Ontologically speaking, how can GOD be proven

[pentomato]

On the issue of morality...

Can you think, or name a moral action or statement a believer can do that a non-believer cannot?

I dare say you cannot.

Now name a wicked action that only a believer would undertake?

Suicide bombing, circumcision, etc.

Circumcision is a fairly common practice even outside religion, but. It's sometimes considered to be more hygienic, for one thing. Female circumcision is generally a bad thing, though. It's, however, not limited to the religious. It can be due to a really bad turn of spousal abuse, among other things, and it's generally about power, religion is just one excuse.

Suicide bombings are less usual than circumcisions, outside of religion, but have been known to happen. Plenty of mentally ill people to go around, don't need religion to blow yourself up, really.

Religion is just a popular excuse to commit atrocities, other known reasons include ethnicity, hay-those-guys-have-more-stuff-than-us, money, mental illness, nationalism, jealousy, fighting terrorism, and so on, and so forth.

People don't need religion to be bad. And anything someone religious can do, can be done by someone who isn't. And you don't need to believe to use religion as an excuse, either.

Religion can also be a reason to not hurt people. Turn the other cheek and all of that. There's plenty of people who behave better, because they have religion.

One has to wonder what any of that has to do with your original argument, though. Or indeed why you think that's an answer to my post.

I find it insulting that many people who believe in God to question another person's morality or claim they cannot be moral without a supernatural.

How very, very interesting. Is that why you made a thread attacking religion?

He didn't attack religion in this thread, but you are attacking his ideas.
If you don't have any arguements to prove that god exists, then don't attack who put his existence in doubt.

[tmac]

On the issue of morality...

Can you think, or name a moral action or statement a believer can do that a non-believer cannot?

I dare say you cannot.

Now name a wicked action that only a believer would undertake?

Suicide bombing, circumcision, etc.

Circumcision is a fairly common practice even outside religion, but. It's sometimes considered to be more hygienic, for one thing. Female circumcision is generally a bad thing, though. It's, however, not limited to the religious. It can be due to a really bad turn of spousal abuse, among other things, and it's generally about power, religion is just one excuse.

Suicide bombings are less usual than circumcisions, outside of religion, but have been known to happen. Plenty of mentally ill people to go around, don't need religion to blow yourself up, really.

Religion is just a popular excuse to commit atrocities, other known reasons include ethnicity, hay-those-guys-have-more-stuff-than-us, money, mental illness, nationalism, jealousy, fighting terrorism, and so on, and so forth.

People don't need religion to be bad. And anything someone religious can do, can be done by someone who isn't. And you don't need to believe to use religion as an excuse, either.

Religion can also be a reason to not hurt people. Turn the other cheek and all of that. There's plenty of people who behave better, because they have religion.

One has to wonder what any of that has to do with your original argument, though. Or indeed why you think that's an answer to my post.

I find it insulting that many people who believe in God to question another person's morality or claim they cannot be moral without a supernatural.

How very, very interesting. Is that why you made a thread attacking religion?

Look at the numbers cheif, the suicide bombing community is exclusively religious. It is because they believe they are ordained by God to carry out their wicked acts and that they have the approval of the supernatural.

Also you asked me to point out an argument that could be constructive, but all you did was try to poke holes in mine rather then find another explanation to the original question of morality.

[Snee]

So, what you're saying here is that your best argument as to why God doesn't exist, or why the burden of proof rests more heavily on the religious (I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish at this point, starting to wonder if you know), is that religious people sometimes do bad stuff?

For your next trick, will you be attempting to prove the world is round by noting the sky is blue?

Also at "the suicide bombing community".


Also, last I looked, when someone is wrong in a debate or discussion, a good counter argument is pointing out how they are wrong. This may be a problem for you, if you can't actually come up with something that doesn't stand up to be scrutinised, but c'est la vie.

EDit: Just to be clear on this, again, religion is just one excuse to do bad stuff. And whether there is a God or not has no bearing on what a small group of religious people sometimes do. That's like trying to prove there are no countries, by noting that nationalists sometimes do ethnic cleansings.

[Snee]

He didn't attack religion in this thread, but you are attacking his ideas.
If you don't have any arguements to prove that god exists, then don't attack who put his existence in doubt.

I could tell you you're an idiot, again, but we all know this.

What I recommend is that you go back to school, for five years or so, focusing on reading-comprehension. Once you've learned english, I'm sure you'll be able to contribute to the discussion, at least a little bit.

[tmac]

So, what you're saying here is that your best argument as to why God doesn't exist, or why the burden of proof rests more heavily on the religious (I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish at this point, starting to wonder if you know), is that religious people sometimes do bad stuff?

For your next trick, will you be attempting to prove the world is round by noting the sky is blue?

Also at "the suicide bombing community".


Also, last I looked, when someone is wrong in a debate or discussion, a good counter argument is pointing out how they are wrong. This may be a problem for you, if you can't actually come up with something that doesn't stand up to be scrutinised, but c'est la vie.

EDit: Just to be clear on this, again, religion is just one excuse to do bad stuff. And whether there is a God or not has no bearing on what a small group of religious people sometimes do. That's like trying to prove there are no countries, by noting that nationalists sometimes do ethnic cleansings.

No, the best way to counter an argument is to counter with an idea that is better fitted to the question itself, something you have yet to do...I'm beginning to think I'll have to make your point for you before you will.

So again; Am I to believe that a believer and non-believer are different in terms of morality?

Please, discuss.

[j2k4]

On the issue of morality...

I find it insulting that many people who believe in God to question another person's morality or claim they cannot be moral without a supernatural.

No, the best way to counter an argument is to counter with an idea that is better fitted to the question itself, something you have yet to do...I'm beginning to think I'll have to make your point for you before you will.

So again; Am I to believe that a believer and non-believer are different in terms of morality?

You seem to be arguing that any and all claims of morality/immorality are (or can be) made only under religious auspices.

I find the premise a bit iffy.

This is all a bit removed from your original question as well, the formulation of which might have also mentioned Allah, Buddha, et al, in order to give the impression you aren't merely picking on Christians.

Iffy, iffy, iffy.

[Snee]

So, what you're saying here is that your best argument as to why God doesn't exist, or why the burden of proof rests more heavily on the religious (I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish at this point, starting to wonder if you know), is that religious people sometimes do bad stuff?

For your next trick, will you be attempting to prove the world is round by noting the sky is blue?

Also at "the suicide bombing community".


Also, last I looked, when someone is wrong in a debate or discussion, a good counter argument is pointing out how they are wrong. This may be a problem for you, if you can't actually come up with something that doesn't stand up to be scrutinised, but c'est la vie.

EDit: Just to be clear on this, again, religion is just one excuse to do bad stuff. And whether there is a God or not has no bearing on what a small group of religious people sometimes do. That's like trying to prove there are no countries, by noting that nationalists sometimes do ethnic cleansings.

No, the best way to counter an argument is to counter with an idea that is better fitted to the question itself, something you have yet to do...I'm beginning to think I'll have to make your point for you before you will.

So again; Am I to believe that a believer and non-believer are different in terms of morality?

Please, discuss.

Right. So what you're saying here is that you can't defend your initial position, so you changed focus, and now that I've poked holes in it, that was cheating, so you're just going to ignore that, and keep repeating yourself. Clevar.

---

Barbie made a good case as to why you can't discount the possibility that there is a God. Since you asked someone to make a good case for why there can be a God, the thread should just about have been done then. Everything after that is just chaff, really.

Since you didn't get it, I carried it onwards, mainly by pointing out that your other assertion...

burden of proof I would say lies most heavily on people of faith

...is flawed, by saying that each position is equally valid since we don't know anything for certain.

And now you're lost in the woods, going on about morality. Which isn't working out too well for you at that.

[Rat Faced]

You have that the wrong way around.

A Hypothesis/Theory gains weight by not being proven false, not by being proven correct. It's virtually impossible to prove something is 100% fact.

The Theory of Evolution, for example, is still a Theory.. Granted, It's stood the test of time and is a very Strong Theory, but its still a Theory.

On a level playing field then any "God" does not have to be proven, "his" or "her" or "its" existence is valid until disproven.

The problem I have with all of this is that I don't believe the subject of "God" is valid for any type of Scientific Analysis.

It's the same arguement I use with Creationism in Science Classes.. Its not that I dont think people should be taught Religion, it's just that its not Science... and should therefore be restricted to Religious classes.

Tell me what tools are readily available to you and not me where you can substantiate a God theory to the degree of accuracy evolution and atomic theories....God has not stood the test of time, the list of "Gods" that have been retired are in the thousands; now I'm expected to make a case for this one God that hinges on the fact that I have to believe in it without any sort of reconcile proof? PUHLEASE

Again, wrong.

Name one "God", "Goddess" or "It" that is worshiped now or ever has been in the past, been proven not to exist. There are still Heathens that believe in Oden and Thor etc, still Pagans that believe in the Earth Goddess, and probably still people that worship the Sun, Moon, Fire etc etc etc under varying names and in different ways.

Just because someone does not believe does not invalidate a "God". Just as when Darwin published "origin of the Species" and no-one believed in evolution, did not invalidate his Theory.

Scientific Method requires things to be disproven, not proven.

If I stated I believed "God" was a Fire Elemental, that is valid until disproven.. It doesn't matter what other beliefs I held, they are all valid until disproven. Additionally just because it's proven that one belief is incorrect does not invalidate the entire premis.

A Theory in Science is often shown to be incorrect in part and then built upon without the entire premis failing.

Again, you need to have a level playing field.

In a religion the basic belief is a "God(s)", everything else is trappings.. just look at Christians, Jews and Muslims which all believe in the same God. Not just 3 religions, but these religions also having many factions with differing beliefs.

Even if other parts of a faith are shown to be incorrect, it does not detract from the basic belief. If I could prove something as fundemental as Jesus never having existed, that "God" has followers that does not require Jesus to have lived.

I would not have not disproven the Christian "God", just one of the trappings.

[Snee]

Name one "God", "Goddess" or "It" that is worshiped now or ever has been in the past, been proven not to exist. There are still Heathens that believe in Oden and Thor etc, still Pagans that believe in the Earth Goddess, and probably still people that worship the Sun, Moon, Fire etc etc etc under varying names and in different ways.

He can't, he's been BANNED.

Hahahahaha.

[MaxOverlord]

Ontologically, prove or at least make a case that GOD can exists, burden of proof I would say lies most heavily on people of faith.

Your statement is incorrect to begin with....the very essence of faith is the lack of proof.