|Does GOD exist....Page 245 of 245 (205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245)|
|I've already commented on how the "Atheists" here rage in the strongest language about how wrong they believe you are if you believe in God--and then say that they don't believe that God doesn't exist. They can't have it both ways. There can't really be a discussion with someone who can't be consistent about what s/he hirself believes.|
As I said, I use "Atheist" to mean: 1) A genuine Atheist, someone who believes that God doens't exist; or 2) Someone who calls hirself an Atheist, while claiming to not believe that God doesn't exist.
"Atheists" say that they don't believe in God because they have no "evidence" to. I never criticize them for saying that. It's no one's business but theirs what they believe, and whether they feel that they have reason to believe in God's existence.
But they cross a line when they have so much criticism about those who don't agree with them. Then, for one thing, they effectively have begun asserting a belief that God doesn't exist. That would be ok if they could do so politely. But some people on the Internet seem unable do disagree politely.
Alan says that this forum is "fair game". For poor manners? Apparently so.
Anyway, the thread asked a question about God's existence. We can state our opinions or feelings on that matter, and most of us have done so. Trying to convince others is another matter. The aggressive assertion has been only on the part of "Atheists".
Sometimes "Atheists" demand that we show them proof that God exists. Sometimes they say that we should prove that to them. Why? Proof would only be called for if we were asserting to them that God exists, and saying or implying that they too should beliee that God exists. I haven't noticed Theists here doing that, or at least very little if at all. I said that God exists, but I didn't intend it as an assertion, certainly not a claim that "Atheists" should start agreeing with me on that matter. Like other Theists here, I'd merely answered the thread's question.
So: Proof is only needed when trying to convince someone. Theists here generally are not trying to convince "Atheists".
Additionally, ontologies are unprovable. "Atheists" are very much barking up the wrong tree when they demand proof.
"Atheists" often demand that we define God for them. Physical or mathematical things are definable. As I so often point out, words only apply to things of this world and this life. Sh*t, even not all words are definable in terms of other words. As I've said, any finite dictionary must have many circular definitions. Some words, such as "existence" remain undefined. (Yes, Stargazer, you dictionary lists a definition-it probablydefines existence and real-ness in terms of eachother).
The topic of God comes up in certain important contexts or discussions. Our "Atheists" just are not at that place in the discussion. It would be quite impossible to define God for them.
Quite aside from that, even the effort would amount to a lengthy course of instruction. Also, the attitudes shown by our "Atheists" don't justify devoting that effort to help them. Not that it could do any good, for the reason stated in this paragraph's 1st sentence.
"Atheists" are telling us about not believing in something that they don't understand. Of course--you can't believe in something without knowing what it is. But, half the time, they're also saying, by undeniable implication, that they believe in the nonexistence of God...that they believe in the nonexistence of God, without knowing what Theists mean by God.
Oh, ok, they know what Biblical literalists mean by God. And their denial is directed at the God spoken of by Biblical Literalists. In that sense, our "Atheists" are Biblical literalists. Rather a mirror-image of the ones who believe in the literal interpretations. Biblical literalist disbelievers. (Where "disbelieve" is taken to mean "believe against", as opposed to mere nonbelief).
But "Atheists" overextend themselves when they express belief against God other than in the Biblical literalist sense. Then, they're expressing belief in the nonexistence of an entity without knowing what it is that they believe in the nonexistence of. They never quite seem to understand that.
How can we expect them to be able to comment on what we haven't defined for them?
Sometimes "Atheists" will say or imply that they're more scientific, because, unlike us, they only believe what they have evidence for. We can, for convenience, define evidence for a statement as reason to believe that the statement is so. But "Atheists" are way out of line if they think that they're qualified to evaluate nonfundamentalist Theists' justification for what they believe--without even knowing what nonfundamentalist Theists believe.
A Theist believes that God exists. You mentioned a universal entity.
But I DO believe that "God" exists but I find that IF I refer to " God " as "God" then some people might assume I'm referring to a specific , definition of what "God " is
( such as the man in the sky with the white beard )
Don't let Biblical literalists (such as "Atheists") tell us what God is. You're a Theist, but not in the Biblical literalist sense.
Sure, "Atheists" _will_ assume that that is what you mean, the Biblical literalist meaning. If what is, is what nonfundamentalist Theists seem to be speaking of, if it sounds like they're speaking of something that I consider to exist,then I can say that I'm a Theist.
We are INSIDE the Universe and so it is indeed everywhere around us but what is the Universe INSIDE ?
Spatially, physically, maybe nothing, because space is only a property of this universe. But if this universe is part of a larger multiverse, then it's inside that. Maybe it's located somewhere in the higher-dimensional space of a multiverse.
If it isn't inside a mutltiverse, then all we can say about where this universe is, is: It's in the set of possibility worlds.
|Does GOD exist....|
Posted: 7/3/2011 12:37:11 AM
|As an atheist I'd like to thank you for calling out 'Atheists' on their bs. Afterall disproving God is a waste of time. Time better spent on better understanding the workings of the universe. However, I'd like to point out that while you are more then likely fair in you bashing of 'our' atheists (I haven't checked all the posts in htis thread), please keep in mind that, like theists, there are shades of 'atheism'. Not in the sense that some people sorta believe that God doesn't exist (if you feel that way you're an agnostic), but in the sense of how that belief shapes their actions. |
Given my previous statement I will now state that there are other more reasonable explanations for the existence of both the universe and life. I therefore see no need to believe in supernatural entities to explain away our existence.
|Does GOD exist....|
Posted: 7/3/2011 6:38:13 PM
|What shapes your actions is what counts. And if not god or agnostic or atheistic ..in the end...what you did counts more than what you said. Always. Why?? What you said and what you did are often a divorced reality. The universe is based on individual actions and altogether creates a reality. Always. It always rises above words.|
This THREAD CLOSED - please continue with the following:
Click Here On the Existence of God and Other Sundry Matters
245 (205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245)