What would count as absolute proof that God exists?

truth
atheist
Posts: 74
Joined: 2012-02-25
User is offlineOffline
What would count as absolute proof that God exists?

 This same question (What would count as absolute proof that God exists?) was asked on another forum, n id thought id ask it on here, basicaly she answers by saying that we can never KNOW if God does or does not exist, because theres always a posibility that some intelligent alien is doing it/pretending to be God. what do u guys think, what would convince YOU that God is real, what miracles or things would he have to do, I personaly would want 2 see all the miracles in the bible performed infront of me, n also be shown heaven n hell n fly thru the universe, etc. i would say it is God even though i cant know know if it is or not, i would continue on beliving that indeed it is God or if i were to be ieternal bliss in heaven forever, i would be very happy with God, but i obviously cant know if its some alien teenager decieving me, i wouldent care that much i hope,  all i know is that im happy n thats all that matters. 

"Again, a new contemporary source referring to Jesus would only support his existence, not his identity nor the existence of a god. So that wouldn’t do it either.

 

Same goes for a document written by Jesus himself, EVEN IF it could ever be shown to be genuinely by him, which it almost certainly couldn’t.

As for your other examples. Proof that we were created, for instance. Well, for starters, what might such proof possibly look like? It is certainly conceivable that we would find something that would challenge our current understanding, but how would that prove a creator rather than simply flag up another question to which we don’t currently have an answer? The lack of an answer for something doesn’t have to mean that Goddidit!

In any case, even if there WERE something that pointed incontrovertibly towards a creator, why should that mean it was a god who did the creating? Why couldn’t it be a super-intelligent alien civilisation that did it? For the record, I am not for one moment suggesting the existence of a super-intelligent alien civilisation, merely pointing out that God is not the default explanation!

God speaking to me personally? Well, we already know that the brain is very suggestible and that it can create very powerful illusions, even when not under the influence of drugs. So no, that wouldn’t be reliable evidence either. Besides, who’s to say that, if there WERE a real voice, it would have to be a god and not that super-intelligent alien again?

What might be evidence? Well, if prayer were consistently shown to work, that would get me thinking. Especially if, say, Christian prayers were always answered but Islamic/Hindu/Jain prayers were not. (Though even so, it could still just be a super-intelligent alien civilisation having some fun at our expense.) In reality, every properly conducted study has shown that prayer does NOT work – there is no correlation between prayer and outcomes.

Perhaps if this supposed God were to tell us something that we did not already know and which we could then test for ourselves and see that it was true: a cure for some currently totally incurable disease, for instance. (Carl Sagan wrote amusingly of the way alleged messages from God or aliens are invariably of the banal variety: ‘Be kind to one another’, ‘War is bad’; and never anything IMPRESSIVE, such as how to cure cancer or a comprehensible explanation of quantum mechanics or proof of Goedel’s Theorem.) But this, too, would only be evidence of a superior intelligence, and it could just as easily be those super-intelligent aliens again.

Actually, that isn’t true. It would be FAR MORE LIKELY to be super-intelligent aliens than God. Why? Because we know of natural processes by which intelligence forms on Earth (i.e. as a result of evolution by natural selection), and it therefore wouldn’t be unreasonable to assume that something either identical or very similar to evolution by natural selection had been at work on another planet in this vast universe, and had been so for longer than here on Earth and had therefore resulted in super-intelligence that might appear truly god-like to us inferior beings. It would still have been an entirely natural process.

But there is NO mechanism we know of which could possibly give rise to a god. The Christian claim that God was simply always there just won’t wash: there’s no reason to believe it, it’s simply special pleading, dreamed up, invented, imagined, as a way of trying to prevent the rest of the story simply falling apart. It has nothing whatsoever to support it beyond the wishful thinking of those who want to believe the rest of the story.

So I find it impossible to imagine what proof there might be for God, because it would always be possible to imagine a far more plausible naturalistic explanation (and, for the reason given above, even the most outlandish naturalistic explanation will always be more plausible than an uncreated god).

I can’t prove that there isn’t a god either, of course; but there is absolutely no good reason to believe in one, and that’s why I don’t. I don’t believe in a super-intelligent alien civilisation either, by the way: it’s just a less preposterous hypothesis than an uncreated god."


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2390
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Hi

 

 

            And welcome to the forums. I hope you post more often. Could you eleborate on what you do believe.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


truth
atheist
Posts: 74
Joined: 2012-02-25
User is offlineOffline
 right now in my life im

 

thanks,

right now in my life im agnostic,

wen i was younger iwas catholic then started doubting then turned atheist then catholic again then muslim i was in a roller coaster

 

if ur talking about like if im atheist or religious, id call myself a seeker/agnostic maybe itll change maybe not


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
recommendations

Don't feel bad truth. Life is full of bullshit. Just use your sense of reason above all else.  I'm new here but have done alot of

post reading. so far I would recommend posts and comments by: Brian37, BeyondSaving, Jefferick, AtheistExtreme, Sapient,

ProzacDeathwish, and of course myself(haha). I know i'm forgetting a few but you'll find them.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 Hello and welcome! Please

 Hello and welcome! Please would you use better interpunction and spelling check (the rightmost icon on the post window), if you can help it? That would make your text easier to read.

As for your question, I think believers get away with god-belief because they simplify and dumb down things enormously. The only god that they can possibly imagine is theirs and they don't even have him properly defined. This is why *any* kind of evidence is seen as an evidence for their god. Even perfectly natural things, like a scene of waterfall in the forest.

But a thinking person will immediately see the countless possibilities. If God created Earth or worse (bossed around one desert tribe on it), then it is a very tiny God, because the universe is extremely larger and more complex than that. Also as you write, superior aliens might pass for gods. An alien being based on energy or some form of less-than-solid matter or plasma would pass for a god also. But not in cosmic scale. Anything in cosmic scale might be a god, but one totally impossible to comprehend by our minds. And such a god would be useless to us, on planetary and personal scale.

I think any supernatural phenomena, even if proven, including prayers, are not evidence for gods. There could be other natural principles beings by which these might have worked. Lesser beings than gods? Or focusing the energy of thought? Anything but absurd examples is more likely than the creator of the universe personally intervening in our favor.

I can personally imagine and use for all practical purposes the principle of panpsychism. If there is God, he created the universe out of himself, we are a part of him and therefore we are partially divine. As such, we are responsible for acting out the divine good qualities, like creativity or justice. We may be gods in that sense, but differing in how clearly we manifest our divinity, which is a goal to work on. Such philosophy is not Deism, where God doesn't interfere once the universe starts, it is the opposite of it. A philosophy, in which God is maximally involved with the universe in various ways, including maintaining us, the small but sentient and developing aspects of himself.

I'm not sure if I believe in it, because I don't think I need to. I'd try to act according to this philosophy anyway, regardless if there is evidence for it or not, just for the ethics of it. Unless I'd find better ethics somehow.

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


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
 Were this god to descend

 Were this god to descend the greater peaks from whence it dwells, or at least so in the minds of men and lay waste to a city or dine on the first born of the recalcitrant, I'd most likely consider that proof, though I'm uncertain I'd characterize it as absolute. The shocking nature of such revelations aside, at that point it would be obvious at least that something existed. The task of establishing its godhood might still be problematic, though distinct features like  a dog's head or perhaps even an examination of the horrors it has loosed upon the world may go far in helping to make the determination and identifying it within the pantheon.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Absolute proof? For me?

Absolute proof? For me? Well... me becoming omnipotent*. Everything else is kinda a "big if" until then.

 

 

*No, I am NOT interested in reading philosophical bull about "omnifaults", because that is all it is... philosophical bull. Save it for the professors, eh?

“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)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Let's face it

 

 

humans have a limited capacity to comprehend the nature of the universe given they are inside it, can never explain first cause or things that are external to this space time - notwithstanding those interesting claims there are signs in this universe that external universes are jostling against us. 

How can a human brain properly comprehend anything that can create a universe? As for attaining physics and biology-defying magic powers here on earth, I think we can rule that out right away. Whizzing about checking out the universe is going to challenge our terrestrial sense perceptions, fit as they are for this planet, this gravity, this chemical and biological soup we thrive in. 

Humans cannot even define god let alone know god. We have no idea what we are talking about. Is god a magical human? A cosmic Dr Google? An exo-universal force? The 'meaning' behind energy? A super intelligence? All such assertions are laughable. Trying to wrap your mind around the impossibility of such comprehension is a mistake that more than half puts you in a theistic world devoid of signpost or sense.  

We can say we more or less 'know' those modifiable hypotheses we can prove using the available data. For the rest we can say we do not know. Personally, I don't properly understand the concepts of supersymmetry. My comprehension is linear and blinks on and off like a lighthouse. I am mostly unaware of my Earthly surroundings. The undefined properties of an undefined being residing in an undefined location are well beyond me.  

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey OPIE

Hi OPIE,

Welcome to the dumping trash site of complete garbage of ideas that have been thrown away, and refuted, and yet still used by these atheists.

I propose an atheist get out of the trash (is this possible) quit using ideas and proposions that have already been refuted by atheists themselves and come up with new ideas in the attempt of validity in argument. Who's with Me? Show of hands?

Anybody?

Anyway, regarding your thread, you HAVE TO DEFINE PROOF. lol. Since there  is more then one TYPE of  proof and scienfic proof, then please define and explain which category of proof do you prefer?

By the way, 3 of them have been utterly refuted which leaves no proof and thus no absolutes. lol. yay duh. But the hypocties change on their mood or diet.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
AE... what the hell amounts

AE... what the hell amounts to " physics and biology-defying magic powers here on earth"? You answer me that, and I'll get back to you.

 

Physics defies itself on a regular basis, thanks largely in part to it being defined and discovered via "fallible (human) minds" and also because it is based primarily on math and precious little tangible evidence. Biology is largely a framework for gathering and defining data on 'life' as we currently understand it.

 

Essentially, your statement is without merit because it relies exclusively on the fallibility of human comprehension (which, in Einstein's mind, was nearly limitless.) Scientific narrative is anything BUT perfect.

Don't worry... Bobspence (and other mods) made quite a few statements without any merit or valid ideas to convey, because they were based on David Hume's limited comprehension and partly because it also relies on Bob's counterintuitive use of English (he is a native speaker, yes?)

Frankly, I don't believe Bob has ever uttered an opinion that wouldn't be immense fun to rip apart, because it lacks any recognizable form of (in a secular context) 'tangible human wisdom'. The wisdom he does have, is muddied by a lack of rationality and appeals to being a bleeding heart.

AiGS, on the other hand, is a bit of a tough cookie in that one regard. AiGS is utilitarian, tough-minded and intuiting. It's hard to challenge AiGS on his knowledge, though even he slips up occasionally. I've yet to meet anyone challenge-proof on the boards, regardless of whatever knowledge or comprehension they might claim or pretend to have. Human comprehension is almost always fallible, no matter what well-thought-out claims it attempts to formulate. That doesn't render it unable to formulate an entity which is, in effect, 'unlimited' in power and/or knowledge. Just limited in how it might define such. Eye-wink

(No, I still don't give a shit about "correct inference".)

 

I, on the other hand, reserve the right to take a thorough shit all over philosophers, idealists and religious folk especially-if-not-exclusively the pope. It empowers me and it liberates me.

“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)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13623
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi OPIE,

Welcome to the dumping trash site of complete garbage of ideas that have been thrown away, and refuted, and yet still used by these atheists.

I propose an atheist get out of the trash (is this possible) quit using ideas and proposions that have already been refuted by atheists themselves and come up with new ideas in the attempt of validity in argument. Who's with Me? Show of hands?

Anybody?

Anyway, regarding your thread, you HAVE TO DEFINE PROOF. lol. Since there  is more then one TYPE of  proof and scienfic proof, then please define and explain which category of proof do you prefer?

By the way, 3 of them have been utterly refuted which leaves no proof and thus no absolutes. lol. yay duh. But the hypocties change on their mood or diet.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

This concludes our public service announcement on why you should not eat lead paint like Jean has.

"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


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
For me

I'd say: first, what god? Why singular (and male)? It obviously depends on what this god is.

Second: probably the demonstration would be an explanation, step for step (and by step I mean experimentally), starting from the reality under 'it' present.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
RE: Brian37

On the otherhand, if you think a good bit like Jean and most Calvinists, you may want to consider swallowing some .50 caliber aspirin. It's painless, plus it's hella fun in the sense of taking the highway to whatever bizarre "afterlife" you might be expecting.

Do it for the Human Race, man!

“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)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Mmmmm

Kapkao wrote:

AE... what the hell amounts to " physics and biology-defying magic powers here on earth"? You answer me that, and I'll get back to you.

 

Physics defies itself on a regular basis, thanks largely in part to it being defined and discovered via "fallible (human) minds" and also because it is based primarily on math and precious little tangible evidence. Biology is largely a framework for gathering and defining data on 'life' as we currently understand it.

 

Essentially, your statement is without merit because it relies exclusively on the fallibility of human comprehension (which, in Einstein's mind, was nearly limitless.) Scientific narrative is anything BUT perfect.

Don't worry... Bobspence (and other mods) made quite a few statements without any merit or valid ideas to convey, because they were based on David Hume's limited comprehension and partly because it also relies on Bob's counterintuitive use of English (he is a native speaker, yes?)

Frankly, I don't believe Bob has ever uttered an opinion that wouldn't be immense fun to rip apart, because it lacks any recognizable form of (in a secular context) 'tangible human wisdom'. The wisdom he does have, is muddied by a lack of rationality and appeals to being a bleeding heart.

AiGS, on the other hand, is a bit of a tough cookie in that one regard. AiGS is utilitarian, tough-minded and intuiting. It's hard to challenge AiGS on his knowledge, though even he slips up occasionally. I've yet to meet anyone challenge-proof on the boards, regardless of whatever knowledge or comprehension they might claim or pretend to have. Human comprehension is almost always fallible, no matter what well-thought-out claims it attempts to formulate. That doesn't render it unable to formulate an entity which is, in effect, 'unlimited' in power and/or knowledge. Just limited in how it might define such. Eye-wink

(No, I still don't give a shit about "correct inference".)

 

I, on the other hand, reserve the right to take a thorough shit all over philosophers, idealists and religious folk especially-if-not-exclusively the pope. It empowers me and it liberates me.

 

I'm talking about unassisted human flight, super strength from standard-sized human bodies, the ability to withstand flesh obliterating impacts without a scratch. You know, the usual Marvel sort of stuff. The ability to heal the sick and raise the dead with a snap of the fingers. The OP indirectly implies that such powers might lead him/her to believe in a supernatural god. Personally, I think evidence suggests these things are impossible.

