Any Christians on the Forum? I was wanting to do some Rational Responding.

mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Any Christians on the Forum? I was wanting to do some Rational Responding.

The subject line says it all.

If you accept Jesus as your savior and you think you have a strong argument or solid evidence bring it on.

I promise to be open minded, but I must warn you that reason and evidence to me are the final arbiters of truth.

Your life is a love story!


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
What is your belief contingent on?

I already said. It is contingent on the world being bad bad tomorrow. It's based on the world being bad yesterday.
Contingent belief in something called 'god' is impossible.
Quote:


Quote:
Re: "My faith"; Your faith in what? 'god'? Or the world?

God
Which is...?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Which is...? Which

Quote:
Which is...?

Which is whatever extraterrestial entity that is necessary in order to make the world a place without all the bad stuff I mentioned.  If man is "self-sufficient" in that respect.. then there is no need for this "God" I have defined.

Contingent belief? 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Which is...?

Which is whatever extraterrestial entity that is necessary in order to make the world a place without all the bad stuff I mentioned. If man is "self-sufficient" in that respect.. then there is no need for this "God" I have defined.

Contingent belief?

Your imaginary god-thing is extraterrestrial? Are you a sciantologasst?

Noncontingent. 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:

Your imaginary god-thing is extraterrestrial? Are you a sciantologasst?

Noncontingent.

I'm pretty sure most theistic "god-things" are extraterrestrial. It is something that has (1) life and (2) originates outside of earth.

The Christian God has these elements.. so do many others. So I'm not sure what your contention is here.

Why non-contingent?

[edit] Although.. I'm not really sure "life" is a necessary element of extraterretrial.. so I might be wrong on that one. 


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:

Your imaginary god-thing is extraterrestrial? Are you a sciantologasst?

Noncontingent.

I'm pretty sure most theistic "god-things" are extraterrestrial.

There is no evidence of god-thing let alone assignation extraterrestrial.
Quote:
It is something that has (1) life and (2) originates outside of earth.

The Christian God has these elements.. so do many others. So I'm not sure what your contention is here.

'god' has no ontology.

Quote:
Why non-contingent?
Because 'god' is nothing.

Quote:
[edit] Although.. I'm not really sure "life" is a necessary element of extraterretrial.. so I might be wrong on that one.

Your ambivalence about assigning the word 'life' to 'god' is endorsable.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: There is no

Quote:
There is no evidence of god-thing let alone assignation extraterrestrial.

 I was speaking in the abstract. Theists, in the "abstract" and "conceptual," don't define God as originating on earth.  While they might not have a positive definition of God (a positive ontology) they certainly have negative ones.. this being one of them.  I really don't think it is a point of contention.

 

Quote:
'god' has no ontology.

The one I'm speaking of does.. I just gave him one.  An extraterrestial entity that would be sufficient to end the list the bad things I previously mentioned.

 

Quote:
Because 'god' is nothing.

I just made him something.. he is *anything* that is extraterrestial that would be sufficient and is necessary to end the list of bad things I previously mentioned.  For instance, if a little green man came to earth and somehow brought an end to all those things I mentioned, then the little green man would be God.  I DO NOT believe God is a little green man because a little green man has not done what I proposed needs to be done to fulfill my definition, my ontology.

 

Quote:
Your ambivalence about assigning the word 'life' to 'god' is endorsable.

Thank you.

 So.. still non-contingent?


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
There is no evidence of god-thing let alone assignation extraterrestrial.

I was speaking in the abstract. Theists, in the "abstract" and "conceptual," don't define God as originating on earth. While they might not have a positive definition of God (a positive ontology) they certainly have negative ones.. this being one of them. I really don't think it is a point of contention.
Then it is imaginary.
Quote:
Quote:
'god' has no ontology.

The one I'm speaking of does.. I just gave him one. An extraterrestial entity that would be sufficient to end the list the bad things I previously mentioned.
Then it is imaginary.
Quote:
Quote:
Because 'god' is nothing.

