Originally posted by Proper Knobbecause my friend, its based on a belief!
[b]this is entirely the point for i am not trying to assert anything for the existence of God
Yes you are, this is what you said -does god exist = yes if you believe it
How is that not trying to assert God exists?[/b]
I need to go to Kingdom Hall to celebrate the occasion of the night that the Christ gave
his life, it was this very night, more than two thousand years ago dear gentlemen,
peace be with you.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI respect your calling ID an inference and not an implication. The thing to be looked at IMO, is why the inferences are unfalsifiable, and whether unfalsifiable inferences are worth consideration.
this is entirely the point for i am not trying to assert anything for the existence of God,
I am merely trying to demonstrate that belief is akin to a reality. All i have ever
stated is that we can draw inferences about the natural world which seem to be
indicative of intelligence and design. Nor can these inferences be disputed other than
...[text shortened]... k to Agers offering up incese and
dear Noobster carrying an effigy of Dawkins on a large pole!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou know, normally I'd let you blather on about whatever it is you're blathering on about at the present moment, but I find that in this one statement, there seem to be not one, but two factual errors.
I need to go to Kingdom Hall to celebrate the occasion of the night that the Christ gave
his life, it was this very night, more than two thousand years ago dear gentlemen,
peace be with you.
How can you say that it was this very night, and how can you say it was MORE than 2000 years ago?
Is this some sort of JW-type error, like where they once claimed the second coming would occur in 1975?
Originally posted by Suziannei wondered what pedant would pick up on this , would you like me to work out the exact
You know, normally I'd let you blather on about whatever it is you're blathering on about at the present moment, but I find that in this one statement, there seem to be not one, but two factual errors.
How can you say that it was this very night, and how can you say it was MORE than 2000 years ago?
Is this some sort of JW-type error, like where they once claimed the second coming would occur in 1975?
years, its actually 1977 and 6 months Christ being 33 and a half years when he died.
How can i say it was this very night, because it corresponds to the Jewish month, that
is Nisan the 14th and is calculated by the lunar calender which changes from year to
year, the day on which the Jewish passover was held making your factual errors, well,
not very factual at all. You can tell when Easter is, you can tell when Christmas and
Halloween are, but you cannot tell on what day and hour the Christ instituted a
covenant with the disciples for a kingdom, it is to laugh!
Originally posted by robbie carrobiebecause my friend, its based on a belief!
because my friend, its based on a belief!
I need to go to Kingdom Hall to celebrate the occasion of the night that the Christ gave
his life, it was this very night, more than two thousand years ago dear gentlemen,
peace be with you.
What are you ribbiting on about? You're going round in circles as usual.
Originally posted by AgergMany religious people would argue that to attribute any quality to God - such as "existing" or even "not existing" - is already a step too far. It is circumscribing God - placing a limit on the infinite. Anyway what do you mean by "exist?"
So many time we atheists (or non-believers) have been hit with the old fundie chestnut:
"Until you prove God doesn't exist, your belief is as much a position of faith as mine"
(or derivatives of such) and usually we then try to convince the fundie who said this that we could apply the same reasoning to the tooth fairy, Gandalf, the FSM, and so on... ...[text shortened]... too shy/scared to share it with anyone
[b]Can you prove I don't have such a proof?[/b]
As soon as people start to define what God is or means, then they make statements that can be examined rationally and potentially tested experimentally. This is the particular weakness of the current breed of literalist Christians, with Creationist Science as an example. Their claims (Young Earth, the Flood, Intelligent Design et al) bring religious faith into disrepute since a majority of Christians do not wish to be associated with their simplistic and fatuous claims anyway. It is a lesson the Catholic Church learned centuries ago - belatedly it is very true - and it is what Galileo tried to warn them against. But even the milder attempts to defend a biblical account of God are vulnerable to rational refutation and this has been done in many ways, not least by Catholic and other Christian theologians. Theologians have never produced a satisfying proof that God exists and they know this. That is why they often reject the attempt as futile and misplaced.
Historically this has been a huge headache and not only in Christianity - Islam has had the same debates. Augustine's proposal that Reason is incapable of being reconciled with Faith and that only Faith should prevail was ok in the Dark Ages and a similar argument was adopted also to poisonous effect in Islam, but frankly this became useless once Reason was allowed back into the fold. Thomas Aquinas was the guy who pinned down the key problem, which is that if Christianity can only be defended on the basis of the Bible, then it is incapable of persuading anybody who is not already prepared to rely on the Bible for their evidence. He thought the Church should be willing to upset its faithful by adopting the methods of Reason in order to seek converts among non believers.
It is still the same. God is like fairies - every time someone says they do not believe in fairies a fairy dies according to Peter Pan. He exists if you believe in Him and not otherwise.
Originally posted by finnegana headache, are you kidding, we are beautiful.
Many religious people would argue that to attribute any quality to God - such as "existing" or even "not existing" - is already a step too far. It is circumscribing God - placing a limit on the infinite. Anyway what do you mean by "exist?"
As soon as people start to define what God is or means, then they make statements that can be examined rationally a ...[text shortened]... s a fairy dies according to Peter Pan. He exists if you believe in Him and not otherwise.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieit doesn't sound like 1977.5 is more than 2000, now does it?
i wondered what pedant would pick up on this , would you like me to work out the exact
years, its actually 1977 and 6 months Christ being 33 and a half years when he died.
How can i say it was this very night, because it corresponds to the Jewish month, that
is Nisan the 14th and is calculated by the lunar calender which changes from year to
...[text shortened]... ay and hour the Christ instituted a
covenant with the disciples for a kingdom, it is to laugh!
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe existence of Christ can be reflected upon and debated any number of ways from any set of perspectives. Maybe the man didn't walk the earth, but he certainly exists as a belief in people. We have pretty much the entire world recognizing him (as a historical figure, or a religious, or speculation or any mixture of those three). There's a very predominant religion in the world that holds him as a prophet/son of god (whatever the distinction is). The fact that people revolve their lives around him is real. It might NOT be real, but I'm not entirely certain anyone can convince me anything is real- but that is a separate discussion.
[b]does god exist = yes if you believe it
Believing something doesn't make it real.[/b]
Originally posted by Agergone cannot prove a negative...I win!
So many time we atheists (or non-believers) have been hit with the old fundie chestnut:
"Until you prove God doesn't exist, your belief is as much a position of faith as mine"
(or derivatives of such) and usually we then try to convince the fundie who said this that we could apply the same reasoning to the tooth fairy, Gandalf, the FSM, and so on... ...[text shortened]... too shy/scared to share it with anyone
[b]Can you prove I don't have such a proof?[/b]