In order to see the truth, you need to accept the fact that all of the above verses are wrong. The fact is, God does not answer prayers. The reason why God does not answer your prayers is simple: God is imaginary.

God answers all prayers. Sometimes, the answer is "no."

You know what I always found funny?

Alot of bibles have period maps, showing area where events took place.

The map that shows the route of the exodus has moses party going AROUND the Red Sea.

Isnt that interesting? The bible claims it was parted and they walked thru on dry land but when they made maps for it all of a sudden they go around

These 50 "proofs" are about as silly as Thomas Aquinas' 5 "proofs" for the existence of God, or St. Anselm's "proof."

I think what it all boils down to is that either god exists or not (leaving aside the definition of what "god" is).

Written in logical format: "A or ~A"
Hopefully, we can agree that that is a true statement.

However, I think Kant was pretty persuasive in showing that one could logically reason that A was true, and that one could logically reason that ~A was true.

Of course, what that showed was that the existence or non-existence of "god," as it is typically defined, is not a subject of human knowledge.

So, I do not why you keep advertising your atheism. It makes you look like those Bible-thumpers. Sure, you have your belief, but, if you really expect to prove that it is true, you do yourself a disservice.

-Jut

Jut - I don't think it's a matter of logic so much as empiricism. Logic didn't discover America. Columbus bumped into it by accident, where logic said India should be.

PS Logic and reason are good at making sense of of empirical facts, but generally crap at discovering anything by themselves. The one exception is mathematics.

It's really simple for me. I see no evidence there's a god. Therefore, I don't believe in god. I likewise don't believe in flying purple dinosaurs. You?

Aristotle was my ex-boyfriend.

The map that shows the route of the exodus has moses party going AROUND the Red Sea.

Isnt that interesting? The bible claims it was parted and they walked thru on dry land but when they made maps for it all of a sudden they go around.

There is currently some specuation that it wasn't the Red Sea that Moses parted; that Moses led the Israelites to something called "the Reed Sea" (either a now-dry lake to the north of the Red Sea or the Sabħat al Bardawīl, a lagoon on the North Coast of the Sinai). It has to do with the ancient Hebrew words in Exodus are translated.

Filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici has suggested that the eruption of the Santorini volcano happened during the Exodus and caused tsunamis which would have alternately drained and flooded the Reed Sea. He also connects the eruption to the plagues of Egypt. Although there are timeline issues with Jacobovici's theory (he changes the generally-accepted date of the eruption), it's still kind of interesting.

Logic didn't discover America. Columbus bumped into it by accident, where logic said India should be.

Actually, Columbus' calculations were off. He believed the Earth was not as large as it is and that India was only a few thousand miles from Europe.

Most scientific minds of the era believed India was located about where it actually is; they believed Columbus would fail because they believed there was no land mass between Europe and India.

It's really simple for me. I see no evidence there's a god. Therefore, I don't believe in god. I likewise don't believe in flying purple dinosaurs. You?

Aristotle was my ex-boyfriend.

Formal logic does not support your argument. It is not possible to prove a negative.

To wit: I've no physical proof that Amy Alkon exists except that there are a bunch of pixels organized to claim that they are the representation of her.

For all I know, you are a legend, or perhaps a computer simulation.

But I still believe in you.

"Your lack of faith is disturbing."

--D. Vader

Conan beat me too in norman, people who botherd to do calcualtions were fairly close to the approximate size of the earth.

Also to the wolf, congradulations every Star Wars fan on this blog now hates you.

The quote is "I find your lack of faith disturbing"

That you could screw up the most memorable Vader quote from episode four is mindboggling.

Smash you right hand with a hammer and we will consider forgiving you

Jim: There is a God.
Bob: Prove it.
Jim: OK. I have here a potato. You see that I take a 1/8 inch slice of it.
Bob: With the skin?
Jim: Are you looking? Here, try to bend it.
Bob: It bends a little.
Jim: Give it a good bend.
Bob: It broke. It doesn't bend very much.
Jim: OK, here is another slice.
Bob: Am I going to bend this one too?
Jim: Here, I drop it into this hot oil.
Bob: I see it sizzling in there. I like potato chips.
Jim: Do you see what it is doing?
Bob: It is sizzling, and getting brown, and curling up.
Jim: Yes, curling up. Bending a lot. Now, you couldn't bend that chip, and I couldn't, and I can't imagine any power on earth that could bend that chip. But, see, it bends. So, there is a God.
Bob: Did you learn that in philosophy class?

Just for fun I'll mess around with point # 1 "Try Praying."

If god exists who says that god's purpose is to grant our wishes, no matter how genuinely unselfish they may be? Quoting the bible to demonstrate its fallibility doesn't mean squat about the existence of god. It does, however, promote the idea that the Christian bible may not be an accurate representation of what the reality may be. Who says the Christian way is the right way? Can't god exist, as a conscious entity, outside the realm of being "the creator" and judge-or?

I think the bible is a nice story book but that's about it. Christianity makes no sense to me. But my investigation into "god" and what god may or may not be is separate from my biases against that book. People should just be clear - if someone's going to rip the bible then it would follow: "therefore the Christian god can't possibly exist." Otherwise their conclusion is crap.

Right on G!

I like my reductio:

thirty years ago, it was considered fact that nothing left a black hole. Stephen Hawking postulated that there was something that was emitted from a black hole. He was roundly criticized for postulating something that there was no way to prove.

Recently, they were able to make a sensor sensitive enough to detect Hawking Radiation.

If God exists, we do not have the technological ability to detect him. Using the existence of any religion to "prove" the non-existence of God is like using string theory to "prove" the non-existence of the Higgs boson.

String theory is the same as religion. A bunch of stories that might kinda sorta line up if all the assumptions made are correct. Toss any one of those assumptions, and the whole thing collapses.

There's lots of things we can't prove and have to take on faith. The Higgs Boson is one of them.

Brian, like your take on the subject. However, I wonder if we'll ever have an objective means to detect the Almighty, or if we're even barking up the wrong tree if we try to come up with one.

One more thing: what's a Higgs Boson, and why do you know about it? I get the feeling your job's more interesting than mine.

Actually, Columbus' calculations were off.

I know that. That's my point. Empirical facts trump logic & reason every time.

Heh, if I hang around long enough, somebody will often say what I was thinking and sound even better... but I thought I'd throw a little somethin' out there...

You can no more touch God than you can touch dark matter, The Higgs or Schrödinger's cat. But does that prove they DON'T exist? What is a point in proving something doesn't exist, why why does anyone care?

The things that people hate about religions, exist in many other forms outside of religions. There have been plenty of atheistic governments that have done horrible genocidal things, just as there have been theistic governments to do the same.

Ultimately it boils down to making somebody else believe the same as you do. It's about conformity, and atheists seem to require it as much as the next group.

The easiest thing I've found to say to any group that says that I must believe exactly as they do, is to thank them for their concern, and suggest that when we die, we will find out who is right. If that doesn't shut them up, then it isn't that they worry about what you believe, it is that you aren't believing the same as they are. That goes for the redical zealot that want's me to follow Allah, or the atheist that says 'but you can't prove that'. Perhaps I can't prove that, but what sounds better to you?

brain you of all people should appreciate the differennce between trying to find answers and theorising about why things work - and changing your ideas to match newly disscovdered facts

And saying "the magic man made it all happen and there is no need to think for ourselves"

I always say I'm willing to entertain the remote posibility that there god, are you willing to conced there might to be?

As for hawking radiation - is it generated from beyond the event horizon, or by the tidal forces breaking atomic bonds beofre they are swalloed by the black hole?

If you want to touch the cat SwissArmyD just take it out of the box

Sometime in the last 250,000 years a recently evolved group of the primate family came to desire explanations for things. Being rational beings they took what they knew and tried to explain it. The best explanation for what they observed was "God (or gods)". This explanation worked for a long time. Certain members of the group became responsible for transmitting this explanation to new members. Pressure (and no doubt quite extreme in some cases) was applied to those of the group who did not accept the explanation. Eventually they came up with written languages that improved transmission of the (now) dogma through time.
Unfortunately recorded languages also started keeping track of other explanations for things. This started to cut into the turf originally assigned to "God (or gods)".
This, of course, only encouraged those rare doubters.
Face it folks, our prehistoric ancestors explanation for why things work the way they do is just not correct.
There is no, and never has been, a supernatural being.

"Honey, what did you do to the cat? He looks half-dead." - Mrs. Schrödinger

Norman: I am not saying that logic discovers anything, but admit that "God exists or not" is a true statement. I suspect, and I might be wrong, but you (or someone out there may hesitate, because it opens up the theoretical possibility that God exists (which you do not want to do).

But, for me, it is simple. God exists, or does not. I can't prove either one so, like the skeptics, I am not going to worry about it.

Amy: since you brought up flying purple dinosurs, I do not know if I believe in them. I believe in dinosaurs. I believe some of them flew. I do not think we know what color they were. Could they have been purple? Possibly. So, your example was bad.

Think about it like this: what would it take to prove to you that God exists? I can practically guarantee you (how is that for hedging your bets) that any evidence that you say would be sufficient would not be.

Water to wine? Good trick (great at parties, but it does not prove God).

Rising from the dead? Still, advanced medicine might be able to do that.

Squaring the circle? I will believe it when I see it.

The simple fact is: no empirical evidence is good enough (or should be) to convince you.

So, saying "I see no evidence there's a god" is not good enough. Taken another way: assuming God created everything you see, you see evidence of God all over, but that still does not prove God's existence because empiricism falters in proving God's hand in the creation.

-Jut

ORD - I'm not a physicist, but I play one on the Internet. I've always been a science nerd. The Higgs Boson is the last piece of the puzzle for the "standard model" in physics (of which I have the most glancing comprehension - just this side of none). It's existence is theorized, but not proven. Apparently its existence would take other theories that try to tie the universe together and toss them into a cocked hat.

luj - the theory is that it is emitted from, so I'm guessing that it is generated by activity on the surface. What I've read says "generated by quantum interactions in the black hole"

I like the Nichiren Buddhists' approach to getting your prayers answered.

Chant for what you want.

Then, get up off your ass and go work for it.

Surprisingly, the more you chant and work, the more likely your wishes will be fulfilled.

You become enlightened to the ultimate truth:

There's a creator, alrighty, and it's you.

To be fair about this, the God™ explained on the linked site is the God™ of the Bible.

"It is not possible to prove a negative."

Fortunately, we don't have to, to show that the Bible is wrong, w-r-o-n-g about a number of things; we can show that uninterrupted processes continued during any Biblical timeline for which a "Great Flood" is claimed, and we can show by literally dozens of ways that the Earth is not "young", as some of the faithful insist.

That makes the nest step obvious: determining just what about the Bible is correct?

If you are going to make a claim - such as "my faith is the correct one" - you then have the burden of showing how and why it is the superior choice among all those others out there.

How do you distinguish the difference between fact and fiction?

Nobody has to prove a negative. If you're a proponent of any religion, you have to prove a positive.

Go right ahead!

Radwaste: Then you (speaking figuratively, because I do not presume to know exactly which side of the question you fall on) have to prove that your faith (that God does not exist) is the correct one.

My point is you can't.

As for the old canard that you can not prove a negative (and I know you did not bring it up): get over it. From a logical stand-point, any statement can be a positive or a negative. That is: A or ~A is true. If A means "God does not exist," you tell me which is the negative statement.

Another statement from Logic 101 (sorry, I am starting to sound condescending (unintentionally, mind you)): there are no married bachelors. Haven't I just proven a negative?

I have proven a negative. Granted, it was by mere definition. But, so many negative proofs are (e.g. 4-sided triangles, etc.), as are many proofs. The universe is an effect without a cause. Can you prove there was an effect without a cause?

-Jut

And we're back to the last thread we argued about this.

I don't believe in religion. I'm not an atheist, or an agnostic. I know precisely what I believe. Religion is not valid on its face because all require that at some point communication occurred between the creator and man.

My belief is simple. God exists. God created the universe, and all the rules that govern it. And He doesn't care one whit about his creation.

Religion is man pretending to speak with the authority of God, hoping that nobody catches on. If any religion was truly the way of God, there wouldn't need to be a penalty for apostasy or heresy, because the truth of that religion would be self-evident.

That religious leaders have to continually re-parse their holy texts ought to serve as all the proof necessary that religion does not know God's thoughts.

The website is interesting, but frankly, rejects a very limited concept of God. They are defining God in a very specific way. They make some assumptions that aren't true, such as that all people of different faiths believe that all other gods are imaginary.

Nicole -

Religion refutes itself simply:

no god-based religion accepts that members of any other religion shall enter "the kingdom of the lord" or whatever they call it unless they are members of that religion.

since no person can be a member of multiple religions simultaneously, and all god-based religions claim to be the One True Faith, then by definition everyone is going to hell.

From there, I go on to prove that black is white, and get run over at the next zebra crossing.

A non-believer doesn't have to prove anything; the burden of proof is on the believer. I would say I'm a skeptic, or a free-thinker -- I don't say that there is no God, but I don't think that any of the religions have proved their claim that there is a conscious entity somewhere "up there" watching over each of us and keeping us all safe. In fact, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Nobody can deny that there are awesomely powerful forces driving the universe, but that's a far cry from a personal God with any interest in the human race, who is waiting with open arms to welcome us into "heaven".

Another fun website is www.venganza.org -- it's the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (you were close, Amy).

Jut,

Sorry, but your grasp of logic is weak, young padawan.

Apart from a few absolutists, the stated position is thus:

"There is no evidence for the existence of God."

The above statement is a simple declaration of fact, not a logical argument for non-existence.

As a result, your A or ~A is distilled into the more accurate relation (evidence of A or ~ evidence of A).

If you claim the existence of God (or the like), the burden is upon you to demonstrate said existence, in the form of empirical evidence. The vast majority of those who argue the lack of evidence are most likely willing to accept any real evidence, when presented.

This isn't about proving a negative, it's about providing evidence to support your contention, when the 'opposing' statement is that there is no evidence.

Provide the evidence, and we'll listen. Otherwise, our assertion that there is *no* evidence is the correct, and most logically consistent statement.

"Radwaste: Then you (speaking figuratively, because I do not presume to know exactly which side of the question you fall on) have to prove that your faith (that God does not exist) is the correct one."

This is a splendid example of the sort of mental aberration present in those dedicated to a faith.

Jut, anyone else's position is irrelevant to your own. You have the burden of proof. Any statement that you have not provided that proof is NOT an expression of any other faith. Atheism and agnosticism are not faiths, either, even though their ideas can be expressed. Why? Simple: there is no deity, no rituals are performed, no meetings are mandatory, and there is no central authority dictating doctrine. From your point of view, they are "empty" positions, unoccupied by your idea of God™.

Please note that I habitually use the term, "God™" to denote the Biblically-sanctioned deity, rather than a single entity a Deist might posit independently of the Bible. I find most people immediately think I am talking about their idea when I talk about the logical characteristics of any entity which might be responsible for what we see. (No.)

To borrow from the godisimaginary site, you know that it's useless to bang your head on the ground in the direction of Mecca or to inter your remains in a million-ton pyramid. Show those people they're wrong, how they're wrong, and show them they were and are barred from an outcome you have imagined. I'll be fascinated by the spectacle of someone who cannot explain where Jesus' body went trying to claim that mummified remains means that some Egyptian pharoah didn't make it to what he thought was "heaven".

Again: be my guest. I watch intently. I am interested.

As for the "power of prayer": The SI unit, "second", corresponds to 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the Cesium-133 atom.
Please note that it is not 9192631771 of those, or 9192631769 of those. Note also that the entire periodic table of nuclides and isotopes is measured against this.

Why can't you change that with prayer? Is that too much like restoring an amputated limb?

To digress quite a bit, I suggest that faithful Americans will claim success for themselves when a biologist like PZ Myers actually finds out how to regenerate limbs, even though prayer had nothing to do with understanding DNA. Note the references, of course.

One more time: claiming something about someone else's idea does nothing to promote your own. Say what you mean, then back it up. You expect that of everybody else, including religious people, so don't be two-faced about it.

If you want an example of the arrogance of Man, there isn't much better than the idea that Pharoah should be dug up and sold.

As I've said before, if you use the ordinary meaning of the word "exist" then it's blazingly obvious that god does not exist. The only way that the contrary can be asserted is by giving some different meaning to the word, such as by appending "outside of space and time." But these other meanings are always metaphysical and not subject to any empirical test. They are literally nonsense.

Work how I say you should! Prove to me that you exist! ...Cried the dust speck to the universe.

At the end of the day, whether god exists or not is really more or less irrelevant.

If he exists and is just, he will judge us on our merits. If he exists and is not just, no virtue of our own will override his whims and there is no point to prayer.

However, even if he does not exist, the idea of God is a very useful one for mankind. Aesop's fables are not real, but the stories they tell have provided moral guidance for generation after generation.

The idea of God serves a similar purpose...and considering the alternative, which is to say, atheism, the former has certainly provided many greater benefits than the latter.

An oddity perhaps, but the self glorification inherent in most veins of atheism also tend to degrade the worth of human beings in general. Reducing humanity to what the dictionary of Revolutionary France defined as "A thinking animal."

Such a perspective on human beings makes it very easy to allow for abuses and cruelties that a rational religious belief does not allow for. The actions of Stalinist or Maoist "revolutionaries" to say nothing of similar regimes like the Khemer Rouge, make that plain enough.

When Atheism becomes a religion of its own, whatever rational foundation it has...melts away.

Rod: I am perfectly fine with my grasp on logic, thank you. I would be happy to match it up with you anytime.

You state:

"There is no evidence for the existence of God."

I challenge you to tell me what evidence would be sufficient to convince you that there is a God.

The short answer is "none." (Or should be, if you are honest.)

So, the burden is on me to prove that there is a God, and there is nothing I can present to you that will convince you.

Tell me why I should bother.

Radwaste: I will a gree with you that agnosticism is not a faith; it is a suspension of judgment (unless you get into a debate about "hard agnostic" versus "soft agnostic"), but atheism is a faith. The statement, "there is no deity," is a profound metaphysical statement about the nature of the universe (and one that is equally unprovable as the statement that there is a God).

-Jut

Jut - The statement, "there is no deity," is a profound metaphysical statement about the nature of the universe

It's only metaphysical if you mean it to be - in which case you are hiding in nonsense.

Taken without metaphysics, the statement is empirically true. There is nothing there. We've looked really hard for thousands of years! If we had found anything, we'd not be having this stupid discussion.

"Such a perspective on human beings makes it very easy to allow for abuses and cruelties that a rational religious belief does not allow for."

Hitler was a Christian. I know, I know, since he embarrasses Christians he couldn't have been a REAL Christian.

The Inquisition was a torture and murder fest committed by the Church. I know, I know, those murderers couldn't have been REAL Christians because REAL Christians don't torture and murder, and also, REAL Christians don't believe in the Trinity or call a priest Father.

You self-absolving religious nuts are the first ones in line to hang the nonbelievers whenever you get the chance.

Norman: the statement that there is no deity is a metaphysical statement, whether or not you mean it to be. But, you are right that it is not subject to empirical analysis. But, that does not mean there is nothing there, because, if God created everything, everything is evidence of God. The only problem is that, empirically, we can not demonstrate that.

As for whether this is a stupid discussion, you can address those comments to Amy. She brought up the topic by providing a link to 50 "proofs" that God does not exist.

-Jut

Jut, you have yet to address your burden of proof.

The reason I use the term, "God™", to denote the one portrayed in the Bible is to help illustrate the absurdities that Bible fans insist on obliging God™ to do and be. Fallacy after fallacy occur in any discussion.

One of the things people routinely do is mistake the Bible for being about 2000 years old. Sorry, it's not; it's been changed. Protestantism itself started in the 1570s.

But again I digress.

Here's the key: make a distinction between God and the Bible, and the absurdities disappear. Any great truth will be visible to all if the twin cloaks of prejudice and spite are removed. Look around. Take a look at how insignificant we are. Consider your own ego against this:

"Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader", every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known so far to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment the Earth is where we make our stand.

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

Just what entitles you to the personal attention of a builder? Simple assertion?

-----

Hmm. Creation. Here's something that should really knock you for a loop, because it shows something we've been doing for millennia without any justification whatsoever. We defined "creation", but it doesn't exist. Everything you are looking at involves conversion, not "creation", and no physical laws are broken.

Before you get to use "creation" as "evidence" for the existence af any deity (we'll get to your favorite after that), you have to show me an example.

Rad - first of all, you took a whole lot of words to describe the Total Perspective Vortex. And the lesson from that is that the last thing any of us can afford is a sense of perspective.

As to creation? Look at the numbers, man. The earth is only 4 billion years old. Mammals have been around what, a million or so?

Look what you're expecting me to believe. In the span of what, 200,000 generations biology iterated from mice to elephants and primates and men?

The numbers just don't work out. Either there was some kind of cosmic interference, or something managed to short-circuit evolution somewhere along the line.

Either that, or this planet and the lifeforms on it are FAR older than we've convinced ourselves they are.

Jut - let's suppose that god created everything. By "everything" I mean "this space-time continuum that we're in," or "universe" for short. So god must exist, in some special sense of the word, outside of this universe. The ordinary sense of "exist" really only applies inside this universe.

Can god see what's going on here? Like watching fish in a tank? If so, then information apparently can flow from this universe to outside this universe, somehow. Perhaps it's like god watching the lights on the front of a big computer; the lights show what's going on inside the machine, but they are not part of that process.

Can god affect what happens here? Can he reach in and twiddle to make miracles? If so, then something can evidently flow into this universe from outside, somehow.

If he can see us and touch us, then he's not outside this universe at all. He's part of this continuum, but somehow untouchable and unseeable unless he chooses to be touched or seen. Then we have the problem of how he created the universe that he's part of. Perhaps he created it and then entered it? Whatever he did, if he's part of it then he must have some measurable effect; which brings us back to empirical, not-metaphysical, existence. You can't both exist and be totally undetectable. Especially if you claim to be as big and omnipresent and powerful as god.

God pretty certainly doesn't exist in this universe or we'd have found him, and any other kind of existence is pure speculation.

Radwaste: If I understand to what you are referring, I think I have addressed my burden of proof, but I will re-state it again (tongue in cheek, a bit).

I will prove to you, Radwaste, that God exists. However, before I do, I would like you, Radwaste, to tell me what would be sufficient evidence to convince you.

I have thrown down this gauntlet before, but no one has said what would be sufficient to convince them. So, place the burden on me all you want. But, why should I engage in a futile effort to prove something to you when you, Radwaste, would refuse to be convinced?

-Jut

Okay, I think we can all agree that the bible is not proof of anything, seeing that it's so full of contradictions.

So now, to those of you who do believe in some kind of god, would you give us your definition?

Also, what evidence is there of your god's having any concern whatever for human life?

And, if you believe in an afterlife, what evidence is there for that?

thanks for the empty box the meows lujlp, now, where the heck is my cat? ;)

God, for lack of a better name exists simply because the other explanation for how we got here requires that the universe basically rolled nothing but 20s for 100,000 years. Not even my old DM could pull THAT off.

There is no evidence that God has ever made contact with his creation. All stories to the contrary tend to involve either intense pain, starvation or drugs. And most (if not all) are hearsay at best (i.e. no witnesses).

There is no evidence for an "afterlife". There's no real need for an afterlife except in religion.

Religion neither proves nor disproves the existence of a creator-God. And the concept of a single closed universe doesn't either. Religion is a method for controlling large masses of stupids to keep them from doing things that get them killed before they can reproduce. When you look at all the big achievements of mankind before the past 200 years or so, it was gigantic armies of stupids led by a few geniuses that did it.

The Pyramids? Built by sheep. Railroads, wars, civilization, colonization - all projects done by sheep hoping to "get right with the Lord".

Heaven forbid we conclusively prove the lack of God's existence. There will no longer be an effective check on the behaviour of the stupids, and we'll all die.

I can't speak for Radwaste, but what would convince me would be an end to all suffering and injustice in the world. The good guys would always win, and natural catastrophes would wipe out only the wicked. When that happens I will not only be convinced, I will be be a priestess!

Pussnboots: Stop making fun! I was trying to be serious.

An end to all suffering? As long as people die, there will always be suffering. As long as people can feel pain, there will always be suffering.

An end to injustice? What does that mean?

Good guys always win? "Good is a point of view Anakin." -Palpatine

Natural catastrophes would only wipe out the wicked? There would be no wicked people (as we would have already eliminated all suffering, making wicked people extinct).

In short, you would be convinced only when the earth is destroyed.

"You want the impossible." L. Skywalker

-Jut

Religion keeps people in line? Not hardly. Most criminals claim to be religious, as do most people in general. And are there any more religious fanatics than the muslim terrorists? Does their religion keep them in line??

I've got to admit, when you guys started mentioning Shrodingers cat it made me think of that Chevey Chase movie'Christmas Vacation'

Religion keeps people in line? Not hardly. Most criminals claim to be religious, as do most people in general.

Are criminals the majority, or not? If not, then I'd say that the criminals are outliers. And most of your criminals that claim to be religious "found Jesus" in prison. They're trying to buy mercy by claiming the mantle of conversion.

And are there any more religious fanatics than the muslim terrorists? Does their religion keep them in line??

Yes, since their religion preaches that they must kill the infidel.

Jut- How about this: an end to the commutative addition in central park for one day.

During that day, if you go to central park and add up 1+2+3 you will get a different answer from adding 3+2+1.

And for extra effect, the demonstration to be announced by skywriting with stars.

The stars bit could be done by high-tech natural forces, but I don't see how arithmetic could be changed by anything less than a god. Not sure how to convince me I'm not hallucinating, though.

Brian ~~ Point taken.

Jut ~~ I'm not making fun, I'm dead serious. To me, those things I listed are reason enough to doubt the existence of a benevolent god who is looking out for us.

Norman ~~ Thank you. I think you speak Jut's language -- I myself have no training in math or formal logic. What I do have, though, is plenty of common sense.

"the existence of a benevolent god who is looking out for us." pussnboots...

aye, but there's the rub, kid. That is what WE want. These definitions are the ones we wish to see. Didja ever have your parents give you the "no-one said life is fair" talk? This is where most people run in to some issues.

"god does not fit within my box, therefore there is no god."

This is why the whole argument is moot. The universe exists even if we are not in it *probably*... If god does exist then what're the odds he requires us to believe in him/her/it in order to maintain that existance?

What we do matters only to us. Would it be handy if god was a 6' tall fluffy bunny named Harvey that would make everyone happy every day? Sure. And perhaps there is an existance out there somewhen/where where that is the case. It doesn't seem to be the case for me. I have reasons for believing in God that are my own, and have much to do with wonder and upbringing. But they wont really pan out until I die, and if I'm wrong I prolly wont know. If I'm right I may be happy, or I also may not know.

But the belief system helps me interact with everyone else, and for that it IS handy. It insists that I follow Law, and interestingly the law that we came up with says that religion had it's place but I also have to accept some people have NO religion, and I have to treat them the same as me. If I fail in that then obviously I have a problem with my belief in my God. Who actually seems to favor bunny slippers rather than the whole Harvey rig...

Lifelong God and Jesus believer here. Maybe there's a reason God isn't curing cancer? That we just can't know about or comprehend? Or maybe he set the universe in motion, with natural laws governing it, and stepped back to watch? I don't think we can really conceive of, or assign human traits to, God. It's sort of like expecting a grasshopper to unerstand a human.

I know God exists. There's no doubt there. Like I know I love my kids even though love cna't be proven either. It's just there, and I know it.

And current physics seems to be bearing out that concept right now. (warning, I am way out of my league with physics, but this is my understanding of topics I've read) They say, that way down at the bottom of matter, way way way subatomic, matter seems to not exist. To just be a matter of energy, or even of will. A concept, if you will. Who's concept? Who's will? What's holding this energy in these forms we see? I say God.

I just do not believe that all the trillions of steps that had to happen in exact orders at exact times, for our world, and life, and humans, to have evolved, just happened. Doesn't seem likely to me. I think there was a driving force behind it all.

Lifelong God and Jesus believer here. Maybe there's a reason God isn't curing cancer? That we just can't know about or comprehend? Or maybe he set the universe in motion, with natural laws governing it, and stepped back to watch? I don't think we can really conceive of, or assign human traits to, God. It's sort of like expecting a grasshopper to unerstand a human.

I know God exists. There's no doubt there. Like I know I love my kids even though love cna't be proven either. It's just there, and I know it.

And current physics seems to be bearing out that concept right now. (warning, I am way out of my league with physics, but this is my understanding of topics I've read) They say, that way down at the bottom of matter, way way way subatomic, matter seems to not exist. To just be a matter of energy, or even of will. A concept, if you will. Who's concept? Who's will? What's holding this energy in these forms we see? I say God.

I just do not believe that all the trillions of steps that had to happen in exact orders at exact times, for our world, and life, and humans, to have evolved, just happened. Doesn't seem likely to me. I think there was a driving force behind it all.

There's a reasonable video called How to convert an atheist part 1. It gives examples of what would be compelling evidence of the existence of god.

Hmm. That was a link to the video. It's at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI

Whoops, no idea why that posted multiple times. Sorry!

MomOf3 - 3 postings - it's a miracle! Oh, 4 postings. Stand down, everyone.

Okay, so powerful forces shaped and continue to shape the universe. How do you make the jump from that to giving the forces a name and praying to them to intervene in your personal life and reward you in some ethereal afterlife if you're good? (I don't know if you do, but I think that's an integral part of most religion.)

Norman: Given the state of our educational system, I am not sure that the commutative example will work. You would have to trust that the people doing the counting can do simple math.

No, but your examples are curious. Just recalling the Bible (and I do not cite these as an authoritative position, but more illustrative), your commutative example reminded me of the story of the loaves and fishes. Not to sound condescending, but you do know the story, right? That was considered to be a huge miracle because, as you suggest, the laws of arithmetic failed.

Likewise, with respect to the stars, too many times are there astronomical examples used to support God (the Star of Bethlehem, or God stopping the sun in the sky (I do not recall where that was, but it was in the Old Testament, I think)).

With these examples already "documented," why do you not believe?

-Jut

I'm from Missouri. Metaphorically.

I judge it more likely that the "documentation" as you call it, is faulty. Do you believe everything in the bible? What about all the other books and myths - do you believe them? If not, how do you choose what to believe?

Norman ~~ The link was hoot -- thanks! Looks like there is more interesting stuff there too -- I'll check it later.

Glad you enjoyed it, Pussnboots. YouTube is just bursting with this stuff. I find the Xians tend to get their logic wrong, while Muslims get their facts wrong.

Xians say: "you can't explain how the universe began, so god must have done it" which just leads to a god of the gaps, and doesn't explain a damn thing anyway.

The Muslims say things like "Mohammed knew the world was round - god must have told him" ignoring the fact that the ancient Greeks knew this by about 500 BC. Some of their "teachers" are seriously ignorant.

Norman: No, I do not believe everything in the Bible, but the issue of documentation is interesting.

What if someone you trusted said, I went to Central Park and for a brief moment, the commutative laws seemed not to apply, and I realized that my horoscope that morning predicted that "things would not add up in your day."

Would you believe that "documentation"? If so, I have a bag of Jesus-shaped potato chips I would like to sell you. :-)

Or, let's say it happened to you. Do you really think I should be persuaded by your experience?

Because, what you demand in proof may be a lot more than some others do (the Mary in the Tortilla crowd), and a lot less than some.

If you told me you had that experience, for instance, I would say, "that is very strange, but I do not think that proves that God exists."

-Jut

Likewise, with respect to the stars, too many times are there astronomical examples used to support God (the Star of Bethlehem, or God stopping the sun in the sky (I do not recall where that was, but it was in the Old Testament, I think)).

With these examples already "documented," why do you not believe?

Because those are false. Nor are they "documented", because there is no rigor whatsoever in the observation. There is sci-fi that obeys more natural laws.

There are hundreds of legitimate astronomical sites on the Web. These will show you that actual celestial events follow the rules of physics, not wishful thinking that important forces are arrayed to wow the ignorant.

It's really, really important to know something about the real world if one is going to compare it to religious colloquialism.

You should avoid making the common mistake of thinking you are defending God™ by defending a Biblical assertion. That leads you to an inherent contradiction - that God™ must do what is in the Bible. This denies omnipotence and logically limits your deity; this is a result of exceptionally poor thinking about the qualities of such a being.

So far as astronomical examples go, if you knew the rudiments of physics you would recognize that Biblical timelines are directly denied by careful celestial observation. For instance, Supernova 1987a directly defeats all assertions that "radiometric dating fails due to inconstancy of decay rate", and it confirms the speed of light as a constant in vacuum.

Most people who have spent more time reading the Bible than learning other things in school don't realize that "space" extends right down to your shoes, and that physics describes the relationships between all objects.

Those of you who are claiming that there "is too little time", or are thinking of calling a process "random" are sorely mistaken, too. We are looking at a continuous process, which is the result of a very large but NOT infinite number of probabilities. We can only see the current level of completion of that process. In what we think of as "the future", the process can take multiple paths to identical or different results, depending on the viewpoint of the viewer. This process is not "infinite", nor is it "random", because four fundamental forces work on everything we can measure: gravity, magnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

That you cannot predict an outcome does not mean the process is "random", nor does it mean "God™ did it!"

Here's another tough pill for the faithful to swallow: A universe with a law of physics cannot be "random" - and cannot allow prayer to alter its process.

But all this is distraction. Say what you mean, back it up. If you can't, you need to find something else to say.

Well Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers (Wish you'd shortened that a bit *L*) Where to begin...how about here:

No, Hitler was not a Christian by any reasonable standard. Although he did profess to be publicly, he did not attend mass in a Catholic or Protestant church. And whatever his public statements, in private he was not fond of his nation's chosen religious heritage, stating "The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness..." (Inside the Third Reich) I've known thousands of Christians over the course of my life, some in passing, others very well, and I know of none that would make a statement such as that. Remember, anyone can quote biblically, anyone can profess to be something, but unless they act like what they claim to be...they're not. He didn't, and so he wasn't.

Although it is true that Hitler had a profound religious background, his chief love for the religion itself seems to have been because he saw it as reinforcing his antisemitic beliefs, and in publicly professing his faith it put him in line to dominate the faith for his political aims.

Besides that, I specifically stated "rational" and Hitler was pretty much the polar opposite of rational. If you consider HIM to have been "rational" Between the two of us, you've got the more serious personal issues. I'm going to just assume you overlooked that word though, and grant you the benefit of the doubt.

Next:

The inquisition was a medieval period practice which was in no small measure perpetrated by the kings and queens of the nations themselves, often attempting to cleanse their respective countries of dissidents or seizing the wealth of converted jews. (Or as in France, the Templars) (Philip the fair if you're wondering) While the catholic church itself does bear responsibility for its beginnings, and certainly we must hold the local bishops and priests responsible, as well as the torturers themselves...well will any of use call the medieval period an age of reason?! The idea of human reason in western society was basically a forgotten one, with blind obedience and personal loyalty being the primary values of the day. Moreover, the last actual inquisition, held in Italy under the aegis of the pope actually included many of our present day legal practices and protections, including the calling of friendly witnesses and the right to an independent advocate, this much in advance of most other parts of western Europe, which still heavily included torture in their daily administrations of justice.

So in fact the latter days, the inquisition was amongst the first intitutions that provided for many of our modern day rights for the accused, and was one of the first institutions to begin to abandon the previous barbaric practices replete throughout Europe, shortly before inquisition in general was completely abandoned. This is not to say that it is an innocent institution, to the contrary, the medieval church was responsible for many barbarisms, not the least because of the struggle between church and state which began with Constantine's coopting the church to make it a unifying force for the latter days of the Roman Empire, and further exacerbated by the crowning of the first Holy Roman Emperor, Charles the Great (Charlamagne) by Pope Leo III, thus setting in motion hundreds of years of state vs church authority. The impact of this was that "states" (actually loose feudal confederations more than true nations in our present day sense, states had only just begun to take shape at this stage) were often able to use church authority to augment the power of the nobility. (The Spanish Inquisition is an excellent example, as is the Portuguese, which was so bad people fled it to deal with the Spanish one instead)

This continued up until revolutionary France, and swiftly thereafter most countries of the west stripped the church of whatever vestiges of authority they had remaining over the secular world.

By the by, the modern day standards that bring us such liberty, peace, and equality under the law, to say nothing of our inalienable human rights, all were born of men with a profound moral code grounded in religion.

Now, next, there are a great many variations on Christianity, and I will not claim to be an expert on all of their specific beliefs, but I'm not sure how that is really relevant in the first place.

Lastly, I'm not a religious person, point in fact I'm a rational agnostic that favors the existence of God as more probable than not.

Oh yes and by the way Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers...if you really want to argue history, pick up a real history book if you want to be prepared to debate a lover and eternal student of the subject.

I could go round your "points" a dozen times from a dozen different angles without breaking the least mental sweat. Although I'll concede you at least show an awareness that events at least transpired, even if you don't understand them, now if you could just have said what you did, however misguided, without trying to call a person that disagrees with your opinion a would be murderer...well you'd be a step up from the nutty leftist little fascists we were discussing so recently. If you wish to debate, debate, if you wish to insult, don't waste time pretending you're trying to debate.

;) Been fun, but work a little harder.

Robert H. Butler, thank you for making my points.

Glad to know you didn't have to exert any effort to prove my thesis correct. Have a beer and congratulate yourself again! You certainly earned it.

And are there any more religious fanatics than the muslim terrorists? Does their religion keep them in line??

Yes it does. They do exactly as they are told. They blow up the other guy.

Ahh GoG_Magog...I'm reminded reading your particular rejoinder, of the illustrious George Orwell, 1984, the scene in particular when an announcer is speaking to a throng of people, and of the waving flags of their allies...and in the middle he reverses himself, and cries out that these are the flags of our enemies.

Perhaps you know the scene? You're literate enough clearly to have read a few books, and you've wit enough that you have probably read the wit of others and learned how to use it, as I wish more did.

That said though, even if I must congratulate you on your swift and concise answer. I note of course that the way in which it was written suggests that an incautious reader might misread your statement and believe you made a concession, and simply let the matter drop. Thus removing the burden of counter argument from you.

However the cautious and deliberate reader will notice that you in fact attempt to claim "correctness" if you will, for yourself, in spite of the fact that you have no counter to the plainly disproven assertions you made previously, be it Hitler's religious preferences, or my own status as a would be murderer, or even the pressence or absense of reason in medieval society or the role of western religion in the development of our present fortune in human liberty.

And so I must return your congratulations to you, for a very adept attempt at an intellectual dodge. I humbly will ask then (at least as humbly as I'm capable of, since it is NOT one of my stronger virtues) that you join me in the beer you suggest I drink. (Guinness tonight)

To show I'm a good sport, I'll even make the first toast.

"To temperance in moderation and moderation in temper...and may I not hang anyone anytime soon! :)"

Okay, Robert, fine, I'll give you the quotes that everyone who can use Google is capable of finding.

Obviously Hitler was a Christian, baptized a Catholic by his devout mother, doing a stint as an altar boy and even writing that he considered the priesthood.

He went on, of course, to incorporate his faith into his politics and anti-Semitism, so there's plenty of quotes.

Here's the one I like to use, debunkers of the bad-Christians-aren't-Christians argument may prefer others:

""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)"

There ya go. I like your wordiness. It imparts a certain whiff of self-righteousness to your lies.

Jut - You don't say how you choose which bits of the bible to believe.

Re the Central Park experiment - it would have to be announced and predicted, not simply happen on the odd occasion, to have any weight. The problem is that once this happens, it begins to appear like a part of the natural world, and we study it, note where the borders are, and so on, and soon begin to put it to practical use. And this totally undermines its value as a miracle.

I suspect that I would sooner believe that I was hallucinating than believe a one-off, unpredicted and unrepeatable miracle that happened to me personally. If it happened to someone else I would file it under "interesting and unexplained." It would be hard to deduce anything from such an experience; just because something strange happened, you don't necessarily conclude that god was behind it.

So, if god wants to demonstrate his existence, he'll probably need something other than the odd miracle. But if he's infinitely wise I'm sure he could manage that. Which raises the question, why are there so many miracles in the bible? A bit of a waste of time, surely?

"Miracle" is merely a term designed to deflect the accurate observation that the witness has no idea what happened. When referring to a real event, it's a sign of abject ignorance of the permutations and combinations of natural forces constantly at play.

If you want a hole dug, start digging. Praying at the ground isn't making one happen.

Waving a cross counts as paranormal. Show you can do something, get paid. Big time. But I've had people tell me that Harry Potter's wand was evil and a cross wasn't, by people who couldn't tell me the difference between them. I don't expect a lot of wit, here.

-----

By the way: on a regular basis, I see people quit defending their ideas of what happened in history - extracted from the Bible - with the excuse, "no matter what I say, you're not going to believe me". That's a mistake: this isn't about me.

I insist that you make your point and back it up. If you cannot, it is you, not me, who suffers from a lack of real reasoning power. It is you who can be led by promises of magic to destitution and death. That's really happened.

I love religion.

Mormons - belive they will become god themselves, oddly enough a pope of the easter orthodox curch said the same thing, but other christians find it crazy comming from americans

Lutherans - Belive their faith is wrong, let that sink in

Jehovs witnesses - belive only 144,000 people get into heaven, given the billions of people on this planet you must ask yourself why convicts are drawn to a religion which gaurentees they go to hell

Anglicans(church of england) created to give a serial killer a divorce

Any faith which subscribes to the doctrine of trinity is worshiping a scizophrenic whith a multipule personality disorder as jesus calime to be both god and the son of god and argued with himself on several occasions

Seriously give me any religion and I'll pick it apart

Radwaste: it is about you. You say, make a point and back it up. But, as I have said before (and actually to you directly): tell me what will be sufficient to prove to you that God exists.
If you want me to prove it, state the burden of proof (I defy you to, because you can't and any burden you give me can be picked apart).

At least Norman and Pussnboots were willing to play along.

Or just admit it: nothing will convince you and you are being disingenuous when you say, "I insist that you make your point and back it up." You don't mean what you say.
-Jut

Jut, you want a test?

Raise a corpse, that has been dead ten yrs, embalmed, and was harvested for organs.

And living relitive need to verify that the personality now driving the revived, restored corpse is indeed their loved one.

And I was to be there when the body is exumed and restored

Let me know when your ready to demonstrate

Jut Glory: ...tell me what will be sufficient to prove to you that God exists.

"If only God would give some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss bank." - Woody Allen

So what we have is a truculent god. "There's no way I can convince you that I exist," he says. "I thought I was omnipotent, but I was wrong. I'm omimpotent. A flea can convince you of its existence, but I can't. I'm not going to play any more."

lujlp: Wait, how does doing that prove that God exists?
You sound like you want your own little Lazarus, or Jesus Christ demonstration. Is that really going to prove there is a God?
-Jut

Is that really going to prove there is a God?

It will prove the existance of an all powerful being.

I've changed my mind - screw the body, I want to see a body raised from an urn full of ashes

There's a problem here in principle. A proof can only concern itself with things that you can see and touch - things that "exist" or "don't exist" in the ordinary sense. It's easy to see that god does not exist in the ordinary sense, and if he exists in some other sense of the word, it is beyond the reach of any proof.

Personally I think that when we talk about some extraordinary kind of existence we are talking nonsense.

The problem arises in the first place because we have to give god such an impossible combination of attributes - creator, omnipresent, omnipotent, all-knowing etc - and that's before he gets all shirty about eating shellfish or wearing mixed fibres or touching menstruating women. But without attributes like these, why call him god?

I think we have defined him out of existence.

I have a one-word argument (argument not proof, can't prove a negative and all that) against god -- shit.

And, no, don't expect anything vastly educated or sophisicated here. No need. Since we're being asked to take "god" on "faith" (i.e., without any eduation or sophisciation).

God, to be god, (or goddess or mystic or whatever the fuck you care to call your supernatural being; I may point out to call something supernatural alone defines it out of being since it exists or not) would have to be, by definition, superior, or at least worthy of worship. Not just merely a creator. Hell, every kid who picks up a crayon and applies it to paper creates, so God would have to imply something more and I just don't mean in size and details. I put forth that something not worthy of worship could not rightly be called god. And something less than perfect would not be worthy of worship.

Now take any common definition of shit.

Waste material? How could a perfect being create something that emits waste material? There would be no waste if the thing emitting it were perfect and a perfect being would not make mistakes and, therefore, could not create imperfect beings. (BTW, I think we're talking about more than tough shit here when it comes to humans being imperfect.)

Shit as in shit happens: same thing again. A perfect being could not make mistakes and could therefore only create a perfect world. Bad things would not happen in a perfect world. Therefore, no perfect being worthy of being labelled god.

Yes, I'm shitting y'all (well, yes and no, I do say shit is the ultimate argument for the non-existence of god). But I am am not taking myself too fucking seriously. Gods' sake, let's all get over ourselves.

And, btw, I invite you all to pick up my shit theory and run with it. Or debunk it, if you can. But please spare the shitty argument of free will. See both definitions of shit above. A perfect god could not create a being with free will because that would be an imperfection. It may be one that we love and treasure but it's still an imperfection. Not to mention, it's not free will if you're threatened with a punishment for choosing wrongly.

I sincerely hope I did manage to piss some people off with my blasphemy.

If I did -- tough shit!

Yes, T's Grammy, no doubt you did piss some people off, but you made some good points.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my three questions from any believers out there:

1. What is your definition of God? Does it begin and end with the forces that created our planet, or do you believe in a benevolent father watching over you? If it's the latter, what is your evidence?

2. Do you believe God is taking care of each one of us? If so, how do you explain the massive loss of innocent life in natural disasters?

3. Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, what is your evidence (other than the bible, which cannot be taken seriously because of all the contradictions in it)?

Maybe I'll find the answers to these questions when I get back from six weeks in the mountains -- we're leaving tomorrow morning. I'm confident that you guys will have figured it all out by the time I get back.

Jut - how long do you think you can go on merely claiming that nothing you say will convince others?

I've already linked to Adherents.com for you - so that you can see that you are not alone in being unable to demonstrate the quality of your faith against others determined that they are right.

I've also touched on entire fields of study most Bible fans don't even know exist.

When you can't back up what you're saying, talking about other people is merely dishonest: a tactic to pretend that the Emperor is indeed clothed.

Apparently you missed this: "...you know that it's useless to bang your head on the ground in the direction of Mecca or to inter your remains in a million-ton pyramid. Show those people they're wrong, how they're wrong, and show them they were and are barred from an outcome you have imagined. I'll be fascinated by the spectacle of someone who cannot explain where Jesus' body went trying to claim that mummified remains means that some Egyptian pharoah didn't make it to what he thought was "heaven"."

Probably flogging a deceased equine here, but ...

Jut, oh bearer of 'logic', despite your complete inability to offer anything but a tautology in your own defense, you still have failed to answer the question of evidence. Oh, you claim that whatever evidence that might exist would still be subject to disbelief (notwithstanding the clear ability of an omniscient being to do pretty much whatever they choose, including the demonstration of evidence), but obviously, we non-believers are doggedly resisting your magnificent expressions of 'logic'.

I am quite certain, that if a being like 'God' does indeed exist, he would have no difficulty at all in providing clear and unambiguous evidence of his existence (since He can do *anything*, right?).

So, apart from any actual or potential evidence, here's a final challenge for you:

What *logical* reason would you offer that would (or should) convince me to believe in a being that has produced no unambiguous physical evidence of their existence (or for that matter, no discernable evidence at all)? What logical argument would suffice, even if we had evidence for some sufficiently powerful being, to claim that we should worship and / or give obeisance to that being?

And Pascal's wager is not a valid logical argument, so you can leave that one on the floor, right from the get-go.

Simply put, you believe because it gives you personal comfort to believe, and there can be *no* logic that supports that belief. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that (if that's what it takes to keep you going through the day), but it doesn't make it true, and it certainly doesn't provide any moral authority over the actions or beliefs of others.

My psyche, on the other hand, requires no fairy tale to bolster my self esteem, and I am entirely content to live as if God does not exist, which is also the most likely state of affairs, anyway.

A key concept to remember about any faith is that it is flatly not possible without doubt. Think: when you are sure of something, you have no doubt. You do not, at that point, have faith at all.

This is the Irony of Faith. Though it isn't engaged deliberately by anyone who comforts themselves with something they cannot know for sure, it's an integral part of so doing.

1 Corinthians 15:3-6
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the 12; after that, he was seen of about 500 bretheren at once.
(In America's court system today, only two eyewitnesses are required to establish fact)

What would happen if we get down on our knees and pray to God in this way:
Dear God, almighty, all-powerful, all-loving creator of the universe, we pray to you to cure every case of cancer on this planet tonight. We pray in faith, knowing you will bless us as you describe in Matthew 7:7, Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:24, John 14:12-14, Matthew 18:19 and James 5:15-16. In Jesus' name we pray, Amen. We pray sincerely, knowing that when God answers this completely heartfelt, unselfish, non-materialistic prayer, it will glorify God and help millions of people in remarkable ways.
Will anything happen? No. Of course not.

(mhz): You’re really just asking the age old question of Why would God allow (moral/physical) evil to exist? The answer is the same as it always has been, although atheists are never satisfied with it: It must be good that evil exists, or else God would not allow it to exist. No, that’s NOT TO SAY that evil *is-in-fact* good, just that, in the long run, when viewed from the God’s eternal perspective, the-fact-that-it-exists-is-good. Maybe for no other reason than for God to demonstrate his own justice to us in ultimately judging and destroying those who are evil…? Explaining God’s reasoning there is certainly beyond my ability. But, being the creator, and thus in control of all things, He has deemed, for reasons known to Him, that evil be allowed to exist. He is the one who promises to deal out justice, and frankly we don’t have a choice in the matter anyhow, so we trust Him on it. Complaining about it is useless.

This is very odd. Jesus makes specific promises in the Bible about how prayer is supposed to work. Jesus says in many different places that he and God will answer your prayers. And Christians believe Jesus -- according to this recent article, "54% of American adults believe the Bible is literally true." In some areas of the country the number goes as high as 75%.
If the Bible is literally true, then something is seriously amiss. Simply look at the facts. In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!
If "every one who asks receives", then if we ask for cancer to be cured, it should be cured. Right? If "our Father who is in heaven gives good things to those who ask him", then if we ask him to cure cancer, he should cure it. Right? And yet nothing happens.

(mhz): Have you been asking? Knocking? For how long? Consider the parallel passage, Luke 11: 5-10,

“5 And He said to them, “Which of you shall have a friend, and go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; 6 for a friend of mine has come to me on his journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; 7 and he will answer from within and say, ‘Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give to you’? 8 I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs.
9 “So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.”

That certainly doesn’t present the definitive explanation to your question, but it serves to illustrate that there is more to Jesus sayings than your article presents. This particular illustration shows that he spoke of persistent prayer. When Matthew recorded the particular teaching, he summarized more than Luke did. There are many other passages regarding prayer, which taken together, present a well rounded view of Gods attitude about prayer.

Consider James 4:3,

3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures.

Again, just an example of some things the Bible says about prayer. Consider Isaiah, in chapter 1:

11 “ To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?”
Says the LORD.

“ I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams
And the fat of fed cattle.
I do not delight in the blood of bulls,
Or of lambs or goats.
12 “ When you come to appear before Me,
Who has required this from your hand,
To trample My courts?
13 Bring no more futile sacrifices;
Incense is an abomination to Me.
The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies—
I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting.
14 Your New Moons and your appointed feasts
My soul hates;
They are a trouble to Me,
I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands,
I will hide My eyes from you;
Even though you make many prayers,
I will not hear.
Your hands are full of blood.
16 “ Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes.
Cease to do evil,
17 Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor;[a]
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow.
18 “ Come now, and let us reason together,”
Says the LORD,

“ Though your sins are like scarlet,
They shall be as white as snow;
Though they are red like crimson,
They shall be as wool.
19 If you are willing and obedient,
You shall eat the good of the land;
20 But if you refuse and rebel,
You shall be devoured by the sword”;
For the mouth of the LORD has spoken.

Again. Prayer is spoken of throughout the whole of Scripture. In the context of the overall view of prayer given in the Bible, Jesus’ statements make sense. When parsed into standalone “nuggets”, they can easily be misinterpreted. God does not present Himself in the Bible as a fairy godmother, who simply grants wishes upon demand. Instead the view of God in the Bible is more like that expressed in Malachi 1:14,

“ But cursed be the deceiver
Who has in his flock a male,
And takes a vow,
But sacrifices to the Lord what is blemished—
For I am a great King,”
Says the LORD of hosts,

“ And My name is to be feared among the nations.”

Sorry. I didn’t want to paste another LONG one. The context is about people offering tribute to God by giving from their useless leftovers, rather than recognizing God’s hand in their good blessings, and presenting their offerings from their best.

Certainly you can call those “rationalizations,” but you would have no credibility, since using the Scripture that way really just proves that you’re not really considering very much of it.

2) he would say what he means, and

3) he would speak the truth. That is what "being perfect" is all about. A perfect, all-knowing God would know that people would be reading the Bible 2,000 years later, and therefore he would not use first-century idioms

(mhz): Right. Even though it’s the first century, we would obviously expect 3rd century idioms. Its always better if universal truths are explained in such a way that they can only be understood by LATER generations!

(he would say what he means). He would know that normal people will be reading the Bible and interpreting it in normal ways, so he would speak in such a way as to avoid mis-interpretation (he would speak clearly).

(mhz): Just…wondering….have you, in fact, discovered the linguistic means necessary to communicate to all “normal people” in “normal ways” which can be carried across all cultures and generations for several millennia without being subject to misinterpretation? I’m sure He would be interested….

I am particularly curious about how you would define “normal people” and “normal ways” in the given scope? I think if you consider the implications of what you are asking, and then look at the entire body of text which was produced by the apostles of Jesus Christ, (to whom He clearly stated that he was delegating the task of disseminating and clarifying what He had done), you will find the best possible explanation of God’s role in creation, man’s accountability, and God’s gracious character that could possibly be given to humanity. Unfortunately, the part about “man’s accountability” renders the whole thing moot for so many people, which is the shame of it, because the part about God’s gracious character gets overlooked!

And He didn’t just leave it for you to read, he instituted a perpetual organization (the church), to be run like a family, and to be responsible for perpetually sharing/teaching/explaining/demonstrating his principles in action, to all subsequent generations. And although it (the church) has been invaded by criminals, deceivers and manipulators during every generation of human history, it still does exist all over the globe, and the purity of Christ’s teaching can still be found therein. Likewise the spirit of family that his apostles taught.

You can complain that God should not have allowed his “organization” to be infiltrated by exploiters and hypocrites, but I think its clear that God provided that the teachings of Christ would be preserved, even through an organization which itself was eventually corrupted and left the gospel of Christ in the dust (the Roman Catholic church).

He would know that when you say, "Nothing will be impossible for you", that what it means is, "Nothing will be impossible for you" and he would make sure that the statement "Nothing will be impossible for you" is accurate (he would speak the truth). If God says it, it should be true -- otherwise he is not perfect.

(mhz): Yes, if all he gave us was that one small parable, and then I prayed for something and didn’t get it, I must admit I would be disappointed. But He provided a huge body of work, some of which explains qualifications to statements like that one, and many lifetimes worth of testimony, and crystal clear explanations of the deepest mysteries of God’s dealings with humanity.

Unfortunately, the fact is that thousands of things are impossible for you no matter how much you pray, and no one (including Jesus) has ever moved a mountain.

(mhz): I don’t have anything remotely close to an answer that will satisfy you on why some prayers are not answered the way we want them. Well, maybe no answer that will satisfy you, but the question is addressed many times over in the Bible. There are other places where those statements are qualified and explained. To speculate along Biblical lines though, I’d say that God knows your own motivations, as well as what’s best for each person.

TO THE COMMENTERS:

God, for lack of a better name exists simply because the other explanation for how we got here requires that the universe basically rolled nothing but 20s for 100,000 years. Not even my old DM could pull THAT off.

There is no evidence that God has ever made contact with his creation. All stories to the contrary tend to involve either intense pain, starvation or drugs. And most (if not all) are hearsay at best (i.e. no witnesses).

(mhz): Brian, … and if there were witnesses, from thousands of years ago, and they preserved their testimony through oral and written tradition, would you believe them? No. It sounds like you wouldn’t, because you don’t.

The accepted “evidence” for an ancient text being written in the time period it claims and by the author whose name it bears, is multiple independent source confirmation. Various ancient copies from various locations which are written the same and are attributed to the same author. The “evidence” for a “reliable” ancient text is cut and dried, and does not depend on your opinion, nor anyone else’s. So what evidence are you expecting for events that happened in the ancient past? Video?

The Bible texts have more abundant and more consistent sources than other ancient texts. The bottom line is, you think because it didn’t happen in your back yard, or it isn’t recorded on video, it must not have happened, witness testimony be damned. I’m sure you realize that it is thousands of times easier to fake a video, which you can see with your own eyes, than to fake the validity of an ancient text.

You should preface your arguments against ancient texts by stating that you simply don’t believe that ancient sources of information can be preserved across generations and cultures. There are many who question the origin of Bible texts, challenging that they were not written by the authors whose names they bear. But those challenges are always based on speculation such as,

“If he wrote one way over here, he wouldn’t have written this other way over there, so they couldn’t both have been written by the same person.”

…or something like,

“This (vague or out-of-context) statement seems to imply that the author thought X, but there are other ancient texts which imply Y. Both X and Y cannot be true, so this must not have been written in the time period which it claims.”

Those type of arguments are sometimes interesting, but they cannot realistically claim to disprove the validity of the text, nor the authorship. They simply offer their textual criticisms as speculations.
What is your standard of “evidence” for an ancient text? You obviously must not believe that *ANY* text that purports to have been written in antiquity was actually written then, and authored by the person whose name was signed to it? Compared to any ancient texts, the Biblical sources are manifestly equal or better supported.

Of course, there are history channel specials nowadays which interview various authors and professors who enjoy speculating about alternative views of ancient texts, especially the Bible. Anyone can use their imagination to conceive of alternate explanations for things that are commonly accepted, or have been in the past, such as authorship of Biblical texts. Heck, if you choose a controversial subject, you are tenured at a >=mediocre university, and/or you know someone who works in television, you can even get a chance to voice your speculation into a camera for a television crew. But your speculation is still just that, even when set to haunting background music, and punctuated by a distinguished sounding narrator.

If you apply any reasonably accepted standard of “evidence” to the premises of, “The ancient Bible texts are not reliable,” and “There were no witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” you would have to conclude that the “evidence” shows that the Bible texts WERE written by the people whose names are signed to them, and that those writers did CLAIM to have witnessed many miraculous events, including a man’s crucifixion, resurrection and ascension. The man claimed deity for himself, which caused no small amount of backlash in the culture where such claims were illegal. Nevertheless, for those authors, their own eyes convinced them he was telling the truth! You can always choose to NOT believe what was written by the ancient authors. You can refute eyewitness testimony in court if you want to. It just means you don’t believe the person who is giving the testimony. But for some reason you choose to say, “There is no evidence that God has ever made contact with his creation.”

You should be more honest and say more accurately, “I don’t believe the ancient Jewish testimony that God has made contact with his creation.”

You don’t have any grounds to say, “There is no evidence.” Not if evidence can consist of eyewitness testimony, documented and preserved over hundreds of generations of human existence. THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE, JUST NONE THAT YOU’RE WILLING TO BELIEVE. In fact, it sounds like you’re willing to redefine the word “evidence” (as it pertains to the writings of antiquity) to support your opinion.

NOTE: I wrote the above before reading the rest of your response (below). Now that I have read your characterization of “stupids,” I fear that your arrogance does not allow for any useful two-sided conversation. It is quite something for you to state so matter of factly that all the artisans, architects, philosophers and inventors of the past were just “stupids.” I’m quite certain that you must realize that the foundation of every idea you have studied, and the inspiration for every article (matter, knowledge, even skepticism) that you have ever admired originated with one of the “stupids” of the past. Your ability to make such statements of pure, absurd arrogance seems to forbid any useful discussion.

There is no evidence for an "afterlife". There's no real need for an afterlife except in religion.

Religion neither proves nor disproves the existence of a creator-God. And the concept of a single closed universe doesn't either. Religion is a method for controlling large masses of stupids to keep them from doing things that get them killed before they can reproduce. When you look at all the big achievements of mankind before the past 200 years or so, it was gigantic armies of stupids led by a few geniuses that did it.

The Pyramids? Built by sheep. Railroads, wars, civilization, colonization - all projects done by sheep hoping to "get right with the Lord".

Heaven forbid we conclusively prove the lack of God's existence. There will no longer be an effective check on the behaviour of the stupids, and we'll all die.

Posted by: brian at August 21, 2008 8:30 AM

(mhz): Pussnboots, …clearly this would be the best possible outcome for human history! And in fact, the Bible says it will happen exactly how you have spoken it here! The problem is, what if, by some universal standard, you and I end up being declared “one of the bad guys?” Yep. That’s the reason it hasn’t happened yet. So you and I have time to make peace with God, and get on “the good side!”

Posted by: Pussnboots at August 21, 2008 8:31 AM

What if someone you trusted said, I went to Central Park and for a brief moment, the commutative laws seemed not to apply, and I realized that my horoscope that morning predicted that "things would not add up in your day."

Would you believe that "documentation"? If so, I have a bag of Jesus-shaped potato chips I would like to sell you. :-)

Or, let's say it happened to you. Do you really think I should be persuaded by your experience?

Because, what you demand in proof may be a lot more than some others do (the Mary in the Tortilla crowd), and a lot less than some.

If you told me you had that experience, for instance, I would say, "that is very strange, but I do not think that proves that God exists."

-Jut

(mhz): Jut, …“luckily” for you, God is real, and knows you very well. He knows exactly what you demand for proof too. Haven’t seen it yet? Well I guess that means He’s still working on you somehow. However, it may be that He uses some “standard” ways of getting through to people, to convince them of His existence, and of their need for Him. Christians (maybe I should say, “true” Christians) are annoying because they keep pushing those means in your face. But don’t be fooled, God DOES know EXACTLY what it will take to prove it to you. Pray that you are able to believe it early on in the process. But even if it requires suffering, it will be worth it.

Posted by: Jut Gory at August 21, 2008 12:22 PM

Obviously Hitler was a Christian, baptized a Catholic by his devout mother, doing a stint as an altar boy and even writing that he considered the priesthood.

He went on, of course, to incorporate his faith into his politics and anti-Semitism, so there's plenty of quotes.

Here's the one I like to use, debunkers of the bad-Christians-aren't-Christians argument may prefer others:

""My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." –Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)"

There ya go. I like your wordiness. It imparts a certain whiff of self-righteousness to your lies.

(mhz): Gog, …good grief. Surely you realize that the title, “Christian” can be claimed by anyone. The Biblical texts, which are the foundation for “Christianity” state very clearly to watch out for those who come around claiming to be part of Christ’s church, but with their deeds demonstrating otherwise. If their deeds are evil, according to the standards set forth by Christ himself, then their claims are false. Everyone is quick to recognize a hypocrite. Anyone who would take seriously Hitler’s claims to be full of “boundless love”, etc. are simply proving that they haven’t the slightest idea of what “Christianity” was meant to be, by the authors of it.

I can tell you I’m an engineer from MIT, but if I can’t show you my credential, and I can’t demonstrate the abilities that an engineer should have, then clearly I am lying. Why on earth could it possibly matter that Hitler claimed to be a Christian? Likewise with some in the Medieval Catholic church? Real Christians don’t commit atrocities. Jesus said, “A tree is recognized by its fruit. …By their fruits you will recognize them.”

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at August 21, 2008 6:21 PM

Mormons - belive they will become god themselves, oddly enough a pope of the easter orthodox curch said the same thing, but other christians find it crazy comming from americans

Lutherans - Belive their faith is wrong, let that sink in

Jehovs witnesses - belive only 144,000 people get into heaven, given the billions of people on this planet you must ask yourself why convicts are drawn to a religion which gaurentees they go to hell

Anglicans(church of england) created to give a serial killer a divorce

Any faith which subscribes to the doctrine of trinity is worshiping a scizophrenic whith a multipule personality disorder as jesus calime to be both god and the son of god and argued with himself on several occasions

Seriously give me any religion and I'll pick it apart

(mhz): lujlp, …give me any *anything* and I’ll pick it apart. A person whose great joy is picking other people apart for the sake of doing so, or because of his own vanity, is of no use to anyone. Give me your family history and I’ll pick it apart. I bet I could prove somewhere back in your family line that you, as a descendant, don’t have any legitimate right to exist, if justice were done. And I bet you could do the same about me. But luckily, there are better things in life to do than just picking people apart because in your obscene vanity you hope to humiliate them.

Posted by: lujlp at August 22, 2008 2:57 AM

Raise a corpse, that has been dead ten yrs, embalmed, and was harvested for organs.

And living relative need to verify that the personality now driving the revived, restored corpse is indeed their loved one.

And I was to be there when the body is exhumed and restored

Let me know when your ready to demonstrate

(mhz): lujlp, …Hmm. Yes, that would be about right. Do tricks! Do some tricks! They said at the store that you would do tricks! Dammit I’ll kill you unless you do a trick for me! Face it, is it reasonable to suppose that the God of the universe would hear your mockery and descend to meet you at the cemetery for some reanimation fun? I fear that he might raise YOU up, after you have died, present your own family to attest that you are indeed that same condescending, blasphemous, insolent child whom they raised, and then declare to you that the demonstration is complete. “And I was to be there when the body is exhumed and restored.” Indeed.

But God is gracious, and He waits for you to cave in. He is ridiculously patient and kind. It is his kindness that leads us to repentance! The purpose of the cross of Christ was to redeem just such a mocker as you are, and so He may yet spare you!

Posted by: lujlp at August 22, 2008 8:28 AM

2. Do you believe God is taking care of each one of us? If so, how do you explain the massive loss of innocent life in natural disasters?

Can you prove that the lives lost were innocent? How infinitely more un-proveable that is than the existence of God!

3. Do you believe in an afterlife? If so, what is your evidence (other than the bible, which cannot be taken seriously because of all the contradictions in it)?

You are quite superficial in your understanding of the Bible if you would dare sum it up in that way. If you think there are such obvious contradictions in the Bible, buy one of the books where those type of concerns are addressed one-by-one on a verse-by-verse basis. They’ve existed for quite a while. Seriously, Christians get tired of hearing that. Do some homework.

Maybe I'll find the answers to these questions when I get back from six weeks in the mountains -- we're leaving tomorrow morning. I'm confident that you guys will have figured it all out by the time I get back.

Posted by: Pussnboots at August 22, 2008 12:13 PM

I've already linked to Adherents.com for you - so that you can see that you are not alone in being unable to demonstrate the quality of your faith against others determined that they are right.

I've also touched on entire fields of study most Bible fans don't even know exist.

(mhz): RadWaste, …that sounds *impressive*. You must be filled with all sorts of facts from various and sundry secret societies! Just how many fields of study are there that Bible fans don’t even know exist? Lol.

When you can't back up what you're saying, talking about other people is merely dishonest: a tactic to pretend that the Emperor is indeed clothed.

Apparently you missed this: "...you know that it's useless to bang your head on the ground in the direction of Mecca or to inter your remains in a million-ton pyramid. Show those people they're wrong, how they're wrong, and show them they were and are barred from an outcome you have imagined. I'll be fascinated by the spectacle of someone who cannot explain where Jesus' body went trying to claim that mummified remains means that some Egyptian pharaoh didn't make it to what he thought was "heaven"."

…Wouldn’t it be cool if, after death, everyone got to attend “what he thought was ‘heaven’ ?” I sure hope that existence after death conforms to what each individual person “thinks is heaven”. I mean, after all, it makes sense right? Especially in the case of those, such as pharaohs who claimed to BE gods. It seems only fitting that, if there were a REAL God, one who had the power of being within Himself, and couldn’t possibly die without taking every speck of dependent matter out with Him, …that He would reward those who blasphemously claimed to have HIS own power and authority, but then ended up rotting in the sand, ..that He would create for them and send them to that they “thought was ‘heaven’”. Yeah, that makes sense to me. Lol.

It baffles me how people imagine that if there was a God, He would probably just be like your fairy godmother, with no thoughts, cares, standards. No business with humans whatsoever, except to grant their every wish. I think many people of good intellect deny the existence of God exactly because they can easily reason that such a “careless” God would defy all logic. Yes, smart people realize that they MUST convince themselves there’s no God, because if they leave a shred of hope in their own mind that they are created and dependent, their own reason and common sense will convince them that they are guilty of “cosmic treason” (to steal a phrase from Sproul).

Posted by: Radwaste at August 22, 2008 2:19 PM

Jut, oh bearer of 'logic', despite your complete inability to offer anything but a tautology in your own defense, you still have failed to answer the question of evidence. Oh, you claim that whatever evidence that might exist would still be subject to disbelief (notwithstanding the clear ability of an omniscient being to do pretty much whatever they choose, including the demonstration of evidence), but obviously, we non-believers are doggedly resisting your magnificent expressions of 'logic'.

I am quite certain, that if a being like 'God' does indeed exist, he would have no difficulty at all in providing clear and unambiguous evidence of his existence (since He can do *anything*, right?).

So, apart from any actual or potential evidence, here's a final challenge for you:

What *logical* reason would you offer that would (or should) convince me to believe in a being that has produced no unambiguous physical evidence of their existence (or for that matter, no discernable evidence at all)? What logical argument would suffice, even if we had evidence for some sufficiently powerful being, to claim that we should worship and / or give obeisance to that being?

And Pascal's wager is not a valid logical argument, so you can leave that one on the floor, right from the get-go.

Simply put, you believe because it gives you personal comfort to believe, and there can be *no* logic that supports that belief. Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that (if that's what it takes to keep you going through the day), but it doesn't make it true, and it certainly doesn't provide any moral authority over the actions or beliefs of others.

My psyche, on the other hand, requires no fairy tale to bolster my self esteem, and I am entirely content to live as if God does not exist, which is also the most likely state of affairs, anyway.

(mhz): Rod, …as long as you insist that there is no discernable evidence at all, there is no point in trying to convince you. Doesn’t that seem obvious. In fact, I bet IT can be stated as a tautology: “A person who does not recognize the heavens and the earth as demonstrating evidence for the existence of God cannot be convinced that God exists.” Well, I sort of did it.

Posted by: Rod at August 23, 2008 12:19 AM

This is the Irony of Faith. Though it isn't engaged deliberately by anyone who comforts themselves with something they cannot know for sure, it's an integral part of so doing.

(mhz): Radwaste, …my, that sounds, just.., PROFOUND.

“…you have no doubt. You do not, at that point, have faith at all.”

Ok. But you do at least have doubt, which is proof of your own existence, no? “Cogito ergo sum.” Lol. Thus ended random quote #2.

Posted by: Radwaste at August 23, 2008 8:09 AM

very nice posting...it really gives a very resourceful ideas about GOD.