Why do the God-haters persist?

[thebrucebeat]

Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.

Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.

From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.

And here we are. You assume that everyone must see evidence as being as compelling as you do, despite your rants about the impossibility of proof and how subjective all evidence is.

Well, no I didn't assume anything. I predicted you'd reject the evidence and you did. I admitted up front that you wouldn't be able to find the evidence compelling.



And once again, I did not ever claim that everyone would find my evidence compelling or overwhelming. I told you that I had evidence but you would reject it as evidence because you disbelieve what it proves. You gave me some shpeil about pink unicorns and argued for two pages about how that wasn't automatically true, and kept insisting I show you the evidence. So I did, and you reacted exactly the way I predicted you would.

There is tons more evidence I didn't post because there is no need to go to all that trouble, you're going to reject anything I present. I just barely scraped the surface, but it was enough to prove my point, that you would reject my evidence.



Well, yes you do, that's exactly why you reject the evidence. Just as if we had a pink unicorn, you would reject the evidence because you don't believe in pink unicorns. You would never accept anything as "evidence" because you'd argue pink unicorns can't exist. You'd find other explanations for the evidence, you'd claim it doesn't qualify as legitimate evidence, you'd refuse to ever accept it as valid evidence. Now, if some scientist came along and explained it, and said; "we though this was not possible, but we have now studied the data and have determined this pink unicorn does exist..." THEN you'd believe it, because your 'spiritual faith' has been substituted with science.

A rock exists... it came from something. Matter doesn't create matter.



Well you can go look it up if you like. Scientists have been exploring this possibility for over 100 years. They've done experiments with fruit flies and bacteria, the fastest reproductive life we can find, and through millions of generations, not even one new enzyme has spontaneously emerged. You'd need about 100 enzymes and 70 proteins to spontaneously emerge to just have one cell of any life form. With the fruit flies, and I assume the bacteria as well, they've attempted mutations with every conceivable possible scenario for early earth conditions and environment. They concluded the fruit flies "seem to be immune" to evolution. Now this is with an already-exiting organism in place. The possibility of any single-cell organism just spontaneously popping into existence is nil. You need the protein to create the DNA but the DNA is required to produce the protein.

I'm not sure what results you think are indisputable. I agree that people have believed in something supernatural, metaphysical, incorporeal, choose whatever term suits you. I disagree that such belief automatically means that those things exist, especially considering the wildly divergent specifics of those beliefs.

I didn't say they were indisputable to everyone, I predicted you would dispute them by rejecting them because you don't believe in the possibility of spiritual nature. You believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection, I presume. Well, if human spirituality were pointless and meaningless, without any valid justification, the species would have abandoned it over the tens of thousands of years humans were being slaughtered for practicing it. In spite of the detriment to survival, they retain the attribute, therefore it must be fundamentally important to humans. That's if you believe Darwin was correct.

I think I already explained why there is 'divergent specifics' ...it's because humans can't comprehend spiritual nature. We connect to something we can't comprehend. So what we've done, being the imperfect and fallible creatures we are, is to create various incarnations of what we think that thing is. This is actually more spiritual evidence that something real must exist.

What the hell does string theory have to do with the conversation? Did I dismiss the possibility of string theory at some point?

That I don't consider the evidence you provide to be overwhelming does not, in any way, mean I refuse any possibility a god or gods exist.

Well, like I said, string theory opens the door to endless possibilities. Perhaps what we define as our spiritual connection is some sort of cosmic connection to another universe? Perhaps our Creator God resides in another universe? Perhaps the intelligent design is produced behind the scenes in an alternate universe we haven't discovered? Can you say with certainty this is not possible? I can't, and I find it compelling evidence to support my belief in spiritual nature.

You do not find my evidence to be overwhelming precisely as I predicted you wouldn't, and it's because you reject the possibility of the premise. You'll never accept any evidence because you have to first believe something is possible, and you don't.

Not being able to say with certainty that something is not possible is compelling evidence that it is true?
Could you possibly set the bar any lower for your standards for evidence?

 

[Boss]

Not being able to say with certainty that something is not possible is compelling evidence that it is true?
Could you possibly set the bar any lower for your standards for evidence?

