There is plenty of evidence if you use your common sense. Just look at the world. Look at how advanced a simple tomato seed is. It runs on hydro-solar power and produces food that is good to eat. This is so much more complex than any machine a man has ever invented. You look at the marvelous creation of the world and know it had to have a creator. If you seek God, you will find him. But you wont seek him because you made up your mind, long before you weighed both sides of the evidence.
God is not a personality. Its the organizing intelligence/force that connects all the dots, runs everything.
That's like saying perhaps those of us who examine indications of jumping 1,000feet off a cliff onto the rocks below are selectively assigning 'evidence' status as mere indications of a possibility and then proceeding to a conclusion of terminal injury that suits their personal needs. God can't do something? That's a bit unorthodox isn't it? Well, if God can't think of a way of doing that, I can, and in truth probably so can just about everyone else. The next Bible will be an extremely quick read then. No way. God could easily bestow 'a perfect understanding' without the need to forego intelligence and free will. God then gives limited intelligence and no free will. Where is the free will in death? Where exactly is the free will in having to be "saved". Or in having to be judged because wrong was dressed up as right by some imaginary goblin-angel or other? What is there at all intelligent in the practice of self-delusion and religious ritual? This God of yours has some very strange ideas in giving. Unbelievable I would say.
Yes comparison. The conclusion it exists in fact that one incurs fatal injury from such a fall is not proceeding to a conclusion that suits personal needs. The conclusion that it exists in fact that no one ever establishes the actual existence of God, is not proceeding to a conclusion that suits personal needs. Imagining God does exist when there is no existence of that fact, especially when there is a standard for existence to be factually measured , as in the cliff/fall/rocks comparison, is proceeding to a conclusion of existence that suits personal needs. You don't need to similarly imagine - God does not exist - to realize there is no actual existence of God to notice. The 'evidence' is blindingly obvious. I acknowledge you recognize the omnipotent God logical quandary. Why would you choose not to recognize the God logical quandary? Ok I was being flippant about the size. But nevertheless, I think it would be fair to say thousands of religious sects would still argue as to what that principal message might be whether the Bible is long or a one pager. How do you know that? Perfect understanding might just as likely be desirable and satisfyingly complete. Aren't you demonstrating a somewhat emotional disposition proceeding to conclusions that suits your personal needs here? There's no glory in the need to struggle from starvation, or struggle with excruciatingly painful diseases. Don't talk nonsense. Opportunities to make choices is not free will. Free will is a big item, not a namby-pamby some here - not some there thing. And no, you have no free will in whether you die or not. It is no choice to have to throw all your integrity overboard and go against every understanding and every fiber of your being to choose something you cannot honestly believe in to be imaginarily "saved". Elvis knows shit. He can't even get back from Mars. Anyway stop making up silly excuses. "We" don't want to be deceived by anything, especially nonsensical imaginings. This Satan dude, according to Murray T and many other prisoners of religion, makes you think wrong is right. You have no choice to do right unless you choose to do wrong. This is nothing to do with weak minded temptations. You are indoctrinated to make choices where no choices sensibly should or need be made. Damn right . But if you don't mind If God is pleased, let God tell me, not you. Quite honestly I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. all the best though stu
Fair points, but you are raising further issues now. Correct me if I misunderstood, but the original point you made was that the atheist is proceeding to a conclusion that suits their personal needs. My comparison suggests, successfully dare I say, that it's quite the opposite. The theist must proceed to a conclusion of existence which is suiting their personal needs, because there is non of that 'evidence' in actual or realistic expected outcomes, as there is in the cliff/fall/rocks example. On the other hand, the atheist is obliged by the blindingly obvious to recognize there is no such 'evidence' as there is in the cliff/fall/rocks comparison and therefore does not then need to proceed to any other conclusion that suits their personal needs. At that point they are merely dealing with the reality of the fact as exhibited, that there is no evidence of existence. Right there - God does not exist. Therefore the theist must convince himself of things in different ways which are not apparent or even suggested by the overwhelming realities in the comparison, so that it suits their personal needs. Ie God exists somewhere else in a different way than the cliff/fall/rocks example. That is now what suits their personal needs. The 'evidence' for the non-existence of God is right there in the comparison. It does not represent a preference to a non-existence. It IS the non-existence. Existence â in the reality of cliffs, 1000ft drop , rocks and the likely certain obvious outcome is there, based on evidence. Existence â in the reality of God and the likely certain obvious outcome is not there, and is not based on that evidence. That is a definite non existence of God right there. It does not mean God does not exist by some other so called evidence, but it is patently not to the standard of evidence cliff/fall/rocks achieves, so the theist must now proceed to any other conclusion that suits their personal needs. I find that to be incoherent. Do you care to explain? In doing so you have proceeded to a conclusion which is suiting your personal needs. In that regard one becomes just another sect. Then I do not see your point why an inborn perfect understanding would make life automatic like bacteria as you put it, and intelligence and free will - (the latter which we donât actually have) - irrelevant. Isnât it an extremely limited understanding that makes bacteria automatic that way? With more understanding, why then would perfect understanding have you living like bacteria? So why would the maintaining of survival without struggle with disease and death because of an inborn perfect understanding mean we will rot and waste away? It appears your inspiration only works as far as people suffer and die. Once youâve reached a perfect level of understanding so that "lions, insects, disease, each other, whatever" donât actually kill you anymore, and donât struggle with the problem any more, why would you rot away because of that? Perfect understanding doesnât mean there are not things to find or discover. Perfect understanding does not necessarily equate to all knowledge and no struggle. Humanity survives despite suffering and death not because of it. I suggest there are better things to do and struggle with than a conditional suffering in order to call ourselves glorious. Choice is not the same as free will. The non-ability to exercise free will is not free will. Then it is not a choice nor is it free will for the atheist. You keep saying there is free will where there is no such thing. An atheist has no imaginings of God, so you suggest non-imaginings are imaginings and they are nonsensical.. Come on Hansel donât get too ridiculous . Devilish logic that leads you to think you know what goes counter to God's expressed will by deciding to dismiss the Old Testament for instance.? Seems to me you already proceed to a conclusion which is suiting your personal needs As opposed to what, someone such as yourself who rejects half of it? Well I think youâll find your God had already broken that rule and severely interfered before Starfleet Command made it their own. I count myself fortunate in not having imaginary God as any sort of an enemy and non-existent God doesnât register as one anyway.