Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
This is his argument? All this says is that the theist has the burden of proof and what they would have to do to meet it.
This is Dre's argument for anyone so inclined.
@Underdoggs - I pretty much knew that this was Dre's argument, it has been pretty clear the whole time because of his line of questioning. I am asking for him to justify these things, which I haven't seen him do and he doesn't do here. He just keeps saying it's too long or no one will understand. Saying the first cause can't have contingent properties and is self-necessary isn't something that has been said before, I want to know why it is rational to believe such a being exists.
Remember, I said earlier that sometimes I think I hear God but it's probably just me. Chuee, I get your point but careful about the conclusions you jump to. I definitely have enough sanity and integrity to realize that words that echo through my mind are probably, well, my mind. Also, every time I see healing of any kind I don't automatically think of God (although I'm sure he'd love the conversation anyway). Yesterday I took some ibuprofen because I had a headache, and when it went away I didn't get all spiritual. Lol. I'm a pretty normal guy. I've doubted a lot through the years, and I've told God "I don't believe you're real right now." But he's still convinced me he's real. Yes, I do want to believe in God, but I also try to be a realist. The two can indeed go together.
It's interesting you say that, because actually African Christians are known to experience the power of prayer far more than Western Christians, probably because of how propped up we are by all our false comforts that dull our hunger for God. We have our own slew of demons here, and we need real hope just as badly.
Expound on this if you would.
I pray he does one day. I really do.
This will probably be shocking but I don't believe I said that God was all-loving or all-forgiving. At least, I never meant to. I said some similar things, but I purposefully avoided insinuating that he is unconditionally loving and unconditionally forgiving, if that's what you meant. Yes, I believe he's always good, but "loving" in the sense that we English speakers understand the word doesn't necessarily equal "good". I might be wrong... but I'm not aware of any bible verse that claims that God's love or forgiveness is unconditional. God sends people to hell, so yes he's not all-loving in the sense that we think of.
Good parents punish and discipline their kids... but what is your point here?
The scientific method is a beautiful thing, but applying it to something like prayer seems really bizarre. Either prayer is completely bogus and God doesn't exist, in which case the test yields no positive results; or prayer is pretty much what we've thought it to be for thousands of years and it is unscientific by nature, in which case the test yields no positive results. I'd say that if God wants us to "test" prayer, then we should try doing it with sincerity instead of a personal agenda. That's kind of an answer to your first question.
You're thinking performance-oriented here. Yes, all sins are equal. In the same way, all people are equal in the sense that we all need to be saved. No one is more "good" (whatever that would even mean) than anyone else. But that doesn't even really matter because sinning against a person IS sinning against God.
Or a bird in the the bush?
^YES. Biblical Christianity baby. Preach.
You could say he doesn't need prayer, but he chooses to need prayer, but the real reason is he really wants partnership with us. Actually, if anyone needs it it's us.
There is a difference between something being scientific, and something that can or cannot be made to make sense or have any consistency. Sincerity doesn't even yield more results than those who are less sincere, I don't think anyone can see a pattern when people pray about something and it ends up happening and when it doesn't.
on a pedestal, something that is the foundation for religion in general. (Not saying that is some universal trait for Christians to the negative extent I mentioned).
****ing lol
...But if we can't understand it, how can we possibly give a satisfactory answer? This argument, "We don't know, therefore god", was always awful.
Yes, because clearly it requires an equal amount of faith to believe in Allah and to believe that I should leave the house by the door, rather than my third-floor bedroom window if I don't want to get hurt on my way out.
spectrum .
Not the same thing. The iboprofen thing is silly because iboprofen is made to cure the sickness, so you know why it was cured. The examples you listed were examples of things that you didn't know why they were cured so you attributed it to supernatural causes. The voices in your head thing works in a similar fashion.
Yeah, I doubt that. When you look at the terrible condition most African countries are in, a few 'reported' healings are worth nothing compared to the horrible state that almost all of Africa is in. It's dumb to think that God heals a few people that he wants to and lets the rest suffer.
I hope he does too, if he's willing to punish me and everyone else who doesn't get on their knee's and bow down to him every week.
I'd argue that physical punishment is unjustified, but even so the extent a parent would have to 'discipline' their child for it to compare to God's eternal punishment in hell would be enormous. Also, the point of discipline is to teach the children not to do what they did again, to make them realize their mistakes. God doesn't allow you into heaven once you realize you were wrong.
Prayer doesn't work. Period.
Actually he knows what you want at all times, so you don't need to pray.
Faith: belief that is not based on proof
It still doesn't make any sense to compare that which we take on faith to that which we take on evidence.
we take everything on both faith and evidence. that was my point. some propositions have more of one and less of the other, and some are more likely to be true than others, but our foundation for knowledge doesn't change.
lol yes basically.
and yet you can't sufficiently answer my arguments against your atheism. come back to me when you can explain the nature of knowledge.
Why must a god prove itself to a mortal?
Yeah, **** mortals.
I'm not too sure. For a bit of context though, if there was nothing, you wouldn't be here to ask why there was nothing rather than something. Think about that a little.
And for this, I laugh at theists. They think that "god did it" is a viable answer. It's an incredibly lazy idea. It's not an explanation. It's an answer that fills the gaps, hence "God of the gaps".
i agree, but you gave an agnostic answer, not an agnostic atheist answer.