It's not evidence something is true but it is evidence which is compelling if you believe in and accept the possibility of spiritual nature. I don't think the bar is set low for my standards of proving something is possible. I've never said that I could prove definitively that God and Spiritual Nature exist, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

You see, YOU want to keep setting the bar impossibly high. You want something PROVEN when we all know that very little in reality is ever definitively proven. Philosophers have argued that even our perception of reality is not "proven" ...we could all be imagining reality. In fact, even Einstein made comments on this, he said that "reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."

Furthermore, you expect something defined as "spiritual nature" to be "proven" with physical sciences before you'll accept it's possibility. This poses quite the logical dichotomy, for if something spiritual is ever proven physically, it ceases to be spiritual and becomes physical nature. So it becomes a really safe bet to say that physical science cannot ever prove spiritual nature. It can't, it defies logic.

The ONLY way to evaluate, test, verify, confirm or examine "spiritual nature" is through "spiritual evidence" because that what spiritual nature is as opposed to physical nature. This is problematic if you do not accept that spiritual nature exists or is possible.

 

[MrMax]

Not being able to say with certainty that something is not possible is compelling evidence that it is true?
Could you possibly set the bar any lower for your standards for evidence?

It's not evidence something is true but it is evidence which is compelling if you believe in and accept the possibility of spiritual nature. I don't think the bar is set low for my standards of proving something is possible. I've never said that I could prove definitively that God and Spiritual Nature exist, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

You see, YOU want to keep setting the bar impossibly high. You want something PROVEN when we all know that very little in reality is ever definitively proven. Philosophers have argued that even our perception of reality is not "proven" ...we could all be imagining reality. In fact, even Einstein made comments on this, he said that "reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."

Furthermore, you expect something defined as "spiritual nature" to be "proven" with physical sciences before you'll accept it's possibility. This poses quite the logical dichotomy, for if something spiritual is ever proven physically, it ceases to be spiritual and becomes physical nature. So it becomes a really safe bet to say that physical science cannot ever prove spiritual nature. It can't, it defies logic.

The ONLY way to evaluate, test, verify, confirm or examine "spiritual nature" is through "spiritual evidence" because that what spiritual nature is as opposed to physical nature. This is problematic if you do not accept that spiritual nature exists or is possible.

As long as you realize that you can't prove spiritual nature and know that it's only your opinion, I think we're done here.

 

[Geaux4it]

God haters exist because evil exist.

'Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil'..

And my Kimber gives me an extra secure feeling

-Geaux

 

[Montrovant]

Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.

Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.

From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.

And here we are. You assume that everyone must see evidence as being as compelling as you do, despite your rants about the impossibility of proof and how subjective all evidence is.

Well, no I didn't assume anything. I predicted you'd reject the evidence and you did. I admitted up front that you wouldn't be able to find the evidence compelling.



And once again, I did not ever claim that everyone would find my evidence compelling or overwhelming. I told you that I had evidence but you would reject it as evidence because you disbelieve what it proves. You gave me some shpeil about pink unicorns and argued for two pages about how that wasn't automatically true, and kept insisting I show you the evidence. So I did, and you reacted exactly the way I predicted you would.

There is tons more evidence I didn't post because there is no need to go to all that trouble, you're going to reject anything I present. I just barely scraped the surface, but it was enough to prove my point, that you would reject my evidence.



Well, yes you do, that's exactly why you reject the evidence. Just as if we had a pink unicorn, you would reject the evidence because you don't believe in pink unicorns. You would never accept anything as "evidence" because you'd argue pink unicorns can't exist. You'd find other explanations for the evidence, you'd claim it doesn't qualify as legitimate evidence, you'd refuse to ever accept it as valid evidence. Now, if some scientist came along and explained it, and said; "we though this was not possible, but we have now studied the data and have determined this pink unicorn does exist..." THEN you'd believe it, because your 'spiritual faith' has been substituted with science.

A rock exists... it came from something. Matter doesn't create matter.



