# Tell me why...



## ddd-shooter (Nov 30, 2009)

...you do not believe in God. 

Please refrain from "God is a fairy tale."

Most here consider it a logical step, so a logical description would be great.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 30, 2009)

Should the definition of Logical be posted now or later?

Short answer: No evidence.


----------



## DREWSKI3000 (Nov 30, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> ...you do not believe in God.
> 
> Please refrain from "God is a fairy tale."
> 
> Most here consider it a logical step, so a logical description would be great.



Which one are you talking about?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Nov 30, 2009)

I have yet to be convinced of the existence of deities.  Frankly, it all sounds less and less feasible as time goes by for me.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Nov 30, 2009)

I am speaking of your disbelief in ANY deity. If you believe in God, move on. 

I would think as much as believers are asked why they have faith and believe, the non-believer who post here would have a solid argument for their case.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I am speaking of your disbelief in ANY deity. If you believe in God, move on.
> 
> I would think as much as believers are asked why they have faith and believe, the non-believer who post here would have a solid argument for their case.



Believers have faith. Non believers want proof.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Believers have faith. Non believers want proof.


I am going to guess that you mean scientific proof.

Those that have placed their faith in Christ also have personal proof and they try to live life according to the example of Christ. The personal relationship we have with God reaffirms the right decision to trust Him. Much as one might wish that God made appearances on demand, He simply does not, is not going to operate that way (His  choice). He requires we exercise however much faith He has given us. He has never failed me, never will.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

gtparts said:


> I am going to guess that you mean scientific proof.
> 
> Those that have placed their faith in Christ also have personal proof and they try to live life according to the example of Christ. The personal relationship we have with God reaffirms the right decision to trust Him. Much as one might wish that God made appearances on demand, He simply does not, is not going to operate that way (His  choice). He requires we exercise however much faith He has given us. He has never failed me, never will.



What you do in your own house is your own business. The problem is that you apply your faith to matters that affect everyone, when reason is more appropriate. 

I am using as much faith as is appropriate (very little).


----------



## pnome (Dec 1, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I am speaking of your disbelief in ANY deity. If you believe in God, move on.
> 
> I would think as much as believers are asked why they have faith and believe, the non-believer who post here would have a solid argument for their case.



I think you missed his point.


Tell me why you don't believe in Vishnu, or Odin, or Zeus, or Quetzalcoatl.  Then you'll know why I don't believe in the God of Abraham.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

gtparts said:


> I am going to guess that you mean scientific proof.
> 
> Those that have placed their faith in Christ also have personal proof and they try to live life according to the example of Christ. The personal relationship we have with God reaffirms the right decision to trust Him. Much as one might wish that God made appearances on demand, He simply does not, is not going to operate that way (His  choice). He requires we exercise however much faith He has given us. He has never failed me, never will.



I'm a Christian because of Jesus Christ...and the abundant proof that exists for Him and His claims.   You can't prove anything that happened in the past scientifically...like where you ate two days ago, or where you went to school...   Events in the past can't be repeated and observed.

I have to say though, even if there was no Jesus, I'd still look at the impossibility of life and wonder 'HOW'.   Science shows more and more every day how miraculous the origin of life had to be.   (See my other thread)   I can't ignore that like some can.

Bandy


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'm a Christian because of Jesus Christ...and the abundant proof that exists for Him and His claims.   You can't prove anything that happened in the past scientifically...like where you ate two days ago, or where you went to school...   Events in the past can't be repeated and observed.
> 
> I have to say though, even if there was no Jesus, I'd still look at the impossibility of life and wonder 'HOW'.   Science shows more and more every day how miraculous the origin of life had to be.   (See my other thread)   I can't ignore that like some can.
> 
> Bandy



Saying "Wow! that's complicated!  God musta did it!" is ignoring.   Building a rocket or splitting an atom is hardly ignoring the issue.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Saying "Wow! that's complicated!  God musta did it!" is ignoring.   Building a rocket or splitting an atom is hardly ignoring the issue.



I'm saying that science is showing that time and chance couldn't have done it.        When science shows me that the simplest cell we know of is super complex....that's what I can't ignore.   You can.  I can't.   

Bandy


----------



## gtparts (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> What you do in your own house is your own business.  The problem is that you apply your faith to matters that affect everyone, when reason is more appropriate.
> 
> I am using as much faith as is appropriate (very little).



The determination of what and how much is "appropriate" is highly personal and, whether based in faith or reason, is not likely to satisfy most, much less all affected. 

Some young adults reason on a level that sometimes leaves them extremely vulnerable. It is the responsibility of the more mature, experienced, insightful, wise, and caring to protect them from themselves and protect others. Those who know of the carnage of drinking drivers have passed laws against speeding, limiting driving opportunities, legislated seat belts, imposed curfews, age restrictions, many things both effective and ineffective to do so. There is always someone who has an objection to restrictions on our public freedoms. 

Now, I realize that it is controversial, but God's Word does not require us to reason (though we can and do). It only requires obedience; and while it too restricts our personal will (freedom), the end results are the best that can be had for a life filled with joy and peace and purpose. 

So, I'll ask. Won't you consider a life of commitment to Jesus as your personal Lord and savior? Forget the inadequacies of Christians, our failures, our short-comings. Don't place your trust in men. Even trusting in yourself is no better, marked by foul-ups and a trail of unsatisfying and discouraging attempts to get it right on your own. Your only hope, the only hope of the world, is Jesus. Put your life in His hands.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I'm saying that science is showing that time and chance couldn't have done it.        When science shows me that the simplest cell we know of is super complex....that's what I can't ignore.   You can.  I can't.
> 
> Bandy



"Super Complex", for now.  How might we understand things in another 10,000 years?   Are you familiar with the term "God of the Gaps"?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 1, 2009)

Good grief. I guess it is easier to put the burden on believers  than answer a question. 
Somehow, we have believers defending their position of belief, while the only answer has been "no proof," which is ok, but I was looking for an actual logical argument with a premise and a conclusion.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> "Super Complex", for now.  How might we understand things in another 10,000 years?   Are you familiar with the term "God of the Gaps"?



What do you think?   

Of course....

The atheist's 'God of the Gaps' is endless time....as in your "10000 years" comment...

Bandy


----------



## pnome (Dec 1, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Good grief. I guess it is easier to put the burden on believers  than answer a question.
> Somehow, we have believers defending their position of belief, while the only answer has been "no proof," which is ok, but I was looking for an actual logical argument with a premise and a conclusion.



Ok then....

For just an amorphous "God".....

Premise 1: God Exists.

Observable evidence to support premise 1: None.

Is premise 1 testable?  No.

Conclusion:  Premise 1 is not proven nor can it be proven.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> Observable evidence to support premise 1: None.



   I see a lot of evidence, as do many others who open their eyes...

bandy


----------



## pnome (Dec 1, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> I see a lot of evidence, as do many others who open their eyes...
> 
> bandy



You do?  Care to point some of this out?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

gtparts said:


> The determination of what and how much is "appropriate" is highly personal and, whether based in faith or reason, is not likely to satisfy most, much less all affected.



Reason is subject to scrutiny.  Faith is its own defense.  If we were lost in the woods and I said "We should go this way because the river will lead us to the highway." and you said "We should go this way because I just feel it in my bones."  We would part company.



gtparts said:


> Some young adults reason on a level that sometimes leaves them extremely vulnerable.



Because they were not taught how to properly reason or perhaps they were shown that reason need not be applied to every circumstance.  If you are talking about children, then, yes, they may not have developed the capacity to reason and need to be told "Do this because I say so."  Is that how you see yourself?



gtparts said:


> It is the responsibility of the more mature, experienced, insightful, wise, and caring to protect them from themselves and protect others. Those who know of the carnage of drinking drivers have passed laws against speeding, limiting driving opportunities, legislated seat belts, imposed curfews, age restrictions, many things both effective and ineffective to do so. There is always someone who has an objection to restrictions on our public freedoms.



All based on reason, hopefully.  What is a "Blue Law" based on?



gtparts said:


> Now, I realize that it is controversial, but God's Word does not require us to reason (though we can and do). It only requires obedience; and while it too restricts our personal will (freedom), the end results are the best that can be had for a life filled with joy and peace and purpose.



The Bible insists that you suspend your reason, in fact.  Blind obedience= joy and purpose?  For a cow maybe; perhaps a sheep.




gtparts said:


> So, I'll ask. Won't you consider a life of commitment to Jesus as your personal Lord and savior? Forget the inadequacies of Christians, our failures, our short-comings. Don't place your trust in men. Even trusting in yourself is no better, marked by foul-ups and a trail of unsatisfying and discouraging attempts to get it right on your own. Your only hope, the only hope of the world, is Jesus. Put your life in His hands.



I've considered it.  It's a raw deal.  I've seen what it does to people.  It makes them believe in giant man-eating fish.  It makes them look upon others with pity.  The best thing I can see that Christianity does is it makes some weak minded people behave, and only sometimes at that.  I'm talking about reformed addicts or criminals who, like the children mentioned above, are incapable or unwilling to use reason to shape their behavior.   Like children, it's better that they fear the Boogie Man, so long as that fear keeps them in line.    

My foul ups are my own.  

If everyone was Christian, the World would be in harmony.  Never gonna happen.  There will always be people that have an itch in the back of their minds that tells them that the Biblical explanation is not enough.  That someone is trying to pull a fast one on them. I get that itch whenever I hear someone say "Just believe.  Don't question.  Only $19.95...."


