KNOWing God

[Bear_Claw]

which is exactly why i call atheism the position held by desire, not logic. you want to be an atheist, you dont have a reason, how is that different from faith? but go ahead study up. ill be waiting

No rebuttals on your faith explination that I blew out the water then? Ok.

And no, atheism is not based on faith.

I truly think that the whole Intelligent Design argument is “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam”. It’s the argument that from negative evidence it stands to reason that God exists.

And yes, while both sides of the argument pivots on the same basis, the Theist then automatically assumes God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

No rebuttals on your faith explination that I blew out the water then? Ok.

let me see, i do do other things then sit at the computer.

And no, atheism is not based on faith.

then why aer you so sure your an atheist? you admitted not knowing the arguments, then you admitted that you just want to learn the arguements to prove me wrong.

you have a preconceived notion of what position you want to hold. id call that very much a faith. according to your secular definition, what is it? faith means believeing in the abscence of proof…

i think that fits your relationship with atheism to a a tee.

what happens if you do all the research and realize that atheism is problematic? will you then become a theist?

I truly think that the whole Intelligent Design argument is “Argumentum ad Ignorantiam”. It’s the argument that from negative evidence it stands to reason that God exists.

ok, thats nice, but whats it got to do with this conversation?

And yes, while both sides of the argument pivots on the same basis, the Theist then automatically assumes God.

once you know enough about the arguements, ill show you that G-d never has to be mentioned until you prove that it is the Christain G-d.

yes, i know you dont believe it, but when youve studied up, ill show you

now let me see what your talking about with some argument on faith.

 

[morgantj]

which is exactly why i call atheism the position held by desire, not logic. you want to be an atheist, you dont have a reason, how is that different from faith? but go ahead study up. ill be waiting

If there were no theists, could there be a-theists? If nobody claimed a god exist, nobody could question it, there could be no a-theist. It is the theist proposition, their claim that a god exist, a claim in which they are unable to provide proof of that causes people to doubt. This lack of evidence gives people no good reason to believe there is a god. If I say fairies tie my shoes for me, but am unable to give any evidence of it other then saying I see the fairies, talk to them, pray to them, and have experienced them personally, you too will doubt and probably put me in a mental institution. So due to the lack of evidence, there are people that doubt the theists claim that a god exist. That is the reason, It is a position arrived to by logic, not by faith.

And the saying, “If there were no God, there would be no atheists” is incorrect. It should be, “If there were no theists, there would be no a-theists.”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

quote often, okay, but always? Has an arm ever grown back? Due to prayer?

i dont know, but its been claimed by someone im sure. but you wouldn’t believe it unless you saw it.

And it’s not for me that god need to make himself clear to, I have already begged and pleaded with him for intensions for quite a number of years, honestly with good intensions, with nothing but silence before I gave up on the concept.

you asked for a sign, when he specifically says not to ask for signs. so you are expecting something G-d already said was wrong?

why dont you try doing what G-d wants from you first. your the creation, he is the creator. a little humility in regard to Him may help.

I’m talking about guys that live it…live in faith. Even they can’t seem to have a clear sign, like the ones given to the people when Jesus supposedly walked the earth

ok, how about Peter, Apostle and First Bishop of Rome, Pope. he lived with Christ for 3 years, ate with Him, prayed with Him, trusted Him, and witnessed almost all His miracles,

yet when Christ called him out onto the water with Him, the man who should have had the most faith, he only took a couple steps before he began to sink.

the point being that the amount of faith needed even by an i witness to Christ, is so hard to muster, that you shouldn’t be surprised that they dont recieve a clear sign, like a street sign.

yet, those have occured, take the appearance at fatima, that was witnessed by a lot of people.

