Christian faith is a purifying force for reason...

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
[b]There simply isn;t any evidence for a god of any type existing, therefore, the most parsimonious explanation is that no god exists.

The problem with this assertion, that no evidence for God exists, is that you would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God's existence.

The question is: ...[text shortened]... d exists, I'll re-evaluate my position.[/b]

Please define what you would deem credible.[/b]

A personal appearance would be acceptable.


Although, you are correct. I should have stated thus, "I am unaware, despite ample searching, of any empirical evidence whatsoever for Gods existence".

Of course, I am equally unaware of any empirical evidence for the existence of pixies, the FSM, the celestial teapot, or a raft of other things.

Is it your contention that, in the absence of evidence, we should believe in things?

Originally posted by jaywill
No, your point was not worth stating. And what I wrote was meaningful.

Then it seems odd that people are debating my point and ignoring you.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What if the FSM did it? The evidence for the two existing is equal.

I do not buy that. The FSM is a parody, with no credible pretension of being a legitimate deity. And even if the FSM did do "it", your "goddunit" prejudice would exclude the possibility. Do you see a problem there?

Furthemore, you require an impossible task from religion: religion must prove that God exists (via empirical evidence), but for religion to do that would be "godunit." So you impose an insurmountable challenge on the religious person to prove their religion. It would seem that you stop any intellectual argument with such a stance.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Basically, Christian theology goes something of the lines that;

A) Stuff exists (whether it is the universe, people, morality or cheese, it doesn't matter)
B) Therefore, God exists.

The argument is never more complex than that. And, of course, it is a non sequiter.

No Christian cult has yet devised a suitable test for the existence o ...[text shortened]... to ignore physical and logical evidences because of their preconceptions.

Basically, Christian theology goes something of the lines that;

A) Stuff exists (whether it is the universe, people, morality or cheese, it doesn't matter)
B) Therefore, God exists.

That is an oversimplification for the teleological argument - of which some Christians reject. And as I posited before, given the broad range of Christian beliefs, you will be hardput to find any common strand shared between them. Christian theology is varied and always contentious between different sects.

The argument is never more complex than that. And, of course, it is a non sequiter.

For a Christian who wants to prove their religion, the argument is not non sequitur.

Atheist; "An omnibenevolent, omnipotent being who allows an Earth with suffering and disease is a logical contradiction."

Is that so? And even if there was a logical contradiction, why is the conclusion that God does not exist? The alternative inference would be that suffering and disease are not malignant. But, then, as this is precisely the Christian rebuttal you mimicked, you would disagree.

And again you confuse the boundaries between Christian and theist. A theist does not necessarily espouse the theological view that God is omnibenevolent. Not even all Christians do. Your theist certainly does not represent all theists, but is instead, your own constructed caricature, as revealed by comments like this:

Theist; "Why does God have to conform to the rules of logic?"

Most theists do believe that God conforms to the rules of logic; some even claim that logic is equivalent to God. Some Orthodox and Catholic theologians emphasise God as the Logos, the reason that underpins the universe. The version of theism you offer is largely a cartoon-ish amalgam of the fringe Christians you have encountered here. The only theist to argue like the one you depicted was RbHill, and he does not represent mainstream theism.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
A personal appearance would be acceptable.


Although, you are correct. I should have stated thus, "I am unaware, despite ample searching, of any empirical evidence whatsoever for Gods existence".

Of course, I am equally unaware of any empirical evidence for the existence of pixies, the FSM, the celestial teapot, or a raft of other things.

Is it your contention that, in the absence of evidence, we should believe in things?

Although, you are correct. I should have stated thus, "I am unaware, despite ample searching, of any empirical evidence whatsoever for Gods existence".

Of course, it is impossible to apply the scientific method to events which happened 2000 years ago, because empirical data is arrived at through observation and experimentation. You are obviously an intelligent person, so I'm going to assume you are just being unreasonable. In which case, we might as well end our conversation here, I will never be able to convince you of anything. I assume this is your intention?

Of course, I am equally unaware of any empirical evidence for the existence of pixies, the FSM, the celestial teapot, or a raft of other things.

...Yep.

Is it your contention that, in the absence of evidence, we should believe in things?

No, that isn't my contention. There is evidence for God (not proof, but evidence), but it does not fit your empirical requirements, so I will not bother to present it to you.

=======================

Then it seems odd that people are debating my point and ignoring you.
===========================

Wrong again.

It is odd that the specific questions that you raised concerning the dead and the dead in the sea and the last judgment, I see no one including your self debating.

So it seems that you are the one being ignored concerning that portion of the discussion which I used as a valid entry point.

You're the one being ignored on those questions.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==================

In what way don't they honor their parents?

=======================

I knew of a very smart brother and sister who called their father only by his first name. Both were very skeptical of the Bible.


I knew of another two brothers, very hip on all manner of new age philosophy. They treated their mother as an naive ...[text shortened]... d by not honoring thier parents.

Asian athiests, I think, may be somewhat of an exception.[/b]

I think the problem with the children of which you speak and of children in general is that they had parents.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I do not buy that. The FSM is a parody, with no credible pretension of being a legitimate deity. And even if the FSM did do "it", your "goddunit" prejudice would exclude the possibility. Do you see a problem there?

Furthemore, you require an impossible task from religion: religion must prove that God exists (via empirical evidence), but for religion to d ...[text shortened]... their religion. It would seem that you stop any intellectual argument with such a stance.

So you agree that no physical evidence for God exists, nor can ever exist. Nor can God be tested for.

By the way, you do know that Christianity started as a parody too, don't you?

