God.

[Ceannairceach]

As this entire thread shows, debatable.

You people love to debate, but this isn't debatable.

Offer proof then. Prove to me that a god, any god, exists.

[Gaiso]

You people love to debate, but this isn't debatable.

Offer proof then. Prove to me that a god, any god, exists.

Even Thor. Well, especially Thor.

[-Carta-]

I believe in God. Done.

[Kormanthor]

Offer proof then. Prove to me that a god, any god, exists.

Even Thor. Well, especially Thor.

If you can't see the proof around the world, then you must be blind to it.

[Ceannairceach]

Even Thor. Well, especially Thor.

If you can't see the proof around the world, then you must be blind to it.

No, you must be royally ignorant to the fact that what you consider proof( as some have offered, the stars, life itself, etc) might not be proof to others.

[Unhealthy2]

I thought an item I had was worth more than it was until I checked ebay. For less trivial examples, how about slavery or abortion?

Extrinsic valuation. It's the intrinsic that matters. Slave-holders were simply mistaken.

How are we all to agree that self-valuation is what matters?

Because the intrinsic properties of a thing are, in a certain sense, objective.

[Unhealthy2]

If you can't see the proof around the world, then you must be blind to it.

What evidence is there, and how does it prove god's existence? Furthermore, how does it prove YOUR god's existence, as opposed to the existence of a different sort of god?

[Jasonovia]

Because the intrinsic properties of a thing are, in a certain sense, objective.

Agreed, but the intrinsic properties don't come from you valuating them as such; they are just there. So where do the intrinsic properties come from, then?

[Farnhamia]

Even Thor. Well, especially Thor.

If you can't see the proof around the world, then you must be blind to it.

What proof? Really, what do you see in the world that you consider proof of the existence of the God of Abraham? Specifically, I mean.

[Farnhamia]

Non-existent entity created to quell people's fears of the unknown and to give the masses someone to blame when things go wrong.

Boy do you have a surprise coming your way

Indeed? Like what? If you're going to play the hellfire and brimstone card, or the howling forever in the darkness card, just play it and don't pussy-foot around. Either threaten us with divine punishment or go away.

[Larrick]

Huh, all this arguing.

I've just thought of it as common sense. God exists, and doesn't intervene at all. Poof, done.

[Farnhamia]

Huh, all this arguing.

I've just thought of it as common sense. God exists, and doesn't intervene at all. Poof, done.

Then what good is he?

[Unhealthy2]

Agreed, but the intrinsic properties don't come from you valuating them as such; they are just there. So where do the intrinsic properties come from, then?

But self-valuation is a bit different, as the act of valuation IS part of your being.

[Dyakovo]

The same way you were yesterday? Just my first guess.

I am just saying to guess accurately guess Gods Nature you have to read the bible not history.

And?

[Dyakovo]

I am just saying to guess accurately guess Gods Nature you have to read the bible not history.

Right. Made up nonsense>historical facts. Oh no makes perfect sense, how could I not have seen this before?

That's not what he was saying in that statement (though I do get the impression he believes that. I read that as "to accurately make a guess about his magical sky faerie's nature you have to have read about his magical sjy faerie's nature, i.e. have read the bible." Of course he fails in the assumption that atheists have not read the bible, especially here on NSG.

[Unilisia]

God is real.

Proof? Consume enough LSD, and you'll see God.

No, you just think your seeing him, when your just really high.

[Dyakovo]

And who's fault is it that human nature is that way?

Adam and Eve.Yahweh

Fixed that for you.

[Dyakovo]

It was ordained by God

You know this how?

He doesn't. But like many religious people he confuses belief with knowledge.

[Dyakovo]

Then by all means, enlighten us as to the difference between composing of God and being God.

Well I would tell you to ask God.

What's his number? I'll ask him.

[Distruzio]

Nope. The Church has defined how we are to relate to God. Unicorns, no matter how invisible or Pink, Leprechauns, or Zeus do not have the support of the Church. I believe that 2000 years of Church history is valid evidence of Gods existence and perpetuity. Until the Church embraces Unicorns or Leprechauns, it is safe to say they aren't valid.

