| Author |
Message |
| Loosechange911 |
 Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:18 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 29
Location:
|
I don’t have to prove god doesn’t exist. As I said, the burden of proof lies on he/she who proposes the truth of a proposition. Until one sees this proof, I see no reason to believe in a god.
To answer the question on absolute truth: I cannot prove that there is an absolute truth. As you put it, an act of faith, I’ll agree to some extent. I think there is one way the universe is, this is absolute truth. Every experience I have had as a human has given me reason to believe there is one way the universe is (comprising of all interactions of forces and matter).
You say you can prove god exists by looking at trees? Wow. I feel a strong urge to flame right now, but I’ll restrain myself. Hey guys look, I can do it too. I’m looking at the sky and I’m proving that the greek gods were in fact true. Ya! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Merrick_Hale |
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 6:49 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 445
Location: Austin, Texas
|
From your own keyboard:Loosechange911 wrote: I am an atheist. I formulated this opinion after researching the subject of god’s existance with an open mind. I lean slightly towards agnostisism in that I don’t deny the possibility of a god or multiple gods existing; but I simply don’t believe in a god. I find it especially interesting when multiple religions are applied together. The contradictory results are both amusing and supporting in my belief.
Being an agnostic is being one who sits on the fence and has no firm conviction either way. Either there is a God, or there isn’t. Logic dictates that one must be true and one must be false. To stand on the fence is the height of illogic. |
Aaron Rhinehart
Rider of Rohan (retired)
DAgent #417 (retired)
This Incognito is a smooth operator - Lem0nhead |
|
| Back to top |
|
| TheHobbit13 |
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:12 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 1303
Location: minnesota
|
let me ask you somthing is evalution absalute faith  |
| If you like LOTR then maybe you would like redemption ccg PM me for more info |
|
| Back to top |
|
| sickofpalantirs |
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:59 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 7750
Location: somwhere, over the rainbow way up high. There's a land that I heard of once in a lullaby.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Loosechange911 |
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:28 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 29
Location:
|
| I don’t believe in god. Why? I see no reason to. I see absolutely no proof, no justification, no nothing. Another reason is that my parents didn’t force a belief on me, but I’ll leave that out. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| physcosick |
| Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:21 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 229
Location:
|
| I don’t understand the logic in saying "explain something doesn’t exist". It’s pointless and a cop-out response. You can’t prove something doesn’t exist. Because even if it didn’t exist, you couldn’t possibly find enough reasons to claim that it doesn’t exist. And if you were trying to find out if something was real, you still couldn’t do it unless it was something observable. But it’s all hypothetical and blind faith. It’s pointless; you can’t prove either of your sides, so why are you guys constantly coming on here and saying the samething over and over again? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Merrick_Hale |
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:51 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 13 Apr 2006
Posts: 445
Location: Austin, Texas
|
I’m more than willing to admit that I cannot prove that there is a God. That is the realm of faith. I can however say that due to the preponderance of evidence and my interpretation of that evidence that I can have faith that there is a God. Some person might interpret that same evidence as random chance and reach the conclusion that there is not a God or that there are many gods. That too is the realm of faith and not logic since the absence of a God or gods cannot be proved.
Time and again I and others in this thread have been asked by Loosechange911 to prove something that is in the realm of faith. We have admitted we cannot but are willing to let our faith serve as a foundation for our world view and convictions. When he is asked to do the same, he retreats to some phrase about logic and doesn’t recognize that what he is basing a lot of his belief on is actually faith. He also doesn’t recognize that the conclusions that he has come to cannot be fully supported by logic alone.
Every person has a world view that is shaped by upbringing, social position, religion, government, education and a myriad of other factors. This world view is the lens through which we filter much of our information about both the seen and the unseen world. Unfortunately our every person’s lens is warped and does not allow us to see a completely clear view of the world around us and allow us to properly interpret all of the information that we are receiving. Just as with real vision, some people see nearly perfectly, and others are completely blind. I believe that to look at the world only through a lens of logic is to have a very distorted view as logic cannot explain all that we see or happens around us. To look only through a lens of faith is to also have a distorted view if that faith is misplaced.
