Sorry I have absolutely no recollection of who you are. As a general rule - and I've said this before - I am only likely to remember any given user if one or more of the following conditions is met:
Originally Posted by Electric_Nomad
1. They are in my DnD campaigns.
2. They have a really memorable avatar or username.
3. I really like them.
4. I really dislike them.
Sorry, bad memory and all. Nothing personal.
And it's not even a theory, it's pure simple logic. If you can not say anything about something then by what metric do you have knowledge of it? What is knowledge? Whatever definition you subscribe to I am certain that you must run into some form of "Knowledge is, among other things, knowing something about something."
If you can't name a single quality of something then you know nothing about that thing.
The argument from miracles is begging the question. First it must be demonstrated that something which cannot be explained by the current body of human knowledge occurred which is not a simple task. Once you have done that you must then somehow demonstrate that God exists and that he caused that miracle.
Originally Posted by Sunny
The argument from miracles is literally saying an unexplainable thing happened and then proceeding to immediately explain it with God. It's begging the question. You can't offer God as an explanation for anything when the very thing being debated is whether or not God exists.
That the sun rises after night is merely proof that the Sun exists and that the Earth orbits it. That it can engender feelings of happiness in people is merely proof that people can perceive and react to external stimuli.
First it must be demonstrated that they saw something. Then we can start debating what they saw. The "testimony" of "witnesses" written down by anonymous authors centuries after the supposed witness died and then edited and re-translated repeatedly over tens of centuries is not compelling evidence of anything. Hearsay is inadmissible in a court of law for a reason, and this is hearsay of such a laughably poor quality that I struggle to think of anything less convincing.
There are many through the ages who have said they have seen God. So, if these things weren't God, what were they?
If I told you that my grandfather saw your mother murder someone would you accept that as sufficient evidence to condemn your mother as a murderer? What if my grandpa died 60 years ago and spoke only Yiddish and I am going on what my friend (who had my grandfather's words translated for him by a third party) told me even though he never actually met my grandfather.
Yeah. Didn't think so.
Actually the funny thing is that in principle, they can! Science is awesome!
Not everything can be answered with a scientific formula,
Wrong. The core of science is that every idea must be falsifiable and constantly held up to scrutiny and examination. The core of faith is that some things just are and can be known magically and are utterly beyond questioning. They are mutually exclusive epistemological methodologies. Of course, that's being generous, faith is not a valid epistemology because faith does not actually arrive at knowledge. But that's neither here nor there at the moment.
but on the same coin, I think God and science go hand in hand.
God is omniscient and omnipotent. He is literally incapable of science. An omnipotent being could alter the outcome of any experiment to his liking and furthermore he already knows the outcome of any experiment. Science is a method for arriving at knowledge and hinges around the idea of repetition. God cannot arrive at knowledge because he already has all knowledge, and as stated above, he can change the outcome of any experiment on a whim.
I think God uses science to do whatever it is that He happens to be doing.
That's how I view at, at the very least. I don't believe God is the only being out there like Him, either.
How is he like us and how did you arrive at this knowledge? Anyone can rattle off a list of vague qualities. You must be more specific and you must demonstrate how you came to know of this quality.
There are plenty of things about God that could be answered. As far as I'm concerned, He's like us,
and we're in His image, and there are way too many caps to the sentences.
It is not unreasonable to assume that there exists at least one human being on this planet who I am superior to in literally every single way. I am smarter, faster, stronger, better looking, more witty, and so on and so forth than this person. Am I a God to him? Whatever the definition of "god" may be, I daresay that it must be something more than "Like X but better!" because then you run into absurd situations like this. I am vastly more intelligent, physically capable, and so on than a small housecat. Am I the Lord of Housecats?
I'm sure he eats, breaths, and call me what you will for this, farts, too. In other words, like a normal human being, only perfected.
I mean, there are plenty of books through the ages, beliefs, myths....Take the story of Noah and the Ark. There are over 200 versions of the story, and it didn't originate in the Bible.
There are tons of stories that talk about Elves. Do Elves exist?
(My point is that there are tons of texts that talk about Him....)
I never said that. I said a number of things:
For all we know, Socrates never existed, if you want to say that written text/verbal proof means nothing.
1. Evidence should be proportional to the claims. An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.
2. Evidence should be corroborated by more than one source.
3. Evidence should be internally and logically consistant.
The Bible satisfies none of these definitions and further more the Judeo-Christian God is logically impossible. It can be said with 100% certainty that Yahweh does not exist. I can be, and am, more sure of this simple fact than I am that there exists an external universe.
[quote\If you want an example of qualities...I mean, they're all over the Bible, really. [/quote]
Name one and them demonstrate that Bible is reliable evidence.
Everyone has a personality and it shows through.
Which is stupid. Why would an omnipotent being need to use vague and mystical allegories to get his points across?
Take a look at Christ. (I believe they're two separate beings, not one.) He often spoke in parables.
God is so patient that he sent a bear to massacre dozens of children for mocking a blind man.
Obviously, symbolism meant a lot at the time. He tried to connect in a way that people could understand, and for those who were really interested, could find more connections in their lives. As for God...well....God is pretty patient with His people, like the Israelites.
He must be. He created the entire fucking universe and then waited 15 billion years or so just to tell a bunch of desert dwelling savages how to behave themselves.
He totally didn't just wipe them off and shove them in some sand dune. Granted, he made them wander around for a long time, but you can tell He's a patient God.
Of course that becomes even more amusing when you consider the fact that the behaviors he instructed them to adopt are barbaric and completely unfitting for civilized human beings.
Except you still have not named a single quality that tells us what he is rather than how he is, nor have you demonstrated how you arrived at knowledge of that quality.
There are tons of other qualities I could point out. You don't have to look too far to find them.
There are plenty of ways for life to happen without a God. It did happen without a God.
(With these things being said, I'd like to state that I really just don't care if you're convinced about what I have to say. I mean, seriously...whatever. But I do like to share how I think and feel and why I feel what I do....so, I'm not going to get into some huge debate about how I should change how I feel, just so yeh know. )
As for your comment about God....well, to me, I'd say, "Well, lulz, without God...or A God, we prolly wouldn't be here.