09 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyneyI'm sorry I called you an idiot and making one out of myself.
2 votes for me now. One day I though I'm smart enough but now I see I was overestimating myself.
But there something I don't see here, what is the reason?
Palynka one before but I'm curios to know the others, my be I can understand why GOD exist/doesn't exit.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by PalynkaThere are two sides in life, my friend: theists and atheists. You're either one or the other.
Interesting, I don't see the title as grandiose. Even if the evidence is 'little' (which is a somewhat subjective description), it is still evidence. Your view of his posts is contradictory.
PS: Side? There are 'sides' here? Do I need to sign up for a 'side'?
My view, as I have taken pains to make clear, is that if absence of evidence is to be admitted as evidence of absence, it among the weakest forms of evidence he could have chosen. His subsequent entries (or lack thereof) have done very little to bolster his case. You may think I am merely attacking him out of petulance, but I'm trying to get him to "raise his game", as it were. A strong case CAN be made against the existence of God (with a capital 'G'😉, but it just so happens that he hasn't made one. At least not yet anyway. There are many theists (somewhere) and atheists (playing the devil's advocate) who can rip into poorly presented arguments. Since attacking theists is so bloody tedious, it's sometimes more interesting to attack the arguments of fellow atheists.
09 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettAs it stands, it seems to me that you don't know the meaning of the word 'evidence', especially when you presented the GAFE as evidence, when it clearly isn't. The GAFE is a logical argument that is either proof of the non-existence of a OOMP god (if correct) or it is meaningless (if incorrect).
There are two sides in life, my friend: theists and atheists. You're either one or the other.
My view, as I have taken pains to make clear, is that if absence of evidence is to be admitted as evidence of absence, it among the weakest forms of evidence he could have chosen. His subsequent entries (or lack thereof) have done very little to bolster his cas dy tedious, it's sometimes more interesting to attack the arguments of fellow atheists.
Logical arguments that claim the logical impossibility of an entity cannot be evidence of anything. They're either proof or they're wrong.
Edit: Obviously the argument depends on the exact definitions of what a OOMP god is.
09 Dec 06
Originally posted by PalynkaMaybe I was wrong. Maybe attacking theists was more fun after all.
As it stands, it seems to me that you don't know the meaning of the word 'evidence', especially when you presented the GAFE as evidence, when it clearly isn't. The GAFE is a logical argument that is either proof of the non-existence of a OOMP god (if correct) or it is meaningless (if incorrect).
Logical arguments that claim the logical impossibility of an ...[text shortened]... g.
Edit: Obviously the argument depends on the exact definitions of what a OOMP god is.
11 Dec 06
I know I have jumped about a bit with my evidence and not necessarily started with the best bits but it takes a bit of thinking to construct a good argument an I just started with the first bits I thought of.
Next piece of evidence:
Inconsistent message.
Many theists claim that God communicates directly with people. Several people on these forums have made this claim.However my observations of such people and discussions with some of them have lead me to believe that everyones experience and beliefs in the matter is different and any message that they might be receiving is different in each case. surely this can be regarded as evidence that:
1. Only one person is actually communicating with God.
or
2. God is not a very good communicator.
or
3. God is not consistent in the message he is sending
or
4. There is no such communication taking place.
11 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaThe problem with taking the circumstances into account is that the explanation sought must be homogenous with those circumstances. Every science assumes this. 'Science' is not a monolithic entity -- every science has its own assumptions, its own level of reality it examines and its own manner of proceding (this is much more pronounced in the social sciences and economics). Sure, there are overlaps and grey areas at times, but there is no "Grand Unified Theory" of 'Science'. Indeed, the term 'scientifically observable' must be qualified. Observable by which class of scientist? Physicists/Chemists? Biologists/Physiologists? Psychologists/Sociologists? Economists? Historians?
The question is that the circumstances are scientifically observable, so there's no reason to claim that they cannot be taken into account.
The term beauty has no absolute meaning as it is a relativistic and subjective notion. It seems unfair to pretend that science needs an absolute definition for a relativistic notion. However, like we bot
PS: I did say apart from Mathematics (for the reasons I gave before) and beauty, though.
EDIT: The point being that not just their explanations, but even the objects of their observation will look different from each other and may even be incompatible!
Btw, many philosophers would disagree with you that 'beauty' is not (at least partially) objective.
My claim is that the level of reality on which God's actions can be seen is not one that the sciences study.
11 Dec 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou make it sound like God is in marketing, and he needs to stay "on message" to "sell the product".
I know I have jumped about a bit with my evidence and not necessarily started with the best bits but it takes a bit of thinking to construct a good argument an I just started with the first bits I thought of.
Next piece of evidence:
Inconsistent message.
Many theists claim that God communicates directly with people. Several people on these forums have ...[text shortened]... not consistent in the message he is sending
or
4. There is no such communication taking place.
If there were a God and he communicated with people in such a way as to guide and encourage and comfort them without ever interferring with their free will -- wouldn't he have to be extremely low key?
Would it be all that surprising that many people received different messages based on their differing needs?
And wouldn't it only be a very few who, after long practice, could hear him clearly? Wouldn't it be possible that many others heard wrongly, or interpreted wrongly, or embellished the message on their own?
Again, if God's purpose is for us to develop ourselves by ourselves, he cannot show himself directly. That would turn us into sheep, waiting for God to tell us what to do.
12 Dec 06
Originally posted by spruce112358So you are choosing option 3?
You make it sound like God is in marketing, and he needs to stay "on message" to "sell the product".
If there were a God and he communicated with people in such a way as to guide and encourage and comfort them without ever interferring with their free will -- wouldn't he have to be extremely low key?
Would it be all that surprising that many people received different messages based on their differing needs?
He tells Bush "Attack Iraq" because that is Bush's need. He tells Sadam "Attack America" because that is Sadams need. Interesting.
And wouldn't it only be a very few who, after long practice, could hear him clearly? Wouldn't it be possible that many others heard wrongly, or interpreted wrongly, or embellished the message on their own?
Why would practice come in to it. Surely if God wants to communicate he does if he wants to be misinterpreted then he does.
Again, if God's purpose is for us to develop ourselves by ourselves, he cannot show himself directly. That would turn us into sheep, waiting for God to tell us what to do.
A sheepdog in sheeps clothing!
My real objection to your explanation is that the observed result is disastrous not helpful. So many conflicts are based on peoples different interpretations of the 'message'
12 Dec 06
3 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]Think of your life as a Puzzle: What Do I Do With My Life? How Should I Live? You are going to grow solving this puzzle. Just working on it, you are going to become better than you are. It is tough, by the way. Unbelievable challenges. And just when you think you've got it worked out -- something new will crop up.
So you are choosing option 3?
[b]Would it be all that surprising that many people received different messages based on their differing needs?
He tells Bush "Attack Iraq" because that is Bush's need. He tells Sadam "Attack America" because that is Sadams need. Interesting.
And wouldn't it only be a very few who, after long practice, could hea ful. So many conflicts are based on peoples different interpretations of the 'message'
Of course, if God simply appeared before you in a blaze of glory and said, "My son, you will do X, Y, and Z." That would be easy, wouldn't it? But would you grow? Would you learn the deeper reasons for behaving in certain ways and not others? You'd just be doing what Dad said.
Where does one even start? Well, you have parents, teachers, mentors. There are books and things others have written. Some are helpful, some not. Some things you just reason out. "I have to live this way -- no other way makes sense." That's perfectly valid -- you have a big brain for a reason. Why if not to use it?
Sometimes I think of Jesus as somebody who solved the puzzle right away. Or maybe he was a BIG hint. However you like to think of him -- up to you.
I don't think God told either Bush or Saddam to attack the other. I'm not sure, of course. But I sincerely doubt it.
I don't think God wants to be misinterpreted. But he does want to see if you can figure it out. Will you see why you should love and nurture each other, or will you kill each other? Up to you. You really, REALLY want a hint? Maybe you can get one. Maybe. You will never be absolutely sure it was ... Him. Perhaps it was.
Your Solution to this puzzle is your Life -- the way YOU decided to live it. I'm not sure if there is a Final. Maybe we just all sit down and talk about the approach we took. I don't think anybody gets punished. Some don't make as much progress as others, of course.
Do your best.
12 Dec 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt is sufficient that it is observable by at least one class.
The problem with taking the circumstances into account is that the explanation sought must be homogenous with those circumstances. Every science assumes this. 'Science' is not a monolithic entity -- every science has its own assumptions, its own level of reality it examines and its own manner of proceding (this is much more pronounced in the social sc ...[text shortened]... vel of reality on which God's actions can be seen is not one that the sciences study.
Your criticism could be made to a multitude of processes that involve more than one field of science. And yet I'm sure you wouldn't reject them as 'scientifically observable'.
My claim is that the level of reality on which God's actions can be seen is not one that the sciences study.
Perhaps. But I'm discussing its effects. Are they visible/perceivable? If yes, why are they not identifiable?
12 Dec 06
Since when does God have to prove His existence to you? All of creation reflects as a mere pixel in the palm of His hand and within that pixel stands you, waving your finger, stomping your foot, demanding answers from Him. What a laugh. You have absolutely no idea who your dealing with, do you? Tell you what………you keep waving that finger and stomping that foot………see how far you get.