Does God exist?

[mrsajones]

No idea if this is actually a "true story" as it claims, but it's a great clip; a little over a minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldHF6PFUukw

[Wake-Up]

Yet later in life he denounced the idea of a personal God.

So where his comments those of an innocent youth still speculating based the teachings of his family and teachers, yet unaware, of how a mature adult would think or simply an attempt to justify a belief told by a school age child without admitting he later changed his belief system?

[Meriweather]

Yet later in life he denounced the idea of a personal God.

So where his comments those of an innocent youth still speculating based the teachings of his family and teachers, yet unaware, of how a mature adult would think or simply an attempt to justify a belief told by a school age child without admitting he later changed his belief system?

I do not know where the story originated. I can only say I have heard it told before, many years ago. In the original version that I heard, it was a university student (and not Einstein) arguing with his professor.

[OKCatholic]

I'm skeptical of the authenticity of this story and AE.

I've heard the story before (emails and the like), and it's never been attributed to him.

[biggles53]

I do not know where the story originated. I can only say I have heard it told before, many years ago. In the original version that I heard, it was a university student (and not Einstein) arguing with his professor.

As have I.

And the logic was just as faulty in the original as in this pap..........

[RayMan]

As have I.

And the logic was just as faulty in the original as in this pap..........

And I suppose next you are going to try and convince us that Darwin didn't really repent of his Evolutionary Theory on his deathbed...

Have you no shame at all? :mrgreen:

[lwdc]

i do not know where the story originated. I can only say i have heard it told before, many years ago. In the original version that i heard, it was a university student (and not einstein) arguing with his professor.+1

[biggles53]

And I suppose next you are going to try and convince us that Darwin didn't really repent of his Evolutionary Theory on his deathbed...

Have you no shame at all? :mrgreen:

Heh, heh, heh..........:cool:

[Meriweather]

As have I.

And the logic was just as faulty in the original as in this pap..........

Faulty logic? Isn't cold the absence of heat? Darkness the absence of light?

True, the argument above leaps from the objective to the subjective, but the same principles are being applied.

[lwdc]

i'm skeptical of the authenticity of this story and ae.
+1

[biggles53]

Faulty logic? Isn't cold the absence of heat? Darkness the absence of light?

True, the argument above leaps from the objective to the subjective, but the same principles are being applied.

And the obvious riposte from the professor should be - if God is omnipotent, he would have the power to ensure that "the absence of God's love" (or "evil" - take your pick) didn't appear in humanity. Why does he not do so...?

So, you end up with Epicurus' age-old question of "Whence cometh evil..?".

[mtdim]

Faulty logic? Isn't cold the absence of heat? Darkness the absence of light?

True, the argument above leaps from the objective to the subjective, but the same principles are being applied.

How does it follow from those two premises that evil is the absence of good?

[Meriweather]

And the obvious riposte from the professor should be - if God is omnipotent, he would have the power to ensure that "the absence of God's love" (or "evil" - take your pick) didn't appear in humanity. Why does he not do so...?

So, you end up with Epicurus' age-old question of "Whence cometh evil..?".

Free will. ;)

[Meriweather]

How does it follow from those two premises that evil is the absence of good?

Do you find good in evil?

[biggles53]

Free will. ;)

Ha, ha....yes, I saw the 'wink'...

[biggles53]

Do you find good in evil?

What is considered 'good' by some may be 'evil' for others, and vice versa....morality is relative. Light and temperature scales aren't.

[Meriweather]

What is considered 'good' by some may be 'evil' for others, and vice versa....morality is relative. Light and temperature scales aren't.

Yes. But we have already established we are now in the subjective realm. When you look at something you consider evil, do you see good?

[Finality]

Do you find good in evil?
Not intending to hijack, but I've never bought into good being the opposite of evil. Good is the opposite of bad. Bad is not evil.

I always considered virtue as the opposite of evil.

Anyway, carry on.

[mtdim]

Do you find good in evil?

Well the premises of "Eintein's" argument in the video is that darkness is just the absence of light, and the cold is just the absence of heat. These premises make sense because light and heat are physical, quantifiable things. However, the conclusion is a different case altogether; are good and evil physical things?

How can it be arbitrarily claimed that evil is nothing but the absence of good? Couldn't it just as arbitrarily be claimed that good is nothing but the absence of evil? To assume that evil doesn't actually exist while good does so exist seems completely arbitrary.

I could turn the argument around to claim the existence of an evil god, and it makes as much logical sense:
"God did not create good. Good is the result of what happens when man does not have God's hate present in his heart."

[biggles53]

Yes. But we have already established we are now in the subjective realm. When you look at something you consider evil, do you see good?

Sometimes, yes. That men are sometimes called upon to kill other men in war is a form of evil to me - however, I can also see the good that such action brings in securing one's home and family.

[biggles53]

Well the premises of "Eintein's" argument in the video is that darkness is just the absence of light, and the cold is just the absence of heat. These premises make sense because light and heat are physical, quantifiable things. However, the conclusion is a different case altogether; are good and evil physical things?

How can it be arbitrarily claimed that evil is nothing but the absence of good? Couldn't it just as arbitrarily be claimed that good is nothing but the absence of evil? To assume that evil doesn't actually exist while good does so exist seems completely arbitrary.

I could turn the argument around to claim the existence of an evil god, and it makes as much logical sense:
"God did not create good. Good is the result of what happens when man does not have God's hate present in his heart."

Oh, very good! :clap:

I needed your logics class when I was at college....

[Meriweather]

Well the premises of "Eintein's" argument in the video is that darkness is just the absence of light, and the cold is just the absence of heat. These premises make sense because light and heat are physical, quantifiable things. However, the conclusion is a different case altogether; are good and evil physical things?

How can it be arbitrarily claimed that evil is nothing but the absence of good? Couldn't it just as arbitrarily be claimed that good is nothing but the absence of evil? To assume that evil doesn't actually exist while good does so exist seems completely arbitrary.

I could turn the argument around to claim the existence of an evil god, and it makes as much logical sense:
"God did not create good. Good is the result of what happens when man does not have God's hate present in his heart."


God is not hate; God is love. If you are going to start out with the premise that God is hate, we have no common ground for discussion because my premise is God is love.

In a subjective argument, since there is no objective measure, one could just as well assert that good is the absence of evil as evil is the absence of good. However, good is generally associated with a building up (heat and light can be built up) whereas evil is generally associated with destruction.

[biggles53]

God is not hate; God is love. If you are going to start out with the premise that God is hate, we have no common ground for discussion because my premise is God is love.

In a subjective argument, since there is no objective measure, one could just as well assert that good is the absence of evil as evil is the absence of good. However, good is generally associated with a building up (heat and light can be built up) whereas evil is generally associated with destruction.

So, on the grounds of logical analysis, which is what I started with, you agree that the pap in that commercial does not add up.

[mtdim]

God is not hate; God is love. If you are going to start out with the premise that God is hate, we have no common ground for discussion because my premise is God is love.

If you take "God is love" to be a true premise, then you should agree with me that the logical argument fails. After all, the conclusion that good is simply the absence of evil follows just as well from the argument, and this contradicts your premise that God is love (because it would mean God created evil). Therefore you should really be joining me in dismissing this argument as fallacious, shouldn't you?


In a subjective argument, since there is no objective measure, one could just as well assert that good is the absence of evil as evil is the absence of good. However, good is generally associated with a building up (heat and light can be built up) whereas evil is generally associated with destruction.

As I said, the determination that evil is the absence of good is just arbitrary; how is good any more associated with a "building up" than evil is? And furthermore, what does how human beings "associate" things have to do with the fact of the matter? Our understanding of physics tells us that light is a physical thing while darkness is its absence, but we have no analogous understanding in the field of morality.

[Meriweather]

So, on the grounds of logical analysis, which is what I started with, you agree that the pap in that commercial does not add up.

What is not logical is the opening remark by the Professor: "If God exists, then I will prove that He is evil." If the professor is going to rely on that kind of logic, then the same logic applies to, "If God exists, then we can prove that He is good."

In fact, "proof" requires objective evidence and God's existence cannot be "proven" as He is not a physical being, He is a spiritual being.

However, I would not say the student's argument does not add up. True, because it is subjective, the argument is more of an analogy, but it is one that is immediately and easily grasped--and therefore effective.

[mtdim]

What is not logical is the opening remark by the Professor: "If God exists, then I will prove that He is evil." If the professor is going to rely on that kind of logic, then the same logic applies to, "If God exists, then we can prove that He is good."

I agree. A more proper statement would have been "If God exists, then we can prove He is not all-good." Even that, though, would be open to some criticism.


However, I would not say the student's argument does not add up. True, because it is subjective, the argument is more of an analogy, but it is one that is immediately and easily grasped--and therefore effective.

Analogies can be used to make an argument more understandable, but they are not arguments in it of themselves. For an analogy to be effective, it has to be more than "easily grasped," it must also be accurate. For example, I could say "humans are like cars. The four limbs are like the four tires, and like tires they must be replaced every few years due to wear and tear." That's an easily graspable analogy, but it's completely inaccurate. "Einstein's" analogies in the video suffer a similar deficiency; while easy to understand, there is no reason to believe that the analogies are true ones.

[Meriweather]

If you take "God is love" to be a true premise, then you should agree with me that the logical argument fails. After all, the conclusion that good is simply the absence of evil follows just as well from the argument, and this contradicts your premise that God is love (because it would mean God created evil). Therefore you should really be joining me in dismissing this argument as fallacious, shouldn't you?

Let's begin with God is love and that God created. God is therefore the master of His creation. What we define as evil, may serve a purpose for God, as He is master of it.

I do not describe the argument as fallacious, but because it travels from objective to subjective, I would describe it as analogous.



As I said, the determination that evil is the absence of good is just arbitrary; how is good any more associated with a "building up" than evil is? And furthermore, what does how human beings "associate" things have to do with the fact of the matter? Our understanding of physics tells us that light is a physical thing while darkness is its absence, but we have no analogous understanding in the field of morality.


I think we do have an analgous understanding in the field of morality. Two people may not have the same moral standards, but each can come to understand the subjective morality of the other.

[Meriweather]

Analogies can be used to make an argument more understandable, but they are not arguments in it of themselves. For an analogy to be effective, it has to be more than "easily grasped," it must also be accurate. For example, I could say "humans are like cars. The four limbs are like the four tires, and like tires they must be replaced every few years due to wear and tear." That's an easily graspable analogy, but it's completely inaccurate. "Einstein's" analogies in the video suffer a similar deficiency; while easy to understand, there is no reason to believe that the analogies are true ones.

Most people can see in evil an absence of good. I can't think of anyone who thinks their arms and legs can be replaced every few years.

[mtdim]

Most people can see in evil an absence of good. I can't think of anyone who thinks their arms and legs can be replaced every few years.

But most people can also see in good an absence of evil. So have we really said anything meaningful about the nature of good and evil? We have said they are opposites, but nothing at all about the physical or metaphysical properties of good and evil. "Einstein" was making the metaphysical claim that evil itself doesn't exist, but the metaphysical claim that good itself doesn't exist follows just as well. How can a logical argument be valid when it can be used to "prove" two opposite (and therefore contradictory) propositions?

[Meriweather]

But most people can also see in good an absence of evil. So have we really said anything meaningful about the nature of good and evil? We have said they are opposites, but nothing at all about the physical or metaphysical properties of good and evil. "Einstein" was making the metaphysical claim that evil itself doesn't exist, but the metaphysical claim that good itself doesn't exist follows just as well. How can a logical argument be valid when it can be used to "prove" two opposite (and therefore contradictory) propositions?

We have already agreed that 'logical' is not the best adjective to describe this argument, that it is more of an analogy. I believe the analogy is an effective one (even though analogies ultimately fail). You don't believe it is a good analogy. So here we are in the subjective realm with differing opinions: Fun to debate, but I don't see either of us giving any ground. ;)

[darknessesedge]

And I suppose next you are going to try and convince us that Darwin didn't really repent of his Evolutionary Theory on his deathbed...

Have you no shame at all? :mrgreen:

that would be something..
darwin begging the Lord for forgiveness for leading people astray all those yrs..

[biggles53]

We have already agreed that 'logical' is not the best adjective to describe this argument, that it is more of an analogy. I believe the analogy is an effective one (even though analogies ultimately fail). You don't believe it is a good analogy. So here we are in the subjective realm with differing opinions: Fun to debate, but I don't see either of us giving any ground. ;)

Analogies are only 'good' if they deliver 'true' conclusions. (but I think mtdim may have already said that...)

[TaylorW65]

that would be something..
darwin begging the Lord for forgiveness for leading people astray all those yrs..

That is a very distorted view of God. Tell me where God say's that we have to believe all the right things or he will punish us?

Plus, many people love and have a deep relationship with God and God is ever present in their hearts and lives and they accept the theory of evolution.

The only thing evolution conflicts with is a literal reading of Genesis.

[biggles53]

that would be something..
darwin begging the Lord for forgiveness for leading people astray all those yrs..

So it's just as well that neither of those things occurred, isn't it..........?:rolleyes:

[captusa]

Yet later in life he denounced the idea of a personal God.

So where his comments those of an innocent youth still speculating based the teachings of his family and teachers, yet unaware, of how a mature adult would think or simply an attempt to justify a belief told by a school age child without admitting he later changed his belief system?
\
Einstein said he was about 12 when he realized the concept of a Theistic Deity was absurd.

[captusa]

No idea if this is actually a "true story" as it claims, but it's a great clip; a little over a minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldHF6PFUukw

It is fairly obvious that the story is not true.
Where would Einstein be exposed to an Atheist teacher ?

[byzantine catholic]

Of course God exists and will judge all for salvation or damnation during the Last Judgement or Christ will.

[captusa]

God is not hate; God is love. If you are going to start out with the premise that God is hate, we have no common ground for discussion because my premise is God is love.

In a subjective argument, since there is no objective measure, one could just as well assert that good is the absence of evil as evil is the absence of good. However, good is generally associated with a building up (heat and light can be built up) whereas evil is generally associated with destruction.

Russell proved the existance of a single omnipotent Deity was impossible.
Either at least 2 equal and opposite Deities or a malevolent Deity.(That if if there are any Deities at all)

[Meriweather]

Russell proved the existance of a single omnipotent Deity was impossible.
Either at least 2 equal and opposite Deities or a malevolent Deity.(That if if there are any Deities at all)

I wouldn't say he proved anything other than if a person follows his assumptions then the only assumption possible is the conclusion he reached.

[Thor]

No idea if this is actually a "true story" as it claims, but it's a great clip; a little over a minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldHF6PFUukw

What a bunch of absolute hooey. Are we to believe this exchange involving Einstein as a child really took place? What source material does anyone have to support this? None, I'm sure.

And if we follow this youngster's logic, "evil" would not be the absence of "God", it would be the absence of "good".

[Thor]

Of course God exists and will judge all for salvation or damnation during the Last Judgement or Christ will.

And the evidence you have to support this statement is....?????

[captusa]

I wouldn't say he proved anything other than if a person follows his assumptions then the only assumption possible is the conclusion he reached.

