God is Real!
Offline My name is Badway and I believe in God, Elohim, Allah or whatever you wish to refer to the higher Deity. I understand how easy it is to be atheist or even agnostic , especially in this day and time however, the evidence of Gods' existence is too overwhelming to push under the rug of disbelief. I'm not here to make enemies nor convert for as a believer in God I also believe in freewill for He Himself is the Author of it. The Bible is merely a book not in so much as a book of laws but a handbook on how to live and treat each other and nature itself. The book is an inspirational work of literary art written by various authors to report their divine relationship with their creator. The Bible does not conflict with the theory of evolution nor contradicts it but does emphasize our development as we understand it. Many of the stories in this book are parables and allegories meant to relate our minds to our experiences and learn the message that is to be gained from it. Many of these stories are not meant to be taken as fact which is usually the main reason "Christians" and non theists supporters debate almost ironically religiously. The belief in God is not religion nor the acceptance of Christ as their Lord and savior but yet man has made a religion of it. The Messiah preached against religion so The Christ and atheists are in agreement. In other words religion is wrong whether it be Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wiccan, or Voodoo too name a few. I know many atheist will contend such facts as Zoroastorism being a precursor to Christianity and that some of it's precepts may have come from that including Islam as well. The Bible speaks of God's nemesis the devil as being the father of lies which stands to reason that all of our alleged knowledge of particular subjects may have been authored by the evil one himself. It is okay to question, I do it all the time, however it is not okay to deny your God or His love excuse me unlimited love for each and every one of you. I will respect all of you who wish to correspond with me but let it be known I am no expert on God's holy word or any other subject, I am a believer because of things in my life that have transpired and luck nor coincidence can justify it. Bless you all and good luck to all of you. Sincerely yours Badway...it's kind of funny though when you think about the word atheist..break it down and you have A Theist..I'd like to think that's a practical joke planted by your pick..either God or Devil but it's ironic no matter how you look at it..maybe more appropo would be non-theist...take care hope to hear from you...
"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY
- Login to post comments
Hey gadfly....chew toy hunh...okay if that makes you feel better about your self....fine...haha
First of all I mentioned his uh Fallibility not infallibility get it straight.
Where he was fallible if you read his comment to which i was responding he made the error of contradicting himself...i suggest you go back and reread it unless he edited it...after i pointed out his contradictions. Either anything is possible or it is not and again you contradicted yourself...if it is possible a God can exist then why does the God of the bible can not....
Why not give me credit Thomathy did.....useless argument
Actually he didn't say no he didn't he said No. there was no justification in his statement. If he believes no then he would not conceive it to be plausible even for others...say what you mean guys or leave the debates to the professionals. Irritating that you get offended for comments you make and I point out your contradictions...I'm not mad you for blasting me with your pitiful attempts at sarcastic rhetoric but please stop being so juvenile..I would expect this from adolescents not grown educated adults.
I don't get a get out of Hell free card because i believe. I'm sure I'll pay for my sins one way or another...heck I may be doing that now here on Earth....but God can forgive you and deliver you but all he asks is to give yourself to Him..let Him be your shoulder to lean on...He loves you so much and it bothers me that you Can't get that....Jesus said I came not to judge the world but to save it...HELLO is anyone listening or reading....Does God hate murder yes, but not the murderer. If the Murderer won't repent for his sin or ask for forgiveness or to accept the Messiah as his savior then you would be condemned...and GOD DOES NOT WANT TO DO THAT...He is doing everything He can to salvage you but you wish to continue to rebel and be satanic with your attitude towards that you can't explain.
You don't kill someone and ask forgiveness then get saved and go out and kill again without fear of retribution...can one stumble yes but if you were truly saved you would not kill again but then that's why the Lord said judge not lest ye be judged for as you do so shall you be!
because we don't know why a person does what they do...was it out of self defense, falsely accused of a the crime, what? Only God knows your heart and it is upon that you will stand on judgement lest you have repented and accepted the Messiah as your Lord and Savior. He who drinks from this well will not thirst, he who eats of this bread shall not hunger. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.....There are none righteous, no not one....So what does that tell you...it tells me that even Mother Theresa is in Danger of judgement just like Hitler...the difference is who accepted and believed before they left this world.
And by the way,gadfly....let the person I'm responding to answer for themselves and respond only to your posts....that's like letting an attorney speak for Mike Tyson because he can't articulate his own thought processes so he needs an interpreter of sorts...but thanks for playing!
