Believing in god is NOT a choice

[The Neo Nerd]

Well now,

You see nature and your mind says that it is a reflection of god. This is hardly proof this is an assumption you are making.

Do you actually have real, incontrovertible, recreatable, proof of the existence of a deity that doesn't work on assumptions. Facts would be nice, not surmise.

For the sake of clarity i have decided to define some of these terms:

The oxford dictionary defines the following:

Proof

• evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
• the proving of the truth of a statement. • a series of stages in the resolution of a mathematical or philosophical problem.

Assumption

• a thing that is assumed to be true.

Real

• actually existing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.
• significant; serious.
• not artificial; genuine.

Incontrovertible

• not able to be denied or disputed.

Surmise

• suppose without having evidence.
• a supposition or guess.

Fact

• a thing that is indisputably the case.

-Q

 

[Heneni]

Well now,

You see nature and your mind says that it is a reflection of god. This is hardly proof this is an assumption you are making.

Indeed. You look at nature and yourmind says its not a reflection of gods glory. Yet you have looked, and therefore have seen it. What you dont believe is that its the reflection of gods glory. But you have still seen it. What i believe you have found is the reflection of his glory. What you believe you have found is nothing of the sort. Yet SOMETHING has been found.

If i found a diamond we can argue about whether it is a diamond or not. But we have still both seen it. And that is the argument im making. If you have seen it, you have found it. Therefore all have found the reflection of gods glorry, but not all have labelled it as such.

God bless you!
Heneni

 

[Sententia]

You have found god

This assumes there is a god. That god can be found. That you know more about what a person has found then even that person.

Essentially what you do with this statement is start with the conclusion you want. You are projecting your beliefs and bias.

proof of a deity.

Assumes that there is a deity and that you could find proof. Similar problems to the above but it also doesn't refute but ignore the other side of this argument. Its like plugging your ears and saying lalalalalalalalalalala to the arguments Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens etc and Really their just parroting ancient arguments that pre-date most current god fantasies.

Nobody can go to a particular place to see God in person.

This assumes there is a god. The implication is that this absence of a proper place to look upon god is then proof of a god. Its such a flippant statement of pointlessness that can be used for almost anything:

Nobody can go to a particular place to see Ra in person.
Nobody can go to a particular place to see Unicorns in person.

Not yet.
(Not since Jesus, who was the exact reflection of Gods glory in the form of a man).

This implies that there is evidence that some day you will be able to see god and that mankind has viewed god before. It also distills the argument of a generic god into a more christian god argument. It then clearly becomes a matter of nothing more then faith and personal belief. Your choice is to believe in this god, this jesus and this superstitious yarn.

But proof of Gods existence is all around you.

No there is not. A natural solution and explanation for the world around us does not require a supernatural solution.

Frankly, IMHO, the world is more beautiful and elegant without god. It is the simpler explanation.

Can you say that you have never seen nature? Certainly not.

Nature has a rational explanation. God does not. God is antithesis of nature. God is Outside of Nature and Supernatural where Nature is by definition within nature and Natural.

So you have found God in the glory of his creation,

Creation stories are fun. The christian one is not really accepted by the christians. Its many things to many people.... a poem, an allegorical tale, a literal truth setting the earth at 6-10k years old, a tale of morality etc etc.

Nothing about nature requires god and saying "god did it" is a failure to understand or to explain... not an explanation.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Yet SOMETHING has been found.

:thud:

Yes. I found NATURE.

I can see nature, i can feel nature, touch, smell and taste nature.

That is proof. There is no assumptions, there is no surmise. I can prove nature exists, without making assumptions.

I'm sorry if you feel that i am being an a$$hole about this. I believe in your right to believe in a deity of some form, i will fight tooth and nail for your right to believe what you want. But i will not believe in a god based on assumptions.

-Q

 

[Willamena]

You see nature and your mind says that it is a reflection of god. This is hardly proof this is an assumption you are making.

Do you actually have real, incontrovertible, recreatable, proof of the existence of a deity that doesn't work on assumptions. Facts would be nice, not surmise.

If I understand correctly, it works on the assumption of "seeing", which is "something the mind says," and yet "a fact". "God", then, would be what's left when you take away the assumption.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

If I understand correctly, it works on the assumption of "seeing", which is "something the mind says," and yet "a fact".

"God", then, would be what's left when you take away the assumption.

Im not sure what you are saying here, do you think you could rephrase this for us.

-Q

 

[blackout]

I have yet to find any proof or fact of a deity. Perhaps i'm not looking hard enough.

Perhaps you could point any of it out for me.

I'm not makng fun of you here, i'm actually interested.

Thankyou,

-Q

Have you tried the mirror?

Meh. Don't try too hard.
If you don't see gOd you're likely to see something else that looks just like gOd.
Or at least something else.
....and Something equally interesting I'm sure. :yes:

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Have you tried the mirror?

Man, know thyself - and thou shall know the Universe and its gods." -- The Oracle of Delphi

:yes:

-Q