Simple question?

Quote: FrGamble

Wait, no evidence is evidence of non-existence? So I've been providing evidence such as the logical necessity of a spiritual, all-powerful, non-contingent, eternal being to avoid a infinite regress and to ground the fact that something cannot come from nothing nor can things move without something acting upon them - all for nothing? Pointing out that the modern cosmological discoveries as well as the very laws of science point to the universe having a beginning was a waste? Showing the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth as the central person in all of human history and debunking the lame explanations trying to say the Resurrection didn't happen was a waste of time? Pointing out that the New Testament is the far and away the most bibliographically attested ancient text we have and that there is no reason to reasonably doubt its authenticity, this wasn't important? Pointing out miracles that are unexplainable outside of the acknowledgement of the supernatural fell on deaf ears? Recognizing that human beings are believing beings who long for meaning and purpose and that we implicitly and instinctively rightly reject the notion that we have no freedom, that there is no objective good or evil, that truth is relative, and that we and all around us is one big meaningless cosmic accident - none of that counts as evidence either? What about the personal experience of the divine that over 99% of all human beings, be them Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. throughout history have had, is that all just useless hearsay and wishful thinking? Boy oh boy, things would have been a lot easier if I could make a crazy claim like atheists do and then provide not a single shred of evidence and not a single coherent logical argument to support it and call it true.

I rarely, as in never, quote an entire long
post. But none of what you wrote is
evidence that a god exists. It's all
wishful thinking and 2nd hand experiences.
It's you making a case for there being a
god without having a shred of actual evidence
that would stand up under scientific scrutiny.

It's circumstantial tidbits that you gathered
together and threw into one pot. It makes
sense to people who already believe, but
to an atheist it falls miserably short. If you
want me to fly in a plane and I've never seen
one before, you can tell me a hundred
anecdotal stories about successful flights
to prove it's safe. But what I want is to
be shown the science behind why a 30
ton hunk of metal can fly thru the air.

You provide only flimsy anecdotes for
a god, which seems to be enough for
a lot of people. Not for everybody, though.

Quote: FrGamble

You asked earlier if I thought this conversation was going anywhere and if it was valuable. It has been valuable and helpful to me and I hope others. However, I hate to say it but I have seriously begun to doubt if it truly is valuable to have any conversation or discussion with you.

Conversation? I don't think so.

Quote: Evenbob

I rarely, as in never, quote an entire long
post. But none of what you wrote is
evidence that a god exists.

Why do you say this? Do you have a counter for the logical argument or the philosophical or the anthropological one? Do you think the scientific evidence for pointing towards the Universe having a beginning is wrong or points to something else? Do you doubt the historical impact of Jesus of Nazareth? Do you not know the avalanche of bibliographical evidence in support of the New Testament? Please don't just repeat unfounded and unintelligent opinions. This may be why you have not found value in our discussion. You aren't really engaged.

Quote:

If you
want me to fly in a plane and I've never seen
one before, you can tell me a hundred
anecdotal stories about successful flights
to prove it's safe. But what I want is to
be shown the science behind why a 30
ton hunk of metal can fly thru the air.

I'm calling bullshit on this too. Yes, you want science to testify to the fact that it can fly but you don't need to nor could many people completely understand how the plane gets in the air and flies. What you really need and want is a thousand stories of people who have flown, enjoyed it, and got to their destinations safe and sound. That is what gets you on the place more than a working knowledge of the speed of air and how it effects air pressure.

Quote: pew

Conversation? I don't think so.

You know I might be the only one but I do look at these posts as a conversation of sorts. I have learned a lot. I have learned about other's opinions and why they hold them. I've learned how my views are seen and how I can best try to diffuse people's assumptions and false prejudices. I have been challenged and force to learn what I hold deeper and to defend it rationally. I have had opinions changed in myself. I really appreciate the opportunity to engage those who are truly engaged in these conversations and I know the rules of internet forums means we have to be a little cheeky to each other on occasion, but over all I really like the people here and enjoy the discussion.

Quote: FrGamble

Wait, no evidence is evidence of non-existence?

Yes.

Do you know the story of the planet Vulcan?

No, seriously, I'm not getting all Trekkie. For a long stretch of the XIX century, astronomers believed a planet existed between the Sun and Mercury. They called it Vulcan, after the god of the Divine Forge. This planet accounted for perturbations in Mercury's orbit. and like the Goldilocks tale, it was just right: it did not cause perturbations to any other planets, just Mercury, and just what had been observed.

Did anyone ever prove no such planet exists? How would you go about doing that? What did happen is astronomers looked, and looked, and looked, and then looked some more, and kept finding nothing beyond an occasional stray asteroid, instrument artifacts, and other such things.

Do you think they had to prove no planet could possibly exist there, or was the fact that decades of looking for it and not finding any evidence for it was enough?

Now, despite the fact that Mercury's perturbations have been explained by the General Theory of Relativity, don't you think Vulcan may really be out there? What if it's invisible, or made of dark matter, or controlled by shy aliens who keep hidden, or changes color and texture so even when you're looking right at it, it looks like the Sun or empty space? I could go on. After all, no one's proved Vulcan doesn't exist. All they did was find no evidence for it.

Quote:

So I've been providing evidence such as the logical necessity of a spiritual, all-powerful, non-contingent, eternal being to avoid a infinite regress and to ground the fact that something cannot come from nothing nor can things move without something acting upon them - all for nothing?

I don't know about everyone else, but I was as impressed as I am by logical arguments in support of astrology, "organic" vegetables, homeopathy, vitalism, etc. If argument was all it took, we'd know our future and personalities by looking at star charts, be starving due to lack of sufficient food, cure all our ills with 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999% water plus pointless massage and long needles, etc.

Maybe you classify that as nothing. I learned religion is part pseudoscience and part conspiracy theory.

Quote:

Showing the historical person of Jesus of Nazareth as the central person in all of human history

That's just plain wrong. Jesús did rather little but inspire the eventual spiritual takeover of humanity by the state. You can bemoan the marriage of church and state all you want, but the fact is Christianity was imposed largely by coercion in the final days of the Roman Empire, by the Christian emperors who had the backing of the legions and held the purse strings of the state.

This marriage has broken up, and now you see Christianity's influence coast by on inertia and wondering what happened.

I'm perfectly fine with this, and don't mind helping it stop a bit sooner. At the same time, I reiterate, I do not care at all what you believe or how you practice your religion or how many gods you believe in. That is, as long as you do as Jefferson observed, and try neither to pick my pocket nor break my legs. Or put another way:

1) If you say "I can't do that, it's against my religion," that's fine. It's your right, and I support you (with a few exceptions, such as obeying just laws)

2) If you say "You can't do that, it's against my religion," that's not fine. You have no right to say that. It's a declaration of war, and you'll find our opposition most violent and disagreeable.

Quote: FrGamble

I'm calling bullshit on this too. Yes, you want science to testify to the fact that it can fly but you don't need to nor could many people completely understand how the plane gets in the air and flies.

Granted the specifics of flying a plane are complex, and the means of controlling a plane are horribly complicated, the basic principle of flight can be demonstrated with a car and a hand.

Quote: FrGamble

Why do you say this?

Because it's correct.

Quote:

That is what gets you on the place more than a working knowledge of the speed of air and how it effects air pressure.

It's a combination of the provable science
and the stories of successful flights. All
of us know there is provable science behind
flight, whether we've studied it or not. Even
with that, I remember when planes crashed
all the time and people were terrified to fly,
science or not. I flew for the first time in 1969
on a jet and was stressed to the max the whole
time.

The fact that you want thinking people to accept
a god on just other peoples stories is ludicrous.
And that's all you have as 'proof', no matter how
you try and spin your other theories.

Quote: Nareed

That's just plain wrong. Jesús did rather little but inspire the eventual spiritual takeover of humanity by the state. You can bemoan the marriage of church and state all you want..
This marriage has broken up, and now you see Christianity's influence coast by on inertia and wondering what happened.
.

