Righteous Reverend Willie G.

ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Righteous Reverend Willie G.

Recommended here by an athiest and I have heard this is a sensible place to discuss topics most find abrasive and hard to swallow.  I love politics, religion and all of the things you should never discuss at work.  So I guess the next this is what am I?  I beieve in a higher power, my viewpoint is constantly changing and forever in a flux of learning.  I hold nothing sacred except for maybe star trek and star wars, *note: space balls is sacriligeous*.  I am the God of where I stand and due to the essence of free will the heighths of my divinity is matched only by the depths of my depravity.  I hold organized religion in contempt and dogmatic views from any perspective is fairly rediculous.  I am curious as to see what some people think of my ramblings so I am welcome for discussion.  so fire away and I really believe I will learn a lot from being here.  Happy Honnika and have a good day.  Sticking out tongue


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Welcome aboard!  Cutting

Welcome aboard!  Cutting right to the chase... can you tell me more about this god you believe in?  Obviously my interest is in hoping to steer you away from that which is not rational due to it's lack of scientific falisifiability.  So give me specifics... are you your own god, is that what you're saying?

For what it's worth: normally I apply a "theist" label to your name at this point however I have a hunch we'll have to remove it in a few days after you stick around...  you seem like the type that would be able to shred it once you heard some good arguments. 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Well let's see???

I believe that there will be no way to prove or disprove God, simply put because I could get into a thesis here but i will keep it short, God being all cannot be discovered unless God wants to be.  A perfect being which is all is quite simply beyond the ken of man, now does this prove God's existence, no.  It doesn't matter if I prove God's existence it is only my belief in God that matters.  I believe that God gave me free will and an imagination so God made me equal in that regard hence the I am God of where I stand viewpoint.  I think God doesn't want a bunch of sycophants as followers but would prefer to walk with us, experience the world through us, be us as well as everything else.  Now here is the funny part, I share almost every athiest view except that God exists, note that is my opinion and really matters not in the scheme of things.  I despise organized religion because it is used to control man, I think jesus was a smart man who had a clue on how things worked but the son of God, no.  At least not in the way the bible states it for we are all the children of God.  I believe all religions have a kernel of truth as well as any other viewpoint.  I feel that there are as many paths to God as there are people.  Now do I think Athiests are going to hell, no, God wouldn't be that stupid.  The idea of hell or an eternal torment is a tool used to control man.  Would it not be pointless to give us free will just to say worship me, that isn't free will but an illusion of free will.  I believe we will never find the existence of God because if we did find proof of God we would no longer have free will.  I hope this clears a little murkiness.  So now I am curious on what you will say. 

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Of course there is a 'higher

Of course there is a 'higher power', or more correctly, many 'powers' that are 'higher' than us. But we have no warrant to assume any such powers are sentient or aware. WE are the awareness of the Universe, along with whatever other intelligences exist WITHIN reality.

By what standard do you claim your God is 'perfect'? Claiming something is 'perfect' in an abstract sense is meaningless.

'Free will' in the metaphysical sense is also an empty concept, since it implies making choices in a total vacuum, ie  not based on any criteria whatever, which is indistinguishable from flipping a coin.

Jesus, as recounted in the Book, also had some silly and conflicting ideas.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:I

ReverendWillieg wrote:

I believe that there will be no way to prove or disprove God, simply put because I could get into a thesis here but i will keep it short, God being all cannot be discovered unless God wants to be. 

So that you understand how much we have in common, you should know that I share that viewpoint.  I believe that since he can't be proven or disproved the only logical position is to abstain from believing in a god.  Imagine if I presented the concept of snarfwidgets to you.  Snarfwidgets are small blue creatures that govern the Universe, without them constantly watching over us we would not be able to sustain ourselves.  It is only because of the snarfwidgets that we exist.

Now... do you accept that snarfwidgets exist?  If not... why not? 

I propose that god belief is very prevalent in society, that society makes god belief feel normal.  Snarfwidgets don't have the benefit of a society that mostly believe in them and therefore you see snarfwidgets differently than god... but you shouldn't.  It's a common flaw in philosophy to believe that because a large portion of people believe something it lends credibility to that thing.  At one point we all believed the Earth was flat... we were wrong.

 

Quote:
 I believe that God gave me free will and an imagination so God made me equal in that regard hence the I am God of where I stand viewpoint.

This is an amalgamation of Christianity, you borrowed it, and made it yours.  Why?  Why create a god to believe in a god? 

 

Your posts are almost identical to those that I wrote myself about 11 years ago when I first came online to explore my beliefs.  Within a year I was a proud atheist dedicating his life to ending religion.  It only took me a few days though... to leave the god belief in the dust.  In fact, I'm going to send this thread to the man that helped me see the light and invite him to comment.  His name is Jake, if you happen to see him post.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
interesting but an assumption bobspence1

You refer to a pecking order that there are powers higher than us, what makes you think that?  There is nothing higher or lower than us and that is including God.  I was given free will so that makes me equal to all, hence me being the God of where I stand.  Now something being higher or lower is nothing but a personal perception an assumption on your part.

Free will is in all actuallity finite, think like a chess board you have many choices to make but you only have so many due to the restrictions of the board.  You may have billions of choices so it may seem that your free will is infinite when in reality it is not, simply because you are finite and can only effect a few things in the grand scheme of things.  Now the viewpont of silly and conflicting ideas is again a perception and an assumption on your part.  It may simply be that you are unable to capture the grand scope of things.  You may be right to some degree and I will think on that but sometimes Albert Einstein was seen as silly and conflicting when in all actuality he was just simply thinking outside the box.  I take nothing as silly even though it may well turn out to be, wisdom shows in humor as well as tragedy, spoken from the mouth of babes or the scriptures of the ancient.  Question everything know nothing.  Just a question, you say claiming something is "perfect" is meaningless, I disagree, but it is a moot point and irrelevant.  My question is can you even understand what perfection is?  It is a perception and that perception is different per individual.  You can claim what is perfection to you but that wouldn't be perfection to me.  Now with my understanding of God which is all, perfection is an abstract and cannot be explained nor can God which incidently is pointless and irrelevant to do, since the aspect of God is yet again a perception.  I don't try and put God into a box and explain what God is or isn't, God as we should be simply is, what it is I don't know and that is the eternal quest which will never be completed, could be just aliens flying around in invisible space ships, kinda doubt it but you never know.

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Good points there sapient

It really comes down to a personal viewpoint of which cannot be proven or disproven.  My belief in God dictates that we were created via evolution or whatever, how is irrelevant, but created to have free will and at no point does God interfere with us in anyway or if God does it is undetectable.  If God did interfere left books for us or whatever, it would interfere in our free will.  Now this would mean that supposedly God made us then left us to our own devices, wouldn't that be in all ways the same as an most athiests view with one small exception I believe there is a God, we will eventually make it back to God, sort of like the Ba'hai faith, but on our own time and will not God's.  I guess my point is this why would God give us free will and then say there is only one path?  We are here to learn for ourselves and any interference would hinder that process of learning.  Do I think God is an uncaring God that sits outside of existence watching us like a sitcom no, but there is no way of knowing.  Now there is no way to prove God or disprove God so whether being an athiest or a thiest is simply a matter of perception.  Just a thought.  Oh and thanks for the reference to Jake I would love to listen to what he has to say, thank you.

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:You

ReverendWillieg wrote:

You refer to a pecking order that there are powers higher than us, what makes you think that?  There is nothing higher or lower than us and that is including God.  I was given free will so that makes me equal to all, hence me being the God of where I stand.  Now something being higher or lower is nothing but a personal perception an assumption on your part.

Free will is in all actuallity finite, think like a chess board you have many choices to make but you only have so many due to the restrictions of the board.  You may have billions of choices so it may seem that your free will is infinite when in reality it is not, simply because you are finite and can only effect a few things in the grand scheme of things.  Now the viewpont of silly and conflicting ideas is again a perception and an assumption on your part.  It may simply be that you are unable to capture the grand scope of things.  You may be right to some degree and I will think on that but sometimes Albert Einstein was seen as silly and conflicting when in all actuality he was just simply thinking outside the box.  I take nothing as silly even though it may well turn out to be, wisdom shows in humor as well as tragedy, spoken from the mouth of babes or the scriptures of the ancient.  Question everything know nothing.  Just a question, you say claiming something is "perfect" is meaningless, I disagree, but it is a moot point and irrelevant.  My question is can you even understand what perfection is?  It is a perception and that perception is different per individual.  You can claim what is perfection to you but that wouldn't be perfection to me.  Now with my understanding of God which is all, perfection is an abstract and cannot be explained nor can God which incidently is pointless and irrelevant to do, since the aspect of God is yet again a perception.  I don't try and put God into a box and explain what God is or isn't, God as we should be simply is, what it is I don't know and that is the eternal quest which will never be completed, could be just aliens flying around in invisible space ships, kinda doubt it but you never know.

