Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't know. But to suggest that such a being exists, and created a race of beings whose reason, and logic would require such evidence to acknowledge its existence, while simultaneously threatening to punish that race for refusing to not only acknowledge its existence, but also worship it further suggests a barbaric, unreasonable entity, doesn't it?"There is no proof" is not synonymous with "There is no proof possible". The former is only a statement of current finding, and allows for the possibility of such proof being discovered at a later date, and therefore allows for the falsification of the negative assertion, "There is no God". The latter, however, implies that the question has already been settled, as no evidence will ever be possible to discover to falsify the negative premise, and a negative premise that cannot be falsified is accepted as accurate. So. Is it your position that no such evidence will ever be possible?This is off the topic of my OP, but okay. So you are saying that objective evidence for the existence of deity is impossible to discover? If that is the case, then the premise is fact, not opinion. Otherwise, such evidence would be possible. See, you can't say that the premise is not falsifiable, because no evidence is possible to falsify it, then present it as unreasonable. And you can't use the same argument with the position of theism. You can' make a positive claim, and then insist that it is correct because it can't be falsified. A positive claim must have affirmative evidence, to be proven. A negative claim need only to have it demonstrated that it cannot be falsified to be accepted as true.So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.
Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.
See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.
I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.
I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.
So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?
How is your position falsifiable? That's the problem with any religion, and yes atheism is a religion, NONE of them are falsifiable. That's why science and religion are different fields of study. Science deals with the temporal world, and religion deals with the spiritual world. The problems arise when any religion decides it wishes to impose its philosophy on the temporal world to those who don't want to hear it.
So. are you saying that evidence to falsify the claim is impossible to ever discover?
Not off topic at all. You claimed atheism is falsifiable in your OP and I addressed that inaccuracy, that is all I addressed. There is no proof or evidence either for, or against a God. Period. It is an unknowable question. That's how the concept of faith originated.
How do you prove the existence of a being that is all knowing, all powerful, and all seeing, when that entity decides it doesn't want you to be able to see it?
Get real.
Nope. You don't get to do that. You do not get to separate the two. The God of the new Testament is the God of the old Testament. that is the reason that Christians included the Old testament in the Bible. Christians themselves tell us that the Old Testament is there to reveal the nature of the God they worship. You don't get to pretend that isn't the case, every time the old Testament reveals some element of that nature that you find uncomfortable.Ahem, that was not the God of the NT....It couldn't. 1 Samuel, Chapter 15. There is simply no way to interpret that as anything less that the God of Christianity commanding genocide. That alone, makes the God of Christians unworthy of worship to me.I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.
What if you could be shown that the image of the nature of God according to a literal interpretation conceals the nature of a living being with a nature not unlike yourself according to a deeper more thoughtful interpretation of the words used,not to mention more accurate translations as in the whole i am a jealous god thing...?
I am not asking if you would worship him but if you would conform to his teaching, which would amount to asking you if you would follow your own advice...
You are wrong. There is a stark contrast between God as described in the OT according to the most ignorant superficial literal interpretation possible and God as described by Jesus who only had the OT to read. In the OT Jesus found a hidden God not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.
If you don't look and look and keep on looking you will never find him.
"The kingdom of Heaven is like hidden treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again..."
Nope. You don't get to do that. You do not get to separate the two. The God of the new Testament is the God of the old Testament. that is the reason that Christians included the Old testament in the Bible. Christians themselves tell us that the Old Testament is there to reveal the nature of the God they worship. You don't get to pretend that isn't the case, every time the old Testament reveals some element of that nature that you find uncomfortable.Ahem, that was not the God of the NT....It couldn't. 1 Samuel, Chapter 15. There is simply no way to interpret that as anything less that the God of Christianity commanding genocide. That alone, makes the God of Christians unworthy of worship to me.I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.
What if you could be shown that the image of the nature of God according to a literal interpretation conceals the nature of a living being with a nature not unlike yourself according to a deeper more thoughtful interpretation of the words used,not to mention more accurate translations as in the whole i am a jealous god thing...?
I am not asking if you would worship him but if you would conform to his teaching, which would amount to asking you if you would follow your own advice...
