Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…313314316318319…327

Comments

  • Options
    #9452
    Harika
    Registered Users Posts: 4,441 ✭✭✭Harika


    J C wrote: »
    Ah ... I see your error ... you are confusing omniscience with changing ones mind ... You are correct that God is capable of changing His mind (in response to fervent prayer or repentance, for example) ... but He already knows that He will do so ... so this doesn't affect either His omnipotence i.e. ...

    That is like the solution to the old magic question: "Can god make a burrito so hot he cannot eat it himself?" Where Ray Comfort answered "Yes he can" What is a little ridiculous but does not solve the question of omniscience/omnipotence imo as it is purely logical contradiction but even for god there might be exceptions, also like people are not burned anymore when there is a good football match on Sunday and church is skipped.
    For Mengele it can be doubted that he acted on reason, as his selection process was not based on facts but on his decision on a split second observation, this cannot be based on facts.
    For his tests, he was catholic, so even with knowing the gospels he was able to do these crimes on humanity, but again here, I could not find proof that he used religion as justification for this. He was crazy or obsessed that the German race is better than everyone else what made it easy to justify those crimes for him.
    For the french revolution, the feudalism, that crashed the country, was supported by the catholic church, and instead of speaking for the people with the help of the gospel, supported the reigning class. This is one of the reasons why France adopted secularism very early. It even wanted to completely get rid of religion but failed, instead religion was stripped of its influence.
    Both crime and uprising were not motivated by logic or religion, religion just stood on the side and let it come to this.
    Anyway this puzzles me, even when this was done by humans, and even more crimes were justified by religion, I understand that this was done against the will of god. Fair enough, but when those people harm your reputation, quite possible even more than before the flood or Sodom and Gomorrah, wouldn't it make sense to come in here and stop it, cause overall this harms the brand?
    Anyway, we can agree to disagree about the existence of god in the epic battle of feeling against logic that ends in a draw. How do we handle living together in one state with on one side religion that wants to influence in the name of god and secular people that might have a problem with that, and the other way around?


  • Options
    #9453
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    marienbad wrote: »
    I don't follow you vis-à-vis my point ?

    The example you gave in your post. Ie God being outside space time as a believer might say / could say.

    You refer to this as a position from a believer, yet I am saying that this is not just a position from a believer, but from a position of logic.


  • Options
    #9454
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    ABC101 wrote: »
    The example you gave in your post. Ie God being outside space time as a believer might say / could say.

    You refer to this as a position from a believer, yet I am saying that this is not just a position from a believer, but from a position of logic.

    How is it logical that a thing can be in a realm with no defined dimensions, or none at all...and also somehow interact with our realm?


  • Options
    #9455
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Then show me someone with a lost limb who prayed to your god specifically and had it re-grow. This is an extraordinary claim to make and thus it requires extraordinary evidence. How about something like the person praying while surrounded by a team of doctors, who then sign a document promising to resign if ever it's shown that this regrowing limb was faked?
    God generally doesn't suspend the normal workings of the Laws of Nature, as established by Him ... and when He does, it's a miracle.
    ... we have no right therefore to expect God to do this and it very rarely happens.


  • Options
    #9456
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ABC101 wrote: »
    The example you gave in your post. Ie God being outside space time as a believer might say / could say.

    You refer to this as a position from a believer, yet I am saying that this is not just a position from a believer, but from a position of logic.

    You are missing my point - I just used those as examples , my issue is that you can say anything you like and not offer anything to substantiate it other than this is what I believe .


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9457
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    J C wrote: »
    God generally doesn't suspend the normal workings of the Laws of Nature, as established by Him ... and when He does, it's a miracle.
    ... we have no right therefore to expect God to do this and it very rarely happens.

    That's correct, God is under no commitment to perform miracles.


  • Options
    #9458
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    marienbad wrote: »
    You are missing my point - I just used those as examples , my issue is that you can say anything you like and not offer anything to substantiate it other than this is what I believe .

    The point I am making is that one does not have to be a believer to say certain things.

    In the example you used.... This viewpoint can be held by a believer AND any other person (whether they be a believer or an atheist) if they are willing to hold a logical viewpoint.


  • Options
    #9459
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    J C wrote: »
    God generally doesn't suspend the normal workings of the Laws of Nature, as established by Him ... and when He does, it's a miracle.
    ... we have no right therefore to expect God to do this and it very rarely happens.

    1) You're contradicting yourself (before, you said "sometimes happens", now it's rarely)
    2) This strikes me as mighty convenient - you say this magical deity does things that violate the laws of physics, and when I press you to substantiate this claim, you don't. You move the goalposts such that your claim cannot be substantiated.