When you talk about the fallibility of human comprehension are you suggesting that scientific thought is the same as religious thought in that it's based on fallible human brains? 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Almost as fallible, yes. The

Almost as fallible, yes. The only 'saving grace' that science has over religion is the ability to admit that it is wrong.

edit; As Bob points out, "philosophy" is that bizarre grey area between the two in that it is largely a poorly-conceived homunculus of human opinions

“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)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Look, Kap

 

Kapkao wrote:

Almost as fallible, yes. The only 'saving grace' that science has over religion is the ability to admit that it is wrong.

edit; As Bob points out, "philosophy" is that bizarre grey area between the two in that it is largely a poorly-conceived homunculus of human opinions

 

I understand where you are coming from with this but I think empiricism does offer more than just confession of weakness in its favour. No one is going to argue all human mental conceptualisation is perfect but there are obviously techniques that reduce bias, remove motivated reasoning and allow what we can sense or detect of reality to speak for itself. At the moment I'm fascinated by the SKA radio telescope I hope Australia is going to win in the next 6 months - a square kilometre of dish with vastly improved resolution. 

We'd agree I think that even using instruments like this or the LHC and observing strict standards of scientific observation and peer review, we can never be certain of anything. Virtually all new research is opposed by those whose comprehension is biased by the enclosed environment created by their own limited comprehension usually mapped by their field of expertise. No human can ever see all the facts, all at once, laterally and in real time. But deep and broad layers of data can be gathered, and polished by new findings, one scientific paper at a time. 

Theists, however, operate in a world of assertions based on concepts that are undefined. There is no adequate definition of god, no definition of what constitutes the word 'supernatural', no pre-bang concept of integrity. They are equally hamstrung in their ability to comprehend arguable truth but when it comes to many of their key assertions, have no possibility of support from any type of repeatable, testable explanation based on material reality.  

I notice you've fired a few shots in Bob's direction lately. Is it that dogmatic empiricism bothers you? 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Humanitarian morality and

Humanitarian morality and all of it's whimpering proponents irritate me, yes. Mostly because none of them will fess up about 'being wrong' like science will. There's also the fact that Bob spins a lot of wild ideas based on philosophy, and will conceive some rather fanciful notions about the human race and it's ability to progress both technologically and socially using Aristotle and Hume as a 'tour guide'. He also treats "emotion" and "science" (or scientific narrative?) as axiomatic. His way of explaining his knowledge to others falls bluntly within the realm of the infamous stereotype called "the absent-minded professor"; he doesn't express himself in intuitive, down-to-earth language AKA "Layman's terms". And yes, his "opinions" are enormous fun to deconstruct. Time for me to make a stop by the "what is wonderism" blogpost and poke some holes into another faulty premise of his.

I notice you've yet to make an argument for why I should give a shit or cede a point or two to "logike". This is (perhaps) because it is mostly philosophy and thus a person's "opinion". It has next to nothing to do with human progress.

Also... what, precisely, is the inherent fault of "motivated reasoning"? (note the 'inherent' part)

You'll take notice that I'm not necessarily "dense" on the concept of "correct inference", merely that I fail to see any inherent practical purpose* in it. Philosophy tends to be purpose-free. I don't think anyone, atheist or theist, can 'make the case' for logike in terms of utilitarian morality.

 

*there goes one of my rampant appeals to utilitarianism, again!

“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)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Humanitarian

Kapkao wrote:

Humanitarian morality and all of it's whimpering proponents irritate me, yes. Mostly because none of them will fess up about 'being wrong' like science will. There's also the fact that Bob spins a lot of wild ideas based on philosophy, and will conceive some rather fanciful notions about the human race and it's ability to progress both technologically and socially using Aristotle and Hume as a 'tour guide'. He also treats "emotion" and "science" (or scientific narrative?) as axiomatic. His way of explaining his knowledge to others falls bluntly within the realm of the infamous stereotype called "the absent-minded professor"; he doesn't express himself in intuitive, down-to-earth language AKA "Layman's terms". And yes, his "opinions" are enormous fun to deconstruct. Time for me to make a stop by the "what is wonderism" blogpost and poke some holes into another faulty premise of his.

I notice you've yet to make an argument for why I should give a shit or cede a point or two to "logike". This is (perhaps) because it is mostly philosophy and thus a person's "opinion". It has next to nothing to do with human progress.

Also... what, precisely, is the inherent fault of "motivated reasoning"? (note the 'inherent' part)

You'll take notice that I'm not necessarily "dense" on the concept of "correct inference", merely that I fail to see any inherent practical purpose* in it. Philosophy tends to be purpose-free. I don't think anyone, atheist or theist, can 'make the case' for logike in terms of utilitarian morality.

 

*there goes one of my rampant appeals to utilitarianism, again!

To be fair, I've had a few glasses of wine, so please ignore me if I've misread.  Is your position that philosophy holds no value? Fundamentally I see it as nothing more then mental masturbation.  Be that as it may, if one spends time and effort in arriving at a conclusion, more often then not will beat a coin toss statistical probability of being more useful.  As for logic, in of itself is nothing but a framework.  It is rather to represent reality as a concept, not to dictate how reality is to behave.  I'm not sure I get why you find it so useless?  How do you determine whether or not to cross the road when the cross walk flashes the "DON'T WALK"

Also I happen to find humanism as the only logically utilitarian approach to philosophy.  I happen to enjoy logic in of itself.  It gives me the warm fuzzies to poke holes in an irrational argument of any kind... big if, wanna fight about it?  Anyways, I find Bob's insights useful at times, and over the top other times.  The same can be said for most people that I consider to have dedicated a considerable amount of time to introspection.  I see your stance as more of a "I bite my thumb at authority" stance rather than any rational stance. 

I would like to again take this opportunity to remind you that I'm most likely drunk.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
In short, he appears to lack

In short, he appears to lack a very basic level of social intuition when explaining his thoughts to "everyday people". One has to wonder if, like me, he has a few traits of autism and/or autistic personality traits, as well as what is known as a "language delay" at birth. 

I didn't have a "language delay". I babbled as an infant. Lots of quirky but otherwise functional individuals did not babble as infants. One such person was Einstein. Einstein was not an easy person to socialize with at some angles. He utilized English in a VERY philosophical manner, to the point that "God" was simply a euphemism for the universe.

“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)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:In short, he

Kapkao wrote:

In short, he appears to lack a very basic level of social intuition when explaining his thoughts to "everyday people". One has to wonder if, like me, he has a few traits of autism and/or autistic personality traits, as well as what is known as a "language delay" at birth. 

I didn't have a "language delay". I babbled as an infant. Lots of quirky but otherwise functional individuals did not babble as infants. One such person was Einstein. Einstein was not an easy person to socialize with at some angles. He utilized English in a VERY philosophical manner, to the point that "God" was simply a euphemism for the universe.

That's a unique perspective.  I've often felt as though I had "act" out the social aspect.  Not to say that I'm special or anything, and I'm just your average Joe in every respect, but socializing doesn't come natural to me.  In spite of this everyone I know would describe me as a social individual.  The same can be said for 95% of people.  Some just give more of a shit then others as far as making an impression or gaining some sort of social smoothness, even short term.  

I've gotten much better at it as I got older.  The awkward teens, the stupid early 20s.  Now I'm in my seemingly wise early 30s, I'm sure I'll look back on this and classify it quite differently, se la vie! Point is, we all have to work at being social to some degree, some are just more aware of it then others.  

