Mocha
Full Member
Posts: 194
Likes: 128
Meta-Ethnicity: Coffee
Ethnicity: Caffè Latte
Ancestry: 90% Milk / 6% Cocoa Powder / 4% Espresso
Relationship Status: Caffeinated
Age: Freshly Brewed
|
Post by Mocha on Feb 20, 2018 16:40:19 GMT
I'm sick and tired of these godforsaken theists keep saying they have evidence of a god, yet don't show any to us! They think we'll just accept some thinly-veiled fallacies and false premises without us looking twice. We know that's not the evidence, don't try fooling us! Show us the real evidence! Why do they keep hiding the truth of a god from all of us?! I've heard a lot saying there's this god everywhere in nature, but I tried looking under a few rocks and I couldn't find it. Maybe it was under that really big one I couldn't lift, who knows. Some others say it's in the Bible, but I must've skimmed over the part proving a deity or something. Maybe I was too busy laughing at stuff like Joshua 2:1, 2 Chronicles 21:11, and Luke 17:15-16, and trying to figure out the details of how stuff like where the light in Genesis 1:3 came from without a sun or stars, and how the plants in 1:11 grew without the sun. Or maybe it was that light mentioned from before? Where did it ever go, anyways? Who knows. Still others say I just have to open my heart. I've been doing that, but haven't felt anything. Maybe it's a problem with the time zone differences. What's the UTC offset for heaven, again? There are even a few that say something about bananas and how they fit perfectly, but personally I'm a bit creeped out by the way they phrase that. If I didn't know any better, I would almost say they didn't have any evidence...
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Feb 22, 2018 23:38:30 GMT
The truth is that the Bible is a guide to man's salvation, and not a textbook on physics. Many things were written in simple language so that people read and understood it for many centuries!
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Feb 24, 2018 3:49:58 GMT
>As for "god", look it up any dictionary and see a list of several different definitions since there isn't one accepted definition. Mainly because of these pesky little things called context and nuance. They're all correct defintions, they're just context-dependent, and this is even funnier because you prove my point by using multiple definitions of the same lemmata (eg. be). >Is the god of pantheism supernatural? No, but why bother calling it a god then? If I call everything tuna does that make it tuna? >What about the god of deism? Yes >[Old Testament] Sure, and that means you believe in the god Tuna, because I define Tuna as the entire universe. What amazing places this logic gets us. >So your definition is wrong. Seeing as how you are apparently a prescriptivist, I expected no less. Your definition of Tuna is wrong. Also, you should really consider informing Merriam-Webster, OED, etc about this huge error, because their definitions are far more in line with what I said than what you said. >A god is really just a global force or set of forces that cannot be described scientifically. If it can't be described scientifically, I can't imagine it would be natural. This contradicts your previous statement about how you define the god of the Bible, since any force of nature is able to be described scientifically. You seem to be trying to miss my point. What makes a good definition of a word? A good definition captures the meaning in common usage of the word and eliminates meanings that don't fit any usage of the word. So your Tuna fails. So does your definition of "a supernatural entity" by your admission that the god of pantheism is not supernatural. Because the pantheists don't conform to your definition, you want them to call their god "Tuna". I don't think they will oblige. You have invented a definition of god that you want to impose on everyone, and then use this definition as a basis reject God. But my definition of "god" is much better and covers all uses of "god" including pantheism. The common definitions, like those found dictionaries, reflect the Christian culture that they come from and are insufficient to cover non-Christian views of God. Let me explain my definition more by looking at forces that we know of. Gravity is the classic scientific force, first described mathematically by Galileo, then generalized by Newton, then explained by Einstein. This is a force of hard science. Next consider evolution. This is the force that shaped life. Yet we cannot describe it mathematically and we cannot conduct controlled experiments to prove its existence. We believe in evolution simply because it makes sense as an explanation, and for no other reason. It is only considered part of science because scientists accepted it. If scientists had rejected evolution, maybe it would have found a home in some religion. After all, the god of the Old Testament is much like evolution. This god is the force that shapes human history in the same way that evolution shapes life. The main difference is that the mechanism of evolution is understood while the mechanism of God is not (though I have my own explanation which I think is as good as evolution). The key point of monotheism is that there is one universal set of forces of reality that must be respected above all things. This means that inductive reason trumps deductive reason, and that empiricism trumps rationalism. One should worship God simply as a reminder to oneself that one's own ideas don't transcend reality. I was an atheist and I have posted to many atheist forums, all of which classified me as a theist and banned me. So your fellow atheist agree with me, that my god is a god. I am fine with being banned from evil, since atheism is evil. I will gladly take on any atheist in any uncensored forum, and I am sure I will win.
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Feb 25, 2018 6:17:12 GMT
[It's strong words as for believer of god. I think god doesn't care to be protected. But what the evidences? Real evidences; facts? I don't need evidence against atheists because they are the ones making the positive claim that there is no god, so they have to defend their claim. I would only need evidence to argue with an agnostic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 7:47:25 GMT
Elizabeth Elizabeth, are you really protestant?.. I thought you're Orthodox? Nope, was always protestant ...I see. I have some protestant friends. I've always liked them 'cause of their gently and friendly. You are too
|
|