Replying To Daniel Negreanu

[Daniel Negreanu]

[ QUOTE ]
Daniel, you should join our debates on religion. I'd love to see you and DS trade jabs on that subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Yeah, right after I go beat my head against the wall for a couple hours! Since believing in God DOES require a leap of faith, I believe it is impossible to both prove or disprove his existence.

I take exception to anyone who claims they have PROOF that God doesn't exist. I'd say the same thing to anyone who claims to prove that they have undebateable evidence that there is a God.

As for me. Based on both my faith and the literature I've read, I'd say the odds favor God's existence. That's of course my humble opinion and everyone is entitled to that.

I don't claim atheists to be "stupid" "ridiculous" or "illogical" people. I have been called all of those things, though, for my personal beliefs that not only did Jesus Christ exist, but that he was exactly who he said he was.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Daniel, you should join our debates on religion. I'd love to see you and DS trade jabs on that subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Yeah, right after I go beat my head against the wall for a couple hours! Since believing in God DOES require a leap of faith, I believe it is impossible to both prove or disprove his existence.

I take exception to anyone who claims they have PROOF that God doesn't exist. I'd say the same thing to anyone who claims to prove that they have undebateable evidence that there is a God.

As for me. Based on both my faith and the literature I've read, I'd say the odds favor God's existence. That's of course my humble opinion and everyone is entitled to that.

I don't claim atheists to be "stupid" "ridiculous" or "illogical" people. I have been called all of those things, though, for my personal beliefs that not only did Jesus Christ exist, but that he was exactly who he said he was.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmmm. And yet you solved all David's Puzzles. Curious.

PairTheBoard

[Saddlepoint]

[ QUOTE ]
Since believing in God DOES require a leap of faith, I believe it is impossible to both prove or disprove his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on both my faith and the literature I've read, I'd say the odds favor God's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these two statements contradictory?

If the odds are in favor of God's existence, why would believing in him require a "leap of faith"? Not trying to antagonize anyone, and I apologize if this subject has been covered before.

I'm also curious about the nature of the second statement; is there a difference between believing that God exists and believing that the odds favor God's existence?

[Jazza]

DS, if you don't have a problem with it, can I type out the rest of it?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since believing in God DOES require a leap of faith, I believe it is impossible to both prove or disprove his existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on both my faith and the literature I've read, I'd say the odds favor God's existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are these two statements contradictory?

If the odds are in favor of God's existence, why would believing in him require a "leap of faith"? Not trying to antagonize anyone, and I apologize if this subject has been covered before.

I'm also curious about the nature of the second statement; is there a difference between believing that God exists and believing that the odds favor God's existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

Contradictory? Not at all. While the existence of God cannot be proven beyond "a shadow of a doubt", one can look at the evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion that God exists. That's the difference in Daniel's two statements. Perhaps the term "leap" of faith was misleading, but belief in God and Christianity specifically does indeed require faith.

Faith is a very important part of Christianity. We were created for the purpose of having a relationship with God. If His existence were easily proven, how would He know that our love was genuine? That being said, He's given us enough clues to form reasonable odds of His existence.

If you are interested, the book A CASE FOR CHRIST by Lee Strobel is an excellent look into the subject of God's existence. Also, anything by Dr. Frank Harber is good, too. Both Mr. Strobel and Dr. Harber are one-time athiests who went about trying to disprove God's existence. Both became Christians as a result of their search.

Also, another one time athiest, C.S. Lewis, has a great book that discusses God's existence with a more logical approach (rather than physical evidence). It's called MERE CHRISTIANITY.

[PairTheBoard]

DN --
"Based on both my faith and the literature I've read, I'd say the odds favor God's existence. "

Saddlepoint --
"Are these two statements contradictory?"

I think DN's comment is a neat twist on the kind of nonmathematical "odds" statements David comes out with. Daniel's estimate of the "odds" is partly based on his Faith. And why not?

PairTheBoard

[David Sklansky]

Actually Daniel is the first person on this forum who seems to admit that in his opinion, the chances for God's existence is above 50% but below, say 95%.

That's OK if the God he is thinking of doesn't require absolute belief in him (or lets say above 99% cetainty) for entrance into heaven. But some religions believe that God is this "strict". We will call that god, GODX.

Imagine the plight of someone like Daniel who is honest enough to realize that he pegs his certainty that GODX exists at 92%.

[spaminator101]

i dont understand
God exists period

[David Sklansky]

"i dont understand
God exists period "

OK buddy. Watch yourself. Only one entity on this forum is allowed to end a post with the word "period" spelled out. And it ain't God either.

[chomsky53]

you are honestly such an insufferable faggot