PDA

View Full Version : Why do you believe/disbelieve in god?



Pages : [1] 2

Mr. Burns
01-26-2012, 06:10 PM
Because I felt like having a pointless argument.

Conley
01-26-2012, 06:16 PM
Mister D will be excited to see this.

For me more than anything I believe in God because all of this had to come from somewhere. That's as succinctly as I can put it. If not God...what?

Mr. Burns
01-26-2012, 06:21 PM
Mister D will be excited to see this.

For me more than anything I believe in God because all of this had to come from somewhere. That's as succinctly as I can put it. If not God...what?

We don't know yet. Everyone agrees on this (mostly). We have not proved or disproved god. And as the burden of proof is on those making the claim (god exists until we know he doesn't) I have to say that I don't believe in one.

Peter1469
01-26-2012, 06:26 PM
I would offer that it is more likely that there was some sort of creation force than not one.

Conley
01-26-2012, 06:27 PM
double post

Conley
01-26-2012, 06:27 PM
We don't know yet. Everyone agrees on this (mostly). We have not proved or disproved god. And as the burden of proof is on those making the claim (god exists until we know he doesn't) I have to say that I don't believe in one.

If you don't believe in God (which I'm not judging) how do you explain the existence of everything? From where did it originate?

Let me put it another way, do you believe in any higher power at all? Or is it all just chance and random chaos, matter always existed and is just reformed for eons and eons.

What if, at the boundaries of science, at the limits of our comprehension, there could exist something that we humans will never understand but is, for all intents and purposes, the Creator.

Mr. Burns
01-26-2012, 06:28 PM
I would offer that it is more likely that there was some sort of creation force than not one.

Then what created said creation force? The only logical solution I have seen has been cyclic cosmology. An infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is the only way to sidestep the "first mover" problem and seems to be held in great regard and evidence by many physicists.

Mr. Burns
01-26-2012, 06:32 PM
If you don't believe in God (which I'm not judging) how do you explain the existence of everything? From where did it originate?

Let me put it another way, do you believe in any higher power at all? Or is it all just chance and random chaos, matter always existed and is just reformed for eons and eons.

What if, at the boundaries of science, at the limits of our comprehension, there could exist something that we humans will never understand but is, for all intents and purposes, the Creator.

Cyclic cosmology. For me, if we cannot currently explain a phenomena in science (here being the existence of matter) saying "Honestly, we don't know" is better than defaulting to a deity.

Conley
01-26-2012, 06:39 PM
Science is often wrong though. I don't see cyclic cosmology and the existence of a creative force as being in conflict. Our understanding of physics does suggest that the Big Bang started things, and I've read different ideas as to whether the expansion of the universe is slowing down enough to actually eventually lead to a contraction or not. I haven't kept up on it - you probably know more than I do.

What is the harm in 'defaulting to a deity'? Isn't it really another way of admitting we don't know and science can never hope to provide all the answers?

wingrider
01-26-2012, 06:39 PM
to err on the side of caution is preffered , I would personally rather believe in a master designer than to belive in random chance,

Conley
01-26-2012, 06:42 PM
Then what created said creation force? The only logical solution I have seen has been cyclic cosmology. An infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches is the only way to sidestep the "first mover" problem and seems to be held in great regard and evidence by many physicists.

Much like the concept of infinite space, I think there are certain concepts that the human mind will never really be able to grasp completely. You make a good point about who created the Creator, and if science accepts the idea of infinite space then I suppose it should also be able to accept the concept that God has always existed. Of course the counter argument to that could be that matter has always existed.

There are plenty of people who will argue with you based on religion but I prefer a more scientific approach myself. I'm Christian but I don't necessarily disagree with Jews, Muslims, etc. I think we all have different names for the same Creator.

Mr. Burns
01-26-2012, 06:44 PM
Science is often wrong though. I don't see cyclic cosmology and the existence of a creative force as being in conflict. Our understanding of physics does suggest that the Big Bang started things, and I've read different ideas as to whether the expansion of the universe is slowing down enough to actually eventually lead to a contraction or not. I haven't kept up on it - you probably know more than I do.

What is the harm in 'defaulting to a deity'? Isn't it really another way of admitting we don't know and science can never hope to provide all the answers?

Religion is often wrong. The difference is that science knows when it's wrong and admits openly when it's wrong. And you are still making a burden of proof error. No one will ever disprove god, you are right. Because any time people make a positive assertion about god (as in prayer heals the sick) it is disproved by science. People just change the meaning of god to be amorphous to the point of being indistinguishable from the collective laws that govern our universe.

Mr. Burns
01-26-2012, 06:46 PM
to err on the side of caution is preffered , I would personally rather believe in a master designer than to belive in random chance,

Pascal's wager has no bearing on whether or not an deity exists. God does not exist until he is verified in some form, not that he exists until he is disproved. As I have said, people will just change the meaning of god to always be disprovable.

Mr. Burns
01-26-2012, 06:48 PM
Much like the concept of infinite space, I think there are certain concepts that the human mind will never really be able to grasp completely. You make a good point about who created the Creator, and if science accepts the idea of infinite space then I suppose it should also be able to accept the concept that God has always existed. Of course the counter argument to that could be that matter has always existed.

There are plenty of people who will argue with you based on religion but I prefer a more scientific approach myself. I'm Christian but I don't necessarily disagree with Jews, Muslims, etc. I think we all have different names for the same Creator.

There is a quote about how if you want to understand how stupid humans are, try and grasp infinity. I'm not excluding the concept of infinity for a creator. But it should not be free from the discussion of the universe. Many astrophysicists have theorized that the gradual pull of all celestial objects to a specific region of space correlates with a big crunch, and big bang. The math checks out, but as our planet will not survive that long, it is speculation, as of now.

Conley
01-26-2012, 06:53 PM
Religion is often wrong. The difference is that science knows when it's wrong and admits openly when it's wrong. And you are still making a burden of proof error. No one will ever disprove god, you are right. Because any time people make a positive assertion about god (as in prayer heals the sick) it is disproved by science. People just change the meaning of god to be amorphous to the point of being indistinguishable from the collective laws that govern our universe.

People are often wrong. Whether they admit to it or not is a different story. When you say science knows when it's wrong and admits it openly, that's anthropomorphizing it. There are plenty of scientist who've been wrong and even in the face of competing evidence cling to their beliefs. In my opinion it's the zealots on both sides, religion and science, who are the ones who are missing the bigger picture.

Science as it exists now can't prove in all cases that prayer has no effect on the sick. Now you may say it's placebo effect, you can examine the biology of the patient and see changes, but there is not always a clear answer.

The deeper you go into any field of science, the more complicated the issue, the more nuanced it becomes. It is in that area that absolutes become fewer and fewer. Look at the recent discovery of a sub atomic particle moving faster than light. That broke one of science's laws, did it not?

Mr. Burns
01-26-2012, 06:57 PM
People are often wrong. Whether they admit to it or not is a different story. When you say science knows when it's wrong and admits it openly, that's anthropomorphizing it. There are plenty of scientist who've been wrong and even in the face of competing evidence cling to their beliefs. In my opinion it's the zealots on both sides, religion and science, who are the ones who are missing the bigger picture.

Science as it exists now can't prove in all cases that prayer has no effect on the sick. Now you may say it's placebo effect, you can examine the biology of the patient and see changes, but there is not always a clear answer.

The deeper you go into any field of science, the more complicated the issue, the more nuanced it becomes. It is in that area that absolutes become fewer and fewer. Look at the recent discovery of a sub atomic particle moving faster than light. That broke one of science's laws, did it not?

People are often wrong, but when you exclude absolute knowledge, you teeter on the ledge of epistemological nothingness. Scientific zealots are almost always laughed out of a job. As far as prayer goes, you are still saying that science can't prove that prayer doesn't work. That's not the point. You can't disprove a negative, it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Which still is your argument for the existence of god.

Conley
01-26-2012, 07:05 PM
Again, I believe you are generalizing scientists. They're human and thus have all the same flaws, hubris, ignorance, etc.

I cannot prove the existence of prayer, nor can I prove the existence of God.

Science could prove that prayer doesn't work if it accounted for every case of healing. It does not.

A true scientist would say that when one cannot rule out a potential cause the possibility must be considered, however unlikely. Even the basis of so many studies are predicated on the five percent rule, that p < .05 and that there is a greater than 95% chance the null hypothesis should be rejected.

Drug companies love that law, because they can test a pill for twenty treatments (depression, smoking cessation, appetite suppresent, etc.) and it will be proven effective for one of those twenty just by virtue of the laws that science has made. There are many such standards in the scientific community which don't hold up as air tight on closer inspection as many would have you believe.

Mr. Burns
01-26-2012, 07:08 PM
Again, I believe you are generalizing scientists. They're human and thus have all the same flaws, hubris, ignorance, etc.

I cannot prove the existence of prayer, nor can I prove the existence of God.

Science could prove that prayer doesn't work if it accounted for every case of healing. It does not.

A true scientist would say that when one cannot rule out a potential cause the possibility must be considered, however unlikely. Even the basis of so many studies are predicated on the five percent rule, that p < .05 and that there is a greater than 95% chance the null hypothesis should be rejected.

Drug companies love that law, because they can test a pill for twenty treatments (depression, smoking cessation, appetite suppresent, etc.) and it will be proven effective for one of those twenty just by virtue of the laws that science has made. There are many such standards in the scientific community which don't hold up as air tight on closer inspection as many would have you believe.

Then why believe in him?

Conley
01-26-2012, 07:12 PM
It's not even a conscious choice, it is just my belief. I believe many things I can't prove...I suppose that is faith. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, I believe my family (edit: originally I wrote 'my dog' :laugh:) loves me, there are many such beliefs I hold that I can never hope to prove. If I held all of my life to such a rigorous burden of proof I think it would be fairly empty.

Mr. Burns
01-26-2012, 07:18 PM
It's not even a conscious choice, it is just my belief. I believe many things I can't prove...I suppose that is faith. I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, I believe my family (edit: originally I wrote 'my dog' :laugh:) loves me, there are many such beliefs I hold that I can never hope to prove. If I held all of my life to such a rigorous burden of proof I think it would be fairly empty.

Belief in god is always a choice. You family loves you because they support you. The sun will come up tomorrow because of gravity. God is not like that homeslice.

Conley
01-26-2012, 07:21 PM
Belief in god is always a choice. You family loves you because they support you. The sun will come up tomorrow because of gravity. God is not like that homeslice.

Why not though?

wingrider
01-27-2012, 12:49 AM
Pascal's wager has no bearing on whether or not an deity exists. God does not exist until he is verified in some form, not that he exists until he is disproved. As I have said, people will just change the meaning of god to always be disprovable.

and in my opinion the fact that you exist is proof that god exists.. and it also proves that God has a fine sense of humor.

wingrider
01-27-2012, 12:53 AM
Belief in god is always a choice. You family loves you because they support you. The sun will come up tomorrow because of gravity. God is not like that homeslice.

the sun comes up because of gravity?? ok

wingrider
01-27-2012, 01:07 AM
do you want to know what is really pointless.

discussing the concept of God with anyone that has a bias about his existance or non existance.. it truly is an exercise in futility.

MMC
01-27-2012, 07:01 AM
the sun comes up because of gravity?? ok

Uhm yeah, I think I am with you on this one. The Sun comes up due to gravity? Well to be truthful, I think it has been right in the same spot for several billion years. Maybe slighty moving with the wobble affect. :rollseyes:

Weebles wobble but they don't fall down! :kiss:

Course that don't count exploding inside out. :wink:

Mister D
01-27-2012, 09:36 AM
Indeed, why is there something rather than nothing? We don't know and we never will know the answer to that question. There are limits to our comprehension. That's not a cop out. It's just a fact. God cannot be proved or disproved but I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe that existence has an ultimate foundation.

Mister D
01-27-2012, 09:42 AM
Pascal's wager has no bearing on whether or not an deity exists. God does not exist until he is verified in some form, not that he exists until he is disproved. As I have said, people will just change the meaning of god to always be disprovable.

Change the meaning of God? What does that mean? As far as verifiability is concerned, logical positivism is no longer taken seriously as a theory of knowledge.

The point of Pascal's Wager is not that to err on the suide of caution but that agnosticism is not a real position. You are in the game. You must wager. You believe or you do not believe. I don't know= no.

Mister D
01-27-2012, 09:43 AM
Belief in god is always a choice. You family loves you because they support you. The sun will come up tomorrow because of gravity. God is not like that homeslice.

You do not know that your family loves you or that the sun will come up tomorrow. Human beings are actually capable of knowing much at all.

roadmaster
01-27-2012, 10:23 AM
That's an easy question for me. He called me and I have seen the afterlife.

Pendragon
01-27-2012, 10:26 AM
That's an easy question for me. He called me and I have seen the afterlife.