I just made him something.. he is *anything* that is extraterrestial that would be sufficient and is necessary to end the list of bad things I previously mentioned. For instance, if a little green man came to earth and somehow brought an end to all those things I mentioned, then the little green man would be God. I DO NOT believe God is a little green man because a little green man has not done what I proposed needs to be done to fulfill my definition, my ontology.
You have the mind of a child.
Quote:
Quote:
Your ambivalence about assigning the word 'life' to 'god' is endorsable.

Thank you.
So.. still non-contingent?
I was endorsing your error. Your belief is noncontingent.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
You have the mind of a child.

[I have removed my response to this quote because it was rather nasty--IMO.  So, I merely erased it and apologise for writing it in the first place]

Since your post did not make any substantive arguments, I need not respond. I think that is the first time that has ever happened...


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Just to make a final

Just to make a final clarification.  You ask how I define God and for the sake of argument I am have framed my response to your question "God?" with naturalistic qualities (natural entity), a positive ontology (anything not of earth who is both sufficient and necessary to bring, let's call it, "peace" to the world), with past precedent to support the need for (world has never been "peaceful&quotEye-wink, and a possible contingent that will displace the belief (world could become "peaceful&quotEye-wink.

Heh... I'm trying to follow the rules i've inferred as necessary  for debate from RRS members.  If you're going to respond, please do it substantively.  For instance, showing how one of the elements is lacking, the element category is itself a mistake, or some other contention. 

Before we get off on a tangent on my use of the word "peaceful"--let me make clear that I do not mean "without war" or something.. merely, using the word as a place-holder for "the absence of suffering on earth."

p.s. I know you were applauding my error.  My question at the end was not with regard to the error but with regard to the clarification of the "god-thing" en toto.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Just to

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Just to make a final clarification.  You ask how I define God and for the sake of argument I am have framed my response to your question "God?" with naturalistic qualities (natural entity), a positive ontology (anything not of earth who is both sufficient and necessary to bring, let's call it, "peace" to the world), with past precedent to support the need for (world has never been "peaceful" ), and a possible contingent that will displace the belief (world could become "peaceful" ).

It's possible you don't know how confusing you're being. You're starting with an imaginary, extraterrestrial creature. After that, what's the difference what the imaginary extraterrestrial creature does? Or even its nature after that?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:I just

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

I just made him something.. he is *anything* that is extraterrestial that would be sufficient and is necessary to end the list of bad things I previously mentioned.  For instance, if a little green man came to earth and somehow brought an end to all those things I mentioned, then the little green man would be God.  I DO NOT believe God is a little green man because a little green man has not done what I proposed needs to be done to fulfill my definition, my ontology.

I'll be more generous, and climb into your imaginary world. Your contention is that anything that could bring "peace" to earth is God.

Am I following?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:Faith is

wavefreak wrote:
Faith is immune to logic. 

That's what's kind of scary, wavefreak. Because people's beliefs inform their actions. People who resort to faith instead of reason might have beliefs that are false, but they wouldn't know it. Not to any degree of certainty at all.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote:Faith is the

wavefreak wrote:

Faith is the final refuge of those who run out of rational arguments against it. 

Faith might be comforting strictly out of moral laziness, but that doesn't mean that something you have faith in is true.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It's possible you

Quote:
It's possible you don't know how confusing you're being. You're starting with an imaginary, extraterrestrial creature. After that, what's the difference what the imaginary extraterrestrial creature does? Or even its nature after that?

I think you're confusing the issue.. of course it makes a difference what the "imaginary extraterrestrial creature does" because the "imaginary extraterrestrial creature" is defined by what it does.

God = extraterrestrial thing + does a particular action.

The two things are as insepperable (according to the construct I have set up) as:

Astronaut = person + traveling into space.

I don't think I'm being confusing at all.. the only reason it appears to be is because so many people have preconceived notions about what a "theistic God" has to be defined as.

Quote:
I'll be more generous, and climb into your imaginary world. Your contention is that anything that could bring "peace" to earth is God.

