It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am a Theist.

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
So what religion do you believe in, or do you believe there is just a single god for everyone and no religion.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

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


How can I "start from zero" when I'm a believer in God? And if that is YOUR zero, "God does not exist". Then you are affirming a negative. (Madness take note of this).

I believe, I am a Theist. Someone persuade me that I'm wrong and God does not exist.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I'm not sure what your trying to say exactly but these help me in "bringing it home" (so to speak), on the One, two, three, understanding


And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth

For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Then I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, “Who is worthy to open the scroll and to loose its seals?” And no one in heaven or on the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll, or to look at it.

But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.” And I looked, and behold, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. Then He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.

For he is our peace, that made both one, and unbinding the middle wall of a wall without mortar, enmities in his flesh; and voided the law of commandments by dooms [voiding the law of commandments by dooms], that he make two in himself into a [one] new man, making peace, to reconcile both in one body to God by the cross, slaying the enmities in himself.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.

and above it were the [two] cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
~
Make one cherub at one end, and the other cherub at the other end; you shall make the cherubim at the two ends of it of one piece with the mercy seat. And the cherubim shall stretch out their wings above, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and they shall face one another; the faces of the cherubim shall be toward the mercy seat. You shall put the mercy seat on top of the ark, and in the ark you shall put the Testimony that I will give you.

After these things I looked, and behold, the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven was opened.

Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell.

that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’

And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth.”

For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them.”
www.biblegateway.com...



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kharron
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.

Not both sides, the asserting side. A standard debate format is to have a statement (e.g. "There is no god"), then one side argues for the affirmative (the statement is true) and the other for the negative (the statement is false). The affirming side must prove, and the negative side must challenge the proof. To demand the challenger prove another statement (e.g. "there is a God") would be to change the topic and introduce a new statement.



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.

Logic's purpose is to use in real life; it is not a strictly academic exercise. If you wish to begin a new topic "there is no proof of God's existence") then fine-- and remember that you will have the burden of proving a negative! Even then, you would not be able to stack the deck by demanding that "books written by humans" be declared invalid a priori. Surely you also understand that in order to prove your assertion you too would be under the restriction of not using books-- including books on astronomy, biology, geology, etc. It gets worse the more you think about it.

And again, "no" is NOT neutral when the question is "yes/no"; "there is no God" is the conclusion, not a valid premise.


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.

o.O Is that Zen?


And remember the sage wisdom of Carl Sagan: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

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


How can I "start from zero" when I'm a believer in God? And if that is YOUR zero, "God does not exist". Then you are affirming a negative. (Madness take note of this).

I believe, I am a Theist. Someone persuade me that I'm wrong and God does not exist.


And that's exactly why religion is based on faith. The belief is within you and only you and you cannot prove the existence of God beyond what it means to you.

Why would you need to really? Isn't it enough for you that you believe? Why this need from others to agree with you?

And to go back to logic for a second, to explain what I mean by 'zero'. I do not mean that as a mathematical statement. Since we are not mathematical creatures but natural, one has to assume that any statement we make can be taken as either true or untrue. We can make any statement here but we then have to assume it to be a lie, or a negative statement. You can say 'There is a God' and it would be a lie. I say 'there is no God' and it must be taken as a lie as well so again we negate each others statements.

Therefore in our real world, we have to rely on actual evidence and treat an absence of evidence as proof of non-existence.

Hope that makes sense a bit more. As I said I'm rusty in logic but some basics remain, kinda like riding a bike, eh?


In the end, I go back to - why do you need proof? Agnostics and atheists are happy with the fact there is no proof of God. Shouldn't you be happy that in your heart you don't need proof of one?

Second edit: actually, as an agnostic myself, I am NOT happy that there is no proof. I would like to have that knowledge but until proof is presented I must assume, at least for now, that there is no God. I really don't know though, wish I did, but lack of evidence drives me to the side of non-believer.

Khar
edit on 9-6-2011 by Kharron because: typos

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



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottromansky
So what religion do you believe in, or do you believe there is just a single god for everyone and no religion.


I'm a Redemptionist, not a Religionist. Redemption says Christ did all the work to bring us to the throne of God, religion says "I must do X" to be worthy to approach the throne of God. Redemption says God has loved us by sending His Son to take our place. Religion says "I have to be good, modify my behavior, and follow X number of rules for God to love and accept me."

Religion is trash. Jesus Christ was the most anti-rligious person ever to walk the Earth.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo

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.


That's why I love Sabrertruth.

She will also walk that extra mile and let the cat out of the bag, while me on the other hand, I'm a tad more sinister and get joy out of watching the skeptics bury themselves without realizing it. Sometimes I'm thinking, "Shhhhhhhhh, you're giving away the goodies Sabre!"



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Kharron
 


Yes, you are rusty. For you to say "there is no God", that is an absolute statement. (Take notice Madness), and in fact your absolute statement is greatly more illogical than a Theist saying "God does exist. In ofder for me to believe I need one pice of evidence, for you to believe God doesn't exist rationally you'd need the attributes of God, Omniscience and Omnipresence.

Secondly, logically speaking absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. What if God chose to remain findable by people who diligently search for Him?



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical1 question then.
How do you have death before Adam and Eve's sin? That's when God pronounced death as part of the curse.

