There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Bunyip]

Why not?

Because it is a dishonest claim.

You have no proof and have admitted as much. If there were proof, you would need no faith.

 

[adi2d]

Because it is a dishonest claim.

You have no proof and have admitted as much. If there were proof, you would need no faith.

Forget proof. Another day gone by without any of the promised evidence.

 

[Bunyip]

Forget proof. Another day gone by without any of the promised evidence.

Indeed, evidence would be a good place to start. So far he has presented none and dismissed any who dare to point that out as militants.

 

[outhouse]

You imagine that mankind is more knowledgeable then God.

.

You are clueless here. Lost in the dark, and you refuse the torch.

ONLY MAN wrote the books, no god has written anything.


YOU OVER attribute things to the books you know nothing about.

We know our history, some aspects we are limited on, some we are not.



The history YOU cannot refute above, is due to your willful ignorance.


Willful ignorance, are you proud of that?

 

[Serenity7855]

Forget proof. Another day gone by without any of the promised evidence.

I was kinda hoping that you wouldn't continue with that atheist technique. Thinking that you caught me with my trousers down. If you are that desperate I use much of what WLC uses on the topic. You could just pop yourself over to his site, Reasonable Faith and get the run down on it. That way you would not have to be patiently waiting for me to get my mojo back and introduce it. I tell you what, you anti-theists are so incredible predictable. You would have thought that someone might have posted a blog or two on the subject of unsociable anti-theists, oh wait, they have.

 

[Bunyip]

I was kinda hoping that you wouldn't continue with that atheist technique. Thinking that you caught me with my trousers down. If you are that desperate I use much of what WLC uses on the topic. You could just pop yourself over to his site, Reasonable Faith and get the run down on it. That way you would not have to be patiently waiting for me to get my mojo back and introduce it. I tell you what, you anti-theists are so incredible predictable. You would have thought that someone might have posted a blog or two on the subject of unsociable anti-theists, oh wait, they have.

WLC calls his site 'Reasonable Faith' because he does not claim to have proof, he is just trying to present a case to make faith reasonable.

You are referring to a man who does not claim to have proof, and does not claim that the Kalam is proof.

 

[Serenity7855]

Because it is a dishonest claim.

You have no proof and have admitted as much. If there were proof, you would need no faith.

Oh dearie, dearie me. You are attacking my person again. You just cannot help it, can you. So, I am dishonest no, am I?

Look at the words in the OP. Nowhere can you find the word proof, but that is OK. Let's play you little game and look at what proof is

Proof.

A proof is sufficient evidence or an argument for the truth of a proposition.

The concept is applied in a variety of disciplines, with both the nature of the evidence or justification and the criteria for sufficiency being area-dependent. In the area of oral and written communication such as conversation, dialog, rhetoric, etc., a proof is a persuasive perlocutionary speech act, which demonstrates the truth of a proposition. In any area of mathematics defined by its assumptions or axioms, a proof is an argument establishing a theoremof that area via accepted rules of inference starting from those axioms and other previously established theorems. The subject of logic, in particular proof theory, formalizes and studies the notion of formal proof. In the areas of epistemology and theology, the notion of justification plays approximately the role of proof, while in jurisprudence the corresponding term is evidence, with burden of proof as a concept common to both philosophy and law.

I feel that to continue would only have the result of belittling you. Faith to a Christian is like a Theory is to a scientist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)

 

[Serenity7855]

WLC calls his site 'Reasonable Faith' because he does not claim to have proof, he is just trying to present a case to make faith reasonable.

You are referring to a man who does not claim to have proof, and does not claim that the Kalam is proof.

Maybe you should take in one of his debates to be a little more accurate with your appraisal of WLC.

 

[Serenity7855]

Indeed, evidence would be a good place to start. So far he has presented none and dismissed any who dare to point that out as militants.

You like to personally attack posters, with falsehoods, don't you.

 

[Bunyip]

You like to personally attack posters, with falsehoods, don't you.

You should read WLC's reasonable faith. If you do, you will find a great many of the views you dismiss here as 'militant' in his own words. WLC explains that he is not claiming to have priven the existence of God, he states that he is simply trying to establish a milleu in which faith can be justified.

And no, I have made no false claims or accusations. Of that I am quite certain.

 

[Serenity7855]

You are clueless here. Lost in the dark, and you refuse the torch.

ONLY MAN wrote the books, no god has written anything.


YOU OVER attribute things to the books you know nothing about.

We know our history, some aspects we are limited on, some we are not.



The history YOU cannot refute above, is due to your willful ignorance.


Willful ignorance, are you proud of that?

It is every sentence. You really are a very angry atheist who gets hostile whenever the nasty little Christians will not listen to you, like they have a right to. Do you stamp your feet and pull on your hair as well.

