Proofs for God/Religion. Got a good one?

[muffin8or]

Design and complexity. Fine tuning of universe. Purpose of universe. Too complicated to come about by chance. Multiverse, doesnt work. No abiogenesis. OK? Now beddybyes for me- nighty night, my little ones...

The universe isn't fine tuned. We have adapted to the conditions in the universe. If the universe couldn't sustain life then we wouldn't be here to argue about it. But it can and we are. The only way you would make this argument up is if the 'chance' paid off. See the problem?

The universe doesn't have a purpose. You've attributed one to it.

It isn't too complicated to have come about by chance. If admit there is a chance then perhaps that chance paid off. See my first paragraph, the only way you can bring this up is if the chance paid off.

Multiverse, does work. << I mean, what's your point here?

Yes, abiogenesis.

Don't be patronising, people around you might not like that.

 

[muffin8or]

Design and complexity. Fine tuning of universe. Purpose of universe. Too complicated to come about by chance. Multiverse, doesnt work. No abiogenesis. OK? Now beddybyes for me- nighty night, my little ones...

For some early morning watching take a look at this:
[youtube]XhWds7djuWo[/youtube]
How Abiogenesis Works - YouTube

 

[cablescavenger]

"No one can see God's face and live." Wouldn't "seeing God's face" equate to empirical proof? Perhaps, as the account says, we can only see God's back side -- that is, God is not approached from empirical evidence, but from intuition and metaphor.

Wouldn't that render your attempts here meaningless? One doesn't waste time looking for apples in an orange grove. One also doesn't waste time looking for proof of God within the confines of human understanding.

According to the bible, plenty of people have seen gods face and lived.

 

[cablescavenger]

I think the more accurate statement is that "No one can see the face of God, and hope to escape electric shock treatment".

 

[Quagmire]

According to the bible, plenty of people have seen gods face and lived.

Name one.

 

[BottomlessThought]

Name one.

Let's be honest, it makes no difference to the existence of God whether or not people can claim to "see him and live". I may as well say that no-one has the right to see my amazing piece of toast while they are alive; does that make it any more likely that the toast exists?

It counts as an argument only in the case of when people question why God does not make himself immanent, but even then, there is the eternal question of why God does not make himself immanent (the only thing clarified by the statement that "no-one can see him and live" is that he is not immanent, not that he should not be immanent).

 

[cablescavenger]

Name one.

That is like the first question on who wants to be a millionaire. It is your bible, surely you don't need me to tell you what it says.

 

[Quagmire]

I think the more accurate statement is that "No one can see the face of God, and hope to escape electric shock treatment".

That is like the first question on who wants to be a millionaire..

It's your claim:

According to the bible, plenty of people have seen gods face and lived.

And how is it my Bible?

It is your bible, surely you don't need me to tell you what it says

If you don't know what it says, maybe you should stop making claims about what it says.

 

[Quagmire]

Let's be honest,

Exactly why I asked the question.

it makes no difference to the existence of God whether or not people can claim to "see him and live".

Someone made a claim, I'm asking him to back up that claim. If you think this is about anything else, you're thinking about it way too much.

 

[BottomlessThought]

Exactly why I asked the question.

Do you need to take introductory phrases and answer them seperately? Though I do understand your point.

Someone made a claim, I'm asking him to back up that claim. If you think this is about anything else, you're thinking about it way too much.

He made the claim in relation to another statement, and I was attacking the place of that statement in this thread and in general. Now, your post ("Name one") sounded at first like it is in defence of the original statement, rather than the simple curiousity-fulfilling request for evidence that you seem to be claiming it is. If I'm wrong, well, fair enough that I took an implication out of your post, but I don't blame myself for taking that implication.

 

[sojourner]

I see how it is. You can be woolly and imprecise but I can't? Think all you like, darling, thinking things doesn't make them true.

Flip that round, maybe divergent opinion is ridiculous?

At what point does theology become ridiculous? What point are you even referencing?

I know trolling is against forum rules. I'm not trolling.

