11 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloFor instance, when I say we have a need for meaningful relationships and projects, you should just take it that such a need would be readily satisfied by what one would take as meaningful relationships and projects.
... that, to me, sounds as though our need for God could readily be satisfied by, say, a hoagie or perhaps a long walk on the beach.
Well, then, you really have just terrible reading comprehension. For instance, when I say we have a need for meaningful relationships and projects, you should just take it that such a need would be readily sat methods are ugly and deficient and frustrating toward what I take as noetic obligations.[/b]
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the subject. But you knew that, didn't you?
(unless you are talking about a metaphysical or ontological necessity -- which you aren't and even if you were I still think you would be wrong but for other reasons).
I am? I'm not? Which of the arguments are you making for me and then crushing, exactly?
But, look, all I'm trying to say is the following: if belief in some agent named God meets to your own satisfaction some of your needs related to merely existing (as part of a normative community), then good for you.
Apparently, you haven't been reading what has been written. All of those 'merely existing needs' have been alluded to and spoken for. Again, they are not the issue confused or otherwise.
But quit trying to act like it is some universal solution...
It (God) is not some universal solution, but the universal solution to the stated need. He is either what man has somehow conjured up as the unique person of the universe, or He actually is the unique person of the universe. If conjured (noetic obligation), this makes the situation even more damning. All of man's needs are met with external realities, but he somehow yearns for and subsequently images that which is not real... and--- emphatically--- universally so.
Whether you now aschew any belief in God, you cannot erase the fact that it once was a question, or quite possibly, remains one to this day.
As to the question of my ugly and deficient methods, I'm certain you are smart enough to clean them up to the point of digestion. If not, perhaps you ought to be wrestling with yourself and simply call it a tie in advance.
11 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI responded. I said the so-called 'need' for God is really the genuine
Fillibuster aside, several pages later and no real response yet.
need for answers. 'God' used to provide all the answers: when God
cries, it rains; when God's angry, He causes an eclipse or earthquake;
Where did we come from? We were 'created in seven days; why do
women get labor pains? Because she pissed off God; &c &c &c.
Myth is in no small part aetiological. But, as we find out more and more
answers to these questions (Ah, rain comes when clouds of moisture
hit a cooler section of air; Ah, an eclipse is the moon's covering of the
sun; Ah, an earthquake is when two geological plates rub together; Ah,
the earth is six billion years old and we evolved from chimps; Ah, the
fundus has to bulk up in order to shove out the baby), the answers
'God' gives become increasingly metaphysical.
And, many people -- Starrman, Twitehead, Bbarr, LemonJello, and so
on have replaced the answer of 'God' with something else and are
perfectly satisfied. They still have the need for answers that you and
I have, but they have found them utterly apart from God.
Nemesio
12 Oct 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterin order to find an argument fallacious one must first understand what it is trying to achieve. So often Atheists like yourself seem to think we are trying to do something we are not .
...absolutely I understand. However , in order to find an argument fallacious one must first understand what it is trying to achieve. So often Atheists like yourself seem to think we are trying to do something we are not . Since there obviously is a need for meaning and spirituality in humans it makes you wonder whether that need might be there for a reason.
So, then tell me exactly what is so difficult to understand about the following claim of yours:
The fact that we desire God shows that there is a good chance there is a God. (--knightmeister)
I don't think there is anything complicated about what you are "trying to achieve" here. You're trying to establish the mere desire for God as strong evidence for the existence of God. But, there are no reasons to accept this claim of yours because, as I already said, it is simply based on fallacy – along the lines of appeal to consequences/emotion. Can't you understand the fallacy here? The mere fact that one desires X doesn't in itself somehow make it likely that X exists/obtains. Neither does it make any difference how universal this desire may be among agents (let's suppose for a fleeting moment that the "desire for God" – whatever that means exactly – is universal, as you want to claim it is).
Since there obviously is a need for meaning and spirituality in humans it makes you wonder whether that need might be there for a reason.
Yeah, there certainly are reasons why people long to imbue their lives with meaning. We can talk about these reasons if you like, but they haven't a thing to do with the de facto question of whether or not your God exists. If you want to show that your God exists, then bring some premises that are actually relevant to such a conclusion.
12 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH[/b]All of man's needs are met with external realities...
[b]For instance, when I say we have a need for meaningful relationships and projects, you should just take it that such a need would be readily satisfied by what one would take as meaningful relationships and projects.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the subject. But you knew that, didn't you?
(unless you are talking about a me t, perhaps you ought to be wrestling with yourself and simply call it a tie in advance.
This is only true if you include those (subsequent) “external realities” which humans, in fact, create—such as art, music, story, etc. These satisfy the aesthetic need, the need to imagine and create, etc. And—following LJ’s comments about not only surviving but thriving—these are no small needs (or desires, or urges, or predilections).
I am not asserting that humans create “god.” I do think that all the concepts, notions, stories, etc, about “god” are products of the human mind. Including the idea that the term applies strictly to a supernatural being of some sort—or any a being of some sort. When faced with ineffable mystery, people—imagine and create. Then they can have the tendency to idolize their creations. (What human needs do idols satisfy—material or conceptual idols?)
That, of course, does not disprove the reality of any sort of god, either.
12 Oct 07
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhich, of course, has nothing to do with the subject. But you knew that, didn't you?
For instance, when I say we have a need for meaningful relationships and projects, you should just take it that such a need would be readily satisfied by what one would take as meaningful relationships and projects.
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the subject. But you knew that, didn't you?
(unless you are talking about a me t, perhaps you ought to be wrestling with yourself and simply call it a tie in advance.
So you're telling me that your position toward God; your faith; the whole consortium of inclinations and dispositions thereof; has nothing to do with the pursuit of what you take to be meaningful relationships and projects? You do take it that you have some relationships with God and his followers, don't you? You do take it that you pursue projects that are concordant with His will, don't you? So, what then, you don't think these relationships and projects are "meaningful"? Why, then, would you pursue them with such healthy vigor? Point being: can we please get on the same page here?!? My claim -- again -- is that what you call "the need for God" is simply reducible to considerations that have really absolutely nothing to do at bottom with some external divine causal agent. I would say as moral agents and patients, we have 'needs' that embrace our basic interests, and we pursue them through paths that we think will imbue our existence with meaning and that we think will minimize pain and suffering, support our general well-being, etc. Yes, I would agree that these 'needs' at bottom are "universal" within a normative community like ours. But you continue to claim that an irreducible desire for some external agent is universal. What nonsense! Taken literally, the "need for God" is not something that anyone possesses -- let alone something that everyone possesses.
In part at least, you have strived to imbue your existence with meaning through your faith in the God of Christianity. Going back to the 'needs' I listed previously, your faith in God provides you with what you yourself take to be meaningful relationships and projects; victory over the otherwise unsettling prospects of death; a source of morality; aesthetic pleasures; a theodicy of sorts -- a justification for the general hardships of life; knowledge where you might otherwise have to settle for ignorance; etc. Not that I actually think your faith provides you with these things in any non-ersatz way (speaking for some of these things; and I don't want to belittle the elements of religion that I do find aesthetically pleasing), but the point is that what you take to be some "need for God" is simply reducible to such things. Why you, for one, ignore this point and, for two, think you have found the one and only way to provide for such things -- it's really beyond me.
12 Oct 07
Originally posted by NemesioMost of what you cite involves the superstitions of people who were without knowledge of the Living God. We do not see the progression of knowledge you describe (at least not at such crude levels of unsophistication) in the Bible. Analogies notwithstanding, the Bible never describes thunder as God bowling, for instance.
I responded. I said the so-called 'need' for God is really the genuine
need for answers. 'God' used to provide all the answers: when God
cries, it rains; when God's angry, He causes an eclipse or earthquake;
Where did we come from? We were 'created in seven days; why do
women get labor pains? Because she pissed off God; &c &c &c.
Myth is in no smal ...[text shortened]... s that you and
I have, but they have found them utterly apart from God.
Nemesio
And, many people -- Starrman, Twitehead, Bbarr, LemonJello, and so on have replaced the answer of 'God' with something else and are
perfectly satisfied. They still have the need for answers that you and
I have, but they have found them utterly apart from God.
Don't let them fool you. They are all still riddled with faith.
12 Oct 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo you're telling me that your position toward God; your faith; the whole consortium of inclinations and dispositions thereof; has nothing to do with the pursuit of what you take to be meaningful relationships and projects?
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the subject. But you knew that, didn't you?
So you're telling me that your position toward God; your faith; the whole consortium of inclinations and dispositions thereof; has nothing to do with the pursuit of what you take to be meaningful relationships and projects? You do take it that you have some relati ...[text shortened]... the one and only way to provide for such things -- it's really beyond me.[/b]
You'll have to help me out here. Are you here suggesting--- or beginning to suggest--- that a believer would/could not have personal and inter-personal integrity outside of the information of standards derived from God?
But you continue to claim that an irreducible desire for some external agent is universal.
You may think I am a dreamer, but I'm not the only one... or something like that. Surely, even the most ardent of atheists will insist that the 'delusion of God' has 'plagued' maknkind from his inception. If that ain't universal, I'm hard-pressed to think of anything that is.
your faith in God provides you with what you yourself take to be meaningful relationships and projects; victory over the otherwise unsettling prospects of death; a source of morality; aesthetic pleasures; a theodicy of sorts -- a justification for the general hardships of life; knowledge where you might otherwise have to settle for ignorance; etc.
Hard to believe that something wrought by ignorance, nurtured by imagination, propelled by fear and propogated by guilt could be so fulfilling and life-affirming!
12 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't have time for a full reply, but as a theist, even I object to this
Surely, even the most ardent of atheists will insist that the 'delusion of God' has 'plagued' maknkind from his inception. If that ain't universal, I'm hard-pressed to think of anything that is.
bogus claim. 'God' has not plagued mankind from his inception; 'God'
has only been around for about 3500 years. Before that, it was 'gods,'
and before that it was 'something.' And, even today, there are things
competing with 'God;' just ask the billion or so members of the Hindu
faith.
The only thing that has been around from his inception has been the
curiousity which drives people to answer questions. 'God' ('gods'😉 has
(have) been a surrogate answer for many of those questions. As we
learn more, said answer has been less and less satisfactory.
Nemesio