 

[Serenity7855]

You should read WLC's reasonable faith. If you do, you will find a great many of the views you dismiss here as 'militant' in his own words. WLC explains that he is not claiming to have priven the existence of God, he states that he is simply trying to establish a milleu in which faith can be justified.

And no, I have made no false claims or accusations. Of that I am quite certain.

I have read every book he has written and watched every debate that he has been involved in. There is very little that you can tell me about his beliefs.

 

[Magic Man]

Regardless as to whether we know it or will never know it any intervention result in a compromise of free agency.

Nope, sorry.

God shows himself. We know that he exists. Where is the test of our faith as faith will become knowledge.

It depends. If you mean "faith" as "believing without evidence", as in the religious sense, then you're right. You wouldn't be able to test that anymore. But why would a loving god decide our eternal fate that way? That's pretty messed up.

Now, if you mean "faith" as in "trust", the way we use it in terms of human relationships, then you could easily still test it. For instance, you can test whether I'm faithful to my wife by seeing whether I cheat when I have an opportunity. Hell, the devil supposedly tested Jesus's faith, and he definitely knew God existed.

 

[Serenity7855]

Nope, sorry.

No need for an apology.

It depends. If you mean "faith" as "believing without evidence", as in the religious sense, then you're right. You wouldn't be able to test that anymore. But why would a loving god decide our eternal fate that way? That's pretty messed up.

Right, now what you are talking about here is faith in something that you cannot see but you believe to be true. To regularly catch the 9.15 train from Paddington to King's Cross is not a given as there are a multiplicity of reasons why that might not happen. But you have faith that you will catch it, because you always catch it. I have had so many marvelous experiences by exercising faith in God that it has almost reached a point of certainty as I have with catching that train. My faith to me is like a theory to a scientist. You reach a point that even if you keep adding evidences the case for the theory, or the faith, is sufficient to be sure.

God did not force us into doing it that way, we choose. It is a fool proof method of testing loyalty.

Now, if you mean "faith" as in "trust", the way we use it in terms of human relationships, then you could easily still test it. For instance, you can test whether I'm faithful to my wife by seeing whether I cheat when I have an opportunity. Hell, the devil supposedly tested Jesus's faith, and he definitely knew God existed.

This is total different, this is the exercising, or testing, of faith. This is a test of one's faith. Jesus had to go through everything that we would go through. The devil did tempt him in earnest but Jesus past the test of his faith. What makes you think that Jesus knew the existence of God. When did Jesus see him during his mortality. He did not know for an absolute certainty that God exists. He had only conversed with him in prayer and supplication. No, Jesus had to exercise faith as we all do.

 

[viole]

Yes, why not?

Why not simply put them to (eternal) sleep. Wouldn't that be easier?
Why insisting that they choked or drawned?

How do you think Einstein came of with his law's on relativity. Do you think that it was just dropped in his lap without him rationalising it first. Come on.

Are you comparing relativity with the idea that the flood was caused by supernatural water or natural ozone?

No, let's forget it completely and entirely. He does not possess a genocidal arsenal.

But isn't supernatural water or ozone a mean to cause genocide? Or do you prefer global euthanasia?

By the way. Can you imagine supernatural H2O that goes into natural lungs to cause death by drowning? It is a actually a pretty ugly way of dying, although it might be better with supernatural water.

Darwin believed in a common ancestor, I would probably go with multi-lines of ancestry. As for ancestors being on that are, you first have to determine if there was an ark in the first place. Was there?

Well, you tell me. If you think the accounts of the ark on the Bible might be fiction (or metaphors), it is not clear why you postulate supernatural water. You seem to justify the drowning part but not the ark one, which is odd. Maybe the process of drowning was metaphorical too.

No, however, it is now considered an axiom. We are sure that common ancestry either came from a single protozoa or that there were several lines from several protozoa. Either way animal DNA could easily contain historical evidence dating back throughout their ancestry. That is a reasonable hypothesis to make. Human beings are a different race. Our creation happened in a more intelligent and organised manner. We are made of the same elements as the animals but it is there that our similarities end. We have reason and awareness.

If you call huge meteorites, killing the competition, organized and intelligent, well.. Maybe it was a supernatural meteorite, who knows?

But this not my point. My point is that if you give value to scientific evidence, as you seem to indicate from your comment about the lack of evidence of a global flood with natural water, then you should also give credit to the fact that it is scientifically absurd to postulate that all species of animals on earth derive from a couple of specimen (for each species).

So, who really died and who survived during this (supernatural) flood?

