Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 13:30:49 GMT
If you can't prove that god exists, why would you believe that he does?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2017 13:33:06 GMT
If you can't prove that god exists, why would you believe that he does? Argh
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 13:38:55 GMT
If you can't prove that god exists, why would you believe that he does? Argh Is that why? Because "argh"?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 13:52:04 GMT
If you can't prove that god exists, why would you believe that he does? For a variety of reasons. I don't need 100% indisputable proof. Faith isn't about proof. It's about trust. I can't PROVE that the airplane I'll be boarding next month won't crash. But I have enough reasons to TRUST that it won't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 14:34:56 GMT
I agree that there is almost nothing we know to 100% certainty.
But in the case of the airplane it's not simply an assumption of faith - it's a reasonable expectation based on evidence. You know that airplanes have an excellent safety record and that crashes are very rare. You can consult statistics to support this, comparing airplanes with other forms of travel. You can read about the things airplane designers and operators do to make sure they are as safe as reasonably possible. You can watch documentaries outlining what went wrong in particular crashes and the pains that investigators go to in order to identify the fault and ensure that it is eliminated from now on. And so on, and so on.
You don't approach that matter with a complete lack of concrete evidence or knowledge and say "well I just have faith that this airplane won't crash", right?
And that's because faith is not a way of actually knowing things. That can be seen by the obvious fact that different people can have faith in mutually exclusive things. Both cannot be right - and if either or both are wrong, this proves conclusively that faith is not actually any guide to truth.
So why would you ever believe anything on faith?
Assuming, of course, you are concerned that your are truthful. Which not everybody is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 15:05:45 GMT
As I said, there are a variety of reasons I have for trusting the idea that there's a God. It's not "based on nothing" (it's a mix of historical, philosophical, and even some scientific reasons), but it's also not about being 100% "psychologically certain" (as if one could find 100% indisputable scientific evidence). Die-hard atheists are almost always looking for the latter. I don't think that's necessary for belief (for me anyways).
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2017 15:29:34 GMT
Is that why? Because "argh"? No. Argh is simply argh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 16:58:39 GMT
Is that why? Because "argh"? No. Argh is simply argh. Well argh to you too, then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 16:59:14 GMT
As I said, there are a variety of reasons I have for trusting the idea that there's a God. What's the strongest one?
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Apr 26, 2017 17:25:01 GMT
Is that why? Because "argh"? No. Argh is simply argh. Thanks for clearing that up!
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 26, 2017 17:31:11 GMT
I find that believers and nonbelievers have two completely different conceptualizations of what God is to begin with. I hear a lot of nonbelievers refer to God as "the man in the clouds" (as if believers think God lives on Mount Olympus or something). That's an ancient conception of God, but almost no believer would argue that God is PHYSICALLY among us, but rather that he's spiritually among us. As such, you can't really PROVE that he exists (or doesn't exist), as most believers assume that he exists OUTSIDE of our physical reality, yet can still influence it (like how a computer programmer can influence his/her program without being inside of it). To those that exist inside, pretty much anything they see would appear natural to them. The program is operating the way it was designed to operate. Believers argue that there is a "programmer," and nonbelievers don't buy into that. "I hear a lot of nonbelievers refer to God as "the man in the clouds" (as if believers think God lives on Mount Olympus or something)."
The few times I hear, I believe that's more used more mockingly than necessarily how we may view believer's perception of God. In my last few days as a "believer" I saw God more as an abstract guiding force rather than an anthromorphic being, a vast "network" of such that could reach every human on Earth, not too different from how the Internet works.
"but almost no believer would argue that God is PHYSICALLY among us"
Except for people to have professed to experiencing God, miracles, and the fact that he talks to people constantly in the Bible.
"that he exists OUTSIDE of our physical reality, yet can still influence it (like how a computer programmer can influence his/her program without being inside of it)."
Again he appears countless times in the Bible in our "physical realm" talking to people all the time. And that analogy doesn't really work, just a rehash of the watchmaker argument. We can see the influence of a computer programming through computer coding, there's nothing in existence that really indicates a "divine" coding of such.
"The program is operating the way it was designed to operate"
Only if you're looking at a very small part of the unvierse (Earth). And even that can be attributed to billions of planetary and biological evolution if you insist on seeing "design".
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2017 17:39:07 GMT
@lowtax86
The watchmaker analogy wasn't designed to convince other people. It is a fitting analogy for people who believe creation is the more plausible and possible explanation and have not been presented with a better alternative....& to be clear there isn't a better alternative.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 26, 2017 17:42:52 GMT
@lowtax86 The watchmaker analogy wasn't designed to convince other people. It is a fitting analogy for people who believe creation is the more plausible and possible explanation and have not been presented with a better alternative....& to be clear there isn't a better alternative. "The watchmaker analogy wasn't designed to convince other people."
Is that why you made several posts trying to convince nonbelievers it is a good argument?
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 26, 2017 17:44:21 GMT
tpfkar I guess you've got to work with whatever weak sauce you have to cling to. The destruction of the wicked is literal and as a collective they make up the heavens and the earth that people think don't change.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2017 17:48:33 GMT
@lowtax86 The watchmaker analogy wasn't designed to convince other people. It is a fitting analogy for people who believe creation is the more plausible and possible explanation and have not been presented with a better alternative....& to be clear there isn't a better alternative. "The watchmaker analogy wasn't designed to convince other people."
Is that why you made several posts trying to convince nonbelievers it is a good argument?
I wasn't trying to convince anyone.
I am stating quite plainly that there is nothing wrong with it regarding it's intent, that the debasing of it was purely an atheist ploy to simply dismiss it, & you clearly weren't reading what I stated if you thought for one second I cared about you being convinced by it.
So I'll give you the chance to go back and re-quote everything I said to prove me wrong about that.
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Apr 26, 2017 17:50:30 GMT
Have you ever encountered an argument for god that has made you pause any wonder if such a being might exist?Similarly, believers, what is the most persuasive against god? Has any argument made you doubt your beliefs? Just the thought (ie: fear) that the universe is without creation or purpose.....
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Apr 26, 2017 17:59:43 GMT
Have you ever encountered an argument for god that has made you pause any wonder if such a being might exist?Similarly, believers, what is the most persuasive against god? Has any argument made you doubt your beliefs? Just the thought (ie: fear) that the universe is without creation or purpose..... On the plus side, this makes humans the masters of the universe...Unless you believe aliens that aren't God created us.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 26, 2017 18:17:33 GMT
In order for something to exist, there must be a conscious observer. Argument for God^ Then it's a weak argument. When I leave my apartment, there is no one conscious left to observe my furniture. Does this mean that my furniture stops existing? It looks like a variation of the question "If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" The answer is: Assuming the tree is on Earth in a forest without atmospheric anomalies, then the falling tree will cause air particles and solid ground to emit sound waves. These waves are emitted independently of potential listeners. But those who ask the question usually just want to play word games, by implying various definitions of "sound". Maybe the statement with something existing also plays with definitions of "exist". Word games are not convincing arguments for creationism, and they are not convincing arguments for "god".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2017 18:20:35 GMT
The watchmaker analogy wasn't designed to convince other people. Bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 26, 2017 18:24:36 GMT
To answer the OP question: Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|