"If God exists, why doesn't He prove it?"

[daws101]

On what do you base that opinion?

.

it's your opinion, I was just stating fact, no opinion offered..

It is your opinion that it was simply an opinion on my part ... You don't have the leisure of assuming your opinions are valid enough to go unchallenged.

Example ... the wrapper I just opened reads "Smile".
Now I am sure that you could Google countless studies on the benefits and power of a smile.
Furthermore ... There was some milk chocolate in there which certainly made me smile as well as the sentiment of the simple statement.

That is what you call an open and shut case in a single word ... No opinion involved.

.

that's three words and it's still your opinion..
you want fries with that?

 

[Ringel05]

What makes you think we don't?

my evaluation

you mean your highly prejudicial and judgmental opinion..
an evaluation to be valid has to be impartial and objective..you fail on both counts.
thanks for playing!

Uuummm, something about stones and glass houses comes to mind. So far you've been much less than successful in that regard yourself.

 

[BlackSand]

it's your opinion, I was just stating fact, no opinion offered..

It is your opinion that it was simply an opinion on my part ... You don't have the leisure of assuming your opinions are valid enough to go unchallenged.

Example ... the wrapper I just opened reads "Smile".
Now I am sure that you could Google countless studies on the benefits and power of a smile.
Furthermore ... There was some milk chocolate in there which certainly made me smile as well as the sentiment of the simple statement.

That is what you call an open and shut case in a single word ... No opinion involved.

.

that's three words and it's still your opinion..
you want fries with that?

Well ... I guess you can count "Smile" any way you like it.

.

 

[Ringel05]

the last one is the only real reason; the rest are really excuses to question his existence

(don't tell the others I said that, it's an atheist secret!!!)

So how does the pursuit of knowledge exclusively exclude the possible existence of God? From the misuse of religion by groups and individuals I understand but science has also been misused is such a manner so the real question remains.... why is it a necessity for some? I'm sure I know the answer from a psychological and sociological aspect, but most people don't want to know, they consider themselves above common human failings and don't like hearing that they aren't. Yup the social sciences are my bailiwick.

A fair question. Let's look at it from both sides:

If there is a God, in a way, that's a great thing! If we can establish a contact with him, we could ask him about the intricacies of our world and universe and complete the database of human knowledge!

Of course, if he isn't real, there's the underlying problem that there isn't an omniscient being to tell us everything about the world and universe. Obviously this is suboptimal for knowledge gain.

However, the underlying issue is that there really is no evidence for this God. We have no way to contact him even if he does exist, and he hasn't left any evidence of his existence on his planet. Why, then, do we suppose he exists?

What happens here is that we can give non-answers to all of life's questions. How did the world come about? God did it. How did life come about? God did it. Why does the climate change? God did it. How were the sun, moon, and star created? God did it.

Without any reason to believe in this God, we have attributed to him many things, many of which we now know about (evolution, for example). Fundamentalism in particular is anti-intelligence and anti-science because it goes against the whole idea of attributing everything to an omnipotent being.

Of course, your argument seems to be "Who cares?" I answer, everyone interested in the pursuit of knowledge should care. Because whether there is a God or not would affect our view of reality entirely.

My "who cares" is really "why do you care" and is addressing the attempts by both sides to score cheap points and denigrate each other as opposed to actually discussing the issue dispassionately. Belief in anything is a personal choice therefore subject to one's metaphysical needs and desires and denigration of the typical believer and their system of faith is hateful at best.
Most non-believers here appear to simply want to stereotype all believers as ignorant, backwards bumpkins and make every effort to pursue that line. I will presume to state that the primary negative response by non believers is due to the primary media focus on the 1 or 2 percent of true religious radicals which inadvertently lends itself to stereotypical classifications. We judge by what we are exposed to.
In short, the vast majority of what's in this sub-forum is nothing more than a bait and slam fest, not as bad as the Palestine/Israel sub-forum but not too far behind.

 

[GibsonSG]

Think about it, if god existed, would we really be arguing over its existence?

 

[Vox]

Think about it, if god existed, would we really be arguing over its existence?

nobody is arguing - the boneheads demand for the gizillionth time the "proof", and are being shunned away.

 

[GibsonSG]

Think about it, if god existed, would we really be arguing over its existence?

nobody is arguing - the boneheads demand for the gizillionth time the "proof", and are being shunned away.

So, you got some actual proof?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I believe something we'd point at and call a god exists. I just don't believe it's the god(s) written about in our religions, at least not entirely.

Something that's always stood out in my mind is how psychologists and sociologists say governments like the US can't come right out and confirm UFOs or aliens exist because of how it's disrupt, threaten, or destroy religion. ...Why should it, unless what we've been calling gods all this time has a more flesh and blood reality instead of gods being some sort of ghosts.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clark

...or divinity.

 

[hobelim]

I believe something we'd point at and call a god exists. I just don't believe it's the god(s) written about in our religions, at least not entirely.

Something that's always stood out in my mind is how psychologists and sociologists say governments like the US can't come right out and confirm UFOs or aliens exist because of how it's disrupt, threaten, or destroy religion. ...Why should it, unless what we've been calling gods all this time has a more flesh and blood reality instead of gods being some sort of ghosts.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology will be indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clark

...or divinity.