So, the healing of the Official’s son was by the son’s faith? I don’t think so. Your statement is incorrect.

your right, i realized later that the same situation happened with the men who lowered the paralytic through the hole they cut in the roof.

but now i know why you have chosen to be an atheist, G-d didn’t behave in the manner you wanted Him to, He wont do what you want.

have you done what he wants?

what efforts have you made to be the best possible servant?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If there were no theists, could there be a-theists? If nobody claimed a god exist, nobody could question it, there could be no a-theist. It is the theist proposition, their claim that a god exist, a claim in which they are unable to provide proof of that causes people to doubt. This lack of evidence gives people no good reason to believe there is a god

what is this claim of no evidence you keep making? even if you discount the entire history of Christainty, discount that the church was an eyewitness of Christ and the Apostles, you are still here, from that evidence alone we can prove the existence of G-d

If I say fairies tie my shoes for me, but am unable to give any evidence of it other then saying I see the fairies, talk to them, pray to them, and have experienced them personally, you too will doubt and probably put me in a mental institution

.

i would ask you if you have evidence of these fairies before i assume you dont.

So due to the lack of evidence, there are people that doubt the theists claim that a god exist. That is the reason, It is a position arrived to by logic, not by faith.

lack of evidence is not lack of existence, that is very basic logic 101, im pretty sure that you dont have any idea why we believe what we believe.

you should stop making assumptions about the lack of evidence. the fact that the universe is here is enough.

And the saying, “If there were no God, there would be no atheists” is incorrect. It should be, “If there were no theists, there would be no a-theists.”

since i didn’t say that, what do i care?

i challenge you to prove your assumptions of no evidence, i hold that the observable universe is enough.

lets see what you have.

 

[morgantj]

what is this claim of no evidence you keep making? even if you discount the entire history of Christainty, discount that the church was an eyewitness of Christ and the Apostles, you are still here, from that evidence alone we can prove the existence of G-d.

i would ask you if you have evidence of these fairies before i assume you dont.

lack of evidence is not lack of existence, that is very basic logic 101, im pretty sure that you dont have any idea why we believe what we believe.

you should stop making assumptions about the lack of evidence. the fact that the universe is here is enough.

since i didn’t say that, what do i care?

i challenge you to prove your assumptions of no evidence, i hold that the observable universe is enough.

lets see what you have.

There is a history of dragons that crosses cultures and countries, with eyewitnesses, books written about them, etc… Same goes for alien spacecraft. Does that mean I should just take their word for it, their eyewitness accounts, the hearsay, as evidence, and believe it to be true based on this? Is that what you call logical? Should I not take in account the psychology of people in wanting to believe in things, or their personal bias, or how their desires, fears, and selfishness contribute to determining them to believe? Should I put that logic aside? Should I discount how we are conditioned by our environment? Had you of grown up in Buddhist temple, you actually think you would believe in the god of the bible?

Also, I didn’t say lack of evidence means lack of existence, I said lack of evidence results in lack of belief. Keep reading your “very basic logic 101.”

Please explain how the universe is evidence that god exist? And if you have all this evidence, why do you only just “believe?” Why don’t you “know?”

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is a history of dragons that crosses cultures and countries, with eyewitnesses, books written about them, etc… Same goes for alien spacecraft. Does that mean I should just take their word for it, their eyewitness accounts, the hearsay, as evidence, and believe it to be true based on this? Is that what you call logical?

if tens of billions of people just as intelligent and educated as you believe in G-d, you might give it a thourough examination, that would be logical, as opposed to assuming they all believe in something for insufficient reason, yes, that would be the logical approach

but notice, your not making arguments, your just making statements.

that said, who ever saw a dragon? their history has always been as a mythical creature as far as i know.

please make arguments, not statements and analogies, opinions dont mean much here

Should I not take in account the psychology of people in wanting to believe in things, or their personal bias, or how their desires, fears, and selfishness contribute to determining them to believe? Should I put that logic aside?

wow, its like you think your smarter than billlions of other people.

Should I discount how we are conditioned by our environment? Had you of grown up in Buddhist temple, you actually think you would believe in the god of the bible?

knowing what i know, yes. i would be regarless of environment, as are millions of chinese, koreans, indians, and other asians from non-christain cultures.

thats why more than a third of the planets population is Christain.

