6000 years of history

[RonE]

6000 years of recorded history, it seems to me that if there were gods (or God), by now we would all know. Science has found no place for god in any hypothesis explaining the laws of nature.

We are presented with two alternatives, either there are no gods or they are hiding, playing tricks on us trying to test us, but really why would such powerful beings need or want to do that. Occam’s razor points us to the obvious answer, simple… no one is there.

Let’s move out of kindergarten and make believe, let’s feed the poor and starving, let’s put hate and war out of business.

What say you?

[RonE]

[Replying to post 27 by ThePainefulTruth]

All we reasonably know is that God does not interact or intervene.

And what use is a god who doesn't interact or intervene? That certainly isn't the christian god, who is suppose to be interested in each of us, answers prayers, etc., etc. Why would we consider a god who doesn't interact/intervene to be a god at all. Because of some really old writings with questionable sources. Really?

Yes, Carl is my avatar because, IMHO, he was a great thinker and communicator. Not because I believe everything he said, I think he was timid with theists because of the politics of his work, he didn't want to offend to many people up the food chain.

If your theoretical god really wanted to:

spawn beings with moral free will which would require that It not be evident.

then why would he prejudice them with his word (supposed word) in the bible. If he really wanted a great experiment then he would have remained invisible (as he is).

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 27 by ThePainefulTruth]

All we reasonably know is that God does not interact or intervene.

And what use is a god who doesn't interact or intervene? That certainly isn't the christian god, who is suppose to be interested in each of us, answers prayers, etc., etc. Why would we consider a god who doesn't interact/intervene to be a god at all. Because of some really old writings with questionable sources. Really?

Yes, Carl is my avatar because, IMHO, he was a great thinker and communicator. Not because I believe everything he said, I think he was timid with theists because of the politics of his work, he didn't want to offend to many people up the food chain.

If your theoretical god really wanted to:

spawn beings with moral free will which would require that It not be evident.

then why would he prejudice them with his word (supposed word) in the bible. If he really wanted a great experiment then he would have remained invisible (as he is).

Interesting.

You admire Sagan when he agrees with you, and the only reason he said anything with which you disagree is because he was a coward?

Anybody else see a problem with that approach?

BTW, I agree with Sagan a lot, too. I especially agree with his child like wonder at the universe and his delight in exploring it. I don't agree with his atheism, but I don't think he was being a coward or deceitful in any way when he expressed it.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 29 by RonE]

You're arguing against a revealed god. You keep switching your argument back to that, and I agree with all you said about such fables. If you claim knowledge that there is no god, then you're relying on faith as much as the evangelists. There's only two reasonable possibilities on the existence of God, the deist model or no God, and there's no evidence for or against either--which is was Sagan was saying. Don't try to offer his motivations, they're irrelevant. Take what he wrote at face value and go from there.

"If you're looking for Truth, leave elegance to the tailor."--Mark Twain

[RonE]

[Replying to post 30 by dianaiad]

You admire Sagan when he agrees with you, and the only reason he said anything with which you disagree is because he was a coward?

Sagan a coward? I think you are baiting me. That is your word not mine.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 30 by dianaiad]

You admire Sagan when he agrees with you, and the only reason he said anything with which you disagree is because he was a coward?

Sagan a coward? I think you are baiting me. That is your word not mine.

You wrote, in post 29:

I think he was timid with theists because of the politics of his work, he didn't want to offend to many people up the food chain.

Definition of 'coward" according to the dictionary:


coward
[kou-erd]

Synonyms
Word Origin

noun
1.
a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.
adjective
2.
lacking courage; very fearful or timid.
3.
proceeding from or expressive of fear or timidity:
a coward cry.



Please notice that the word 'timid' is used in all three definitions, and I didn't write the definition.

Perhaps, however, you should have read it.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 31 by ThePainefulTruth]

You're arguing against a revealed god... If you claim knowledge that there is no god, then you're relying on faith as much as the evangelists.

No, I'm not taking it on faith, my position is that it is unreasonable to assume that there is at least one god out there hiding in the dark and that he completely masks his presence from us. There is no evidence to support that god, and in the case of the christian god he is said to answer prayers and to take other positive actions which if true would be observable. Since we do not observe any evidence of these activities we can assume that he is not there.

[ttruscott]

29
[Replying to post 31 by ThePainefulTruth]

You're arguing against a revealed god... If you claim knowledge that there is no god, then you're relying on faith as much as the evangelists.

No, I'm not taking it on faith, my position is that it is unreasonable to assume that there is at least one god out there hiding in the dark and that he completely masks his presence from us.

Christianity claims HE only hides HIS presence from some of us. Not everyone is devoid of the evidence. This can't be proven because it is a spiritual matter and the spirit can't be proven by material means any more than music proves elephants....it is meaningless to question the spiritual as provable or not.

There is no evidence to support that god, and in the case of the christian god he is said to answer prayers and to take other positive actions which if true would be observable. Since we do not observe any evidence of these activities we can assume that he is not there.

The fact that people do not 'have' any evidence may mean 1. they reject it all so deeply the evidence doesn't even look like evidence at all. 2. they are outside the Spirit of GOD so cannot discern the Spirit of Truth at all, John 14:16-17, 3. the demonic enemies of GOD have blinded them to the truth about GOD, 2 Corinthians 4:4. 4. The Bible even tells us that this is all deliberate for some people: Mark 4:11 And He was saying to them, "To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, 12 so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

So here we have 4 logical reasons in Christianity why someone might not be able to discern the evidence due to a lack within themselves rather than your assertion that the only possible answer is:

...either there are no gods or they are hiding, playing tricks on us trying to test us...

[bold is my emphasis]


In other words, lack of evidence is still not a proof there is no evidence...

Peace, Ted

[Zzyzx]

.

Christianity claims HE only hides HIS presence from some of us. Not everyone is devoid of the evidence.

How are those privileged to see the evidence selected? Could it be that they are those who already BELIEVE and are prone to accept what they are told (or what they read) about "gods?"

This can't be proven because it is a spiritual matter and the spirit can't be proven by material means any more than music proves elephants....it is meaningless to question the spiritual as provable or not.

Since the spiritual cannot be proved, it should not be presented to others as being truthful and accurate (because it cannot be substantiated).

There is no evidence to support that god, and in the case of the christian god he is said to answer prayers and to take other positive actions which if true would be observable. Since we do not observe any evidence of these activities we can assume that he is not there.

The fact that people do not 'have' any evidence may mean

Perhaps you overlooked an obvious #5 – that there IS NO EVIDENCE to present – nothing more than conjecture, opinion, hearsay and unverifiable tales (ancient or modern) in which religionists purport to KNOW about "gods" or "afterlife" or "supernaturalism."

In other words, lack of evidence is still not a proof there is no evidence...

Exactly. Therefore, to those who claim there IS evidence of "gods" I ASK for evidence upon which to make a reasoned, intelligent, sound decision.

[ThePainefulTruth]

dupe

[ThePainefulTruth]

BTW, I agree with Sagan a lot, too. I especially agree with his child like wonder at the universe and his delight in exploring it. I don't agree with his atheism, but I don't think he was being a coward or deceitful in any way when he expressed it.

That quote I put up pretty much makes him and agnostic: “To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.