Blatant ignorance never leads to anything. This discussion ends in a stalemate.
- H is not hinting ignorance or anything. Again, you said something without backing it up.
When I see a post full of "BS" statements, I classify it as ignorance.
As a defense mechanism?
I'm speaking of God thus indeed referring to the Bible,
Which cannot yet be proved, or you have not proved it. Speak on our level (logic, reason, proof) if you want to convince us of anything.
and since the context is not shared, this means I am being ignored.
Put this into context:
I'm being told / asked / w/e to believe in God otherwise I will burn in hell. I know little of God or how he influences everyone and as far as I am concerned, I've done NOTHING wrong. Why should I believe him? He has some good morals, sure, but I have already developed my own and I disagree with his. Why should I sacrifice the essence of my personality for something that hasn't been backed up as true?
Ok... well what do you have to say to this. There is proof dismissing a god and any sort of deity. and there is no proof that god exists.
Even saying that isn't good enough. That just shows he is ignorant to logic which is, undoubtedly better than faith.
Evolution and countless scientific observations dismiss god I'm sure you have heard them plenty on the forums and I wont go into detail.
I hope he hasn't, because that means we're just recycling.
Nothing has ever happened that has ever proved a deity. Prayers are NEVER answered, I don't see Satan tricking anyone in any animal forms EVER nor do i EVER hear about it. God was all sorts of active back in the day but all of a sudden he dissapears? What is the evidence that proves a deity exists? There is none
Well, erm, apparently, he helps vesperbot get the courage to speak up against these advocates of Satan, yes, yes, that is indeed logical.
Thats because he can't. The argument that God is above logic only exists because some people understand neither logic or God, then claim God must be above logic.
I think they're just stuck in their ways and rely on God to back them up, y'know, because he's all powerful and such.
That is rather pathetic, being unable to rely on yourself for what makes a core part of your life, by the way.
God is above binary logic only because He doesn't exist!
True, fiction doesn't always need logic.
WHERE?! Science does not dismiss God, and any time I ask anyone for such a proof that one dodges the direct answer with "burden of proof". So I have never received anything that can be even close to proof of God nonexisting.
Well, how about you stick to your words and provide evidence that God does exist. Personal beliefs, Biblical references, and stories you have heard from other people do not count, since there have been extreme happenings of some pretty annoying stuff happening.
Also you show a huge amount of hypocricy, you dodge many of my questions. Typical? From my perspective, yes.
LOL. Especially about prayer. Atheists just dismiss personal evidence of people who claim their prayers have been answered, and then you form such a statement.
Why should we? It could be chance, it could be a friend, it could be anything. It is not solid evidence and should not be considered so. I heard stories of my friends seeing ghosts of their relatives. I don't question it, but I don't believe them entirely either. It could be ANYTHING. I'd prefer believe it is an alien essence that influences the human brain to hallucinating, before I believe it is the spirit of someone. Why? Because I know how the brain works, mostly, and I can see how the brain is literally your personality.
it's so freaking childish I just want to rip my hair out when you say things like this.
Too true. It is incredibly annoying to see his hypocritical complaints...
and open minded to new ideas (homosexuality amongst other things) and accepted them instead of claiming "evil"
That is the way of arguing. Vesperbot clearly shows that he is undoubtedly sticking with his religion, and for that I hate him since he is delving in an argument, probably hoping to "convert" someone, and yet he would not attempt to do the same. I am staying open to his "logic", and yet I see none, and thus I get ripped on for it. Yet, we can provide many things - articles, scientific theories, other proven scientific theories that back us up, conflicting ideas and etc and yet he appears to not care about them.
They're evil, or something, I guess.
I know I have not given you sufficent evidence disproving god but come on guy... seriously... can you think logically for just a second and see the logic in my statements? Try REALLY REALLY hard. You believe in ghosts. How am I supposed to respect that? I think it's safe to say you can disprove something if you cant prove it ever existing. Like unicorns and and flying spaghetti monsters. Just think logically for a second!
This argument is open to abuse. He can easily say "I've thought about it and the bla bla bla seems right to me". Why?
He'll go to hell, of course.
I don't think that you can really prove that I can think (but if you did I would be quite impressed).
Err. I can't prove it but there are stories I've heard about people thinking about specific things when unable to control themselves physically in order to communicate... I am not sure how accurate this information is but I can see how it could happen, really speaking. I know psychological thoughts interact physically with the body, not always, but often it can.
this thread is really making me mad I'm sorry if i offended.... lol...
Dunno why you should be sorry. Right now logical reasoning really doesn't seem to work and thus a more direct approach may actually work.
God is not a "thing", as a "thing" is a creation
To you, maybe. A thing is anything. God is related to anything, because he is anything.
but provides no exact method about how it was done, and what time passed during this creation.
1 day to make the earth
1 day to make the sky
1 day to make the sea
1 day to make animals
1 day to make the land
1 day to make the humans
1 day to make the plants
Something like that.
7 Days, precisely.
Yes, you have the right to ignore this evidence, but you don't have the logical ground to deny them happening because you count them as silly. Some of them might not happen in fact, someone said "coincidences happen" with a vid, but no one can state that all of them are just coincidences. Let's take Fatima's miracle in terms of sheer probability, there are 30k to 70k witnesses with consonant evidence of the dancing sun. Even if you will give a 1/2 probability for one person to see a selected vision, and give 1/2 as a correction factor because of them being close and sharing visions, we're still talking about 1/2^15000 probability at its most for this coincidence to happen. The chance of a meteorite striking a selected human within 10 seconds after him reading this is deemed "highly improbable". Let's try to derive this chance. The smallest odds of this is 1.82e14 to 1 per lifetime, from here, making the probability to be 5.5e-15. Taking 70 years as a lifetime, that's 2.207e9 seconds, the chance to be hit in the next 10 seconds is lowered by 2.207e8, making 2.49e-23. 1/2^15000 is 3.55e-4516, a WHOLE LOT lower than the calculated value. Think about this.
Er.. Can you try and cut out the numbers like that?
A "1 in a ?!?!?!" would be better and I honestly do not want to follow and focus on that too much.
Also, they probably are all coincidences. People who don't repent for their sins go to hell, correct? So what about the people who've never heard the name Jesus, the word creation or the meaning of faith?
They will go to hell, with no fairness involved, whatsoever.
And I doubt they will believe it anyway: "Oh hey, God has your back despite letting you suffer for 17 years, you know, if you be good despite this unfairness he may stop you at the train of eternal punishment."
I understand your point. However, Einfach is right here, if one can't prove something there is still a nonzero chance of it existing. I can state that there IS a flying spaghetti monster somewhere like 1.0e7-1.0e10 light years away from here. I can't prove this statement, but given a VERY WIDE area of universe within these limits, with current assumption for chances of life-supporting planets to exist around stars of a given class, and other assumptions that science has about life existing in the universe, there is a pretty big chance of such a creature existing within the given limits. (Under "retty big" I mean values around 1e-7 and higher) Note that I haven't yet set its size or classification of "spaghetti" - a mere medusa can comply with such a definition. After all, a medusa flies in its natural condition, if viewed from its perspective.
First thing. You say this, yes. But I think the point is what seems the most logical? Evolution has proof, logic and reason backing it up. Religion is based on faith and pretty much entirely faith. Of course, God might exist, but I refuse to believe in him based on these small things I've heard compared to the conflicting definitions of many Scientific Theories. Therefore I choose to believe in this.
Doesn't that sound logical?
- H
