Needing proof of God is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by HylianShroom

that is not a good analogy. to touch fire even if you know it will burn you is not wrong in itself. Youre action is motivated by desires or just plain foolishness.

Foolishness is a term created by humans. In the end, lack of knowledge to something around us is just that - lacking knowledge.

Originally Posted by Aex

Puck, for someone who seems so sure that others know "NOTHING," you don't appear to have a very good grasp on the concept of omnipotency. God, as a deity (however fictional), has the ability to do whatever he pleases. He could change the free will of his people and he could very well stop whatever might displease him.

The fact that he doesn't, though, actually makes him a very nice God. Though people reject him, he doesn't just force everyone to love him. Don't you think God suffers himself when people curse him and disobey him? Yet he continues to let us defy him, while he patiently waits for us to love him.

Do you think you would really truly love God if there was no evil? Without evil, we would have to choose God.

But he doesn't. It seems to me that this is because of one of two possibilities. One, perhaps he just doesn't care. Maybe he thinks it's best to let evil run through his world. Or two, he doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]

You left out one option: He might just know a heck of a lot more than us.

Sorry, I'm a little late but...

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Yet I see many people saying that he is unchanging. In fact, if he was omniscient, how/why could/would he change his mind? The first way he did things would presumably be the best way.

Unless the whole "changing" thing was in His divine plan all along.

Why was it OK for God to display his power previously, yet now doing so would be considered removing free will? Did God just decide that people in the old testament shouldn't have any free will to choose to worship him or not?

I don't think it would, as one doesn't have to believe it is the Power of God they are observing.

Yet studies have been done which show that praying for people doesn't help them recover from illness. Would a loving God simply let people die because he doesn't like being tested?

Prayer for someone to heal doesn't always result with someone healed. A common misconseption about prayer, from what I've seen, is that they are supposed to always end up with possitive results. This, however, is not the case. Basically, a prayer is a request to God about something, be it anything. If it is His will, then he will answer your prayer with possitive results. However, if it is His will He will answer your prayer with negative results from what you were expecting. If God is truely omniscient (which I certainly believe Him to be) then His answer to one's prayer would be the best answer. Some prayers don't need to be answered possitively. We seem to base the answer of a prayer around what we expect, then God answers it with something completely unexpected and it throws us off.

As for God letting people die, He has reasons for everything that happens, good and/or bad. Let's say someone just died. This may seem like a very cruel thing to do, letting someone die, I can see where one would think that. But consider this; this dead person donates his/her organs for other's benifit. This could save multiple people's lives. Now one might think something along the lines of "Well, if He's really omnipotent, why didn't he just save everybody?" Well, in the beginning God punished us for deliberately disobeying Him. I believe that this punishment is still going on to this very day. That's why there are bad things in the world such as death, etc. OK, now one may think "Why didn't he just make it to where we couldn't sin?" Well, I honestly don't know why. I'm probably not supposed to, that's why I don't know. God works in strange ways that may not make sense to us at first, but in the end, it will. (as understood within Christianity) Sorry if I got a little off topic, but I think it helps further explain the previous inquiries.

Originally Posted by Sax4Life

Perhaps there is no proof against him... but there's no proof against many other made up beings as well. It doesn't give me a reason to believe in him, or the other made up beings.

Personally I think the idea of God is man made, and the whole "can't be disproved" idea was made up to keep the idea of religion going on for a long time. I don't buy it.

"Made up?" And you're talking about no proof for God, is there proof for your claim? I find it interesting how nearly every culture has at least once come to the conclusion of the existance of God/Gods/Deity things. Wouldn't various cultures come up with something a little more different from the others? Just a thought.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Actually, perfectly valid theories have been put forward for the creation of life, the universe, and everything.

I'd hardly call them "perfectly valid". More like "Hardly feasible", especially the theory of abiogenesis, but that's for another topic.

Originally Posted by Aex

...He could change the free will of his people and he could very well stop whatever might displease him.

But he doesn't. It seems to me that this is because of one of two possibilities. One, perhaps he just doesn't care. Maybe he thinks it's best to let evil run through his world. Or two, he doesn't exist.

Or maybe He has allowed evil to enter the world because without it there's no way for the human being to comprehend good. It's like light and dark. How would I know what light is if I've never observed the dark? Now one might ask "Well why didn't He make us to where we don't need evil to know good?" Well, don't ask me, I'm not God.

Originally Posted by Solarian Wolf

Why not? A person who is athiest believes that there isn't anything to believe in, except science and facts.

And yet an the most fundamental belief of being an athiest is that God does not exist. A belief not supported by science or by facts... Ironic...

The only religion that truly relies only on facts alone is Agnosticism. But I don't believe there is a true agnostic person in existence, becuase everyone believes in certain things by faith, otherwise they wouldn't be able to function.

