Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
People who don't believe God are not likely to accept any proof that He does exist
|
That's nonsense.
Most who don't believe it don't believe it because there's no reliable evidence. They made the rational decision, and whatever you may think it's a perfectly rational decision, that there is no evidence to point to there being a God.
Present them, like me, with something beyond the Bible and I will rethink. You are projecting your own thoughts on this matter, that there is nothing that would convince you to change your mind, onto them and indeed me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
Aristotle was aound centuries BEFORE Jesus. People accept him as intelligent. So Jesus was around after "intelligence" came along?!
|
Aristotle apparently also believed in dualism, which you would presumably disagree with. Many of his era believed in the pantheon of Greek gods. Presumably you would agree that despite their being intelligent they were probably mistaken. There are plenty of intelligent people who, generally due to upbringing, believe in religious events when they would not for a moment countenance such fantastic things with such a lack of proof otherwise.
What is, however, beyond dispute is that there is an inverse correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs, so unsure what your point is on that one beyond answering a weak point with an equally weak one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
What proof have you that God doesn't exist?
|
That is an abysmal argument. It is impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove that I don't have the largest manhood in the world. Clearly there is no evidence for it and the balance of probabilities is vastly against it, so you have either go with that or disregard it.
I refer you to
Bertrand Russell
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
My proofs are universal (creation, stars, "nature")
|
That isn't a proof of anything. You see God's work in a star; I see a giant, ancient nuclear fusion reactor that is taking simple elements that have existed since almost the beginning of the universe and is converting them into the elements of life. I know that star was formed by gravitational forces pulling largely hydrogen together up until the point where the pressure in the centre of that giant ball was sufficient to raise the temperature of the hydrogen until it began to fuse. This merely is proof of nuclear fusion and gravity, not of God.
Nature is something we understand a ton about, hence why we refer to things as natural processes and forces of nature. The whole point of these is that God is not required. If we were to accept the apparently supernatural without skepticism we wouldn't progress.
Creation - we don't know, however this becomes the whole circular thing that in order to create something as complex as the universe a more complex creator was required. In that case who created the creator? If the creator were eternal why couldn't the universe be? A circular argument done to death however drawing on creation as proof for a God is a fallacy, and even more so when using it as proof of a specific God.
I'll ignore the 'history' comment as it's simply not factual, and the 'personal' proofs as it's not my place to judge those.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh
You want to "limit" God by demanding how He would proove Himself. But I'd guess that even if God did act as you desired you would still explain it away. And then where does faith come in?
|
I'm just interested in why a God that felt the need to demand worship in the past is so desperate to hide themselves now and has for so long. Incidentally trying to explain things away isn't a bad thing, it's how we gain knowledge. If we simply accepted everything we don't understand without trying to understand it we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Where does faith come in indeed? For me as little as possible as it has in the past clouded my judgement. I stick with the balance of probabilities based on the evidence I have where possible. Your mileage may vary.