 

Reverend Willie G.

You opened with the claim that you believe there is a 'higher power', so you are contradicting yourself.

Are claiming you can control the formation of starts and galaxies? If not there are manifestly more powerful forces in reality. Then it depends what you mean by 'higher'.

I agree that our choices are finite, that is not the point.

Those choices, to be meaningful to us, would be based on our personal preferences, thoughts, beliefs, urges, emotions, etc. IOW determined by those factors.

Conflict between ideas is determined by applying logic. It won't tell us what is 'true', but the core utility of logic is to allow us to determine when two sets of propositions are in conflict or not.

Perfection is exact conformance with some standard form or definition. In the absence of such a standard, it is meaningless.

God is a purely subjective concept, which exists only within the imagination of the individual. If you feel that framing your personal mental model of reality in terms of some concept of a 'God' is what 'works' for you, then fine.

I find reality far easier to comprehend without introducing such primitive concepts.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Willie, I'm sort of busy

Willie, I'm sort of busy with housework but checked back in because I wanted to see how you'd answer my questions.  It seems you added a little to your argument but basically restated the same concepts.  Would you please take another look at my last post and try to answer some of the questions I posed?

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
responding to bobspence1

Yep I did say a "higher power" good catch Smiling however it is purely a descriptive term kind of like how I refer to God as a "he", my apologies I didn't catch that one.  Now creation of galaxies is in my imagination now whether or not that is reality to something else I don't know.  Now you bring up the point of conflicting propositions, why should they be conflicting.  The only time any proposition should be conflicting is when one wishes to impose on the other, then its not the proposition that's conflicting but the individuals or groups.  You postulate that perfection is exact conformance with some standard form or definition, why? and you are correct it is meaningless.  You are right God is a purely subjective concept however the existence only within the imagination of the individual is purely an assumption on your part.  I have noticed that you like to use demeaning descriptives in your posts such as "silly" and "primitive" and it shows that you have a tendancy to look down on people with any view other than your own.  I may be incorrect there and if I am I apologize but it is still an observation.  I hold no notion as silly or I try not to, I'm not perfect by the way and some things may be truly silly as my viewpoints may be silly but in my perception they are not.  I will not espouse saying my view is right for the world because it is not, it is right for me.  Everyone must find their own path to their perfection whether that be athiesm or christianity or the peote waterbird religion of the Kiowa indians.    Belief whatever it is, is a personal path and no one has the right to force anyone to another path.
 

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
responding to sapient

I love this Sticking out tongue

"This is an amalgamation of Christianity, you borrowed it, and made it yours.  Why?  Why create a god to believe in a god?"

This is kind of like asking what came first the chicken or the egg.  Did I create God or did God create me?  No way to know.  I have things that I could say help me in my belief with God but they are debates that have been raging for eons, such as the debate with DNA and tons others.  It still comes down to a personal belief that is neither provable nor disprovable.  It really comes down to a matter of choice.  Many people will think I am crazy and that's okay because I probably am Laughing out loud, however I hold no anger to any viewpoint unless it has been forced upon me, conform or be cast out kind of thing.  I like all of the differing views and opinions I try and see from every aspect.  I guess you would label me as an agnostic thiest there sapient, according to your video, because truly I have no way of knowing but a personal belief, but that is part of the quest, quest for what you may say?  Who knows maybe it's to find out if there is a God or if we are nothing more than the byproduct of alien poop from eons ago.  I have many theories and ideas of course which I will get to in time on this board and I am always willing to listen to what other people say as long as it is civil and not demeaning.  I see a lot of interesting posts here that are rife with all kinds of information and I am fairly chomping at the bit to follow the threads, I may not comment too much at the beginning because there is a lot of reading and a lot to take in.  I hope I clarified a little and like you doing other things while reading here so I may miss a post or two.  Sticking out tongue

 

Reverend Willie G.

 

I am the God of where I stand


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
So do you believe in the

So do you believe in the snarfwidgets?  Can you see that there is no difference in the amount of proof we have for both snarfwidgets and gods?

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:Yep I

ReverendWillieg wrote:

Yep I did say a "higher power" good catch Smiling however it is purely a descriptive term kind of like how I refer to God as a "he", my apologies I didn't catch that one.  Now creation of galaxies is in my imagination now whether or not that is reality to something else I don't know.  Now you bring up the point of conflicting propositions, why should they be conflicting.  The only time any proposition should be conflicting is when one wishes to impose on the other, then its not the proposition that's conflicting but the individuals or groups.  You postulate that perfection is exact conformance with some standard form or definition, why? and you are correct it is meaningless.  You are right God is a purely subjective concept however the existence only within the imagination of the individual is purely an assumption on your part.  I have noticed that you like to use demeaning descriptives in your posts such as "silly" and "primitive" and it shows that you have a tendancy to look down on people with any view other than your own.  I may be incorrect there and if I am I apologize but it is still an observation.  I hold no notion as silly or I try not to, I'm not perfect by the way and some things may be truly silly as my viewpoints may be silly but in my perception they are not.  I will not espouse saying my view is right for the world because it is not, it is right for me.  Everyone must find their own path to their perfection whether that be athiesm or christianity or the peote waterbird religion of the Kiowa indians.    Belief whatever it is, is a personal path and no one has the right to force anyone to another path.
 

Reverend Willie G.

Conflicting propositions are ones which cannot logically both be true at the same time. Nothing to do with whether you are imposing them on anyone, at least in the way I was using the term.

You seem to be the term 'conflicting' in the sense of being related to, or leading to, conflict between groups holding to different propositions. OK, I guess, but that means you misunderstood my statement.

The idea of God is a primitive one, I was not applying the term to persons who hold to some idea of God.

On 'perfection', unless you define it that way, it becomes purely subjective. It is alternatively defined as "without flaw", but you then still need to define what counts as a flaw. It normally means something which departs from some ideal, ie a "standard".

I "look down on" ideas which are nonsense, or without coherent definition, or have no real objective justification. Like 'God'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:So do you

Sapient wrote:

So do you believe in the snarfwidgets?  Can you see that there is no difference in the amount of proof we have for both snarfwidgets and gods?

 

Yes I believe in snarfwidgets, it is my God. :D Heh, yes I get your point and you are correct but is not proof in the eye of the beholder.  We weigh proof by what probability, personal experience, evidence that is proven?  Since nothing can be proven snarfwidgets have as much existence as God, albeit maybe in my imagination.  Does lack of proof make it that snarfwidgets don't exist?  You don't know nor do I know so then all we have left until God or Snarfwidgets show up and dispel all doubt is our personal belief. 

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Welcome Rev, I am the

Welcome Rev, I am the resident verbal boxer and do have very sharp fangs when it comes to debate, but rest assured whatever I say to you here is about your claims and not you the person.

I'll also cut to the chase and call it as I see it.

"You cannot disprove god" is a cop out excuse to avoid providing positive evidence for the claim you make.

There are claims you, yourself, without disproving them, rightfully reject without thinking about it. You reject Vishnu as a claim and you spend no time going out of your way to disprove the existence of Vishnu.

Bendtrand Russell's "teapot" example explains why this is a bad tactic to take in terms of burden of proof and use of logic. Look it up if you haven't already.

Secondly, and I apply the same standard of rejection to all god claims, past and present. THOUGHTS require a material process to exist, therefor the claim that a disembodied brain with magical super powers is an absurd claim, given any name you want to give it.

I would suggest you try understanding WHY you reject other's god claims to understand why we reject yours as well. The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more god claim than you do.

Cognition is an emergent property of biological evolution. Cognition is not required for the sun to exist or for a hurricane to be set in motion. Cognition is not required for the universe to exist, nor is it needed to start the big bang.

Gods are all the same, from Thor, to Vishnu to Allah and Jesus. They are nothing but ignorant placebos humans invent and market to placate their emotions. They are all merely fantasy falsely believed to be fact. Nothing but super hero worship.

 

 

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Conflicting propositions are

Conflicting propositions are ones which cannot logically both be true at the same time. Nothing to do with whether you are imposing them on anyone, at least in the way I was using the term.

You seem to be the term 'conflicting' in the sense of being related to, or leading to, conflict between groups holding to different propositions. OK, I guess, but that means you misunderstood my statement.

The idea of God is a primitive one, I was not applying the term to persons who hold to some idea of God.

On 'perfection', unless you define it that way, it becomes purely subjective. It is alternatively defined as "without flaw", but you then still need to define what counts as a flaw. It normally means something which departs from some ideal, ie a "standard".

I "look down on" ideas which are nonsense, or without coherent definition, or have no real objective justification. Like 'God'.

So you know beyond the shadow of a doubt what is false and what is true?  I only know what I percieve is false or true and I guess any form of conflict is based on perception.  You are correct that I take the term conflict to be between groups.  Now the idea of God is an old one but I won't say primitive that is an opinion.  Now on the idea of perfection you are correct it is defined as without flaw, since we can supposedly only percieve the finite we cannot percieve perfection but it is subjective and perfection is different for everybody and it is of my opinion so is the term flaw, purely subjective.  Now you say you look down on ideas which are nonsense or without coherent definition, again a perception.  You perceive things to be without coherent definition when it may simply be beyond your understanding, probably not because you sound intelligent, a bit cynical but very intelligent.  However you cannot discount the idea that appearances are deceiving and so truth is subjective.

 

Reverend Willie G.

 

I am the God of where I stand


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg

ReverendWillieg wrote:

Sapient wrote:

So do you believe in the snarfwidgets?  Can you see that there is no difference in the amount of proof we have for both snarfwidgets and gods?

 

Yes I believe in snarfwidgets, it is my God. :D Heh, yes I get your point and you are correct but is not proof in the eye of the beholder.  We weigh proof by what probability, personal experience, evidence that is proven?  Since nothing can be proven snarfwidgets have as much existence as God, albeit maybe in my imagination.  Does lack of proof make it that snarfwidgets don't exist?  You don't know nor do I know so then all we have left until God or Snarfwidgets show up and dispel all doubt is our personal belief. 

 

Reverend Willie G.

You are definitely wrong here.

Lack of proof of something does not put it on the same likelihood as anything else that cannot be 'proven'.

Your statement about probability, etc, is fine, apart from your use of the word 'proof'.

We assess likelihood of truth, how much confidence we are justified in placing in any claim, by weighing all those factors. Which will in general gives us a basis for saying one proposition is more likely to be  true than another, strict 'proof'' is not applicable - as you said, "nothing can be proved". To jump from the lack of proof to the assertion that either proposition is as likely as the other is flat out wrong.

We have a detailed and rigorous mathematical process for assessing interconnected claims and uncertain and/or incomplete evidence.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Welcome Rev, I

Brian37 wrote:

Welcome Rev, I am the resident verbal boxer and do have very sharp fangs when it comes to debate, but rest assured whatever I say to you here is about your claims and not you the person.

I'll also cut to the chase and call it as I see it.

"You cannot disprove god" is a cop out excuse to avoid providing positive evidence for the claim you make.

There are claims you, yourself, without disproving them, rightfully reject without thinking about it. You reject Vishnu as a claim and you spend no time going out of your way to disprove the existence of Vishnu.

Bendtrand Russell's "teapot" example explains why this is a bad tactic to take in terms of burden of proof and use of logic. Look it up if you haven't already.

Secondly, and I apply the same standard of rejection to all god claims, past and present. THOUGHTS require a material process to exist, therefor the claim that a disembodied brain with magical super powers is an absurd claim, given any name you want to give it.

I would suggest you try understanding WHY you reject other's god claims to understand why we reject yours as well. The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more god claim than you do.

Cognition is an emergent property of biological evolution. Cognition is not required for the sun to exist or for a hurricane to be set in motion. Cognition is not required for the universe to exist, nor is it needed to start the big bang.

Gods are all the same, from Thor, to Vishnu to Allah and Jesus. They are nothing but ignorant placebos humans invent and market to placate their emotions. They are all merely fantasy falsely believed to be fact. Nothing but super hero worship.

 

 

Well howdy Brian glad to meet you, I hope to be a worthy verbal sparring partner Laughing out loud However at no time have I discounted Vishnu or any others I simply use the term "God" as my idea or label for that which I cannot explain but believe to be a being that created existence and life or in short "God", or vishnu or zeus or the great spirit or the great nebulon cloud whatever.  For all I know life could have been created by aliens but who created them and who created that, ad infinitum.  I think it was Bertrand russell who quoted "I would never die for my beliefs because I could be wrong"  I may have got that wrong so correct me if you would please, but the idea is that you can't fully reject or accept anything because as in theory nothing is concrete and could change with the next bit of evidence or another viewpoint. 
Now you say cognition or sentient thought is an emergent property of biological evolution, and you postulate that it is not needed to start the big bang you may be correct?  Now I have a theory about DNA how it is similar to a language and that languages have to have an intelligence to make it but like I said it is a theory I am studying now.  DNA supposedly didn't happen by accident but again I am theorizing I am wondering if the creation of DNA would be similar to 100 monkeys after a year of pounding on typewriters would somehow write the play macbeth.  So the Cognition being an emergent property is again a debatable point since we have no way of knowing if 2 billion years ago there was a self sentient being running around. 

 

Reverend Willie G.

 

I am the God of where I stand


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
[You are definitely wrong

[You are definitely wrong here.

Lack of proof of something does not put it on the same likelihood as anything else that cannot be 'proven'.

Your statement about probability, etc, is fine, apart from your use of the word 'proof'.

We assess likelihood of truth, how much confidence we are justified in placing in any claim, by weighing all those factors. Which will in general gives us a basis for saying one proposition is more likely to be  true than another, strict 'proof'' is not applicable - as you said, "nothing can be proved". To jump from the lack of proof to the assertion that either proposition is as likely as the other is flat out wrong.

We have a detailed and rigorous mathematical process for assessing interconnected claims and uncertain and/or incomplete evidence.

 

So you would say God in all LIKELIHOOD does not exist?  Maybe?  Hmmm! you seem to have studied philosophy logic, now all things are theory albeit taken through the rigorous mathematical process to make whatever it is in all likelihood true or false, but are we not talking about something that possibly has a far higher IQ that we?  Could it be that maybe we have not found the proper formulae to prove everything we have learned so far is false. As you stated by weighing all these factors (that we know of at that point in time).  Now these are far reaching statements but you have to take them into account.  If God did exist it would be unprovable even by your most rigorous mathematical processes, if God does't exist it is still unprovable, so far that I have found.  So what is the point of trying to prove it, it is a personal perception.

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:[You

ReverendWillieg wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

You are definitely wrong here.

Lack of proof of something does not put it on the same likelihood as anything else that cannot be 'proven'.

Your statement about probability, etc, is fine, apart from your use of the word 'proof'.

We assess likelihood of truth, how much confidence we are justified in placing in any claim, by weighing all those factors. Which will in general gives us a basis for saying one proposition is more likely to be  true than another, strict 'proof'' is not applicable - as you said, "nothing can be proved". To jump from the lack of proof to the assertion that either proposition is as likely as the other is flat out wrong.

We have a detailed and rigorous mathematical process for assessing interconnected claims and uncertain and/or incomplete evidence.

 

So you would say God in all LIKELIHOOD does not exist?  Maybe?  Hmmm! you seem to have studied philosophy logic, now all things are theory albeit taken through the rigorous mathematical process to make whatever it is in all likelihood true or false, but are we not talking about something that possibly has a far higher IQ that we?  Could it be that maybe we have not found the proper formulae to prove everything we have learned so far is false. As you stated by weighing all these factors (that we know of at that point in time).  Now these are far reaching statements but you have to take them into account.  If God did exist it would be unprovable even by your most rigorous mathematical processes, if God does't exist it is still unprovable, so far that I have found.  So what is the point of trying to prove it, it is a personal perception.

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am NOT trying to 'prove it', or disprove it. I agree, it is pointless.

I would say that the LIKELIHOOD of there being a God is extremely low.

You still don't get it, apparently. We can still make assessments as to how much some proposition warrants belief.

The formula we use for analysing probability is mathematical, and is as true as any other math, it is not a matter of empirical knowledge. It is a essential tool for analysing empirical data and our assumptions about it.

The 'IQ' of the  God has nothing to do with the process of assessing what evidence we have that may indicate that such a thing actually exists.

'Likelihood' is NOT a matter of 'true' or 'false', it would be a value between 0 and 100%. WTF has 'IQ' got to do with it? Unless you are thinking that it might be smart enough to set up or hide or otherwise fuck with the evidence. But you still need to present some evidence for suggesting that such a thing might actually exist in the first place.

Personal perceptions are not evidence for anything actually existing beyond your imagination, unless they are supported by actual testable observation.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
I am NOT trying to 'prove

Quote:
I am NOT trying to 'prove it', or disprove it. I agree, it is pointless.

I would say that the LIKELIHOOD of there being a God is extremely low.

You still don't get it, apparently. We can still make assessments as to how much some proposition warrants belief.

The formula we use for analysing probability is mathematical, and is as true as any other math, it is not a matter of empirical knowledge. It is a essential tool for analysing empirical data and our assumptions about it.

The 'IQ' of the  God has nothing to do with the process of assessing what evidence we have that may indicate that such a thing actually exists.

'Likelihood' is NOT a matter of 'true' or 'false', it would be a value between 0 and 100%. WTF has 'IQ' got to do with it? Unless you are thinking that it might be smart enough to set up or hide or otherwise fuck with the evidence. But you still need to present some evidence for suggesting that such a thing might actually exist in the first place.

Personal perceptions are not evidence for anything actually existing beyond your imagination, unless they are supported by actual testable observation.

Let me ask this would God have the capability to keep his existence secret if he wanted, I think it would be a resounding yes, that omnipotence thing or if anything God is a lot smarter than we are.  Now you want to use the formula for proving or disproving a fallacy, I don't know if it can disprove the existence of something that never existed that is if God doesn't exist.  I can't see how it would be possible especially on something that is metaphysical, I could be wrong and I am always willing to learn.  I am just pointing out your faith in mathematics could be misplaced.  You can analyze probability all day long and you still have to understand it is theory and what is theory?  That which we know up unto this point in time.  The future can change many things maybe one day it will prove God but I think that would be God allowing that which I don't see kinda messes up the free will point, or we will somehow prove that God doesn't exist which I don't see how it can be done, so I am stuck with this quandry, I can't prove God does exist but there is the possibility that I can prove that God doesn't exist but I haven't found it yet, so until I can prove it I will hold to the belief that God does exist because in my opinion there is a high probability that God does exist.  I just don't base it on math, I don't think matter, energy and life just sprang out of nothing without help in some way, it could be aliens, could be God.  It is my belief that it is God.

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:I am

ReverendWillieg wrote:

Quote:

I am NOT trying to 'prove it', or disprove it. I agree, it is pointless.

I would say that the LIKELIHOOD of there being a God is extremely low.

You still don't get it, apparently. We can still make assessments as to how much some proposition warrants belief.

The formula we use for analysing probability is mathematical, and is as true as any other math, it is not a matter of empirical knowledge. It is a essential tool for analysing empirical data and our assumptions about it.

The 'IQ' of the  God has nothing to do with the process of assessing what evidence we have that may indicate that such a thing actually exists.

'Likelihood' is NOT a matter of 'true' or 'false', it would be a value between 0 and 100%. WTF has 'IQ' got to do with it? Unless you are thinking that it might be smart enough to set up or hide or otherwise fuck with the evidence. But you still need to present some evidence for suggesting that such a thing might actually exist in the first place.

Personal perceptions are not evidence for anything actually existing beyond your imagination, unless they are supported by actual testable observation.

Let me ask this would God have the capability to keep his existence secret if he wanted, I think it would be a resounding yes, that omnipotence thing or if anything God is a lot smarter than we are.  Now you want to use the formula for proving or disproving a fallacy, I don't know if it can disprove the existence of something that never existed that is if God doesn't exist.  I can't see how it would be possible especially on something that is metaphysical, I could be wrong and I am always willing to learn.  I am just pointing out your faith in mathematics could be misplaced.  You can analyze probability all day long and you still have to understand it is theory and what is theory?  That which we know up unto this point in time.  The future can change many things maybe one day it will prove God but I think that would be God allowing that which I don't see kinda messes up the free will point, or we will somehow prove that God doesn't exist which I don't see how it can be done, so I am stuck with this quandry, I can't prove God does exist but there is the possibility that I can prove that God doesn't exist but I haven't found it yet, so until I can prove it I will hold to the belief that God does exist because in my opinion there is a high probability that God does exist.  I just don't base it on math, I don't think matter, energy and life just sprang out of nothing without help in some way, it could be aliens, could be God.  It is my belief that it is God.

 

Reverend Willie G.

And you can go on all day about your reasons for believing in God, with NO theory at all, just your personal experience, and your 'argument from ignorance' that you personally can't see how "matter, energy and life" just "sprang out of nothing"...

We do have plausible scientific scenarios for all of that, even if you aren't able to understand them, whereas you have no problem just assuming something far more beyond anything we currently observe just happened to exist???

The fact that a God could endlessly fuck with our understanding and what we seem to perceive, we would have absolutely no way to know with any confidence whatever what such a critter actually intended toward us.

So if you believe that a God exists, you have to logically surrender any ability to know anything about what the future holds, since we cannot know the motives of such a being.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jake
atheistRational VIP!RRS Core Member
Jake's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 Hi Willie. As with all god

 Hi Willie.

As with all god beliefs, there are inherent contradictions. They exist because there is a conflict between what we imagine a god to be, and how we insert our own ego into it. Take your first sentence for example...

" I believe that there will be no way to prove or disprove God "

This is a self refuting claim. If this were true, then you, nor anyone else, would know if a god exists or not. You continue...

"God being all cannot be discovered unless God wants to be."

This contradicts your first self refuting claim. First you say god can not be proven, then you say god can only be discovered if he wants to be. Well which is it ? Either he can be proven through discovery, or he can't ? Which is it ?

"A perfect being which is all is quite simply beyond the ken of man,"

If is beyond man, then how do you know it exists ? Again, a contradiction.

now does this prove God's existence, no"

Of course it doesn't. You said it couldn't be. Then you said it could. Something can not be, and not be at the same time.

 It doesn't matter if I prove God's existence it is only my belief in God that matters "

Ah ha ! Now we come to an interesting tidbit. Here you throw out proof, ( understandably so ) and you assert that it is your belief that matters most. Well of course it is ! If I believed in snarfwidgetts on faith, it wouldn't matter if I could prove them or not. It would only matter that I believe in them. If I didn't, then I would never claim it's existence. This is a common claim amongst god believers. That belief is more important then proof. Yet I can assure you with full confidence that there is not one single thing that you know exists, that you came to know exists, by the same criteria you have your god. This is why there are contradictions in your belief, because it is counter intuitive to how you know reality works.

"I believe that God gave me free will and an imagination so God made me equal in that regard hence the I am God of where I stand viewpoint."

Now you are assigning causation in a god that you have already claimed can't be proven, but can be known. ( a contradiction ) Which begs the question, how do you know your god has done this ? How do you know you have free will ? You go on to include more attributes...

I think God doesn't want a bunch of sycophants as followers but would prefer to walk with us, experience the world through us, be us as well as everything else. "

Again, how would you know this ?

If you stop for a moment, and compare your beliefs from an objective standpoint against the back drop of reality, you will realize a very simple fact. You have no other reason to believe what you do, other then because you simply wish to believe it. Stop for a moment and consider this... 

The hardest thing for anyone to do, is to see things as they are, and not how we wished them to be.

Ask yourself why your beliefs contradict each other? Ask yourself how you have come to the belief in your god ? Ask yourself why, as you're reading this, you've been making up even more attributes to your god which can not be understood by man, but which you seem to be able to make excuses for ? 

The answer is simple, and when you understand the flaws in you're own argument, you'll understand why none of it can be true.

Come join me at my blog AfterFaith or on the forums at The Atheist Network.


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
You say that I have a case

You say that I have a case of argumentum ad ignorantium, I disagree but all of this is a circular logic I can say that all of your plausible scientific scenarios are all simply the way God or whatever started it all.  I have seen a lot of the scenarios that are being debated and some of them are far fetched some of them seem to be plausible and I have many I have yet to discover.  I have no way of disproving God so by my choice I believe in God and you say with no theory at all, I beg to disagree.  I will study more of the theories because one I am pretty sure didn't happen was that God just created the world 6000 years ago.   I think there was the entire premise of evolution and all kinds of things I will enjoy discussing them here, this is fun Laughing out loud

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


Jake
atheistRational VIP!RRS Core Member
Jake's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:This

ReverendWillieg wrote:
This is kind of like asking what came first the chicken or the egg.

The egg did. Whatever evolved into a chicken was not a chicken. The egg would have been what would eventually become known as a chicken.

Quote:
Did I create God or did God create me?  No way to know.

Of course there is. If you created your idea of god, it would be easily discovered through your understanding and any contradictions inherent in your belief. 

Quote:
I have things that I could say help me in my belief with God but they are debates that have been raging for eons, such as the debate with DNA and tons others.

This is contrary to how reality works. Things that exist can be proven. This is a simple fact. If to prove something, you need to point to subjective interpretation of data, then this is not proof, and it is simply your desire to believe and you are filling in holes with what makes sense to you.

Quote:
It still comes down to a personal belief that is neither provable nor disprovable.

Again, contrary to how you know reality works.The claim of existence is an objective claim. In other words to know something exists, one has to have a physical awareness of said thing. All claims of existence are provable. By claiming that it comes down to a personal belief, you are in essence saying that your god doesn't exist, and that you are simply just pretending he does to make yourself feel better. If not, then explain why you choose to believe something that is not provable ?

Quote:
It really comes down to a matter of choice.

So you can choose not to believe in gravity ? You can choose not to believe in bricks ? You can choose not to believe that a brick will smash in your head if dropped from a sufficient hight ? Claims of existence aren't subject to the whims of belief. Something either exists, or does not. There is no choice involved.

Quote:
Many people will think I am crazy and that's okay because I probably am Laughing out loud,

I don't thing you're crazy ( yet. lol ) A bit naive maybe. That's it.

 

 

 

Come join me at my blog AfterFaith or on the forums at The Atheist Network.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Hello Willie.I'm curious,

Hello Willie.

I'm curious, when and where did you learn about the concept of God, the existence of God or the necessity for it. When did you decide to believe in God and why? What reasons are behind your belief?

Another question is, why your belief is so meaningless? The universe without your God would be the same as with God. What benefit do you have from believing in such a God, compared to not believing? I can hardly understand how anyone can be interested by such an idea that can not be further studied and experimented with. If people can research nature, why shouldn't they research God? If you aren't caple of that task, someone else might be.

Note that I am not an atheist but rather a pantheist or something like that.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Jake
atheistRational VIP!RRS Core Member
Jake's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:You

ReverendWillieg wrote:

You say that I have a case of argumentum ad ignorantium,

If the shoe fits. Wear it.

Quote:
I disagree but all of this is a circular logic

Most subjective reasoning is circular. This is why claims of existence need be objective. Other wise all claims of existence would be equal.

Quote:
I can say that all of your plausible scientific scenarios are all simply the way God or whatever started it all.

Of course you could. Since this is all coming from you, then whatever you want to claim, would be true from your subjective view point. However again, claims of existence are not subject to the whims of belief. All claims of existence are objective.

 

Come join me at my blog AfterFaith or on the forums at The Atheist Network.


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Jake wrote: Hi Willie.As

Jake wrote:

 Hi Willie.

As with all god beliefs, there are inherent contradictions. They exist because there is a conflict between what we imagine a god to be, and how we insert our own ego into it. Take your first sentence for example...

" I believe that there will be no way to prove or disprove God "

This is a self refuting claim. If this were true, then you, nor anyone else, would know if a god exists or not. You continue...

"God being all cannot be discovered unless God wants to be."

This contradicts your first self refuting claim. First you say god can not be proven, then you say god can only be discovered if he wants to be. Well which is it ? Either he can be proven through discovery, or he can't ? Which is it ?

"A perfect being which is all is quite simply beyond the ken of man,"

If is beyond man, then how do you know it exists ? Again, a contradiction.

now does this prove God's existence, no"

Of course it doesn't. You said it couldn't be. Then you said it could. Something can not be, and not be at the same time.

 It doesn't matter if I prove God's existence it is only my belief in God that matters "

Ah ha ! Now we come to an interesting tidbit. Here you throw out proof, ( understandably so ) and you assert that it is your belief that matters most. Well of course it is ! If I believed in snarfwidgetts on faith, it wouldn't matter if I could prove them or not. It would only matter that I believe in them. If I didn't, then I would never claim it's existence. This is a common claim amongst god believers. That belief is more important then proof. Yet I can assure you with full confidence that there is not one single thing that you know exists, that you came to know exists, by the same criteria you have your god. This is why there are contradictions in your belief, because it is counter intuitive to how you know reality works.

"I believe that God gave me free will and an imagination so God made me equal in that regard hence the I am God of where I stand viewpoint."

Now you are assigning causation in a god that you have already claimed can't be proven, but can be known. ( a contradiction ) Which begs the question, how do you know your god has done this ? How do you know you have free will ? You go on to include more attributes...

I think God doesn't want a bunch of sycophants as followers but would prefer to walk with us, experience the world through us, be us as well as everything else. "

Again, how would you know this ?

If you stop for a moment, and compare your beliefs from an objective standpoint against the back drop of reality, you will realize a very simple fact. You have no other reason to believe what you do, other then because you simply wish to believe it. Stop for a moment and consider this... Ask yourself why your beliefs contradict each other? Ask yourself how you have come to the belief in your god ? Ask yourself why, as you're reading this, you've been making up even more attributes to your god which can not be understood by man, but which you seem to be able to make excuses for ? 

The answer is simple, and when you understand the flaws in you're own argument, you'll understand why none of it can be true.

 

A lot of assumptions there.  First of all I have to say I don't know for sure God exists I just believe God does, big difference.  Now lets suppose God exists just for grins and if he did, don't you think someone of that omnipotence would be able to hide his existence?  Now if that is the case then when God wants to be discovered he will, fairly simple.  Now how can something be and not be at the same time that would be similar to imagination itself, that isn't and is at the same time just a comparison.  Now I have to point out that you said most god believers say that belief is more important than proof well kinda, belief is more important to me and proof is more important to make others believe.  Now about God giving me free will, I believe God did but it would be indirectly basically all beings have free will and if God created all life by extension God gave it to me, now if God doesn't exist I still have free will, again I go back to my personal perception.   Now I can get into a thesis about free will but I won't maybe on another thread.  Now you say with full confidence that that there is not one single thing that I know exists, that I came to know exists, I just have to say that you aren't in my brain so you can't presume to know anything, but I get your point has to do about the fundamentals of what we percieve as reality is reality a perception?  However you are presuming a lot by saying anything with full confidence.  You claim all of these contradictions but I don't see them as such, I believe you said:

The hardest thing for anyone to do, is to see things as they are, and not how we wished them to be.

I could say the same thing to you but I won't, why?  because I won't make that presumption, this entire statement is about perception.  You presume I know God exists, you presume I would know about God's attributes, you would presume I would know what God thinks, I can't but what I can do is think of what I would do if I was in God's position, *gasp* Heaven forbid the unthinkable.  There is one thing I am pretty sure I can ascribe to God if God exists is common sense.

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Hello

Luminon wrote:

Hello Willie.

I'm curious, when and where did you learn about the concept of God, the existence of God or the necessity for it. When did you decide to believe in God and why? What reasons are behind your belief?

Another question is, why your belief is so meaningless? The universe without your God would be the same as with God. What benefit do you have from believing in such a God, compared to not believing? I can hardly understand how anyone can be interested by such an idea that can not be further studied and experimented with. If people can research nature, why shouldn't they research God? If you aren't caple of that task, someone else might be.

Note that I am not an atheist but rather a pantheist or something like that.

Now that is a really good set of questions, too many people are attempting to dissect me with logic for an illogical being.  My view on God has be developed over years of thought studying of religion and viewpoints on perception itself.  You are sooooo correct on the viewpoint that in my view the universe would be the same with or without God, it has to do with free will.  If God made any form of intervention it would disrupt free will, no some would say do we really have free will, I think we do, just with cause and effect any choice you make has a consequence and our free will is impeded by fear of consequences.  What is my benefit from God? None, but I wouldn't have it any other way.  I don't think God is here to judge me in any way all of the religious drivel is completely there to control the masses, to give them a fear of consequences.  I wholly espouse researching God but I don't believe God is like anyone will expect, could God be a primal force of nature maybe?  Now here is the kicker there is no necessity for God's existence because if God was required then free will could not be achieved.  Now I presume the next question will be why did God create the universe then, who knows maybe God was lonely and created other Gods to experience with I don't know but that would be attributing a human aspect to God.  Just to let you know I was first introduced to the concept of religion/God before 5 I slept a lot in church Smiling which was jehovahs witness then went to southern baptist after my mother threatened to beat the preacher, was with my step father in the peote waterbird religion when I was around 10, studied many forms of religion after that and discovered my issue wasn't with the religion itself but with the heirarchy of the religion, the people in power.  I studied other forms of thought and finally came up with the idea that in order for true free will to exist God had to be absent so one of two things either God doesn't exist or he has removed himself from the picture.  Now as a matter of personal choice until further evidence arrives I choose to say that God exists simply because of the fact 1. I want to and 2. that existence of time, space, matter, energy had to start from something.

I hope that clarified some of my viewpoint.  I have many other theories about things but I will get to them on other threads.

 

Reverend Willie G.

 

I am the God of where I stand


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Jake wrote:I don't thing

Jake wrote:

I don't thing you're crazy ( yet. lol ) A bit naive maybe. That's it.

