Noah's Ark

[Orange_Crush]

Feel free to point out where I definitively said God doesn't exist. Any inference you claim to that fact is on you. All I've said is the position of the believers is inadequate to convincing me.

I've asked this before and gotten mixed responses, but what evidence would it take for you to cease believing in God, and Christianity in particular? I suspect an honest answer to that question would say a lot to why you believe what you do. I'm not trying to start an argument with that question and you don't even have to respond. Just food for thought.

I'm not sure there's much that could, to be honest with you. Having become a Christian, I have years of experience to call upon that proves it to me. None of it is sufficient to prove it to you, and I'm OK with that. You're OK with that. I promise. We're both OK with that.

I have years of miraculously answered prayers that defy the idea of chance. I have a relationship with Him that you have not experienced. So... (And I mean no disrespect by the comparison)

Your question is like a blind person asking me, "What would it take for you not to believe in the Sun?" Or a person in prison in Turkey writing me a letter and asking, "What would it take for you not to believe in your wife?"

It is what it is. Reread my posts. I have not once tried to prove to you that God exists. I believe in and value of faith. I'm just saying that my faith is well placed, and I don't expect you to believe it.

:hi:

 

[rjd970]

Now, I began believing in this "supreme being" because I looked at the universe and the universe indicated that He has to be there, just like the Higgs Boson and Dark Matter. As I looked at the laws of causation and found a beginning to the universe, I deemed that an uncaused cause had to be there.

Everywhere I look in the universe, there are indicators of Him, and they tell me a lot about Him-- just as thousands of great thinkers before me have looked and seen.

This is a good one.

If an uncaused cause had to be at the beginning, then what caused God? If God is the uncaused cause, then why isn't it just as reasonable to say the universe itself is an uncaused cause? Perfectly reasonable to say the universe exists in a closed manifold with no "beginning" or "end" and time is an illusion to begin with.

 

[Orange_Crush]

You just tossed out evidence of their existence, then said that there was no evidence of their existence.

And what logical fallacy have I committed? You've accused 2-3 people of using bad logic, but have yet to provide examples of such.

Point out where I said there was no evidence for their existence. I said they were unproven, thus dispelling the lie that you can't believe in something until it's proven.

And to be honest, there was no evidence for their existence at the time.. There was a logical reason to suspect the need for their existence. Those are two different things.

 

[rjd970]

I'm not sure there's much that could, to be honest with you. Having become a Christian, I have years of experience to call upon that proves it to me. None of it is sufficient to prove it to you, and I'm OK with that. You're OK with that. I promise. We're both OK with that.

I have years of miraculously answered prayers that defy the idea of chance. I have a relationship with Him that you have not experienced. So... (And I mean no disrespect by the comparison)

Your question is like a blind person asking me, "What would it take for you not to believe in the Sun?" Or a person in prison in Turkey writing me a letter and asking, "What would it take for you not to believe in your wife?"

It is what it is. Reread my posts. I have not once tried to prove to you that God exists. I believe in and value of faith. I'm just saying that my faith is well placed, and I don't expect you to believe it.

:hi:

This explains a lot. And that's fine. I, on the other hand, can be convinced (again), and it would be rather easy to come up with something.

As to the second bolded, you would be surprised.

 

[KingNick865]

Point out where I said there was no evidence for their existence. I said they were unproven, thus dispelling the lie that you can't believe in something until it's proven.

And to be honest, there was no evidence for their existence at the time.. There was a logical reason to suspect the need for their existence. Those are two different things.

I never said you couldn't believe in something until it's proven, but rather that you couldn't say that something is definitively real without any evidence or ability to test it.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This is a good one.

If an uncaused cause had to be at the beginning, then what caused God? If God is the uncaused God, then why isn't it just as reasonable to say the universe itself is an uncaused cause? Perfectly reasonable to say the universe exists in a closed manifold with no "beginning" or "end" and time is an illusion to begin with.

Because everything I've seen indicates that the universe had a beginning. Was it you that mentioned the background radiation from the big bang?

I've read the problems with the eternal universe theories, and they don't seem to hold water.

Because Einstein showed that time and space are inseparable, when the universe started, time started. Whatever caused the universe was not a part of time, thus infinite-- uncaused.

If time is an illusion, then we aren't having this conversation, so why should I trust anything you type? I find it interesting that they very foundation of science is the laws of causation-- and in an attempt to escape the need for an uncaused cause, science seems to be denying the need for the very foundations that make it possible.

Odd. To say the least.

 

[Orangeslice13]

This is a good one.

If an uncaused cause had to be at the beginning, then what caused God? If God is the uncaused cause, then why isn't it just as reasonable to say the universe itself is an uncaused cause? Perfectly reasonable to say the universe exists in a closed manifold with no "beginning" or "end" and time is an illusion to begin with.

I think I said this 100 post or so ago.

Neither God, from the Christian point of view of, nor energy (matter), from the athesist point of view, have a begening. They just are

 

[rjd970]

I think I said this 100 post or so ago.

Neither God, from the Christian point of view of, nor energy (matter), from the athesist point of view, have a begening. They just are

And both are equally arbitrary starting points.

...but, we know for a fact energy/matter exists....no faith or circular logic...energy exists. Period.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I never said you couldn't believe in something until it's proven, but rather that you couldn't say that something is definitively real without any evidence or ability to test it.

Go back and show me the evidence for the higgs boson and dark matter, when they were accepted, short of the fact that they just "had" to be there.

As a matter of fact, obsessed brought up the beginning of life. Why was it claimed science believes it? Because it must have happened. We're here. God isn't. So it just must have happened. No evidence. No successful reproduction of its spontaneous occurrence-- even in a designed experiment. It breaks a fundamental law of nature (life begets life). But it just "must have" happened.

Sorry. You invented that law of logic for convenience. I'm not being mean. I'm just pointing out that a spade is a spade.

 

[hog88]

I don't believe in god, bigfoot, santa, or unicorns. I wouldn't consider any to be religious beliefs, simply the absence of belief in those things.

Don't believe in Bigfoot?

Closed minded IMO!

 

[Orange_Crush]

If you cannot prove the existence of something, you must assume that it does not exist until there is proof that it does exist.

For example, we shall take the FSM example from earlier and apply it. If I say that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that is invisible and floats in the sky and rains meatballs and spaghetti sauce, but that it is invisible and that you could not feel or sense him or His Noodliness or his spaghetti rain, then you must assume that he does not exist until I can either design an experiment or supply proof that he does exist.

In other words, until I provide proof of something, the default, proven scientific position is the prevailing one.

I never said you couldn't believe in something until it's proven, but rather that you couldn't say that something is definitively real without any evidence or ability to test it.

Refresher.

I called you on your invention when you made it.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Cosmologist claims Universe may not be expanding : Nature News & Comment


So maybe there wasn't a big bang after all

 

[rjd970]

Because everything I've seen indicates that the universe had a beginning. Was it you that mentioned the background radiation from the big bang?

I've read the problems with the eternal universe theories, and they don't seem to hold water.

Because Einstein showed that time and space are inseparable, when the universe started, time started. Whatever caused the universe was not a part of time, thus infinite-- uncaused.

If time is an illusion, then we aren't having this conversation, so why should I trust anything you type? I find it interesting that they very foundation of science is the laws of causation-- and in an attempt to escape the need for an uncaused cause, science seems to be denying the need for the very foundations that make it possible.

Odd. To say the least.

All of that may be true and it may not be true. Nobody knows.

But extrapolating an uncaused cause to a powerful entity that sent his son to live as a carpenter in first century Judea is a pretty big leap.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Go back and show me the evidence for the higgs boson and dark matter, when they were accepted, short of the fact that they just "had" to be there.

As a matter of fact, obsessed brought up the beginning of life. Why was it claimed science believes it? Because it must have happened. We're here. God isn't. So it just must have happened. No evidence. No successful reproduction of its spontaneous occurrence-- even in a designed experiment. It breaks a fundamental law of nature (life begets life). But it just "must have" happened.

Sorry. You invented that law of logic for convenience. I'm not being mean. I'm just pointing out that a spade is a spade.

And what's that partical the holds the atom togeather? The glueton? We can't find it but we know its there

Edit gluons

 

[Orange_Crush]

All of that may be true and it may not be true. Nobody knows.

But extrapolating an uncaused cause to a powerful entity that sent his son to live as a carpenter in first century Judea is a pretty big leap.

I listed the things that made me believe He must be there. There were innumerable other things that told me who it was. I'm not really interested in reliving the entire search for you unless it's just that important to you.

I've already told you that, since accepting Him, He's revealed Himself in even more specific ways. It's been my journey. You have yours. As ignorant as I appear to you, and as offended as you become when religious people make claims about His existence. Try to imagine how ignorant Christians, who have experienced Him personally, think that the atheist's definitive statements are-- and how offensive the "fairy tale" definitive statements must come across.

:hi:

 

[rjd970]

Refresher.

I called you on your invention when you made it.

I will bold the whole quote, not the cherry picked part you did....

I never said you couldn't believe in something until it's proven, but rather that you couldn't say that something is definitively real without any evidence or ability to test it.

If you cannot prove the existence of something, you must assume that it does not exist until there is proof that it does exist

Don't see the difference. Basically, until its proven or there is evidence or ability to test it, the default position is non-existence.

One can believe whatever they want, Christians have been doing it for 2000 years.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I listed the things that made me believe He must be there. There were innumerable other things that told me who it was. I'm not really interested in reliving the entire search for you unless it's just that important to you.

I've already told you that, since accepting Him, He's revealed Himself in even more specific ways. It's been my journey. You have yours. As ignorant as I appear to you, and as offended as you become when religious people make claims about His existence. Try to imagine how ignorant Christians, who have experienced Him personally, think that the atheist's definitive statements are-- and how offensive the "fairy tale" definitive statements must come across.

:hi:

When you've had the experiences you know he's there. There's no explaining it to others.

 

[Orangeslice13]

I will bold the whole quote, not the cherry picked part you did....





Don't see the difference. Basically, until its proven or there is evidence or ability to test it, the default position is non-existence.

One can believe whatever they want, Christians have been doing it for 2000 years.

Without the ability to prove there is no default position. Just like the beginning of life there is no default position on how it happened scientificly.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This explains a lot. And that's fine. I, on the other hand, can be convinced (again), and it would be rather easy to come up with something.

As to the second bolded, you would be surprised.

That's cool. I will say this, and hope that you don't take it as condescending... It's not meant to be.

If you never experienced a relationship with Him that proved His existence, you have not had the relationship with Him that I do.

Again... This is not saying I am a better Christian than you were. Perhaps He has shown more grace to me for whatever reason. But I have experienced such from Him that it is hard to imagine that He is not there.

:hi:

 

[rjd970]

I listed the things that made me believe He must be there. There were innumerable other things that told me who it was. I'm not really interested in reliving the entire search for you unless it's just that important to you.

I've already told you that, since accepting Him, He's revealed Himself in even more specific ways. It's been my journey. You have yours. As ignorant as I appear to you, and as offended as you become when religious people make claims about His existence. Try to imagine how ignorant Christians, who have experienced Him personally, think that the atheist's definitive statements are-- and how offensive the "fairy tale" definitive statements must come across.

:hi:

Really, if you would have just admitted up front that it is all based on faith and personal experiences I wouldn't have interjected. Eventually that is the end game of these discussions anyway. To each their own. I'm sure there are many on here that would vouch for that with me.

I only chime in when it is passed off as rational or evidence based to believe in a creator, intelligent design, etc. It's faith. I don't find that (or you) ignorant at all, it is what it is.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I will bold the whole quote, not the cherry picked part you did....

Originally Posted by KingNick865 View Post
I never said you couldn't believe in something until it's proven, but rather that you couldn't say that something is definitively real without any evidence or ability to test it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingNick865 View Post
If you cannot prove the existence of something, you must assume that it does not exist until there is proof that it does exist

Don't see the difference. Basically, until its proven or there is evidence or ability to test it, the default position is non-existence.

One can believe whatever they want, Christians have been doing it for 2000 years.

One can believe anything they want while having to assume that it does not exist? You are picking imaginary nits.

You're an odd guy.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Really, if you would have just admitted up front that it is all based on faith and personal experiences I wouldn't have interjected. Eventually that is the end game of these discussions anyway. To each their own. I'm sure there are many on here that would vouch for that with me.

I only chime in when it is passed off as rational or evidence based to believe in a creator, intelligent design, etc. It's faith. I don't find that (or you) ignorant at all, it is what it is.

I would be more careful when inserting that word, personally.

 

[KingNick865]

Go back and show me the evidence for the higgs boson and dark matter, when they were accepted, short of the fact that they just "had" to be there.

As a matter of fact, obsessed brought up the beginning of life. Why was it claimed science believes it? Because it must have happened. We're here. God isn't. So it just must have happened. No evidence. No successful reproduction of its spontaneous occurrence-- even in a designed experiment. It breaks a fundamental law of nature (life begets life). But it just "must have" happened.

Sorry. You invented that law of logic for convenience. I'm not being mean. I'm just pointing out that a spade is a spade.

Here is the issue I'm having with your argument; the things you have just mentioned have had the ability to be scientifically tested. Scientists thought that dark matter must exist since the gravitational pull of all the things in the universe did not add up to what they thought was required to keep everything together (obviously I'm simplifying by a great deal). So even though there was no true way to see dark matter, there was a way to test that it existed. Same with the Higgs boson particle. Even though there was no real way to measure it, there was evidence of its existence thanks to our understanding of how the Standard model should work.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Really, if you would have just admitted up front that it is all based on faith and personal experiences I wouldn't have interjected. Eventually that is the end game of these discussions anyway. To each their own. I'm sure there are many on here that would vouch for that with me.

I only chime in when it is passed off as rational or evidence based to believe in a creator, intelligent design, etc. It's faith. I don't find that (or you) ignorant at all, it is what it is.

I'll repeat this. I never made an objective statement about his existence. I questioned those that made or inferred definitives about His nonexistence.

I answered misquotes from the Bible seeking to disprove the flood story.

I'm still awaiting a response from Mercy that stated that "reality" has disproved my faith.

I called shenanigans when my faith was disparaged by seeking to apply nihilistic absurdity to its claims.

I've been in a patient discussion with a group of people that equate my beliefs to fairies, bigfoot, santa, a flying spaghetti monster and an orbiting teapot. Reread this thread, come back, and tell me who is making more definitive statements on the subject.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

When you've had the experiences you know he's there. There's no explaining it to others.

And the promise that He will never leave or abandon you.