I am a Theist.

Originally posted by Warpthal
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What God?
How's that

How's that? Pretty poor, still not convinced.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Please persuade me to believe that God doesn't exist.

Ya know, it's funny... your OP never even specified which God. The ensuing comments are hilarious when you consider that.

But in making your point you've also made mine: that people cannot grasp and retain a topic. There's reasonable diversion, and then there's hijacking.

Want some popcorn while we wait for anyone to come up with a rational, logical argument to convince us that no God exists? I use an air popper, real butter, and sea salt... then wash it down with Dew.

S+F for the successful experiment in getting people to completely switch sides in a debate without their being aware of it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Cuervo

 

If read chronologically, the bible clearly states that God (and an unidentified "we") created humanity and then, much later, created Adam and Eve.

Citation?

Adam and Eve were simply the first of the Hebrew line of people.

No, Abraham was. (According to the Bible)

Citation? The bible. If you need to cite 3rd party sources then you are doing it wrong. But, if you mean the bible, look at the following:

Genesis 1:26 "Then God said, "Let us make people in our own image, to be like ourselves"

By Genesis 2:4, the creation story was wrapped up with a tidy bow and a well-rested God. Then:

Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord formed a man's body out of the dust..."

The reason I say they were the first Hebrews is because the Hebrew tribes came from their line, specifically. What really fascinates me is that direct descendants of Adam and Eve are the only ones that are "commanded" to do anything as they are the only ones who are God's people. The rest of people were not affiliated directly with Him but they were created by the Pantheon in the beginning.

reply to post by Cuervo


The Hebrew for God is "Elohim", which is a plural term used as a singular noun. That's because God is a Trinitarian God. "Let us make man in our image" is one person of the Trinity speaking to the other two persons of the Trinity. And like the Triune God man is comprised of 3 parts, a body, soul, and spirit. The Son had not yet incarnated in a body so He couldn't have been speaking about Himself when He said "in our image". That's why in verse 27 it continues "And so God (Elohim) created man in His own image..."

Genesis 2 is an in-depth account of what happened on day six. Newspapers do this all the time, they will have a brief in the headline and go into all the details in the body of the article.

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Please persuade me to believe that God doesn't exist.

Ya know, it's funny... your OP never even specified which God. The ensuing comments are hilarious when you consider that.

But in making your point you've also made mine: that people cannot grasp and retain a topic. There's reasonable diversion, and then there's hijacking.

Want some popcorn while we wait for anyone to come up with a rational, logical argument to convince us that no God exists? I use an air popper, real butter, and sea salt... then wash it down with Dew.

S+F for the successful experiment in getting people to completely switch sides in a debate without their being aware of it.

I even handicapped it for the skeptics and purposely worded the OP as "persuade" instead of "make".

I was torn when I decided to let the cat out of the bag earlier, I truly was.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Cuervo

 

The Hebrew for God is "Elohim", which is a plural term used as a singular noun. That's because God is a Trinitarian God. "Let us make man in our image" is one person of the Trinity speaking to the other two persons of the Trinity. And like the Triune God man is comprised of 3 parts, a body, soul, and spirit. The Son had not yet incarnated in a body so He couldn't have been speaking about Himself when He said "in our image". That's why in verse 27 it continues "And so God (Elohim) created man in His own image..."

Genesis 2 is an in-depth account of what happened on day six. Newspapers do this all the time, they will have a brief in the headline and go into all the details in the body of the article.

The trinity concept was made up by the church to defend itself from accusations of polytheism. And, no... Elohim is a plural term used as a plural noun. It's like saying sheep for one or sheep for two. If I wanted to specify one sheep, I'd say "one sheep". If I wanted it to be construed as more than one, I'd say "sheep". Yes, they are the same word but you can still indicate plurality in its usage, as it is in Genesis.

