The existence of God

[mischievious]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I was not attempting to attain a final truth, note the words "likely". Being a staunch empiricist I would demand observational verification at which point the logical argument becomes rather moot.

As an empiricist I applaud you. In fact we are arguing the same point from different angles in regard to life (not the ray gun wielding ones though), intuistic logic would allow your statement to be true if the example given were better. Logic is simply a tool not the only tool we have, but a good one to derive truth from certain statements.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Ah the old hard atheist trick.

Sorry you'll need to clarify that statement, How or why would an atheist use that argument to support atheism??? It only supports agnosticism...

Originally Posted by downquark1

Well this is mainly an issue of semantics, but theism and atheism tend be statements of belief while gnosticism and agnosticism are statements of knowledge. So they are not mutually exclusive.

Again, how is agnosticism a statement of knowledge? From where I am is a lack of knowledge not the other way around.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Given any number of premises it is perfectly logical. Your premises seems to be that the 2 lives are higher than that of the child, who decided that each life is equally valued?

Logic does not give you an ultimate goal it only gives you a means. This is why spock is not "logical"

I think you misunderstand, his point did not involve logic in the statement. He has no premise, it was an observation to highlight the lack of logic in such a situation.

I don't believe the intention was to engage in a logical debate.

For the record this is fabulous, from the start it was assumed that it would degenerate into a mob fest, however this is probably the most "grown up" discussion I have had the privilige to be involved in.

[downquark1]

Sorry you'll need to clarify that statement, How or why would an atheist use that argument to support atheism??? It only supports agnosticism...

Gnosticism = I know
Agnosticism = I don't know

Theism = I believe
Atheism = I don't believe

Using the Plato definitions of knowledge and belief you can "not know" something but "believe it" or "not know" something and "disbelief it".

Of course that then raises the question of when you can say you know, but that's another discussion.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by lucy7

Which authors opinion Bender?

the author who speaks to you in voice or print regarding the existance of God. it was not meant as a specific, but a covering generalisation. basically, anyone who puts down their word or voices their opinion should be considered the author of that which is said or scribed!

---------- Post added at 21:27 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

Originally Posted by downquark1

Gnosticism = I know
Agnosticism = I don't know

Theism = I believe
Atheism = I don't believe

Using the Plato definitions of knowledge and belief you can not know something but believe it or not know something and disbelief it.

Of course that then raises the question of when you can say you know, but that's another discussion.

hmm, not so - agnostic theism is a recognised form of agnosticism. google it.

check here for a starter

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Bender

hmm, not so - agnostic theism is a recognised form of agnosticism. google it.

check here for a starter

I know, I never said otherwise. I know someone who describes himself as such

[idi banashapan]

So what was this in aid of then?....

Originally Posted by downquark1

Gnosticism = I know
Agnosticism = I don't know

Theism = I believe
Atheism = I don't believe

Using the Plato definitions of knowledge and belief you can "not know" something but "believe it" or "not know" something and "disbelief it".

EDIT - my bad - I read your original post wrong regarding Platos definitions! sorry.

Originally Posted by Bender

humans are driven by basic instinct, like many animals. one of these instincts that we possess is to preserve and continue own gene line. this is a very strong instinct. second is to ensure the young grow strong in the clan in order that it may continue to flourish and aid and protect the elders.

yes. logic is the reason.

snippety snip snip
.

You appear (imho) to be confusing deductive and inductive reasoning.

Surely it is more logical for two productive adults, who contribute more to society than a child and can produce more children, to survive, rather than a single child (btw, people tend not to live in "clans" anymore) - you often hear in the news of total strangers going into buildings to save people they don't know. Example1 Example2

[banjo]

What a lot of verbose tripe, it was every three months that someone would ask a seemingly innocent question and set all this off again.

In my opinion this Christian bating should be banned as it causes a lot of upset to people such as my self who do believe, but as I well know there is no way on earth that you can shake or disprove my belief.

Now go along and get a life. Peace be with you

[lucy7]

But its only baiting if you rise to it surely?

A defence of ones own personal beliefs should always be allowed to happen, as should views fron the non believers side, I have not personally taken offence at any of the type in the posts at all.

Havent seen anyone been thrown to the lions ........YET!!

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by banjo

What a lot of verbose tripe, it was every three months that someone would ask a seemingly innocent question and set all this off again.

In my opinion this Christian bating should be banned as it causes a lot of upset to people such as my self who do believe, but as I well know there is no way on earth that you can shake or disprove my belief.

you've made it quite obvious that you have not read the entire thread by posting that. if you had, you would have read my comments in post 68 with regards to the fact I am in no way trying to upset anyones belief, nor poo-poo God, nor convert anyone to think differently.

The very first post should have explained the reason I started the thread, but perhaps you saw the title, then posted an immediate defensive comment. No one should feel the need to defend themselves here as I am posing absolutely no threat at all. as I say, if you read the thread front to back, you will discover my motives.

everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want. it makes no odds to me what they believe. I was trying to better my understanding of why people choose to believe what they do and to try and find some reasoning behind it. Personally, I am a logical thinker. logic and faith are at opposite ends of the scale, which makes this all very intruiging to me. I would class myself as an 'agnostic theist', so I am in no position to rubbish peoples beliefs. it also, in a way, contradicts my own thinking that I think logically, yet would like to believe in something that cannot be explained.

please try not to make a war out of peace here.

Originally Posted by banjo

Now go along and get a life.

that's not very christian, is it?

Originally Posted by lucy7

But its only baiting if you rise to it surely?

A defence of ones own personal beliefs should always be allowed to happen, as should views fron the non believers side, I have not personally taken offence at any of the type in the posts at all.

Havent seen anyone been thrown to the lions ........YET!!

It's early days yet...

[dilli-theclaw]

I think I'd have to draw the line at throwing people to the lions.

MMMmmm - ok I'd have to draw the line at throwing /some/ people to the lions.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by banjo

...In my opinion this Christian bating should be banned as it causes a lot of upset to people such as my self who do believe, ...

1. It isn't only Christians who believe in God.

2. Why do you get upset? Don't you see it as an opportunity to share your faith with others?

---------- Post added at 15:52 ---------- Previous post was at 15:42 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDon

No, it's faith. ....

This is an interesting point. For example, a Christian might argue that Jesus was a real person, and had "supernatural" powers (such as raising the dead). He might point to the Bible as his source of evidence. Not an ideal source, but you have to bear in mind the events happened more than two centuries ago.

In this example, the Christian is arguing that the theory for the existence of God is based on evidence - not faith.

I find it much harder to argue against this type of reasoning (based on some evidence) than a belief based on blind faith (e.g. fairies at the bottom of my garden).

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

Not an ideal source, but you have to bear in mind the events happened more than two centuries ago.

or two millenia!

[papa smurf]

i notice as these god threads progress the words get bigger [and the sentences more complex ]
but the evidence is still not forthcoming

[Russ]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i notice as these god threads progress the words get bigger [and the sentences more complex ]
but the evidence is still not forthcoming

Ah right you mean the evidence that we keep telling you does not exist?