Arguments for or against god

[SA Huguenot]

Newton also believed in alchemy.
That people have to reach so far back into
the mists of the increasingly deep past
to find a noted scientist to quote in
support of "god" is what the french
might call tres amusant.

Audie,
Please continue with the above statement and tell us that Newton discarded Alchemy because he found after a ling investigation that it does not conform to science.
You are always spot on with your statements, nou you went and destroyed our relationship.

 

[SA Huguenot]

"Proof enough" for the already-decided
dont take much.

And while you are on the pedistal of high al mighty snobism, pleaase change your sentence to ensure that we all know you are not one of those atheists who are "Already-decided".
I am sure you are without any bias, and will always listen with an open mind to what a Christian will tell you.
Sorry that I have to ask you to return to your pure representation I saw over the past weeks.
I know you only made a slight mistake.

 

[SA Huguenot]

As in the day I was strolling across campus
with another girl, and a nice autumn leaf
fluttered to our feet. She picked it up;
look she said, "Look it has three parts
God sent it to us as a symbol
of the Trinity!"

Yehaaaa.
I must congratulate you on this terrible attack that this stupid Christian woman threw at you.
It is amaizing that you had this high intelligence to quickly give her the counter attack you did so fluently without even thinking.
Nice going.

I had an Atheist telling me the exact same story a few years ago, and when he told me that, I asked him if he realy think this is what Christians think the Trinity is?
I then gave him the "Strawman punch", you know.... the one where I tell him he burned his made up a Strawman thinking he destroyed the Trinity!

He was a bit silent after this.

Audie, I know you are verry clever, and I would like you to prepare yourself on such a beating when a Christian asks you such a question.
I know you will have an answer ready for such a dumbwitted man such as I.
What will you tell him?
Just out of curiosity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Cannot prove" and "Wrong" are not equivalent.

The claim that the existence of gods cannot be proven implies that every single person who claims that their god is proven is wrong in that claim.

If we take it as given gods can't be proven or disproven, then any religious claim of a god revealing itself to humanity is necessarily false, because if it were true, it would serve as proof - at least to the recipients of the revelation - of the existence the god.

 

[SA Huguenot]

"Cannot prove" and "Wrong" are not equivalent.

Cannot prove...
I love your writing and your investigations where you went through all the evidence, statements etc, and made a conclusion on "It can not be proven".
I also love the way that you went through the same evidence, and concluded with "It can not be proven", and where you then concluded with the same evidence, "Wrong".
Or did you simply out of your highly intellect made a claim, "It is Wrong".

 

[SA Huguenot]

The claim that the existence of gods cannot be proven implies that every single person who claims that their god is proven is wrong in that claim.

If we take it as given gods can't be proven or disproven, then any religious claim of a god revealing itself to humanity is necessarily false, because if it were true, it would serve as proof - at least to the recipients of the revelation - of the existence the god.

True, but this is very simplistic indeed.
What would you take as evidence that God exists?

 

[SA Huguenot]

f we take it as given gods can't be proven or disproven, then any religious claim of a god revealing itself to humanity is necessarily false, because if it were true, it would serve as proof - at least to the recipients of the revelation - of the existence the god.

Ok, so if the God of the Bible say He made Man, He walked with Man, he met with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he took Moses as his friend, he lived amongst Israel, he lead david, He appeared to many, He came to earth as a man, died as a man, and rose from the dead and assended into heaven as God, you would still use your claim that God can not be proven, and if he appears to us it is a lie?

What would you take as evidence?
I have the Nebular Theory of Kant, science from Newton, all of which proves that what was written in the Bible was correct when it comes to Gravity, reflectoin of light, and the formation of the Solar system.
What would you take as evidence.
What????

 

[SA Huguenot]

I wonder why Audie signed out?

 

[Audie]

The claim that the existence of gods cannot be proven implies that every single person who claims that their god is proven is wrong in that claim.

If we take it as given gods can't be proven or disproven, then any religious claim of a god revealing itself to humanity is necessarily false, because if it were true, it would serve as proof - at least to the recipients of the revelation - of the existence the god.

Ah ok. They SAY "god" cannot be proven, but
nobody hasnt proved that nohow.

I doubt it but someone may have actually experienced
a real god.

 

[SA Huguenot]

I doubt it but someone may have actually experienced
a real god.

Do you have a problem if there were witnesses who wrote lets say, 4 affidavids, and who was eventually executed for what they saw firsthand and claimed they saw God and knew Him?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, so if the God of the Bible say He made Man, He walked with Man, he met with Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, he took Moses as his friend, he lived amongst Israel, he lead david, He appeared to many, He came to earth as a man, died as a man, and rose from the dead and assended into heaven as God, you would still use your claim that God can not be proven, and if he appears to us it is a lie?

What would you take as evidence?
I have the Nebular Theory of Kant, science from Newton, all of which proves that what was written in the Bible was correct when it comes to Gravity, reflectoin of light, and the formation of the Solar system.
What would you take as evidence.
What????

I think you have seriously misunderstood my position.

 

[SA Huguenot]

The claim that the existence of gods cannot be proven implies that every single person who claims that their god is proven is wrong in that claim.

Lets take it from here.
Christians do claim that God can be proven.
Never did they claim otherwise.
They said since 33AD that God walked this earth as a man.
I would suggest your claim can be made against all religions, except Christianity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you have a problem if there were witnesses who wrote lets say, 4 affidavids, and who was eventually executed for what they saw firsthand and claimed they saw God and knew Him?

