A Question for Believers

[Skeptical Greg]

So...you can only present a convincing evidence for the existence of deity to someone who is already convinced of the existence of deity? That's....neat.

I've run into the same problem trying to convince people about the existence of General Motors..

 

[frisian]

I believe I said this on the first edition of this thread, and I believe Diogenes has touched on it a bit here, but what is being asked for is not something that is compelling to CWL (or anyone else for that matter. What is sought is what you feel should be compelling. Whether it is or not is a question for later.

Not compelling to CWL or anyone else, but what I feel should be compelling to CWL or anyone else?

 

[frisian]

So...you can only present a convincing evidence for the existence of deity to someone who is already convinced of the existence of deity? That's....neat.

So...you can only present a convincing evidence for the absence of a deity to someone who is already convinced of the absence of a deity? That's...neat.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Not compelling to CWL or anyone else, but what I feel should be compelling to CWL or anyone else?

The only way to know if it is compelling is to present it and see if it compels. Do you have any evidence or argument that you feel should be compelling? If you ain't got jack, just say you ain't got jack and we can all move on.

 

[frisian]

The only way to know if it is compelling is to present it and see if it compels. Do you have any evidence or argument that you feel should be compelling? If you ain't got jack, just say you ain't got jack and we can all move on.

There is nothing I "have" in relation to God/gods that I feel should be compelling to you.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

There is nothing I "have" in relation to God/gods that I feel should be compelling to you.

Thanks for answering the question. You're free to go.

 

[TragicMonkey]

So...you can only present a convincing evidence for the absence of a deity to someone who is already convinced of the absence of a deity? That's...neat.

Cute...but I'm not the one refusing to offer evidence here.

 

[frisian]

Thanks for answering the question. You're free to go.

*waves*


Good luck, perhaps Riddick can assist this discussion.

 

[frisian]

Cute...but I'm not the one refusing to offer evidence here.

As evidence is dependent upon an interpretation, and I already know the conclusions of the interpreters, indeed I refuse. It is a useless exercise.

 

[CWL]

So...you can only present a convincing evidence for the absence of a deity to someone who is already convinced of the absence of a deity? That's...neat.

So according to you the (initial) burden of proof rests, not with the one asserting a positive statement (i.e. "I claim that X exists") but with the one assuming a negative in the absence of evidence (i.e. "I assume that X does not exist until evidence thereof has been presented"). That's... neat.

As evidence is dependent upon an interpretation, and I already know the conclusions of the interpreters, indeed I refuse. It is a useless exercise.

Ah, but then you claim that there is evidence for your belief which you find compelling. Why would you then refuse to present it? Because "you already know the conclusions of the interpreters"? That's a rather presumptuous statement don't you think?

 

[frisian]

So according to you the (initial) burden of proof rests, not with the one asserting a positive statement (i.e. "I claim that X exists") but with the one assuming a negative in the absence of evidence (i.e. "I assume that X does not exist until evidence thereof has been presented"). That's... neat.

Certainly not.

Ah, but then you claim that there is evidence for your belief which you find compelling. Why would you then refuse to present it? Because "you already know the conclusions of the interpreters"? That's a rather presumptuous statement don't you think?

Certainly, because as I had suggested before your last thread was lost, a belief is related to the individual and is relative. And take away the "feel would be compelling to others" and I am game.

 

[CWL]

Certainly not.

Ok. Sounded a bit like that though.

Certainly, because as I had suggested before your last thread was lost, a belief is related to the individual and is relative. And take away the "feel would be compelling to others" and I am game.

Sure why not. Just for you I hereby take away the "feel would be compelling to others". With that in mind, what would you say are your (most important) reasons for believing (whether they be related to you as an individual or relative)?

 

[Iacchus]

Yes. God's hatred for Swedish people.

Really? Very interesting!

 

[CWL]

*bump*

Oops. Did I do that?

 

[CWL]

*Ahem*

 

[Ossai]

I do believe Frisian is avoiding the question.

 

[CWL]

Frisian, Frisian! Come out, come out, wherever you may be!

 

[frisian]

Not avoiding. Figured "we" were done with this thread.

I will try and come back to this tonight later, or tomorrow.

Did Riddick get banned or something?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Frisian,

Your avatar is similar to the TBN logo..

Any connection?

 

[Ratman_tf]

It looks kinda like a Gundam to me, but ah likes the giant robots.