On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:10:39 GMT, Will <someone@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>panamfloyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote in
>news:1193516439.196563.101250@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Oct 27, 3:45 pm, Will <some...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>>> innews:q527i3pmb02aagbk1f7f4i1ci6h7802m98@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 16:37:33 GMT, Will <some...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>"Bill M" <wm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in news:re3Ui.6130$b9.4174
>>> >>@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> >>> There are many hundreds of religious and god beliefs.
>>> >>> How do you know your belief is the correct belief and all the
>>> >>> others are fakes?
>>> >>By the daily miracles, signs, and wonders. By the prophecies that
>>> >>have been fulfilled, and are still being fulfilled today? By the
>>> >>grace that He has extended me. By the answered prayers. By the
>>> >>unanswered prayers. By faith and love.
>>> > IOW, you don't have a clue.
>>> I'm not the one asking the questions here, you are.
>> He's not "asking questions", he's asking somone who claims gods exist
>> to put up or shut up.
>No, he's asking how anyone can be sure about how they chose to believe.
>Read the question, it says "How do you know your belief is the correct
>belief and all the others are fakes?"
That has nothing to do with being sure about how you choose to
believe. Try reading (or learning to read for meaning, if that's your
problem). You even seem to have a problem understanding the meaning
of what you post.
>A loaded question is "a question that presupposes something that has not
>been proven or accepted by all the people involved."
Like the existence of your god. Asking you to post the objective
evidence that your claims say you have isn't a question, let alone a
loaded question.
>The question that was loaded is "Why would any real God permit his
>creations to be so deceived?" In this, there is the underlying
>presupposition that if God were real, than we either shouldn't be
>permitted to deception
If he were - as Christianity defines him - omnibenevolent, omniscient
and omnipotent, he wouldn't deceive his followers. The only
assumptions here are the ones Christianity makes, in assigning
mutually exclusive qualities to its god. It assumes that its
followers are too stupid to realize that the god Christianity defines
is impossible.
>question further assumes that God cannot exist
The only reason to assume that God cannot exist is the fact that
Christianity defines God in a way that cannot exist. Omnipotence is
illogical. An omniscient creator of the universe cannot "grant" free
will. (We don't have the free will Christianity claims we do.)
>> There is no evidence any of mankind's
>> hundreds of thousands of gods exist.
>That's a lot of gods. I only wor****p one.
There's no objective evidence that ANY god has EVER objectively
existed. Never has been, either. Yours is no exception.
>> So the non-existence of gods is
>> the default position.
>OK, this is both a false dichotomy and argumentum ad ignorantum.
Barring objective evidence, it's the ONLY position so, since you claim
it's not a valid position, post the objective evidence you just
claimed to have. (That's the ONLY reason to not take a default
position that rejects the assertion.)
>First, just because you don't see any evidence of God doesn't mean that
He
>doesn't exist.
Irrelevant to your claim that you have objective evidence of his
objective existence.
>Second, just because you can't find evidence one way
We're not the ones who claimed to have evidence - you are.
>doesn't mean you need to default to the polar opposite.
In logic, the default position to an existentially positive assertion
is "produce proof". All we're asking for is objective evidence. Until
then, the default position is "is not".
>For example, I can make the claim that I find no evidence that God
doesn't exist.
That's an existentially NEGATIVE assertion, so it bears no burden of
proof.
>Therefore, the default position is that He exists
Nice try, but totally illogical. The fact that you don't understand
logic is no reason that you shouldn't be held to it. Learn it or stop
making believe that you understand it.
>However, I could, if I chose to, take the position that there is no
>evidence that if there is no evidence that God exists, and if there is no
>evidence that He doesn't exist, than we are left with the position of not
>knowing, subject to our own beliefs.
No, the default position to the existentially POSITIVE assertion
("does exist") is "produce proof". The existentially positive
assertion bears the burden of proof. The existentially negative
assertion ("is not") is the default response to ANY existentially
positive assertion prior to evidence being presented.
>> You are the one who claim gods exist,
>No, I BELIEVE God (one God) exists. Get it straight.
No, you CLAIM that God OBJECTIVELY does things - that's a claim of
objective existence, which is a claim to have objective evidence.
The fact that you didn't understand that doesn't change the fact that
you made the claim.
>You're the one that claims that God doesn't exist
Which again, is the default to your existentially POSITIVE assertion
that bears the burden of proof.
> so it is your burden to prove that He doesn't.
Again - wrong.
>Than why not just let people believe what they want to believe and call
>it a day.
You can believe anything you like. Believers can't impose their
beliefs on non-believers, but Christianity seems to REQUIRE that
imposition, so you can't be allowed to keep your entire belief set.
Freedom to practice your religion isn't, and was never meant to be,
absolute.
>>> Ask yourself if He exists next time the
>>> timing is just too perfect for a personal petition (a prayer)
>>> answered from that very deity that you chose not to believe in.
>>
>> I petition no one. Two hands working do more than a thousand praying.
>
>That's because hands don't pray, hearts do.
Sorry, no, we know enough biology now to know that hearts just pump
blood (and clog their arteries). It's actually improperly working
brains that pray.
>>> Again, you're the one that wants to know, not me. You're the one
>>> seeking answers, not me (for I have found all the answers in Him).
>> You once again mistake a request for proof as a "search" for
>> something.
>No, but apparantly I mistake your request for proof for your willingless
>to receive such proof straight from the source.
YOU'RE the source of the claim that you have objective evidence that
your god objectively exists, so yes - go ahead and post it.
>> I don't need your insipid little Bronze Age myth.
>Good, because I don't have an insipid little bronze-age myth. I have
>Jesus Christ.
True - the bronze age ended 1,100 years before someone invented Jesus
in the late second century. Your myth is early iron age. The one it,
and your god, is based on, Judaism, is late stone age.
>> I do not
>> have the void in my emotions that requires the `security blanket' of
>> religion.
>When I was in my dark place, for many years away from God, I thought I
>too was complete. But when I came to Him, it was only than that I
>realized just how empty my former way of life was, and how empty I really
>felt.
We, sane adults, aren't in any "dark place", so we don't need your
myth to bring us out of it. We don't feel "empty". Our lives are
what WE make of them.
>When you live with such a conditin for a long enough period of
>time, you don't realize that the condition is there until that condition
>is removed.
It's also curable by correcting the chemical imbalance in your brain.
But that would have left you sane, and you're terrified of being sane
AND not having a god to suck. Don't despair - there are over 2
billion people with the same mental defect.
>Great. Study nature, and all its complexities. If you can prove that
>it's all some kind of cosmic accident void of any deity, than I'm sure
>you'll win the hearts and minds of many believers.
No need - your claim of God, your burden of proof of God.
>> And whose existence you *still* have not proven.
>I already told you, I'm not here to prove these things to you.
You made the claim of having evidence so you have 3 choices:
1) Post it
2) Prove yourself a liar
3) Prove yourself insane
>if you want to know the real truth of the matter,
>you go straight to the source.
And you're the source of your claim to have objective evidence that
your god objectively exists, so post it.
Lord, liar, lunatic.
--
Al at Webdingers dot com
"Christians tell us that they love their enemies, and yet all I ask
is - not that they love their friends even, but they treat those
who differ from them , with simple fairness. We do not wish to be
forgiven but we wish Christians to so act that we will not have
to forgive them."
- Robert Ingersoll
|
