Denis Loubet wrote:

"Rump Ranger" <buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103373915.182623.256220@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

Denis Loubet wrote:

"bbb" <nospam@my.box> wrote in message
news:mgOwd.157153$Oc.34793@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...

"Bill" <wmech@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message

news:%KLwd.1113412$Gx4.983749@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

<snip>

I lived a full and enjoyable life, free of disease and

accidents.

I have

flown thousands of hours as a pilot. Many of them solo. I

have

driven

many

thousands of miles in cars.Why did god not punish me in an

accident?

About five years ago I had a heart attack. I've fully

recovered

from

this.

Why did god not make it fatal or at least debilitating?

<snip>

Bill, Maybe God is keeping you around in the hopes you will

change

your

mind.

Actually, you would have a similar glib answer for him no matter

WHAT

happened, wouldn't you.

As firm as you are in your conviction that God does not exist,

there

are billions of people in the world who believe in God in some

form,

including me. I am not delusional or inclined to flights of

fancy.

In

fact,

I am a very logical person.

But not about the god-character.

How do you know?

By what you say.

You're getting me mixed up with someone else.

Pay attention, please.

I cannot prove God's existence to you any more than you can

prove

his

non-existence.

Is it the god that says prayer can move mountains? I can disprove

that one.

No you can't.

Yes I can.

Do so.

Maybe prayer did in the past but God decides not to do
it now (it's possible miracles happened but I don't think it's

likely).

Maybe that specific god exists, but the one that made a general

promise that

you can, without similar ad hoc conditions, does not.

It's entirely possible the believers decided to add that line in to
keep the faith. It could be metaphor.

That's about as dumb a "disproof" on God's existence that I've

seen.

You've got to admit it's concise.

Concise in the grade-school kind of way, I'd gather. There's far more
convincing evidences against God than the fact that "God doesn't give
in to mortal demands (which should be a logical belief)."

The way I've heard it from virtually any thinking theist is that

prayer

is not about getting anything specific.

Then the god that would keep that promise as stated does not exist.

Only if said believer believes said "promise" is literally true.

It's about getting closer to
God and those who pray for things are going to find God has

developed a

deaf ear for such requests. Think about this for a moment: If one
believes in God (supreme being) and they pray for something (which

is a

demand, really), why would supreme being be obligated to give into
every demand of lesser beings?

It would have to if it is supposed to keep it's word.

If we change the definition of the god to one that places ad hoc

conditions

upon its promises, then that god might exist. But the one that is

defined as

keeping its word, and issuing such a promise, does not.

Please look up the word metaphor and allegory. You're reading the
Bible more literally then most Christians do.

Don't build strawmen.

You'll have to point to the straw.

I have. Namely that the only way to practice Christianity is to
believe the Bible is inerrant and Sola Scriptora. Few of them actually
adhere to both positions and it's already obvious they're pretty
illogical.

Or is it the one that says a follower can drink any poison

without

ill

effect? Care to test that one for me? Maybe it's the god that

caused

a

worldwide flood? If I don't find evidence of a world wide flood,

then

that

god doesn't exist either.

Your logic doesn't follow. "Because I don't find evidence" doesn't
follow that said thing "doesn't exist."

Sure it can. You can check to see if a 30 foot dragon exists in my

garage.

If you don't find one in my garage, then a 30 foot dragon in my

garage is

non-existant. Period.

Not if it's invisible. Not if I'm blind. Not if I try to touch where
the dragon is but it's incorpereal.

Furthermore, I'm not in your
garage and never will be. All I got is your word, which while I've no
reason to doubt it, still takes a degree of faith on my part to
believe.

It's entirely possible that
said being did create a flood then wiped out all evidence for it

and

placed all the evidence to point to the contrary. It's possible.

But,

using Occam's Razor, it's not likely and so I'll disregard it.

So the evidence is not present for a worldwide flood, and so one did

not

happen.

Doesn't follow. It's possible it did but for some crazy reason or
other said diety wiped all evidence out. Occam's Razor simply means to
believe it didn't happen because it's more simple without needlessly
complicating it.

Basically all your saying is that the Bible is not literally true.

Yes, I think that.

As do a lot of Christians I've met.

Duh. It doesn't mean the Christian God doesn't exist (remember,

what

passes for the Bible right now was basically the books the Roman
Catholic church decided to print.
They very well could have distorted
everything Christ had said for their own political aims. Many
Christians in fact believe this).

So you have no idea what you believe?

Indeed. I'm a freethinker who doesn't hold beliefs too strongly when
it comes to religion (or lack of it). Fact is, I just don't know so
I'll take all positions on their merits.

But if you move a mountain with prayer, or drink a strychnine

cocktail, or

show evidence that a worldwide flood occurred, then you have

established

your point.

So actually, you can prove it exists if you have evidence, and we

can

prove

it doesn't the same way.

So, what can we test about your god? Surely it interacts with the

world in

SOME way?

That's not logically necessary (see Deism)

Well, it interacted when it wound up the universe, didn't it?

Doesn't follow God was in the universe when it did it.

or it could be said the
universe *is* God (pantheism).

Thus the god is supposedly interacting all the time.

Indeed. And according to pantheism, it's kinda pointless to ask for
proof because the universe is proof. God would theoretically be
interacting by the natural laws of physics.

Heck, it could even be said that his
God does interact with the universe but we as humans lack the

ability

to detect it. It's logically possible.

Is it?

Yup. It's logically possible that in the center of the moon there are
intelligent pieces of cheesecake which fire out gamma rays and control
our every move. They're planning for an invasion and 911 was just the
first strike (the USG blame Arabs but the truth is glazed donuts
hijacked the plane). It's possible but not probable. In fact, since
no evidence suggests such a thing, there's no reason to believe it's
true.

But anyway, the god we're talking about is not defined that way is

it? It

supposedly answers prayers and makes all kinds of specific and

testable

claims.

Only if you believe the Bible is inerrant.

I have my reasons for my faith, as you have your reasons for
your faith. (Yes, atheism is a faith, a belief in the

non-existence

of

God.)

No. Atheism is saying I don't believe you when people spout crap

about gods.

Sigh.. God sometimes works in mysterious ways LOL, but so do

people

and

the

world and the Tivo... and on and on.

So you're saying that your god is indistinguishable from chance?

Impressive.

I wish you well and I respect your opinion even if it conflicts

with mine.

Why would you respect an opinion that you think is wrong?

Because he might be open-minded? If we all agreed on everything,

the

world would be awfully boring.

I hold truth to be more important than entertainment.

Of course, your opinions are no more the indisputable truth than a
Christian's are. It's ignorant to believe otherwise.