Very true. You reminded me of the movie "Bruce Almighty." In that movie, Jim Carrey plays god and, when receiving prayers in the form of e-mails, simply gets bored and answers yes to every one of them. Suddenly, the lotto commission has to explain why everyone who played mysteriously won, etc. I cannot even begin to attempt to put myself in the mind of god, but I do believe that god is more of a force in the universe that is at the root of all reality than a specific "entity" that governs the universe. If any of you have been watching the wonderful series about string theory, one of the paramount concerns that all scientists have is being able to test this theory. If it cannot be "tested," it cannot be science and thus falls in the land of philosophy. Since the bible clearly states that God cannot be tested, then we must assume that religion is a philosophy and not governed or detectable with science. This is why the study was fatally flawed before it was even underway. Of course, what I believe concerning god is specific to my life and experiences, and will not be exactly similar to another person's views and beliefs about god (or lack thereof). However, it is also my opinion that god understands and allows differences in beliefs between people and anticipates that this will happen given complex social groups (cultures, societies, etc). As I have mentioned previously, the only way I can speak of god is to refer to god as I would another person, but that is to keep it more clear to myself and others. In my heart and soul, I know that god is much more complex. My relationship with god goes through ups and downs like it would with any other person, but it never changes the fact that I love him unconditionally. I may get into a fight with my dad over something, but the underlying respect and love is always present. Likewise, I don't like the fact that there is so much violence, evil and corruptness in the world, but I recognize that this is a direct result of god's willingness to give humans the use of free will. It is a great gift that demands a huge amount of responsibility. Free will allows us to pursue our dreams and to realize happiness, but it also allows us to do so through evil and sin. When Gordon started this thread, it went a lot further than merely him asserting his free-will to state that he doesn't believe in god -- but he also mocks god and belittles him. That affects me because, throughout my life, I've always been able to see the underlying fabric of science, experiences and reality and there is no other explanation (for me) then to realize that not only is there a god, but god is the most beautiful thing I have discovered in my 26 years of existence. So when someone like Gordon comes along and says, "I'm an atheist and oh, by the way, let me mock your god," then I naturally take it very personally. To turn one's back to something that has given us all so much is not only wrong, but it is unspeakable -- there are no words to describe the emptiness and isolation that creeps in when you distance yourself from god. I don't impose my beliefs on others, but I only ask atheists respect my beliefs by not mocking them. Is that too much to ask Gordon?
Gordon has major unresolved issues with authority figures, or hadn't you noticed? Talk of an absolute authority naturally sends him over the edge. I have met what I believe to be true non believers, and they have no emotional response to what others choose to believe. When you see Axe, GG, Longshot, and others have a need to belittle all people of faith or the practice of faith in and of itself, you can clearly see that their ego and/or wounding is involved in the process. Their response is unreasonable in its emotional force. Very few people can discuss religion and or God without touching on some very deep and personal emotional buttons. p.s. God is the greatest scientist. He is so great He invented man, and then gave man the power to doubt God's existence.
Aphie, So if a book says that you cannot test whats in the book, does this magically dismiss all testing of things asserted in the book? If this is the case.... why cant I just write a book about a supernatural being called Ziblopix, who directly inspired me to write this book... who also created the universe, and then simply state that your not allow to test anything in the book? Would you then suddenly accept the claims in the book just as you did with your bible? Why not??? peace axeman
More poisoning the well fallacies. All you are proving is that your incapable of attacking an argument or merit alone and must instead rely on fallacious argumentation because you have no case. "God is the greatest scientist. He is so great He invented man, and then gave man the power to doubt God's existence. " A completely unsupported extraordinary claim. peace axeman
You are entitled to your opinion, of course. Let's not confuse fact with opinion though....what you continue to say is opinion, not fact. You are operating from a conditional platform, having set forth criteria upon which to stand as judge of what constitutes fact, that it must necessarily conform to your criteria, as it relates to God. That is a personal choice, obviously. Where is it written that the individual parts can judge the whole? Why is it that a single mind of man believes they are in a position to evaluate the concept of a personality, God, who is universal, unlimited, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, exists without opposite, etc.? A child believes they can fully understand the parent, yet the parent knows the child is not equipped to understand. Yet, we see that limited beings, bound by the laws of material nature, relativistic logic, time and space, causality, etc. place themselves in a position to judge that which by definition is outside the realm of the material, existing in a different realm, a Divine dimension. Please provide a proof for me that your criteria is the correct criteria upon which to evaluate the reality of God or God's existence. Until such time that you can do so, you are just commenting on the opinions of others with your own opinions, for what purpose I still don't know.
