Is religion addictive? (salvation, Biblically, pray, Christian)
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.
No. I think someone who can prove God exists, can convert atheists with just a few questions and knows how God thinks should be anxious to share what he knows with the world.
Seems kind of odd God would call such a person to be in Podunk when He could place that person in a position where billions of people would come to know Him. But then, that doesn't fit in with your theory that only some people get saved.
We not only assume 1....we cannot disprove it. If you can...knock yourself out.
It isn't our job to prove a negative.
You're making a positive claim; it's your job to prove it.
Besides, inability to disprove something implies inability to prove it. This is the fundamental issue with any claim for any invisible god; it isn't a falsifiable / provable assertion out of the gate. No valid, testable hypothesis can be formed around it.
It is no different than me claiming that magic invisible clams cure cancer, and challenging you to disprove that there are magic invisible cancer-curing clams. You would not feel any burden to disprove my assertion; you'd want me to prove it to YOU. And that is what I am asking you to do.
Caveat, though: if you're going to prove a thing to anyone else, you're going to have to make that proof convincing and valid. If you don't, then you're not proving anything to anyone other than yourself.
The cosmological argument, even correctly presented and argued, is not convincing to me, nor to many others. If god exists and wants me for himself, I'm sure he can do better than that.
We have reasonable evidentiary standards ... meet them and we will believe.
Oh, please. I have neither the need nor the desire to lie about what you've said. But, on the wee chance my God-given awe-inspiring memory was wrong.....
You don't know how God thinks. You aren't special. (Which sort of eliminates that ability to convert people with just a few questions.) But.... got it. I'll make a note. "Note to self: Viz is clueless when it comes to knowing how God thinks."
Last edited by DewDropInn; 03-10-2015 at 04:08 PM..
Exactly. So you're not an atheist. You're an agnostic. Congratulations. You're a backslider.
I lurk these forums quite a bit, so I have a generally good idea what stance the more common posters (including Vizio) have when it comes to gods. Posts like the above however make me wonder how genuine some of his beliefs are. I'm just having a hard time imagining anyone could think the above could be some kind of nail in the coffen for athiests.
I understand that some people have the terms athiest and agnostic confused. I know I once did. I've yet to meet anyone who could not understand that the two are not mutually exclusive after having it explained to them though.
If a friend of mine told me he had $80,000,000 worth of gems and gold buried in some secret location in the forrest I wouldn't believe him. I also wouldn't claim to know for certain that he doesn't. Same goes for people who claim to have been abducted by aliens or have seen Bigfoot. Likely Vizio understands this for all sorts of things but when it comes to God suddenly there's a false dichotomy between belief and certainty. I suspect a very small minority of atheists are actually gnostic atheists but that's a much more convenient strawman to attack.
I see that Vizio has resurrected his attempt to prove the existence of (his) god via the cosmological argument.
The cosmological argument suffers from special pleading: the universe "obviously" needs a cause, but his god is somehow free of this requirement. Why? Why is it ok to say that the universe needs a cause but a god does not?
The cosmological argument is also the standard "Goddidit" explanation for whatever we don't understand.
The cosmological argument has been refuted a thousand times.
But Vizio will simply Ignore and Repeat, hoping to establish truth by perpetual repetition.
I see that Vizio has resurrected his attempt to prove the existence of (his) god via the cosmological argument.
The cosmological argument suffers from special pleading: the universe "obviously" needs a cause, but his god is somehow free of this requirement. Why? Why is it ok to say that the universe needs a cause but a god does not?
The cosmological argument is also the standard "Goddidit" explanation for whatever we don't understand.
The cosmological argument has been refuted a thousand times.
But Vizio will simply Ignore and Repeat, hoping to establish truth by perpetual repetition.
Even if you ignore that and pretend the cosmological argument did prove a creator, it still wouldn't prove that it's the specific God people claim exists. It wouldn't even prove that a creator is conscious.
Even if you ignore that and pretend the cosmological argument did prove a creator, it still wouldn't prove that it's the specific God people claim exists. It wouldn't even prove that a creator is conscious.
Don't tell that to Vizio. He won't listen. He just knows that any potential creator must be his god.
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.
