there is no god?

[abdyer2001]

The Bible tells us God revealed Himself to us as The Father.That's good enough for me.

Using that inconclusive source does not constitute valid supportive evidence.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

 the bible was written by man based on unsupported events

Thank you so much for saying this, I really hate it when people quote the bible as if it is a legitimate source.

You're welcome; it apparently needed mentioning.

[fer11944]

Oh, yes there is a God and he is very much REAL!

You've got evidence to support your claim that there is a "real god", right?

Have you evidence that God doesn't exist?Oh,that's right!Atheists don't have to disprove anything with facts!How convenient!

This made me lol. It is true that many atheist are the first to fight the argument that God exists yet as you say they can't prove it and yet they are always asking people with faith to prove with facts. Makes no sense. I believe God exists. Not because some one told me to. Not my parents, not a priest, not any religious person. I believe because of my life experiences, one concrete experience in fact. I also think that although I might not be able to prove 100% percent to everyone that he does exist, face to face, I could crack any atheist of his believe that God doesn't exist because there is no proof.

The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of things in this world that point to the existence of a greater being. But since there is ultimate no way to check, these kind of arguments have been raging since the stone age. Good OP.

[queenofnines]

face to face, I could crack any atheist of his believe that God doesn't exist because there is no proof.

O rly?  That is a killer case of overconfidence you've got there.  Let me guess...is your "slam dunk" argument somewhere along the lines of the miracle of childbirth or if the planets were aligned 1 degree differently, the world would explode?

 

[lynnc35]

tell that to Jesus when he says I never knew you and you go where you go cuz you didn't believed in him

[falcon9]

It is true that many atheist are the first to fight the argument that God exists yet as you say they can't prove it

The burden of 'proof' rests with those who claim that "god" exists and yet, no substantive evidence has been presented by those claimaints.  Those challenging such empty claims do not have the obligation to 'prove' nonexistence because that's an irrational premise.  One cannot disprove the existence of 'pink unicorns' however, it does not logically follow that pink unicorns exist.

and yet they are always asking people with faith to prove with facts. Makes no sense.

It makes sense if logic is used and doesn't if 'faith' is relied upon instead.

I believe God exists.

Such a belief does not not confer existence, it merely indicates an empty opinion, (one the lacks a supporting basis other than baseless 'faith').

I also think that although I might not be able to prove 100% percent to everyone that he does exist, face to face, I could crack any atheist of his believe that God doesn't exist because there is no proof.

To reiterate, 0% 'proof' of such an existence has been offered to date.  Disbelief is not a 'belief'; it is being dubious of the unsupported claims of existence made by 'believers'.  Given this premise, it is extremely doubtful that you could "crack any atheist" by failing to support an unsupported claim, (whether here or, face-to-face).

The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of things in this world that point to the existence of a greater being.

The vague assertion made constitutes an unsupported opinion since no directly-attributed evidence to substantiate them has been presented.  If you have any, feel free to present it.

But since there is ultimate no way to check, these kind of arguments have been raging since the stone age. Good OP.

If there is no evidence to support a claim, such a claim constitutes an empty opinion.

[falcon9]

tell that to Jesus when he says I never knew you and you go where you go cuz you didn't believed in him

Or, one could just leave a message with the 'invisible pink unicorn' for 'im?

[fer11944]

face to face, I could crack any atheist of his believe that God doesn't exist because there is no proof.

O rly?  That is a killer case of overconfidence you've got there.  Let me guess...is your "slam dunk" argument somewhere along the lines of the miracle of childbirth or if the planets were aligned 1 degree differently, the world would explode?

 

Nope. Personal experience. I don't have the time, and I won't, disclose my experience and why I belief online(too long). Needless to say I respect atheists. They do not believe in that which cannot see. Makes sense. I guess we will all find out when we die though. I hope I am right because it would suck if all my life had meant nothing 

When I say crack I mean that I can get someone with no beliefs to acknowledge that he is not a 100% sure there is no God. I'm a little aggressive when I type though...sorry bout that.

[abdyer2001]

face to face, I could crack any atheist of his believe that God doesn't exist because there is no proof.

O rly?  That is a killer case of overconfidence you've got there.  Let me guess...is your "slam dunk" argument somewhere along the lines of the miracle of childbirth or if the planets were aligned 1 degree differently, the world would explode?

 

you stated personal experience is what proved to you that god exists.  then atheists can use the same argument that they do not believe in part based on personal experience. and also the lack of physical evidence..


Nope. Personal experience. I don't have the time, and I won't, disclose my experience and why I belief online(too long). Needless to say I respect atheists. They do not believe in that which cannot see. Makes sense. I guess we will all find out when we die though. I hope I am right because it would suck if all my life had meant nothing 

When I say crack I mean that I can get someone with no beliefs to acknowledge that he is not a 100% sure there is no God. I'm a little aggressive when I type though...sorry bout that.

[queenofnines]

They do not believe in that which cannot see. Makes sense.

That isn't the case for me.  It's not as simple as that.  I was a Christian for 5 years, also due to "personal experiences"...so...don't be quick to assume you have something rare.