You are wrong. There is a stark contrast between God as described in the OT according to the most ignorant superficial literal interpretation possible and God as described by Jesus who only had the OT to read. In the OT Jesus found a hidden God not necessarily directly connected to the literal meaning of the words used.
If you don't look and look and keep on looking you will never find him.
"The kingdom of Heaven is like hidden treasure lying buried in a field. The man who found it, buried it again..."
Imagine, the most daunting question civilizations has struggled with since the dawn of time and you now have your answer...it would have to change our complete outlook on life and even our own value system.
"There is no proof" is not synonymous with "There is no proof possible". The former is only a statement of current finding, and allows for the possibility of such proof being discovered at a later date, and therefore allows for the falsification of the negative assertion, "There is no God". The latter, however, implies that the question has already been settled, as no evidence will ever be possible to discover to falsify the negative premise, and a negative premise that cannot be falsified is accepted as accurate. So. Is it your position that no such evidence will ever be possible?This is off the topic of my OP, but okay. So you are saying that objective evidence for the existence of deity is impossible to discover? If that is the case, then the premise is fact, not opinion. Otherwise, such evidence would be possible. See, you can't say that the premise is not falsifiable, because no evidence is possible to falsify it, then present it as unreasonable. And you can't use the same argument with the position of theism. You can' make a positive claim, and then insist that it is correct because it can't be falsified. A positive claim must have affirmative evidence, to be proven. A negative claim need only to have it demonstrated that it cannot be falsified to be accepted as true.
So. are you saying that evidence to falsify the claim is impossible to ever discover?
Not off topic at all. You claimed atheism is falsifiable in your OP and I addressed that inaccuracy, that is all I addressed. There is no proof or evidence either for, or against a God. Period. It is an unknowable question. That's how the concept of faith originated.
How do you prove the existence of a being that is all knowing, all powerful, and all seeing, when that entity decides it doesn't want you to be able to see it?
Get real.
an elderly lawyer, long ago when I asked "how do you find
out where a person is and what he is doing (it was before the
era of computer everywhere)-----he said THERE IS ALWAYS
A MONEY TRAIL....FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Which addresses my statement how?
Authority is authority. I will never just bend a knee, just because someone, or something, says, "Yup. I'm in charge," He either: a) is gonna have some explaining to do to get me to bend a knee, or b) Feel free to send me to your Hell, cuz I don't blindly follow anyone. Period.We're not talking about following a human (Hitler), we're talking about god the creator being proven real. VERY big difference. And equating the god of the universe to a Nazi invoked Godwin's Law. Too bad for you.It's not the authority I have the problem with. So, were you alive in Germany in the late 30's, and 40's you would have just put on a brown shirt, pick up a club, and went right along?!?! Really??? Sorry. I need my authority to have a bit more than "I'm in charge" to justify my falling in line.If burning in hell was real, then I'd have to bend my knee not to go there. I don't have a problem with real authority like you do.Accept the reality, sure. I would as well. But, would you "bend the knee"? See, I don't think I could do that.If by some weird cosmic anomaly the god of the bible was proven to be 100% true, real, and accurate in what he says in the bible, then yes, given empirical proof, I would be confronted with reality, which I would accept.Really? So you would be okay worshipping the God that is presented in the Christian Bible? Presuming that your atheism was proven incorrect, I mean? I don't think I could. I could, and would, acknowledge his existence, but I could never support him, or the worship of him. Not based on his nature as presented in the Bible.
Well, if hell is real, I sure don't want to go there. Send me a postcard.Authority is authority. I will never just bend a knee, just because someone, or something, says, "Yup. I'm in charge," He either: a) is gonna have some explaining to do to get me to bend a knee, or b) Feel free to send me to your Hell, cuz I don't blindly follow anyone. Period.We're not talking about following a human (Hitler), we're talking about god the creator being proven real. VERY big difference. And equating the god of the universe to a Nazi invoked Godwin's Law. Too bad for you.It's not the authority I have the problem with. So, were you alive in Germany in the late 30's, and 40's you would have just put on a brown shirt, pick up a club, and went right along?!?! Really??? Sorry. I need my authority to have a bit more than "I'm in charge" to justify my falling in line.If burning in hell was real, then I'd have to bend my knee not to go there. I don't have a problem with real authority like you do.Accept the reality, sure. I would as well. But, would you "bend the knee"? See, I don't think I could do that.If by some weird cosmic anomaly the god of the bible was proven to be 100% true, real, and accurate in what he says in the bible, then yes, given empirical proof, I would be confronted with reality, which I would accept.
