Does God exist? (13 Viewers)

[KFunk]

My analogy went over your head - it wasn't meant to be a brain-bender either, I might add. Christianity is my belief, you're accusing me of being wrong, hence the onus of proof is on you to disprove it, or move on.

The analogy works, and I constantly link back to this. However, by saying Christianity is false, you are questioning the integrity of all those who have prayed to God and felt like they've been answered, who have seen God and those who wrote the Bible. So you are accusing them of being guilty of fallacy or misrepresentation at the very least.

But, when it comes to the existence of god the burden of proof rests with you. The simple argument (quoted from a post a few pages back) goes as follows:

It can be strongly argued that burden of proof lies on the individual trying to prove the existence of an entity. If it were the other way around then burden of proof would require us to believe in all entities whose existence cannot be disproven, starting with the invisible, undetectable lemur and so on, ad infinitum. It should be fairly apparent why this is an untenable intellectual position.

 

[impervious182]

But, when it comes to the existence of god the burden of proof rests with you. The simple argument (quoted from a post a few pages back) goes as follows:

It can be strongly argued that burden of proof lies on the individual trying to prove the existence of an entity. If it were the other way around then burden of proof would require us to believe in all entities whose existence cannot be disproven, starting with the invisible, undetectable lemur and so on, ad infinitum. It should be fairly apparent why this is an untenable intellectual position.

And my counter-argument.

Had the undetectable lemur had a son, sent him to earth and had this son been witnessed by many thousands of people and his visit and resurrection been recorded, than this would be a very reasonable belief.

 

[impervious182]

and its not your point of view that angers me, its your total lack common sense.

Which according to you, any one who believes in God has.

 

[KFunk]

And my counter-argument.

Had the undetectable lemur had a son, sent him to earth and had this son been witnessed by many thousands of people and his visit and resurrection been recorded, than this would be a very reasonable belief.

Fair enough, but note well that the same argument also extends to the lemur's son. If you can argue from what you view to be evidence then that is fine.

 

[nikolas]

That wasn't my argument. My argument is that it fits the observations and is not contradicted by science. Hence it is a religion of best fit, just as a theory must fit observations, so does Christianity. Why don;t you adopt it, test it and then if you feel you can disprove it, do so.

It is also not an argumenetum ad populum because I didn't cite the writers of the Bible as supporting Christianity for no reason, so other people should. Rather I cited them, because their stories amount to testimony in a sense, because they are first hand accounts of events. I didn't mean to suggest, thousands of people support Christianity, so they must be right... I meant that the disciples met Jesus and described these events, many other people witnessed them - this constitutes evidence.

There is a very vital difference between the two. I don't think it's your fault that you mistook me, maybe I was being unclear. Maybe I still am being, but instead of making wild accusation, just tell me if you still don't get it. If I have time, I'll try to reply again tonight.

This...not...a...good...argument...especially you account for the of stories/witness/miracles/etc of other religions and pretty much any other far fetched claim in history.

sigh...by now if you haven't figured out the stories in the bible do not make a good argument than i really don't see the point of continuing.

 

[nikolas]

Which according to you, any one who believes in God has.

no most theists have the common sense to see burden of proof is on them.

 

[nikolas]

Ok then.

I am the lemur's son. And I'm here on Earth to spread the good word of the mighty lemur.

Oh and I rose from the dead yesterday. It was epic. And I have proof because my friends wrote about it.

Got me convinced.

 

[impervious182]

Got me convinced.

hahaha...


Oh also, I've reflected... I agree that it is the burdon of proof of Christians to prove that their religion is right, but not necessarily to disprove other religions. Does that concession make you happier? I reread your post and consulted my Harry Potter and yeah...

Seriously though, I agree with what you're saying to an extent. Your global warming analogy is what made me change my mind on the burdon of proof thing. So yep... but you'll have to excuse my earlier mistakes... this is a learning process for me too, because obviously there's lots about Christianity which I don't know... so in trying to search for the answer to your questions, sometimes I;ll be wrong... but hopefully I'll learn more too.

 

[KFunk]

hahaha...


Oh also, I've reflected... I agree that it is the burdon of proof of Christians to prove that their religion is right, but not necessarily to disprove other religions. Does that concession make you happier? I reread your post and consulted my Harry Potter and yeah...

Seriously though, I agree with what you're saying to an extent. Your global warming analogy is what made me change my mind on the burdon of proof thing. So yep... but you'll have to excuse my earlier mistakes... this is a learning process for me too, because obviously there's lots about Christianity which I don't know... so in trying to search for the answer to your questions, sometimes I;ll be wrong... but hopefully I'll learn more too.

Logic saves. It warms the heart to see positions swayed by its mighty hand. Kudos.

 

[moll.]

i do not agree with the statement that it is possible to be a buddhist and a christian at the same time

Some Buddhists believe that Jesus was actually the Buddha in one of his reincarnations.
The two belief systems aren't too hard to reconcile if you look into the details.

 

[moll.]

Sorry for not replying faster, i was at Homebake yesterday and only woke up an hour ago.

Erm... last time I checked, everyday Christians aren't resurrected/reborn.

Nor are everyday Buddhists.

Erm... last time I checked, like I said before, Christianity doesn't say that our actions determine our position in this life, don't limit us in terms of a caste. That's a major difference between Buddhism and Christianity...

Buddhists don't believe in caste systems. That's a Hindu belief that Guatama specifically rebelled against in his time, much to the angst of the Hindu ruling class.
Also, Buddhists believe that their actions in this life determine their position in the next life, with good actions being rewarded and bad actions punished. That really doesn't sound too dissimilar to Judeo-Christian beliefs.

I'm curious though... why is it, that any Christian has to have a great knowledge of every other religion? If we're comfortable we've found the correct religion, why is it that a great knowledge of others is somehow our obligation to have? Yet it is alright for atheists to remain willfully ignorant? Just another example of hypocrisy on your part.

Tommy answered this well, so i can't be bothered repeating.

 

[moll.]

For every person who has said this... Buddhism is technically not a religion.... it is a way of living your life to achieve enlightenment... Siddhattha Gotama or "Buddha" founded this.

Which is why it can be taken as theistic, atheistic or deistic. You simply mould this way of life around your personal beliefs.

 

[moll.]

Isn't transpermia heavily disputed?

Yeah, i thought the protein soup was the leading theory.
Mmm... soup.

 

[impervious182]

I know the bible back to front; almost certainly a lot better than you do, mate.

Yet you can't even get the title right. The Bible, not the bible. It's a book, just as you would capitalise Harry Potter, so should the Bible be capitalised.

So then your claim that: "I would still be disgusted at the morality of the bible and the actions of the christian god. Pedantic toddler-like creature." That's a deliberate misrepresentation?

Would a 'pedantic toddler-like creature' forgive those who had lived a life of sin, essentially rejected him, if they asked for forgiveness? Would a 'pedantic toddler-like creature' send his only son, to sacrifice himself, so that his creations might be forgiven and enter into heaven?

I hardly think a god, if embodying the values you talk about, would preach of forgiveness, of loving all persons on earth.

Matthew 25.33-40

'And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand. Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;

For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:

Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me:

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?

When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?

And the King shall answer and say unto them. Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my bretheren, ye have done unto me.​

 

[Kwayera]

Answer: no.

And alexdore, the decapitalisation of "the bible" is deliberate.

 

[Iron]

Whatever kwayera

 

[impervious182]

Answer: no.

And alexdore, the decapitalisation of "the bible" is deliberate.

I know, and it's also incorrect. I deliberately corrected you for it.

You do speak English don't you? Then it is only grammatically correct to capitalise 'the Bible'. It is the name of a book, hence whether or not you agree with it, it's poor form to write 'the bible'.

 

[Kwayera]

While the Bible is a title, yes, it also a thing - 'bible' = 'holy book', regardless of its actual title or the religion in question. Calling it a bible is as correct as calling it <I>the</I> 'Bible'.

 

[moll.]

I know, and it's also incorrect. I deliberately corrected you for it.

You do speak English don't you? Then it is only grammatically correct to capitalise 'the Bible'. It is the name of a book, hence whether or not you agree with it, it's poor form to write 'the bible'.

"Atheist" and "agnostic" are never capitalised in mid-sentence, and yet "Christian" always is. Why? No decent reason.
So until there is equality within the English language, we'll do what we like with it. This includes purposely spelling the name of your deity and dogma without a capital.
Don't like it? Find another language to converse in. One without upper- and lower-case distinctions. I believe Arabic is thus.

 

[Iron]

Yeah, just like the prankster's bible
(I make the prankster's b smaller out of respect for the anarchist's bible)