God does not exist

I have my reason to believe in God, it just makes sense to me, if it doesn't to you... well ok, whatever.  I don't attack atheism, I don't see the reason why you feel that attacking Christianity is so important, but whatever floats your boat.  


Oh, and I agree with Dys, there is really no reason to redo this discussion.  So this will be the last I write on the subject, unless something important comes out.

So the way I see it there are three possibilities.

I'd like to propose an addendum:

4.  God does exist, but isn't really into the whole answering-prayers thing, so you never get an answer.

4a.  God does exist, but because your heart isn't "true" or because you don't have faith, you never get an answer.

I don't attack atheism, I don't see the reason why you feel that attacking Christianity is so important, but whatever floats your boat.

Well, I think he can attack it for the sake of the attack... I don't believe anybody's viewpoints ought to be exempt from criticism, and I don't think people should ever "just agree to disagree".

That said, maybe he has a good reason for attacking Christianity.  Maybe he thinks it's dangerous to somebody, such as society as a whole, or religious individuals, and that therefore it behooves right-thinking people to put a stop to it.

Quote from: "beast"

So the way I see it there are three possibilities.

I'd like to propose an addendum:

4.  God does exist, but isn't really into the whole answering-prayers thing, so you never get an answer.

4a.  God does exist, but because your heart isn't "true" or because you don't have faith, you never get an answer.

Yes these are possible but it would mean that the book of Mormon is wrong about what it says about God and I can't accept that .

5. God does exist but he can't really hear your prayers.

5. God does exist but he can't really hear your prayers.

Interesting thought.

Do you mean, however, that it is beyond his capacity to do so?

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

I don't attack atheism, I don't see the reason why you feel that attacking Christianity is so important, but whatever floats your boat.

Well, I think he can attack it for the sake of the attack... I don't believe anybody's viewpoints ought to be exempt from criticism, and I don't think people should ever "just agree to disagree".

That said, maybe he has a good reason for attacking Christianity.  Maybe he thinks it's dangerous to somebody, such as society as a whole, or religious individuals, and that therefore it behooves right-thinking people to put a stop to it.

I completely agree, the only thing is, we've been over the same ideas at least four or five times now, without getting anywhere, so we know it's not going to go anywhere... so what is the point?

Do you mean, however, that it is beyond his capacity to do so?

Well, one possibility is that God does not have the capacity to do so at all.  Another is that He does not have the capacity to do so to some types of prayer (such as internal--inaudible prayers).  Another possibility is that He has the capacity to hear all prayers--both inaudible and audible--but that he cannot concentrate on every person's prayers for lack of time.  Yet another is that he has the ability to essentially "stop time" and focus on every prayer but he just decides not to.  There are really several alternatives to the ones that were listed.

I think anyone who has seriously been participating in this topic should read Mere Christianityby C.S. Lewis.  I think it offers a lot of answers to some of the questions presented here regarding Christianity.

One of the problems with arguing something like this is that there is no real way to prove or disprove the existence of a God, be it a Christian God or other.  There are no instruments we have by which we could measure anything that would suggest one way or the other, so for the time being it's more or less a philosophical debate, and from what I've been reading its been getting nowhere.

One more thing in response to a post on page 1 I won't quote; evolution has evidence (and quite strong evidence), not proof.  And I do believe evolution is correct, for the record.

I think anyone who has seriously been participating in this topic should read Mere Christianityby C.S. Lewis.  I think it offers a lot of answers to some of the questions presented here regarding Christianity.

One of the problems with arguing something like this is that there is no real way to prove or disprove the existence of a God, be it a Christian God or other.  There are no instruments we have by which we could measure anything that would suggest one way or the other, so for the time being it's more or less a philosophical debate, and from what I've been reading its been getting nowhere.

One more thing in response to a post on page 1 I won't quote; evolution has evidence (and quite strong evidence), not proof.  And I do believe evolution is correct, for the record.

We can't disprove God in general- but we can bring rather strong evidence to bear that the Christian God does not exist in exactly the way the Bible claims he does.

And evolution may not be proven, but nothing can be. The supporting evidence is strong enough that we may act as though it were 100% proven, and pursue further lines of reasoning with evolution's validity as an a priori assumption.

You can't prove anything exists, so stop trying.

Quote from: "CrimsonKing"

I don't attack atheism, I don't see the reason why you feel that attacking Christianity is so important, but whatever floats your boat.

Well, I think he can attack it for the sake of the attack... I don't believe anybody's viewpoints ought to be exempt from criticism, and I don't think people should ever "just agree to disagree".

That said, maybe he has a good reason for attacking Christianity.  Maybe he thinks it's dangerous to somebody, such as society as a whole, or religious individuals, and that therefore it behooves right-thinking people to put a stop to it.

We have already been over this several times. I don't like "agreeing to disagree", but the discussion has gotten nowhere.

And evolution may not be proven, but nothing can be.

I can prove that if H and K are normal subgroups of a group G, then the intersect of H and K also forms a normal subgroup of G.

...but I guess mathematical proofs aren't quite the same...

We can't disprove God in general- but we can bring rather strong evidence to bear that the Christian God does not exist in exactly the way the Bible claims he does.

This is the truth.

You can't prove anything exists, so stop trying.

In the context of the universe you can't achieve anything with your life, so stop trying.

Personally I feel that the quest for truth is something that teaches us a lot, even if we never actually get the answer.


I just wanted to reiterate again that my experiment with praying to God is based on the assumption that the book of Mormon (and both testaments) are true.  They clearly say "ask and ye shall receive" and also that if have just enough faith to ask God if he exists he will tell you - but if you don't ask he wont.  Thus presumably if those books are correct he will tell me.  So far one prayer and no God.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

You can't prove anything exists, so stop trying.

In the context of the universe you can't achieve anything with your life, so stop trying.

I assign my life a value.

Why?

Why?

Because I already know it's meaningless, anyway.

Past the point of no contradictions.

You can't prove anything exists, so stop trying.

I can prove that I exist.

"ask and ye shall receive"

My way of disproving this absurd notion is by stipulating in your prayer that it not be answered with a "No"--(some people say "God will answer your prayer, but sometimes the answer is just no").  If "ye shall receive" then you should be able to make that stipulation.  Also, stipulate that the prayer be answered within the next twenty four hours.  No more of this "God sometimes waits for the right time to answer your prayer" stuff.  I want my answer now, so I ask for it now.  Finally, stipulate that you want convincing evidence in your prayer.  That way we get around the "God proved himself to you, but you just didn't see it" claims.

I can prove that I exist

I doubt it.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

You can't prove anything exists, so stop trying.

I can prove that I exist.

You can't prove that you think.  You fail.

Quote from: "fathomak"

I can prove that I exist.

I doubt it.

Cogito ergo sum.

QED

Ultimately you can prove that thinking itself exists... but not that you exist.

Unfortunately, I don't think things at this point would go very well in a metaphysical argument.  You have to start defining things like "I" and what constitutes existance.

Which probably leads in to the mind-body problem.

wow, by posting god doesnt exist someone isjust asking to be shot, this is like the most controversial issue of all time, if you look at it strictly from a scientific viewpoint, the issue is as trivial as the FE cause, but becuase so much people believe in it, like myself, the issue will probabaly never be solved

wow, by posting god doesnt exist someone isjust asking to be shot, this is like the most controversial issue of all time, if you look at it strictly from a scientific viewpoint, the issue is as trivial as the FE cause, but becuase so much people believe in it, like myself, the issue will probabaly never be solved

We philosophers take pride in saying things that would probably get us shot.

Quote from: "Knight"

Quote from: "fathomak"

I can prove that I exist.

I doubt it.

Cogito ergo sum.

QED

Je pense, donc, je suis

I think he put de cartes before the horse. More accurately would be thinking occurs therefore something exists.

-How do you know what thinking is?

-How do you know what existing is?

-How do you know what "you" are?

-How do you know it is you who is doing the thinking?

It is possible your thoughts are being controlled, you are being deceived, or the logic of your mind is fundamentally flawed, and as a result, you are wrong, and don't exist (in any of these cases it would/could be a mistake to believe something must exist to function).

it would be a mistake to believe something must exist to function

Give me an example of something that functions that does not exist.

I will simplify the previous statement:



I exist.

Give me an example of something that functions that does not exist.

I meant, if logic is fundamentally flawed, existence may not be a necessary condition for a function.

I exist.

How do you know?

Quote from: "fathomak"

Give me an example of something that functions that does not exist.

I meant, if logic is fundamentally flawed, existence may not be a necessary condition for a function.

Agreed.

Quote from: "fathomak"

I exist.

How do you know?

Let's suppose for a moment that I don't.  Then this entire time you've been communicating with something that doesn't exist, and thus you're a looney.