Also, I didn’t say lack of evidence means lack of existence, I said lack of evidence results in lack of belief. Keep reading your “very basic logic 101.”

i did thats how i know your just making statements from some book you read.

Please explain how the universe is evidence that god exist? And if you have all this evidence, why do you only just “believe?” Why don’t you “know?”

i do know in the technical sense you use, but im not worried about the language police.

as to the universe being the evidence of G-d. that starts here…

physical matter is incapable of causing itself, as such the first cause must necessarily be non-physical.

 

[morgantj]

if tens of billions of people just as intelligent and educated as you believe in G-d, you might give it a thourough examination, that would be logical, as opposed to assuming they all believe in something for insufficient reason, yes, that would be the logical approach

The logical approach would be for you not to use logical fallacies, like this agruments from numbers, aka argumentum ad populum, appeal to the majority, appeal to the masses, authority of the many, etc… Just because many people believe it, doesn’t make it true.

wow, its like you think your smarter than billlions of other people.

Argument from numbers again, please read above.

knowing what i know, yes. i would be regarless of environment, as are millions of chinese, koreans, indians, and other asians from non-christain cultures.

thats why more than a third of the planets population is Christain.

And again, the same logical fallacy, appeal to the majority, argument from numbers. Come on now, logic 101, remember?

i did thats how i know your just making statements from some book you read.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

as to the universe being the evidence of G-d. that starts here…

physical matter is incapable of causing itself, as such the first cause must necessarily be non-physical.

False dilemma. And even if that were true, it doesn’t necessitate that this “non-physical” must be god. So this is the evidence you hold to eh?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The logical approach would be for you not to use logical fallacies, like this agruments from numbers, aka argumentum ad populum, appeal to the majority, appeal to the masses, authority of the many, etc… Just because many people believe it, doesn’t make it true.

i didnt make an argument from numbers, as in all these people believe, so it must be true, i pointed out that many qualified people believe, so you should not assume they have no evidence.

big difference.

Argument from numbers again, please read above.

 

[morgantj]

i didnt make an argument from numbers, as in all these people believe, so it must be true, i pointed out that many qualified people believe, so you should not assume they have no evidence.

big difference.

One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of intelligent people do it. So you should not assume they have no evidence. You might want to give smoking a thorough examination.

argument from numbers.

once again not an argument from numbers, an observation that you are implying that billions of people believe something for no reason

not an argument that so many beleive they must be right.

I didn’t say they have no reason. I’m sure they have their reasons for believing just like children have their reasons for believing in Santa.

and yet again you misundersatnd what an argument from popularity is,

i didn’t say they were right in their belief because so many believe it

you implied culture is determinative in choice of faith, i pointed out that is not necessarily so

You “attempted” to point out “that is not necessarily so.” But it was not successful. You said, “Knowing what I know…” Obviously, had you of grown up in a Buddhist temple you would not know all the things you know now. You would be shaped differently then you are now and have different beliefs, values, likes, dislikes, etc…

you are missusing several of the arguments, even worse you keep repeating their latin names, like we dont know what they are.

You are welcome for the aliases. And yea, it doesn’t look like you know what they are since you keep using them, and then claim that you are not. You are not fooling anyone.

i am pointing out that you have had maybe a semester of philosophy or read a book on the subject,

Incorrect assumption. Just because you have logic 101 in front of you doesn’t mean I do as well.

im not worried about the language police.

It makes it quite difficult to have conversation with someone that is not concerned with the usage of their language.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

One could claim that smoking is a healthy pastime, since millions of intelligent people do it. So you should not assume they have no evidence. You might want to give smoking a thorough examination.

i examined it for 21 years, though since no one actually claims smoking is good for you, this analogy doesn’t make much sense

argument from numbers.

ok, then embarass your self:shrug:

I didn’t say they have no reason. I’m sure they have their reasons for believing just like children have their reasons for believing in Santa.

so they are tens of billions of children, your still belittleing billions of people just as smart as you are, just as educated. derision is not an argument.

