Is the neutral verdict on the existence of God being maintain by God?
Truth is, if there was solid evidence for the existence of God, it then would be a point of fact with no room for faith.
Therefore is it possible that the continued neutrality is being sustain by God for our benefit?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on -
I'm not sure why in the world you would equate "no evidence" with "neutrality" first of all LOL
But, sure, the lack of evidence is being sustained by Allah most merciful for our benefit. Let's go to the nearest mosque and convert. You drive. I'll pay for gas.... What? No? That's not convincing to you? Oh dear...
Assume (because that's what you have to do when there's no evidence) that any god exists and then you can claim that the lack of evidence is that god's doing, that it's for our benefit. Strange, though, that you wouldn't grant that strategy validity if a Muslim or a Hindu did it. And you wouldn't take me seriously if I said that there are little green men on Mars and the lack of all evidence is explained by their radically advanced cloaking technology, that they hide themselves for our benefit, because they know we're too young a species to be able to handle the truth...
Why is it the case that the lack of evidence means little green men on Mars don't exist, that Allah doesn't exist, but that when it comes to your particular unevidenced disembodied all powerful all seeing mind that cares what I do with my penis and who with, that this lack of evidence is actually confirmation that he exists and cares about us too? LOL
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on -
With the Judeo-Christian God, faith is the most significant element of salvation.
This not expounded upon in the Koran to my knowledge nor in Hinduism nor Buddhism.
To the practitioners of Hinduism and Buddhism, their god or experience is real and apparent. Buddhist monks have been documented over the millennium doing supernatural feats. Marco Polo even saw a monk levitate ( if we can believe him).
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on
-
You missed my point completely. Absence of evidence can never and in no way be considered evidence of presence! You maintain a massive double standard when you acknowledge that this is so when it comes to the gods of other faiths but ignore it when it comes to your own. It doesn't matter that your religion happens to think that faith (rather than knowledge) is of primary importance when it comes to a relationship with God and that knowledge would preclude faith whereas the others may not. The absence of evidence can still never be called to testify on behalf of a god for whom there is no evidence in the first place. What is it that you don't understand about this?
Michael. I have to ask. What in the world are you doing on Think Atheist? What is that you see as your goal in being here? Whether it's the conspiracy theory pseudoscientific nonsense you post or questions like this one, you never ever offer any intersubjectively verifiable justification for your beliefs. And yet you run around an atheist/agnostic community asking questions that presuppose that they're true. And you've been doing it for a while. It's downright perverse now.
So let's hear what you think you're doing here. And let's get some intersubjectively verifiable justification for your beliefs. Otherwise the conclusion may be reached that you're proselytizing and that's against this community's guidelines.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Someone who proselytizes belongs to a faith and has a statement of belief that the initiates are ask to conform to. This covers 99.999% of Christendom. I have no statement of belief nor am I a practitioner of any denomination. I am here to shatter paradigms and call out falsehood when i see it. and 99.999% all religion including Christendom is false. I stood in Jerusalem at the center for biblical polemics and called the Pope out as clearly being false ( I am being euphemistic here).
Thus the falsehood of all faiths justifies my believe that they are. And I have presented my evidence time and time again if you sift threw my posts.
In regard to pseudo-science, well we humor things that challenge the paradigm. It is food for thought and just anecdotal. Never leave people confortable in the established Theism or Atheism.
-
Permalink Reply by Nelson on
-
Michael. This is word salad. I've seen 98% of your posts on the forum. You've never presented any intersubjective verifiable justification for your beliefs. If I've missed that in the other 2% I urge you to point me to it with a link so that I might read what must be an incredible post and I'll apologize to you immediately for having missed it upon your having first posted it.
Your definition of one who proselytizes is rejected. You have a faith in the existence of your god. You're giving the appearance of proselytizing for that faith with your posts. That you run around living life under one massive No True Scotsman fallacy concerns me not at all.
On the subject of the pseudoscientific nonsense, you're not challenging any paradigm, you're providing everyone with comic relief. You can't seriously think that posting kooky stuff about black helicopters, tin hats, and hushed whispers about what's really on the dark side of the Moon is challenging a paradigm, can you??
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Striking down both Theism and Atheism is proselytizing. I strongly disagree.
I am a meta- physicist delving into all establishes truths and putting them through the fire. This is why I am confounded that you have not read my scientific posts or is it simply amnesia? Admittedly the current paradigm is a work in process as science learns every year and self corrects it's self with new facts, yet I am passionate about the current basis for the believe in evolution is weak and is highly suspect by those of us in engineering. We know multiple system control theory and have a clear under standing of the first and second law of thermodynamics. How mathematically arduous it is to design and control simple mutliple systems. let alone one that has the complexity of a biological system. to surmises that this all came about by random mutating apears highly suspect.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael on
-
Well yes, I am here to entertain also. And it keeps them coming back for more. But I will do my best not to have the appearance of proselyting.
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on -
If this is the same "Michael" who has also posted as "Angelo," seemingly supporting "Michael's" assertions, then I have detected at least four distinct personalities posting under the same name and avatar - possibly dorm students in some school of theology, trolling atheist websites for the purpose of proselytizing.
-
Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on
-
I'm thinking there are many here who have a variety of suggestions as to what you can do with your bar of soap --
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
www.in-His-own-image.com -
-
Permalink Reply by Rob Klaers on -
As an engineer you'd also know that even the most complex of creations starts off simply enough. They just don't pop into existence auto-magically. Trees just don't pop up into your yard fully grown. No, they start from a simple seed, Getting larger and more and more complex as it grows. Humans are the same way.. whether you're talking conception or evolution.. We start as a single cell which divides again and again. Because of the rules set up by the process of evolution those cells then separate into cells for specific processes.. which then further divide again and a again as the fetus grows.. The growth of any creature (flora or funa) is nothing more than a microcosm of the process of evolution itself, with one difference. Genes determine the final outcome of what that individual will become, whereas evolution is still on-going and we're as individuals are just a small step in the final process.
It's for that reason why it's difficult to believe in "intelligent design". That's not even mentioning that 'intelligent design' is nothing more than religion masquerading as science.
What's new today
Forum
Does every living animal have a consciousness?
Started by Holo Gram in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychology. Last reply by Holo Gram just now. 24 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
So the Pope said I can go to heaven...
Posted by Misty: Baytheist Living! on May 22, 2013 at 6:56pm 5 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