If Adam and Eve were created immortal, what was the purpose of the Tree of Life in the garden? The bible states that god kicked them out of the garden so that they wouldn't eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. If they were already living forever, why was that tree put there for them to eat from? It wouldn't be a tree of life, but just a fruit tree because it would not benefit them any from eating from it since they were already immortal.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Secondly, logically speaking absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. What if God chose to remain findable by people who diligently search for Him?

Why would he appear to people who weren't seeking him, such as Saul, who later became Paul...or the disciples? Why not appear to everyone in that manner to give us all that experience?
edit on 9-6-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman
If Adam and Eve were created immortal, what was the purpose of the Tree of Life in the garden? The bible states that god kicked them out of the garden so that they wouldn't eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. If they were already living forever, why was that tree put there for them to eat from? It wouldn't be a tree of life, but just a fruit tree because it would not benefit them any from eating from it since they were already immortal.

If I may... (though I'm sure NOT will respond as well)

There is no evidence in the text to suggest that the Tree of Life was necessary for Adam and Eve to eat from before they sinned. It was only "the man" who was not to eat from that Tree, and only after sinning. If sinning meant the loss of immortality, then the Tree of Life would have been the antidote. If Eve had stayed, she could have lived forever by eating from that Tree.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


The suspense was killing me, sorry...




That's why I love Sabrertruth.

Aww, garsh... :sniff:


She will also walk that extra mile and let the cat out of the bag, while me on the other hand, I'm a tad more sinister and get joy out of watching the skeptics bury themselves without realizing it. Sometimes I'm thinking, "Shhhhhhhhh, you're giving away the goodies Sabre!"

Got me back now, dinnt cha?

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



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

There is no evidence in the text to suggest that the Tree of Life was necessary for Adam and Eve to eat from before they sinned. It was only "the man" who was not to eat from that Tree, and only after sinning. If sinning meant the loss of immortality, then the Tree of Life would have been the antidote. If Eve had stayed, she could have lived forever by eating from that Tree.

Not sure if you're confusing the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil with the Tree of Life. They were told not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Why would there be an antidote in the garden to give them immortal life after they had lost it, and then not allow them to take the antidote? Why have an antidote there?

And if Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life, she would have lived forever? God couldn't do anything about it? Is the Tree of Life more powerful than the creator of it?
edit on 9-6-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman
Not sure if you're confusing the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil with the Tree of Life. They were told not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I understood you were talking about the Tree of Life. But as for why it was there, the text does not say, and it never mentions them eating from it to stay alive. We simply don't haven enough info to answer the question.


And if Eve had eaten from the Tree of Life, she would have lived forever? God couldn't do anything about it? Is the Tree of Life more powerful than the creator of it?

What do you mean, "God couldn't do anything about it"? He didn't have to do a lot of things or anything, or explain everything. What the text does say is that Adam was to be driven out so he couldn't eat from that tree; that's all. Everything else is reading between the lines.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Kharron
 


the Good News is exceedingly important for many reasons and that kind of obvious to many
as well-


For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse

he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

And they shall no longer be a prey for the nations, nor shall beasts of the land devour them; but they shall dwell safely, and no one shall make them afraid.

Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

That repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

saying Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it
www.biblegateway.com...


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



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Wow, you guys get so snarky when someone brings arguments against God or says there is no proof. (Which is a true statement).

Sorry for intruding, I feel like I walked into a cult meeting. How's snarky feel when it's from the other side?


Anyways, keep patting yourselves on the back, I won't try to bring reason into this, it's a futile effort.

Take care,

Khar



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

Originally posted by Hydroman
We simply don't haven enough info to answer the question.


So therefore we dont have enough info to prove god was alive.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
I can't; there isn't sufficient evidence to make you believe anything.




posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by scottromansky

Originally posted by SaberTruth
We simply don't haven enough info to answer the question.


So therefore we dont have enough info to prove god was alive.

Non-sequitur. (or false dilemma)

In the case of the tree of life, we have a finite sphere: the text of Genesis. But in the case of "god was alive", whether there is evidence (not the same as proof) depends on defining exactly what would constitute evidence. Some look at the complexity of the universe and the law of entropy and conclude that there must be a First Cause outside of the laws of physics; others look at it and believe it appeared by magic or is a perpetual motion machine.

But that isn't the question on the table. The OP wants to be persuaded that no god exists, and merely asserting "there is no evidence" is obviously not sufficient. You need to specify what constitutes valid evidence and then persuade the OP that none exists.
edit on 9-6-2011 by SaberTruth because: typos



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaberTruth

I understood you were talking about the Tree of Life. But as for why it was there, the text does not say, and it never mentions them eating from it to stay alive. We simply don't haven enough info to answer the question.

What I find interesting about that, is that many times christians will say that non-believers aren't able to understand the texts because they don't have the holy spirit helping them. Yet, believers do have the holy spirit helping them and still can't answer certain questions if it's not mentioned in the holy book. Why not? Why doesn't the holy spirit tell them?


Originally posted by SaberTruth
What do you mean, "God couldn't do anything about it"? He didn't have to do a lot of things or anything, or explain everything. What the text does say is that Adam was to be driven out so he couldn't eat from that tree; that's all. Everything else is reading between the lines.
Are you saying that Eve wasn't driven out of the garden?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join