Besides 'because the bible says so'....

[Youkilledkenny]

Let's leave out the 'because the bible says' arguments for this thread; biblical quoting is pointless in this discussion as a book claiming itself to be true is ludicrous and is seemingly only permissible with the bible itself.

What are the (I'd guess) many reasons why someone that currently doesn't believe in the biblical god* should believe in the biblical god?
Are there any items you can point to nature and say "See? God!" without debate?
Are there actions that everyone comes in contact with that says "See? God!" without debate?
Are there any part of humanity where one can point and say "See? God!" without debate?
Or are all non-biblical references to God simply too personalized to use in this scenario?




* Biblical god here meaning not 'a god' but the god as described in the current, modern Christian bible from both Testaments

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 1:

Let's just get to the parts I wanna carry on about...

Truth cannot unlock a heart closed by willful ignorance.

I'm proud to see ya confess your weakness, but really, I don't think it's your heart that's closed.

There can be no reasonable debate against the evident reality that the universe and the world around us displays astounding evidence of design, purpose and forthought.

And ya can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into either.
-Mark Clemens, sortaphrased

No, reason, good science, and a logical mind willing to accept what can and cannot be done without supernatural direction can lead any truthful unbias heart to accept, not only that there is a God but that he loves us.

"truthful, unbias(ed) heart"

And there, good folk, I contend is all the evidence we need to be convinced, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it's JehovahsWitness himself the one being biased, and willfully ignorant here...

First, he accuses those who disagree as having "willful ignorance", then don't it beat all, here he shows us one more symptom of it being him struck down with it.

smh



But it's to be expected by those who'd promote as virtuous a book that denigrates dissenters as "fools" or "incapable of doing good". It's to be expected when one buys into tales of gods who hate and who call for the stoning of others. It's to be expected by those who find it unreasonable to reject tales that can't be shown to be true.

It should be expected by those who find slander and libel to be -ahem- reasonable tools in a civil, honorable debate.

It just ought'n be tolerated.



But it works great to help me overcome some of my own issues, 'cause in the past, I'da punched a puppy I'da got so mad. Now when I get mad, I just kick a kitten.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 17 by ttruscott]

I understood you correctly, I would have to disagree. "Because the bible says so" is the same as "claiming scriptural status to gain brownie points with those who accept it".
You're using a book that says it's right to show it's right and show you're right in believing in it and claiming it to be true.
Again, if I understand you correctly.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 20 by OnceConvinced]

Good points! But I wonder: surely there are people that believe in a god w/o a written book?
Can't someone believe in a god that's not the Christian god?
I mean, some people claim to be Christians even believe in a god that's not the god in the bible - as they claim it anyway.
So I guess I was looking for independent thought and not force fed tripe from a book written by dead guys and edited by those who, mostly, want to control others for political and monetary gain. That said, I wonder if 'independent thought' isn't something that's part of the Christian system (assuming one wants to remain in said system) in as much as it pertains to thinking outside 'the biblical box'?
That seems to demonstrated to be true by the attempts to force ID as science in the USA, for starters.

[Bust Nak]

I'm proud to see ya confess your weakness, but really, I don't think it's your heart that's closed.

Moderator Comment

The implication here is your opponent is close minded. Don't make this personal even in jest or turnabout.

Please review the Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

No, reason, good science, and a logical mind willing to accept what can and cannot be done without supernatural direction can lead any truthful unbias heart to accept, not only that there is a God but that he loves us.

What exactly is it that you are claiming "cannot be done without supernatural direction?" Because to the best of my knowledge, no actual supernatural intervention or occurrences have ever been scientifically proven to have occurred. Assumed to have occurred and declared to have occurred, yes. But never proven to have occurred.

[Joe1950]

Back to the original questions.
There is no evidence for god outside of the Holy Books. None.

If there was evidence outside of the Bible then every atheist would immediately accept the existence of god. The idea of god would be like the concept of gravity. So obvious that no one could reasonably deny it. That is not the case.

