|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 21:47:44 GMT
How do you test God in this? Sent fire from heaven? Ask for fire and see how it goes. You are a frigging liar. That's what that story IS. It's a test of God. If you're saying we can no longer test God in such a way, why do you think that is? God was willing to prove himself to Elijah but not to us?
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 21:50:16 GMT
How do you test God in this? Sent fire from heaven? Ask for fire and see how it goes. You are a frigging liar. That's what that story IS. It's a test of God. If you're saying we can no longer test God in such a way, why do you think that is? God was willing to prove himself to Elijah but not to us? It was God showing power with some fire from heaven in a Bible story. Try this test yourself. Arrange it on a talk show. |
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Jan 4, 2021 21:58:13 GMT
I stopped listening after his first argument. How can infants grow up to believe in faith if it is not instilled in them by their parents or anyone else who has influence over them through their childhood years? ; so even without religious indoctrination it's very likely people would invent gods, or something similar, to believe in. After all, someone had to be the first person to propose that gods existed, and then everyone had to be convinced of it in order for religion to get off the ground; and given that it's happened in most societies throughout history, that should tell us it's pretty innate for us to invent and believe in them. I love this quote from CSI: Crime Scene Investigation in which Gil Grissom (a hard-core scientist) is interviewing a rather shady minister -
|
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Jan 4, 2021 22:22:42 GMT
So, we both agree, there is no proof. In my opinion, there is no substantial evidence, one way or another. The way I came to believe in God is; 1) I was raised Catholic. 2) I went through periods of being Agnostic and Atheist. 3) I decided to be a believer because I was happier and more successful as a believer. 4) I belong to no specific Christian denomination. That is not proof or evidence. It just a personal experience and decision. I think that is rational. But I don't tell others what they should or shouldn't believe. That's a individual decision. I've been agreeing there is no proof since about page 1. That's just been a strawman you've been endlessly skewering. Now you're agreeing there's no evidence either. Good, so we're back to my original question about why assume God exists at all. As for your reasons: 1) Parents are just humans and as likely to be wrong as anyone else. 2) Ok... 3) Your happiness has no bearing on the truth of a hypothesis. 4) Ok... Yes, it's a personal decision, which is fine, but it's clear you have no good reasons to believe, which makes the decision to believe irrational. If you want to believe because you think it "works" for you, then that's a pragmatic argument, and I don't have much to say against it; but if you're concerned with believing the truth, and not just what feels good, then you should care about having good evidence and/or reasons to believe, which you don't have. "3) Your happiness has no bearing on the truth of a hypothesis." Hypothesis and rational course of action are not the same thing. Happiness is well being and it is rational to promote it for yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 22:58:21 GMT
That's what that story IS. It's a test of God. If you're saying we can no longer test God in such a way, why do you think that is? God was willing to prove himself to Elijah but not to us? It was God showing power with some fire from heaven in a Bible story. Try this test yourself. Arrange it on a talk show. So you're admitting now that God interacts (or has interacted) with the physical world in a way that's testable, which is what you said I was lying about earlier. Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 23:02:33 GMT
I've been agreeing there is no proof since about page 1. That's just been a strawman you've been endlessly skewering. Now you're agreeing there's no evidence either. Good, so we're back to my original question about why assume God exists at all. As for your reasons: 1) Parents are just humans and as likely to be wrong as anyone else. 2) Ok... 3) Your happiness has no bearing on the truth of a hypothesis. 4) Ok... Yes, it's a personal decision, which is fine, but it's clear you have no good reasons to believe, which makes the decision to believe irrational. If you want to believe because you think it "works" for you, then that's a pragmatic argument, and I don't have much to say against it; but if you're concerned with believing the truth, and not just what feels good, then you should care about having good evidence and/or reasons to believe, which you don't have. "3) Your happiness has no bearing on the truth of a hypothesis." Hypothesis and rational course of action are not the same thing. Happiness is well being and it is rational to promote it for yourself. We were discussing the issue of whether or not it's rational to believe God exists. The issue of whether believing in God is beneficial to you is another issue entirely, one I wasn't arguing. I wasn't saying it was irrational to take courses of actions that are good for you, but this doesn't mean that the beliefs that course is based on, such as believing in God, is rational itself. It could be that believing in some falsehoods is beneficial to us, but even that would need to be argued with evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 4, 2021 23:15:20 GMT
