|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 48 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,689 Year: 1,011/6,935 Month: 292/719 Week: 80/204 Day: 0/12 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What if you have never heard of God, Jesus, or the Holy Bible? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1788 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I didn't realise this was a competition crashfrog? Sorry, I guess I'm used to thinking in those terms. Basically, when two people take opposite, mutually exclusive positions and try and defend them against one another, there's a potential "winner' involved. Like I said, in a discussion where "God exists" is pitted against "there's no evidence for God" all you have to do to win - prove your opponent wrong - is show incontrovertable evidence of God. It's simple, really.
So, what kind of incontrovertable evidence of god are we talking about here? What would it take for you to believe in God? Seeing God, perhaps. God talking to me. Seeing the hand of God do something impossible. I mean, if we were talking about the potential existence of a person - like, a "Canadian girlfriend" if you're familiar with that term - what would it take to prove to you they exist? A phone call from them? A personal meeting? Stuff like that is what I might accept as "proof" of God. It doesn't take any more evidence to prove god exists than it does to prove you exist.
You mention all these acts of love but you can't tell me what love actually is. No, I told you that. It's a feeling that people report having for specific other persons, generally associated with physiochemical reactions related to sexual arousal and attraction.
Did it evolve or was it always there? Why is it so strong and yet so weak. Your thoughts on that please not the 'acts' of love. I imagine it "evolved" when the mind evolved. When we started making words for stuff. People noticed that they bonded to other humans in specific ways and gave words to that relationship. As for the physiochemical and behavioral reaction of love, it evolved because it's a survival trait. Humans in love tend to protect the results of love - children. Ergo, more copies of the "love gene" survived, until it spread throughout the population. A simplified version, of course. Love isn't specific to humans, of course. Almost all social animals display the kind of co-operation, interest, and self-sacrifice for mate that typify "love".
You love the word incontrovertable don't you? I don't love it per se, I keep using it because the evidence for god has to be incontrovertable - unable to be explained by a simpler theory. I mean, if I gave you "evidence" that Elvis was (against all odds) alive in Tennesee, and you could explain my evidence with a theory that it was just somebody dressed as Elvis (a much simpler and more likely theory), I could hardly expect you to be convinced, right? That's what "incontrovertable" means. It means that your evidence must survive dispute.
Well I could go on and on about the stars in the sky, the birds in the air, landscapes, horizons, the human eye, dna storage, bla bla bla but you probably get that a lot so I won't go there ok See, that would be "controvertable" evidence. I can explain all that with a much simpler theory (one that doesn't require an invisible being with unobserved powers) so it's not evidence for God.
We can either follow Him, through His Word and his Son etc, or follow Satan, the deciever, doing whatever he can to turn you away from God. What's the point of having choice in this world if we don't get to have choices in the next? If I die and God's there, guess what? I'll believe in him/her/whatever. But if I don't get to choose then - if choice is removed after death - then what's the point? We don't really have choice at all. Choice must not be a requirement of existence in your worldview.
You've said so yourself you are open to the fact that you could be wrong. You would have to have ALL the evidence and knowledge in the universe not just some of it. You would have to know everything in order to state something like that, which I can assure you, you don't. I never said I did. I don't need every piece of the jigsaw puzzle to know what the picture is. I can hardly take into account evidence that I don't have - especially the evidence that I don't know I don't have. More on this in a second.
What is your belief anyway crashfrog? I presume you are an athiest/evolutionist but when you keep asking for evidence on God saying you will believe in God if there is evidence, you come across as someone undecided. Atm you tag along next to evolution, but if something better with more evidence comes along you'll follow that?? Yes, exactly. Because that's how science works. We know that we never have all the evidence - we don't even know yet what evidence we don't have. Ergo the conclusions of science are tentative. When we get new evidence, we revise science. In that way, science moves ever closer to the truth. It's an ongoing process of getting more right. I'm an atheist, and an evolutionist, because that's the best explanation for the evidence I see. But I know I don't know everything, and I don't even know everything I don't know. Therefore I know I could be wrong about the non-existence of God (and everything else). Constancy of belief (which you appear to prize) means that you can't ever admit you're wrong, even in the face of data that proves you are. That level of intellectual arrogance is just revolting to me. Saying "I could be wrong" isn't just humility, it's a necessary part about being a finite, and often wrong, human.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1788 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
God rarely speaks about any Biblical subject until there's some practical purpose for doing so, as he tends to be much more concerned about action than talk. Now that's the kind of God I could believe in. ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Spud Inactive Member |
I don't need every piece of the jigsaw puzzle to know what the picture is.
