You too, Elemental!
Thank y'all so very much.
You too, Elemental!
Thank y'all so very much.
It's funny how theists want to grant all sorts of exceptions to their own god. Is your god not a real entity? If your god is real then s/he/it (sorry, I dont know which flavour of skydaddy you prefer) must increase the complexity of the universe. Any argument that your god is not part of the universe/time is mere special pleading.
Please explain just what it is that I have applied to others that I have exempted God from. Frankly, it is commonly understood that a creator (of art, literature, machines, etc.) generally do NOT exist as part of their creation. It is possible that a creator can become part of his/her creation by adding a piece of themselves, hair, to the object; or by physically participating in live art.
At what point did I claim that I know the mechanism of abiogenesis?
Perhaps you could point out where I stated that I know something unproven to every other scientist on the planet?
My point exactly. If it is so simple, why haven’t they found it? In fact, scientists know that it is impossible. The conditions that create the basis for life, from a purely materialistic viewpoint, would immediately destroy it. There is no way around it no matter how much they search.
I was, to clarify, merely pointing out that a naturalist view is a much simpler explanation of the universe than the theist view that has to explain the exact same universe but with the addition of supernatural entities rather than me claiming exclusive knowledge of some new theory of abiogenesis.
I was, to clarify, merely pointing out that the naturalist view is extremely complex, at best.
So you guys can argue about whether God exists or not...the rest of us are heading to the pub...
And the winner is...
First round's on me...
This one is for Elemental, and will also represent my last posts on this thread, which I hope will limp to a merciful death before too long... Suffice to say, being entrenched into a vein of thinking means arguments will occur. No one believes they are wrong, but the reasons given have to be weighed as to their veracity.
I am not an atheist. I am an atheist sympathizer. For theists, Christian theists especially, to insist that they are "The Truth" is to ignore a wide variety of evidence and viewpoints in the world. It isn't my intent to insult anyone's faith. For that matter, I respect very much any theist who says "My faith grounds me and means a lot to me. I can't prove everything I believe. So I will not insist that my views are totally 100% accurate or representative of others. But I disagree that there is no god, and that is good enough for me..." I respect that WAY more then the attempts I have seen in this thread by Perry to shift the burden of proof to atheists....
Having said that, this is for Elemental..... Anything in black is a paste from Elemental's quoting me and the italicized response....
I do allow for the possibility of god, and even your god, Perry. At best, it is just a possibility. I am still waiting for that return call.
Tell why do you think that he would come to you if you do not want him? You claim that you do not believe in him and yet expect that he is going to somehow give you a return call. If you took that view with me I would not respond to you either.Most athiests are not exactly respectful when it comes to talking about God and then find it odd that that he never came to them. Once again contradictive thinking.
I will leave your answer up in italics for any reader to see. I don't think I have been disrespectful in my discourse about the possibility of Bible-god existing. And for that matter, I would very much like "god" to exist as he has been described by so many religions. I welcome that! All I want is a little evidence of his existence. But we will cover that in another of your responses....
These arguments are always stimulating to a certain point, as I think it good to revist what I believe and I why I believe. (or do not believe as the case may be.)
If atheists are guilty of anything, they are guilty of rejecting Jesus, YHWH, Allah, the Pope, and the like into the same group. They all fall in the same category.
And yet athiests do not? Exactly when did you become an expert into what people believe? If you do not wish to be categorized do not do it to others.
Atheists do not what? I think you misread my statement, or at least the intent. I will attempt to clarify what I meant here. It is absolutely appropriate to categorize. No one is accusing you of being a Muslim, because that would be an inaccurate category.
My intent here was to simply point out that there is no superior argument and evidence for any theistic tradition. Whether the major god be YHWH, Jesus or Allah, the same standard of evidence applies to all. And all (none) of the aforementioned gods have "shown up". Not only are you "competing" against atheists, you are competing against these other religions. An advocate of Islam would no doubt go to great lengths to show the superiority of his religion and god. And then you would do the same. And then I would compare that against what evidence?
At some point, the eternal god needs to clarify who he is, not relying on you or anyone else. I think that very fair, considering how many "gods" their adherants claim primacy for.....
