Where are you on the political spectrum?

[todd]

First, you don't believe in a giant jellybean but are just continuing to play that one tired note. 

 As far as the evidence in God:

Once piece is written testimonies of people who have seen God.

There is logical evidence that there is God.

There are a lot (billions) of *sincere* people who in their hearts have testimonies that while perhaps not as weighty as the testimony of people who have what we would describe as the more direct testimonies of seeing, provides evidence.

I honestly can see how some people may not find the evidence sufficient but I think its still substantial. 

Man this is really, really stupid.

[Shaggy 2 Grote]

I don't know what I did wrong to not make it into the top left corner.  Maybe I'm too soft on degenerate art.

[A.M. Thomas]

First, you don't believe in a giant jellybean but are just continuing to play that one tired note. 

 As far as the evidence in God:

Once piece is written testimonies of people who have seen God.

There is logical evidence that there is God.

There are a lot (billions) of *sincere* people who in their hearts have testimonies that while perhaps not as weighty as the testimony of people who have what we would describe as the more direct testimonies of seeing, provides evidence.

I honestly can see how some people may not find the evidence sufficient but I think its still substantial. 

Man this is really, really stupid.

Really.

Is JP a troll?

[JP]

Man this is really, really stupid.

I'm happy you've got things worked out so completely for yourself as to render my thoughts "stupid." Not the most tolerant way to characterize it I might suggest - but it must be hard for you to slum it.

I guess I'll just stick to listing the number of times that Jon Wurster says " heart stoppage" and leave the thinking (with a capital T) to the luminaries. 

Thanks!

[A.M. Thomas]

Man this is really, really stupid.

I'm happy you've got things worked out so completely for yourself as to render my thoughts "stupid." Not the most tolerant way to characterize it I might suggest - but it must be hard for you to slum it.

I guess I'll just stick to listing the number of times that Jon Wurster says " heart stoppage" and leave the thinking (with a capital T) to the luminaries. 

Thanks!

wat

[JP]

Is JP a troll?

Yes someone who believes in God and uses Windows XP - mind blowing.

[Pidgeon]

 

[A.M. Thomas]

All of this should be happening in the theology thread, where Pastor Josh can sort things out.  Not here.

EDIT: Hey, I use Windows XP and sort of, kind of believe in god too.

[yesno]

I'd recommend "Is There a God?" by Richard Swinburne for the best argument answering "yes" I've ever seen.

It doesn't convince me for a variety of reasons, and in fact some other people I've read do a better job (e.g. Plantiga on God as a necessary being) but it's a good slim volume.

The case for a "being" that is the foundation of existence is hardly the same as the case for a space jellybean.  "Being" is in quotation marks because God isn't just posited as one more object in the universe; his existence is qualitatively different than that of objects in the universe. The theist believes that it is necessary for God to exist; that is not possible for him not to exist; and that in every possible world you can imagine, there is a God, and the same one.  God isn't a substitute for science; rather, God is the explanation of why science explains.

I'm still an atheist, because I think that nearly all of the theists are as flippant with atheists' arguments, which they fail to really tackle, as your average Internet atheist is with religion.  At the end of the day, the null hypothesis wins a tie for me.

So anyway, JP, I'm on your side.  Not because I think you're right, but because I think people are overly dismissive of the philosophical case for God nowadays.  Richard Dawkins (who I think is right, in the end) is absurdly out of his depth when it comes to discussing philosophy.

ps:  For what is, to me, the best analysis of the ultimate question of philosophy or what-do-you-call-it, I'd recommend the chapter "Why is there something rather than nothing" from Robert Nozick's Philosophical Explanations. It's an essentially atheist take on the same issues that lead many to believe in God, but one that never, unlike some popular science writers, begs the question ("the ultimate answer to why the universe exists is STRING!") or just says "we can never hope to know, so let's not talk about it."

[todd]

Man this is really, really stupid.

I'm happy you've got things worked out so completely for yourself as to render my thoughts "stupid." Not the most tolerant way to characterize it I might suggest - but it must be hard for you to slum it.

I guess I'll just stick to listing the number of times that Jon Wurster says " heart stoppage" and leave the thinking (with a capital T) to the luminaries. 

Thanks!

You don't have to be a luminary to think the threshold for "evidence of God" is somewhat higher than "people I know have met him!"

Good luck with your list!

[Trembling Eagle]

I'd recommend "Is There a God?" by Richard Swinburne for the best argument answering "yes" I've ever seen.

It doesn't convince me for a variety of reasons, and in fact some other people I've read do a better job (e.g. Plantiga on God as a necessary being) but it's a good slim volume.

The case for a "being" that is the foundation of existence is hardly the same as the case for a space jellybean.  "Being" is in quotation marks because God isn't just posited as one more object in the universe; his existence is qualitatively different than that of objects in the universe. The theist believes that it is necessary for God to exist; that is not possible for him not to exist; and that in every possible world you can imagine, there is a God, and the same one.  God isn't a substitute for science; rather, God is the explanation of why science explains.

The God of philosophers is a far cry from the biblical God, some personal intervening force that actively takes part in human affairs.

[cutout]

FWIW, I don't think you're stupid, JP. I think your answer was pretty vague, though. If the question is, "What's your evidence?" and the response is that some nameless people have seen him, thus "there is logical evidence that there is God"....that's kind of a non-answer. It's what politicians do when they don't know the answer to something but don't feel comfortable simply saying, "I don't know".

I've actually spoken to very few Christians who have made a claim as bold as "there is logical evidence of God", otherwise they'd be known as Knowers instead of Believers.

[Bryan]

I've actually spoken to very few Christians who have made a claim as bold as "there is logical evidence of God", otherwise they'd be known as Knowers instead of Believers.

Exactly - that's why they call it "faith".

[JP]

FWIW, I don't think you're stupid, JP. I think your answer was pretty vague, though. If the question is, "What's your evidence?" and the response is that some nameless people have seen him, thus "there is logical evidence that there is God"....that's kind of a non-answer. It's what politicians do when they don't know the answer to something but don't feel comfortable simply saying, "I don't know".

I've actually spoken to very few Christians who have made a claim as bold as "there is logical evidence of God", otherwise they'd be known as Knowers instead of Believers.

Yes well I wrote it on my blackberry while picking up my daughter from a birthday party so I didn't really have time and typing ability to flesh out the entirety of the basis for my belief and include citations for the message board on saturday. 

Also, just because ultimately I call myself a believer does not necessarily mean that I do so with an absence of evidence.  For example I might *believe* that Cheney was complacent w/r/t 9-11, and there is evidence to support that, but I don't say I know that he was (I don't actually believe he was - but just sayin)

W/R/T "evidence of God" is somewhat higher than "people I know have met him!" Those testimonies I refer to would hold up in court - not that they would be *sufficient* they would be *evidence* and although I don't know anybody first hand who has met him - if I did, I think that would set the bar pretty high!

[yesno]

The God of philosophers is a far cry from the biblical God, some personal intervening force that actively takes part in human affairs.

False distinction.  Many of the people who posit a "god of philosophers" follow up to describe why and how such a god personally intervenes in human affairs.  Plantiga et al don't describe some impersonal force they choose to name "god" in the way Spinoza might.  They argue that a "god" as traditionally understood is a necessary being.  Their explanations, in fact, hinge on god's being a person with motivations, acting out of goodness, etc.