So, we both agree, there is no proof. In my opinion, there is no substantial evidence, one way or another. The way I came to believe in God is; 1) I was raised Catholic. 2) I went through periods of being Agnostic and Atheist. 3) I decided to be a believer because I was happier and more successful as a believer. 4) I belong to no specific Christian denomination. That is not proof or evidence. It just a personal experience and decision. I think that is rational. But I don't tell others what they should or shouldn't believe. That's a individual decision. I've been agreeing there is no proof since about page 1. That's just been a strawman you've been endlessly skewering. Now you're agreeing there's no evidence either. Good, so we're back to my original question about why assume God exists at all. As for your reasons: 1) Parents are just humans and as likely to be wrong as anyone else. 2) Ok... 3) Your happiness has no bearing on the truth of a hypothesis. 4) Ok... Yes, it's a personal decision, which is fine, but it's clear you have no good reasons to believe, which makes the decision to believe irrational. If you want to believe because you think it "works" for you, then that's a pragmatic argument, and I don't have much to say against it; but if you're concerned with believing the truth, and not just what feels good, then you should care about having good evidence and/or reasons to believe, which you don't have. Your charge of me using a strawman of there's no proof is incorrect. I never used it to prove God exist. Only to said Atheist have no proof He doesn't. I care about the truth. The truth is - I'm happier and more successful as a believer. That is a good reason to believe. I have evidence. I wasn't as happy or successful as an Agnostic or Atheist. I'm most happy as a believer. I tried it. I lived it. It's rational to choose the course of action that yields the best results. It's irrational to choose a course of action that yields less than the best results. That is the truth. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 23:16:40 GMT
It was God showing power with some fire from heaven in a Bible story. Try this test yourself. Arrange it on a talk show. So you're admitting now that God interacts (or has interacted) with the physical world in a way that's testable, which is what you said I was lying about earlier. Hmmm... Sending fire to scare pagans is a Bible story. Humans didn’t “TEST” God in this story. The Bible stories show God using fire at times out of God’s own choice. God hears prayers (according to many who believe) but God definitely isn’t known for taking orders from God’s creations. You are a frigging liar. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 4, 2021 23:22:48 GMT
So you're admitting now that God interacts (or has interacted) with the physical world in a way that's testable, which is what you said I was lying about earlier. Hmmm... Sending fire to scare pagans is a Bible story. Humans didn’t “TEST” God in this story. The Bible stories show God using fire at times out of God’s own choice. God hears prayers (according to many who believe) but God definitely isn’t known for taking orders from God’s creations. You are a frigging liar. Naturally God cannot apparently be tested, at least according to the Bible, for that would too readily invite a negative result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 23:35:09 GMT
I've been agreeing there is no proof since about page 1. That's just been a strawman you've been endlessly skewering. Now you're agreeing there's no evidence either. Good, so we're back to my original question about why assume God exists at all. As for your reasons: 1) Parents are just humans and as likely to be wrong as anyone else. 2) Ok... 3) Your happiness has no bearing on the truth of a hypothesis. 