M
mikew262
Guest
Arrogance has nothing to do with my statement. Just calling it like I see it. BTW, you’ve presented no facts supporting God’s non-existance, just opinions.
- Status
T
TySixtus
Guest
When are you guys going to realize I don’t have to provide facts for something’s non-existence?
I want someone to answer this one question. It’s the only one I care about, because you guys seem to have huge problems with the idea of burden of proof:
What evidence do you have that Zeus doesn’t exist?
If anyone, ANYONE, can answer this question with data that also is not applicable to your god, I will convert here and now.
Ty
T
TySixtus
Guest
Kev7:
You take things on faith. Faith is belief without evidence, according to you. Fine. I understand where you’re coming from. Just don’t expect me to respect the a position so blatantly deviod of logic.
Ty
You take things on faith. Faith is belief without evidence, according to you. Fine. I understand where you’re coming from. Just don’t expect me to respect the a position so blatantly deviod of logic.
Ty
K
kev7
Guest
That is exactly what “faith” is about. To believe something despite proof or lack of, evidence or lack of, or even logic.
As long as there are only facts, there is nothing to believe in. You have the facts, period. But the very essence of faith is to believe something without facts or even against some facts.
[/quote]
how do you know there are only facts?
Is love a fact? is faith a fact? is the square root of -1 a fact?
As long as there are only facts, there is nothing to believe in. You have the facts, period. But the very essence of faith is to believe something without facts or even against some facts.
[/quote]
how do you know there are only facts?
Is love a fact? is faith a fact? is the square root of -1 a fact?
T
TySixtus
Guest
Kristina P.:
Really, it’s nothing dramatic as all that. I simply like to read and write. It pretty much took care of it self.
Ty
Well you’ve no idea how many people automatically assume that, because I’m an atheist, I must have suffered some horrible tragedy in my life that ripped me away from The All Loving God.
Really, it’s nothing dramatic as all that. I simply like to read and write. It pretty much took care of it self.
Ty
T
TySixtus
Guest
You need to pick up a book on philosophy, and begin to distinguish between metaphysics and epistemology.
Furthermore, your questions are category errors. Love is a fact like “computer” is a fact. Your question is non-sensical. Is love an emototion? Yes, and it’s a fact. Does my mother love me? Sure. And it’s a fact.
Same thing with your faith. Does it exist? Sure. Factually, you have faith. It exists.
What were you trying to say, anyway?
Ty
K
Kristina_P
Guest
The only reason anyone is asking for facts is because you promised to disprove the existence of God, and you haven’t done it. I, for one, haven’t promised to prove anything, so I have no trouble admitting that I have no scientific evidence for the existence of God (or against the existence of Zeus). That doesn’t change the fact that you also have no evidence to disprove the existence of God, which you said you would do.
K
kev7
Guest
Good.
I’m just trying to make the point that we both have faith in our own understanding of the universe.You have faith in mans ability to understand. There is no evidence to support the capacity of man to fathom the universe. It is infact a leap of faith to suggest that that mans logic can prove the nature of reality.
My dog for example sees the universe one way. A whale views it another. Are we not just animals with our own limited perspective?
It is therefore only rational to conclude that the nature of true reality may not ever be understood by man. We may infact be unable to fathom it.
As Catholics we belive in that reality is much more then what we see infront of us. We are infact limited in our understanding and always will be. It is through our faith that we come to know God not through proof. Proof is useless since our ability to perceive the universe may be as limited as an insect.
T
TySixtus
Guest
Kristina P.:
For example, if one of you were to say that god is pure love (like kev7 did) I could prove to you that, as far as we human beings use the word “love”, and as far as it will have any meaning whatsoever, your god doesn’t exhibit this trait.
No one has yet to do this. The closest was VC’s Uncaused Cause arguement, which ended in QM and Occams Razor. No one has yet to prove that the existence of the universe is do to god, and not the universe itself.
So go ahead. List some attributes of your god and I’ll take a stab at them.
Ty
I said for somone to give me some characteristics of your god, and I would disprove that he exhibited thos characteristics.
For example, if one of you were to say that god is pure love (like kev7 did) I could prove to you that, as far as we human beings use the word “love”, and as far as it will have any meaning whatsoever, your god doesn’t exhibit this trait.
No one has yet to do this. The closest was VC’s Uncaused Cause arguement, which ended in QM and Occams Razor. No one has yet to prove that the existence of the universe is do to god, and not the universe itself.
So go ahead. List some attributes of your god and I’ll take a stab at them.
Ty
B
buffalo
Guest
It will probably hit you around age 30.
K
Kristina_P
Guest
No offense, but that isn’t really what this thread started out as. We were discussing the existence of God, not the attributes of the Christian God. I have a feeling I can see where this particular path is going to take us, but I’ll try it anyway and repeat what kev7 said: God is love. Disprove away.
T
TySixtus
Guest
This is nonsense, and a bankrupt philosophical position. And I’ll prove it to you.