I guess we will all find out when we die though.

No we won't, because we won't be conscious to be aware of anything.   

I hope I am right because it would suck if all my life had meant nothing 

It has whatever meaning you want to give it, even if it is technically for naught.  How does existing nonstop in the afterlife give you any more purpose?

When I say crack I mean that I can get someone with no beliefs to acknowledge that he is not a 100% sure there is no God.

That isn't cracking, that's being intellectually honest.  Just like I hope you can be as well that your god might really be Zeus, multiple gods, or a 3 headed giant named Bob.  There's no "proving it" after all...right?

[falcon9]

I guess we will all find out when we die though.

No we won't, because we won't be conscious to be aware of anything.   

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not consciousness is able to survive physical death.  Therefore, a definitive determination remains speculative at best.  Either consciousness does not survive physical death and neither does awareness or, it does and that awareness may not be of anything remotely resembling religious beliefs.

 

When I say crack I mean that I can get someone with no beliefs to acknowledge that he is not a 100% sure there is no God.

That isn't cracking, that's being intellectually honest. /quote]



True however, there is a distinct difference between intellectual honesty and a abysmally-low probability of religious concepts being accurate.

Just like I hope you can be as well that your god might really be Zeus, multiple gods, or a 3 headed giant named Bob.  There's no "proving it" after all...right?

Metaphysical concepts remain speculative without supporting evidence; including the probability of invisible pink unicorns.

[abdyer2001]

That isn't cracking, that's being intellectually honest.  Just like I hope you can be as well that your god might really be Zeus, multiple gods, or a 3 headed giant named Bob.  There's no "proving it" after all...right?
[/quote]

AHEM,  or a pink unicorn wit the glitter horn

[mardukblood2009]

Of coarse there is a God. He or she is the one that causes all the trouble in the world don't you know that. That's why every one is fighting all the time because they think that their idea is better than the others. What I am saying is god is just as real as Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. We all know they are fake ( at least most of us do ) but they are still in away very much real.

[queenofnines]

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not consciousness is able to survive physical death.  Therefore, a definitive determination remains speculative at best.

Why would it?  Conciousness is a byproduct of the brain, which is physical.  All of our organs cease to function at death, so why would the biological process of conciousness be any different?  None of this post- mortem conciousness has ever come back to tell the tale (unfounded claims of ghosts aside).  No one honestly has recollections of an awareness before birth.  If your individual conciousness didn't exist for billions of years once (and all signs point to that being the case), it can not exist for billions of years again after your death.  To toy with any other possibility is naive, irrational wishful thinking in my eyes.  I don't understand why some non-religious people still treat conciousness as if it has "soul-like" properties.

[falcon9]

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not consciousness is able to survive physical death.  Therefore, a definitive determination remains speculative at best.

Why would it? Conciousness is a byproduct of the brain, which is physical.  All of our organs cease to function at death, so why would the biological process of conciousness be any different?  None of this post- mortem conciousness has ever come back to tell the tale (unfounded claims of ghosts aside).  No one honestly has recollections of an awareness before birth.  If your individual conciousness didn't exist for billions of years once (and all signs point to that being the case), it can not exist for billions of years again after your death.  To toy with any other possibility is naive, irrational wishful thinking in my eyes.

I generally concur with your analysis however, my implicit allusion was to the possibility of conscious awareness as an emgerent phenomenon.  While there are several cognizant arguements against this theory, (mainly, that if the _basis_ of emergent phenomenon is physical, the EP cannot be nonphysical), I happen to disagree with the main premise of the counter-arguement of conscious awareness being a physical 'thing'.  If conscious awareness is a nonphysical emergent phenomenon, (or at least currently physically non-detectable phenomenon), then its existence may not be permenently linked to the physical apparatus it emerged from, (or, it might be; there is insufficient data either way).  

The billions of years before or after physical manifestation of conscious awareness do not apply if such awareness arose as an emergent phenomenon of the physical complexity of the brain/body, (since it did not exist before the physicality could provide the basis for the emergent phenomenon and no current determination can be asserted as to the survival of a theoretically non-physical phenomenonafter physical death).

I don't understand why some non-religious people still treat conciousness as if it has "soul-like" properties.

Firstly, the context of my reply was in regards to that intellectual honesty you mentioned; specifically, that evidence of the survival of conscious awareness is currently insufficient, (that is, ambiguous).  Secondly, I don't recall making a parallel between conscious awareness and a "soul-like properties", (unless you were implicitly conflating consciousness with such unspecified properties). Thirdly, if awareness is an emergent phenomenon whose existence does not depend upon the physical apparatus from which it emerged, there is insufficient data to definitively determine whether or not that emergent phenomenon continues to exist as an 'aware' form of energy.  Converesely, there isn't sufficient evidence to definitively assert that conscious awareness is an emergent phenomenon.

[Falconer02]

Defined gods are all fake and extend back to sun worship. The only way of getting around this fact is using the old and childish claim that "one cannot prove it". Proof is not needed when your god is on the same level as a childs imaginary friend. Unless of course you cling to irrational beliefs based upon blind and ancient rituals and ideas.