"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY
Well if your an ape then your the prettiest ape I have ever seen....I guess that makes me ignorant and a Beastialist? don't think there such a word but you get what i mean....and Miss norton fan we all are ignorant for that means basically we don't know things and I'm okay with that but to assume your right because man said you should accept this as fact based on this principle is stupid. And I don't beleive because man said or even because the bible said I believe for other reasons that to you may be insignificant or passed off as being lucky but I suggest to you it is far deeper than that....if only you knew...if only you knew
"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY
You have a reading comprehension problem. I will make what I wrote easier for you to understand.
Am I going to have to clarify everything I write? Don't now accuse me of dishonesty because of your inability to read or to understand your own questions and don't presume that I've contradicted myself when it is you who has the problem reading and comprehending. I am giving you largely more thoughtful answers to your questions and actual rebuttals. You are engaging in ad hominem and writing plainly bizarre, non sequiturs. (And those aren't just big, intimidating words, they mean something.)
If you weren't talking about god, which would be strange, I apologize. Neither of us can have 'complete truth'. That isn't accessible to anyone. What we can have is reasonable certainty. Regarding your god-belief I'll wait for you to show a rigorous, coherent definition of your god and to present to me valid reasoning and evidence or experiments which will show that it exists. Until then, I take your claim by its merit and by yours. I have no reason to trust that some thing you say exists that contradicts what any learned person can know does exist. In short, I don't trust that your claim isn't just made up. Please, don't respond with a fallacious argument from popularity.
The best way to get across a novel idea is by analogy. The Genesis writers did use analogy. Their analogies very clearly do not match what we know about the inception of the universe. Again, no human was made from the bone of another and the formation of the universe and the Earth and all things upon it weren't completed in six days by a logically impossible deity, not even by analogy.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
People who believe in god sound eerily like people with Stockholm syndrome. God doesn't want you to get hurt by the things he's going to make happen to you but what choice does he have if you don't do everything god says?
Sure you might find the idea of compulsory love by pain of torture unsavoury, but god really is a sweet guy despite being an admittedly jealous genocidal maniac and face it , it's really your own fault for not being obedient enough.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
You survived something you though you shouldn't have? A loved one survived something you thought they shouldn't have? Do you think we haven't heard this before?
Don't just say, "I have my reasons". You can if you want to stop there, but that does nothing for us or you in taking the conversation further. If you stop at "I have my reasons" you are wasting your time and ours.
What are your reasons?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
So Brian....how's the free world out there buddy...
okay here we go again
So your telling me there is absolutely no way you could be wrong...you know the whole truth..the origin of the universe...I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me the origin of the first molecule before anything ever came into existence. Tick Tock, Tick Tock, Tick Tock.
Right, so moving on the clock is ticking.
Giant brain with no body and magical powers...that is your belief in what God looks like....yo bro put down the comic books and sci fi novels, reality is over here...
Again the made up stories...so what is Solomons Temple a figment of my imagination that and about oh a 6 billion or so other peoples.
The Bible records coincides with archaeological proof that there was a Solomon, a King David, Moses, Abraham, Sodom and a Gomorrah, a great flood, and you have evidence to dispute what archaeologists have uncovered.
someone said if horses had gods they would look like horses....hmm that's intelligent! seriously! and what about ants and spiders oooohh a spider god creepy....enough with the semantics really Brian that's what you got..really..someone said, no name... I could do that...heck I might have but then that's getting lazy in your argument to believe in whatever you cling to. Let me ask you this Brian...
Can you see air...not smoke, or vapors I mean can you see air? You can't see it but you know it exists, why? Because without it you'd die, right? Or is it because some scientist told you he discovered it so therefore it must exist because now it's proven that you need air to survive but you still can't see it. Yet, it still exists...nonetheless. So why can't God exist...just because you can't see him doesn't make it so..That's all I'm saying Brian.....goodnight!
"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY
Before you go saying stupid crap about "air" I'd suggest you go pick up a science book, look up the word "atom", then molecule, then atmosphere if you don't know what "air" is. There are tons of 5th graders that know what "air" is.
You cant see the individual atoms in a molecule of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen but you know what water is. H20
Do you have any other asinine questions you want to ask?
I can't see my DNA but I know what adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine are. Pick up a biology and chemistry book and put down your comic book.
I cant see an individual ray of light, but I know a magical pixy didn't make it, any more than a god named Thor made lighting.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
1.Just looking at Thomathy's teeth marks on you, son. I don't have feelings about you one way or the other.
2. You don't read what you write, do you? I know you didn't read anything Thomathy wrote - if you did you would have understood that he was only giving his opinion (you know, what you asked for). You misinterpreted what he wrote and he gets the blame?
