<
"The_Sage" <The_Sage@everywhere.com> wrote in message
news:jidnl2985srqisp07mfb9ku7c9lgido7a3@4ax.com...
Reply to article by: "Dan Wood" <danwood34@gmail.com>
Date written: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:45:46 -0500
MsgID:<DCG6h.29754$lY5.3012@bignews6.bellsouth.net>
So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence for God?
The answer is the same thing as it would be for any other claimed
entity or
object or phenomenon or process -- indirectly or directly be able
to
repeatedly
and mechanically demonstrate something that can be heard, seen,
smelled, tasted,
or felt.
Note the header:
"NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD".
Now note the question: So, I queried as to what would be acceptable
as
evidence
for God? I answered that question.
I know and understand the evidence that convinces me of
the reality of God. But what I do _not_ know, is the nature
of the evidence that it would take to convince a secularist
of the existence of a Deity.
I believe it was a fair question in response to the
pontificated pronouncement.
I believe I gave you a fair answer to that question. Let me rephrase
it
for
you...
"The nature of the evidence that it would take to convince an
secularist of
the existence of a Diety is the same evidence required for the
claimed
existence of any entity, phenomenon, or process -- indirectly or
directly be
able to repeatedly and mechanically demonstrate something that can
be heard,
seen, smelled, tasted, or felt"
Which word didn't you understand?
You are merely restating what I wrote earlier.
Actually, I was merely restating what I wrote earlier.
These are my words,
"obviously since
one cannot rely upon the five senses to detect God And it is absolutely
certain
one cannot dissect God not examine him under a microscope or view him
through a telescope. Imho, disbelievers have isolated and cut
themselves
off from any and all possible avenues of discovery when it comes to
possible
evidence of God".
These also are your words:
"So, I queried as to what would be acceptable as evidence for God?"
Yes, this is true. Is it not the same, since it was addressed it to
secularist? As I stated in a several prior post, I know the nature
of that which convinces me: what I did not know was the nature
of the evidence that convinces you.
My reply is the only thing that would be acceptable. You simply do not
want to
accept that fact. So instead you say, what if secularists were to ignore
proper
logical reasoning and objetive observation -- what would be left to
convince
them that God exists then?
No, that is not at all what I said or meant. I apologize if that is
what came across to you. I offered a glimpse of my reasons
for believing in a higher power. But I have no grounds to make
any claims for secularist. Furthermore, since God is not comprised
of any of the 100+ natural occurring elements, there cannot _be_
any observation. My belief is that God, if he exist, he must have
existed from eternity. I know there is _no_ way to prove this
belief. Especially if you do not accept the proposition that
God cannot infered from evidence.
I don't know much about electricity, but I remember that
the existence of electrons and the flow of electrons was first
discovered by scientist by observing magnets placed around
a wire which in turn was connected to a layden jar (EMF),
resistance coil and ground. This was not directly observing the
flow of electrons, by inference from the movement of magnets.
By the same token, I accept the existance of a designer through
inference.
And the answer then would be, ANYTHING would convince them, if they did
not
resort to reason and facts! No one is "isolating" or "cutting themselves
off"
unless you can prove they are "isolating" or "cutting themselves off"
from
something that exists in actual reality.
Ok, assuming for the purpose of argument, there is a higher power,
I do not see how you can ever come to this realization?
Chris Lee wrote:
"What you did when you stupidly talked about it as though were real"
I wrote:
This is you(r) materialist mentality speaking. If you cannot see, touch
hear
or feel, then in your mind it is not real."
Which is incorrect: there are lots of things that cannot be seen, heard,
or
touched, that in some people's mind, is real. What is in someone's mind
has
nothing to do with what is in reality, but what is in someone's mind is
whatever
that person feels like putting in their mind.
The Sage wrote:
"What are the characteristics of things known to not exist? They cannot
be
seen,
heard, smelled, tasted, or felt, in any way, shape, or form. So what are
the
characterisics of God? God cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or
felt, in
any way, shape, or form. God is no different from things that are known
to
not
exist".
The point is, I recognized the impossibility of providing direct
empirical
evidence to a materialist.
The fact is, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is no direct evidence
and
there is no indirect evidence. There are only the poorly told,
scientifically
inaccurate, and contradictory storytales.
This opinion has been a common theme
throughout my post. But now I getting my argument thrown back at me as
though it was yours. (See the post dated 10-30-06)
Whether you like it or not, it is my argument too.
Maybe so, it is reasonable. But I advanced the argument from
as part of my basic premise from the beginning of this thread.
I believe this was before you took an interest.
There is nothing new
under
the Sun, including your or my arguments. Someone else thought of the same
things
we are talking about, long before we ever thought about them.
I saw the problem and pointed out the fact that the header,
"NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD" was a moot
issue. Since there can never be an acceptable answer for materialist
a response is futile,
What you really mean is that there can never be an answer that will be
acceptable to *YOU*.
You cannot know this! I haven't seen anything different from
_my_ initial argument. Other people including you have
arrived at the same conclusion. It is not possible considering
that only material evidence which is susceptible to detection
by our five senses or the extensions thereof is acceptable.
God is not material.
Your question is a nonsense question because you are
talking about something that cannot exist; something that is a logical
contradiction.
Cannot exist? a logical contradiction? Am I supposed to just accept
your opinion on this as fact without anything to justify your saying
this?
You are trying to say that if secularists did not think
like they were actually secularists, would they be believers instead? Of
course they
would become blind faith believers, because to be a believer, you must
blind
yourself to proper logical reasoning or facts.
Again you are expressing your opinion. Don't get me wrong, I
accept the fact that you are entitled to your opinions. I don't
happen to share them, which is my right.
You seem to forget that you asked what would be *ACCEPTABLE* evidence to
a
secularist, and what is acceptable to a secularist or materialist are
facts, logic, and objective observation. Anything besides those are not
reasonable and would be out-of-character for someone claiming to be a
secularist.
Secularist are no different than anyone else. Everyone will defend
his views to the bitter end. Even scientist are no different in this
regard. Many Scientist who accepted to the steady state cosmology
held on in spite of the evidence to the contrary until the discovery
by physicists Wilson and Penzias.made the steady state untenable.
The astronomer, Fred Hoyle, one of the scientist who advocated
the SSC held out hope for his theory. And there were numerous
others including Einstein and Eddington who strongly disliked
the Big Bang and expanding universe. The Physicist, Max Planck
claimed that, "theories are never completely abandoned until their
proponents die".
therefore, such challenges to believers are
nothing more than bating for flame wars.
No it isn't. Maybe the problem is in your delivery?
Not so, I've seen it too many times where I had no part.
All one has to do is read the post in alt religion christian
and one finds these "challenges":
1-Challenge to all christians,
2-A God question
3-A religious challenge
4-A serious question on devine morality
5-Simple God question
6-Bible nonsence
7-The all loving ***** christian god
8-The child killing ***** christian god
This is to name a few. In a casual reading
one very often finds any christian who takes the bate,
called a liar, a moron, a deceiver etc.etc.
Dan Wood
The Sage
=============================================================
http://members.cox.net/the.sage/index.htm
"All those painted screens erected by man to shut out reality
-- history, religion, duty, social position --
all were illusions, mere opium fantasies"
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman
=============================================================
.
