Is there a god?

[pimpdave]

How did this thread get to forty pages so fast?

[the carpet man]

41 now

the internet has many angry virgin. just look at the anger in all those people who argue with me

[natty dread]

the internet has many angry virgin.

Interesting that you used that word.

Do you have any sexual frustrations, Carpet? It's ok, you can share.

[daddy1gringo]

I ws going to deal with a couple of other things, but I got real busy, so I'll just get this posted.

Now that’s interesting. Did you read “every single translation in existence”? Of course not. By the way, how many translations did you check before making that assertion?

Here are 18 translations, none of which leave any incident happening between him saying it is finished and him bowing his head to die: http://bible.cc/john/19-30.htm

Also I am not going to read your own translations unless you reference them

You already have read them. Three of the 4 I mentioned are included in your link. Of course they all say he did those things in that order. As I said, in the more literal translations, which I mentioned (King James, English Standard, and New American Standard), and in the breakdown that I did from the original language using a Greek lexicon, it is clear that there is nothing that says that something else could not have come in between. Only the more interpretive versions, like the New International and Living Bibles, which take liberties with a literal translation of the text to make the English flow better, have language like “and with that” that is incompatible with something happening in between.

What’s more, did you even read what I wrote? If I lifted my head toward heaven and yelled, “Father, I surrender my spirit into your hands!” and then died, could you refer to that as “yielding up my spirit”? So they both agree: He yelled “it is finished” and then yielded up his spirit. Contradiction? Fail.

[marijus]

No heaven, no hell, and that is the truth.
God is manmade rubbish for people with no belife in their self.
That is why god dies when the homosapiens die.
It might be soon, so go big or be a dork.
Drink, f*ck, ride fast, spend money and kick ass.

[Woodruff]

Yes, exactly like atheism and any other belief, including many that have nothing at all to do with religion.

There are absolutely probabilities, evidence and logic that poses atheism as the most reasonable.

Really? You have yet to have shown how.

It's so patently obvious that I wouldn't have thought it would be necessary. Seriously...people who believe do so because of FAITH. They don't do so because of logic, evidence or probabilities because THOSE THINGS REASONABLY SHOW THAT GOD PROBABLY DOES NOT EXIST.

No. Faith takes off where logic leaves.

You cannot logically deduce that which has truly so little evidence. What you call "evidence" is really just saying "we have come up with alternatives that differ from what earlier people thought". Except.. you ignore that modern religious individuals accept those same facts, accept the same changes put forward by evidence.

It is very much like claiming that science is wrong becuase it keeps changing and revising ideas instead of staying back at the level of alchemy. PEOPLE have gained more knowledge, but there is still a vast area where there just is no conclusive evidence. There just is not. There is faith and evidence that can be seen in many ways, fit into many frameworks.

And, as I noted before... "probability" does not really matter in a case like this.

The hell it doesn't. Why wouldn't it?

First I dispute the "more evidence" claim, but that is something about which we will have to just agree to disagree. I believe in God because, to me that believe IS much more logical, has more evidence. You do not.

In scientific terms, we are just two people who have different theories which we each firmly believe. In a science conference, we would likely wind up "butting heads" or debating heavily. But, for the rest of the community.. the question is still truly open. Some might take one side or the other. EACH will say "their" side is correct, but overall the majority truly understand that the actual answer is yet to be found. THAT is science, not saying "hey, we think this is true, so we are just going to ignore all these other possibilities". Or rather, I should say that science has too often done just that.. with the Velliger larvae, with ulcers, with many things (including solutions to AIDS, etc). Then someone proves the "accepted ideas" wrong and they win the nobel laureat.. more or less.

If you had asked most biologists/doctors 3 decades ago if it was more probable that ulcers were caused by bacteria or some other cause, they would have said "some other cause", based on the evidence they saw. They were, however, wrong.

That's why they're called PROBABILITIES instead of FACTS. Jesus, seriously...are you even paying attention to what you type?

