Evidence of Divinity

[Ingledsva]

Sure, but there are cordial ways to say it and crass ways to say it. When I see crass behavior, my manners alarm goes off and I tend to react a little sour to it. Sorry.

More importantly, the OP gives me the impression that this thread was not intended for formal debate or to tear to shreds - with the laundry list of logical fallacies - every theists's heartfelt reasons for following the path that they do.

But like I said, if respectful sharing (not debate!) was the OP's intent, putting the thread in a debate subforum unfortunately opens the door for (with respect to the intent of the thread intent) tangential and irrelevant naysaying. It is what it is, which is something that will probably begin to smell a little off.

Speaking of tangents, I'm officially done with this one. No disrespect intended if I do not address any additional drumming-up.

Note that I put an - add-on - to my post so people would know the term does NOT mean the person making the argument is "ignorant."

The person's argument is appealing to "ignorance" of ultimate fact (in science for instance,) thus it must mean God did it.


Add on: I thought I should add, before someone gets insulted, - that the "ignorance" does not mean the person debating.


In other words, it basically is someone saying something like , - since you don't know, ultimately, how the Universe began, - it somehow has to be a God, or Gods. Which of course logically it doesn't.



*

 

[idav]

Conversely, some can stumble right over a perfectly natural phenomenon and they would be like, what the heck, I don't know … let's call it God.

Now, do you have anything of substance to add?

I did in the post right before that, post 10.

 

[Pegg]

isnt this nothing more then appealing to ignorance?


You dont know, so god did it.

no. I simply dont believe that matter and living things can come into existence without a supply of a powerful force....and i dont believe that powerful forces just pop into existence without a source

 

[Pegg]

Your inability to understand scientific explanations is not evidence for your god.

and nor are scientific explanations for how things work evidence that God does not exist.

 

[outhouse]

no. I simply dont believe that matter and living things can come into existence without a supply of a powerful force....and i dont believe that powerful forces just pop into existence without a source

"Believe" has nothing to do with science.


You have no sources, you have no evidence, you have faith and faith alone.


We learned a long time ago faith has never explained the natural world we live in.

 

[outhouse]

and nor are scientific explanations for how things work evidence that God does not exist.

A god may not exist because there is no evidence to test for, there has never been anything that can be attributed to any god with any degree of certainty.

Scientifically no god exist, because there has never been anything to test for.


Do you have anything at all that is credible that proves some kind of divinity?

 

[McBell]

and nor are scientific explanations for how things work evidence that God does not exist.

I agree.
Good thing I never even implied such a thing.

 

[Hawkins]

That method...witnessing...is not effective. And it is as unreliable as a game of Chinese Telephone. God does not need middle men to convey truth, direct revelation is much more effective and reliable.

You have already pointed out that you have to rely on it to get to any truth. Or else you will be completely out of reality as almost every single piece of truth is conveyed this way among humans.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

You have already pointed out that you have to rely on it to get to any truth. Or else you will be completely out of reality as almost every single piece of truth is conveyed this way among humans.

That isn't true. Most people arrive at truth by direct experience. I know that water is wet because I have a direct experience with water and I found water to be wet. I didn't need someone to witness to me as to the wetness of water.

 

[Hawkins]

That isn't true. Most people arrive at truth by direct experience. I know that water is wet because I have a direct experience with water and I found water to be wet. I didn't need someone to witness to me as to the wetness of water.

But that's not how you get to know this world. Say, if you are an american, how do you even know that other nations exist. And during your education, all kinds of subjects, chemistry, physics.....all of them (perhaps except for the lab classes) are conveyed this way. Plus all kinds of news broadcast by the media. That's how to get to know what this reality is.

Or else, you can only know what is surrounding you but not anything else, more like those living in a remote tribe. And since you behave like a man in a tribe but actually in a modern society, you will thus be considered as completely out of reality.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

But that's not how you get to know this world. Say, if you are an american, how do you even know that other nations exist. And during your education, all kinds of subjects, chemistry, physics.....all of them (perhaps except for the lab classes) are conveyed this way. Plus all kinds of news broadcast by the media. That's how to get to know what this reality is.

Or else, you can only know what is surrounding you but not anything else, more like those living in a remote tribe. And since you behave like a man in a tribe but actually in a modern society, you will thus be considered as completely out of reality.

God isn't a subject.

 

[Hawkins]

God isn't a subject.

If God is a truth, witnessing may be the only way you can reach Him. Just like how you get to the different kinds of truth. That's what I was trying to say.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

If God is a truth, witnessing may be the only way you can reach Him. Just like how you get to the different kinds of truth. That's what I was trying to say.

God is truth in the same way the reality right in front of you is the truth.

Do you need some to instruct you on the very things you smell, see, touch or taste?

 

[LuisDantas]

God is truth in the same way the reality right in front of you is the truth.

Do you need some to instruct you on the very things you smell, see, touch or taste?

How do you explain the existence of Atheists then?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

How do you explain the existence of Atheists then?

You just don't have the faculties to discern God. Just like sometimes people do not have faculties to discern light...we call them blind people.

In my tradition, you are called a Hylic, meaning you can only discern the material world, you have no part in God and God has no part in you.

 

[LuisDantas]

You just don't have the faculties to discern God. Just like sometimes people do not have faculties to discern light...we call them blind people.

In my tradition, you are called a Hylic, meaning you can only discern the material world, you have no part in God and God has no part in you.

Thanks.

Do you think that could possibly happen if God did not accept it to?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Thanks.

Do you think that could possibly happen if God did not accept it to?

I am not clear on what you are asking.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not clear on what you are asking.

If God disapproved of the existence of people that could not or would not choose to perceive His existence, then surely there would be no atheists, don't you think?


The only other alternative explanation I can think of is that somehow we Hylics have the power to deny God his will, despite not even trying to.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

If God disapproved of the existence of people that could not or would not choose to perceive His existence, then surely there would be no atheists, don't you think?

God doesn't disapprove of atheists, there is no condemnation for being an atheist.

It isn't your fault that you can only perceive the material anymore than it is the fault of a blind person if they can't perceive light.

It is just the way you are.

I have my nature and you have yours.

 

[LuisDantas]

God doesn't disapprove of atheists, there is no condemnation for being an atheist.

Yep.

Only theists disapprove of atheists. God does not, even if it turns out that he does exist.

It isn't your fault that you can only perceive the material anymore than it is the fault of a blind person if they can't perceive light.

It is just the way you are.

I have my nature and you have yours.

Actually, it is plenty obvious that we can perceive "beyond the material". We are not androids.

We just don't see use to any concept of God.