The Lords Prayer advert now banned in cinemas.

[George Hannah]

We're wasting our time. It's like trying to discuss a film review with a cat.

I know you have a lot of experience in that area.

 

[Brightwell’s left peg]

Any rational person should find the evidence for the existence of God overwhelming. Rationality itself is predicated on the fact.

That has to be one of the most deluded posts ever on Bluemoon. Unless of course your iPhone autocorrected "rational" in place of "delusional".

 

[George Hannah]

That has to be one of the most deluded posts ever on Bluemoon. Unless of course your iPhone autocorrected "rational" in place of "delusional".

Not heard that one before in the six years I've been saying the same thing on here. Very good. I watched Fargo last night and thought about the similarities with Calgary.

 

[Matty]

You've lost yourself down the rabbit hole immediately by failing to understand that evidence for God is not confined to scientifically measurable fact although it includes that variety. For me there are no irrefutable scientific or logical arguments which establish the certainty that God exists, as you say that would make our moral choices merely prudential and empty them of significance. If, however, the laws of logic which underlie reasoned thought are to be reliable they cannot be the 'product of a fortuitous concourse of atoms'. Evidence of our existence, consciousness, moral instincts and experience all contribute to a warranted belief in God.

And that's where we get into wishy-washy non-evidence and where I simply can't follow the logic to reach your conclusion.

Our existence, consciousness, moral instincts and experience all add up to zero when it comes to evidence regarding God's existence. Everything can be the 'product of a fortuitous concourse of atoms' because everything is constructed of 'a fortuitous concourse of atoms'. Simply because you can't comprehend a scenario whereby humans can exist, can have the feelings, memories, morals and consciousness that we all possess without the presence of an all powerful being to have made it all possible doesn't mean there is so much evidence for the existence of God that it's the only rational conclusion.

Tens of billions of stars, with hundreds of billions of planets, why is it such a leap to imagine a scenario where, on one of those planets, there has been 'a fortuitous concourse of atoms' which has created the scenario which we all call life? It's the scientific equivalent of the well known "Infinite Monkey Theorem", albeit there aren't an infinite number of planets, just a staggeringly huge number of them.

Personally I find it more believable that the 'fortuitous concourse of atoms' you mention has happened more than once in all those billions upon billions of possible locations. Not exactly the same concourse certainly, but a variation upon the theme. In other words, I think it more likely that on another planet, somewhere out in the cosmos, there is sentient life, than I do that life as we know it was made possible by a God.

 

[tonea2003]

Any rational person should find the evidence for the existence of God overwhelming. Rationality itself is predicated on the fact.

really, the floor is yours.......again

 

[George Hannah]

Either God exists or He doesn't. If He does it would be unfathomable if He didn't provide the means for us to find that out. I appreciate the sincerity and force of those who contend the opposite is the case but only one of us is correct.

 

[Matty]

Either God exists or He doesn't. If He does it would be unfathomable if He didn't provide the means for us to find out. I appreciate the sincerity and force of those who argue the opposite position but only one of us is correct.

I agree with every part of what you've just said.

Where we will differ is with regards to the middle sentence. I believe there is nothing been provided that would allow us to "find out" if God exists and, therefore, by default this means he doesn't. You, I presume, believe he has provided a means by which we can "find out" if he exists, and as such he clearly must do.

 

[George Hannah]

I agree with every part of what you've just said.
Where we will differ is with regards to the middle sentence. I believe there is nothing been provided that would allow us to "find out" if God exists and, therefore, by default this means he doesn't. You, I presume, believe he has provided a means by which we can "find out" if he exists, and as such he clearly must do.

I think that the means are themselves evidence - "The laws of logic, uniformity in nature and absolute morality - do not originate in matter." They must be eternal and reflect the mind of God." as another contributor to this forum put it.

 

[Matty]

I think that the means are themselves evidence - "The laws of logic, uniformity in nature and absolute morality - do not originate in matter." They must be eternal and reflect the mind of God." as another contributor to this forum put it.

And that's why we'll never see eye to eye on this matter. The logic, uniformity and morality you mention, for me, are in no way evidence that God must exist.

 

[George Hannah]

And that's why we'll never see eye to eye on this matter. The logic, uniformity and morality you mention, for me, are in no way evidence that God must exist.

The only alternative is that they are the illusory consequences of a set of random cosmic accidents which in turn invalidates their reliability as a means for assessing the evidence for any proposition and any basis for absolute morality.