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Kapkao

Ktulu wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Humanitarian morality and all of it's whimpering proponents irritate me, yes. Mostly because none of them will fess up about 'being wrong' like science will. There's also the fact that Bob spins a lot of wild ideas based on philosophy, and will conceive some rather fanciful notions about the human race and it's ability to progress both technologically and socially using Aristotle and Hume as a 'tour guide'. He also treats "emotion" and "science" (or scientific narrative?) as axiomatic. His way of explaining his knowledge to others falls bluntly within the realm of the infamous stereotype called "the absent-minded professor"; he doesn't express himself in intuitive, down-to-earth language AKA "Layman's terms". And yes, his "opinions" are enormous fun to deconstruct. Time for me to make a stop by the "what is wonderism" blogpost and poke some holes into another faulty premise of his.

I notice you've yet to make an argument for why I should give a shit or cede a point or two to "logike". This is (perhaps) because it is mostly philosophy and thus a person's "opinion". It has next to nothing to do with human progress.

Also... what, precisely, is the inherent fault of "motivated reasoning"? (note the 'inherent' part)

You'll take notice that I'm not necessarily "dense" on the concept of "correct inference", merely that I fail to see any inherent practical purpose* in it. Philosophy tends to be purpose-free. I don't think anyone, atheist or theist, can 'make the case' for logike in terms of utilitarian morality.

 

*there goes one of my rampant appeals to utilitarianism, again!

To be fair, I've had a few glasses of wine, so please ignore me if I've misread.  Is your position that philosophy holds no value? Fundamentally I see it as nothing more then mental masturbation.  Be that as it may, if one spends time and effort in arriving at a conclusion, more often then not will beat a coin toss statistical probability of being more useful.  As for logic, in of itself is nothing but a framework.  It is rather to represent reality as a concept, not to dictate how reality is to behave.  I'm not sure I get why you find it so useless?  How do you determine whether or not to cross the road when the cross walk flashes the "DON'T WALK"

Also I happen to find humanism as the only logically utilitarian approach to philosophy.  I happen to enjoy logic in of itself.  It gives me the warm fuzzies to poke holes in an irrational argument of any kind... big if, wanna fight about it?  Anyways, I find Bob's insights useful at times, and over the top other times.  The same can be said for most people that I consider to have dedicated a considerable amount of time to introspection.  I see your stance as more of a "I bite my thumb at authority" stance rather than any rational stance. 

I would like to again take this opportunity to remind you that I'm most likely drunk.

These challenges toward Bob's opinions is mostly a case of them being a convenient target to trump the moral and rational authority of "logike". Yes, he easily comes across as "over the top". Yes, "logic" as it is used on the boards supremely ranks in my worldview as "mental masturbation". In fact, I could not have come across a better set of words. We essentially agree with each other on the first paragraph.

 

Not on your second paragraph, though. I'm not sure what you are suggesting about humanism being utilitarian over misanthropy, but I find 'humanism' to be essentially another atheist religion/religious substitute. I already partake in an atheist religion (oh, silly irrational me!), and if you look hard enough on RRS, you might just figure it out on your own.

Even if you don't, I'll provide a free hint: "black flame".

Y'know... until he states his thoughts with impassioned frustration and tragic regret for how others think, I really am not all that disagreeable with Bob's philosophical points... because I simply don't vest emotion in them until his inner, untapped religious fervor shows. Then I simply want to point and laugh, simply because it is SO EASY to reduce him to such a mental state! (All one has to do is be a "callous cat" )

jcgadfly will frequently strawman the arguments of others before copping out of a discussion altogether, and he doesn't even come CLOSE to the sheer entertainment value of Bob.

As for the booze... don't feel so bad Ktulu. I'm hypomanic and a bit bored while using a touchpad to websurf so I would say the playing field is even between us.

(I'm also having a royal case of "Shit! This PoS is slower than erosion on metal ore and I CLICKED THE WRONG FUCKING SMILEY AGAIN!!!1ONe )

 

“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)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Kapkao wrote:In

Ktulu wrote:

That's a unique perspective.  I've often felt as though I had "act" out the social aspect.  Not to say that I'm special or anything, and I'm just your average Joe in every respect, but socializing doesn't come natural to me.  In spite of this everyone I know would describe me as a social individual.  The same can be said for 95% of people.  Some just give more of a shit then others as far as making an impression or gaining some sort of social smoothness, even short term.  

I've gotten much better at it as I got older.  The awkward teens, the stupid early 20s.  Now I'm in my seemingly wise early 30s, I'm sure I'll look back on this and classify it quite differently, se la vie! Point is, we all have to work at being social to some degree, some are just more aware of it then others.  

 

I'm not sure what to make of this. Bob is/was in his 50s while I have posted as "Kapkao" here. If he was going to develop some sort of social intuition, he would have done so at his current phase in life. Not sure where you get the 5% number, but more power to you. Lots of people who have lived through the 80s have developed a Carlin-esque streak or two of cynicism and nonconformism, but the Autism Spectrum reaches a few degrees beyond mere cultural phases. It is theorized that Asperger's, HFA, and PDD-NOS all are derived from neanderthal genetics (however much there is in modern human lineages and ethnic groups.)

“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)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm not really bringing logic into it

 

Kapkao wrote:

 

I notice you've yet to make an argument for why I should give a shit or cede a point or two to "logike". This is (perhaps) because it is mostly philosophy and thus a person's "opinion". It has next to nothing to do with human progress.

Also... what, precisely, is the inherent fault of "motivated reasoning"? (note the 'inherent' part)

 

 

All that much. I'm fine with comprehending obviously fallacious arguments but I'm a bit mathematically dyslexic so as soon as folks start posting Boolean logic equations proving god, my eyes roll back in my head. I have no clue what they are on about. 

When I talk about motivated reasoning I'm really talking about confirmation bias - a man learns what he needs to know - and all that. We all use motivated reasoning - I'm using it right now arguing my personal viewpoint. I just don't think it should be built into mechanisms we use to try to understand the fundamentals of reality. 

Compared with religion, which seems to exist inside a material fallacy, empiricism has far more integrity when it comes to explanations. Simply allowing a lack of comprehension to be a legitimate moral position for one side of the religious debate is an enormous thing to me, who as the son of a preacher has long expected eternal immolation just for the 'sin' of wondering. 

Further, I think a lot of the theists we encounter here are operating at such a basic level of literal interpretation that they have to be called on it. Why on the basis of no evidence would we get so many of the same sorts of assertions attempting to answer fundamental questions that lightly applied reason suggests we cannot know? These people must really, really want to believe. So much so that anything that challenges their eternal  life is automatically painted over with a cognitive blindspot.  

I think the baseline position in any inquiry always has to be 'I don't know'. As much as it possibly can be, at any rate. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I've just pulled that number

I've just pulled that number out of my ass, I was assuming from my personal experience that most people feel as I do.  It is also a well known fact that red wine makes you a genius at statistics.  50% of people speak Romanian, I do , and you don't (for all I know).  That's just my honest understanding of how people socialize.  I may very well be wrong.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Kapkao wrote:

 

I notice you've yet to make an argument for why I should give a shit or cede a point or two to "logike". This is (perhaps) because it is mostly philosophy and thus a person's "opinion". It has next to nothing to do with human progress.

Also... what, precisely, is the inherent fault of "motivated reasoning"? (note the 'inherent' part)

 

 

All that much. I'm fine with comprehending obviously fallacious arguments but I'm a bit mathematically dyslexic so as soon as folks start posting Boolean logic equations proving god, my eyes roll back in my head. I have no clue what they are on about. 

When I talk about motivated reasoning I'm really talking about confirmation bias - a man learns what he needs to know - and all that. We all use motivated reasoning - I'm using it right now arguing my personal viewpoint. I just don't think it should be built into mechanisms we use to try to understand the fundamentals of reality. 

Compared with religion, which seems to exist inside a material fallacy, empiricism has far more integrity when it comes to explanations. Simply allowing a lack of comprehension to be a legitimate moral position for one side of the religious debate is an enormous thing to me, who as the son of a preacher who has long expected eternal immolation just for the 'sin' of wondering. 

Further, I think a lot of the theists we encounter here are operating at such a basic level of literal interpretation that they have to be called on it. Why on the basis of no evidence would we get so many of the same sorts of assertions attempting to answer fundamental questions that lightly applied reason suggests we cannot know? These people must really, really want to believe. So much so that anything that challenges their eternal  life is automatically painted over with a cognitive blindspot.  

I think the baseline position in any inquiry always has to be 'I don't know'. As much as it possibly can be, at any rate. 

 

Then we agree with each other almost word-for-word.

 

One little point; not all religions are created equally. Some let you be precisely what you want to be to the limits of your existence, without bullshit concern for afterlife-related consequences and some hare-brained phony moral consensus that (at some point) was largely culturally determined.

Granted, of course, that nearly all religions (including all the unique schools of thought found in "New Atheism&quotEye-wink are primarily culturally determined.

“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)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
66%; one of my guildmates is

66%; one of my guildmates is natively romanian.

 

Besides... roma girls are easy to speak with and proposition and what not.

“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)


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah

Kapkao wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Kapkao wrote:

 

I notice you've yet to make an argument for why I should give a shit or cede a point or two to "logike". This is (perhaps) because it is mostly philosophy and thus a person's "opinion". It has next to nothing to do with human progress.

Also... what, precisely, is the inherent fault of "motivated reasoning"? (note the 'inherent' part)

 

 

All that much. I'm fine with comprehending obviously fallacious arguments but I'm a bit mathematically dyslexic so as soon as folks start posting Boolean logic equations proving god, my eyes roll back in my head. I have no clue what they are on about. 

When I talk about motivated reasoning I'm really talking about confirmation bias - a man learns what he needs to know - and all that. We all use motivated reasoning - I'm using it right now arguing my personal viewpoint. I just don't think it should be built into mechanisms we use to try to understand the fundamentals of reality. 

Compared with religion, which seems to exist inside a material fallacy, empiricism has far more integrity when it comes to explanations. Simply allowing a lack of comprehension to be a legitimate moral position for one side of the religious debate is an enormous thing to me, who as the son of a preacher who has long expected eternal immolation just for the 'sin' of wondering. 

Further, I think a lot of the theists we encounter here are operating at such a basic level of literal interpretation that they have to be called on it. Why on the basis of no evidence would we get so many of the same sorts of assertions attempting to answer fundamental questions that lightly applied reason suggests we cannot know? These people must really, really want to believe. So much so that anything that challenges their eternal  life is automatically painted over with a cognitive blindspot.  

I think the baseline position in any inquiry always has to be 'I don't know'. As much as it possibly can be, at any rate. 

 

Then we agree with each other almost word-for-word.

 

One little point; not all religions are created equally. Some let you be precisely what you want to be to the limits of your existence, without bullshit concern for afterlife-related consequences and some hare-brained phony moral consensus that (at some point) was largely culturally determined.

Granted, of course, that nearly all religions (including all the unique schools of thought found in "New Atheism&quotEye-wink are primarily culturally determined.

 

Look - I reserve my proactive criticism for monotheism. Other religions I may not agree with, or may think their beliefs are founded more in wishful thinking than something more or less provable but I'm not going to attack them. I know nothing much about Buddhism for instance, but what little I know makes it seem like a gentle form of stoicism with chanting. 

Maybe the moral inconsistency, the monotheistic bigotry gets me. To call the biblical god 'love' in the midst of a doctrine of judgement, anger and division, to suggest this construction owns human love, and is the source of human ethics, is odious to me. 

And when the godly assert this distaste is the byproduct of sin, or satan, or a desire to 'live life by my own rules', or any other classic monotheistic adhom, then it really just fucks me right off. 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Well, anyways...  We were

Well, anyways...

 

We were talking about Bob, and I thought there was at least one instance where he deserves a definite hat-tip... his confrontation with Marquis on the subject of "9/11 and World Trade Center MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) nutjob conspiracy theories".

In the middle of a thread about international frustration with Tea Partiers and what brand of politics the Tea Party represents, Bob firmly held his ground with ardent focus on empiricism against claim after claim that the World Trade Center was demolished by the US Gov't on purpose after an out-of-nowhere plane crash. I'm almost tempted to find THAT thread, as well... because this is where Bob & Co earns my fullest praise. I believe "gov't up to NO GOOD and doing it behind our backs!" kookery deserves every confrontation and challenge it receives.

Sure... challenges and confrontations don't sit well with the Zeitgeist/Conspiracy Nut crowd, but such confrontations are funny as hell and enlightening in a profound sense. Guys like Bob Spence make such enlightening discussions possible, and prevent them from becoming potential 'woo-havens'. If you look around... you'll find people like Marquis on the streets, in interviews, debate shows like Maher's Politically Incorrect, radio shows, and social network groups. Maher confronts conspiracy nuts that become vocal on his show every time, and he too has my praise for this continued action of promoting rational skepticism. It fits perfectly in my philosophy that promotion of social 'truths' and hard, cold facts should never be left in the hands of invalids and morons... because otherwise people like David Icke would be put in charge of educating the masses on things like policy-making and social dynamics of the human race. Icke blames our species' collective ills on scaly-hide, coldblooded reptilians from outer space. Most rational individuals including sensible portions of the UFO-hunting crowd know better. They understand that knowledge doesn't spring from wild fantasies sold by charlatans. Icke's niche is firmly in the realm of the "more bread and circuses!" sorts of tomfoolery-oriented entertainment, not in educating or enlightening others.

Bob certainly has carved out an effective niche in illustrating the merit of empiricism in collective human knowledge. If he learns how to do this with the 13-25 crowd, I will kiss his toes, sing his praises and take back every rude/negative remark I have ever uttered about him! The thing is... I doubt he will ever learn how to do this so it's a rather safe wager to make.

“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)


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
The christian answer to this

The christian answer to this which is albeit childish is that every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess. This is obvious they too do not KNOW and therefore only world dominance is the key. It is their motivation to preach this gospel to every nation and additionally to political bend the wills of the obstinate.
But think about if you were entirely convinced and everyone else was. That would be a pretty powerful proof, no doubt anywhere. Again a childish hope.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Ex-m, I've found that

Ex-m, I've found that pissing all over the beliefs of dominionist Christians and people who think that "God" is somehow self-evident renders them amusingly defensive and unable to think clearly or lucidly for periods of time depending on how pragmatic they are about whatever far-flung, base notions of "faith" they may have. It's super-easy to do this with militant Catholics, but plenty of other Christians deserve an honorable mention in this LOL-worthy look at religious reactionism.

Rule #1 of sane-yet-aggressive discourse: render your nutty opposition incapable of such things like rational thought while cultivating a steady buildup of stress hormones. (The sad part is that most theistard challengers eventually capitulate under such psychological strain)

“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)


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Extremeist

Hi Extremeist

Quote:

Look - I reserve my proactive criticism for monotheism. Other religions I may not agree with, or may think their beliefs are founded more in wishful thinking than something more or less provable but I'm not going to attack them. I know nothing much about Buddhism for instance, but what little I know makes it seem like a gentle form of stoicism with chanting.

Maybe the moral inconsistency, the monotheistic bigotry gets me. To call the biblical god 'love' in the midst of a doctrine of judgement, anger and division, to suggest this construction owns human love, and is the source of human ethics, is odious to me.

And when the godly assert this distaste is the byproduct of sin, or satan, or a desire to 'live life by my own rules', or any other classic monotheistic adhom, then it really just fucks me right off.

I wanted to respond to your emotions even though in logic, invalidity does not deserve a response.

This is what I've been saying in psychology as to the atheist. The Morals go then the intellect. It could be having sex with the neighbor and moving to San Francisco to Rebel. It could be drugs it could be an entire host of things. But typically, one's morality goes before their reasoning and "faith."

You do not attack them only Chrisitanity? Oh wait, you're on an atheist site of a neo Goerge Smith kind of atheistic denomination. okay, got it you don't attack.

Ths issue of judgement and love are not to be categorically blended. God loves His children and hates Satan's children. And as a result they are punished because they are accountable for their actions here on earth during their life.

It's just reality, we are alll born into sin via original sin. The sin of Adam. We need Jesus to rescue us from the consequence of original sin. Those who do, need not be punished, those who don't, are punished.

So you blame God because you wish not to be punished AND STILL be a rebellious evil brat? lol. so you want it your way not God's way?

Extremeist, you are a very prideful man. You are not humble. You are very selfish and ego-centric. You don't even deserve to breath but God allows you to breathand for the sun to light your day.

The more you talk, the more your manifest your wicked prideful, selfish and self centered ways. Hell is exactly where people like you belond.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


klatu
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
If a proof of God existed?

When a scientist believes he has a new insight, he will seek the means by experiment to test his hypothesis in the expectation of a desired result to both demonstrate and confirm his progress in understanding. The very act of testing is also an act of faith [in himself] on the part of the scientist. As we all know sometimes it  works and sometimes it doesn't. Should the results look positive, he or she then publishes the means to ends so that others may confirm the insight or expose error in method.

Similarly, any literal or true proof of God would have to begin with a truth claim, or insight into the human condition, as yet existing outside our body of knowledge or natural reason, that could be tested by an act of faith in the expectation of a defined result with a demonstration of divine omnipotence and omniscience. And similarly the results should be repeatable by any who shared the same 'faith'.

And just as in the scientific model, once sufficiently tested and demonstrated to be solid fact, it would be quite  irrational not to accept the new insight.

Can it be agreed in principle, that such a 'religious' conception would bring the God question into the realm of rational  discourse? Of course it would also bring down all of monotheism as we know it. But who cares?

"Problems cannot be solved by thinking within the framework in which they were created" A. Einstein


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hello klatu

klatu wrote:

When a scientist believes he has a new insight, he will seek the means by experiment to test his hypothesis in the expectation of a desired result to both demonstrate and confirm his progress in understanding. The very act of testing is also an act of faith [in himself] on the part of the scientist. As we all know sometimes it  works and sometimes it doesn't. Should the results look positive, he or she then publishes the means to ends so that others may confirm the insight or expose error in method.

Similarly, any literal or true proof of God would have to begin with a truth claim, or insight into the human condition, as yet existing outside our body of knowledge or natural reason, that could be tested by an act of faith in the expectation of a defined result with a demonstration of divine omnipotence and omniscience. And similarly the results should be repeatable by any who shared the same 'faith'.

And just as in the scientific model, once sufficiently tested and demonstrated to be solid fact, it would be quite  irrational not to accept the new insight.

Can it be agreed in principle, that such a 'religious' conception would bring the God question into the realm of rational  discourse? Of course it would also bring down all of monotheism as we know it. But who cares?

a crowd was gathered in the town square which had a large platform of fire in the middle. The flames were not fierce or dense and

were about waist high. On one side there was a christian man of faith leading his side of the crowd and on the other was a man of scientific reason.

The christian said he can prove god exists and with his faith he will walk thru the fire and god will not allow him to be burned. He stepped thru

unharmed and proclaimed his leap of faith was a miracle.  He then taunted the man of reason to walk thru having no faith in god.  After the man

declined he was grabbed up by a few christians in the crowd and stood at the edge of the flames. They coaxed him and shoved him out onto the fire.

He stumbled and fell and his clothes caught on fire. The christian proclaimed victory for jesus and his side of the crowd cheered.  The rational man and

his side of the crowd said you pushed me in and caused me to falter. The christian said you without faith must be pushed. Tests of faith can only bring

results that require faith to see them as a solid fact. That is not rational.

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Quote: What would count as

 

Quote:
What would count as absolute proof that God exists?)

The good news about this question is that none of us need to know the answer.  An all knowing god would know exactly what type of proof it would take to prove to each of us that he/she/it exists.  If someday you happen to come across that proof, you'll be a theist.  

I'll use me as the example, and propose a more interesting question is...

I have been leading theists away from theism for about 14 years now.  Surely an all knowing god would know what type of proof I would need to believe in him/her/it, why haven't I received that proof yet?  

I propose the answer is, "because there is no god."

 

 

- Brian Sapient


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


WrongWayJerry
Posts: 1
Joined: 2009-09-29
User is offlineOffline
No proof exists and will never exist

People used to think that fire came from God. Then we learned that it didn't. The same is true of a great many things - "God or Gods did it" was an explanation used throughout time. And then we learned and explained what was going on and God began to disappear. As soon as we explain the super-natural it becomes natural. If our universe was created by something that looks like God and by every definition that we know IS God - that does not make it "God" in the sense of religion. I personally would assume that I am ignorant of the universe and not that God exists if I see something I cannot explain.

 

 

 

 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
truth wrote:(What would

truth wrote:

(What would count as absolute proof that God exists?)

There is no such thing as absolute proof that a god exists.

The real question inferred here since the word God was capitalized, is: what would count as absolute proof that the Judeo/Christian God exists?

None, as that particular god is based in mythology.

As to this:

truth wrote:

  theres always a posibility that some intelligent alien is doing it/pretending to be God.

 

As the Universe is vast and unknown to us it is of course possible that very advanced civilizations of aliens exist. Why  would they  bother in a pretense to less intelligent civilizations?  If they had the ability to traverse the vast light years between stars, and throughout our galaxy and perhaps beyond, there is nothing for them here that can't get elsewhere. Why bother, we aren't that important in the scheme of things in the Universe.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
klatu wrote:When a scientist

klatu wrote:

When a scientist believes he has a new insight, he will seek the means by experiment to test his hypothesis in the expectation of a desired result to both demonstrate and confirm his progress in understanding. The very act of testing is also an act of faith [in himself] on the part of the scientist. As we all know sometimes it  works and sometimes it doesn't. Should the results look positive, he or she then publishes the means to ends so that others may confirm the insight or expose error in method.

Similarly, any literal or true proof of God would have to begin with a truth claim, or insight into the human condition, as yet existing outside our body of knowledge or natural reason, that could be tested by an act of faith in the expectation of a defined result with a demonstration of divine omnipotence and omniscience. And similarly the results should be repeatable by any who shared the same 'faith'.