4) Ok... Yes, it's a personal decision, which is fine, but it's clear you have no good reasons to believe, which makes the decision to believe irrational. If you want to believe because you think it "works" for you, then that's a pragmatic argument, and I don't have much to say against it; but if you're concerned with believing the truth, and not just what feels good, then you should care about having good evidence and/or reasons to believe, which you don't have. Your charge of me using a strawman of there's no proof is incorrect. I never used it to prove God exist. Only to said Atheist have no proof He doesn't. I care about the truth. The truth is - I'm happier and more successful as a believer. That is a good reason to believe. I have evidence. I wasn't as happy or successful as an Agnostic or Atheist. I'm most happy as a believer. I tried it. I lived it. It's rational to choose the course of action that yields the best results. It's irrational to choose a course of action that yields less than the best results. That is the truth. The strawman is that you've constantly been talking about proof when I've never said anything about proof. You keep mentioning proof because it's much easier to endlessly repeat "there's no proof God doesn't exist" rather than recognize there's no evidence he does (which is evidence he doesn't) and no reason to assume he does. The truth of your happiness has no influence on the truth of whether God exists. It's only a good reason to believe if you care about happiness more than truth, which you apparently do. Your evidence is not evidence God exists, it's just evidence you're happier believing he does. So you think it's rational to believe falsehoods if it makes you feel better? OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 23:38:18 GMT
So you're admitting now that God interacts (or has interacted) with the physical world in a way that's testable, which is what you said I was lying about earlier. Hmmm... Sending fire to scare pagans is a Bible story. Humans didn’t “TEST” God in this story. The Bible stories show God using fire at times out of God’s own choice. God hears prayers (according to many who believe) but God definitely isn’t known for taking orders from God’s creations. You are a frigging liar. Yes, a Bible story that fundamentalists believe literally happened, which would mean they also believe that God interacts with physical reality in ways that are testable, which would make your "all believers believe in an intangible/spiritual God that isn't physically testable" claim wrong. You clearly haven't read the story because that's precisely what it is: a test of God. Elijah and the Priests of Baal both set their bulls on an altar and call upon their Gods to strike the altar with fire to prove whose God exists. What is that if not a test? What is that if not God interacting with physical reality in a way that's testable? You can keep calling me a liar all you want. I clearly proved you wrong and now you're just in "repeat yourself" mode because you can't cope.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 23:40:04 GMT
Sending fire to scare pagans is a Bible story. Humans didn’t “TEST” God in this story. The Bible stories show God using fire at times out of God’s own choice. God hears prayers (according to many who believe) but God definitely isn’t known for taking orders from God’s creations. You are a frigging liar. Naturally God cannot apparently be tested, at least according to the Bible, for that would too readily invite a negative result. It's more the truth that God can't be tested TODAY, because he's frequently tested in The Bible and in ways that would provide strong evidence for his existence assuming the stories actually happened. Elijah and the Priests of Baal is basically a science experiment to prove God.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 23:42:50 GMT
Sending fire to scare pagans is a Bible story. Humans didn’t “TEST” God in this story. The Bible stories show God using fire at times out of God’s own choice. God hears prayers (according to many who believe) but God definitely isn’t known for taking orders from God’s creations. You are a frigging liar. Yes, a Bible story that fundamentalists believe literally happened, which would mean they also believe that God interacts with physical reality in ways that are testable, which would make your "all believers believe in an intangible/spiritual God that isn't physically testable" claim wrong. You clearly haven't read the story because that's precisely what it is: a test of God. Elijah and the Priests of Baal both set their bulls on an altar and call upon their Gods to strike the altar with fire to prove whose God exists. What is that if not a test? What is that if not God interacting with physical reality in a way that's testable? You can keep calling me a liar all you want. I clearly proved you wrong and now you're just in "repeat yourself" mode because you can't cope. Now you’re lying all over again. God NEVER submitted to physical tests on demand. He demo’d his power at times by his own choice. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 23:43:59 GMT
Naturally God cannot apparently be tested, at least according to the Bible, for that would too readily invite a negative result. It's more the truth that God can't be tested TODAY, because he's frequently tested in The Bible and in ways that would provide strong evidence for his existence assuming the stories actually happened. Elijah and the Priests of Baal is basically a science experiment to prove God. A decision to provide a demo is not a “test”. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 4, 2021 23:53:21 GMT