The Prodigal Son Returns!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Willie, to have Jake appear

Willie, to have Jake appear is almost godly.

http://www.prayerstojake.com

(notice he has 15 posts in 4 years... almost a miracle... to see him post) 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum

Welcome to the forum Reverend Willie G.

If a claim can neither be "proven" nor "disproven," it does not follow that any belief about the claim is justified in some sense. As in any other situation, there still exists only one justifiable and rational position. You should not believe that the claim is true, as this is unjustified. But, neither should you reject the claim, as you have no evidence for asserting that the claim is false either. In the absence of evidence, the position that you should take for any claim is non-belief, the default position.

For example, suppose that we don't know what the origin of the universe is. Then, one day, Brian Sapient comes along and claims that it was made by snarfwidgets. Are we then justified in believing that the universe was made by snarfwidgets? No, of course not. But, at the same time, we cannot claim that it is impossible that it was made by snarfwidgets (unless, some would argue, the definition of snarfwidgets was internally inconsistent). So, what is the correct position? Well, we have already answered our own question. "Suppose that we don't know what the origin of the universe is." The correct position is 'I don't know,' but by default, I don't believe in snarfwidgets until I am provided with positive evidence.

It's okay to not know things, Reverend. I wished the religious would say 'I don't know' rather than make shit up.

Also, I am curious. Would you consider yourself a unitarian universalist?

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13254
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:However at no time

Quote:
However at no time have I discounted Vishnu or any others I simply use the term "God" as my idea or label for that which I cannot explain but believe to be a being that created existence and life or in short "God", or vishnu or zeus or the great spirit or the great nebulon cloud whatever.  For all I know life could have been created by aliens but who created them and who created that, ad infinitum.

Bullshit. This is simply a stupid tactic "call it whatever". You do discount lots of deity claims, you are merely dodging your personal belief trying to deflect scrutiny from your personal claim. This is merely protecting your ego by trying to avoid the pratfalls in logic you know exist when listening to other's claims.

What others have said here, and I will say it too, is that humans make up gods and you are no different. It is simply you protecting your desire to have a god and has nothing to do with an actual god existing.

AND like I said in my prior post, not only are all god beliefs simply reflections of human desires, the concept of an invisible non-material thinking being, in and of itself is a patently absurd claim, BY ANY NAME. It wasn't true when the Egyptians falsely thought the sun was a thinking being, and they had the sun to point at.

Thoughts require a material process, therefor a god cannot logically exist, PERIOD. There was never a god and never will be a god, there are merely humans who make shit up because they like the idea and are merely placating their emotions.

"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 BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jake
atheistRational VIP!RRS Core Member
Jake's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:A lot

ReverendWillieg wrote:
A lot of assumptions there.

Nope. None at all.

Quote:
First of all I have to say I don't know for sure God exists I just believe God does, big difference.

So then you admit you're making everything up as you go along then ? Otherwise, please explain how you have come to knowing any attributes of your god ? 

Quote:
Now lets suppose God exists just for grins and if he did, don't you think someone of that omnipotence would be able to hide his existence?

How would you know if he would, could, or should ? You already stated that you don't know for sure if god exists. So again, how can you claim anything about this god ? I could say the same thing about Superman. He exists but doesn't want to be seen so he moves at super speed faster then the eye can see him. Thats the great thing about fictional characters, you can assign any attribute to them you want.

Quote:
Now if that is the case then when God wants to be discovered he will, fairly simple.

No, it wouldn't be. To discover something is to know of it's existence. If god had revealed himself to you then you would have no doubt about his existence. So obviously, he hasn't revealed himself to you.

Quote:
Now how can something be and not be at the same time that would be similar to imagination itself, that isn't and is at the same time just a comparison.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Your imagination isn't REAL. It never IS. 

Quote:
Now I have to point out that you said most god believers say that belief is more important than proof well kinda, belief is more important to me and proof is more important to make others believe.

So you admit that you don't need proof to believe ? What is the difference between that and simply making everything up as you go along?

Quote:
Now about God giving me free will, I believe God did but it would be indirectly basically all beings have free will and if God created all life by extension God gave it to me, now if God doesn't exist I still have free will, again I go back to my personal perception.   Now I can get into a thesis about free will but I won't maybe on another thread.

Free will is impossible from an omnipotent and omniscient god. It's a design problem. For free will to exist he would have to be able to create you without creating you to do exactly what he already knows you will do. This is an impossibility.

Quote:
Now you say with full confidence that that there is not one single thing that I know exists, that I came to know exists, I just have to say that you aren't in my brain so you can't presume to know anything, but I get your point has to do about the fundamentals of what we percieve as reality is reality a perception?  However you are presuming a lot by saying anything with full confidence.

It should be easy enough for you to prove me wrong then. Simply give me one example of something that you know, and everyone else knows, exists, that was discovered using the same criteria that you have your god. Thats it. When you realize that you can't do it, ask yourself why ?

Quote:
 You claim all of these contradictions but I don't see them as such,

Thats because you don't want to. The contradictions are easily there for everyone to see.

Quote:
I believe you said:

The hardest thing for anyone to do, is to see things as they are, and not how we wished them to be.

I could say the same thing to you but I won't, why?

Of course you could. What part of " anyone " do you not understand ?

Quote:
because I won't make that presumption, this entire statement is about perception.

Yes it is. There is the reality we create for ourselves, and the reality that exists despite what we wish to see. Claims of existence fall into the " despite what we wish to see " department.

Quote:
You presume I know God exists,

I presume nothing. I'm simply going by your own words.

Quote:
you presume I would know about God's attributes,

No, you're the one that keeps pointing out his attributes. Theres nothing for me to presume there.

Quote:
you would presume I would know what God thinks,

Only because you keep telling me how he thinks.

Quote:
I can't but what I can do is think of what I would do if I was in God's position,

We call this " anthropomorphication ". You're assigning human attributes to something that isn't human. ( may I point out you just contradicted yourself. Remember this " you presume I would know about God's attributes". So which is it ? )

Quote:
*gasp* Heaven forbid the unthinkable.  There is one thing I am pretty sure I can ascribe to God if God exists is common sense.

The only thing ? You've attributed many things already. God can't be known, god can be known, god can hide, god can create, god has common sense, god is a creator, god has intentions, etc. All attributes that YOU have already assigned him. Most contradict each other.

Before I go on, allow me to ask you a simple question ? If your god could be proven not to exist, would you stop believing in him ? In other words, which is more important to you ? To see reality as it is, or to cloud it with your own wishful thinking ?

Come join me at my blog AfterFaith or on the forums at The Atheist Network.


Jake
atheistRational VIP!RRS Core Member
Jake's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Willie, to

Sapient wrote:

Willie, to have Jake appear is almost godly.

http://www.prayerstojake.com

(notice he has 15 posts in 4 years... almost a miracle... to see him post) 

 

Awww ! I love you too buddy !!!! Smiling

Come join me at my blog AfterFaith or on the forums at The Atheist Network.


Jake
atheistRational VIP!RRS Core Member
Jake's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:Now

ReverendWillieg wrote:
Now that is a really good set of questions, too many people are attempting to dissect me with logic for an illogical being. 

Wait... god is illogical ? So then he doesn't have rational thoughts ? Purpose ? He can't create ? He can't do math ? He can't communicate ? More contradictions in your belief.

Come join me at my blog AfterFaith or on the forums at The Atheist Network.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 I missed that bit about

 I missed that bit about 'dissecting with logic an illogical being'.

Wow!

So Rev Willie is:

claiming that God is a supreme intelligence that doesn't think logically;

or:

claiming that God is an inherently self-contradictory, ie impossible, concept, so cannot exist;

or:

is a very confused person who doesn't understand what 'logic' is.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jake
atheistRational VIP!RRS Core Member
Jake's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote: I missed

BobSpence1 wrote:

 I missed that bit about 'dissecting with logic an illogical being'.

Wow!

So Rev Willie is:

claiming that God is a supreme intelligence that doesn't think logically;

or:

claiming that God is an inherently self-contradictory, ie impossible, concept, so cannot exist;

or:

is a very confused person who doesn't understand what 'logic' is.

 

Whats interesting to me, is that I warned him of this kind of thing in my first post to him when I said....

As with all god beliefs, there are inherent contradictions. They exist because there is a conflict between what we imagine a god to be, and how we insert our own ego into it. "

Come join me at my blog AfterFaith or on the forums at The Atheist Network.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Separated at birth?!

Frank Langella:

Jake:

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Jake
atheistRational VIP!RRS Core Member
Jake's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote: Frank

Kapkao wrote:

Frank Langella:

Jake:

Damn I wish I still looked that good. Ever since my hips got fucked up a few years ago I stopped working out like I used to and I gained a lot of weight. This is closer to what I look like now...

 

 I wish I had some form of healthcare so that I could get on some sort of pain management regiment and get back to working out. I really miss it. 

Anyway, sorry for the derail. Back to the topic. Smiling

Come join me at my blog AfterFaith or on the forums at The Atheist Network.


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Welcome

butterbattle wrote:

Welcome to the forum Reverend Willie G.

If a claim can neither be "proven" nor "disproven," it does not follow that any belief about the claim is justified in some sense. As in any other situation, there still exists only one justifiable and rational position. You should not believe that the claim is true, as this is unjustified. But, neither should you reject the claim, as you have no evidence for asserting that the claim is false either. In the absence of evidence, the position that you should take for any claim is non-belief, the default position.

For example, suppose that we don't know what the origin of the universe is. Then, one day, Brian Sapient comes along and claims that it was made by snarfwidgets. Are we then justified in believing that the universe was made by snarfwidgets? No, of course not. But, at the same time, we cannot claim that it is impossible that it was made by snarfwidgets (unless, some would argue, the definition of snarfwidgets was internally inconsistent). So, what is the correct position? Well, we have already answered our own question. "Suppose that we don't know what the origin of the universe is." The correct position is 'I don't know,' but by default, I don't believe in snarfwidgets until I am provided with positive evidence.

It's okay to not know things, Reverend. I wished the religious would say 'I don't know' rather than make shit up.

Also, I am curious. Would you consider yourself a unitarian universalist?

 

Well I guess you could say my default is this, I feel that there is an intelligence behind our existence an unseen hand if you will that I cannot name so I call it God, what that unseen hand could be no idea.  I see patterns in the universe where others would see random events, all is perception so it's just the way I look at it.  Would I call myself a unitarian universalist, no but similarities yes.

I am the God of where I stand


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Jake wrote:BobSpence1

Jake wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 I missed that bit about 'dissecting with logic an illogical being'.

Wow!

So Rev Willie is:

claiming that God is a supreme intelligence that doesn't think logically;

or:

claiming that God is an inherently self-contradictory, ie impossible, concept, so cannot exist;

or:

is a very confused person who doesn't understand what 'logic' is.

 

 

Whats interesting to me, is that I warned him of this kind of thing in my first post to him when I said....

As with all god beliefs, there are inherent contradictions. They exist because there is a conflict between what we imagine a god to be, and how we insert our own ego into it. "

I don't claim to know what God thinks but I can try to the furthest extent of my imagination and claiming that God is an inherently self-contradictory, i.e. impossible concept yes but I disagree that it cannot exist that is your presumption, now I am a very confused person I will agree with that, I always was.  However I do understand what logic is so please don't attempt to know what I think another presumption on your part.  Now as to your warning me yes you did but you don't set the rules to the universe and there is no conflict between what I imagine God to be because I don't insert my ego into it, I can only attempt to imagine.  I don't know anything about God I can only guess, all I can do is suppose based on common sense and an observation from God's perspective which is probably incorrect on my part but I try.  I'm sure you will say oh I inserted this or that I claim to know an attribute or I know God is this way but I don't I can only say this is what I think at this point in time until I learn something else to add or subtract from my viewpoint.  Just so you know me inserting my ego is purely a presumption on your part. 

 

Reverend Willie G.  

 

I am the God of where I stand


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Jake wrote:ReverendWillieg

Jake wrote:

ReverendWillieg wrote:
Now that is a really good set of questions, too many people are attempting to dissect me with logic for an illogical being. 

Wait... god is illogical ? So then he doesn't have rational thoughts ? Purpose ? He can't create ? He can't do math ? He can't communicate ? More contradictions in your belief.

 

Could be.  How would you know or not know.  Could be a primal force, could be a culmination of all life existing at that moment, could be an attachment to all of our imaginations so God could be everything and nothing at the same time.  If you were omnipotent you could answer it but you aren't so you can't.  You seem to try and put God in a box but you can't that is what religion tries to do and that is impossible. 

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Jake wrote:ReverendWillieg

Jake wrote:

ReverendWillieg wrote:
A lot of assumptions there.

Nope. None at all.

Quote:
First of all I have to say I don't know for sure God exists I just believe God does, big difference.

So then you admit you're making everything up as you go along then ? Otherwise, please explain how you have come to knowing any attributes of your god ? 

Quote:
Now lets suppose God exists just for grins and if he did, don't you think someone of that omnipotence would be able to hide his existence?

How would you know if he would, could, or should ? You already stated that you don't know for sure if god exists. So again, how can you claim anything about this god ? I could say the same thing about Superman. He exists but doesn't want to be seen so he moves at super speed faster then the eye can see him. Thats the great thing about fictional characters, you can assign any attribute to them you want.

Quote:
Now if that is the case then when God wants to be discovered he will, fairly simple.

No, it wouldn't be. To discover something is to know of it's existence. If god had revealed himself to you then you would have no doubt about his existence. So obviously, he hasn't revealed himself to you.

Quote:
Now how can something be and not be at the same time that would be similar to imagination itself, that isn't and is at the same time just a comparison.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Your imagination isn't REAL. It never IS. 

Quote:
Now I have to point out that you said most god believers say that belief is more important than proof well kinda, belief is more important to me and proof is more important to make others believe.

So you admit that you don't need proof to believe ? What is the difference between that and simply making everything up as you go along?

Quote:
Now about God giving me free will, I believe God did but it would be indirectly basically all beings have free will and if God created all life by extension God gave it to me, now if God doesn't exist I still have free will, again I go back to my personal perception.   Now I can get into a thesis about free will but I won't maybe on another thread.

Free will is impossible from an omnipotent and omniscient god. It's a design problem. For free will to exist he would have to be able to create you without creating you to do exactly what he already knows you will do. This is an impossibility.

Quote:
Now you say with full confidence that that there is not one single thing that I know exists, that I came to know exists, I just have to say that you aren't in my brain so you can't presume to know anything, but I get your point has to do about the fundamentals of what we percieve as reality is reality a perception?  However you are presuming a lot by saying anything with full confidence.

It should be easy enough for you to prove me wrong then. Simply give me one example of something that you know, and everyone else knows, exists, that was discovered using the same criteria that you have your god. Thats it. When you realize that you can't do it, ask yourself why ?

Quote:
 You claim all of these contradictions but I don't see them as such,

Thats because you don't want to. The contradictions are easily there for everyone to see.

Quote:
I believe you said:

The hardest thing for anyone to do, is to see things as they are, and not how we wished them to be.

I could say the same thing to you but I won't, why?

Of course you could. What part of " anyone " do you not understand ?

Quote:
because I won't make that presumption, this entire statement is about perception.

Yes it is. There is the reality we create for ourselves, and the reality that exists despite what we wish to see. Claims of existence fall into the " despite what we wish to see " department.

Quote:
You presume I know God exists,

I presume nothing. I'm simply going by your own words.

Quote:
you presume I would know about God's attributes,

No, you're the one that keeps pointing out his attributes. Theres nothing for me to presume there.

Quote:
you would presume I would know what God thinks,

Only because you keep telling me how he thinks.

Quote:
I can't but what I can do is think of what I would do if I was in God's position,

We call this " anthropomorphication ". You're assigning human attributes to something that isn't human. ( may I point out you just contradicted yourself. Remember this " you presume I would know about God's attributes". So which is it ? )

Quote:
*gasp* Heaven forbid the unthinkable.  There is one thing I am pretty sure I can ascribe to God if God exists is common sense.

The only thing ? You've attributed many things already. God can't be known, god can be known, god can hide, god can create, god has common sense, god is a creator, god has intentions, etc. All attributes that YOU have already assigned him. Most contradict each other.

Before I go on, allow me to ask you a simple question ? If your god could be proven not to exist, would you stop believing in him ? In other words, which is more important to you ? To see reality as it is, or to cloud it with your own wishful thinking ?

 

If you could prove God didn't exist then yes I would quit believing in him.  Just so you know that is my quest to either prove or disprove, since I see no way to prove God exists without God's help I only have one option and that is to disprove God, so get to disproving I'm all ears.  Again you presume to know me and what I think.

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:However

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
However at no time have I discounted Vishnu or any others I simply use the term "God" as my idea or label for that which I cannot explain but believe to be a being that created existence and life or in short "God", or vishnu or zeus or the great spirit or the great nebulon cloud whatever.  For all I know life could have been created by aliens but who created them and who created that, ad infinitum.

Bullshit. This is simply a stupid tactic "call it whatever". You do discount lots of deity claims, you are merely dodging your personal belief trying to deflect scrutiny from your personal claim. This is merely protecting your ego by trying to avoid the pratfalls in logic you know exist when listening to other's claims.