Well you can go look it up if you like. Scientists have been exploring this possibility for over 100 years. They've done experiments with fruit flies and bacteria, the fastest reproductive life we can find, and through millions of generations, not even one new enzyme has spontaneously emerged. You'd need about 100 enzymes and 70 proteins to spontaneously emerge to just have one cell of any life form. With the fruit flies, and I assume the bacteria as well, they've attempted mutations with every conceivable possible scenario for early earth conditions and environment. They concluded the fruit flies "seem to be immune" to evolution. Now this is with an already-exiting organism in place. The possibility of any single-cell organism just spontaneously popping into existence is nil. You need the protein to create the DNA but the DNA is required to produce the protein.

I'm not sure what results you think are indisputable. I agree that people have believed in something supernatural, metaphysical, incorporeal, choose whatever term suits you. I disagree that such belief automatically means that those things exist, especially considering the wildly divergent specifics of those beliefs.

I didn't say they were indisputable to everyone, I predicted you would dispute them by rejecting them because you don't believe in the possibility of spiritual nature. You believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection, I presume. Well, if human spirituality were pointless and meaningless, without any valid justification, the species would have abandoned it over the tens of thousands of years humans were being slaughtered for practicing it. In spite of the detriment to survival, they retain the attribute, therefore it must be fundamentally important to humans. That's if you believe Darwin was correct.

I think I already explained why there is 'divergent specifics' ...it's because humans can't comprehend spiritual nature. We connect to something we can't comprehend. So what we've done, being the imperfect and fallible creatures we are, is to create various incarnations of what we think that thing is. This is actually more spiritual evidence that something real must exist.

What the hell does string theory have to do with the conversation? Did I dismiss the possibility of string theory at some point?

That I don't consider the evidence you provide to be overwhelming does not, in any way, mean I refuse any possibility a god or gods exist.

Well, like I said, string theory opens the door to endless possibilities. Perhaps what we define as our spiritual connection is some sort of cosmic connection to another universe? Perhaps our Creator God resides in another universe? Perhaps the intelligent design is produced behind the scenes in an alternate universe we haven't discovered? Can you say with certainty this is not possible? I can't, and I find it compelling evidence to support my belief in spiritual nature.

You do not find my evidence to be overwhelming precisely as I predicted you wouldn't, and it's because you reject the possibility of the premise. You'll never accept any evidence because you have to first believe something is possible, and you don't.

You didn't simply predict I'd reject evidence, you assumed you know the reason behind it, that I refuse any possibility of a god or gods, or of a spiritual nature. The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters, with anyone who doesn't have some kind of spiritual faith, it seems.

You did not specify that your evidence was overwhelming to any particular people. You just said it was overwhelming.
You did not specify that your results were indisputable to any particular people. You just said they were indisputable.
And you accuse me of 'word salad' and distortion?

You continue to misrepresent evolution and natural selection.

There are plenty of possibilities, including who knows how many possibilities that humans have not thought up. That I don't find the fact there are myriad possibilities for the origin of life or the universe, or of things we cannot see in the physical realm, life after death, etc. to be overwhelming evidence of anything does not, again, mean I reject all possibility of either a god(s) or a spiritual nature.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Not being able to say with certainty that something is not possible is compelling evidence that it is true?
Could you possibly set the bar any lower for your standards for evidence?

It's not evidence something is true but it is evidence which is compelling if you believe in and accept the possibility of spiritual nature. I don't think the bar is set low for my standards of proving something is possible. I've never said that I could prove definitively that God and Spiritual Nature exist, if I could do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

You see, YOU want to keep setting the bar impossibly high. You want something PROVEN when we all know that very little in reality is ever definitively proven. Philosophers have argued that even our perception of reality is not "proven" ...we could all be imagining reality. In fact, even Einstein made comments on this, he said that "reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."

Furthermore, you expect something defined as "spiritual nature" to be "proven" with physical sciences before you'll accept it's possibility. This poses quite the logical dichotomy, for if something spiritual is ever proven physically, it ceases to be spiritual and becomes physical nature. So it becomes a really safe bet to say that physical science cannot ever prove spiritual nature. It can't, it defies logic.

The ONLY way to evaluate, test, verify, confirm or examine "spiritual nature" is through "spiritual evidence" because that what spiritual nature is as opposed to physical nature. This is problematic if you do not accept that spiritual nature exists or is possible.

