What i mean to say that , Explaining the question in the title of this thread is not possible , hands on show is not possible every time. It is just like filling the whole water of sea into a bucket, You can't research about. It is not possible to explain the god in a physical or any laboratory. The love, compassion, helpfulness in you is God. If someone says there is no God, There is no love,kindness, compassion.
Wow, and here I thought the love, compassion and helpfulness in me was... well, you know, me. :shrug:
What do mean by "solid answer"? Do you have a preset answer which must be met, or are you not satisfied with the scriptural explanation? Jan.
I'm not satisfied with a scriptual explanation. The explanation I get from theists seems like rubbish to me. More like a cop-out.
It's rubbish to me because I don't buy into the theist's point of view. Would I know an acceptable answer if someone told me? Probably not. I don't know, nobody knows. No theist has given me an explanation that I'd buy into. That's what I'm trying to get at.
I think the significance here which Gondolin is emphasizing is that scripture is it's own critic; in other words, any source that is backed by its own claims should not be given full consideration and acceptance. The Bible is given unjustified leverage concerning this and even has internal solutions to piffle this criticism. ("The book is not backed by itself, it is backed by God and the witness of the Holy Spirit as well." Which is a weak justification at best.) This is why the theist will never be able to use scripture effectively against anyone disagreeing with him/her.
I like it when the door knocker has trouble explaining old testament VS new testament and start talking about angry god VS forgiving god.
Sarkus I see no reason in particular ....figures so the foundation amongst atheists is belief and the foundation amongst theists is direct perception - glad we cleared that up if the replies of this forum are anything to go by, madness seems a plausible answer ... no I am asking which atheists (preferably one's that are not in mental institutions) claim direct perception of this truth about the history of human knowledge and before? I can't help it - you guys supply so much rich composting material I guess you are wrong since there is obviously controversy on the subject sure lol - can you show evidence to impartial, unconscious obeyance of the laws of the universe without an appeal to authority? (BTW - you just shot yourself in the foot the moment you used the words "laws") . beats me :shrug: - its your argument buddy ok send in those orchard farmers to the homicide scene (make sure they bring some oranges too) I guess there is a chance that I have not properly understood your attitude towards positive theistic claims .... but its probably quite slim by now .... sure if a person posts thousands of posts trying to demerit religion at every twist and turn, i tend to understand that they are not particularly favorable to religion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! since you have yet to come up with a reason for being irrational (except by warping essential theistic foundations), it certainly seems you are deeply dyed by your value system thats ok - but what about things like abiogenesis isn't that just something additional to give reductional physics credibility? yes certainly explains why reductionists see abiogenesis as the only "rational" answer doesn't it ...... there is no claim that god is supernatural either .... transcendental or metaphysical, certainly
Emnos “ really? Last I recall I argued that god is eternal and until one can grasp something along the lines of a unified field theory, the laws of physics" will remain a sad second to god
Gondolin, Fair enough. Then your position is irrational, unreasonable, and based in ignorance. Then I suggest you maintain your position. Celpha Fiael Given the subject, and object of them, it would have to be its own critic, leaving the ordinary man to make up his mind. What other critc would suffice? Again you fail to apreciate the subject, and object of the scriptures. Why just look at one small section, of one religion? Why don't you broaden your scope, and mind? Maybe then you will have a good reason to be atheist. Jan.
No, you have it all wrong. I don't believe there is a God because the idea of a God seems irrational. I see what "God" does, and it's total bullshit. I have no reason to believe in a God... it's unreasonable. So maybe my position is based off of irrationality and unreason. And you're just as ignorant as I am when trying to prove there is or isn't a God.
If I tell you, "I am the Son of God." and you ask, "How do I know what you say is true?" and I respond, "Because I say so." Would you then believe me? It seems that you are saying that, as the Bible would have to have to be its own critic due to its claimed holiness, I would have to be my own critic in the exact same way, and anyone's objection to my being the Son of God would be because they are just "ordinary men". How convenient. False, you should know by now that I used to be a devout Christian who did nothing but study the scriptures. Being an atheist, I have broadened my scope from one religion, thank you for making that so easy to point out. And I'm looking at this small section right now because I see in it a tremendous problem and you don't seem to think so. So we are debating it. Would you rather not debate it? Let's review; you tell me that simply because a book says it is the truth with no other authority than its own, it should be believed because it is so holy, it has to be its own critic (which is an attribute you have derived again, from the book itself), and then you tell me that I should broaden my mind. Then you throw in an unnecessary and bitter remark concerning my reasons for being an atheist, which is highly based on your assumptions and entirely false. While I would disagree with your conclusions, I would not be as insensitive as to claim you don't have good reasons for being what you are, I think being on this message board to begin with is a favorable indicator of that. It seems theists can be just as bitter as atheists, eh?