I don't believe in gods, but I do believe in ghosts, space aliens' bases in the Antarctic, Big Foot and the Loch Ness creature. Not to mention bunions on big toes.
@edgarblythe,
Just kidding. About bunions.
@Setanta,
Well, maybe some people believe that.
@neologist,
Human faith is properly a function of human knowledge.
If you have the knowledge about God, then you will have the faith in God.
No man can serve two masters. He cannot give his heart to two services at the same time. ... When two masters oppose each other.
>>"No one can serve two masters, because either he will hate one and love the other, or be loyal to one and despise the other.
You cannot serve the Visible world and the Invisible God.
@Kenson,
OK, wise guy, what do you know,
to a certainty, about god? I'm not interested in what you choose to believe, but in what you
know.
Kenson wrote:Human faith is properly a function of human knowledge.
From my experience, faith is inversely proportional to knowledge...
@Francis,
Francis wrote:
Kenson wrote:Human faith is properly a function of human knowledge.
From my experience, faith is inversely proportional to knowledge...
More precisely a definition of credulity
@Setanta,
This might be interesting
@Setanta,
According to John 5:37, Jesus said that no one had ever seen God at anytime or ever heard his voice.
Paul argues that 'God' is incomprehensible in His essence,
"dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto;
whom no man hath seen, nor can see" (1 Timothy 6:16).
>>> Setanta, I would like to agree with John and Paul!
@Xenoche,
Answer must be Yes, because there is proof for the existence of God.
That may be a good sandwich you are making there, Ken.
How about adding meat, cheese, lettuce, tomato, and mayo.
Oh, and some bread.
@Xenoche,
Here, in our living life itself.
@Xenoche,
God Does Not Want Our Worship.!
God is NOT our creator!
'God' is only a Truth to be accepted as the base of our faith.
Many asseverations unaccompanied by logic or authority. Somebody, please try to prove a point.
@neologist,
Being the umpteenth thread on religion, none of which bear any fruitful resolution, pretty much sums up the futility shown in each and every thread, and the power of religion to create the most monumental schism's mankind ever known.
Logic means nothing to the illogical.
Authority in the religious mind comes no greater than their chosen deity.
Enlighten me Neo, whats the point?
It is not necessary to disprove the existence of a god anymore than it is necessary to disprove that there are unicorns. Put simply, the universe does not require a god to operate.
What we often brand as unexplainable, is in truth just unexplained. The notion that something can not be explained within the natural universe and therefore requires the insertion of a supernatural agent, is a unsupportable thesis.
What this means is simple in terms of the thread's question.
Natural model: God exists inside the universe and is subject to its laws. Therefore evidence and later proof can be found.
Supernatural model: God exists outside the universe and is not subject to its laws. Therefore no evidence will be found and no proof can be formed.
I think for the theist, the temptation is to adhere to the supernatural model because it's a lot safer. You cannot be proven wrong. You can't be proven right either, which really isn't a problem if all you want is equal footing with others who do not think as you. The unintended price one pays however in the subscription to the supernatural model is that all things supernatural have the exactly (not higher, not lower) probability.
This point demands repeating: All things supernatural have the exact probability. That means very specifically, that every argument for god via the supernatural model is simply a argument for the possibility of the supernatural. One cannot advance the theory of a god in this model by itself without bringing the unicorn, the cyclops, the wizard, etc. There is no measure to leverage one supernatural entity against another in terms of existence. None.
The alternative as I mentioned is the natural model. This one comes with its own baggage: You could be wrong about what god is or if it exists at all. The body of evidence must converge on a god that is under the same rules of the universe as us, the tree, the earth, the sun, etc. For the evidence to be proof it cannot simply converge though, it must also be in agreement with all other parts of our universe. The important thing about the natural model is that the concept of "proof" does exist. It does not mean that there is proof for a god however.
If the point of this thread is too ask if there is proof of God, then it demands that the natural model is used. This returns me to my initial statement: It is not necessary to disprove the existence of god. In our quest to understand the universe and all that is in it, we have yet to see the evidence of a god, which given the theory of god, the evidence should be everywhere. Where we should find the evidence of creation and design, we instead find evidence of big bang singularities and evolution. Even when it is theorized that a god could drive both natural events, we find evidence of other natural drivers.
In short: God in unnecessary in an understanding of the universe.
T
K
O
