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.
Christianity in its purest and most basic form is a relationship with God. Not all who claim to be Christian have this relationship. Their faith is based on traditional practices and beliefs and they trust in those practices and in their beliefs to get them to heaven. And because God is a merciful and gracious God, many of those who may have not known God personally will I believe be in heaven. Not because of what they did, but because of what Jesus did for them on the cross, and they lived up to what light and understanding they had. That said, many who do not have such a relationship can fall away when pressure and doubt arise, persecution, or the attractions and pleasures of the world overcome them and their faith wanes.
And perhaps a Christian such as this may indeed admit that perhaps he is wrong in his belief. But me, sorry, I have met God personally. I know Him and am getting to know Him better and more closer the older I get. Right now my friend there is simply no way I could doubt His existence, any more than I could doubt my wife's existence. How could anyone doubt the existence of someone they have met and relate to every day?
You meet and relate to god every day? Only in your mind, right?
You keep going on and on about how you think a certain kind of god could be "possible", yet you have not shown that you currently believe in any such god. As an atheist, I think the deistic god is the most plausible one and is "possible", however... because I have not yet been provided with any convincing evidence of one, I remain without a belief in one (atheist).
So, what is it that you are suggesting for me to prove? I have not made any claims which need "proving".
So, do you currently have an active belief in a particular god? If so, which one?
He didn't specify. He only said that one MAY exist. He doesn't disbelieve, nor does he believe, necessarily. Sounds like me--neutral until proof one way or the other is demonstrated. I've seen proof of neither existence or nonexistence, so no belief or non-belief is possible.
Thing is, despite atheists assertions that they are meaningless, millions of people,over many centuries, and from all cultures, many of them former atheists, have tested and tried them and found them to be true.
More interestingly, lots of people have "tested" mutually contradictory ideas of god and found all of them "true". Either there's a problem with the tests, a problem with the evidence, or a problem with what we understand logic to be. Whatever the problem is, believers need to explain who to resolve this paradox if they expect their claims of testable evidence to be taken seriously.
If you apply the exact same standards of evidence and "prove" the Jewish henotheistic god, the Christian 3 in 1 god, the Muslim "Jesus wasn't god" God, and the vague "energy and stuff is out there and it's god" god, there's something wrong with the process. Sort it out amongst yourselves before you waste everyone else's time with it.
I am getting so tired of this empirical junk. To test something in such a way means that it has to reside in the physical realm.
Or at least interact with it in some reasonably consistent way. If it does, we can measure it. If it doesn't, then it's pretty irrelevant to us as beings residing in the physical realm.
Quote:
Since almost all things religious/spiritual exist in the nonphysical realm. The whole empirical thing does not work. It is like asking to empirically prove we have a mind, ego, and all other things that are in the "mind" since the mind is not a physical object and neither is the ego, you can't empirically test this.
How do you know all of these things exist if there's no physical evidence of them?
Quote:
But, if they where just chemical reactions, we would be able to place these same chemical into a jar, stir, zap it with some electricity and presto... a consciousness would be born.
If an egg is just a physical object, I should be able to drop some yolk, egg white and a bit of shell into a bowl, stir is an presto - instant egg. Since we can't do that, eggs must not be physical objects and are instead supernatural. Time to start worshiping chickens as gods.
Or more realistically, you should understand that just because a process can't currently be built from scratch in a test tube doesn't automatically make it supernatural. It just means that humans aren't omnipotent.
This statement is precisely why you continue to post the 'prove it' threads. You don't follow any laws of logic and thus you simply can't understand reason.
I am getting so tired of this empirical junk. To test something in such a way means that it has to reside in the physical realm. Since almost all things religious/spiritual exist in the nonphysical realm. The whole empirical thing does not work. It is like asking to empirically prove we have a mind, ego, and all other things that are in the "mind" since the mind is not a physical object and neither is the ego, you can't empirically test this. Therefore according to you, the mind cannot exist. And our thoughts are nothing but chemical reactions and electrical stimuli.