And yet you reject this evidence whenever it is presented to you; the Bible. Contrary what athiests assume I have found that the history for Christianity is very well founded. There are hundreds of years of texts that point the the existiance of Jesus and the resurrection as well as the account of Noah's Ark, the flood, Moses, and others (inside and outside of the Bible.)
But athiests deny all of this as myth despite the fact that if it were any other event in history there would be no doubt whatsoever. They come to me and explain that Jesus was a myth despite the fact that so much is written about the man that if he is myth then figures such as Alexander the Great are not even in the running.
The point is this, if someone came to me with historical evidence and I claimed it was all myth I could disprove anything too.
The bible is a collection of stories. It isn't evidence. How about a parallell to amplify my point? Did George Washington cut down the cherry tree? No. But that story gets passed around as fact. In another 200 years, who knows how many legs this story will grow.
My point is, miracles, whether they occurred or not, cannot be verified today. Your Christian miracles are exactly the same as miracles found in the Koran. How could they possibly be different? Insisting that your miracles did happen doesn't mean they did... Historical evidence has the virtue of being recognizable by a lack of embellishment. The bible does not pass this test with flying colors....
Btw, Alexander the Great was never accussed of healing the sick or feeding thousands with a few loaves. What miracles are accredited to him??
As for the historicity of Jesus, count me as one who believes the man walked the earth, and was a great leader and wise moralist. But he was not a god as far as I am concerned, and there is no evidence of this. Only the writings of his followers, the oldest manuscripts of which are several hundred years removed from when he supposedly was around. That isn't evidence, thats a story. A very embellished story.
To put a finer point on this Perry, I know for a fact that you exist. I have had online debates with you, I know your views. You have taken the time to respond to me. But your god has not. He has not made himself known to billions of people around the world. This is why atheists exist. While you suggest they don't look at the evidence, it is clear that they only look at the evidence.
And would you be able to prove his existance to anyone a hundred years from now? Who would be able to prove by your writings that he existed? Yet that is exactly what you tell me to do with the Apostles. Take your word, one who was born thousands of years after the Apostles were on the scene and take your view over theirs. Explain to me the logic behind that reasoning.
Hmmm. With all respect, I doubt anyone will be attempting to worship Perry in 100 years. So that point is moot. Why we are even having this discussion is that dead people are being worshipped by those who insist that he is alive, based on ancient scrolls close to 2000 years old. And you have a problem with my logic?
Existence of a dead person is not at issue. It is the theists who insist these dead people are alive. Is Jesus alive because "he lives in your heart?" If the answer is yes for you, even you would have to acknowledge that this isn't the case with everyone... Which means they are going to be destroyed or something...... If not, then it doesn't matter....
Once again ignoring evidence when it suits your purpose...
Again and again the Bible shows witness testemony and interaction with this God but you reject it as myth DESPITE of consistant information given over the centuries. You reject the idea that Christains have Christ living in them (something that I feel as well) and the overwhelming evidence of the complexity of life and still you say there is no evidence.Once again proving my point athiests are the ones that are contradictive.I just love that you know that all the Christians are liars when they say this and it must be all delusional becuase YOU say it is.
Perhaps the issue is not that there is no God. Perhaps he simply has not come to YOU.
Yeah, the bible has all sorts of things in it. Should I believe it because it says to? No.
I don't reject anything if you tell me that "Christ" is living inside you. Ok? Feel free to say and believe that, as it is your conviction. It is none of my business who lives inside you anyway. And I don't call Christians liars. Believing in a personal god is just that, personal. But don't insist that scientific observations support your beliefs. That is not true.
Complexity of observable life and power is not indicative of personality. I have read the bible 20 times. Which might be 19 too many, but with all respect to you, it isn't your personal beliefs at issue, it is your (and Perry) insisting that your personal beliefs should be adopted by everyone I have an issue with.
Every time I ask a theist on this board why god needs them to do her talking for her, they then totally switch gears into the great mystery and what we don't know about god....
I couldn't agree more. It is a great mystery, and if god exists, there is a ton we don't know. To insist otherwise, well, you can fill in the blanks.
Ah, the favored tactic of the ex-JW community... insult a group that you don't agree with by trying to liken them to the JW's. Weak Perry, very weak.