|
Author
|
Topic: Detecting God
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10045 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
Message 30 of 271 (567759)
07-02-2010 1:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 28 by kbertsche
07-02-2010 1:02 PM
|
|
As others have pointed out, in the above statement you equate "reality" with (scientific) "testability" or "measurability." In so doing, you implicitly deny the existence of any non-physical reality. As logic demands, it is up to those who claim that there is a non-physical reality to provide evidence of its existence. That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 28 by kbertsche, posted 07-02-2010 1:02 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10045 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 31 of 271 (567760)
07-02-2010 1:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by sac51495
07-01-2010 4:03 PM
|
|
You are correct that God is not part of the measurable world. However, your logical progression fails in the second part of your sentence, because no one ever said that reality only includes the measurable world. Then please demonstrate what reality is made of and cite evidence to support your assertions.
Since you do not believe in God, you do not view the universe in terms of God, and thus, you view it in terms of man. What evidence would lead us to view the universe in terms of God? You don't view the universe in terms of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, so does this mean that you view it in terms of man?
If you really thought of God as God, you wouldn't even try to change His glory into something detectable, and corruptible!! What evidence would lead me to think of God as God?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by sac51495, posted 07-01-2010 4:03 PM | | sac51495 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 38 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:17 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10045 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 47 of 271 (567802)
07-02-2010 3:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by sac51495
07-02-2010 2:00 PM
|
|
But where did that hot, dense stuff come from? Did it come from nothing? From something? Is is eternal?...Sounds like a great, purely natural explanation for the origin of our universe, doesn't it? We are ignorant of how the universe came about. Are you telling us that God is nothing more than disguised ignorance?
Though the order and complexity we see in nature is quite a testament to God's existence, How so? Can you please explain why an orderly and complex universe has anything to do with the supernatural or God, complete with evidence?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:00 PM | | sac51495 has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10045 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 48 of 271 (567803)
07-02-2010 3:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 38 by sac51495
07-02-2010 2:17 PM
|
|
Re: Futile Materialism
You appear to be a materialist, No, I am not. I am asking for claims backed by evidence. Why is that a problem? If you are going to do nothing but make excuses for why you don't have this evidence then why are you in this thread?
This vs. assumes the existence of a spirit, which is immaterial. Therefore, standing firmly on the Bible and nothing else, I conclude that there must be an immaterial reality. So you are assuming the conclusion sans evidence. Is that correct?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 38 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:17 PM | | sac51495 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 70 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 12:49 AM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10045 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 49 of 271 (567806)
07-02-2010 3:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
07-02-2010 2:02 PM
|
|
And isn't it equally up to those who deny that there is a non-physical reality to provide evidence of its non-existence? I do not claim that there is no non-physical reality. However, I need evidence before I will accept its existence. Have any? Imagine if we ran our court system like you run your logic. The prosecution would have to disprove the existence of leprechauns planting evidence at the scene of the crime just because the defense raises it as a possibility. Again, those making a positive claim must produce positive evidence. That would be you.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 07-02-2010 2:02 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10045 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 50 of 271 (567808)
07-02-2010 3:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by sac51495
07-02-2010 2:32 PM
|
|
Re: Science over God?
Lastly, you may notice that I have been putting quotation marks around the word religion. This is because you seem to think of religion as...well, I don't know for sure, but ultimately, you seem to equate Christianity with all the ancient, mythological religions, such as the Vikings, and the Romans, and the Greeks. But God is not religion. Your worship of God is religion. The rites and worship of a deity is the very definition of religion.
God is the immaterial, infinite, eternal, holy, just, merciful, loving being who is the focal point of this universe, and upon whom, and by whom, the universe is based and created. Evidence please.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 2:32 PM | | sac51495 has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10045 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 91 of 271 (568522)
07-06-2010 11:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 56 by kbertsche
07-02-2010 5:09 PM
|
|
No, the prosecution would not have to disprove the claim, but they may decide to provide evidence against it. That is the same thing. So are you really saying that if the defense attorney claimed that leprechauns planted evidence at the scene of the crime that the prosecution would have to present evidence that this did not happen? Really?
If so, the evidence would probably be implicit, based on the jurors' experience and their belief that leprechauns are imaginary. Leprechauns are not believable enough to provide "reasonable doubt." If this was the best the defense could do, they would lose. What is stopping me from claiming the same for God?
Where have I made a positive claim in this thread? So you are not trying to argue that a non-physical realm exists within which resides a supernatural being?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 56 by kbertsche, posted 07-02-2010 5:09 PM | | kbertsche has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10045 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 92 of 271 (568525)
07-06-2010 11:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 66 by sac51495
07-02-2010 11:42 PM
|
|
Re: Futile Materialism
Besides, your an atheist; you are opposed to my God, . . . If you don't believe in Santa Claus does this mean you are opposed to Santa Claus? How can you oppose a deity that can't be shown to exist? Do meteorologists oppose Thor because they describe the production of lightning without reference to Thor? Are meteorologists anti-Thor because they do not accept the non-physical evidence (whatever that is) for the existence of Thor?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 66 by sac51495, posted 07-02-2010 11:42 PM | | sac51495 has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10045 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 93 of 271 (568526)
07-06-2010 11:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by sac51495
07-03-2010 12:49 AM
|
|
Re: Futile Materialism
Then why exactly do I need to prove to you that there is an immaterial reality, if you already believe there to be one? What evidence convinced you? We can start there.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by sac51495, posted 07-03-2010 12:49 AM | | sac51495 has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10045 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
|
Message 95 of 271 (568563)
07-06-2010 2:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 94 by kbertsche
07-06-2010 1:56 PM
|
|
No, it is not. Please re-read my sentence above and note where I changed your wording to my own. Evidence against a claim is disproof of the claim.
Did I say this? No, of course not. Then why do we have to disprove the existence of an entity for which there is zero evidence?
Have I argued this position in this thread? I don't think so. Rather, I have argued for open-mindedness on the question of whether a non-physical reality exists, and I have cautioned against making positive claims against the existence of non-physical reality. We have asked again and again for evidence. How is that not open-mindedness?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 94 by kbertsche, posted 07-06-2010 1:56 PM | | kbertsche has seen this message but not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2