But, if they where just chemical reactions, we would be able to place these same chemical into a jar, stir, zap it with some electricity and presto... a consciousness would be born. But, this is not the case. Science can't really agree on what the mind is or how it actually works. The only thing they agree on is that the mind does exist. Weird, so science says that we have a mind, but can't prove it by any of their current means.
And what if you did eat breakfast on an alien ship orbiting Saturn? If you really did this, but lacked proof. I am pretty sure that would not stop you from telling people and trying to spread what you know.
In other words, you have no standard of evidence. That's good for you, but those of us who like to use rational thinking when it comes to objective reality aren't going to agree with you since we actually care about what is true.
Objective reality is also different than what someone personally believes. Someone can believe what ever they want. They have to provide empirical proof when they say it exists outside of their own mind.
Or at least interact with it in some reasonably consistent way. If it does, we can measure it. If it doesn't, then it's pretty irrelevant to us as beings residing in the physical realm.
So your mind is irrelevant. Good to know you think that...wait, I guess according to you, you don't think as it doesn't reside in the physical realm.
Quote:
How do you know all of these things exist if there's no physical evidence of them?
Science says they exist, therefor they must exist, right? OR are you questioning science too now?
Quote:
If an egg is just a physical object, I should be able to drop some yolk, egg white and a bit of shell into a bowl, stir is an presto - instant egg. Since we can't do that, eggs must not be physical objects and are instead supernatural. Time to start worshiping chickens as gods.
Or more realistically, you should understand that just because a process can't currently be built from scratch in a test tube doesn't automatically make it supernatural. It just means that humans aren't omnipotent.
Ah, see we can build a human lung, heart, and almost every other organ in the human body. The only one we cannot replicate is the brain and mind.
They know what a brain is and could probably make one, add the brain fluid(various chemicals) and even put the electrical response in there. They could have all the makings of an artificial human brain. But, wait if it would be this easy they would have done it. But, they can't because this alone does not give us consciousness. The mind is much more than electrical responses, chemicals and matter. The mind does not have a physical aspect to it. Science can't create it.
I never said it was supernatural, I don't think the concept of God or things spiritual and religious as supernatural. It is all just regularly natural stuff that we can't test at this time.
In the middle ages they probably thought the plague was supernatural, if they had a microscope and the knowledge we do now, they probably would have stopped it before it wiped out a massive amount of people. Just because we don't understand something and cannot test it with the tools we have, does not make it false. It only makes it theoretical.
Oh, and another thing. You all say you need empirical proof. Interesting that science has a term for religious beliefs that aren't proven... it is called theory. Guess what, theory is accepted in science.
I'd like to know how many believers actually took a science class. My guess is a very slight minority since this nonsense has been repeated more times than there are stars in the universe. A theory in science is what a layman considers a fact. Evolution is a scientific theory. Science is based on careful and rigorous testing. Religious belief is based on 'I don't know therefore god did it.' And you wonder why atheists ask you to prove it. Religion and science aren't on equal footing when it comes to claims of objective truth. Science holds far more weight. Religion holds none.
This statement is precisely why you continue to post the 'prove it' threads. You don't follow any laws of logic and thus you simply can't understand reason.
Actually, I fallow laws of logic quite well. Logic would suggest that if it cannot be disproved then it is plausible.
In other words, you have no standard of evidence. That's good for you, but those of us who like to use rational thinking when it comes to objective reality aren't going to agree with you since we actually care about what is true.
Objective reality is also different than what someone personally believes. Someone can believe what ever they want. They have to provide empirical proof when they say it exists outside of their own mind.
You didn't even read my post. or didn't understand it. Read it again. Then come back to the table with something.
Even science has no standard of evidance when it comes to the mind, but that doesn't stop them from stating that it exists. Show me proof of mind...
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.