Am I following?

The world is not imaginary.  The world is as it is.  The "imaginary," I prefer the word hypothetical, but whatever, merely pertains to the belief that nothing on earth can bring this "peace" and that something from without can.

And yes.. anything (outside of this planet) that can bring peace would be God according to the definition I have stated would be defined as "God."


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:The

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
The "imaginary," I prefer the word hypothetical, but whatever, merely pertains to the belief that nothing on earth can bring this "peace" and that something from without can.

And yes.. anything (outside of this planet) that can bring peace would be God according to the definition I have stated would be defined as "God."

It's my understanding that you're arguing for a hypothetical extraterrestrial that can bring peace to the planet.

One question: why?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:One question: why?The

Quote:
One question: why?

The more valid question would be "why not?"

In the 5,000 (?) years of human history there has not been one bit of historical record that has suggested to me a prolongued period of "peace" (and remember, I'm not talking merely of international disputes).

Perhaps you have seen something different?

In any case, I think it a reasonable inference to conclude that humans, left to their own devices, are incapable of it.  So, left with the choice to believe "humans will always be X" or "humans can be Y, but only if Z" I would choose the latter.  The thought that humanity will never reach a point where they live peacefully with one another is a very depressing one. 

Heh, both are reasonable inferences in my opinion.  Both are open to the evaluation of new evidence.  Personal preference dictates which one you choose.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:The more

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

The more valid question would be "why not?"

As long as you know that what you just said is the equivalent of "just for kicks", sure.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

In the 5,000 (?) years of human history there has not been one bit of historical record that has suggested to me a prolongued period of "peace" (and remember, I'm not talking merely of international disputes).

Right. We're an active bunch.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Perhaps you have seen something different?

Nope. I'm dying to know what your point is, though.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
In any case, I think it a reasonable inference to conclude that humans, left to their own devices, are incapable of it.

So, left with the choice to believe "humans will always be X" or "humans can be Y, but only if Z" I would choose the latter.  The thought that humanity will never reach a point where they live peacefully with one another is a very depressing one. 

Heh, both are reasonable inferences in my opinion.  Both are open to the evaluation of new evidence.  Personal preference dictates which one you choose.

If something is comforting, does that mean it's true? Personally, I concern myself with what's true. You seem to be hoping for hypothetical extraterrestrial intervention because it would make you feel better. That's fine, it just doesn't make what you say true.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:As long as you know

Quote:
As long as you know that what you just said is the equivalent of "just for kicks", sure.

Sure. That's what it is.

Is it irrationale to do these "just for kicks"?

Quote:
Right. We're an active bunch.

Indeed.

Quote:
Nope. I'm dying to know what your point is, though.

Was merely honestly stating that my credentials with regard to history is severely lacking.. so I was leaving the forum open to correct.

Quote:
If something is comforting, does that mean it's true?

When did I say it was?  It's true that I believe it.

In any case, my conversation on this thread was directed towards rationality, not absolute truth. A rational hypothesis that serves a purpose and is open to falsification.. isn't this what science is all about?

Quote:
Personally, I concern myself with what's true.

Good for you.  Question though, are we talking about "true" in an objective sense.. or subjective.

I love X certainly might be "subjectively true"--that I love X may not be "objectively" so.

I concern myself with what is subjectively true.  Part of which, is related to my beliefs about what is objectively true, but not exclusively.  Whether or not it is objectively true.. different story... I'll wait for the evidence to present itself.

For instance, if humanity become self-sufficient regarding "peace"--fine, then no need for "God."

Quote:
You seem to be hoping for hypothetical extraterrestrial intervention because it would make you feel better. That's fine, it just doesn't make what you say true.

"Hoping"? Okay.. of course.. I'm hoping because I feel it is necessary.  Like I said above, however, humanity can prove me wrong.. and of course, I personally, well continue to make the planet as best as possible.

