Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Science requires proof, God does not.

Joey_G
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 1:24:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Scientific theories, by their very nature, require testable and repeatable experimentation to validate their accuracy.
Belief in God does not.
As you can see, this is a very unfair but very real way of looking at this dilemma.
If to understand God you first try to use logic, you will ultimately fail. If however you were to first approach God through faith then the arguments for His existence become very logical. Faith, in some ways is the means we were given to understand things of God just as as our logic and reasoning is how we understand the natural world.
As you can see, we cannot understand God through scientific experimentation and reasoning simply because He exists outside our ability to comprehend Him. Dismissing Him as non-existent because of this is foolishness and only serves to highlight the bibles accuracy when it says "we have left God's path to follow our own way".
I think it a smarter approach to admit the limitations of science and logic and be open to the fact that things may exist beyond our ability to explain.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 2:20:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 1:24:53 AM, Joey_G wrote:
Scientific theories, by their very nature, require testable and repeatable experimentation to validate their accuracy.
Belief in God does not.
As you can see, this is a very unfair but very real way of looking at this dilemma.

Real but foolish, yeah.

If to understand God you first try to use logic, you will ultimately fail. If however you were to first approach God through faith then the arguments for His existence become very logical.

If you already believe, believing is easy!

Faith, in some ways is the means we were given to understand things of God just as as our logic and reasoning is how we understand the natural world.

Replace God with anything else and you'll see how foolish a statement like that is. You can assert it, but you're asserting it based on nothing but your assertion.

As you can see, we cannot understand God through scientific experimentation and reasoning simply because He exists outside our ability to comprehend Him. Dismissing Him as non-existent because of this is foolishness and only serves to highlight the bibles accuracy when it says "we have left God's path to follow our own way".

I always love when someone says "as you can see" or, "for this reason", right before making another bald assertion.

I think it a smarter approach to admit the limitations of science and logic and be open to the fact that things may exist beyond our ability to explain.

You you can't assert anything about something "beyond our ability to explain". Which is why the BoP falls on the one making a claim. Trying to wave away the BoP by saying "Oh, it's beyond our ability to comprehend" is foolishness when you're clearly advocating a certain comprehension, namely, that there is a God.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Joey_G
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 2:51:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 2:20:29 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/8/2013 1:24:53 AM, Joey_G wrote:
Scientific theories, by their very nature, require testable and repeatable experimentation to validate their accuracy.
Belief in God does not.
As you can see, this is a very unfair but very real way of looking at this dilemma.


Real but foolish, yeah.
The very nature of the subject under scrutiny exempts it from being studied. Not foolish, just the way it is.


If to understand God you first try to use logic, you will ultimately fail. If however you were to first approach God through faith then the arguments for His existence become very logical.

If you already believe, believing is easy!
Not so much believing, but approaching the matter with an open mind that maybe things aren't how I think they should be.

Faith, in some ways is the means we were given to understand things of God just as as our logic and reasoning is how we understand the natural world.

Replace God with anything else and you'll see how foolish a statement like that is. You can assert it, but you're asserting it based on nothing but your assertion.

Yes you are correct, however that is the reason why people will have to approach God of their own accord. I have nothing but my own experience to attest to this.

As you can see, we cannot understand God through scientific experimentation and reasoning simply because He exists outside our ability to comprehend Him. Dismissing Him as non-existent because of this is foolishness and only serves to highlight the bibles accuracy when it says "we have left God's path to follow our own way".

I always love when someone says "as you can see" or, "for this reason", right before making another bald assertion.

I think it to be good communication skills...

I think it a smarter approach to admit the limitations of science and logic and be open to the fact that things may exist beyond our ability to explain.

