Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    1)This is true, I do bet on something being true. But nonetheless, if the Christian God is real, then He will exist in a form laid down by Christianity. And if that is the case then if this God is real the only way you will see Him is believing in Him in the first place.

    2)This is why this is such a tricky thing, because I would love to say I agree with you and show you empirical evidence which we can all see. But it's hard to do that with something which by it's very nature cannot be seen or a relationship developed with unless you already believe it to be the case or without doubt in it or without questioning of it.

    3)Which is why by Christianity's own definition of God (my interpreation of the Bible at least) - if tried to somehow search for evidence for whether God exists or not in a sense you will wind up with the same result whether he exists or not - there will be none.

    still 3)My definition of God is broadly whatever is in the Bible (Gospel's primarily), because the nature of God would appear to change between the Old and New Testaments - and the inerests of God being change from being soley on the Jewish people to being all the human race.
    But then Christianity often describes God as indescribable almost, or impossible to satifactorilly describe.

    4)I believe He is broadly a spiritual entity that existed outside and before time and space; yet came to create both for reasons unexplained. He has unending love and mercy, but also a commitment to his own moral code which can be termed as an "absolute good" because God is in Himself meant be totally good. Although bad things happen and one does not necessarily benefit from that (i.e. bad things may happen to a person because of actions or creations of God, but nevertheless does not make God bad, or indeed any of his creations intrinsically bad).
    That's very rambly, and if you want something that makes more sense, you are more than welcome
    Something that actually addresses any of the points I've raised would be perhaps of use?

    1)You've said it's true, and then restated your original point without giving an argument against my counter for your logic. Please re-read my posts.
    This is related to presupposing God exists in your argument as well as arguments that are applicable to the FSM.

    2) see 1) This is with regards to the brilliant passage from the book I quoted, it is based i buddhist philosophies. Whilst I am not a buddhist there is a lot of good logic used in many of them.

    3) You haven't given any definition of What god is, just that there are at least two separate definitions of God.

    4) see my post after this one (as in the one I've just quoted).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Straw man argument-at no time have I said that people should have their beliefs controlled. Aka they are entitled to their beliefs.

    However what I am attempting to do is open up the doors of health debate. There is a difference between facts and logic, however you fail to adress a single point I make. This is where any arguments you put up fall down at the moment.

    The logic you've used to show your believes as true can be applied to for instance the flying spaghetti monster.
    What you need to do is assess the situation more logically and see how your arguments can be applied, if it still works out that they can be applied in what seems to be a similar way to simple subjectivism then there is a problem.

    Beliefs in the sense you're talking about contain truth conditions, however you are talking about them as if they do not.
    If you have true faith god will ALWAYS answer your prayers, I pray and my prayers are always answered. It could be applied to the flying spagetti monster,but thats jsut ridiculous.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bansheeee*)
    If you have true faith god will ALWAYS answer your prayers, I pray and my prayers are always answered. It could be applied to the flying spagetti monster,but thats jsut ridiculous.
    It could be applied to all sorts of things, to just label them as ridiculous when there's as much evidence for one as the other is ridiculous.
    Your logic is flawed and argument invalid. Find a new argument in favour of your points, admit you're current argument is flawed and invalid, or stop posting.
    If you are to use a new argument make sure it isn't going to get a backhander across it's face with points I've previously mentioned on this thread (most of which can be found on page 25).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bansheeee*)
    If you have true faith god will ALWAYS answer your prayers, I pray and my prayers are always answered. It could be applied to the flying spagetti monster,but thats jsut ridiculous.


    Why is your God any less ridiculous than the flying spaghetti monster?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by flowerness)
    What are your reasons for not believing in a God or religion?!
    Going back to the original question and the word 'reason'. Just picking one definition of that - http://www.answers.com/topic/reason
    n.
    1.The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because, why.
    2.A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
    3.An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
    4.The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
    5.Good judgment; sound sense.
    6.A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
    7.Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

    v., -soned, -son·ing, -sons.

    v.intr.
    1.To use the faculty of reason; think logically.
    2.To talk or argue logically and persuasively.
    3.Obsolete. To engage in conversation or discussion.
    v.tr.
    1.To determine or conclude by logical thinking: reasoned out a solution to the problem.
    2.To persuade or dissuade (someone) with reasons

    So the questioner is specifically asking about a rational thought process, supported by evidence and logic - not about intuition, belief, hope, culture etc

    Even Richard Dawkins would say it is not that he believes God doesn't exist. It is just that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. And that extraordinary evidence is not there to support such a extraordinary claim. So he can't see any 'reason' to believe.

    There are so many competing extraordinary claims - how can it be right to pick one over another, on such a little amount of evidence - probably just to do with where you were born or what your parents believed?

