Message of the Bible

Until you understand that IF God is God then He is answerable to no one but Himself.

Do you believe that this is a quality of a moral being? Answering only to themselves?

I don't. Of course I don't even believe in God so it's not my problem. But if you want to believe in an immoral God, go right ahead.

Most replies came from atheists, and this means we are far apart in our views, that it is useless to debate what we have been debating because there is no common ground.

Sure there's a common ground. We can both think. Of course, if you're unwilling to do so, then there is no common ground.

This means that the atheist has not rejected per se, but God has rejected you as His response to your refusal to acknowledge Him as God.

That can't be true, as I became an atheist because there's no God. Prior to that, I was a very devout Christian.

What the Bible is saying is that the reason you do not believe He exists is because He has rejected you even though from your perspective you believe you reject His existence for whatever reason you believe that to be true.

Well of course the Bible makes that convoluted claim. The Bible is written in such a way as to make everything, even the existence of unbelievers, as evidence for God.

The much more reasonable explanation is that atheists reject the existence of God because there's no evidence that God exists. It's a very reasonable position unless you start from the assumption that God exists no matter what.

The inability to do this means He has probably removed your ability to respond as a penalty for trifling with Him.

Oh, sure. I mean, it couldn't possibly be because there's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God, right?

Frankly I find your post arrogant and insulting, so let me return the favor. If you believe in God for these reasons it can only be because you refuse to think.

Righteousness is whatever God does.

Do you believe that constitutes an appropriate and moral definition of "righteousness"?

Maybe it's on purpose, an no offence intended, but it's spelled Ciao. I think there is an accent in there as well to be totaly accurate

Have you considered the possibility that when he leaves, it's to go eat?

Yup, that's the god most of our government worships, all right - money.

The authorities who issue money have given evidence of their trust in God.

Bzzt! Argument from authority. What makes you think they know any more about God than you or I?

Just because somebody important believes something doesn't make it true. You've provided evidence that people believe in something not that there's something to believe in.

So you're basically saying they are liars by giving false evidence.

No, she's saying that there's no way for you to tell the difference. They may be liars. They may not be. How can you tell?

It qualifies as evidence whether it has been established as fact or not.

Like I said, it's not evidence of God, it's evidence that there exist people who believe in God. Why is that significant? We already knew that some people believe in God. You haven't shown any evidence that they're right in doing so.

[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-10-2004]

Testimony qualifies as evidence.

To the contrary. Testimony is dismissied if uncorraborated by physical evidence. Where's the physical evidence of God to corraborate the personal testimony?

And what about my testimony? I say there is no God.

Could be more to it than that.

Could be they're just liars. How do you know?

Did you read the first definition of evidence I gave earlier?

I haven't claimed it's not evidence. Simply that it's not evidence for what you think it is. As yet you have no rebuttal to this point. When are you going to stop pretending that evidence that people believe in God has anything to do with evidence for God?

I can present evidence that people believe in Santa Claus. That doesn't make Santa Claus exist.

Statistically, in this criteria the evidence favours there is a God.

Statistically most people don't believe in your God, so by your standards of evidence, your God does not exist.

See how stupid this is?

I would say it is evidence.

Well, so far, in several different threads you've accepted:

Arguments from authority
Absence of evidence
Personal Testimony

as evidence. Ned, is there anything you won't accept as evidence?

I'd say you're the one who doesn't think testimony for God is evidence for God.

Yes, of course it isn't. Just as testimony for Santa Claus isn't evidence of Santa Claus.

I'd say I've given more than one, and you can add the one above to the rest of them.

Sorry, "Yes it is!" doesn't count as a rebuttal. You need to explain why you're credulous enough to take people's testimony at face-value, when no other reasonable person seems content to do so.

But it does present evidence that Santa exists.

No, it doesn't. Merely that some people think that Santa Claus exists.

What a world of credulity you must live in! Apparently you're willing to take all testimony at face-value. Let's get rid of the criminal justice system! All we have to do is ask them if they committed a crime or not.

Could you provide a link for your statistics.

It's self-evident that the majority of people are not Christians, but:

quote:

---

Christianity 1.9 billion 33.0%
Islam 1.1 billion 20.0
Hinduism 781 million 13.0
Buddhism 324 million 6.0
Sikhism 19 million 0.4
Judaism 14 million 0.2
Baha'ism 6.1 million 0.1
Confucianism 5.3 million 0.1
Jainism 4.9 million 0.1
Shintoism 2.8 million 0.0

---

from http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0904108.html

As you can see, Christians are only 33% of the world's believers. The majority of humans are non-Christian. Surely this is not a surprise to you?

Nowhere have I mentioned that the number of evidences or not determines existance of God.

Then maybe you can explain what you meant when you said:

Statistically, in this criteria the evidence favours there is a God.

Once again you are making an inacurate statement about my position.

Then please make an effort to communicate better. I can hardly be blamed if you're unwilling/unable to effectively communicate eactly what it is you're trying to say.

God can neither be proven or disproven.

That may be. On the other hand, a reasonable person can deduce that, if God exists, then God is either all-powerful or moral, but not both.

A powerless God is pointless. An amoral God is not worth worshipping.

God can be deduced from what is made that a Creator made it.

But since even humans can cause things to be made without specific acts of creation, we can conclude that not everything need have a creator.

Ned? Bump? I'm genuinely curious.

[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-11-2004]

I'd have to say you don't have a complete understanding of evidence.

And I'd have to say that your distinction between "evidence" and "proof" is disingenuous at best. By your definition of evidence I can provide evidence for literally any statement whatsoever. How useful is evidence if it can support anything, even things that are not true?

I'm guessing those people are on the little side of age.

What does age have to do with it?

A world of credulity does have various subtleties such as reliability of someone's history of truthfulness.

Someone who has never lied can still be mistaken or poorly-informed.

To elaborate, say I came across a hundred people who believe in Jesus and none of them told me they didn't believe in God, statisically the evidence favours there is a God.

How? What if you asked 100 atheists? Wouldn't then the evidence statsitically favor that there was no God? What does asking 100 people who you already know are going to say the same thing prove anything?

Do the words "response bias" mean anything to you? If not then it's clear you don't have the training to make statistical judgements.