Your charge of me using a strawman of there's no proof is incorrect. I never used it to prove God exist. Only to said Atheist have no proof He doesn't. I care about the truth. The truth is - I'm happier and more successful as a believer. That is a good reason to believe. I have evidence. I wasn't as happy or successful as an Agnostic or Atheist. I'm most happy as a believer. I tried it. I lived it. It's rational to choose the course of action that yields the best results. It's irrational to choose a course of action that yields less than the best results. That is the truth. 1) The strawman is that you've constantly been talking about proof when I've never said anything about proof. You keep mentioning proof because it's much easier to endlessly repeat "there's no proof God doesn't exist" rather than recognize there's no evidence he does (which is evidence he doesn't) and no reason to assume he does. 2) The truth of your happiness has no influence on the truth of whether God exists. It's only a good reason to believe if you care about happiness more than truth, which you apparently do. 3)Your evidence is not evidence God exists, it's just evidence you're happier believing he does. 4) So you think it's rational to believe falsehoods if it makes you feel better? OK. 1) This is just you obsessing over pedantics in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting you are wrong. 2) Nobody knows the truth about God's existence. I never said I did. 3) I've repeatedly told you there is no evidence God exists. 4) Me being happier and more successful is not a falsehood. It's a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 23:57:00 GMT
Yes, a Bible story that fundamentalists believe literally happened, which would mean they also believe that God interacts with physical reality in ways that are testable, which would make your "all believers believe in an intangible/spiritual God that isn't physically testable" claim wrong. You clearly haven't read the story because that's precisely what it is: a test of God. Elijah and the Priests of Baal both set their bulls on an altar and call upon their Gods to strike the altar with fire to prove whose God exists. What is that if not a test? What is that if not God interacting with physical reality in a way that's testable? You can keep calling me a liar all you want. I clearly proved you wrong and now you're just in "repeat yourself" mode because you can't cope. Now you’re lying all over again. God NEVER submitted to physical tests on demand. He demo’d his power at times by his own choice. Now you're moving the goalposts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 23:57:44 GMT
It's more the truth that God can't be tested TODAY, because he's frequently tested in The Bible and in ways that would provide strong evidence for his existence assuming the stories actually happened. Elijah and the Priests of Baal is basically a science experiment to prove God. A decision to provide a demo is not a “test”. LMAO Yes, God was just showing his demo. You know, before he released his full album.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 4, 2021 23:59:32 GMT
A decision to provide a demo is not a “test”. LMAO Yes, God was just showing his demo. You know, before he released his full album. I prefered God's earlier albums, he really sucked when he signed to a major label
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 5, 2021 0:03:05 GMT
Now you’re lying all over again. God NEVER submitted to physical tests on demand. He demo’d his power at times by his own choice. Now you're moving the goalposts. You are lying yet again, Throwing fire from the sky was never an interaction or a test. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 5, 2021 0:03:23 GMT
1) The strawman is that you've constantly been talking about proof when I've never said anything about proof. You keep mentioning proof because it's much easier to endlessly repeat "there's no proof God doesn't exist" rather than recognize there's no evidence he does (which is evidence he doesn't) and no reason to assume he does. 2) The truth of your happiness has no influence on the truth of whether God exists. It's only a good reason to believe if you care about happiness more than truth, which you apparently do. 3)Your evidence is not evidence God exists, it's just evidence you're happier believing he does. 4) So you think it's rational to believe falsehoods if it makes you feel better? OK. 1) This is just you obsessing over pedantics in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting you are wrong. 2) Nobody knows the truth about God's existence. I never said I did. 3) I've repeatedly told you there is no evidence God exists. 4) Me being happier and more successful is not a falsehood. It's a fact. 1) Not to be pedantic but I think you meant "semantics" rather than "pedantics." Whatever the case, you haven't shown anything I'm wrong about. 2) I'm not talking about "knowing the truth" of God's existence. It's like what I'm saying just flies right over your head. 3) Yes, and I've repeatedly said that then makes your belief that he does irrational if you care about truth. 4) I didn't say you being happier was a falsehood. What I said was you're suggesting it's rational to believe in falsehoods if they make you happier.
|
|