Long winded avoidance of what you said, which this entire post does not address at all. You specifically stated that not being able to disprove something with certainty is compelling evidence that it does in fact exist. This is simply moronic.
Think of how many things that must lead you to believe there is "compelling" evidence for.
I have never asked you to "prove" anything, just to share evidence that supported your ideas. You stoically refuse because you would be casting your pearls before swine, so you say, but I think perhaps you know it would rather reveal the weakness of what you claim as evidence.
Essentially, your position amounts to "If you have faith you can find evidence for it" and I will concede that. Faith creates its own evidence and overcomes the rational, removing all tools to realize the evidence is, in fact, a creation and not a discovery.

 

[BreezeWood]

The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...

has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?


- other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?

.

 

[thebrucebeat]

The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...

has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?


- other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?

.

He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
I think alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?

 

[daws101]

Well, first and foremost is the existence of life. The fact that we exist, and a world exists within a universe that enables intelligence. On a planet with an environment specifically designed to support life and intelligence. The fact that things can be organic and organisms can exist. The fact that physics and principles are predictable and work every time. The fact that logic exists. So there's a whole list of things that are overwhelming evidence God exists. You'll reject that as evidence because you don't believe God can exist.

Then we can move on to human nature. The fact that you cannot explain origin of life because all life comes from other life. It didn't spontaneously generate, this is a mathematical impossibility. Humans have always connected to something greater than self, it is the source of human inspiration and responsible for everything we've become. It can't be something superficial or imaginary, and it's not "supernatural" as much as you will claim it to be. Whatever we are connecting to must be real, the results are indisputable.

From here we can move on to quantum physics and string theory, the most advanced science known to mankind. It suggests that we are living in but one of many universes, where as many "laws of physics" are also possible. Many more dimensions than we currently know about, where there are essentially endless possibilities to possibility. BUT... you have dismissed possibilities. So nothing can be shown to you that you won't reject.

And here we are. You assume that everyone must see evidence as being as compelling as you do, despite your rants about the impossibility of proof and how subjective all evidence is.

Well, no I didn't assume anything. I predicted you'd reject the evidence and you did. I admitted up front that you wouldn't be able to find the evidence compelling.



And once again, I did not ever claim that everyone would find my evidence compelling or overwhelming. I told you that I had evidence but you would reject it as evidence because you disbelieve what it proves. You gave me some shpeil about pink unicorns and argued for two pages about how that wasn't automatically true, and kept insisting I show you the evidence. So I did, and you reacted exactly the way I predicted you would.

There is tons more evidence I didn't post because there is no need to go to all that trouble, you're going to reject anything I present. I just barely scraped the surface, but it was enough to prove my point, that you would reject my evidence.



Well, yes you do, that's exactly why you reject the evidence. Just as if we had a pink unicorn, you would reject the evidence because you don't believe in pink unicorns. You would never accept anything as "evidence" because you'd argue pink unicorns can't exist. You'd find other explanations for the evidence, you'd claim it doesn't qualify as legitimate evidence, you'd refuse to ever accept it as valid evidence. Now, if some scientist came along and explained it, and said; "we though this was not possible, but we have now studied the data and have determined this pink unicorn does exist..." THEN you'd believe it, because your 'spiritual faith' has been substituted with science.

A rock exists... it came from something. Matter doesn't create matter.



Well you can go look it up if you like. Scientists have been exploring this possibility for over 100 years. They've done experiments with fruit flies and bacteria, the fastest reproductive life we can find, and through millions of generations, not even one new enzyme has spontaneously emerged. You'd need about 100 enzymes and 70 proteins to spontaneously emerge to just have one cell of any life form. With the fruit flies, and I assume the bacteria as well, they've attempted mutations with every conceivable possible scenario for early earth conditions and environment. They concluded the fruit flies "seem to be immune" to evolution. Now this is with an already-exiting organism in place. The possibility of any single-cell organism just spontaneously popping into existence is nil. You need the protein to create the DNA but the DNA is required to produce the protein.

I'm not sure what results you think are indisputable. I agree that people have believed in something supernatural, metaphysical, incorporeal, choose whatever term suits you. I disagree that such belief automatically means that those things exist, especially considering the wildly divergent specifics of those beliefs.

I didn't say they were indisputable to everyone, I predicted you would dispute them by rejecting them because you don't believe in the possibility of spiritual nature. You believe in Darwin's theory of natural selection, I presume. Well, if human spirituality were pointless and meaningless, without any valid justification, the species would have abandoned it over the tens of thousands of years humans were being slaughtered for practicing it. In spite of the detriment to survival, they retain the attribute, therefore it must be fundamentally important to humans. That's if you believe Darwin was correct.

I think I already explained why there is 'divergent specifics' ...it's because humans can't comprehend spiritual nature. We connect to something we can't comprehend. So what we've done, being the imperfect and fallible creatures we are, is to create various incarnations of what we think that thing is. This is actually more spiritual evidence that something real must exist.

What the hell does string theory have to do with the conversation? Did I dismiss the possibility of string theory at some point?

That I don't consider the evidence you provide to be overwhelming does not, in any way, mean I refuse any possibility a god or gods exist.

Well, like I said, string theory opens the door to endless possibilities. Perhaps what we define as our spiritual connection is some sort of cosmic connection to another universe? Perhaps our Creator God resides in another universe? Perhaps the intelligent design is produced behind the scenes in an alternate universe we haven't discovered? Can you say with certainty this is not possible? I can't, and I find it compelling evidence to support my belief in spiritual nature.

You do not find my evidence to be overwhelming precisely as I predicted you wouldn't, and it's because you reject the possibility of the premise. You'll never accept any evidence because you have to first believe something is possible, and you don't.

http://www.coppit.org/god/hoyle.php

 

[daws101]

The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...

has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?


- other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?

.

no ...just what he finds objectionable...

 

[Boss]

You didn't simply predict I'd reject evidence, you assumed you know the reason behind it, that I refuse any possibility of a god or gods, or of a spiritual nature. The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters, with anyone who doesn't have some kind of spiritual faith, it seems.

No, I clearly stated and we argued for two days about this... you cannot accept evidence for things you don't believe are possible. You don't believe God is real, spiritual nature is possible, that people have souls and spirits... you reject that concept entirely. Unless you believe in spiritual nature, you can't accept any evidence for it.

You did not specify that your evidence was overwhelming to any particular people. You just said it was overwhelming.
You did not specify that your results were indisputable to any particular people. You just said they were indisputable.

Uhm... no, I didn't. Go back and read it again if you missed it. I clearly stated that the evidence is overwhelming and results indisputable to those who accept spiritual nature.

You continue to misrepresent evolution and natural selection.

Which is why you've presented some compelling factual evidence of this charge here in your post?

There are plenty of possibilities, including who knows how many possibilities that humans have not thought up. That I don't find the fact there are myriad possibilities for the origin of life or the universe, or of things we cannot see in the physical realm, life after death, etc. to be overwhelming evidence of anything does not, again, mean I reject all possibility of either a god(s) or a spiritual nature.

Well GOOD! I am glad to know that you at least accept the possibility God exists and Spiritual Nature is real. That means you are open-minded enough to evaluate the volumes of spiritual evidence to support the existence of spiritual nature and God. That's really the best I can hope to expect here, nothing more.

Now, as I pointed out before, people lie all the time about what they believe and don't believe. I could post here that I believe in the possibility of pink unicorns, when in actuality, I don't really believe it's possible at all. The "proof" that I wouldn't be just lying to you about that, would be my ability to objectively look at some piece of evidence and say... okay, that does have some merit and credibility. So that's what you need to demonstrate now with your professed faith in spiritual nature. Tell us which aspects of evidence for spiritual nature you find compelling, so that I believe what you've said is true.

 

[MrMax]

The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...

has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?


- other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?

.

He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
I think alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?

Boss believes in a "Creator" and spirituality. He's half-way there to Christianity already. So Bossy, what's you stand on Jesus, he walk on water or not?

 

[Newby]

The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...

has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?


- other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?

.

He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
I think alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?

There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red... Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.

You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.

