SubJeff on 5/12/2007 at 20:23
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
You can keep on saying 'there is no evidence' but that does not make it so. I could say there is no evidence that man landed on the moon but plenty of people seem to think there is.
But people can show you what amounts to evidence. There is nothing you can show to anyone that is evidence of the divine.
paloalto90 on 5/12/2007 at 20:24
Quote Posted by Aja
God, by definition, must be two things. He must be omnipotent, and he must be perfectly good.
But there is clearly much pain and suffering in the world. Therefore, God is either not omnipotent, not perfectly good, or not existent. And what would be the point in worshiping a god who wasn't good and all-powerful?
Would the student learn if the teacher did all the work?
Having God do everything for us would negate the reason for us being here,also our free will. The question is since man was given free will and is in essence a co creator with God,who created the pain and suffering here?
The fact that man has misused his free will does not effect the state of God's perfection.
But in order for us not to be robots wew were given a choice.That is a demonstration of love.
Chimpy Chompy on 5/12/2007 at 20:26
Wait wait, how do we know a god would fit the human concept of "perfectly good"?
jay pettitt on 5/12/2007 at 20:29
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
Which is why I agree with paloalto90 that the argument is non-sense.
It's not a difinitive argument; it is invitation for questions about why one thing is so, when many others a not.
SubJeff on 5/12/2007 at 20:29
He doesn't. This is just another example of indoctrination. As I said earlier in this thread - God doesn't "need" to be anything you want or expect him/it to be.
heretic on 5/12/2007 at 20:30
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
But people can show you what amounts to evidence. There is nothing you can show to anyone that is evidence of the divine.
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kwh_yOzJ6AY) I beg to differ
*Zaccheus* on 5/12/2007 at 20:38
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Why? It seems like a good way of defining evidence that means anything to anyone other than the person who originally gathers it.
In court cases, for example, there is sometimes evidence which is not repeatable or testable.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
But people can show you what amounts to evidence.
How would I know if a piece of rock which someone shows me really came from the moon or whether a burnt space capsule was really burnt due to re-entry.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
There is nothing you can show to anyone that is evidence of the divine.
Many people would consider the scriptures to be eye witnesses accounts of actual events. There are also modern day accounts of people being healed due to prayer, for example. There are other things I won't go into right now.
These are not proofs by any stretch of the imagination, but it is simply not true to say that there is no evidence what-so-ever. I can, however, understand people who say that they find such evidence unconvincing.
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Wait wait, how do we know a god would fit the human concept of "perfectly good"?
I think in the case of the bible he clearly does not.
;)
SubJeff on 5/12/2007 at 20:45
This is just it though. People can show you photographic evidence of all sorts of things, or can demonstrate their existence.
All you have to go on re: your God is a book that people have supposedly passed down through the years. It's just text and no matter what you say other people believe it doesn't amount to real evidence of a God.
In fact the only thing it shows is that there is a book that people thing has something to do with God. Oh, and it has some historical descriptions that match up with other historical documents that still don't provide evidence of a God.
Let's put it this way - if you had been brought up living in Tibet and never exposed to the outside, and I brought you a bible and all the technology you needed or wanted, you could no easier convince yourself of it's truth with evidence than of any other religious account.
Vasquez on 5/12/2007 at 20:48
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
Many people would consider the scriptures to be eye witnesses accounts of actual events.
Eye witness or personal experience doesn't make a scientific fact. Otherwise there would've already been "proved" travels to Jupiter, Sirius etc.
Quote Posted by *Zaccheus*
There are also modern day accounts of people being healed due to prayer, for example.
Again, it would be hard to prove in any reliable way that the prayers were the healing factor instead of, for example, spontaneous recovery, which is rare but possible.
*Zaccheus* on 5/12/2007 at 20:53
I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence in the sense of reasons to think something might be true.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Let's put it this way - if you had been brought up living in Tibet and never exposed to the outside, and I brought you a bible and all the technology you needed or wanted, you could no easier convince yourself of it's truth with evidence than of any other religious account.
Technology is not the answer, we all agree on that.
Of course, there are people in Tibet have become Christians, and of course there is also evidence that other faiths may be true.
Personally I found the initial evidence for Christianity interesting enough to explore the claims and due to various experiences now believe it to be true.
One thing I would not claim is that there is physical proof of God's existence.