That's quite an "if."

Offhand, without something more, I wouldn't see any reason to consider that testimony of four witnesses to be any more reliable than testimony from eight witnesses:

Eight Witnesses - Wikipedia

...and that's even granted that for the Eight Witnesses, I believe that they - eight identifiable individuals - really did attest this.

Assuming from your username that you're a Protestant and not a Mormon (and that you're talking about the claims of the Gospels): why should we consider your testimony of four witnesses from 2000 years ago to be more reliable than the testimony of eight witnesses from much more recent history?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lets take it from here.
Christians do claim that God can be proven.
Never did they claim otherwise.
They said since 33AD that God walked this earth as a man.
I would suggest your claim can be made against all religions, except Christianity.

Your failure to read my posts well enough to understand what I'm actually saying continues to astound me.

 

[Audie]

That's quite an "if."

Offhand, without something more, I wouldn't see any reason to consider that testimony of four witnesses to be any more reliable than testimony from eight witnesses:

Eight Witnesses - Wikipedia

...and that's even granted that for the Eight Witnesses, I believe that they - eight identifiable individuals - really did attest this.

Assuming from your username that you're a Protestant and not a Mormon (and that you're talking about the claims of the Gospels): why should we consider your testimony of four witnesses from 2000 years ago to be more reliable than the testimony of eight witnesses from much more recent history?

The witnesses to the BOM swore before God
and signed their names.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The witnesses to the BOM swore before God
and signed their names.

Right. And I still don't accept that the Book of Mormon describes the truth.

Since it seems that @SA Huguenot also doesn't accept this, I wonder why he feels that a lower standard of testimony should be more compelling.

 

[Trailblazer]

We Never Know said: A god cannot be proven or disprove.

So every single person who's ever said - or will ever say - "I know my god exists and here's how!" (or "your god doesn't exist and here's how I know") is necessarily wrong?

The knowledge claims of every religion and believer about its deities are all baseless?

How did you manage the clairvoyance and precognition to know all this? Personally, I have to have at least heard a claim before I can say that the claim is true or false.

Given that We Never Know said: As an atheist I go with its unknown I think he meant that it cannot be proven that God exists as a FACT that everyone would recognize, thus it cannot be known to everyone.

So people like me who say "I know that God exists" are just speaking from certitude of what they consider to be the reality, even though it cannot be proven as a fact.

The upshot is that individuals can prove to themselves that God exists but that proof is only useful for them since it cannot be proven to others.

That said, if I was trying to convince other people that God exists, I could try to prove it to them, but at the end of the day it would be their decision as to whether my proof was good enough for them to believe that God exists.

It is kind of like my husband. He thought that the new microwave was malfunctioning because of something I was doing differently than what he was doing when he operated it because the malfunction did not occur when he operated it.

He would not believe me when I told him that I was doing exactly what he was doing and yet the same result occurred. So I told him to operate it next time we needed food and do exactly what I had done, and when he did that, the malfunction occurred just as it had happened to me.

That was the only way he was going to believe it was not just something I was doing differently from him, he had to experience that for himself. Now we both know this microwave is just defective and it is nothing we are doing wrong. It is the second microwave he have purchased in the last week, same brand, so this is really odd. It must be something went wrong at the factory. After the time that is set comes to an end and it beeps five times, the microwave just keeps running and it won't shut off unless we unplug it. That does not happen all the time, only when it is set for 10 minutes or longer.... weird.

So belief is like that. People have to experience it for themselves before they are going to believe it. Someone else's experience will not suffice. I hope that makes sense.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Given that We Never Know said: As an atheist I go with its unknown I think he meant that it cannot be proven that God exists as a FACT that everyone would recognize, thus it cannot be known to everyone.

I'm sure that @We Never Know is more than capable of explaining their own position.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm sure that @We Never Know is more than capable of explaining their own position.

I am sure he is.
I should have said "This is how I relate to what he said."
My bad.

 

[SA Huguenot]

That's quite an "if."

Offhand, without something more, I wouldn't see any reason to consider that testimony of four witnesses to be any more reliable than testimony from eight witnesses:

Eight Witnesses - Wikipedia

...and that's even granted that for the Eight Witnesses, I believe that they - eight identifiable individuals - really did attest this.

Assuming from your username that you're a Protestant and not a Mormon (and that you're talking about the claims of the Gospels): why should we consider your testimony of four witnesses from 2000 years ago to be more reliable than the testimony of eight witnesses from much more recent history?

And these 8 did not give their lives under torture as did the Apostles my friend.
Why would you even use this as an argument?
You claim you are an Atheist, but I bet you if say Islam sharia law takes over in your counry and you are threatened with execution for being an Atheist, you will be the first to call out the Shahadah.
The Apostles, from Stephanus to John, and their students such as Polycarp, were burnes on the stake, fed to wild animals, boilled in oill, crucified, and they just continued to insist that Jesus was God, He was here on Earth, and their lives means nothing, because they knew what they saw and experienced.

I bet you now you will post some of these wacko prophets who killed their followers such as Jim Jones, david Koresh, Applegate, Kitivirmire and so on.

It is fine for you to deny everything about the Apostles, Jesus and the disciples.
You may even make this whole event out as a hoax.
But, I took all the evidence and could not come to your conclusion.
As a matter of fact, to burn your own Strawman doesnt mean you destroyed the Bible.