Simple question?

Quote: Dalex64

With those kinds of absolute and immovable positions on things, is it any wonder that you are having trouble getting people to come around to your way of thinking, even a little bit?

I don't think I have been advocating for such an absolute and immovable position here, but there are many here who are. There has not been a single argument presented that makes an logical sense that there is absolutely no possibility of God. Yet so many keep saying that as if it was true. I have presented numerous arguments for the possibility of the existence of God and the best people can do is present good challenges or questions in response. No one has shown anything close as to why those arguments are illogical or make no sense. Yet, the only response from so many people is the assumption that God doesn't exist and they hold that as a blind absolute and immovable position.

Here is a good video I found directly addressing the question that is asked in the video you posted.

Quote: FrGamble

Yet, the only response from so many people is the assumption that God doesn't exist and they hold that as a blind absolute and immovable position.

You never get this right. God means nothing
to an atheist, we don't go around trying to
convince people there is no god. Unless I'm
responding here, I never even think about.
To use Nareed's thought, not believing in
god gets as much attention from an
atheist as not collecting stamps. We just
don't think about it, it's a non starter.

But for you, someone who is obviously
obsessed with the idea of god, it runs
your life. You can't imagine that we don't walk
around all day wringing our hands in worry
about god being real or not. Again, it's
on a par with us worrying about why we
don't collect stamps.

The only reason I'm in this conversation
is I'm fascinated by the god people,
especially the god sellers, which is what
you are. I want to know what makes them
tick, how they talked themselves into this
delusion. The average god person, like
in my wife's family, never thinks about it.
They're just robots blindly accepting what
they're told. But you have an actual brain,
you're a smart guy, you just don't see that
in Christians all that often. You're willing
to lay the strangeness of your religion out
there and actually defend all aspects of it.

To quote Teddy Roosevelt, I find that deelightful
on many levels, some of which you wouldn't
approve of.

Quote: FrGamble

I don't think I have been advocating for such an absolute and immovable position here, but there are many here who are. There has not been a single argument presented that makes an logical sense that there is absolutely no possibility of God. Yet so many keep saying that as if it was true. I have presented numerous arguments for the possibility of the existence of God and the best people can do is present good challenges or questions in response. No one has shown anything close as to why those arguments are illogical or make no sense. Yet, the only response from so many people is the assumption that God doesn't exist and they hold that as a blind absolute and immovable position.

So you are willing to admit that there is a possibility that god doesn't exist and your church is wrong?

Quote: Wizard

I agree.

Would you say religion is a sucker bet?

Quote: FrGamble

Because maybe, just maybe, you don't know everything.

Do you?

There is an old ethical question, going back to the very dawn of civilization:

Are the gods moral because they only do good? Or is anything done by the gods moral because the gods do it?

I'm firmly convinced Christianity, and most other religions with deities, take an affirmative in the second question.

This means morality is not only subjective, but situational and personal as well. An action is not good or bad by itself, but depends on who does it and where one does it. While context is of paramount importance to morality, the factors that affect an action is why one does it and under what circumstances.

For instance, it's well known Winston Churchill did little to keep the Nazis from bombing Coventry, because he decided protecting the fact that the Allies had broken the Enigma code was far more important to the overall goal of defeating Germany. We can see the "why" of the decision, and we know the circumstances as well. It's not an easy judgment to make, but it would be judged the same way had Chamberlain been in charge, or whether a similar decision had been made to on an attack on France rather than Britain.

Quote:

Probably the most reasonable and important thing we have. It is how we life our lives. We have faith that what those whom we trust tell us is true, we have faith in love; faith is how we live our lives.

Do not confuse trust with faith.

Quote:

Ha, come on. Everything around us and in us points to the existence of God especially the universe, nature, history, and philosophy.

I'm certain if that were so, you or someone else would have presented an airtight argument conclusively and definitively proving the existence of the one true god Vash (why not use my own made up deities?)

Quote:

I take pride in my ability to think for myself too thank you very much.