Yes, but you seem to be confusing the two. There are no FACTS proving that there is no God.

As long as something is possible, it is perfectly logical to believe it might be true. Pretending that one choice is the only real logical choice is one of the most destructive things you can do in science and thinking, in general.

We're not talking about "the only real logical choice"...we're specifically talking about your statement above that atheism has as little to do with probabilities, evidence and logic as religion does. We're specifically talking about my statement that the probabilities, evidence and logic pose atheism as the most reasonable possibility.

No, you are making a false assumption and a very, very big one in science, at that. This is not an esoteric or idle question. It really does make the difference between "technicians" very proficient people at collecting and processing data, basically following trends.. and those who actually go out and think new things, who truly move science forward (or, for that matter, inventions ).

Partly, it is a matter of semantics. Yes, of course your individual choice will be based on what you feel is more logical. BUT, does that give you the right to say that other people are ignoring logic, not thinking clearly, etc, etc? NO. Those of us who believe in God have, in various ways, said that we also see evidence, proof. It does not matter whether you see that evidence or not for the greater question, only for your personnal answer.

In any other situation, you would certainly recognize that there is a difference between seeing something and making and individual choice and insisting that it is the "only" valid choice". Somehow, because this is religion, a large group have decided that this principle can be ignored.

Note... I am not in any way saying that you, personally have to accept my choices, agree with me. I am merely saying that to claim you have logical superiority.. is not logic, it is bias.

I gotta be honest with you PLAYER, that sounds like the sort of thing that would come out of the mouth of an Intelligent Design proponent. Terribly poor view of logic on your part.

Really? I would say that you are looking at things from a very narrow glass.
Intelligent Design requires ignoring real and actual proof. Belief in God, in Christianity does not.

This is a load of self-serving horseshit. I don't have a problem with people of faith. In fact, I greatly respect a good number of people of faith. But the idea that believing in God is somehow logical is farcical nonsense. It requires faith, not logic. The idea that "God can't be proven not to exist thus his existence is just as reasonable as his nonexistence" flies in the face of logic completely. If you can't even admit that, then there is no hope for having a reasonable discussion on the subject with you, so I'm done with it. I'll leave you to those with more patience for stupidity.

[pmchugh]

I ws going to deal with a couple of other things, but I got real busy, so I'll just get this posted.

Now that’s interesting. Did you read “every single translation in existence”? Of course not. By the way, how many translations did you check before making that assertion?

Here are 18 translations, none of which leave any incident happening between him saying it is finished and him bowing his head to die: http://bible.cc/john/19-30.htm

Also I am not going to read your own translations unless you reference them

You already have read them. Three of the 4 I mentioned are included in your link. Of course they all say he did those things in that order. As I said, in the more literal translations, which I mentioned (King James, English Standard, and New American Standard), and in the breakdown that I did from the original language using a Greek lexicon, it is clear that there is nothing that says that something else could not have come in between. Only the more interpretive versions, like the New International and Living Bibles, which take liberties with a literal translation of the text to make the English flow better, have language like “and with that” that is incompatible with something happening in between.

What’s more, did you even read what I wrote? If I lifted my head toward heaven and yelled, “Father, I surrender my spirit into your hands!” and then died, could you refer to that as “yielding up my spirit”? So they both agree: He yelled “it is finished” and then yielded up his spirit. Contradiction? Fail.

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Any idiot can see from context that all translations of the Bible, even your favourite ones like the one above imply that he said, "It is finished" just as he bowed his head and died. Giving up your ghost/spirit does not include saying anything. Luke used the same term of phrase (at least in King James, your personal favourite) after he had said his supposed last words.

I am rather enjoying this now though, so far we have had a bi-directional family tree and a close scrutiny of language. Please do entertain me with an explanation for whether anyone has seen God, there are at least 5 verses which go either way so I will be interested to see if you can take up the challenge that player ran away from.

[Ray Rider]

Any idiot can see from context that all translations of the Bible, even your favourite ones like the one above imply that he said, "It is finished" just as he bowed his head and died. Giving up your ghost/spirit does not include saying anything. Luke used the same term of phrase (at least in King James, your personal favourite) after he had said his supposed last words.

Calling him an idiot doesn't prove anything except that you have nothing else to back up your argument with except childish name-calling. And I'm not sure why you continue to insist on a sequence of events based on certain dynamic-equivalence translations when you're talking to an expert who can read the original Greek and tells you it's not there. Maybe you need to look more into the difference between dynamic equivalence as opposed to literal translation methods?

If all the Gospel accounts read identically, you would rightfully condemn the writers for having conspired together, or one apostle having written them all. Essentially then there would be only one account which would rightfully be condemned for being the sole witness. As it stands, the Bible offers four witnesses to tell the story of Jesus' life with slightly differing accounts which any modern judge in a courtroom would expect to hear of 4 people telling of a scene they witnessed.

I am rather enjoying this now though, so far we have had a bi-directional family tree and a close scrutiny of language. Please do entertain me with an explanation for whether anyone has seen God, there are at least 5 verses which go either way so I will be interested to see if you can take up the challenge that player ran away from....

Have seen:

I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle

For mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

Have not seen:

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Whom no man hath seen nor can see.

Christians believe in the trinity--the three-in-one Godhead of Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit. No one has seen the Father, but many have seen the Son both during His time on earth as a man and previously in the Old Testament. When God was seen in the Old Testament times, it is referred to as a "theophany" and you can read a lot more discussion on that if you're interested; there are entire courses focused on that if you go to Bible school. As for the "have not seen verses," here's a quick explanation: if you read the verses preceding John 1:18, you would see that Jesus is referred to as "the Word;" the Person "whom no man has seen" is the other part of the deity--God the Father. Also in I Timothy 6 if you read the preceding verses you'll see that it's talking about Jesus' return when God the Father "whom man has never seen" will reveal His Son, Jesus. Again, it's God the Father whom no one has seen.

I find it strange that anyone understands that it takes time to study and understand ancient manuscripts, and yet somehow they like to make an exception with the Bible where they believe it's perfectly fine to cherry-pick verses out of context with no understanding of the background and try to create a contradiction where none exists.

There are more examples than these few on this same topic, I will post them if needed.

This is why many Christians have gotten tired of debating with people like you; one supposed contradiction is disproved so you bring up the next, which is disproved so you bring up the next, etc. You're not bringing them up because you seriously want to know the truth; these so-called "contradictions" have been around for hundreds of years and the explanations have been around for just as long, yet you refuse to acknowledge them and keep trying to revive them as if they're new objections which no Christian has thought of.

If you just enjoy the conflict of worldviews or if you seriously do want to find the truth about a number of these supposed contradictions, I'll refer you to the old 100+ pages of "Jesus Freaks: Why Do You Believe?" thread where the author was genuinely interested and brought up multiple objections to the Bible and Christianity which the Jesus Freaks answered for him.

[Symmetry]

Even as an atheist, Ray, I'd suggest Augustine and Aquinas over the Jesus Freaks forum. At least then they would have reference to people who genuinely troubled over the issues being raised as they happened. Also, even as an atheist, I don't really think Christianity is done. I see it as a developing process that accepts new challenges and adapts. To say that it's already dealt with all its contradictions is to imply perfection.

And I don't know any decent Christian who would say their arguments are perfect.

[pmchugh]

Calling him an idiot doesn't prove anything except that you have nothing else to back up your argument with except childish name-calling. And I'm not sure why you continue to insist on a sequence of events based on certain dynamic-equivalence translations when you're talking to an expert who can read the original Greek and tells you it's not there. Maybe you need to look more into the difference between dynamic equivalence as opposed to literal translation methods?

