Political Crossfire Forums

[CursedLemon]

You guys are severely misunderstanding the point.

For every single metaphysical "proof" of God, there is an equally valid "proof" against his existence. It's a giant grey area, and therefore I'm just simply not considering it.

Also, I am very much agnostic.

[CursedLemon]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Again within the context of Christian theology your premise is wrong.

Christians DO NOT percieve of God as either concious or a "being". God within Chrisitian theology, as Creator of all things, The First Cause, is in fact perfect simplicity. God does not posess intellect God IS intellect, God does not posess conciousness God is conciousness God is not A being God IS being. Again, logically speaking, One who creates time, life and matter MUST exist outside of the limitations of all three, otherwise the creation of all three would not be possible BY that Creator.

As human beings it is our nature to attempt to describe and often even personify God (which He does for us in the presence of Jesus Christ), but we are incapable of accurately describing something we most certainly CAN NOT fully comprehend. This is not a convenient deflection as I used to think, but an obvious statement of human limitation of an Essence beyond our comprehension, much like the universe for instance.

The problem with the "intellectual" dismissal of God is that in employing logic to deny God, it is impossible not to have then dismiss logic in order to ignore the possible existence of God. This is the exact conflict I continually faced in my own "intellectual" denial of God and the one you make obvious by your dismissal of John's quote.

I have found it far more credible to simply say you don't believe in God as a matter of faith and leave it at that.

Also there is more circumstantial evidence of some kind of organized approach to the origin of life than not and more clues every day (DNA for example) that points to a type of architecture or code to life.

Again this my not be pursuasive to you but you can not just dismiss it as non-existant when even people like Antony Flew(world renown atheist) begins to see this(DNA) as strong logical evidence of an intelligent designer, a God.

You've got to be kidding me.

The whole PREMISE of the Christian God is the fact that God consciously defines the universe, including the moral spectrum. You can't tell me that a nonsentient God would create a system of law for humans, if we are indeed indepentently reasoning. Nature doesn't care about gay people. God's worldly laws (as defined by Christianity) mean absolutely nothing if I can disagree with them.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: there is an equally valid "proof" against his existence.

It is just as impossible to prove that God does not exist as it is to prove He does exist.

That is a logical fallacy.

[CursedLemon]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: there is an equally valid "proof" against his existence.

It is just as impossible to prove that God does not exist as it is to prove He does exist.

That is a logical fallacy.

That's kind of what I meant. :lol:

[Gilbert1908]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote:
First of all my friend John is merely using fact as circumstantial evidence to the question of God's existence, something YOU are asking for and he does not need. The FACT that it a modern physicist would agree with Aquinas by simply saying NOTHING can be made from NOTHING is hardly earth shattering.
Not true. Modern physics actaully does claim (and has shown) that somehing can come from nothing.

Vaccuum fluctuations and Virual Particles have been discovered.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

First I want to thank you for the sincereity and thoughtfulness of your challenges. They are very serious and considered questions indeed.

My point is that there is NOT a uniformity of acceptance of the various theoretical aspects of how time matter and life came into being. Therefore to dismiss logical conclusions because they do not fit your philosophy is not intellectually honest by anyone.

And the obvious question about the vaccuum fluctuations is that it is an experiment which proves that nothing can be made out of something. There must be SOMETHING in order for something to exist. We can not conduct experiments in which NOTHING exists??? If there is a vaccuum it is a CREATED VACCUUM it is nothing made out of something, not something made out of nothing or nothing made out of nothing. But in any case no one is saying that LIFE can be made from NOTHING.

Heck we are not sure exactly how HUMAN LIFE comes into being (we have the mechanics down I think) why would there be a concensus as to how the universe was created?


mODULAR mAN wrote: Quote: You can not state that there is no logic behind the belief of the existence of God and then negate logical evidence that points in that direction, it is not intellectually honest. It does not mean that you have to ADMIT God does exist it simply means that your premise is faulty. Which it is by nearly any standard.
Remember, the claim of a god is yours. YOU have the burden of proof, not "burden of possibility".

For example, why do you deny the existence of Zeus? Or Thor? Or Quetzecoatl? Do you need to disproe them, or do the people who claim their existence need to prove to you they exist?

