Oly -->
I may have directed my general assumptions that people who say what you say generally have not looked for the evidence they want others to provide... but those assumptions are nearly always true. To really avail yourself of the evidence of divine beings, you have to really try... often for decades. Exceptions abound, but most of the people who find such evidence put in a ton of blood, sweat & tears, and went well past their wits end.
I don't know you personally, and have no idea what you consider a lot of work in this regards. I have no idea what practices you did, or how much sacrifice and austerity you underwent. Why don't I know this? Because you never mentioned it.
I responded to the posts you actually wrote. If you wanted to make a case for your seeking and not finding... you could have made
that case. But as it is, you did not.
While I did mention you by name 2x in my last post, it should be clear that I was addressing a
vast number of people who demand proof be given to them and have never even contemplated doing
any legwork themselves.
My point is thus still valid even (especially) if it happens to not apply to you. The fact is that all spiritual systems I am aware of are arduous and no one ever made the claim that finding the ultimate would be easy. So, your idea that
Olympus Mons said:
If there was a God I think there would be solid evidence for that being. It makes nonsense to me that an all powerful omnipotent creator can exist without ever leaving a single trace. Its illogical at best just plain silly IMO.
The fact that it makes nonsense (sic) to you doesn't mean that all the theologians and philosophers since the dawn of time are idiots... or as you said... silly. I challenged your claim that it is illogical, and whether my arguments are new or not, they are still valid... and pass the test of logic with flying colors. If you want to point out some logical fallacies in what I said, be my guest. I am always happy to have my mistakes pointed out to me.
But I think the crux of the matter is that there is
no objective proof of ANYTHING. Materialism is not more provable than Spiritualism or Rationalism or any other stance.
You can call me arrogant for responding to what you
actually said, and not projecting overly about your level of esoteric commitment in your past.
I could say that
your original posts on the subject are arrogant for assuming what G*d can and can not do with his "all powerful omnipotence." But generally, I find it to be poor debate technique to assume that attacking the morality of a debater does anything to mitigate their argument.
I am assuming, but I think you know what those words you chose to use mean. Thus,
nothing is impossible for such a being. And yet you follow that statement with continued assertions about what is possible or "beyond illogical" for a being that is, by definition, beyond your logic. You purport to know that if this being existed, there should be evidence (not necessarily) AND
simultaneously ignore the fact that millions of people throughout time
have had evidence that was convincing
to them revealed
for them in some fashion or another.
DeMenTed --->
You are free to think that everyone who feels they have personal and solid proof of the existence of a divine being is a "freakin whakjob" or say that "most of the people associated with god are nutters." I am even willing to bet that Oly won't be calling you out on your arrogance.
But you must realize that you are making unsubstantiated claims and
ad hominem attacks on legions of people you know absolutely nothing about.
I hate to whip out the old Ad Hominem card, as it, like most cards, is overplayed and generally inappropriately... as simply insulting people is
not an Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy. But what you have done, IS classic ad hominem on top of an enthememe no less. You are assuming that because
some people who have claimed divine revelation are quite possibly crazy, that therefore most people who make such claims are also insane. And, you do this as an argument against your
sole argument against the beliefs and experiences of millions of people.
You didn`t even bother to state this as your opinion, but claim with certainty that A) All those people are freakin whackjobs B) The likelihood of G*d's existence is pretty minimal. and C) that most people associated with G*d are nutters. You present absolutely no evidence for any of these wild statements which, logically would be rather difficult to prove.
Any statement prefaced with the word all (or any absolute for that matter) is something like 99% of the time false. This is why debate team members are trained to look for such statements as they inevitably open a door by which the opponent can be made to look foolish. As for likelihood being minimal... by what benchmark? How did you measure the likelihood of this? And most people associated with G*d being nutters? This is self evident as there are plenty of rational sane people who are thusly associated.
Cherry picking a data set is also poor debate form. Everyone who believes they have proof of G*d is David Koresh or Jim Jones now? Please. Straw Man and Red Herring in a single sentence.
If you guys want to have a theological debate... let's go. But this is a rather poor start for both of you.