But it takes "faith" to believe in god. And "faith" implies , or demands , belief WITHOUT evidence. It is like any myth or fantasy. You must suspend the laws of nature (physics, biology, etc) in order to "believe" in god.

[rikuoamero]

No, reason, good science, and a logical mind willing to accept what can and cannot be done without supernatural direction can lead any truthful unbias heart to accept, not only that there is a God but that he loves us.

What exactly is it that you are claiming "cannot be done without supernatural direction?" Because to the best of my knowledge, no actual supernatural intervention or occurrences have ever been scientifically proven to have occurred. Assumed to have occurred and declared to have occurred, yes. But never proven to have occurred.

What I'd like to know is, just how one is supposed to prove a supernatural intervention/event (such as the resurrection of Jesus) happened at all, if one throws science out the window?
Science is what we use to verify or falsify claims. If Charlie is accused by Tom of smashing Tom's office computer, we can falsify the claim by examining CCTV footage, which does not show Charlie at all.
Oh, but what if Tom insists we can't use scientific evidence, such as CCTV footage? What if he says Charlie did it via supernatural means? Well...we can't prove Tom false then. Should we just shrug our shoulders and say Charlie is guilty?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

No, reason, good science, and a logical mind willing to accept what can and cannot be done without supernatural direction can lead any truthful unbias heart to accept, not only that there is a God but that he loves us.

What exactly is it that you are claiming "cannot be done without supernatural direction?" Because to the best of my knowledge, no actual supernatural intervention or occurrences have ever been scientifically proven to have occurred. Assumed to have occurred and declared to have occurred, yes. But never proven to have occurred.

What I'd like to know is, just how one is supposed to prove a supernatural intervention/event (such as the resurrection of Jesus) happened at all, if one throws science out the window?
Science is what we use to verify or falsify claims. If Charlie is accused by Tom of smashing Tom's office computer, we can falsify the claim by examining CCTV footage, which does not show Charlie at all.
Oh, but what if Tom insists we can't use scientific evidence, such as CCTV footage? What if he says Charlie did it via supernatural means? Well...we can't prove Tom false then. Should we just shrug our shoulders and say Charlie is guilty?

When making supernatural claims scientific evidence become immaterial since it is always possible, for example, to make the claim that Charlie used supernatural forces to become invisible, and thereby avoiding detection by the camera. One of the main advantages of supernatural claims is that they can never be proven to be UNTRUE. Which is why the religious are forever declaring that the burden is upon non believers to prove that the God they claim exists does NOT exist. In science, the burden of proof is on those making the claim.

[benchwarmer]

Which is why the religious are forever declaring that the burden is upon non believers to prove that the God they claim exists does NOT exist.

This brings to mind a similar mentality that can happy in my day job. The marketing folks (comparable to the believers) sometimes like to create literature and expound on the many features of something that will soon exist. Sometimes they don't check with the engineers (comparable to the non believers) first to make sure it's even possible. i.e. they'll just define it into existence and hope for the best

At least marketing folks eventually align with reality once the product ships and they have to sell it

[Joe1950]

[Replying to post 28 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The problem religion faces is that you cannot disprove a negative. And you cannot disprove anything which you cannot collect data for. You can use evidence, but all evidence can be disregarded as untrue.

Example. No one can disprove this statement:

Santa came down my woodstove last December 24 and left me gifts. The law of physics says it is not possible for a big man to climb down through a narrow chimney pipe. The laws of physics say reindeer cannot fly. That also matters not. That matters not to me. I simply claim it happened.
My "proof" is that there are presents under the tree with my name on them. And the card says "From Santa". Therefore I know Santa came down the woodstove pipe . I knew it when I was 4. I know it when I am 67.
No amount of logic, reason or scientific data will move me from this position.

You can argue with me all you want. But I will not budge. Santa came down my woodstove pipe. You cannot PROVE he didn't.