How the right to deny the existence of God is under threat globally.

[Gary L]

Proof is proof. you can't dismiss proof.

it's the one thing that's missing. the one thing that keeps it going.

[tweetiepooh]

What proof have you that God doesn't exist?

My proofs are universal (creation, stars, "nature"), history (when nations obey God they succeed, when the don't they don't), personal (Jesus is real to me, lives in me, encounter) and believing the reports of others (miracles and so on). But you don't accept those proofs. C.S.Lewis in miracles stated that if you don't believe in miracles, even if you experience one you would still not believe.

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?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

What proof have you that God doesn't exist?

None.
yet.

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.

I said I would accept the proof. there's no reason why I wouldn't or shouldn't.

And then where does faith come in?

It comes with Christianity. it's the belief of an existance.

Christianity isn't based on proof as such. it's based on faith and belief.
hence the term 'believers'

[Ignitionnet]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Russ]

Back to the topic...

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.



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.

Wow! I wonder how all the people below bluffed their way through.....

According to 100 Years of Nobel Prizes a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.

Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace,72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.

Wiki

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

People who don't believe God are not likely to accept any proof that He does exist, !

I would, proper tangible evidence that stands scrutiny. I would accept it.

There is lots of evidence of UFOs, but none that stands up to scrutiny.

There is lots of evidence to support a theory of ancient aliens, but none that stands up to scrutiny.

Just thought I'd chip in on that point, the rest of the thread is nuts.

---------- Post added at 22:24 ---------- Previous post was at 22:14 ----------

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

What proof have you that God doesn't exist?

You've got to do better than that, and you know it.

Now I know the argument is what do you base your proof against, I.e. Why should I provide scientific evidence, when I don't believe science holds the answers and don't believe my faith should answer to science.

Well it doesn't have to be total science, just the balance of probabilities based on the accumulated knowledge of the society at the time. But as a world, I believe we accept "accepted science" so that is the base line

My proofs are universal (creation, stars, "nature"), history (when nations obey God they succeed, when the don't they don't), personal (Jesus is real to me, lives in me, encounter) and believing the reports of others (miracles and so on). But you don't accept those proofs. C.S.Lewis in miracles stated that if you don't believe in miracles, even if you experience one you would still not believe.

non of which stands up to scrutiny

[Russ]

I said back to the topic. Infractions are next.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Wow! I wonder how all the people below bluffed their way through.....

Wiki

Mmmhm. There are a ton of factors that skew that, not least of which is what the baseline is. If the population were 90% Christian and only 70% of Nobel Prize winners identified themselves as Christian that would be a reverse correlation. Now look at surveys of education versus 'religiousity', Hugh.

From your link.

Nevertheless a poll of scientists in the United States by Pew Research Center indicated just 30% of scientists in that country identify as Christian, 20% as some form of Protestant and 10% as Catholic, with 41% believing neither in God nor a higher power.

The United States is a highly religious nation, especially by comparison with most Western industrialized democracies. Most Americans profess a belief in God (83%), and 82% are affiliated with a religious tradition. Scientists are different. Just a third (33%) say they believe in God, while 18% say they believe in a universal spirit or higher power and 41% say they don’t believe in either.

There are a ton of social reasons why, even up until recently, atheists and agnostics especially in the US though to a lesser extent here also, may have identified themselves as Christian.

With that in mind I will absolutely stand by my remark - the more educated a population are the lower the percentage of those who are religious. This isn't besmirching those who are religious, it's merely suggesting that non-belief is a perfectly rational point of view and one that can only be based on two things - rationalism or ignorance and it's a reach to think that the better educated are more ignorant than those less educated.

---------- Post added at 22:57 ---------- Previous post was at 22:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

I said back to the topic. Infractions are next.

Sorry - was a rebuttal to an earlier post. Will stop on that line now.