All this miracle posting is complete garbage; God cannot account for these occurences without being hippocritical in nature. If He saved your friend, why didn't He save the pious who died in New Orleans? or Asia? or Iraq? Either he is all powerful or all good; He can't be both.
As Theists we have to learn to accept this fact. If God is completely just, miracles cannot happen unless He is not all powerful, and if He supposedly created the Universe, then this is a contradiction. The only explanation (while still being a theist) is that God chooses not to intervene in this universe, and humans have complete free will seperate from the "will of God".
In a way, what remains for theists is a very existential belief in God, much along the lines of Sartre. God exists not as a tangible force in this world, but as an idea of perfection and morality that humans are supposedly striving for.
Originally posted by CodfishSo "some of this stuff is real", but not all of it?!?!?!
"But either the world is full of more incredible coincidences than I could have imagined, or I hallucinate a lot more frequently than I expected, or some of this stuff is real."
I am pretty sure he doesn't doubt his own senses.
I think this post means that because he knows that he is not hallucinating and some incidents are impossible to believe as coincidinces, the only option left is the third one.
This is an acceptance that he cannot trust his own senses - like I said first off.
How dense are you, Codface?
2 edits
Originally posted by howardgeeHow dense are YOU?
So "some of this stuff is real", but not all of it?!?!?!
This is an acceptance that he cannot trust his own senses - like I said first off.
How dense are you, Codface?
Your assertion that you are 100% sure of all your experiences is yet more evidence of your incredibly arrogant confidence in your own rightness. What you are saying is that you cannot be mistaken, or fooled.
Firstly, there are plenty of scientific examples of the brain being fooled into sensing things that aren't real. Or have you never heard of optical illusions?
Secondly, I find it scarcely credible that you have never used phrases like 'I thought I heard something'. Yet you come in here suggesting that you trust your senses so completely, nothing is ever open to interpretation or doubt.
Thirdly, as a person with legal training I am acutely aware of the tricks that the senses and memory play on people, making them far less reliable witnesses than they would believe. Controlled experiments have been done where people view a dramatic scene (eg an armed robbery) and then are asked to describe the colour of a shirt, or a vehicle - and the MAJORITY get it wrong! I also know of at least one real life case where it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a white woman identified the wrong black man as her attacker after seeing him in a lineup, and her memories and dreams subsequently reconstructed themselves to incorporate the wrongfully accused man's face.
Knowing all these things, I have the sense to word my posts in such a way as to acknowledge that not every experience of God I thought I had might have in fact been an experience of God.
You on the other hand, demonstrate your idiotic lack of subtlety over and over again. I would take you far more seriously if you actually demonstrated some capacity for shaded thought.
Originally posted by howardgeeYour criteria presuppose that God would be a natural phenomenon. Should I recommend you study the meaning of "supernatural" and "transcendental"?
Seeing, hearing, touching, smelling or tasting God and having somebody else sense him in the same way alongside me (Just like anything else you are not sure of).
Now answer my question:
So, do you agree that Orfeo's examples constitute good evidence for God's existence? (because he doesn't).
So, do you agree that Orfeo's examples constitute good evidence for God's existence?
Using a different set of unbiased presuppositions I'd say his evidence points towards the transcendental.
Originally posted by orfeo"Knowing all these things, I have the sense to word my posts in such a way as to acknowledge that not every experience of God I thought I had might have in fact been an experience of God."
How dense are YOU?
Your assertion that you are 100% sure of all your experiences is yet more evidence of your incredibly arrogant confidence in your own rightness. What you are saying is that you cannot be mistaken, or fooled.
Firstly, there are plenty of scientific examples of the brain being fooled into sensing things that aren't real. Or have you ne ...[text shortened]... take you far more seriously if you actually demonstrated some capacity for shaded thought.
But, you were not claiming that your experiences of God were doubtful due to either optical illusions or cases of poor memory.
You were doubting the experiences within themselves.
The real reason for this is of course that you did not experience god at all. You merely had normal experiences of human interaction and interpretted them to have been caused by god. You wanted to believe that he was involved so badly that you invented his prescence within the events. This is why you cannot 'trust' your senses. Deep down, you know you never experienced him at all.
Originally posted by howardgeeThe real reason for this is of course that you did not experience god at all. You merely had normal experiences of human interaction and interpretted them to have been caused by god. You wanted to believe that he was involved so badly that you invented his prescence within the events. This is why you cannot 'trust' your senses. Deep down, you know you never experienced him at all.
"Knowing all these things, I have the sense to word my posts in such a way as to acknowledge that not every experience of God I thought I had might have in fact been an experience of God."
But, you were not claiming that your experiences of God were doubtful due to either optical illusions or cases of poor memory.
You were doubting the experiences with ...[text shortened]... s why you cannot 'trust' your senses. Deep down, you know you never experienced him at all.
These, claims are as much a f@rt in the wind, pal. Your can't prove them either.
Originally posted by howardgeeNope. I'm just pointing out that the impenetrable bastion from which you vent your jaundiced spleen and propound your unmitigated and bigoted odium of religion is constructed with the same pathetic green, steaming feculence that you are busy hurling. It's really not surprising that when I question the foundation of your assertions that you should respond with insults.
Is this why your name is Halitosis - bad breath caused by all the Sh*t that comes out of it?
You shout intrepid threats and jeer at the “weaknesses” of the religious superstructure, while the ice cracks beneath your fungus-infested feet. Your self-righteous arrogance, based on nothing but your immensely bloated ego and “infallible” sensory knowledge ( 🙄🙄🙄 ), is just again another display of your profound ability to be such an a$$holier-than-thou. Your tirade is rather tiring.
Originally posted by HalitoseYawn.
Nope. I'm just pointing out that the impenetrable bastion from which you vent your jaundiced spleen and propound your unmitigated and bigoted odium of religion is constructed with the same pathetic green, steaming feculence that you are busy hurling. It's really not surprising that when I question the foundation of your assertions that you should respond wi ...[text shortened]... play of your profound ability to be such an a$$holier-than-thou. Your tirade is rather tiring.
The whole point is that the onus is on you believers in God to prove that he exists, not on us non-believers to prove that he doesn't.
I know you have trouble grasping this nettle, so let me explain.
If I believed in the flying spaghetti monster, then it would be up to me to prove he existed to validate this theory. Until some evidence had been provided, then it is taken as read that the spaghetti monster is nothing but an idea in my mind.
It is not like guilty until proven innocent. It is not the case that, since I have an idea of the Spaghetti monster who flies, then he exists until some-one can prove he does not exist. Just because I believe that some incredible coincidences which occurred in my life must be caused in some way by the Spaghetti monster, does not make him any more real.
Codface claimed to have experienced God, but then back-tracked when asked to elucidate.
Orful then gave vacuous non-examples of 'experiences' of God, one of which he immediately retracted and the others which were so vague as to be inconsequential.
This in itself is enough to suggest to a sane person that there is no evidence contained therein for God's existence. Thus until some evidence does appear, God should be assumed not to exist. It requires no proof from me that he does not exist.
Being brain-washed to believe in God, of course, you will struggle to appreciate this.
It is lucky for you, Halitosis, that you have some like(simple)-minded people around to Rec your uncritical, unsubstantiated garbage.
2 edits
Originally posted by howardgeeThe whole point is that the onus is on you believers in God to prove that he exists, not on us non-believers to prove that he doesn't.
Yawn.
The whole point is that the onus is on you believers in God to prove that he exists, not on us non-believers to prove that he doesn't.
I know you have trouble grasping this nettle, so let me explain.
If I believed in the flying spaghetti monster, then it would be up to me to prove he existed to validate this theory. Until some evidence had been have some like(simple)-minded people around to Rec your uncritical, unsubstantiated garbage.
Of course. Of course. The problem is that you have dedicated yourself to the converse of the statement, i.e -- there is no God. Just like the theist, you need to shoulder a certain amount of the burden of proof. If you were in the least intellectually honest you wouldn't be smashing each bit of evidence on your anvil of Materialism, but rather floating in the uncertain gasses of agnosticism.
If this is too hard for you to understand, let me use a simple analogy. You take as a basic fact that chalk-boards can only be green. Then you invite all and sundry to give you the colours of a chalk-board. Any colour that doesn't match your first statement must be wrong, since chalk-boards must be green! You rig your own investigation to only produce the one outcome you’ve allowed as true. In the same way you’ve rigged Naturalism as the only reality and anything that contravenes it must be wrong -- very clever, but oh so fatuous.
Unfortunately for you, I saw right through your little game from the beginning and being funned-out from previous occasions, I passed. Happy hunting.
Originally posted by howardgeeSigh.
Yawn.
The whole point is that the onus is on you believers in God to prove that he exists, not on us non-believers to prove that he doesn't.
I know you have trouble grasping this nettle, so let me explain.
If I believed in the flying spaghetti monster, then it would be up to me to prove he existed to validate this theory. Until some evidence had been ...[text shortened]... have some like(simple)-minded people around to Rec your uncritical, unsubstantiated garbage.
I retracted nothing. Assuming I'm supposed to be 'Orful'.
I'll ask for a third time: how old are you?
And when do you plan on gaining some comprehension skills so you can understand concepts like explanation, expansion, clarification, exposition and all the other things that aren't retraction?