.

 

Here's the difference between you and I, and between belief and non-belief. If God appeared before me, and was able to prove himself to BE God, maybe perform a miracle or two in my presence, and subject to my verification, I'd willingly accept the fact that I was wrong.

Can you imagine any circumstances in which you would be persuaded that there is no god?

 

No, they don't and Yes, they are. This is the same illogic that required me to prove that Jesus didn't exist earlier in this thread. This isn't how logical proof works. Logic cannot be used to disprove a negative. It's impossible.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of empirical fact. An atheist doesn't have to prove that God doesn't exist. The existence of God is not presumed.

The believer has to prove the existence of God. Since that is impossible, the atheist presumes God doesn't exist.

There is no burden of proof on the atheist.

(Jumping back into the thread, I would like to remind the thread people that I am a Catholic and a believer in Christ)

 

St. Paul spoke of the resurrection, which he saw as the hope of all believers. "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." (1 Corinthians 15:14)

"For the believer no proof is needed for the sceptic no proof is possible."

Remember you might not believe in GOD but HE does believe in you.


Pascal's Wager is an argument based on probability theory for why one should live as if God exists, even though this cannot be proved or disproved through reason. It was formulated by Blaise Pascal.

1. 1. If you believe in God and God does exist, you will be rewarded with eternal life in Heaven; thus an infinite gain.
   2. If you do not believe in God and God does exist, you will be condemned to remain in Hell forever; thus an infinite loss.
   3. If you believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded; thus a finite loss.
   4. If you do not believe in God and God does not exist, you will not be rewarded, but you have lived your own life; thus a finite gain.
   Mathematically a finite gain or loss is negligible compared to an infinite gain or loss. Therefore, he concluded that it was a much better choice to believe in God rather than to practice atheism have lived your own life; thus a finite gain.

Mathematically a finite gain or loss is negligible compared to an infinite gain or loss. Therefore, he concluded that it was a much better choice to believe in God rather than to practice atheism.

 

Jesus lives - in my u-bend :laughing:

 

I can't believe that you could possibly relegate such a contentious issue to the shithouse.



Hi Smacca, long time no see, just here on a flying visit, thought I'd Id say hi.
I may just pop back in again one month :wink:

 

omg!! Hi Heddo!! Ewe still in Brazil?

 

The only thing you proved was that you don't listen to anyone but yourself and therefore it is a wast of time to debate you. Just look at your ticky debating style. On the one hand you claim that you proved that Jesus did not exist and then in the next breath you say that you are a Catholic and believe in Christ.

That's not true and here's my proof. There are people that believe that in the beginning there was nothing. That is logically impossible since something can not come from nothing.

That's nonsense. The existence of God has always been presumed. Man has had a concept of God at least since the beginning of history. Non-believer are overwhelmingly in the minority.

The only burden of proof on atheist is to justify their belief to themselves. An atheist's belief is based on nothing. They have no proof that there is no God and they will not accept any proof presented to them by believers. They say that since there is no empirical proof for the existence of God they don't have to believe that there is.

Now, if you accept the traditional definition of empirical as: proof that originates or is based on observation or experience, I'll bet I could produce countless of witness that will testify that they have had an encounter with the divine in which they have personally observed and experienced the power of God. You know that's true because history and current events abound with stories of people that have witnessed miracles or had visions that prove to them that there is a God. Atheist reject the testimony of these countless of witnesses even if some of them are former atheist because their definition of empirical proof is that they must personally see God and witness a verifiable miracle. Nothing else will do.

And I hope you'll pardon me if I say that I am not interested in debating with someone that debates just for the sake of debating. You've already admitted that you are a Catholic that believes in God, in Christ and the teachings of the church, so why else would you argue contrary to your faith other than to stroke your ego.

You're a very clever man and obviously well read but you and I do not have a common reason for engaging in a debate.

HD.