In the case of God, yes you do. In fact you write as though you won't accept anything less. But in the case of evolution, your mind is content with the knowledge you have now. You accept and believe evolution without the whole picture quite easily.
Constancy of belief (which you appear to prize) means that you can't ever admit you're wrong, even in the face of data that proves you are. That level of intellectual arrogance is just revolting to me. Saying "I could be wrong" isn't just humility, it's a necessary part about being a finite, and often wrong, human. I am the first to admin when I am wrong, you and I have discussed this before crashfrog. But what if I don't know that I am wrong? Same goes for you.
It's a feeling that people report having for specific other persons, generally associated with physiochemical reactions related to sexual arousal and attraction. So basically it's just a bunch of physiochemical reactions is it? What's you take on things like ghosts, palm reading, horoscopes, fortune tellers etc. Are these all just things made up in our minds? Do you believe in any kind of 6th dimention? Unexplainable circumtances etc?
You've said so yourself you are open to the fact that you could be wrong. You did. Early in this post I raised the question "Erroneous means - containing or derived from error; mistaken. Maybe I am, maybe you are? Are you open to that fact?" In answer to that question you said and I quote "I'm totally open to that idea. That's the nature of science: tentativity. Any findings of science are availiable to be rewritten in the light of new evidence." ------------------When all else fails, anything remaining, no matter how unlikley, is probable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1788 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In the case of God, yes you do. In fact you write as though you won't accept anything less. You're quite mistaken, and I challenge you to find where I said this. I don't need the whole completed puzzle to see the picture. But in terms of evidence for god, I don't even have a single piece.
You accept and believe evolution without the whole picture quite easily. Neither you nor anyone have even come close to providing as much evidence for God as there is for evolution.
But what if I don't know that I am wrong? Same goes for you. Hence, tentativity of belief. I don't go around saying the things I believe are absolutely and eternally right. All I say is, "the current evidence points to such and such a belief."
What's you take on things like ghosts, palm reading, horoscopes, fortune tellers etc. Are these all just things made up in our minds? Do you believe in any kind of 6th dimention? Unexplainable circumtances etc? Not sure why you ask, but: Ghosts aren't real. Palm reading, horoscopes, etc. are well-understood con games (cold reading, etc). Yes, they're just made up in our minds. The mind is a tricky thing, especially under stress or when it expects to see something. 6th dimension? Don't know what you're talking about, exactly. I know that superstring physics posits the existence of an additional six spacial dimensions above our own, only they're compressed to singularities so they can't be observed. I'll believe that when I see it, myself. In an incredibly large universe, there will always be things that defy certain explanation, usually because you can't go back and test the circumstances once you've developed a reasonable explanation. We can only speculate on unexplainable events in the past.
In answer to that question you said and I quote "I'm totally open to that idea. That's the nature of science: tentativity. Any findings of science are availiable to be rewritten in the light of new evidence." What's your point with this? Have I ever claimed to have absolute knowledge? Have I ever claimed to need it? My beliefs are tentative. I could be wrong. I likely will be (about something, anyway) when new evidence comes to light. But when that happens it just means I get more right. (also - and you've been doing this for a couple posts - you're occasionally quoting other people's words as mine, and responding to them in posts to me. I'm more than happy to debate any propositions you care to - including other peoples - but it's a little impolite to quote other people's words without making it clear who's words they are.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4758 From: u.k Joined: |
sorry to but in but i have been reading and Crash seems quite a wise chap, he is reasonable and isn't up his own butt when admitting he could be wrong.
however Crash says he would like a personal visit from God,to be honest i dont think many get this , i have had no personal visit but there are 5 billion on the planet , i know how about coming in the flesh and establishing a word for everyone, hence the Messiah came.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1788 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crash seems quite a wise chap You're too kind, but if I've ever said anything wise, I was probably quoting somebody else. ![]() Crash says he would like a personal visit from God,to be honest i dont think many get this Guess why I think that is. ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2491 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, everyonce defines it differently, I suppose, but for me it means that I don't know if God exists or not. Additionally, I doubt (but do not actually know) if God can be knowable even if it exists.
quote: Ah, yes, more condescension and a patronizing attitude from the Christian Theist. I just love that character quality!
quote: Well, that's really the question for each person to decide for themselves, isn't it?
quote: Um, what the heck are you talking about? Of course there's only one race of humans. Please tell me why you are bringing this up because it surely seems out of left field to me.
quote: I don't know. You tell me. You're the one who seems to know what God's rules are concerning who gets to go to heaven and who doesn't. I was simply posing a scenario which was completely consistent with the rules as you stated them, but would seem to be grossly unfair and illogical, not to mention immoral.
quote: If you are asking do I think it is just as bad to think about killing someone than to actually kill them, then the answer is no. While I think that a person is probably pretty disturbed if they think a great deal, and very seriously, about killing someone, and this person might well be abusive or harmful to people in other ways, it is the actual harm one causes to another, the actual killing, that counts. We all have disturbing or otherwise inappropriate thoughts; it's part of being human. It's how we act upon them, or not, that makes us moral.
quote: Christianity is a religion based upon the belief that a person named Jesus was actually the son of the Jewish God, died for their sins, then was raised from the dead three days later. I could go on...
quote: OK. What are these "fruits" supposed to be?
quote: Sure, but wouldn't this be a natural thing for people who are promoting their religion to do; make it illegal or "wrong" for people to tolerate other religions and crush them out of existence? Of course, I have no "image of God" and I don't worship anything, so this doesn't really apply to me.
quote: I have two questions. 1) Why can't I seek out God on my own; why does there have to be a missionary at all? 2) How do I know which group has the true message of God? There are over 600 demnominations of Christianity in the US alone. Whaich one is correct?
quote: But, given that there are no original copies of the Bible, and all of the current versions have been translated many, many times over by imperfect (and often politically-motivated) humans, how do you know that so-called "Biblical" Christianity is dependable, either?
quote: So, are you saying that you do not interpret the Bible at all, and that you take it entirely literally? If so, I have a few questions for you. ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2491 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Oxytocin, baby. http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Autocatalysis Inactive Member |
massage done on rats had previously been shown to influence oxytocin levels It’s a worry. LOL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gzus Inactive Member |
where can i buy tablets?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1800 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: So long as you are referring solely to the existence or not ofa god or gods, then that is exactly the point. If you mean this generally you should have a long sit and thinkabout what the above actually means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
truthlover Member (Idle past 4380 days) Posts: 1548 From: Selmer, TN Joined: |
Schraf,
When contra was getting on me in another thread, you said you wish you'd have said something. I rarely bother saying anything when the shoes on the other foot, because creationist/Christians say the darndest things so often, it hardly seems worth bothering. But, I thought I would at least make one effort.
An Agnostic is just an Athiest who compromises between Theism and Theology, or could you better explain your difinition. Or should I say in brief "One who is too confused to believe in either God or No-God" It's hard for me to think of something more rude, unless someone were simply purposely insulting someone else. It's funny, but I think it's entirely possible that in that "apologetic fervor" (as in defensive, not as in repentant) I think many Christians really aren't intending to be that insulting. They're just "standing up for the faith." There should be a Guiness world record category for "Most Insulting Religious Statement." Of course, it happens so often that the above probably wouldn't be able to compete, but it's way up there. It's embarrassing. I apologize if he/she doesn't. Oh, and I think you're way off on those 600 Christian denominations. A 1984 US News & World Report article stated there were over 22,000 registered in the US. I found the reference in the book _Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up_ by David Bercot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pogo Inactive Member |
I apologize for cutting in, but Schraf has raised some of the very points that led my unbelief. The bottom line seems to be, if the final authority regarding "true biblical christianity" is the bible, then the bible needs to put under the light of open and direct inquiry. Since this has happened numerous times and volumes have been written about the results, (I'll provide a book list if anybody would like) then it appears that biblical christianity is on rather shakey ground.
Yet I have this gnawing feeling that perhaps there is something else other what can be observed or proven. As a former believer, I haven't thought about this in over 10 years, but I cannot go back to the bible. Just far too unreliable. In my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2491 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You are some kind of stand-up guy, TL. Thank you. Just so you know, I don't think that many people, when they learn that I am Agnostic (and they are Theists and somehow threatened by my beliefs), think that I can be insulted WRT my worldview. I actually had to set my well-educated, bright, wonderful, loving, ordinarily very respectful older sister straight some years ago. She kept making rather patronizing comments to me, saying things to the effect of "You don't know what to think", or "You're just confused", or, my personal favorite, "I feel so sorry for you because you are missing so much in your life." We had a big fight about it and I told her that she wasn't allowed to talk down to me. I told her I had come to hold the world view that I did after years of introspection and self-searching, and I also had to correct all the assumptions she had about what I thought. So, She didn't feel she needed to show me, an Agnostic, the kind of respect she would need to show someone of another religion.
quote: Holy Crap! (so to speak) Even better for my argument!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2491 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Just eat some chocolate.
Seriously. ![]()
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025