Are there any positions of the church you disagree with? Or that you don't implement because you don't understand them?

Quote:

I can see how that could upset people so I don't use it.

You may not use the term, but you use the concept. Substance being more important than form, there is no difference.

Quote:

But the fact is without God you can be good, but you cannot have the adjectives good or bad. I wouldn't get offended by the implications of this I would try to argue against it if you can.

If something exists, regardless of its source, then it can and will be discovered and, when applicable, be put to use. Good exists regardless of whether there is a god or not. Jehovah, as depicted in the Bible, is an evil deity, like most of his ilk, regardless of whether he's real or imagined (as though there is a question). Offering him as the source of "good" is the height of chutzpah.

Quote: FrGamble

There has not been a single argument presented that makes an logical sense that there is absolutely no possibility of God.

Of course there's a possibility of some god existing. There's also a possibility that random particles will spontaneously assemble into a lump of gold sitting right beside me. I simply do not think it wise to base one's life on extremely remote possibilities.

Quote:

I have presented numerous arguments for the possibility of the existence of God

You have presented one: ignorance. Briefly, because we don't know why the universe exists, there must be a Jehovah/Jesus/Spirit triple deity who created the whole thing and did everything described in the Bible exactly as portrayed.

Ok. Maybe I exaggerate a bit, but that's the essence of the argument.

Perhaps with the added, unproven assumption that energy cannot be eternal, fro some unspecified reason (if the reason were specified, the assumption could potentially be tested).

Quote:

No one has shown anything close as to why those arguments are illogical or make no sense.

See above. See any of my posts at random, and I think you have at least a 30% chance of coming up against such an argument.

Quote:

Yet, the only response from so many people is the assumption that God doesn't exist and they hold that as a blind absolute and immovable position.

Calling something "blind" does not make it blind.

Look, suppose you believed Neanderthal Man owned and raised dinosaurs for fun and profit (BTW, it seems according to old textbooks the demise of Neanderthal Man was due to the lack of Neanderthal Woman, but I digress). You're in the position of calling "blind" every argument which uses evidence to show that 1) dinosaurs died out eons before Neanderthal Man evolved, 2) even had dinosaurs been around, there's no evidence Neanderthal Man ever engaged in animal husbandry.

But, you might counter, isn't it possible some kinds of dinosaurs survived far longer than anyone imagines, they just never died where their remains could become fossilized? And isn't it possible some Neanderthal Man had a small flock of these dinos follow their tribe around?

Certainly, it is possible. If every dead animal became fossilized, there'd be little stuff underground but fossils. Likewise not every trail trod by a band of ancientest peoples and any animals which may have followed left a mark (in fact, a microscopically small portion did).

But it's also possible a random collection of particles will coalesce into a billion-karat diamond right next to me.

The tough thing with Frgamble is he can just defer to suggestions that can't really be investigated properly. Not like you would really want in a true investigation.

You can't interview Jesus, which would be the least of the requirements -- and of course that alone is not enough. Even if we had Jesus here, the proof required would require a lot more than just observing him in a crowd doing his thing.

You have to control all the variables. He literally would have to perform in a controlled environment. Dead people he raised would have to be there too.
Wine/water, fish loaves, walking on water, all that.

So, even if we had first hand ability to investigate, there would still be a ways to go, and Jesus would have to consent.

You can't be a certified skeptic without giving it a true thorough investigation.

And that's how truly far we are from actual proof. Or super strong evidence that people would have difficulty denying, if you will. (IMO),

Shoot, that's the kind of material evidence from any line of supernaturalists of any sort that you need.

I believe you can criticize believers of the scientific Big Bang, when the Big Bang starts issuing commandments or writes a bestseller. Or someone claims that anyway.

Anyway, God has a list of startling claims. Parting the Red Sea. So, supposedly he has a demonstrated record.

Is it our fault he won't offer up some tidbits? Why should we treat his existence any different than those crazy Bac players and their system play on the other board?

Thumbs down to god.