Authority is authority. I will never just bend a knee, just because someone, or something, says, "Yup. I'm in charge," He either: a) is gonna have some explaining to do to get me to bend a knee, or b) Feel free to send me to your Hell, cuz I don't blindly follow anyone. Period.
So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.
Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.
See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.
I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.
I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.
So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?
Actually, it's not that at all. I don't define myself by my atheism. Atheism is just one very small premise that I hold. Discarding that position would not greatly alter who I am.See, I'm not actually talking about belief, though. I mean, in the face of evidence, belief isn't really a question, any more than belief would be a question in regards to gravity.So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.
Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.
See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.
I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.
I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.
So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?
I presented the same premise before myself. Would those who didn't believe in God or a specific book suddenly change course with irrefutable evidence? Think of all the fake news going on today, that is how people would react. They could see a man in person performing a miracle and they would scoff at it "there's some trickery going on here".
I wouldn't be surprised if the Messiah was tossed into prison as some sort of fraud, charged with a crime. This is why Faith is just that, Faith.
Rather it's a question of decisions. Does acceptance of existence require worship? And I am coming to the realisation that it doesn't. I can change my position as an atheist, with sufficient evidence, without agreeing to join a religious movement.
I see. You would view this as submission and a loss of self identity. I suppose it would depend on my place in the universe and how I viewed it. I used to think the same when I was an Atheist, "why would God create me simply to worship him!?"
See, my insignificance isn't an issue. One does not need a God to recognise one's insignificance. One need only contemplate that vastness of space, and the immensity of all of time, since the universe came into being, to realise that one is just one insignificant little speck on a mediocre planet, in the outer ring of an unremarkable corner galaxy, that is similar to every other one of the billions of galaxies in the universe. Ego really isn't my concern. You seem to be missing the point entirely.Personally, I wouldn't view it as submission but simply as the reality that in fact, yes, I am inferior in the grand scheme. Maybe if you found out that you only exist because of the sheer power of God to give you life, you might believe in some worship, if that is even the right word. Even moreso, if God were in fact more direct and threatened to take your life away! Or, deny your soul entry to heaven.
The question isn't about my ego, but about the nature of the God that is presented in the Bible. You see, most Christian apologists that I have encountered seem to think that the only obstacle to me becoming a Christian is overcoming my atheism. It isn't. Even were I to come to the conclusion that a Creator deity exists, I would spend the rest of my life trying to prove that that deity was anything not the Christian version. Because the Christian version is terrifying, horrible, psychotic, petty, cruel, and savage. I can't imagine why anyone would ever worship such a God.
Any Christian who wants me to come onboard, not only has to present me with objective evidence that Deity exists, but they have to reconcile with me the God of the Bible, and the God of "love, and inclusion" that they present. And they can't just point to the New Testament. Sorry. Christianity chose to include the Old testament in the book designed to present the nature of God. So, their going to need to reconcile their presentation with that God.
I don't particularly, either. But, my principles are useless if I do not stand by them.Well, if hell is real, I sure don't want to go there. Send me a postcard.Authority is authority. I will never just bend a knee, just because someone, or something, says, "Yup. I'm in charge," He either: a) is gonna have some explaining to do to get me to bend a knee, or b) Feel free to send me to your Hell, cuz I don't blindly follow anyone. Period.We're not talking about following a human (Hitler), we're talking about god the creator being proven real. VERY big difference. And equating the god of the universe to a Nazi invoked Godwin's Law. Too bad for you.It's not the authority I have the problem with. So, were you alive in Germany in the late 30's, and 40's you would have just put on a brown shirt, pick up a club, and went right along?!?! Really??? Sorry. I need my authority to have a bit more than "I'm in charge" to justify my falling in line.If burning in hell was real, then I'd have to bend my knee not to go there. I don't have a problem with real authority like you do.Accept the reality, sure. I would as well. But, would you "bend the knee"? See, I don't think I could do that.
You don't see a difference between acknowledging the existence, and choosing to support/worship? You see, I could do the former. Not so sure I could do the latter. My acknowledgement would be more along the lines of, "Okay. You exist. By the way, you're a dick. You can do with that what you want,"Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.
Yes, I would become a Christian, though I wouldn't be happy about it. Proof is proof. You have to follow the facts wherever they lead.
Your principles ARE useless if you go against the laws of the universe on purpose.I don't particularly, either. But, my principles are useless if I do not stand by them.Well, if hell is real, I sure don't want to go there. Send me a postcard.Authority is authority. I will never just bend a knee, just because someone, or something, says, "Yup. I'm in charge," He either: a) is gonna have some explaining to do to get me to bend a knee, or b) Feel free to send me to your Hell, cuz I don't blindly follow anyone. Period.We're not talking about following a human (Hitler), we're talking about god the creator being proven real. VERY big difference. And equating the god of the universe to a Nazi invoked Godwin's Law. Too bad for you.It's not the authority I have the problem with. So, were you alive in Germany in the late 30's, and 40's you would have just put on a brown shirt, pick up a club, and went right along?!?! Really??? Sorry. I need my authority to have a bit more than "I'm in charge" to justify my falling in line.If burning in hell was real, then I'd have to bend my knee not to go there. I don't have a problem with real authority like you do.
Okay. The question wasn't meant to set up an actual expected event. That was the reason for the word "hypothetical". It was just a thought experiment. The purpose is to explore if atheism is the only obstruction to being a Christian, or is there something irreconcilable within the theology of Christianity, that would prevent conversion, absent atheism.So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.
Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.
See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.
I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.
I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.
So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?
Your question is set up on a false premise. All reasonable people agree that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. It is a personal belief that will only be supported by faith and what an individual deems circumstantial evidence.
Okay. The question wasn't meant to set up an actual expected event. That was the reason for the word "hypothetical". It was just a thought experiment. The purpose is to explore if atheism is the only obstruction to being a Christian, or is there something irreconcilable within the theology of Christianity, that would prevent conversion, absent atheism.So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.
Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.
See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.
I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.
I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.
So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?
Your question is set up on a false premise. All reasonable people agree that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. It is a personal belief that will only be supported by faith and what an individual deems circumstantial evidence.
Not entirely sure what you mean by that. If by "laws of the universe" you mean Oppose the God presented in the bible, I disagree. The God of the Bible goes against the laws of the Universe. One of the most basic Universal Laws is "Life matters". When "God" commands genocide that violates that basic Law, then He goes against the "laws of Nature". Your logic seems to be, "Fall on your face, worm. He is God. He gets to do whatever he wants, but you had better damned well do what you're told". There's a term for that philosophy. It's called slavery.Your principles ARE useless if you go against the laws of the universe on purpose.I don't particularly, either. But, my principles are useless if I do not stand by them.Well, if hell is real, I sure don't want to go there. Send me a postcard.Authority is authority. I will never just bend a knee, just because someone, or something, says, "Yup. I'm in charge," He either: a) is gonna have some explaining to do to get me to bend a knee, or b) Feel free to send me to your Hell, cuz I don't blindly follow anyone. Period.We're not talking about following a human (Hitler), we're talking about god the creator being proven real. VERY big difference. And equating the god of the universe to a Nazi invoked Godwin's Law. Too bad for you.It's not the authority I have the problem with. So, were you alive in Germany in the late 30's, and 40's you would have just put on a brown shirt, pick up a club, and went right along?!?! Really??? Sorry. I need my authority to have a bit more than "I'm in charge" to justify my falling in line.
Okay. So, saviour from what?Okay. The question wasn't meant to set up an actual expected event. That was the reason for the word "hypothetical". It was just a thought experiment. The purpose is to explore if atheism is the only obstruction to being a Christian, or is there something irreconcilable within the theology of Christianity, that would prevent conversion, absent atheism.So, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.
Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.
See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.
I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.
I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.
So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?
Your question is set up on a false premise. All reasonable people agree that the existence of god can neither be proven or disproven. It is a personal belief that will only be supported by faith and what an individual deems circumstantial evidence.
From what I understand, the main and perhaps only real requirement for being a Christian is accepting JC as your savior.
So...pretend to like him, just so you can avoid Hell. You don't think an omniscient God would see that for what it is, and act accordingly?Maybe it's not about God for some but what happens after you die...which is eternity
