The spread of Christianity

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
. No genius on the face of the earth can convince me that they know better than I regarding whether God exists or not. (I am not saying I am right, just that they have no better argument against God than I do for Him.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you on this one. I've spent some time with Carl Sagan-types who try to argue against the existence of God. It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. No genius on the face of the earth can convince me that they know better than I regarding whether God exists or not. (I am not saying I am right, just that they have no better argument against God than I do for Him.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you on this one. I've spent some time with Carl Sagan-types who try to argue against the existence of God. It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to disprove the existence of god because there is no logical proof of gods existence to begin with. Atheists simply need to point out that logically the concept of god is superfluous.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. No genius on the face of the earth can convince me that they know better than I regarding whether God exists or not. (I am not saying I am right, just that they have no better argument against God than I do for Him.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you on this one. I've spent some time with Carl Sagan-types who try to argue against the existence of God. It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to disprove the existence of god because there is no logical proof of gods existence to begin with. Atheists simply need to point out that logically the concept of god is superfluous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Superfluous is not synonomous with false, however. It may not be "logical" but there are things in nature that defy known logic...Hurricane Vince that hit Spain as a TS is a recent example. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. We might have an explanation years from now, but we don't have one right now.



Hurricane Vince NHC Discussion

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. No genius on the face of the earth can convince me that they know better than I regarding whether God exists or not. (I am not saying I am right, just that they have no better argument against God than I do for Him.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you on this one. I've spent some time with Carl Sagan-types who try to argue against the existence of God. It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to disprove the existence of god because there is no logical proof of gods existence to begin with. Atheists simply need to point out that logically the concept of god is superfluous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Superfluous is not synonomous with false, however. It may not be "logical" but there are things in nature that defy known logic...Hurricane Vince that hit Spain as a TS is a recent example. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. We might have an explanation years from now, but we don't have one right now.



Hurricane Vince NHC Discussion

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't say I see any way what you wrote here is relevant to my point.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. No genius on the face of the earth can convince me that they know better than I regarding whether God exists or not. (I am not saying I am right, just that they have no better argument against God than I do for Him.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you on this one. I've spent some time with Carl Sagan-types who try to argue against the existence of God. It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to disprove the existence of god because there is no logical proof of gods existence to begin with. Atheists simply need to point out that logically the concept of god is superfluous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not suggesting there is a need to prove or disprove God. Again, I see it as a matter of choice to enter into the exploration or not. I certainly can understand those who have not such interest.

Do you think the word “irrelevant” is a better one than your “superfluous" - or perhaps there is even a better word, can't think of it - but yes, to use the words "logic" and "the concept of God" in the same sentence is indeed awkward.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
. No genius on the face of the earth can convince me that they know better than I regarding whether God exists or not. (I am not saying I am right, just that they have no better argument against God than I do for Him.)


[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you on this one. I've spent some time with Carl Sagan-types who try to argue against the existence of God. It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to disprove the existence of god because there is no logical proof of gods existence to begin with. Atheists simply need to point out that logically the concept of god is superfluous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was not suggesting there is a need to prove or disprove God. Again, I see it as a matter of choice to enter into the exploration or not. I certainly can understand those who have not such interest.

Do you think the word “irrelevant” is a better one than your “superfluous" - or perhaps there is even a better word, can't think of it - but yes, to use the words "logic" and "the concept of God" in the same sentence is indeed awkward.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant superfluous as in serving no useful purpose. In terms of logic, the concept god really has no purpose.

I think the history of philosophy shows that there is no logical argument that can be shown to prove the existence of god. Likewise, no one can give a logical argument that disproves the existence of god.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant superfluous as in serving no useful purpose. In terms of logic, the concept god really has no purpose.

I think the history of philosophy shows that there is no logical argument that can be shown to prove the existence of god. Likewise, no one can give a logical argument that disproves the existence of god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Got it. I was thinking of the word as used in the context of over-abundant.

I agree with your point.

[Lestat]

<font color="red"> It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine. </font>

But Mempho, this is NOT unexpected and might be the first "typical" theistic response you've provided yet (I was so enjoying a rational exchange so far).

Proving non-existence is much more difficult (if not sometimes impossible), than proving existence. For instance...

Can you prove to me that there is not a supreme tree God who lords over all plants on this earth until they die and go to tree heaven? What if I do? You have no more proof for your POV than I do for mine. Let's stay off this road. It leads to a town called Nowhere.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red"> It is sometimes an unexpected hit when I tell them that they have no more proof for their POV than I do for mine. </font>

But Mempho, this is NOT unexpected and might be the first "typical" theistic response you've provided yet (I was so enjoying a rational exchange so far).

Proving non-existence is much more difficult (if not sometimes impossible), than proving existence. For instance...

Can you prove to me that there is not a supreme tree God who lords over all plants on this earth until they die and go to tree heaven? What if I do? You have no more proof for your POV than I do for mine. Let's stay off this road. It leads to a town called Nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you on this, Lestat. I simply use this response to people who try to "convert" me to atheism. It tends to make them quiet. These are the people who promote atheism just like a religion...which I don't understand. Its not a blanket response to those with an objective mind. Notice I stated that I directed that response to people "who argued the nonexistence of God" with me...which is, as stated ealier, also a leap of faith (though I'll concede a more logical one).

[Lestat]

I think it can get frustrating for both sides. I admit to becoming very frustrated with some conversations I've had particularily with some Christian fundamentalists. It sometimes felt like I was trying to explain to a child that Santa Clause doesn't really exist. Ditto for tooth fairies, pixies, and elves.

Then I realized, everyone has a right to their beliefs regardless of how ridiculous or irrational they may seem to others. If someone wants to believe in astrology or numerology, so what? Whatever gets you through the night.

I do however think religious beliefs can be a very dangerous thing. They will most likely be the doom of man. Ironic, isn't it? Suicide bombers who believe they must kill the infidels in the name of God. It's just a matter of time before some religious fanatic gets hold of a WMD and dooms mankind in the name of his religion.

Anyway, I greatly enjoyed our exchange. You have opened my eyes to some things and have done so in a respectable manner absent of diatribes. I appreciate that. I wish you the best.