That is the problem with deductive logic.
One must accept a premise.
By indirect deduction and the 2 premises Russell used was that God exists, God is omnipotent and benevelent and evil exists.
ERGO if evil exists and there is a God there must be an equal malevolent Deity.
Of course you've seen my conjecture that while a single omnipotent is impossible a single malevalent Deity is.

[captusa]

Of course God exists and will judge all for salvation or damnation during the Last Judgement or Christ will.

Saying "Of Course" does not make a statement true.

[Meriweather]

That is the problem with deductive logic.
One must accept a premise.
By indirect deduction and the 2 premises Russell used was that God exists, God is omnipotent and benevelent and evil exists.
ERGO if evil exists and there is a God there must be an equal malevolent Deity.
Of course you've seen my conjecture that while a single omnipotent is impossible a single malevalent Deity is.


Again, one must remember if God created it, then He is master over it.

[Kea]

Let's see...Christians believe a God exists; Muslims believe a God exists; Jews believe a God exists... seems like the only difference is symantics.

[jeanz]

I believe with my whole heart that God does exist... I'd rather live my life loving all and accepting God's love, than die without accepting Him and finding out He does exist and in my unbleief put myself in the very pits of hell!!! He is love and how many of us don't want LOVE in our lives?

[Finality]

I believe with my whole heart that God does exist... I'd rather live my life loving all and accepting God's love, than die without accepting Him and finding out He does exist and in my unbleief put myself in the very pits of hell!!! He is love and how many of us don't want LOVE in our lives?
Are the pits of hell worse than the raised bumps or rather uniformly flat surfaces of hell?

[Thor]

I believe with my whole heart that God does exist... I'd rather live my life loving all and accepting God's love, than die without accepting Him and finding out He does exist and in my unbleief put myself in the very pits of hell!!! He is love and how many of us don't want LOVE in our lives?

So, a "loving" being will toss you into a firepit for all eternity simply because you did not believe in his existence? What kind of "love" is that?

And you seem to simply believe out of fear.

Now, what if YOU are wrong? What if you spend your entire life worshiping the WRONG god? What if you die and find out that Apollo is the one true god?

Pascal's Wager is very poor bet.

[37818]

What if someone could show you God? Would you deny what was shown? Why?

[RayMan]

Are the pits of hell worse than the raised bumps or rather uniformly flat surfaces of hell?


:whistle:

[Finality]

What if someone could show you God? Would you deny what was shown? Why?
Depends on how you define 'show'.

[natalie addict]

And the obvious riposte from the professor should be - if God is omnipotent, he would have the power to ensure that "the absence of God's love" (or "evil" - take your pick) didn't appear in humanity. Why does he not do so...?

So, you end up with Epicurus' age-old question of "Whence cometh evil..?".

For those not familiar here's the entire quote. Feel free to pick the one you like the best or least as the mood strikes you.


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[natalie addict]

What if someone could show you God? Would you deny what was shown? Why?

What are you going to "show" me? Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof.

[37818]

Depends on how you define 'show'.Well sinse God is invisable, I would have to show you God in such a way you would know that what was refered to as God was both a real entity, and is indeed invisable.

[37818]

What are you going to "show" me? Extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary proof.No. Something taken for granted, is real, and is invisable.

[captusa]

No. Something taken for granted, is real, and is invisable.

The purple unicorns in my garden are real, invisible and I take them for granted.
All the Geek Gods are real and invisible when they want to be but are offended if you take them for granted.
Now that you brought it up, doesn't your Deity get upset if you take him for granted.

[captusa]

Originally Posted by 37818
What if someone could show you God? Would you deny what was shown? Why?
Of course I wouldn't deny it IF I was shown, and if I showed you the invisible purple unicorns in my garden would you deny what was shown?
I bet no one will show me God before I show you the invisible purple unicorns in my garden.
If I am wrong either I or HE will let you know.

[Finality]

Well sinse God is invisable, I would have to show you God in such a way you would know that what was refered to as God was both a real entity, and is indeed invisable.
You are going to show me something invisible? Well, then, permit me to sing you something inaudible. :)

[natalie addict]

The purple unicorns in my garden are real, invisible and I take them for granted.
All the Geek Gods are real and invisible when they want to be but are offended if you take them for granted.
Now that you brought it up, doesn't your Deity get upset if you take him for granted.

One of the TOS Star Trek episodes, "Who Mourns for Adonis" was about this. But as it turned out it was another classical (a small joke there) textbook example of Clarke's Third Law.

However, you sir, are a heretic. The unicorn in my garden is Pink and she is very displeased!

[captusa]

One of the TOS Star Trek episodes, "Who Mourns for Adonis" was about this. But as it turned out it was another classical (a small joke there) textbook example of Clarke's Third Law.

However, you sir, are a heretic. The unicorn in my garden is Pink and she is very displeased!

If that was the episode with Leslie Parrish I watch it every chance I get.
And what does the invisible pink unicorn in your garden have against the invisible purple unicorns in my garden ?
http://www.gs.cidsnet.de/englisch-online/originals/unicorn.htm

[Meriweather]

Of course I wouldn't deny it IF I was shown, and if I showed you the invisible purple unicorns in my garden would you deny what was shown?
I bet no one will show me God before I show you the invisible purple unicorns in my garden.
If I am wrong either I or HE will let you know.

There are physical beings, mythical beings, and spiritual beings. God is not a physical being, so I cannot show Him to you as I would a physical being. But nor is God a mythical being, so that challenge does not compute. In other words, even if you could show me your unicorns, I still could not show you God in the same way, as He is a spiritual being and not a mythical being.

One can spend a lot of time in search of the God--or the deeds of God--he or she would like see. Or, one can wait and be open to the ways in which God chooses to reveal Himself. Do we really want to meet the god of our own design, or do we want to meet God as He is?

[natalie addict]

If that was the episode with Leslie Parrish I watch it every chance I get.
Yes it is


And what does the invisible pink unicorn in your garden have against the invisible purple unicorns in my garden ?
http://www.gs.cidsnet.de/englisch-online/originals/unicorn.htm


It's not so much what she has against your unicorn as it is what I have to do. When she gets petulant about other unicorns I have to take her to the horn and hoof salon and then take her to the mall and buy some new ribbons for her mane. I tell you there's nothing like having an insecure and jealous unicorn in your life to keep it interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_Unicorn

[natalie addict]

There are physical beings, mythical beings, and spiritual beings. God is not a physical being, so I cannot show Him to you as I would a physical being. But nor is God a mythical being, so that challenge does not compute. In other words, even if you could show me your unicorns, I still could not show you God in the same way, as He is a spiritual being and not a mythical being.

One can spend a lot of time in search of the God--or the deeds of God--he or she would like see. Or, one can wait and be open to the ways in which God chooses to reveal Himself. Do we really want to meet the god of our own design, or do we want to meet God as He is?

Until shown otherwise ALL deities are mythical beings. And what points to that is ALL of our deities are of own design as you put it.

[Thor]

What if someone could show you God? Would you deny what was shown? Why?

I would be very impressed if someone could show me "God". And, no, I would not "deny what was shown". Provided, of course, I was convinced that what was being shown was absolutely evidence of this deity. But that evidence would have to be pretty extraordinary.

[captusa]

There are physical beings, mythical beings, and spiritual beings. God is not a physical being, so I cannot show Him to you as I would a physical being. But nor is God a mythical being, so that challenge does not compute. In other words, even if you could show me your unicorns, I still could not show you God in the same way, as He is a spiritual being and not a mythical being.
........
The only difference between a spiritual being and mythical being is someone believes in the spiritual being.
When they built the Parthenon to the Goddess Athena she was not mythical to the Athenians.
And when Aias cut open Ares at Troy the God Ares was physical as was Jesus when HE was crucified.
Also (forgive the symantics) if HE was just a spititual being that would be inconsistant with HIM creating a physical reality.

[Meriweather]

The only difference between a spiritual being and mythical being is someone believes in the spiritual being.
When they built the Parthenon to the Goddess Athena she was not mythical to the Athenians.
And when Aias cut open Ares at Troy the God Ares was physical as was Jesus when HE was crucified.
Also (forgive the symantics) if HE was just a spititual being that would be inconsistant with HIM creating a physical reality.

Let me explain.

Absolutely through the ages, people had different concepts of gods and goddesses. Mankind did not come to know the nature of God all in an instant. There has been belief of spiritual beings through the ages. I separate this from mythology and human history.

Mythology can be identified as separate from spiritual, because mythology concerns itself with the physical aspects of its characters. When Ares went into battle among mortals, he could be wounded; he had to be helped off the field. In fact, one theory, helped along by the fact that some ancient leaders were "deified" after their deaths, is that many of the gods of Mount Olympus, were actual men and women--and legendary accounts of their earthly deeds grew up around them.

For the purposes of debate, however, there are beings considered solely spiritual, unlike what I group into mythological/legendary beings. I have studied both--and I find both fascinating--but there are distinct differences.

While I note you try to tie Jesus with Ares, there are distinct differences. For example, when Ares came to fight in the Trojan Wars, he did not first have to be birthed and reach adulthood via human means. He showed up, fully grown. Nor did Jesus arrive in a chariot pulled by winged, fire-breathing horses.

[37818]

Of course I wouldn't deny it IF I was shown, and if I showed you the invisible purple unicorns in my garden would you deny what was shown?
I bet no one will show me God before I show you the invisible purple unicorns in my garden.
If I am wrong either I or HE will let you know.

What I'm talking about is everywhere. It is not space-time. But the whole universe is in it. We call it existence. We can not see it. But we see the things in it.

[37818]

I would be very impressed if someone could show me "God". And, no, I would not "deny what was shown". Provided, of course, I was convinced that what was being shown was absolutely evidence of this deity. But that evidence would have to be pretty extraordinary.

The ancient Hebrews worshipped the "Self Existent" One. And what is self existent is Existence and nothing else. Existence is God and there is no other. The things in existence are not the Existence and are not God.

[Finality]

...

While I note you try to tie Jesus with Ares, there are distinct differences. For example, when Ares came to fight in the Trojan Wars, he did not first have to be birthed and reach adulthood via human means. He showed up, fully grown. Nor did Jesus arrive in a chariot pulled by winged, fire-breathing horses.
What is the practical difference? As I recall, Ares was originally born. All of the Greek gods (as far as I remember) were born. Even the mighty Zeus was born into this world.

Jesus reportedly ascended into heaven without dying (a second time, anyway), so how is that really dissimilar from comings and goings of other gods in some rather alternate ways?

In the Second Coming, will Jesus also have to be born again? (No pun intended.) Or will he come fully-formed? (I'm sure different believers will differ in opinion.)

[Meriweather]

What is the practical difference? As I recall, Ares was originally born. All of the Greek gods (as far as I remember) were born. Even the mighty Zeus was born into this world.

Jesus reportedly ascended into heaven without dying (a second time, anyway), so how is that really dissimilar from comings and goings of other gods in some rather alternate ways?

In the Second Coming, will Jesus also have to be born again? (No pun intended.) Or will he come fully-formed? (I'm sure different believers will differ in opinion.)

The practical difference is the gods and goddesses ruled over a physical world or kingdoms; God's kingdom is spiritual. The Roman and Greek gods and goddesses were more concerned with their own (physical) affairs, and did not particularly care about mankind.

I feel the better questions here are, Do you feel you have a spirit? Can you differentiate between spirit and imagination?

[captusa]

What I'm talking about is everywhere. It is not space-time. But the whole universe is in it. We call it existence. We can not see it. But we see the things in it.

I believe in the existsnce of the universe.
I just don't believe there's a God in it.

[smyrna]

Yet later in life he denounced the idea of a personal God.

So where his comments those of an innocent youth still speculating based the teachings of his family and teachers, yet unaware, of how a mature adult would think or simply an attempt to justify a belief told by a school age child without admitting he later changed his belief system?

A child can often see things clearly before being manipulated by the world.

[hillplus]

For those not familiar here's the entire quote. Feel free to pick the one you like the best or least as the mood strikes you.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
__________________

Are you a parent? If so then you should know that someone might be able, but not willing, and still not be malevolent.

[HardHammer]

Psalm 53:1-3 (New King James Version)


Psalm 53

–To the Chief Musician. Set to “Mahalath.” A Contemplation[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+53:1-3&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-14721a)] of David.

1 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity;
There is none who does good.

2 God looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 Every one of them has turned aside;
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.

[Wake-Up]

A child can often see things clearly before being manipulated by the world.

Just as a child often sees things that are not real. Like monsters under their bed or boogie men in the closet.

[Thor]

A child can often see things clearly before being manipulated by the world.

More likely, the child can be manipulated by his or her elders. Children are generally very naieve and can be led to believe most anything (the tooth fairy? Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny?).

[Thor]

Are you a parent? If so then you should know that someone might be able, but not willing, and still not be malevolent.

Really? Under what circumstances? If your child had leukemia and you were able to cure it, but you were unwilling to do so, wouldn't that be malevolent? What would you think of such a parent?

[Thor]

Psalm 53:1-3 (New King James Version)


Psalm 53

–To the Chief Musician. Set to “Mahalath.” A Contemplation[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+53:1-3&version=NKJV#fen-NKJV-14721a)] of David.

1 The fool has said in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity;
There is none who does good.

2 God looks down from heaven upon the children of men,
To see if there are any who understand, who seek God.
3 Every one of them has turned aside;
They have together become corrupt;
There is none who does good,
No, not one.

Oh, please!

Gee, whiz.... You mean the people who wrote the Bible, people who want you to believe their particular brand of mythology, put verses in their book saying that people who don't believe are "fools", "corrupt" and "do no good"?

Imagine that....

[Meriweather]

Really? Under what circumstances? If your child had leukemia and you were able to cure it, but you were unwilling to do so, wouldn't that be malevolent? What would you think of such a parent?

Here is another perspective. Your child wants to play, so he goes out into the back yard, falls, and comes in crying with cuts, scrapes, and bruises. You could have prevented this by prohibiting your child from playing outside. Instead, you bring the child in, comfort and kiss him, and soothe his hurts.

The reason you allowed your child to got out and play is because you knew that if he ran into trouble and did get hurt, you could bring him in and take care of him. The same is true of God. He sends us out into a world where there are things like leukemia, earthquakes, and storms. Yes, sometimes we might get hurt by the things "outside."

Have you ever cared for a slightly injured child? Often they are sure their world is coming to an end, and things will never be better again. However, we adults know better. I believe God, too, knows better when His children begin wailing over tragedies that are painful and evil in our eyes. He knows He can wipe away our tears, bring us home, and make us better.

[Thor]

Here is another perspective. Your child wants to play, so he goes out into the back yard, falls, and comes in crying with cuts, scrapes, and bruises. You could have prevented this by prohibiting your child from playing outside. Instead, you bring the child in, comfort and kiss him, and soothe his hurts.


This is hardly the same thing as a child getting leukemia. Bumps and bruises are part of life and you can learn from them. What is learned when a child suffers and dies from a terrible disease?

The reason you allowed your child to got out and play is because you knew that if he ran into trouble and did get hurt, you could bring him in and take care of him.

No, the reason I would let my child go out and play is because children need to exercise their bodies and minds.