I think the word canoe, it has such a unique sonority and ring. The hard c followed by the soft, slightly nasal n before the elongating, soothing 'oo' sound. Maybe canoes are God, just my opinion. In fact, I'm going to research this; objects as deities. I understand some religions have statues that embody their deity. Sounds like a weekend of fun research

Thanks for proving my last post.

 

[sojourner]

The Christian God isn't the only one that could exist, however.

But it is the one included in the wager. Don't cloud the issue by introducing something that isn't there.

 

[sojourner]

The point is that Pascal could lose in any case if he picks the wrong God. So if he picks the Christian God the Muslims might be right and he spends an eternity with a poker up his bottom.

for Paschal, there is only one God.

 

[Quagmire]

Do you need to take introductory phrases and answer them seperately?

If it's a preface to an unnecessary paragraph. :yes:

Though I do understand your point.



He made the claim in relation to another statement, and I was attacking the place of that statement in this thread and in general. Now, your post ("Name one") sounded at first like it is in defence of the original statement, rather than the simple curiousity-fulfilling request for evidence that you seem to be claiming it is.

No: it was a challenge to him to back up his claim, period.


Edit: And I'm still waiting.

 

[sojourner]

[youtube]lX4tOsQnZTQ[/youtube]
Pure Imagination- Gene Wilder (Willy Wonka) Lyrics - YouTube

Whenever someone says pure imagination I always think of this. I came to a conclusion with another person on this thread that you can say God is whatever you want and be equally valid as anyone else.

Yeah, but you were patently wrong. Theology isn't a free-for-all. As I've said before, hyperbole doesn't help. It only makes your position look ridiculous.

 

[BottomlessThought]

for Paschal, there is only one God.

Are you going to argue for Pascal's Wager? Thank God, I thought you were going to continue being irrelevant to this thread.

The thing about the fact that for Pascal, there's "only one God", is that there are actually a hell of a lot more Gods that are possible, many of whom will be vindictive to believers in Pascal's God. If we take it that there is no other evidence for any particular God (and if you disagree, that is an argument for a different place), then I could very well imagine up some concept of an old ogre residing in the skies who will allow into Heaven those who believe in him and those who believe in nothing, and who will condemn those who believe in the Christian God. Since there is no less probability of this God existing than of Pascal's God, his Wager fails to work. But I thought you were more advanced than that.

Yeah, but you were patently wrong. Theology isn't a free-for-all. As I've said before, hyperbole doesn't help. It only makes your position look ridiculous.

I would disagree that theology isn't a free-for-all. It clearly doesn't work with anything objective (i.e. logic or real evidence), thus it must be confined to the subjective, and thus it works in whatever way you want it to work. And I don't know about muffin8or's video, but my hyperboles in the past were very helpful in demonstrating my point.

 

[BottomlessThought]

If it's a preface to an unnecessary paragraph. :yes:



No: it was a challenge to him to back up his claim, period.


Edit: And I'm still waiting.

Your claim that the paragraph was unnecessary is both unfounded and misleading; while you may not have meant to back up the original statement, you certainly implied that you were backing it up with your post, which is why it is perfectly excusable that I thought you were backing it up, which is why I'm not really in the wrong here.

 

[muffin8or]

for Paschal, there is only one God.

But he could be wrong. The 'actual' God could be one who doesn't like wagers. The point is he said the way to benefit was to believe in God(the christian God). But we're saying that actually, that's not the way to win because the christian God might not be the actual God.

 

[cablescavenger]

It's your claim.

It is not my claim at all, I was referring to claims in the Bible, I don't believe any of it. I was refuting a claim made by another, but you know that anyway.

And how is it my Bible?

I forgot you were a buddhist.

If you don't know what it says, maybe you should stop making claims about what it says.

heheh!
If you don't know what it says, maybe you should stop making claims about me.

Did you see anyone defending the claim? No? Perhaps others have read the bible too.

 

[muffin8or]

Yeah, but you were patently wrong. Theology isn't a free-for-all. As I've said before, hyperbole doesn't help. It only makes your position look ridiculous.

Actually I wasn't wrong. We found that there was no way of knowing what God is. So saying x about him is equally valid as anything else. Unless you can show me how we can know something about God...