I could ask an agnostic person "does your mother love you". They might reply "yes", but they would never be able to proove this with facts, it takes faith. And faith is somthing every person has no matter what they may claim.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

And yet an the most fundamental belief of being an athiest is that God does not exist. A belief not supported by science or by facts... Ironic...

The only religion that truly relies only on facts alone is Agnosticism. But I don't believe there is a true agnostic person in existence, becuase everyone believes in certain things by faith, otherwise they wouldn't be able to function.

I could ask an agnostic person "does your mother love you". They might reply "yes", but they would never be able to proove this with facts, it takes faith. And faith is somthing every person has no matter what they may claim.

Why not? We believe that this result might happen hence we conduct a scientific experiment on it to further prove that what we believe is right. There's nothing ironic about it.

Agonistic person can believe whatever they want to believe in, whether it'd be God or pure science. It depends on situation. There's nothing special to ponder about. No one is saying people cannot have faith because they believe in science. Without faith, there's no hope. Without hope, there's no point in living. People who choose to believe in science more than pure spiritual guide that may or may not exist at all also have faith. The only difference is that their faith is on a different direction than just toward God.

"There is no evidence that God is there. Therefore God is not there."
"There is no evidence that 'God' is not there. Therefore there is a 'God'"

The two famous qoutes...I stick with the first one. I think that the second one is retarded.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

And yet an the most fundamental belief of being an athiest is that God does not exist. A belief not supported by science or by facts... Ironic...

The only religion that truly relies only on facts alone is Agnosticism. But I don't believe there is a true agnostic person in existence, becuase everyone believes in certain things by faith, otherwise they wouldn't be able to function.

Read the earlier posts in this thread, most atheists do not say "God cannot exist".

I could ask an agnostic person "does your mother love you". They might reply "yes", but they would never be able to proove this with facts, it takes faith. And faith is somthing every person has no matter what they may claim.

Actually, it doesn't take any faith. You can determine if you're loved using nothing but logic.

If your mother acts like she loves you, and is willing to make sacrifices for you, you can conclude that she does, in fact, love you.

Whereas, if you had to rely on faith you would have to claim that your mother loves you even while she beats you with a frying pan.

Alright. First off, I'd like to apologize for being a cold-hearted jerk. At least I feel as if I've been a cold-hearted jerk. While debating about Christianity and the like, at least.

If proving God is a battle of words, then I loose. Every Christian looses. Why? God can be proved, but he cannot be defined. Once we find nice little words to define God, we're not talking about God anymore. God is bigger, beyond any word we could ever use to define him. So if you're looking to put God in a box to your own liking, it's not going to happen. If you're looking to find God in words and theology, it's not going to happen. We made up our words and we made up our theology. If you're looking for God, find God where God is. And he's probably a lot closer than you realize.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Actually, it doesn't take any faith. You can determine if you're loved using nothing but logic.

If your mother acts like she loves you, and is willing to make sacrifices for you, you can conclude that she does, in fact, love you.

Whereas, if you had to rely on faith you would have to claim that your mother loves you even while she beats you with a frying pan.

No. there is no way to know youre mother loves you, that is a huge assumption. There is no way i can even tell if any other people are real and share the same consciousness as i do. everyone but youreself might be drones or parts of youre own psyche. the fact is we cannot share our experiences, they are private. we cannot even be sure our experiences are real, our senses constantly fool us, our eyes are decieved. You never know, the Evil Demon theory might be true...

Which is when more logical reasoning comes into play, namely: The least complicated and most probable theory that fits all of the evidence is the correct one.

It is much very likely that your mother loves you when she makes sacrifices for you. The alternative is that she has some vast ulterior motive that simply makes it look like she loves you all the time.

Which is more likely? The first option, so until she does several things that contradict that theory you assume it to be true.

Same goes for "Do we exist?" and other such questions.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Which is when more logical reasoning comes into play, namely: The least complicated and most probable theory that fits all of the evidence is the correct one.

It is much very likely that your mother loves you when she makes sacrifices for you. The alternative is that she has some vast ulterior motive that simply makes it look like she loves you all the time.

Which is more likely? The first option, so until she does several things that contradict that theory you assume it to be true.

Same goes for "Do we exist?" and other such questions.

no no no. occams razor is not proof of anything, or in fact logical. it states that the simplest explanation is probably true. it may be likely that youre mother loves you, but equally likely that she is not even a conscious being. you believe her to be because of the way humans work, ie cause and effect. she loves you - she makes sacrifice. this sequence may seem obvious but it isnt necessarly true. in fact if you read Kant you will see that cause and effect is a neccessary codition for our experiences. always remember that the way we think is determined by the world we live in.

also you can never get inside the heads of others and find out if they are conscious

Originally Posted by dann

Alright. First off, I'd like to apologize for being a cold-hearted jerk. At least I feel as if I've been a cold-hearted jerk. While debating about Christianity and the like, at least.

