Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Discovery of the Higgs Boson (A.K.A The God Particle) The End of the debate concerning Gods Existence?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 376-400 of 863 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jul 2012 18:59:34 BDT
"Or, are your core beliefs in atheism based on these two things being basically correct?"

Look up the distinction between beliefs and facts, and these may cause you less confusion in the future.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jul 2012 19:19:54 BDT
C. A. Small says:
TW- you mean you need to believe in the nonsense before it makes sense.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jul 2012 20:24:08 BDT
"If". Once again, please read before replying.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jul 2012 20:39:34 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jul 2012 10:16:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Jul 2012 10:17:33 BDT
AJ Murray says:
T.Woodman,

-"See answer to Norm above."

I read it, for what it was worth, and Norm's reply is spot on.

-"For Christians the main argument for the existence of God is Jesus Christ."

AKA The Christological Argument, one that rests on a belief in scripture as being true. Once that is dispensed with the rest falls away. The NT is unreliable as it only details what people believed to be true and contains many aspects that have been discarded as our knowledge of the world has increased.

-"We do not start with the idea of a God and then look around and find Jesus to be that one -- a philosphical idea, anyway, Christians do believe in the Old Testament God, but Jesus so revolutionises that idea that they were killed by Jews for believing in Jesus."

You have gift for raising irrelevent tangents.

-"PS I do not believe in the virgin birth as a literal biological phenomenon."

I mentioned nothing of a virgin birth, i was talking about the fact that the Gospels have your deity impregnating Mary. Something of a direct action by a deity à la ID.

-"Bcause he is present in spiritual form which influences matter and indeed coheres in it."

More assertions piled upon assertions. It's just empty verbiage.

I note you avoid answering direct questions and ignore the majority of posts replying to you, this evasiveness does nothing to help suport your beliefs. It just comes across as being inherently dishonest.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 15:33:49 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 15:34:50 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 15:36:57 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 15:45:18 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 15:47:12 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 15:47:32 BDT
Have read through two parts of the Ehrman interviews and I'll be honest, it's not very convincing.

Even so, if we grant the assumption that Jesus existed, you still have a lot of work ahead of you.

1) To show he was divine or however you wish to phrase your interpretation of it
2) To show he did any of the things claimed of him.
3) To show that his divinity is associated with a god with characteristics as described.

So far I have never seen a single argument or line of evidence which could get from Jesus existed as a preacher in history to anything more substantial.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 15:48:40 BDT
What truth of atheism? Atheism is the position of not accepting the claims of theists as being demonstrated true...

It's pretty easy to establish that theists haven't established there claims as true. You just need to look at every argument ever put forward in favour of god and find the bad evidence or logical fallacy. It's not hard.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 15:51:17 BDT
C. A. Small says:
TW- no true- the evidence starts with a load of contradictory greek manuscripts which are hundreds of years after the event. Saul of Tarsus never met Jesus. The whole sorry lot is here say.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 15:51:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 27 Jul 2012 15:53:57 BDT
You don't seem to know what the doctrine of the Virgin Birth is. I suggest you read Ehrman's interviews on his latest book (google) before continuing to make unjustified assertions about the NT. You asked me a question about how I conceptualised God influencing matter, which I answered as best I could. I am unable to post every day because I have other things to do. I do not evade direct questions or ignore the posts addressed to me unless they are couched in a rude way. Your last comment is extremely offensive.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 15:52:06 BDT
C. A. Small says:
TW- no I shot after taking aim- and a bullseye was scored- sorry you cannot see that.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 15:53:33 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Occam- this is a point I have posted to TW on numerous occasions- sadly he makes huge leaps without spotting the collosal gaps in between each assertion.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 16:12:09 BDT
Norm Deplume says:
"We start with Jesus and find God in him."

Or not, as the case might be. This failed to cast any light on the post you were replying to. If god is not a direct or indirect cause it is not necessary to posit one.

Posted on 27 Jul 2012 16:18:11 BDT
Spin says:
If God can only be found in Jesus, how did Jesus find God? He "was" God, yes? So why not say God can only be found in God (a statement so obvious even a child could understand it). If God can only be found in God, then God cannot be found anywhere else. But if God cannot be found anywhere else, then not only is he absent in this world, but He is not in a "man" or a "spirit". So God is NOT in Jesus...Hmm...The mind boggles...

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 16:51:59 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"I have changed my minds on many issues about faith and God during a long life of learning and experience."
Changing your mind on the periferals and how the details of your belief may work is not the same thing as having a falsifible belief. Of course you are free to personally wrestle with the intracaies and problems that may arise but how much do you question the central thesis that there is a God and do you even know how you would do such a thing?

"I have even changed my mind on some issues through this website, though I only pay attention to courteous posters."
That's a logical fallacy. Polite people can be misinformed and misinforming you, rude people may have reason to be frustrated and turning to alternative means to get attention.

"It is a pure assertion to say relgious beliefs are unfalsifiable"
Stop with your assertion stuff, you make far more than me! Noting that something is an assertion by itself it's a facile observation. Clearly this is an assertion that would take one example for you to refute.

"they are eg the NT documents could be proved a fraud by scholarly research."
Could you give examples of what you'd anticpate as the evidence for fraud?

"PS I see you ignore my point about the atheist posters-- CA, Ryan, Nostreg etc"
I consider this along with your suggestion that an assertion is by itself wrong quite hostile, you have overlooked, passed by and dropped many of my points in favour of making your own assertions.

Posted on 27 Jul 2012 18:57:24 BDT
You are wasting my time Woodman.

Don't do it again.

In reply to an earlier post on 27 Jul 2012 19:00:24 BDT
Spin says:
Ryan: And , of course, you are an expert on knowing how to waste time...(Sorry, you asked for that) =)

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2012 21:41:18 BDT
God is a divine causality in Jesus Christ, and Christians believe that is his main causal mode in the world.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2012 21:42:17 BDT
The answer to these problems in Christian theology is called The Trinity. I know you don't believe it.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2012 21:57:31 BDT
And you have made many assertions Drew as well. I don't need to provide a further example surely of the fact that proving the NT documents frauds would falsify Christianity-- if you must eg if they were found by carbon dating of the earliest manuscripts to have been
produced circa 1100 AD. Or if you wanted another, if an irreproachably early document were found of the practice notes rehearsed by the apostles that they would falsify the evidence about Jesus or invent him. Like many conclusions in science total verification in the present is impossible for many truths of faith, but then the principle of total verification as demanded by the logical positivists was soon weakened by their recognition that some things had to be accepted in principle. Faith verification for some truths (by no means most) may have to wait, but they in principle open to verification.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Jul 2012 22:00:08 BDT
PS have solved the problem re evolution as not being random, but does it contain random elements within in it and does it include self-organisation of organisms as appears to be asserted by some. Incidentally, if it does contain random elements as appears to be asserted by some evolutionists then that may explain your problem with Midgeley.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  42
Total posts:  863
Initial post:  4 Jul 2012
Latest post:  18 Sep 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions