|
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 451
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 451 |
When you intentionally misquote what was said (like you clearly did) in order to support your position, then your position is a weak position. "I don't know therefore GOD" "It's beyond my comprehension therefore GOD." "It's so wonderous therefore GOD." "Science is too hard for me to understand therefore GOD."
How every you want to paraphrase it they are all bad arguments. "I don't know therefore NO GOD" "It's beyond my comprehension therefore NO GOD." "It's so wondrous therefore NO GOD." "Science is too hard for me to understand therefore NO GOD." How ever you want to paraphrase it, the above are all WORSE arguments. thats yer opinion
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,485
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,485 |
I see no good evidence for the existence of a god(s). Others do. Actually, BILLIONS of others do. In Creation itself.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,960
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,960 |
I see no good evidence for the existence of a god(s). Others do. Actually, BILLIONS of others do. In Creation itself. Sure, and once upon a time people believed the sun and moon revolved around the Earth and that heavy and light objects fell at different rates. the Argumentum ad populum in not convincing, just like the fallacies I demonstrated above.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,797
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,797 |
"On a hill far away, stood an old, rugged Cross."
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o "May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,960
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,960 |
"On a hill far away, stood an old, rugged Cross." It's a nice sentiment, but it's not evidence.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,485
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,485 |
Sure, and once upon a time people believed the sun and moon revolved around the Earth and that heavy and light objects fell at different rates. But we are not living in those times. We know MUCH more now than people did then. There is now good evidence that space, time, and matter had a beginning. And to assert that it all came from nothing…cosmological nothing being defined as the absence of space, time, and matter, and the laws of physics…without a creative cause, is an extraordinary claim. The Argumentum ad populum is not convincing,… Bein’ on the bandwagon…in and of itself…is often not convincing. But could you denying the evidence that BILLIONS of other people see likely point out a clear bias that you have simply because you don’t want there to be a God…?
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,960
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,960 |
Sure, and once upon a time people believed the sun and moon revolved around the Earth and that heavy and light objects fell at different rates. But we are not living in those times. We know MUCH more now than people did then. There is now good evidence that space, time, and matter had a beginning. And to assert that it all came from nothing…cosmological nothing being defined as the absence of space, time, and matter, and the laws of physics…without a creative cause, is an extraordinary claim. The Argumentum ad populum is not convincing,… Bein’ on the bandwagon…in and of itself…is often not convincing. But could denying the evidence that BILLIONS of other people see likely point out a clear bias that you have simply because you don’t want there to be a God…? My wants are irrelevant. When I first began this exercise, it was to provide irrefutable proof for the existence of the Christian God. That's not what I found. You should convert to Shintoism. The Japanese people are smarter than Americans, and they are Shinto, not Christian. Are you going to deny the evidence of their beliefs simply because you want to believe in your God?
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 133
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 133 |
When you intentionally misquote what was said (like you clearly did) in order to support your position, then your position is a weak position. "I don't know therefore GOD" "It's beyond my comprehension therefore GOD." "It's so wonderous therefore GOD." "Science is too hard for me to understand therefore GOD." How every you want to paraphrase it they are all bad arguments. All science pivots on the big bang, Which is far harder to believe than a divine creator. You do not need religion to understand God.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,485
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,485 |
No, your wants are clearly not irrelevant. You wouldn’t be the first atheist/agnostic to not want there to be a God. “It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, ‘hope’ that I’m right in my belief. I don’t ‘want’ there to be a God; I don’t ‘want’ the universe to be like that.” - Thomas Nagel, professor at New York University who teaches philosophy and law, and he’s an atheist. And as an atheist he makes an extraordinary confession...he clearly didn’t just come to the conclusion based on the data...he said: “I ‘want’ atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.” When I first began this exercise, it was to provide irrefutable proof for the existence of the Christian God. That's not what I found. Blaise Pascal said, “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.” And then they go looking for reasons to substantiate their belief. Could it be that this applies to your findings regarding the existence of the Christian God...?
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,485
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,485 |
All science pivots on the big bang, which is far harder to believe than a divine creator. How ‘bout a Divine Creator who used the Big Bang to achieve His creative objectives…? You do not need religion to understand God. I don’t disagree with that position, but it’s likely more accurate to say you don’t need religion to have a relationship with God.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,797
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 60,797 |
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o "May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633 |
When you intentionally misquote what was said (like you clearly did) in order to support your position, then your position is a weak position. "I don't know therefore GOD" "It's beyond my comprehension therefore GOD." "It's so wonderous therefore GOD." "Science is too hard for me to understand therefore GOD." How every you want to paraphrase it they are all bad arguments. All science pivots on the big bang, Which is far harder to believe than a divine creator. You do not need religion to understand God. Science doesn't ask you to believe anything. Observation and acquired information leads to explanations, a theory or hypothesis for what has been observed, cosmic background radiation, galaxies moving apart (unless gravitationally locked), etc.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,225
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 1,225 |
Still trying to figure out which one 'to believe in'. So far I like Neptune the best.
