- May 22, 2015
- 5,895
- 569
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Lol, only pointless if you can't see the deeper meaning behind all of this and I hope in time you will.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, but you said "key word" below what he wrote, which means that the phrase "key word" would be in reference to what he...
Oh, never mind. This is pointless.
Your reasoning is faulty. For one to believe there is no "God", one would first need to define what one means by "God" and then believe that that particular god does not exist. As that puts the impossible burden of defining each and every god concept there is not to believe in onto the atheist, you have set up an impossible straw-man, a misrepresentation of what others - particularly myself - think.
If you care, of course.
By "personal experience", you mean "self-deception". No thanks.I agree actually, I understand the reason you don't believe is because you've never received personal evidence and I'm just saying in time you will. I just hope it comes before you die so that you can believe with confidence as I do and as many other Christians do.
Your reasoning is faulty. For one to believe there is no "God", one would first need to define what one means by "God" and then believe that that particular god does not exist. As that puts the impossible burden of defining each and every god concept there is not to believe in onto the atheist, you have set up an impossible straw-man, a misrepresentation of what others - particularly myself - think.
If you care, of course.
That definition is better, but still lacks accuracy.An atheist is by definition a person who does not believe that God - or any god - exists.
The terms agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Myself, I would lean towards ignosticism.Anyone else would be either an agnostic,
Are Buddhists theists? or atheists?a deist, a theist,
I believe that gods exist - all of the ones presented to me so far - as characters in books. There were a few exceptions, such as Julius Caesar, but I think his claim of divinity was highly overrated. Kim Jong-il was just a megalomaniac.or a member of a particular religion (such as Christianity, Paganism, Islam, etc.). If your belief is different than that then you are by definition not an atheist.
No; I'm making no assumptions. I'm saying that if you accept the cosmological physics that tells us that the universe is expanding from a hot dense state beyond which we can only speculate, then there are many speculative priors based on that physics, some of which involve a multiverse. The explanation you said you prefer (a infinite timeless force that is separate from the universe) is consistent with a non-technical description of a multiverse.Here you assume that the existence of the multiverse must be more reasonable and that I'm calling it God.
Tomarto - tomayto, I have no objection to the multiverse being called God, as a kind of meta-Spinozism; although anthropomorphising the concept is unjustified; the model is no more purposeful or intentional in generating universes than carbonated water is in generating bubbles.Whereas its actually more reasonable that God exists and you are calling Him a multiverse.
Your logic leaves me breathlessThe reason I say this is because the Bible has already told us that God is infinite and timeless before science told us that the multiverse could be infinite and timeless, do you see why I would believe the Bible over science because it explained infinite timelessness before science did?
No; I'm making no assumptions. I'm saying that if you accept the cosmological physics that tells us that the universe is expanding from a hot dense state beyond which we can only speculate, then there are many speculative priors based on that physics, some of which involve a multiverse. The explanation you said you prefer (a infinite timeless force that is separate from the universe) is consistent with a non-technical description of a multiverse.
Suggesting you could call it God was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but having said that, it does seem less reasonable to accept the physics of cosmology as valid until you reach a point where feel you can insert your preferred non-physical speculation, particularly when you express it in terms consistent with one based on the very physics you want to reject. But hey, who expects religious ideas of God to be coherent or consistent?
Tomarto - tomayto, I have no objection to the multiverse being called God, as a kind of meta-Spinozism; although anthropomorphising the concept is unjustified; the model is no more purposeful or intentional in generating universes than carbonated water is in generating bubbles.
But I get the sense that whatever the model, you'll crowbar your prearranged conclusion into it, which makes me wonder why you bother with any of the cosmology - whatever the evidence, God is the conclusion - am I right?
Your logic leaves me breathless- and I'm sure you'll find some reason why texts that predate the bible and also 'explain' the infinite and timeless, don't take precedence for believability.
Actually atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive. By definition, an atheist is, as I have stated, somebody who believes that no God or gods exist. You can argue with the definition all you want, but if that's not what you believe then you're not an atheist, by definition.That definition is better, but still lacks accuracy.
The terms agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Myself, I would lean towards ignosticism.
Are Buddhists theists? or atheists?
I believe that gods exist - all of the ones presented to me so far - as characters in books. There were a few exceptions, such as Julius Caesar, but I think his claim of divinity was highly overrated. Kim Jong-il was just a megalomaniac.
Back to your declaration of "That premise does not allow any line of reasoning that leads to the existence of God."
Define "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner, so we can see if what you assert is true.
If you can say I haven't explained anything then I can say you haven't convinced me that my reasoning is wrong because you refuse to even try, all you can seem to do is say that I haven't explained anything.
Actually atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive. By definition, an atheist is, as I have stated, somebody who believes that no God or gods exist. You can argue with the definition all you want, but if that's not what you believe then you're not an atheist, by definition.
Or, they are not.Actually atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive.
Feel free to state whatever you want. Words are defined by how we use them, not how you say they are to be used.By definition, an atheist is, as I have stated,
I would count myself as an ignostic.somebody who believes that no God or gods exist. You can argue with the definition all you want, but if that's not what you believe then you're not an atheist, by definition.
Agnostics believe that we don't know if God or gods exist. Maybe God or gods exist. Maybe He/they don't. That's an agnostic. You can't believe both that God/gods doesn't/don't exist and that they might exist at the same time. You either believe one or the other. You can believe that God/gods probably doesn't/don't exist, but this would still make you an agnostic since there is room for doubt in "probably."
How then can we know that this "God" is of any significance, if is cannot even be defined? Can you not define this thing that you claim to believe in?Most Buddhists that I've known are atheists, and to the best of my knowledge the Buddhist doctrine is that there is no God, which would technically make Buddhism an atheist religion. However, it still is a religion, and therefore falls under the possibility of belonging to a specific religion or religious group.
And the problem with your last statement is that you can't define God in a falsifiable manner.
Allegedly. How do you know this?God is. God is the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Entity Who created the universe.
True or false, it doesn't seem to be of any significance. What is the point of truth statement that cannot be verified?You can argue why you think that this is false,
but your reasoning will be from the initial premise that it is indeed false.
I have yet to see you proffer any reasoning to go with your assertions. Let me know when you get there.And you will reject (with your own reasoning) any line of reasoning to the contrary.
Guys this is not hard.
Chriliman and myself are saying that Jesus of Nazareth is the proof that you all have been asking for of God's existence.
You guys are saying that he is not proof.
We have reasons for saying what we do.
We can't all be right.
This means that either Chriliman and I are right and you guys are wrong, or vice versa.
Can we agree on this much?
Everything you said is mostly reasonable except this. Here you assume that the existence of the multiverse must be more reasonable and that I'm calling it God. Whereas its actually more reasonable that God exists and you are calling Him a multiverse. The reason I say this is because the Bible has already told us that God is infinite and timeless before science told us that the multiverse could be infinite and timeless, do you see why I would believe the Bible over science because it explained infinite timelessness before science did?
Several hundred people saw Jesus alive after He died on the cross.
I'm open-minded about multiverses. They are a class of speculative solutions to the formulae underlying the Standard Model of physics. There is no way to tell how it/they would have come about, and the physics doesn't require a beginning for them, so there is nothing to say about that - as the models stand at present.Why do you think that our universe is but part of a multiverse existing eternally and uncaused?
If he really died, then that alone is good reason to think that those reports were false. If he didn't really die, then it is possible - although, given the reported extent of his injuries, it would be very unlikely that he'd be up and about within days.Several hundred people saw Jesus alive after He died on the cross. I have no good reason to think that this was simply a result of their imagination.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?