Easter: Message of Jesus?

Quote: FrGamble

He doesn't understand that to make a truth claim, yes even about the non-existence of something you need evidence

You have zero evidence for your
god, why do you always conveniently
forget that.

"The existence of gods is logically impossible, the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) are logically contradictory and incomprehensible. Therefore the existence of such a god is a priori false. " (A priori knowledge refers to knowledge that is justified independently of experience, i.e., knowledge that does not depend on experiential evidence)

I'm in a much better position than you are
as far my not believing god exists. My
position has no emotional involvement,
I feel nothing about it. Just like I feel nothing
about unicorns or space aliens of tooth
fairies, I feel no intellectual burden about
there being no god. It's just a fact, I rarely
think about it outside this discussion.

You on the other hand, have a huge burden.
You must constantly justify your position, just
like all Xtions do. You're all obsessed with
'what does go want now'. You yourself have
admitted you need to know what god thinks
about the monastery question. God people
think about god all the time because they
make him up as they go along, it's the
proverbial mill stone around their necks.

I have no such problem, there is no god so
I don't give it any thought at all. It never
comes up except in discussions like this.
It's a freedom you'll never know because
you've condemned yourself into bondage
to a fiction.

Quote: Evenbob

You have zero evidence for your
god, why do you always conveniently
forget that.

Why don't we just take them one at a time. As evidence for God's existence I have the testimony of other people, the witness of the saints, and my own personal testimony. Why is this not evidence? Be careful not to think I am offering proof. I am just asking why you think the above is not evidence that could lead one to God's existence? Also be careful that you don't use the argument that this evidence is not helpful for you and therefore you reject it. I'm asking why you would deny it is evidence at all. You might even say that for you it is weak evidence, I think you have tried to say before that these countless witnesses are all hearsay or they are all deluded. To do that is to admit it is evidence but evidence you question by calling into question the personal experience, intellectual acumen, and truthfulness of many people you have never met and some whom are among the greatest minds and people the world has ever known. You need to avoid this ridiculousness and tell me why it is not evidence at all.

Quote:

"The existence of gods is logically impossible, the combination of attributes which God may be asserted to have (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, transcendence, omnibenevolence) are logically contradictory and incomprehensible. Therefore the existence of such a god is a priori false. " (A priori knowledge refers to knowledge that is justified independently of experience, i.e., knowledge that does not depend on experiential evidence)

As Nareed would say I recognize the individual words here but it makes no sense the way you have put them together. Please tell me why the attributes of God are logically contradictory. Why can't a being be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, transcendent, and all-good? It seems to me that you actually have to be all of these attributes or none at all, with the notable exception of being all-good.

I think what you might have meant to say is that the existence of God is a priori true, which of course it is. Without experience of any kind you would know that something that does not have the reason for its existence in itself is dependent on its existence from something else. Out of neccessity there then must be an uncaused cause or non-contigent being that is the source and beginning of all things that exist. This being must be all the things your crazy quote says are logically impossible. Where did you get such nonsense, you really should source your quotes.

By the way the fact that you don't think about this issue or don't feel any passion towards it doesn't mean you are any more correct or wrong.

Quote: FrGamble

Why don't we just take them one at a time.

Like I said, ersatz* evidence is not real
evidence. The Church used to burn
witches at the stake because it thought
it had real evidence against them. As
usual, they have idea what real evidence
looks like.

*er·satz
ˈerˌzäts,ˈerˌsäts/
adjective
adjective: ersatz

a substitute, typically an inferior one, for something else.
substitute, imitation, synthetic, fake, false, faux, mock, simulated;
pseudo, sham, bogus, spurious, counterfeit;

Quote:

By the way the fact that you don't think about this issue or don't feel any passion towards it doesn't mean you are any more correct or wrong.

Sure it does. I've settled the question in
my mind, all you have is questions. How
much time do you waste praying to a
god who isn't there, confused about what
he wants from you or confused as to what
he's telling you. I spend zero time doing
this, none, nada. I never think about it, why
would I. Scratch a Xtion and you'll typically
find a neurotic mess of a person.

Quote: Evenbob

Like I said, ersatz* evidence is not real
evidence.

What is about the witness and testimony of others and my own personal testimony that make it not real evidence? What is fake about it? Please be specific.

Quote:

Sure it does. I've settled the question in
my mind, all you have is questions. How
much time do you waste praying to a
god

Never, ever, is a second of prayer a wasted moment.

You shouldn't be so settled about a question you don't seem to understand and of which you have multiple false information about. In fact you shouldn't be so settled about any question that you are not open to having your mind changed. You sound like a zombie who is unable to be reasoned with. In questioning your beliefs you will strengthen them if they are true or discover the truth if they are not - it is a win - win situation!

By the way what is it about the attributes of God that make them logically inconsistent?

Quote: FrGamble

What is about the witness and testimony of others and my own personal testimony

What about it. Do you believe in
alien abductions? There are a ton
of people who have testified that
they were abducted, that must make
it true. Right?

Quote:

Never, ever, is a second of prayer a wasted moment.

In point of fact, it's totally wasted as
far as getting results goes. It might
help you to get your mind straight
about what you want, but you can do
that without prayer. Prayer is a form
of mental masturbation, it makes the
person doing it feel good and that's
why they do it. It really accomplishes
nothing more than that. It's been
proven countless time in hospital prayer
studies.

Quote: Evenbob

What about it. Do you believe in
alien abductions? There are a ton
of people who have testified that
they were abducted, that must make
it true. Right?

Of course it doesn't mean it is true. Remember evidence is not proof. Just because you have evidence of something doesn't mean that it is true, it is just a piece of evidence that one can use to be led to the truth. If all you have is testimony of alien abductions then you have evidence but not enough I think for a reasonable decision to believe in them. You keep saying there is no evidence for God's existence, but there is. You might not find it convincing, but just like the testimony for alien abductions there is evidence.

Here is another example. You believe in reincarnation and you have offered evidence that there have been cases of little children knowing things about adults that there is no human explanation for them to know. That is evidence. I remain unconvinced because of its rarity, the lack of measures in place to make sure things aren't faked, the sudden loss of such memories or knowledge after they are talked about, the lack of scientific questions asked to challenge and truly test this knowledge, etc. But I have no problem acknowledging that what you presented is evidence for your belief in reincarnation. Why do you have such a problem recognizing that the testimony of billions and billions of people throughout history is indeed evidence.


Can you please explain the quote you used earlier that said the attributes of God were logically contradictory? It doesn't seem to make sense. What were you getting at?

Quote: FrGamble

I remain unconvinced because of its rarity, the lack of measures in place to make sure things aren't faked,

Arguggh!!! That's WHY it's important, because
they went to GIGANTIC lengths to put the safeguards
in place so they know for a positive FACT that
it isn't faked. These are actual scientists, this has
been going on for over 60 years. You know NOTHING
about this, obviously. Nor will you take the trouble
to find out because you're terrified of what you
might find.

Umm...Bob take a deep breath. I did look at fairly in depth the last time you posted about it. There is more they could obviously do such as have other people besides the researchers ask the questions. It always seems to be the same people. It also doesn't seem like a universal phenomenon and certainly not common.

Anyway, do you see that this is how evidence works? It is accepted as evidence and then questioned. N.B. I did not say that you had no evidence just that I find it unconvincing for the reasons I mentioned. Maybe I should look into more but every time I do I get bombarded by 99% of scientists claiming it to be not real science and fake. That is hard to overcome. Do you have any evidence besides these studies that reincarnation is true?

So is there evidence you find unconvincing for God's existence?

[edit: I almost forgot; Can you please explain the quote you used earlier that said the attributes of God were logically contradictory? It doesn't seem to make sense. What were you getting at?]

Quote: FrGamble

Umm...Bob take a deep breath. I did look at fairly in depth the last time you posted about it. There is more they could obviously do

No, there isn't. This has been double
blinded to death in the last 6 decades
to eradicate any possibility that the kid
being interviewed has been compromised.
The biggest naysayers in the world have
examined this first hand every step of
the way and they always end up scratching
their heads. Something is going on for
sure, but it's not cheating on the kids part.

There is zero scientific research for the the
existence of god because there is no starting
point, there is nothing to investigate. All
you have is speculation and hearsay. And
endless unproveable theories.

You can get me to scratch my head for sure but that's about it. Too many people have serious questions and concerns about the studies regarding reincarnation. Have you looked at them as closely as you read the material from the people whose viewpoints you like? Also these very rare and isolated events don't a theory of reincarnation make. Anyway, it is besides the point. It is a good example of evidence.

Here is another example of evidence. Miracles and unexplained phenomenon attributed to God. There is the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe, there are Eucharistic hosts that have remained incorruptible for hundreds of years, hosts that have bleed, saints that have levitated, bodies of saints that are incorruptible, the image on the shroud of Turin, healings, and many, many more. All of these have been examined and leave people scratching their heads. Something is going on for sure but they aren't always quite sure what. Why is this no evidence for you? Again, please remember this is not proof and you may poke holes in some of these things for sure that cause doubt, but why is it not evidence?

Quote: Evenbob

There is zero scientific research for the the
existence of god because there is no starting
point, there is nothing to investigate. All
you have is speculation and hearsay. And
endless unproveable theories.

You are being hypocritical. You just quoted an a priori argument a few posts ago that you rightly and quickly backed away from when you realized it had no merit. Now you accuse me of providing unproveable theories? Logic is proved and it is true.

Also how is personal testimony and the witness of other speculation and hearsay, but the interviews with these kids who claim to know stuff that others don't understand not speculation and hearsay? Is it hearsay or speculation if I told you about my friend who you don't know?