You you can't assert anything about something "beyond our ability to explain". Which is why the BoP falls on the one making a claim. Trying to wave away the BoP by saying "Oh, it's beyond our ability to comprehend" is foolishness when you're clearly advocating a certain comprehension, namely, that there is a God.

what I'm trying to say here is that the BoP is laid upon each of us individually when it comes to God. The interpretation of the evidence is heavily weighted towards the perspective one holds. So towards atheists no proof (pertaining to God) will suffice and vice versa. But I suppose I made that clear in the title, that God does not require proof in the way that science does.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 2:58:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 2:51:49 AM, Joey_G wrote:
But I suppose I made that clear in the title, that God does not require proof in the way that science does.

Your first and fundamental problem is proving to us disbelievers that a literal Supernatural god(s) exist?

That is required first & foremost before you can take the next step and qualify yourself to tell others ' what this god(s) has or has not to prove to manifest itself to others!
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 2:59:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think this is pretty honest and I appreciate it for that.

Faith has nothing to do with science or logic. But that's not to say that it doesn't have any real value. When it comes down to it, everything we do is out of emotional ex<x>pression. Even intellectualism. Faith is a psychological construct manifested out of emotional needs.

When religion gets in the way of science, it is endlessly irritating. But when it accepts that it's part of a completely different domain, it can be respectable. I have found a lot of enjoyment in Christian Existentialist literature, for example.

I also think that many intellectuals fail to realize that faith is inevitable, as absolute knowledge of anything is impossible. By taking any action, whether thoughtful or physical, you are committing an act of faith in some form.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 3:19:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 1:24:53 AM, Joey_G wrote:
Scientific theories, by their very nature, require testable and repeatable experimentation to validate their accuracy.

Agreed.

Belief in God does not.

Agreed.

As you can see, this is a very unfair but very real way of looking at this dilemma.

Not really, I can believe in something all I want, but if I want to classify it as a scientific theory, I must provide evidence. This is perfectly fair.

If to understand God you first try to use logic, you will ultimately fail.

That is absurd......

If however you were to first approach God through faith then the arguments for His existence become very logical.

Yes, and if I were to first come to belief in a moon made of cheese, through faith, then arguments for it would become logical as well.

Faith, in some ways is the means we were given to understand things of God just as as our logic and reasoning is how we understand the natural world.

Faith is a means to understand anything, that's why logic is superior....

As you can see, we cannot understand God through scientific experimentation and reasoning simply because He exists outside our ability to comprehend Him.

That would be gods fault, not ours.

Dismissing Him as non-existent because of this is foolishness and only serves to highlight the bibles accuracy when it says "we have left God's path to follow our own way".

Really, does it now? Huh, who'da thunk it.

I think it a smarter approach to admit the limitations of science and logic and be open to the fact that things may exist beyond our ability to explain.

Or, we could assume that we can understand everything, and persevere as though we can. How else can we figure out whether we can or not?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Joey_G
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 8:53:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 2:58:31 AM, Composer wrote:
At 4/8/2013 2:51:49 AM, Joey_G wrote:
But I suppose I made that clear in the title, that God does not require proof in the way that science does.

Your first and fundamental problem is proving to us disbelievers that a literal Supernatural god(s) exist?

That is required first & foremost before you can take the next step and qualify yourself to tell others ' what this god(s) has or has not to prove to manifest itself to others!

Your first and fundamental problem is thinking that I'm trying to prove that He needs to be proved. Simply stating that our requirements and prerequisites for "proof" are inadequate.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 9:12:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
How do you know it's not all made-up nonsense, except through reason? You are expressly advocating the rejection of reason, in other words, foolishness.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Jack_the_lad
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 9:47:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Fair point that god can't be explained scientifically (mainly because there isn't a god), so people think faith is the answer in an attempt to understand him/her/it. But you cannot believe in the literal meaning of the bible. It is full of fables and parables which the bible says are Jesus's methods of teaching. So if the bible says that Jesus taught in parables, how can you believe in the literally meaning of the bible? And the whole bible is scientifically impossible (not the understanding of god, just the myths). The virgin birth; wrong. Noahs arc; impossible. Feeding the 5,000 with a loaf of bread and a fish; come on.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:31:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Things may exist. Having a bs belief because of faith will leave that belief open to criticism.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2013 10:37:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/8/2013 2:59:54 AM, FREEDO wrote:

I also think that many intellectuals fail to realize that faith is inevitable, as absolute knowledge of anything is impossible. By taking any action, whether thoughtful or physical, you are committing an act of faith in some form.