That doesn’t mean that logic should be abandoned because if you have faith that there is a God and that he has given us rational and logical minds, then we are to use those minds to interpret and understand the world that we live in.
The reason we keep coming back to the same issue of faith is that it is central to two of the core issues that we are discussing: Religion and Science. Science has a faith element in that assumptions are made, hypotheses are proposed, experiments are run to test the hypotheses and then conclusions are drawn from the results of the experiments. There is a faith that the results are correct because we cannot know for absolute certain that all of the variables were accounted for and that the results weren’t a potential outlier. If we run the experiment multiple times the faith will be strengthened, but again, we cannot say that without a doubt the experiment will always behave the same way. Science evaluates that which can be tested.
Religion requires faith in a greater sense: we are trusting that which cannot be seen, tasted, touched, smelled, heard, or felt but are believing because of the visible evidence of that which is unseen. Why do I believe that a God exists without any direct evidence of Him? I believe because of the indirect evidence that I can see, such as the complex-simplicity of DNA, the function of a Human eye, the grandeur of the night sky (when not drowned out by city lights), and the changes in the life of a good friend after he put his faith in God.
Faith is the heart of our discussions and until it is recognized as such, we will be spinning our wheels in futility. |
Aaron Rhinehart
Rider of Rohan (retired)
DAgent #417 (retired)
This Incognito is a smooth operator - Lem0nhead |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Anonymous |
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:43 am |
|
|
|
Joined:
Posts:
Location:
|
I still don’t understand why in a debate over evolution and creation we are only discussing the possiblity of God’s existence.
Thats not the point, Evolution could exist with or without God, God could exist with or without evolution.
All this is restating "im a christian" and "no im an athiest"
Big deal, how does that proove is disproove anything?
Discuss the issue at hand. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Loosechange911 |
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 2:55 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
Posts: 29
Location:
|
Merrick Hale, as you have so eloquently put it, every person has a different world view along with their own pair of lenses. Some see a single god, some see multiple gods and some, like me, see no god at all. But what I don’t get is how you came to the conclusion that your god is correct, and all the other gods are wrong. It is quite clear from logic that any two religions cannot simultaneously be correct. A devout Christian can have absolute faith in Christ being the savior of humanity while standing next to a devout Jew who dismisses the idea of Christ being the son of god. What makes you right?
Actually I see the fact that my beliefs in the world are based partly on faith. But here’s the thing, every part of my knowledge has gone through a somewhat logical process. I make no such claims that cannot be verified, at least to human parameters.
Your indirect "evidence" for god is called irreducible complexity and is not at all logical. Just because you can’t see how something happens doesn’t give you justification to believe it was just created by some higher being. Native Americans thought rain was caused by gods, we now know it has some scientific explanation. They couldn’t see an alternative other than the poof effect. God has always been an explanation for the unexplainable. But as science and technology proliferate, you’ll find that god’s uses dwindle. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| sickofpalantirs |
| Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:46 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 7750
Location: somwhere, over the rainbow way up high. There's a land that I heard of once in a lullaby.
|
guys lets leave this to M_H he is speaking very logically. I think I will leave this debate though I will keep looking at it.
and MA we aren’t debating creation evolution anymore
wait one final thing, there are a few reasons I am a Christian,
1 would be my parents are Christians
2 is Christianity is a religion of Love not hatred like some other religions
3. it has a whole lot of eveidence for it(read the case for ___ series there are 4 I believe and you will see)
frankly that is enough for me. |
 Sop's haves/ top wants
(mm)"SoP: you will always be the Official CC Spammer in my heart"
"DáinIronfoot"
Spammers really are amazing creatures. You can learn all there is to know about their ways in a month. And yet, after a hundred years, they can still surprise you.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum index » General Discussion » Members' Lounge