Why should I not take probility (odds) into account when deciding to believe something or not? I have no particular reason to believe any statement but the more improbable it is the more evidence I need before committing.
I am also ready to admit if I find that my beliefs do not correspond to reality.
So what?
Not if you ask Harry Dean Stanton.
Mary? What’s Her other, singular, name? I’ve got Aphrodite, Astarte, Athena, Cybele, Demeter, Hathor, Inanna, Ishtar and Isis, and that’s just in the Mid East and around the Mediterranean.
Numbers 7 and 8.
And you’re splitting 10s dude. Smart bet is to stand fast on that hand.
Prove it. No one has to prove the negative. You make a claim, you prove it.
Prove the existence of a God or gods. Give some hard scientific evidence. There is faith and there is only that. No one can prove God exists, and no one can prove he doesn’t.
Yeah.
“Theists have the integrity to call it faith”
Bullshit. Googled “Evidence for God” and got over 12 million hits.
Edited to add: “Proof that God exists”-over 200,000 hits.
There was a Champ de Elysees in Texas, but they ruined it with oil wells.
We should make a movie where Paris of Troy meets Paris Hilton in Paris Texas. We could call it the Ill-smelling-ad.
They call it faith when asked for evidence for God’s existence.
They act like it is proven true when they want to interfere with your sex life or deny a woman the right to her own body.
Yeah, that’s not really responsive, so I’ll be more specific: what do you think “heaven” and “hell” are actually like, and based on what evidence? If you cannot supply any such evidence, why should I believe in their existence on top of another unproven premise - the existence of the god who presumably would send me to one or the other? Isn’t this just multiplying the assumptions?
I’m commenting on how you step on the assumptions of others by asserting contrary assumptions. It’s a 2 way street that goes no where.
What assumptions do you think I am asserting? You brought up heaven and hell, I’m asking you to describe what you think those are like and why, including why you believe they exist.
As an afterthought, I realize I am indeed assuming that you assume they exist, else why would you mention them in the first place? If you do not actually believe heaven and hell exist, why are you wasting time and effort asking who will go where?
Why would anyone bother explaining, even if they believed, that something exists yet can’t be proven. But then, neither side to the argument can be proven. We used to call that a Mexican standoff.
Personally, if anyone offers me an option to the inevitable dirt nap, I’m interested in hearing it. You’re just causing them to keep it inside with your comments like “mythology.”
“Neither side can be proven” - That’s crap; if God existed as described in the Old or New Testaments, its existence could be proven because it interacted with humans all the time and engaged regularly in the suspensions of natural order we call “miracles”.
If the assumption is that God exists but not as described in scripture, where is it described? And if it’s not described anywhere, what use is it as a concept and what would be the point in believing in it?
That would be true if God wrote the book. But then, the various books of the Bible would be called God 1, God 2, etc. Not Genesis, Isiah, etc.
Obviously God didn’t write the books, nor is there anything in my observation suggesting God did. Do you have a point or is your stalling going to continue?
My point is you are clearly in a Mexican standoff here. You want to win a discussion by asking someone to prove a fact that can’t be proven. You’re failing to see that your position is equally unprovable in their eyes.
Which means it is not a fact, and can never be a fact.
Why bother with it?
Their lack of understanding of reason and logic does not in any way invalidate my argument. They are wrong, regardless of whether or not they understand why they are wrong.