You “attempted” to point out “that is not necessarily so.” But it was not successful. You said, “Knowing what I know…” Obviously, had you of grown up in a Buddhist temple you would not know all the things you know now. You would be shaped differently then you are now and have different beliefs, values, likes, dislikes, etc…

and still, logic is the same regardless of culture, as the millions of Christains, living in other cultures have found. they believe, even though they grew up in buddhist temples, hindu villages, and atheistic creches.

how is that you think environment is determinitive of religion? how does that fail?

You are welcome for the aliases. And yea, it doesn’t look like you know what they are since you keep using them, and then claim that you are not. You are not fooling anyone.

fine, if i made those ‘arguments’ then you should be able to draw the structure from them.

i await your evidence of an ‘argument’ for the existence of G-d from my observations.

prove it.

Incorrect assumption. Just because you have logic 101 in front of you doesn’t mean I do as well.

then you dont have at least a semester of philosophy, or have read a book on the subject? it is possible you have less and picked up those arguments on youtube or atheist answers,

but you would be using those terms correctly if you had significantly more.

It makes it quite difficult to have conversation with someone that is not concerned with the usage of their language.

unfortunately you cant impose your version of language on others, unless we all speak from an agreed upon standard, like a ceratain dictionary, there are going to be inconsistencies. constantly trying to make people speak in, what you think is standard, is just obnoxious.

 

[Squishy]

Most atheists say they dislike Theists because Theists claim to KNOW that God exists, and that is arrogant. But why is it any less arrogant for an atheist to say that God does NOT exist?

And isn’t Agnosticism just a lazy form of atheism? It doesn’t require you to do anything. You are just in the middle of the road.

I dont know any atheists who particularly dislike theists because of a belief in god. I think the issue comes from frustration. Both sides see their argument as so simple that they cannot possibly understand why the other side even exists.

As regards Agnosticism its the most honest of all the stances you can take. More so than theism or atheism. Only when you accept all outcomes can you really set about trying to find the truth. I would hesitate to say atheism is at leaste a little better than religion as it only discounts a god. Leaving everything else fair game. But its still a flawed way of looking at things. When you start to dismiss possabilitys when you dont have all the information. You risk getting it wrong.

 

[Bear_Claw]

if tens of billions of people just as intelligent and educated as you believe in G-d, you might give it a thourough examination, that would be logical, as opposed to assuming they all believe in something for insufficient reason, yes, that would be the logical approach

If tens of billions of people jump off a bridge, would you do it too? Just because they have been indoctrinated in this way doesn’t make it true, or factual.
And of course, you have the dilemma of your statement that says that all these people you mentioned don’t believe in the same god either. Which is right? Try debating a muslim on that, or a mormon, or a protestant for that matter…that debate is still ongoing too.
So, from tens of billions, you have only approx 1.1 billion that are Catholic. If you talk about practicing, good faithful Catholics, not even a billion, to be sure…

as to the universe being the evidence of G-d. that starts here…
physical matter is incapable of causing itself, as such the first cause must necessarily be non-physical.

That statement is not true. The correct statement would be that we are not sure. We haven’t seen life causing itself, but on primitive earth, all the basic building blocks were there, even complex amino acids. We have found them present in deep space meteors. See this link: physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/18059.
All the basic building blocks for life was present. Add to this, the massive energy being injected from the sun, volcanoes, etc…you have to concede that it was possible.
It only takes 1 time for the conditions to be perfectly right to start the process.

So, no not necessarily a first cause, and also not necessarily a non-physical first cause.
The question is also posed to you that, if there was a non-physical first cause, what was its first cause? There has to be a first cause, right?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If tens of billions of people jump off a bridge, would you do it too?

of course i wouldn’t commit suicide because someone else did. its a sin.

Just because they have been indoctrinated in this way doesn’t make it true, or factual.