Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now we are talking.
The guy with urine stains on his garment or the street beggar who wanted to buy alcohol, didn’t meet your preconceived concept of God.
The oracle you used here is the “method of comparison”.
You compared the guy with the urine stain on his garments and the street beggar, with what you may vaguely think what God looks like or at least what God does not look like, and you arrived at a conclusion.
So this oracle of comparison helped you in dismissing those two men.
And it seems like you may already have some idea that what God does not look like. Good enough and fair enough.
Who would you then give even one billionth of a percent of a chance to be possibly a God if they approach you and claim that they are God?
A blonde guy in a white robe with blue eyes and long blond hair?
A ball guy in an orange colored monk dress and a rosary in his hands?
A statue with 16 arms and 10 legs?
A cow?
What is the image of God look in your imagination that you are using to compare with those who approach you and claim to be Gods?
I don't see the point of your post. I am reasonably open-minded about the various religions. I personally prefer Buddhism (no god), but I don't claim it is "the answer". If there is some god-like "being" (for wont of a better term), he could represent any of the world's religions...or none of them. I just don't think he'd pee his pants and be drunk.
The bold is only true because all the evidence science discovers is ASSUMED not to be evidence of God.
I always support the exploration and expansion of knowledge (whether scientific or not) that benefits humanity. So science is a great tool that we should continuously use to progress.
However, non-believers who thump their chest about “science and evidence” tend not to understand that our scientific knowledge, even though beneficial in many aspects, is actually very limited. And this limited scientific knowledge seems to throw in a white towel when verifying and validating the evidence of God.
For example, if a previously undiscovered specie of a bird is discovered, and folks argue whether it’s from a duck family or not, we will use our knowledge to first to analyze how it looks like, and then we will use our scientific knowledge to look at its DNA and arrive at a conclusion whether it’s a duck family or not, based on scientific evidence.
Same goes with the example if I ask someone if they believe that an an atom of calcium is always present in an H2O molecule?
They will deny the existence of an atom of calcium in H2O.
I will challenge them to provide me the evidence of their denial.
They will isolate a molecule of H2O and display the evidence under an electron microscope.
But how will a scientific man, or someone who believes that “science is be all end all” will verify and validate the evidence of God?
Let’s say a huge figure of a white beard man appears in the sky and the whole world can see him. And he announces that he is God.
How would the Atheists or the chest thumping scientists verify it?
Are they gonna ask the guy in the sky to come down and let them take a sample from his cloudy body, and they will put it under a microscope, and then what?
How would their scientific knowledge and scientific methodology verify and validate that this is the evidence of God?
I don't see the point of your post. I am reasonably open-minded about the various religions. I personally prefer Buddhism (no god), but I don't claim it is "the answer". If there is some god-like "being" (for wont of a better term), he could represent any of the world's religions...or none of them. I just don't think he'd pee his pants and be drunk.
If you saw a man with urine stains on his garment or a drunken person claiming to be God, and if your answer was, “I don’t believe in God.” then we had no discussion.
But when you say, “you don’t look like God” then you contradict your own belief in Buddhism. Remember you don’t believe in God? How then, do you know when something does or does not look like God?
If you saw a man with urine stains on his garment or a drunken person claiming to be God, and if your answer was, “I don’t believe in God.” then we had no discussion.
But when you say, “you don’t look like God” then you contradict your own belief in Buddhism. Remember you don’t believe in God? How then, do you know when something does or does not look like God?
You apparently believe in god...and you have no idea what he looks like.
Perhaps it's like not being able to define pornography, but you know it when you see it.
But okay, your god pees in his clothes, gets drunk, and probably has lice. Fine.
You apparently believe in god...and you have no idea what he looks like.
Perhaps it's like not being able to define pornography, but you know it when you see it.
But okay, your god pees in his clothes, gets drunk, and probably has lice. Fine.
Again, what I think my God may look like, gives me the ability to compare him with other entities and arrive at a conclusion whether the said entity is God or not?
But your case is in confit with your own ideology.
On one hand you don’t believe in the existence of God.
And on the other hand, you are able to distinguish between what does and what does not look like God.
Frankly speaking, it’s laughable.
But let’s end it here. No point in discussing further.
Nope.
Either I couldn’t understand your point, for which I blame my own weak intellect and apologies before I request you to explain it in more detail - OR I see a problem here.
in your words
Actually there is not a period here.
You are going one step more and arrive at a conclusion based this statement. And that’s where the bone of contention is.
You said
So there is no evidence that “justifies this belief”.
What you are saying here is that there is no evidence of God (up till here we agree), and hence I don’t believe in the existence of God (Your conclusion), which is justified cuz there is no evidence.
And I am saying, that your “justification” is based on the “absence of evidence” - which in my opinion is not absolute because we already know that absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
On the contrary, what I am saying is that there is no evidence of God which does not necessarily mean that God not exist. And hence I gave the oxygen example.
Did you get my POV ?
However, IMO
If you want to stick to the oracle of evidence then logically,
You should believe in the non existence of God by providing your evidence. The problem is, you don’t have an evidence that God does not exist.
You believe that God does not exist because there is no evidence.
These are two totally different things.
Again my compliments for working to gain a better understanding, but I have to admit I'm challenged by the fact that you keep misrepresenting my words/comments pretty much the same way you did before...
Let's try to keep it simple, fundamental, so that we might at least come to agree and understand the basics. Once we do that, we can go from there. Okay?
I am not saying there is no God or "hence I don't believe in the existence of God." That's not my conclusion. Not at this point of comparing notes anyway.
What I AM saying is there is no evidence or proof that God exists. Period.
Yes to the oxygen example, again for example, and many other examples for which we had no evidence such things existed. The microbes in water, as another example, were not known to exist until we were able to see them under a microscope. Dinosaurs. Same sort of things.
No such evidence or proof similarly exists with respect to the existence of God, today. If there were, we would not be discussing this any more or any differently than we both agree oxygen exists and so do microbes in the water. Dinosaurs too. Everyone agrees about this for the same obvious reasons. Not the same when it comes to evidence or proof that God exists. Quite the contrary actually. The absence of evidence and proof still to this day. Just like there is still no evidence or proof that fairies exist...
Though true the absence of evidence may not always prove something does not exist, I think we can always agree the absence of evidence that something does not exist raises a very serious good question as to whether something exists. If your car doesn't run, for example, and the mechanic tells you it's because the car gods are angry with you, are you wrong to recognize there is no evidence to suggest such a thing is true or that car gods even exist?
This is where I believe we must stop, before going on. Do you understand and agree about this? All I'm saying.
If not, please provide whatever evidence or proof that demonstrates the existence of God. If we agree, then good, and all the rest you go on about is what you are saying. Not what I'm saying. Fair?
The bold is only true because all the evidence science discovers is ASSUMED not to be evidence of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Last Amalekite 1Sam15
But not assumed when discovered in a dream state, right?
The assumption itself is wrong! There is no rational or reasonable basis for it. It was spawned to avoid entanglement with religious autocrats and has been maintained ever since.
The assumption itself is wrong! There is no rational or reasonable basis for it. It was spawned to avoid entanglement with religious autocrats and has been maintained ever since.
I don't think so. As you know, if we extrapolate to far off the the curve we increase uncertainty. An aware field is too far off to say anything but "Plausible, but we need to wait and see."
When getting dealt your hand in poker, you might have faith you will be dealt a good hand. Maybe even win the hand, but you really don't know...
If you are dealt a royal flush in spades, do you know you have the best hand or do you have faith you have the best hand possible? Do you know you will win or do you need faith you will win?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
