Ain't that easier to understand than Mr. Metaphysics Ontological Argument??? Thanks Ockham's Razor ya know.  By the way I got 4 perfect matches for bone marrow transplants. I gotta figure out 24 hour care and transportation for the next 4 months.  28 days of IV's at the Dr's office after the transplant. Sounds like a good formula... I think on that one.  perhaps just evolution itself shows our morphology simply changes and reflects no one image or blueprint much less mental ability.

 

 

Most imprtant women find us more atrative.

Read again four perfect matches each a 10 out of 10!!!! Sorry bought the TMJ. I will atheistically pray for you. I thought I had fbro myalgia but it wasn't.

 

 

TGBaker wrote:

I've had Christians say even if you show me the evidence I will not believe it because I already believe in God and will choose to do so no matter what.  This is enculturation and brainwashing.  it actually rises to the level of delusion.

Desire and faith as I mentioned earlier.

Quote:

Apart from religion being an accepted part of society it would be classified by the Psychological diagnosis book DSM IV as a mental disorder.  We ourselves go about an environment that is predominately Christian in the USA.  Our money says in God we Trust.  We can not by beer on Sunday in many states like mine.  Liquor stores can not be built within a thousand or more feet from a Church.  We say bless you when some one sneezes.  We think in terms of good and bad filtered through our politics but originating from religion. Our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian standards.  Until recently a gay life style was still a felony in Georgia.  We still place our hands on the bible to swear in court.  We have holidays that are Christian as for as when the federal government closes. Other religions are ignored.  We open our Senate and Congess with a chaplin and prayer.  We allow tax exemption to religious organizations.  We continue to be culturally theistic.

 

So Christians are not typically responding on a rational basis. They are responding from this whole world view that gives them language, activities, regulations and meaning. They are maintaining a culture rather than just a religion when they hold to their unwarranted views. This is evidence that the New Atheism which is actively responsive to this antiquated world view is necessary for any hope of a rational future.  Otherwise we will continue to have wars based upon 2000 year old religious turf  battles, other cultures being tagged as Satan and subject to prejudice and biases that can and will lead to violent conflict and a world view that delays progress in science and ethics.

I agree.

Have I overused the term detachment lately? Outspoken atheism is not just an anti to religion and gods.

TGBaker wrote:

At least you ain't bald. It took me a year to grow my hair out then it fell out gee. 

But you look good bald.

I caused the flare up by doing one of the few things I'm good at and actually enjoy - crocheting this

it took me about 24 hours, over two weeks.

The last flare up, last year, was caused by a pair of crocheted peacocks.

Sheesh,  WTF?

... and the really sad part is, the lady I made this for wants two more!!!

 

It is a fact that we all hold mistaken beliefs. True or false is often based on parameters held within beliefs that may never be real. Beliefs are not proven facts; they are perceptions and your way of thinking. From different perspectives my truths can be seen in different lights.

 

When a physicist looks at an object we can say that he is analysing his perception of the object. We have an aspect of faith in the scientific method that sees those perceptions as corresponding to the external world.  When we deal with consciousness we are dealing with a report of someone's perception and therefore typically trust self-reports ( I have a headache etc.).  We assume that others beside ourselves have minds. That data is not accessible but by report.  We can take a trusting stance that the reports are of perceptions that correspond to consciousness.  If we can not trust that the physicist's perceptions have some correlate to the external world we have no means of objectifying data as presenting a guide to the real world and can only speak of mental perceptions and not reality.  We have evidence that when we see a tree in the real world there is a tree. Our perception is really our data but it points to and signifies what it represents in the real world.

 

 

 Your theory has a flaw: atheists not only exist but, are increasing in numbers... suggesting that the direction of human evolution is moving away from a need for god. Humans used to drag their knuckles on the ground too but, most have evolved out of that habit.

Please explain: 'Women find us more attractive' Women find who more attractive?

TGBaker wrote:

Here is a logical method. Most times I use Bible studies. I have a degree in biblical literature, theology or what have you. I had four years of Greek and translated the New Testament with historical critical application toward a summary of the historical Jesus as opposed to the Christ of Faith.

1) There is a possible world of only well-being (p).

2) A capable limitless good being (x) knowing of this world (p) would actualize (necessarily) it over  possible worlds with evil and suffering (q).

3)x necessarily would not allow  q

4)p--> not q

5) It is possible that god is x

6)q --> not p

7) Our world=q therefore not p

8)not p

9)not p--->not x

10)not x

11)god= not x

 Our world entails there is no capable limitless good being. If there is a god he is not that being.

 The problem with not using Cultures of Christianities is that there are 38,000 factions of variant Christianity in the USA. Their differences of views form different cultures such as Amish, Catholic, pentecostaletc.; all of whom dress and believe differently and antithetically against one another.

 

Is this response your way of saying - show me the evidence I will not believe it because I already don’t believe in God and will choose not to do so no matter what?
I gave you proofs as to why we need a god. I do not have a degree in theology but, I do in chemistry, business and art. I like to draw.  The problem with using discipline of Science is that there are multiple factions of variant theories within any scientific field. Their differences of views form different cultures that use the same empirical data who believe differently and against one another.
To compound the issue, the scientific community doesn’t accept all sub-cultures. So when an unaccepted culture is found to be right does that mean everything else within the self proclaimed scientific community is wrong?

Yes I am using your words, they fit. I am not sure of what real world you live in but I have been a part of International science groups who have shown an unbelieveable inability to  represent the real world or even real perceptions of truths. Bullshit runs deep through all aspects of human culture.

TGBaker wrote:

When a physicist looks at an object we can say that he is analysing his perception of the object. We have an aspect of faith in the scientific method that sees those perceptions as corresponding to the external world.  When we deal with consciousness we are dealing with a report of someone's perception and therefore typically trust self-reports ( I have a headache etc.).  We assume that others beside ourselves have minds. That data is not accessible but by report.  We can take a trusting stance that the reports are of perceptions that correspond to consciousness.  If we can not trust that the physicist's perceptions have some correlate to the external world we have no means of objectifying data as presenting a guide to the real world and can only speak of mental perceptions and not reality.  We have evidence that when we see a tree in the real world there is a tree. Our perception is really our data but it points to and signifies what it represents in the real world.

 

 

 

Now, that one zoomed right over my head.

About the TMJ, yeah I have a good idea what causes it to flare up - the muscles in the right side of my neck get stiff and pull on the weaker muscles of my jaw which then pulls the jaw out of socket. Chewing on one side only, carrying a heavy shoulder purse and keeping my arm in an awkward position for an extended period of time - all of which I do - aggravates it.

On a 'normal' day, I wake up with my jaw locked shut because of it relaxing backwards in my sleep but, it usually goes back in place within an hour. It's never been like this for a week before. I've tried muscle relaxers and they help some but, massage and 'working' it has always fixed it before. The last time this happened, I had excruciating pain. This time, it's mostly just annoying. The best 'medicine' I found was a Physical Therapy/Therapist manual for $60 on Amazon last year. Great book with massage techniques and exercises. 

'This too, shall pass'. Right?

 We ourselves go about an environment that is predominately Christian in the USA.  Our money says in God we Trust.  We can not by beer on Sunday in many states like mine.  Liquor stores can not be built within a thousand or more feet from a Church.  We say bless you when some one sneezes.  We think in terms of good and bad filtered through our politics but originating from religion. Our laws are based upon Judeo-Christian standards.  Until recently a gay life style was still a felony in Georgia.  We still place our hands on the bible to swear in court.  We have holidays that are Christian as for as when the federal government closes. Other religions are ignored.  We open our Senate and Congess with a chaplin and prayer.  We allow tax exemption to religious organizations.  We continue to be culturally theistic.

Mjolnin wrote:

Atheists are increasing in numbers.  Hmmm, deductive reasoning would tell me that the decline in economic and social order, failure of the school systems to teach students, a crumbling infrastructure, overpsending… All this time I was blaming politicians when it was really the rise of atheists.
This falls under the same comment as the 'Women find us more attractive' – Not serious , just havin fun. Life is too serious to take serious.

It is not my theory; it is documented studies based on scientific truths. The oddity is that atheist and theists have been tested and show the same result.  Maybe you are the odd one out or just denying you true self? As far as the next step of evolution, some scientific cultures believe that the chimpanzee evolved from humans and not the other way around. We may all end up back in the trees.
 

You obviously don't understand how 'scientific truths' work.  There are no absolutes in science, only leading theories on a particular subject.  Certain theories are so well supported by empirical data and peer reviewed duplicate experiments, that everyone assumes them to be correct.  The studies that you are alluding to are at the cutting edge of neuroscience, and one of the better known ones such as The God Helmet has not been successfully replicated.  In other words, they are just theories, they have yet to become scientific theories.  Once the results are independently duplicated and the findings are consistent it will become a scientific theory.  

Even if the studies turned out to be correct, and we were hardwired to believe in god, how does that support your god?  If anything it just shows that the need to believe is driven by a biological function.  So is the need to bash a woman in the head with a bat in order to drag back to the cave, but most of us overcome that need... how do you get god out of that?

As for the last thing you said, about some scientific cultures? I'm not even sure what you mean by that.  Anyone that believes that chimpanzees evolved from humans is an idiot, anyone that believes that humans evolved from today's chimpanzees has no clear understanding of how evolution works.  Both humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor... I'm hoping that you were jesting because otherwise that was pretty stupid.

 

Mjolnin wrote:

I am extreemly curious as to how you disprove God? It would make it easier for me to understand your point of rational and critical thinking.

 

I would wonder why I would want to even go down that road. Really, what is the god that would be disproved? It is a loving and all knowing, all powerful being? The problem of evil seems to make that one not work so well. Perhaps there is some other criteria that would better fit for this exercise? If so what would that be?

 

Really, that seems to be quite the problem. You have not provided a set of criteria to guide the exercise. Even if you had, any reasons for that criteria not working out do not need to rule out some other set of criteria.

 

Consider the proof that Tommy has offered. It assumes that there would be a possible world without suffering and a god with the ability and desire to make that happen. As that world clearly does not obtain, that god really does not work out so well either.

 

Against that, if I bring in Voltaire's concept of this being the best of all possible worlds, then I can advance a concept of god that would work in that world and what do we have? Not much honestly. All that we have done is advance an idea of god which is not falsifiable.

 

Honestly though, the idea of god(s) has been with us for a very long time. If something is found that makes the old idea obviously inoperative, then that aspect of god needs to be abandoned. As an example, a few centuries ago, there was a widespread belief that god had an aspect of the finger of lightning that came down from the sky to punish the wicked. In a world where lightning arrestors exist, that is clearly a problem. So few if any people still take that one seriously.

 

Similarly, as other new ideas come up, the definition can be further refined. Basically creating a god of the gaps. In Darwin's day, nobody at all spoke of god as causing the big bang. Prior to the Miller Urey experiments, the idea of abiogenesis was nothing more than “god did it”. Now the advocates need to deal with what might have happened, why it happened and when it happened.

 

If the best that one can do is see god forced ever further back into unfalsifiablity, then that is not really disproof of all possible gods but it is disproof of all gods not so defined. You can call it “theological refinement” or something similar if you want but the fact remains that the supposed mightiest being is being refined back into the margins of reality as newer and better explanations for naturalistic phenomenon are developed.

NO it is not a proof or even logical presentation unless you happen to be a 4yr.old child that didn’t get what they want for Christmas.  Interjecting Candide into the equation won’t help you either, because evil was shown to be of human doing. Human interaction is not part of the proof. Both Candide and your proof fail to view the people who are happy and not sulking in a worldview of misery.

 What about the 4 people who were willing to suffer to ease Tommy's suffering? Are you going to tell them not to do it because suffering is all bad it proves there  is no God. I do not know where you live  (or care to know) but it must really suck.

 

 

 

Mjolnin wrote:

NO it is not a proof or even logical presentation

 

I like you. You are silly when you try to think.

 

Mjolnin wrote:

unless you happen to be a 4yr.old child that didn’t get what they want for Christmas.

 

Gee, an adhom as an argument. Have yo considered the idea of actually responding or are you just going to do more of the same?

 

Mjolnin wrote:

Interjecting Candide into the equation won’t help you either, because evil was shown to be of human doing. Human interaction is not part of the proof. Both Candide and your proof fail to view the people who are happy and not sulking in a worldview of misery.

 

Perhaps you should try reading Candide instead of just googling the text which I provided you. Here it is:

 

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19942/19942-h/19942-h.htm

 

t only took me a couple of hours to read the whole thing. As for you, I really don't know but probably far longer.

At best the logic is subjective and at the deapest level it is limited.
 

The statements only work if this is all there is, nothing is your fault, all evil and suffering is understood and quantifiable following your definition. If God really loves me he would have given me the tricycle I wanted for Christmas and stop my suffering caused by doing without.  argumentum ad hominem is your dodge,not mine.  I think it is a perfect picture. Remember, I am an artist... artistic license.
Why you believe it is logical is due to comprehension problem.

Incapability of comprehending that you’re responsible for your actions
Incapability of comprehending that your actions affect others, and can be long lasting.
Incapability of comprehending life has a value or purpose.
Incapability of comprehending the necessity of suffering or even what isn’t suffering.
Incapability of comprehending there are other realities apart from your existence.
Incapability of comprehending reasons for the evil and that evil may be justified.

You can glean insight from a man who says you are evil and the cause for a screwed up world and expect to be treated that way and refuse to listen to someone who said you are good and should act like it. You asked for a definition of a God that fits your insight?
 You can put your fingers back in your ears and start with your lalalalalalal chant.