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

Although it's been hashed out in several other threads, let me remind you as to what you're closing your eyes to....

256 gene minimum for a cell to survive.  (256 just jump together one day?)

today's "origin of life" thread I started had an interesting article on the atheist's biggest problem...ORIGIN OF LIFE

The irreducible complexity of numerous things, not only in other organisms, but in us....knees...eyes...blood cascade..etc

No evolution observed EVER.   I'm talking about Information increase...  

Bandy


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> Ok then....
> 
> For just an amorphous "God".....
> 
> ...



Premise 1. Just because you have never seen or observed gravity or no gravity does not mean it don't exist.

Premise 1. Is testable. However you cannot test for oranges with the criteria required for lemons.

Conclusion: Premise one is proven and can be proven.  Your method is madness at worse or stubborness a least. You got to remember God is not a lemon or an orange, Govenor Wallace, Dr. Phil or an M16. The objective observations you seem to require are more in line with the criteria required for the above items. You just don't know the object of your query very well...when you say it is not testable. It's like this, you are looking for the  debris of a synaptic clef that will accept a new type of morphine molecule in the crank case oil of a junked 2 stroke lawn  mover. It won't happen.

Peace bros.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 1, 2009)

I have faith that evolution is real. I don't have to have proof because evolution is so amazing that it has to be real. Of course it sounds too improbable to be true, but that's just more proof that it's real. All true believers of evolution know it in their heart. I don't know how I lived so long without evolution in my heart. 

I don't believe in any god because all of them seem just as credible as any other, which is to say, not credible when compared with hard science. 

Of course we all know that this is not an argument that will be solved. When you are discussing something that requires NO reason at all you cannot argue against it.


----------



## rugerfan (Dec 1, 2009)

I agree with Grizzly.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 1, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Of course we all know that this is not an argument that will be solved. When you are discussing something that requires NO reason at all you cannot argue against it.



I am not asking you to argue against something. I am asking you to posit why you believe the way you do. 

I think it is a perfectly acceptable question, since believers get asked this all the time...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I am not asking you to argue against something. I am asking you to posit why you believe the way you do.
> 
> I think it is a perfectly acceptable question, since believers get asked this all the time...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Of course we all know that this is not an argument that will be solved. When you are discussing something that requires NO reason at all you cannot argue against it.



My faith is bolstered by reason....it's how I am....how I live.

"My heart will never hold on to what my mind constantly contradicts"


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> My faith is bolstered by reason....it's how I am....how I live.
> 
> "My heart will never hold on to what my mind constantly contradicts"



Ever seen a man live inside a fish for 3 days?  I digress.  I'm challenging the validity of the Bible, or by default, the God of the bible.

As far as any deity goes, the notion is akin to a mythological creature.  To the OP: Sorry, I know you said in the OP that you didn't want to hear that, but it's true.  When people describe a creature to me that has magical powers, the Dewey Decimal system in my brain shelves that information under fiction.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Ever seen a man live inside a fish for 3 days?



LOL   No!   Jonah was dead.


----------



## BCPerry (Dec 1, 2009)

Just show me something that proves evolution and I might be inclined to believe it too. I just haven't seen any real conclusive evidence that Darwin was right. 

Now on the other hand, faith. God asks you to have faith. You don't need evidence with faith. Faith is the belief in something without physical proof. 



grizzlyblake said:


> I have faith that evolution is real. I don't have to have proof because evolution is so amazing that it has to be real. Of course it sounds too improbable to be true, but that's just more proof that it's real. All true believers of evolution know it in their heart. I don't know how I lived so long without evolution in my heart.
> 
> I don't believe in any god because all of them seem just as credible as any other, which is to say, not credible when compared with hard science.
> 
> Of course we all know that this is not an argument that will be solved. When you are discussing something that requires NO reason at all you cannot argue against it.


----------



## pnome (Dec 1, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Although it's been hashed out in several other threads, let me remind you as to what you're closing your eyes to....
> 
> 256 gene minimum for a cell to survive.  (256 just jump together one day?)
> 
> ...




That is an argument from ignorance.    You do not know the answer so you assume God.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Ever seen a man live inside a fish for 3 days?



Ever see a man born twice? In the first birth a person lived in their mommy's belly. In the second one ...well the person lives inside of a fish for a time. Jonah was a quick study. You see Jonah was taken into the fish trough the fish's mouth, will most of us have to go through the vent and have a longer track to course. Some just latch onto the epidermist and never make it inside and think fish stories are just mostly long tales.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> LOL   No!   Jonah was dead.



Not everyone thinks that.  Look at the results of my poll.

http://forum.gon.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2951


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 1, 2009)

You don't have to give some reason to explain why you do NOT believe in something. Do I believe that my furniture animates and runs around the house while I'm at work? No. Do I need to have some well thought out argument for why I don't believe that? NO. It just seems plain ol' far-fetched and I don't believe it.


----------



## pnome (Dec 1, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> Premise 1. Just because you have never seen or observed gravity or no gravity does not mean it don't exist.



Gravity can be tested, and can be observed quite easily.



> Premise 1. Is testable. However you cannot test for oranges with the criteria required for lemons.



Exactly what kind of test would you propose we run to test Gods existence?



> Conclusion: Premise one is proven and can be proven.  You method is madness at worse or stubborness a least. You got to remember God is not a lemon or an orange, Govenor Wallace, Dr. Phil or an M16. The objective observations you seem to require are more in line with the criteria required for the above items. You just don't know the object of your query very well...when you say it is not testable. *It's like this, you are looking for the  debris of a synaptic clef that will accept a new type of morphine molecule in the crank case oil of a junked 2 stroke lawn  mover.* It won't happen.



  That's an awesome metaphor.  

Anyway.... what objective observations would you consider to be proper to prove God's existence?


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 1, 2009)

pnome said:


> Exactly what kind of test would you propose we run to test Gods existence?




Yes! As soon as someone here can test and prove god's existence I will believe.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

Bryan Perry said:


> Just show me something that proves evolution and I might be inclined to believe it too. I just haven't seen any real conclusive evidence that Darwin was right.
> 
> Now on the other hand, faith. God asks you to have faith. You don't need evidence with faith. Faith is the belief in something without physical proof.



Look at the fossil record. It's pretty neat. Like CSI.

Do you believe in luck?  How about luck charms: Rabbit's foot?  Lucky grunt call or crankbait?  Lucky boots?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Not everyone thinks that.  Look at the results of my poll.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=2951



LOL   Most christians would argue that Jesus was only in the grave for a day or two also, but they are wrong as well.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 1, 2009)

I want one of you rock solid Christians to explain to me your unshakable faith that I am NOT actually the dog in my avatar sitting here typing. 

NOT believing that I'm a dog takes as much faith as believing in god.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 1, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> You don't have to give some reason to explain why you do NOT believe in something. Do I believe that my furniture animates and runs around the house while I'm at work? No. Do I need to have some well thought out argument for why I don't believe that? NO. It just seems plain ol' far-fetched and I don't believe it.



Ok. How about I change the question. Please explain to me how you came to logically conclude that God does not exist. For such a logical position, there must be a process. I can think of several myself. I did not think this would be too hard...


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 1, 2009)

I don't see any evidence. It seems outrageous. Period. Same as me not believing that you're an elephant.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Look at the fossil record. It's pretty neat. Like CSI.




the fossil record is a joke.   Darwin (and rightly so) predicted the fossil record would be filled with transitional species...but all we have is a few questionable examples at best.    Just more ignored facts...

Bandy


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> I want one of you rock solid Christians to explain to me your unshakable faith that I am NOT actually the dog in my avatar sitting here typing.
> 
> NOT believing that I'm a dog takes as much faith as believing in god.



Cant' be proved scientifically...but it can be proved with the same evidence we'd use in a court of law.

Bandy


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 1, 2009)

Well - tell me why you don't believe it then.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 1, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Yes! As soon as someone here can test and prove god's existence I will believe.



You will deny all kinds simple and complex proofs... is my guess.

I'm encouraged that you are perhaps open to "belief" whatever that may mean to you.

I can prove God's existance in a very few words, with a hand tied behind my back to you and all your buddies, but really, really now if it is not in you or them to already believe you are  problably preconditioned to forego any proofs regards  devine reality. 

I suspect your are here for entertainment, not new realities....

I like entertainment also, here listen:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0pWnZFrdQFE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0pWnZFrdQFE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 1, 2009)

Scruggs is awesome.

I'm not here for entertainment. I'm here for debate. Am I here to have my mind changed? No, and I'm fairly certain you are also not here to have your mind changed.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> You will deny all kinds simple and complex proofs... is my guess.
> 
> I'm encouraged that you are perhaps open to "belief" whatever that may mean to you.
> 
> I can prove God's existance in a very few words, with a hand tied behind my back



Please....Go on.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 1, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Scruggs is awesome.
> 
> I'm not here for entertainment. I'm here for debate. Am I here to have my mind changed? No, and I'm fairly certain you are also not here to have your mind changed.



Not so . I am here to have my mind changed, along with my heart,  my attitudes and all kinds of beliefs I might entertain...


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 1, 2009)

So you're open to believing that a god doesn't exist?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> So you're open to believing that a god doesn't exist?




I imagine that he's considered it at some point.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Please....Go on.



You must realize that most folks get proof from litterally  and figuratively crawling and falling to their knees.

Since we live with a generation who live as if they were entitled to the what all other previous generations vigourously reached for since Isreal was brought captive into Babilon, I will toss you a ticket to a pearl.