That form of "faith" is nearly always calculated faith though.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
TayterJ
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 7:00:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is truth. But if we use God as described in the bible, then we see that God transcends the temporal. His eternal nature does not mean that he lives on forever, it means that He is unbound by anything universal, and therefore scientifically undiscoverable, deliberately. To request that a man prove God with empirics or scientifically-oriented logic is impossible, and I assure you that nobody will succeed.

In addition, I would like to say that, although many will say "I will believe in God when he shows himself," assuming God exists, those people are making a demand that God doesn't owe them, because He first demanded faith. We have no authority to reveal God or have him be revealed, and therefore faith is the only means of knowledge. After faith comes undeniable truth.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 7:06:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 7:00:57 PM, TayterJ wrote:
This is truth. But if we use God as described in the bible, then we see that God transcends the temporal. His eternal nature does not mean that he lives on forever, it means that He is unbound by anything universal, and therefore scientifically undiscoverable, deliberately. To request that a man prove God with empirics or scientifically-oriented logic is impossible, and I assure you that nobody will succeed.

In addition, I would like to say that, although many will say "I will believe in God when he shows himself," assuming God exists, those people are making a demand that God doesn't owe them, because He first demanded faith. We have no authority to reveal God or have him be revealed, and therefore faith is the only means of knowledge. After faith comes undeniable truth.

So how do you discriminate between which "unknowable" (unprovable? whatever you want to call it) things you believe in and which ones you don't?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
TayterJ
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 8:32:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 7:06:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:00:57 PM, TayterJ wrote:
This is truth. But if we use God as described in the bible, then we see that God transcends the temporal. His eternal nature does not mean that he lives on forever, it means that He is unbound by anything universal, and therefore scientifically undiscoverable, deliberately. To request that a man prove God with empirics or scientifically-oriented logic is impossible, and I assure you that nobody will succeed.

In addition, I would like to say that, although many will say "I will believe in God when he shows himself," assuming God exists, those people are making a demand that God doesn't owe them, because He first demanded faith. We have no authority to reveal God or have him be revealed, and therefore faith is the only means of knowledge. After faith comes undeniable truth.

So how do you discriminate between which "unknowable" (unprovable? whatever you want to call it) things you believe in and which ones you don't?

What things? This applies to God, and God alone. God is non-spatial and He supersedes logical process because He created these things. What right has the potter over the clay?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 8:51:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 8:32:40 PM, TayterJ wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:06:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:00:57 PM, TayterJ wrote:
This is truth. But if we use God as described in the bible, then we see that God transcends the temporal. His eternal nature does not mean that he lives on forever, it means that He is unbound by anything universal, and therefore scientifically undiscoverable, deliberately. To request that a man prove God with empirics or scientifically-oriented logic is impossible, and I assure you that nobody will succeed.

In addition, I would like to say that, although many will say "I will believe in God when he shows himself," assuming God exists, those people are making a demand that God doesn't owe them, because He first demanded faith. We have no authority to reveal God or have him be revealed, and therefore faith is the only means of knowledge. After faith comes undeniable truth.

So how do you discriminate between which "unknowable" (unprovable? whatever you want to call it) things you believe in and which ones you don't?

What things? This applies to God, and God alone. God is non-spatial and He supersedes logical process because He created these things. What right has the potter over the clay?