It could be even less spectacular than that. it is well know that in ancient times people believed that other people could be gods.

also there is evidence that advanced civilizations, cities, etc., thrived 10,000 years or more ago, some suggesting they mastered flight, all around the globe at the time when the people who authored the bible were wandering nomads wearing animal skins, herding, hunter gatherers.

If someone from one of these places suddenly came down from the sky they would seem like gods and if one of these gods decided to take one hunter gatherer and teach it to till the earth and right from wrong and good from evil you would have the makings for the story of the creation of man.

They didn't have to come from the other side of the universe, just the other side of this planet.

Most evidence of any advanced people that settled on the coast or along inland waterways would have been swept clean away after the cataclysm resulting from the impact crater on the bottom of the indian ocean which dates to the approximate time of the story of a worldwide deluge and destruction of all but a few people..


That does not mean that there is no God as we understand God to be. It seems those advanced people had a belief in a divine being and infused that belief into the people they had been cultivating before the flood, who survived the flood.

 

[Ringel05]

Think about it, if god existed, would we really be arguing over its existence?

Look up the definition of fallacy. You'll see that argument listed as number one.

 

[GibsonSG]

Think about it, if god existed, would we really be arguing over its existence?

Look up the definition of fallacy. You'll see that argument listed as number one.

We don't argue over whether a tree exists because we can see and touch it.

 

[Ringel05]

Think about it, if god existed, would we really be arguing over its existence?

Look up the definition of fallacy. You'll see that argument listed as number one.

We don't argue over whether a tree exists because we can see and touch it.

Apples and oranges, one is the physical the other is the metaphysical. If you've had any academic training at all you would have known this and understood your argument is fallacy, ergo, you would not have used it.

 

[RoccoR]

GibsonSG, et al,

You are applying a test (a form of science). In faith, the existence is an unchallengeable belief.

Think about it, if god existed, would we really be arguing over its existence?

Look up the definition of fallacy. You'll see that argument listed as number one.

We don't argue over whether a tree exists because we can see and touch it.

(COMMENT)

We all recognize a tree. It has universally accepted characteristics that we can all apply and say: "Yes, what we are observing is a tree."

The Supreme Being is undefined. There are no universal characteristics that we can apply and agree on, relative to an observation. What is a Supreme Being and how would we recognize it if we observed it?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[GibsonSG]

GibsonSG, et al,

You are applying a test (a form of science). In faith, the existence is an unchallengeable belief.

Look up the definition of fallacy. You'll see that argument listed as number one.

We don't argue over whether a tree exists because we can see and touch it.

(COMMENT)

We all recognize a tree. It has universally accepted characteristics that we can all apply and say: "Yes, what we are observing is a tree."

The Supreme Being is undefined. There are no universal characteristics that we can apply and agree on, relative to an observation. What is a Supreme Being and how would we recognize it if we observed it?

Most Respectfully,
R

If you can't observe it, like dark matter for example, it's only a theory. Please try again.

 

[Ringel05]

GibsonSG, et al,

You are applying a test (a form of science). In faith, the existence is an unchallengeable belief.

We don't argue over whether a tree exists because we can see and touch it.

(COMMENT)

We all recognize a tree. It has universally accepted characteristics that we can all apply and say: "Yes, what we are observing is a tree."

The Supreme Being is undefined. There are no universal characteristics that we can apply and agree on, relative to an observation. What is a Supreme Being and how would we recognize it if we observed it?

Most Respectfully,
R

If you can't observe it, like dark matter for example, it's only a theory. Please try again.

Still you are trying to link the physical with the metaphysical, the two are mutually exclusive.

 

[daws101]

GibsonSG, et al,

You are applying a test (a form of science). In faith, the existence is an unchallengeable belief.


(COMMENT)

We all recognize a tree. It has universally accepted characteristics that we can all apply and say: "Yes, what we are observing is a tree."

The Supreme Being is undefined. There are no universal characteristics that we can apply and agree on, relative to an observation. What is a Supreme Being and how would we recognize it if we observed it?

Most Respectfully,
R

If you can't observe it, like dark matter for example, it's only a theory. Please try again.

Still you are trying to link the physical with the metaphysical, the two are mutually exclusive.

isn't that the same thing believers are doing?

 

[Ringel05]

If you can't observe it, like dark matter for example, it's only a theory. Please try again.

Still you are trying to link the physical with the metaphysical, the two are mutually exclusive.

isn't that the same thing believers are doing?

I'm pretty sure I've stated as much numerous times. You've actually thanked a couple of those posts.

 

[daws101]

Still you are trying to link the physical with the metaphysical, the two are mutually exclusive.

isn't that the same thing believers are doing?

I'm pretty sure I've stated as much numerous times. You've actually thanked a couple of those posts.

it was more of a statement then a question...

 

[Ringel05]

isn't that the same thing believers are doing?

I'm pretty sure I've stated as much numerous times. You've actually thanked a couple of those posts.

it was more of a statement then a question...

Oops....

 

[Vox]

Think about it, if god existed, would we really be arguing over its existence?

Look up the definition of fallacy. You'll see that argument listed as number one.

We don't argue over whether a tree exists because we can see and touch it.[/

blind from birth paraplegic can't...