An extraordinary claim must be supported by extraordinary evidence.

I would argue that the extraordinary claim is that ALL that is understandable is both natural and understood. And that the far less extraordinary claim is that most of what is understandable is yet to be understood and much of that is not explainable by nature. So until there is evidence for the unexplainable being naturally understood a supernatural explaination is perfectly logical and reasonable.

I have no issue with either your belief in NO God or someone elses belief in many Gods, you and they are free to believe what you choose for the reasons you choose. I have NO burden of proof to do anything with regard to what YOU or THEY believe.

This thread and you by your questioning have decided to join in challenging what I(as a believer in the Christian God) believe and the associated logic I have employed to arrive at that conclusion. So you must then prove to ME that both my logic and my belief is flawed. Since I have presented NO challenge to you or your beliefs directly. My entire post was NOT meant as an expression of my Catholic beliefs but simply pointing out the inconsistancies of applying and then denying logic, when logic and nature are ALL you espouse as truth.

mODULAR mAN wrote: Quote: As a former strong atheist who could not have been further from a believer than you can possibly imagine, I know your premise to be false by my own experience. It was when i began to look into the history and facts and stopped accepting what I assumed as fact that I very slowly began to change my mind.

As a strong atheist which arguments were the most powerful for supporting your atheism? I'm sure, you must have been aware of many.
The Problem of Free Will? Non-Cognitivism? Problem of Evil? The Impossibility of Divine Intervention?
How did you reconcile those Logical Arguments?

You can't be seriously asking for a response to these here? These are fascinating and very complex questions which are NOT answered within my faith by one line biblical references but by volumes of theological discourses which have a variety of logical, theological explanations. Catholocism is awash with intra theological arguments and debates which all lead to identical conclusions, this is what makes it FOR ME the most logical of human religious pathways. But the theological explanation of Free will, evil, and the definition and necessity of divine intervention DO NOT account for one's faith.

mODULAR mAN wrote: Quote: It is actually the LOGIC and theology of Christianity in general and Catholicism most specifically, which over years convinced me I had been mistaken not only about the possible existence of God, but most specifically about the life of Jesus Christ.
OK, I'm worried. Faith, is taught in the Bible, not logic. Plus, the Catholic Church has denounced Intelligent Design

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/11/21/id_vatican_not_science/

I would think that is nearly uanimous by even atheists that the words of Jesus Christ as represented in the New Tesatment are very logical and in fact powerfully applicable even if one denies His deity.

Also another Catholic assertion is that The Bible is NOT the only source of truth/logic/reason (Logos in theological terms).

Please do not mistake my generic assertion of an architect or code designer as the supporting those who want to teach "Intelligent Design". I am well aware that Catholicism not only has NO objection to the evolution theory and most other scientific theories but that they are in fact TAUGHT, researched and formed in Catholic schools, colleges and universities. But I appreciate your enlightening me on the Vatican's position. It is the Catholic tradition of embracing logic, science and reason that attracted me.

mODULAR mAN wrote: Quote: But believing that God or even Jesus Christ exists DOES NOT make you as a Christian. That does take a bit more doing and by definition ANYONE who adopts a new philosophy must CHANGE (religious or not consider Buddahism, Scientology or moving from Repulican to Democrat) and most likely has a particular event which pushes one past the moment of indecision. If you want to call that a "revelation" then so be it but within Chritianity it is not "required" to be a moment of high drama or anything more spectacular than figuring out something you had been thinking about one way should be viewed another way.

What do you mean by "God"?

What ever I mean by God will be an inadequate answer for both you and I so what is the point of providing an aswer which is predictably lacking, yours due to your disbelief and mine due to the depth of my belief. To best understand what I mean read the Summa Theologica by Aquinas it has most of the basics for me both logically AND faithfully.

mODULAR mAN wrote: Quote: Your logic is perfect in your statement ONLY IF you are a non believer of course. IF you believe in the Christian God then your statment is empty and meaningless. God, if the First Cause can NOT be a result of human cognition and in fact the unique ability of human reason has been an argument FOR belief in God for as long as the debate has existed.


Quote: What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.