    You need 'reasons' to believe things - you don't need 'reasons' not to believe things.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bb193)
    Going back to the original question and the word 'reason'. Just picking one definition of that - http://www.answers.com/topic/reason
    n.
    1.The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because, why.
    2.A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
    3.An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
    4.The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
    5.Good judgment; sound sense.
    6.A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
    7.Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.

    v., -soned, -son·ing, -sons.

    v.intr.
    1.To use the faculty of reason; think logically.
    2.To talk or argue logically and persuasively.
    3.Obsolete. To engage in conversation or discussion.
    v.tr.
    1.To determine or conclude by logical thinking: reasoned out a solution to the problem.
    2.To persuade or dissuade (someone) with reasons

    So the questioner is specifically asking about a rational thought process, supported by evidence and logic - not about intuition, belief, hope, culture etc

    Even Richard Dawkins would say it is not that he believes God doesn't exist. It is just that extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. And that extraordinary evidence is not there to support such a extraordinary claim. So he can't see any 'reason' to believe.

    There are so many competing extraordinary claims - how can it be right to pick one over another, on such a little amount of evidence - probably just to do with where you were born or what your parents believed?

    You need 'reasons' to believe things - you don't need 'reasons' not to believe things.
    To clarify on the last point, as I'm sure this is what you meant and if not people will mis-inturrpret it.
    If there are reasons you need reasons to not believe in what those reasons point to.
    For instance you need a reason to not believe that the concepts of '2+2=4' if it is logically sound that '2+2' does in fact '=4'.

    The evidence put forth doesn't appear to be sound or solid by any measure of either word, which is a reason to disregard those potential reasons for believing in God.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syrokal)
    Ill adress your last point as you seem to have missed the point entirely

    God does not know what choice you will make, however he knows every single choice you "can" make and there outcomes, which includes whatever choice you "will" make.

    Therefore no matter what you do, he forsaw it, and every possible chain of events that could then happen from every single choice you could make. Which in terms of Omnipotence detracts nothing from him .
    God doesn't know what you will do but he knows what you 'will' do? What's the difference, other than inverted commas. I missed the point because it doesn't make sense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    because the whole idea of god and hell etc is designed to keep people fearful and submissive, besides which there is absolutely no good evidence
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    Why is your God any less ridiculous than the flying spaghetti monster?
    People have had faith in god for millions of years, they haven't had faith in a flying spagetti monster have they?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    It could be applied to all sorts of things, to just label them as ridiculous when there's as much evidence for one as the other is ridiculous.
    Your logic is flawed and argument invalid. Find a new argument in favour of your points, admit you're current argument is flawed and invalid, or stop posting.
    If you are to use a new argument make sure it isn't going to get a backhander across it's face with points I've previously mentioned on this thread (most of which can be found on page 25).
    For me , the Bible is enough evidence. And the fact my prayers are always answered is enough evidence, that there is someone listening to my prayers answering them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bansheeee*)
    People have had faith in god for millions of years, they haven't had faith in a flying spagetti monster have they?
    Appeal to age doesn't work. People have believed many stupid things for long periods of time, but that doesn't make them any more true.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    Appeal to age doesn't work. People have believed many stupid things for long periods of time, but that doesn't make them any more true.
    it's written about in the bible, that makes it true.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bansheeee*)
    it's written about in the bible, that makes it true.
    http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/critical/
    http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/fallacy/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I recall, when I applied to college, I had to write an essay on 'Is Why a scientific question?'

    The stance I took was that 'Why' has a fundamental implication of purpose. Science is not about 'what is the purpose of the universe/life/anything'. Science is about all the other questions, mostly 'How' - describing how the universe/life/everything works.

    'Why' is a religious/philosophical question, not a scientific one. Why assumes purpose - and therefore someone/something has a purpose in making/allowing something to happen.

    So, so long as religion seeks to answer the 'Why' question and science has all the others to play with, I'm quite happy.

    The difficulty I get is when people are insecure with their own belief as to 'Why' and therefore seek to play with the other questions, including areas where science has rock solid evidence to say they are wrong.

    As an example, when Galileo was threatened with torture by the Catholic church for saying that the Earth orbited the sun and was not the centre of the universe. If religion steps into the evidence based arena and says 'Either our faith is right or that scientific belief based on evidence is right - make your choice', then I'm afraid the evidence wins every time. The more it is said, the more the credibility of faith crumbles.

    And unfortunately, this happens time and time again - scientists are just too good at looking at a hypothesis, constructing an experiment to test it and producing evidence to confirm or deny it. So examples include:-
    • The earth is flat
    • The earth is the centre of the universe
    • The earth was created in 4000BC
    • The earth was created in a week
    • All life was created at once - there is no evolution, change or development of new species
    • Prayers work


    Each of these (and many others - write your own list) have been presented as a statement of 'if these are wrong, then my faith is worthless' - and then have been proved to be wrong by rock solid evidence.

    So, so long as religion just sticks to faith (and it doesn't impose that faith on anyone else, or require them to change their behaviour in any way), I'm cool with that.

    However, the moment people try to talk about 'the reason I am religious' the whole thing falls apart. Reason exposes itself to logic and evidence - that's playing on the scientists' home turf. And at some point, the evidence will show that reason to be false.

    After all, faith has to have no basis in evidence or reason - if it had a basis in evidence, it would not be faith, it would be demonstrable fact.

    Just say 'I believe because I want to believe'. Full stop.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by supremebeing)
    God doesn't know what you will do but he knows what you 'will' do? What's the difference, other than inverted commas. I missed the point because it doesn't make sense.
    Oh come on now it isnt even a complex concept.

    Stop viewing time and events as Singular, that only one outcome is destined to happen.

    And start viewing them as they are, that every action has an infinite amount of outcomes.

    If I said i could see the future and said you will Eat a pear for lunch and you do indeed eat a pear, I have forseen the future, and by your argument you had no choice in the matter since it was predestined.

    However if i saw the future and saw that you would either eat a pear, a bannana or an apple, and saw that every one could be a viable outcome based purely on your decision, and then proceeded to forsee every possible outcomes from these choices, and then you eat a pear.

    I still saw all the choices you could have made, which included the one you will eventually make, weather in the end you decided to eat the Pear or the Apple, because the choice was ultimately down to you.

    Therefore since the action you took, was included in all the possible actions, it has been forseen and known, however the choice still remained for you not to eat a pear.

    Therefore untill you make a decision, God has forseen all the different choices you could have made, and untill the point of the decision is reached, all outcomes have an equal likelihood to happen and all have been forseen in every tiny detail.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bansheeee*)
    People have had faith in god for millions of years, they haven't had faith in a flying spagetti monster have they?


    There haven't been people for millions of years.

    Besides, people have had faith in thousands of gods. What is to say your one is less ridicullous than Dionysus god of wine, or Aphrodite, or any of the other more archaic gods?

    Plus, a great number of people believeing in something doesn't make it true. Most used to believe the Earth was flat, or that the sun orbited us. This did not make it the reality did it? So i wonder how you can justify suing this reason as proof of Gods existence?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bansheeee*)
    For me , the Bible is enough evidence. And the fact my prayers are always answered is enough evidence, that there is someone listening to my prayers answering them.
    Which bible?
    Do you have your hands on the original content before editing?
    Or the bible straight after editing?
    Or the bible after translation?
    Or the bible after another translation?

    Why the bible but not the book of mormon?

    What do you pray for?
    Have you ever prayed for something very specific, example:
    "Dear God please can I have vegan vanilla ice cream at 12:03 PM on Friday the 5th of February 2010 delivered to me by a man wearing a top hat, without me discussing this in any way outside of my prayers?"

    Why is it that God didn't answer most of my prayers when I believed?

    Seems to me that you're just seeing whatever you want to as opposed to what is actually there infront of you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Which bible?
    Do you have your hands on the original content before editing?
    Or the bible straight after editing?
    Or the bible after translation?
    Or the bible after another translation?

    Why the bible but not the book of mormon?

    What do you pray for?
    Have you ever prayed for something very specific, example:
    "Dear God please can I have vegan vanilla ice cream at 12:03 PM on Friday the 5th of February 2010 delivered to me by a man wearing a top hat, without me discussing this in any way outside of my prayers?"

    Why is it that God didn't answer most of my prayers when I believed?

    Seems to me that you're just seeing whatever you want to as opposed to what is actually there infront of you.
    The holy bible..
    I pray for help sometimes or I pray to St.Anthony when I've lost something, I don't pray for stupid things, If you have true faith god will always answer your prayers.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bansheeee*)
    The holy bible..
    I pray for help sometimes or I pray to St.Anthony when I've lost something, I don't pray for stupid things, If you have true faith god will always answer your prayers.
    Because if you can't counter the points raised, just talking in the vaguest way possible will make you look clever and show how you can use critical thinking, make valid arguments, and logic and rationality:awesome:.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    There haven't been people for millions of years.

    Besides, people have had faith in thousands of gods. What is to say your one is less ridicullous than Dionysus god of wine, or Aphrodite, or any of the other more archaic gods?

    Plus, a great number of people believeing in something doesn't make it true. Most used to believe the Earth was flat, or that the sun orbited us. This did not make it the reality did it? So i wonder how you can justify suing this reason as proof of Gods existence?
    I believe in A god , i don't know what form god takes, but I just have faith in a god. I'm not saying there's proof, if everything were fact there'd be no need for beliefs would there?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.