08 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI see your point now. I didn't mean that there cannot be any evidence, just that there is no evidence that I know of.
I didn't misunderstand you the first time.
What you're saying is still a universal negative.
Reformulating (to better express what I wanted to say):
There is no logical evidence, that I know of, to support the belief that God exists.
Edit - If I didn't mean that, I would be affirming that God doesn't exist or that He was unknowable.
08 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaMuch better.
I see your point now. I didn't mean that there cannot be any evidence, just that there is no evidence that I know of.
Reformulating (to better express what I wanted to say):
There is no logical evidence, that I know of, to support the belief that God exists.
🙂
EDIT: No you wouldn't. Even if you extended the notion of (logical?) evidence to include post-death confirmation, there could still be a Neo-Platonic type God out there that we can and never will know about.
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAh! I learned in these forums the difference between proof and evidence. Be careful, or the eggheads will shake their oval protuberances.
"I have seen no proof to date of God's instantiation in reality". (Trying to talk the talk like the big-time eggheads).
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't know if you posted this before my second edit. Wouldn't it fall under the category of unknowable (without faith)?
EDIT: No you wouldn't. Even if you extended the notion of (logical?) evidence to include post-death confirmation, there could still be a Neo-Platonic type God out there that we can and never will know about.
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI didn't see the second edit -- but yes, I think it would be an unknowable God.
I don't know if you posted this before my second edit. Wouldn't it fall under the category of unknowable (without faith)?
(Come to think of it -- I think Aristotle had a similar notion of his First Mover)
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by DoctorDaraWhat do you mean accept it? Acknowledge his existence, do his bidding, believe his way is the best way?
Proof of God, now that's a question for the ages. Always thought believing in God is believing in love. The question is now is there a God, but would you be willing to accept it. Under what circumstances? ;-)
08 Nov 06
Originally posted by PalynkaOriginally posted by Palynka
From a logical viewpoint, the only possible thing that can be said about God is that there's no evidence for believing that he exists.
From a logical viewpoint, the only possible thing that can be said about God is that there's no evidence for believing that he exists.
You mean you can affirm that he doesn't exist?
09 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes. Nice chaps on the whole, these two, but very, very tedious on this subject.
I know the sort you're talking about.
I call them 'Anything but Christ'ians.
I always think, 'if you want to be a big atheist, get on with it, just don't bore the rest of the planet to death while you're at it'. Especially if you consider these are fellows with whom I often go for pints at home. T-shirts and Mex-mas. Get over yourselves. Noone cares, you rebels, you!
ABC-ians, I like that. 😉
Nice one, LH.
Good man, LH.
11 Apr 07
Originally posted by SALADINtheir reputation as a whole, is anything but....(pedophilia, praying for God in war) whats that all about? Jesus didn't believe in raping children
ok... a debate has sort of started in the Debates forum stating that Catholics are NOT Christians?
i am really finding this hard to get my head round... can anyone here help me understand?
11 Apr 07
Originally posted by bot 6SOME priests, SOME clergy of other religions, SOME laypersons of many/most/all religions, SOME atheists, and SOME parents are pedophiles. There is no known way to categorize people by belief, occupation, race, or nationality that will create a group that doesn't include pedophiles. Pedophile stings are now widely publicised. Many or most of the men involved are related to the children they victimize by blood or marriage. So I'm guessing that you believe fathers and stepfathers and uncles aren't Christians? The individuals who are pedophiles are scum. But if you wish to taint an entire category, then why not go by the category of gender and include yourself? Or is it unfair to curse an entire category for the sins of some of its members?
their reputation as a whole, is anything but....(pedophilia, praying for God in war) whats that all about? Jesus didn't believe in raping children