Which god? And does god exist? You assert he does, but that he transcends any way to know he does. Therefore, you don't know he does, but you assert he does. It's ridiculous.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2013 9:10:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 8:32:40 PM, TayterJ wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:06:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:00:57 PM, TayterJ wrote:
This is truth. But if we use God as described in the bible, then we see that God transcends the temporal. His eternal nature does not mean that he lives on forever, it means that He is unbound by anything universal, and therefore scientifically undiscoverable, deliberately. To request that a man prove God with empirics or scientifically-oriented logic is impossible, and I assure you that nobody will succeed.

In addition, I would like to say that, although many will say "I will believe in God when he shows himself," assuming God exists, those people are making a demand that God doesn't owe them, because He first demanded faith. We have no authority to reveal God or have him be revealed, and therefore faith is the only means of knowledge. After faith comes undeniable truth.

So how do you discriminate between which "unknowable" (unprovable? whatever you want to call it) things you believe in and which ones you don't?

What things? This applies to God, and God alone. God is non-spatial and He supersedes logical process because He created these things. What right has the potter over the clay?

The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Sure, a rainbow is created by refracted light, but outside the laws of physics you can get the the end of the rainbow, and find a pot of gold.

Allah's real.

Ghosts are real.

Karma's real.

They all are unfalsifiable. How do you discriminate? Do you just spurt out what you think's right and expect to convince us?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
TayterJ
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:35:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 8:51:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 8:32:40 PM, TayterJ wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:06:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:00:57 PM, TayterJ wrote:
This is truth. But if we use God as described in the bible, then we see that God transcends the temporal. His eternal nature does not mean that he lives on forever, it means that He is unbound by anything universal, and therefore scientifically undiscoverable, deliberately. To request that a man prove God with empirics or scientifically-oriented logic is impossible, and I assure you that nobody will succeed.

In addition, I would like to say that, although many will say "I will believe in God when he shows himself," assuming God exists, those people are making a demand that God doesn't owe them, because He first demanded faith. We have no authority to reveal God or have him be revealed, and therefore faith is the only means of knowledge. After faith comes undeniable truth.

So how do you discriminate between which "unknowable" (unprovable? whatever you want to call it) things you believe in and which ones you don't?

What things? This applies to God, and God alone. God is non-spatial and He supersedes logical process because He created these things. What right has the potter over the clay?

Which god? And does god exist? You assert he does, but that he transcends any way to know he does. Therefore, you don't know he does, but you assert he does. It's ridiculous.

I never said unknowable. I am proof of knowledge. I said that God is unprovable. Thus my point being, evidentiary study and undeniable knowledge are distinguishable and unrelated in this case.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:40:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:35:42 AM, TayterJ wrote:
At 4/13/2013 8:51:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 8:32:40 PM, TayterJ wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:06:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:00:57 PM, TayterJ wrote:
This is truth. But if we use God as described in the bible, then we see that God transcends the temporal. His eternal nature does not mean that he lives on forever, it means that He is unbound by anything universal, and therefore scientifically undiscoverable, deliberately. To request that a man prove God with empirics or scientifically-oriented logic is impossible, and I assure you that nobody will succeed.

In addition, I would like to say that, although many will say "I will believe in God when he shows himself," assuming God exists, those people are making a demand that God doesn't owe them, because He first demanded faith. We have no authority to reveal God or have him be revealed, and therefore faith is the only means of knowledge. After faith comes undeniable truth.

So how do you discriminate between which "unknowable" (unprovable? whatever you want to call it) things you believe in and which ones you don't?

What things? This applies to God, and God alone. God is non-spatial and He supersedes logical process because He created these things. What right has the potter over the clay?

Which god? And does god exist? You assert he does, but that he transcends any way to know he does. Therefore, you don't know he does, but you assert he does. It's ridiculous.

I never said unknowable. I am proof of knowledge.

How? How do you know your belief is true?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:47:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/13/2013 8:32:40 PM, TayterJ wrote:
What right has the potter over the clay?

