I'm deeply moved by your sarcasm.It would make it less ridiculous to believe in them if you and Billions of other people were actually to experience such an effect, and for that effect to be directed at something which is not defined as being a physical creature one can apparently see.
placebo effect maybe, bullshit maybe
Careful now - you see, you're starting to tell me that something I personally experienced and felt was bullshit.
but god being defined as a creature that you cant see, there is not measurable part and never has any impact on anything means there is no god - just people attributing experiences to god
is this experience the same one that atheists who meditate experience? i would guarantee that this experience has an explanation much simpler then inventing a wish monster which raises many other complications
God is defined as something you can't see - unlike Leprechaun.
God is defined as something you can't see - unlike Leprechaun. Again the argument is that the experience of feeling God is a sense, thus it is a measurable thing and God is not invisible. You still haven't dealt with specifically discrediting this experience as a sense.
As for wish-monsters, we're talking about the whole debate, but absolutely there are simpler explanations. But taken on its own it is a more compelling argument than most.
he would show total and utter proof of his own existence.
but thats the thing he has, but people refuse to believe it and try to answer it with science.
so you have seen leprchauns?also the definition of a god is.the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.not something u cant see.
that is because i dont believe in this sense that only religious people can experience that can't be attributed to anything other than godand how do you measure this?
you can't take it on it own - god raises issues like where did god come from? if god has always been here then why can't stuff have always been here? why doesn't god ever have any impact on anything? god is not compelling, just a good substitute for thinking
No - but Leprchauns are defined as being visiable corporeal beings. There are several definitions of God - I find the traditional oniscient, onipresent and omnibenevolent appropriate for the Ibrahamic God, whilst a broader defintition that includes, say Hindusim, might be 'the uncaused first cause'.Generally however, God has the quality of beign invisible unless He/She wishes to show themselves. I'm not saying that's the defining feature of a God, but much as a definition of an RXA-8 is much more complicated than "it's a Rotary', having a Wankel engine is nonetheless a quality an RX-8 posesses. Thus it's less ridiculous to suggest that the experience through other means of somethign that you shouldn't be able to see suggests that that something exists, than it is to suggest the same for something that you should be able to see and photograph. It can't be measured - in much the same way you can't really measure the veracity of your own sense data..... except of course that you can - kinda. You just have to assume your other sense data is not lying. That it's one single alledged 'sense' which pretty much disagrees with all the others (as god is generally accepted to not be visible through the others) is a huge issue.As for not believing, well that's another issue. I feel to be fair I have to bet be open to the possibility that these people experience something in order to discuss it rationally. Whether I actually believe its the work of a God is another thing.Here I'd disagree when I'm talking about the strength of the argument itself. Going back to critical thinking lectures, you can't object to an argument simply because the weight of other evidence is against it. You have to critically assess it on its own and determine its individual value, then sum it up with other evidence to get a (meta)conclusion. As I said in my first post I'm not biting off the whole chunk of the whether God exists argument - I'm just talking about this specific issue.
It can't be measured - in much the same way you can't really measure the veracity of your own sense data..... except of course that you can - kinda. You just have to assume your other sense data is not lying. That it's one single alledged 'sense' which pretty much disagrees with all the others (as god is generally accepted to not be visible through the others) is a huge issue.As for not believing, well that's another issue. I feel to be fair I have to bet be open to the possibility that these people experience something in order to discuss it rationally. Whether I actually believe its the work of a God is another thing.
It all depends one your type of religion though of course. Some people believe jesus is god so that means god isnt invisible.Also if god was invisible how would he "craft us in his image". Surely if god was invisible and we were made in his image therefore we should be invisible also. So going by the word of the bible god would look like a human.Of course this leads us to wonder how god could create such a flawed being if he himself is perfect.
As for how a God would create us - I quite like the Asimov short story where it's all so the brightest minds can just think forever in an afterlife so that we can work out a way to end his existence (over an infinite timeframe God argues that this is inevitable). The flaws were perhaps a way of sorting the mental weat from the chaff (perhaps through evolution or some other nonsense).
but the definition is impossible to argue against, this experience which can only be felt by religious people that comes from god - sure if that existed, by its very definition, it would point to god
Fleastyle has mentioned god talking to him - if god did communicate to religious people why isn't there more consistency in the thoughts and actions of these religious people - why does god tell some to commit hate crimes and others to be tolerant - once again if there is a god then i dont want any part of his cruel games
"this is the song that never ends..."
Richard Dorkins
Just as everything has a beginning everything has a ending. Why should god be any different?
Why do religious types always end up using slander when their argument falls apart?
What makes it logically impossible (not just mind boggling) for something to exist forever, or even to have always existed?
Slander? Eh? You're talking about me?
well science is the basis of all knowledge.just think if it weren't for the dark ages when the religious leaders of the time condemned any sort of science we might have started colonizing space by now.thanks a lot "god"Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread
you know the Romans were Christian to right?well before the older roman god fall from favour.we are not perfect because the "devil" corrupted usnice way to nit pick.
and isnt it ironic that the roman rrepublic and empire lasted from 509 BC – 476ADyet it only took 100 years for christianity to cause the fall of rome
Fall of the Empire and Middle AgesWith the reign of Constantine I, the Bishop of Rome gained political as well as religious importance, eventually becoming known as the Pope and establishing Rome as the center of the Catholic Church. After the Sack of Rome in AD 410 by Alaric I and the fall of the Western Roman Empire in AD 476, Rome alternated between Byzantine and plundering by Germanic barbarians. Its population declined to a mere 20,000 during the Early Middle Ages, reducing the sprawling city to groups of inhabited buildings interspersed among large areas of ruins and vegetation. Rome remained nominally part of the Byzantine Empire rule until AD 751 when the Lombards finally abolished the Exarchate of Ravenna. In 756, Pepin the Short gave the pope temporal jurisdiction over Rome and surrounding areas, thus creating the Papal States. Rome remained the capital of the Papal States until its annexation into the Kingdom of Italy in 1870; the city became a major pilgrimage site during the Middle Ages and the focus of struggles between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire starting with Charlemagne, who was crowned its first emperor in Rome on Christmas 800 AD by Pope Leo III. Apart from brief periods as an independent city during the Middle Ages, Rome kept its status of Papal capital and "holy city" for centuries, even when the Pope briefly relocated to Avignon (1309–1337). While no longer politically powerful, as tragically shown by the brutal sack of 1527, the city flourished as a hub of cultural and artistic activity during the Renaissance and the Baroque, under the patronage of the Papal court.