    Why should I believe your claim that God answers prayers, but only does it rarely? Especially when you don't provide evidence?


  • Options
    #9460
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ABC101 wrote: »
    The point I am making is that one does not have to be a believer to say certain things.

    In the example you used.... This viewpoint can be held by a believer AND any other person (whether they be a believer or an atheist) if they are willing to hold a logical viewpoint.

    You are still missing my point- forget the examples I used - the point I am making is that in order to rebut any and all arguments all a Believer has to say is 'this is what I believe 'and offer no supporting arguments

    So in fact the thread title is misleading - it is not a debate- it is just a talking shop where one side has to use reason logic science to advance their arguments , the other side does also but when such reason fails then the guillotine of 'I believe' or 'You can't question my beliefs' is applied to stop that particular discussion.


  • Options
    #9461
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Harika wrote: »
    That is like the solution to the old magic question: "Can god make a burrito so hot he cannot eat it himself?" Where Ray Comfort answered "Yes he can" What is a little ridiculous but does not solve the question of omniscience/omnipotence imo as it is purely logical contradiction but even for god there might be exceptions, also like people are not burned anymore when there is a good football match on Sunday and church is skipped.
    My answer is that God wouldn't bother (making a burrito so hot that He cannot eat it Himself) ... as this is pure tautology.

    Harika wrote: »
    For Mengele it can be doubted that he acted on reason, as his selection process was not based on facts but on his decision on a split second observation, this cannot be based on facts.
    Mengele acted on pure reason ... scientifically identifying people that He regarded as 'unfit' ... and let's face it, all of us are 'unfit' at some time in our lives.
    What he didn't do was to morally assess what he was doing ... which was treating people like animals to be experimented on to produce some supposedly 'Rational' medical results.

    Harika wrote: »
    For his tests, he was catholic, so even with knowing the gospels he was able to do these crimes on humanity, but again here, I could not find proof that he used religion as justification for this. He was crazy or obsessed that the German race is better than everyone else what made it easy to justify those crimes for him.
    For the french revolution, the feudalism, that crashed the country, was supported by the catholic church, and instead of speaking for the people with the help of the gospel, supported the reigning class. This is one of the reasons why France adopted secularism very early. It even wanted to completely get rid of religion but failed, instead religion was stripped of its influence.
    Both crime and uprising were not motivated by logic or religion, religion just stood on the side and let it come to this.
    Anyway this puzzles me, even when this was done by humans, and even more crimes were justified by religion, I understand that this was done against the will of god. Fair enough, but when those people harm your reputation, quite possible even more than before the flood or Sodom and Gomorrah, wouldn't it make sense to come in here and stop it, cause overall this harms the brand?
    God has granted us free-will ... and of necessity, this means that we can choose to do good or evil.
    ... and if every time somebody chooses to do evil, God steps in and stops them ... we wouldn't have free-will at all ... we'd be just glorified robots pre-programmed to do as God commanded
    Harika wrote: »
    Anyway, we can agree to disagree about the existence of god in the epic battle of feeling against logic that ends in a draw. How do we handle living together in one state with on one side religion that wants to influence in the name of god and secular people that might have a problem with that, and the other way around?
    Genuine liberalism and respectful tolerance of diversity of opinion is the solution IMO.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9462
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    1) You're contradicting yourself (before, you said "sometimes happens", now it's rarely)
    God seems to be more inclined to answer prayer when He doesn't have to suspend the Laws of Nature ... that is why I used 'sometimes' to describe the general propensity of God to answer prayer ... and 'very rarely' to describe answers to prayer involving the local suspension of Natural Law.

    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    2) This strikes me as mighty convenient - you say this magical deity does things that violate the laws of physics, and when I press you to substantiate this claim, you don't. You move the goalposts such that your claim cannot be substantiated.
    Convenient or otherwise, that's just the way it is.
    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Why should I believe your claim that God answers prayers, but only does it rarely? Especially when you don't provide evidence?
    You don't have to believe anything, if you don't want to.


  • Options
    #9463
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    God seems to be more inclined to answer prayer when He doesn't have to suspend the Laws of Nature

    So how then do you tell the difference between an event that just happens naturally without violating the laws of physics and something that happens without violating the laws of physics as a result of prayer?
    Methinks there is nothing to distinguish them, therefore there is no rational reason to believe one event is due to a prayer and the other is not.
    This violates Occam's Razor, in that you are introducing an extra agent to an explanation that is not needed.