 

View attachment ​

 

This isn't your kiddie version of faith. The atheist doesn't believe "in the beginning there was nothing." The atheist doesn't believe in anything in the beginning because nothing has been proven. At the point where science proves that the Big Bang was the end of the Big Contraction for an Old Universe, then the atheist will believe in the Old Universe instead of nothing.

 

ofcourse jesus existed, its a historical fact... whatever happened after his death could be argued one way or the other I guess

 

Well...

As i am reading all of this you all have good ideas going back and forth but me personally don't believe in Jesus and God because for me its hard to believe that 1 man can hold so much power. I don't know why its just very hard to believe. 1 thing i don't know is if some of the stuff in the past was real or was it some crazy guy that wrote it down telling everyone it was true and they believed him. thats my opinion.

 

The testimony of people experiencing the same mass-delusion is hardly proof of the existence of God, HD. That's not the sort of evidence that a court would find admissible.

 

Nice try but you are putting the horse before the cart. Because you don’t believe there is a God you automatically declar all those that do as suffering from some kind of mass-delusion, but before you could disqualify a witness as being delusional, by definition, you would first have to prove that they suffered from some kind of pathological mental illness. It is very unlikely that the hundreds of thousands of people that have reported having a personal experience that confirmed the existence of God, are all pathological.

Legally speaking, anyone can testify at trial provided their testimony is based on the witness’s personal observation or experience, and the witness is willing to take a solemn oath declaring, under penalty of perjury, that their testimony is truthful and factual.

In a case to determine the existence of God, the testimony of competent witnesses that have personal experience and/or who have personally observed events that would tend to prove or disprove the existence of the subject in question, would be considered relevant and admissible.

The pertinence and validity of such testimony can be challenged during the trail by opposing counsel’s legally sufficient objection (if sustained), questioning during cross examination and/or by the presentation of impeaching evidence or testimony.

Eye witness testimony can be strengthen by presenting corroborating evidence or testimony. The greater the quality and quantity of the evidence, the greater the wight the evidence. It is then the prerogative of the jury, and not you kimiko, to determine if the testimony is credible and valid.


HD :rose:

 

Of the billions and billions of people who have ever existed, I'll bet hundreds of thousands were pathological. Sure, very likely.

100,000/1,000,000,000 = .01% hallucinate? Absolutely.

 

I'm beginning to think that you are part of that 1%.

 

Absolutely, I am. My faith in God does not require reason. My faith exists despite proof to the contrary. You're the one couching your faith in regards to reason; whereas faith is inherently irrational.

Public opinion surveys to justify your immature "faith"? You're no better than the atheist who disbelieves in God because of reason. Actually, you're worse; your reason has failed you. You're just a stupid atheist.

 

You need to relax and take your medication. I'll pray for you.


HD :excited:

 

God

God is the beginning and the end, and he made us so that our finite minds cant understand that. When Jesus speaks of the end times he says that knowledge will abound, and that there will be earthquakes in diverse places. Research the increase in earthquake activity over the last 60 years. The number is up over 80 percent. People say that Christians thought the earth was flat, not true. The bible says that "God sits on the circle of the earth". People question the different translations of the bible, until 1600 there was just the Greek manuscripts, written on papyrus. From 1604 to 1611 47 scholars translated the manuscripts into the 1611 King James bible. The new version of the bible didnt start to show up until 1880. The new versions, Amercican Standard Version, New International Version, New World Translation, Revised Standard Version, etc. come from completely different manuscripts. They are translated from Vaticanus and Siniaticus, both found in the Vatican in a trash can in 1880. Thats why different versions sometimes contradict one another, not because of faulty translation, because they come from different manuscripts. In the King James version,(that can be traced to Christ and beyond) says not to add or take away from its text. In short thats why I bellieve the King James Bible is right. God gave us all free will to choose what we believe. I dont think that you are stupid, or ignorant because you dont believe, thats your free will. Im not here to shove my view down your throat, Im just giving my input. And yes I am a college instructor.

 

Please don't. I don't want the favor of whatever demon whispers rationalizations into your ear.