—St. Augustine

I am unsure as to the purpose in quoting this excerpt from Augustine, but I am fascinated by what you believe it represents as part of your content?

mODULAR mAN wrote: Quote: Again within the context of Christian theology your premise is wrong.

Christians DO NOT percieve of God as either concious or a "being". God within Chrisitian theology, as Creator of all things, The First Cause, is in fact perfect simplicity. God does not posess intellect God IS intellect, God does not posess conciousness God is conciousness God is not A being God IS being. Again, logically speaking, One who creates time, life and matter MUST exist outside of the limitations of all three, otherwise the creation of all three would not be possible BY that Creator.

As human beings it is our nature to attempt to describe and often even personify God (which He does for us in the presence of Jesus Christ), but we are incapable of accurately describing something we most certainly CAN NOT fully comprehend. This is not a convenient deflection as I used to think, but an obvious statement of human limitation of an Essence beyond our comprehension, much like the universe for instance.

The problem with the "intellectual" dismissal of God is that in employing logic to deny God, it is impossible not to have then dismiss logic in order to ignore the possible existence of God. This is the exact conflict I continually faced in my own "intellectual" denial of God and the one you make obvious by your dismissal of John's quote.

I have found it far more credible to simply say you don't believe in God as a matter of faith and leave it at that.

Also there is more circumstantial evidence of some kind of organized approach to the origin of life than not and more clues every day (DNA for example) that points to a type of architecture or code to life.

Again this my not be pursuasive to you but you can not just dismiss it as non-existant when even people like Antony Flew(world renown atheist) begins to see this(DNA) as strong logical evidence of an intelligent designer, a God.

Be very careful when you mention Flew, he catagorically denied the existence of a Xian God. He is swayed by the argument for a Spinozian God (that is, a Prime Mover). PLus, most scientists who have looked at Flews reasoning, they are not convinced he understands the biology completely. Plus, it would be an argument from authority - which is a fallacy. (Flew could be wrong)

BTW, after he claimed AfDesign showed a God, he said this:
Quote: In an interview with Joan Bakewell for BBC Radio 4 in March 2005[10], Flew rejected the fine-tuning argument, and retracted his earlier claims that the origins of DNA could not be explained by naturalistic theories. However, he restated his deism, with the usual provisos that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions. (from wiki)

I was very careful ONLY to say that Flew changed his belief based on the possibility of a God/Deity based upon FACTS as he found them, NOTHING more but certainly NOTHING LESS.

mODULAR mAN wrote: Anyhow, you are bouncing between using logic and faith to make your point. You claim logic brought your to God, then claim logic can't help you understand God.

Which is it? Perhaps BAD logic made it comfortable to accept a god hypothesis, which you can't logically reconcile, but are happy to fill in the gaps with faith?

Is then your conclusion that ANYONE who believes in the possibility of God MUST be applying BAD logic? If so it makes any disucussion pointless.

I see no logical way to be a Cathololic and NOT conclude that God can be contained within any natural or logical human concept? But I see no problem with attempting our best to communicate our concepts as God has given us the sklls to do.

[Gilbert1908]

CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Again within the context of Christian theology your premise is wrong.

Christians DO NOT percieve of God as either concious or a "being". God within Chrisitian theology, as Creator of all things, The First Cause, is in fact perfect simplicity. God does not posess intellect God IS intellect, God does not posess conciousness God is conciousness God is not A being God IS being. Again, logically speaking, One who creates time, life and matter MUST exist outside of the limitations of all three, otherwise the creation of all three would not be possible BY that Creator.

As human beings it is our nature to attempt to describe and often even personify God (which He does for us in the presence of Jesus Christ), but we are incapable of accurately describing something we most certainly CAN NOT fully comprehend. This is not a convenient deflection as I used to think, but an obvious statement of human limitation of an Essence beyond our comprehension, much like the universe for instance.

The problem with the "intellectual" dismissal of God is that in employing logic to deny God, it is impossible not to have then dismiss logic in order to ignore the possible existence of God. This is the exact conflict I continually faced in my own "intellectual" denial of God and the one you make obvious by your dismissal of John's quote.

I have found it far more credible to simply say you don't believe in God as a matter of faith and leave it at that.