What makes you alive as you know it is not from the breath of corrosive oxygen you take in day in and day out  since your circulation switched from being in your mother's amiotic fluid to sucking on air... This is your first birth.

What makes you alive, human and lively, as you know it is from the breath or spirit you take in from the spirit you are surrounded in.

Now without going into the sylogistic geometry of proving spirit, can we say that people are endowed or have what we term spirit. In fact we can talk about places and items haveing spirit. So people have great spirit we say. Someome called their aeroplane, " The Spirit of St. Louis" and so on.

Now there are all kinds of spirits, which we quantify or cathagorize according to the attribudes we find repeated and observable in common either through historical knowledge or study.

God is a spirit. It says so in scripture and christians say the Holy Spirit is God  when they speak of this person of thier trinity.

Now God being a spirit He is not an ordinary spirit. His spirit is said, spiritually, to be the stuff of life, the creator of life that was before man was--- a human being! Why? Because what makes us really human is not oxygen or other spirits, or our ability alone to reason scientifically or through phosophies findings, what ever they might be or judged to be good or  bad, it is God that makes us real! And so it is God that creates' us and not us that creat him.

God is because God is spirit, because spirit is. He has a history from which we imperfectly sow patches to form our quilts and our shrouds.

We are born again from God's spirit or his breath.

Now you can chose to believe this or not. You can chose to pick it apart with an a storm troopers booth, or you can start to appreaciate needles and treads.

I still think you need to crawl...to learn to walk again, but hey, my wife just bought my son a 900$ computor like it was a dollar chocholate bar... I saved up forever for mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So here you are, a  simple proof. Do as your will.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Reason is subject to scrutiny.  Faith is its own defense.  If we were lost in the woods and I said "We should go this way because the river will lead us to the highway." and you said "We should go this way because I just feel it in my bones."  We would part company.
> 
> If it is a "feeling in my bones" we will be headed to the river. But consider this, if we have passed a watershed in northern Canada, we could be cold, dead bear-fodder.
> 
> ...



Have a great evening.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> You must realize that most folks get proof from litterally  and figuratively crawling and falling to their knees.
> 
> Since we live with a generation who live as if they were entitled to the what all other previous generations vigourously reached for since Isreal was brought captive into Babilon, I will toss you a ticket to a pearl.
> 
> ...



I like you.  You're crazy, but I like you.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I like you.  You're crazy, but I like you.



No I'm not crazy and that is not very nice of you since I just helped you make a billion on the spiritual Dow. I bet you're not even gonna bother to check you "savings" account. Never the less, what I have told you is gona  go in your spiritual psychy and one of these nights, way late, your gona declare "I have a dream. I have been to the mountain. I been swallard by the fish." and mean it. And someone is gona say "He's crazy. But likeable."

Peace bros.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

Gt,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts in such a civilized way.  Your recent posts have a non-combative, peaceful air to them.  That's good.

The Bible just doesn't make sense in many places.  Neither does Navajo mythology.   I won't live my life that way.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> No I'm not crazy and that is not very nice of you since I just helped you make a billion on the spiritual Dow. I bet you're not even gonna bother to check you "savings" account. Never the less, what I have told you is gona  go in your spiritual psychy and one of these nights, way late, your gona declare "I have a dream. I have been to the mountain. I been swallard by the fish." and mean it. And someone is gona say "He's crazy. But likeable."
> 
> Peace bros.



I wasn't doggin' on ya.  The "crazy" bit was a quote from a movie.  If I join the ranks of the irrational, the metamorphosis will manifest itself in an ugly way.


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 1, 2009)

It there exists a supreme deity, and he/she wants little old me to know of its existance it will contact me directly.  My number is listed in the book.  
Not through some second hand stories, not through any "holy books," not through some speaker's emotional tirade and definately not through any government endorsed program.

Until then, I am quite satisfied in my stance of "I just don't know" and wonder what it is that makes some so positive in their dogmatic belief in such an existance.  I've never said it is not "real" to them.

One thing that is real to me, is my displeasure for the fundamental "religious" upbringing forced upon me as a child.  The mind bending of terror burned into the very fabric of a child, the constant fear and repression of "evil" followed by the potential for eternal torment and severe judgement was an indoctrination that today I consider abuse.

Angry?  Not anymore.  Free is a better word.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 1, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> Gt,
> 
> Thank you for sharing your thoughts in such a civilized way.  Your recent posts have a non-combative, peaceful air to them.  That's good.
> 
> ...


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 1, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> It there exists a supreme deity, and he/she wants little old me to know of its existance it will contact me directly.  My number is listed in the book.
> Not through some second hand stories, not through any "holy books," not through some speaker's emotional tirade and definately not through any government endorsed program.
> 
> Until then, I am quite satisfied in my stance of "I just don't know" and wonder what it is that makes some so positive in their dogmatic belief in such an existance.  I've never said it is not "real" to them.
> ...



I had a similar experience.  Luckily, my mother was not an anti-intellectual and supported the notion of asking "Why".  Funny though,  in her old age she has admittedly stopped asking "Why" about some spiritual matters.  She says she's tired of trying to figure it out.  Her default position, as it turned out, is faith.  

She continues to support rational inquiry and holds it in high regard; just not for herself.


----------



## Dehunt (Dec 1, 2009)

*My .02*

Heres my solution........I believe that God is very much a live and in control...With that being said..Lets look at it both ways.........If I die today I have lost nothing..Believing in God and eternal life in heaven and so on.....If theres no God...........BUT if I am right then a person that does not believe in God and dies then they have lost everything....
I have never heard of a man or a woman on their death bed want a scientist to explain where there headed either..........


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> One thing that is real to me, is my displeasure for the fundamental "religious" upbringing forced upon me as a child.  The mind bending of terror burned into the very fabric of a child, the constant fear and repression of "evil" followed by the potential for eternal torment and severe judgement was an indoctrination that today I consider abuse.
> 
> Angry?  Not anymore.  Free is a better word.



I agree.  Religion sucks.  Nothing like being free.

Bandy


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 1, 2009)

Pascal's Wager, Dehunt.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 1, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> Nor does my wife. But alas, I live my life her way.



That's a choice you make.


----------



## Dehunt (Dec 1, 2009)

I didnt even know anything about Pascal's Wager when I wrote that.......Sorry I didnt help any........I enjoy my life believing in God........


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 1, 2009)

Dehunt said:


> I didnt even know anything about Pascal's Wager when I wrote that.......Sorry I didnt help any........I enjoy my life believing in God........



Judging by your avatar it looks as if He's favored you as well!   

So do I, brother.

Bandy


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 1, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> That's a choice you make.



No. I have an obligation to love her, even when I don't like her to the best of my abilities.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 1, 2009)

red dragon said:


> god saved my life. when my father came back from iraq after his 3rd time there he was diffrent. everyone was scraed of him because when he went off he broke everything in our house and other things like . But when me and my mom and sister moved from arizona to GA i was at football pratice and a preacher came up to us and gave us a crad and me and my mom went to there church a week later i like it so did my family. but my father would never go but one day after about 8 months he went and he gave his life to christ and then everything changed he never lost his temper again and he read the bible everyday and it was just crazy he went from crazy jarhead to gods right hand man and now he is a elder at our church it is called east paulding calvery chapel and i know that there  is a god because there is no way that a human could have changed him. that is my storie and my proof that there is a god!



Fine story there Red but the topic here is "Tell me why you _*do not*_ believe in God".


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 1, 2009)

Dehunt said:


> I didnt even know anything about Pascal's Wager when I wrote that.......Sorry I didnt help any........I enjoy my life believing in God........



I understand your stance.  I did not mean to be insulting at all.  Thanks for your posts!


----------



## red dragon (Dec 1, 2009)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Fine story there Red but the topic here is "Tell me why you _*do not*_ believe in God".





Thats what im trying to say how can you not Believe! There is no way everything on earth was made from a big boom look at everything around us its so perfect.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Dec 1, 2009)

red dragon said:


> Thats what im trying to say how can you not Believe! There is no way everything on earth was made from a big boom look at everything around us its so perfect.



Welcome to the forum, Red Dragon.


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 1, 2009)

“I'm a Christian because of Jesus Christ...and the abundant proof that exists for Him and His claims. You can't prove anything that happened in the past scientifically...like where you ate two days ago, or where you went to school... Events in the past can't be repeated and observed.”      

How does one argue with something that negates itself?   “I’m a Christian because of  . . . the abundant proof . . .”  Followed immediately by “You can’t prove anything that happened in the past scientifically . . .”   So, um, the abundance of proof is that there isn’t any?  I agree wholeheartedly.

“I'm saying that science is showing that time and chance couldn't have done it. “   Actually, quite the opposite is true.  

“ . . . God's Word does not require us to reason (though we can and do). It only requires obedience; and while it too restricts our personal will (freedom), the end results are the best that can be had for a life filled with joy and peace and purpose.”   Uh-huh.  Obedience.  Yeah.  Restriction of our personal will.  Righto.  But freewill also.  Uh-huh.  But we don’t need to use reason.  Okay.  But we can . . . Um?

“Your only hope, the only hope of the world, is Jesus.”   Indeed.  Not, say, oxygen, food, water, shelter, intelligence, knowledge, or thoughtfulness – only Jesus.  Okay.  So, some fella who, a few thousand years ago, you claim with sure knowledge, came about because some invisible being somewhere impregnated a virgin, and then was largely abandoned in your story by this all-knowing virgin-rapist to be tortured and killed by the authorities of the time because he was basically a pain in their butts, is actually the ‘only hope’?  Sounds pretty plausible to me.

“Conclusion: Premise one is proven and can be proven.”   Okay.  We’ll wait.  Trot out the proof . . .

“I am asking you to posit why you believe the way you do.”  No you aren’t.  You asked why I do not believe.  Very different question. And the question itself is neither simple nor legitimate – it is contentious, challenging, meaningless, and assumes that what you believe in is self-evident and somehow needs to be deconstructed and ‘unexplained.’  You are in no such position.  If you believe that Jello causes volcanic eruptions when it is snowing and there is a cat on the roof, you are welcome to that nonsense.  Your own position is no less nonsensical, and has no more basis than your own assertions and the ‘teachings’ of your ancestors.  

The fact is that there is not a single shred of anything other than ancient manufactured stories that strain credibility, and rationalizations that change with the wind, to support belief in a deity.  In support of the rational there is so much genuine, empirical, demonstrated and reproducible evidence that one lifetime is not enough to read and absorb it all.  AND—Rejecting the clearly visible, proven, and provable in favor of the invisible, unproven and unprovable is generally known as ignorance – faith is the antithesis of proof, and has no place in any discussion of the rational.

“God asks you to have faith.”   Really?   Did God stop by and ask you to do that?  Busy Being, that God, I would think, but maybe just a quick visit over Froot Loops in the morning?   No?  C’mon . . . Who really asked you to have faith? And did that fella ask you for money?

Then more back-pedaling: “Ok. How about I change the question. Please explain to me how you came to logically conclude that God does not exist. For such a logical position, there must be a process.”   Sigh.  One has to admire the relentless pursuit and persecution of those who refuse to wear tin-foil hats . . . The logical conclusion arises from the premise.  Your premise is that God exists, but only your particular God.  That is absurd on the face of it, and bears no real logical analysis.  Various societies have manufactured thousands of Gods over the ages – Zeus, Osiris, Woden, and so on – and you do not believe in any of those Gods.  Why not?  All atheists do is go you one better, extending this denial to your God as well.  If Zeus is rejected by your belief system, then where is your own logic?  There are plenty of writings and temples and rituals and adherents to any number of different Gods all through history – so what makes your story any more compelling than theirs were (and are)?  What ‘process’ did you employ to decide that you had finally roped and tied down the One God that everyone else was so woefully wrong about?  

Could it have been your superior ‘logic’? Or is it just possible that you might be as wrong as every adherent to every ‘God’ in the entire history of mankind has been?  

“God is because God is spirit, because spirit is.”  Right.  You see?  No – over here!  The spirit.  Wait!  Now it is over there!  Elusive little bugger.  Wait – There it is!  Didn’t you see it?  It is because it is!  C’mon – concentrate – it is right there on the coffee table!  No, wait, it is in the cathedral now . . .    

So, in this thread, there you have it in a nutshell – dozens of logical reasons not to believe . . .  I survived about my first seven years of life before I figured out that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were cynical, manufactured nonsense meant to make me behave properly in order to reap a personal reward, and it took only a few more years to figure out that Church was nothing more than an even more cynical, adult version of the same nonsense, with the added twist of punishment.  But nobody can say they have seen the promised rewards, nor can they say they have suffered the promised punishments – so the whole mess is a shell game based entirely on superstition.  I’m not inclined to be led around by the nose and be deprived of my hard-earned means by some other person who sits around on his increasingly widening backside telling me to do as he says and pay him to do nothing at all other than revel in his power and his lack of actual accomplishment.

The endless descriptions and the constantly changing assignment of attributes to this God; and the constant revision of what this God needs, and wants, and expects; and the endless quest to impose this God, and thus His Holy Control on everyone in the world; and the conflicted, conflicting and constantly changing rationalizations of the meanings of the ‘Word’ of this God; and the smug surety that violence in the name of this God is wholly justified; and even the fact that anyone would be so thoroughly brain-washed that they dare ask that not believing them without question might require a ‘logical’ explanation when they are unable to provide anything other than a bully pulpit and a demand that they be taken seriously --  Um?  

Boy howdy, the reasons for Faith just are clear as a bell, aren’t they?  Sorry.  The reason thinking people do not Believe is simply that there isn’t a single reason why they ought to.  Not one.


----------



## BeenHuntn (Dec 1, 2009)

red dragon,
go ahead and put dio on your ignore list... his long antichrist humanistic replies will wear you out...


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 1, 2009)

red dragon said:


> ...look at everything around us its so perfect.





Oh really?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 1, 2009)

Stirred up a hornet's nest...


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 2, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Stirred up a hornet's nest...




Yes you did. Here's an intermission by the allies no less.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rax07CEcCnE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rax07CEcCnE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 2, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> How does one argue with something that negates itself?   “I’m a Christian because of  . . . the abundant proof . . .”  Followed immediately by “You can’t prove anything that happened in the past scientifically . . .”   So, um, the abundance of proof is that there isn’t any?  I agree wholeheartedly.
> 
> “I'm saying that science is showing that time and chance couldn't have done it. “   Actually, quite the opposite is true.



I'm amazed by your illogic.   lol    I said that it can't be proven scientifically, not that it can't be proven.   Sorry, I probably needed to simplify the statement or detail it out more.


----------



## gordon 2 (Dec 2, 2009)

Now let get's the freedom train back on track. Here's a little charisma for y'all.

Look here and listen amen's lively breath full of spirit.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_90D1RzApts&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_90D1RzApts&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 2, 2009)

I just don't understand why you people are insisting that atheists "prove" that a god doesn't exist. It doesn't make any sense!

The question is the same that I have posed in many stupid examples, but alas, nobody has replied to them. An atheist having to  "prove" that there is no god is EXACTLY the same as a Christian being made to prove that there is no Zeus.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 2, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> I just don't understand why you people are insisting that atheists "prove" that a god doesn't exist. It doesn't make any sense!
> 
> The question is the same that I have posed in many stupid examples, but alas, nobody has replied to them. An atheist having to  "prove" that there is no god is EXACTLY the same as a Christian being made to prove that there is no Zeus.



The thread simply asked you to give reasons for not believing...not to prove god didn't exist.   Why don't you believe in god is the simple question....


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 2, 2009)

And I would say it's the same reason that you don't believe in talking frogs.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 2, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> And I would say it's the same reason that you don't believe in talking frogs.



lol     are you a politician?       You're avoiding the question...


----------



## gtparts (Dec 2, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> And I would say it's the same reason that you don't believe in talking frogs.



You obviously do not understand the difference between a talking frog and a god. Spend all your time looking for a talking frog, do ya?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 2, 2009)

gtparts said:


> You obviously do not understand the difference between a talking frog and a god. Spend all your time looking for a talking frog, do ya?



I get his point, of course.  Admittedly, there is no book describing how to worship or organized following of talking frogs, but if there were, it would be a silly notion, wouldn't it?

Really think about the premise of God; a being with magic powers.  Is it really all that different than a talking frog?  I have some experience with beings and I have experience with frogs.  It seems crazy to me to give them the attributes of magical powers or the ability to talk, respectively.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 2, 2009)

No, my point is that people don't have to explain why they don't believe in ridiculous things. I'm not avoiding the question, I'm explaining my answer of "I just don't believe outlandish fantasy." 

My supporting point is that I don't expect you to have to explain to me why you don't believe in talking frogs. Why? Because a rational person doesn't believe in fairy tales to start with.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 2, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I get his point, of course.  Admittedly, there is no book describing how to worship or organized following of talking frogs, but if there were, it would be a silly notion, wouldn't it?
> 
> Really think about the premise of God; a being with magic powers.  Is it really all that different than a talking frog?  I have some experience with beings and I have experience with frogs.  It seems crazy to me to give them the attributes of magical powers or the ability to talk, respectively.



Silly? Absolutely. I find that notion silly, whether a talking frog exists or not. I will defer to your experience with frogs, talking or not, and to your experience with beings (specifically, physical), though I am not sure in the latter matter your experience with physical beings is qualitatively or quantitatively superior to my own. Will you defer to my experience with God?


----------



## gtparts (Dec 2, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> No, my point is that people don't have to explain why they don't believe in ridiculous things. I'm not avoiding the question, I'm explaining my answer of "I just don't believe outlandish fantasy."
> 
> My supporting point is that I don't expect you to have to explain to me why you don't believe in talking frogs. Why? Because a rational person doesn't believe in fairy tales to start with.



One mans outlandish fantasy is another mans spiritual reality. 

It is easy to see where the passion comes from when Christians defend their spiritual reality. It is somewhat disturbing however, when others expend such energy trying to debunk what they believe to be outlandish fantasy.

Which position is truly more rational?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 2, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Silly? Absolutely. I find that notion silly, whether a talking frog exists or not. I will defer to your experience with frogs, talking or not, and to your experience with beings (specifically, physical), though I am not sure in the latter matter your experience with physical beings is qualitatively or quantitatively superior to my own. Will you defer to my experience with God?



Have you ever definitively witnessed any being perform true magic?  I have not.  I've seen posts talking about rebuking tornadoes and making them turn.  Have you witnessed any of that?  Nor have i witnessed a frog talk.

I will defer that you have experiences that you attribute to God the same way that I have to accept that people have gotten "well" from placebos.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 2, 2009)

ambush is getting at what I was trying to say. To me witnessing a frog talk is just as feasible as witnessing the work of god.


----------



## earl (Dec 2, 2009)

If the Christian God was real, he would have wiped out Adam and Eve as soon as they sinned and started over. To believe that a God would continue with mankind and hope that A and E's progeny would live as he commanded is ludicrous. He would have known at the moment of the first sin that things would only get worse as mankind was fruitful and multiplied. He would have even known that the life of his only son wouldn't get the job done as far as saving all mankind. 
A god that would let A and E continue knowing all the pain and suffering that was to come is perverted. To blame all this pain and suffering on God's gift of free will is just as perverted. 
But ,whatever gets you through the night.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 2, 2009)

earl said:


> If the Christian God was real, he would have wiped out Adam and Eve as soon as they sinned and started over. To believe that a God would continue with mankind and hope that A and E's progeny would live as he commanded is ludicrous. He would have known at the moment of the first sin that things would only get worse as mankind was fruitful and multiplied. He would have even known that the life of his only son wouldn't get the job done as far as saving all mankind.
> A god that would let A and E continue knowing all the pain and suffering that was to come is perverted. To blame all this pain and suffering on God's gift of free will is just as perverted.
> But ,whatever gets you through the night.



earl,

His love for His creation is totally amazing and beyond our ability to fully comprehend. That He would do all He has done so that some, the ones who believe and accept the substitutionary sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for them, could be redeemed is mind boggling.  Yes, He knew before time began that even His Son would be rejected by some. That would have been enough for me. ZAP!!!! But not God. And for His children, He will make everything holy and right. All they have suffered and lost will be restored. No scars, no pain, no deformities, no worry, no anxiety, no concerns.....everything will be made perfect in Him....... 

except for those who refused to repent, who rejected His Son. They will have eternal life also... with no joy, no peace, no relief. God will choose to remember them no more.

earl, there is no reason or wisdom in you choosing the latter course.  Seek Him while He may be found. You never know when your time will end.


----------



## earl (Dec 2, 2009)

gtparts said:


> earl,
> 
> His love for His creation is totally amazing and beyond our ability to fully comprehend. That He would do all He has done so that some, the ones who believe and accept the substitutionary sacrifice Jesus made on the cross for them, could be redeemed is mind boggling.  Yes, He knew before time began that even His Son would be rejected by some. That would have been enough for me. ZAP!!!! But not God. And for His children, He will make everything holy and right. All they have suffered and lost will be restored. No scars, no pain, no deformities, no worry, no anxiety, no concerns.....everything will be made perfect in Him.......
> 
> ...




I have seen first hand the havoc created by an unshakable faith in God. I have witnessed first hand how His love for His creation has manifested itself. 
Every thing could have been made perfect from day one through seven. Fool me once ,shame on Him. Fool me twice , Shame on Me.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 2, 2009)

earl said:


> I have seen first hand the havoc created by an unshakable faith in God. I have witnessed first hand how His love for His creation has manifested itself.
> Every thing could have been made perfect from day one through seven. Fool me once ,shame on Him. Fool me twice , Shame on Me.



earl, you must be kidding. If you have been paying attention you would know that basic to Christianity is that the world and all therein was "good" according to God's standards. Son, that means perfect!. Man fouled things up, not God. Man-up and take responsibility..... and quit blaming God for what man has done.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 2, 2009)

gtparts said:


> earl, you must be kidding. If you have been paying attention you would know that basic to Christianity is that the world and all therein was "good" according to God's standards. Son, that means perfect!. Man fouled things up, not God. Man-up and take responsibility..... and quit blaming God for what man has done.



obviously, he doesn't...although it's plain to most.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 2, 2009)

Man up and take responsibility? It surely wasn't earl's fault! Or yours or mine! It was Adam and Eve's fault, and I'm not sure what the logic is in making everyone else from that point forward pay for their failure to control themselves.


----------



## earl (Dec 2, 2009)

grizz , you took the words out of my mouth. There is no logic to it.   

I do man up for all of my mistakes. It's a real ''bear'' to have to man up for something done at the beginning of time that I had no part of. Sounds like the sins of a father [Adam &Eve]are unforgivable ,even with the crusifiction of Christ.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 2, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Man up and take responsibility? It surely wasn't earl's fault! Or yours or mine! It was Adam and Eve's fault, and I'm not sure what the logic is in making everyone else from that point forward pay for their failure to control themselves.



Sin and the consequences thereof are our inheritance from Adam and Eve. As long as you do not see your sin as God sees it, it never will make sense to you. 

Eve said it was the serpent, Adam said it was the woman God gave him, you say it was Adam & Eve. Surely not earl, not you, not me. 
You need to get real about your sin nature, about your rebellion against God, grizz.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 2, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> Man up and take responsibility? It surely wasn't earl's fault! Or yours or mine! It was Adam and Eve's fault, and I'm not sure what the logic is in making everyone else from that point forward pay for their failure to control themselves.



You really don't see why we should have to take responsibility for our failure to control ourselves? Who else should, could shoulder that for all of us?

There is one name given among men whereby we may be saved.......Jesus.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 2, 2009)

gtparts said:


> You really don't see why we should have to take responsibility for our failure to control ourselves? Who else should, could shoulder that for all of us?
> 
> There is one name given among men whereby we may be saved.......Jesus.



Oh, I'll take responsibility for my own actions no problem. I do have a problem being held responsible for someone else's actions. Just like if you go out and steal a car it's not my dang problem.

earl's post says this pretty well.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 2, 2009)

Well I have learned something. 
Believers as well as non-believers can use the same answer for their reasoning. 

"Because" 
"Prove it to me" 
"No support" 
"It just doesn't make sense"


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 2, 2009)

earl said:


> grizz , you took the words out of my mouth. There is no logic to it.
> 
> I do man up for all of my mistakes. It's a real ''bear'' to have to man up for something done at the beginning of time that I had no part of. Sounds like the sins of a father [Adam &Eve]are unforgivable ,even with the crusifiction of Christ.



This makes no sense. 

By the fall of man, we are born with a dead spirit. 
Jesus died to quicken our spirit. 
We still struggle with our flesh. 
1 John 2
1My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.


----------



## earl (Dec 2, 2009)

Then why are we still paying for the original sin ?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 2, 2009)

earl said:


> Then why are we still paying for the original sin ?



That's the beauty earl, you do not have to. 


But if you are wondering why we struggle with our flesh, I would say it is because God gave us the ability to choose life or death-same as Adam and Eve.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 3, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> That's the beauty earl, you do not have to.
> 
> 
> But if you are wondering why we struggle with our flesh, I would say it is because God gave us the ability to choose life or death-same as Adam and Eve.



Do you think God and an angel were sitting around admiring His brand new people when the angel asked "Do you think she's gonna eat the apple?". I can picture God with a smirk replying "Who do you think you're talking to?"


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 3, 2009)

This whole idea of things getting screwed up from the get-go seems fishy also, and is another reason I doubt the whole ordeal. Why would god do such a half-effort job at creation? If he has the power to fix it, why doesn't he? Is it so he CAN sit there with that angel and get a chuckle out of the whole crazy mess?

To stay on topic, what I just said is another answer to the OP question of why don't I believe in god.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 3, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> This whole idea of things getting screwed up from the get-go seems fishy also, and is another reason I doubt the whole ordeal. Why would god do such a half-effort job at creation? If he has the power to fix it, why doesn't he? Is it so he CAN sit there with that angel and get a chuckle out of the whole crazy mess?
> 
> To stay on topic, what I just said is another answer to the OP question of why don't I believe in god.



It's suspect.  The whole lot.  Like a late night info-mercial.


----------



## earl (Dec 3, 2009)

I forget what movie it was in ,but at the end it panned out to see the earth from a galaxy view. There were 2 beings playing a board game and earth was one of the pieces. Just as easy to believe.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 3, 2009)

earl said:


> I forget what movie it was in ,but at the end it panned out to see the earth from a galaxy view. There were 2 beings playing a board game and earth was one of the pieces. Just as easy to believe.



At the end of Men In Black a giant alien in diapers is playing marbles with the galaxies.

I've always likened the way that God treats people to like when I was a kid, burning ants with a magnifying glass.


----------



## earl (Dec 3, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> At the end of Men In Black a giant alien in diapers is playing marbles with the galaxies.
> 
> I've always likened the way that God treats people to like when I was a kid, burning ants with a magnifying glass.





Thanks . At least I was close.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 3, 2009)

That is a great movie scene. It really puts things into perspective. Makes you wonder if all the little mites living on a squirrel's tail sit around trying to figure out if an omniscient creator is listening to their little mite prayers.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 3, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> That is a great movie scene. It really puts things into perspective. Makes you wonder if all the little mites living on a squirrel's tail sit around trying to figure out if an omniscient creator is listening to their little mite prayers.



I don't think they have enough grey matter to formulate ideas like that.  I guess if a God exists, our brains and thoughts might be as primitive to him as a mite's are to us.

Do you think God has a brain?  Jesus did, right?  Do you think his brain was more or less the same as ours?  Did the miracles he performed originate as ideas in his brain?  I digress......


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 3, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> This whole idea of things getting screwed up from the get-go seems fishy also, and is another reason I doubt the whole ordeal. Why would god do such a half-effort job at creation? If he has the power to fix it, why doesn't he? Is it so he CAN sit there with that angel and get a chuckle out of the whole crazy mess?
> 
> To stay on topic, what I just said is another answer to the OP question of why don't I believe in god.



Ok, thats good for the original question.
But, who are you to say God did a have-way job at creating? He did it half-way because he gave the first humans and still gives you a choice? 
He doesn't 'fix it' because choices come with consequences.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Ok, thats good for the original question.
> But, who are you to say God did a have-way job at creating? He did it half-way because he gave the first humans and still gives you a choice?
> He doesn't 'fix it' because choices come with consequences.




Can you address post #104 in regards to your post?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 4, 2009)

ambush, we have hashed that out in great length before. Yes, God knew what Adam and Eve would do. I do not think he made them do it. Foreknowledge is not force. But I know you disagree with that.


----------



## grizzlyblake (Dec 4, 2009)

It would seem that he didn't do a very good job of creating worshipers if his first batch disobeyed him.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> ambush, we have hashed that out in great length before. Yes, God knew what Adam and Eve would do. I do not think he made them do it. Foreknowledge is not force. But I know you disagree with that.



I don't think he necessarily made them do it.  I just want to know if they could have done it any differently than he foresaw.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 4, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I don't think he necessarily made them do it.  I just want to know if they could have done it any differently than he foresaw.



I doubt it, as every man that has ever lived has at one time or another rebelled against God.


----------



## earl (Dec 4, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I doubt it, as every man that has ever lived has at one time or another rebelled against God.



That is an excellent post !!! Seriously.  Besides breathing and dieing ,Can you think of anything else that EVERY man that ever lived has done ? That is a serious statistical number .


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 4, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> It would seem that he didn't do a very good job of creating worshipers if his first batch disobeyed him.



He gave them a choice. I would say he did a great job of creating something that has the ability to choose. You cannot give someone a choice and then remove the ramifications one will feel as a result of making that choice. 
Nor can you give someone a choice without more than one option to be selected.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> I doubt it, as every man that has ever lived has at one time or another rebelled against God.



I have to apologize.  I asked you a question that I already knew the answer to: "if there is omniscience is there choice?".  If you understand the meanings of the words, then the logical answer is "no".  I just wanted to see how you would express the notion.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 4, 2009)

ambush80 said:


> I have to apologize.  I asked you a question that I already knew the answer to: "if there is omniscience is there choice?".  If you understand the meanings of the words, then the logical answer is "no".  I just wanted to see how you would express the notion.



I would only change it to omnipotence. But God has yielded and given us a choice. I know where you stand.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 5, 2009)

grizzlyblake said:


> This whole idea of things getting screwed up from the get-go seems fishy also, and is another reason I doubt the whole ordeal. Why would god do such a half-effort job at creation? If he has the power to fix it, why doesn't he? Is it so he CAN sit there with that angel and get a chuckle out of the whole crazy mess?
> 
> To stay on topic, what I just said is another answer to the OP question of why don't I believe in god.



He did fix it...through Jesus Christ.  

What's that bumper sticker I saw?   "Men use duct tape to fix everything; God used nails"


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 7, 2009)

BANDERSNATCH states: “I'm amazed by your illogic. lol I said that it can't be proven scientifically, not that it can't be proven. Sorry, I probably needed to simplify the statement or detail it out more.”

Indeed you do.  Since I doubt that it can be simplified without regressing into a cocoon, I’d be pleased if you could detail that thought.   Explain to me how something can be proven if not empirically (scientifically)?  And if you have such a method at your disposal – to actually and definitively prove something by zestful intuition totally devoid of actual facts – then why haven’t you come forward earlier?  Remember, here, that making up facts, quoting Aesop’s Fables as a factual source, or claiming to have met aliens or supernatural beings in a trance state will not count as factual proof.  So if you make a distinction between things that can be proven scientifically and things that can be proven only by your own unique method, then have at it . . . Tell us your method of ‘proving’ things.  We’ll wait.

Someone else says: “One mans outlandish fantasy is another mans spiritual reality. “   True enough.  One man’s belief that the government is bombarding him with microwaves to control his brain is another man’s recommendation to a mental hospital.  But the responsibility lies with the one claiming reality where none can be demonstrated.  One is welcome to believe what one wishes, and is welcome to be color-blind and believe that blue is green – some folks can’t help it – but that belief doesn’t change a thing for anyone else.  Faith is the antithesis of proof, and lacking proof, faith is little more than the reading of omens in the entrails of chickens.  

So, c’mon folks.  Step right up.  We’ve answered your question – we do not believe in ‘god’ because there isn’t one.  That is the answer.  Pretty simple and succinct as answers go, I might think.  I don’t believe in Godzilla or Santa Claus either.  Because they do not exist.  I think that is a pretty good reason.  So why bother asking a question when your only real intention is to step into your pulpit and rail against the answer?  

If you wish to maintain that Santa does exist, you’ll need to do better than quote from Clement Clarke Moore and tell stories of the gifts Santa provided to you as a child.  Most folks find that sort of ‘proof’ of your position to be a bit laughable.  I might as well ask – “Tell me why you don’t believe that you can run your lawnmower on lime Jello?,”  then try to mount an argument to the contrary.  The answer is – because you can’t.  Your position appears to be, to extend the metaphor, that the fact that something does not exist even faintly even as a possibility does not mean that you can’t demonstrate factually that it does.  So how about you do so?      

And, really, unless this is one of those TV shows where someone is going to pop out and finally admit that we’re being pranked, the question itself it ridiculous, and was offered as little more than bait to provide you with an opportunity to pontificate.

Put your ‘proof’ on the line, offer it up to scrutiny, learn a bit of logical thought process, and knock off the nonsense that doubt creates a certainty.  Our answers are genuine.  Your questions are smug and disingenuous, and are beneath the level I would expect of intelligent adults who truly wish to engage in a discussion over matters of huge historical and current importance.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 7, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Explain to me how something can be proven if not empirically (scientifically)?  And if you have such a method at your disposal – to actually and definitively prove something by zestful intuition totally devoid of actual facts – then why haven’t you come forward earlier?  . Tell us your method of ‘proving’ things.  We’ll wait.



You're not gonna have to wait long.      I'll answer your question with a question....

How did they 'prove' that the DC Snipers were the actual shooters?  (I know the answer)  The shootings occured in the past, so they couldn't repeat the event.     They must have had 'proof' if they convicted the guys and are going to kill one of them, right?

Did they have evidence?   This was an event of the past...like many things we take for granted....

I'll await your reply....if you give up, I'll tell you.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 7, 2009)

Sorry...I can't stand waiting...   

As I've mentioned before, every day in a court of law people are convicted for crimes in the past by using the 'legal-historical' method to prove 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the person was guilty.   You can't prove scientifically that someone did a crime, but you can use science. (forensics for example)    Since an event in the past can't be repeated in a controlled environment, we use the legal-historical method to 'prove' guilt or innocence.

That is the 'proof' I use as a christian when considering Jesus Christ' claim as God in the flesh.   When presented with that evidence, one has to accept it, or choose to ignore it and call Jesus a liar or a lunatic.

Some deny that Jesus even existed   but if we are to deny Jesus existence we'd have to deny the existence of every significant figure of the past.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 7, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> BANDERSNATCH states: “I'm amazed by your illogic. lol I said that it can't be proven scientifically, not that it can't be proven. Sorry, I probably needed to simplify the statement or detail it out more.”
> 
> Indeed you do.  Since I doubt that it can be simplified without regressing into a cocoon, I’d be pleased if you could detail that thought.   Explain to me how something can be proven if not empirically (scientifically)?  And if you have such a method at your disposal – to actually and definitively prove something by zestful intuition totally devoid of actual facts – then why haven’t you come forward earlier?  Remember, here, that making up facts, quoting Aesop’s Fables as a factual source, or claiming to have met aliens or supernatural beings in a trance state will not count as factual proof.  So if you make a distinction between things that can be proven scientifically and things that can be proven only by your own unique method, then have at it . . . Tell us your method of ‘proving’ things.  We’ll wait.
> 
> ...



Have not met anyone of any persuasion who could prove scientifically that God does NOT exist, yet you continue to state emphatically that God does not exist.

On what, then, do you base your conclusion, if not scientific proof? 
It appears you have climbed out on a limb that never was attached to the tree. From a scientific stand point, your reasoning is as baseless as you maintain Christian beliefs are.... no scientific proof.

In fact, the position you put forth is exactly that of which you have accused Christians. So, perhaps you should take your own advise and  knock off the nonsense that doubt creates a certainty.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 7, 2009)

We all know Diogenes doesn't like when people claim to know the absolute truth and tell everyone else they are wrong. 

Unless he is the one saying it....


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 7, 2009)

“Have not met anyone of any persuasion who could prove scientifically that God does NOT exist.”   

Sigh.  

So, honestly, your ‘reasoning’ is that since nobody has proved scientifically that Santa does NOT exist, that creates a ‘doubt,’ and that ‘doubt’ proves conclusively to your mind that Santa DOES exist?  

Wow.  Wait until the boys at the Pentagon find out about this line of ‘reasoning’ . . .


----------



## jbowes89 (Dec 8, 2009)

I'll give you this;

Either there is a god (or gods) or there is not. If there is, then we should reasonably expect to find empirical evidence in favor of his existence. To date, however, all forms of evidence have been lacking, and the assumption of god does nothing to quantifiably model a large body of observations or reliably predict future events. The god hypothesis therefore adds nothing to our understanding of nature and may as well be equivalent to no god at all. Unless the situation ever changes, the only RATIONAL conclusion is to assume that god does not exist.


