Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?

[TagliatelliMonster]

God died for everyone. What could be more loving?

Simply being forgiving and acknowledging that it all going down the pooper was his own responsibility, and not demanding a human sacrifice (of himself to himself) to do so.


Also, let's be serious here... he didn't die. Immortal beings don't die.
If anything, it was simply a big show-off.

 

[QuestioningMind]

this is not how the concept of evidence works.
They claim evidence for gravitation.
Yet they do not know everything, either, as you stated.


There is the concept of Ockham's Razor.

@Valjean. I don't have a problem if the FSM existed, also. Besides God. So I don't care here. I'm talking here about evidence for the existence of a loving creator force behind, regardless of potential FSMs that may also exist.

@Valjean. I don't have a problem if the FSM existed, also. Besides God. So I don't care here. I'm talking here about evidence for the existence of a loving creator force behind, regardless of potential FSMs that may also exist.

And I'm pointing out that if human's tendency to find beauty in nature could POSSIBLY be the result of a loving creator force and it could also POSSIBLY be the FSM, or it could POSSIBLY simply be the result of natural evolution then the fact that human's find beauty in nature is NOT evidence for a loving creator force. All we can say for certain is that humans DO have a tendency to find beauty in nature, but since there are numerous different possible explanations for it, we simply don't know the reason why at this point in time.

Thus, I have still not been presented with sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in any creator god.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Jesus ressurecting and his soul living forever doesn't take away from him dying for us.

Except that it does.

If my wife "died" knowing she'ld be back 3 days later, I wouldn't be mourning.
At most, I'ld miss her for 3 days - although I'ld welcome the rest.

 

[thomas t]

@Valjean. I don't have a problem if the FSM existed, also. Besides God. So I don't care here. I'm talking here about evidence for the existence of a loving creator force behind, regardless of potential FSMs that may also exist.

And I'm pointing out that if human's tendency to find beauty in nature could POSSIBLY be the result of a loving creator force and it could also POSSIBLY be the FSM, or it could POSSIBLY simply be the result of natural evolution then the fact that human's find beauty in nature is NOT evidence for a loving creator force. All we can say for certain is that humans DO have a tendency to find beauty in nature, but since there are numerous different possible explanations for it, we simply don't know the reason why at this point in time.

Thus, I have still not been presented with sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in any creator god.

as I said: there is the principle of parsimony which allows for a loving creator God.... but not for evolution to explain why we see the depicted countryside as something beautiful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

as I said: there is the principle of parsimony which allows for a loving creator God.... but not for evolution to explain why we see the depicted countryside as something beautiful.

Oh my, so wrong. This was explained to you. Naughty, naughty.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except that it does.

If my wife "died" knowing she'ld be back 3 days later, I wouldn't be mourning.
At most, I'ld miss her for 3 days - although I'ld welcome the rest.

And if it was only a day and a half would you correct her at cocktail parties when she remembered wrong?

 

[Polymath257]

Click languages are not arbitrary, they exist within the parameters of the laws of nature.

But the meaning of the clicks is arbitrary: it is NOT decided by nature.

Yes, the physics of sound is part of nature. But *language* is a human convention.

 

[Skywalker]

But the meaning of the clicks is arbitrary: it is NOT decided by nature.

Yes, the physics of sound is part of nature. But *language* is a human convention.

We come up with using the clicks because they already have an existing meaning that exists within natural laws.

 

[Skywalker]

Except that it does.

If my wife "died" knowing she'ld be back 3 days later, I wouldn't be mourning.
At most, I'ld miss her for 3 days - although I'ld welcome the rest.

Since most people didn't know Jesus when he walked the earth, the self sacrifice wasn't in us missing Jesus but in him suffering on the cross.

 

[Polymath257]

We come up with using the clicks because they already have an existing meaning that exists within natural laws.

Huh?

No, they do not. That is the point. The sounds of the word 'cat' have no connection to the animal at all *except* for our conventions. There is nothing about the sound and the animal that are necessarily connected. That is why different languages use different sounds for the same thing: 'gato', 'chat', 'katze', 'mao'.

 

[Skywalker]

Simply being forgiving and acknowledging that it all going down the pooper was his own responsibility, and not demanding a human sacrifice (of himself to himself) to do so.


Also, let's be serious here... he didn't die. Immortal beings don't die.
If anything, it was simply a big show-off.

Can a judge simply forgive someone who committed a crime? God creating laws doesn't mean that the situation of us deserving judgement is God's responsibility. A judge is not responsible for someone getting in trouble just because they enforce laws. The same applies to the lawmakers who made the laws.

If a judge or lawyer offered to take the punishment of a criminal it would spare the criminal and also satisfy the law's demands of justice.

God could become a mortal being if he wanted to.

 

[Polymath257]

Can a judge simply forgive someone who committed a crime? God creating laws doesn't mean that the situation of us deserving judgement is God's responsibility. A judge is not responsible for someone getting in trouble just because they enforce laws. The same applies to the lawmakers who made the laws.

If a judge or lawyer offered to take the punishment of a criminal it would spare the criminal and also satisfy the law's demands of justice.

God could become a mortal being if he wanted to.

And judges usually are not the ones that make the laws in the first place. Nor do they usually have the power to change those laws whenever they want.

A rather big difference, don't you think?

 

[janesix]

All that you have are thousands of things that you do not understand. This is why your argument is called "The God of the Gaps". Your God keeps getting smaller as the gaps are continually explained. Not understanding a concept is not evidence for a concept.

I do understand them. They are design in canonical numbers and geometry.

 

[Skywalker]

But physics 'creates' all the time, and we use it everyday. The polyester in your shirt, the photovoltaic electricity running your computer, frying an egg, your car's engine, the weather, diamonds, floating helium balloons -- all physics.
God is magic because, unlike physics or chemistry, he creates without mechanism. You credit him with all sorts of effects, but ignore the fact that these effects are explainable without magic.

The polyester in our shirts is a side effect of people making those shirts. God doesn't create without mechanism. God said let there be light.

 

[Skywalker]

And judges usually are not the ones that make the laws in the first place. Nor do they usually have the power to change those laws whenever they want.
A rather big difference, don't you think?

Neither is a lawyer one who makes laws in the first place but if a lawyer took the place of their defendant, it wouldn't diminish the value of what they did.

King Nebuchadnezzar in the Bible couldn't just change laws at whim because even kings have limitations.

 

[janesix]

Why not? And what "Darwinian garbage" are you talking about? Are there any specifics you have a problem with?
Do really believe organisms magically popping out of the dust fully formed Is more reasonable than the mechanisms of evolution.

Still believe?! More evidence emerges every day. There are whole libraries of it.
It's the foundation of all biology. It's commonsense, it's observable, it's predictive, people have been using selective breeding for millennia. Without evolution nothing in biology makes any sense.

And Darwin, by the way, knew practically nothing. Modern biology has advanced way beyond anything he ever dreamed of.

It's very possible organisms can arrive fully formed. Think cymatics. The most I will allow for in evolution is orthogenesis. I haven't decided yet. I do know that NEODarwinian evolution is complete bs. Impossible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do understand them. They are design in canonical numbers and geometry.

That is mere word salad. Let's see you explain them if you understand them. I think that you are merely grabbing some terms that sound impressive to you. But go ahead and support your claims. You might start with what the phrase "canonical numbers" means.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's very possible organisms can arrive fully formed. Think cymatics. The most I will allow for in evolution is orthogenesis. I haven't decided yet. I do know that NEODarwinian evolution is complete bs. Impossible.

Another nonsensical term is "fully formed". It is meaningless since all life is "fully formed" including transitional forms.

Let's try not to use garbage terms in a debate.

 

[janesix]

Maybe, but where is the evidence of this God? Why would we even consider the possibility if it all could have happened in the way we see things happening everyday, by the laws of chemistry and physics. Doesn't that seem more likely than an undetectable magician?

The evidence is the design itself. It is easy to see the patterns, at least the surface level patterns, once you see the very basics. Then everything begins to fall into place. I am not surprised that most people do not see them. It is often necessary, even with the smartest of us, to be shown or taught.

 

[Skywalker]

Huh?

No, they do not. That is the point. The sounds of the word 'cat' have no connection to the animal at all *except* for our conventions. There is nothing about the sound and the animal that are necessarily connected. That is why different languages use different sounds for the same thing: 'gato', 'chat', 'katze', 'mao'.

The combination of all the circumstances involving that word give it a connection to the animal.