Ciao

- viole

 

[starlite]

This is my view of faith. Faith is something you have thought through carefully resulting in trust in God and his Word, which is firmly based on reason. The quality of your faith will depend greatly on what you hear or on how dependable the information you feed your mind proves to be. The Bible says that “faith follows the thing heard.”—Romans 10:17.

Proverbs 14:15
"Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps."

A person with real faith has based his beliefs on a careful study of all available information. Reasoning on such information produces the conviction that even things that cannot be seen with the literal eye are, nonetheless, realities. True faith is not credulity, and it is much more than just believing that God exists. It involves an acceptance of God’s ability to act as a rewarder of those earnestly seeking him.

“God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16)

 

[outhouse]

It is every sentence. You really are a very angry atheist who gets hostile whenever the nasty little Christians will not listen to you, like they have a right to.

You take your action's and try and cover yourself with a Christian blanket.

Christians are fine, it is you who we are trying to correct.




What you see is not anger but frustration by people who know the topic better then you, and have a hard time dealing with your willful ignorance.


I have backed my position with sources, and you refuse to talk about what is known. I have provided a professor for you to learn from and you refuse.

 

[adi2d]

I was kinda hoping that you wouldn't continue with that atheist technique. Thinking that you caught me with my trousers down. If you are that desperate I use much of what WLC uses on the topic. You could just pop yourself over to his site, Reasonable Faith and get the run down on it. That way you would not have to be patiently waiting for me to get my mojo back and introduce it. I tell you what, you anti-theists are so incredible predictable. You would have thought that someone might have posted a blog or two on the subject of unsociable anti-theists, oh wait, they have.

I am not trying to trap you. I honestly thought you were going to post some evidence.
You called me an atheist in response to my first post in this thread. I told you I wasn't. Now you are calling me an anti theist for commenting to another poster
I am not an anti theist. Now can you stop with the name calling and posting ridiculous re defining of words and as you say get your mojo.

 

[Magic Man]

Right, now what you are talking about here is faith in something that you cannot see but you believe to be true. To regularly catch the 9.15 train from Paddington to King's Cross is not a given as there are a multiplicity of reasons why that might not happen. But you have faith that you will catch it, because you always catch it. I have had so many marvelous experiences by exercising faith in God that it has almost reached a point of certainty as I have with catching that train. My faith to me is like a theory to a scientist. You reach a point that even if you keep adding evidences the case for the theory, or the faith, is sufficient to be sure.

God did not force us into doing it that way, we choose. It is a fool proof method of testing loyalty.

Your example is not an example of the type of faith you have in your god's existence. It's an example of the second type I mentioned - trust. You have real evidence that the train will come and you can get on it. It's possible it won't, but you expecting it to come is not an example of believing something without evidence.

Not showing people you definitely exist is not a method of testing loyalty. It's a method of messing with people that a loving god would not participate in. I can test my friends' loyalty (and they know I exist, obviously).

This is total different, this is the exercising, or testing, of faith. This is a test of one's faith. Jesus had to go through everything that we would go through. The devil did tempt him in earnest but Jesus past the test of his faith. What makes you think that Jesus knew the existence of God. When did Jesus see him during his mortality. He did not know for an absolute certainty that God exists. He had only conversed with him in prayer and supplication. No, Jesus had to exercise faith as we all do.

Um...Jesus was the son of God/God himself. He was conceived through magic, rather than a real father. Trying to pretend he didn't know God/himself was real is a pretty desperate attempt to refuse to admit your mistake.

The point still remains, God showing himself to us would not remove free agency. It would only mean we could make a truly informed decision with our free agency.

 

[Serenity7855]

You take your action's and try and cover yourself with a Christian blanket.
Christians are fine, it is you who we are trying to correct.

You are segregating me from the Christian religion, primarily to make me feel vulnerable and in the minority. It is used by people like you alot. People, like you, who are controllers, needing to be in charge and listened to, how dare anyone disagree with you, you are right, right? You couple this, yet again, with the word "we" demonstrating that you are not a part of a group here. You are unique in your aggressive hostility. You are someone who has watched a you tube video and have become an expert over night because you
Understood the introduction.

What you see is not anger but frustration by people who know the topic better then you, and have a hard time dealing with your willful ignorance.

No, what I see is a arrogant and angry poster who thinks he is more endowed with knowledge then anybody else here is, so, he gets annoyed and frustrated when disagreed with by other posters, why? Because he cannot face being completely wrong.

I have backed my position with sources, and you refuse to talk about what is known. I have provided a professor for you to learn from and you refuse.

You have backed your rather abstract opinions with equally abstract Internet links. You have provided no independent, unbiased and impartial evidence what so ever and you are deluded in thinking that if you say your sources are from professors then you are likely right in your post. Not so, robust and accurate research and study can only provide that.