I don't see how God could plausibly exist (Christian definition of God)

[Nicodemus]

Droll, isn't it?

 

[Lark]

I bet a million lives that you merely labeled your experience 'god'; for it did not divulge its godness clearly to you (thus it cannot be 'aptly described'), so that through a lack of other explanations you reached for the easiest one: god, religion, tradition.

The reality that people exaggerate what they consider to be divine intervention or prescence doesnt mean that every attribution of experience to the same is false.

 

[Tamske]

I've changed the order of your quotes because I'd like to answer this one first.

Athiesm has a hubris to it that has always ran a chill down my spine.

True, but so has theism. I would like a god. I actually need a god. I would love it if there is some powerful being behind this whole wonderful universe. And I would prefer a god who cares about me (despite me being only a human), who only asks to follow some simple rules and who makes me feel welcome in this world.
I would really love all that.
But just wishing doesn't make it true. That's the problem. The gods are too much what we would like them to be. More specifically, they are what the (human) boss wants them to be. Isn't it some hubris too, to assume there is a powerful being who is friendly to you, just because it makes you feel better and more secure? Existence is a very fundamental property and I assume the existence of a god doesn't depend on my belief or my wishes.

I have experienced God in a way that forced me to concede his/her existence.

Please tell me about it? Especially if (like your wording suggests) you didn't believe in God before?

 

[Nicodemus]

The reality that people exaggerate what they consider to be divine intervention or prescence doesnt mean that every attribution of experience to the same is false.

Of course not. It simply means that it is a highly dubious kind of 'proof'.

 

[Tamske]

I don't think this analogy is apt, because no one really cares if there is a teapot between Mars and Jupiter. However almost everyone cares about whether or not God exists. The question "Does God really exist" is more like the question, "Does love really exist". I can tell you it does, but I can't really prove it. All I can say is if you sincerely look for it then you will find it eventually.

I can prove love exists. It's coded by chemicals in our blood.
Of course the existence of God is more important than the existence of that stupid teapot. After all, no wars are fought in the name of the teapot. But existence doesn't depend on importance of the question. The reasoning is the same. We haven't observed a god.
And the people who claim they have: please tell me how to do it. I'd like to meet the god too!

 

[Lark]

Of course not. It simply means that it is a highly dubious kind of 'proof'.

For the individual involved I would not consider that so.

In these sorts of matters if you believe already you dont need evidence, if you dont believe then no sort of evidence will suffice.

 

[Lark]

I can prove love exists. It's coded by chemicals in our blood.
Of course the existence of God is more important than the existence of that stupid teapot. After all, no wars are fought in the name of the teapot. But existence doesn't depend on importance of the question. The reasoning is the same. We haven't observed a god.
And the people who claim they have: please tell me how to do it. I'd like to meet the god too!

If you want to investigate apparitions and miracles there's a lot of material out there, massed congregations in rome saw the sun dance in the sky once and I think there's video footage of that, the sun did not move in the sky but everyone present made similar testamonies and I suppose you could suggest that it was a result of mass hallucination but that does that kind of thing happen any longer?

 

[Nicodemus]

For the individual involved I would not consider that so.

But I would.

In these sorts of matters if you believe already you dont need evidence, if you dont believe then no sort of evidence will suffice.

If there is a god, he can prove his existence. If there is none, we go on as usual - believing, hoping, guessing, inventing.

 

[BlueScreen]

Athiesm has a hubris to it that has always ran a chill down my spine.

I meant atheism in the sense of not having a belief in God, as opposed to strongly believing in no God. Agnostic would probably have been the correct term, but I'm an agnostic who leans toward the not believing side if I had to guess the unknowable.

I find absolute rejection of God's existence to be drawing conclusions that can't be drawn. It takes as much faith in the unknown as religion.

 

[Lark]

But I would.


If there is a god, he can prove his existence. If there is none, we go on as usual - believing, hoping, guessing, inventing.

Why would he need to prove his existence? Any more than Japan needs to prove its existence or quantum physics, its like any knowledge or experience, its possible to live without it, life could even be easier depending on our personality and needs but you could do it.

 

[Nicodemus]

Why would he leave his book behind, then?

 

[Oberon]

Athiesm has a hubris to it that has always ran a chill down my spine.

...borne witness by the willingness to 'bet a million lives.' I believe he would, if he could.

 

[Lark]

Why would he leave his book behind, then?

The book thing, there's lots of books written by people about spirituality, its part of the lexicon, Jesus himself didnt instruct any books be written or seek to leave one as a lasting legacy, the only thing he left was the Church in the shape of the 12 disciples but it was mainly to tell people they could stop living in fear of God.

 

[Nicodemus]

The book thing, there's lots of books written by people about spirituality, its part of the lexicon, Jesus himself didnt instruct any books be written or seek to leave one as a lasting legacy, the only thing he left was the Church in the shape of the 12 disciples but it was mainly to tell people they could stop living in fear of God.

So the holy ghost did not instruct those men to write their respective parts of the bible?

 

[EcK]

I meant atheism in the sense of not having a belief in God, as opposed to strongly believing in no God. Agnostic would probably have been the correct term, but I'm an agnostic who leans toward the not believing side if I had to guess the unknowable.

I find absolute rejection of God's existence to be drawing conclusions that can't be drawn. It takes as much faith in the unknown as religion.

It is a fine line separating accepting the unknown as such and claiming that the unknown is proof or relative likelihood of the existence of an antropocentered daddy who loves you yet kills people in the sky.
What were all the rational people thinking?!

The issue is the same drives that make people attached to feel-good-memes also lead other simplified and extremely polarized statements to succeed where the more obvious middle ground or complex alternatives are mostly ignored.
Which, creating problems to compute about strong (and generally internalised=emotional attachement) beliefs/positions, polarize information exchange on the edges of the phase space, just feeds the wheel of unprovable and too extreme to be ever tested ideas on how the world is. Wether in sociology, theology or in playgrounds..

 

[Lark]

So the holy ghost did not instruct those men to write their respective parts of the bible?

Think you're just trolling now. Bye.

 

[Nicodemus]

Think you're just trolling now. Bye.

I think you are running away.

 

[IZthe411]

If God is enacting change and we simply don't notice it than I challenge people to pay closer attention and find these changes. God is thus provable and people can not use the argument that it is not.

!!!!!

 

[IZthe411]

I bet a million lives that you merely labeled your experience 'god'; for it did not divulge its godness clearly to you (thus it cannot be 'aptly described'), so that through a lack of other explanations you reached for the easiest one: god, religion, tradition.

Maybe it's clear to him that it was....if it was, then he's right. But why would he be wrong?

 

[EcK]

Hint: Some of you don't have the first idea what logic and data acquisition\definition is about.