Theological Parodies (Creator, tradition, Revelation, prophet, atheist)

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

it appears that we are in the same boat. I cannot prove the existence of God to you, and you can not prove the non-existence of God to me. However, God has been revealed to me in many ways and for that I am grateful and rather saddened that you cannot see him as clearly.

I am not trying to disprove God.
You make assumptions based upon assumptions.
I am not an atheist.
And what makes you think I cannot see god?

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

In this respect, perhaps I use LESS faith than you, since he has indeed shown himself to me. Why me and not you? I can't answer that.

Fair enough.
However, I surmise that you are basing this comment on your assumption that I am an atheist.
Seems you are also assuming that the same 'proofs' that convinced you are the same 'proofs' that convince me.
Somehow I highly doubt that the "proofs" in each of our cases are even remotely parallel.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

It is not possible to disprove the truth.

I agree, but only because religious 'truth' is relative.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

As it is, we have many eye witness accounts through out the Old and New Testament that God exists. You want ultimate proof? There is no such thing for ANYTHING and your faith in atheism is way too strong to accept the evidences that God is.Yet, each of us possesses a threshold, whereby once crossed, we will be convinced. Once crossed our ability to accept our position increases as we require less proof to continue in our belief. This is like any inertia of any body.

Eye witness accounts are unreliable at best and out right lies at worse.
Ten people can witness the same event and have ten, or more, versions of what happened.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

It's not so much you have to justify your belief system to yourself as much as you must make me admit that somehow you are superior? Good luck with that. How's it working for you so far? Any progress?

Interesting that you feel as though they are attempting to make you admit somehow that they are superior.
You are all the time "defending" yourself from these alleged attempts.
How it is working for you?
Cause it seems that it is becoming an obsession.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

None are so blind as those who will not see. There are THOUSANDS, nay MILLIONS of witnesses who have been touched by God in the very same way as I have. How repeatable does it have to get? Yet you continue to tell me I am delusional.

How about it repeats the same way?
Your false claim is that it is "in the very same way as I have", yet that is not been shown.
In fact, each person seems to be touched in different ways.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

The bottom line is that you choose to not see while I have no problems seeing God.

Really?
Now you somehow "know" that they have never chosen to see God?
How is this?

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Pete

I have said all along that our positions are EQUAL. I am not sure why the atheists feel so threatened by this concept. It's not so much you have to justify your belief system to yourself as much as you must make me admit that somehow you are superior? Good luck with that. How's it working for you so far? Any progress?

I'm sorry if I come across as threatened. I don't feel threatened by that concept. I don't consider myself superior to you and don't wish for you to feel that way. I don't understand why you reply in the way that you do.

[Scuba Pete]

I am sorry... but I am being besieged by many sides here for answers. I have been trying to answer all arguments addressed to me and it appears to some that my doing so somehow borders on obsession. It's simply NOT working for me here.

I give up. Black is white.

Have a nice night.

If you have a specific question, please feel free to PM me... or not.

[Mestemia]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

I am sorry... but I am being besieged by many sides here for answers. I have been trying to answer all arguments addressed to me and it appears to some that my doing so somehow borders on obsession. It's simply NOT working for me here.

I give up. Black is white.

Have a nice night.

If you have a specific question, please feel free to PM me... or not.

Who the hell are you and what did you do with Pete?!

[rojse]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Learn to read. It's there and plenty of it.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

You might be able to take something for your delusions of grandeur here. You don't believe in God, and yet you can not prove he does not exist. Your conclusions are your faith, just as mine are. You are as much a prisoner of your faith as I am of mine. Yet BOTH of us are able to change when the evidence warrants it. We will see if you can change you stance on faith given this new information, or if it is indeed a BLIND faith.

Personal experience would be a good start, because there is a lot of reliance upon this here.

Either God exists or he does not. If he does not, then I am right, and the question need not be asked. If he does exist, then God does not want to contact me, or has not been able to so that I could appreciate that he was. Either way shows that he is not worthy of my attention, seeing as though he has apparently decided, and been able, to present himself to millions of religious people.

I have many logical arguments as to why God cannot exist. If you wish to discuss them, please start another thread or ask my by the internal mail system, because we are getting sidetracked from the question of the FSM.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

So, has any theist given us any indication of what it would take to make them believe? I will be GLAD to abandon God as soon as you can prove he does NOT exist. Go for it. Maybe you can join logician in that futile exercise?

You cannot prove something to someone who is not open to the idea that there is a possibility that they may be wrong, and the caveats that are always developed in theology when a new logical argument against God is developed are nothing short of amazing.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

It's all about you, isn't it.

Yes, but it is nice for this to be recognised by someone else.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Do you believe that we landed on the moon? Have you PERSONALLY examined the evidence?

Yes. There is a laser reflective array sited on the moon. This could not be there unless someone had actually set the system up there, and aligned it. I consider this item in itself to be a good argument for us landing on the moon. There is also an American Flag on the moon, too, and this is just as good evidence for a moon landing.

Add to that, there were many different countries monitoring America's space launch, and not just their allies, that may have helped monitor the launch, such as Australia. Russia, for example, would have benefited greatly by being able to prove that America did not launch a spacecraft, and had the equipment, the manpower, and the political will to do so.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Yeah, sure you have... how about John Wilkes Booth assassinating Lincoln? Have you INDEED examined the evidence PERSONALLY?

I would not pretend to know about the situation or care about it, because an assassination of a president in a different country, over one hundred years ago, holds little interest to me.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Yah, I didn't think so. So there are many, many things that you believe where you have NOT personally examined the evidence.

Only what I do not consider of interest to me. Anything else, I have indeed examined a plethora of evidence.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

So there you have some homework:

Read my posts again and identify that evidence. Read closely now.

You have not presented any proof or arguments against the idea of the FSM apart from a simple denial. That is not an argument. Please look over what RollingStone has posted, as he has actually made a good attempt to disprove the FSM on this thread. Please compare this to what you have not done.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Recognize faith in every one, including yourself.

I do not believe in things that I cannot support through facts or argument, so I do not see why you wish to compare your faith to my system of supported ideas. You believe in something that you cannot prove, except to yourself and anyone that agrees with you. If you ask for my opinion on a subject, I will tell you that I either do not know, or support my stance through facts, logic, or rational arguments.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Prove that God does not exist.

I have proved it to myself, and that is by far enough for me.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Learn the difference between evidence and proof.

Evidence of something is part of a proof. However, nothing can ever be conclusively proved, only proven until it is unreasonable to disbelieve.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

it appears that we are in the same boat. I cannot prove the existence of God to you, and you can not prove the non-existence of God to me. However, God has been revealed to me in many ways and for that I am grateful and rather saddened that you cannot see him as clearly.

Good post, SP, but I just wanted to comment on this one part. Proving and disproving something, IMO, puts you in different boats. HOWEVER, pointing out that non-belief carries with it implicit assertions does put you in the same boat. An atheistic point of view necessarily asserts that mechaninsm is the sufficient cause of consciousness. But this is not logical, as I am sure you will agree. Logically, something cannot emerge from something in which it is entirely absent. To say it did is an extraordinary assertion that demands extraordinary evidence--something no atheist in RF has even attempted to provide. For an atheist to demand evidence of God and not applying the same standard to themselves is...what..hypocracy or a double-standard?

[rojse]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Logically, something cannot emerge from something in which it is entirely absent.

If we are going to go into that one again, what about the assertation that God was always about? That seems even worse than something coming from nothing.

If you put another thread up for this, I'll debate with you there.