As for making it true.. once again.. wasn't concerned about "objective truth" per se.  If I only concerned myself with what was "objectively true" I could never hold a "temporary belief"--which, many a time, serve a purpose.  It is merely a placeholder on the path until what is "objectively true" is revealed..


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

HisWillness wrote:
If something is comforting, does that mean it's true?

When did I say it was?  It's true that I believe it.

To recap: You believe that if something is comforting, that it's true. Am I following?

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

In any case, my conversation on this thread was directed towards rationality, not absolute truth. A rational hypothesis that serves a purpose and is open to falsification.. isn't this what science is all about?

Don't worry about absolute truth - I'll take "reasonable degree of certainty" if that sounds better.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
Personally, I concern myself with what's true.

Good for you.  Question though, are we talking about "true" in an objective sense.. or subjective.

We're talking objective.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
I concern myself with what is subjectively true.

For practical purposes, that statement doesn't really help. If you subjectively believe that something which measures one metre is two metres long, that's a problem.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Whether or not it is objectively true.. different story... I'll wait for the evidence to present itself.

What's worrisome about that is that while you're waiting for evidence, you still "subjectively believe" in something that is not objectively true to a reasonable degree of certainty.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
"Hoping"? Okay.. of course.. I'm hoping because I feel it is necessary.

What I'm reading here is "I hope there's something to bring peace to the earth ... so I'm making it up." It just doesn't seem rational.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
If I only concerned myself with what was "objectively true" I could never hold a "temporary belief"--which, many a time, serve a purpose.  It is merely a placeholder on the path until what is "objectively true" is revealed..

And you're entitled to do that, it's just not rational. It may be functional (that it soothes you), but that's different. I think I now see where we're speaking at cross purposes. I consider it important if something's objectively true to a reasonable degree of certainty, and you don't. Is that the case?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
I wasn't planning on

I wasn't planning on responding anymore.. I was actually planning on taking a break from RRS (I take a lot of them).. but, a few things begged responses, first:

Quote:
To recap: You believe that if something is comforting, that it's true. Am I following?

This is not a recap.

I said:

Quote:
It's true that I believe it.


I did not say, "If I believe it, it is true" or "It is true because I believe it" or "I believe it therefore it is true."

I merely said "it's true that I believe it."  In other words, that I actually do believe what I am professing to believe. (Hypothetically of course).

Quote:
Don't worry about absolute truth - I'll take "reasonable degree of certainty" if that sounds better.

Okay.

Quote:
We're talking objective.

Okay.

Quote:
If you subjectively believe that something which measures one metre is two metres long, that's a problem.

Only if I intend to measure things upon which my wrong measurements will lead to harm.  Is that what we're talking about here? My belief will lead to harm?

Quote:
What's worrisome about that is that while you're waiting for evidence, you still "subjectively believe" in something that is not objectively true to a reasonable degree of certainty.

I don't understand why it is "worrisome"? See above.

Quote:
What I'm reading here is "I hope there's something to bring peace to the earth ... so I'm making it up." It just doesn't seem rational.

I'm not making anything up. I'm not saying you have to accept it.  I'm not saying it is "objectively true."  All I'm saying, basically, is that "I hope."  That seems perfectly rational to me.

Quote:
And you're entitled to do that, it's just not rational. It may be functional (that it soothes you), but that's different. I think I now see where we're speaking at cross purposes. I consider it important if something's objectively true to a reasonable degree of certainty, and you don't. Is that the case?

Baring your first statement, which I entirely disagree with--yes.  That would be the case.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:Only if I

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Only if I intend to measure things upon which my wrong measurements will lead to harm.  Is that what we're talking about here? My belief will lead to harm?

Well, yes. Your behaviour will be informed by your belief. If (following my extreme example) you couldn't appreciate the difference beetween one metre and two, it's dangerous to let you operate a motor vehicle. If you were to believe something other than reality in general, then I can't anticipate the many problems that could come up as a result of that. It could be as harmless as believing in leprechans, but it could also lead to paranoia.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
 All I'm saying, basically, is that "I hope."  That seems perfectly rational to me.

Oh, absolutely. I mean, hope is more "helpful" than "rational", I guess. But let's not split the wrong hair. My point is that hope for something and belief that something is reasonably true are separate things. Obviously I can hope to win the lottery, but it doesn't affect anything necessarily in reality. A belief that I had, in fact, won the lottery, when I had no evidence to support it would be irrational.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


mindcore
BloggerScientist
mindcore's picture
Posts: 292
Joined: 2008-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Secular hope and other semantics

I once wrote an essay on a secular concept of hope.

I have "keep hope" tattooed on my knuckles. Hope for me is a motivational optimism, nothing more. It goes nicely with my overall philosophy that life is itself a love story, which means that whatever you do is all you get to do. Life is only once, and you should try to do what you love and love what you do. Its thinking this way that gets me up in the morning and keeps me up burning the midnight oil.

 

I wish Rhad, that you would talk with me about how you came to believe in God and talk with me a little about your belief in god.

 

I got bored with the whole contingent beliefs and faith definition thing. Especially when I looked up the definition of faith in my dictionary.

 

I think that you are trying to apply religious faith to everything, but that the kind of knowing we engage in based on our sensory inputs is different.

 

But I serioulsy don't want to talk about that anymore.

 

Can we please talk about why you actually believe in God.  

Your life is a love story!


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:It could be as

Quote:
It could be as harmless as believing in leprechans, but it could also lead to paranoia.

No doubt.  So, what side is my simple hypothetical belief on? The leprechans or the possibility lead to paranoia?

Quote:
My point is that hope for something and belief that something is reasonably true are separate things. Obviously I can hope to win the lottery, but it doesn't affect anything necessarily in reality. A belief that I had, in fact, won the lottery, when I had no evidence to support it would be irrational.

True. What happens if you "hope" you would win the lottery and then you did win?  Was your initial buying of the ticket irrational? Was your action based upon a belief that "you could win the lottery"? Is this not the same as hope?

Beliefs and hope do not affect reality-- tis true.  Yet they do initiate actions which may be rational in themselves, may lead to fruitful conclusions, etc, etc, etc.

I am not saying my belief changes anything, it's merely a "hope"/belief, that I'm going to win the lottery.  The numbers haven't been rolled yet, so, it's not irrational, plus, it gives me a cheery outlook on life for the moment, so it's functional as well (i.e. a rational belief to hold).  If the numbers come up against me (in this case, humanity proves itself to be self-sufficient), then I will give up my belief--lest I be labeled irrational.

That is not to say that the alternative viewpoint isn't equally as rational.  Someone who chooses not to buy a ticket is not harmed nor bothered. 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:No

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
No doubt.  So, what side is my simple hypothetical belief on? The leprechans or the possibility lead to paranoia?

Well either. Having a belief in the future onslaught of peace aliens could elicit no action, or a bomb shelter. I can't know what you'd do as a result of an improbable belief.

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
True. What happens if you "hope" you would win the lottery and then you did win?  Was your initial buying of the ticket irrational? Was your action based upon a belief that "you could win the lottery"? Is this not the same as hope?

Haha - it didn't occur to me that the analogue could be stretched so far. You've revealed how terrible it is, so I apologize. But to follow you, your hope would then be to win a lottery wherein the jackpot may or may not exist? I guess if the jackpot was "world peace", no price too high for the ticket, right? Haha. Anyway, terrible analogue - sorry again. I think it actually strays to the abstract too much. You're hoping for an abrupt change in the behaviour of all mankind suddenly, and believe that it could occur, which remains irrational because of its improbability. What is probable is a rational expectation, and improbable an irrational expectation. So being rational, one is not always right, but one is right more often than if one is irrational.

What I'm saying is that it is more probable (and thus more rational) to believe that things will continue as they have done for thousands of years. I'm not accusing you of being a rabid maniac when I say "irrational" either, just that you are not using reason to approach the probability of the advent of peace aliens to the planet.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence