Evidence that God exists

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
What does "cf" mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Prior to the internet (and its common abbreviations such as LOL, wtf, lmao) it was common in the English language to borrow from the Latin – some examples: e.g, i.e, et al.

N.B.: Cf is one such usage. You will find it in the dictionary. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[jthegreat]

You'd think if you were going to spend all that time writing a reply, you'd at least have the decency to make it helpful. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] You're as lazy as NR.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think the Bible isn't rooted in facts? There is no historical person, place or event mentioned in the Bible that has been shown to be false, and many have been shown to be true, some of which were believed false for a long period of time (the Hittite civilization, for instance) and then shown true.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think a more appropriate stance is to prove truth before taking things as fact instead of having to prove they are false before saying something isn't fact.

The things I am mainly talking about are not necessarily the existance of a person or place, but mainly the events. You can't prove that Jesus was resurrected, you can't prove that Jesus walked on water, etc. I consider these events to have been proved false simply by the fact that they are physically impossible. They are only possible if some other force is at work (God) which just takes us back to the beginning of this circular logic.

One more question. Why do you think it is that we haven't found many of the places that we would expect to find according to the bible. I'm mainly talking about things such as King Solomon's temple and empire. According to the bible this was supposed to be the grandest of the grand empires and yet we can't find a shred of evidence to support it's existence. It is things like this that would lead one to believe that much of what the bible says is not based on facts.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

What does "cf" mean?


[/ QUOTE ]

See or refer to.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice try. But this is like saying it's easy to prove black is not red, up is not down, and a 747 jumbo jet is not a bowl of chocolate ice cream. A square is simply a label we've assigned to something with 4 sides. You are not proving that a round square doesn't exist, but only that we do not assign the value of a square to anything that does not have 4 sides. Let's see you try to prove the non-existence of a square on my desk right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that I only used definitions in my post, but any contradiction will do. I only used definitions to make the examples completely clear. Suppose it follows (say, by the argument of evil) that our concept of God is inherently contradictory (or, contradictory given the assumption that evil exists). Then it could easily be said that God does not exist.

[ QUOTE ]
But in the absence of sound evidence that something exists, it is "practical" to proceed as if it doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Just make sure that the "practical" assumptions don't form the basis for logical arguments.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I consider these events to have been proved false simply by the fact that they are physically impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

You accept the existence of the universe which is totally inexplicable by science. You then assume it can't have been caused by a Person, which is totally illogical. You then accuse me of circular reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm mainly talking about things such as King Solomon's temple and empire.


[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't researched Solomon. It's difficult to see why the Jews would have made him up and most of the evidence of his existence would be in Jerusalem which is currently occupied, making archeological digs difficult. There was a temple during Jesus' time, are you questioning that? The wailing wall is what's left of the retaining walls surrounding the temple, and that temple was supposedly built to replace the orginal which was destroyed at an earlier time. If the Bible is accurate about the second temple, why question the first?

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
See or refer to.


[/ QUOTE ]

How about instead of me trying to learn all of the ins and outs of existentialism, you save me hours of time, get to the point, and explain why it's absurd to think that there is no overarching "purpose" behind the existence of the universe.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> You haven't followed my debate with jthegreat on Hume? </font>


I haven't. Could you link me to or give me the name of that thread?



<font color="blue"> But you are fooling yourself if you think you don't reason in a circle about ultimate issues. </font>

I'll agree that we all need to make some presuppositions. I'm not sure we need to incorporate circular reasoning. I could be wrong. Perhaps you have an example in mind?

I think (and you could prove me wrong on this), that I am more inclined to leave the strand dangling and claim, "I don't know" (as I do with God), rather than resort to using circular reasoning. But even if you were able to provide some examples where my reasoning is circular, I'm quite sure I'm uncomfortable with it. Unlike yourself, who seems to have no problems with it.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody has yet answered the question whether or not those who think Christians are wrong are pompous.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that being an athiest is just as pompous as being a Christian. I believe neither sides can say for certain that their beliefs are correct. If we are talking about agnostics, then this is another story. By being agnostic you are disagreeing with Christianty but not on the basis that you are sure it is incorrect, but merely on the basis that you can't be sure what is correct.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
You accept the existence of the universe which is totally inexplicable by science. You then assume it can't have been caused by a Person, which is totally illogical. You then accuse me of circular reasoning.



[/ QUOTE ]

Where am I using circular reasoning?

I was merely responding to the fact that you claim to use facts from the bible to prove the existence of God. The only problem is these facts can only be facts if you assume the existence of God. This is a problem.