3. I don't give credit to plagiarists - he's kinder than I am.
4. You don't read your bible either, I see. If you did you'd know how the writers made forgiveness work. I realize these are only the words of your Christ so they probably don't mean that much to you but reread Matthew 18:21-22 anyway. You'll see where I get the infinite forgiveness advantage that you guys have. Then again, if you follow Paul's Christianity you don't even have to worry about that because sin no longer applies to you.
All right, I'll let Thomathy keep handing you your hindparts. You've already shown me your don't know what you're talking about
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Look, many of us here, have had "experiences" we thought were real . I myself thought I had had in my childhood "outer body experiences".
One time I saw my dead grandmother standing at the foot of my bed. Another time I saw my dead father standing at the foot of my bed. Another time I saw my, STILL LIVE, mother standing at the foot of my bed. Another time I thought I was floating outside my body over the parking lot where I lived.
ALL that was REALLY GOING ON was my dream state mixing with my consciousness and my open eyes. It was all in my head. Not knowing anything at the time, it felt real, now that I know better, I know it was merely all in my head.
The brain is a powerful organ with electrochemical activity that can and often can fool us. I am sure your "experiences" felt real and I am sure you believe they were.
But this hiccup in our evolution is quite ordinary and mundane and hardly unique to you or our species.
We want you here, and I am NOT being sarcastic. But since I can only speak for myself. Maybe others are willing to pull punches with you. I don't. I hope you are brave enough to handle it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Wow, it's the classic, "can you see air" argument. I haven't bumped into this one for a while. It's almost as bad as Pascal's Wager.
- I can't see air, but I can feel it with my sense of touch. I can breathe it in and breathe it out. I can observe its effects. Which one of these things can you do with God?
- Why not smoke or vapors? Special pleading, perhaps? 'Air' is just a colloqial term for the gases in the Earth's atmosphere. Smoke and vapors are gases, and I can see those.
- I wouldn't use the phrase "because some scientist told you" because some of the people on this forum have science degrees. Yeah...
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Hell yeah I can see air. Every time I look into the sky and see blue rather than the black of interstellar space, I see air. Every time I see a fuzzy outline of the horizon, I see air. Every time I see the refraction of a sail as it comes into port, I see air.
I see air all over the place, Bro. What, you short sighted or something? Can't see blue? They have doctors for that, y'know.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Okay Thomathy I'm going to go slow for you. You do love to set them up so let me knock them down
First, ever heard the word sarcasm? A satirical remark in jest, to scorn. You speak like your an authority on the history of our existence so I merely responded that it was great to know that someone had all the answers. Especially without offering an answer to my question..what created the first molecule that begat as we know it the present day universe over a googlian years!
You stated I invented the myth of God and I replied I didn't invent anything
You said my imagination so I replied I created the Bible and everything else again...sarcastic
I did not make up this idea of God..but thanks for the props I guess...And sir you obviously believed in everything I mentioned except the great flood...however there is evidence that a flood at least 4 times the size of Isreal had occured about the same time as Noahs' story came about and also there were oyster clusters apparently discovered atop the Andes Mountains.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070907150931.htm
and
http://www.allaboutcreation.org/the-flood.htm
You implied that you couldn't be wrong when I suggested is it possible we both could be wrong and you said no, that is to suggest one of us is absolutely right and I would think you are not referring to me so the only logical conclusion would be that your right and I am not, according to your words.
By the mere stance upon which you debate without merit and pass judgement against me for my belief constitutes an air of arrogance on your part among others.
Did i touch a nerve with the hermorphadite comment....sorry bro/sis whatever!
If there is good reason to believe that there is life on other planets then why do you contradict your statement with No. That is not a reading comprehension problem that is," an author of a thought which bewilders him, problem!"
Thomathy wrote: No, i don't believe in life on other planets, that is either lower, equal or higher than ourselves.(Then you say)It is possible there is life on other planets(hunh)however there is no real good reason to think so,(what)but I don't know (Can't comprehend)what you mean by lower, equal or higher. Okay then any of you geniuses spot his contradictory statement. First he says he doesn't believe, then it's possible but yet there is no good reason to cause him to believe it...I got whiplash...that's a left right left turn. and as far as lower,equal or higher life forms if there is life on other planets..there may be living things that are lower than us(less advanced) or primitive, equal, or of same intelligence, likenesses or intelligence and higher being that which is greater than our present state of being excelling in intelligence, and so forth.
BTW Thomathy why is it where you are using some of my quotes they have above it Thomathy Wrote...just curious bro/sis whatever?