As you assert you are mere clay; then you are saying & agreeing with me that you have NO Free-Will and are merely the mindless product of your Story book Potter!
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:48:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:35:42 AM, TayterJ wrote:
At 4/13/2013 8:51:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 8:32:40 PM, TayterJ wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:06:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:00:57 PM, TayterJ wrote:
This is truth. But if we use God as described in the bible, then we see that God transcends the temporal. His eternal nature does not mean that he lives on forever, it means that He is unbound by anything universal, and therefore scientifically undiscoverable, deliberately. To request that a man prove God with empirics or scientifically-oriented logic is impossible, and I assure you that nobody will succeed.

In addition, I would like to say that, although many will say "I will believe in God when he shows himself," assuming God exists, those people are making a demand that God doesn't owe them, because He first demanded faith. We have no authority to reveal God or have him be revealed, and therefore faith is the only means of knowledge. After faith comes undeniable truth.

So how do you discriminate between which "unknowable" (unprovable? whatever you want to call it) things you believe in and which ones you don't?

What things? This applies to God, and God alone. God is non-spatial and He supersedes logical process because He created these things. What right has the potter over the clay?

Which god? And does god exist? You assert he does, but that he transcends any way to know he does. Therefore, you don't know he does, but you assert he does. It's ridiculous.

I never said unknowable. I am proof of knowledge. I said that God is unprovable. Thus my point being, evidentiary study and undeniable knowledge are distinguishable and unrelated in this case.

Evidence can be denied, undeniable knowledge, by definition, cannot.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:15:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
god definitely requires proof if you are going to make a point. if you say, "god is real." people will ask, "why?" if you say, "just because" or anything else like that you've already lost the argument.
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:16:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have faith that Tylenol cures cancer, therefore it cures cancer.

I'm sorry, but it does not work like that, try again.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
TayterJ
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 11:44:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:16:59 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
I have faith that Tylenol cures cancer, therefore it cures cancer.

I'm sorry, but it does not work like that, try again.

God isn't real because we have faith. You are right, it doesn't work like that. We have faith because God is real. The OP is saying that God needs no evidence because God is the root of all truth.
TayterJ
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 11:45:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:48:43 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 8:35:42 AM, TayterJ wrote:
At 4/13/2013 8:51:28 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 4/13/2013 8:32:40 PM, TayterJ wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:06:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/13/2013 7:00:57 PM, TayterJ wrote:
This is truth. But if we use God as described in the bible, then we see that God transcends the temporal. His eternal nature does not mean that he lives on forever, it means that He is unbound by anything universal, and therefore scientifically undiscoverable, deliberately. To request that a man prove God with empirics or scientifically-oriented logic is impossible, and I assure you that nobody will succeed.

In addition, I would like to say that, although many will say "I will believe in God when he shows himself," assuming God exists, those people are making a demand that God doesn't owe them, because He first demanded faith. We have no authority to reveal God or have him be revealed, and therefore faith is the only means of knowledge. After faith comes undeniable truth.

So how do you discriminate between which "unknowable" (unprovable? whatever you want to call it) things you believe in and which ones you don't?

What things? This applies to God, and God alone. God is non-spatial and He supersedes logical process because He created these things. What right has the potter over the clay?

Which god? And does god exist? You assert he does, but that he transcends any way to know he does. Therefore, you don't know he does, but you assert he does. It's ridiculous.

I never said unknowable. I am proof of knowledge. I said that God is unprovable. Thus my point being, evidentiary study and undeniable knowledge are distinguishable and unrelated in this case.

Evidence can be denied, undeniable knowledge, by definition, cannot.

You stated the crux of my point, thank you.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 11:51:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 11:44:25 AM, TayterJ wrote:
At 4/14/2013 10:16:59 AM, tmar19652 wrote:
I have faith that Tylenol cures cancer, therefore it cures cancer.

I'm sorry, but it does not work like that, try again.

God isn't real because we have faith. You are right, it doesn't work like that. We have faith because God is real. The OP is saying that God needs no evidence because God is the root of all truth.

Tacos are real, therefore tacos created the universe. The concept of a god is real, however whether or not god exists is "up in the air".
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush