Do you believe in God?

[Phanerothyme]

nothing so tasty I'm afraid - https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=define%3Abagatelle&=&=&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1

[macmellus]

nothing so tasty I'm afraid - https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=define%3Abagatelle&=&=&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1

 

Well, apparently it's a trifle.

[Phanerothyme]

Tomato trifle?

 

I'll pass.

[Rupert_Baehr]

It's a poll. You either do or you do not.

 

It's not an invitation to proselytyse or evangelise is it?

[PaliRichard]

If you had put the books up your list maybe you would have your science questions answered I tend not to be so closed in my reading even though I keep coming back to God's word.

 

My questions were specific to the claims made by your group, they would have been answered had you not spent a year side stepping and blatantly ignoring them.

 

Would you like me to put them back up here for you to refresh your memory?

 

Btw, I'm not 'closed minded', my intention was to read them, I genuinely haven't got around to doing so yet, I have a large library of books to get through and very little spare time.

 

Why do you assume I'm closed minded when I did put this to you when you, let's face it, pushed them on me to begin with?

Edited April 2, 2013 by PaliRichard

[Rupert_Baehr]

I have no idea what a bagatelle is. Does it contain tomato?

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2013 at 01:43 ----------

 

 

Oh, really?

 

No, it's a game with steel balls.

 

Like Margaret Thatcher (you can probably blame the game of bagatelle for anything you were unable to blame Thatcher for if you live in Sheffield.)

[janie48]

Thanks Roots, sorry Janie.

No need to apologise it wasn't your fault.

 

I haven't read the whole of this thread.

You could be excused for not doing so,it is rather long.

[RootsBooster]

Agreed, but here's the thing:

 

If those ultrabeings don't themselves entertain discussions on the equivalent of ultrabeing forums, and agree that there is a high probability of the existence of ultra-ultrabeings, then we're right back to special pleading - and have to reject everything we've agreed on so far.

 

What I'm trying to do here is not prove the existence of god or otherwise - plenty of reading has lead me to adopt AJ Ayers position on that question - but to assert that even a fundamentally non-metaphysical picture of the universe includes within it the high probability of beings existing that would, if a meeting could ever be arranged, satisfy every single criterion and competency based test that we would use to establish god-hood.

 

But, if we look at the supposed evidence of godlike interventions in the world (rather than the poetic ascribing of qualities of God that always seem to be suspiciously human characteristics), then our hypothetical ultrabeings wouldn't have to work too hard to convince us at all.

 

Hence my original assertion - there's a high probability gods exist (in the absence of a scriptural God, and our position as (one of) its special creation(s))

 

That's cool, but it doesn't make this any truer...

Regardless of any human religious experience, I think it's fair to assume that gods exist.

Even if there were a race of beings which we could mistake as being the creator of everything and omnipotent etc, it wouldn't mean that they actually ARE gods. Unless, of course, they actually DID create everything and were omnipotent, but then we wouldn't be mistaking them for gods, they would actually BE gods.

There's always a possibility that this could be so, but that falls far from it being "safe to assume that gods exist"

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2013 at 10:16 ----------

 

It's a poll. You either do or you do not.

 

It's not an invitation to proselytyse or evangelise is it?

 

The threads were merged, the newer thread was a (albeit nothing new) discussion,

[flamingjimmy]

Regardless, let's leave the nomenclature out for a moment, and just see if we can agree that there's a high probability that beings, with minds and abilities immeasurably superior our own (to lift from Herbert Wells for a moment), exist, somewhere in the universe.

 

What makes you say that?

 

I think there's no way to calculate that probability, but you seem to think its high, why is that?

[PaliRichard]

My questions were specific to the claims made by your group, they would have been answered had you not spent a year side stepping and blatantly ignoring them.

 

Would you like me to put them back up here for you to refresh your memory?

 

Btw, I'm not 'closed minded', my intention was to read them, I genuinely haven't got around to doing so yet, I have a large library of books to get through and very little spare time.

 

Why do you assume I'm closed minded when I did put this to you when you, let's face it, pushed them on me to begin with?

 

Ah Borderline I see you've taken to the old 'I'm going to blatantly ignore your questions' routine.

 

Are you going to pm me your address so I can return your books?

 

Why do our conversations always fallow the same routine?

 

Borderline - Faux pleasentness (presumably in order to try to get me to one of your meetings so you have the backing of your organisation when which you think would somehow convince me your faith is correct)

 

Pali Richard - Matter of fact.

 

B - starts to get aggressive because your tactics of fake pleasentry haven't worked.

 

PR - persists with trying to get answers to questions I have put to you for nigh on a year about scientific and prophetic claims made by you and your organisation.

 

B - Runs away and thinks not answering the questions will make them go away.

 

What I don't get is this, any genuine person of faith would answer the questions even if they thought it went against popular consensus - but you do your utmost to avoid answering them, which leads me to believe you know you can't, that is that under scrutiny you know the answers you would give would collapse like a house of cards in an earthquake.

Edited April 3, 2013 by PaliRichard