-Don’t you mean “Attributed to God, actually written by Man”?
Tell me Libs, are you trying to convince readers, or are you just trying to prove to your god that in defending your faith, you are somehow worthy?
Doc, we are all trying to be honest. And if we are honest, I think there is always a part of us which tries to convince, or at least be convincing. However, I would not accuse Libertarian of something so ignoble as speaking to me whilst attempting to prove his “worth” (Arete in Greek?) to God in the manner of a stage actor speaking an aside. He acts in love, as do I. Our different explanations for that love are less important than that it exists.
Amen and amen.
I think you misunderstood my point. I`ll say it again.
First re-read my earlier post, the one you misunderstood.
(If a creator exists, one with the talent and wisdom to create the universe and all life, does it not seem a billion times as likely that he could prevent any evidence of himself from becoming evident to us? If he so chose.)
God could prevent himself from becoming “evident to us” if he so chose. If he has all the power to create the universe, then something so simple as slipping up and “getting caught by humans” is silly.
You said there is no evidence of God.
I said, he obviously wants it that way.
If he were to show himself to you Czarcasm, it would not be by mistake.
What he wants us to know we already know.
There is no evidence for Santa Claus because he wants it that way.
Try this on for size-understand and agree do not have the same definitions in any dictionary. I totally understood what you posted. I disagree with your points and your conclusions.
I see your plan now. You’re going to drown this thread in treacle.:rolleyes:
Evil Captor wrote:
Your plan is obvious as well: corrode it with gratuitous dyspepsia.
[Scouser] Caaaalm down, eh, eh, eh. [/Scouser]
Fear not, Evil, my tooth is not so sweet. I merely feel that, in the past, I have jumped into discussions solely between theists and put across “atheist points” which were perhaps a little off topic. Theists like Libertarian and Polycarp have always been perfectly gracious and patient during such, and so I am happy to reciprocate. (That is not to say they’re straying particularly OT here, rather that this is something of a turnaround in that it is we atheists who are setting out our stall, so to speak.)
And Lib, understand that Evil’s stomach complaint is solely due to we atheists having a lower saccharide tolerance than most.
Incidentally, that quote by Virgowitch came from Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series, the Granny Weatherwax character IIRC. (Perhaps unacknowledged quotes led to the ban.)
Then you must agree that your original point (3) doesn`t hold water.
From You;
(3. There is about as much proof(if not less) that they exist as there is evidence that Santa Claus or Batman exists, and if we are supposing that there are all-powerful beings that are responsible for the creation of everything and and have a daily direct influence on our lives, that it seems necessary that there is direct evidence of such an influencial being’s existance, but so far such evidence has been lacking.)
Logically, if the creator doesnt want to get caught then he wont.
You cant use for evidence against a creator the fact that you, CZARCASM, havent actually seen him.
Im not actually argueing creator/no creator with you, Im disputing your logic specifically in point (3).
I will foolishly add this to make my point; If you wanted to argue that there is no Santa Claus because you have not seen him, I would say," pshaw". If there was a Santa Claus he would/could magically make himself eternally unobservable to you.
That doesnt mean he exists or doesnt exist. It means that you can`t use that particular arguement against.
Now do you get it?
Classic denial of the antecedant.
I don’t believe in a god because I cannot find a compelling reason to do so - not because I cannot find compelling evidence. Not that I can find compelling evidence, it’s just a different matter and not OT.
Anyway, there is no reason that I can see why I would want to believe there is a “designer” or “omnipotent observer” or what have you. I do believe there may be other ‘aspects’ to the world than we know of, and that there may exist other beings that we may classify as ‘godlike’ if we encountered them, but I don’t think one of those made humanity or have been lurking behind the scenes. And there’s no point to worshiping it if it has.
Also, I’d like to ask the thread at large; Since very many religions seem to be internally inconsistent, and we accept that people believe in them, should it matter if people who don’t believe in a god choose to do so for internally inconsistent reasons?
True. But, as others have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the major monotheistic religions of the world all claim that they have “caught” the Creator – or, rather, that the Creator has not only let Himself get caught, He has gone out of His way to make sure He’d be caught. He’s talked to prophets, He’s appeared in pillars of fire, He’s burned cities to the ground and turned people into pillars of salt and then told people to write down the fact that He did it.
It is that God, the God who supposedly made His presence known to the ancients so unequivocably that there should be no question about His existence if the stories were true, that there doesn’t seem to be evidence for.
Elethiomel wrote:
Every deductive system that is complete will have internal inconsistencies. But that is not to say that an apparent inconsistency is in fact an inconsistency.
But Lib, one can always instead opt for a deductive system that is instead consistent but not complete. Myself, I rather prefer that option.
pan
Oh, sure. Me, too.
Urban Ranger asked of me:
Fair question, given what I said. But I had actually answered it shortly before, though given my tortured syntax, I cannot blame you for missing it.
The question doesn’t arise other than as a hypothetical for me, since I do believe in God (and I use “believe” in the context of “know as a person and trust” here, rather than in the context of “give intellectual assent to by dogmatic faith” that seems to be common usage in these discussions).
However, on the supposition that God did not exist, I would act from an atheist humanist perspective, rather than from a Christian humanist one, and my standards of what constitutes proper behavior by me towards others would be founded on the same concepts – the ones Jesus is recorded as teaching regarding the treatment of one’s fellow man. The historicity and accuracy of the Gospels doesn’t enter into the picture of whether these constitute guidelines of moral behavior, IMHO: I might have quoted V.M. or W.W. Smith in the same regard:
I was raised, and am, a Mormon, but I can totally put myself in the mindset of an athiest/agnostic/non-theist (choose your title, please)
Why there isn’t a god:
What’s the deal with all these silly writings about people turning into salt, and a city full of Gay people being destroyed in a fireball? I thought God was supposed to be a loving, kind and gentle being. Plus, those were the writings of primitive nomads. They would have thought that boiling water was a sign that the world was going to end. Personally, I haven’t seen any burning bushes, so why should I believe? I haven’t been particularly raised as a religious person, and a lot of people who are religious are real hooligans!
Why I believe there is a God:
I have been raised in a religous person all my life, and it really only makes sense that there is a God. Too many incidences in my life seem TOO coincidential to be just that. I feel my prayes are answered every night, and when I go to church, I feel that I am doing the right thing. Also, just look at the universe! There are too many variables for mere chaos to make what exists today. Even Steven Hawking said something about a number that if it was slightly more or less than what it was at the time of the big bang, the universe would be goup. That is enough to convince me!
please excuse me, if you think this is a hijack (probably is). I’m a board-terrorist.
Nope. The “sin of Sodom,” as is made very explicit by the prophets (Isaiah and a couple of others), was not in desiring gay sex but in failure to extend hospitality to the stranger who seeks refuge among you – the desire to abuse him rather than welcome him as your long-lost brother.
There’s a message in this for the politicians who oppose gay rights and are looking to tighten up immigration. But I bet they don’t see it at all.
I don’t believe in god (actually i can accept that i don’t know for sure but i’m probably more atheist than agnostic if that makes any sense whatsoever) because i don’t need to. My universe is for the most part explained to me without God being a necessary requirement. I do not need to believe that something happens because god is good/angry/wrathful/indifferent/evil/bored. People live, people die et cetera, et cetera. Not very illuminating i know but that’s my “positive” reason for not believeing.
Mogiaw
I think we’re still waiting for Scott Dickerson to tell us why he doesn’t believe in god.