  • Options
    #9464
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Here's the question - how do you differentiate between a faith that Person A has, that happens to be built on true/moral premises, and faith that Person B has, that happens to be built on false/immoral premises? The only thing that A and B have is faith that this thing is true - they're not applying reason or logic to it.
    By their fruits shall you know them.


  • Options
    #9465
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    J C wrote: »
    By their fruits shall you know them.

    This is a fancy way of saying "Examine them, see what they do". Thing is, this can't be done if all you're doing is applying faith.


  • Options
    #9466
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    So how then do you tell the difference between an event that just happens naturally without violating the laws of physics and something that happens without violating the laws of physics as a result of prayer?
    Methinks there is nothing to distinguish them, therefore there is no rational reason to believe one event is due to a prayer and the other is not.
    This violates Occam's Razor, in that you are introducing an extra agent to an explanation that is not needed.
    You can never be certain ... but when numerous prayers are answered, then you can either put it down to very very good luck ... or God.


  • Options
    #9467
    Roquentin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭Roquentin


    J C wrote: »
    You can never be certain ... but when numerous prayers are answered, then you can either put it down to very very good luck ... or God.

    everything is probability in life


  • Options
    #9468
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    This is a fancy way of saying "Examine them, see what they do". Thing is, this can't be done if all you're doing is applying faith.
    Who says that People of Faith apply only faith?
    We apply logic, observation and reason as well.


  • Options
    #9469
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Roquentin wrote: »
    everything is probability in life
    Probability can indeed be applied to answered prayer ... and to living processes and the latter application of probability, proves that God exists.
    ... and if you want to take this forward, please adjourn to the other mega-thread.


  • Options
    #9470
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Who says that People of Faith apply only faith?
    We apply logic, observation and reason as well.

    except when you don't - that is my whole point


  • Options
    #9471
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    except when you don't - that is my whole point
    ... that exception applies everyone ... in different ways and at different times.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9472
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    ABC101 wrote: »
    The example you gave in your post. Ie God being outside space time as a believer might say / could say.

    You refer to this as a position from a believer, yet I am saying that this is not just a position from a believer, but from a position of logic.

    Yes it is logical to say that in the sum total of reality god has no existence, that he only exists outside everything that is real.

    Thankyou for finally admitting that basic fact. And from there we can see the whole god position fall away into the nothing that it is.


  • Options
    #9473
    ABC101
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭ABC101


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Yes it is logical to say that in the sum total of reality god has no existence, that he only exists outside everything that is real.

    Thankyou for finally admitting that basic fact. And from there we can see the whole god position fall away into the nothing that it is.

    Premature to blow you trumpet.

    Brian, by attempting to put words in my mouth, you are distorting the truth for your own agenda. I was referring to the view point of logic, and that logical conclusions can be arrived at by a person who believes and also by a person who does not believe.

    The example which marianbad gave, is just one of many which could be used.


  • Options
    #9474
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    ... that exception applies everyone ... in different ways and at different times.

    Yes but they can be pulled up on it , in this thread 'believers' can't


  • Options
    #9475
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Yes but they can be puled up on it , in this thread 'believers' can't
    It is just as illogical to not believe in God as it is to believe in Him, without evidence.
    Non-believers have little more evidence for their belief that He doesn't exist, than something like 'we can't see Him, so therefore He doesn't exist'!!!

    I have studied the physical and logical evidence for the existence of God (or a being of God-like capacity) and I have found it to be so persuasive as
    make it a practical certainty they He exists.


  • Options
    #9476
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    It is just as illogical to not believe in God as it is to believe in Him, without evidence.
    Non-believers have little more evidence for their belief that He doesn't exist, than something like 'we can't see Him, so therefore He doesn't exist'!!!

    I have studied the physical and logical evidence for the existence of God (or a being of God-like capacity) and I have found it to be so persuasive as
    make it a practical certainty they He exists.

    Which God ?


  • Options
    #9477
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Which God ?
    There is One God ... and many wannabes.:)


  • Options
    #9478
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    There is One God ... and many wannabes.:)

    Is that the God of the Bible ?


  • Options
    #9479
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    marienbad wrote: »
    Is that the God of the Bible ?
    Yes, He seems to 'fit the bill' allright.:)


  • Options
    #9480
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, He seems to 'fit the bill' allright.:)

    Amazing all those believers in the Koran think just like you !


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9481
    lufties
    Registered Users Posts: 3,507 ✭✭✭lufties


    J C wrote: »
    Yes, He seems to 'fit the bill' allright.:)

    the invisible bearded man who lives in the sky, who wears the white tunic?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement