Quote:
Originally Posted by WritingANovel
It's just as well you used the word 'seems" here, because you were absolutely correct in that you were interpreting what he said (as opposed to taking it to literally mean what it exactly said). Brokeprophet's argument is grounded entirely in facts, which are: there exists no evidence that God exists. Therefore, for theists to claim that God exists, they arrive at such a conclusion through faith, not through science and/or logic. These are 1. factually correct; and 2. more importantly, actually do not deal with whether God exists or not. In other words, just because someone points out that the existence of God is grounded in faith but not science, it doesn't mean he's claiming the non-existence of God.
Also I don't think he said anything about personal experience, the ability to perceive and what not.
1. But brokephet never claimed that God doesn't exist in this thread (as far as I know)
2. You are right in that just because a person cannot perceive God through the senses it doesn't necessarily mean God does not exist, however, you must admit that evidence (as it is commonly understood to mean, none of that "LAWL we Christians have our own interpretation of this pre-existing English word such that it will mean whatever the hell we want it to, as to lend credence to whatever the hell we are claiming" shit, please), and the gathering of it, depend entirely on the senses. Given this, it is reasonable to say that there can exist no evidence in support of God. Given that there is no evidence (again, in the sense most people have understood it to mean, not in the special little way you theists have twisted it to mean) in support of God, and that people still believe in him, it can be said that they do so through having faith, and not through science/logic.
|
What "exactly" did he say?
"Brokeprophet's argument is grounded entirely in facts, which are: there exists no evidence that God exists"
Fact number 2: there exists no evidence to the contrary.
I agree that they do not arrive at their conclusions by means of science. I completely agree.
But logic? Reason? Not so much.
Most of us accept the notion that if something exists, something or someone must've made it so. Can you show me an example where this doesn't apply, or is false? So it isn't necessarily illogical to think that someone or something created all of what we think we know so much about.
I'm pretty sure you're right when you assert that he never explicitly claimed that God doesn't exist.
It's just the overwhelming impression I get when I read... uhh...any post of his having to do with God.
Fact number 3: I'm not a theist.