Am i the only one?

See post above http://able2know.org/topic/253441-2#post-5752551

The Bible is not a scientific treatise; a bibliometer does not exist.

Frank Apisa wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

CharliesGold wrote:

Don't take this as I don't believe in God. I do.
But it's kinda like I question certain things... like, if He can do all the things that the Bible says then why is there war? murder? rape? poverty? world hunger? cancer? I understand that sin started with Adam & Eve but couldn't God just stop all of this??? Also, what is the actual meaning of "The Rapture"? What's supposed to actually happen?? Im so confused..

There is a simple, rational and logical solution so all of those questions... your original assumption is incorrect. There is no God.

How do you KNOW that???

I didn't say I know that. I only said it's a simple, rational and logical solution to all those questions which were posed. And it is. I think you're too focused on your own message to hear what others are saying.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

There is a simple, rational and logical solution so all of those questions... your original assumption is incorrect. There is no God.

But, on the other hand, if there is a God, there must be an explanation for human misery.

Are you saying that if a human cannot provide a particle of evidence for a thing...

...that means "the thing" cannot exist???

Humans must be pretty hot stuff in your opinion.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's illogical to believe a thing to be true if you have no evidence that it's true.

If there is a God, why were you, when questioned in another thread, unable to provide a particle of evidence of it?

neologist wrote:

See post above http://able2know.org/topic/253441-2#post-5752551

The Bible is not a scientific treatise; a bibliometer does not exist.

I didn't ask you for a bibliometer. I asked you for any evidence whatever of any kind that a God exists. How is the fact that everything in the Bible is not completely incompatible with science evidence that a God exists?

I believe Neo is lending support to the credibility of the testimony that makes up a portion of his evidence.

Would you infer that there is no scientific evidence in support of a creator hypothesis?

I believe Neo is lending support to the credibility of the testimony that makes up a portion of his evidence.

Would you infer that there is no scientific evidence in support of a creator hypothesis?

Smileyrius wrote:

I believe Neo is lending support to the credibility of the testimony that makes up a portion of his evidence.

Would you infer that there is no scientific evidence in support of a creator hypothesis?

Let's say that I dare people to show me any evidence.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

There is a simple, rational and logical solution so all of those questions... your original assumption is incorrect. There is no God.

But, on the other hand, if there is a God, there must be an explanation for human misery.

Are you saying that if a human cannot provide a particle of evidence for a thing...

...that means "the thing" cannot exist???

Humans must be pretty hot stuff in your opinion.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's illogical to believe a thing to be true if you have no evidence that it's true.

Then why did you ask:

Quote:

If there is a God, why were you, when questioned in another thread, unable to provide a particle of evidence of it?

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

See post above http://able2know.org/topic/253441-2#post-5752551

The Bible is not a scientific treatise; a bibliometer does not exist.

I didn't ask you for a bibliometer. I asked you for any evidence whatever of any kind that a God exists. How is the fact that everything in the Bible is not completely incompatible with science evidence that a God exists?

I agree with you that it is absolutely illogical to assert that a god exists.

It is just as illogical to assert that gods do not exist.

If I were, however, to ask you to provide even a shred of evidence that any carbon-based life of any sort exists on any planet circling the nearest 3 stars to Sol...you would not be able to provide any...

...but the fact that you would not DOES NOT provide any information about whether or not any carbon-based life exists or does not exist on any of those planets.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Smileyrius wrote:

I believe Neo is lending support to the credibility of the testimony that makes up a portion of his evidence.

Would you infer that there is no scientific evidence in support of a creator hypothesis?

Let's say that I dare people to show me any evidence.

Okay...(even from someone who is not religious in any way)...

...I submit the stars, the planets, cats, carrots, golf balls, humans, and anything made of atoms as evidence of a creator.

So...where do we go from there?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

There is a simple, rational and logical solution so all of those questions... your original assumption is incorrect. There is no God.

But, on the other hand, if there is a God, there must be an explanation for human misery.

Are you saying that if a human cannot provide a particle of evidence for a thing...

...that means "the thing" cannot exist???

Humans must be pretty hot stuff in your opinion.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that it's illogical to believe a thing to be true if you have no evidence that it's true.

Then why did you ask:

Quote:

If there is a God, why were you, when questioned in another thread, unable to provide a particle of evidence of it?

Because if an entity created the universe and maintains a hand in its operation, in that one situation, one would actually expect a little sign in the world that it may be true. It would be odd if it were true and no sign of it whatever existed. However, the more important point is that if he cannot provide any evidence for it, it is illogical to believe it.