The same is true of God. He sends us out into a world where there are things like leukemia, earthquakes, and storms. Yes, sometimes we might get hurt by the things "outside."


Would you send your child into a room full of poisonous snakes? Would you send your child into a room that you knew contained deadly viruses? Would you allow your child to be born blind or deformed? This "loving" god does all these things.

Have you ever cared for a slightly injured child? Often they are sure their world is coming to an end, and things will never be better again. However, we adults know better. I believe God, too, knows better when His children begin wailing over tragedies that are painful and evil in our eyes. He knows He can wipe away our tears, bring us home, and make us better.

Please provide an example where this deity has ever come down from the heavens and wiped away someone's tears. And a "slightly injured child"? How does this compare to people who have lost limbs, their sight, their ability to walk?

[Meriweather]

This is hardly the same thing as a child getting leukemia. Bumps and bruises are part of life and you can learn from them. What is learned when a child suffers and dies from a terrible disease?


No, the reason I would let my child go out and play is because children need to exercise their bodies and minds.


Would you send your child into a room full of poisonous snakes? Would you send your child into a room that you knew contained deadly viruses? Would you allow your child to be born blind or deformed? This "loving" god does all these things.


Please provide an example where this deity has ever come down from the heavens and wiped away someone's tears. And a "slightly injured child"? How does this compare to people who have lost limbs, their sight, their ability to walk?


Let me try again. Believers might put it like this: "We are spiritual beings having a human experience."

My analogy is that childhood is filled with perceived woes--and so is human existence. Human existence is, indeed, as precious as childhood. However, a child's woes aren't (usually) of the same caliber as an adult's.

I understand you believe leukemia is something God should not allow. A child might think a scraped knee should not be allowed; a teenager might think acne should not be allowed. As adults we understand that scraped knees and pimples aren't all that great in the overall scheme of things. Leukemia is a huge thing here on earth, and having known three children with leukemia, it is indeed something to weep over.

However, how great is our earthly existence in the overall scheme of things? I did not mean for you to infer that God comes down and physically wipes away tears; rather that He raises up, and our tears are no more.

[khigh]

Let me explain.

Absolutely through the ages, people had different concepts of gods and goddesses. Mankind did not come to know the nature of God all in an instant. There has been belief of spiritual beings through the ages. I separate this from mythology and human history.

Mythology can be identified as separate from spiritual, because mythology concerns itself with the physical aspects of its characters. When Ares went into battle among mortals, he could be wounded; he had to be helped off the field. In fact, one theory, helped along by the fact that some ancient leaders were "deified" after their deaths, is that many of the gods of Mount Olympus, were actual men and women--and legendary accounts of their earthly deeds grew up around them.

So, you would define my gods as mythological rather than spiritual because they number in the thousands and some were born of this Earth fully formed? And, because some lived and died as human beings then made into deities? And because some were born of this Earth fully formed? And, yet others never were born into this life?

For the purposes of debate, however, there are beings considered solely spiritual, unlike what I group into mythological/legendary beings. I have studied both--and I find both fascinating--but there are distinct differences.

While I note you try to tie Jesus with Ares, there are distinct differences. For example, when Ares came to fight in the Trojan Wars, he did not first have to be birthed and reach adulthood via human means. He showed up, fully grown. Nor did Jesus arrive in a chariot pulled by winged, fire-breathing horses.

My gods did all these things and yet I do not consider them mythological. Isn't a myth a myth only because humans say it is? Lord Krishna heard the voice of Lord Vishnu in his ear that told him how to win the war against the demon sent to Earth. Lord Krishna was born a human (virgin birth) and raised a human and not until his contact with the Lord Vishnu was Krisha allowed to die and be raised up to sit amongst the gods.

How can you prove that Zeus is not real, nor Apollo, nor Loki for that matter? What if they are controlling how the wind blows, wars are fought, and how one heart takes upon a task? It is just as plausible as my god Ganesha and my god Kali.

[Thor]

Let me try again. Believers might put it like this: "We are spiritual beings having a human experience."


"Spiritual" falls into the realm of the supernatural. I can only experience things of the natural world.

My analogy is that childhood is filled with perceived woes--and so is human existence. Human existence is, indeed, as precious as childhood. However, a child's woes aren't (usually) of the same caliber as an adult's.


Like I said, bumps and bruises can teach lessons. I fail to see any "lessons" in abject suffering and death.

I understand you believe leukemia is something God should not allow.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about the disease itself. I'm talking about the needless suffering it causes. If this deity has some reason to take a child (as believers may think), then why doesn't this deity snap his fingers and cause a quick, painless death where the child is immediately transported to "heaven"? Why allow a child (or anyone, for that matter) to suffer for months on end before they die?

However, how great is our earthly existence in the overall scheme of things?

Considering that this is the only existence I'm aware of, I consider it to be very great.

I did not mean for you to infer that God comes down and physically wipes away tears; rather that He raises up, and our tears are no more.

"He raises up, and our tears are no more"? I know people who have lost children and the tears NEVER go away.

[Meriweather]

So, you would define my gods as mythological rather than spiritual because they number in the thousands and some were born of this Earth fully formed? And, because some lived and died as human beings then made into deities? And because some were born of this Earth fully formed? And, yet others never were born into this life?

I don't know "your" gods and was not speaking of them.



My gods did all these things and yet I do not consider them mythological. Isn't a myth a myth only because humans say it is? Lord Krishna heard the voice of Lord Vishnu in his ear that told him how to win the war against the demon sent to Earth. Lord Krishna was born a human (virgin birth) and raised a human and not until his contact with the Lord Vishnu was Krisha allowed to die and be raised up to sit amongst the gods.


Okay.



How can you prove that Zeus is not real, nor Apollo, nor Loki for that matter? What if they are controlling how the wind blows, wars are fought, and how one heart takes upon a task? It is just as plausible as my god Ganesha and my god Kali.



We were speaking of Ares. But no, except for the Trojan wars, the immortal god, Ares, and his winged, fire breathing horses, are no longer being recorded as joining earthly battles. If you have current stories of Ares, Apollo, and Zeus, I would be interested.

On the other hand, the One God, the God of Abraham is seen as active in His people's lives today as He has been throughout the ages.

I expect you missed my post where the spiritual aspects of worshipping God/gods is different than legendary stories. For example, people may or may not believe the account of Jesus walking on water or bringing Lazarus back to life. We don't worship stories, but a spiritual being (or in your case spiritual beings). In Greek and Roman mythology, there is not a lot of spirituality involved in the stories. I've searched for more spiritual practices that people observed in those days, but there is not an awful lot preserved for us to study.

If you believe worship of stories is the same as spirituality (worship of God) then we are, indeed, on opposite sides of the argument.

I believe in spirituality. I believe in human existence. I believe in imagination and legendary stories. But I absolutely do not believe imagination and spirituality are combined as one.

[TaylorW65]

"Spiritual" falls into the realm of the supernatural. I can only experience things of the natural world. <snip>


First of all I would like to clarify that I am no fundamentalist. But to me spirituality isn't necessarily supernatural.

To me spirituality has to to do with how I connect, process and experience my own inner world, my thoughts and feelings, and how I find meaning in my existence and my life and how I express that meaning and purpose. It doesn't have to be supernatural.

I know one atheist who says just because they don't believe in a god or deity doesn't mean they don't have some sense of spirituality.

So, I guess it matters how a person defines spirituality.

[khigh]

I don't know "your" gods and was not speaking of them.

Okay.





We were speaking of Ares. But no, except for the Trojan wars, the immortal god, Ares, and his winged, fire breathing horses, are no longer being recorded as joining earthly battles. If you have current stories of Ares, Apollo, and Zeus, I would be interested.

You can equate Ares, Apollo, and Zeus with the Hindu gods. Same gods, different names. Ares=Indra, Apollo=Saraswati, and Zeus=Lord Vishnu. There have not been any recording of Lord Krishna fighting battles either since Kurukshetra either, but many people still believe in those stories today.

On the other hand, the One God, the God of Abraham is seen as active in His people's lives today as He has been throughout the ages. Some pagans still believe in Zeus and Apollo today the way you believe in the God of Abraham. Others still believe in the same gods with different names.

I expect you missed my post where the spiritual aspects of worshipping God/gods is different than legendary stories. For example, people may or may not believe the account of Jesus walking on water or bringing Lazarus back to life. We don't worship stories, but a spiritual being (or in your case spiritual beings). In Greek and Roman mythology, there is not a lot of spirituality involved in the stories. I've searched for more spiritual practices that people observed in those days, but there is not an awful lot preserved for us to study.

If you believe worship of stories is the same as spirituality (worship of God) then we are, indeed, on opposite sides of the argument.

I believe in spirituality. I believe in human existence. I believe in imagination and legendary stories. But I absolutely do not believe imagination and spirituality are combined as one.

I don't worship stories, per say, but the gods behind those stories. Yes, I do believe that Lord Krishna fought and won a war against the demons the same that people believe that Jesus walked on water. I do believe that there was a young boy born to Parvati and Lord Shiva and was later called Ganesha. You might think of this story as a fable, or myth, but I believe it as truth and I celebrate it on Ganesh Ustav the same as Christians celebrate the Resurrection on Easter. It has been said that Hindus have 10 festivals for every day of the year and that is because we do worship the stories that tell us how our gods lived.

I derive my spirituality from the stories I am told. My morality and the way I live my life is from the texts I have read. The Rig Veda spells out the way I live and the Bhagavad Gita to me is just as true as the Bible is to Christians. We may have extraordinary gods with the head of and elephant or four arms, but that does not make them any less true.

http://www.vedanta-atlanta.org/stories/ganesha.html

[Thor]

First of all I would like to clarify that I am no fundamentalist. But to me spirituality isn't necessarily supernatural.

To me spirituality has to to do with how I connect, process and experience my own inner world, my thoughts and feelings, and how I find meaning in my existence and my life and how I express that meaning and purpose. It doesn't have to be supernatural.

I know one atheist who says just because they don't believe in a god or deity doesn't mean they don't have some sense of spirituality.

So, I guess it matters how a person defines spirituality.

I understand what you're saying. I was specifically referring to "spirituality" in the sense that we have "spirits" that live on after death (this is what I assumed Meri was talking about). To me, this is indeed supernatural.

[Meriweather]

I understand what you're saying. I was specifically referring to "spirituality" in the sense that we have "spirits" that live on after death (this is what I assumed Meri was talking about). To me, this is indeed supernatural.

My grandmother sometimes used the phrase, "He could barely keep body and soul together."

Yes, I am saying that we are composed of both body and spirit, and while the body dies, the spirit does live on. I see this more as reality than supernatural. The best way I can describe it is that the spiritual does permeate physical reality and that God does watch over our spiritual well-being, if we will this.

[Thor]

My grandmother sometimes used the phrase, "He could barely keep body and soul together."

Yes, I am saying that we are composed of both body and spirit, and while the body dies, the spirit does live on.

And there is no evidence whatsoever to support this belief.

[Meriweather]

And there is no evidence whatsoever to support this belief.

About the best physical evidence I can offer you are the stories of the spring at Lourdes and the cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe. People and a variety of writings can offer you subjective evidence.

So, there is evidence to support this belief, but not evidence that is acceptable to you. That evidence you must either find for yourself, or decide you are comfortable with your own conclusions.

[Reeder]

"Spiritual" falls into the realm of the supernatural. I can only experience things of the natural world.

Prove it. :mrgreen:

[captusa]

We were speaking of Ares. But no, except for the Trojan wars, the immortal god, Ares, and his winged, fire breathing horses, are no longer being recorded as joining earthly battles. If you have current stories of Ares, Apollo, and Zeus, I would be interested.
Ares didn't like getting cut up.
I don't recall Ares having winged fire breathing horses.
Zeus forbade Gods fighting on the sides of humans.(His kids didn't listen to HIM either).
Appollo, Athena and and Aphrodite entered battles in diguise so you wouldn't know about them entering battles if they did.

On the other hand, the One God, the God of Abraham is seen as active in His people's lives today as He has been throughout the ages.

There is no evidence YHVH has done anything ever.
At least no more than Zeus, Odin, Baal or any other Deity.

.......

[Greyclouds]

About the best physical evidence I can offer you are the stories of the spring at Lourdes and the cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe. People and a variety of writings can offer you subjective evidence.

So, there is evidence to support this belief, but not evidence that is acceptable to you. That evidence you must either find for yourself, or decide you are comfortable with your own conclusions.

And yet, those stories are such rare, rare exceptions! There have been ~200 or so recorded cases of miracles at Lourdes (none, to my knowledge, that are recent) out of millions of people who have visited the springs every year since the turn of the century.

[Meriweather]

And yet, those stories are such rare, rare exceptions! There have been ~200 or so recorded cases of miracles at Lourdes (none, to my knowledge, that are recent) out of millions of people who have visited the springs every year since the turn of the century.

Yet how did the spring come to be there?

The number of physical healings may be recorded, but what about the number of physical healings?

[Meriweather]

Ares didn't like getting cut up.
I don't recall Ares having winged fire breathing horses.
Zeus forbade Gods fighting on the sides of humans.(His kids didn't listen to HIM either).
Appollo, Athena and and Aphrodite entered battles in diguise so you wouldn't know about them entering battles if they did.


There is no evidence YHVH has done anything ever.
At least no more than Zeus, Odin, Baal or any other Deity.

.......

Again, we come back to spirituality and God being a spiritual being. You seek physical evidence for that which is spiritual. If you wished to show someone water, would you send them out into an arid desert, or would you direct them to the seashore? All I am trying to say is stop looking for God among physical realities and search for Him among spiritual realities.

Love, friendship, sacrifice are good places to start.

[Thor]

About the best physical evidence I can offer you are the stories of the spring at Lourdes and the cloak of Our Lady of Guadalupe. People and a variety of writings can offer you subjective evidence.


If you want the truth about the "miraculous" image on the cloak go here: http://csicop.com/sb/2002-06/guadalupe.html

As for the stories of the spring at Lourdes....

There have been 67 "declared miracles" at Lourdes. Considering that this place receives over 6 million pilgrims a year, that would total over 900 million people in the 150 or so years since this fable started. Let's say only 10% of the visitors are seeking a cure. That still translates into one "cure" for every 1.3 million or so people. Hardly great odds. In fact, sometimes a disease will go into spontaneous remission for no apparent reason. I would be willing to bet that the chances of spontaneous remission are better than 1.3 million to one. I must also point out that these alleged "miracles" involve conditions that sometimes heal on their own. No one has reported lost limbs or eyes regrowing.

So, there is evidence to support this belief, but not evidence that is acceptable to you.

Yes, there is "evidence", just very weak evidence. I set the bar for convincing evidence much higher than unsubstantiated anecdotes.

[Greyclouds]

Yet how did the spring come to be there?

Aquifers are not uncommon across the globe. They are also documented in France.


The number of physical healings may be recorded, but what about the number of physical healings?

I'm guessing that you meant "spiritual" instead of the second instance of the word "physical." If that is the case, then are not such healings akin to psychological remediation? Would it be a spiritual healing if a psychologist revealed a method to one of his/her patients that allowed them to achieve peace?

Sadly, we cannot test controls nor a placebo effect for supposed spiritual healings.

[Thor]

Prove it. :mrgreen:

Oh, go ride "Pirates of the Caribbean"! :mrgreen:

[Reeder]

Oh, go ride "Pirates of the Caribbean"! :mrgreen:Thar is sum good advice, matey!

[Meriweather]

If you want the truth about the "miraculous" image on the cloak go here: http://csicop.com/sb/2002-06/guadalupe.html

As for the stories of the spring at Lourdes....

There have been 67 "declared miracles" at Lourdes. Considering that this place receives over 6 million pilgrims a year, that would total over 900 million people in the 150 or so years since this fable started. Let's say only 10% of the visitors are seeking a cure. That still translates into one "cure" for every 1.3 million or so people. Hardly great odds. In fact, sometimes a disease will go into spontaneous remission for no apparent reason. I would be willing to bet that the chances of spontaneous remission are better than 1.3 million to one. I must also point out that these alleged "miracles" involve conditions that sometimes heal on their own. No one has reported lost limbs or eyes regrowing.


Yes, there is "evidence", just very weak evidence. I set the bar for convincing evidence much higher than unsubstantiated anecdotes.


We can trade other scientific findings on the Guadalupe cloak, but yes, I was already familiar with the skeptic version. As for Lourdes, my point was not necessarily the healings, both physical and spiritual, which may have taken place there, but the appearance of a spiritual lady.

It is also my opinion that while other stories may be good stepping stones, it is what happens in one's own life that makes for the most convincing truths.

[Thor]

Thar is sum good advice, matey!

One of my favorites! Especially since they updated it!

[Meriweather]

Aquifers are not uncommon across the globe. They are also documented in France.

I'm guessing that you meant "spiritual" instead of the second instance of the word "physical." If that is the case, then are not such healings akin to psychological remediation? Would it be a spiritual healing if a psychologist revealed a method to one of his/her patients that allowed them to achieve peace?

Sadly, we cannot test controls nor a placebo effect for supposed spiritual healings.

Yes, the second word should have been "spiritual", so thank you. Again, we believers realize we cannot provide you with the physical evidence you wish, and that which we offer you is usually summarily dismissed with an article a skeptic wrote, while little attention is paid to other scientific writings.

There were eye witnesses to an event at Fatima, and a newspaper account of it. However, skeptics today dismiss it as a case of "mass hysteria."

Outside of religious belief, there are also some incredible, unexplained stories of the "ghost" variety. Many probably deserve skepticism, but others truly are unexplainable.

Once again, if you are satisfied with your own (and other skeptics) conclusions, I don't see it as a huge problem. I am saying there are incidents we can offer you that have some physical proof--but even these are not accepted (or even presented) as "beyond a shadow of a doubt." They are only places from which to start.

[Thor]

We can trade other scientific findings on the Guadalupe cloak, but yes, I was already familiar with the skeptic version.

Then you should realize it's not a "miracle".

As for Lourdes, my point was not necessarily the healings, both physical and spiritual, which may have taken place there, but the appearance of a spiritual lady.


You mean the alleged appearances? A couple of young girls report seeing an apparition of the Virgin Mary and we're supposed to believe it?

[Meriweather]

Then you should realize it's not a "miracle".


You mean the alleged appearances? A couple of young girls report seeing an apparition of the Virgin Mary and we're supposed to believe it?

You can locate and read other studies--if you wish. I did. However, I am sure you are satisfied with your study, so I am not going to spend time locating them for you. I did an updated study two or three years ago--and probably should do another one at some point. But my information was dated later than your 2002 information. Again, it is out there, if you wish to pursue it.

Lourdes was one young girl. Fatima was two girls and a boy. No, I, myself, don't mean "alleged" but you can add the word if you wish. ;)

[Thor]

There were eye witnesses to an event at Fatima, and a newspaper account of it. However, skeptics today dismiss it as a case of "mass hysteria."


Oh, yes... the "miracle" at Fatima where the sun supposedly spun in the sky and careened toward the Earth in a zigzag pattern.

Funny how NOWHERE else on the planet did anyone see this. And the sun moved about in the sky? Come on! This would require either:

1) The sun would have to suddenly move out of its place in the cosmos at great speed and move back to its original position or,

2) The Earth would have to suddenly shift in its rotation to make the sun appear to move.

Both of these things would have been noticed around the globe and a cataclysm would probably have resulted.

How could "eyewitnesses" report seeing such a thing? Have you ever tried looking at the sun? You can't do it for more than a few seconds. Plus, you have no perspective if you look directly at the sun. If you're looking directly at the sun you could easily think it moved when, in fact, no such thing ever happened. All you need is for someone in the crowd to exclaim, "Look! The sun moved!". Then someone else might say, "Yes! I saw it!" Then another person says they saw it... then another... Pretty soon you can have 70,000 "witnesses" to something that never took place.

[Thor]

Lourdes was one young girl. Fatima was two girls and a boy. No, I, myself, don't mean "alleged" but you can add the word if you wish. ;)

I do add it. Youngsters do lie. Or perhaps you're not familiar with the Cottingley Fairies?

[Meriweather]

Oh, yes... the "miracle" at Fatima where the sun supposedly spun in the sky and careened toward the Earth in a zigzag pattern.

Funny how NOWHERE else on the planet did anyone see this. And the sun moved about in the sky? Come on! This would require either:

1) The sun would have to suddenly move out of its place in the cosmos at great speed and move back to its original position or,

2) The Earth would have to suddenly shift in its rotation to make the sun appear to move.

Both of these things would have been noticed around the globe and a cataclysm would probably have resulted.

How could "eyewitnesses" report seeing such a thing? Have you ever tried looking at the sun? You can't do it for more than a few seconds. Plus, you have no perspective if you look directly at the sun. If you're looking directly at the sun you could easily think it moved when, in fact, no such thing ever happened. All you need is for someone in the crowd to exclaim, "Look! The sun moved!". Then someone else might say, "Yes! I saw it!" Then another person says they saw it... then another... Pretty soon you can have 70,000 "witnesses" to something that never took place.

Or, it could have been some type of natural, atmospheric phenomenon that took place on that day at that locale. Perhaps something explainable like the Northern Lights. I don't know what happened that day, but I'm betting something (other than mass hysteria) did take place.

Non-believers are just as quick to explain things away by expressions such as "mass hysteria" as believers are to accredit faith. One is not comfortable with the idea of God; the other is not comfortable with the idea of hysteria.

[captusa]

I do add it. Youngsters do lie. Or perhaps you're not familiar with the Cottingley Fairies?

Are they the ones in which Sherlock Holmes believed ?

[RayMan]

Are they the ones in which Sherlock Holmes believed ?


Hate to break it to you cap but Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character.

His creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was real enough though. :cool:

[Koushi Shinigami]

Oh, yes... the "miracle" at Fatima where the sun supposedly spun in the sky and careened toward the Earth in a zigzag pattern.

Funny how NOWHERE else on the planet did anyone see this. And the sun moved about in the sky? Come on! This would require either:

1) The sun would have to suddenly move out of its place in the cosmos at great speed and move back to its original position or,

2) The Earth would have to suddenly shift in its rotation to make the sun appear to move.

Both of these things would have been noticed around the globe and a cataclysm would probably have resulted.

How could "eyewitnesses" report seeing such a thing? Have you ever tried looking at the sun? You can't do it for more than a few seconds. Plus, you have no perspective if you look directly at the sun. If you're looking directly at the sun you could easily think it moved when, in fact, no such thing ever happened. All you need is for someone in the crowd to exclaim, "Look! The sun moved!". Then someone else might say, "Yes! I saw it!" Then another person says they saw it... then another... Pretty soon you can have 70,000 "witnesses" to something that never took place.

Actually, I have seen something similar to this. Wasn't at Fatima though.

[captusa]

Hate to break it to you cap but Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character.

His creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was real enough though. :cool:


Sir Arthur Conan Doyle seems far more fictional than his creations.

[terri910]

It is also my opinion that while other stories may be good stepping stones, it is what happens in one's own life that makes for the most convincing truths.
As Paul said to Timothy....I know whom I have believed.

[darknessesedge]

wonder how many people who dont think there is God cry out to him for help as they are about to die?

[captusa]

wonder how many people who dont think there is God cry out to him for help as they are about to die?

None.
Why would anyone that doesn't think there is a God cry out to a God in WHOM the don't believe ?

[darknessesedge]

None.
Why would anyone that doesn't think there is a God cry out to a God in WHOM the don't believe ?

how can you be so sure?

[Finality]

wonder how many people who dont think there is God cry out to him for help as they are about to die?
Help with what? Not dying?

[Koushi Shinigami]

wonder how many people who dont think there is God cry out to him for help as they are about to die?

If one listens to airplane cockpit voice recorders as an indicator of last words in the general population, not many. Seems the most common entity that is cried out to is some variation of 'oh crap!'.

[Late2TheParty]

No idea if this is actually a "true story" as it claims, but it's a great clip; a little over a minute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldHF6PFUukw

Not a true story, it just uses Einstein's name for its own ends and is a rehash of the old "atheist professor" story told many times before. Adding Einstein to it is new, although Einstein very much believed in God, he had contempt for religions and dogma.

Here is another such variation:
http://ecclesia.org/truth/professor.html

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

[Thor]

although Einstein very much believed in God, he had contempt for religions and dogma.


Einstein did not believe in a personal god. He believed in the "god" of nature.

[Thor]

Are they the ones in which Sherlock Holmes believed ?

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was duped into believing this nonsense. As were many others.

[Thor]

Or, it could have been some type of natural, atmospheric phenomenon that took place on that day at that locale. Perhaps something explainable like the Northern Lights. I don't know what happened that day, but I'm betting something (other than mass hysteria) did take place.


Perhaps some natural phenomena did take place that day, although I doubt it. I think it was more a case of a collection of people wanting to see a miracle and they made themselves see one.

Non-believers are just as quick to explain things away by expressions such as "mass hysteria" as believers are to accredit faith. One is not comfortable with the idea of God; the other is not comfortable with the idea of hysteria.


It has nothing to do with skeptics being "uncomfortable with the idea of God". It is simply that skeptics will look for a rational, natural explanation for an event. Believers are much more likely to jump to the conclusion that "God did it!"

[natalie addict]

If one listens to airplane cockpit voice recorders as an indicator of last words in the general population, not many. Seems the most common entity that is cried out to is some variation of 'oh crap!'.

The last words from Scobee on the transcript, the pilot of the shuttle Challenger, was " Uh oh".

[37818]

I believe in the existsnce of the universe.
I just don't believe there's a God in it.The universe is comprised of everything in existence. And yes, God is not in it, as such. It is the universe which is in existence. Existence being the identity of God. Your agreement or disagreement does not change anything regarding existence. Existence is everywhere at once. And there is not anything which is not subject to existence.

[biggles53]

The universe is comprised of everything in existence. And yes, God is not in it, as such. It is the universe which is in existence. Existence being the identity of God. Your agreement or disagreement does not change anything regarding existence. Existence is everywhere at once. And there is not anything which is not subject to existence.

If your god doesn't exist in this universe, then how does he act in this universe....?

[37818]

If your god doesn't exist in this universe, then how does he act in this universe....?You are not listening. Existence is everwhere at once. The whole uinverse is in His existence. Existence being the identity of God. The universe is everything in existence. And existence is what the universe is in. God is not subject to the existence of the universe. The universe is subject to God, that is, to being in existence.

Only existence is of its self, nothing else is. So, everything else is subject to Existence (God.)

God can act in the universe by reason the universe is in the Existence which is God.

[RayMan]

The universe is comprised of everything in existence. And yes, God is not in it, as such. It is the universe which is in existence. Existence being the identity of God. Your agreement or disagreement does not change anything regarding existence. Existence is everywhere at once. And there is not anything which is not subject to existence.


I love this. Reminds me of a Grateful Dead song based on Einsteinian Theory.

"The Faster You Go, The Rounder You Get."

[RayMan]

You are not listening. Existence is everwhere at once. The whole uinverse is in His existence. Existence being the identity of God. The universe is everything in existence. And existence is what the universe is in. God is not subject to the existence of the universe. The universe is subject to God, that is, to being in existence.

Only existence is of its self, nothing else is. So, everything else is subject to Existence (God.)

God can act in the universe by reason the universe is in the Existence which is God.


I don't disagree with this at all.

[biggles53]

You are not listening. Existence is everwhere at once. The whole uinverse is in His existence. Existence being the identity of God. The universe is everything in existence. And existence is what the universe is in. God is not subject to the existence of the universe. The universe is subject to God, that is, to being in existence.

Only existence is of its self, nothing else is. So, everything else is subject to Existence (God.)

God can act in the universe by reason the universe is in the Existence which is God.

Yeah, you're right.......I'm not listening.

[captusa]

You are not listening. Existence is everwhere at once. The whole uinverse is in His existence. Existence being the identity of God. The universe is everything in existence. And existence is what the universe is in. God is not subject to the existence of the universe. The universe is subject to God, that is, to being in existence.

Only existence is of its self, nothing else is. So, everything else is subject to Existence (God.)

God can act in the universe by reason the universe is in the Existence which is God.


Existence IS.
You postulate a God to supply that existence.
I don't.

[RayMan]

Yeah, you're right.......I'm not listening.

Come on bigs, I havent' heard stuff this good since I stopped dropping acid at Dead shows. :cool:

Poetry in motion.

[37818]

Existence IS.
You postulate a God to supply that existence.
I don't.Nothing says you have to. And you are wrong there, I do not postulate a God to supply that existence. I'm arguing that existence is the God.

". . . For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . . ." -- The Christian Apostle Paul, Acts 17:28.

[mtdim]

Nothing says you have to. And you are wrong there, I do not postulate a God to supply that existence. I'm arguing that existence is the God.

". . . For in him we live, and move, and have our being; . . . ." -- The Christian Apostle Paul, Acts 17:28.

Are you a pantheist? Pantheism works for me, I suppose, though it's a definition of god that doesn't include too many of the attributes humans normally associate with him. I would just as soon call it "nature," personally, to avoid confusion with the entity described by most theisms.

[captusa]

Are you a pantheist? Pantheism works for me, I suppose, though it's a definition of god that doesn't include too many of the attributes humans normally associate with him. I would just as soon call it "nature," personally, to avoid confusion with the entity described by most theisms.

I am much closer to Pantheism ala Spinoza.
I accept the universe as it is and revel in it's majesty.
I do not need to identify a specific entity of a God.
From a creation point of view, I postulate reality of the universe as having always existed and do not need to postulate an entity to have created it.
A postulate is an assumption accepted without proof.
A belief system has to start with something i.e. a postulate.


Of course if I would pick Gods to hang out with it would include Pan, Bacchus and of course Aphrodite on week-ends.

[the oldtimer]

Existence IS.
You postulate a God to supply that existence.
I don't.
Interesting. Then it seems you would be saying , Nothing created everything.

[captusa]

Interesting. Then it seems you would be saying , Nothing created everything.

No less reasonable than a God coming out of nothing.

[mtdim]

Interesting. Then it seems you would be saying , Nothing created everything.

If the total energy in the universe nets to zero, there's really nothing that needed to be created.

[37818]

Are you a pantheist? Pantheism works for me, I suppose, though it's a definition of god that doesn't include too many of the attributes humans normally associate with him. I would just as soon call it "nature," personally, to avoid confusion with the entity described by most theisms.No. I'm not a pantheist. I do not believe everything is a god. I do not believe anything in existence, except existence itself to be the God.

[37818]

No less reasonable than a God coming out of nothing.Nothing never existed. Therefore there has always been the Existence.

[mtdim]

No. I'm not a pantheist. I do not believe everything is a god. I do not believe anything in existence, except existence itself to be the God.

I'm a little confused about what you mean, then. Isn't "existence" simply a property that can describe a thing? For example, for any thing we can conceptualize, that thing either has the property of existing or the property of not existing, much like any thing we can conceptualize either has the property of being large or the property of not being large. Saying that "existence itself is God" makes as much sense, linguistically speaking, as saying that "largeness itself is God."

Perhaps you are referring to a different definition of the word "existence" than I am referring to here?

[captusa]

I'm a little confused about what you mean, then. Isn't "existence" simply a property that can describe a thing? For example, for any thing we can conceptualize, that thing either has the property of existing or the property of not existing, much like any thing we can conceptualize either has the property of being large or the property of not being large. Saying that "existence itself is God" makes as much sense, linguistically speaking, as saying that "largeness itself is God."

Perhaps you are referring to a different definition of the word "existence" than I am referring to here?

If everything about you is God and God is not personified then one has defined a type of Pantheism.
If all existance is in the mind of some "God" you have defined Berkley's "Idealism".

[the oldtimer]

No less reasonable than a God coming out of nothing.
But if God always has been????

[the oldtimer]

If the total energy in the universe nets to zero, there's really nothing that needed to be created.
Science says that the universe is expanding. Therefore there must be a positive energy supply.

[the oldtimer]

Nothing never existed. Therefore there has always been the Existence.
Science does not agree with that statement. But I find it interesting. would you please expand on it.

[mtdim]

Science says that the universe is expanding. Therefore there must be a positive energy supply.

This is not true. Here's a nice brief article explaining the "Flat Universe" model: http://genesis1.asu.edu/~krauss/newscinov19.html

There is much evidence from the observations of astronomers that supports such a model.

[the oldtimer]

this is not true. Here's a nice brief article explaining the "flat universe" model: http://genesis1.asu.edu/~krauss/newscinov19.html (http://genesis1.asu.edu/%7ekrauss/newscinov19.html)

there is much evidence from the observations of astronomers that supports such a model.
okaaaaaaay!

[mtdim]

okaaaaaaay!

What does that mean? Do you think such a model is implausible? If so, why?

[natalie addict]

This is not true. Here's a nice brief article explaining the "Flat Universe" model: http://genesis1.asu.edu/~krauss/newscinov19.html

There is much evidence from the observations of astronomers that supports such a model.

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery/math/math07.gif

Evidence such as? I noticed the article made the same fiat declaration.

[mtdim]

http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/gallery/math/math07.gif

Evidence such as? I noticed the article made the same fiat declaration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

Measurements seem to support a flat universe. Now of course the cosmological models that predict a zero-energy universe are highly theoretical, but the point is that there are plausible cosmological theories which support such a result. I was just responding to oldtimer's statement that "Science says that the universe is expanding. Therefore there must be a positive energy supply." I don't know if the zero energy model is true, but it's one possible solution to the General Relativity equations and hence it is plausible. The God of the gaps argument is only valid if its demonstrable that no plausible natural explanation exists or can exist. This theory is plausible, hence there is no need to say there must have been some entity called "god" which violated the conservation of energy at some point to get the universe started.

[37818]

I'm a little confused about what you mean, then. Isn't "existence" simply a property that can describe a thing? For example, for any thing we can conceptualize, that thing either has the property of existing or the property of not existing, much like any thing we can conceptualize either has the property of being large or the property of not being large. Saying that "existence itself is God" makes as much sense, linguistically speaking, as saying that "largeness itself is God."

Perhaps you are referring to a different definition of the word "existence" than I am referring to here?

There is a difference between things in existence and existence.

Space-time, matter and energy are things which are in existence, but are not the existence by which they exist.

Existence cannot be measured but is known by the things in it which can be measured. Matter, energy, space-time. Things which we see as in the universe.

Only existence is self existing. Everything else which exists is dependent/subordinate to existence.

Existence is in no need of a God. So, unless that existence is the God, there is none.

The question, "Does God exist?" pre-supposes an existence independent of any supposed God. And the question effectively denies such a God.

[37818]

Science does not agree with that statement. But I find it interesting. would you please expand on it.

What can be measured in science as to existence is matter, energy, space-time.

The question of this thread, "Does God exist?" Per-supposes an existence. In which it is asked is there a God?

Now nothing has no existence. Nothing/nothingness never was. Therefore there has to have always been something. Existence is assumed. Theists assume God.

The concept of God is that being is the Creator of matter, energy and space-time. And that being called God, has always been. And has no beginning and is of no end.

[mtdim]

There is a difference between things in existence and existence.

Space-time, matter and energy are things which are in existence, but are not the existence by which they exist.

Existence cannot be measured but is known by the things in it which can be measured. Matter, energy, space-time. Things which we see as in the universe.

Only existence is self existing. Everything else which exists is dependent/subordinate to existence.

Existence is in no need of a God. So, unless that existence is the God, there is none.

The question, "Does God exist?" pre-supposes an existence independent of any supposed God. And the question effectively denies such a God.

It seems to me that you are describing Plato's theory of forms. Saying that the form "Existence" is God says that everything that exists, exists by God. However, this leaves us with a definition of God that is almost entirely meaningless. All you're doing here is using the word "God" as a synonym for "Existence." This tells us nothing about the nature of God. We could define the word "Banana" in such a manner if we wanted to, but that definition would not include any of the properties we normally associate with bananas. So what would be the point of doing so?

In other words, it sounds to me like you're just playing word games.

[Finality]

What can be measured in science as to existence is matter, energy, space-time.
There is no such thing as "in science." Your statement is odd. There is what can be measured and what cannot be measured. There aren't different things that can be measured "in science" and "out of science."
The question of this thread, "Does God exist?" Per-supposes an existence. In which it is asked is there a God?
Per-supposes is not a word.

Existence is a quality of thingness. We don't need to presuppose existence separately from any entity, as any entity requires thingness.

Existence does not "exist" on its own. It is like Red, or Width, or Malleability. If a thing is, then it exists. If a thing is not, then it does not exist. Existence is, is a nonsense statement.

Now nothing has no existence. Nothing/nothingness never was. Therefore there has to have always been something. Existence is assumed. Theists assume God.
Nothing always was. Nothingness always is. Your logical trail is nonsense. Things don't "have existence," they either are, or are not. Nothing is.

I can ask you a question about somewhere that exists in the universe, "What is there?"
You can give me an a valid answer, "Nothing is there."
Since the statement "nothing is there" can be valid somewhere, it is a true statement. Therefore, "nothing is" and nothing exists.

The concept of God is that being is the Creator of matter, energy and space-time. And that being called God, has always been. And has no beginning and is of no end.
That may be your concept of god. That is not the universal concept of god.

You have done nothing to prove the necessity of Existence as a thing itself and nothing to prove the existence of god.

[OlMehk]

That sounds about right to me. I don't know the history of Einstein but I believe hate is the absence of God's love in man's heart. We humans were created in the image of God, so we can only be made from God...but we have free will, so sometimes we stray for God.

My friend told me something powerful the other day. He said that whenever we have a negative thought, no matter how big or small it is a sin, because God does not think that way. However, it does not mean that we are evil...but it means that we need to acknowledge that less than holy part of ourselves to truly be at one with ourselves.

[37818]

It seems to me that you are describing Plato's theory of forms. Saying that the form "Existence" is God says that everything that exists, exists by God. However, this leaves us with a definition of God that is almost entirely meaningless. All you're doing here is using the word "God" as a synonym for "Existence." This tells us nothing about the nature of God. We could define the word "Banana" in such a manner if we wanted to, but that definition would not include any of the properties we normally associate with bananas. So what would be the point of doing so?

In other words, it sounds to me like you're just playing word games.What do you understand "existence" to be? What is "existence" not?

The question asks"Does God exist?" What does exist mean to you?

The "existence" I know of is "everywhere at once." "Anything" that "exists" is dependent upon "existence" to be. Every quantum state of every "existent" electron is "known" by it. But not as we would think of knowing. There is no "information" which "exists" apart from "existence." Now are you going to tell me that "existence" does not "exist?"

Maybe change tghe question: "What is existence" by which all things that "are" exist?

[mtdim]

What do you understand "existence" to be? What is "existence" not?

The question asks"Does God exist?" What does exist mean to you?

The "existence" I know of is "everywhere at once." "Anything" that "exists" is dependent upon "existence" to be. Every quantum state of every "existent" electron is "known" by it. But not as we would think of knowing. There is no "information" which "exists" apart from "existence." Now are you going to tell me that "existence" does not "exist?"

Maybe change tghe question: "What is existence" by which all things that "are" exist?

I think any attempt to define in exact terms the definition of the form "Existence" is going to end in aporia. However, while it is difficult to say what Existence is, it is much easier to say what Existence is not. For example, I could easily claim that "Existence" does not consist in being yellow, since there are things that exist that aren't yellow. So what kind of reasoning to do you have to support the notion that Existence is God? Since there are many things that exist which are not God or Godly, how can you say that the form of Existence itself is God?

It still sounds to me like you're playing word games here.

[37818]

There is no such thing as "in science." Your statement is odd. There is what can be measured and what cannot be measured. There aren't different things that can be measured "in science" and "out of science."

Per-supposes is not a word. "pre-suppose" is the word! Mya eb yuo cna't undrestadn a typo. You are correct, it does not need to be hyphenated.

Existence is a quality of thingness. We don't need to presuppose existence separately from any entity, as any entity requires thingness.So thingness/existence isn't real. Only the thing is. Every thing is self existing then.

Existence does not "exist" on its own. It is like Red, or Width, or Malleability. If a thing is, then it exists. If a thing is not, then it does not exist. Existence is, is a nonsense statement.So the question, "Does God exist?" is a nonsense question. "Is there a God?" woud be better then.

Your statment "Existence does not 'exist" on its own" is a false statment or there is no such thing as "existence" noun, and "exist" the verb. Nonsense words which we use.
"


Nothing always was. Nothingness always is. Your logical trail is nonsense. Things don't "have existence," they either are, or are not. Nothing is.So let's not use words like "nothing" or "nothingness." Since such things are not anythings. Which is absurd, of course. Such ideas are nonsense. And are not valid concepts.

I can ask you a question about somewhere that exists in the universe, "What is there?"
You can give me an a valid answer, "Nothing is there."
Since the statement "nothing is there" can be valid somewhere, it is a true statement. Therefore, "nothing is" and nothing exists.So there is no time or space at that location? How would I know such a thing? Anything I know about anything around me is in the past, and may no longer be there. Our Sun is known to be about 8 light minutes away. If the Sun just went out. We would not know for 8 minutes later. 8 minutes is not much time to do anything about it if we did know.


That may be your concept of god. That is not the universal concept of god.And your universal concept of God is what?

You have done nothing to prove the necessity of Existence as a thing itself and nothing to prove the existence of god.Really? And if there is no God. How do you prove there is? You can't.

Furthermore. From the stand point of there not being any kind of God. Why would that be any kind of absurdity? It wouldn't be. Most common arguments for a God can be shown to be absurd. If "Existence is the God" is an absurdity. I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a God in that case. Very simple.

There are no arguments for a God which do not presuppose the God which was to be proved.

[37818]

I think any attempt to define in exact terms the definition of the form "Existence" is going to end in aporia. However, while it is difficult to say what Existence is, it is much easier to say what Existence is not. For example, I could easily claim that "Existence" does not consist in being yellow, since there are things that exist that aren't yellow. So what kind of reasoning to do you have to support the notion that Existence is God? Since there are many things that exist which are not God or Godly, how can you say that the form of Existence itself is God?

It still sounds to me like you're playing word games here.

Might help to define terms and ideas. "God" a noun, means what? "exist" a verb, means what? Whether the noun "existence" of the verb can or cannot be used.

The ancient Hebrews worshipped the "self existent." Hebrew Name transliterated as, "Jehovah" or "Yehawh" or "YHVH" or "YHWH." Usually translated as "the LORD" or "the Name." Claimed tp be the originator of the "heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1.)

[captusa]

....My friend told me something powerful the other day. He said that whenever we have a negative thought, no matter how big or small it is a sin, because God does not think that way. However, it does not mean that we are evil...but it means that we need to acknowledge that less than holy part of ourselves to truly be at one with ourselves.

Or there is the possibility that your friend didn't know what he was talking about.

[Finality]

"pre-suppose" is the word! Mya eb yuo cna't undrestadn a typo. You are correct, it does not need to be hyphenated.
Oh, the hyphenation was fine. It was just the per, but you've cleared that up. :)
So thingness/existence isn't real. Only the thing is. Every thing is self existing then.
Existence is as real as red or double or perky, for what it's worth.
So the question, "Does God exist?" is a nonsense question. "Is there a God?" woud be better then.
'Does God exist?' is perfectly fine, because you are asking whether or not an entity (God) has the quality of existence (is) or the quality of nonexistence (is not). If God is, then God exists. If God is not, then God does not exist.

Your statment "Existence does not 'exist" on its own" is a false statment or there is no such thing as "existence" noun, and "exist" the verb. Nonsense words which we use.
"
Existence does not exist, apart from all that is. There is nothing that is that is separate form existence. Therefore, existence does not exist on its own. We cannot point to any thing and say that it is existence. We can point to everything and say that it is existence, but that is a meaningless definition insofar as its utility in a metaphysical discussion goes.

So let's not use words like "nothing" or "nothingness." Since such things are not anythings. Which is absurd, of course. Such ideas are nonsense. And are not valid concepts.
Nothing can also be not any number of finite specific things (something) in addition to the infinite number of specific things or proposed things (anything), or the finite number of specific things (everything). Anything that does not exist is nothing. Something that does not exist is nothing. 'Nothing exists' is a true statement. Your contention, that 'nothing does not exist' is the false statement.

So there is no time or space at that location? How would I know such a thing? Anything I know about anything around me is in the past, and may no longer be there. Our Sun is known to be about 8 light minutes away. If the Sun just went out. We would not know for 8 minutes later. 8 minutes is not much time to do anything about it if we did know.
Space is not a thing. Space is nothing. Time is not a thing. Time is nothing. Time and space are measurement and relational tools used by us to determine the relative nature of our surroundings by observation. Space and time are not entities. Space and time do not exist apart from thingness; they are qualities only used to describe dasein, or how we are being in time. Time and space only give us reference points to describe things that do exist, did exist, might exist, and don't exist.

To say that time and space themselves exist from noon to two on Tuesday halfway between Chicago and Cleveland would be a meaningless statement. However, we can say that, at some location in the universe X, at any given time Y, nothing exists. That we know when and where that nothing exists does not somehow turn that nothing into something.

We can say in synonym, 'nothing, nadda, zip, zero, zilch.' Wait, what about zero? Does zero exist? Zero is nothing. Zero exists. Zero is required, at least for any advanced mathematics.

Nothing is.

And your universal concept of God is what?
All I'm saying is that there is no universal concept of god. There are more concepts of gods than there are imaginations to dream of gods.

Really? And if there is no God. How do you prove there is? You can't.
Ya lost me here. If there isn't a God, how do I prove there is a God? You're right. I cannot prove there is a God. Why would I want to?

Furthermore. From the stand point of there not being any kind of God. Why would that be any kind of absurdity? It wouldn't be. Most common arguments for a God can be shown to be absurd. If "Existence is the God" is an absurdity. I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a God in that case. Very simple.

There are no arguments for a God which do not presuppose the God which was to be proved.
I will readily admit that this is all rather philosophical with no practical resolution (nor need for one). I'm just here to argue. :)

[All2Human]

To ask the question posited by the OP tempts us to provide an answer that differs but not itself constituted by difference.

The answer can only appear within language which is a system of differences.

[RayMan]

This thread reads like random conversations at a Grateful Dead show back in 1973.

Just sayin'.

[Stantz]

This thread reads like random conversations at a Grateful Dead show back in 1973.

Just sayin'.

shut up dude, they are playing Box of Rain !!!

[RayMan]

shut up dude, they are playing Box of Rain !!!

It's just a box of rain
I don't know who put it there

Believe it if you need it
or leave it if you dare

But it's just a box of rain
or a ribbon for your hair

Such a long long time to be gone
and a short time to be there

[captusa]

Might help to define terms and ideas. "God" a noun, means what? "exist" a verb, means what? Whether the noun "existence" of the verb can or cannot be used.

The ancient Hebrews worshipped the "self existent." Hebrew Name transliterated as, "Jehovah" or "Yehawh" or "YHVH" or "YHWH." Usually translated as "the LORD" or "the Name." Claimed tp be the originator of the "heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1.)

Actually YHVH is a derivation of I AM.

[Finality]

This thread reads like random conversations at a Grateful Dead show back in 1973.

Just sayin'.
Isn't that what all philosophical (or, perhaps more accurately in this case, pseudo-philosophical) debates look like?

[RayMan]

Isn't that what all philosophical (or, perhaps more accurately in this case, pseudo-philosophical) debates look like?

Pretty much, yeah.

http://www.medicalrace.com/dictionary/upload/thumb/3/31/180px-Young_jerry_garcia_.jpg

[37818]

. . . If there isn't a God, how do I prove there is a God? You're right. I cannot prove there is a God. Why would I want to?To know this God personally.

[37818]

Actually YHVH is a derivation of I AM.

Exodus 3:14, ". . . And God said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.' . . ." JPS.

[Finality]

To know this God personally.
When this God makes itself known to me, then I will be happy to. It shouldn't be that hard for an all-powerful being that may otherwise (depending on whom you believe) damn me to an eternity of hell. Until then, I'll stick to reason and evidence. I find it's much more fun and interesting to be a atheistic skeptic than a theistic believer, and I've been both so I'm comfortable with my current hell-bound position.

Actually, I would very much like to get to know your God. Very much. I simply have no reason to believe in that which does not exist.

[Finality]

Exodus 3:14, ". . . And God said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.' . . ." JPS.
Where does your second "I" come from? God said, "I am who am," or "I am that am."

[Deak2112]

When this God makes itself known to me, then I will be happy to. It shouldn't be that hard for an all-powerful being that may otherwise (depending on whom you believe) damn me to an eternity of hell. Until then, I'll stick to reason and evidence. I find it's much more fun and interesting to be a atheistic skeptic than a theistic believer, and I've been both so I'm comfortable with my current hell-bound position.

Actually, I would very much like to get to know your God. Very much. I simply have no reason to believe in that which does not exist.

You have it backwards. God won't prove that He exists so that you'll want to get closer to Him. When you want to get closer (truly) to Him He'll prove to you his existence.

[Finality]

You have it backwards. God won't prove that He exists so that you'll want to get closer to Him. When you want to get closer (truly) to Him He'll prove to you his existence.
You'd think you are right, but you're not, as it happens.

I already was. God never did. Apparently you're wrong, at least as far as God 'n' me were ever concerned.

If God wanted to prove it exists, it could do so easily. I cannot understand in all my twenty years as a devout believer why God never did. It makes me a little sad, actually. Maybe some day.

Edit to add: Oh, I forgot the (truly). I was (truly). You could ask anyone who knows me. I was (truly), in my heart of hearts.

[captusa]

Exodus 3:14, ". . . And God said unto Moses: 'I AM THAT I AM'; and He said: 'Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I AM hath sent me unto you.' . . ." JPS.

Only slightly pertinent.
In Hebrew the word is Yehayah, in one word I am implying I always have been.(I will accept correction frrom those who know Hebrew).
In Hebrew YHVH, God's name (which if I was religious I couldn't write it) and YHY, I am.

[Quantrill]

You'd think you are right, but you're not, as it happens.

I already was. God never did. Apparently you're wrong, at least as far as God 'n' me were ever concerned.

If God wanted to prove it exists, it could do so easily. I cannot understand in all my twenty years as a devout believer why God never did. It makes me a little sad, actually. Maybe some day.

Edit to add: Oh, I forgot the (truly). I was (truly). You could ask anyone who knows me. I was (truly), in my heart of hearts.

No, there will be no "maybe someday". The day will never come.

Quantrill

[Finality]

No, there will be no "maybe someday". The day will never come.

Quantrill
What religion are you? Most Abrahamic sects believe that no one but God knows the mind and intent of God. Yours sounds different.

[Quantrill]

What religion are you? Most Abrahamic sects believe that no one but God knows the mind and intent of God. Yours sounds different.

Really? I wonder where they get that? Again, the day you spoke of is never going to come.

Quantrill

[Finality]

Really? I wonder where they get that? Again, the day you spoke of is never going to come.

Quantrill
Well, I know it won't, because God doesn't exist. Is that what you're trying to get at? I have a hard time following vague or ambiguous statements. I blame it on RayMan. For whatever reason.

[RayMan]

Well, I know it won't, because God doesn't exist. Is that what you're trying to get at? I have a hard time following vague or ambiguous statements. I blame it on RayMan. For whatever reason.

I will gladly shoulder the blame.

From past posts he has made I believe that Quantrill is a Christian.

He is apparently trying to build suspense through his terse and unintelligible snippets. Not really working IMO.

[Quantrill]

Well, I know it won't, because God doesn't exist. Is that what you're trying to get at? I have a hard time following vague or ambiguous statements. I blame it on RayMan. For whatever reason.

Well, your saying now, "God doesn't exist". Yet previously you said, "maybe some day".

Your "maybe some day" indicates the possibility of God; to which you indicated that perhaps God would prove Himself to you one day. My response to that was not vague. I simply told you, that was not going to happen. God will not prove Himself to you. Is that ambiguous?

Of course, if God doesn't exist as you now say, then there is no need for the "maybe someday". It sounds like you really don't know.

Quantrill

[Koushi Shinigami]

meh.

[Avi]

God exists. Don't take my word for it, take His.

[adroit]

God exists. Don't take my word for it, take His.

That's a fine circle.

[Finality]

Well, your saying now, "God doesn't exist". Yet previously you said, "maybe some day".

Your "maybe some day" indicates the possibility of God; to which you indicated that perhaps God would prove Himself to you one day. My response to that was not vague. I simply told you, that was not going to happen. God will not prove Himself to you. Is that ambiguous?

Of course, if God doesn't exist as you now say, then there is no need for the "maybe someday". It sounds like you really don't know.

Quantrill
What I don't know, is how to follow your train of thought.

I have no reason to hold that God exists until such time as God or someone else provides sufficient evidence of God's existence.

Why would I hold the opposite?

Your error is in thinking that I am not open to the possibility that gods exist. I am open to such a possibility; I simply no longer find faith sufficient.

By the way, lots of Christians on here say that we cannot know the mind of God—at least not beyond what is allegedly revealed. If there is some part of the mind of God that is unknowable to man, then you are wrong, as it would then be possible that God would give me sufficient proof some day.

[natalie addict]

Ha! I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny or the Tooth Fairy. Although evidence does point ever so slightly to the Tooth Fairy. I keep finding small amounts of loose change in unusual places in the house!

[Quantrill]

What I don't know, is how to follow your train of thought.

I have no reason to hold that God exists until such time as God or someone else provides sufficient evidence of God's existence.

Why would I hold the opposite?

Your error is in thinking that I am not open to the possibility that gods exist. I am open to such a possibility; I simply no longer find faith sufficient.

By the way, lots of Christians on here say that we cannot know the mind of God—at least not beyond what is allegedly revealed. If there is some part of the mind of God that is unknowable to man, then you are wrong, as it would then be possible that God would give me sufficient proof some day.

Well, now you appear to be saying God may exist, but you reject "faith" as a means to know God. Correct? You either believe there is no God; or that there may be a God but you just dont know. Those are different beliefs.

It appears you have a belief in God but reject the God of the Christians who has revealed Himself in the Bible. Correct?

If, if , if,...If God is there, then there is a God.

Quantrill

[Finality]

Well, now you appear to be saying God may exist, but you reject "faith" as a means to know God. Correct? You either believe there is no God; or that there may be a God but you just dont know. Those are different beliefs.

It appears you have a belief in God but reject the God of the Christians who has revealed Himself in the Bible. Correct?

If, if , if,...If God is there, then there is a God.

Quantrill
I am merely an atheist. I am not a strong atheist about all gods, though I guess I am about some. I state categorically that Zeus does not now exist, if he ever did.

I am open to the possibility that some god exists.

You do realize there are varying degrees of atheistic thought, right? Some believe there is no god. Some simply don't believe in gods. There is a difference between those, agreed?

Then there's the agnostic, who doesn't believe or disbelieve in god. Some agnostics say we can know if there is a god, but we don't have evidence yet. Some say we can never know if there is a god, but still don't affirmatively disbelieve in a god.

It appears you have a belief in God but reject the God of the Christians who has revealed Himself in the Bible. Correct?
Actually, this is incorrect. I have no belief in God, Christian or otherwise.

Like I said above, I am open to the possibility of some god existing. I think the Christian God is one of the least likely possibilities, but I do not believe in some god other than the Christian God.

[Quantrill]

I am merely an atheist. I am not a strong atheist about all gods, though I guess I am about some. I state categorically that Zeus does not now exist, if he ever did.

I am open to the possibility that some god exists.

You do realize there are varying degrees of atheistic thought, right? Some believe there is no god. Some simply don't believe in gods. There is a difference between those, agreed?

Then there's the agnostic, who doesn't believe or disbelieve in god. Some agnostics say we can know if there is a god, but we don't have evidence yet. Some say we can never know if there is a god, but still don't affirmatively disbelieve in a god.


Actually, this is incorrect. I have no belief in God, Christian or otherwise.

Like I said above, I am open to the possibility of some god existing. I think the Christian God is one of the least likely possibilities, but I do not believe in some god other than the Christian God.

You say "I have no belief in God", yet you say, " I am open to the possiblility of some god existing".

Before you said "God doesn't exist". I believe you are being disingenuous. Or, you dont really know what you believe.

Quantrill

[RayMan]

Breaking News from the Koushi Channel:


meh.

[Finality]

You say "I have no belief in God", yet you say, " I am open to the possiblility of some god existing".

Before you said "God doesn't exist". I believe you are being disingenuous. Or, you dont really know what you believe.

Quantrill
I am an atheist. Do you expect me to say, "God does exist"?

I know what I believe and don't believe. And I'm not being disingenuous. Why would I say "God does exist" if I don't think any gods exist? Furthermore, I said "God doesn't exist" in an attempt to disambiguate what the heck you were talking about. You kept saying "that day will never come" (or something to that effect). One possible interpretation of that statement is that you were saying, "God doesn't exist, so obviously that day of proof will never and can never come." I even asked "Is that what you're trying to get at" after.

I am open to the possibility that some god exists, but I have no evidence of such.

I have no evidence that there is an invisible, ethereal spirit-rope that binds each living being together with one another, and so I don't think there is such a thing. I am open to the possibility of such a thing, but without any evidence, why would I think there is such a thing?

Do you think I'm being disingenuous about that, too, then? Or I don't really know what I believe about invisible, ethereal being-binding spirit-ropes?

[captusa]

You say "I have no belief in God", yet you say, " I am open to the possiblility of some god existing".

Before you said "God doesn't exist". I believe you are being disingenuous. Or, you dont really know what you believe.

Quantrill

My belief is that there is no Theistic Deity (a Deity that involves ITSELF with humanity et.al.)

And I hold that conviction with the same or greater faith than most Theists (maybe all)

[Quantrill]

My belief is that there is no Theistic Deity (a Deity that involves ITSELF with humanity et.al.)

And I hold that conviction with the same or greater faith than most Theists (maybe all)

Yes, that you hold these things "by faith" is true.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

I am an atheist. Do you expect me to say, "God does exist"?

I know what I believe and don't believe. And I'm not being disingenuous. Why would I say "God does exist" if I don't think any gods exist? Furthermore, I said "God doesn't exist" in an attempt to disambiguate what the heck you were talking about. You kept saying "that day will never come" (or something to that effect). One possible interpretation of that statement is that you were saying, "God doesn't exist, so obviously that day of proof will never and can never come." I even asked "Is that what you're trying to get at" after.

I am open to the possibility that some god exists, but I have no evidence of such.

I have no evidence that there is an invisible, ethereal spirit-rope that binds each living being together with one another, and so I don't think there is such a thing. I am open to the possibility of such a thing, but without any evidence, why would I think there is such a thing?

Do you think I'm being disingenuous about that, too, then? Or I don't really know what I believe about invisible, ethereal being-binding spirit-ropes?

Its not difficult. I expect an atheist to say, "God doesn't exist". I dont expect them to say, "but Im open to the possibility".

Quantrill

[Koushi Shinigami]

Breaking News from the Koushi Channel:

:)) :)) :))

This message brought to you by the Ray Man's lumber yard. Where we're having a special on 1.5X3.5s!

[Koushi Shinigami]

Its not difficult. I expect an atheist to say, "God doesn't exist". I dont expect them to say, "but Im open to the possibility".

Quantrill

Black and white makes a very boring picture.

[Tim]

Its not difficult. I expect an atheist to say, "God doesn't exist". I dont expect them to say, "but Im open to the possibility".

Quantrill

Why not? I don't believe there are any men living in underground caverns on Mars but I'm open to that possibility.

I have the same opinion of "God(s)". Regarding the existence of Martians, I am amartianist. Regarding the existence of God(s), I am atheist. However, I am open to the "possibility" that either/or exists.

[Finality]

Its not difficult. I expect an atheist to say, "God doesn't exist". I dont expect them to say, "but Im open to the possibility".

