will we always need god..?

Originally posted by jaywill
The burden of proof is on you why the claim should be "extraordinary".

Why should it be extraordinary that God exist ?

The claim of God's existence is absolutely extraordinary.

A big man who lives on a cloud creating universes, who can listen to 2 billion people murmering to him at the same time, who knows everything that has and will ever happen, and can read our thoughts. Furthermore, there are no verifiable accounts of anyone ever seeing, hearing, smelling, touching or having any type of interaction with said being.

That's a pretty extraordinary claim.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Personally, I think this fudging of "burden of proof" between theists and atheists only frustrates debate. If anyone makes a claim, they should justfy it. If they believe it, they ought to have some reason to believe it. So whether someone says "God exists" or "God does not exist", they ought to have some justification - saying the burden of proof is ...[text shortened]... son is not good enough; it is simply an evasion of responsibility to justify their belief.

Why should I be forced to make a counter argument against any wild claim? If they want to be taken seriously, then they have to back upi what they say. Anything which can be stated without evidence can be dismissed equally without evidence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Personally, I think this fudging of "burden of proof" between theists and atheists only frustrates debate. If anyone makes a claim, they should justfy it. If they believe it, they ought to have some reason to believe it. So whether someone says "God exists" or "God does not exist", they ought to have some justification - saying the burden of proof is ...[text shortened]... son is not good enough; it is simply an evasion of responsibility to justify their belief.

Having just posted a response to Jaywill, I then read your post - and I agree completely. It'smore of the same 'he said, she said' crap over and over again.
The reality is that since we are talking about a notion beyond natural explanation - whatever side you fall on - then there cannot reasonably be any proof.
I might prove my case beyond any personal doubt, but the discrete nature of our minds can never allow me to prove it to anyone who is already antagonistic to my point.
Actually, it reminds me of the notion of conspiracy theories. You believe one or you don't. If you don't, no matter what proof abounds will immediately be dismissed by the believer.

So, where do we end up?
We can all crawl into our holes of atheist or theist belief.
Or, perhaps we can talk about the things that we actually share and work from there ...

Originally posted by amannion
It's not extraordinary. It's supernatural.
Since we are talking about a being or some sort that defies laws of nature (in fact, I guess you would say it creates the laws), that is capable of creating the universe, that can 'work miracles' then we are clearly talking about something that can operate 'beyond' nature - hence is supernatural.
For such a clai ...[text shortened]... voke the supernatural and should be able to defend that position.
So, what's your proof?

All of creation! 😉

Originally posted by josephw
All of creation! 😉

That is no proof, as you well know.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why should I be forced to make a counter argument against any wild claim? If they want to be taken seriously, then they have to back upi what they say. Anything which can be stated without evidence can be dismissed equally without evidence.

But of course, this is not just any old wild claim.
It comes with the weight of a significant portion of the human race backing it up.
Which is not to say that it is right or wrong, but simplya hell of a lot of people subscribe to the particular position and so it needs to be addressed.

Originally posted by amannion
It's not extraordinary. It's supernatural.
Since we are talking about a being or some sort that defies laws of nature (in fact, I guess you would say it creates the laws), that is capable of creating the universe, that can 'work miracles' then we are clearly talking about something that can operate 'beyond' nature - hence is supernatural.
For such a clai ...[text shortened]... voke the supernatural and should be able to defend that position.
So, what's your proof?

I didn't say I had proof in the sense of scientific certainty. I have reasons to believe. I have reasons to doubt that the statement "God does not exist" is not true.

If you have someone you'd like to recommend to me who has proved the non-existence of God , name that person.

By the way, even science rests upon assumptions which cannot be proved by science itself.

We assume the truth of mathematics. Based on this assumption we do science. Science rests upon these beliefs and cannot itself prove them to be truth.

My phrasing of the above argument may not be as rigorous as it should be. But if pressed I'll look up the argument and write it out more carefully.

Originally posted by josephw
All of creation! 😉

And ...

Actually Joe, you make my conspiracy theory point quite eloquently here. I would argue that this shows no proof at all - and yet the very same evidence, to you is all the proof you need.
We can argue tell the cows come home, but this clearly demonstrates that we're arguing at cross purposes.

Originally posted by jaywill
Don't you think that a mathematical formula would be more conclusive and scientific?

No; any proof which only have to show that the definition of God is unsatisfiable. It could say that the claim that God is infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, etc, results in a contradiction. That would be proof that God necessarily does not exist (at least in the traditional theistic sense.)

I have no idea how mathematics could influence my judgement on such a proof; nor do I see mathematical as scientific, as mathematics is a description of the properties of numbers, independent of natural science (which is what I presume you refer to by 'scientific'😉.

Originally posted by jaywill
I didn't say I had proof in the sense of scientific certainty. I have reasons to believe. I have reasons to doubt that the statement "God does not exist" is not true.

If you have someone you'd like to recommend to me who has proved the non-existence of God , name that person.

By the way, even science rests upon assumptions which cannot be proved b ...[text shortened]... on we do science. Science rests upon these beliefs and cannot itself prove them to be truth.

Not the same at all and either you know it and are being facetious, or you don't and are an idiot.

Firstly, what are your reasons to doubt that 'God does not exist'is false. That's what Scotty is asking you to demonstrate.

Secondly, why would I recommend anyone since as I mentioned eralier the burden is clearly on you to demonstrate your position.

Thirdly, the assumptions on which science rests are taken to be true only in so far as science actually works as a description and process by which to understand the world. As soon as it stops being usefull, the assumptions themselves will be questionable.

Getting back to the subject of whether man will accumulate enough knowledge to become gods.


That's the topic.

My question is "Is knowledge ALONE the only criteria that man needs to become 'gods' ?"

Is "Technological Know How" the only measurement of god likeness ?

Let me ask some of you a question. Why didn't Jesus spend more time explaining to His disciple how lasers work or what gravity was or what the speed of light was or what were the smallest particles or what was on the dark side of the moon or under the seas on Uranus?

Why didn't Jesus spend more time to explain all these things to the twelve disciples? Any opinions?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Why should I be forced to make a counter argument against any wild claim? If they want to be taken seriously, then they have to back upi what they say. Anything which can be stated without evidence can be dismissed equally without evidence.

But you already know that the claim is "wild" - you know this intuitively. From that, you should be able to construct a counter-argument which challenges the soundness of their belief. Otherwise, your sense that the belief is wild is totally unjustified.

Originally posted by jaywill
Getting back to the subject of whether man will accumulate enough knowledge to become gods.


That's the topic.

My question is "Is knowledge ALONE the only criteria that man needs to become 'gods' ?"

Is "Know How" the only measurement of god likeness ?

Let me ask some of you a question. Why didn't Jesus spend more time explaining to His d ...[text shortened]... esus spend more time to explain all these things to the twelve disciples? Any opinions?

What's a god?

Originally posted by amannion
What's a god?

Good question. What's a man for that matter?

Originally posted by jaywill
God's salvation intends to deify man and intends to cure the sin poisoned heart.

The new birth - regeneration, sanctification, transformation, resurrection, and glorification all have the end of producing sons of God for the Father.

The way to reach the will of God for man's deification is through cooperation with His salvation rather than advancem ...[text shortened]... ever be not dependent upon God and be fully human. And to not depend upon God is dehumanizing.

Exactly....🙂...but the tone of the original question leaned toward man...The heart is incurably sick, and not until the "new birth" will it be remedied with a "new" heart...