And yet here you are, one of our most fervent apostles of "you are not the boss of me," willingly and, I daresay, blindly accepting what "the Church" says about how to live your life. Curious.

I have no problem with voluntary submission.

[DaWoad]

And yet here you are, one of our most fervent apostles of "you are not the boss of me," willingly and, I daresay, blindly accepting what "the Church" says about how to live your life. Curious.

I have no problem with voluntary submission.

on the basis of nothing? Awesome. Alright I have this piece of land down south I'd like to sell you. You should believe me because selling land has a long history.

[Farnhamia]

And yet here you are, one of our most fervent apostles of "you are not the boss of me," willingly and, I daresay, blindly accepting what "the Church" says about how to live your life. Curious.

I have no problem with voluntary submission.

How voluntary is it? Doesn't the Church hold the ultimate monopoly of force, in that it can condemn your immortal soul to everlasting perdition? And you have nothing to say in the matter save, "Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" or however the Greek has it.

[Distruzio]

I see your inability to understand what you read is present even when not discussing politics. I said that what ever is not explainable yet, is attributed to God. Whatever is not explained, is proof of God. He is the mystery.

So you're making an atheistic argument, right? Because this seems to be saying that god is just an excuse we use to fill in gaps in our knowledge that haven't been given a better explanation yet.

I'm saying that atheists tend to think that theists are nutjobs. If thinking of God in such a way is what helps them to understand that we aren't nutjobs, just merely viewing the world in a more inter-relational point a of view, then why not do so? Unless you disagree with my position. If that be the case, then *shrug*. Whatevs.

Nope. The Church has defined how we are to relate to God. Unicorns, no matter how invisible or Pink, Leprechauns, or Zeus do not have the support of the Church.

Galileo didn't have the support of the church either. We saw how correct they were then.

Actually, he did have the support of the Church until he declared that he was right and all the other scientists that were questioning his findings were wrong. The Church merely required him to wait for the rest of the scientific community to catch up to him. Granted, that may have taken a longer amount of time than Galileo had years left, but the Church is anything but quick to make decisions.

I believe that 2000 years of Church history is valid evidence of Gods existence and perpetuity.

Then there's valid evidence for a shit ton of claims made throughout history. Do you honestly believe Christianity is the oldest religion?

Being Christian, I honestly believe that it is the only pertinent religion to me.

Until the Church embraces Unicorns or Leprechauns, it is safe to say they aren't valid.

No, until evidence is produced that they exist, it's safe to say they aren't valid. Oops! We can't use that honest and symmetric criterion because it also applies to god. Better invent something that let's us keep god but not anything else without evidence.

I'm saying you can't deny something merely b/c it doesn't conform to standard empirical data studies. Remember, I'm an Austrian. So I think in terms of logical a priori reasoning.

[Dyakovo]

This just seems to be the problem with humanity. We want to figure everything out and refuse to accept that there is a higher power because that would mean accepting that we actually have to answer to someone. I just cant see how people can look at this world and the stars in the sky and not believe in something. But if people want to reason that they are related to apes be my guest.¹ But we can go around with this all day long and not agree.² But if humans evolved from apes why are there still apes?³ But the theory of evolution is just that. A theory⁴ and it will never be proven as a fact.⁵ But the good book provides all the facts we need.⁶ People just dont want to see it. But to state it simply I do believe in God.

Somebody else want to correct this one? I'm getting sick of answering the same questions over and over again.

I got it...

1: I will, since we are.
2: And at the end of the day you'll still be wrong.
3: Because we evolved from a common ancestor, not the current apes.
4: There is a huge difference between a theory in common usage and a theory in scientific usage.
5: Actually evolution is a proven fact. What isn't proven fact is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, and you are actually correct on that, but not for the reasons you think. Science does not prove things correct, it proves them false. If at some point a portion of the Theory of Evolution by natural selection is proven to be false the theory will be modified to fit the new facts.
6: Sure, if the only "facts" you need are in fact false and thus not facts at all.

[Sun Aut Ex]

I believe in all the gods. Doesn't mean I worship them. Most of them are right jerks.