As far as Gen 2 being a detail account of Day 6, I just don't see it that way. I understand how you could see that (especially if you compare it to contemporary journalism) but I read it as an account of post-creationism. Think about it... the God walking around in the garden, looking for his creations, is not the same all-powerful force we see in the first 7 days.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well, you could make me believe in it all...so long as you provided me with evidence and reason. Sure, I could just be so stubborn and bull-headed that I won't accept it...but then I wouldn't have become an atheist in the first place, would I?

reply to post by SaberTruth


I use one of those high temp. Theatre saucepan looking hand crank rotatingthingamagigs and with real butter also but normally with Himalayan (84 essential minerals, balanced...- due mostly to taste though, Murray River out of Australia is another one worth mentioning)...none of this is originally what I intended to say though , which is - add (whomsoever) a little virgin coconut oil for a more true to theatre flavor and a dash or two more if like sweet Kettle style taste -talking like 1 initial teaspoon to whole pans worth, too much and no bjueno

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


No, you're wrong, and the point I was making in the other thread. I CANNOT "make" you believe anything.

Originally posted by Rustami
reply to post by SaberTruth

 

I use one of those high temp. Theatre saucepan looking hand crank rotatingthingamagigs and with real butter also but normally with Himalayan (84 essential minerals, balanced...- due mostly to taste though, Murray River out of Australia is another one worth mentioning)...none of this is originally what I intended to say though

, which is - add (whomsoever) a little virgin coconut oil for a more true to theatre flavor and a dash or two more if like sweet Kettle style taste -talking like 1 initial teaspoon to whole pans worth, too much and no bjueno

Sounds yummy, thanks! Never would have considered coconut oil on popcorn.

reply to post by SaberTruth


I'll be trying that one too.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Please persuade me to believe that God doesn't exist.

Ok here we go simply watch the movie "Religulous" with Bill Maher, that tackles everything about religion and god and all the different religions in the world. There is your answer but then again its your BELIEF, so i may BELIEVE jeans are better then shorts, or a bmw is better then a ford, but everyone is different and will believe what they want.

reply to post by scottromansky


Bill Maher? Bill Maher??

Vulger mockery is not persuasive to people who actually do think, as opposed to those who merely claim to be "free thinkers". When you want to persuade, you don't send in the clowns.

Originally posted by scottromansky

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Please persuade me to believe that God doesn't exist.

Ok here we go simply watch the movie "Religulous" with Bill Maher, that tackles everything about religion and god and all the different religions in the world. There is your answer but then again its your BELIEF, so i may BELIEVE jeans are better then shorts, or a bmw is better then a ford, but everyone is different and will believe what they want.

edit on 9-6-2011 by scottromansky because: (no reason given)

Someone who points to a movie as an encapuslation and entire answer to a complex problem wants to edumicate us on belief?

And by the way, do you personally "believe" it is better not to have bubonic plague than to have it, or would you say the opposite is true? I mean, if it all comes down to one big happy subjective soup than one answer on this topic is as good as another, right? I'm hoping you aren't a public health official...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Please persuade me to believe that God doesn't exist.

Sorry bud, nice try. But the burden of proof falls onto you.

If I said there were no vampires or goblins, one cannot prove a negative, so you cannot prove that things DON'T exist. However, if someone said that vampires and goblins did exist, it would be up to them to seek and find the proof of it.

The same applies to God. You start from zero - God does not exist. Now if you think it does then you must bring some proof to us or we go back to square one and accept it as a fact that without proof, it does not.

Khar

Originally posted by Kharron

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Please persuade me to believe that God doesn't exist.

Sorry bud, nice try. But the burden of proof falls onto you.

If I said there were no vampires or goblins, one cannot prove a negative, so you cannot prove that things DON'T exist. However, if someone said that vampires and goblins did exist, it would be up to them to seek and find the proof of it.

The same applies to God. You start from zero - God does not exist. Now if you think it does then you must bring some proof to us or we go back to square one and accept it as a fact that without proof, it does not.

Khar

That's not how logic works.

Whoever makes an assertion, whether positive or negative, has the burden of proof. That's why it isn't wise to assert negatives. If the sphere of the assertion is finite and possible to fully investigate, one can reasonably make a negative assertion; e.g., there are no palm trees in my garage. But if one makes an assertion about a sphere that cannot be fully investigated-- e.g. there is no god-- it is impossible to prove. Then we are in the realm of probability, not proof, and one can only express FAITH in that probability, positive or negative.

So no, you do NOT "start from zero" (really, from one's desired conclusion or the fallacy of "begging the question"), you start from neutrality: there may or may not be a God. Everything depends on who is making the assertion, so if you say "there is no God", then you have the burden of proof and cannot make that assertion a foregone conclusion from the start.