Quantrill
Well, some of us are open minded. Just not convinced. :)

[Quantrill]

Well, some of us are open minded. Just not convinced. :)

In other words, you don't know.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Why not? I don't believe there are any men living in underground caverns on Mars but I'm open to that possibility.

I have the same opinion of "God(s)". Regarding the existence of Martians, I am amartianist. Regarding the existence of God(s), I am atheist. However, I am open to the "possibility" that either/or exists.

In other words, you dont know.

Quantrill

[captusa]

Yes, that you hold these things "by faith" is true.

Quantrill

No problem.
I can not prove the non-existance of God any more than you or anyone else can prove the existance of God.
My faith that I am right is equal or greater than your faith that you are right.

[captusa]

In other words, you dont know.

Quantrill

He knows the non-existance of God(s) to the same degree that you know the existance of God.
One of you is wrong.
There is the possibility* that it isn't him.

*I believe you are the one that is wrong.

[Quantrill]

No problem.
I can not prove the non-existance of God any more than you or anyone else can prove the existance of God.
My faith that I am right is equal or greater than your faith that you are right.

Again, you are right. Your faith is greater.

Quantrill

[Finality]

In other words, you don't know.

Quantrill
I don't know. Absolutely. Though there are some conceptions of God that I would say we could know if they were true, and others that we could never knew even if they were true.

Also, there are some conceptions of God that I think are impossible or so extremely improbable as to be unworthy of rational consideration.

How's that?

If I've ever said that I know categorically and without doubt that no god exists, then I must have been PWI (posting while intoxicated). :))

[Quantrill]

I don't know. Absolutely. Though there are some conceptions of God that I would say we could know if they were true, and others that we could never knew even if they were true.

Also, there are some conceptions of God that I think are impossible or so extremely improbable as to be unworthy of rational consideration.

How's that?

If I've ever said that I know categorically and without doubt that no god exists, then I must have been PWI (posting while intoxicated). :))

Hows that?, you ask. Its to be expected when you don't know. You can add what everelse you like, but at least we know, you don't know.

Quantrill

[37818]

When this God makes itself known to me, then I will be happy to. It shouldn't be that hard for an all-powerful being that may otherwise (depending on whom you believe) damn me to an eternity of hell. Until then, I'll stick to reason and evidence. I find it's much more fun and interesting to be a atheistic skeptic than a theistic believer, and I've been both so I'm comfortable with my current hell-bound position.

Actually, I would very much like to get to know your God. Very much. I simply have no reason to believe in that which does not exist.

Well, it would only be on God's terms. Since you suppose this God does not exist. You already miss one of His terms. (Hebrews 11:6.)

There are more religious sects which make claims to christianity than any other. The odds are what one simply picks out, will be wrong.

Anyway, from the stand point of there not being any kind of God, I wouldn't worry about any kind of hell either. But then I happen to this God myself. (John 17:3.)

Should you ever get a little curious, as to how to know this God, one has to be really interested in what is true. And be willing to do this God's will. (John 7:16, 17.) But you cannot do what you do not know. And cannot believe if you cannot understand how or why it is true. And then there is the issue of getting the perspective of what really is this God's will correct in the first place. And not getting some false views in its place. (problem.)

[37818]

Where does your second "I" come from? God said, "I am who am," or "I am that am."The quote I cited was from the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation.

The Hebrew translated as "I AM" is אהיה
and is from the "I AM that I AM": אהיה אשׁר אהיה

[Finality]

Well, it would only be on God's terms. Since you suppose this God does not exist. You already miss one of His terms. (Hebrews 11:6.)

There are more religious sects which make claims to christianity than any other. The odds are what one simply picks out, will be wrong.

Anyway, from the stand point of there not being any kind of God, I wouldn't worry about any kind of hell either. But then I happen to this God myself. (John 17:3.)

Should you ever get a little curious, as to how to know this God, one has to be really interested in what is true. And be willing to do this God's will. (John 7:16, 17.) But you cannot do what you do not know. And cannot believe if you cannot understand how or why it is true. And then there is the issue of getting the perspective of what really is this God's will correct in the first place. And not getting some false views in its place. (problem.)
Interesting post. I'm not sure that I understand it all, but still interesting. :)

[Tim]

In other words, you dont know.

Quantrill

Of course I don't know. I also don't know that any of a billion other things don't exist such as bigfoot, the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, unicorns, alien lifeforms from outer space, fairies, goblins, ghosts, werewolves, vampires, time travelers, etc.... but I don't believe any of them exist just as I don't believe any god(s) exist.

What is your point?

[Finality]

Of course I don't know. I also don't know that any of a billion other things don't exist such as bigfoot, the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, unicorns, alien lifeforms from outer space, fairies, goblins, ghosts, werewolves, vampires, time travelers, etc.... but I don't believe any of them exist just as I don't believe any god(s) exist.

What is your point?
It's almost as if he's trying to play Trap An Atheist in a meaningless word game.

I suspect he thinks atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist, like theists claim to know that God does.

[Tim]

It's almost as if he's trying to play Trap An Atheist in a meaningless word game.

I suspect he thinks atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist, like theists claim to know that God does.

Oh... whatever floats one's boat, I suppose. Although I've never met anyone who would go so far as to make such a claim of the non-existence of god(s), if I did I would view them with much skepticism.

There is simply no way to rationally state the nonexistence of something... our reasoning abilities only allow us to examine what we know does exist or to test for the possible existence of something based on the effects that "something" might be causing.

For instance, when ancient man looked up in the sky at night and saw the moon, it was reasonable to consider the origins of this light. With limited knowledge they thought the moon was producing light much as the sun does during the day. Further, they had no other theory as to its origination that to think "a god did it".

At that point in time this was a fairly reasonable assumption on their part but with time and advancements in scientific inquiry and methods of study man learned that the moon merely reflected the sun's light.

Many other discoveries were continually made which gave reason to put aside the quick answer of "god did it" and allowed for the possibilty that there are other more reasonable answers available.

The "god did it" theory just seems implausible to me without reasonable and testable proof of the existence of "god(s)" to begin with.

Might there be "god(s)"? I suppose it is remotely possible but given currently available evidence (or lack thereof) I don't believe in the existence of said "god(s)". Perhaps there is/are some other being(s), somewhere, who are far more advanced than us but I see no evidence that they are in any way interacting with us at this point in time.

I don't believe in any god(s). What is the label for me? Atheist, agnostic, skeptic? It matters not to me what label one wishes to give... and the label changes nothing about me, my beliefs (or lack of beliefs) or actions.

[Quantrill]

Of course I don't know. I also don't know that any of a billion other things don't exist such as bigfoot, the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, unicorns, alien lifeforms from outer space, fairies, goblins, ghosts, werewolves, vampires, time travelers, etc.... but I don't believe any of them exist just as I don't believe any god(s) exist.

What is your point?

My point to you is, as already stated, you don't know. As your statement at the bottom of your replies indicates. You dont believe, you reason. And your reason tells you, you don't know.

You cannot say there is no God. All you can say is, I don't know. You have said it yourself.

Quantrill

[Tim]

My point to you is, as already stated, you don't know. As your statement at the bottom of your replies indicates. You dont believe, you reason. And your reason tells you, you don't know.

You cannot say there is no God. All you can say is, I don't know. You have said it yourself.

Quantrill

That is correct, sir.

[RayMan]

That is correct, sir.

That should read,

"You Sir, are correct!"

http://weblogs.cltv.com/news/opinion/mcclendon/mcmahon.jpg.jpeg




Mornin' Tim,
Nice to see you.

[Tim]

That should read,

"You Sir, are correct!"

http://weblogs.cltv.com/news/opinion/mcclendon/mcmahon.jpg.jpeg




Mornin' Tim,
Nice to see you.

Hi Ray... I hope all is well with you!

[captusa]

It's almost as if he's trying to play Trap An Atheist in a meaningless word game.

I suspect he thinks atheists claim to know that God doesn't exist, like theists claim to know that God does.

I DO know that God(s)* doesn't exist, exactly like theists claim to know that God(s) does.
With the same or greater certainty as them.
One of us is right and the probability is that it is I.

*Theistic (Transcendental)

[RayMan]

Hi Ray... I hope all is well with you!

Very well thanks.

Still reaping a harvest from the spring garden and got my fall garden in a few weeks ago. Expect to have cabbages, carrots, lettuce, bush beans, collards, etc. right up until the New Year.

[RayMan]

I DO know that God(s)* doesn't exist, exactly like theists claim to know that God(s) does.
With the same or greater certainty as them.
One of us is right and the probability is that it is I.

*Theistic (Transcendental)

Aww...you say that about everything. ;)

Which is no fair - you being a math teacher and all.

[captusa]

Originally Posted by Quantrill
My point to you is, as already stated, you don't know. As your statement at the bottom of your replies indicates. You dont believe, you reason. And your reason tells you, you don't know.

You cannot say there is no God. All you can say is, I don't know. You have said it yourself.

Quantrill

And YOU cannot say there is no God.
All you can say is you believe there is a God with no more certainty than when I say there isn't.
I am even more certain of there never having been a human child from a Deity impregnating a human female whether by Zeus and Leta or YHVH and Mary

[Quantrill]

And YOU cannot say there is no God.
All you can say is you believe there is a God with no more certainty than when I say there isn't.
I am even more certain of there never having been a human child from a Deity impregnating a human female whether by Zeus and Leta or YHVH and Mary

I know I cannot say there is no God, because there is.

No. I can say I know there is God, and His Son is Jesus Christ, and He died on the Cross and was raised from the dead in 3 days. I know. And I can say it.

Recognize you are commenting, if I remember right, from my comments to another.

Quantrill

[khigh]

I know I cannot say there is no God, because there is.

No. I can say I know there is God, and His Son is Jesus Christ, and He died on the Cross and was raised from the dead in 3 days. I know. And I can say it.

Recognize you are commenting, if I remember right, from my comments to another.

Quantrill

How do you know that your God of Abraham exists? Where is your proof? You have just as much physical evidence as I do that my gods exist. What you have is FAITH that your God of Abraham exists, just as I have FAITH my gods exist.

[Quantrill]

How do you know that your God of Abraham exists? Where is your proof? You have just as much physical evidence as I do that my gods exist. What you have is FAITH that your God of Abraham exists, just as I have FAITH my gods exist.

How do I know? Because God has given it to my spirit to know. Its not a maybe. Its not just that I believe its this way. I know.

But the faith of the Christian believer is somewhat different than your faith. Faith is required by God. It is the vehicle with which God opens ones spiritual eyes. And that faith will be centered on the person of Jesus Christ.

And the Christians begining faith is a gift from God.

Quantrill

[khigh]

How do I know? Because God has given it to my spirit to know. Its not a maybe. Its not just that I believe its this way. I know.

But the faith of the Christian believer is somewhat different than your faith. Faith is required by God. It is the vehicle with which God opens ones spiritual eyes. And that faith will be centered on the person of Jesus Christ.

And the Christians begining faith is a gift from God.

Quantrill

How does one presume to know the origin of my faith in my religion? Faith is required by all religions and all religions require faith in a certain entity or being. That means that one religion does not have the monopoly of faith, nor does it have a monopoly on spirit.

Okay, so your God has given your spirit the ability to know. My gods have given my spirit the ability to know them, love them, and worship them the same as your God. My gods, however, did not give us people to center on, like your God did with Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, there were people in this world that show us the morals and the way of the Hindu religion, and, yes, we do celebrate their lives. However, I do not center my life around these people.

Your Jesus of Nazareth is also in my religion- not as a Son of God, rather as a person to look up to. A man of peace. A prophet so to speak.

I guess it all depends on your definition of the word "faith". I believe the definitions are as varied as the definitions of the word "is".

[Quantrill]

How does one presume to know the origin of my faith in my religion? Faith is required by all religions and all religions require faith in a certain entity or being. That means that one religion does not have the monopoly of faith, nor does it have a monopoly on spirit.

Okay, so your God has given your spirit the ability to know. My gods have given my spirit the ability to know them, love them, and worship them the same as your God. My gods, however, did not give us people to center on, like your God did with Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, there were people in this world that show us the morals and the way of the Hindu religion, and, yes, we do celebrate their lives. However, I do not center my life around these people.

Your Jesus of Nazareth is also in my religion- not as a Son of God, rather as a person to look up to. A man of peace. A prophet so to speak.

I guess it all depends on your definition of the word "faith". I believe the definitions are as varied as the definitions of the word "is".

The Christians faith is a specific requirement on the part of God. And that is directed on the person of Jesus Christ, that He is the only begotten Son of God. And, this faith to believe this comes from God.

None can come to God any other way.

Quantrill

[ObjectiveObserver1]

I'm not sure if it is a true story or not- be I know for certain the Einstein's views were that of an agnostic- and also mixed in with humanism.
Einstein was brilliant- but was humble enough to acknowledge there are some things we can never know for sure. Stephen Hawkings had familiar views on the question as an agnostic.

[RayMan]

I'm not sure if it is a true story or not- be I know for certain the Einstein's views were that of an agnostic- and also mixed in with humanism.
Einstein was brilliant- but was humble enough to acknowledge there are some things we can never know for sure. Stephen Hawkings had familiar views on the question as an agnostic.

Are you suggesting that Hawkings is dead or that he has moved into the atheist camp?

[khigh]

The Christians faith is a specific requirement on the part of God. And that is directed on the person of Jesus Christ, that He is the only begotten Son of God. And, this faith to believe this comes from God.

None can come to God any other way.

Quantrill

Who's God? Not mine. My religion teaches that every path of righteousness leads to enlightenment, but that the Hindu spirit and rituals are the most direct.

We also have a man-god brought into this world with a god father and a virgin mother, but Krishna is not the only path to enlightenment. I just have a hard time putting all my faith into one person.

[ObjectiveObserver1]

[/B][/SIZE]

Are you suggesting that Hawkings is dead or that he has moved into the atheist camp?

hehe, my mistake- Hawkings is not dead. I can't say whether he's moved to atheism either- his beliefs about religion are complex- Agnosticism is just the best word to describe it based on what he's said on the subject.

[RayMan]

hehe, my mistake- Hawkings is not dead. I can't say whether he's moved to atheism either- his beliefs about religion are complex- Agnosticism is just the best word to describe it based on what he's said on the subject.

Thanks for clarifying.

[Quantrill]

Who's God? Not mine. My religion teaches that every path of righteousness leads to enlightenment, but that the Hindu spirit and rituals are the most direct.

We also have a man-god brought into this world with a god father and a virgin mother, but Krishna is not the only path to enlightenment. I just have a hard time putting all my faith into one person.

If, as you say, faith is not required in the one individual, then why does it have to be hard.

God requires of us to have faith in Jesus Christ, that He is the only begotten Son of God. He is the only One, the only Way.

Quantrill

[khigh]

If, as you say, faith is not required in the one individual, then why does it have to be hard.

God requires of us to have faith in Jesus Christ, that He is the only begotten Son of God. He is the only One, the only Way.

Quantrill

It's not hard. Yes, you have a lot of rules and many rituals, but that does not make a religion. Faith in your own god makes a religion.

I can see that your God requires you to have faith in a single man, but mine does not. I guess we will just have to disagree on this.

[Tim]

Very well thanks.

Still reaping a harvest from the spring garden and got my fall garden in a few weeks ago. Expect to have cabbages, carrots, lettuce, bush beans, collards, etc. right up until the New Year.

Very nice! My lovely wife and I have been eating "healthy" for a couple of months now and feeling better than ever. A big part of our new "healthy" lifestyle is eating all the foods you listed above. I do miss my wings, fries and beer night each week but I enjoy the benefits of higher energy more than I miss the 'fun'. ;)

[Quantrill]

It's not hard. Yes, you have a lot of rules and many rituals, but that does not make a religion. Faith in your own god makes a religion.

I can see that your God requires you to have faith in a single man, but mine does not. I guess we will just have to disagree on this.

I do not disagree in your understanding of your religion. I was showing the difference in the necessity of "faith" between Christianity and other religions.

Our differences would come when you and I, instead of saying "my God", say "our God". And it would be interesting.

Pleasure to speak with you.

Quantrill

[Finality]

How do I know? Because God has given it to my spirit to know. Its not a maybe. Its not just that I believe its this way. I know.

But the faith of the Christian believer is somewhat different than your faith. Faith is required by God. It is the vehicle with which God opens ones spiritual eyes. And that faith will be centered on the person of Jesus Christ.

And the Christians begining faith is a gift from God.

Quantrill
You do not know, and your claimed "knowledge" is no more knowledge that there is a god than the atheist's knowledge that there isn't a god.

You employ a tricky fallacy, called special pleading. You say that you can know a fact that others cannot know because you have been given a special knowledge of the truth of what you claim. I.e., what you claim as false for others is yet true for you.

Supernaturally-received knowledge is not a valid form of argument.

Instead of making us believe in your super powers, how about you give us tangible evidence so that we may share in your special knowledge?

[captusa]

I know I cannot say there is no God, because there is.

No. I can say I know there is God, and His Son is Jesus Christ, and He died on the Cross and was raised from the dead in 3 days. I know. And I can say it.

Recognize you are commenting, if I remember right, from my comments to another.

Quantrill



Sorry.
Typo
Not a sudden epiphany
I meant You can not say there IS A God.....


I can say I know there IS NO God, and and HE DID NOT have a son named Jesus Christ, and He died on the Cross and was raised from the dead in 3 days. I know.

And I can say it with the equal or greater certainty than you can say the opposite.
The only certainty is that one of us is wrong and logic would decide it is most likely you.

[khigh]

I do not disagree in your understanding of your religion. I was showing the difference in the necessity of "faith" between Christianity and other religions.

Our differences would come when you and I, instead of saying "my God", say "our God". And it would be interesting.

Pleasure to speak with you.

Quantrill


The problem with this is that it is and never can be "our God". My gods number in the thousands, yet are part of one Universal Spirit, where you only see them as the one Universal Spirit and do not take into account that there are thousands of parts that make up the whole.

The US is like a human body, with many parts working together to function. Abraham's religions (Muslims, Christians, and Jews) only see the whole of the body and do not study the parts that make it work.

Why is there a difference in the necessity of faith between the religions? Don't all religions require faith in the same amount?

[Quantrill]

The problem with this is that it is and never can be "our God". My gods number in the thousands, yet are part of one Universal Spirit, where you only see them as the one Universal Spirit and do not take into account that there are thousands of parts that make up the whole.

The US is like a human body, with many parts working together to function. Abraham's religions (Muslims, Christians, and Jews) only see the whole of the body and do not study the parts that make it work.

Why is there a difference in the necessity of faith between the religions? Don't all religions require faith in the same amount?

Yes, I agree, it can never be "our God". My point was that disagreement would come only if that were insisted.

I am not aware of religions which require faith as that which must be exercised in order to recieve the blessings of that God. Faith is of course exercised in all religions, and by most people outside of religion also. The Christian however, is given things that must be believed in order for God to activate, or give life to his spirit.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Sorry.
Typo
Not a sudden epiphany
I meant You can not say there IS A God.....


I can say I know there IS NO God, and and HE DID NOT have a son named Jesus Christ, and He died on the Cross and was raised from the dead in 3 days. I know.

And I can say it with the equal or greater certainty than you can say the opposite.
The only certainty is that one of us is wrong and logic would decide it is most likely you.

I thought you said you had greater faith. Now you say you trust your logic.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

You do not know, and your claimed "knowledge" is no more knowledge that there is a god than the atheist's knowledge that there isn't a god.

You employ a tricky fallacy, called special pleading. You say that you can know a fact that others cannot know because you have been given a special knowledge of the truth of what you claim. I.e., what you claim as false for others is yet true for you.

Supernaturally-received knowledge is not a valid form of argument.

Instead of making us believe in your super powers, how about you give us tangible evidence so that we may share in your special knowledge?

I do know. Just because you dont know, or don't believe me doesn't mean I don't know. No, I employ nothing. Im just telling you I know.

Not a valid form of argument? Sorry about that. But it is the way the Believer knows.

There is no tangible evidence. God has made it by faith. It will not be received other than by faith.

Quantrill

[captusa]

I thought you said you had greater faith. Now you say you trust your logic.

Quantrill

I never said greater.
I did say equal or greater.
Logic is one thing that fortifies my faith in the irrationality of the existance of a Theistic Deity.
Does logic have any relation to your faith in the contrary ?

[captusa]

I do know. Just because you dont know, or don't believe me doesn't mean I don't know. No, I employ nothing. Im just telling you I know.

Not a valid form of argument? Sorry about that. But it is the way the Believer knows.

There is no tangible evidence. God has made it by faith. It will not be received other than by faith.

Quantrill

I absolutely believe you believe you KNOW however you think you know the existsance in something I KNOW not to exist.
If you are comfortable in your belief that's finebut do not expect anyone else to accept your belief (the belief that you KNOW) as objective reality.


You can continue to believe in God and I will continue to believe in the invisible purple unicorns in my yard.

[Quantrill]

I absolutely believe you believe you KNOW however you think you know the existsance in something I KNOW not to exist.
If you are comfortable in your belief that's finebut do not expect anyone else to accept your belief (the belief that you KNOW) as objective reality.


You can continue to believe in God and I will continue to believe in the invisible purple unicorns in my yard.

Where do you get the idea I need your approval to continue believing? I don't.

And, I do not care or expect you to accept my faith. Your approval is of no value to me.

And, I do not "believe that I know", I know. Once I believed, God gives life to my spirit and knowledge of Him. I know.

It shouldn't be hard for you to understand, after all, didn't you say you know God does not exist? But now you want to tell me I can't know. Which is it? Do you know God does not exist, or do you believe you know?

And be happy with your unicorns.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

I never said greater.
I did say equal or greater.
Logic is one thing that fortifies my faith in the irrationality of the existance of a Theistic Deity.
Does logic have any relation to your faith in the contrary ?

I see, you really don't have faith as you said. For your faith is only reasoning. And that is not faith. I guess if you want to pretend its faith and fool yourself for the sake of argument, go ahead. But it isn't faith.

But I am not disappointed as I knew it wasn't so anyway.

I guess that means there really are no unicorns. Now that is disappointing.

Quantrill

[RayMan]

I see, you really don't have faith as you said. For your faith is only reasoning. And that is not faith. I guess if you want to pretend its faith and fool yourself for the sake of argument, go ahead. But it isn't faith.

But I am not disappointed as I knew it wasn't so anyway.

I guess that means there really are no unicorns. Now that is disappointing.

Quantrill

No unicorns?


Say it ain't so! ;)

[captusa]

I see, you really don't have faith as you said. For your faith is only reasoning. And that is not faith. I guess if you want to pretend its faith and fool yourself for the sake of argument, go ahead. But it isn't faith.

But I am not disappointed as I knew it wasn't so anyway.

I guess that means there really are no unicorns. Now that is disappointing.

Quantrill

My faith is at least as strong as yours.
One reason is I know there is no trancendental Deity(s) and yours are a figment of your faith.
I have more faith in my reason than I do in your imagination.
(Especially if you don't use reason to suport your faith.)
There is far more evidence for the invisible purple unicorns in my yard.
Come and look in my yard.
You won't see anything proving the unicorns are invisible.

[captusa]

Where do you get the idea I need your approval to continue believing? I don't.

And, I do not care or expect you to accept my faith. Your approval is of no value to me.

And, I do not "believe that I know", I know. Once I believed, God gives life to my spirit and knowledge of Him. I know.

It shouldn't be hard for you to understand, after all, didn't you say you know God does not exist? But now you want to tell me I can't know. Which is it? Do you know God does not exist, or do you believe you know?

And be happy with your unicorns.

Quantrill

I do not expect you to have any consideration of my opinon of Your faith.
You drew me into an arguement of tenets of faith which I try to avoid.
I am not dealing with comvincing you that I am right and you are wrong.
We have a difference in opinion.
One of us is correct.
Naturally you believe you are correct and I believe I am correct.
The epistimology is that neither of us KNOW they are right with any greater than the other.
I am only arguing about the epistomology of your "knowledge" NOT which of us has the "REAL KNOWLEDGE".

[37818]

. . . You can not say there IS A God.....


I can say I know there IS NO God, and and HE DID NOT have a son named Jesus Christ, and He died on the Cross and was raised from the dead in 3 days. I know.

And I can say it with the equal or greater certainty than you can say the opposite.
The only certainty is that one of us is wrong and logic would decide it is most likely you. Actually logic can only decide if an argument is rational. Not if what is being claimed is true.

Now if you had argued there is no proof for a God that is one thing. The burden of proof falls on those making the claim.

But you have argued that you "know there IS NO God." I'm interested on how you know this? But the further argument, "HE DID NOT have a son named Jesus Christ, and He died on the Cross and was raised from the dead in 3 days." Presumes that God which you said is not. Which makes no logical sense to argue, in the context of there not being any God.

So how do you know there is no God?

[37818]

Interesting post. I'm not sure that I understand it all, but still interesting. :)

Well, let us just take the fact there there are many beliefs about God, being and not being. The idea there is no God is only a small number of views of the many.

Taking the many views the odds of being correct is small.

To the simple question of there being a God or not. 50 50 odds.

To the claims of a God or gods, the odds of being correct is very small.

Are there any consequences or risks in being wrong? The odds are good that one is going to be wrong in what one believes.

At least the consequence of there not being any God or gods, would seem to be small. When one dies, there is no knowing one was wrong (or right.)

[Quantrill]

I do not expect you to have any consideration of my opinon of Your faith.
You drew me into an arguement of tenets of faith which I try to avoid.
I am not dealing with comvincing you that I am right and you are wrong.
We have a difference in opinion.
One of us is correct.
Naturally you believe you are correct and I believe I am correct.
The epistimology is that neither of us KNOW they are right with any greater than the other.
I am only arguing about the epistomology of your "knowledge" NOT which of us has the "REAL KNOWLEDGE".


I didn't draw you into anything. You entered on your own. And you were commenting on remarks I made to another. So, dont tell me I drew you into anything.

No. Your are wrong again. As I said, I know there is God. Your epistimology is inadequate in the realm of God, the spiritual world. You don't have the correct machinery. Your taking a volt meter to try and check the air pressure in your tires. It wont register.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

My faith is at least as strong as yours.
One reason is I know there is no trancendental Deity(s) and yours are a figment of your faith.
I have more faith in my reason than I do in your imagination.
(Especially if you don't use reason to suport your faith.)
There is far more evidence for the invisible purple unicorns in my yard.
Come and look in my yard.
You won't see anything proving the unicorns are invisible.

You are simply coloring your "reasoning" with the term "faith". Which means it is not faith at all.

When you put your faith in "reasoning" you have once again limited your arena. You have no access to the spiritual. You have no access to God.

Ones faith is only as good as what you put it in. If I put my faith in the man on the moon, but there is no man on the moon, then my faith is dead and lifeless.

If I put my faith in God, who has so ordered that faith is the way I come, then He sees and registers that faith and He acts accordingly. This is exactly what happens when one places faith in Jesus Christ. God acts giving His life to their spirit.

So, you see, your faith in reasoning, leaves you only in the material realm.

Quantrill

[Finality]

Actually logic can only decide if an argument is rational. Not if what is being claimed is true.

Now if you had argued there is no proof for a God that is one thing. The burden of proof falls on those making the claim.

But you have argued that you "know there IS NO God." I'm interested on how you know this? But the further argument, "HE DID NOT have a son named Jesus Christ, and He died on the Cross and was raised from the dead in 3 days." Presumes that God which you said is not. Which makes no logical sense to argue, in the context of there not being any God.

So how do you know there is no God?
Do you know what a truth table is? It's used in symbolic logic.

You must simply accept a premise, but once you do, then logic tells you whether the argument is true or not.

Your statement (paraphrasing): logic is a tool to determine what is rational.

However, rational is logical. (See, 'logical' - thesaurus (http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/logical).) Therefore, your statement is really, "logic is a tool to determine what is logical."

Now, that is not very useful, is it? No. Logic is a tool to determine whether, if we accept certain propositions, truth flows.

You seem to be trying to cleverly twist words into a distorted circularity which requires God as a necessary premise in all arguments for or against God, of which in fact, you are not successful.

We can premise "not God" and draw soundly valid and consistently true conclusions, despite your attempts to muddy the intellectual waters.

You seem to think that the statement, "God did not have a son named Jesus" requires God to be a necessary premise. In fact, the claim can be true or false in at least three variations:

1. God does not have a son named Jesus, because there is no God. (God does not exist; Jesus may or may not exist; a son does not exist.)
Or
2. God does not have a son named Jesus, because there is no Jesus. (God may or may not exist; Jesus does not exist; a son may or may not exist, but only if God exists.)
Or
3. God does not have a son named Jesus, because there is no son. (God may or may not exist; Jesus may or may not exist; a son does not exist.)

A simplified argument drawing one of the above conclusions could be rewritten so:

Jesus is the son of God if and only if God exists and Jesus exists.
God does not exist.
Therefore, Jesus is not the son of God.

Symbolically:
S <-> ( G & J )
~G
∴ ~S

This argument does not include God's existence as a necessary premise. Any inclusion of God as a necessary premise is contrived from word-trickery like yours, or from a misunderstanding of modal logic.

Your error, I think, is that you believe you must include God's existence as a necessary premise if you are going to include God in an argument. This is a fallacy called circular reasoning, or begging the question. It is a rudimentary logical fallacy, which I have no doubt that you will be able to correct if you apply yourself to proper study of logic. I would encourage you to do so.

[Finality]

I didn't draw you into anything. You entered on your own. And you were commenting on remarks I made to another. So, dont tell me I drew you into anything.

No. Your are wrong again. As I said, I know there is God. Your epistimology is inadequate in the realm of God, the spiritual world. You don't have the correct machinery. Your taking a volt meter to try and check the air pressure in your tires. It wont register.

Quantrill
The flaw in your analogy, is that there is no evidence or knowledge about whether the tires even exist. Your position is weaker, because you claim that the supernatural world exists, despite such lack of information, while our position can stand based on a neutral position of not claiming either the supernatural does exist or does not exist.

Your epistemology is inadequate for the same reasons you claim ours is. You just love that special pleading fallacy, don't you?