What others have said here, and I will say it too, is that humans make up gods and you are no different. It is simply you protecting your desire to have a god and has nothing to do with an actual god existing.

AND like I said in my prior post, not only are all god beliefs simply reflections of human desires, the concept of an invisible non-material thinking being, in and of itself is a patently absurd claim, BY ANY NAME. It wasn't true when the Egyptians falsely thought the sun was a thinking being, and they had the sun to point at.

Thoughts require a material process, therefor a god cannot logically exist, PERIOD. There was never a god and never will be a god, there are merely humans who make shit up because they like the idea and are merely placating their emotions.

 

Wow I must have hit a nerve.  you presume a crapload.  You spout as much dogmatic views as a fundamentalist religious zealot.  You are the one that can't get to the point that all things are possible.  I don't claim to know god exists quit presuming I do, I simply think God does I can't prove it I can only ascribe my viewpoint and that is it but I at least hold to the position I could be wrong which you do not.  I at least am open to the idea of someone disproving God which you do not repay in kind the favor, your about as dogmatic as a deacon in a southern baptist church.  Now you can't possibly know all of my views and I seem to see a lot of people presuming what I believe.  I seem to have started a ruckus with my introduction and I find it hilarious I do enjoy debating religious zealots and I find it really funny that the athiests have just as big a zealots.  I am open to all ideas and viewpoints are you?

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


adams.v
atheist
adams.v's picture
Posts: 18
Joined: 2010-04-27
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieG wrote:Wow I

ReverendWillieG wrote:

Wow I must have hit a nerve.  you presume a crapload.  You spout as much dogmatic views as a fundamentalist religious zealot.  You are the one that can't get to the point that all things are possible.  I don't claim to know god exists quit presuming I do, I simply think God does I can't prove it I can only ascribe my viewpoint and that is it but I at least hold to the position I could be wrong which you do not.  I at least am open to the idea of someone disproving God which you do not repay in kind the favor, your about as dogmatic as a deacon in a southern baptist church.  Now you can't possibly know all of my views and I seem to see a lot of people presuming what I believe.  I seem to have started a ruckus with my introduction and I find it hilarious I do enjoy debating religious zealots and I find it really funny that the athiests have just as big a zealots.  I am open to all ideas and viewpoints are you?

If you look at Brian's other posts on this board that's kind of just how he is. It comes off to me as he is just tired of religious bull shit and for that I really can't blame him. He kinda serves the religious fanatics a dose of their own medicine.

Now after reading all your posts Reverend I can understand where you come from because for a while I had this sort of view. Mine was more a deistic view though as I hadn't fully grasped the concept of where the universe had came from. I finally reached the point where I decided there was no need for a god and no proof so why live my life thinking there was? The point here is this: you say you can't know one way or the other if a God exists, and in the deistic sense you are more or less right. But if someone was to tell you that they had a invisible, immaterial,  fire breathing dragon living in their basement would you believe them? And then he was to claim that this dragon caused the universe to begin, would you believe him? This is essentially what you are doing but with a god. There is no physical evidence for a god, you just like to see the world with one. The only benefit of your god is personal, there is no need for that belief to exist and no rational reason for it to. I know personally it can be very hard to shake that a god is not necessary, that one isn't needed for everything to exist. But if you are able to shake and see the wonders of the world for what they truly are and start seeing things for how the really are, then everything becomes that much more incredible. To think that it was all formed by simple natural laws is incredible.

Just think about it, you wouldn't believe the person with the dragon. Why? Because there is no reason to make you believe and this is the same with any god.

Science flies people to the moon, Religion flies people into buildings.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4172
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 You are asking us to

ReverendWillieg wrote:

 If you could prove God didn't exist then yes I would quit believing in him.  Just so you know that is my quest to either prove or disprove, since I see no way to prove God exists without God's help I only have one option and that is to disprove God, so get to disproving I'm all ears.  Again you presume to know me and what I think.

 

Reverend Willie G.

 

You are asking us to basically disprove everything you can possibly imagine that god might be without any evidence that such a being exists. You said

 

ReverendWillieg wrote:
I don't try and put God into a box and explain what God is or isn't, God as we should be simply is, what it is I don't know and that is the eternal quest which will never be completed, could be just aliens flying around in invisible space ships, kinda doubt it but you never know.

 

It seems to me that in your mind whatever created the universe and/or life is god and your definition of god will change to fit whatever evidence is presented that god doesn't exist. Basically, you are making the "god of the gaps" argument. We don't know exactly how life was formed so you presume there is some kind of god because in your words

 

ReverendWillieg wrote:
 1. I want to and 2. that existence of time, space, matter, energy had to start from something.

 

So if your desire to believe in god and humanities ignorance of the universe is the only evidence you have of gods existence what is the point of trying to disprove it? If would be like trying to prove to you that shit tastes bad and as pointless. There are a few people on here who will try to hammer it into your head that lack of knowledge does not equal god but I am too lazy. History has proved time and again that propositions of "god did x" have been proven false when we discovered a god was not necessary to do x. Why do you choose to believe that simply because you do not understand how time, space, matter and energy came into existence (or simply exists) that god is a likely possibility?  

 

And when we can prove how the universe came into existence without god I am sure your definition of god will simply change to cover some other unknown phenomena. Just like the definition of god has changed from some being that drags the sun across the sky, throws lightening bolts and causes rain has evolved into a creator of the universe. I'm confident that some point in the future the idea of god being creator of life will be looked at with much the same contempt as most people look at rain dances. Of course, that won't stop people from creating and believing in new gods anymore than it has stopped you from randomly believing in some sort of undefined god. 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Rev Willie, your 'feeling'

Rev Willie, your 'feeling' that there is a God of some kind ultimately behind or above the Universe is a perfectly normal feeling for many people, and the psychology behind such feelings is pretty well understood.

Such feelings are utterly and completely irrelevant to factual question of whether there actually is something in any way matching what you 'feel' exists.

You claim to understand logic, so can you clarify your statement about the impossibility or silliness of attempting to apply logic to God, as he is 'illogical'.

As I commented previously, your statement is unclear, at best, totally confused at worst.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:Jake

ReverendWillieg wrote:

Jake wrote:

ReverendWillieg wrote:
Now that is a really good set of questions, too many people are attempting to dissect me with logic for an illogical being. 

Wait... god is illogical ? So then he doesn't have rational thoughts ? Purpose ? He can't create ? He can't do math ? He can't communicate ? More contradictions in your belief.

 

Could be.  How would you know or not know.  Could be a primal force, could be a culmination of all life existing at that moment, could be an attachment to all of our imaginations so God could be everything and nothing at the same time. 

... could be something you created, could be something that feels normal to you because so many people believe it, could be something that people believe for no good reason.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:Well I

ReverendWillieg wrote:
Well I guess you could say my default is this, I feel that there is an intelligence behind our existence an unseen hand if you will that I cannot name so I call it God, what that unseen hand could be no idea.

No, that is not what I said. There is no "your" default position. I defined the default position as the position that is justifiable in the absence of evidence. 

"In the absence of evidence, the position that you should take for any claim is non-belief, the default position."

Your position is not the default position; to be blunt, your position is the intellectually bankrupt position. You have taken the position of asserting the unjustified positive claim.

ReverendWillieg wrote:
I see patterns in the universe where others would see random events, all is perception so it's just the way I look at it.

Of course there are patterns in the universe. Anything that we can mathematically model or attribute meaning to is a pattern under certain definitions. Furthermore, humans instinctively apply patterns to everything they can wrap their brains around. We even psychologically condition ourselves via post hoc, confirmation bias, etc. into believing that patterns exist where there demonstrably are none, as in superstitions like walking under ladders or in pseudosciences like astrology. This does absolutely nothing to justify belief in a God. 

Do you think that your belief in God is unjusitifed? Yes or no.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Patterns in the Universe"

"Patterns in the Universe" are NOT the signs of intelligence.

Patterns often arise when we have many simple elements, particles, whatever, of identical or near identical simple properties, like atoms of the same element, all interacting under similar conditions.

The simplest example I always give is of a bunch of identical spheres, collected in a corner of a sloping flat plane. They will form a pattern of perfect triangles.

A simple substance, common salt, with just two kinds of atoms, crystallizes into perfect cubes.

So that kind of pattern is an indicator of the very opposite of a mind, the actions of basic forces.

Indications of a mind might be unexpected departures from such patterns.

We see in the Universe a combination of 'deterministic' interactions, which are predictable if they are not too complicated and possibly chaotic, and apparent pure randomness, which follows consistent statistics, like radioactive decay.

To even suggest a mind, we would need something that neither followed deterministic laws nor statisticly pure randomness.

 

 

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology