paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"No one can disprove the existence of God."
I agree with one. G-d is Evident, and Evident needs no evidence. Please
Regards
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The End of Religious Debates
- Thread starter Neo Deist
- Start date
I agree with one. G-d is Evident, and Evident needs no evidence. Please
Regards
Religion is far too important to take seriously.
I like watching debates for the lolz and I like learning about other religions. I take more issue with proselyting personally.
I like watching debates for the lolz and I like learning about other religions. I take more issue with proselyting personally.
Valerian
Member
No. I think I would go mad. It would trouble me that much.
Thankfully, I do know what possibilities lie ahead. I have no doubts.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The End of Religious Debates
Religious debates continue...........
Regards
Religious debates continue...........
Regards
psychoslice
Veteran Member
But id nothing happens you would never know, and if your wrong, again you will never know, do you have fear of death ?.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
While your two points are true, for themselves, they won't end religious debate. There are still rhymes and reasons to be maintained (such as rituals, observances, etc), mythological consistency (a constant debate on this is, for example, the exact nature of Satan,) or even what is best - religiously - for a society.
interminable
منتظر
We are responsible about ourselves then family then society
If u can lead anybody to the right path u will be rewarded. That's why we try to do it.
And who said that we can't prove the existence of God???
We prove but they don't wanna accept it
The fact that something like 90% of the worlds current population believe in something that (you cliam) cannot be proven begs investigation of the causes of religious belief given the sheer power of such beliefs politically and historically. You're begging the question as to why so many people believe something that (you say) cannot be proven and why its taken nearly ten thousands years of human history to come to this conclusion.
We are only talking about the last two or three hundred years where such a position was even possible- so it clearly cannot be a position based on universally or eternal true logic or reason that is beyond question or is "self-evident".
1)You are assuming all evidence for the existence or non-existence of a deity is subjective or opinion and therefore that proof of either is by definition impossible. (e.g. "Science is not proof").
Whilst such a view is very popular it is build on treating religion and science are in conflict, which is NOT an empirically justified position. The "conflict thesis" focuses on Darwin and Gallelo at the expense of recognising the complex relationship between science and religion and their long historical collaboration and philosophical controversies over how evidence is interpreted.
Conflict thesis - Wikipedia
2) We cannot necessarily assume that our intellectual evolution represents a form of progress in which "higher" scientific knowledge can discount "lower" forms of argument such as religion. Many would argue that progress is a myth and a dogma with as little empirical verification as revealation given that it originates from Judeao-Christian concepts of Providence, fate and pre-destination. Wholly secular conceptions of progress of social evolution rely on a potentially reductionist conception of materialism in which consciousness is determined by environment and social evolution. This is the basis for arguing that religion is man-made and that religious consciousness is a product of the brain/mind and not a deity. These positions are extremely controversial for scientific, philosophical and political reasons.
Lets Assume that we have "evolved" a higher form of knowledge which can disqualify the previous ten thousand years of religious belief and treat nearly 90% of the current worlds population as believing something cannot be proven.
Is tolerance a sufficient justification for renouncing our intellectual and social evolution based on treating "higher" forms of knowledge as either undesirable or impossible?
I hate being a jerk too and I fully agree with the sentiments behind what you are saying but I'm not convinced thats a good enough reason to stop trying to find the truth or convince people that there is a truth greater than their own individual experiences.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
G-d is Evident, He doesn't need to be proved/evidenced, necessarily. An evident if given evidence, necessarily, is not evident to start with. Please
Regards
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Correct.
You are describing the position of hard atheism. Not sure many atheists in these forums have or try to such a position. Most discussion is the rejection of #1 based on lack of evidence.
Texas lawmaker unveils anti-transgender 'bathroom bill'
Why? Costly, hurts business, and it's stupid.
Religion.
interminable
منتظر
But for those who have ill hearts he isn't evident.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said: ↑
G-d is Evident, He doesn't need to be proved/evidenced, necessarily. An evident if given evidence, necessarily, is not evident to start with. Please
Regards
It is not strange to help others. Is it really? Please
Anybody, please
Regards
G-d is Evident, He doesn't need to be proved/evidenced, necessarily. An evident if given evidence, necessarily, is not evident to start with. Please
Regards
So, one out of helping others in humanity does help them by giving reasons and argument while it is not necessary to give any.
It is not strange to help others. Is it really? Please
Anybody, please
Regards
Said the Christian. And the Muslim.
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
We might certainly try to prove the existence of our various gods, but ultimately it cannot be done. There cannot be evidence to prove them without a shadow of a doubt; the most we can do is strongly convince someone that our convictions are true.
For example, say a thunderstorm rolls through. To you, that might undoubtedly be the work of your god. Yet to me, it is undoubtedly Thor. Neither of us can prove who it is - all that can be proven is that it is a meteorological event - no matter how strongly we believe it.
interminable
منتظر
If I proved there is only one creator then all of the phenomenon will be ascribed to him right?
The Kilted Heathen
Crow FreyjasmaðR
Presumably, yes. The problem then being, which one creator is it? Before that, how would you prove it?
interminable
منتظر
Using causality and infinite regress I'll prove his existence then being unlimited will be proven automatically and no body can doubt that we can't have 2 unlimited existent at the same time
So all the phenomenon will be ascribed to him
End of argument?
Nooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!
The lack of proof is the strongest basis for arguing.
To illustrate this, I offer Deep Thought's cogent observations.....
Odd.....Deep Thought's voice is identical to my own.