----------



## jbowes89 (Dec 8, 2009)

gordon 2 said:


> Premise 1. Just because you have never seen or observed gravity or no gravity does not mean it don't exist.
> 
> Premise 1. Is testable. However you cannot test for oranges with the criteria required for lemons.
> 
> ...



Do you have any idea how insane you sound?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 8, 2009)

jbowes89 said:


> I'll give you this;
> 
> Either there is a god (or gods) or there is not. If there is, then we should reasonably expect to find empirical evidence in favor of his existence. To date, however, all forms of evidence have been lacking, and the assumption of god does nothing to quantifiably model a large body of observations or reliably predict future events. The god hypothesis therefore adds nothing to our understanding of nature and may as well be equivalent to no god at all. Unless the situation ever changes, the only RATIONAL conclusion is to assume that god does not exist.



Did you see my thread on the "Does God Exist?"  debate video?    Would you be willing to listen to a PhD give his evidence for the existence of god?    

If there wasn't evidence then there would be no debate today.   Much evidence has been discussed in these threads...evidence that you will live your life hoping that scientists will eventually figure out.    (Origin of life for example)    You ignore the problem...


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 8, 2009)

“You ignore the problem...”

Um.  Not really.  We devote hundreds of billions of dollars, the best minds on the planet, hundreds of years of terribly complicated research and exploration, and employ everything from deep-space probes to radio telescopes to particle accelerators and beyond in search of an answer.

If only more people knew that all they had to do was open up any random page of a single ancient manuscript to find everything they need to know . . . Carry on with your Good Work . . . Really . . . But, um, nothing personal, you’ll have to pardon us while we get on with the actual work of NOT ignoring the problem in favor of trite and nonsensical ‘answers’ . . .


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 9, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> “You ignore the problem...”
> 
> Um.  Not really.  We devote hundreds of billions of dollars, the best minds on the planet, hundreds of years of terribly complicated research and exploration, and employ everything from deep-space probes to radio telescopes to particle accelerators and beyond in search of an answer.
> 
> If only more people knew that all they had to do was open up any random page of a single ancient manuscript to find everything they need to know . . . Carry on with your Good Work . . . Really . . . But, um, nothing personal, you’ll have to pardon us while we get on with the actual work of NOT ignoring the problem in favor of trite and nonsensical ‘answers’ . . .



We?      Anyway....are you referring to SETI?   Listening for some design in a radio wave are WE?   lol   Will you assume a designer if you see a complicated pattern?   Oh, and what is that your deep space probe will tell you about how life started?         Oh, forgot...they are looking mainly for a drop of water....cause, once you've got a drop of water, you're half way to that simple cell already.  

Nothing personal, but I'll stick with Jesus.    lol    SETI....what a waste of money.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 9, 2009)

One good thing about science is that is has shown how impossible it is for life to just begin on its own.     See the link in my thread "Gap Between Origin-of-Life Research and Simplest Life Grows".   It's going to take more than mixing some amino acids in water and stirring to get that first cell with 256 or more genes!    

Maybe....just maybe....life was planted here from space?       PANSPERMIA  (a term scientists use when they realize how impossible life starting here is)


----------



## gtparts (Dec 9, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> “Have not met anyone of any persuasion who could prove scientifically that God does NOT exist.”
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> ...



No. My reasoning is that no one has scientifically excluded the possibility that God exists. Therefore, the position you hold on the matter is completely unsupported by science. 

On the other hand, Christians understand that science lacks the capability to either conclusively confirm or deny the existence of God. It is the wrong tool for the task....100% totally inadequate.

Why is such a simple thing so hard for you to grasp?
How intelligent is it to maintain that you will go to perdition before you will seek God in the manner that spirit is perceptible? 

Science is no more than our attempt to describe and control the physical world in which we now live. It has NO spiritual answers. The language of science can't even construct a spiritual question.

btw, Pascal's Wager is scoffed at by you and those of like thinking. Perhaps, since the outcome of there being no God would be the same for Christian or atheist, that line of thought should be discarded. Further discussion would be of no value. If the end of life is just The End, why do you waste your time? The answer is apparent. Deep within you, you hope that it is not The End and that before you die, you desperately want to find out that it is not the end.

That leaves us with just the one line of thought. What will be the outcome if there is God? I am secure and confidant in all the implications that such an outcome holds for me. Are you?


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 9, 2009)

gtparts said:


> If the end of life is just The End, why do you waste your time? The answer is apparent. Deep within you, you hope that it is not The End and that before you die, you desperately want to find out that it is not the end.
> 
> That leaves us with just the one line of thought. What will be the outcome if there is God? I am secure and confidant in all the implications that such an outcome holds for me. Are you?



It's quite OK to simply take care of the one life you know exists.  Live it to the fullest without worry over what is to come or not to come.

If there is an omnipotent, omnicient and omnipresent deity, it will see right through any self interest of "belief" that is simply in order to save one's hide from an eternal ****ation.

It's OK for all to believe as they wish regardless of the religious belief system.  But the whole premise of proving a negative is absurd.  Each has to find their OWN proof in order to make their own decisions.


----------



## gtparts (Dec 9, 2009)

WTM45 said:


> It's quite OK to simply take care of the one life you know exists.  Live it to the fullest without worry over what is to come or not to come.
> 
> If there is an omnipotent, omnicient and omnipresent deity, it will see right through any self interest of "belief" that is simply in order to save one's hide from an eternal ****ation.
> 
> It's OK for all to believe as they wish regardless of the religious belief system.  But the whole premise of proving a negative is absurd.  Each has to find their OWN proof in order to make their own decisions.



Thanks for not throwing up that scientific proof nonsense.
What you have expressed is the personal choice that each must make on his or her own. None of us that have made the choice for God, has done so from science alone, though we do see His handywork all over it. Faith is the only way to make that leap....there is no other way.


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 9, 2009)

Scientific proof is no more considered nonsense to some than faith based belief is to a religious belief system follower.

But you have to admit, a great majority of "believers" do so simply out of a selfish concern for their own unknown eternal fate.

If I could remember what it was like before I was born, I might seriously worry/not worry over what it will be like after I'm gone.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 9, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Thanks for not throwing up that scientific proof nonsense.
> What you have expressed is the personal choice that each must make on his or her own. None of us that have made the choice for God, has done so from science alone, though we do see His handywork all over it. Faith is the only way to make that leap....there is no other way.



I came to Christ when I was around 13 I think, but since then I've had what I call "adventures in God" that are hard for me to explain to anyone, but can't be taken away from me.    "A man with an arument is no match for a man with an experience"    I've met Christ....and I've been filled with His Spirit just like occured in Acts, and He's cured me from the incurable.    My family is tight-knit as well.   Kids make great grades, excel in school and sports, and don't do drugs and are not foul-mouthed.

I'll stick with what works for me.....faith in Jesus Christ.   

I agree that faith is mandatory (Hebrews 11:6) but it is augmented by one-on-one experiences with God Himself.


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 9, 2009)

Wow – so the arguments range from ‘We can’t prove that a crime was committed’ except by some assertion of  some ‘legal-historical method’ mumbo-jumbo, and THAT is how God is proved; to ‘We can’t prove scientifically that God does NOT exist, and THAT is how God is proved; to ‘Anyway....are you referring to SETI?’ as an analog for actual science coupled with a woeful misunderstanding of scientific methods and aims – ‘Oh, forgot...they are looking mainly for a drop of water....’ in the search for something to mock, and mocking things beyond our intellectual capacities IS the proof of God; to a complete statement of nonsense ‘One good thing about science is that is has shown how impossible it is for life to just begin on its own,’ and THAT is the proof of God; to the totally exclusive – ‘Christians understand that science lacks the capability to either conclusively confirm or deny the existence of God,’ and since only Christians have that capability, THAT is the proof of God; to a deep and remotely rendered analysis of my psyche – ‘The answer is apparent. Deep within you, you hope that it is not The End and that before you die, you desperately want to find out that it is not the end,’ and THAT analysis is the proof of God . . .

Wow.  I thought you fellas said you had evidence?  All I see is a bunch of dancing that is distinguished only by the fact that not a single one of the dance steps contains a shred of actual evidence.  Trying to discredit and shout down dissent is a long way from proving your point.  You said you have proof – so let’s see it.    

If someone has had 'one-on-one experiences with God Himself,' then tell us all about it . . . what does God look like, for starters . . .


----------



## BeenHuntn (Dec 9, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Wow – so the arguments range from ‘We can’t prove that a crime was committed’ except by some assertion of  some ‘legal-historical method’ mumbo-jumbo, and THAT is how God is proved; to ‘We can’t prove scientifically that God does NOT exist, and THAT is how God is proved; to ‘Anyway....are you referring to SETI?’ as an analog for actual science coupled with a woeful misunderstanding of scientific methods and aims – ‘Oh, forgot...they are looking mainly for a drop of water....’ in the search for something to mock, and mocking things beyond our intellectual capacities IS the proof of God; to a complete statement of nonsense ‘One good thing about science is that is has shown how impossible it is for life to just begin on its own,’ and THAT is the proof of God; to the totally exclusive – ‘Christians understand that science lacks the capability to either conclusively confirm or deny the existence of God,’ and since only Christians have that capability, THAT is the proof of God; to a deep and remotely rendered analysis of my psyche – ‘The answer is apparent. Deep within you, you hope that it is not The End and that before you die, you desperately want to find out that it is not the end,’ and THAT analysis is the proof of God . . .
> 
> Wow.  I thought you fellas said you had evidence?  All I see is a bunch of dancing that is distinguished only by the fact that not a single one of the dance steps contains a shred of actual evidence.  Trying to discredit and shout down dissent is a long way from proving your point.  You said you have proof – so let’s see it.
> 
> If someone has had 'one-on-one experiences with God Himself,' then tell us all about it . . . what does God look like, for starters . . .



i am not gonna waste the time on the other issues but will send you the picture of God...   this pcture of God was taken by a photographer. Its an actual picture God...


----------



## gtparts (Dec 9, 2009)

Yep. That is Him. So, dio, you got a pic and confirmation. Might as well come on over to the Light side.


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 9, 2009)

gtparts said:


> Yep. That is Him. So, dio, you got a pic and confirmation. Might as well come on over to the Light side.


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 9, 2009)

Well why didn’t you say so earlier?  I’m convinced.  Do I have to be dipped in a particular river to make it official, or will any of them do?


----------



## pileit (Dec 9, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Well why didn’t you say so earlier?  I’m convinced.  Do I have to be dipped in a particular river to make it official, or will any of them do?



There is a stream up at NaCoochee Valley near Helen Ga. that works well  in December.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 10, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> Wow.  I thought you fellas said you had evidence?  All I see is a bunch of dancing that is distinguished only by the fact that not a single one of the dance steps contains a shred of actual evidence.  Trying to discredit and shout down dissent is a long way from proving your point.  You said you have proof – so let’s see it.
> 
> If someone has had 'one-on-one experiences with God Himself,' then tell us all about it . . . what does God look like, for starters . . .



Dio, I'm sure you'd agree that, if god does actually exist, he/it would not have to come stand right in front of you to make himself known, correct?   He can go one-on-one (if he's all omnipotent and stuff) and never have to become physically present.   That's what He did for me...and many people who know Him.   

You keep saying we aren't offering proof but we have.   I mentioned legal-historical, and that qualifies as proof.   Do you disagree?   For present day proof, you choose to see design in everything but biology, and will live your life hoping that scientists will figure out how life got started, even though the GAP BETWEEN THAT FIRST CELL AND AND SOUP continues to grow wider.


----------



## earl (Dec 10, 2009)

Tater soup with bacon and cheddar cheese.on a cold day. Now that's good stuff !!


----------



## CRT (Dec 10, 2009)

earl said:


> Tater soup with bacon and cheddar cheese.on a cold day. Now that's good stuff !!




I'll have what he's having!!!


----------



## Diogenes (Dec 12, 2009)

“There is a stream up at NaCoochee Valley near Helen Ga. that works well in December.”  Um?   Careful there soldier . . . that sounds a bit UnChristian right there . . . 

“Dio, I'm sure you'd agree that, if god does actually exist . . . “   Bandersnatch?  We have to talk  . . .   Um?  You are right – “if god does actually exist,” then just about anything you want to assign to that particular unknown, unquantified, invisible, anonymous, mysterious, unseen and unproven Being would need to be true.  

But, really?  If I started a thought that was premised by – “I’m sure you’d agree, if Sasquatch does actually exist . . .” then tried to draw conclusions on that premise, you’d laugh me out of the forum.

I say that you are not offering proof because you aren’t.  You are offering anecdotes and heart-felt belief.  As well as demonstrably false statements – “the GAP BETWEEN THAT FIRST CELL AND AND SOUP continues to grow wider.”  Not so.  I can offer up thousands and thousands of pages of genuine evidence to the contrary, and the hosts would toss me out for jamming their bandwidth . . . Your ‘legal-historical’ argument is well considered, but is honestly first-year Law Student stuff, and isn’t really even valid in a court of law let alone as a ‘proof’ of the supernatural.  A Court is allowed, in rare circumstances, to consider the ‘legal-historical,’ but is bound and sworn to consider the preponderance of the actual evidence and rule only on that evidence that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  

To say that, “_ choose to see design in everything but biology, and will live [my] life hoping that scientists will figure out how life got started,” is purely speculative and is assigning thoughts to me that I do not hold.  I see ‘design’ in nothing other than human works, and I’m pretty sure that scientists will never figure it out conclusively in my lifetime, or my children’s, or their children’s.  I’m okay with not knowing for sure.  If you asked me how a jet engine works, I’m pretty sure that I couldn’t tell you.  I can’t tell you much about the Red Rectangle Nebula, neutrinos, magnetic shifts, contestable markets theory, Saint-Venant’s principle, or Democrats either.  

But the fundamental difference is that I do not ascribe things that I, personally, do not understand to a mysterious supernatural force.  I consider that sort of a position to be an abdication of our intellectual responsibilities.  Nowadays, if we don’t understand something, we try to find out.  We don’t sacrifice small animals and pray to the Gods of the Unknown.  

So, if one wishes to assert the primacy of the Great and Glorious Invisible Force, and if one wishes to assert a personal knowledge of that Force, and wishes further to convince others that this assertion is the One True Path – well, um?  Okay.  You are allowed to think as you wish, but you need to be prepared to answer some tough questions, huh?

I’m told time and again by folks here that they have proof of their position.  Time and again I ask them to trot out that proof, so that us poor unwashed heathens might have a look.  The consistent answer is that we can’t understand, because we are not among the ‘Saved.’  So, um?  That is the ‘proof’?  That you know something the rest of us are hopelessly unable to understand?  The rest of us figured out nuclear power plants, ferromagnetism, HKL zone indices, DNA coding, and the number of atoms in a given radioactive nuclide at the time taken as zero – and your only position is that we are too dumb to understand?  Please.

Give us a try.  We might surprise you.  

A Truth exists by the verifiable proof, and by an empirical method through which any assertion of truth can be duplicated by any independent party.  “I believe it in my Heart” is not proof – and we generally call those sorts of appeals to emotion over demonstration to be con games.  Further, demanding that someone ‘prove’ that your fiction ISN’T true will get you laughed out of any actual intellectual discussion.  As has been pointed out numerous times, nobody needs to ‘prove scientifically’ that pancakes don’t go whitewater canoeing, and asking them to do so in order to ‘disprove’ your personal belief to the contrary is worse than childish and might border on insane.  

Now, I’m okay with belief.  Personally, I don’t subscribe to the idea of the supernatural.  That is my choice.  Many folks do subscribe to that idea.  That is their choice.  But when someone stands and says that they can ‘prove’ that their position is True, it is not unreasonable to ask to see that ‘proof.’  I see no credible proof, and my ability to ‘believe’ in fairy tales ran out in Elementary School.  

Stand evidence, and convince me, or stand honest, and admit that you are as confused by the unknown as everyone else is . . ._


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 13, 2009)

Diogenes said:


> I say that you are not offering proof because you aren’t.  You are offering anecdotes and heart-felt belief.  As well as demonstrably false statements – “the GAP BETWEEN THAT FIRST CELL AND AND SOUP continues to grow wider.”  Not so.  I can offer up thousands and thousands of pages of genuine evidence to the contrary, and the hosts would toss me out for jamming their bandwidth . . . Your ‘legal-historical’ argument is well considered, but is honestly first-year Law Student stuff, and isn’t really even valid in a court of law let alone as a ‘proof’ of the supernatural.  A Court is allowed, in rare circumstances, to consider the ‘legal-historical,’ but is bound and sworn to consider the preponderance of the actual evidence and rule only on that evidence that is proven beyond a reasonable doubt...
> 
> ...I’m told time and again by folks here that they have proof of their position.  Time and again I ask them to trot out that proof, so that us poor unwashed heathens might have a look.  The consistent answer is that we can’t understand, because we are not among the ‘Saved.’  ...



Having just watched the "Does God Exist?" debate video that I mentioned in another thread, William Craig offers up evidences that God exists:

1)  The Cosmological Argument    (That the universe had  beginning and a cause (as supported by science)

2)  The Teleological Argument     (The unbelievable fine tuning of the universe of  approximately 19 of its laws, as supported by science)   

3)   The resurrection of Jesus Christ (as supported by evidence that would be used to support an event of history, as supported by the legal-historical method)

4)   The argument that God can be experienced today...by anyone who sincerely wishes to know Him. 

(there's another arugment he presented, but it escapes me at the moment...sorry) 

You keep saying that we offer up no evidence, but we do, but you reclassify our evidence and say that it doesn't meet your qualifications for evidence.   There is lots of kinds of evidence, and we've offered it up.  Sorry...deal with it.


As to the "Gap for Origin of Life" question....How can you offer up "thousands and thousands" of articles showing how close they are getting to an answer, but then turn around and say that you doubt it will be answered within your lifetime, or your childrens (assuming 80+ years) or their children?       These "thousands and thousands" of articles must be just baby steps across an ocean that has to be crossed.    "Jamming their bandwidth"!!!    You are hilarious.   

Legal-historical is used every day in court to prove a past event.   Name a well-known court case where a person was being charged with a crime that the Legal-historical method was not used?    Don't bother wasting your time...you can't.

Oh yeah....wanted to ask....what do you mean by "give US a try"?     Who is this 'US' group, and are you a member of US?


----------



## WTM45 (Dec 13, 2009)

Hebrews 11:1.
Promoting believers to utilize "faith" as a replacement for "evidence" is quite the conundrum.  You just can not argue with that logic........


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 13, 2009)

Like Josh McDowell says in his book, "More than a Carpenter"...

"Never has anyone been called on to commit intellectual suicide by trusting Christ as Saviour and Lord"

One doesn't have to.

Evidence supports His resurrection.


----------

