evidence is enough. It's not, it's just a lot of testing that has proved lots of hypotheses about it to be wrong.

Come on no one belives alians exist no matter how many police video clips that you see on the tv it always turns out as an act.

We're not talking about little green men in space ships. We're talking about life on other worlds.

It has never been observed - but then we can't directly image the surface of the overwhelming majority of other worlds and we've only visited ten other bodies.

This isn't the same thing as it not existing.

 

[Imari]

Come on no one belives alians exist no matter how many police video clips that you see on the tv it always turns out as an act.

Oh right, you're a troll. Well done, it's hard to tell in this thread sometimes.