Originally posted by jaywill
It is odd that the specific questions that you raised concerning the dead and the dead in the sea and the last judgment, I see no one including your self debating.

I never asked that. Get your facts straight.

Originally posted by Jorge Borges
Of course, it is impossible to apply the scientific method to events which happened 2000 years ago, because empirical data is arrived at through observation and experimentation.

Rubbish. Paleontology and real historical investigation (such as the study of Ancient Rome, or Egypt) are alive and well, and certainly scientific.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Basically, Christian theology goes something of the lines that;

A) Stuff exists (whether it is the universe, people, morality or cheese, it doesn't matter)
B) Therefore, God exists.

That is an oversimplification for the teleological argument - of which some Christians reject. And as I posited before, given the broad range of Christian belief ...[text shortened]... to argue like the one you depicted was RbHill, and he does not represent mainstream theism.[/b]

Well, feel free to provide another argument than the teleological argument for God's existence. Go on, I dare ya.

Christians might want to believe an argument isn't a non sequiter, but that don't make it so.

Yes. Omnibenevolence (do you believe God is not omnibenevolent? Is he malicious towards some of his creations, and if so, why?) and Omnipotence (again, do you believe God is not omnipotent?) and the problem of evil does represent a logical contradiction. Tackle it or retract.

I've often been faced with the "illogical God" hypothesis, and not just by Jaywill. I'm pretty sure both Joe and Whodey have used it on occasion. But, if you think God must follow logic, we should be able to infer some things, and therefore devise a test.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I've often been faced with the "illogical God" hypothesis, and not just by Jaywill. I'm pretty sure both Joe and Whodey have used it on occasion. But, if you think God must follow logic, we should be able to infer some things, and therefore devise a test.[/b]

You rang?

Yes, the illogical God arguement. My arguement is that everything is logical in a round about way. It is merely understanding why things work that is the problem. For example, if I said the world is flat is that logical? Well for me to say it there must be a logical reason for me believing it, no? Perhaps I have had an expereince that led me to believe that one could fall off the earth or perhaps my intellectual ability is limited etc etc. However, if God be God then at some point his intellect will far outway our own. Therefore, at some point we will be screaming that the world is flat using our own logic, however, using God's logic such reasoning is illogical to say the least.

In short, if I could reason with God at all times or if I could reason better than God at all times then I would either be equal to God or be greater than God. The problem is, is that some people think just that. I think this is why faith is such a fundamental need in order to be able to interact with such a God. At some point our reasoning capacity will be lacking and we must then rely on the all knowing one or stike out on our own causing us to walk blinded to that which we don't fully comprehend.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So you agree that no physical evidence for God exists, nor can ever exist. Nor can God be tested for.

By the way, you do know that Christianity started as a parody too, don't you?

So you agree that no physical evidence for God exists, nor can ever exist. Nor can God be tested for.

I do not believe there is any physical evidence for God - or rather, any bolstering empirical proof. But I do acknowledge that physical evidence could exist if it circumstantially pointed to the existence of God. In contrast, you absurdly demand that a theist give physical evidence for God then when they give that physical evidence, you reproach them as simpleton "goddunnit" morons.

By the way, you do know that Christianity started as a parody too, don't you?

A parody of what?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Well, feel free to provide another argument than the teleological argument for God's existence. Go on, I dare ya.

Christians might want to believe an argument isn't a non sequiter, but that don't make it so.

Yes. Omnibenevolence (do you believe God is not omnibenevolent? Is he malicious towards some of his creations, and if so, why?) and ...[text shortened]... d must follow logic, we should be able to infer some things, and therefore devise a test.

Well, feel free to provide another argument than the teleological argument for God's existence. Go on, I dare ya.

There are the ontological arguments. But the point if irrelevant. Neither the ontological nor the teleogical argument are adopted by all "Christian theology" as you style it. You cannot make blankets statements about a diverse religion.

Christians might want to believe an argument isn't a non sequiter, but that don't make it so.

But you at least have to offer reasons as to why the teleological argument is a non sequiter.

Yes. Omnibenevolence (do you believe God is not omnibenevolent? Is he malicious towards some of his creations, and if so, why?) and Omnipotence (again, do you believe God is not omnipotent?) and the problem of evil does represent a logical contradiction.

I do not believe in God. And I do not see omnibenevolence and omnipotence in a logical contradiction with suffering and disease. And as I pointed out last post, if there is a logical contradiction (a term you use lightly), then the conclusion is not necessarily that God does not exist. The other possible inference is that suffering and disease are not evil or malicious. To a Christian who believes in eternal salvation, the finite suffering on Earth would pale in insignifance.

I've often been faced with the "illogical God" hypothesis, and not just by Jaywill. I'm pretty sure both Joe and Whodey have used it on occasion. But, if you think God must follow logic, we should be able to infer some things, and therefore devise a test.

Then Jaywill, Joe and Whodey are on the fringe of Christianity (no offense!) Most Christians do recognise that God cannot do the illogical - He cannot make square circles, for example, which are an absurdity.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Then Jaywill, Joe and Whodey are on the fringe of Christianity (no offense!) Most Christians do recognise that God cannot do the illogical - He cannot make square circles, for example, which are an absurdity.[/b]

I never said God was illogical, rather, I am merely saying that we may not be able to comprehend his logic at times. God forbid we have a limited intellectual capacity in comparison to the Almighty!! God refers to us as his children. If so, what things did your parents do that seemed illogical as a small lad? I am sure they did a few things that did not seem to seem reasonable yet they had their reasons. It also reminds me of Christ saying that we must come to him as children. If you don't trust you will be disillusioned at some point because not everything will make sense.