Forgive me for prying however I would enjoy reading the full story should you wish to share it.

roadmaster
01-27-2012, 01:00 PM
Forgive me for prying however I would enjoy reading the full story should you wish to share it.
Pend if someone else told me this and I didn’t believe I would think they were nuts. I have seen the spirits of the dead. My first uncle in his early thirties and I am not talking about when I saw things as a very young child. I didn’t know my uncle was dead or had just died in the hospital. I thought he was still in Virginia getting treatment and I lived in SC. I wasn’t asleep walking around the house and I saw him. He smiled talked about how he missed us all and let me know he had to go for now but would see me later. I was in the six grade and it was the summer months. A few hours after my parents came in the door upset letting me know my Uncle had died the same time I was talking to him. I can’t explain or try to convince you different. That’s just one of many.

Conley
01-27-2012, 01:27 PM
Wow Roadmaster, that is interesting stuff. Just to play Devil's Advocate (:evil: :grin:) do you think a psychic experience like that make God's existence more likely? Or is it just ESP?

roadmaster
01-27-2012, 06:17 PM
Wow Roadmaster, that is interesting stuff. Just to play Devil's Advocate (:evil: :grin:) do you think a psychic experience like that make God's existence more likely? Or is it just ESP?

I don’t consider it a psychic experience because I never try to talk to the dead it’s against by beliefs and God warned us of this. I think my uncle was just saying goodbye for now. God has spoken to my heart many times but I don’t think I have ever heard His voice. Even coming back from work one day in College, going fast as usual trying to get home, I heard a voice telling me to slow down. I paused, slowed down and right around the curve a grown cow was in my lane. If I had not slowed down, no telling how bad the wreck would have been. I have even faced demons or concerned spirits in my life. That’s why no one can tell me there is no afterlife and the Devil isn’t real.

Elibe
01-27-2012, 06:24 PM
woah powerful stuff

Conley
01-27-2012, 06:39 PM
I don’t consider it a psychic experience because I never try to talk to the dead it’s against by beliefs and God warned us of this. I think my uncle was just saying goodbye for now. God has spoken to my heart many times but I don’t think I have ever heard His voice. Even coming back from work one day in College, going fast as usual trying to get home, I heard a voice telling me to slow down. I paused, slowed down and right around the curve a grown cow was in my lane. If I had not slowed down, no telling how bad the wreck would have been. I have even faced demons or concerned spirits in my life. That’s why no one can tell me there is no afterlife and the Devil isn’t real.

Thanks for explaining a bit more RM. Interesting distinctions you make there. It sounds like you've got someone looking out for you, definitely a good thing. For the record I don't think you're nuts at all. There is a lot that science can't explain, like I said already.

Mister D
01-27-2012, 08:00 PM
Wow Roadmaster, that is interesting stuff. Just to play Devil's Advocate (:evil: :grin:) do you think a psychic experience like that make God's existence more likely? Or is it just ESP?

It's entirely dependent on our own predispositions. You allow for such possibilities or you do not.

roadmaster
01-27-2012, 08:33 PM
Here is one for you. When I was young, woke up at my Grandmothers on my Dads side, (was spending the night with her) Went to the kitchen for a glass of water. Got a glass and got water, turned around make a sandwich. Before I got up from the table, looked out one of the windows because I heard a noise. It was very breezy that night. There was a barn with a loft, all of a sudden the door to the loft swung open. I saw a lanky tall man with a rope around his neck. With his head down, he lifted his head and started laughing. Never told anyone until around 5 years later while on the porch with my Dad at my house. Now that night right after running back to the bed, I keep pinching myself thinking it was a bad dream but it wasn’t. When I told my Dad he asked me how I knew. They never kept any pictures of that man and I could still describe him head to toe. In fact they never talked about him because he was one of my Grandmothers brothers that had in fact hung himself in that loft. To this day I can still see him and remember what he looked like and the clothes he wore. I have yet to figure out why I was the one that saw him. Ok course Dad thought at the time it must had been a nightmare or that's what he said at the time but you could tell it bothered him. Years later I talked to him again in my mid 20’s about it. He admitted then their was no way I could have know this. I think it scared him more than me.

Next I will talk about the spirits or demons. They surrounded me once. I can't explain why these things happen but it's real.

Conley
01-27-2012, 09:04 PM
Wow, now that is a trip. I believe in God like I said...for me stories like that don't add or subtract from my belief but I do find those kinds of phenomenon interesting. It definitely seems like you are more attuned than most to that kind of paranormal activity, or maybe they seek you out for some reason? I've never had anything like that happen to me. I don't think it's because I'm close minded. If something like that happened to me though I would probably freak out big time.

Mister D
01-27-2012, 09:07 PM
Now I'm getting creeped out. :shocked:

Conley
01-27-2012, 09:25 PM
Now I'm getting creeped out. :shocked:

Do you consider it a sin to speak to the dead? Do Christians generally believe that?

The reason I ask is because RM mentioned that God warned us against it.

cindy
01-27-2012, 09:41 PM
I believe in both God and ghosts. These ol' eyes have seen a lot, too much I can't explain.

Mister D
01-27-2012, 09:47 PM
Do we have any nihilists here?

Conley
01-27-2012, 10:00 PM
Nihilism seems like a downer to me.

Mister D
01-27-2012, 10:05 PM
Nihilism seems like a downer to me.

Well, it is to me too. I'm just curious. I'm not saying those who do not believe in God are necessarily nihilists. I doubt more than a handful of them are. It's a very difficult...nay impossible concept to accept but some men have tried.

Conley
01-27-2012, 10:11 PM
Oh yes, I'm glad you asked but I doubt we'll get any takers. Remember that guy Zakdeth? Maybe he was one, but he couldn't really put together a coherent argument. Actually scratch that, I think he was a Satanist. :laugh:

Mister D
01-27-2012, 10:18 PM
Ha! I remember that kid. I think he was a young teenager. 16 tops. Lil' Libs elder but still a youngster. :grin:

It's food for thought. Obviously, there are moral atheists. Men can be moral without believing in God but one of the reasons I choose to believe is that it gives my trust in life and reality an ultimate justification. There is right and wrong and my life has meaning. We all live as if life means something even if we never think about it. I've taken to thinking about it quite a bit.

Conley
01-27-2012, 10:21 PM
Haha, yes Lil' Lib's satanic brother. :laugh:

Your statement makes sense. I think I would be moral, even if I were an atheist, simply because I function best that way. Generally speaking I believe moral behavior leads to the most positive outcome. There are some people who can plunder their way through life and are seemingly successful but I could never bring myself to do it. I suppose I could qualify as immoral if you count laziness.

roadmaster
01-27-2012, 10:47 PM
I don’t know, you know most of the time I tried to find a reason or dismissed what I saw espically in my rebellious teenage years. I saw a lot growing up. One year after I was married my husband had to be out of town for a couple of weeks due to his job. Everything was fine, went to work came home, no problems. We were renting a house then. The second week, got home, warmed up some food I had made the day before. Took it to the bedroom, placed it on the table beside my bed, looked up and saw three elderly men and one woman in chairs in the bedroom. They were all staring at me. They started talking but I have no idea what they were saying. Didn’t know the language. I was frozen for don’t know how long. Started toward the door and the door slammed. That’s when I knew and started praying out-loud. They thought it was funny and I demanded them to leave in Jesus’ name. They disappeared and trust me it scared me but I knew where my Master was.
To this day, that has never happened again but I am not afraid of the dark and He was there to protect me.
These people didn’t look like I thought demons would look like. Looked like regular people but I felt their presence. To this day I can feel things sometimes. Even at the mall while shopping with my daughter 8 years ago I felt a presence, turned around and no this wasn’t a dead person but I knew who he worked for. Not afraid of these people and I think my experiences made me strong.
Many more things I can tell you and God does give signs just like He did with my Dad before and after he passed. I asked Him if he was ok and He answered. He answers questions in His own ways. A burning cross appeared on my door.

When you talk to people who don’t believe you can’t prove He exist. But for me, I know without a shadow of doubt that He does.

So this is my answer as to why I believe.

Mr. Burns
01-27-2012, 10:55 PM
Do we have any nihilists here?

Yes actually. Life is devoid of spiritual meaning, save for what we ascribe to the blankness. I guess it ties in to my belief in god; a concept we invent to save us from the crushing emptiness of reality.

Mr. Burns
01-27-2012, 10:58 PM
Ha! I remember that kid. I think he was a young teenager. 16 tops. Lil' Libs elder but still a youngster. :grin:

It's food for thought. Obviously, there are moral atheists. Men can be moral without believing in God but one of the reasons I choose to believe is that it gives my trust in life and reality an ultimate justification. There is right and wrong and my life has meaning. We all live as if life means something even if we never think about it. I've taken to thinking about it quite a bit.

I think everyone has morals independent of religion. We have morals and values in society which are debated and agreed upon which have no bearing on theology. If moral absolutes became of religious text, then we would still stone people for working on the Sabbath and encourage slavery and abuse of women. Morality is flexible and should be.

Also, I like to think I behave morally because of empathy and kindness rather than fear of eternal punishment :tongue:

Elibe
01-27-2012, 11:18 PM
that is a decent point
you shouldn't need religion to be a good person

i read a quote the other day that got me thinking went something like this:

in the absence of religion good men will do good things but only religion can make good men do bad things

in other words some of the very religious people will shun or kill others just because they think it is their duty if it weren't for religion they would be live and let live

Mr. Burns
01-27-2012, 11:20 PM
that is a decent point
you shouldn't need religion to be a good person

i read a quote the other day that got me thinking went something like this:

in the absence of religion good men will do good things but only religion can make good men do bad things

in other words some of the very religious people will shun or kill others just because they think it is their duty if it weren't for religion they would be live and let live

It's not fair to blame religion for people acting like shits (except in very extremist cases). Bad people will do bad things, but religion explains it away, it gives justification.

Elibe
01-27-2012, 11:23 PM
but sometimes those people really believe they're doing a good thing

don't just think of it as christians in the us i'm talking about muslim suicide bombers or whoever

immoral people will do bad things no matter what

Mr. Burns
01-27-2012, 11:23 PM
Like homophobia. It's almost impossible to rationalize homophobia without religion. But it's in the Bible, so it's very easy.

Elibe
01-27-2012, 11:25 PM
yes you nailed it

Mr. Burns
01-27-2012, 11:47 PM
Cheers :cheers:

Mister D
01-28-2012, 09:54 AM
Like homophobia. It's almost impossible to rationalize homophobia without religion. But it's in the Bible, so it's very easy.

Homophobia is a made up term to smear political opponents. Moreover, homosexuality has been looked down upon across many different cultures and throughout human history. There is no necessary connection to religion.

Mister D
01-28-2012, 09:55 AM
It's not fair to blame religion for people acting like shits (except in very extremist cases). Bad people will do bad things, but religion explains it away, it gives justification.

So does politics. Should we do away with politics?

Conley
01-28-2012, 09:57 AM
So does politics. Should we do away with politics?

Ahh touche. That is a good counter. :laugh:

Mister D
01-28-2012, 09:57 AM
Yes actually. Life is devoid of spiritual meaning, save for what we ascribe to the blankness. I guess it ties in to my belief in god; a concept we invent to save us from the crushing emptiness of reality.

What you mean is that you believe that life is devoid of meaning altogether. There is no "spiritual" meaning. OK. You can't actually live that way but thank you for being honest.

Mister D
01-28-2012, 09:59 AM
I think everyone has morals independent of religion. We have morals and values in society which are debated and agreed upon which have no bearing on theology. If moral absolutes became of religious text, then we would still stone people for working on the Sabbath and encourage slavery and abuse of women. Morality is flexible and should be.

Also, I like to think I behave morally because of empathy and kindness rather than fear of eternal punishment :tongue:

If morality is not objective and absolute it's without foundation. It's not "flexible" but subject to our whims. That's not a world I want to live in.

I try to behave morally not because of empathy and kindness, which can quickly and easily turn to contempt or indifference, but because I believe it's the way I am supposed to behave as a human being. I can say that because I believe in God.

Mr. Burns
01-30-2012, 03:42 PM
Morality is without foundation. We ascribe morality to the world for the benefit of human kind. Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive. Where do moral absolutes come from then?

Mister D
01-30-2012, 03:59 PM
Morality is without foundation. We ascribe morality to the world for the benefit of human kind. Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive. Where do moral absolutes come from then?

Thank you. That's an honest perspective. Since I believe in God I have an answer to that question. I do believe that life and reality has meaning and purpose. I do believe that morality has a foundation. Mind you, I'm just speaking in general terms. I'm not trying to proselytize.

Mr. Burns
01-30-2012, 04:03 PM
Thank you. That's an honest perspective. Since I believe in God I have an answer to that question. I do believe that life and reality has meaning and purpose. I do believe that morality has a foundation. Mind you, I'm just speaking in general terms. I'm not trying to proselytize.

I believe that life has meaning, but only so far in the sense that man gives himself and others meaning. I have to localize morality and the meaning of life because of my lack of faith, but I don't believe this is totally irrational.

Mr. Burns
01-30-2012, 04:09 PM
You definitely have to abandon absolutism as an atheist and do have to account for randomness. But being existential in the morality and philosophy department is at least somewhat defensible.

Mister D
01-30-2012, 04:21 PM
I believe that life has meaning, but only so far in the sense that man gives himself and others meaning. I have to localize morality and the meaning of life because of my lack of faith, but I don't believe this is totally irrational.


Understood. One cannot prove or disprove nihilism anymore than one can prove or disprove God.

Mister D
01-30-2012, 04:24 PM
You definitely have to abandon absolutism as an atheist and do have to account for randomness. But being existential in the morality and philosophy department is at least somewhat defensible.

Oh, it's intellectually defensible. No doubt about that.

Mr. Burns
01-30-2012, 04:27 PM
That's always the split between the religion and nonreligious. Personally, I sit on the side that finds the evidence for God's existence lacking. Since I am refuting a positive assertion, the other side has the burden to convince me otherwise. Since I personally believe that's God's existence isn't necessary to orchestrate the universe we live in, I do not believe in him, until compelled.

Mister D
01-30-2012, 04:33 PM
That's always the split between the religion and nonreligious. Personally, I sit on the side that finds the evidence for God's existence lacking. Since I am refuting a positive assertion, the other side has the burden to convince me otherwise. Since I personally believe that's God's existence isn't necessary to orchestrate the universe we live in, I do not believe in him, until compelled.

God can't be proved or disproved. Neither can your own POV. These are choices we make about our approach to reality.

Mr. Burns
01-30-2012, 04:37 PM
God can't be proved or disproved. Neither can your own POV. These are choices we make about our approach to reality.

Agreed. However, we can prove or disprove positive assertions about God (e.g. prayer healing the sick). However, I'm not meant to be prove my position. Claims must be laid in evidence before they are accepted as true. You wouldn't say unicorns exist because we can't prove they don't exist. Said logic can "prove" anything. Our existence in the universe is attributed to God most often, but since we don't know, we don't know. Not it's God until we prove otherwise. Back to that whole burden of proof rant I had with conely.

Mr. Burns
01-30-2012, 04:49 PM
Also, as far as the "religion excuses being a dick" argument, I don't believe religion should be done away with. I just a) believe it is unfortunate that in the U.S. we discriminate against homosexuals on the grounds of religion and that b) it is considered OK that we do so because of "freedom of religion." Holding slaves is considered OK in the bible, yet we can't own people on the grounds of "religious freedom."

Mister D
01-30-2012, 05:09 PM
Yet there is something instead of nothing. Why? You walk on the same uncertain ground that I walk on. Does reality and life have any real meaning? Again, you walk on the same uncertain ground that I walk on. We make choices about how we deal with the uncertainties of human existence. Indeed, one can say that uncertainty is part and parcel of our existence. We're both uncertain and we will remain uncertain as long as we're here. I choose to believe and you do not. "I don't know" is to say that you do not believe as Pascal pointed out many years ago. You believe or you don't. You're in the game. You must place your wager.

Edit: IMO, reason demands an answer to the questions we have about our existence regardless of how uncertain we may be in the end.

Mister D
01-30-2012, 05:33 PM
Also, as far as the "religion excuses being a dick" argument, I don't believe religion should be done away with. I just a) believe it is unfortunate that in the U.S. we discriminate against homosexuals on the grounds of religion and that b) it is considered OK that we do so because of "freedom of religion." Holding slaves is considered OK in the bible, yet we can't own people on the grounds of "religious freedom."

Who argues that and who discriminates on religious grounds? The latter is illegal, no?

Mr. Burns
01-30-2012, 06:20 PM
Who argues that and who discriminates on religious grounds? The latter is illegal, no?

Any number of religions. Pick one.

Mr. Burns
01-30-2012, 06:24 PM
Yet there is something instead of nothing. Why? You walk on the same uncertain ground that I walk on. Does reality and life have any real meaning? Again, you walk on the same uncertain ground that I walk on. We make choices about how we deal with the uncertainties of human existence. Indeed, one can say that uncertainty is part and parcel of our existence. We're both uncertain and we will remain uncertain as long as we're here. I choose to believe and you do not. "I don't know" is to say that you do not believe as Pascal pointed out many years ago. You believe or you don't. You're in the game. You must place your wager.

Edit: IMO, reason demands an answer to the questions we have about our existence regardless of how uncertain we may be in the end.

But uncertainty does not affirm belief in a deity. Uncertainty means uncertainty, not "god by default" as it were.

Mister D
01-30-2012, 07:39 PM
But uncertainty does not affirm belief in a deity. Uncertainty means uncertainty, not "god by default" as it were.

Of course not. I'm not saying it does. I can't affirm (by which I presume you mean empirically verify) that there is a God but, as I said, we're here. There is a universe. Why is there something instead of nothing? However we decide to confront the uncertainties surrounding human existence and it's meaning our answers to those age old questions are impossible to verify yet human reason demands an answer. Nihilism is one answer. Theism is another. My point is that your position is no more reasonable or valid than mine. I choose to approach reality as if it has a genuine purpose. I choose to live my life as if it had a genuine purpose. One must decide. One may not sit on the fence. Agnosticism is disbelief.

Mister D
01-30-2012, 07:43 PM
Any number of religions. Pick one.

How are homosexuals discriminated against and by whom? That's illegal in this country and I see no necessary connection between an aversion to homosexuality and religious belief either historically or globally. The ancient Romans mocked homosexuals and modern the officially atheist states of the 20th century persecuted homosexuals.

wingrider
01-31-2012, 12:17 AM
here is something to consider, God calls Homosexuality an abomination, now if some of you have an issue with Gods viewpoint take it up with him . when you see him.

Mr. Burns
01-31-2012, 10:05 PM
here is something to consider, God calls Homosexuality an abomination, now if some of you have an issue with Gods viewpoint take it up with him . when you see him.

Here is something to consider further still. Eating shellfish, mixing forms of cotton, sowing discord among others, remarrying a woman you have divorced, and taking the customs of other religions are all abominations in the Bible.

Mr. Burns
01-31-2012, 10:07 PM
Of course not. I'm not saying it does. I can't affirm (by which I presume you mean empirically verify) that there is a God but, as I said, we're here. There is a universe. Why is there something instead of nothing? However we decide to confront the uncertainties surrounding human existence and it's meaning our answers to those age old questions are impossible to verify yet human reason demands an answer. Nihilism is one answer. Theism is another. My point is that your position is no more reasonable or valid than mine. I choose to approach reality as if it has a genuine purpose. I choose to live my life as if it had a genuine purpose. One must decide. One may not sit on the fence. Agnosticism is disbelief.

At this point, I'm going to agree to disagree.

Mr. Burns
01-31-2012, 10:11 PM
How are homosexuals discriminated against and by whom? That's illegal in this country and I see no necessary connection between an aversion to homosexuality and religious belief either historically or globally. The ancient Romans mocked homosexuals and modern the officially atheist states of the 20th century persecuted homosexuals.

Homosexuals are shunned by nearly every practicing religion. What if there are religious homosexuals? Furthermore, what do you mean by official atheist states? Such as the U.S.? You are correct in saying sexual bigotry has always existed, but we turn a blind eye to it, in our country at least, on the grounds of religion? If this is not the case, why do we deny them the right to marry?

Mister D
01-31-2012, 10:28 PM
Homosexuals are shunned by nearly every practicing religion. What if there are religious homosexuals? Furthermore, what do you mean by official atheist states? Such as the U.S.? You are correct in saying sexual bigotry has always existed, but we turn a blind eye to it, in our country at least, on the grounds of religion? If this is not the case, why do we deny them the right to marry?

So? Homosexuality has been frowned upon in most cultures whether ancient or modern. By officially atheist, I am referring to such states as the USSR and China. The US is not officially atheist. Communist states generally are by definition but usually their atheism is explicit. In any case, they persecuted homosexuals.

We turn a blind eye to the persecution of homosexuals in the US? Again, it's illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. I hardly call that turning a blind eye. Homosexuals are not permitted to marry because the institution and concept of marriage has always involved the union of a male and a female. This is true throughout human history. Only in the modern, liberal, and solipsistic west could such an inane concept (i.e. a homosexual marriage) become a cause that anyone could take seriously.

Mr. Burns
01-31-2012, 10:39 PM
So? Homosexuality has been frowned upon in most cultures whether ancient or modern. By officially atheist, I am referring to such states as the USSR and China. The US is not officially atheist. Communist states generally are by definition but usually their atheism is explicit. In any case, they persecuted homosexuals.

We turn a blind eye to the persecution of homosexuals in the US? Again, it's illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. I hardly call that turning a blind eye. Homosexuals are not permitted to marry because the institution and concept of marriage has always involved the union of a male and a female. This is true throughout human history. Only in the modern, liberal, and solipsistic west could such an inane concept (i.e. a homosexual marriage) become a cause that anyone could take seriously.

Discrimination in church. Churches, for all intents and purposes, is a private place where people worship. Churches can legally excommunicate someone for being homosexual. Would this be the same if they did so because they were black? We have anti-discriminatory laws in place even for private business and the like, so why is religion exempt?

My original point stands; religion excuses homophobia. In "atheist states" there is no defense for said discrimination. They were, and are openly bigoted. But religion gives people the veil of "religious freedom" to hide behind and make it socially acceptable.

As for gay marriage, yes, it is a comparatively trivial issue, however why does anyone care? If two consenting adults want a piece of paper saying they are married, I don't see why the government decides that this is unmoral.

Peter1469
01-31-2012, 10:49 PM
Homosexuality is anti-evolution.

Mr. Burns
01-31-2012, 10:50 PM
Homosexuality is anti-evolution.

Homosexuals are outside the reproductive pool. They don't help or harm. And let's face it, modern medicine is more a harm to evolution than anything else.

Conley
01-31-2012, 10:56 PM
Homosexuals are outside the reproductive pool. They don't help or harm. And let's face it, modern medicine is more a harm to evolution than anything else.

Yes, with eyeglasses, vaccines, and antibiotics we've altered thousands of years of evolution.

Peter1469
01-31-2012, 10:59 PM
Homosexuals are outside the reproductive pool. They don't help or harm. And let's face it, modern medicine is more a harm to evolution than anything else.

That is certainly true.

Mister D
02-01-2012, 08:53 AM
Discrimination in church. Churches, for all intents and purposes, is a private place where people worship. Churches can legally excommunicate someone for being homosexual. Would this be the same if they did so because they were black? We have anti-discriminatory laws in place even for private business and the like, so why is religion exempt?

My original point stands; religion excuses homophobia. In "atheist states" there is no defense for said discrimination. They were, and are openly bigoted. But religion gives people the veil of "religious freedom" to hide behind and make it socially acceptable.

As for gay marriage, yes, it is a comparatively trivial issue, however why does anyone care? If two consenting adults want a piece of paper saying they are married, I don't see why the government decides that this is unmoral.

Ah, so by "discrimination" we mean attitudes you don't like. You aren't referring to anything illegal or even immoral but our liberty to associate with whom we please. Of course churches have this liberty. Shouldn't they? Should they accept everyone? By what criteria should they judge who may be a part of their community and who may not? Should they use your critera? Are you seriously suggesting there ought to be laws forbidding a church from such "discrimination"? Hey, should I be able to dscriminate when I choose a mechanic or someone to remodel my bathroom?

There is no such thing as homophobia. It's a made up term to smear those with whom gay radicals disagree. In any case, I don't think "discrimination" is socially acceptable. Quite the contrary.

The government hasn't decided it's immoral but the government will parade this inanity as a huge step in civil rights in a sadly successful effort to conceal their ineffectiveness and utter incompetence at every level.

Mister D
02-01-2012, 08:57 AM
Homosexuals are outside the reproductive pool. They don't help or harm. And let's face it, modern medicine is more a harm to evolution than anything else.

So is the welfare state via its dysgenic effects on our species.

Mr. Burns
02-01-2012, 11:43 AM
Ah, so by "discrimination" we mean attitudes you don't like. You aren't referring to anything illegal or even immoral but our liberty to associate with whom we please. Of course churches have this liberty. Shouldn't they? Should they accept everyone? By what criteria should they judge who may be a part of their community and who may not? Should they use your critera? Are you seriously suggesting there ought to be laws forbidding a church from such "discrimination"? Hey, should I be able to dscriminate when I choose a mechanic or someone to remodel my bathroom?

There is no such thing as homophobia. It's a made up term to smear those with whom gay radicals disagree. In any case, I don't think "discrimination" is socially acceptable. Quite the contrary.

The government hasn't decided it's immoral but the government will parade this inanity as a huge step in civil rights in a sadly successful effort to conceal their ineffectiveness and utter incompetence at every level.

By that logic, business owners should be allowed to ban black people or Muslims from their property and I should accept this because we're free to associate with whomever we want?

jgreer
02-01-2012, 11:49 AM
By that logic, business owners should be allowed to ban black people or Muslims from their property and I should accept this because we're free to associate with whomever we want?

I think that Mister Dee would be ok with that

Mister D
02-01-2012, 11:58 AM
By that logic, business owners should be allowed to ban black people or Muslims from their property and I should accept this because we're free to associate with whomever we want?

Churches and other private associations are exempt from the Civil Rights Act, Burns. Would you have the government expand the Commerce Clause even further to cover virtually any and all human activity? Why the authoritarian disposition?

Mister D
02-01-2012, 11:59 AM
I think that Mister Dee would be ok with that

I've heard good arguments from both sides of that issue.

Mr. Burns
02-01-2012, 04:14 PM
Churches and other private associations are exempt from the Civil Rights Act, Burns. Would you have the government expand the Commerce Clause even further to cover virtually any and all human activity? Why the authoritarian disposition?

Exactly. Religion is allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion. Which isn't something anyone else is afforded. It's a matter of consistency.

Mister D
02-01-2012, 04:22 PM
Exactly. Religion is allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion. Which isn't something anyone else is afforded. It's a matter of consistency.

So are all private clubs and associations. It's none of the government's business. Or your's for that matter. I discriminated when chose a contractor just last month. Should that be allowed?

Conley
02-01-2012, 04:23 PM
As divided as the Supreme Court has become in recent years they seem fairly unanimous on this point.

Mister D
02-01-2012, 04:28 PM
As divided as the Supreme Court has become in recent years they seem fairly unanimous on this point.

I would hope so.

wingrider
02-01-2012, 06:34 PM
By that logic, business owners should be allowed to ban black people or Muslims from their property and I should accept this because we're free to associate with whomever we want?


damn straight. if I invest my money and my time, and my expertise in building a business the fucking government has no business telling me whom I have to hire and whom i have to give service to,

it looks to me like America is at a crossroads here, we are either going to go totally Nanny State or we are going to a police state, I don't see a middle ground here at all

Mr. Burns
02-01-2012, 09:07 PM
So are all private clubs and associations. It's none of the government's business. Or your's for that matter. I discriminated when chose a contractor just last month. Should that be allowed?

This would be true, but we do have laws mandating that you can't discriminate based on race. Again, the point is that religion makes bigotry "respectable" as far as homosexuals are concerned. And if homosexuals do not choose their sexuality on the whole, why is it more or less correct to discriminate against them than it is to discriminate against blacks?

Mister D
02-01-2012, 09:45 PM
This would be true, but we do have laws mandating that you can't discriminate based on race. Again, the point is that religion makes bigotry "respectable" as far as homosexuals are concerned. And if homosexuals do not choose their sexuality on the whole, why is it more or less correct to discriminate against them than it is to discriminate against blacks?

We have laws that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, sexual orientation, religion, etc but they do not and hopefully never will apply to private clubs, churches, associations etc. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this. How do you think such laws should apply to churches and other private associations etc.? It's correct for some religious groups to "discriminate" against homosexuals because they said it's correct. You may of course disagree but as a nihilist it's kind of pointless. What I really want to know is what you think should be done about it?

Conley
02-01-2012, 09:47 PM
damn straight. if I invest my money and my time, and my expertise in building a business the fucking government has no business telling me whom I have to hire and whom i have to give service to,

it looks to me like America is at a crossroads here, we are either going to go totally Nanny State or we are going to a police state, I don't see a middle ground here at all

I don't know I see it ending up as a Nanny Police State. The federal government has the most power it has ever had and the lines between the police and the military have never been more blurred. Throw in stuff like NDAA and the path we're on seems clear.

Conley
02-01-2012, 09:48 PM
This would be true, but we do have laws mandating that you can't discriminate based on race. Again, the point is that religion makes bigotry "respectable" as far as homosexuals are concerned. And if homosexuals do not choose their sexuality on the whole, why is it more or less correct to discriminate against them than it is to discriminate against blacks?

I would guess that most religions don't accept this; in other words they believe that homosexuality is a choice.

Mister D
02-01-2012, 09:50 PM
I would guess that most religions don't accept this; in other words they believe that homosexuality is a choice.

I know some evangelicals do. The admins at The Congress do.

Conley
02-01-2012, 09:51 PM
Never mind, I'm an editing fool. I had too much crack tonight.

Mister D
02-01-2012, 09:52 PM
Crap, I left out the word "don't"

Cool. It changed my quote box too. That's a neat feature.

Conley
02-01-2012, 09:53 PM
Cool. It changed my quote box too. That's a neat feature.

Stop quoting my typos! :rofl:

That is a cool feature, I didn't know it did that. That could be used as a weapon. :grin:

Mister D
02-01-2012, 09:55 PM
Stop quoting my typos! :rofl:

That is a cool feature, I didn't know it did that. That could be used as a weapon. :grin:

It was obvious what you meant. :laugh:

Conley
02-01-2012, 09:57 PM
It was obvious what you meant. :laugh:

Not to me apparently. :laugh:

Chris
02-05-2012, 09:25 PM
I neither believe nor disbelieve in god. Why? No reason to. Belief and disbelief require faith, but faith in what? To answer that requires reason.

Conley
02-05-2012, 09:28 PM
Why does not believing in God require faith? Couldn't one not believe simply for lack of evidence? I think that might be Mr. Burns's position.

Chris
02-05-2012, 09:40 PM
I think not believing--nonbelief--is different than disbelieving. Just as belief requires putting faith in god's existence, disbelieve requires putting faith in god's nonexistence. Nonbelief is neither. And it's not just lack of evidence but lack of logic, there's no reason to believe or disbelieve. Someone earlier pointed out neither god's existence nor nonexistence can be proved; I don't think anything can be proved, except in pure mathematics or logic, and those are artificial universes.

Yes, it might be Burn's position, just different words, but I'm not going to interpret them and tell him what he meant, that's for him to explain.

Conley
02-05-2012, 09:48 PM
So you are a nonbeliever, not a disbeliever and it's based on logic?

Chris
02-05-2012, 10:00 PM
Nonbeliever, based on no reason (evidence and/or logic) to believe or disbelieve.

wingrider
02-06-2012, 07:36 AM
[QUOTE=Chris;38475]Nonbeliever, based on no reason (evidence and/or logic) to believe or disbelieve.[/QUOTE

you better hope you are correct.. cause you are betting the farm on it

Chris
02-06-2012, 09:50 PM
Betting the farm on what? What god was Pascal betting on?

wingrider
02-07-2012, 12:26 AM
this isn't about pascals wager or any other such philosophy, this is about whether or not you have an eternal soul and where it will spend eternity.

so you better be correct when you say that God does not exist or you don't believe in Him.. good luck with your choice.

Chris
02-07-2012, 08:50 AM
this isn't about pascals wager or any other such philosophy, this is about whether or not you have an eternal soul and where it will spend eternity.

so you better be correct when you say that God does not exist or you don't believe in Him.. good luck with your choice.
What you're arguing is Pascal's Wager. So I ask you, what if you bet on the wrong god? Feeling lucky?

Also, please read what I post, I did not say God does not exist or that I disbelieve. I said I lack faith in, well, perhaps you could tell me what god is that you think I should gamble on?

roadmaster
02-07-2012, 11:01 PM
I know some evangelicals do. The admins at The Congress do.



You are correct.

wingrider
02-08-2012, 12:01 AM
What you're arguing is Pascal's Wager. So I ask you, what if you bet on the wrong god? Feeling lucky?

Also, please read what I post, I did not say God does not exist or that I disbelieve. I said I lack faith in, well, perhaps you could tell me what god is that you think I should gamble on?

there is only one creator/God any other belief system is panthiesm, and I don't really care if you gamble or not with your soul, like the man says " ya pays your money and ya takes your chances".. I am not going to tell anyone what to believe or disbelive that is none of my business, all I say is whatever you believe or disbelieve you better be right.

roadmaster
02-08-2012, 02:14 AM
You see Christians are not going to be able to convince you God exist. Our job is to plant a seed but we can’t make it grow. In your heart you will know when He speaks to your heart and you will either listen or block Him out. I had a friend that had been trying to have a child for a long time. When he was born, he was born without a skull and died in her arms soon after. As a Christian she was devastated. She called me and asked me why. I told her the truth, I don’t have all the answers. I can’t see years down the road or even the next day. Three years later she had a healthy baby girl but I know what happened tested her faith but she never lost it. People that don’t believe think we never question God. I am not perfect but my Master owns my soul. In a hospital once a woman came in crying, her son in his 20ies had been in a bad car accident. The Dr’s gave him no hope, brain dead and almost all his bones were broken. The mothers pastor showed up and her and him began praying. They say miracles don’t happen these days but when the Dr.s went back into this man room he was completely healed. The Dr’s were shocked. After this happened and yes this man was not saved before this but became an assistant Pastor.
Why some are healed, why some die young, why things happen that will test a person I don’t know but whatever happens I don’t need to call a priest because I know where my Master Jesus is. Either way it goes, I am going with Him.

Chris
02-08-2012, 09:37 AM
there is only one creator/God any other belief system is panthiesm, and I don't really care if you gamble or not with your soul, like the man says " ya pays your money and ya takes your chances".. I am not going to tell anyone what to believe or disbelive that is none of my business, all I say is whatever you believe or disbelieve you better be right.

Again, I suggest you read what I posted as I have clearly stated I neither believe nor disbelieve but you keep talking about whether I do or don't.

Pantheism is belief the universe and god are the same.

"there is only one creator/God"

What is God? If you could explain that reasonably I would then know what it is I'm supposed to gamble on.

Chris
02-08-2012, 09:41 AM
You see Christians are not going to be able to convince you God exist....

Problem is you can't even tell me what god is because you yourself do not know.

MMC
02-08-2012, 11:26 AM
Problem is you can't even tell me what god is because you yourself do not know.


I'll give it a shot.....The Creator is made of Energy, Light and sound. As we are made in the same image and likeness of that which created uh.........EVERYTHING! :wink:

Chris
02-08-2012, 01:36 PM
I'll give it a shot.....The Creator is made of Energy, Light and sound. As we are made in the same image and likeness of that which created uh.........EVERYTHING! :wink:

Now that's pantheism. God as universe doesn't require belief.

And it leads to the question, if the creator is made up of things, who made the creator?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not criticizing those of faith, I'm just saying I don't have it, don't know what to put it in. If you have faith, treasure it, but don't try to make it something it's not, which is reason.

MMC
02-08-2012, 02:19 PM
Regardless.....All matter is made of energy. Matter is made of atoms each that give off light and sound. Protons and Nuetrons. Each striving to create more of each other From the very first created. Each attaching themselves to others in very different and complex ways. As in learning and dupilcating one another. Energy is the ability to make something happen.

Wherein seems all things look the same from this vantage point.

Conley
02-08-2012, 02:34 PM
MMC your post reminded me of the God particle (Higgs boson). It's a fascinating topic but this thread is probably not the place for me to go into it.

MMC
02-08-2012, 02:52 PM
MMC your post reminded me of the God particle (Higgs boson). It's a fascinating topic but this thread is probably not the place for me to go into it.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clxtg2pFTQM&amp;ob=av2e

Thats alright bro.....like he says. Tell me All your Thoughts On God!

Chris
02-08-2012, 03:40 PM
Regardless.....All matter is made of energy. Matter is made of atoms each that give off light and sound. Protons and Nuetrons. Each striving to create more of each other From the very first created. Each attaching themselves to others in very different and complex ways. As in learning and dupilcating one another. Energy is the ability to make something happen.

Wherein seems all things look the same from this vantage point.

Laws of thermodynamics says energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

But we're discussing the universe now, not god.

MMC
02-08-2012, 04:04 PM
Laws of thermodynamics says energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed.

But we're discussing the universe now, not god.

And I bet you didnt think the Universe was alive either? First there was the Atom. Then came the laws of thermal-dynamics.....

A molecule can be uniquely divided into a set of atomic volumes. These volumes are divided by a series of surfaces through which the gradient vector field of the electron density has no flux. Atomic properties such as atomic charge, dipole moment, and energies can be calculated by integrating their corresponding operators over the atomic volume.

Two atoms are bonded if their atomic volumes share a common interatomic surface, and there is a (3, −1) critical point on this surface. A critical point is defined as a point in space where the gradient is zero. A (3, −1) critical point is defined as a critical point at which two of the eigenvalues (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Eigenvalue) of the Hessian matrix (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Hessian_matrix) at the critical point are negative, while the other eigenvalue is positive. In other words, a bonding critical point is a first-order saddle point in the electron density scalar field. A bond (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#) path is the line along which the electron density is a maximum with respect to a neighboring line. Along the associated virial path the potential energy is maximally stabilizing.

There is no questioning of bonding paths. The existence of bond paths are not questioned but the stabilizing energy derived from it is.

Hence Energy Already There!!!!!

Chris
02-08-2012, 05:07 PM
"Hence Energy Already There!!!!!"

So say the laws of thermodynamics. And hence energy came before atoms. And this has what to do with telling me what you know about god?

Captain Obvious
02-08-2012, 05:46 PM
Now that's pantheism. God as universe doesn't require belief.

And it leads to the question, if the creator is made up of things, who made the creator?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not criticizing those of faith, I'm just saying I don't have it, don't know what to put it in. If you have faith, treasure it, but don't try to make it something it's not, which is reason.

I heard an interesting program on NPR on Einstein and his brief dabbling with his thoughts on "God" and it somewhat suggested what you're describing.

MMC
02-08-2012, 05:47 PM
"Hence Energy Already There!!!!!"

So say the laws of thermodynamics. And hence energy came before atoms. And this has what to do with telling me what you know about god?


If energy is there then matter is there. Takes all pieces of a puzzle to get a picture and fortunately none can just make their own piece.

Chris
02-08-2012, 05:54 PM
Yes, mass is there, its relationship to energy is stated in that old familiar formula, E = mc2.

None can make it, just transform it.

Still waiting on god to enter the picture.

Chris
02-08-2012, 06:05 PM
I heard an interesting program on NPR on Einstein and his brief dabbling with his thoughts on "God" and it somewhat suggested what you're describing.

Yes, Einstein had a study group that read Spinoza, iirc, from the biography Einstein: His Life and Universe, a good read btw. Spinoza was a pantheist. From some quotes at Spinoza and Einstein (http://einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html):

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems."

MMC
02-08-2012, 06:22 PM
Your still waiting for God to enter the picture? Was that after you decided mass was there first. :biglaugh:

Conley
02-08-2012, 06:33 PM
Yes, Einstein had a study group that read Spinoza, iirc, from the biography Einstein: His Life and Universe, a good read btw. Spinoza was a pantheist. From some quotes at Spinoza and Einstein (http://einsteinandreligion.com/spinoza2.html):

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropomorphic concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near to those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order and harmony which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem — the most important of all human problems."

Good quote. Also this one, from the same site:

We followers of Spinoza see[k] out God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul as it reveals itself in man and animal. It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether on[e] can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs.

Chris
02-08-2012, 06:44 PM
If God is the universe then God is just another name for it.

Chris
02-08-2012, 06:45 PM
Your still waiting for God to enter the picture? Was that after you decided mass was there first. :biglaugh:
I didn't decide. And what I'm waiting for is some knowledge of God. Aquinas said God was unknowable.

MMC
02-08-2012, 07:06 PM
In private correspondence Newton sometimes hinted that the force of Gravity was due to an immaterial influence:

"Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without the mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon & affect other matter without mutual contact."

MMC
02-08-2012, 07:11 PM
Liebnez stated.....

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.

Chris
02-08-2012, 07:36 PM
Depends on how you define atheism, as a theist would, in opposition to theism, or as an atheist would, lack of theism. As an agnostic I have to ask what is it I supposedly oppose? what is this thing, godliness, you cannot seem to tell me about?

To see how wrong Liebnez was read Hecht's History of Doubt.

MMC
02-08-2012, 08:21 PM
Depends on how you define atheism, as a theist would, in opposition to theism, or as an atheist would, lack of theism. As an agnostic I have to ask what is it I supposedly oppose? what is this thing, godliness, you cannot seem to tell me about?

To see how wrong Liebnez was read Hecht's History of Doubt.

Well which agnostic are you then, an agnostic atheist who don't think God or a Creator exists but don't deny that it is a possibility or are you the agnostic theist that believe God or a Creator exists but don't claim it as a personal knowledge?

The one thing Liebnez was right on.....were all those so called professors of Atheism. Not to many running around with a PH. D in Atheism!

I would recommend Peter Kreeft as reading and the 20 Arguments For The Existence of God! :wink:

Chris
02-08-2012, 09:23 PM
Well which agnostic are you then, an agnostic atheist who don't think God or a Creator exists but don't deny that it is a possibility or are you the agnostic theist that believe God or a Creator exists but don't claim it as a personal knowledge?The one thing Liebnez was right on.....were all those so called professors of Atheism. Not to many running around with a PH. D in Atheism!I would recommend Peter Kreeft as reading and the 20 Arguments For The Existence of God! :wink:Well, let's go back to my first post:
I neither believe nor disbelieve in god. Why? No reason to. Belief and disbelief require faith, but faith in what? To answer that requires reason.



Not to many running around with a PH. D in Atheism!A rather meaningless statement when atheism, according to atheists, is lack of theism, in short nothing, there's nothing to teach. Amazingly though you have all these PhDs in theology and not one can tell you who or what God is.


I would recommend Peter Kreeft as reading and the 20 Arguments For The Existence of God!
If you like we can discuss each one. You defend, and I'll point out the logical flaws, and the fact that by the end, he will not have told us what God is either.

roadmaster
02-09-2012, 12:00 AM
Problem is you can't even tell me what god is because you yourself do not know.
Who asked you to believe?

wingrider
02-09-2012, 12:10 AM
this is an assinine thread that continues to be a circle, No one can prove or disprove the existance of god, that is why belief in God is called FAITH. and a person is either searching for God or has said in his heart there is no god unless you can prove it, since we cannot prove Gods existance we continue in this morass of a circle that leads no where.. I for one am jumping out of this circle and will continue on y merry way believing that God not only exists but he cared enough about his creation to send His son to pay the price that we couldn't even begin to pay..

Wing .. is out

MMC
02-09-2012, 01:28 AM
Agnostics look to make their argument off of exactly what you said Wing-Commander. The belief. Thats where their whole argument stems from. I used a scientific/mechanical approach. Yet the Agnostic can't tell you how the mass got there in the first place. Yet science knows there is a mass there. They can't explain how it got there nor where it came from. Although they were hoping to have some answers over the isuue of the GOD Particle. Which didn't pan out like they wanted to this year. They were hoping for an answer by the end of 2012. Looks like that will be delayed some more.
There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.

But moreso under the fields of psychologists and sociologists. Than historians.

The best way to deal with both atheists and agnostics is to throw them in a room with one who is allegedly possessed. When their fragile minds break with what they can see and feel with their perceptions but yet cannot explain the absolute truth to what they are witnessing. Such IMO will break them from sitting on that fence with that point.

wingrider
02-09-2012, 01:30 AM
good post MMC thanks

wingrider
02-09-2012, 01:32 AM
it seems to me some people want absolutes as to the Question of God before they will acknowledge Him.. sorry but that isn't the way it works. they want proof that is irrefutable, but my answer is this

We cannot see, feel or taste gravity, but we know its there . God works on the same principle we cannot see him nor feel him or taste him But he is there.

MMC
02-09-2012, 01:33 AM
I thought it was clear that I was arguing from the stand point of Intelligent Design! :wink:

wingrider
02-09-2012, 01:36 AM
you were.

MMC
02-09-2012, 01:36 AM
Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)

:wink:

Chris
02-09-2012, 08:11 AM
Who asked you to believe?
It's a discussion of a topic on a forum.

Chris
02-09-2012, 08:14 AM
this is an assinine thread that continues to be a circle, No one can prove or disprove the existance of god, that is why belief in God is called FAITH. and a person is either searching for God or has said in his heart there is no god unless you can prove it, since we cannot prove Gods existance we continue in this morass of a circle that leads no where.. I for one am jumping out of this circle and will continue on y merry way believing that God not only exists but he cared enough about his creation to send His son to pay the price that we couldn't even begin to pay..

Wing .. is out
Well, now, isn't that what I said, belief is not a matter of reason but faith.

Chris
02-09-2012, 08:28 AM
Agnostics look to make their argument off of exactly what you said Wing-Commander. The belief. Thats where their whole argument stems from. I used a scientific/mechanical approach. Yet the Agnostic can't tell you how the mass got there in the first place. Yet science knows there is a mass there. They can't explain how it got there nor where it came from. Although they were hoping to have some answers over the isuue of the GOD Particle. Which didn't pan out like they wanted to this year. They were hoping for an answer by the end of 2012. Looks like that will be delayed some more.
There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.

But moreso under the fields of psychologists and sociologists. Than historians.

The best way to deal with both atheists and agnostics is to throw them in a room with one who is allegedly possessed. When their fragile minds break with what they can see and feel with their perceptions but yet cannot explain the absolute truth to what they are witnessing. Such IMO will break them from sitting on that fence with that point.
Nice bit of straw man and ad hom there. Is that because you finally realized you are incapable of telling me who this god of yours is? No one in the history of man ever has. Yes, you argued the old cosmological argument that something had to create energy and mass but that would defy the very laws of physics that energy and mass cannot be created from nothing but only transformed, and you never did answer who created your creator. And now you switch to the old teleological argument from design, but I have to ask what design and again who designed the designer? In the end all you will have done is try to describe your god through analogy with man, iow, god is like man, when what you likely really want to say is man is like god and made in his image. Keep trying.

Chris
02-09-2012, 08:36 AM
Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exists in man and in the human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that you can't get more in the effect than you had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most great scientists have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)

:wink:
You're confusing there the old cosmological and teleological arguments. The problem is you assume design and you assume causality. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct. Then your argument is self-defeating. For "If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause." and "Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe." then by that same reasoning there must a transcendent intelligence as cause of the "mind behind the physical universe", and a transcendent intelligence behind that transcendent intelligence, ad infinitum. Your logical reasoning reaches no logical conclusion.

MMC
02-09-2012, 08:49 AM
Ah.....but I did tell you from my perspective. I made it simpler for you to understand with light and sound. Pure Energy! But technically your whole discussion from the get go was a strawman. The sake of a wasted time, over what? That you hailed and railed over the beliefs of those who believe in Intelligent design?

But like I said.....throwing ones azz in a room with people who are possessed. Will break that fragilness of Truth to Mind for those who sit on the fence with that point! Which your agnosticism just won't be able to handle. Even tho all material will be right in front of your very eyes.

Tell the truth now.....the only reason you have never tried to go and find any of these possessed people. Is why? I think I know why.....as to the failure for that search of truth.

Chris
02-09-2012, 09:01 AM
Ah.....but I did tell you from my perspective. I made it simpler for you to understand with light and sound. Pure Energy! But technically your whole discussion from the get go was a strawman. The sake of a wasted time, over what? That you hailed and railed over the beliefs of those who believe in Intelligent design?

But like I said.....throwing ones azz in a room with people who are possessed. Will break that fragilness of Truth to Mind for those who sit on the fence with that point! Which your agnosticism just won't be able to handle. Even tho all material will be right in front of your very eyes.

Tell the truth now.....the only reason you have never tried to go and find any of these possessed people. Is why? I think I know why.....as to the failure for that search of truth.
What you told me however made no rational sense and ended with some nigh on Hegelian abstraction once again assigning an attribute of man, his mind, to god: "a mind behind the physical universe".

The rest of your comments are mere straw men and ad hom not worth commenting on.

Conley
02-09-2012, 09:14 AM
There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign.

Source?

MMC
02-09-2012, 09:15 AM
What you told me however made no rational sense and ended with some nigh on Hegelian abstraction once again assigning an attribute of man, his mind, to god: "a mind behind the physical universe".

The rest of your comments are mere straw men and ad hom not worth commenting on.

Yes, the usual bullshit about ones comments and how they are not worth commenting on. But then I'm not afraid to enter a room with those who are possessed. Unlike the sheep I encounter!

The possessed.....mere strawman LMAO, except those validated by science. Which science could not explain away. Also the key into destroying the minds of agnostics and atheists. While giving them a dose of their actual beliefs right in front of their faces. Hence your uhm.....well, erm, excuses as to why you did not fully seek out those truths!

MMC
02-09-2012, 09:17 AM
Source?

Agnostics and Atheists.....

From the basic model of Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

MMC
02-09-2012, 09:26 AM
You're confusing there the old cosmological and teleological arguments. The problem is you assume design and you assume causality. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct. Then your argument is self-defeating. For "If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must be intelligence in the cause." and "Therefore there must be a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe." then by that same reasoning there must a transcendent intelligence as cause of the "mind behind the physical universe", and a transcendent intelligence behind that transcendent intelligence, ad infinitum. Your logical reasoning reaches no logical conclusion.

The Argument from Efficient Causality.....

We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist.

So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.
But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.

Conley
02-09-2012, 09:26 AM
Agnostics and Atheists.....

From the basic model of Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

The quote wasn't on there. I Googled and found apparently it was written by Peter Kreeft, a site that offers a rebuttal of his essay:

"I don't know Peter Kreeft. I've never met him. I just found his essay and felt like writing a rebuttal. He begins by rattling off a series of ultimately meaningless philosophical questions, making nearly half of the entire essay a superfluous preface, presumably to give the reader the idea that he knows logic backward and forward. This is clearly not the case when we actually look at his reasoning.

I harbor no resentment toward Mr. Kreeft (I do, in fact, agree with him on a few issues), unlike Winky Pratney. Peter Kreeft is obviously not a religious bigot, but he does like to misrepresent atheists and our beliefs. This and a general misrepresentation of logic and some science is what I criticize him for, albeit, somewhat ruthlessly."

http://www.daltonator.net/durandal/oldsite/religion/reasons.shtml

Anyhow, I don't think "There are relatively few atheists among neurologists and brain surgeons and among astrophysicists, but many among psychologists, sociologists, and historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human undesign." is accurate.

Chris
02-09-2012, 09:26 AM
Yes, the usual bullshit about ones comments and how they are not worth commenting on. But then I'm not afraid to enter a room with those who are possessed. Unlike the sheep I encounter!

The possessed.....mere strawman LMAO, except those validated by science. Which science could not explain away. Also the key into destroying the minds of agnostics and atheists. While giving them a dose of their actual beliefs right in front of their faces. Hence your uhm.....well, erm, excuses as to why you did not fully seek out those truths!
Explain why I should respond to straw men and ad hom? They're not rational. You're not making much sense anymore.

Chris
02-09-2012, 09:35 AM
The Argument from Efficient Causality.....

We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.

Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist.

So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.
But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.
Again you're left with an infinite regress of causality. If you assume everything must have a cause, then you can't violate that assumption but claiming something does not have a cause.

MMC
02-09-2012, 09:47 AM
How so.....you say God doesnt exist.....I tell you to look into possessed people in your search for answers. Yet immediately you Cry-Out thats not rational.(but this coming from an agnostic) Yet every religion has dealt with these people. Medical Fields, scientific fields. Eastern and Western Cultures. The Catholic Church, and other Christian Churches. Even those in Islam have dealt with these types of people. Buddhists, and Healers who thought they could heal them.

From those with technology and from those without technology. Modern man and primitive. Like Native Indians in South America for an example.

There is no crying foul.....when it comes to GOD and or the Creator!

MMC
02-09-2012, 09:53 AM
Again you're left with an infinite regress of causality. If you assume everything must have a cause, then you can't violate that assumption but claiming something does not have a cause.
Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.

This brings us to our argument. Things have got to exist in order to be mutually dependent; they cannot depend upon each other for their entire being, for then they would have to be, simultaneously, cause and effect of each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That is absurd. The argument is trying to show why a world of caused causes can be given—or can be there—at all. And it simply points out: If this thing can exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must exist something whose being is not a gift. Otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being, but nothing (in addition to "everything") could exist to give it. And that means nothing would actually be.

Conley
02-09-2012, 09:57 AM
Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.

This brings us to our argument. Things have got to exist in order to be mutually dependent; they cannot depend upon each other for their entire being, for then they would have to be, simultaneously, cause and effect of each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That is absurd. The argument is trying to show why a world of caused causes can be given—or can be there—at all. And it simply points out: If this thing can exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must exist something whose being is not a gift. Otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being, but nothing (in addition to "everything") could exist to give it. And that means nothing would actually be.

MMC if you're going to keep using this guy's work at least give him some credit.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

MMC
02-09-2012, 10:06 AM
MMC if you're going to keep using this guy's work at least give him some credit.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

I did already.....I recommended Kreefts book on his 20 Arguments. :wink: Which he was ready to go from there. But I already hit on the other point of Possession as an approach for him to understand about GOD.

MMC
02-09-2012, 10:12 AM
MMC if you're going to keep using this guy's work at least give him some credit.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm


I would recommend Peter Kreeft as reading and the 20 Arguments For The Existence of God!


If you like we can discuss each one. You defend, and I'll point out the logical flaws, and the fact that by the end, he will not have told us what God is either.

From Post 143.....:wink: :grin:

Mister D
02-09-2012, 10:19 AM
We should always post a link to material we cite. Carry on.

Conley
02-09-2012, 10:24 AM
My bad. Maybe I was the only one confused.

MMC
02-09-2012, 10:30 AM
Either way Kreefts arguments does not prove there is a God.....

We believe that only some of these arguments, taken individually and separately, demonstrate the existence of a being that has some of the properties only God can have (no argument proves all the divine attributes); but all twenty taken together, like twined rope, make a very strong case.....snip~

jgreer
02-09-2012, 11:09 AM
This is like trying to prove a court case with no evidence. If the jury doesnt accept logic or evidence then a logical argument with evidence wont be enough to convince them

MMC
02-09-2012, 11:35 AM
This is like trying to prove a court case with no evidence. If the jury doesnt accept logic or evidence then a logical argument with evidence wont be enough to convince them

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1622363480245&id=fb4d7bb5a7bdfaa16e6de35247a75ea0&url=http%3a%2f%2fvintagetoledotv.squarespace.com%2 fpicture%2fnbcmov910106a.jpg%3fpictureId%3d6889708 %26asGalleryImage%3dtrue
:f_applause: :wink: :grin:

Chris
02-09-2012, 12:17 PM
you say God doesnt exist

Me? I've said we cannot know if god exists or not. I'm not going to defend straw men you make up.

Chris
02-09-2012, 12:22 PM
If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.An uncaused cause violates your premise of a causal chain.

Oh, I now see you're just pasting Kreefts. Kreefts is simply not being rational.

MMC
02-09-2012, 12:38 PM
Me? I've said we cannot know if god exists or not. I'm not going to defend straw men you make up.[/COLOR]

Ah.....thats right you did. Terminology! That one cannot know if God exits or not. Right!

If you want that answer.....and that is a Big If. Seek out the Possessed! Then get back to me on whether or not if one knows that God or a Creator exits! :wink:

Conley
02-09-2012, 12:48 PM
Ah.....thats right you did. Terminology! That one cannot know if God exits or not. Right!

If you want that answer.....and that is a Big If. Seek out the Possessed! Then get back to me on whether or not if one knows that God or a Creator exits! :wink:

There is no scientific evidence of possession. Even if there was such a thing, how would that prove the existence of God?

MMC
02-09-2012, 01:26 PM
There is no scientific evidence of possession. Even if there was such a thing, how would that prove the existence of God?

There isn't? Would you call studying the phenomenon as gathering Scientific Evidence? Working with medical professionals. Recording all that takes place. Blood Work, EKG's, MRI's, Cat-scans. The Works!

What would you say after you talk to one who has seen no Television, listened to no radio, seen no pictures or photographs and has never been anywheres in their life except right in that little spot where they live. Is not telepathic. Is uneducated, never really saw any other peoples but their own.

But then can speak 3 or more languages that they never spoke nor understood in the first place. Speaking and responding understanding who is talking to them and answering them in those languages. Superhuman strength. Have things done to the human body not possibly done by any others. Inflicted wounds appearing from nowheres.

You have seen the Exorcist have you not? I am sure you can equate some of Hollywoods effects. Moving objects in a room. No tolerance for things of a religious nature. Strong aversion to God and even his name and prayers. While the Exorcist is based off a true story and it actually happened to some little boy the movie did depict the truth in that doctors and specialists were called in. Neurologists, psycho-neuros, psychiatrists and psychologists. Moreover some believe possession has been here since the beginning.

Even the Catholic Church has Set up Training for Exorcisms.....There are other Christians that get involved as well. What could you say when you see things that aren't suppose to happen? Or when that individual just starts picking your skeleton closet like it has known you and been inside your head since you were born? Your family line, you, and anything close to you. Even knowing things from those in your line that have passed.

I think ones whole perception changes dramatically on the issue of God and or Creator.

Chris
02-09-2012, 01:30 PM
Ah.....thats right you did. Terminology! That one cannot know if God exits or not. Right!

If you want that answer.....and that is a Big If. Seek out the Possessed! Then get back to me on whether or not if one knows that God or a Creator exits! :wink:
Oh, OK, I thought you had the answer.

Chris
02-09-2012, 01:34 PM
There is no scientific evidence of possession. Even if there was such a thing, how would that prove the existence of God?
The first question to ask about scientific claims is how the claim could be falsified. But you're right, in the end, given that science is limited by scientific method to the material world, what could anything science say have to do with the spiritual besides exactly nothing.

MMC
02-09-2012, 02:01 PM
Oh, OK, I thought you had the answer.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4n9vK0_mdk

At least I don't tremble when seeking one! :wink:

Chris
02-09-2012, 02:59 PM
And that tells me there is a god and who or what he is?

MMC
02-09-2012, 03:22 PM
And that tells me there is a god and who or what he is?

Are you still going on over people's beliefs? Looks like there is more Cause to believe than Cause not to believe. IMO!

Not so much that one. You have to go find your own for your answers. But it is amazing how some can even speak in an Ancient dialect that is no longer on the earth. Or pull something out of ones life that only you and yours would know. Even your Ancestors.

Imagine that.....a person halfway around world that doesnt even know you exist. But like I said, after you are done with the experience. Then we shall see where your belief stands. Watching a Video is completely different than you being there Johnny on the Spot to take it all in.....nice and personal like!

roadmaster
02-09-2012, 03:53 PM
And that tells me there is a god and who or what he is?

The question was
Why do you believe/disbelieve in god? (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/1769-Why-do-you-believe-disbelieve-in-god/page19)
Not Christians tell me why I should believe. Or give me evidence of what or who your God is?

I am not a teenager, are you? You either believe or you don't. Why the games, you won't do any good trying to convince us their is no God or we don't know who He is. Why don't you just answer the question as to why YOU disbelieve or don't know which God.

Chris
02-09-2012, 04:26 PM
Are you still going on over people's beliefs? Looks like there is more Cause to believe than Cause not to believe. IMO!

Not so much that one. You have to go find your own for your answers. But it is amazing how some can even speak in an Ancient dialect that is no longer on the earth. Or pull something out of ones life that only you and yours would know. Even your Ancestors.

Imagine that.....a person halfway around world that doesnt even know you exist. But like I said, after you are done with the experience. Then we shall see where your belief stands. Watching a Video is completely different than you being there Johnny on the Spot to take it all in.....nice and personal like!
"You have to go find your own for your answers."

I seek nothing but truth as I am sure you do as well. If you've found god to be your truth, good, I cannot argue with faith because it lies outside, above, whatever, reason.

Chris
02-09-2012, 04:29 PM
The question was
Why do you believe/disbelieve in god? (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/1769-Why-do-you-believe-disbelieve-in-god/page19)


Not Christians tell me why I should believe. Or give me evidence of what or who your God is?

I am not a teenager, are you? You either believe or you don't. Why the games, you won't do any good trying to convince us their is no God or we don't know who He is. Why don't you just answer the question as to why YOU disbelieve or don't know which God.
Nice ad hom, no point responding to that. And straw men like "you won't do any good trying to convince us their is no God" since I have not. Or "you won't do any good trying to convince us ... we don't know who He is" since all I asked was would you tell me what you know.

As stated, I neither believe nor disbelieve and gave my reasons, see my first post in this thread.

roadmaster
02-09-2012, 04:57 PM
Nice ad hom, no point responding to that. And straw men like "you won't do any good trying to convince us their is no God" since I have not. Or "you won't do any good trying to convince us ... we don't know who He is" since all I asked was would you tell me what you know.

As stated, I neither believe nor disbelieve and gave my reasons, see my first post in this thread.

I read it and didn't respond to you or try to convince you otherwise, either way. You questioned mine.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by roadmaster http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=38886#post38886)
You see Christians are not going to be able to convince you God exist....
Problem is you can't even tell me what god is because you yourself do not know.

That statement I said was directed at no one. If I am talking to someone directly I will quote them.

Chris
02-09-2012, 05:02 PM
Problem is you can't even tell me what god is because you yourself do not know.
But I was addressing you. Of course, you need not respond. But it stands to reason since your belief is based on faith and not reason you would not know this. Knowledge is defined philosophically as justified true belief. You've got the belief part down. But faith cannot establish truth.

Mister D
02-09-2012, 05:38 PM
What's unreasonable about belief in God?

wingrider
02-09-2012, 07:13 PM
What's unreasonable about belief in God?


because then you would have to acknowledge that there is something or someone out that that is larger than your own ego and your own belief system. some people cannot except that precept. it is the secular society we live in brought about by the rise of " enlightenment " early in the 18th century by people such as Voltaire and others..

Chris
02-09-2012, 07:18 PM
What's unreasonable about belief in God?
The question is what's reasonable about it. If the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven, if god cannot be known, and personal belief is not knowledge that can be communicated, then god must be an object of faith. Nothing worng with faith, but it's not reason.

Mister D
02-09-2012, 07:20 PM
The question is what's reasonable about it. If the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven, if god cannot be known, and personal belief is not knowledge that can be communicated, then god must be an object of faith. Nothing worng with faith, but it's not reason.

That's not my question though. I asked what was unreasonable about belief in God. If that's not what you meant to imply (i.e. that belief in God is inherently unreasonable) then that's fine.

Chris
02-09-2012, 07:23 PM
because then you would have to acknowledge that there is something or someone out that that is larger than your own ego and your own belief system. some people cannot except that precept. it is the secular society we live in brought about by the rise of " enlightenment " early in the 18th century by people such as Voltaire and others..
Well, you'd have to establish the truth of that to begin with, and that requires reason, faith won't get you there.

There is much that exists larger than the individual, society, for instance, the universe, for another.

BTW, reason also transcends the individual, what is reasonable is so regardless who says it. Faith on the other hand is personal, and thing of ego.

Chris
02-09-2012, 07:29 PM
That's not my question though. I asked what was unreasonable about belief in God. If that's not what you meant to imply (i.e. that belief in God is inherently unreasonable) then that's fine.
Answered, what's unreasonable about belief is belief is not based on reason. Knowledge as stated above is justified true belief. We start with belief and then apply reason to establish the truth of that belief and and then go on to justify it.

I will add that in what I'm saying I'm not implying the negative connotation you may be with the word unreasonable. I intend only what the word denotes.

wingrider
02-09-2012, 07:37 PM
Illya Prigogine, (Nobel Prize-Chemistry, 1977), once wrote that, “let us have no illusions…[we] are unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms.” The DNA of a bacterium (the simplest type of living organism known to have existed) contains an encyclopedic amount of pure digitally encoded information that directs the highly sophisticated molecular machinery within the cell membrane.
“The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like…DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything that modern engineers can do…DNA messages are pure digital code.” (Please forgive me for quoting the well known creationist and proponent of ID, Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden.) The obvious conclusion is that both the code and the sophisticated molecular machinery are the result of intelligent purpose and intervention. In other words, just as the highly specified hypothetical message discussed above is itself the evidence of its intelligent source, the highly specified genetic information and the extraordinarily high level of functional complexity of the bacterium, are themselves the evidence of its Intelligent Designer.
There is nothing even approaching conclusive evidence that any life form “simpler” than a bacterium ever existed. To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following:
“The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU

Mister D
02-09-2012, 07:38 PM
Answered, what's unreasonable about belief is belief is not based on reason. Knowledge as stated above is justified true belief. We start with belief and then apply reason to establish the truth of that belief and and then go on to justify it.

I will add that in what I'm saying I'm not implying the negative connotation you may be with the word unreasonable. I intent only what the word denotes.

What the term denotes is a lack of rationality. Again, what is unreasonable (i.e. irrational, senseless) about belief in God? Please elaborate and be specific if that is indeed what you believe.

Chris
02-09-2012, 07:49 PM
Already elaborated. Apparently you have no argument with any of that. In short, what I've said is belief is not rational, it lies beyond, outside reason.

"irrational, senseless" are connotations I do not intend in what I said.

Chris
02-09-2012, 07:55 PM
Illya Prigogine, (Nobel Prize-Chemistry, 1977), once wrote that, “let us have no illusions…[we] are unable to grasp the extreme complexity of the simplest of organisms.” The DNA of a bacterium (the simplest type of living organism known to have existed) contains an encyclopedic amount of pure digitally encoded information that directs the highly sophisticated molecular machinery within the cell membrane.
“The machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like…DNA characters are copied with an accuracy that rivals anything that modern engineers can do…DNA messages are pure digital code.” (Please forgive me for quoting the well known creationist and proponent of ID, Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden.) The obvious conclusion is that both the code and the sophisticated molecular machinery are the result of intelligent purpose and intervention. In other words, just as the highly specified hypothetical message discussed above is itself the evidence of its intelligent source, the highly specified genetic information and the extraordinarily high level of functional complexity of the bacterium, are themselves the evidence of its Intelligent Designer.
There is nothing even approaching conclusive evidence that any life form “simpler” than a bacterium ever existed. To get a range on the enormous challenges involved in bridging the gaping chasm between non-life and life, consider the following:
“The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium, is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.” (Dr. Robert Shapiro, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, NYU


"The obvious conclusion is that both the code and the sophisticated molecular machinery are the result of intelligent purpose and intervention."

Why's that? Explain. In your explanation consider that, for example, society emerges spontaneously from the interactions of individuals, an economy emerges spontaneously from the exchanges of goods and services--all without design or with society or economy as purpose.

Mister D
02-09-2012, 07:56 PM
Already elaborated. Apparently you have no argument with any of that. In short, what I've said is belief is not rational, it lies beyond, outside reason.

"irrational, senseless" are connotations I do not intend in what I said.

So your belief in Natural Law, for example, is unreasonable? Or your belief that your family loves you? How about your belief that you will go to work tomorrow as usual? You cannot establish the "truth" of any of those beliefs. Nor can you be said to "know" them. Are all of those beliefs unreasonable? Really? I don't think so. I think it's quite reasonable to believe that there is purpose and meaning in life, that my family loves me, and that I'll go to work tomorrow like I did today. Uncertainty is part and parcel of the human condition. Making choices about we approach a reality that is always uncertain is not unreasonable.

wingrider
02-09-2012, 08:02 PM
Man has never been able to create life even in its simplest tems ie a DNA chain, therefor it stands to reason that something or someone (GOD ) is the reason for life and its creation. if and when science is able to duplicate life from a mixture of amino acids without any form of outside influence then you might have a case, until then it is a never ending circle of argument as to whether God exists or not.

Chris
02-09-2012, 08:13 PM
Man has never been able to create life even in its simplest tems ie a DNA chain, therefor it stands to reason that something or someone (GOD ) is the reason for life and its creation. if and when science is able to duplicate life from a mixture of amino acids without any form of outside influence then you might have a case, until then it is a never ending circle of argument as to whether God exists or not.
"therefor it stands to reason that something or someone (GOD ) is the reason for life and its creation."

And why's that? Explain.

wingrider
02-09-2012, 08:15 PM
I just did ,

Mister D
02-09-2012, 08:27 PM
So your belief in Natural Law, for example, is unreasonable? Or your belief that your family loves you? How about your belief that you will go to work tomorrow as usual? You cannot establish the "truth" of any of those beliefs. Nor can you be said to "know" them. Are all of those beliefs unreasonable? Really? I don't think so. I think it's quite reasonable to believe that there is purpose and meaning in life, that my family loves me, and that I'll go to work tomorrow like I did today. Uncertainty is part and parcel of the human condition. Making choices about we approach a reality that is always uncertain is not unreasonable.

Before signing off for the evening, I'll add that I think the distinction between faith/trust and reason is an artificial one. When we speak of reason and faith or trust these are but abstractions. They are not isolated but are co-mingled in the human mind.

Chris
02-09-2012, 08:51 PM
I just did ,
No, you merely claimed "therefor it stands to reason that something or someone (GOD ) is the reason for life and its creation." If it is reasonable, you could explain. As it stands it's just an argument from incredulity.

Chris
02-09-2012, 08:58 PM
So your belief in Natural Law, for example, is unreasonable? Or your belief that your family loves you? How about your belief that you will go to work tomorrow as usual? You cannot establish the "truth" of any of those beliefs. Nor can you be said to "know" them. Are all of those beliefs unreasonable? Really? I don't think so. I think it's quite reasonable to believe that there is purpose and meaning in life, that my family loves me, and that I'll go to work tomorrow like I did today. Uncertainty is part and parcel of the human condition. Making choices about we approach a reality that is always uncertain is not unreasonable.
I don't believe in natural law. I know natural law. I know my family loves me, and know it I don't need to believe it, I know these things based upon experiential evidence and inference.

If you knew god in these ways you could tell us about god in a reasoanble way such that everyone would come to know what you know.

With God you have belief, faith, I do not in any way intend to denigrate that.

All you're doing is using sloppy language, conflating meaning, equivocating. Like you tried to do with unreasonable, taking advantage of ambiguities between lacking reason and being foolish.

My intention is to distinguish, to be precise.

Chris
02-09-2012, 08:59 PM
Before signing off for the evening, I'll add that I think the distinction between faith/trust and reason is an artificial one. When we speak of reason and faith or trust these are but abstractions. They are not isolated but are co-mingled in the human mind.
As I just said, all you're doing is using sloppy language, conflating meaning, equivocating. I see no value in doing that.

roadmaster
02-09-2012, 10:00 PM
As I just said, all you're doing is using sloppy language, conflating meaning, equivocating. I see no value in doing that.

Actually, you are just an atheist playing the free thought game. They only think they are smart.

MMC
02-09-2012, 11:25 PM
According to most Holy Writings thru-out the World. There were Witches, Sorcerors, and Sorceresses. There were Seers and most did not believe in any religion and or God. So how were they able to Commune with the Dead? As the Christian/Judeo/Islamic religions are not the only ones that knew about such.

When it comes to esoteric knowledge. Again, there is knowlege meant for the masses. Then there is knowledge of the Acolyte or Initiate. Then there is knowledge of the Priest and or Master. Most agnostics or atheists wouldn't even know about any such knowledge over that which is meant for the masses(AKA:the Sheep). Again, when they encounter that which blows their minds. They tend to fall apart as they only have their mental capabilities to rely upon. No inner strength!!!!!

Chris
02-10-2012, 06:48 AM
Actually, you are just an atheist playing the free thought game. They only think they are smart.
So the best argument you have is to make up insults? I'm agnostic. I don't think I'm smart.

Apparently you all are agnostic too as it's becoming apparent you all can't tell me what you know about this god you believe in.

MMC
02-10-2012, 08:56 AM
So the best argument you have is to make up insults? I'm agnostic. I don't think I'm smart.

Apparently you all are agnostic too as it's becoming apparent you all can't tell me what you know about this god you believe in.

Are you still at this Chris. I think all acknowledged your fact on belief. But I did tell you that God and or Creator whichever term you prefer to choose, what that energy and matter are made out of. As well as that, what information and knowledge is known tends to favor the Cause "For" as opposed to the Cause against.

Again, once put around Supernatural phenomenon that the agnostic or atheist can't comprehend. Especially when some would say it is associated to evil. As in dealing with some maleovent Enitity or Spirit. Leaves most questioning all that they know and.....Ever Learned!

Mister D
02-10-2012, 09:06 AM
I don't believe in natural law. I know natural law. I know my family loves me, and know it I don't need to believe it, I know these things based upon experiential evidence and inference.

If you knew god in these ways you could tell us about god in a reasoanble way such that everyone would come to know what you know.

With God you have belief, faith, I do not in any way intend to denigrate that.

All you're doing is using sloppy language, conflating meaning, equivocating. Like you tried to do with unreasonable, taking advantage of ambiguities between lacking reason and being foolish.

My intention is to distinguish, to be precise.

You "know" nothing of Natural Law and you cannot demonstrate the "truth" of its existence. Natural Law is a metaphysic which, according to you, is unreasonable. Never mind that it presupposes creation. Nor can you ascertain the truth of whether or not your family really loves you. You simply don't know that. At best, you believe that you have reason to believe in and trust that these things are true. They may all potentially be false.

If you knew Natural Law in these ways you could tell us about what Natural Law is in a reasonable way such that everyone would come to know what you know yet you can't. We know it's not an actual law like gravity, Chris. It's just an assumption about human nature that cannot be demonstrated or verified in any way. In any case, this has nothing to do with whether or not a human being could "know" God by your narrow and self-serving definition.

I'm not saying you';re trying to denigrate my faith. I asked what was unreasonable about it.

Sorry, but your being inconsistent and you're the one having trouble with language. Lacking reason denotes irrationality. I don't think belief in God is irrational. I asked why you might think so.

Yet you cannot be precise. These are abstractions. Human reason and human faith and trust do not operate in isolation.

Mister D
02-10-2012, 09:09 AM
As I just said, all you're doing is using sloppy language, conflating meaning, equivocating. I see no value in doing that.

If you do not mean to suggest belief in God is unreasonable then do not suggest as much. Choose your words more carefully. Don't bristle when you're asked to explain yourself. Perhaps you meant it's not scientific?

MMC
02-10-2012, 09:20 AM
Heya CL.....you ever see the movie the Entity? Well anybody else? The Movie Starred Barbra Herschey and was based off a True Story.

MMC
02-10-2012, 09:23 AM
You "know" nothing of Natural Law and you cannot demonstrate the "truth" of its existence. Natural Law is a metaphysic which, according to you, is unreasonable. Never mind that it presupposes creation. Nor can you ascertain the truth of whether or not your family really loves you. You simply don't know that. At best, you believe that you have reason to believe in and trust that these things are true. They may all potentially be false.

If you knew Natural Law in these ways you could tell us about what Natural Law is in a reasonable way such that everyone would come to know what you know yet you can't. We know it's not an actual law like gravity, Chris. It's just an assumption about human nature that cannot be demonstrated or verified in any way. In any case, this has nothing to do with whether or not a human being could "know" God by your narrow and self-serving definition.

I'm not saying you';re trying to denigrate my faith. I asked what was unreasonable about it.

Sorry, but your being inconsistent and you're the one having trouble with language. Lacking reason denotes irrationality. I don't think belief in God is irrational. I asked why you might think so.

Yet you cannot be precise. These are abstractions. Human reason and human faith and trust do not operate in isolation.


Excellent Post D!!!!! :wink:

Conley
02-10-2012, 09:34 AM
Heya CL.....you ever see the movie the Entity? Well anybody else? The Movie Starred Barbra Herschey and was based off a True Story.

I've seen all kinds of horror movies "based on real stories" and I can't seriously consider those in a debate about God. I don't doubt that the supernatural might exist, and I certainly am not contradicting Roadmaster's experiences - I enjoy reading them. Even if one believes in ghosts or evil to me that doesn't prove the existence of God (and I am a believer). In my experience there is no evil greater than the evil of man.

MMC
02-10-2012, 10:10 AM
I've seen all kinds of horror movies "based on real stories" and I can't seriously consider those in a debate about God. I don't doubt that the supernatural might exist, and I certainly am not contradicting Roadmaster's experiences - I enjoy reading them. Even if one believes in ghosts or evil to me that doesn't prove the existence of God (and I am a believer). In my experience there is no evil greater than the evil of man.


That I agree with you on 100%. The reason I brought that one up was due to the woman being sexually assualted and physically attacked wherever she went. By whatever Entity this thing was. I thought for sure UCLA was all involved in recording, researching, which was with all sorts of medical professionals. They even tried to Capture whatever it was by using Liquid Nitrogen. They managed to hold whatever it was, for only like 15-30 secs. But they could not get no discernable shape. Then whatever it was, broke out of the Liquid nitrogen.

The Woman was from Texas. She was also attacked less frequently afterwards but still continued to be attacked. Others in her family as well as her fiance and friends were attacked. Whenever they tried to help her. Getting thrown around and knocked down. Stuff like that.

I remember when I first saw it, I was like yeah it attacked less frequently. Why? Because whateever it was knew people were trying to catch it. The next logical step would be to kill it.

You are right about Man being the most known, evil thing ever created. I have told others this. Like I told a couple Brothers who were in the process of becoming Priests. These Entities or whatever they want to call them. It's not that one is stuck in the room with them. It's the Entity that is stuck in there with man. It best hope that man is merciful.

Chris
02-10-2012, 10:02 PM
If you do not mean to suggest belief in God is unreasonable then do not suggest as much. Choose your words more carefully. Don't bristle when you're asked to explain yourself. Perhaps you meant it's not scientific?
You were the one suggested it--faith as unreasonable --in your question, not I. I responded by distinguishing between unreasonable as lacking reason, as I see it, as opposed to silly, foolish, as your question implied. Yes, indeed, choose you words more carefully, and your meanings.

Here is an elaboration of what I mean. Reason is a process, a tool, a way of thinking. We can describe it as a process of induction, reasoning from facts to conclusion, deduction, reasoning conclusions as supported by facts, as contrasting two ideas, or comparing, as defining things, as analyzing, as synthesizing, and so on and so forth, all with the end result of knowledge, justified true belief as I said earlier. It's something people do. Faith, belief, otoh, is an attribute you either have or you lack, you believe or you disbelieve (same thing, imo) or you lack belief.

There is nothing intended in what I'm saying that implies faith/belief is silly or foolish or anything negative, or is of less value or greater value than reason. Acquiring knowledge through the process of reasoning begins with belief. Nor do I intend to say you cannot find truth by faith/belief, just that you cannot show it's true, justify it, let alone even communicate it without reason.. Nor am I arguing that reason guarantees truth for man is far too flawed for that.

I'm just saying they are two different things, faith and reason. As I said in my first post in this thread, I have neither belief nor disbelief in god because I see no reason to.

Chris
02-10-2012, 10:09 PM
Are you still at this Chris. I think all acknowledged your fact on belief. But I did tell you that God and or Creator whichever term you prefer to choose, what that energy and matter are made out of. As well as that, what information and knowledge is known tends to favor the Cause "For" as opposed to the Cause against.

Again, once put around Supernatural phenomenon that the agnostic or atheist can't comprehend. Especially when some would say it is associated to evil. As in dealing with some maleovent Enitity or Spirit. Leaves most questioning all that they know and.....Ever Learned!
Yes, still at it. Yes, you told me, you asserted what you believe, but have not provided your reasoning for it, you're basically arguing from incredulity: You see something you can't explain, some unknown, and proclaim it god. Yes, I know you disagree, think you have said more, but that is my summary of your stories of the supernatural and paranormal. Just don't think I can put faith in the unknown.

For example, you claim "what information and knowledge is known tends to favor the Cause "For" as opposed to the Cause against." OK, why, for what reason does knowledge "favor" your cosmological god?

Chris
02-10-2012, 10:15 PM
I've seen all kinds of horror movies "based on real stories" and I can't seriously consider those in a debate about God. I don't doubt that the supernatural might exist, and I certainly am not contradicting Roadmaster's experiences - I enjoy reading them. Even if one believes in ghosts or evil to me that doesn't prove the existence of God (and I am a believer). In my experience there is no evil greater than the evil of man.
Right, you believe because you believe and there's no need, no reason to explain it. It's not what faith is about. I would venture to say faith is the stronger the less you have reason to know--hard to say, iow, if you knew God you would have no reason to believe he exists, just as I know my son and to say I believe he exists makes no sense.

It's ironic. Augustine was a man of reason but found God in rejection of reason for faith. Aquinas was one of the most reasonable of men ever known but said all his works were mere straw compared to his vision of God he could not put in words.

CoLibertarian
02-10-2012, 10:15 PM
"reason" or "fact" is just a way for a person insecure with their "beliefs" to believe. There are no "facts" and there is no "truth" except for the ones a person believes.

I have only one reason for believing what I believe - because it makes me feel good to do so (while not being too much of a threat to society).

MMC
02-10-2012, 10:18 PM
There is more knowledge of the Cause for than there is the argument against. Wouldn't you agree?

CoLibertarian
02-10-2012, 10:40 PM
There is more knowledge of the Cause for than there is the argument against. Wouldn't you agree?

A "cause" is merely a rhetorical trick. It implies a "causer" and is therefore no more than a begging the question fallacy. No offense.

MMC
02-10-2012, 10:44 PM
I meant there is more knowledge for rather than the argument against. :wink:

MMC
02-10-2012, 10:45 PM
I meant as in knowledge for the argument for as opposed to the argument against. :wink:

CoLibertarian
02-10-2012, 10:52 PM
Why do you need popular support for a belief that you hold (for reasons other than a social contract)?

MMC
02-10-2012, 10:59 PM
Why do you need popular support for a belief that you hold (for reasons other than a social contract)?


I don't.....I was going by All the different civilizations and their differences over a diety and or dieties. So in essenece the knowledge for is greater.

CoLibertarian
02-10-2012, 11:05 PM
I don't.....I was going by All the different civilizations and their differences over a diety and or dieties. So in essenece the knowledge for is greater.

Why not go for scientific consensus? That is the way it is being done with the global warming caused by human activity.

To me, my belief in morality (or creation or what not) has nothing to do with majority consensus or "knowledge". I follow what is required of me by the social contract to live within this society (to the best of my ability) but the majority rarely influence my beliefs simply because they are in the majority (or more "knowledge" for).

MMC
02-10-2012, 11:17 PM
I didn't say they influence my beliefs but I don't think you can dispute all the empiracal data. Which does not change the fact there there is more knowledge and data with the argument for than the argument against.

CoLibertarian
02-10-2012, 11:28 PM
I didn't say they influence my beliefs but I don't think you can dispute all the empiracal data. Which does not change the fact there there is more knowledge and data with the argument for than the argument against.

There was once more "empirical data" that the world was flat instead of round. What does that say about "empirical data"?

MMC
02-10-2012, 11:46 PM
There was once more "empirical data" that the world was flat instead of round. What does that say about "empirical data"?


Oh you mean out of Europe? Seems the Chinese and Polynesians didn't hold to that philosphy.

CoLibertarian
02-10-2012, 11:52 PM
Oh you mean out of Europe? Seems the Chinese and Polynesians didn't hold to that philosphy.

Was but one example of where "empirical" merely means "popular". There are a number of Chinese "empirical" examples I could show you if you would like. I am not familiar enough with the Polynesians to show how much of their "knowledge" is merely what the majority believes.

MMC
02-10-2012, 11:53 PM
Most Ancient civilizations were not going by what was popular. :wink:

CoLibertarian
02-11-2012, 12:01 AM
Most Ancient civilizations were not going by what was popular. :wink:

I would argue most civilizations, regardless of time period, believe what is popularly believed. Unless you can come up with some modern "empirical" evidence for: Ra, Zeus, Dragons, Quetzakcoatl, Ganesha, etc etc.

MMC
02-11-2012, 12:39 AM
I would argue most civilizations, regardless of time period, believe what is popularly believed. Unless you can come up with some modern "empirical" evidence for: Ra, Zeus, Dragons, Quetzakcoatl, Ganesha, etc etc.


How so? With tribes that believe in the same pantheon of Gods but prey to different ones. Are followers of different ones. Such is not the case.

Chris
02-11-2012, 09:28 AM
"reason" or "fact" is just a way for a person insecure with their "beliefs" to believe. There are no "facts" and there is no "truth" except for the ones a person believes.

I have only one reason for believing what I believe - because it makes me feel good to do so (while not being too much of a threat to society).
""reason" or "fact" is just a way for a person insecure with their "beliefs" to believe."

And yet you use reason to assert that and would need reason to defend it.

Feelings may cause belief, but they are not reasons.

Chris
02-11-2012, 09:33 AM
There is more knowledge of the Cause for than there is the argument against. Wouldn't you agree?
For instance? So far you've presented cosmological and teleological arguments for God that are both logically flawed. As such they are not arguments.

Also confused about your equating knowledge and argument. Argument is how you achieve knowledge. And so far no one in this thread has said what they know about god.

MMC
02-11-2012, 09:36 AM
Great.....so you didnt get what you wanted and people are talking about shit you don't understand nor comprehend. So whats the point of keeping the thread going. Or is that about puffing up that agnostic ego?

CoLibertarian
02-11-2012, 09:50 AM
""reason" or "fact" is just a way for a person insecure with their "beliefs" to believe."

And yet you use reason to assert that and would need reason to defend it.

Feelings may cause belief, but they are not reasons.

The difference is that I do not portray my "beliefs" formed by my "reasons" to be "factual". I fully embrace my belief as belief. I find it sad that people somehow need
their "truth" to be more valuable than someone else's "truth"

CoLibertarian
02-11-2012, 09:54 AM
How so? With tribes that believe in the same pantheon of Gods but prey to different ones. Are followers of different ones. Such is not the case.

I do not understand where you are going - could you clarify? My suggestion is that all culture have popularly formed beliefs that later are found to be "absurd". I think you suggestion is that because so many cultures have had similar beliefs that it give credence to those beliefs - is that correct?

CoLibertarian
02-11-2012, 09:57 AM
For instance? So far you've presented cosmological and teleological arguments for God that are both logically flawed. As such they are not arguments.

Also confused about your equating knowledge and argument. Argument is how you achieve knowledge. And so far no one in this thread has said what they know about god.

Actually what I have suggested is that there is no "knowing" about anything - that it is all belief. Therefore your question about "knowing" God is not a good question. The proper question is why people "believe" in God, and that has been answered.

Mister D
02-11-2012, 10:48 AM
Actually what I have suggested is that there is no "knowing" about anything - that it is all belief. Therefore your question about "knowing" God is not a good question. The proper question is why people "believe" in God, and that has been answered.

That is a radical position. True knowledge is possible. For example, a square has four equal sides. That's true by definition. Then again, all knowledge is belief. One must believe to be said to know.

Chris
02-11-2012, 12:10 PM
"Then again, all knowledge is belief. One must believe to be said to know."

Equivocating again. One must more than believe to have have knowledge. Knowledge is justified true belief. Belief cannot establish truth. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Chris
02-11-2012, 12:12 PM
Actually what I have suggested is that there is no "knowing" about anything - that it is all belief. Therefore your question about "knowing" God is not a good question. The proper question is why people "believe" in God, and that has been answered.
More equivocating. Let's all just make up the meanings of words. Yahoo!!

Chris
02-11-2012, 12:15 PM
The difference is that I do not portray my "beliefs" formed by my "reasons" to be "factual". I fully embrace my belief as belief. I find it sad that people somehow need
their "truth" to be more valuable than someone else's "truth"
Nor do I portray knowledge as fact. If you embrace belief as belief, which I have no argument with, why do you equivocate belief as reason: "reason" or "fact" is just a way for a person insecure with their "beliefs" to believe." Defend that without using reason, please.

It's also said people put faith in faith, believe in belief.

CoLibertarian
02-11-2012, 01:39 PM
That is a radical position. True knowledge is possible. For example, a square has four equal sides. That's true by definition. Then again, all knowledge is belief. One must believe to be said to know.

Ignoring a rhombus there are ways to twist a square (with gravity) such that it no longer resembles a square. Thus even the definition will have flaws. All knowledge is based upon these types of inferences and definitions and our very limited frame of perceiving the world. Thus our knowledge and definitions are flawed.

There is nothing wrong with belief. It is a great power. The problem is when people try to suggest their belief is truth for all people and that will lead to conflict.

Mister D
02-11-2012, 01:41 PM
"Then again, all knowledge is belief. One must believe to be said to know."

Equivocating again. One must more than believe to have have knowledge. Knowledge is justified true belief. Belief cannot establish truth. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

Again? I haven't equivocated at any time on this thread so your difficulty with language persists. No worries. Anyway, belief is essential to knowledge. That is to say, belief is part and parcel of knowledge. There is no knowledge without belief. Moreover, as Colib noted, what human beings can genuinely know is rather limited so your fixation on knowledge about God and your "tell me about God mantra" is kind of well...inane.

You quote Paul because...? :laugh: This isn't about faith per se. It's about belief versus "knowledge".

CoLibertarian
02-11-2012, 01:41 PM
"Then again, all knowledge is belief. One must believe to be said to know."

Equivocating again. One must more than believe to have have knowledge. Knowledge is justified true belief. Belief cannot establish truth. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


There is no truth except that which we make for ourselves. The real question though is why you must try to suggest that your belief is "truth" while others' belief is just "belief".

Mister D
02-11-2012, 01:45 PM
More equivocating. Let's all just make up the meanings of words. Yahoo!!

You're doing the same thing. There is plenty of disagreement in the field of epistemology yet you continually present one perspective as having universal validity. Why is that, Chris?

CoLibertarian
02-11-2012, 01:46 PM
More equivocating. Let's all just make up the meanings of words. Yahoo!!


That is the purpose of words - to have meaning. Those meanings are not set in stone and constantly change - just like all "facts".