And just as in the scientific model, once sufficiently tested and demonstrated to be solid fact, it would be quite  irrational not to accept the new insight.

Can it be agreed in principle, that such a 'religious' conception would bring the God question into the realm of rational  discourse? Of course it would also bring down all of monotheism as we know it. But who cares?

welcome to the forum klatu.

I agree with your post, that would make it something worth discussing.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Monotheism endorses the

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Extremeist

Quote:

Look - I reserve my proactive criticism for monotheism. Other religions I may not agree with, or may think their beliefs are founded more in wishful thinking than something more or less provable but I'm not going to attack them. I know nothing much about Buddhism for instance, but what little I know makes it seem like a gentle form of stoicism with chanting.

Maybe the moral inconsistency, the monotheistic bigotry gets me. To call the biblical god 'love' in the midst of a doctrine of judgement, anger and division, to suggest this construction owns human love, and is the source of human ethics, is odious to me.

And when the godly assert this distaste is the byproduct of sin, or satan, or a desire to 'live life by my own rules', or any other classic monotheistic adhom, then it really just fucks me right off.

I wanted to respond to your emotions even though in logic, invalidity does not deserve a response.

This is what I've been saying in psychology as to the atheist. The Morals go then the intellect. It could be having sex with the neighbor and moving to San Francisco to Rebel. It could be drugs it could be an entire host of things. But typically, one's morality goes before their reasoning and "faith."

You do not attack them only Chrisitanity? Oh wait, you're on an atheist site of a neo Goerge Smith kind of atheistic denomination. okay, got it you don't attack.

Ths issue of judgement and love are not to be categorically blended. God loves His children and hates Satan's children. And as a result they are punished because they are accountable for their actions here on earth during their life.

It's just reality, we are alll born into sin via original sin. The sin of Adam. We need Jesus to rescue us from the consequence of original sin. Those who do, need not be punished, those who don't, are punished.

So you blame God because you wish not to be punished AND STILL be a rebellious evil brat? lol. so you want it your way not God's way?

Extremeist, you are a very prideful man. You are not humble. You are very selfish and ego-centric. You don't even deserve to breath but God allows you to breathand for the sun to light your day.

The more you talk, the more your manifest your wicked prideful, selfish and self centered ways. Hell is exactly where people like you belond.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

torture and murder of unbelievers, a stance I find abhorrent. Your post above simply supports my contention. Thanks for your support, Jeano. I'm very grateful.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


truth
atheist
Posts: 74
Joined: 2012-02-25
User is offlineOffline
 We could be living in a

 

We could be living in a world similar to the movie The Matrix. They could need our energy or are doing some type of experiment. Just like we use animals, aliens use us. How are they using us, i dont know. Im not saying that we are indeed being used im just saying that there are reasons why aliens would want to use us. Truth is stranger than fiction.


truth
atheist
Posts: 74
Joined: 2012-02-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Extremeist

Quote:

Look - I reserve my proactive criticism for monotheism. Other religions I may not agree with, or may think their beliefs are founded more in wishful thinking than something more or less provable but I'm not going to attack them. I know nothing much about Buddhism for instance, but what little I know makes it seem like a gentle form of stoicism with chanting.

Maybe the moral inconsistency, the monotheistic bigotry gets me. To call the biblical god 'love' in the midst of a doctrine of judgement, anger and division, to suggest this construction owns human love, and is the source of human ethics, is odious to me.

And when the godly assert this distaste is the byproduct of sin, or satan, or a desire to 'live life by my own rules', or any other classic monotheistic adhom, then it really just fucks me right off.

I wanted to respond to your emotions even though in logic, invalidity does not deserve a response.

This is what I've been saying in psychology as to the atheist. The Morals go then the intellect. It could be having sex with the neighbor and moving to San Francisco to Rebel. It could be drugs it could be an entire host of things. But typically, one's morality goes before their reasoning and "faith."

You do not attack them only Chrisitanity? Oh wait, you're on an atheist site of a neo Goerge Smith kind of atheistic denomination. okay, got it you don't attack.

Ths issue of judgement and love are not to be categorically blended. God loves His children and hates Satan's children. And as a result they are punished because they are accountable for their actions here on earth during their life.

It's just reality, we are alll born into sin via original sin. The sin of Adam. We need Jesus to rescue us from the consequence of original sin. Those who do, need not be punished, those who don't, are punished.

So you blame God because you wish not to be punished AND STILL be a rebellious evil brat? lol. so you want it your way not God's way?

Extremeist, you are a very prideful man. You are not humble. You are very selfish and ego-centric. You don't even deserve to breath but God allows you to breathand for the sun to light your day.

The more you talk, the more your manifest your wicked prideful, selfish and self centered ways. Hell is exactly where people like you belond.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Jean, you make the rest of believers look bad. Christians should not critizise nor judge other people. Your religion tells you that only God knows what is in the hearts and minds of men.


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hi truth

truth wrote:

 

We could be living in a world similar to the movie The Matrix. They could need our energy or are doing some type of experiment. Just like we use animals, aliens use us. How are they using us, i dont know. Im not saying that we are indeed being used im just saying that there are reasons why aliens would want to use us. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I'm the one who told u about what I saw in Canada in your "supernatural question post".  I hope you read my re-direct to ur reply.

There are lots of things that would be fun to believe in, and if alien conspiracies entertain you then have fun with it.  Just don't make it

a religion for yourself. You might find it just as, if not more fun to research the scientific reviews and inquiries of supernatural claims. 

Look up "The Skeptical Inquirer" magazine. It's put out by CSI. It applies a scientific view and inquiry to claims of the paranormal. It's much

better for a healthy mind to apply reason to others' outlandish claims of the supernatural than it is just to believe. That's how religions 

spread like deadly viruses.

 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3641
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
truth wrote: Jean, you make

truth wrote:

 

Jean, you make the rest of believers look bad.

  I respectfully disagree.

Jean Chauv-it-in makes the rest of Christian believers look much better by comparison.  Even the cognitively challenged AtheistNightmare and Jimenezj come across as more rational and appealing than that anal retentive John Calvin nut hugger.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


truth
atheist
Posts: 74
Joined: 2012-02-25
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:truth

tonyjeffers wrote:

truth wrote:

 

We could be living in a world similar to the movie The Matrix. They could need our energy or are doing some type of experiment. Just like we use animals, aliens use us. How are they using us, i dont know. Im not saying that we are indeed being used im just saying that there are reasons why aliens would want to use us. Truth is stranger than fiction.

I'm the one who told u about what I saw in Canada in your "supernatural question post".  I hope you read my re-direct to ur reply.

There are lots of things that would be fun to believe in, and if alien conspiracies entertain you then have fun with it.  Just don't make it

a religion for yourself. You might find it just as, if not more fun to research the scientific reviews and inquiries of supernatural claims. 

Look up "The Skeptical Inquirer" magazine. It's put out by CSI. It applies a scientific view and inquiry to claims of the paranormal. It's much

better for a healthy mind to apply reason to others' outlandish claims of the supernatural than it is just to believe. That's how religions 

spread like deadly viruses.

 

I will take a look at that.


ax
Theist
ax's picture
Posts: 86
Joined: 2012-02-10
User is offlineOffline
truth wrote:What would count

truth wrote:

What would count as absolute proof that God exists?

God is a subjective concept. If ET's descended and indeed could perform Judeo-Christian "miracles" I would be even more skeptical than before. This would raise questions such as, "where have you been?" or "if you're omnipotent, what do you want us for?".

If ET presented the option of oblivion vs an island paradise, I may be inclined to choose the latter. But if this utopia turned out to be something of the Orwellian imagination, is that really something you would want to be a part of?

In my opinion, this type of entity would not need to prove anything and especially wouldn't need to prove its existence to us. The satisfaction of reaching the top of the mountain does not come to you without effort; you must climb to the top yourself.

Sapient wrote:

I have been leading theists away from theism for about 14 years now.  Surely an all knowing god would know what type of proof I would need to believe in him/her/it, why haven't I received that proof yet? 

I propose the answer is, "because there is no god."

There are other possible answers, such as:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As the Universe is vast and unknown to us it is of course possible that very advanced civilizations of aliens exist. Why  would they  bother in a pretense to less intelligent civilizations?  If they had the ability to traverse the vast light years between stars, and throughout our galaxy and perhaps beyond, there is nothing for them here that can't get elsewhere. Why bother, we aren't that important in the scheme of things in the Universe.


On a side note Sapient, props on the Lumosity ads. I thought the "do you want to be a preacher" banner would never go away.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10639
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Nothing could absolutely

Nothing could absolutely prove a god short of all knowledge, which would make one a god, proving there was a god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


JeanChauvinSOCK...
TheistTroll
JeanChauvinSOCKPUPPET's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2012-03-03
User is offlineOffline
...interesting question

I'm not sure. There is probably a kind of indirect and direct kind of proof. Art and Music may be an indirect kind of proof via beauty in order and patterns which is antithetical to the chaos theory. Directly for a Christian I suppose they would say special revelation.

But that's just a guess i suppose. Is faith proof? or does faith need proof? Interesting. How do we conclude from this.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

truth wrote:

This same question (What would count as absolute proof that God exists?) was asked on another forum, n id thought id ask it on here, basicaly she answers by saying that we can never KNOW if God does or does not exist, because theres always a posibility that some intelligent alien is doing it/pretending to be God. what do u guys think, what would convince YOU that God is real, what miracles or things would he have to do, I personaly would want 2 see all the miracles in the bible performed infront of me, n also be shown heaven n hell n fly thru the universe, etc. i would say it is God even though i cant know know if it is or not, i would continue on beliving that indeed it is God or if i were to be ieternal bliss in heaven forever, i would be very happy with God, but i obviously cant know if its some alien teenager decieving me, i wouldent care that much i hope,  all i know is that im happy n thats all that matters.

Actually it is quite straightforward. Define what you mean by exist by analogy. For example, god exists in the same way as money exists and the proof is the same as for the existence of money. But if you play the believers' game where they mix the different ways of existing to twist the conclusion to their god you can't win.

The common sales pitch for the westren god is that he exists like 911 exists. You need help you call and get help. Except 911 answers and god doesn't. Now if 911 were to look up a caller's records to decide if they were worthy of being helped we would have the excuse believers give. What kind of a god is that?

The money shot is define exist as in other thngs ineffable. The answer is the same for all, by definition we can't know if any of them exist.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Mouse Dude

Hey Mouse Dude,

Excellent point. In fact, the term exist no longer exists lol. I do not like this term and i stay clear away from it when speaking technically.

However, when you say by anaolgy? um what? anaology is a type of knowing within a category of epistemology.

Univocal

Equalivant

Analogical.

The only sub setting within a correct epistemology possible for humans would be the analogical. But what you mean is by what definition of a connotative means do you mean by "exist" within a set context. Which again is an excellent point.

For only though context can you really understand at all the meaning of the concept behind terms.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Hi Extremeist
Quote:

Look - I reserve my proactive criticism for monotheism. Other religions I may not agree with, or may think their beliefs are founded more in wishful thinking than something more or less provable but I'm not going to attack them. I know nothing much about Buddhism for instance, but what little I know makes it seem like a gentle form of stoicism with chanting.

Maybe the moral inconsistency, the monotheistic bigotry gets me. To call the biblical god 'love' in the midst of a doctrine of judgement, anger and division, to suggest this construction owns human love, and is the source of human ethics, is odious to me.

And when the godly assert this distaste is the byproduct of sin, or satan, or a desire to 'live life by my own rules', or any other classic monotheistic adhom, then it really just fucks me right off.

I wanted to respond to your emotions even though in logic, invalidity does not deserve a response.

This is what I've been saying in psychology as to the atheist. The Morals go then the intellect. It could be having sex with the neighbor and moving to San Francisco to Rebel. It could be drugs it could be an entire host of things. But typically, one's morality goes before their reasoning and "faith."

You do not attack them only Chrisitanity? Oh wait, you're on an atheist site of a neo Goerge Smith kind of atheistic denomination. okay, got it you don't attack.

Ths issue of judgement and love are not to be categorically blended. God loves His children and hates Satan's children. And as a result they are punished because they are accountable for their actions here on earth during their life.

One would wish people pretending to a rational discussion would define terms like children instead pretending to all the nonsensical inferences of the use of children. If you insist upon the term then there is the whole sons of god and daughters of men thing you have to deal with as a literal statement.

Quote:
It's just reality, we are alll born into sin via original sin. The sin of Adam. We need Jesus to rescue us from the consequence of original sin. Those who do, need not be punished, those who don't, are punished.

Not knowing it was evil to disobey god what was the sin? Besides not knowing good and evil made them no different from the animals. And they were thrown out of Eden to prevent them from living forever like the gods, aka us. As it is possible to sin without knowing the thing is a sin there is not much hope with all the potential hidden gotchas laying around.

Quote:
So you blame God because you wish not to be punished AND STILL be a rebellious evil brat? lol. so you want it your way not God's way?

Speaking of brats petty and jealous are its infamous characteristics.

Quote:
Extremeist, you are a very prideful man. You are not humble. You are very selfish and ego-centric. You don't even deserve to breath but God allows you to breathand for the sun to light your day.

Isn't there something about the arrogance of presuming to speak for your god?

Quote:
The more you talk, the more your manifest your wicked prideful, selfish and self centered ways. Hell is exactly where people like you belond.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

He is just trying to be like your god. Does not your god set a good example?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey Mouse Dude,

Excellent point. In fact, the term exist no longer exists lol. I do not like this term and i stay clear away from it when speaking technically.

However, when you say by anaolgy? um what? anaology is a type of knowing within a category of epistemology.

Univocal

Equalivant

Analogical.

I believe the example I gave is sufficiently illustrative of my meaning.

Quote:
The only sub setting within a correct epistemology possible for humans would be the analogical. But what you mean is by what definition of a connotative means do you mean by "exist" within a set context. Which again is an excellent point.

For only though context can you really understand at all the meaning of the concept behind terms.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Your grandiose declarations have no necessary validity.

I mean simply that the test of existence which applies to the manner of existence hypothesized is the same in both cases. We only know certain types of existence, as a thing, a concept, an abstract, a process and certainly a few others. Which ever one you wish to use for your god simply give the type of existence as with an example. Then the same evidence (not proof) of existence applies.

Without a priori stipulation of the type of existence will usually try to slip in an inapplicable type.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Mouse Dude

Hey Mouse Dude,

Why mus it be without a-priori? Oh, wait, you're one of them lol. A a-posterori empiricist that slips in the bathtub and has to purchase a roll around and one of those special bathtubs.

And here I thought you had something intelligent to say. My bad mouse dude, my bad. You're just as poorly publically educated as the rest.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).