A path to faith with science

Maybe you can start providing actual proof of the existence of God, natureisawesome? Because last time I checked, there is absolutely no proof provided. Remember, you started this thread and claimed you had proof of God's existence. That means the burden of proof is on you... and you have yet to provide proof. If you did provide proof, we would all believe you, and I would have stopped burning bibles by now.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by natureisawesome:

Quote:

---

mfqr, Please refrain from elephant hurling. I have no problem with these challenges but one thing at a time.

---

mfqr:

Why should I refrain from this so-called "elephant hurling" (I don't know what that is)? That website offers a lot of valid questions about the existence of God. As a Christian, you are obligated to support your God, and thus make sure that you answer those questions, and make justifications to trick yourself into still believing in God.

---

You should refrain from elephant hurling because it's a form of dishonest propaganda, and even if you think those arguements are valid, it's not fair to post them all like that so that it's almost impossible for anyone to make objections to them all.

Elephant hurling is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

II understand now that you are not a Buddhist. You were defending buddhism. If someone came in another thread about buddism ,and argued that Christianity made more sense, people would rightly assume he is a Christian.

---

I thought it was pretty clear he was defending Buddhism in the sense that you can't disprove it, not that he believed it. I defend Xianity or theism from time to time when somebody makes a remark that doesn't make sense, that doesn't mean I'm a theist in any way. There's a difference between assumption and "rightly assuming". Rightly assuming is when you find out you're right, after the fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

That's so rediculous that doesn't even deserve a response.

---

I thought it looked valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

...it's not fair to post them all like that so that it's almost impossible for anyone to make objections to them all.

---

isn't that what you did in your initial post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

You should refrain from elephant hurling because it's a form of dishonest propaganda, and even if you think those arguements are valid, it's not fair to post them all like that so that it's almost impossible for anyone to make objections to them all.

Elephant hurling is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side. But we should challenge elephant-hurlers to offer specifics and challenge the underlying assumptions.

---

It's not elephant hurling then. Maybe you should look at it, and answer the biggest questions stated there. I am not failing to consider opposing data, you are, if you won't look at it and think about it. I've already been Christian once. I know how lame it is to be a Christian, and how people are so brainwashed to think that God will get them out of every bad situation they're in. Trust me, I've considered the other side. Now is your turn to consider the other side. Thanks.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the proof that God exists. Apparently I was deceived to think that the proof was in this thread, but it's not. Oh well, I guess nobody will be proving that God exists anytime soon... probably not ever, since he most likely does not exist.

By the way, I was kidding about the mean stuff I said before... about blowing up churches and stuff like that.

natureisawesome, give us what you promised us! We want the proof already!

Quote:

---

Hardcore Newbie:

Quote:

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by natureisawesome:
...it's not fair to post them all like that so that it's almost impossible for anyone to make objections to them all.

---

isn't that what you did in your initial post?

---

No way. Isn't that why I said at the end, that It was open for debate? I've actually gotten more side arguments than anything else.

Here's how it works. You read the article. If it looks right, then you can go ahead with it. If it looks wrong, then lets talk about your objections. But this portion of the thread isn't about showing my proof. I already showed my proof in the original post. There's no way for me to prove it to everyone. You have to prove it to yourself. The best I can do, is point out the logic and evidence the best I can, and then it's for everyone to accept or deny.

If you don't agree with my proof after everything, then that's your choice. It happens all the time. People disagree and someone will say "you still havn't shown me proof" whether the person showed them valid proof or not. This can go on forever!

So if you don't agree with my evidence, that's your choice. Say, I don't agree with your logic/evidence. But if you say I don't have eny evidence, you're ignorant and the numerous page post is right there at the beginning of the thread to show this plain and clear.

So if you are really conscerned about finding the truth of the matter then this is a good place for you to discuss it. If not, then perhaps you shouldn't be here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

No way. Isn't that why I said at the end, that It was open for debate? I've actually gotten more side arguments than anything else.

Here's how it works. You read the article. If it looks right, then you can go ahead with it. If it looks wrong, then lets talk about your objections. But this portion of the thread isn't about showing my proof. I already showed my proof in the original post. There's no way for me to prove it to everyone. You have to prove it to yourself. The best I can do, is point out the logic and evidence the best I can, and then it's for everyone to accept or deny.

If you don't agree with my proof after everything, then that's your choice. It happens all the time. People disagree and someone will say "you still havn't shown me proof" whether the person showed them valid proof or not. This can go on forever!

So if you don't agree with my evidence, that's your choice. Say, I don't agree with your logic/evidence. But if you say I don't have eny evidence, you're ignorant and the numerous page post is right there at the beginning of the thread to show this plain and clear.

So if you are really conscerned about finding the truth of the matter then this is a good place for you to discuss it. If not, then perhaps you shouldn't be here.

---

Hahah, ohhh no buddy, you won't be getting away with it that easily. I am 100% sure that most of the people posting on this thread are here to argue against your false proof, which has no evidence to back it up.

And I find it hilarious how you call us ignorant because we disagree with your false proof and lack of evidence. If it was good evidence, and proved anything but the fact that God is a delusion, then nobody would be arguing with it. And if they did, you would have been able to provide valid evidence to prove them wrong. You have not done any of this, and thus your proof is not proof. There is no proof of God's existence, and I think that is pretty much the only thing you have proved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natureisawesome

No way. Isn't that why I said at the end, that It was open for debate? I've actually gotten more side arguments than anything else.

Here's how it works. You read the article. If it looks right, then you can go ahead with it. If it looks wrong, then lets talk about your objections. But this portion of the thread isn't about showing my proof. I already showed my proof in the original post. There's no way for me to prove it to everyone. You have to prove it to yourself. The best I can do, is point out the logic and evidence the best I can, and then it's for everyone to accept or deny.

If you don't agree with my proof after everything, then that's your choice. It happens all the time. People disagree and someone will say "you still havn't shown me proof" whether the person showed them valid proof or not. This can go on forever!

So if you don't agree with my evidence, that's your choice. Say, I don't agree with your logic/evidence. But if you say I don't have eny evidence, you're ignorant and the numerous page post is right there at the beginning of the thread to show this plain and clear.

So if you are really conscerned about finding the truth of the matter then this is a good place for you to discuss it. If not, then perhaps you shouldn't be here.

---

Many people have raised arguments that, at the time, for whatever reason, you feel that you shouldn't have to respond, because it's "unreasonable" or "unrealistic", or that they've been smoking too much weed.

Hardcore Newbie:

Quote:

---

Many people have raised arguments that, at the time, for whatever reason, you feel that you shouldn't have to respond, because it's "unreasonable" or "unrealistic", or that they've been smoking too much weed.

---

I think most or all of the time I stopped answering because I had already responded before and felt I had made my point, and after that it was unreasonable or unneccesary to respond. . As for Imitator's weed induced logic of unprovability, I did answer that, many times. I just didn't answer his whole post, point for point. That was way too long, and I don't expect anyone to do that for me.