I didn't call him an idiot, in fact I said that even idiots could see the truth. It would take something much more compelling than idiocy, i.e. religious faith to see the verses in any other light. As for him being able to speak Greek this does not automatically make him right considering he undoubtedly is biased in the matter, if he sites a credited translation then I am willing to read it and my last post quoted his chosen translation.

If all the Gospel accounts read identically, you would rightfully condemn the writers for having conspired together, or one apostle having written them all. Essentially then there would be only one account which would rightfully be condemned for being the sole witness. As it stands, the Bible offers four witnesses to tell the story of Jesus' life with slightly differing accounts which any modern judge in a courtroom would expect to hear of 4 people telling of a scene they witnessed.

For the sake of this argument assume that the Bible tells a true story, with many different narrators. That is reasonable, what is not reasonable is to some how claim that all of these people looking at events spanning centuries and all trying to convey God's message ended up with perfectly non-contradicting stories.

There are more examples than these few on this same topic, I will post them if needed.

This is why many Christians have gotten tired of debating with people like you; one supposed contradiction is disproved so you bring up the next, which is disproved so you bring up the next, etc. You're not bringing them up because you seriously want to know the truth; these so-called "contradictions" have been around for hundreds of years and the explanations have been around for just as long, yet you refuse to acknowledge them and keep trying to revive them as if they're new objections which no Christian has thought of.

I am sorry but none of the contradictions have been "disporven". The explanations are so convoluted that I could make an equally likely story from just about any book in the world. In fact I have heard Sam Harris does this in his book, which I hope to get round to reading once uni calms down a bit. I don't think no Christian has thought of these issues, (although it is probably around '5 nines' of them that haven't) I just think that no Christian has came up with a satisfactory explanation in all the time they have had and with every reason in the world to do so.

If you just enjoy the conflict of worldviews or if you seriously do want to find the truth about a number of these supposed contradictions, I'll refer you to the old 100+ pages of "Jesus Freaks: Why Do You Believe?" thread where the author was genuinely interested and brought up multiple objections to the Bible and Christianity which the Jesus Freaks answered for him.

Very rarely (alister mcgrath is the only counter example i can think of) does someone start out a non-christian and then look through the materials and evidences and change their mind. Most Christians believe (and I include my younger self in this) because of their community or their fear or their lack of understanding of the world and this is true of all religions.

[thegreekdog]

Even as an atheist, Ray, I'd suggest Augustine and Aquinas over the Jesus Freaks forum. At least then they would have reference to people who genuinely troubled over the issues being raised as they happened. Also, even as an atheist, I don't really think Christianity is done. I see it as a developing process that accepts new challenges and adapts. To say that it's already dealt with all its contradictions is to imply perfection.

And I don't know any decent Christian who would say their arguments are perfect.

Unless Ray is Catholic, he's not quoting Augustine or Aquinas.

[Symmetry]

Even as an atheist, Ray, I'd suggest Augustine and Aquinas over the Jesus Freaks forum. At least then they would have reference to people who genuinely troubled over the issues being raised as they happened. Also, even as an atheist, I don't really think Christianity is done. I see it as a developing process that accepts new challenges and adapts. To say that it's already dealt with all its contradictions is to imply perfection.

And I don't know any decent Christian who would say their arguments are perfect.

Unless Ray is Catholic, he's not quoting Augustine or Aquinas.

Possibly, but I'd advise anyone to read at least Augustine if they want to know about how people come to Christianity. This is where I get angry at atheists who think they're the first to come across a problem and think that Christians haven't dealt with it.

[pmchugh]

I am rather enjoying this now though, so far we have had a bi-directional family tree and a close scrutiny of language. Please do entertain me with an explanation for whether anyone has seen God, there are at least 5 verses which go either way so I will be interested to see if you can take up the challenge that player ran away from....

Have seen:

I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle

For mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts.

Have not seen:

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Whom no man hath seen nor can see.

Christians believe in the trinity--the three-in-one Godhead of Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit. No one has seen the Father, but many have seen the Son both during His time on earth as a man and previously in the Old Testament. When God was seen in the Old Testament times, it is referred to as a "theophany" and you can read a lot more discussion on that if you're interested; there are entire courses focused on that if you go to Bible school. As for the "have not seen verses," here's a quick explanation: if you read the verses preceding John 1:18, you would see that Jesus is referred to as "the Word;" the Person "whom no man has seen" is the other part of the deity--God the Father. Also in I Timothy 6 if you read the preceding verses you'll see that it's talking about Jesus' return when God the Father "whom man has never seen" will reveal His Son, Jesus. Again, it's God the Father whom no one has seen.

OK after taking one second to acknowledge that I am having to use doublethink here to accept the start of your explanation (truly the way forward for totalitarian regimes). It still does not make sense.

Son: Can be seen.
Father: Cannot be seen.

Who is referred to in Exodus then?

33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

...

"33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
33:21 And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:
33:22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
33:23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

11 implies the Son who can be seen.
20 implies the Father who cannot be seen.
22 hilariously talking about God covering his wang with his hand but not really of point here.
23 So you can see parts of the Father or you can't see all of the Son?

p.s. the brick testament is awesome:
http://www.thebricktestament.com//genes ... 32_23.html

[daddy1gringo]

Now that’s interesting. Did you read “every single translation in existence”? Of course not. By the way, how many translations did you check before making that assertion?

Here are 18 translations, none of which leave any incident happening between him saying it is finished and him bowing his head to die: http://bible.cc/john/19-30.htm

Also I am not going to read your own translations unless you reference them

You already have read them. Three of the 4 I mentioned are included in your link. Of course they all say he did those things in that order. As I said, in the more literal translations, which I mentioned (King James, English Standard, and New American Standard), and in the breakdown that I did from the original language using a Greek lexicon, it is clear that there is nothing that says that something else could not have come in between. Only the more interpretive versions, like the New International and Living Bibles, which take liberties with a literal translation of the text to make the English flow better, have language like “and with that” that is incompatible with something happening in between.

What’s more, did you even read what I wrote? If I lifted my head toward heaven and yelled, “Father, I surrender my spirit into your hands!” and then died, could you refer to that as “yielding up my spirit”? So they both agree: He yelled “it is finished” and then yielded up his spirit. Contradiction? Fail.

Giving up your ghost/spirit does not include saying anything.

Wrong.

Luke used the same term of phrase

Wrong again. (Not even close.)

(at least in King James, your personal favourite)

Strike three.

Let's start by dealing with strike two: Luke did not use the same phrase, as you would know if you had both the intelligence and intellectual honesty to look at what I said. (Which one you lack, I don’t know. Pick one.) The phrasing they both did use is quite telling, as I showed before. Let’s eliminate the other stuff and just focus on the essentials. Maybe you can follow it this time.

John says Jesus “paradoken tō pneuma”.

παρεδωκεν>paradoken>he gave, yielded, surrendered, from παρα>para>with, or near, and διδωμαι>didomai>to give/ το πνευμα>to pneuma>the spirit, the same word also means “breath” (and “wind”)

A three-word phrase that literally means to yield or surrender the “pneuma” -- spirit or breath

Luke uses one word: “exepneusen”.

/ εξεπνευσεν>exepneusen>”breathed his last” or “gave up the ghost”, from εξ>ex>out, and, once again, πνευμα>pneuma>breath or spirit.

One word, to “out-breath” or “out-spirit”. Actually, it's even more different since my lexicon gives the second part as coming not from "pneuma" but from "pneo", a related word meaning "to breathe". “Expire” would be a good alternate translation.

Now what actually is similarly worded to John’s “surrendered his spirit” is what Luke quotes Jesus as saying: “Father, into your hands I parathesomai tō pneuma mou”.

παραθησομαι>parathesomai>I yield, entrust, or surrender, from παρα>para>with, and τιθημι>titheimi>to place, connoting to lay something down in a horizontal position/ το πνευμα μου>to pneuma mou> the spirit (or breath) mine

So it’s “tō pneuma”, “the spirit”, just like in John, with “mou”, “mine” added, and “parathesomai” from “para”, just like in John’s “para-doken” and “titheimi”, to lay something down. The whole compound word then meaning: “to yield or surrender”.

So John says Jesus surrendered his spirit, and in Luke Jesus declares, “I surrender my spirit”. No parallel there, nope. Silly me.

[pmchugh]

Now that’s interesting. Did you read “every single translation in existence”? Of course not. By the way, how many translations did you check before making that assertion?

Here are 18 translations, none of which leave any incident happening between him saying it is finished and him bowing his head to die: http://bible.cc/john/19-30.htm

Also I am not going to read your own translations unless you reference them

You already have read them. Three of the 4 I mentioned are included in your link. Of course they all say he did those things in that order. As I said, in the more literal translations, which I mentioned (King James, English Standard, and New American Standard), and in the breakdown that I did from the original language using a Greek lexicon, it is clear that there is nothing that says that something else could not have come in between. Only the more interpretive versions, like the New International and Living Bibles, which take liberties with a literal translation of the text to make the English flow better, have language like “and with that” that is incompatible with something happening in between.

What’s more, did you even read what I wrote? If I lifted my head toward heaven and yelled, “Father, I surrender my spirit into your hands!” and then died, could you refer to that as “yielding up my spirit”? So they both agree: He yelled “it is finished” and then yielded up his spirit. Contradiction? Fail.

Giving up your ghost/spirit does not include saying anything.

Wrong.

Luke used the same term of phrase

Wrong again. (Not even close.)

(at least in King James, your personal favourite)

Strike three.

Let's start by dealing with strike two: Luke did not use the same phrase, as you would know if you had both the intelligence and intellectual honesty to look at what I said. (Which one you lack, I don’t know. Pick one.) The phrasing they both did use is quite telling, as I showed before. Let’s eliminate the other stuff and just focus on the essentials. Maybe you can follow it this time.

John says Jesus “paradoken tō pneuma”.

παρεδωκεν>paradoken>he gave, yielded, surrendered, from παρα>para>with, or near, and διδωμαι>didomai>to give/ το πνευμα>to pneuma>the spirit, the same word also means “breath” (and “wind”)

A three-word phrase that literally means to yield or surrender the “pneuma” -- spirit or breath

Luke uses one word: “exepneusen”.

/ εξεπνευσεν>exepneusen>”breathed his last” or “gave up the ghost”, from εξ>ex>out, and, once again, πνευμα>pneuma>breath or spirit.

One word, to “out-breath” or “out-spirit”. Actually, it's even more different since my lexicon gives the second part as coming not from "pneuma" but from "pneo", a related word meaning "to breathe". “Expire” would be a good alternate translation.

Now what actually is similarly worded to John’s “surrendered his spirit” is what Luke quotes Jesus as saying: “Father, into your hands I parathesomai tō pneuma mou”.

παραθησομαι>parathesomai>I yield, entrust, or surrender, from παρα>para>with, and τιθημι>titheimi>to place, connoting to lay something down in a horizontal position/ το πνευμα μου>to pneuma mou> the spirit (or breath) mine

So it’s “tō pneuma”, “the spirit”, just like in John, with “mou”, “mine” added, and “parathesomai” from “para”, just like in John’s “para-doken” and “titheimi”, to lay something down. The whole compound word then meaning: “to yield or surrender”.

So John says Jesus surrendered his spirit, and in Luke Jesus declares, “I surrender my spirit”. No parallel there, nope. Silly me.

I was not wrong about KJ version:

Luke
"and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John
"he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Although many other translations use the phrase "breathed his last" which is what I think you are trying to say is a more literal explanation, so I will accept that it may be a translation error.

My problem with this is the fact you are still trying to group together two actions, dying (is that not how you interpret surrendering your spirit?) and saying a phrase such as in Luke. In all your translations, nowhere does it allude to John saying anything, only him surrendering his spirit.

[PLAYER57832]

This is a load of self-serving horseshit. I don't have a problem with people of faith. In fact, I greatly respect a good number of people of faith. But the idea that believing in God is somehow logical is farcical nonsense. [ It requires faith, not logic.

Yes, but no more than atheism, which was the comparison.

The idea that "God can't be proven not to exist thus his existence is just as reasonable as his nonexistence" flies in the face of logic completely.

No, its pretty textbook basic logic.

If you can't even admit that, then there is no hope for having a reasonable discussion on the subject with you, so I'm done with it. I'll leave you to those with more patience for stupidity.

Well, rather disapointing.. and disturbing.


EDIT: Logic only works in a closed system, with parameters defined. Questions about God, the origin of the universe, etc are not closed. We don't know enough to do more than just guess (or express belief) about parameters.
Logic cannot possibly step outside the realms of that which is conceivable by us. That is not some esoteric concept, it is fundamental. Logic is also self-limiting. It is not illogical at all to say that something neither proven true or false could be true. It is, instead illogical to insist

[pmchugh]

The idea that "God can't be proven not to exist thus his existence is just as reasonable as his nonexistence" flies in the face of logic completely.

No, its pretty textbook basic logic.

Logic cannot dictate how reasonable something is. Logic describes things as 1 or 0, proven or not proven.

[PLAYER57832]

The idea that "God can't be proven not to exist thus his existence is just as reasonable as his nonexistence" flies in the face of logic completely.

No, its pretty textbook basic logic.

Logic cannot dictate how reasonable something is. Logic describes things as 1 or 0, proven or not proven.

It can do probabilities, but only within closed systems. The "God" question is not a closed system question. We just don't know enough to do more than guess about stuff like the origin of the universe, etc. We don't even know how many universes there are or if our universe actually has a beginning.

Its very likely that the "real" answer is something so far outside our understanding that we cannot even imagine it now.

[pmchugh]

The idea that "God can't be proven not to exist thus his existence is just as reasonable as his nonexistence" flies in the face of logic completely.

No, its pretty textbook basic logic.

Logic cannot dictate how reasonable something is. Logic describes things as 1 or 0, proven or not proven.

It can do probabilities, but only within closed systems. The "God" question is not a closed system question. We just don't know enough to do more than guess about stuff like the origin of the universe, etc. We don't even know how many universes there are or if our universe actually has a beginning.

Its very likely that the "real" answer is something so far outside our understanding that we cannot even imagine it now.

Are you trolling? If so then 10/10.

Logic can do probabilities? And you go on to actually agree with woodruff, logic has no say in how reasonable God is or not.

If that wasn't enough you then go on to say what the most "likely" answer is!

Well done, you have just proven to yourself that there are scenarios which are more reasonable and likely than others even if they are not able to be proven to be true. Genius work.

[Woodruff]

This is a load of self-serving horseshit. I don't have a problem with people of faith. In fact, I greatly respect a good number of people of faith. But the idea that believing in God is somehow logical is farcical nonsense. [ It requires faith, not logic.

Yes, but no more than atheism, which was the comparison.

Uh...what? "No more than atheism"? What are you talking about? I was stating that your attempt to compare atheism to religion is where the load of self-serving horseshit entered. So are you unable to follow the thread?

The idea that "God can't be proven not to exist thus his existence is just as reasonable as his nonexistence" flies in the face of logic completely.

No, its pretty textbook basic logic.

Not in the real world, it's not...no. I'm actually stunned to see you make that claim.