"You are entitled to your opinion, of course. Let's not confuse fact with opinion though....what you continue to say is opinion, not fact." Yes...lets NOT confuse opinion with fact. It is a FACT that you have not proven god exists. I am posting facts. What exactly are you calling an opinion? "You are operating from a conditional platform, having set forth criteria upon which to stand as judge of what constitutes fact, that it must necessarily conform to your criteria, as it relates to God. " I use reason to judge things. I reject things which are contradictory and unsupported. What do you use? "Where is it written that the individual parts can judge the whole? Why is it that a single mind of man believes they are in a position to evaluate the concept of a personality, God, who is universal, unlimited, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, exists without opposite, etc.?" This is a circular argument. You are using the attributes of a god which you have not even proven to exist, to support his very existence. MAYBE I am NOT in a position to evaluate such a being, but the point is moot because you have not even shown us that this being even exists. "A child believes they can fully understand the parent, yet the parent knows the child is not equipped to understand." False analogy. We know that parents exist. "Yet, we see that limited beings, bound by the laws of material nature, relativistic logic, time and space, causality, etc. place themselves in a position to judge that which by definition is outside the realm of the material, existing in a different realm, a Divine dimension." If you wish to define your god as something unknowable by man, than he is no different than Sagans mystical dragon in his garage which also exists in a "different realm". Pure fiction. "Please provide a proof for me that your criteria is the correct criteria upon which to evaluate the reality of God or God's existence." What are you referring to when you say criteria? What are the choices, according to you? "Until such time that you can do so, you are just commenting on the opinions of others with your own opinions, for what purpose I still don't know. " What opinions? I point out logical fallacies in your arguments. These are not opinions. Your argument MATCHES the definition of that logical fallacy. I point out facts, like the fact that you have not provided a proof for you god. Where are the opinions?? Identify what you are claiming is an opinion. peace axeman
Correct me if I am wrong but has science yet invented a machine or instrument that can read the thoughts of the human mind. Obviously there are thoughts there but I don't think science has yet found a way of reading those thoughts. A lie detector would be a step in that direction and I understand there are some new ways to measure waves from certain parts of the brain that might lead to better understanding the truthfulness aspect, but still a long way from scientifically testing what is very prevalent around us and in us every day. I don't mean to knock science in any way but I believe the fact is that science just hasn't reached the final conclusion in many of these areas. Maybe it hasn't reached the final conclusion in any area, I don't know. But it is a bit of a stretch to draw conclusions as to the final conclusions this early in the game.
You seem to be in a position to say the others are wrong in their beliefs. In order to do so, you must have some criteria to do so. Seems to me, that your criteria is material, relativistic logic, based on physical perception. Please explain why this is a valid criteria when it comes to discussing the existence of God? You continue to claim there is no proof of God, but what you are really saying is that no proof meets your definition and/or criteria of proof. Is it possible, that the criteria you are using is not valid as relates to the concept of God? Somehow, you have this framework that all must accept is the valid framework, and I still haven't seen a proof of why that framework is valid and necessarily applicable to the existence of God. Can something exist, yet be unprovable? Indeed. Intent exists, yet can never be proved objectively. Motivation exists, we all experience it, yet it cannot be proved objectively. Sincerity exists, yet it cannot be proved objectively. Love exists, yet it cannot be proven objectively. So, why is is that when we talk about God, some people hold to the fallacy that God must necessarily conform to their narrow definitions of proof? If I say "God exists beyond proof" is that a provable statement? You will say no, because you have to know God first in order to know if the statement is true, and the game becomes circular. I am holding some very delicious chocolate in front of you, do you know it to be perfectly sweet? You say you can measure the ingredients, but can sweetness be measured? There is a big difference between being able to measure ingredients and the experience of tasting sweetness. The order in which the ingredients are combined and cooked determine the final product. You can never know by just examination of the parts what the experience of the whole is. What is sweet to one may be too sweet or not sweet enough to another. There is a tremendous area of human experience that is beyond measurement and quantification, yet does in fact exist. Lots of things exist that are beyond proof, we all know it. We know them via direct experience, or come to know them via faith. As mentioned in another thread, love is immeasurable. We can record actions, but how much someone loves, or if they truly love, or if they are acting like they love, are never known by observation of the actions alone. Yet ask a woman who is just married if her husband loves her, and she will say she knows, and she will tell you because her heart says so. Is this knowledge? Depends on definitions of what constitutes knowledge and knowing. The term "know it in my heart" may have no meaning or reality for you, but most human beings know exactly what that means. God exists, I know that in my heart, but can I prove to you what is in my heart? How would you ever know, how would you ever really know. So, feel free to close off your own heart, and live within the prison of the limited human mind, free will is our birthright. You did fail at faith is my assertion, and while you may try to pass off that as some fallacious statement and not relevant to the topic, it goes to the heart of the real issues at hand. If you somehow could conclude you were right to renounce faith, there must have been some other criteria besides faith you decided to adopt, yet you did so without proof before hand that renouncing faith was in fact the correct approach to knowing God. Do you know that you made the correct choice? No, you have faith that you did, and each day you practice that faith. You had faith that faith was wrong, you had no proof or evidence that it was not the right path to God, yet you continue to have faith that your choice was correct for you. How circular in nature. A reasonable man might renounce faith, but he would never really know if he made the correct decision, as he is renouncing that which he doesn't know, therefore cannot speak definitively that he was correct in his decision. Most people who renounce faith cannot remain in doubt of their decision, it tears them up inside if they do, so they swing to a polar opposite position of anti-faith. It is common, and observable to watch these people clutch so strongly onto anti-faith, typically with the same force and underlying emotionalism as they claim they blindly practiced faith.