Brandon...there may be ALL SORTS OF SIGNS OF IT...but you are not willing to accept any of them.

Neither am I...but at least I am willing to concede that EVERYTHING we see (or assume to see) MAY BE signs of it.

Open your mind a bit...and maybe you will be able to concede that also.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

neologist wrote:

See post above http://able2know.org/topic/253441-2#post-5752551

The Bible is not a scientific treatise; a bibliometer does not exist.

I didn't ask you for a bibliometer. I asked you for any evidence whatever of any kind that a God exists. How is the fact that everything in the Bible is not completely incompatible with science evidence that a God exists?

I agree with you that it is absolutely illogical to assert that a god exists.

It is just as illogical to assert that gods do not exist.

If I were, however, to ask you to provide even a shred of evidence that any carbon-based life of any sort exists on any planet circling the nearest 3 stars to Sol...you would not be able to provide any...

...but the fact that you would not DOES NOT provide any information about whether or not any carbon-based life exists or does not exist on any of those planets.

I do not assert that a God doesn't exist. I assert that with no evidence for it, it is illogical to believe it.

However, that point having been made, because there is no evidence for a creator of the universe who still keeps a hand in its operation, and because I seem to see people believing in it because they are comforted by the idea, which has no bearing on truth, and because I can see how primitive, pre-scientific man would come up with such an idea, and because more and more things once attributed to God now seem to be only the result of scientific processes, I suspect that there is no God.

Quote:

However, that point having been made, because there is no evidence for a creator of the universe who still keeps a hand in its operation, and because I seem to see people believing in it because they are comforted by the idea, which has no bearing on truth, and because I can see how primitive, pre-scientific man would come up with such an idea, and because more and more things once attributed to God now seem to be only the result of scientific processes, I suspect that there is no God.

So...suspect it...and enjoy your suspicion.

Others are going to "suspect" in the other direction...and they are no less logical than you seem to think you are being.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Smileyrius wrote:

I believe Neo is lending support to the credibility of the testimony that makes up a portion of his evidence.

Would you infer that there is no scientific evidence in support of a creator hypothesis?

Let's say that I dare people to show me any evidence.

Okay...(even from someone who is not religious in any way)...

...I submit the stars, the planets, cats, carrots, golf balls, humans, and anything made of atoms as evidence of a creator.

So...where do we go from there?

Those could all have been created by natural processes requiring no intelligent creator. The fact that we don't understand every bit of it is irrelevant. There is no reason to attribute this to a God rather than natural processes, and you cannot demonstrate in any way at all that a God is more likely.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon...there may be ALL SORTS OF SIGNS OF IT...but you are not willing to accept any of them.

Neither am I...but at least I am willing to concede that EVERYTHING we see (or assume to see) MAY BE signs of it.

Open your mind a bit...and maybe you will be able to concede that also.

If you want me to concede it, tell me one of these so-called signs.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:

However, that point having been made, because there is no evidence for a creator of the universe who still keeps a hand in its operation, and because I seem to see people believing in it because they are comforted by the idea, which has no bearing on truth, and because I can see how primitive, pre-scientific man would come up with such an idea, and because more and more things once attributed to God now seem to be only the result of scientific processes, I suspect that there is no God.

So...suspect it...and enjoy your suspicion.

Others are going to "suspect" in the other direction...and they are no less logical than you seem to think you are being.

I suspect that there is no God partly because there is no evidence that one exists. Also, because if a God created the universe and maintains a hand in our lives, one would expect some sign of it.

What is the evidence that a God exists which leads believers to suspect that one does?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Smileyrius wrote:

I believe Neo is lending support to the credibility of the testimony that makes up a portion of his evidence.

Would you infer that there is no scientific evidence in support of a creator hypothesis?

Let's say that I dare people to show me any evidence.

Okay...(even from someone who is not religious in any way)...

...I submit the stars, the planets, cats, carrots, golf balls, humans, and anything made of atoms as evidence of a creator.

So...where do we go from there?

Those could all have been created by natural processes requiring no intelligent creator. The fact that we don't understand every bit of it is irrelevant. There is no reason to attribute this to a God rather than natural processes, and you cannot demonstrate in any way at all that a God is more likely.

I am not attributing it to any gods, Brandon.

I am saying that IF there is a creator god (something it seems none of us knows for sure)...

...but IF there is such a god...

...then EVERYTHING here is evidence of that god.

You are dismissing it as "evidence" that a creator god exists because it is NOT PROOF that there is a god.

Stop doing that. It is illogical to do so.