Now, I never said Thomathy that if your a non believer that your immoral or even unethical...can you show me where I even remotely suggested that..so please don't throw in things there I didn't say or imply..thank you..and as far as more moral than I you base this upon what. Do you feed or shelter the homeless or how often do you pay for someones meal when you know yourself that you can't afford to spend it. How can you make a claim of being more morally superior than anyone let alone me this isn't a contest. I'm not competing with you or against you..If your a genuinely good person then great! but don't confuse morality with being a Christian, there are some quite immoral Christians...I agree on that ,but still, my ethics over yours or vice versa is moot .
Oh Brother where art thou? You, Sir Thomathy of Forgetful land! You said that there was something possibly other universes or whatever before the Big Bang. I was going to the most infinitesimal point of our existence. But okay lets use the BBT as the starting point...then what started that...a key in the ignition...c'mon dude, cosmic gases...where did they come from a gas factory....what none of you scientific theorists can explain this so just do us all of favor and admit YOU DON'T KNOW....so why be so adamant about a theory you can't prove. I'm adamant about my belief not because of How we got here but what's more important is why we are here. That is the true question.
And all your quotes from wikipedia...albeit not a 100 percent reliable form of information...clearly mentions speculations and theories with no proof to support any of it and this is the best you can do....frankly, Thomathy I'd expect that from Brian or Bob but not you because your so perfect....oh yeah i was being sarcastic bro.....I wish we could all talk on the phone my fingers getting tired....but hey bro...no hard feelings..at some point I'll post my lil stories of why i believe in God for you all to read and dissect later...but there is nothing scientific about my experiences just things that happened in my life that reinforced my belief in a Higher power. until next time...ya know in a way i feel a kinship with you guys...kind of like a family so thanks for your bantering back n forth with me this has been fun for me and enlightening....
"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY
It seems to me that Badway does have a point, though he expressed it in-artfully. We can't directly sense every entity we uncontroversially claim exists; rather, we often infer that an entity exists after a long chain of complicated reasoning concerning both the observable and the unobservable. And, it seems to me, Badway is simply saying that we can conclude, 'God exists' in a similar way. This is, after all, the project of natural theology.
Now, it is no objection to protest, "But I can't perceive God," since there are sundry entities you can't perceive, e.g. bottom quarks. (If you want to counter with, "Sure, but we can perceive the effects of these theoretical entities," then you're begging the question concerning natural theology, which makes a similar claim. It will also not do to counter with appeals to testability or falsifiability, since it is decidedly not the case that every claim to knowledge must be testable or falsifiable -- especially claims with the ontological reach of, "God exists.") Also, it is no objection to claim, "But you can't *prove* God exists," since if proof is the standard, then we must throw out every discipline except logic and mathematics. And, contrary to what you read on popular level atheist websites, it's simply false to claim, "But there's no *evidence* for god's existence." If we take a proposition P as evidence E for conclusion C, then P counts as E for C just in case C is more plausibly true if P obtains then it is if not-P obtains. Given this conception of evidence -- and, given certain basic qualifications, e.g. evidence is always defeasible, etc. -- then obviously all sorts of phenomena count as evidence for God's existence.
So, as I read Badway, he was simply making a rather uncontroversial epistemic claim, one that is indeed easily justified if read charitably. And this last point is, I take it, the most important one: read the arguments of others charitably. Don't dismiss them with cliches and previously worked out responses to similar arguments; rather, give them their full force before acting like pit-bull with a -- what was it? -- oh, a "chew-toy." If you're not careful, you might find that some chew-toys bite back.
Edejardin
I then went on to say,
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Well then buhbye Thomathy, I am tired of responding to a person who reedits his work to fit his argument or fail to "comprehend" anything I write unless I have to spell it out. Am I the most prolific writer, the answer is no! But I do believe my literal skills as far as poetry or lyrical songwriting or even telling a story in a descriptive manner would leave you in the proverbial intergalactic space dust from which you were derived. Chew on that
"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY
Let me just state that it is painful to read anything you write. You ramble on from one subject to another without ever addressing anything. In addition to this, you seem to be perceiving arguments that aren't there, and somehow think that other people are going back and editing things when as soon as you quote them, this forum does not allow that to happen.
Quite simply, you appear to be someone in need of medication. I am not trying to be rude, only helpful. I would suggest seeing a psychiatrist, and probably a psychologist as well.
After that, a course or two on logic and on literature would probably do you a great service.
If you are trying to make a point in this thread, you are TERRIBLE at doing so. I believe I summed up your original post in a previous post, after deciphering it. If I am incorrect, feel free to correct me on that translation.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
I have seen projection, but this could represent a case study for a psychology class. I am stupefied.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Meooooow,,,,Hey clock cat go chase a mouse! If you don't like reading my drivel then A. Don't read it! B. Don't respond to it! And the reason you can't have nice things is because either your poor, don't have a job, in jail or whatever....so go play in your litter box and cough up your fur ball ideology on someone else....jingle jingle now go play.....
And Thomathy, back already....geeesh. I thought I got rid of you...at least your not a man of your word as I suspected....glad to have ya back though.....I missed you.....it's been what, about 10, 20, 30 minutes...haha
"They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions...I must be going to Heaven because I don't have any good intentions.".BADWAY
Oh yeah and you are stupefied just with out the 2 e's and f....ow..zing...zoom...love ya bro
So..much...fail...at..once...
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Forgive me if i miss the subtilties of this thread as i haven't read it but
.
.
.
.
.
No he is not.
The claim "God exists" has no ontological reach. The very concept of god is epistemically unsound. Natural theology itself has not presented an epistemology distinct from that of science, and uses outmoded arguments such as "teleology" and variations on the cosmological argument, both of which deviate from the very epistemology to which it claims to adhere. Natural theology is essentially one long argument from ignorance, spiced liberally with awe and incredulity.
Then there's the question of the proposed ontology. So far, I have yet to see a definition or description of god that is both complete and coherent. Until you can present a coherent, clear set of propositions, you have no ontology.
"Obviously" all sorts of phenomena count as evidence for God's existence? Really? You've given a logical construction, but glossed over any evidence with "obviously." In fact, there is nothing presented that counts as evidence for god. Much is presented as evidence of our ignorance (cosmogenesis and abiogenesis, as two examples that are often trotted out by theists). However, evidence for ignorance does not constitute evidence for god, in any logical construction, especially ones that count propositions as evidence (a somewhat naive view).
Give one example of evidence for god that is not an appeal to ignorance, or argument from incredulity. I would even accept a simple description or example of what would constitute evidence for god.
There is no justified epistemic claim for god. That's the problem. The instant you introduce god, you lose all known epistemology. As god is omnipotent (one of the few attributes most monotheistic religions agree on these days), you lose all naturalistic philosophy, and are left with theistic philosophy, and a revelation-based epistemology. The only possible source of actual knowledge is god, so you must know the basic attributes of god before you can build any knowledge.
The reason we know bottom quarks exist, or at least the reason we know the mathematical model that employs quarks is a reasonable ontological model, is because the model made predictions that were later observed as true. The epistemology used to determine the accuracy of the quark model has been verified because it is able to map future knowledge. (Note here how the prediction is not evidence of the model; the prediction is a testable truth statement that describes the minimum prerequisites for what would constitute evidence.)
My puppies have chew-toys that squeak. They don't really bite back, though -- they just make a lot of random noises.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Tapey, I always think you are trying to trade fish when I read your avatar.
I know it's WTFish, but I always read WT FISH
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Badway, are you capable of stating your position avoiding assertion and irrelevant comment?
If you are, then you will avoid what you see as misunderstandings on others' behalf concerning your statements. You will also at least have attempted to demonstrate a validity for your views. Around here "something is, 'cause I believe it is" doesn't hold much water as an argument. A person who truly valued the truth in their assertions would demonstrate why they deserve such adherence, not just goad or bicker with others who quite naturally cannot see why they should respect an opinion of yours which you apparently don't respect much yourself.
Of course, if you're not capable of avoiding unfounded or unprovable assertive claims then you're just another one of the many deluded people, and contributing to debate regarding the validity of your assertions is as pointless as discussing the contribution of toothpicks to renaissance art. In fact it's a bigger waste of time for you even than it is for us, since at least our commentary is pregnated with facts which challenge the truth you claim is somewhere to be found in your assertions, while yours is simple assertion after assertion and ... well, nothing else. A neutral reader of both, I imagine, will have no difficulty in deciding which of us is ignorantly deluded and which at least attempt intelligent inquiry.
See if you can do it.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
hehe thats probably because i made a hash job of editing the origanal avatar.... Trading fish is better tbh
btw here is the orginal, far to gay for anyone to use, so i tried improving it... i failed
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
....
/smack
You deserved that. Now think about what you have done.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
hangs head in shame
but im sure you are aware of things called expressions... expessially well placed expressions poking a little harmless fun
now i head off to sensitivity training
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Sadly, the grammar mistake is just as much, if not more bothersome in my mind than using gay as a pejorative.
It keeps needling at me every time I look at it.
I don't know what this says about me.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
It is far to gay. When I looked back I was a long way from where I came.
Sorry i abused your cat
#%Y#G% YOU DID THAT ON PURPOSE!