If proving God is a battle of words, then I loose. Every Christian looses. Why? God can be proved, but he cannot be defined. Once we find nice little words to define God, we're not talking about God anymore. God is bigger, beyond any word we could ever use to define him. So if you're looking to put God in a box to your own liking, it's not going to happen. If you're looking to find God in words and theology, it's not going to happen. We made up our words and we made up our theology. If you're looking for God, find God where God is. And he's probably a lot closer than you realize.

Which is all the more reason to keep the experiences within yourself rather than trying to prove to others or convince to others who are athiest or agonistic that God exists, because there's nothing to prove or can be proven in the first place.

The most simplistic and understandable explanations of things around us are always the shortcuts for people to take. Rather than to say God exists so therefore, all the causes and effects are created by Him, and trying to understand the whole idea of God Himself in the process, some of those people would just choose and say: "because scientific experiments and facts said so". Some people choose science more over religion because they can use science to explain most things on the planet. It's just easier to believe in something that exists rather than something that's based on purely faith and religious beliefs.

It is our nature to choose the easy way out and find the easiest solution to a problem.

there is no point trying to prove the existence or non-existence of God to others, it cant be done. its the job of the Christian believer to evangelise and further spread Gods Glory and the Good news, but not to impose their beliefs through law or argument. we all have to accept that Christians want us to experience God also, but they have to accept that not everyone wants to, and leave it there.

Originally Posted by Solarian Wolf

Why not? We believe that this result might happen hence we conduct a scientific experiment on it to further prove that what we believe is right. There's nothing ironic about it.

BY saying this I think you are admiting to be an atheist. I hate to break it to you but there is no scientific experiments that "proove" that God does not exist. Hence the irony, athiems is supposidly base purly on science and fact and yet there is no science or fact supporting the idea that God does not exist.

Originally Posted by Solarian Wolf

Agonistic person can believe whatever they want to believe in, whether it'd be God or pure science. It depends on situation.

If they believed in God they would not be agnostic. Also I hope you realize that believeing in God and believe in pure science are neither opposites nor contradictory. Most people who believ in God have no trouble believing in pure science at the same time.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Read the earlier posts in this thread, most atheists do not say "God cannot exist".

Then how do you distinguish atheism and agnosticism?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Actually, it doesn't take any faith. You can determine if you're loved using nothing but logic.

If your mother acts like she loves you, and is willing to make sacrifices for you, you can conclude that she does, in fact, love you.

Whereas, if you had to rely on faith you would have to claim that your mother loves you even while she beats you with a frying pan.

Faith is not an action it is an emotion. You can use neither logic nor sciecne to determine if your mother loves you since love is not even scientifically defined.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

BY saying this I think you are admiting to be an atheist. I hate to break it to you but there is no scientific experiments that "proove" that God does not exist. Hence the irony, athiems is supposidly base purly on science and fact and yet there is no science or fact supporting the idea that God does not exist.

It's perfectly scientific to not believe in something until it is proven. I don't believe in dragons because their existence hasn't been proven, even though no one has disproven it either. So why should God be any different?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

It's perfectly scientific to not believe in something until it is proven. I don't believe in dragons because their existence hasn't been proven, even though no one has disproven it either. So why should God be any different?

But a perfectly reasonable person would never throw out the possibliy that dragons could exist or could have existed. Especally becuase of the the historical evidence supporting the idea that the could have existed.

Atheists say that God does not exist. A much more scientific veiw is agnosticism, says that God could exist but there is not evidence to decided for sure.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

But a perfectly reasonable person would never throw out the possibliy that dragons could exist or could have existed. Especally becuase of the the historical evidence supporting the idea that the could have existed.

Nor do most atheists throw out the idea that God might exist.


I missed this earlier:

Originally Posted by Hylian Shroom

no no no. occams razor is not proof of anything, or in fact logical. it states that the simplest explanation is probably true.

The theory favoured by Occam's razor is considered correct until disproven. Otherwise you'd have an infinite number of theories for every observation.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Nor do most atheists throw out the idea that God might exist.

If this were true there would be no difference between being agnostic and being athiest. The thing that distiguishes them is that Athiest belive there is no God. Which means they have thrown out the idea that God could exist.

Originally Posted by ChrisHoulihan

If this were true there would be no difference between being agnostic and being athiest. The thing that distiguishes them is that Athiest belive there is no God. Which means they have thrown out the idea that God could exist.

Not at all.

An agnostic says that we cannot know if God exists.

A "weak atheist" says that there is insufficient proof of God's existence, so until proof is provided they'll assume that he doesn't.

Agnosticism has strong implications towards a commited belief that we cannot know whether there is a god and that trying to figure it out is a waste of time.

Atheism, at the same time, is highly suggestive of a commited belief that there is no god.

Obviously both labels are used in many ways, often overlapping. I'd worry less about the labels and more about the actual beliefs.