Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 1036 of 3207 (856997)
07-04-2019 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1034 by AZPaul3
07-04-2019 2:37 PM


Re: chances
AZPaul3 writes:
Even though you cannot prove an external intelligence is responsible you push that thought because your emotional makeup doesn’t want to accept the other possibility. That is incredulity.
And just how do you know that? I have actually spent considerable time figuring out just what it is I do believe. I have read Dawkins, listened to Dawkins and Hitchens, read the posts of atheists on this forum and questioned what it is I believe.
I have also spent considerable time reading various positions in Christian theology and have actually had my positions revised considerably bit by bit over the years.
I don't accept that I wouldn't be able to accept the atheistic position. I am frankly, while acknowledging that I could be wrong, saying that to me the atheistic position makes no sense. I remember one of the outspoken atheists stating that he simply didn't like the idea of God. (Dawkins I think.)I suggest that maybe you are unable to overcome your emotional make up and hold your position because you can't accept the other possibility.
AZPaul3 writes:
The other argument to be made is that the wholesale lack of even the most minimal evidence in favor of a god proposal, after thousands of years and so many brains and so much activity in looking for any at all, has become its own set of data points against the proposal.
I have given what evidence I have to show that the universe gives the appearance of design. As someone said, "it looks the world was prepared for our arrival".
AZPaul3 writes:
You're right, both are incredulous and for the same reasons - there is no evidence at all to support even proposing such speculations.
...which also holds true for atheistic beliefs.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1034 by AZPaul3, posted 07-04-2019 2:37 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1037 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2019 4:03 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1043 by AZPaul3, posted 07-04-2019 6:06 PM GDR has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 1037 of 3207 (856999)
07-04-2019 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1036 by GDR
07-04-2019 3:46 PM


Re: chances
quote:
And just how do you know that?
The desperate rationalisations are a bit of a giveaway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1036 by GDR, posted 07-04-2019 3:46 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1039 by GDR, posted 07-04-2019 5:17 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 1038 of 3207 (857001)
07-04-2019 4:08 PM


You can't know God through any physical methods
I've argued for witness evidence on this thread, meaning the evidence of physical proofs of God, events reported in the Bible that were intended to demonstrate the reality of God, such as the parting of the Red Sea and so on, events reported to have been witnessed by many people. That's the kind of evidence we get from the Bible and since I don't distrust the Bible as so many here do, to me this is compelling evidence.
But the attempt to determine whether there is a God without the Bible, through scientific methods, seems completely futile to me. If you don't think the world and the universe are any kind of evidence in themselves for an intelligence behind it all, seems to me there isn't any way to have any evidence at all.
What we learn from the Bible about God Himself is that He is Spirit and must be known spiritually. There is no way to know of His existence by direct scientific means. We are equipped with spiritual faculties for knowing God, although according to biblical theology that part of us was severely damaged at the Fall. At least we can refer to the fact that we know we have minds, that we think, that we learn, that we feel, all nonphysical realities we are all very aware of, which at least give some idea of the nature of spirit even when we've lost the spiritual ability to know God.
Anyway there is no point in trying to find God by looking into the physical universe. He made it and He's omnipresent so we know He's there in every particle of it, but He's Spirit and there are no physical means of seeing Him.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1268 by Stile, posted 07-16-2019 12:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1039 of 3207 (857004)
07-04-2019 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1037 by PaulK
07-04-2019 4:03 PM


Re: chances
PaulK writes:
The desperate rationalisations are a bit of a giveaway.
I guess that's easier than actually having to support your position.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1037 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2019 4:03 PM PaulK has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1040 of 3207 (857006)
07-04-2019 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1032 by GDR
07-04-2019 2:28 PM


Re: chances
GDR writes:
My claim the I know God exists is simply a way of saying that I "know" that God exists using the same definition and understanding of what it means to know something that Stile used.
But it isn't the same. He can make a negative claim based on lack of evidence. We do that for leprechauns and unicorns and a thousand other things. But you can not make a positive claim based on lack of evidence.
GDR writes:
Are you saying that because we can show that heat is necessary to boil water by a natural process that all natural processes are the result of mindless origins?
I'm saying that we have evidence for natural processes. That's what you asked for.
GDR writes:
How did this "network" bring about an evolutionary process out of the initial materials of the universe?
The evolutionary proceses are based on the emergent properties of matter, the same as the boiling process. No need for any voodoo.
GDR writes:
But we have scientific evidence that at one time within our universe which is subject to time and entropy there was no cellular life and in fact no planets at all.
And?

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1032 by GDR, posted 07-04-2019 2:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1044 by GDR, posted 07-04-2019 7:10 PM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(4)
Message 1041 of 3207 (857007)
07-04-2019 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1030 by Son Goku
07-04-2019 1:48 PM


Son Goku writes:
it's actually complexity built atop increasing complexity.
Complexity all the way down...
I think that's pretty damn cool.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1030 by Son Goku, posted 07-04-2019 1:48 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 1042 of 3207 (857008)
07-04-2019 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1033 by GDR
07-04-2019 2:34 PM


Re: In Defense Of The Book
GDR writes:
Obviously what we are talking about is what we do with what we have left after taxes. We are also talking about what we do with or time.
No, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a net result. Your claim was that religious people do more to help people than non-religious people. Even if it was possible to measure such a thing, you don't get to keep changing the rules to make your conclusion right.
GDR writes:
It isn't about the amount but the comparison between those who as Christians are active in their churches and those with no religious affiliation.
That sounds suspiciously like the No True Christian defence: If a person's contribution doesn't measure up to your claim, he's no true Christian.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1033 by GDR, posted 07-04-2019 2:34 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1045 by GDR, posted 07-04-2019 7:21 PM ringo has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 1043 of 3207 (857009)
07-04-2019 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1036 by GDR
07-04-2019 3:46 PM


Re: chances
And just how do you know that?
Because you keep saying so.
You keep saying you believe something that cannot be shown to exist and, further, offers not the least bit of evidence that such a thing should be entertained to begin with. You believe this based upon your wide-ranging research, not of any facts, but of the emotional speculations of others. The emotional witness of the believers is more to your personal comfort level, which means, IMHO, you were pre-disposed toward belief to begin with and fell in with the emotional comfort of your fellow believers.
That made the contrary proposal emotionally uncomfortable for your psyche thus less convincing. An emotional inability to believe, not evidenced-based. That is the very definition of incredulity.
I have given what evidence I have to show that the universe gives the appearance of design. As someone said, "it looks the world was prepared for our arrival".
GDR, I am sorry for this, but, you have shown no evidence the universe gives any “appearance of design”. Your definition of evidence is not viable - not evidence-based but more emotional incredulity for a non-designed universe. Complexity has a more viable explanation than unevidenced design.
...which also holds true for atheistic beliefs.
Which atheistic beliefs? The lack of evidence for god? The evidence that there *is* no evidence, none at all, to support the consideration of a god speculation? In an evidence-based reality there is nothing that contradicts this atheistic conclusion.
This is not some belief but is a conclusion based on the available evidence. The exact opposite of incredulity.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1036 by GDR, posted 07-04-2019 3:46 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1044 of 3207 (857012)
07-04-2019 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1040 by ringo
07-04-2019 5:28 PM


Re: chances
ringo writes:
But it isn't the same. He can make a negative claim based on lack of evidence. We do that for leprechauns and unicorns and a thousand other things. But you can not make a positive claim based on lack of evidence.
There are 2 positions that we are talking about. 1/ Life as we know it today is the result of pre-existing intelligence. 2/ Life as we know it today is the result of random processes with no intelligent root cause.
It is true that we only have objective knowledge of natural processes but that tells us nothing about the root cause of natural processes regardless of how many stages we want to back. Regardless of which option we choose we can be accused of making a positive claim on lack of evidence.
ringo writes:
m saying that we have evidence for natural processes. That's what you asked for.
Of course we do. What is the evidence for the why these natural processes exist?
ringo writes:
The evolutionary proceses are based on the emergent properties of matter, the same as the boiling process. No need for any voodoo.
Where is the evidence for that statement?
GDR writes:
But we have scientific evidence that at one time within our universe which is subject to time and entropy there was no cellular life and in fact no planets at all.
ringo writes:
And?
You claim that you have evidence that we got from there to here through mindless random processes without any intelligent involvement.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1040 by ringo, posted 07-04-2019 5:28 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by Phat, posted 07-05-2019 2:52 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 1073 by ringo, posted 07-05-2019 11:46 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1045 of 3207 (857013)
07-04-2019 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1042 by ringo
07-04-2019 5:38 PM


Re: In Defense Of The Book
ringo writes:
No, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a net result. Your claim was that religious people do more to help people than non-religious people. Even if it was possible to measure such a thing, you don't get to keep changing the rules to make your conclusion right.
We all pay taxes to the same degree depending on income. The net difference is what we do with our after tax income. The secular studies I showed you confirmed that people who are regularly involved in religious activities in Canada and the US give considerably more to charities than do others.
ringo writes:
That sounds suspiciously like the No True Christian defence: If a person's contribution doesn't measure up to your claim, he's no true Christian.
I have no idea how you got that out of what I said. I'm quite happy to agree with the idea of anyone who call themselves a Christian are a Christian. The surveys I linked to specified people who were to some degree or another actively involved in their churches.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1042 by ringo, posted 07-04-2019 5:38 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1074 by ringo, posted 07-05-2019 11:49 AM GDR has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1046 of 3207 (857015)
07-04-2019 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1028 by Phat
07-04-2019 1:43 PM


Re: chances
And if God Himself were to say such a thing he would immediately vanish in a cloud of logic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1028 by Phat, posted 07-04-2019 1:43 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1059 by Phat, posted 07-05-2019 3:02 AM Sarah Bellum has seen this message but not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 595 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1047 of 3207 (857017)
07-04-2019 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by GDR
07-04-2019 2:42 PM


Re: chances
I'm not asking you how your god came to be. You obviously believe it did.
But your god is obviously a more complex thing than our little planet Earth, or even than all of our sciences of physics, chemistry, etc.
You seem to think that all the complexity of such a thing as the laws of physics must be the result of some intelligent agency.
But then you must also believe that your god is itself the result of some intelligent agency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by GDR, posted 07-04-2019 2:42 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1056 by GDR, posted 07-05-2019 1:15 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1048 of 3207 (857019)
07-04-2019 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 977 by DrJones*
07-02-2019 7:59 PM


Re: Topic Summary According to Thugzy
DrJones writes:
Dredge writes:
what do you believe is responsible for the history of life on earth?
natural processes
Okay, and one of those “natural processes” would be millions of years of creatures competing for survival against other creatures. So there is no difference between non-human animals competing for resources and humans competing for resources, since humans are just one more product of evolution.
If, for example, China invaded Saudi Arabia, killed all the inhabitants and took control of the oil fields there, according to your accepted explanation for the history of life on earth, surely that would be an example of animals competing against each other for survival? So what you call “genocide” is simply one of the “natural processes” that has shaped the history of life on earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 977 by DrJones*, posted 07-02-2019 7:59 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1136 by DrJones*, posted 07-06-2019 4:53 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1049 of 3207 (857023)
07-04-2019 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 998 by Sarah Bellum
07-04-2019 12:02 AM


Re: chances
Sarah Bellum writes:
Extraordinarily complex results can come from quite simple basic stuff.
Classical atheist fantasy.
No, "complexity implies intelligence" is not an idea worthy of any merit.
Spoken like a true atheist. You would sooner have your arm broken than admit design in nature.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man”and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." Romans 1
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 998 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-04-2019 12:02 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1054 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-05-2019 12:23 AM Dredge has replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1050 of 3207 (857024)
07-04-2019 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1004 by AZPaul3
07-04-2019 11:00 AM


Re: chances
AZPaul3 writes:
So your personal incredulity is your argument against the weight of evidence?
So your personal incredulity is your argument against the existence of a Creator? Even the village idiot knows life cannot come naturally from inanimate matter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1004 by AZPaul3, posted 07-04-2019 11:00 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1052 by AZPaul3, posted 07-05-2019 12:15 AM Dredge has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024