I know you did... ;_;
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Tapey, ClockCat,
This is my favorite thread ever. Thanks.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
You are right that many entities can be defined such that it is impossible to directly perceive them, even if they did exist. However, if an entity is defined such that its perception would be fairly ubiquitous, then the lack-of-perception argument would deal a great amount of damage to the credibility of the opposing position. If P, then probably Q; not-Q; therefore, probably not-P. Many nontheists argue that, for instance, Fundamentalist Christians have defined their god in such a way that probable perception is entailed, so the lack of perception entails that there is no god as they have defined the term. They do not make such an argument when the god is defined in an opposite way, where probable perception is not entailed, such as how Deists and Panentheists define the term. For the lack-of-perception argument to be successfully countered, one must define God (intelligibly and coherently) and then proceed to show that the definition does not entail probable perception.
You are also right that someone would be begging the question concerning natural theology if they hold to the simplistic notion that perceiving the alleged effects of something is evidence that such a thing exists, but nontheists generally do not employ such a simplistic notion of evidence. The most common argument, though perhaps not phrased this way, is that conscious-origination and nonconscious-origination can both be construed to equally entail the perceptions, which means that the perceptions count as evidence for a god no more than they count for evidence against gods, which entails that, all else being equal, we are not justified in straying from agnosticism. (If you're not aware, most atheists are actually "negative atheists" who embrace agnosticism.) This response is also adequate to deal with your last two sentences.
And for that which is between, you are also right that the "you cannot prove such-and-such" arguments entail that we should throw out every discipline except logic and mathematics, but you are interpreting their statements too literally. You should keep in mind that your education in the principles of critical thought can itself be applied uncritically, causing you to miss the point of statements that are not meant to be taken at face value, which is what has happened here. They are saying, not that you cannot construct a deductive argument that establishes beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation that a god exists, though that is implied by what they are saying, but that you cannot even establish that conscious-origination is substantially more probable than nonconscious-origination, and, by allusion, they are saying that, all else being equal, no one in the discussion is justified in straying from agnosticism, hence the reason they do not stray from it and they believe that you should not stray from it.
Your arguments, though fairly reasonable, completely miss the mark.
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
"The claim "God exists" has no ontological reach."
Huh? First, it's important to keep in mind the precise formulation of my point, which concerned the ontological reach of the proposition (claim), "God exists." If we think about God as classical theists for centuries have, then God is the purely actual ground of all being, i.e. God is broader conceptually than the broadest concept we have, viz. 'existence.' Now, if a concept ground existence it's surely ontological, and if it's conceptually broader than existence, it has the greatest possible ontological reach. (Remember this point: It will come up later in this post.)
"The very concept of god is epistemically unsound."
Do you have an actual argument for this claim? (N.B. What you wrote after it does not constitute an argument. I mean one of those pesky thingies with, like, premises and conclusions and stuff.)
"Natural theology itself has not presented an epistemology distinct from that of science, and uses outmoded arguments such as "teleology" and variations on the cosmological argument, both of which deviate from the very epistemology to which it claims to adhere. Natural theology is essentially one long argument from ignorance, spiced liberally with awe and incredulity."
Again, Huh? First, it's not at all contradictory for X to be both outmoded and true, so I'm not sure what logical contribution you intended this display of chronological snobbery to make. That aside, I have a conceptual correction and a factual correction to make.
Let's start with the conceptual correction. Arguments for God's existence in natural theology are generally categorized as 'metaphysical arguments.' Now, metaphysical arguments by their nature posses properties of both inductive and deductive arguments. Inductively, because they use empirically supported premises, e.g. "Some things change" or "The universe began to exist." Deductively, because they reason in a deductive manner from the conceptual content of these empirical premises to their conclusions. So, it is decidedly not the case that natural theology approaches its questions with the same epistemology as science does. Indeed, it is this 'philo 101' error on your part that informs the factual correction I can now make, for it is only by misconceiving the nature of metaphysical arguments, and construing them as 'scientific' arguments, that one could possibly conclude that "natural theology is essentially one long argument from ignorance, spiced liberally with awe and incredulity."
"So far, I have yet to see a definition or description of god that is both complete and coherent."
Perhaps that's because there is no such thing as a complete and coherent description of anything. Do you have a *complete* and coherent description of 'matter' or 'time'? (You don't have to answer that, since we both know that you don't.) So, perhaps your standards are just a wee bit too high here. (Incidentally, this is a *common* error those new to philosophy make, to wit setting the bar too high for philosophical arguments. I usually explain it to beginners with a question: Can you provide an argument for your most deeply held political positions -- some of which you'd most likely be willing to give your life to uphold -- that's stronger than, say, the much maligned Kalam cosmological argument? Chew that for a bit, and you'll see that it's not even close: the Kalam argument wins by a huge margin. Now consider what implications this has for assessing the merits philosophical arguments in general.)
"Until you can present a coherent, clear set of propositions, you have no ontology."
Now is where we get to that point I asked you to remember earlier, i.e. concerning the ontological reach of the concept of God. Here's a nice way to think about it: I can more clearly define *this* Abyssinian cat than I can 'Abyssinian cat.' And, I can more clearly define 'Abyssinian cat' than I can 'cat.' We could go on: I can more clearly define 'cat' than I can 'felidae,' and I can more clearly define 'felidae' than I can 'animal.' We could go on further: I can more clearly define 'animal' than I can 'living thing,' and I can more clearly define 'living thing' than I can 'thing.' So, what's the lesson? Clearly, the broader the ontological reach of the concept, the less we can say about it. Now, 'god' is conceptually broader than 'existence' itself, and some philosophers argue that we can only provide an ostensive definition of existence (e.g. a sweep of the hand, as if to say "All this"); so, I'll tell you what: you provide me with the best definition of existence you can, and I'll provide you with the classical conception of god. You'll see that my definition is quite clear and coherent, especially when considered alongside your concept of existence, which is narrower in scope and hence more easily defined with clarity. (Again, remember how important it is to understand that how high or low the bar is to be set is largely determined by what else is in the neighborhood, whether in terms of concepts or arguments.)
"You've given a logical construction, but glossed over any evidence with "obviously." In fact, there is nothing presented that counts as evidence for god."
Really? Remember how evidence is to be understood: "If we take a proposition P as evidence E for conclusion C, then P counts as E for C just in case C is more plausibly true if P obtains then it is if not-P obtains." Now, here's an exercise: Can you think of a possible world close to ours in modal space with properties such that it is less likely, given a comparison of its properties with the actual world's properties, that god exists? Seems pretty easy to me. But, if you can do so, then it follows, given my analysis of what it means for P to count as evidence for C, that we do have evidence for God's existence. So, would you claim that there is no such possible world (i.e. in which it would be less likely than it is in the actual world, given its properties, that god exists)?
"The instant you introduce god, you lose all known epistemology. As god is omnipotent (one of the few attributes most monotheistic religions agree on these days), you lose all naturalistic philosophy, and are left with theistic philosophy, and a revelation-based epistemology. The only possible source of actual knowledge is god, so you must know the basic attributes of god before you can build any knowledge."
This is a rather gaping non sequitur, since it completely ignores secondary causation. It is entirely consistent to posit an omnipotent god who (1) sustains the universe in being at each moment as the ground of being, and (2) is the primary cause of a world that now runs according to laws he established (secondary causation) and which we, as rational beings created in his image (in terms of will and intellect), can come to know through the scientific method. That aside, even if it were the case that God's revelation were the only source of knowledge, it wouldn't in any way follow that we would have to know god's attributes prior to knowing that P.
"The reason we know bottom quarks exist, or at least the reason we know the mathematical model that employs quarks is a reasonable ontological model, is because the model made predictions that were later observed as true."
Sure, but you seem to have missed my point, or rather what I took to be Badway's point: we move from the observable to the unobservable -- indeed, to the even in principle unobservable -- all the time by way of reasonable inferences. And, I would add, we decidedly do not only do so with models that make testable predictions. We can see this historically, where for example we infer that it's reasonable to believe that Rome had an early regal period on the basis of centuries later writings alone. We have no evidence besides this much later testimony, and though we may someday come across some archaeological evidence supporting the factuality of an early regal period (a test), the point is that even if we never do or never can (e.g. suppose the evidence is all dust now, or that it was taken and destroyed by aliens, etc.), we're still justified in drawing this inference. Testability may be a sufficient condition of knowledge in many areas, but it's certain not a necessary condition in all areas.
Sorry for the long post, but you raised some good points that I felt obligated to address.
Edejardin
This is one of the most entertaining threads EVER!
Something more conceptually broad than existence? Why don't you just say what you really mean, that it does not exist?
Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!
"However, if an entity is defined such that its perception would be fairly ubiquitous, then the lack-of-perception argument would deal a great amount of damage to the credibility of the opposing position."
I agree, but I don't know anyone except the most ignorant fundamentalists -- or the most ignorant atheists -- who define God in such a way that we would expect to *perceive* him.
"Fundamentalist Christians have defined their god in such a way that probable perception is entailed, so the lack of perception entails that there is no god as they have defined the term."
I'm not one for defending fundamentalists, but this doesn't follow. You seem to have confused an undercutting defeater for a rebutting defeater (a mistake you didn't make in the comment I quoted first above).