The OP is asking for persuasion anyway, not proof. It is up to those who believe there is no God to come up with a plausible and logical argument that will be persuasive, instead of trying to make the OP the one who must persuade. Remember who is being challenged here. (hint: it isn't the OP)

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Whoever makes an assertion, whether positive or negative, has the burden of proof. That's why it isn't wise to assert negatives. If the sphere of the assertion is finite and possible to fully investigate, one can reasonably make a negative assertion; e.g., there are no palm trees in my garage. But if one makes an assertion about a sphere that cannot be fully investigated-- e.g. there is no god-- it is impossible to prove. Then we are in the realm of probability, not proof, and one can only express FAITH in that probability, positive or negative.

I've never heard that put so well. Seriously. I might have to paraphrase you in the future.

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by Kharron

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Please persuade me to believe that God doesn't exist.

Sorry bud, nice try. But the burden of proof falls onto you.

If I said there were no vampires or goblins, one cannot prove a negative, so you cannot prove that things DON'T exist. However, if someone said that vampires and goblins did exist, it would be up to them to seek and find the proof of it.

The same applies to God. You start from zero - God does not exist. Now if you think it does then you must bring some proof to us or we go back to square one and accept it as a fact that without proof, it does not.

Khar

That's not how logic works.

Whoever makes an assertion, whether positive or negative, has the burden of proof. That's why it isn't wise to assert negatives. If the sphere of the assertion is finite and possible to fully investigate, one can reasonably make a negative assertion; e.g., there are no palm trees in my garage. But if one makes an assertion about a sphere that cannot be fully investigated-- e.g. there is no god-- it is impossible to prove. Then we are in the realm of probability, not proof, and one can only express FAITH in that probability, positive or negative.

So no, you do NOT "start from zero" (really, from one's desired conclusion or the fallacy of "begging the question"), you start from neutrality: there may or may not be a God. Everything depends on who is making the assertion, so if you say "there is no God", then you have the burden of proof and cannot make that assertion a foregone conclusion from the start.

The OP is asking for persuasion anyway, not proof. It is up to those who believe there is no God to come up with a plausible and logical argument that will be persuasive, instead of trying to make the OP the one who must persuade. Remember who is being challenged here. (hint: it isn't the OP)

And that's one school of thought and while I do not agree with it it does make sense to a point.

You are starting from a 'maybe' and then both sides have to bring forward proof. I've studied logic too, and although very rusty, I remember the school of thought you are referring to which states that proving a negative is no different than proving a positive - each side has to bring forward proof and in the abstract world of logic this may make sense in some situations.

However, in the real world it applies less so. There is absolutely NO proof of God's existence in this world today, except in a book written by humans - which is inadmissible. Therefore, we have to start from zero - there is no God. Now the other side would have to bring proof that it does.

You cannot prove the non-existence of something beyond the obvious fact that it does not due to lack of any proof of it existing.

Khar

Originally posted by scottromansky

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Please persuade me to believe that God doesn't exist.

Ok here we go simply watch the movie "Religulous" with Bill Maher, that tackles everything about religion and god and all the different religions in the world. There is your answer but then again its your BELIEF, so i may BELIEVE jeans are better then shorts, or a bmw is better then a ford, but everyone is different and will believe what they want.

edit on 9-6-2011 by scottromansky because: (no reason given)

Words mean something sir. I said persuade me to believe God doesn't exist. I currently believe He does exist. Several members of this forum think and or claim that persuasion is an ability of the person presenting the evidence and not a function of the person they are trying to persuade. (The actual term used was "make", but I'm being more conservative in my approach)

Secondly, you won't get an argument from me in regards to Religion being a steamy pile, I think it is! And the christian version of Religion being the most moist, and highest pile in the noonday sun. (Check my sig)

Thanks for participating tho.

Originally posted by Cuervo

I've never heard that put so well. Seriously. I might have to paraphrase you in the future.

Thanks! Paraphrase with impunity.

I honestly believe that one of the first steps toward peace in any venue is to learn the basics of logic. Just as people say "First you learn to read, and then you read to learn", so also we should say "First you learn to think clearly and precisely, then you debate."