Discussion in 'Religion' started by Magical Realist, Jun 22, 2016.
That queston was for The God... an i asume he searched for God.???
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Oh. Oops. That's the downside of not seeing all posts. It can get confusing.
But none is asking atheists to search for God..
Some stupid people tend to deride God in the name of objectivity. Their intention is not to understand the God but to ridicule. I can only smile at their ignorance.
Do you thank that God wants atheists to search for God.???
I thank its sad that people woud suffer hell fire because they was ignorant.!!!
Well ignorants should not offer their opinion on the issue about which they are ignorant. The problem with atheists is that they try to offer opinion about the God with full ignorance.
Was you ever ignorant about God.???
I am still..
Do you know enuff about God to avoid goin to hell.???
Your suggestion was to "... post something about the splendour of God as defined in the scripture and do not defend."
That would be preaching.
The issue at hand is why people believe, why they have faith.
Rather than merely preaching from the Bible your answer might be that you believe the Bible and what it says about God.
This would then move the question to why you believe the Bible etc.
But to simply quote from the Bible and not defend it... that is preaching.
It is preaching because in itself it is not answering any question, it is merely an assertion, an assertion which you specifically said not to defend.
Who says that that is the objective of life?
It certainly isn't mine.
Yes, you could happily claim that it is the objective of your life that you have given yourself, or that you feel is the case etc.
I'm sure it might be what you believe your objective to be but why are you making such bold assertions that you know you have absolutely no way of actually knowing, of being able to support or justify as it applies to anyone but yourself.
And picking up on what else you said previously...
Other than your obvious efforts to feel superior to atheists, you advocate blind unquestioning faith yet are unwilling or, more likely, unable to explain why.
Maybe it is because you don't know that you are so unwilling?
If so then at least that would be a more honest response.
You clearly state that you don't want discussion on the matter.
So why are you here?
As for your analogy to not asking people why they love their mother... If I found the idea of loving my mother to be alien yet knew that others did and found something through that love, I would certainly explore why they did and why I didn't.
Wouldn't you want to explore that?
And why are you so afraid to explore your own faith, your reasons for it?
Is it such a fragile thing?
But maybe you want this forum to simply be a means of theists getting together to reinforce their views in the absence of challenging discussion?
If so you're in the wrong place and by now you must surely know that.
So, again, why are you here?
What do you intend to get out of this other than seemingly to shut down any avenue of exploration that you don't like... which you could just as easily do by not responding?
Yet here you are offering your opinions.
You have a problem with atheists.
Okay, I get that.
But your attitude is one of simply lauding your self-proclaimed superiority over them.
You call them ignorant yet you offer no means to help them grow from that state.
Your attitude is simply to keep them there, to avoid discussion that might help elevate them.
Is this what your God encourages?
Jesua has never appeared to me on a tortilla.
I asked what would you regard as reasonable evidence for Gods existence, and you state, you don't know.
That's why all your talk of evidence in order to accept God is nonsense.
I don't need evidence, in the way that you do, and you cannot comprehend my reasoning. You delude yourself into thinking
that there must be physical evidence of God, for God to exist, but you have no comprehension of what that evidence should be, even if it kicked you in the ass.
Can you comprehend the concept of ''God IS''?
Can you comprehend the conceopt of being without God?
If God IS, and we are without God, then that does translate as there is no evidence for God.
It means we cannot comprehend God. If we cannot comprehend God, then God does not appear to be.
That is what is meant by 'without God'.
Your clarification is still incorrect.
Good for you.
Please point out where I'm being dishonest?
Not at all.
Was my answer too taxing?
Why isn't it?
We all have faith, including yourself. So start from there.
I've explored both sides equally.
Theos = God
ATheos = without God
Theist = a person who believes in God, because ultimately God IS.
Atheist = a person who lacks belief in God (for whatever reason).
The atheist can be categorised as being without God (ATheos), because they cannot comprehend God (Theos)
The theist can comprehend God, and therefore accept that God IS. Hence faith in God is possible.
But you cannot say that they believe in something with no evidence.
You can only see it from your point of view. So the answer is NO, you cannot show where people believe in something with no evidence.
Identification of treatmenat?
What does that mean?
Google ''evidences for God''.
You don't have to. You simply don't accept what I say, and you're too proud to accept that your lack of comprehension could be caused by the fact that you are without God.
That wasn't the question.
Atheist =ATheos. Do you think it is possible that you are actually without God?
No it's not. The discussion is about faith. It probably won't ever get to that point because folk like yourself want to turn this into a
Does God Exist thread. That's all you can contribute, it seems.
I've told you to go google. That will give you a materialist perspective on why a theist believes in God.
As far as reason for not seeing it as reasonable evidence for God, that is for you to come to terms with.
No, because that evidence is not ALL of what God is. It will help you to comprehend what God is, and how to view God.
At present you have an atheist perspective. You can set the bar how you like, as far as what constitutes evidence for God.
So if you want you can say show me God, and if we can't, you can say 'I told you, God doesn't exist'.
There is physical evidence that implies God (God is all there is), but you won't accept it as evidence. So you are still without God.
Is it true that atheists don't recognize God?
Yet you feel your contribution to the 'Does God Exist' question is actually justified.
What atheists (on here) seem to want to do, is defeat the theist on the issue of God, even though they know they don't recognise God.
Why don't you just accept that you're currently without God?
Because you're proud?
Same reason as most. I enjoy discussion.
It's all about you, because you don't accept what is being said.
That's your problem. Not mine.
It's not intended to be an argument.
Theos = God
ATheos -without God
What is wrong with that?
And as a result you are without It.
I'm aware that you wish to come from the perspective that your default point is whatever you choose it to be.
But the reality is, you are without God, and as such, you lack belief in Him/It.
Theists will talk about the existence of God, in the company of atheists, because that is their main issue.
You can only speculate on what you think the position of a thiest is, because you have no real comprehension of what God is, especially from a theist perspective.
Faith in the existence of God, is based on an atheist perception of God. For the theist, existence is not an issue.
I don't see how we could even obtain logic, reason, and science, without God, let alone they not support the theist position.
You should be honest and admit that you choose to be without God, and as such will not accept anything that supports God.
You are now so conditioned that you really believe that God does not exist (despite designer labels).
My caption: God is seated in everyones heart. From Him comes, knowledge and forgetfulness.
What makes you think that 'God is all there is'' means Pantheism, or that God is the universe?
Did you ask what I meant by 'God is all there is', or did you arogantly think that I meant what you meant?
Because you're not interested.
But now you feel the need to join in trying to convince yourself that the disinterest you hold, is actually the human default position, and as such any other position is to be accepted as deluded. Of course you'll try and explain that you only want evidence for God, but really you're not interested (currently).
So it's not evidence for God?
I am asking you to provide example of what you find reasonable in the effort to examine the differences between what we find reasonable, and why etc, when the other may not.
I am not asking so that I end up agreeing with you, but to explore the reasons we disagree.
Why do you have an issue with that?
Yet you have clearly stated that there is plenty of evidence.
Why are you not willing to provide an example for discussion?
I have offered one yet you don't seem too taken with it, which is why I initially asked you to provide one that you do find reasonable.
I don't delude myself into thinking that there must be evidence of God, for God to exist.
I am an agnostic atheist.
I simply don't know whether God does exist or not.
Without evidence I, personally, have no reason to believe that God does but that doesn't mean I believe that he doesn't exist.
Okay, let's assume that there is no evidence, then why do you have faith?
If there is no evidence at all, why have a view on the matter?
I can understand the concept but why should I consider it as the truth?
Yes, if God IS then everything would be evidence of God's existence, but God would also be a valueless label as it answers nothing.
Such a concept adds nothing to the concept of there being no God, as all you're doing is wrapping up all that there is and labelling it God.
Or is there more to "God IS"?
If so, please share.
One can comprehend God and be 'without God'.
Indeed, this was how the term atheos was originally used, to refer to those who understood the gods and turned their back on them.
Or are you trying to formulate a new definition of 'without God' despite all your posts on the ancient meaning of the term?
So you, having stated that God is "all there is" are saying that me referring to God as “everything”, then clarifying that "everything" is used to mean "all there is", is now somehow incorrect.
I consider it dishonest to refuse requests in a discussion for examples of what you have alluded to, examples for purposes of furthering discussion about the different views we may take about that thing.
I find your curtailing of any issue that the other side wishes to make without giving them fair hearing to be dishonest with regard the notion of "honest discussion".
I find your apparent deliberate contradictory nature to be dishonest.
I await an actual answer before making such judgement.
Are you aware of everything that could possibly exist?
Not in things for which I have no evidence of their existence.
You clearly feel you have evidence for God.
Please provide some you think is reasonable and we can see why I don't agree with the reasonableness of it, if that is indeed what I do think?
I'm sure you believe that.
The atheist can be categorised as many things, for many reasons, and what you have provided is but one.
Most atheists can, however, comprehend the concept of "God IS" but as a proposition they see no reason to accept it.
You seem to be equating the comprehension of the concept with acceptance of the concept as true.
As I originally said, I can say it from my perspective.
Who am I to answer from their perspective.
And it is that difference in perspective that you seem to refuse to explore.
I don't know.
I wrote "identification and treatment".
So you think the face of Jesus in a tortilla is evidence for God?
No, I don't "simply accept" what you say, nor what anyone says, without applying critical thought.
Maybe that is what it all boils down to: you simply accepted what someone said without any critical thought?
But I'm curious: which is supposed to come first - the lack of comprehension because I’m without God, or being without God because I lack comprehension?
I will repeat my answer: I think it entirely possible that everyone is without God, even those that believe otherwise.
Which part of "everyone" do you consider me exempt from that this does not answer your question?
Until you can see that it is relevant to the discussion, any honest discussion with you seems futile.
So do you think Jesus' face on a tortilla is evidence of God?
And I have come to terms with it: I remain unaware of any reasonable evidence for God, and am trying to explore why the same evidence can be seen by others, for example you, as being reasonable.
Once I have reasonable evidence then I will be closer to having a belief in the existence of God, and from there to accepting that "God IS" is the reality, and from there to having faith in God.
See yet how the issue of evidence is relevant?
Provide the evidence and then we can discuss.
It's never been about you proving to me that God exists or not.
It has been about you trying to show why you think the evidence you present is reasonable evidence for you.
I'm fairly certain that it won't be reasonable evidence for me, but until we examine it and, you know, discuss why we each have the view of it that we do, I will get no closer to understanding why you might consider the evidence reasonable.
I don't intend changing your views, nor have you change mine, other than might occur naturally through the exchange of ideas.
This seems beyond you, and indeed others here.
I'll repeat again: it's not about me accepting it or not but of understanding why you/theists do, exploring that difference.
Not as anything meaningful and/or of value, no.
It's not a debate of "Does God Exist", not with me.
It's a question of why do some think God does and others not.
Why can they look at the same thing and some see God and others not.
Not in the trivial sense but at the core, not in the sense of lack of evidence on one side but in why they see it as evidence or not.
I am not all atheists.
Any chance you could respond to me rather than to all atheists through me?
I accepted that many years ago.
I'm not convinced there is anything to actually be "without", though, but certainly in terms of not being at the same table of those that do believe... yes, I'm without.
Of what, exactly?
Then try it sometime.
You think it a problem to not blindly accept what is being said?
Maybe that really is the core of the difference, then?
And since when is discussion about accepting rather than just sharing ideas/differences to further understanding?
Get back to me if and when you are capable of actual honest discussion.
It was evidence for the person/people who had/have that experience?
You'd have to go talk to them.
I've told you. Google it.
You should ask yourself that question.
That's for you to work out.
You consider your position to the default position, without ever having to question why it is.
I consider my position to be the default position, without ever having to question why.
This knowledge isn't necessary to conclude that God doesn't exist. All that is necessary is for one to be without God, then curtail what constitutes knowledge, to their specification. If God does not exist within their remit, then they can confidently claim that God does not exist, or sweeten it up with 'there is no scientific evidence that shows God to exist.
And there you have it, according to your standard of acquiring knowledge, nothing that would be classed as evidence for Gods existence.
I get it.
The category I gave is the foundation of atheism. You are without God.
Not that, there is no evidence for God, therefore you are without.
That assumes your view of the world is correct, ie there is no evidence of God.
Because they see it from their perpective, and their perspective is one without God.
A person who has never loved is allowed to view love from their perspective, but that is not the default position.
Humans love. Humans believe in God.
You seem to think that it is true that there is no evidence. Why?
You're the person who lack acceptance of their perspective.
You should ask the person who claims it.
How am I going to know?
Yeah right, because your default position is the only one. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
And you have the audacity to accuse me of evasion.
Then don't sit here arguing with me about things you know not about.
Go and do some real soul searching, and research.
It is reasonable because it is.
So you recognize God, but don't regard Him/It as meaningful, or anything value?
Because God IS.
For you God ISN'T,
That's the default position.
I don't see much difference or variation in your positions or arguments.
What other way can you accept what I say, if not blindly?
Do you have an agenda?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
They are positions on belief, not statements of fact.
Backwards. God never made contact with me, despite my desperate and sincere attempts. I'm left with no other honest answer.
I know exactly what it is, I just don't believe it.
It was never a choice.
Irrespective of whether it is evidence for them, is it evidence for you?
Well, you didn't like my first offering so I googled: "What does Jan find as reasonable evidence for God?" (Quotes included so that the responses were specific to you) but it couldn't find anything.
This is why I asked you to provide an example of something that you thought reasonable evidence.
So that you couldn't dismiss any response I give and continue to evade the issue as you are doing.
Are you going to provide anything?
I don't have a view on anything that has no evidence.
I have plenty of views on concepts of things, many of which I don't know whether they exist or not.
The concept of God certainly exists.
This forum is evidence enough.
But I do question why it is for me.
I am also questioning why you consider your position to be for you.
That you don't consider it is starting to open my eyes as to your belief, though.
First, you are once again talking to all atheist through me rather than to me about what I post.
Secondly I don't go from absence of knowledge to knowledge of absence.
I consider that a fallacy.
You claim you understand atheists but you clearly don't, other than the caricature of a strawman you have created for yourself.
You have faith in something for which you have no evidence? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If not, why do you seem surprised at my response?
I get it.
No it is not.
You clearly categorised atheists as being without God because of lack of comprehension of God.
This is not in any way the foundation of atheism.
This is just another strawman you have created.
I am indeed without God.
It is a result of my agnosticism, not the cause.
I make no such assumption.
I simply am not aware of anything I reasonably consider to be evidence for God.
You clearly are aware of what you reasonably consider to be evidence for God.
I am not saying my view is correct, or yours is wrong.
If you think I have said that, please point it out.
Why can't you get past this issue of us v them?
Yes, we see things from different perspectives.
How does simply repeating that ad nauseam help anyone understand WHY?
(And please don't simply repeat the perspective as the cause of the perspective.)
So you think if humans are capable of it then it is de facto the default?
Humans are capable of contradictory emotions and actions, so which one is the default?
Not the one that suits your case, surely?
How does this answer my question?
Please answer mine first, in the spirit of honest discussion, and I will happily answer yours.
I don't need to accept it, I just want to try to understand it.
I am probably incapable of ever accepting their perspective.
But I can at least try to understand it.
You are of no help in this regard, though.
I have never said nor think I have ever implied that.
Did you blindly accept what someone once said?
Is that it?
And how do you think I have evaded answering your question?
Let me explain my response to you:
You asked if I thought it possible I am without God.
I said that I think it entirely possible that everyone is without God, even those that believe otherwise.
Okay, so if I think it entirely possible that everyone is without God, this explicitly includes me.
Hence my question back to you when first you failed to see this, asking how I was exempt from everyone.
Thus if "everyone" includes me then I must surely think it possible that I am without God.
So now please tell me where I have evaded your question?
I know about my own position, Jan, and that's the only thing I've been arguing with you on.
Everything else has been an attempt to have a discussion: no argument needed in such.
But you fail to see that and want to turn everything into "us and them".
Evidence that is reasonable to you is... reasonable to you... because it just is?
As thought, you have zero interest in honest discussion.
At least have the decency to admit it up front.
I can recognise some concepts of God, notably the pantheistic variety.
I don't find this concept of any value, no.
I see it as simply a label for the universe, and we already have a label for that.
I don't recognise anything else about other concepts that go beyond the pantheistic version.
Can you point something out to me that you recognise and I don't, please?
So you think some are born with one default and others the other default?
Is it genetics, then?
Then keep up with your strawman, Jan.
I'm sure you'll be very happy together.
Perhaps through being convinced by rational discussion, logical arguments, heck even some evidence would be nice.
Yes - to try to understand why some people have faith and others don't, what drives people to those differences, and to generally explore the differences.
But I am tired of your evasion, strawmen, your deliberately unhelpful responses and the lack of any honest discussion.
I wish I could say it was fun.
They don't have to be fact, or belief. It is what it is. Humans naturally express OT.
The honest answer is that, God never made contact with you, according to your specification of what constitutes God. That could be down to the nature of your attempt, or your failure to recognize God. Either way you are without God.
You can't know what it is, in your present condition.
What you have is speculation, based on your atheism which means you're without God by definition.
You cannot believe in something that does not actually exist, because you have no idea of what it is you lack belief in. In this case you only have speculation.
Because God was never there. That's what being without God, means.
I'm the one free from delusion in this case. You can't know that he doesn't exist because you are caught in the trap of belief. You are without faculties to discern the real from the pretend. On some level you do want to justify your belief so you created a fantasy of special knowledge. That's what faith is, fake knowledge. Real knowledge can always be justified through logic and evidence.
Separate names with a comma.