Original Sin?

Quote: FrGamble

There you go again around and around with the circular arguments. Please take lessons from Nareed above as to how to engage in meaningful discussions about these things. Those are great challenges to actual evidence presented to support a belief in God. Nareed did not wish it away or pretend it doesn't exist, but rather addressed good objections as to why they are effective pieces of evidence.

Actually, FrG, you are the one engaging in circular arguments--over and over and over and over and over and over. Your standard response to "there is no evidence for God" is "there is no evidence for atheism." That cop-out has been used for millennia because it's superficially effective--it's very hard to prove the nonexistence of something. Therefore, you weasel your way into that position by lying--saying that atheists unequivocally state that there is no God. That's a misrepresentation. Atheists say that they see no evidence for a god. Therefore, they choose not to believe in the absence of such evidence.

And I think you actually do comprehend what evidence is; you just want to tap-dance around it. Jesus was a human being who walked the earth. This, we know. That doesn't prove, or even suggest for that matter, that he was a divine being. Important, certainly. But so was Attila the Hun.

Similarly, the longevity of the Catholic Church doesn't mean it is a divine institution. The Althing of Iceland has met continuously for over 1000 years. Does that mean it is divine? The Simpsons has been on TV for 23 seasons. Is it divine? (Well, perhaps Homer is...)

We've already beaten to death the argument that so many squillion people believe in God, how could they all be wrong. Well, let me kill that one once and for all by pointing out that for the entirety of human history, the majority of people on earth did NOT believe in the Christian god--nor do they now.

Face it, Father, you have no evidence, and the only way you can come up with even a facsimile of it is to distort the very meaning of the term. Really, I thought that Christians were supposed to be honest. I'd respect you more if you simply said, 'All right, I have no evidence to support my belief, but I choose that belief anyway." That would be courageous.

God has been here the whole time since FrGamble has been here (according to my understanding). It's not like he has to go anywhere to provide proof.

So, why do we never have proof?

Should be the easiest thing ever.

Quote: rxwine

So, why do we never have proof?

I'd take coffee as evidence: it tastes great, it's enjoyable to drink, it makes you more alert, and it helps focus the mind.

It's just not conclusive.

And I hear some people don't like it....


But seriously, FrGamble has offered spiritual evidence which, at best, might lead to a subjective experience that can easily be interpreted as "god."

Quote: Nareed

spiritual evidence

An oxymoron if there ever was one.

Quote:

be interpreted as "god."

Or bad gas, depending on what you
had for lunch.

Quote: Nareed

I'd take coffee as evidence: it tastes great, it's enjoyable to drink, it makes you more alert, and it helps focus the mind.

It's just not conclusive.

And I hear some people don't like it....


But seriously, FrGamble has offered spiritual evidence which, at best, might lead to a subjective experience that can easily be interpreted as "god."

As long as FrG subscribes to a different notion of what constitutes reality and existence than we do, any discussion is pointless. Presumably observing the same world, we say there is no evidence for God and he says there is abundant evidence. However, when pressed, he can only come up with evidence that meets his definition of the concept.

Quote: Nareed

Yes, well, we're not primitives who can be overawed by a causal display of technology.

Yes, a personal revelation or better yet a relationship is always more convincing. That is why God choses to reveal Himself in that way, if only you would pray.

Quote:

because it's clear there was no immediate impact beyond a small sect of fanatical followers. and we have no evidence of their doings except for books written decades after the facts.

Not having the original writings but only a vast, vast, amount of the corroporating writings from all over the world and in agreement is not the same thing as only having the current books. Their attestion as authentic is beyond question, much more so than any ancient writings. Also it is not decades after the facts. Paul was writing his authentic letters in the midst of his missionary journeys and the Gospel of Mark was written just years after the martyrdom of Peter the first Pope. Finally we have to remember the historical context of the early disciples living in an age when oral transmission was just as if not more so reliable than the written word.

Secondly, you still fail to deal with the lasting impact of this small group of followers. Is there any other adequate explination for the success of the Gospel than its divine origins?

Quote:

Because you haven't proved the universe is contingent.

One simple question, is the universe neccessary? Did it have to exist and does it have the reason for its existence in itself? If so then call the material universe itself the eternal, non-contigent being or better yet call it your god. I think using your reason that that you must come to the logical conclusion that the material universe, like all other material things, is indeed contingent for its existence, movement, and intelligbiility on some first cause, unmoved mover, and creator.

Quote:

It is evidence of its size and longevity.

But if we take that as evidence of a deity, the Egyptian cult lasted about 50% longer, at least, than Christianity has thus far, and was believed by virtually 100% of the local population and several nearby kingdoms (like Nubia and Libya). That would make deities like Hathor, Knum and Thoth 50% more real than Jehovah and Jesus :)

Good point. The problem is where are the believers of Hathor now? If it was truly of God why was it not universal and why has it ceased to exist.

Quote:

Here:

Need I remind you that abscence of evidence is not evidence of abscence. I do agree though that coffee is a sign of God's providential care for us.

Quote: stinkingliberal

Actually, FrG, you are the one engaging in circular arguments--over and over and over and over and over and over. Your standard response to "there is no evidence for God" is "there is no evidence for atheism."

No sir, my response to ""there is no evidence for God"" is to provide evidence for God's existence. Your response to ""there is no evidence for atheism" is to provide no answer only defeaning silence.

Quote:

That cop-out has been used for millennia because it's superficially effective--it's very hard to prove the nonexistence of something. Therefore, you weasel your way into that position by lying--saying that atheists unequivocally state that there is no God. That's a misrepresentation. Atheists say that they see no evidence for a god. Therefore, they choose not to believe in the absence of such evidence.

You are the one choosing a dishonest cop-out, not me. Remember it is you, if you are truly an honest atheist, who have choosen to take on the burden of proving the non-existence of something. It is not easy task to prove the existence of something as mysterious as God, either. You misrepresent atheism by claiming they only content there is no evidence for a god. That is more agnostic than folks like Evenbob or Nareed will allow. That position assumes that there is a possibility for God, just that they haven't been convinced. This would neccesitate an open mind on the subject, something you have not given a hint that you hold. Please do not try to weasel out of your responsiblity by chaning the goal posts of atheism. Atheism is the statement of belief that there is no god, period.

Quote:

Jesus was a human being who walked the earth. This, we know. That doesn't prove, or even suggest for that matter, that he was a divine being. Important, certainly. But so was Attila the Hun.

Are you seriously comparing Attilla the Hun to Jesus of Nzareth?

Quote:

Similarly, the longevity of the Catholic Church doesn't mean it is a divine institution. The Althing of Iceland has met continuously for over 1000 years. Does that mean it is divine? The Simpsons has been on TV for 23 seasons. Is it divine? (Well, perhaps Homer is...)

I don't know anything of the Althing of Iceland except that it is young in comparison to the Church of Christ. Does it claim to be divine? Why is it not more know to anyone? The Simplson are divinely inspired, but not divine.

Quote:

We've already beaten to death the argument that so many squillion people believe in God, how could they all be wrong. Well, let me kill that one once and for all by pointing out that for the entirety of human history, the majority of people on earth did NOT believe in the Christian god--nor do they now.

Again a cop-out that doesn't reflect at all the athestic view.

Quote:

Face it, Father, you have no evidence, and the only way you can come up with even a facsimile of it is to distort the very meaning of the term. Really, I thought that Christians were supposed to be honest. I'd respect you more if you simply said, 'All right, I have no evidence to support my belief, but I choose that belief anyway." That would be courageous.

That would be untrue and stupid. To believe in something without any evidence to support my belief would make me an atheist.

Quote: rxwine

God has been here the whole time since FrGamble has been here (according to my understanding). It's not like he has to go anywhere to provide proof.

So, why do we never have proof?

Should be the easiest thing ever.

You do not need proof to believe or to act. Proof is far from the easiest thing ever it is the hardest thing ever. Ask any scientist. Mathmatcians and logicians deal in proof. We live our lives based on evidence and experience that encourages us to act on faith and trust.

Quote: FrGamble

You do not need proof to believe or to act. Proof is far from the easiest thing ever it is the hardest thing ever. Ask any scientist. Mathmatcians and logicians deal in proof. We live our lives based on evidence and experience that encourages us to act on faith and trust.

Actually with an all powerful god capable of overwhelming us with evidence, you have the most notable failure of any proof ever. You have the most capable being of proof just by its own description so the lack of convincing evidence is the worst failure in the history of eternity.

Quote: FrGamble

To believe in something without any evidence to support my belief would make me an atheist.

Atheism is a LACK of belief--a lack of faith--a lack of credulity.

You are disappointing. You keep weaseling out of the question of what evidence there is for God by saying "there is no evidence for atheism." That's idiotic! Why does there have to be "evidence" for a philosophical stance? I assure you that atheism is real. I assure you that God is not.

And yes, I am comparing Jesus to Attila. They were both important historical figures. At times, they were considered to be divine beings by some of their followers. And they're both dead.

And no matter how much you choose to lie about it, Father--a shameful thing for someone such as you--atheism is NOT a claim that there is no God. It is a refusal to believe in any god. Atheists, unlike religious believers, don't state that they know with any degree of certainty what is the nature of the universe. They simply find the God hypothesis unconvincing.

I challenge you for the fifteenth and last time to provide evidence of God's existence. And since we seem to disagree on what constitutes "evidence," let's default to a third party. Present evidence that would be acceptable in a US court of law.

Now here's where you start to weasel:

1. You can't prove evidence of atheism!!!!!!! (????)
2. A whole buncha people believe in God. That's evidence!
3. When we pray, we get a warm, gooey feeling inside. That's evidence!

I don't think you're worth talking to any more. Your insults and your lying make it an unpleasant experience.