Does God need to prove He exists?
in [Physics]
|
From: William T. Goat on 9 Jul 2008 17:11 On May 26, 10:20 pm, mitch.nicolas.raem...(a)gmail.com wrote: > No. I don't think so. That's kind of like asking, "Does a father need to love his sons?" Technically, the answer is no, but wouldn't it be a good idea? --Billy "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." --Jesus talks about love, Luke 14:26
From: Antares 531 on 9 Jul 2008 17:16 On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:02:59 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: >Antares 531 <gordonlrDELETE(a)swbell.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:31:58 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) >> wrote: >> >> >rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: >> > >> >> You atheists do not hesitate to portray youraelves as experts >> >> concerning what Christians believe. >> > >> >That's because you Christards are always blathering on about what you >> >believe--without, of course, providing any evidence to support your >> >ridiculous, puerile claims. >> > >> An abundance of evidence exists, but it isn't transferable. Each of us >> has to do our own sleuthing. No one can be your deputy in these >> matters, and supply you with empirical evidence or objective proof. >> You'll have to do your own searching and make your own decisions. If >> the evidence was transferable no one would have a sovereign choice, >> and having a sovereign choice is an absolute requirement. >> >> So, the evidence is presented in a very balanced way such that each of >> us can assess it and go from there, making our own sovereign choice as >> to whether we accept or reject God's existence. Gordon > >I call bullshit, Gordon. Evidence is by definition transferable. What >you're talking about isn't evidence, it's wishful thinking. You have >accepted God's existence not on any evidence, but strictly on a deep >rooted desire that it be true. Not the same thing at all. > Do you truly love your significant other? Do you have any evidence of the deep running feelings you have for him/her? Is this evidence transferable? Gordon
From: Antares 531 on 9 Jul 2008 17:20 On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 07:31:58 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com (Ben Dolan) wrote: >rbwinn <rbwinn3(a)juno.com> wrote: > >> You atheists do not hesitate to portray youraelves as experts >> concerning what Christians believe. > >That's because you Christards are always blathering on about what you >believe--without, of course, providing any evidence to support your >ridiculous, puerile claims. > Prophecies that have been fulfilled, though not an absolute proof, certainly lend a lot of support to our beliefs. Gordon http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml
From: James Burns on 9 Jul 2008 17:58 Antares 531 wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 08:02:59 -0700, ben_dolan_III(a)reet.com > (Ben Dolan) wrote: >>I call bullshit, Gordon. Evidence is by definition >>transferable. What you're talking about isn't evidence, >>it's wishful thinking. You have accepted God's existence >>not on any evidence, but strictly on a deep rooted desire >>that it be true. Not the same thing at all. > > Do you truly love your significant other? Do you have > any evidence of the deep running feelings you have > for him/her? Is this evidence transferable? Gordon What is your "non-transferable evidence" evidence for? Is it evidence that you have deep running feelings for God (setting aside the question of whether or not this being exists)? That's not so complicated. Most folks would just take your word that you feel what you say you feel (assuming that your other words and actions are consistent with that and that you're a reasonably honest fellow with no apparent reason to lie). Are your feelings evidence that God exists? Surely, you agree that this is unreasonable. If you had a significant other in some dangerous locale, maybe climbing Mount Everest, would you wake up each morning and /check your feelings/ to see whether she/he was safe? "Yep, I still love her. She must be OK." Remember, I'm not asking you to transfer your certainty about her safety to me. I'm saying your certainty itself is unreasonable for you to have. Jim Burns
From: James Burns on 9 Jul 2008 18:45
Antares 531 wrote: > On Wed, 09 Jul 2008 19:16:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher > <a(a)b.c> wrote: > Fulfillment of prophecies is the most convincing "evidence" > for the reliability of the Bible, but even these are not > documented so convincingly that one can not reject them. > It is a matter of sovereign choice. Sovereign choice? This argument is one of the most blatant examples of apologetic bait-and-switch. You build up an extensive argument that sounds like you're talking about one thing, say, free will, but, upon closer inspection, it turns out that you're using the words "free will" or "choice" in some bizarre special sense that is nothing like the way they are used in normal conversations. The usual argument is that god doesn't want to infringe upon our "sovereign choice" (whether to believe in or worship Him) by permitting us to have the sort of information we would use to make a well-informed choice. [If you want to argue whether there is such information, I'd be pleased to. However, for now, perhaps you can accept that I believe there is no such information and that God (if He existed) would know what I believe and has not corrected the situation.] How does this "choice" sound in a non-religious setting? I did some job-hunting for you, and I found three jobs. Because I care about your free will and your sovereign choice, I'm not going to tell you anything about them. Which job do you want, the first, the second, or the third? Jim Burns |