Another excellent post, Nareed. The Church
exists now mostly on fumes and inertia. It's
no longer barreling froward, it's power
being felt in every part of every country in
Europe. It's so much in decline even it's
members don't attend mass or confession
in any great number. The mostly old men
in charge are passive and unproductive,
while their Church crumbles around them.
There are more Catholics in the world than
at any time in history, and less of a Church
to see to them than at any time in the past.

Quote: Evenbob

Because it's correct.

Really good answer Mr. Circular Reasoning.

Quote:

It's a combination of the provable science
and the stories of successful flights...

Yes it is.

Quote:

The fact that you want thinking people to accept
a god on just other peoples stories is ludicrous.
And that's all you have as 'proof', no matter how
you try and spin your other theories.

I don't have proof, just like you don't have proof the plane you are flying in isn't going to crash. You can have lots of evidence both from science and from previous experiences but don't fool yourself into thinking you have proof. What you have is a very reasonable faith that the airplane will fly and get you to your destination safely.

I am NOT asking people to accept God just based on other people's stories, even though that is a much, much, more powerful witness than you seem to be giving it credit for. Think about how many times you have been asked to try or do something new that you didn't understand and it was good trusted people and friends whose testimony and help you believed in. Anyway, above and beyond this powerful evidence I am asking people to look at the historical record of Jesus of Nazareth, the change in His disciples after the Resurrection, the change in the world since. I am asking them to look at the bibliographical testimony of the New Testament, which is unquestioned and unmatched. I am asking them to look at anthropology and what it means to be a human being. There is so much and you have absolutely no answer for any of it besides ignoring it and blithely saying, "Because I'm correct". You are just being foolish.

Quote: Nareed

Do you think they had to prove no planet could possibly exist there, or was the fact that decades of looking for it and not finding any evidence for it was enough?

You are comparing apples to Volkswagens here. I am flabbergasted that you would think the efforts to find a possible planet in a know part of space fairly close to us is equivalent to saying that you have searched the whole universe exhaustively and discovered there is no God.

I agree that after the long search by scientists there is no planet Vulcan. There was a limited place to look and it was exhaustively searched for, nothing found no Vulcan. Like there is no Big Foot either. Can you even fathom the idea that because you have not found the Face of God staring back at you from a telescope somewhere that you can with a serious face say there is no God. First of all we are not talking about the space between two nearby planets, as big as that is, we are talking about the observable universe. It boggles my mind that you would even bring up this example? Do you really think we have exhausted searching the observable universe to the point that you can claim definitively that there is no God? Let me also ask if you really think you will discover God hiding behind some planet somewhere playing hide and seek?

Quote:

I don't know about everyone else, but I was as impressed as I am by logical arguments in support of astrology

Please, please, just give me one logical argument in support of astrology.

Quote:

That's just plain wrong. Jesús did rather little but inspire the eventual spiritual takeover of humanity by the state. You can bemoan the marriage of church and state all you want, but the fact is Christianity was imposed largely by coercion in the final days of the Roman Empire, by the Christian emperors who had the backing of the legions and held the purse strings of the state.

Christianity did not spread by coercion. I leave it to your expertise in this area, but it was my understanding that almost right away after Constantine moved to Constantinople that the Western Roman Empire began to crumble; constantly begging for help to protect it from powerful states. Christendom was almost lost to invading Muslims many times. The Church was wiped out in Poland, France, and Russia during different times in the modern era, only to come back stronger (maybe not so much in Russia). What legions or purse strings did the missionaries who were sent to the Far East, Asia, or Africa have? How do you explain the ever growing Catholic Church around the world today?

Quote:

1) If you say "I can't do that, it's against my religion," that's fine. It's your right, and I support you (with a few exceptions, such as obeying just laws)

2) If you say "You can't do that, it's against my religion," that's not fine. You have no right to say that. It's a declaration of war, and you'll find our opposition most violent and disagreeable.

I would agree with the above. My question is what if I say, "You shouldn't do that because it is against reason or nature."?