Quantcast
Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is God's existence objectively verifiable?

Well, is it objectively verifiable?

Yes 57 15.20%
 
Not Sure 20 5.33%
 
No 244 65.07%
 
What's objective mean? 16 4.27%
 
Results 38 10.13%
 
Total:375

I'm here. <- Proof.

/thread



Around the Network
Derek89 said:

"outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."

You quote wikipedia, you fail to understand what it says AND to relate it with what I said.

Did objectivity's conventionalism part of my comment confused you too much to ignore it all together and call for individual objectivity and rule it out at the same time? I ruled it out myself with my previous comment, and you try counter argument with that, lol?

Also, if you'd bother reading your own "sources":


"The importance of perception in evaluating and understanding objective reality is debated. Realists argue that perception is key in directly observing objective reality, while instrumentalists hold that perception is not necessarily useful in directly observing objective reality, but is useful in interpreting and predicting reality. The concepts that encompasses these ideas are important in the philosophy of science."

 

You don't just "generalize" theories or use their summaries to try to use in your advantage.

What is really baffling to me is how clearly desperate you are to look smart yet you resort to use a closed answer discussion for easy argumentation against literal believers. If you want to look smart, you should use ontological resources to expand the discussion, but you limit it to the all so basic "objectivity".

You seemed to be arguing against the paraphrasing I offered of what objective means. What other way am I supposed to have taken your rebuke?

The paraphrase was essentially identical to the wiki definition of objective (philosophy). 

There are two possibilities here:

1. You were attempting to offer correction and were actually wrong.

2. You were confused about the minimum words I used to explicate objectivity.

I really don't see any alternative possibilities here.

I didn't address instrumentalism because it's irrelevant to the OP. Focus is important in discussions such as this. If you come into a steakhouse and attempt to order some lumber, you're going to receive a blank stare. 

Hahahaha, can you see no other alternative to the purpose here? Is it not important to bring to light the lack of objectivity involved in a theistic position? The reliance on alleged witness testimony, on feelings in the heart, on wishful thinking. Honestly, you've totally missed the boat on this one I'm afraid.

At no point have I closed the topic to the empirical, only the objective. That includes the entirety of philosophical argumentation. But, as you can plainly see, the believers tend not to bother with logic and apologetics.



RadiantDanceMachine said:
Derek89 said:

"outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings."

You quote wikipedia, you fail to understand what it says AND to relate it with what I said.

Did objectivity's conventionalism part of my comment confused you too much to ignore it all together and call for individual objectivity and rule it out at the same time? I ruled it out myself with my previous comment, and you try counter argument with that, lol?

Also, if you'd bother reading your own "sources":


"The importance of perception in evaluating and understanding objective reality is debated. Realists argue that perception is key in directly observing objective reality, while instrumentalists hold that perception is not necessarily useful in directly observing objective reality, but is useful in interpreting and predicting reality. The concepts that encompasses these ideas are important in the philosophy of science."

 

You don't just "generalize" theories or use their summaries to try to use in your advantage.

What is really baffling to me is how clearly desperate you are to look smart yet you resort to use a closed answer discussion for easy argumentation against literal believers. If you want to look smart, you should use ontological resources to expand the discussion, but you limit it to the all so basic "objectivity".

You seemed to be arguing against the paraphrasing I offered of what objective means. What other way am I supposed to have taken your rebuke?

The paraphrase was essentially identical to the wiki definition of objective (philosophy). 

There are two possibilities here:

1. You were attempting to offer correction and were actually wrong.

2. You were confused about the minimum words I used to explicate objectivity.

I really don't see any alternative possibilities here.

I didn't address instrumentalism because it's irrelevant to the OP. Focus is important in discussions such as this. If you come into a steakhouse and attempt to order some lumber, you're going to receive a blank stare. 

Hahahaha, can you see no other alternative to the purpose here? Is it not important to bring to light the lack of objectivity involved in a theistic position? The reliance on alleged witness testimony, on feelings in the heart, on wishful thinking. Honestly, you've totally missed the boat on this one I'm afraid.

At no point have I closed the topic to the empirical, only the objective. That includes the entirety of philosophical argumentation. But, as you can plainly see, the believers tend not to bother with logic and apologetics.

Jesus Christ...

"I didn't address instrumentalism because it's irrelevant to the OP. Focus is important in discussions such as this. If you come into a steakhouse and attempt to order some lumber, you're going to receive a blank stare. "

Do you really say that instrumentalism isn't relevant to the OP as you make "objectivity" essential to your premise? Are you serious?

"There are two possibilities here:

1. You were attempting to offer correction and were actually wrong.

2. You were confused about the minimum words I used to explicate objectivity.

I really don't see any alternative possibilities here."

1. You have yet to explain how actually wrong I am. 2. It looks like you are confused about that yourself, otherwise you'd understand bringing objectivity in a discussion about faith is completely useless. 


"Hahahaha, can you see no other alternative to the purpose here? Is it not important to bring to light the lack of objectivity involved in a theistic position? The reliance on alleged witness testimony, on feelings in the heart, on wishful thinking. Honestly, you've totally missed the boat on this one I'm afraid."

Is it me that missed it? LOL.

No, it is not important at all. Metaphysics isn't subject to scrutiny or evidence. Being such a militant atheist, as you seem to be, should understand the implications of that for anything. You'd  way more humble about what you think is evidence or not evidence enough for your faith (because that's what it is) on scientific conventional knowledge. Until you can negatively prove, which you require based on your fixation with objectivity,  theists claims, specifically for their concepts of entity and argue Ontology itself, then you're on the same boat as them; Proofless Boat. And btw, philosophically, they one up you. The Ontological argument of the first engine hasn't been logically refuted (at least not conventionally, ofc) and for which only fault is only to not be able to be proved, as if that has ever stopped the flow of ideas. You so being into philosophy, it seems, you should've read the Quinque Viae by now.

"At no point have I closed the topic to the empirical, only the objective. That includes the entirety of philosophical argumentation. But, as you can plainly see, the believers tend not to bother with logic and apologetics."

Precisely that you close it to the objective is the problem. Since you like analogies: It is like trying to argue colors with math.


Logic is actually on their side. A negative can't ever be proved unless you control the system, so as long you can't observe what they say, what they say still falls in the realm of possibilities, regardless of how unlikely, according to what we can observe, they are, because for what we can't observe the posibilities are endless.



No the belief in a God cant be proven but it can be possible for them to exist.



Aeolus451 said:
Dulfite said:
Soundwave said:

Apparently doesn't love you enough or isn't powerful enough to get you out of there. 

This isn't a compassionate being, if a parent did something comparable to a child, we'd call the parent cruel and heartless. 

Also how egotistical or insecure is he that he needs to be constantly worshipped to? Does a parent ask his kids to worship him/her constantly? 

Dude creates the entire cosmos but still needs a pledge of allegiance that only be sanctioned by particular religious sects? Yeah that makes sense. 

 

Your perception is common amongst nonbelivers, but it isn't correct. There are tons of formally non-believers or believers in other religions who had the same arguments as you, yet have turned to Christ or will turn to Christ (you, yourself, may one day do it as well and have a wonderful story to share).

You can't think of God casting people into hell. More realistically, you should view it as people walking into hell on their own accord due to constantly sinning and not accepting the FREE and EASY gift that is Jesus Christ. God is right next to people trying to get them off the path to hell, trying to convince them that HE loves them, and yet there are some/many that just refuse HIM their entire lives. If they had turned towards Christ then they wouldn't be going to hell, it's that simple.

And again, there is nothing stressful about accepting Jesus Christ. I garuntee you, the people most at peace in the world are those who love Jesus. There are trials we go through of ups and downs that helps us grow. After any rough patch we can always cling to our LORD and savior and feel restored and motivated again.

HE doesn't need or require our worship, HE has always existed (unlike humanity). HE wants us to love HIM and HE wants to love us. HE cares deeply for us and wants us to have a truly wonderful existence:

Revelation 21:3-4 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."

This is not the description of an egotistical god who wants people to pledge their alleigence to him. God wants to spend eternity LOVING us, but the devil and mankind itself has done an amazing job at convincing non-believers that God is just full of himself, that is until they realize the truth and turn to Christ like so many have and so many more will. I hope one day you will realize this and accept Jesus as your savior so that you too can have the free gift of life.

 

If god just wanted to love us and us love him, there would be no point in sending humans to hell. No parent would punish their child with everlasting damnation and torture for not having a relationship with 'em or for not obeying 'em. We were given life on earth to prove ourselves worthy to god otherwise why would he pull that shit he did with Job? It has nothing do with love.

As for lucifer, he's an unruly employee of god whose sole job is to tempt people into sinning or straying from god. Lucifer has no power of his own, every bit of his supposed power is granted by god. God uses temptation and Lucifer to test our "faith" in him and if we will give into our weaknesses. The price of failing that test after you die is ultimately hell where you tortured for all time. Again, it has nothing to do with love.

God does not use Lucifer like that. The book of Job clearly shows that lucifer himself wants to persuade people away from God. I would encourage you to read this article. I didn't read the entire thing, but the stuff I did read was accurate and is too lengthy to copy/paste into this thread so here you go:

 

here 

And again, humans are the ones rejecting the hand of Christ. You can't say God is sending people to hell. Anyone who desires to be saved in Jesus Christ can be in this life. Those who don't wish to be saved by Jesus Christ are not forced to be. Regardless of what you believe now, there is no changing the eternal truth that God loves you and desires you.



Around the Network
Dulfite said:
Aeolus451 said:
Dulfite said:
Soundwave said:

Apparently doesn't love you enough or isn't powerful enough to get you out of there. 

This isn't a compassionate being, if a parent did something comparable to a child, we'd call the parent cruel and heartless. 

Also how egotistical or insecure is he that he needs to be constantly worshipped to? Does a parent ask his kids to worship him/her constantly? 

Dude creates the entire cosmos but still needs a pledge of allegiance that only be sanctioned by particular religious sects? Yeah that makes sense. 

 

Your perception is common amongst nonbelivers, but it isn't correct. There are tons of formally non-believers or believers in other religions who had the same arguments as you, yet have turned to Christ or will turn to Christ (you, yourself, may one day do it as well and have a wonderful story to share).

You can't think of God casting people into hell. More realistically, you should view it as people walking into hell on their own accord due to constantly sinning and not accepting the FREE and EASY gift that is Jesus Christ. God is right next to people trying to get them off the path to hell, trying to convince them that HE loves them, and yet there are some/many that just refuse HIM their entire lives. If they had turned towards Christ then they wouldn't be going to hell, it's that simple.

And again, there is nothing stressful about accepting Jesus Christ. I garuntee you, the people most at peace in the world are those who love Jesus. There are trials we go through of ups and downs that helps us grow. After any rough patch we can always cling to our LORD and savior and feel restored and motivated again.

HE doesn't need or require our worship, HE has always existed (unlike humanity). HE wants us to love HIM and HE wants to love us. HE cares deeply for us and wants us to have a truly wonderful existence:

Revelation 21:3-4 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away."

This is not the description of an egotistical god who wants people to pledge their alleigence to him. God wants to spend eternity LOVING us, but the devil and mankind itself has done an amazing job at convincing non-believers that God is just full of himself, that is until they realize the truth and turn to Christ like so many have and so many more will. I hope one day you will realize this and accept Jesus as your savior so that you too can have the free gift of life.

 

If god just wanted to love us and us love him, there would be no point in sending humans to hell. No parent would punish their child with everlasting damnation and torture for not having a relationship with 'em or for not obeying 'em. We were given life on earth to prove ourselves worthy to god otherwise why would he pull that shit he did with Job? It has nothing do with love.

As for lucifer, he's an unruly employee of god whose sole job is to tempt people into sinning or straying from god. Lucifer has no power of his own, every bit of his supposed power is granted by god. God uses temptation and Lucifer to test our "faith" in him and if we will give into our weaknesses. The price of failing that test after you die is ultimately hell where you tortured for all time. Again, it has nothing to do with love.

God does not use Lucifer like that. The book of Job clearly shows that lucifer himself wants to persuade people away from God. I would encourage you to read this article. I didn't read the entire thing, but the stuff I did read was accurate and is too lengthy to copy/paste into this thread so here you go:

 

here 

And again, humans are the ones rejecting the hand of Christ. You can't say God is sending people to hell. Anyone who desires to be saved in Jesus Christ can be in this life. Those who don't wish to be saved by Jesus Christ are not forced to be. Regardless of what you believe now, there is no changing the eternal truth that God loves you and desires you.

What happened to Job was just a bet between God and Lucifer over Job's loyality to God. God sent the limits of what Lucifer could do to Job and Lucifer did everything he was allowed to do. God uses Lucifer to tempt people in general otherwise what's the point of letting Lucifer have any influence over humans in the living world? Lucifer is not the source of sin but he was the first one to sin. What Lucifer can and can't do is determined by god unless the power dynamics between them isn't true at all. 

Oh don't give me that god isn't sending people to hell. God is the one that defines the rules and what he considers sin or what's punishable behavior. All humans have to do is cross the line and they are sent there for all eternity. A person doesn't even have to sin or do any action to cross that line. Simply not believing in god and living your life peacefully will get ya a permnant room in hell.  It's not that different than some tyrant king who demands you to bow and accept him as your king or you can just be tortured in some dungeon for as long as you live. Forced huh?



RadiantDanceMachine said:
Ljink96 said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:

Ugh, why do people propagate this nonsense? Please stop taking everything your religious friends tell you as gospel truth. There has been no ark found, this is not even debatable. It's yet another Ron Wyatt fraud.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/noahsark.asp

Even Answers in Genesis website tells you to stop spreading this bullshit:

https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken-ham/2013/12/19/has-noahs-ark-been-found/

 



Even if these non-viable sources are right, you ignore the hard hitting points I mentioned about the Roman Empire and Jesus. This stuff is documented. Jesus wasn't fake. His miracles were documented. Speaking in tongues, it's real. It's the sign of the holy spirit living within you. You think millions of people just act like they all can speak a different tongue all of a sudden?

I've witnessed a friend, who I've never even thought would be demonic, have a spirit cast out of her body and when the pastor asked the demon what its name was, it spoke through her and said "Legion". I was scared as hell that day.

There was a recorded happening in which a teenager was hit by a vehicle and pronounced dead on the scene. His brain was on the freaking street. He was taken to the morgue where his mother, with prayer and power, called him back and sure enough he woke up and told his mother that he was sorry. The doctors and nurses ran out the room, in disbelief in what they saw.

I was born with a defect in which I could not urinate. It was destroying my body. The doctors had no idea what to do, all the treatments failed. But my mother told me that one night, she had been crying about my situation and was praying that a miracle would come my way and that night, she said a figure sat down on her bed and told her that I would have a wet diaper in the morning. Sure enough, she woke up and I no longer had the complication.

When my brother was born, the doctors said he wouldn't live to see a year of age. My parents were distraught but they called a good friend of theirs to pray for him. When the friend arrived, all of the newborn babies that were crying at the hospital...just stopped when he walked in. Every single one of them. He prayed for my brother and the complication resolved shortly there after. 

You can't tell me that God isn't real. There are things that not even science can prove.



Okay so you will stop spreading this bullshit about an ark now?

I believe Jesus was as real as Socrates. As to his miracles, however, this is not historical because history is confined to what is physically possible. That's why the resurrection cannot be said to be historical because it's physically impossible.

You're referring to Glossolalia - it's gibberish...they firmly believe they are speaking a language because they want desperately to be chosen by god.

http://skepdic.com/glossol.html

There was a recorded happening in which a teenager was hit by a vehicle and pronounced dead on the scene. His brain was on the freaking street. He was taken to the morgue where his mother, with prayer and power, called him back and sure enough he woke up and told his mother that he was sorry. The doctors and nurses ran out the room, in disbelief in what they saw.

Never happened, likely an email chain. You religious people really love spreading these stories.

I was born with a defect in which I could not urinate. It was destroying my body. The doctors had no idea what to do, all the treatments failed.

Clearly not true since the problem was resolved...

Don't believe the rest, sorry. This is bullshit your mother told you about. You have no credibility in this regard. 

Do you believe Jesus was as real as Socrates, or do you believe he was a Zombie?  You know, like a ZombieJesus?



<

Scoobes said:
Norris2k said:
nuckles87 said:

Thanks, you saved me a lot of work.

From what I can gather, Frank, your singular argument for God is "only God could have created a universe with rules."

If you want to credit God for the creation of the universe, fine. We have evidence for the evolution of the universe leading all the way up to the "Big Bang" but nothing beyond that (at least as far as I know. I'm no scientist). You want to credit God with the big bang? Go right on ahead. No one in the scientific community is stopping you right now. Just know that not knowing something isn't "proof" of something's existence.

Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge. We used to think the world was flat, because that's how it appeared to us. In reality, when greek mathmeticians applied math to the idea, they discovered that the Earth was curved, and therefor must be round. We used to assume that the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around us. But then through astronomy we discovered moons around other bodies, came to realize we were orbiting the sun, and eventualyl realized our solar system sat in the spiral arm of a milky way galaxy. We assumed that was the only galaxy until we discovered other galaxies in the 1930s. We once assumed that the universe was created by God as described in the Bible, until we eventually began to discover evidence for a "big bang" which culminated in our discovery in the background radiation that gave us a look at how the universe was near the very beginning.

But there are flows in your own explanations.

-  You tell "I'm no scientist", then why do you believe in science ? There are proves, but beyond your understanding, told and written by people you don't know, that you probably never read, but if you would, it would be at a simplistic level that doesn't prove anything. I mean I graduated in a sciences, but I don't know much about Carbon 14, just the basic concept of datation. I've never seen C14 (you can't really even see it in a direct way), I'm not able to understand or prove by myself, but all my knowledge of datation depends on it. Still I'm not a unbeliever, C14 and all, the dinosaurs, the age of the Universe, I believe it to be true... but really, our belief in science and scientists is not very different than listening a priest quoting the Bible, if not faith, at least it's a very high level of trust.

- You tell that "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge", with an analogy to the discover of galaxies, understanding of the moon. But there is a pretty strong chance the understanding of "before" the big bang is impossible, outside the scope of what science can explain. It's beyond observation, probably impossible to simulate, test. So it could really not be a "we don't know yet". We know that science progress, very fast, but we don't know at all were are the limits, we could progress exponentially forever to nowhere.

- "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used assumptions or superstition to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Sorry but I can seriously write "Man has been wrong plenty of time when he used mathematical demonstration and science to fill in the gaps in his knowledge". Because you know, Newton calculations are not really a knowledge. They are just that, calculations, models, that happen to work for a limited number of cases, if things are not too fast, or not too big, or not to small. The guy was a genius, and it's good enough to send a rocket to the moon, but it's not a knowledge, a real understanding. Science really accepts to be always proven wrong (at least in the sense that its field of application is drastically reduced), but still there is this strange feeling that science claims any step is dead certain. Do you think Newton said "and I could be wrong in some or even most cases, because I'm working in a such limited set of examples, a bunch of apples, 5 planets, and the moon... and I mean it's the 17 century, come on, we don't even have a laser to measure anything, so don't take me too seriously, I'm not meaning every priest is telling fairytales, next step in science could be that the Earth is flat" ? Everyone is cock sure, theists and atheists, they get it right at any point of the time.

- Science answers to how, not to why. Even if it answers to why, it's in the form of a "how". So, should the scientific method which is basically to understand how, applies to a question that is fundamentally "why" or "is there a why" ? Wether I can feel pain, or I can't, wether I can feel love or not, I don't have a need for science to prove or disprove it scientifically (even if it's great to understand how for medecine). I don't feel there is a God, that's why I'm an atheist. Let's stop BS about someone knowing more that the other... we know nothing and my belief is that we will probably never know anything at a significant level !

As someone whose studies science you should also know that unlike faith and "belief", there is peer review, experimentation and critique. Even then, concepts are constantly reviewed, revised and updated. I don't think you can really compare a religious belief to the constant rigor of testing and self-improvement the scientific method has. Whilst I might not understand everything in science, I can view the data directly and discuss with people who work in the field. If I don't know about C14, I can go online and find a whole plethora of data from various instruments and learn how to interpret it.

Your third bullet is even making the same point. Science is contantly adjusting its models to an increasingly large pool of information whereas god/religion is a simplistic explanation that can never be tested or improved upon.

I'll quote this one to make sure it doesn't get lost. But yeah, the above gets to the heart of things way more succintly than I will...but I'll answer anyway:

If I were to rely purely on my own experience for my knowledge of the universe, I would be a woefully ignorant person. I am an agnostic Jew. Beyond some cursory knowledge of my own people's history, I know very little about any religion. I have never seriously studied a science. I have never seriously studied a math. So I'm not entirely sure what your point is here. Should I just accept that I know nothing about the world around me, save for my own experiences?

I TRUST (belief is not the right word, as science is not a religion) in science because I am surrounded by it. Everything I use is built on scientific principles I only have a basic understanding of. I trust in science because science is peer reviewed by thousands of people, each and every one of them with a reason to prove everyone else wrong with some data point or piece of evidence that all of their colleagues have missed.

Religion can have some vigorous philosophical discussions, but there is no discussion of data. There is no peer review. There is no evidence beyond some ancient (and not so ancient) books that tell fantastical, almost entirely unverifiable stories. So no, it is VERY different from a priest quoting a Bible. Certainly, a religious figure can provide some unique insight and ideas based on existing religious work. But you'll never have a rabbi try to prove Kabbalah by pointing to a newly discovered piece of data. But you can have a scientist sequence human DNA and discover that some of us have a bit of neanderthal in us from crossbreeding.

 

Yeah, I agree with you on the Big Bang. Certainly, we may never know what happened before the big bang, or what caused it. We can hypothesize a "big bounce" or just stick God in there. But my point was that we have constantly been expanding our knowledge beyond what we thought was possible through our own narrow world views, that we naturally have as tiny organisms on a tiny world. Who knows what technology may nor may not reveal to us in the next 10,000 years.

 

I won't presume to talk about Newton's humility, nor will I presume to talk about the arrogance of modern day scientists. Newton may have been wrong about a lot, but he helped set the foundation for our understanding of the modern world.

 

As I noted earlier, I'm an agnostic jew. The "jew" part refers to my ethnicity and heritage, while the "agnostic" part refers to my faith, or lackthereof. I think there is a possibility of the existence of "A" God. I will not say with certainty that a creator(s) does not exist. I doubt the existence of a human-created Gods, largely due to my understanding of man's theological past. I don't see any particular God that is worshipped today as anything special or wholly different from the myriad of extinct theologies that our current Gods replaced. It seems ridiculous to me that any modern is any more likely to be real than any dead God, and that man can really know a higher being that would seem to exist beyond our plane of existence. But this has nothing to do with my trust in science. This is just my own, personal philosophy.

And...well, yeah, science has no interest in "how". "How" isn't for science, it is for philosophy.



Aeolus451 said:
Dulfite said:

God does not use Lucifer like that. The book of Job clearly shows that lucifer himself wants to persuade people away from God. I would encourage you to read this article. I didn't read the entire thing, but the stuff I did read was accurate and is too lengthy to copy/paste into this thread so here you go:

 

here 

And again, humans are the ones rejecting the hand of Christ. You can't say God is sending people to hell. Anyone who desires to be saved in Jesus Christ can be in this life. Those who don't wish to be saved by Jesus Christ are not forced to be. Regardless of what you believe now, there is no changing the eternal truth that God loves you and desires you.

What happened to Job was just a bet between God and Lucifer over Job's loyality to God. God sent the limits of what Lucifer could do to Job and Lucifer did everything he was allowed to do. God uses Lucifer to tempt people in general otherwise what's the point of letting Lucifer have any influence over humans in the living world? Lucifer is not the source of sin but he was the first one to sin. What Lucifer can and can't do is determined by god unless the power dynamics between them isn't true at all. 

Oh don't give me that god isn't sending people to hell. God is the one that defines the rules and what he considers sin or what's punishable behavior. All humans have to do is cross the line and they are sent there for all eternity. A person doesn't even have to sin or do any action to cross that line. Simply not believing in god and living your life peacefully will get ya a permnant room in hell.  It's not that different than some tyrant king who demands you to bow and accept him as your king or you can just be tortured in some dungeon for as long as you live. Forced huh?

Man sins in his/her own flesh as well as from the devil, it isn't always caused by the devil/demons and it certainly isn't their responsibility (Eve could have said no to the devil's temptation to disobey God, just as Adam could have said no to Eve's temptation, just like we could say no to our temptations).

God isn't taking bets (this isn't Constantine the movie). The Old Testament is filled, constantly, with examples of people turning their backs on God, yet God being merciful and giving them ways and time to return to HIM. The New Testament is filled with instructions and commandments to love people, reflecting God's ultimate love for us through Jesus Christ. Jesus gets rebuked, beaten, mocked, chased, and crucified and HE never once attacked people in return or killed anyone. HE had to deal with (both physically and the weight of all our sins) more than you, me, and all the other billions of Christians could ever collectively deal with and yet HE still loved us enough to die for us, to do for me, and to die for you.

We are born into sin and God gives you a choice of being reborn into righteousness through Jesus Christ. Nothing you say or think of will change the fact that God loves you and desires you to be saved. Bowing to a "tyrant" king is uncomfortable, at best, and is more than likely a terrible experience, if he is truly a tyrant. You will don't realize (hopefully you will one day) how wonderful it feels (spiritually, physically, emotionally, etc.) to be saved. People don't get saved to feel good, but with salvation comes a love for God and a love for HIS creation (us) and also with it comes an increasing peace that passes anything I could or ever did imagine as a non-believer before I knew Christ.



Derek89 said:
RadiantDanceMachine said:

Now contrast this with the objective - that which is not subject to interpretation. For example, suppose I had filmed the 9/11 terror attacks. No one can argue that two planes did not collide with the WTC because it's right there on video. (ignoring the possibility of doctored videos, which can be detected anyway)

You either don't understand what objectivity is or you're projecting your own definition of it to shape the discussion on your terms.

Everything observed is subject to interpretation. Someone has to observe it and interpret it to be able to communicate it, and senses are not quite "not subjective" to be able to make such a claim that if you don't see it as I do, then you're seeing it wrong. If you did not learn this in your philosophy class; knowledge, the information you use to form any idea, is just memories. In terms of certainty, you don't really "know" anything. You just remember how you experienced it. Convention of knowledge just places your experiences in context in the enviornment you're in, for which it's helpful to understand and predict scenarios within that environment, but it doesn't make that knowledge any less "true" or "false". This applies to every kind of knowledge, including scientific knowledge which is ever changing and evolving.

Saying that you can observe objectively is a sign that you might be an intstrumentalist, which, ironically is a philosophy that is based off empiricism; the philosophy of "experiencing". But either way, even if you're an instrumentalist, you can claim all you want that you can observe objectively, but you can't prove it. Paradox much.

With that out of the way; as of now, no. If conventionalism says there is no observable proof of any god, then it can't be "objectively" verifiable.

But that's very positivist of me, though. I like the more open minded and yet secular answer; given we think the universe is infinite (observably) and the human understanding of quantum mechanics (and for which its mechanical wave function is actually being debated for ontological attribution, lol), I think yes. Everything that can happen has already happened somewhere.

A better question, IMO, is:

Is God's inexistence objectively verifiable?

 

good post... one thing i always find amusing about such debates is that atheists often expose just how similar they are to religious people with regards to so called irrational thinking

in truth if you ask me i don't think that the thinking process of religious people and atheists is really that different 

its just two groups of people supporting beliefs that have been handed down to them 

 

for one its the concept that the holy books handed down to them are absolute truth... which honestly when you think about it is ludicrous

where did these books come from? nobody got their bible or koran or whatever directly from god... which means it was edited and printed by men and as we all know men lie and fabricate things to push agendas

beyond that i've seen very little original thought from religious people outside of what their pastors or other religious authorities tells them

 

on the other hand now we have the "rational" atheists, but to be blunt i see pretty much the same thing here

very little original though outside of what the main figures tell them, whether it be richard dawkins or hitchens or whoever

a lot of what they believe is imo quite irrational... like we can't measure 95% of what is around us but yet we can claim that supernatural influences do not exist... that's ludicrous, our inability to perceieve something does not mean it does not exist