Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[tommykins]

that wouldnt hold up. all that can be proved is that the friend wrote the song, from there you only have the friend's testimony that the artist actually came up with it.

this is a similar concept to the argument you have been so tenaciously rebutting.

you claim that personal experience of god (similar to the friends testimony) cannot be counted as evidence. yet in the case of the song, the personal experience argument is actually a reflection of the truth, and the lack of scientific evidence argument, is not a reflection of the truth

mentally ill patience experience many other things other than God, we are to 'believe' that they are telling the "truth" ?

 

[gibbo153]

So basically you are arguing for the existence of something with the same credibility of a Flying Spaghetti monster, a pink unicorn, fairies, a dragon in my garage.

reply to my query below

 

[tommykins]

i don't know about the 'religion' centred on that, but do its followers claim to have a relationship with the spaghetti monster? (i'm not being rhetorical, brief outline of their beliefs would be appreciated)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

 

[gibbo153]

mentally ill patience experience many other things other than God, we are to 'believe' that they are telling the "truth" ?

by personal experience, i mean god reaching down to someone. people are not the initiaters. the mentally disabled example is one where god has not made himself present. so its different

 

[nikolas]

read my other replies again carefully, i don't feel the need to reply to the latest rebuttals, they indicate misinterpretation of my claims

I refer you to my post, about Agnostic Athiesm.

And

Do you or do you not believe in God?

If so all our rebuttals are valid.

If not, and you are simply arguing that scientific proof does not disprove God, than you are the one who does not understand my position.

 

[tommykins]

by personal experience, i mean god reaching down to someone. people are not the initiaters. the mentally disabled example is one where god has not made himself present. so its different

haha holy shit. (no pun intended)

 

[gibbo153]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_spaghetti_monster

i see. well it only seems to claim the deity created the world. the belief in god comes from a relationship with him. not simply speculation that he created the world.

 

[nikolas]

by personal experience, i mean god reaching down to someone. people are not the initiaters. the mentally disabled example is one where god has not made himself present. so its different

... whoosh

 

[tommykins]

but i have a relatinoship with the spaghetti flying monster. it is a personal experience.

EDIT : so kids in third-world countries who have NO chance of being exposed to 'God' is also punished?

Nice.

 

[gibbo153]

I refer you to my post, about Agnostic Athiesm.

Do you or do you not believe in God?

If so all our rebuttals are valid.

If not, and you are simply arguing that scientific proof does not disprove God, than you are the one who does not understand my position.

hmm i don't think restricting me to a yes no answer to sum up my entire thoughts of religion is good argumentative ethics on your part. inevitably the restriction allows me no explanation, and the explanation of the reasoning behind it is the only important part

 

[gibbo153]

but i have a relatinoship with the spaghetti flying monster. it is a personal experience.

again that is a different claim to 'a deity being a god of relationships'. it is you attempting to have a relationship with a deity.

 

[gibbo153]

but i have a relatinoship with the spaghetti flying monster. it is a personal experience.

EDIT : so kids in third-world countries who have NO chance of being exposed to 'God' is also punished?

Nice.

the flaw of that argument is that it is only human failing that causes that. god promotes the spreading of the good news. humans fail to uphold the request properly.

 

[nikolas]

hmm i don't think restricting me to a yes no answer to sum up my entire thoughts of religion is good argumentative ethics on your part. inevitably the restriction allows me no explanation, and the explanation of the reasoning behind it is the only important part

Do you mind telling us why our rebuttals are not valid rather than simply "you do not understand

2nd Im not asking for your thoughts on religion, I'm asking you if you believe that there is a Deity.

If so in this case i believe our rebuttals are valid.

If you are simply arguing the point that lack of proof does not disprove your claim, than this just brings us back to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Is there a third possibility? If so please explain.

 

[nikolas]

again that is a different claim to 'a deity being a god of relationships'. it is you attempting to have a relationship with a deity.

The FSM is a deity. A relational Deity.

I know this, i have a relationship with him. I have experienced him.

Frustrating ain't it

 

[gibbo153]

Do you mind telling us why our rebuttals are not valid rather than simply "you do not understand

2nd Im not asking for your thoughts on religion, I'm asking you if you believe that there is a Deity. In this case i believe our rebuttals are valid.

If you are simply arguing the point that lack of proof does not disprove your claim, than this just brings us back to the "Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Is there a third possibility? If so please explain.

firstly, i don't imply you simply 'don't understand'

secondly, again i can't answer if i can't answer in full. in regards to the question, only a full answer is a true reflection of the word 'yes' or 'no'

lastly, no i am not. it is a relational god that allows us to believe in him. i have no doubt that i would never really believe in a deity that simply created the world, unless it was a relational being who did it for a reason. if i was not under the impression god was relational then it would be athiest-agnosticism for me.

i'm being kicked off the computer now, ill be on again soon

 

[nikolas]

firstly, i don't imply you simply 'don't understand'

secondly, again i can't answer if i can't answer in full. in regards to the question, only a full answer is a true reflection of the word 'yes' or 'no'

lastly, no i am not. it is a relational god that allows us to believe in him. i have no doubt that i would never really believe in a deity that simply created the world, unless it was a relational being who did it for a reason. if i was not under the impression god was relational then it would be athiest-agnosticism for me.

Umm, yes you have...

read my other replies again carefully, i don't feel the need to reply to the latest rebuttals, they indicate misinterpretation of my claims

unless you think we are deliberately making a straw man argument.


Well in that case i still think our rebuttals are valid.


A relational God is not proof of a relational God.

 

[Mozanidas]

lol, everyone check out this clip on Arj Barker.
its from a comedy debate aptly named 'Does God Have A Sense Of Humour'.
so funny.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=fghO_DyJpLk

Quote:
"hey god you suck, your not funny"
"oh yeah, well atleast i dont got a dick on my forehead"
"i dont have a ....... WTF!"

 

[tommykins]

the flaw of that argument is that it is only human failing that causes that. god promotes the spreading of the good news. humans fail to uphold the request properly.

....so why don't you move to africa and spread the word?

you're not a very good Christian are you.

practice what you preach.

PS. you're still using a conclusion as a premise.

 

[moll.]

firstly, i don't imply you simply 'don't understand'

secondly, again i can't answer if i can't answer in full. in regards to the question, only a full answer is a true reflection of the word 'yes' or 'no'

lastly, no i am not. it is a relational god that allows us to believe in him. i have no doubt that i would never really believe in a deity that simply created the world, unless it was a relational being who did it for a reason. if i was not under the impression god was relational then it would be athiest-agnosticism for me.

i'm being kicked off the computer now, ill be on again soon

Tommy, how is that someone this stupid goes to our school?
Why must your god be relational? This is a God of the entire universe, a supernatural being beyond the realms of our imagination who controls the vast expanses of time and space within an iron grip. What makes you special enough, you, a pathetic human, a mere blip upon the infinite expanse of the space-time continuum, that such a great and powerful god would devote his time and effort to your wellbeing and fate?
The answer: nothing.
Such a belief simply stems from the inner emotional needs of every human to be elevated upon an altar of uniqueness above his peers. The Abrahamic religions simply appeal to that base emotion of all humanity. Arrogance.

 

[tommykins]

firstly, i don't imply you simply 'don't understand'

secondly, again i can't answer if i can't answer in full. in regards to the question, only a full answer is a true reflection of the word 'yes' or 'no'

lastly, no i am not. it is a relational god that allows us to believe in him. i have no doubt that i would never really believe in a deity that simply created the world, unless it was a relational being who did it for a reason. if i was not under the impression god was relational then it would be athiest-agnosticism for me.

i'm being kicked off the computer now, ill be on again soon

I'll direct you to your fellow theist/christian -

Evolution does not prove the bible wrong... why must God be logical?

+ yeas please show us guided evolution

So why must he be LOGICAL for you to believe in something?

That's weird, you don't apply logic to one thing, yet you apply logic to another to as what you see fit.