"The most common argument, though perhaps not phrased this way, is that conscious-origination and nonconscious-origination can both be construed to equally entail the perceptions, which means that the perceptions count as evidence for a god no more than they count for evidence against gods, which entails that, all else being equal, we are not justified in straying from agnosticism."
Given the metaphysical nature of the arguments from natural theology, I don't agree with this (see my last post in response to NigelTheBold). That is, you seem to be saying that metaphysical arguments and scientific arguments are in competition with one another, and that at best, they equally explain the data. However, the arguments are simply different in kind, such that good metaphysical arguments in no way contradict nor compete with scientific explanations.
"(If you're not aware, most atheists are actually "negative atheists" who embrace agnosticism.)"
Well, yes and no. In my experience, most atheists start off a discussion claiming to be negative atheists, but you can usually tell after a few exchanges that they're in fact positive atheists, at least with respect to Christianity (as they understand it, of course). But, that aside, I have some problems with negative atheism. Personally, I think the whole concept is a conceptual muddle, but I won't get into that unless you ask.
"They are saying, not that you cannot construct a deductive argument that establishes beyond any further possibility of doubt or refutation that a god exists, though that is implied by what they are saying, but that you cannot even establish that conscious-origination is substantially more probable than nonconscious-origination, and, by allusion, they are saying that, all else being equal, no one in the discussion is justified in straying from agnosticism, hence the reason they do not stray from it and they believe that you should not stray from it."
Again, I agree and disagree. What you say about the acceptation of terms like 'proof' is surely true, but the problem with using these terms ambiguously is that the criteria inevitably shift during a discussion, so that what is reasonable is no longer good enough if it's in principle defeasible. I try to be rigorous in my use of terms to stave off this confusion, but I take your point, and in the future should first ask others to clarify just how they're using the term, though I'll surely then be met with charges of obscurantism and of making things too complicated.
Edejardin
Because to say 'X does not exist' is ambiguous. Given the acceptation of 'does not exist,' it means one thing, but in terms of apophatic theology, it means something else entirely. That is, in the former sense it means 'less than' existence, while in the latter sense it means 'more than' existence.
Edejardin
But to say "God exists" is also ambiguous, as you have not yet presented a description or definition of god that is unambiguous. That is why god has no ontological reach; there is no ontological definition of god, except (as you stated above) "all of existence." If you propose a god that is greater than existence, you must define what is "greater than existence," or you are attempting to prove something that is not defined.
Essentially, your arguments are nothing more than renaming existence as "god."
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Interesting.
If we described anything else in terms of what it is not, people would ask, "Ok, but what is it?"
But with God, a negative definition is supposed to have more value - telling me what God isn't is more important than telling me what he is?
That's usually why many here qualify it as "the Abrahamic God described in the holy books of Christianity, Judaism and Islam doesn't exist".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
"Essentially, your arguments are nothing more than renaming existence as "god.""
Not at all; I'm not a pantheist. As I said, God is the ground of being; I didn't say that god is existence.
"But to say "God exists" is also ambiguous, as you have not yet presented a description or definition of god that is unambiguous."
Well, I certainly have presented a rough description that is unambiguous: I said that god is the purely actual ground of being. Now, given the identity of indiscernibles, there can be only one purely actual being, since there are no properties that could be adduced to distinguish pure act from pure act; hence, pure act is necessarily 'one,' and my rough description cannot, by definition, be ambiguous (since ambiguity requires two possible interpretations). However, as I said about the very nature of the concept of God, we must keep it in perspective if we are to assess rationally any definitions or descriptions. That's why I asked you to define a narrower term, viz. existence. We shouldn't expect a more precise definition of God than we should of existence, so, once you provide your definition of existence, we can see if my definition of God is is adequately clear and coherent by comparison.
Edejardin
"If we described anything else in terms of what it is not, people would ask, "Ok, but what is it?""
Right, but my point here is that while it's technically accurate to say, "God does not exist," since we can only predicate properties of God analogously (leaving aside arguendo the whole issue of whether existence is an attribute), it's misleading to those who don't understand the distinctions that obtain among univocality, equivocality and analogy. However, I didn't in any sense claim that we can only speak negatively about God: as I said, we could roughly describe or define God as the purely actual ground of being. I introduced apophaticity to clarify the context in which the term 'existence' could be predicated of God.
Edejardin
As a courtesy I'm letting everyone know that I must be going now. However, I'll check back when I get a chance to respond to any questions, arguments, etc. However, if I come back and find a large number of responses, please understand if I restrict myself to responding to what I judge to be the strongest posts. Thanks all for the interesting, courteous and fun conversation so far.
Edejardin