 

[daws101]

has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?


- other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?

.

He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
I think alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?

There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red... Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.

You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.

oh no not the you're not a believer ploy again.....
not only is a false assumption but it infers that believers are by some magical means superior to non believers....

 

[Boss]

The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...

has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?


- other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?

.

I've never said God has disregard for other life forms. In fact, I admitted that you make an interesting argument that perhaps all living things experience a form of spiritual connection and we may just not know about it.

My own personal belief is, God doesn't have disregard or regard, those are humanistic attributes. God is a force of spiritual energy. Perhaps other living things recognize that spiritual energy, tap into it in order to thrive and bloom, etc. It appears humans are the only living things that actively worship this force, cognitively contemplate it, consciously connect to it and gain profound inspiration from it.

 

[daws101]

The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters ...

has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?


- other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?

.

I've never said God has disregard for other life forms. In fact, I admitted that you make an interesting argument that perhaps all living things experience a form of spiritual connection and we may just not know about it.

My own personal belief is, God doesn't have disregard or regard, those are humanistic attributes. God is a force of spiritual energy. Perhaps other living things recognize that spiritual energy, tap into it in order to thrive and bloom, etc. It appears humans are the only living things that actively worship this force, cognitively contemplate it, consciously connect to it and gain profound inspiration from it.

wow! another "believer" who has the audacity to pick and choose who god is and what god will do or not do.

 

[thebrucebeat]

You didn't simply predict I'd reject evidence, you assumed you know the reason behind it, that I refuse any possibility of a god or gods, or of a spiritual nature. The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters, with anyone who doesn't have some kind of spiritual faith, it seems.

No, I clearly stated and we argued for two days about this... you cannot accept evidence for things you don't believe are possible. You don't believe God is real, spiritual nature is possible, that people have souls and spirits... you reject that concept entirely. Unless you believe in spiritual nature, you can't accept any evidence for it.

You did not specify that your evidence was overwhelming to any particular people. You just said it was overwhelming.
You did not specify that your results were indisputable to any particular people. You just said they were indisputable.

Uhm... no, I didn't. Go back and read it again if you missed it. I clearly stated that the evidence is overwhelming and results indisputable to those who accept spiritual nature.

You continue to misrepresent evolution and natural selection.

Which is why you've presented some compelling factual evidence of this charge here in your post?

There are plenty of possibilities, including who knows how many possibilities that humans have not thought up. That I don't find the fact there are myriad possibilities for the origin of life or the universe, or of things we cannot see in the physical realm, life after death, etc. to be overwhelming evidence of anything does not, again, mean I reject all possibility of either a god(s) or a spiritual nature.

Well GOOD! I am glad to know that you at least accept the possibility God exists and Spiritual Nature is real. That means you are open-minded enough to evaluate the volumes of spiritual evidence to support the existence of spiritual nature and God. That's really the best I can hope to expect here, nothing more.

Now, as I pointed out before, people lie all the time about what they believe and don't believe. I could post here that I believe in the possibility of pink unicorns, when in actuality, I don't really believe it's possible at all. The "proof" that I wouldn't be just lying to you about that, would be my ability to objectively look at some piece of evidence and say... okay, that does have some merit and credibility. So that's what you need to demonstrate now with your professed faith in spiritual nature. Tell us which aspects of evidence for spiritual nature you find compelling, so that I believe what you've said is true.

So you still feel paradigm shifts are absolutely impossible, right?
Not being able to disprove something with certainty to you is "compelling evidence" that that something is actually true.
That makes martians true. Leprechauns. Pink unicorns. The Spaghetti Monster.
You need to think before bloviating.

 

[daws101]

You didn't simply predict I'd reject evidence, you assumed you know the reason behind it, that I refuse any possibility of a god or gods, or of a spiritual nature. The same thing you do with your supposed god-haters, with anyone who doesn't have some kind of spiritual faith, it seems.

No, I clearly stated and we argued for two days about this... you cannot accept evidence for things you don't believe are possible. You don't believe God is real, spiritual nature is possible, that people have souls and spirits... you reject that concept entirely. Unless you believe in spiritual nature, you can't accept any evidence for it.



Uhm... no, I didn't. Go back and read it again if you missed it. I clearly stated that the evidence is overwhelming and results indisputable to those who accept spiritual nature.



Which is why you've presented some compelling factual evidence of this charge here in your post?

There are plenty of possibilities, including who knows how many possibilities that humans have not thought up. That I don't find the fact there are myriad possibilities for the origin of life or the universe, or of things we cannot see in the physical realm, life after death, etc. to be overwhelming evidence of anything does not, again, mean I reject all possibility of either a god(s) or a spiritual nature.

Well GOOD! I am glad to know that you at least accept the possibility God exists and Spiritual Nature is real. That means you are open-minded enough to evaluate the volumes of spiritual evidence to support the existence of spiritual nature and God. That's really the best I can hope to expect here, nothing more.

Now, as I pointed out before, people lie all the time about what they believe and don't believe. I could post here that I believe in the possibility of pink unicorns, when in actuality, I don't really believe it's possible at all. The "proof" that I wouldn't be just lying to you about that, would be my ability to objectively look at some piece of evidence and say... okay, that does have some merit and credibility. So that's what you need to demonstrate now with your professed faith in spiritual nature. Tell us which aspects of evidence for spiritual nature you find compelling, so that I believe what you've said is true.

So you still feel paradigm shifts are absolutely impossible, right?
Not being able to disprove something with certainty to you is "compelling evidence" that that something is actually true.
That makes martians true. Leprechauns. Pink unicorns. The Spaghetti Monster.
You need to think before bloviating.

hey! wait a sec...I've seen the flying spaghetti monster with my own two eyes..he was driving a 59 cadie (Cadillac) with Elvis Jim Morrison and Micheal Jackson inside down route 66.

 

[Boss]

So Bossy, what's you stand on Jesus, he walk on water or not?

I don't know, maybe that is a metaphorical depiction told in a story to make a broader point? A lot of old ancient Hebrew stories are told this way, they didn't have sprite graphics and Youtube videos back then. They relied on imagination, so they often used metaphor as a tool to convey a story meaning.

I tell ya what I find more intriguing is the story of Paul of Tarsus. Here's a guy that was pretty much the epitome of you god-haters. He was a Roman who went around after Jesus died, killing Christians because of their faith. The Christians knew him well, he was brutal and violent, showed no mercy on them whatsoever. Hated and loathed everything they stood for, denounced their God and religious faith with every fiber of his being. He had learned that a group of Jesus' followers had fled to Damascus, so he went after them with the intents of killing them all, as he could not stand Christians. Wanted to stomp the religion out then and there, nip it in the bud. On the road to Damascus, the dead Jesus appeared before him. He was blinded by the experience and went nuts, so they locked him away for a bit. During that time, Jesus appeared to one of his disciples and told him to go find Paul of Tarsus, he had selected him to bring his word to the gentiles. The disciple thought the request was crazy, this was a man who hated Christians more than the ones who crucified Jesus, but he did as Jesus told him. He found Paul and miraculously restored his sight after Paul repented and asked forgiveness. Paul of Tarsus went on to write most of the New Testament, and aside from Jesus, is probably the most influential person in the New Testament.

I find this story a lot more compelling than Jesus walking on water, because it shows that even someone as full of hate for God as you, can be changed.

 

[thebrucebeat]

has anything Boss referred to in this thread related to God "hating" or specifically what his description, if any presented of his God people would find objectionable ?


- other than (his) God relates only to humanity with disregard for all other life forms ?

.

He has specifically stated he is not a Christian.
I think alot of believers would find that objectionable, don't you?

There's the first problem with your post, bolded in red... Perhaps you do 'think', it's just lacking in quality and quantity.

You have no idea what believers would find objectionable, claiming that you do is a fallacy. I love Boss, he owns every single one of you haters in here, and you all know it, it's why you persist and persist, you can't remotely win a debate with him.

And yet he doesn't endorse your faith in the least.
As a former pastor, I have a bit of understanding regarding believers.
If you think Boss owns anything, you aren't a very careful reader.
You both do the same thing. When cornered, here comes the swearing and the really crude comments and the ignoring of the actual arguments.