Also there is more circumstantial evidence of some kind of organized approach to the origin of life than not and more clues every day (DNA for example) that points to a type of architecture or code to life.

Again this my not be pursuasive to you but you can not just dismiss it as non-existant when even people like Antony Flew(world renown atheist) begins to see this(DNA) as strong logical evidence of an intelligent designer, a God.

You've got to be kidding me.

The whole PREMISE of the Christian God is the fact that God consciously defines the universe, including the moral spectrum. You can't tell me that a nonsentient God would create a system of law for humans, if we are indeed indepentently reasoning. Nature doesn't care about gay people. God's worldly laws (as defined by Christianity) mean absolutely nothing if I can disagree with them.

The premise of the Christian God is the seeming paradox that the universe and world He created is at once seperate from Him while He remains a personally accessible God to each individual.

Nature doesn't "care" about anything, "nature" is the descriptive term we use for our human environment. It is the fact that human beings have the capability to rise above pure instinct that is the entire point. If you believe that human beings are just another animal no different than dogs or chimps then ANY instinctual behavior is both expected and acceptable. But NOONE actually believes ALL instinctual behavior is acceptable by human beings so there the discussion begins.

I am saying that we are independantly reasoning beings that can choose to believe whether there is a God or not and then do our best to follow the Word of God or NOT.

That seems self evident to me.

[nygreenguy]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: there is an equally valid "proof" against his existence.

It is just as impossible to prove that God does not exist as it is to prove He does exist.

That is a logical fallacy.
It Is possible to prove certian "gods" dont exist. For example, if they are contradictiory in nature, we know that cant exist. A god cant both be omniscient, and ignorant for example. A logical contradiction automaticaly rules out the possibility of something existing. (ie the married bachelor)

[CursedLemon]

Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Again within the context of Christian theology your premise is wrong.

Christians DO NOT percieve of God as either concious or a "being". God within Chrisitian theology, as Creator of all things, The First Cause, is in fact perfect simplicity. God does not posess intellect God IS intellect, God does not posess conciousness God is conciousness God is not A being God IS being. Again, logically speaking, One who creates time, life and matter MUST exist outside of the limitations of all three, otherwise the creation of all three would not be possible BY that Creator.

As human beings it is our nature to attempt to describe and often even personify God (which He does for us in the presence of Jesus Christ), but we are incapable of accurately describing something we most certainly CAN NOT fully comprehend. This is not a convenient deflection as I used to think, but an obvious statement of human limitation of an Essence beyond our comprehension, much like the universe for instance.

The problem with the "intellectual" dismissal of God is that in employing logic to deny God, it is impossible not to have then dismiss logic in order to ignore the possible existence of God. This is the exact conflict I continually faced in my own "intellectual" denial of God and the one you make obvious by your dismissal of John's quote.

I have found it far more credible to simply say you don't believe in God as a matter of faith and leave it at that.

Also there is more circumstantial evidence of some kind of organized approach to the origin of life than not and more clues every day (DNA for example) that points to a type of architecture or code to life.

Again this my not be pursuasive to you but you can not just dismiss it as non-existant when even people like Antony Flew(world renown atheist) begins to see this(DNA) as strong logical evidence of an intelligent designer, a God.

You've got to be kidding me.

The whole PREMISE of the Christian God is the fact that God consciously defines the universe, including the moral spectrum. You can't tell me that a nonsentient God would create a system of law for humans, if we are indeed indepentently reasoning. Nature doesn't care about gay people. God's worldly laws (as defined by Christianity) mean absolutely nothing if I can disagree with them.

The premise of the Christian God is the seeming paradox that the universe and world He created is at once seperate from Him while He remains a personally accessible God to each individual.

Nature doesn't "care" about anything, "nature" is the descriptive term we use for our human environment. It is the fact that human beings have the capability to rise above pure instinct that is the entire point. If you believe that human beings are just another animal no different than dogs or chimps then ANY instinctual behavior is both expected and acceptable. But NOONE actually believes ALL instinctual behavior is acceptable by human beings so there the discussion begins.

I am saying that we are independantly reasoning beings that can choose to believe whether there is a God or not and then do our best to follow the Word of God or NOT.

That seems self evident to me.

Exactly. Nature doesn't care because nature has no law. God, under Christian definition, creates a universal metaphysical moral spectrum that pretty much solidifies what is right and what is wrong (nevermind all those little loopholes and fallacies). All I'm saying is that can't be true if humans have the ability to rationally disagree. This has to be true for Christianity if God is the "all-binding force of the universe". That means what he says is indisputably either right or wrong, beecause that is the inherent function of the universe. Well, I disagree with that.

[John]

Quote: Exactly. Nature doesn't care because nature has no law. God, under Christian definition, creates a universal metaphysical moral spectrum that pretty much solidifies what is right and what is wrong (nevermind all those little loopholes and fallacies). All I'm saying is that can't be true if humans have the ability to rationally disagree. This has to be true for Christianity if God is the "all-binding force of the universe". That means what he says is indisputably either right or wrong, beecause that is the inherent function of the universe. Well, I disagree with that.

So you're saying that absolutes can not exist because people claim that they don't exist?

[CursedLemon]

John wrote: Quote: Exactly. Nature doesn't care because nature has no law. God, under Christian definition, creates a universal metaphysical moral spectrum that pretty much solidifies what is right and what is wrong (nevermind all those little loopholes and fallacies). All I'm saying is that can't be true if humans have the ability to rationally disagree. This has to be true for Christianity if God is the "all-binding force of the universe". That means what he says is indisputably either right or wrong, beecause that is the inherent function of the universe. Well, I disagree with that.

So you're saying that absolutes can not exist because people claim that they don't exist?

Abstract absolutes cannot exist, because who commands them? If a moral law was absolute, how could it be possible to disagree with? It would be some inlaid function of the universe, not a topic of debate.

[Gilbert1908]

CursedLemon wrote:

Exactly. Nature doesn't care because nature has no law. God, under Christian definition, creates a universal metaphysical moral spectrum that pretty much solidifies what is right and what is wrong (nevermind all those little loopholes and fallacies). All I'm saying is that can't be true if humans have the ability to rationally disagree. This has to be true for Christianity if God is the "all-binding force of the universe". That means what he says is indisputably either right or wrong, beecause that is the inherent function of the universe. Well, I disagree with that.

I understand you disagree with that and I anticipate that you will disagree with pretty much anything else we discuss, but you have your premise completely wrong. The existence of the Christian God does not require the corresponding belief that ALL MINDS are ONE and automatically know and follow each exact step of some predetermined set of rules. In fact the Christian belief is that God is PERSONAL and that EACH person is loved by God AS AN individual.

I have never read the phrase UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICAL MORAL SPECTRUM in any of my studies so you may have to define that for us. However I would have no argument that through the 10 commandments and the New Testament there have been some fairly specific guidelines. However NOWHERE is there anything about being FORCED to believe anything. In fact doubt and denial and forgiveness are also clearly dealt with, Peter being the most obvious example.

So if Christians believe you are mistaken in your premise what does that say to you about your conclusion???

[cap'n queasy]

CursedLemon wrote: John wrote: Quote: Exactly. Nature doesn't care because nature has no law. God, under Christian definition, creates a universal metaphysical moral spectrum that pretty much solidifies what is right and what is wrong (nevermind all those little loopholes and fallacies). All I'm saying is that can't be true if humans have the ability to rationally disagree. This has to be true for Christianity if God is the "all-binding force of the universe". That means what he says is indisputably either right or wrong, beecause that is the inherent function of the universe. Well, I disagree with that.

So you're saying that absolutes can not exist because people claim that they don't exist?

Abstract absolutes cannot exist, because who commands them? If a moral law was absolute, how could it be possible to disagree with? It would be some inlaid function of the universe, not a topic of debate.

That's on par with saying that people can't disagree that the earth is round.

Obviously it is, but you will find that plenty of people disagree with that fact.

It is perception that is subjective, and there in lies the argument.

[toddytodd]

CursedLemon wrote: Well, seeing as there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence, I figure that the only ammo that a religious person can throw at their opposition is personal revelation. "God/Allah/Satan/Sumerian deities/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc. have contacted me personally."

When you think about it, isn't this the only possible supporting viewpoint that a religious person can get together?

A true believer (of whatever religion) and just about take anything written about their religion to prove their point. There is no proof of God (specifically) other than the believer's personal experiences. There is probably more proof of UFOs than of God. That doesn't make God any less real to the believer.

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Well, seeing as there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence, I figure that the only ammo that a religious person can throw at their opposition is personal revelation. "God/Allah/Satan/Sumerian deities/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc. have contacted me personally."

When you think about it, isn't this the only possible supporting viewpoint that a religious person can get together?

A true believer (of whatever religion) and just about take anything written about their religion to prove their point. There is no proof of God (specifically) other than the believer's personal experiences. There is probably more proof of UFOs than of God. That doesn't make God any less real to the believer.

I think your point is accurate, but I would suggest it would come to a finer point if you were to say that there is presently no proof which a nonbeliever will accept as credible about the existence of God. Clearly Christians view Christ as God and while one may not accept or find credible the writings of the early Christians it certainly can be offered as proof of the life of Christ and more than suggests his deity.

But I think the point is that one's philosophy determines how one will view or even characterize the "proof" that is made available.

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Well, seeing as there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence, I figure that the only ammo that a religious person can throw at their opposition is personal revelation. "God/Allah/Satan/Sumerian deities/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc. have contacted me personally."

When you think about it, isn't this the only possible supporting viewpoint that a religious person can get together?

A true believer (of whatever religion) and just about take anything written about their religion to prove their point. There is no proof of God (specifically) other than the believer's personal experiences. There is probably more proof of UFOs than of God. That doesn't make God any less real to the believer.

I think your point is accurate, but I would suggest it would come to a finer point if you were to say that there is presently no proof which a nonbeliever will accept as credible about the existence of God. Clearly Christians view Christ as God and while one may not accept or find credible the writings of the early Christians it certainly can be offered as proof of the life of Christ and more than suggests his deity.

But I think the point is that one's philosophy determines how one will view or even characterize the "proof" that is made available.
Quote: ...but I would suggest it would come to a finer point if you were to say that there is presently no proof which a nonbeliever will accept as credible about the existence of God. That is true to a point: there are some people that won't believe no matter the proof because they don't want to I think. However, there are current non-believers that would welcome any type of proof as well.
Quote: But I think the point is that one's philosophy determines how one will view or even characterize the "proof" that is made available. Exactly.

[CursedLemon]

Gilbert1908 wrote: CursedLemon wrote:

Exactly. Nature doesn't care because nature has no law. God, under Christian definition, creates a universal metaphysical moral spectrum that pretty much solidifies what is right and what is wrong (nevermind all those little loopholes and fallacies). All I'm saying is that can't be true if humans have the ability to rationally disagree. This has to be true for Christianity if God is the "all-binding force of the universe". That means what he says is indisputably either right or wrong, beecause that is the inherent function of the universe. Well, I disagree with that.

I understand you disagree with that and I anticipate that you will disagree with pretty much anything else we discuss, but you have your premise completely wrong. The existence of the Christian God does not require the corresponding belief that ALL MINDS are ONE and automatically know and follow each exact step of some predetermined set of rules. In fact the Christian belief is that God is PERSONAL and that EACH person is loved by God AS AN individual.

I have never read the phrase UNIVERSAL METAPHYSICAL MORAL SPECTRUM in any of my studies so you may have to define that for us. However I would have no argument that through the 10 commandments and the New Testament there have been some fairly specific guidelines. However NOWHERE is there anything about being FORCED to believe anything. In fact doubt and denial and forgiveness are also clearly dealt with, Peter being the most obvious example.

So if Christians believe you are mistaken in your premise what does that say to you about your conclusion???

You're not addressing my point.

First of all, how can a nonsentient, non-conscious God demonstrate love? That makes no sense at all.

Secondly, I'm trying to equate anti-homosexuality with gravity. If God created gravity as a "law", and God also says that homosexuality is a crime against his "law", then it should be impossible to disagree with the fact that homosexuality is wrong. As it is also impossible to disagree that gravity is the "law".

But as we all know, that's compeltely ridiculous.

[Gilbert1908]

CursedLemon wrote:



You're not addressing my point.

First of all, how can a nonsentient, non-conscious God demonstrate love? That makes no sense at all.

Secondly, I'm trying to equate anti-homosexuality with gravity. If God created gravity as a "law", and God also says that homosexuality is a crime against his "law", then it should be impossible to disagree with the fact that homosexuality is wrong. As it is also impossible to disagree that gravity is the "law".

But as we all know, that's compeltely ridiculous.

I have no idea what you mean by a non-sentient non-concious God? Please elaborate on that?

Gravity is a law of physics not Christianity.

I am unaware of any "laws" in either the new or old testament which say anything about GRAVITY? As far as I know when we are in outer space we are still bound by the God's Word but NOT gravity.

I seriously doubt that any astronauts are bound for hell because they were weightless for a week or two?

Clearly we can disagree on a wide range of things from whether there is a God to boxers or briefs, I simply fail to see how free will and human thought proves there is no God?

[Gilbert1908]

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Well, seeing as there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence, I figure that the only ammo that a religious person can throw at their opposition is personal revelation. "God/Allah/Satan/Sumerian deities/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc. have contacted me personally."

When you think about it, isn't this the only possible supporting viewpoint that a religious person can get together?

A true believer (of whatever religion) and just about take anything written about their religion to prove their point. There is no proof of God (specifically) other than the believer's personal experiences. There is probably more proof of UFOs than of God. That doesn't make God any less real to the believer.

I think your point is accurate, but I would suggest it would come to a finer point if you were to say that there is presently no proof which a nonbeliever will accept as credible about the existence of God. Clearly Christians view Christ as God and while one may not accept or find credible the writings of the early Christians it certainly can be offered as proof of the life of Christ and more than suggests his deity.

But I think the point is that one's philosophy determines how one will view or even characterize the "proof" that is made available.
Quote: ...but I would suggest it would come to a finer point if you were to say that there is presently no proof which a nonbeliever will accept as credible about the existence of God. That is true to a point: there are some people that won't believe no matter the proof because they don't want to I think. However, there are current non-believers that would welcome any type of proof as well.

And that is fine, but if the testimony of the people who walked with Christ His Words, life and subsequent ressurrection is NOT ENOUGH, then I really don't think a 30 second commercial during Grey's Anatomy announcing Himself as God is going to work much better. LOL

[toddytodd]

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Well, seeing as there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence, I figure that the only ammo that a religious person can throw at their opposition is personal revelation. "God/Allah/Satan/Sumerian deities/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc. have contacted me personally."

When you think about it, isn't this the only possible supporting viewpoint that a religious person can get together?

A true believer (of whatever religion) and just about take anything written about their religion to prove their point. There is no proof of God (specifically) other than the believer's personal experiences. There is probably more proof of UFOs than of God. That doesn't make God any less real to the believer.

I think your point is accurate, but I would suggest it would come to a finer point if you were to say that there is presently no proof which a nonbeliever will accept as credible about the existence of God. Clearly Christians view Christ as God and while one may not accept or find credible the writings of the early Christians it certainly can be offered as proof of the life of Christ and more than suggests his deity.

But I think the point is that one's philosophy determines how one will view or even characterize the "proof" that is made available.
Quote: ...but I would suggest it would come to a finer point if you were to say that there is presently no proof which a nonbeliever will accept as credible about the existence of God. That is true to a point: there are some people that won't believe no matter the proof because they don't want to I think. However, there are current non-believers that would welcome any type of proof as well.

And that is fine, but if the testimony of the people who walked with Christ His Words, life and subsequent ressurrection is NOT ENOUGH, then I really don't think a 30 second commercial during Grey's Anatomy announcing Himself as God is going to work much better. LOL

I am sure it would be 'enough' for most if it was proven by science, history, archeology, etc. But I agree - to some, that wouldn't even matter.

[wormwood]

Quote: Secondly, I'm trying to equate anti-homosexuality with gravity. The physical "laws" of Newtonian physics can, for the most part, all be broken. This is peripheral to the actual point that, one example you cited is a mechanical law, and the other is a moral law. The point of the moral laws, was that we obviously could act in a manner contrary to them, but that we shouldn't. On top of this I am not that convinced that homosexuality is explicitly prohibited in the bible text, and if it is, it is certainly not held in any higher regard than the dietary or clothing laws which people routinely ignore.