Last edited by Tesoro; 03/28/24.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,960
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 30,960 |
When you intentionally misquote what was said (like you clearly did) in order to support your position, then your position is a weak position. "I don't know therefore GOD" "It's beyond my comprehension therefore GOD." "It's so wonderous therefore GOD." "Science is too hard for me to understand therefore GOD." How every you want to paraphrase it they are all bad arguments. All science pivots on the big bang, Which is far harder to believe than a divine creator. You do not need religion to understand God. That really depends on one's capacity to comprehend the evidence for the Big Bang. Just because it's simpler to believe in magical being does not make it the correct answer.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 133
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Apr 2022
Posts: 133 |
When you intentionally misquote what was said (like you clearly did) in order to support your position, then your position is a weak position. "I don't know therefore GOD" "It's beyond my comprehension therefore GOD." "It's so wonderous therefore GOD." "Science is too hard for me to understand therefore GOD." How every you want to paraphrase it they are all bad arguments. All science pivots on the big bang, Which is far harder to believe than a divine creator. You do not need religion to understand God. Science doesn't ask you to believe anything. Observation and acquired information leads to explanations, a theory or hypothesis for what has been observed, cosmic background radiation, galaxies moving apart (unless gravitationally locked), etc. science asks you to believe the big bang theory, a baseless, impossible to prove and a way out there idea. Im not po-po'ing all science, just where they start. Also evolution is only made possible with huge lapses and there is zero proof that man and frogs were once relatives.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,274
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,274 |
Just got home from a special Thursday service.
Sunrise service on Sunday.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633 |
I see no good evidence for the existence of a god(s). Others do. Actually, BILLIONS of others do. In Creation itself. They say they do. Just invoking the word 'evidence' doesn't make it so. The existence of the universe is evidence that a universe exists, not how it came about, whether it's cyclic, a part of a multiverse or something not yet imagined.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2023
Posts: 438
Campfire Member
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Aug 2023
Posts: 438 |
Christians keep telling me the most important thing about their religion is belief. Faith based belief in their one true God. Not how you live your life. Not how you treat others. Those things can all be forgiven. Belief is the thing God most needs from you.
There is an important and reason for this. It’s pretty obvious once you think about it. What makes a God is belief. Without belief God dies. God seems very real to those that believe, but without that belief there is no God. A figment of our imagination that disappears the moment the belief goes away.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,633 |
When you intentionally misquote what was said (like you clearly did) in order to support your position, then your position is a weak position. "I don't know therefore GOD" "It's beyond my comprehension therefore GOD." "It's so wonderous therefore GOD." "Science is too hard for me to understand therefore GOD." How every you want to paraphrase it they are all bad arguments. All science pivots on the big bang, Which is far harder to believe than a divine creator. You do not need religion to understand God. Science doesn't ask you to believe anything. Observation and acquired information leads to explanations, a theory or hypothesis for what has been observed, cosmic background radiation, galaxies moving apart (unless gravitationally locked), etc. science asks you to believe the big bang theory, a baseless, impossible to prove and a way out there idea. Im not po-po'ing all science, just where they start. Also evolution is only made possible with huge lapses and there is zero proof that man and frogs were once relatives. You are not asked to believe anything, background microwave radiation is there, as is doppler red shift, etc. You disregard the evidence in favour of a preferred belief.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,485
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,485 |
Christians keep telling me the most important thing about their religion is belief. Faith based belief in their one true God. Not how you live your life. Not how you treat others. Those things can all be forgiven. Belief is the thing God most needs from you. When you see the word ‘believe’ in the New Testament, it comes from a Greek word that means a whole lot more than just believing something in your mind. It means ‘to put your trust and confidence in.’ In Jesus. For salvation, to be reconciled to your Creator. Then, since your sin is now paid for, go and live a life that reflects the love and forgiveness of God as you mirror that in your love and forgiveness of the people around you.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
618 members (16gage, 160user, 10gaugemag, 06hunter59, 10ring1, 12344mag, 73 invisible),
3,194
guests, and
1,383
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,751
Posts18,476,244
Members73,942
|
Most Online11,491 Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|