If a car were to come hurtling towards you at 100 mph, Kev7, would you jump out of the way? Or would you stand there, because man can’t fathom the universe, and your limited senses are no match for reality, and that car might not be there at all?
This branch of philosophy, called Materialistic Agnosticism, is bunk. You use the nature of reality everyday. When you type on a computer, sit in a chait, eat a sandwhich, kiss your girlfriend, pet your dog, or argue with an atheist. What you are doing is intellectually dishonest, even though you aren’t doing it on purpose.
Why? Because you’re using the understanding of reality that we all share as humans to tell me that I cannot understand reality! It’s nonsense! I wish you would see this, as it’s extremely frustrating!
Ty
T
TySixtus
Guest
Kristina P.:
Now you can sit here and tell me that they were going to heaven and blah blah blah. But anyone, anyone, with any intellectual honesty in their head would conclude that this god was immoral for doing so. Let me repeat: HE SPECIFICALLY MURDERED BABIES BECAUSE THEIR PARENT’S WERE BEING BAD!
Not only did he not murder the perpetrators of his anger, he did murder their children. Let this sink in.
Or how about some New Testament? Hmmm… oh yeah, didn’t he kill a husband an wife for not coughing up enough dough to their commune? Ananias and Sapphira, I think their names were.
If god is love, why does he kill babies for what their parents do, and why does he kill adults if they don’t give enough?
This flies in the face of the word “love”. You make a mockery of the word by using it this way.
Please, I’d love to hear the answers to these.
Ty
Love:
- A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.
Now you can sit here and tell me that they were going to heaven and blah blah blah. But anyone, anyone, with any intellectual honesty in their head would conclude that this god was immoral for doing so. Let me repeat: HE SPECIFICALLY MURDERED BABIES BECAUSE THEIR PARENT’S WERE BEING BAD!
Not only did he not murder the perpetrators of his anger, he did murder their children. Let this sink in.
Or how about some New Testament? Hmmm… oh yeah, didn’t he kill a husband an wife for not coughing up enough dough to their commune? Ananias and Sapphira, I think their names were.
If god is love, why does he kill babies for what their parents do, and why does he kill adults if they don’t give enough?
This flies in the face of the word “love”. You make a mockery of the word by using it this way.
Please, I’d love to hear the answers to these.
Ty
K
kev7
Guest
As a man I am gifted with a limited understand of the universe. Just as a bird is. I know that a car can kill me if i stand in the middle of a road.
Are there things about reality that man will never be able to prove?
I’m sorry but it just seems to me that your understanding is only based on what you can see right in front of you.
I guess if you where born without eyes and ears a tiger wouldn’t be able to eat you. After all, the only thing that exists for you is what you can prove to exist. But since you have no ears to hear him and no eyes to see him there is point in claiming that a tiger exists. After all you don’t have proof.
All I’m saying is that you can’t reject the fact that reality may be more then you can understand to exist. Reality isn’t subject to your limited perception as a man.
How someone can live their life and not accept possibilities outside of their own perception is beyond me.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
Kristina P.:
The usual argument for the existence of a god is to construct some reason, why a god must exist. Then in an act of equivocation that god is identified as one’s personal god.
“God is love” what does that mean? God is identical to a biochemical/bioelectrical reaction, we call an emotion, in particular “love”? Well, fine, that love exists ergo God exists. Did that love create the universe? No, the universe was in place before any human feeling was around (or any biochemical reaction that is). Does that say anything about an afterlife? No, dead humans don’t have biochemical reactions any longer, thus no feelings, thus no love, thus no God, once we’re dead.
Do we? If you have a god devoid of any attributes, like the Deists’ one or to a certain degree the Buddhist and Taoist world view, there is nothing to proove, disproove, believe, even talk about.
The usual argument for the existence of a god is to construct some reason, why a god must exist. Then in an act of equivocation that god is identified as one’s personal god.
This is even worse. You take something and call it God. You could as well call it Blazorg. Love is Blazorg. Love exists, ergo Blazorg exists.
“God is love” what does that mean? God is identical to a biochemical/bioelectrical reaction, we call an emotion, in particular “love”? Well, fine, that love exists ergo God exists. Did that love create the universe? No, the universe was in place before any human feeling was around (or any biochemical reaction that is). Does that say anything about an afterlife? No, dead humans don’t have biochemical reactions any longer, thus no feelings, thus no love, thus no God, once we’re dead.
K
kev7
Guest
The gospel is the only truth that I need. you can’t disprove the truth of christ.
A
AnAtheist
Guest
That depends on what you mean by “the truth”. Like everything Jesus said is true? Or everything the Bible or the Church states is true?
If that would be so obvious, then why is there a profession called Apologetics?
