God says this, and God says that

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Sorry John I knew it wasn't really a submissable argument.

---

Then why accept it? By your admission it is not a good argument?

quote:

---

It's just it seems so very simple to me, the existance of God. Around here it's gets to be made much more complicated than I think it is.

---

It is simple, funk, because you just accept that there is a God and won't think about it. Your belief is based on an emotional reaction. Basically, all that you are saying is that God exists and the proof is that it is soooooo obvious that God exists. Suppose I said that evolution or abiogenisis is "just so obvious" ? Would you accept that as proof? Or would you ask for something more substantial? What about racism? It is "so obvious" that THEY are inferior to US? Is that adequate justification?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

I do not make the claim that God has been proven empirically to not exist.

---

Then why do you make so much of the claim that God has not been proven empirically to exist? Is that not inconsistent?

quote:

---

How is it that we know that Santa Claus does not exist?

---

Because it's testable. Adults found out a long time ago that to keep the belief alive in their children they have to do the shopping, the wrapping, and the sneaky placement under the tree. Otherwise, no fat elves sliding down chimneys.However, as I do not yet have a family of my own I have not actually tested this. I must believe on the testimony of adults that should know that there is indeed no Santa Claus. My nonbelief in Santa Claus is actually faith-based, just like the belief of the atheist is faith-based. It doesn't make me wrong, but it does require that I have no room to go around poo-pooing faith, now doesn't it?Of course, I can make a direct argument from the evidence: All presents under the tree have a source known by the parents.This is direct evidence against Santa Claus. And if you like, we examine satellite reconaissance of the North Pole.

quote:

---

The Easter Bunny?

---

The Easter Bunny is in exactly the same boat as Santa Claus, just on a different day.

quote:

---

Do you require evidence to not believe in grey aliens among us?

---

I do not deny the possibility. I do require evidence to believe there are definately no grey aliens amongst us.

quote:

---

Or to not believe in purple elephants?

---

I require evidence to believe there are no purple elephants. Have you checked all elephants? If not, the possibility is still up in the air. To claim there are none is a position based upon faith.

quote:

---

Or Borg in the breakroom?

---

Your breakroom may be different from mine. To claim there are or are not Borg there is to make a faith-based assumption. Some assumptions require more faith than others. I don't think God requires nearly as much as this because we know the Borg are a product and tradmark of Paramount Studios and no-one has ever made a claim that they are real. Purple elephants are more reasonable.And finally this is testable. The concept of Borg lurking in your office building is absurd because you've been all around your office building and many others like it and never found Borg there. Finally, there are millions of people in similar office buildings who have not found Borg. The concept of Borg infestation is testable and has generated only negative results.

quote:

---

Or fire-breathing dragons?

---

Leaves evidence, same as the Borg, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.

quote:

---

The same reasons I apply to your god

---

All of the above are hypothetical *physical* entities, and each is testable. God is not necessarily a physical entity here on Earth and is not testable in the same sense, as you so gleefully like to point out.

hi john... my entire series of posts was aimed at showing, not that atheists (and several times i qualified the word to mean materialists) don't utilize or even depend on metaphysical entities, but that they can't account for those entities... while denying the existence of such things they still feel comfortable arguing that God doesn't exist, all the while failing to understand that the means by which they frame their arguments have to be borrowed from those who *don't* deny their existencei wrongly assumed that you were a materialist also, since your arguments had been aimed at asking for proof of God (a transcendent being)... how, my thinking went, can someone ask for proof of a transcendent entity while utilizing just such an entity to form his arguments? and it is inconsistent, if you think about it...the christian doesn't deny the existence of transcendent entities, therefore there is no inconsistency... but since your view doesn't fall within the framework of beliefs held by those to whom i was originally writing, there isn't an inconsistency therei am troubled that you seem to confuse the result of such an entity (billiard balls for example) with the entity itself (laws of physics, for example)... and also by the obvious (to me) truth that before life existed on earth, logic did... whether it was discovered or not, whether it was catalogued or not, it still existed... quarks, i thought, were a good example of that... something can exist without anyone knowing of it, correct? that was my pointapologies for misunderstanding you

[QUOTE]Yeah if you stimulate the right parts of the brain you can replicate spiritual experiences. Doesn't mean the same parts of the brain are not being stimulated by other things, even possibly supernatural influences. [/B][/QUOTE]Ah, but it doesn't mean that they are, either.How does the supernatural activate the brain, and how do we tell the difference between a supernatural and a natural cause of activation?

quote:

---

You have to earn your faith through diligence. If you want to walk with God, you've got to find Him first. It isn't hard to start out, it doesn't take long either, but you have to make an effort first, with at least enough faith that you won't immediately reject whatever the result is. You're going to have suspend your disbelief and you're going to have be humble. I don't think that's unreasonable for anyone, I managed just fine. If you refuse to do these things, why should God do your work for you? You earn what you work for just as the believers do. God has done a lot for you already, but you have to make a conscious decision and stick with it to get the best results.

---

I've done all of those things, Gene, but I still don't have faith.

quote:

---

Something is causing those experiences to happen, either way. If I'm not smoking hashish or massaging my brain with a surgical pick on Sunday mornings, I have to wonder, what causes that sensation? How is it, that people new to a religion, "discover" it and know exactly what the missionaries were talking about when they ask about it?

---

Because you can train yourself to feel all sorts of things in all sorts of situations. Group or cultural pressure can play a big part, as well. Look at how people carry on at concerts and sporting events, and we can't forget the snake handlers in Southern churches.The missionaries probably talk in vague terms, and everyone's experience is entirely subjective, also. You essentially self-evaluate, which is always subject to bias. [QUOTE]And, even if it is entirely biological, is there anything even slightly harmful about it, to justify atheism? [/B][/QUOTE]Well, religious extacy and the belief that one is "filled with the spirit" in and of itself is fine if one remains peaceful, but what if one decides to go on a tear?

quote:

---

I see open rebellion and a war against God.

---

quote:

---

In fact, you seem one step away from being an enemy of God.

---

Holy Crapola, do you THINK you could be any more self-righteous?You are starting to sound like a wacko Fundie. With your definite war-monger tendencies, you would fit in quite nicely with some of the folks from the Michigan Militia.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:

​

As I said, faith is something you go looking for. It is usually not something you were born with.

---

I most definitely disagree.I think we are very much born with the capacity to believe in magic and the supernatural. Otherwise, we wouldn't swallow all of that bunk about the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Boogey Man.The belief in God is just much, much more socially reinforced.

quote:

---

the point i (and i believe gene) was making is that in a materialistic universe, one in which all things that exist do so because of accident, nothing can possibly exist but that which is natural, ie. material... atheists (for the most part, there may be exceptions) cannot explain the powers of reason they use to argue with christians, they can't explain where this logic/reason comes from...

---

Actually, evolutionary psychology is investigating these ideas... [QUOTE]christians can explain these things.../QUOTENo, they can't, at least not by using faith or belief or whatever you are claiming."Godidit" isn't an explanation.I could say that invisible pink unicorns gave us logic and reason.There. Understand now?...see the problem?

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Then why do you make so much of the claim that God has not been proven empirically to exist? Is that not inconsistent?

---

No gene, it isn't, as you aptly describe below. You are perfectly capable of applying this logic to anything but your own faith. It is sad, and really kind of scary.

quote:

---

Because it's testable. Adults found out a long time ago that to keep the belief alive in their children they have to do the shopping, the wrapping, and the sneaky placement under the tree. Otherwise, no fat elves sliding down chimneys.

---

Have you noticed how the faithful have to do all the work? Raise the money, build the buildings, sing the songs, write the books?

quote:

---

My nonbelief in Santa Claus is actually faith-based, just like the belief of the atheist is faith-based. It doesn't make me wrong, but it does require that I have no room to go around poo-pooing faith, now doesn't it?

---

I can't help but think that you are shuffling away from the idea that non-belief in Santa is due to lack of evidence for Santa, and much evidence that things attributed to Santa are actually done in other ways.Claiming that since you have no kids that your disbelief in Santa is faith-based is nonsensical and diversionary. Kids have nothing to do with what you believe. It seems that you are trying to squeeze out of a tight corner-- that you disbelieve in Santa for precisely the same reasons I disbelieve in your God.

quote:

---

Of course, I can make a direct argument from the evidence: All presents under the tree have a source known by the parents.

---

Funds in the church coiffers have an identifiable source.

quote:

---

This is direct evidence against Santa Claus. And if you like, we examine satellite reconaissance of the North Pole.

---

Santa's workshop is invisible. Don't you watch the cartoons that run around this time of year?

quote:

---

I do not deny the possibility. I do require evidence to believe there are definately no grey aliens amongst us.

---

So you are in favor of proving negatives? Do you believe everything until it is proven wrong? Or do you believe what is shown to be correct? By your grey-alien logic, you must not deny the possibilty that Allah is the true God, that Zeus is King of the hill, that Osirus died for our sins? And you must have evidence that any of these are not the true god. There is no such evidence, so how is it that you choose your religion? And how is it tht you can defend it when there are so many possibilities waiting to be disproven. It is absurd. I am not buying the posturing.BTW, the aliens look just like us ( in disguise of course ). You can't tell us apart.

quote:

---

Or to not believe in purple elephants?

---

quote:

---

Or Borg in the breakroom?

---

quote:

---

I don't think God requires nearly as much as this because we know the Borg are a product and tradmark of Paramount Studios and no-one has ever made a claim that they are real.

---

But there is no hard evidence against it, so the possibility is there that there could be Borg in the break room. Your comment that there are more reasonable and less reasonable beliefs is exactly my point.

quote:

---

And finally this is testable. The concept of Borg lurking in your office building is absurd because you've been all around your office building and many others like it and never found Borg there.

---

Exactly. I have never found anything to indicate the existence of a god either.

quote:

---

The concept of Borg infestation is testable and has generated only negative results.

---

The concept of God ought to be just as testable if such a thing exists and if it influences our universe. While one may not ever see god, there should be clear evidence of 'magic.' Yet there is no such evidence.

quote:

---

All of the above are hypothetical *physical* entities, and each is testable.

---

You've added the physical portion. Dragons, Santa and the EB can all be considered spiritual or magical beings, as can unicorns, faeries, goblins, sprites and trolls.But even more interesting is that the logic you've been using applies to anything, physical or otherwise.

quote:

---

God is not necessarily a physical entity here on Earth and is not testable in the same sense, as you so gleefully like to point out.

---

Then how about Slimy the Gnome, who lives in the 8th through the 11th dimensions. Slimy is not a physical entity on earth, nor is Slimy testable in the same sense as would be purple elephants. It is then reasonable to believe in Slimy? We have no disproof of Slimy, so we must consider his existence a reasonable belief? We have no positive evidence for Slimy either, but that doesn't matter because we haven't disproven his existence. It is absurd, gene.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David unfamous:
[B]

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
When I go to the Rocky Mountains (so oftenly thought of around here as just folding rock) I can see God's craftsmanship, folded rock should not cause this sort of awe.

---

quote:

---

Do you feel the same awe when looking at an anus or ear wax? I'm sure there are many of your Gods creations that don't have quite the same affect on you.

---

ROTFLMAO!!! [QUOTE]Personally, the reason I feel awe at such wonders as mountains is because of their sheer size and scale. But, if they were cuboid, I'd be more inclined to think they were supernaturally created...[/B][/QUOTE]The funny thing is, mountains were widely considered quite ugly by many good Christian people:http://www.pitt.edu/~ulin/lit&env/Sublime.pdf"James Howell (1645) saw the Pyrenees as "uncouth huge monstrous excrescences of Nature", another writer called the Alps "the rubbish of the earth"

quote:

---

the christian doesn't deny the existence of transcendent entities, therefore there is no inconsistency...

---

Technically, this is not true.Christians deny the existence of all transcendent entities except the Judeo/Christian concept of God.You all flatly reject the notion that any other gods or supernatural entities exist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by David unfamous:

quote:

---

Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
When I go to the Rocky Mountains (so oftenly thought of around here as just folding rock) I can see God's craftsmanship, folded rock should not cause this sort of awe.

---

​

Do you feel the same awe when looking at an anus or ear wax? I'm sure there are many of your Gods creations that don't have quite the same affect on you.

​

Personally, the reason I feel awe at such wonders as mountains is because of their sheer size and scale. But, if they were cuboid, I'd be more inclined to think they were supernaturally created...

---

You know what ... I do! Everytime I find out a little bit about the workings of the human body, I am awed by the complexity and design.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

the point i (and i believe gene) was making is that in a materialistic universe, one in which all things that exist do so because of accident, nothing can possibly exist but that which is natural, ie. material... atheists (for the most part, there may be exceptions) cannot explain the powers of reason they use to argue with christians, they can't explain where this logic/reason comes from...

---

quote:

---

S:
Actually, evolutionary psychology is investigating these ideas...

---

​

investigating what? how to explain a transcendental entity from within a worldview that denies such entities?

​

quote:

---

f:
christians can explain these things...

---

quote:

---

S:
No, they can't, at least not by using faith or belief or whatever you are claiming.

​

"Godidit" isn't an explanation.

​

I could say that invisible pink unicorns gave us logic and reason.

​

There. Understand now?

​

...see the problem?

---

---

schraf, you have misread the posts, i believe... it doesn't matter whether or not one says God or pink unicorns, the materialist denies *all* metaphysical entities while utilizing those same entities in her arguments... the christian doesn't... so you are mistaken, christians can constently utilize transcendental entities, there is no problem from their worldview... materialists (i've taken to using that word since not all atheists subscribe to materialism) can't.. i hope that clears it up for you

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

quote:

---

the christian doesn't deny the existence of transcendent entities, therefore there is no inconsistency...

---

​

Technically, this is not true.

​

Christians deny the existence of all transcendent entities except the Judeo/Christian concept of God.

​

You all flatly reject the notion that any other gods or supernatural entities exist.

---

schraf, you haven't followed the thread i don't think... let me quickly go over itatheists (most i've encountered) believe we are here by accident... all that exists can be traced backward in time, and all that exists owes that existence to a chain of accidents going back 15 billion years... all that exists, they say, is material... only those things suspended in space and time can exist... ok so far?the atheist who believes the above denies the existence of metaphysicality... but if logic is not suspended in space/time, if logic is not material, the atheist is inconsistent in her worldview... she denies the existence of that which she uses to deny the existence of... so it's not that the christian can deny the existence of a *particular* transcendent entity, it's that the atheist denies the existence of *all* such entities... and therein lies the problem.. for in so denying, the atheist is borrowing from the christian worldview