Comments
21 - 33 of 33 Comments Last updated Oct 29, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Oct 12

High Point, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Oct 27, 2012
 
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>Ok, I get it.. No proof, fine. I addressed the evidence thing in my last post. As for your belief that god is supernatural. That is convienien, but seems to contradict what is in your Bible. The Bible states that humans are created in gods image, so that would indicate that god is indeed a tangible being. The Bible also says that god has interacted directly with people in the past. That would seem to negate the idea that he is outside of our realm of time and space and is intangible, clearly he is a tangible being.

Logic.... I did not say logic was created by an inorganic "being" Logic is a concept/philosophy, it is truly intangible, but can still be defined...ie: Definition of LOGIC
1a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (From Merriam Webster)

So it is reasonable to say that it's fomalization is the product of man just as any philosophy is. But logic itself is somewhat intuitive. In other words, you can see a child using logic to get something he or she wants, and they are not aware they are using logic(On a side note, monkeys do the same thing), when logic is refined to a science, it may have to be taught and it becomes a "science". I do not find any of tis to be evidence of a creator, but rather, as I mentioned before, a necessity for progress.
ALSO with regards to logic if you'll go back I didn't ask what being created logic I said I personally think God created it. I went on to ask you an I quote, "How logic came to be." Which you answered by telling me what logic has done, what it does and what it can do, and what logic is. None of which answers What is the ORIGIN of logic? If not by physical or organic means.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Oct 28, 2012
 
JordanUTT wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't claim to have proof that God exists, when did I ever say that I had proof? I simply just have evidence, just as you only have evidence for evolution. Neither of these beliefs have "proof" and I do not reject evolution altogether, I reject the theory that evolution is the process by which all things came to be. Am I not being direct?
I have never said that you said that you have proof god exists. You cannot seem to understand what I wrote. I naturally assumed that if one has no proof of something, one is suitably sceptical about it and one doesn't try to compare evolution,(which has substantial support from science) and belief in god,(which has essentially and comparatively none).

Religion = superstition
theology = mythology
blasphemy = satire
Christian name = first name
and so on.
I was simply noting the fact that religion should be no different from any other subject. It has developed its own words where secular ones are available.

I'm glad you don't reject evolution altogether and you realise there is no proof any god(s) esist,(at least not Abrahamic ones, or others in Godchecker). I will read your evidence for its/his/their existence in Scientific American, if it gets there. Otherwise, it is highly unlikely I haven't read it before or thought of it myself. I hope you agree there's even less proof that any god requires any form of worship, far less a particular format. Well done. That is far better than some religionists on Topix.(Jusy as you have assumed I am atheist, I have assumed you are a religionist).

It isn't the simple belief that there might, arguably, from one point of view, be some overall intelligence behind life or the Universe that anyone (or science) has any problem with. It is religions that are problematic. Especially when they encroach on morality, science, politics, the law or education. Keep religion out of that and people can have any god(s) they like.

And I hope that prejudice like this is rejected too..
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.h...
I feel that one shouldn't base political views on someone's superstitious beliefs or lack of any. I for one simply look at their policies.

None of us want a world divided into different tribes of religionists, or divided between religionists and atheists.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Oct 28, 2012
 
JordanUTT wrote:
<quoted text>
But without solid definite proof then that cannot be held as fact. You have provided no evidence or proof. So doesn't that mean that, even in Atheist viewpoint, that your statement can't possibly be viewed as "fact"???
I don't need proof. I am not alleging the existence of a god(s). If you say you have evidence for a god(s), define 'god(s)' and then have it tested by suitable scientific assessments.

Some people talk of god(s) and religions as if they should be treated with kid-gloves or are entitled to special respect.
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Oct 28, 2012
 
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Jordan, it isn't complicated. Children can understand. There are lots of religions..
http://www.godchecker.com/
Pick one.
From a Christian's point of view, all the others are superstitions. People see talk of Zues and Thor as mythologies but there is no more proof of an Abrahamic god(s) than of Roman ones. It follows that, as there is no scientific and generally accepted defined and proven god(s), religions are the last bastion of superstition and one man's theology is another man's mythology.
Equally clearly, blasphemy against a religion in which one doesn't believe is satire,(e.g The Innocence of Muslims, or Life of Brian).
I don't care if you think you, personally, think you have proof of an Abrahamic god(s). You sound as if you reject evolution in preference to mere creationism too?! Speaks for itself.
I think I'm a positive advert for atheism and you are a negative one for religionism.
JMHO
This is my post 12 and you seem to have taken this line out of context: "I don't care if you think you, personally, think you have proof of an Abrahamic god(s)." In context, the point was that whether you have 'evidence' or proof, I don't care. Get it scientifically assessed. That is the motivation behind ID/Creationism.

Since: Oct 12

High Point, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Oct 28, 2012
 

Judged:

1

EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I don't need proof. I am not alleging the existence of a god(s). If you say you have evidence for a god(s), define 'god(s)' and then have it tested by suitable scientific assessments.

Some people talk of god(s) and religions as if they should be treated with kid-gloves or are entitled to special respect.
I don't think I'm following you. You're saying that you don't need proof to prove what you believe, simply because it's not trying to prove a god?
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Oct 28, 2012
 
JordanUTT wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think I'm following you. You're saying that you don't need proof to prove what you believe, simply because it's not trying to prove a god?
I don't believe anything beyond what can be justified by reason and evidence.

If you think there is some entity you wish to call a god, define it and prove it.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Oct 28, 2012
 
JordanUTT wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah yes created in His image. What a great verse! Well see your interpretation of that, only assuming, came from either simply reading that verse and nothing more or it being told to you by one of my fellow believers, who like most all other Christians, misinterpret that verse as well. See when the Bible says "in His image" it isn't referring to God's physical form, I believe He (initially) has none, that verse refers to image as in His likeness. He created man to be like (like being defined at similar NOT exact) God Himself, as in to have a sense of love and to desire something to love. And also that passage refers to image as in God's image (God's being possessive) meaning that He had an image that He wanted to make us did, which He did. We all look different physically which would mean God, if tangible and with form, would need to look like everyone at once.
My first question is what do you base that conclusion on? The Bible does not contain anything of the sort that would justify that conclusion. Also, the Bible speaks of god 'walking' so that would indicate a phyisical being. Now, before you say it's metaphor, let me quickly add that the Bible also talks about god in a spiritual form. So it definitly distinguishes a difference. As for the idea that god would have to look like everyone, that does not have to be the case. I will refer back to your explaination that it does not have to be his 'exact' image, but rather the basic construct of his being.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Oct 28, 2012
 
JordanUTT wrote:
<quoted text>
ALSO with regards to logic if you'll go back I didn't ask what being created logic I said I personally think God created it. I went on to ask you an I quote, "How logic came to be." Which you answered by telling me what logic has done, what it does and what it can do, and what logic is. None of which answers What is the ORIGIN of logic? If not by physical or organic means.
Maybe I was a bit too wordy. Sorry.
Necessity created logic. Logic is a concept, not a 'thing'. In other words it is the name we put on a non-phyiscal process.

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Oct 28, 2012
 
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I don't believe anything beyond what can be justified by reason and evidence.
If you think there is some entity you wish to call a god, define it and prove it.
If I may EdSed, I would like to rephrase your statement a little...

"If you think there is some entity you wish to call a god, define it and provide your evidence for it."

I think your conversation with this poster may proceed better with this wording. Of course, I could be wrong, in which case you are welcome to tell me to go fly a kite.:)
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Oct 28, 2012
 
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
If I may EdSed, I would like to rephrase your statement a little...
"If you think there is some entity you wish to call a god, define it and provide your evidence for it."
I think your conversation with this poster may proceed better with this wording. Of course, I could be wrong, in which case you are welcome to tell me to go fly a kite.:)
]Fine. However it already seems clear he favors an Christian god.

I think he's just another Christian who thinks that religious faith is a good thing and something one 'loses' instead of superstition people and societies are better free from. Perhaps another case of 'Give me a boy under 7'..?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Oct 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

JordanUTT wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for that definition! Actually that is exactly what I see Atheism as. I just used "belief system" due to lack of a better way of putting it. Cause I would assume it perfectly true for an Atheist to say "I *believe* that no form of higher deity exists."
No, that's not necessarily "perfectly true to say". And that's the crux of the misunderstanding. You claim that there is a god. As an atheist, I simply doubt YOUR claim made without evidence.

And that's really no different than what you do with anybody else's "god" claim. When a Hindu person claims that Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma exist, you doubt their claim and ask for evidence ... real, independently verifiable evidence.

Athsism is the **absence of belief**. It is NOT a substitution of one belief for another.
JordanUTT wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for that definition! Actually that is exactly what I see
Unlike most other Christians you will probably encounter, I can admit that God has not been proven 100%. Yet I can say that through experience, when studied properly, thoroughly and with an open mind, Christianity can have valid explanations through science, reason, and other means. For example, I could be wrong, but reason/logic itself is pretty solid evidence for God. I haven't found a reason for Big Bang or Evolution to create a non-physical, non-tangible thing such as logic, that indisputably exists.
Would "logic" exist without humans? Is not "logic" just a man-made human construct for a method of thinking?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Oct 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

JordanUTT wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't claim to have proof that God exists, when did I ever say that I had proof? I simply just have evidence, just as you only have evidence for evolution. Neither of these beliefs have "proof" and I do not reject evolution altogether, I reject the theory that evolution is the process by which all things came to be. Am I not being direct?
You are being direct, but a bit sloppy with your words, which caused potential misinterpretations.

First off, science does not deal with "Belief" at any level. When we speak of scientific theories such as evolution (or gravity or whatever) we are talking about our CURRENT understanding about how nature works. A scientific theory has by definition been tested numerous way over many years (or in most cases decades) by scientist from all religious and political backgrounds and has continued to provide results in support of the theory.

In the case of the biological theory of evolution, scientists don't "believe" in the theory, scientists consider that there is so much evidence for this understanding that to withhold tacit approval would be unreasonable. But there is ALWAYS the chance that tomorrow this or any other scientific understanding could be challenged by new evidence. That is the very nature of inductive reasoning.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Oct 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

JordanUTT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's actually a matter I've addressed several times. I think God is "proven" 0% to prove something would mean it would have to be 100% indisputable, yet atheists dispute against Him all the time. To prove Him I would have to grab Him and show him to you and let you shake hands. I can't do that because I believe God exists outside this realm of time, that he's intangible, unnatural, rather He is supernatural. I can only simply provide strong reasonable evidence and hope you CHOOSE to see it as just that, reasonable.
Which brings me back to my next point on logic. You stated that evolution could not and did not create logic, which is awesome cause that's what I'm saying. I believe God created it and gave it to mankind to use. Which lines up with your belief, in a way, by stating that it was created by an inorganic being I.e. God. So then how do you believe logic came to exist?
Now you're just making stuff up. By definition, nothing can possibly exist "outside of time". That is a meaningless statement.

Like wise, "supernatural" is just another meaningless word.

You should work on defining your terms better. Then maybe we can consider whether or not there is any logic to consider. However the cosmological argument and the Kalam variant (both of which you seem to be insinuating) have been proven illogical arguments that rely on the fallacy of begging the question. So, thus far, you have presented no logic.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••