"God works in mysterious ways." If God is not mysterious then he must be understood. Obviously this is not the case or we wouldn't be having this debate. God may not enchant, but he certainly produces the effects of magic. Entire bodies of water do not randomly part for people to walk through. The status of adulthood is defined by being fully developed. If God has existed forever, then I would contend he must be an adult. If not, then that implies that time must have existed before God such that he is not fully developed. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." -Genesis 1:27 I assume your God exists where he wants, so how do you know he isn't chilling in our atmosphere?
1) God working in mysterious ways is different than him altogether inhabiting mysteriousness. That quote is not in the Bible, either way. 2) If the entire body did part, it certainly wasn't random. Plus, the validity of that story is controversial and even I would rather not debate over it. 3) Malachi 3:6 (New International Version) 6 "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed." God is not a man, in the first place. God cannot develop if he doesn't change. God is anything but natural. 4) God creating man in his image does not mean God is a man. God is a spirit. Spirits do not have sexuality. 5) To say he resides in one area is a false understanding of omnipotence.
Basically, the theist stance at the moment is: We currently have absolutely no proof that our beliefs are in any way correct, but we will still believe them because we feel like it. I can't imagine what would happen if I were to apply this idea to other debates... It is somehow permissible in religious discussions but absolutely crazy everywhere else.
Not at all. I don't know why when I say "I choose to not argue this" you begin to construct the assumption that I believe what I do because I feel like it.
You've already admitted that we don't currently have any evidence to support the existence of a deity. You have inferred that in your recent statements, and you also said that there was no evidence quiet a while back in this thread. Without evidence, there is no logical reason to believe something like the existence of god, and the only other option is that you believe simply because you want to.
Please link or re-quote these posts, I don't recall me saying such things. I do however recall saying that belief in God is logically sensible.
The problem is, you believe in a single diety, right? A single religion? That is what I hate. I'm not denying the fact that there could be a god, but to hold claim in a specific one with little to no evidence is just lazy or ignorant.
There we go again. You almost contradicted yourself, too. Calling my belief ignorant when saying there is no evidence, only to not have scoured the entire universe looking for it and not finding any?
That isn't an answer. We're asking you why, at this very moment, you choose to believe. I could say that there is an invisible teapot (yes, I'm using this idea again) orbiting Pluto, and we just haven't been able to find proof of it yet. Does that make my belief any moe logical? No. Absolutely not. If you will believe in something simple because we have not scoured the entire universe and found no evidence, you have to believe in absolutely everything you hear. Also, 2,000 years ago, nobody said "Bacteria exist! We just haven't been able to see them yet, but since we haven't looked everywhere my ideas are rational!." Nobody back then believed in bacteria because there was no evidence. Over time, as we learned more, we changed our theories to include atoms and bacteria, since we had found proof of them. It was completely logical for them not to believe in bacteria without evidence, and it is completely logical not to believe in god without evidence.
I'm not atheist or religious. I'm not making any absolute claims. Therefore, I can't contradict myself. I am taking a neutral stand on the subject, yet my beliefs are radical...right...
Again, the way science works is that evidence is presented to test a hypothesis and draw conclusions based upon experimentation. The mere chance of evidence existing is completely meaningless until the evidence is actually found and presented. That is why scientifically there is no reason to believe in a a god. There is no evidence to date that can be used to support a deity's existence.
I'd say that outright calling evidence of God little to none is quite the fanatical statement. Please, all you're doing is repeating arguments. Let's bring up something new, shall we?
So why should I believe in god? I mean, scientifically there is no reason to believe in a god. That is the summary of the argument, the overwhelming lack of evidence that god does exists, and the contradictions which make it further impossible for god to exist. Convince me, debate; but denouncing our thesis as being "repeated" makes no sense at all. Unless it hurts to hear that scientifically there is no reason to believe in a god, in which case I feel for you.