If you can't even admit that, then there is no hope for having a reasonable discussion on the subject with you, so I'm done with it. I'll leave you to those with more patience for stupidity.

Well, rather disapointing.. and disturbing.

Yes, this has been a very disappointing and disturbing exchange, I agree.

[BigBallinStalin]

[PLAYER57832]

The idea that "God can't be proven not to exist thus his existence is just as reasonable as his nonexistence" flies in the face of logic completely.

No, its pretty textbook basic logic.

Logic cannot dictate how reasonable something is. Logic describes things as 1 or 0, proven or not proven.

It can do probabilities, but only within closed systems. The "God" question is not a closed system question. We just don't know enough to do more than guess about stuff like the origin of the universe, etc. We don't even know how many universes there are or if our universe actually has a beginning.

Its very likely that the "real" answer is something so far outside our understanding that we cannot even imagine it now.

Are you trolling? If so then 10/10.

Logic can do probabilities? And you go on to actually agree with woodruff, logic has no say in how reasonable God is or not.

No, Woodruff claimed that atheism was a logical position, while belief in God was not.
I am the one saying that logic excludes neither.

If that wasn't enough you then go on to say what the most "likely" answer is!

Woodruff, others have repeatedly claimed that Atheism is the most likley choice. I say that probability is utterly irrelevant here, for several reasons. One is that we don't know all the variabilities enough to really assess probability. A second is that even the highly improbable might be true. A third is that individually, I have seen evidence that I believe points to God, but its rather difficult to trot out such evidence here on the internet (when its even possible to show another person). (that difficulty is why I don't declare belief in Atheism is illogical or unsensible, but I refute those who claim that atheism is more logical than belief in God).

Well done, you have just proven to yourself that there are scenarios which are more reasonable and likely than others even if they are not able to be proven to be true. Genius work.

In this case, assuming we know enough to even truly give an honest probability is just arrogance, never mind my basic point that "more likely" does not mean "won't happen" or "is not true.

And, I particularly reject claims that following the most likely is "how science works", becuase any Nobel laureat pretty much refutes that assertion. Saying something is "more probable" is basically like saying "we assume this is true because it looks like it will be proven thus". In the end, it is the evidence that matters, but only in the end, when the result is known. Until then, its just supposition and going on the "common assumptions" has proven extremely harmful to science as often, probably more often than it has proven helpful.

[PLAYER57832]

This is a load of self-serving horseshit. I don't have a problem with people of faith. In fact, I greatly respect a good number of people of faith. But the idea that believing in God is somehow logical is farcical nonsense. [ It requires faith, not logic.

Yes, but no more than atheism, which was the comparison.

Uh...what? "No more than atheism"? What are you talking about? I was stating that your attempt to compare atheism to religion is where the load of self-serving horseshit entered. So are you unable to follow the thread?

{sigh} someone disagrees, so you resort to insults? Thought you were above that.

Atheism IS religion, is very much based on belief. There is no more evidence to show lack of God than God, but even if there were, Atheism would still be belief because it is not proven. AND, because it centers on God and the wider questions of creation, etc is classified as a religious belief. It is not a organized religion, but that was not your point.

The idea that "God can't be proven not to exist thus his existence is just as reasonable as his nonexistence" flies in the face of logic completely.

No, its pretty textbook basic logic.

Not in the real world, it's not...no. I'm actually stunned to see you make that claim.

Logic requires a CLOSED system. It only deals with actualy inputs. When those inputs are not defined, logic dictates that the answer is undetermined, as is the case here.

If you don't get that.. then sorry, but you need to review your study of logic.

[comic boy]

To conlude ;

1) There is no evidence of a ' God ' being anything other than wishful thinking.
2) Player has huge conflict because she likes to think she has a logical mind so has to resort to inner denial of uncomfortable facts , this has led to statements both bizarre and clearly untrue , shame isn't it

[natty dread]

Religion is the #1 cause of cognitive dissonance