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.
You have provided nothing to date that would require your "God" to be anything "bigger" than a product of human imagination.
That would also explain why you cannot apprehend it by reason alone, and that you cannot provide empirical evidence for its existence.
"There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god isn't detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing." - NMS
Elio, I think you have exposed the Achilles heel of theism. Yours in particular.
Those atheists you were referring to weren't being dishonest, were they?
So, what is this evidence?
You mean these arguments are able to convince the already convinced? No dispute from me. You should carry them there, then.
Only if you redefine "convince".
Ah, another variation of the argument from squirrels.
Another explanation? The above is not an explanation - it´s an assertion.
Indeed, that wouldn´t be an explanation either.
However, "mind depends on matter" is at least observable here in this universe, whereas "matter depends on mind" is just an exceptional claim with no evidence behind it.
I wish I could honestly return this compliment.
That´s right: I don´t believe that (I´m "too smart" to use a term like "ultimate" in such a context, anyway)... and I am too intelligent to fill the gap in my knowledge with an equally incredulous and non-explanatory assertion, e.g. "Goddidit".
Plus I am "too smart" to fall for one of your favourite tactics: Hiding your inability to defend your assertions behind attacking strawmen.
Have you taken lessons in rhethorics and demagoguery recently?
No evidence will be given to you. At least not from me.
You have provided nothing to date that would require your "God" to be anything "bigger" than a product of human imagination.
That would also explain why you cannot apprehend it by reason alone, and that you cannot provide empirical evidence for its existence.
"There's no reason, in theory, why god's presence couldn't be measured or detected in some way. The only reason that believers claim that god "can't" be detected in this way is because god isn't detected, and so a vast and intricate rationale has to be devised to explain this vast, loving, eternal, all-powerful "something" which is, in every external, objective respect, indistinguishable from nothing." - NMS
Elio, I think you have exposed the Achilles heel of theism. Yours in particular.
Those atheists you were referring to weren't being dishonest, were they?
To clarify, I should say that I have seen insufficient evidence to reach a decision about the historicity of Jesus.Since all of the above comes from the mind of one who maintains that there is insufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, I cannot take you seriously.
That, in itself, answers the question quite clearly.I know that means absolutely nothing to you and you could care less if I take you seriously or not, so I am sure you will not care if I choose not to answer you.
I asked, what was this evidence that you speak of here in reference to these "dishonest atheists", that justified your use of that particular adjective, in post #822.
Retract the statement if you cannot substantiate it.
To clarify, I should say that I have seen insufficient evidence to reach a decision about the historicity of Jesus.
No, this was merely the response to your particular post that I quoted and responded to (as I think was obvious from the way I responded).Do you have anything else to contribute to this thread of significance, or is this it?
You made the statement publicly, you substantiate it publicly.
That tells me enough to be able to make the decision that presenting evidence for the existence of God to you at this time would not be expedient.
Which implies that you have evidence, and you were going to present it, but in light of this information you are not going to.
Pull the other one. It has bells on.
But there is evidence. Life here on earth. That is kind of the whole point. We have a large amount of empirical evidence for life. We have no empirical evidence for gods. I think you're trying to exclude the fact of life here on earth but that does not work. It is the major piece of evidence we have that gives us reason to believe there might be life on other planets. You can't just dismiss it and then try to point to our stance as being different on two different topics.
What if you were a robot capable of self-deception? How would you know?God's existence is self evident to me the same way it is self evident to me that I am a human and not a robot.
What if you were a robot capable of self-deception? How would you know?
Are you capable of self-deception?
Yep, TN.
There is a double standard. Biological life on this planet is no more evidence for life elsewhere than Mack trucks on this planet is evidence for Mack trucks on another planet.
There is a very specific design criteria that must be met for each to develop. In fact, biological life has for greater specified complexity than the Mack truck. The chances of life self-assembling Naturally is infinitesimally small (essentially zero). Twice in the same Universe is incomprehensible.
Further, the atheist is begging the question by presuming No God exists, yet man exists. He has no evidence that is true.
He has no more basis to believe no God exists than he does to believe life exists where there is no evidence of life.
Yep, TN.
There is a double standard. Biological life on this planet is no more evidence for life elsewhere than Mack trucks on this planet is evidence for Mack trucks on another planet.
There is a very specific design criteria that must be met for each to develop. In fact, biological life has for greater specified complexity than the Mack truck. The chances of life self-assembling Naturally is infinitesimally small (essentially zero). Twice in the same Universe is incomprehensible.
Further, the atheist is begging the question by presuming No God exists, yet man exists. He has no evidence that is true.
He has no more basis to believe no God exists than he does to believe life exists where there is no evidence of life.
I said look into the life of Christ, not various schools of thought in Christianity.
Look into the life of Christ and what He taught not what men today say about Him.
For did not Christ, after asking His disciples who people said He was, not ask the disciples themselves?
What was Peter's confession?
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?