Nice ad hominem. I particularly like the vulgarities peppered throughout your response to my opinion. I think you know very well what my point is, yet choose to deflect it with vitriol.
Where? I did not insult you once. But yes, I do speak in a frank manner. I suppose some people can be overly sensitive which is fine, but I do not see how you can summise that I am deflecting from your points when I looked at each of them individually and explained how they were wrong. 1) You asserted that there were two possibilities. I explained how this was incorrect. 2) You claimed that materialists have a "desire" to rule god out. I explained how this was incorrect. 3) You then claimed that materialism is a belief that makes people comforted by thinking they're alone, a nobody, and are going to die and cease to exist. I explained how this was incorrect, indeed it's the complete opposite - theists have gods for comfort so they don't think they're going to cease to exist etc. Did you have any form of rebuttal to that?
according to hindus, god is in everything so he is everything. the bible also says that god is omnipresent. god is like the force in star wars.
So... if the hindus said it, it's gotta be true? Still, I suppose we'll all just have to be careful while walking through the park not to step on the god that some dog left behind.
god is the self (life[force], consciousness) because it's in everything. i think therefore i am "i am" (god).
The easiest way is the same as any other field of knowledge that is advanced and vouches for credibility - establish the qualification of persons who know it. Your question could just as easily be "If you were a physicist how would you convince people that electrons exist?" Unless there is some agreeable consensus on what it means to be a "physicist" (or how their claims can be verified) there is no scope for even beginning on such claims. Unfortunately this lack of foundational knowledge is quite prominent, so a lot of what goes down in the name of discussing god's existence is incredibly speculative ...... with perhaps more a focus on sexy philosophical sound bites than any substantial knowledge.
:bugeye: You seem to be confusing the original question with "If you were a theologian, how would you convince people that God exists?"
I wouldn't. They'd be just one petridish among others. Sure they have free will, but only within the constraints of the medium and conditions I provide. I never communicate with bacteria or viruses either or care if they know I exist.
In addition to free will, I had provided human with instinct to do quest, along with everything they need to endeavor it, up to certain limit. Until they realize their limit, facing cul de sac with only one stance: I am the ultimate target of that quest. No, there is no need to carry out any acts of convincing anything to anyone anymore.
not really on two counts 1 - Its not clear how theologians have any great insight into the nature of god (generally theologians prefer to keep the nature of god ambiguous and pliable since it allows them to drive home their personal speculations) 2 - and even if one was prepared to accept theologians as the principle bearers of knowledge of god, being a theologian would have absolutely no significance unless issues I raised had been dealt with.
In as much as I am obviously a theist to refer to a statement of mine as "typical theist Bull...." is a direct and intended insult. I was, however, not offended. I just took note of it. You did not "explain why they were wrong". You said what you think, which differs from what I think, and with that I have not the least problem. I am well aware that there remain a few people who propose the "always existed" idea. I left it out because it has vanishingly small support in the scientific community. No. You didn't. You merely reject the idea. You said you see no reason to consider a God, and I am sure you don't. Perhaps you will present a workable mechanism by which everything appeared out of nothing. Until then you might want to keep your options open. And you are no doubt aware that such evolutionary notables as Dawkins freely state that no matter what the evidence to the contrary the notion of God can not be permitted. So I am quite accurate when I say that a desire to rule God out of the conversation is a prime desire, whether conscious or unconscious, of materialists. No insult intended, but your response to my statement is facile. For example, when I said answerable to nothing it was obvious that I wasn't speaking of the mundane affairs of everyday life. As I said: facile. Your exposition of 'chance' is equally void of content. I do not expect you, or anyone else, to instantly accept my words. What I came here hoping to find was a few people willing to engage in intelligent discussion. I have not, and never would, respond flippantly or dismissively to contrary views.
It is quite typically mentioned by theists and is bullshit. It's not an insult to you, it's the reality of the situation. Of course if you would care to take the time to do a study of these "materialists" and ask them if they "want to rule [a] god out of the conversation" as opposed to just don't believe in one so therefore do not include it then you would undoubtedly come to the same conclusion. But then I do wonder; how many "materialists" have you asked or consulted on the matter? Did you get your data from them or from theists? Was it something you heard at a local church meeting? Where did you get this rather bizarre information? [edit] P.S And which god exactly is it they have this overwhelming desire to leave out of conversations? Thor perhaps? Odin, Apollo, Abellio? Which one? I see. So this then would be a case of what an atheist thinks about being an atheist vs what a theist thinks an atheist is.. Hmmm, I wonder who would be the more informed. Source please. It would seem we are hanging around in different parts of that scientific community. Is this another snippet you got from church? But, suffice it to say, "there are only two possibilities" has no support in the scientific community, and neither does one of those two being a god have any support in the scientific community, so why oh why didn't you leave that out as well? Was done on my last post to you. Oh wait, it apparently has little support in the scientific community and thus should be left out. Guess we're right up shit street if we want to mention omnipotent space fairies. Well I haven't watched or read everything he has been a part of so if you perhaps have a link to a relevant quote or vid then please do. In the meantime I think you should take into consideration that the words of one specific person do not in any way afford you the right to lay it on everyone or to amusingly claim that your statement is "accurate" on the basis of that one individual. "I know a German nazi so all Germans are nazis" Surely you can see where you're going wrong? I'm sorry, but "answerable to nothing", would include those things that you personally consider 'mundane'. We are answerable, all of us. You claimed that materialists have a 'belief system' which serves to comfort them against the idea that they are answerable to some specific higher power. There are most likely hundreds of thousands of higher powers you don't believe in. Your own claim would mean that you don't believe in these hundreds of thousands of gods for comfort [against the idea that you are answerable to them]. It is stupid at best. Regards
Hi Old Man, I know that SnakeLord is abrasive, but I don't think he intends to be insulting. He is attacking your views quite aggresively, but he is not attacking you personally. If you want to keep your promise: Then perhaps you should reconsider your dismissive response?
