Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If you're God, belief isn't just important, it's essential.Which is important, God or belief?
Because otherwise you don't exist.Why?
that is Illogical. Why would believing self exist take precedence over knowing self exists. Belief is not knowing.If you're God, belief isn't just important, it's essential.
Because otherwise you don't exist.
I think belief is irrelevant, other than to the believer. (And nosey busybodies, it seems.)
"The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."that is Illogical. Why would believing self exist take precedence over knowing self exists. Belief is not knowing.
God. Belief is nothing. The devils also believe in God and are afraid. The thing that makes belief valuable is because God answers prayer.Which is important, God or belief?
Why?
God, because belief does not make God exist. God would still exist even if nobody believed He existed.Which is important, God or belief?
Why?
Because gods exist only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains. They are created and maintained by their followers, not vice versa.that is Illogical. Why would believing self exist take precedence over knowing self exists. Belief is not knowing.
Can you prove that? If not, it is just a belief.Because gods exist only as concepts / things imagined in individual brains.
He does?The thing that makes belief valuable is because God answers prayer.
Yes, I can demonstrate the correctness of my claim to the complete satisfaction of any impartial jury.Can you prove that? If not, it is just a belief.
Do you mean a jury comprised of atheists?Yes, I can demonstrate the correctness of my claim to the complete satisfaction of any impartial jury.
Or so I believe.
I wouldn't call atheists (who decided to be atheists) or theists impartial. Impartial would be igtheists, people who never before heard of the god concept. (Technical they would also be atheists in the colloquial definition but then there could never be an impartial judge.)Do you mean a jury comprised of atheists?
Can you prove that? If not, it is just a belief.God, because belief does not make God exist. God would still exist even if nobody believed He existed.
No, they would not be impartial. My point was that he could only convince a jury of atheists that God does not exist.I wouldn't call atheists (who decided to be atheists) or theists impartial. Impartial would be igtheists, people who never before heard of the god concept. (Technical they would also be atheists in the colloquial definition but then there could never be an impartial judge.)
So you think there are no impartial judges? You are either for me or against me, no neutral ground?No, they would not be impartial. My point was that he could only convince a jury of atheists that God does not exist.
Depends upon how you prep the bias of the jury.My point was that he could only convince a jury of atheists that God does not exist.
I never said God exists.Can you prove that? If not, it is just a belief.