K
Kristina_P
Guest
TySixtus said:
And… it went exactly where I thought it would. If you spent 21 years in the Catholic Church, please don’t tell me you haven’t heard the arguments on my side. I can see that they didn’t convince you, but your arguments do not convince me. This is not “proof” that God isn’t love. Just because we don’t understand the reasons He does something isn’t a proof against His love. Sometimes love is harsh and more concerned with the long run (the next life) than with the immediate comfort of the one being loved. If you don’t believe in the premise of the next life or in God or in the existence of reasons we can’t understand, then of course such things won’t make sense in the context of love.
You’re asking me to know the “ways of God” that are unknowable, as He has not revealed them. I trust that He is love and that He has loving reasons for actions that don’t make sense to me. That may be irrational, but it is my prerogative.
Personally, I can understand your position on this, but do not offer it as proof of anything.
J
Jayson
Guest
I guess that’s the thing with faith. I have absolutely no firsthand experience with anything that is absolutely, and clearly supernatural. I have had experiences that are of great coincidence and I have felt consolation, which I interpret to be from God but could very well be just the product of my own mind. I also believe that supernatural things occur at every mass I go to, and when I pray, but I have no physical proof of such things.
All of us, I am assuming, struggle at times with why God does not reveal himself in a more concrete way to us. Surely there are arguments and musings about why this is, but the question of why God tests our alligience in such a difficult way remains.
There is also the problem of suffering and death and violence. Why does a God who loves us permit, and occasionally approve of such acts (the killing of the Egyptians, for example)? My human wisdom struggles to comprehend these things. How can he expect me to come to terms with the wisdom of God simple by using my own reasoning? Surely this is too much for a mere mortal! But I do not dwell to long on such things. There is such beauty and love in the world and in the scriptures, and because of this I humbly accept his will even if it doesn’t always make sense to me.
I struggle on in faith, and I choose to believe. This is not a very scientific way of thinking, or acting, but I suppose that’s the nature of the beast. And, in my interpretation, this is a gift from God. It is something that I would not trade for all of the pleasures of the world, yet something that I still find difficult to cling to at times. It is also something that I am a loss to explain. I am a scientifically minded person, yet I am able to accept things which I have no physical proof for.
I sympathize with you, and I, along with you, stuggle with the vagueness, and unclarity which we must fight against. We are trying to comprehend spiritual realities in material ways, which is bound to lead to dissapointment, but which I believe will always be rewarding if we press on.
I challenge you to continue with your questioning. Be angry at God if that’s what you need to do. Do not stop seeking. I think the fact that you are troubled over these things is a sign of hope. You want to believe in God, and I am sure that he wants you to believe in him as well. Do not lose hope, and do not be afraid to take this as far as it must go.
I will pray for you.
All of us, I am assuming, struggle at times with why God does not reveal himself in a more concrete way to us. Surely there are arguments and musings about why this is, but the question of why God tests our alligience in such a difficult way remains.
There is also the problem of suffering and death and violence. Why does a God who loves us permit, and occasionally approve of such acts (the killing of the Egyptians, for example)? My human wisdom struggles to comprehend these things. How can he expect me to come to terms with the wisdom of God simple by using my own reasoning? Surely this is too much for a mere mortal! But I do not dwell to long on such things. There is such beauty and love in the world and in the scriptures, and because of this I humbly accept his will even if it doesn’t always make sense to me.
I struggle on in faith, and I choose to believe. This is not a very scientific way of thinking, or acting, but I suppose that’s the nature of the beast. And, in my interpretation, this is a gift from God. It is something that I would not trade for all of the pleasures of the world, yet something that I still find difficult to cling to at times. It is also something that I am a loss to explain. I am a scientifically minded person, yet I am able to accept things which I have no physical proof for.
I sympathize with you, and I, along with you, stuggle with the vagueness, and unclarity which we must fight against. We are trying to comprehend spiritual realities in material ways, which is bound to lead to dissapointment, but which I believe will always be rewarding if we press on.
I challenge you to continue with your questioning. Be angry at God if that’s what you need to do. Do not stop seeking. I think the fact that you are troubled over these things is a sign of hope. You want to believe in God, and I am sure that he wants you to believe in him as well. Do not lose hope, and do not be afraid to take this as far as it must go.
I will pray for you.
K
kev7
Guest
Can you prove that love is only a bioelectrical reaction? I guess you would be limited to your perceptions as a man. I guess you would have to believe that man is first capable of such a task. That would of course be a leap of faith in a life form that (from your perspective) is simply a spec of dust in comparison to the universe.
As Catholics we believe that love existed before the universe. Love is what gives us purpose. Our love for others is what will transcend our physical nature and grant us eternal life.
When we love someone it has meaning that transcends human nature. Love for us is everlasting. I guess that is the difference between those that believe in God and those that don’t
When you reject God mass murder is possible because it is becomes simply something that you can try to get away with. Killing millions of Jewish people is also possible because love is only a bioelectrical reaction.
With that said I have more respect and trust for someone that accepts God then someone like you that rejects him.
I’m sorry but even if the entire human race was killed off the concept of love would still exist. The reason for that is that it is truth. Truth does not require a physical nature.
- Status