PDA

View Full Version : Why I'm not an atheist



Trout
04-05-2016, 05:08 PM
Because I'm pretty sure God exists.

Cow Poke
04-05-2016, 05:10 PM
I think He's absolutely certain you exit. :smile:

Juvenal
04-05-2016, 05:54 PM
Because I'm pretty sure God exists.

Who knows? It worked on Reggie's site.

Trout
04-05-2016, 05:55 PM
I like to see if I need to upgrade every now and again

One Bad Pig
04-05-2016, 06:17 PM
I think He's absolutely certain you exit. :smile:
I find myself pondering, "typo, or not a typo?" :ponder:

Cow Poke
04-05-2016, 06:28 PM
I find myself pondering, "typo, or not a typo?" :ponder:

Hmmmm.... definitely a typo, but one of those that .. .um...


:smug:

Juvenal
04-05-2016, 07:13 PM
I like to see if I need to upgrade every now and again

It's not a fair test if you don't bring the rodent.

Christianbookworm
04-05-2016, 07:35 PM
I think He's absolutely certain you exit. :smile:

Since God is omniscient, He'd know everyone's existence. And He knows your bathroom habits. Which isn't a problem. He also knows what your cells are doing.

Jedidiah
04-05-2016, 08:09 PM
Because I'm pretty sure God exists.

You are right, LT.

Roy
04-06-2016, 03:03 AM
I think He's absolutely certain you exit. :smile:He hasn't yet :grin:

Littlejoe
04-06-2016, 06:48 AM
Because I'm pretty sure God exists.
I represent that remark! :thumb:

Carrikature
04-06-2016, 08:55 AM
I find myself pondering, "typo, or not a typo?" :ponder:

And the Lord said, "Go forth upon the path that has been prepared for you. And I shall send you a sign, that you may know my will."


I'm sure that's in there somewhere.

Trout
04-06-2016, 11:00 AM
Cheetos! Your move atheists.

firstfloor
04-06-2016, 11:27 AM
Cheetos! Your move atheists.If you are only “pretty sure”, you might actually be atheist.

Trout
04-06-2016, 11:29 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm not an atheist. Not that I'm not sympathetic to the atheist worldview. I can certainly see why people choose that mindset.

Cow Poke
04-06-2016, 11:35 AM
If you are only “pretty sure”, you might actually be atheist.

Wouldn't that be agnostic? :huh:

firstfloor
04-06-2016, 11:42 AM
I'm pretty sure I'm not an atheist. Not that I'm not sympathetic to the atheist worldview. I can certainly see why people choose that mindset.Most atheists are not, by nature, mindset. The atheist paradigm would be freethought and therefore flexible and accounting for new information.

Cow Poke
04-06-2016, 11:43 AM
Most atheists are not, by nature, mindset. The atheist paradigm would be freethought and therefore flexible and accounting for new information.

OR somebody who's just mad at God because they got their hand slapped during Vacation Bible School. :smug:

firstfloor
04-06-2016, 11:51 AM
Wouldn't that be agnostic? :huh:It depends who you listen to but anyone who is unconvinced about the existence of God (an agnostic claims that it is impossible to know anything about God and therefore cannot be convinced either way) could be considered atheist. Therefore, the theist is one who is convinced that God exists - not sitting on the fence.

firstfloor
04-06-2016, 11:54 AM
OR somebody who's just mad at God because they got their hand slapped during Vacation Bible School. :smug:Please ignore this nasty rumour put about by devious Christian types.

Cow Poke
04-06-2016, 11:56 AM
Please ignore this nasty rumour put about by devious Christian types.

Meh, I've met plenty of "atheists" who were obviously just mad at God because He didn't dance to their tune. :smile: Rather self-centered folks, they were.

Trout
04-06-2016, 12:29 PM
Most atheists are not, by nature, mindset. The atheist paradigm would be freethought and therefore flexible and accounting for new information.

I would agree with that to a point.

The overarching point being that atheists don't have enough information to be theists. They lack a key piece.

Carrikature
04-06-2016, 12:33 PM
I would agree with that to a point.

The overarching point being that atheists don't have enough information to be theists. They lack a key piece.

I'm so glad someone understands!

Trout
04-06-2016, 12:35 PM
I'm so glad someone understands!

I'm here for you. Let's hug it out.

Carrikature
04-06-2016, 12:35 PM
OR somebody who's just mad at God because they got their hand slapped during Vacation Bible School. :smug:

Wouldn't that make you a believer but not a follower? As Riddick says in Pitch Black, "I absolutely believe in God. And I absolutely hate the [redacted]."

Carrikature
04-06-2016, 12:36 PM
I'm here for you. Let's hug it out.

:ale:

Trout
04-06-2016, 12:39 PM
Wouldn't that make you a believer but not a follower? As Riddick says in Pitch Black, "I absolutely believe in God. And I absolutely hate the [redacted]."

Love those brackets. You really stuck the landing. I give it a 9.3.

Carrikature
04-06-2016, 01:01 PM
Love those brackets. You really stuck the landing. I give it a 9.3.

:bravo:

Cow Poke
04-06-2016, 01:02 PM
I'm so glad someone understands!

I'll pretend I do.

Trout
04-06-2016, 01:06 PM
I'll pretend I do.

That's what she said ...

Bring on the amens

firstfloor
04-06-2016, 01:12 PM
Meh, I've met plenty of "atheists" who were obviously just mad at God because He didn't dance to their tune. :smile: Rather self-centered folks, they were.Oh Boy! I’ll bet you and seer keep a signed photo of Sye Ten Bruggencate beside your beds.

firstfloor
04-06-2016, 01:23 PM
I would agree with that to a point.

The overarching point being that atheists don't have enough information to be theists. They lack a key piece.An atheist sees exactly what you see. The difference is in analysis and comprehension of what you see and appreciating the value of scepticism. Most of all it is a refusal to be led around as if you had a metal ring through your nose.

Secular Liberation
04-06-2016, 01:29 PM
Because I'm pretty sure God exists.

That's it?

Cow Poke
04-06-2016, 01:30 PM
Wouldn't that make you a believer but not a follower?

Well, not ME, but, yeah, maybe. :smile:


As Riddick says in Pitch Black, "I absolutely believe in God. And I absolutely hate the [redacted]."

I just wonder how many atheists are truly atheists, and how many claim that simply to discharge the notion that they are accountable to Him. :shrug:

Secular Liberation
04-06-2016, 01:31 PM
Meh, I've met plenty of "atheists" who were obviously just mad at God because He didn't dance to their tune. :smile: Rather self-centered folks, they were.

Not only is that a reasonably false and fallacious personal anecdote, but an unfounded personal anecdote.

Cow Poke
04-06-2016, 01:32 PM
Not only is that a reasonably false and fallacious personal anecdote, but an unfounded personal anecdote.

Hmmmm... an "unfounded personal anecdote". :lmbo:

Secular Liberation
04-06-2016, 01:35 PM
Hmmmm... an "unfounded personal anecdote". :lmbo:

Meaning one you have failed to provide evidence for, why don't you share a video with us?

Cow Poke
04-06-2016, 01:35 PM
Meaning one you have failed to provide evidence for, why don't you share a video with us?

Ah, you're one of those! :thumb:

Carrikature
04-06-2016, 01:40 PM
Well, not ME, but, yeah, maybe. :smile:

Sure. You-general not you-specific.



I just wonder how many atheists are truly atheists, and how many claim that simply to discharge the notion that they are accountable to Him. :shrug:

Honestly, I grew up being told they were all the latter, but I've never met any that qualified. I think if you want a real discussion with a self-described atheist, start with the assumption that they're the former. I'm sure some of the latter do exist, but you'll get a lot further if you work to that point rather than assuming that it's the 'real reason'.

Secular Liberation
04-06-2016, 01:42 PM
Ah, you're one of those! :thumb:

I know I'm not mad at any god of any religion. As an atheist they don't exist. Rather I don't like the belief and not the believer or his imaginary friend.

Cow Poke
04-06-2016, 01:43 PM
Sure. You-general not you-specific.




Honestly, I grew up being told they were all the latter, but I've never met any that qualified. I think if you want a real discussion with a self-described atheist, start with the assumption that they're the former. I'm sure some of the latter do exist, but you'll get a lot further if you work to that point rather than assuming that it's the 'real reason'.

In real life, I don't worry about that too much - I've seen some pretty determined "atheists" come to a saving knowledge of God, so....

But I appreciate your input. :thumb:

Trout
04-06-2016, 01:43 PM
An atheist sees exactly what you see.

Wrong, we all have seen and heard different things. There are similar things we have experienced and have in common, but to say we've both been presented with the same evidence is just silliness.

You don't know my life, man!


the difference is in analysis and comprehension of what you see and appreciating the value of scepticism.

Agreed, but if the atheist is missing a piece of evidence he doesn't have the whole picture. Hard to analyze a missing piece, don't you agree?



most of all it is a refusal to be led around as if you had a metal ring through your nose.

Quoth the free thinking herd member. Trust me when I tell you I'm a skeptic of the highest order.

firstfloor
04-06-2016, 01:58 PM
... a piece of evidenceSuch as, what?

https://www.blogthings.com/howskepticalareyouquiz/

Trout
04-06-2016, 02:10 PM
Such as, what?

https://www.blogthings.com/howskepticalareyouquiz/

Good question. What piece of evidence would YOU require to become a theist? Maybe I have that one. Or, maybe I have a different one.

firstfloor
04-06-2016, 02:26 PM
Good question. What piece of evidence would YOU require to become a theist? Maybe I have that one. Or, maybe I have a different one.Before we ask how we prove hypothesis X we need to know what X is. If X is God we need to say exactly what that is and the definition will lead us to a description of the evidence needed to verify that the thing described actually exists. We need to take care that X is sufficiently defined that it cannot be confused for something else.

I suspect that religions are never so careless as to unveil the thing they pretend to worship.

Trout
04-06-2016, 02:38 PM
Before we ask how we prove hypothesis X we need to know what X is. If X is God we need to say exactly what that is and the definition will lead us to a description of the evidence needed to verify that the thing described actually exists. We need to take care that X is sufficiently defined that it cannot be confused for something else.

Great stuff. Is that how you came to know that minds other than your own exist? Or did you know that other minds existed prior to applying this formula?


I suspect that religions are never so careless as to unveil the thing they pretend to worship.

Agreed

As are scientists.

firstfloor
04-06-2016, 02:49 PM
Great stuff. Is that how you came to know that minds other than your own exist? Or did you know that other minds existed prior to applying this formula?Strictly spearing, a person is directly aware only of his own mind. What he sees in other people is behaviour. Even so, there is a very reasonable consensus that bodies (men and other animals) have minds.

I sense that any second now, you’re going to fly off into wonderland.

Trout
04-06-2016, 02:58 PM
Strictly spearing, a person is directly aware only of his own mind. What he sees in other people is behaviour. Even so, there is a very reasonable consensus that bodies (men and other animals) have minds.

So the answer is "no" you didn't apply the formula you posted. Thanks. Care to answer the question: What piece of evidence would YOU require to become a theist?


I sense that any second now, you’re going to fly off into wonderland.

What evidence do you have to support that assertion?

Can you define "wonderland" please?

Do you think humans fly?

Describe this "sense" you speak of. It could be mental illness.

Cow Poke
04-06-2016, 03:02 PM
I suspect that religions are never so careless as to unveil the thing they pretend to worship.

wow

Juvenal
04-06-2016, 06:29 PM
Good question. What piece of evidence would YOU require to become a theist? Maybe I have that one. Or, maybe I have a different one.

A ship that you can fold up into your pocket that unfolds into the best of all ships.

Trout
04-06-2016, 06:35 PM
A ship that you can fold up into your pocket that unfolds into the best of all ships.

Don't they call that a ship of fools?

Jedidiah
04-06-2016, 06:35 PM
Quoth the free thinking herd member. Trust me when I tell you I'm a skeptic of the highest order.

Freethinkers, like teenagers, think they have an open mind.

Jedidiah
04-06-2016, 06:36 PM
You caught some flies, LT. Have fun with them.

Juvenal
04-06-2016, 06:37 PM
Don't they call that a ship of fools?

You say to-mah-to, I say Skid-blad-nir.

Trout
04-06-2016, 06:48 PM
I say Skid-blad-nir.
Your arguments are gathering coherence. Bravo.

firstfloor
04-07-2016, 05:25 AM
Care to answer the question: What piece of evidence would YOU require to become a theist?You skipped a step – see #45 – missing hypothesis concerning the divine. This is your starting point for the evaluation of evidence. We wish, of course, to discover whether our ‘evidence’ fits our hypothesis or not. We might find that our hypothesis needs adjustment. By the way, personal experience (of the divine) does not count as evidence in the usual sense because it cannot be shared. It may be convincing to the person and his followers, say, but it is not available for independent evaluation. Therefore personal experience is used for a different kind of persuasion – nevertheless, one that many people (including the godly and alien abductees) are prone to.

So what counts as evidence? Well, it has to be observable, more or less at will (but we do not object to waiting around a bit for something to happen like for a sighting of a blue whale or the aurora borealis or a supernova as examples). It has to stand up to detailed scrutiny. We know that miracles do not happen on demand so they are bound to be difficult to observe even if they are actual events. A ‘miracle’ would be evidence assuming you could catch and record it at the right moment – a Nobel Prize to the first finder.

My own working model of God is that He is a person’s own alter ego. This happily does away with the anything supernatural.

But the punters would rather have an ‘out there’ type of God, hence The Church:

“Welcome my gullible friends, gather round, behold, I have made an altar; please leave your coin in the box beside it.”

37818
04-07-2016, 05:44 AM
Before we ask how we prove hypothesis X we need to know what X is. . . .I propose that X is the uncaused existence in and of itself. And it does not need any kind of god. Only it can qualify as self existent, nothing else can. The uncaused existence as the base identity for God.

So to say "God does not exist" would be like saying existence does not exist. That part of this problem is solved.

Trout
04-07-2016, 06:27 AM
By the way, personal experience (of the divine) does not count as evidence in the usual sense because it cannot be shared.

while I appreciate the readings from the gospel of evidentialism, I cannot help but feel as though the formula you have posited isn't, in fact, the way you came to know that other minds exist.

Plus, you're also saying that personal experience is the only way to know of something's existence if you're truly an evidentialist. So why would you discount personal experience when that suit doesn't fit?

firstfloor
04-07-2016, 09:09 AM
while I appreciate the readings from the gospel of evidentialism, I cannot help but feel as though the formula you have posited isn't, in fact, the way you came to know that other minds exist.

Plus, you're also saying that personal experience is the only way to know of something's existence if you're truly an evidentialist. So why would you discount personal experience when that suit doesn't fit?I think we need to consider two kinds (there may be others as well) of personal experience: the sort that is localised in one or a few people at a time and the other that is available to anyone at any time.

The experience of other minds is of the later type and therefore not controversial.

When are you going to get to the hocus pocus?

firstfloor
04-07-2016, 11:57 AM
I propose that X is the uncaused existence in and of itself. And it does not need any kind of god. Only it can qualify as self existent, nothing else can. The uncaused existence as the base identity for God.

So to say "God does not exist" would be like saying existence does not exist. That part of this problem is solved.I agree that it is reasonable to suppose that the thing from which our local Universe sprang was eternal.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 12:04 PM
I appreciate some of the distinctions that you're making.

I've a tiny quibble with one assertion:

The experience of other minds is of the later type and therefore not controversial.

My problem here is that any evaluation of other's experience (regardless of the numbers) is completely personal.

At this stage in my thinking I'd probably argue that the only truth that matters is that which is experienced personally and I've a tendency to trust the masses (zeitgeist/consensus) less and less.

That might be a function of old age.

mossrose
04-07-2016, 12:06 PM
:offtopic:

Gerbzy!

:glomp:


Carry on, then.

Carrikature
04-07-2016, 12:34 PM
I appreciate some of the distinctions that you're making.

I've a tiny quibble with one assertion:


My problem here is that any evaluation of other's experience (regardless of the numbers) is completely personal.

At this stage in my thinking I'd probably argue that the only truth that matters is that which is experienced personally and I've a tendency to trust the masses (zeitgeist/consensus) less and less.

That might be a function of old age.

Just how old are you?

Trout
04-07-2016, 12:38 PM
The experience of other minds is of the later type and therefore not controversial.


Following your line of reason: Theism is the typical experience. Therefore not controversial.

firstfloor
04-07-2016, 12:40 PM
I appreciate some of the distinctions that you're making.

I've a tiny quibble with one assertion:


My problem here is that any evaluation of other's experience (regardless of the numbers) is completely personal.

At this stage in my thinking I'd probably argue that the only truth that matters is that which is experienced personally and I've a tendency to trust the masses (zeitgeist/consensus) less and less.

That might be a function of old age.Trout was wondering how I justify knowing that other minds exist. It was not obvious from my response that that was what I was referring to rather than the issue that you mention being evaluation of another person’s experience.

The thing about evaluation of just about anything including other people’s thoughts and experience is that it is commonly a collective effort because everyone is continually interacting with other minds at some level. The fact that we share a common language demonstrates a very sophisticated integration of ideas across the landscape of separate but not isolated minds. So while it is true that your personal experience is private, your description of it is not. Even your private thoughts borrow their structure from cultural conventions. If you have a religious experience, why is it religious? Because the culture says it is religious.

seer
04-07-2016, 01:05 PM
Trout was wondering how I justify knowing that other minds exist. It was not obvious from my response that that was what I was referring to rather than the issue that you mention being evaluation of another person’s experience.

But you can't justify it. That is the whole point of the philosophical zombie argument.

firstfloor
04-07-2016, 01:10 PM
Following your line of reason: Theism is the typical experience. Therefore not controversial.Your proposed equality does not account for the size of, or diversity in the population of theists.

seer
04-07-2016, 01:14 PM
Your proposed equality does not account for the size of, or diversity in the population of theists.

It doesn't matter - the majority of human beings, for the majority of history, have believed in some form of the divine. Which leads to the logical conclusion that atheists suffer from a mental defect, probably genetic. :wink:

Carrikature
04-07-2016, 01:23 PM
It doesn't matter - the majority of human beings, for the majority of history, have believed in some form of the divine. Which leads to the logical conclusion that atheists suffer from a mental defect, probably genetic. :wink:

If it's genetic, I can legitimately claim it's not my fault. I didn't get to pick my genes.

seer
04-07-2016, 01:26 PM
If it's genetic, I can legitimately claim it's not my fault. I didn't get to pick my genes.

Right, if it is genetic. Or your dad dropped you on your head.

Sea of red
04-07-2016, 01:29 PM
I would agree with that to a point.

The overarching point being that atheists don't have enough information to be theists. They lack a key piece.
What do you think it is?

Trout
04-07-2016, 01:34 PM
Your proposed equality does not account for the size of, or diversity in the population of theists.

Here's what you said, first floor:


I think we need to consider two kinds (there may be others as well) of personal experience: the sort that is localised in one or a few people at a time and the other that is available to anyone at any time.

The experience of other minds is of the later type and therefore not controversial.

It is openly obvious that theism isn't localized at all and is available on demand throughout the space of the earth. And I fail to see how you shall recover from these two contrary statements.

You can't have it both ways.

I think my point stands, the atheist is missing a piece of data and can therefore only come to the wrong conclusion.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 01:39 PM
Just how old are you?
I'm 49 going on 89. :wink:

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 01:39 PM
It doesn't matter - the majority of human beings, for the majority of history, have believed in some form of the divine. Which leads to the logical conclusion that atheists suffer from a mental defect, probably genetic. :wink:

This argument is an open acknowledgment that the majority of history shows humans who choose to believe in the divine invariably get it wrong. Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is about as close to the definition of crazy as one can get.

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 01:43 PM
I'm 49 going on 89. :wink:

So the daughters are still teenagers?

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 01:43 PM
This argument is an open acknowledgment that the majority of history shows humans who choose to believe in the divine invariably get it wrong. Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is about as close to the definition of crazy as one can get.
Out of curiosity what makes you think any of them got it wrong?

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 01:45 PM
Out of curiosity what makes you think any of them got it wrong?

Mutual contradictions.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 01:45 PM
So the daughters are still teenagers?
They moved out and left me and the wife all alone.

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 01:48 PM
They moved out and left me and the wife all alone.

Is that better or worse?

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 01:49 PM
Out of curiosity what makes you think any of them got it wrong?

Out of curiosity, did you ever get a reasonable answer to this question?


Was Trout a Christian at one point?

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 01:50 PM
Mutual contradictions.
In some of the details, yes, but not on the existence of a divine being.
For example, you may know in your heart that Trout is a [redacted] whereas I know he's a flaming [redacted]; however, our disagreements concerning his nature doesn't address his existence.

^---- If I were you and I wanted to counter that I'd ask why God does such a poor job of communicating His true nature to the masses (1).


NOTES:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I'm so bored with apologetics that I write my own rebuttals; however, that shouldn't discourage you from adding your own healthy dose of sophistry to the mix.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 01:52 PM
Is that better or worse?
They somehow have managed to be even more expensive to maintain.
Young men have wised up and don't marry early enough anymore.

firstfloor
04-07-2016, 01:53 PM
But you can't justify it. That is the whole point of the philosophical zombie argument.Most of us function well enough without having to.

“[The "explanatory gap" – also called the "hard problem of consciousness" – is the claim that (to date) no one has provided a convincing causal explanation of how and why we are conscious. It is a manifestation of the very same gap that (to date) no one has provided a convincing causal explanation of how and why we are not zombies.]”

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 02:00 PM
Most of us function well enough without having to.

“[The "explanatory gap" – also called the "hard problem of consciousness" – is the claim that (to date) no one has provided a convincing causal explanation of how and why we are conscious. It is a manifestation of the very same gap that (to date) no one has provided a convincing causal explanation of how and why we are not zombies.]”

1: Our current state, by definition, is of being alive.
2: The Zombie state, by definition, is of being dead.
3: Alive != Dead; therefore, we ain't zombies.

Having established that, the alive state has to logically exist before the dead state, which means that either:
1: We are alive and not zombies.
2: The truly alive state is extinct (which I think I could make a solid case for)
3: The alive state unknown to us.

If #1 I've established how we're not zombies.
If #2 the alive state is extinct and we set the definition of the terms and we'd defined our current state as alive.
If #3 see #2.

I've only got game on this as far as it touches zombies, which I wouldn't recommend, they bite.

Trout
04-07-2016, 02:06 PM
This argument is an open acknowledgment that the majority of history shows humans who choose to believe in the divine invariably get it wrong.

So mutually exclusive beliefs render God non-existent? Really? I'm afraid the knife has lost a bit of it's edge in my absence.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 02:14 PM
So mutually exclusive beliefs render God non-existent? Really? I'm afraid the knife has lost a bit of it's edge in my absence.
My reply covered this already but managed to insult you in the process.
My knife is in good working order.

seer
04-07-2016, 02:18 PM
Most of us function well enough without having to.

So you agree that you can not justify the existence of other minds.

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 02:35 PM
So mutually exclusive beliefs render God non-existent? Really? I'm afraid the knife has lost a bit of it's edge in my absence.

I can find a sharpener for you. Let's start with this idea of yours that God is non-existent.

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 02:37 PM
My reply covered this already but managed to insult you in the process.
My knife is in good working order.

Try to avoid pointing out his improper use of pronouns. He's already on the lookout for backstabbers.

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 02:41 PM
They somehow have managed to be even more expensive to maintain.
Young men have wised up and don't marry early enough anymore.

I did my part bombing their mailboxes with Peace Corps brochures. Have you considered voting for Bernie?

Trout
04-07-2016, 02:41 PM
I can find a sharpener for you. Let's start with this idea of yours that God is non-existent.
4 out of 5 dentists surveyed said that you made a boo boo in your appeal to the masses. The other dentist was firstfloor

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 02:51 PM
In some of the details, yes, but not on the existence of a divine being.

Beings, actually, and by any fair accounting for angels, demons, cherubim, and devils, Abrahamic monotheism is anything but monotheistic as well. If y'all want to straighten up that mess, you could learn a thing or two about consistency from the Brahman.

For most of history, those details included the number and distribution of powers of the divine beings, with the manner of the changing distribution itself the most interesting part of the tale. Usually the handover comes via parricide, which is why I've always had a soft spot for Inanna. No epic or grisly battles, just get the old man Enki drunk enough to give them away to you.

Gotta love that girl.

I'll have a double of whatever it was they were drinking.


For example, you may know in your heart that Trout is a [redacted] whereas I know he's a flaming [redacted]; however, our disagreements concerning his nature doesn't address his existence.

^---- If I were you and I wanted to counter that I'd ask why God does such a poor job of communicating His true nature to the masses (1).

I prefer to give Him the benefit of the doubt. If He exists, and we can't know anything meaningful about Him, why not assume that's His plan?


NOTES:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I'm so bored with apologetics that I write my own rebuttals; however, that shouldn't discourage you from adding your own healthy dose of sophistry to the mix.

This is apologetics?

From the OP, I figured Trout was trying to bring another board down in smoking ruins. When you showed up, I became certain.

Was that supposed to be a secret?

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 02:55 PM
4 out of 5 dentists surveyed said that you made a boo boo in your appeal to the masses. The other dentist was firstfloor

In point of fact, you're the only one who's suggested there's an argument for non-existence in my rebuttal of seer. I could straighten that out for you, but first you'd have to convince me this thread was serious.

firstfloor
04-07-2016, 02:57 PM
Here's what you said, first floor:

It is openly obvious that theism isn't localized at all and is available on demand throughout the space of the earth. And I fail to see how you shall recover from these two contrary statements.

You can't have it both ways.

I think my point stands, the atheist is missing a piece of data and can therefore only come to the wrong conclusion.God, the name, is well known. God, the object is not. In fact, the object (Supreme Being) God is completely unavailable to everyone at all times.

Unfortunately, this does not stop the godly making bold claims but you can easily see that only God, the name, is needed for that. It makes no difference to the discourse about God that God Himself is totally absent.

Trout
04-07-2016, 02:59 PM
Beings, actually, and by any fair accounting for angels, demons, cherubim, and devils, Abrahamic monotheism is anything but monotheistic as well. If y'all want to straighten up that mess, you could learn a thing or two about consistency from the Brahman.

Instead of the blind man describing the elephant, we have an old reprobate feeling up a Gerbil.

rogue06
04-07-2016, 03:02 PM
Instead of the blind man describing the elephant, we have an old reprobate feeling up a Gerbil.

14686
Available from roguetech at half the normal price.

Since the return of Trout it has been flying off the shelves so get it now before shortages drive up the price (supply and demand folks)

Trout
04-07-2016, 03:02 PM
God, the name, is well known. God, the object is not. In fact, the object (Supreme Being) God is completely unavailable to everyone at all times.

Unfortunately, this does not stop the godly making bold claims but you can easily see that only God, the name, is needed for that. It makes no difference to the discourse about God that God Himself is totally absent.
Don't you think it's a pretty "bold claim" to suggest that God is completely unavailable to everyone at all times?

Do you know everyone at all times?

Seems to fly in the face of your evidentualism.

Trout
04-07-2016, 03:04 PM
In point of fact, you're the only one who's suggested there's an argument for non-existence in my rebuttal of seer. I could straighten that out for you, but first you'd have to convince me this thread was serious.
I can't think of a worse hell. Being the chosen convincer of you, toasty.

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 03:05 PM
Instead of the blind man describing the elephant, we have an old reprobate feeling up a Gerbil.

This, kids, is why you don't brew your own. Even if it doesn't drive you blind, you're still at risk of oversampling.

firstfloor
04-07-2016, 03:06 PM
So you agree that you can not justify the existence of other minds.I am not a philosopher. I do not understand the finer points of that type of argument. It does not matter to me. I am convinced that other minds do exist. I am sure that you are not a zombie. It is a matter of being sensibly pragmatic about the issue.

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 03:10 PM
I can't think of a worse hell. Being the chosen convincer of you, toasty.

A bit late for that, in any case. While you've been gone, I've come to terms with the existence of God. Existence as it conforms to Platonic idealism, of course, which isn't likely to satisfy the Biblical believer, but nonetheless, there you go.

I believe God exists.

firstfloor
04-07-2016, 03:12 PM
Don't you think it's a pretty "bold claim" to suggest that God is completely unavailable to everyone at all times?I hereby issue gratis, my cast iron guarantee that no living soul has ever seen or will ever see the face of God. Would you like that in triplicate?

Sea of red
04-07-2016, 03:20 PM
I would agree with that to a point.

The overarching point being that atheists don't have enough information to be theists. They lack a key piece.


What do you think it is?

...

Carrikature
04-07-2016, 03:21 PM
I'm so bored with apologetics that I write my own rebuttals

I might have to try this.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 03:37 PM
Beings, actually, and by any fair accounting for angels, demons, cherubim, and devils, Abrahamic monotheism is anything but monotheistic as well. If y'all want to straighten up that mess, you could learn a thing or two about consistency from the Brahman.
I don't see where monotheism is inconsistent with a spiritual realm (powers) above man but below God.


I prefer to give Him the benefit of the doubt. If He exists, and we can't know anything meaningful about Him, why not assume that's His plan?
I'm maintain that if he exists it would be impossible for us to not know something meaningful about him.
For example, if you believe he hasn't contacted us then it would indicate he doesn't care about us.
That would be pretty meaningful.


From the OP, I figured Trout was trying to bring another board down in smoking ruins. When you showed up, I became certain.
It was like this when I got here.
I know it has been like this for quite some time since someone has been drawing Yin and Yang in the ashes.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 03:40 PM
I might have to try this.
Once you give up on the idea of winning life gets quite a bit more fun.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 03:41 PM
A bit late for that, in any case. While you've been gone, I've come to terms with the existence of God. Existence as it conforms to Platonic idealism, of course, which isn't likely to satisfy the Biblical believer, but nonetheless, there you go.

I believe God exists.
This is interesting.
Can you describe your former state, your current state, and the series of thoughts that guided the transition?

Trout
04-07-2016, 03:45 PM
A bit late for that, in any case. While you've been gone, I've come to terms with the existence of God. Existence as it conforms to Platonic idealism, of course, which isn't likely to satisfy the Biblical believer, but nonetheless, there you go.

I believe God exists.

Thankfully I was away when you made this journey. I would have probably talked you out of it.

Carrikature
04-07-2016, 03:54 PM
Once you give up on the idea of winning life gets quite a bit more fun.

It's never been about winning for me; I just want to get it right.


And I really, really, really like poking holes in things.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 04:00 PM
Thankfully I was away when you made this journey. I would have probably talked you out of it.
Same.
Perhaps we should leave until he's a fundy.
We'll help dial him back.

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 04:00 PM
I don't see where monotheism is inconsistent with a spiritual realm (powers) above man but below God.

It doesn't have to be. In the Hindu paradigm, all divine beings are aspects of the Brahman. That's entirely consistent with monotheism. But in the Abrahamic paradigm, members of the divine host have independent existence. Their equally supernatural influences cannot then be attributed to God, leading to irreconcilable differences, and hell to pay.


I'm maintain that if he exists it would be impossible for us to not know something meaningful about him.
For example, if you believe he hasn't contacted us then it would indicate he doesn't care about us.
That would be pretty meaningful.

That would be good if only it didn't go too far. In this example, it would only indicate He doesn't care to contact us. That doesn't exclude continuous observation for amusement, or even subtle influences using a hidden Hand stirring up the ant's nest with the occasional earthquake, flood, or hurricane.

But on principle I have to allow a point on that parry. Knowing that God doesn't want us to know Him is meaningful.


It was like this when I got here.
I know it has been like this for quite some time since someone has been drawing Yin and Yang in the ashes.

Oh, what you've missed. Just last week, I got a Baptist preacher from Texas to shake the dust off his feet at me for failing to acknowledge that Obama was in league with the Prince of Darkness, or something like that.

I still love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 04:00 PM
It's never been about winning for me; I just want to get it right.
And I really, really, really like poking holes in things.
I gave up on being right.
I'm trying to simply not oppose it.

Ditto on the hole thing.

Trout
04-07-2016, 04:01 PM
I hereby issue gratis, my cast iron guarantee that no living soul has ever seen or will ever see the face of God. Would you like that in triplicate?

You do realize that an absolute statement such as that one is in no way defensible.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 04:05 PM
Oh, what you've missed. Just last week, I got a Baptist preacher from Texas to shake the dust off his feet at me for failing to acknowledge that Obama was in league with the Prince of Darkness, or something like that.I think Obama is a huge idiot; however, he's kept himself out of scandals, is trying his hardest to get us out of goofy wars, and at least attempted to do what he promised to do.
If he's the anti-Christ he isn't very good at it.

Jedidiah
04-07-2016, 04:13 PM
Just how old are you?


I'm 49 going on 89. :wink:

Just a young fella . . .

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 04:47 PM
This is interesting.
Can you describe your former state, your current state, and the series of thoughts that guided the transition?

Probably not as interesting as you imagine.

Briefly, my former, restricted view of divinity failed to account for the myriad ways in which my fellow humans have approached the divine. Mark Smith (http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X) and Peter Enns (http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Incarnation-Evangelicals-Problem-Testament/dp/0801027306) led me to look more broadly at both the origins of religion and the proper appreciation of their sacred texts.

Taoism had already given me a comfortable, fairly philosophical view of theistic faiths, including those like your own which venerate a creator. Conversations with students who tend to stick around after lecture led me to examine more carefully the more-or-less offhand acceptance of Platonic idealism that's almost a sine qua non for mathematicians. The transition from there was natural and unforced, if rather boring.

Ideas exist.
God is certainly an idea.
God exists.

I don't find the claim especially important, or even interesting. I did say it was likely to prove unsatisfying to Biblical theists.


Thankfully I was away when you made this journey. I would have probably talked you out of it.

By "talked" I'd imagine you mean "set up a line of roller derby vixens to skate across my heart until I submit."

There's no mistaking the violence inherent in the system.


Same.
Perhaps we should leave until he's a fundy.
We'll help dial him back.

Not so fast, rodent. I've yet to mock you a second time.

Juvenal
04-07-2016, 05:24 PM
I think Obama is a huge idiot; however, he's kept himself out of scandals, is trying his hardest to get us out of goofy wars, and at least attempted to do what he promised to do.
If he's the anti-Christ he isn't very good at it.

You'd likely be unsurprised to learn I'm hip deep in Bernie fangrrlz equally antagonistic toward both Bhillary and the Trumpkin, only surpassed by their hatred of Cruz, which is ironically amusing seeing as I'm in Miami. Florida has closed primaries and I'm undeclared, so I'm free to rein in all sides.

Frankly, on that last I have to agree with the kids. Cruz is the only pol I've encountered in recent years who doesn't at least seem to believe (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/who-is-ted-cruz.html) in his own hype.


Start at the intuitive level. Despite what you may have heard, true belief is pretty common among politicians. Listen to Rand Paul talk about liberty or Marco Rubio dilate on the promise of America; watch Bernie Sanders rail against inequality or President Obama defend technocratic liberalism. They all radiate sincerity. Watch a Goldwater speech: you can tell the man believed it.

With Cruz, though, even the most fervent peroration always feels like a debater’s patter, an advocate’s brief — compelling enough on the merits, but more of a command performance than a window into deep conviction.

For all that he's failed spectacularly at being the uniter he dreamed of in his national debut (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html), I've no reason to doubt Obama's sincerity. That's enough to rub folks raw around here. I don't think he's an idiot either. I'm pretty sure we've all figured out that if he isn't the Anti-christ, neither is he The One.

Whatever.

As it happens, I have a freshman survey class that's just finished a module on voting and allocation methods which occasioned some fervent classroom discussions. When the tensions got too high last week, I sat them down to watch some youtube videos featuring footage from 1968, for perspective. I managed to find some video from the civil rights movement earlier in the 60s showing protestors being carried out on stretchers, too.

Mea culpa if I may have talked a few of them out of leaving the country if Trump wins the election.

Trust me, they're good kids. We should keep them.

seer
04-07-2016, 05:27 PM
I am not a philosopher. I do not understand the finer points of that type of argument. It does not matter to me. I am convinced that other minds do exist. I am sure that you are not a zombie. It is a matter of being sensibly pragmatic about the issue.

So you trust your personal subjective experience.

Trout
04-07-2016, 05:30 PM
So you trust your personal subjective experience.

BANG!!!! that smarts a little

Cow Poke
04-07-2016, 05:38 PM
Oh, what you've missed. Just last week, I got a Baptist preacher from Texas to shake the dust off his feet at me for failing to acknowledge that Obama was in league with the Prince of Darkness, or something like that.

You really need to stop eating the Brylcreem - it's not to be taken internally.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 06:03 PM
Cruz is the only pol I've encountered in recent years who doesn't at least seem to believe (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/who-is-ted-cruz.html) in his own hype.Unfortunately, I'm a reactionary who simply against anything the establishment endorses.
Enduring years of lies has turned me into a caricature.


For all that he's failed spectacularly at being the uniter he dreamed of in his national debut (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19751-2004Jul27.html), I've no reason to doubt Obama's sincerity. That's enough to rub folks raw around here. I don't think he's an idiot either. I'm pretty sure we've all figured out that if he isn't the Anti-christ, neither is he The One.I think his sincerity is one of his finest qualities.
He never had a shot at being a uniter and it wasn't fair to expect it of him.


I managed to find some video from the civil rights movement earlier in the 60s showing protestors being carried out on stretchers, too.
Good for you - the hyperbole that this is a nasty election cycle is just media selling newspapers.
My wife read a book about the election of ~1894.
They were a bit nastier back then.

Meh Gerbil
04-07-2016, 06:18 PM
Ideas exist.
God is certainly an idea.
God exists.
Perhaps after you get accustomed to the idea you'll feel more comfortable expanding upon it.
Regardless, I think it is a pretty significant step in my general direction.
I award myself +1 points.

I think I've made a significant step in your direction in as much as I'm now as equally offended at the Bible worshipping Christians of the West as I am of the Icon/Relic worshipping Christians of the East. Furthermore, I am not content with those forms that place the answer to all questions/the receipt of all rewards in the after-life. I think most of the propositions that an initiate is expected to pretend to understand and embrace in the Christian faith are idiotic(1). If God isn't here with me now than He is nowhere. The upshot of that is that God has to be real for me right now and that eternity has to be a continuation of that reality.

Let's stop with all the theoretical nonsense and see this thing work.
Testing is ongoing.
I think that awards you +1 points.





NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Can anyone actually comprehend the Trinity? How can you go to war over something that is impossible to understand?

Sea of red
04-07-2016, 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by Trout
I would agree with that to a point.

The overarching point being that atheists don't have enough information to be theists. They lack a key piece.
Any particular reason you're ignoring my question, Trout? You seem to be happy responding to Lao and FF.

Trout
04-07-2016, 06:50 PM
Any particular reason you're ignoring my question, Trout? You seem to be happy responding to Lao and FF.
What was it?

shunyadragon
04-07-2016, 06:59 PM
I propose that X is the uncaused existence in and of itself. And it does not need any kind of god. Only it can qualify as self existent, nothing else can. The uncaused existence as the base identity for God.

So to say "God does not exist" would be like saying existence does not exist. That part of this problem is solved.

Not remotely solved. So circular you bit your own tail. Therefore you believe what you believe.

Sea of red
04-07-2016, 07:08 PM
What was it?
I asked you what bit of evidence you thought atheists were missing.

Trout
04-07-2016, 08:15 PM
I asked you what bit of evidence you thought atheists were missing.

That's the $64 question.

It seems that some are born with an apriori knowledge of the existence of the Divine.

Some become believers from a near death event.

Some become believers after a miraculous happening

Some become believers after they receive some kind of communication from God.

Some become believers after an answered prayer.

I'm sure there are many other ways to come to theism.

The bottom line seems to be some kind of missing puzzle piece that suddenly or slowly appears.

Does that make any sense?

37818
04-07-2016, 08:36 PM
I can find a sharpener for you. Let's start with this idea of yours that God is non-existent.". . . that [uncaused] existence is non-existent."

37818
04-07-2016, 08:38 PM
Not remotely solved. So circular you bit your own tail. Therefore you believe what you believe.And so you believe otherwise, do you not?

firstfloor
04-08-2016, 01:06 AM
So you trust your personal subjective experience.Not completely. But, we are not isolated minds. We always act in concert with other minds, the forces of nature, our bodies and things in the world. The network as a whole is self correcting because “nature cannot be fooled”.

seer
04-08-2016, 03:33 AM
Not completely. But, we are not isolated minds. We always act in concert with other minds, the forces of nature, our bodies and things in the world. The network as a whole is self correcting because “nature cannot be fooled”.

Well yes you do - completely. You are in fact an isolated mind when it comes to logically justifying the existence of other minds, or reality for that matter (that reality actually corresponds to what goes on in your mind). It is all personal and subjective. There is nothing else. And you are "nature" - so can you be fooled?

seer
04-08-2016, 05:22 AM
1: Our current state, by definition, is of being alive.
2: The Zombie state, by definition, is of being dead.
3: Alive != Dead; therefore, we ain't zombies.

Having established that, the alive state has to logically exist before the dead state, which means that either:
1: We are alive and not zombies.
2: The truly alive state is extinct (which I think I could make a solid case for)
3: The alive state unknown to us.

If #1 I've established how we're not zombies.
If #2 the alive state is extinct and we set the definition of the terms and we'd defined our current state as alive.
If #3 see #2.

I've only got game on this as far as it touches zombies, which I wouldn't recommend, they bite.

I think the general point of the zombie argument is that you can't know, scientifically, if your fellow human being has the same inner life and feelings as you. We could apply this in a more realistic model:

You meet Joe, Joe seems normal in every way, yet he is a complete sociopath. He does not love as you do, has no real empathy or compassion for his fellow man, nor conscience, but he acts as if he did because it helps him navigate life. He is in fact, morally insane. But this mental state can be totally hidden from external world if he is a good enough actor.

firstfloor
04-08-2016, 05:42 AM
Well yes you do - completely. You are in fact an isolated mind when it comes to logically justifying the existence of other minds, or reality for that matter (that reality actually corresponds to what goes on in your mind). It is all personal and subjective. There is nothing else. And you are "nature" - so can you be fooled?I think this is where your thinking on the subject goes spectacularly wrong. We are embodied minds and our bodies are in the world. Except perhaps for people with locked-in syndrome, nobody is isolated in the way you suggest. We reason about other minds and the external world because we are connected to them/it all the time (different when asleep). And the systems feeds back self correcting information.

Now, I know that you worry a lot about the possibility of being in ‘The Matrix’ but I would like to assure you that it was just a movie starring the infamously wooden Keanu Reeves who pretends to be an actor. Philosophers play around with the idea but there is no possibility of it being real in any sense.

37818
04-08-2016, 05:43 AM
NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Can anyone actually comprehend the Trinity? How can you go to war over something that is impossible to understand?

As a side note, the Trinity is one explanation. Not the problem. There is also unitarianism, tritheism, modalism and Arianism to name some other proposed explanations.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 05:55 AM
I think the general point of the zombie argument is that you can't know, scientifically, if your fellow human being has the same inner life and feelings as you. We could apply this in a more realistic model:

You meet Joe, Joe seems normal in every way, yet he is a complete sociopath. He does not love as you do, has no real empathy or compassion for his fellow man, nor conscience, but he acts as if he did because it helps him navigate life. He is in fact, morally insane. But this mental state can be totally hidden from external world if he is a good enough actor.
To me it appears as if you've written "you cannot know what cannot be known".
That aside, I'm not even sure I want to know about anyone else's inner life - the blank stares and gapping mouths make me think it most of it would read like a Bazooka Joe comic.

seer
04-08-2016, 05:59 AM
To me it appears as if you've written "you cannot know what cannot be known".

It is an argument against materialism.

seer
04-08-2016, 06:03 AM
I think this is where your thinking on the subject goes spectacularly wrong. We are embodied minds and our bodies are in the world. Except perhaps for people with locked-in syndrome, nobody is isolated in the way you suggest. We reason about other minds and the external world because we are connected to them/it all the time (different when asleep). And the systems feeds back self correcting information.

Now, I know that you worry a lot about the possibility of being in ‘The Matrix’ but I would like to assure you that it was just a movie starring the infamously wooden Keanu Reeves who pretends to be an actor. Philosophers play around with the idea but there is no possibility of it being real in any sense.

That is the point FF. I'm not worried about the Matrix, but we can not logically justify our experience of the external world. You have nothing except your personal experience. Everything you know or think you know is filtered through your subjective mind.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 06:32 AM
It is an argument against materialism.
Now I'm totally lost and in need of a pellet trail to get me out of this maze.
I don't see how recognizing 'unknowable' is an argument against anything whatsoever.

seer
04-08-2016, 06:36 AM
Now I'm totally lost and in need of a pellet trail to get me out of this maze.
I don't see how recognizing 'unknowable' is an argument against anything whatsoever.

That all of experience can not be reduced to the physical. David Chalmers' Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 06:49 AM
That all of experience can not be reduced to the physical. David Chalmers' Hard Problem of Consciousness.
Can you give me the Cliff notes?
How does he avoid the idea that consciousness is just an expression of material processes?

Sparko
04-08-2016, 06:57 AM
I know I'm not mad at any god of any religion. As an atheist they don't exist. Rather I don't like the belief and not the believer or his imaginary friend.No, you are just mad at believers and religion itself. That much is obvious. Your biggest problem is that you don't seem to actually understand Christianity or what it teaches or what its adherents believe. You keep making up strawmen to burn, which makes you seem foolish.

Sparko
04-08-2016, 07:00 AM
Such as, what?

https://www.blogthings.com/howskepticalareyouquiz/

Pretty biased quiz, but I got:

You Are Very Skeptical

Your personal motto is: "Prove it."
While some ideas, like life after death, may seem nice...
You aren't going to believe them simply because it feels good.
You let science and facts be your guide... Even if it means you don't share the beliefs of those around you.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 07:16 AM
I know I'm not mad at any god of any religion. As an atheist they don't exist. Rather I don't like the belief and not the believer or his imaginary friend.You're a better man that I am.
I'm a believer and even I find other Christians to be the most offensive beings on the planet.
Probably because atheists are no threat whatsoever.

The stupid appeals to Christianity in the national elections make me want to puke - two faced, lying, scumbags all clawing each other's eyes out in quest for personal glory, power and wealth - all bawling out that they love Jesus, which would be tolerable if every hayseed numb nut from the Carolinas to Kansas didn't fall for it every freakin' time. I expect politicians to be weasels but do the voters have to be the chickens?

If you're an atheist and you're not angry then you're a good egg.

seer
04-08-2016, 07:25 AM
Can you give me the Cliff notes?
How does he avoid the idea that consciousness is just an expression of material processes?

That it what I have been explaining with the zombie and sociopath examples. That inner life is first not open to science. The brain of the sociopath may be physically the same as ours but his inner life is completely different. The same with the zombie. Though that inner life rises from the physical brain, it can not be reduced to physicalism.

To quote David Chalmers


It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does.

To quote Thomas Nagel:


If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view.

Sparko
04-08-2016, 07:27 AM
That's the $64 question.

It seems that some are born with an apriori knowledge of the existence of the Divine.

Some become believers from a near death event.

Some become believers after a miraculous happening

Some become believers after they receive some kind of communication from God.

Some become believers after an answered prayer.

I'm sure there are many other ways to come to theism.

The bottom line seems to be some kind of missing puzzle piece that suddenly or slowly appears.

Does that make any sense?

yep. For me I think I always had a belief in God deep down but never acknowledged it. I lived as an atheist/agnostic figuring hey if there was a God, I was a good guy so I would go to "heaven" and if there was not a God, then I was still a good guy and when I died I wouldn't care if there was a heaven or not.

Then some events happened in my life, the major one being my alcoholic dad had a stroke and the doctors said he was going to either die or remain a vegetable and gave his chances at recovery very low. My mom had become a Christian a few years back and she had her church go to the hospital and pray for him. Within a day my dad started recovering. The doctors had no explanation and said it was unexpected to say the least. He recovered mostly (had some vision problems and other physical and mental problems to recuperate from) and started going to church with my mom, got saved, stopped drinking, convinced nearly 12 of his VFW buddies to stop drinking and become Christians, and several relatives became Christian. He acted like a Father to me for the first time in a long time. So I started going to church to see what it was about. In a few months I decided, yep, I do believe in this God fella, so I got saved and baptized.

The missing piece for me was my dad and his situation.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 07:33 AM
He acted like a Father to me for the first time in a long time....
In other words, love moved a mountain thereby proving a reality formerly unseen.

Trout
04-08-2016, 07:37 AM
yep. For me I think I always had a belief in God deep down but never acknowledged it. I lived as an atheist/agnostic figuring hey if there was a God, I was a good guy so I would go to "heaven" and if there was not a God, then I was still a good guy and when I died I wouldn't care if there was a heaven or not.

Then some events happened in my life, the major one being my alcoholic dad had a stroke and the doctors said he was going to either die or remain a vegetable and gave his chances at recovery very low. My mom had become a Christian a few years back and she had her church go to the hospital and pray for him. Within a day my dad started recovering. The doctors had no explanation and said it was unexpected to say the least. He recovered mostly (had some vision problems and other physical and mental problems to recuperate from) and started going to church with my mom, got saved, stopped drinking, convinced nearly 12 of his VFW buddies to stop drinking and become Christians, and several relatives became Christian. He acted like a Father to me for the first time in a long time. So I started going to church to see what it was about. In a few months I decided, yep, I do believe in this God fella, so I got saved and baptized.

The missing piece for me was my dad and his situation.

That's pretty powerful stuff, sparko!

Are you reminded of that journey when you find yourself doubting?

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 07:39 AM
That it what I have been explaining with the zombie and sociopath examples. That inner life is first not open to science. The brain of the sociopath may be physically the same as ours but his inner life is completely different. The same with the zombie. Though that inner life rises from the physical brain, it can not be reduced to physicalism.
I'm not buying it for a couple of reasons:

1: It seems to me that the inability to describe the process isn't the same as refuting materialism.

2: If experience has taught me that physical comfort is more likely on warm, sunny days then the tension of survival is less when those days occur thereby giving me a sensation of relief that could be interpreted as 'inner life' or 'pleasure' derived a sunny day. The authors (at least in my surface understanding) seem to be trying to prove extra-natural things with rather goofy arguments.

Sparko
04-08-2016, 07:41 AM
In other words, love moved a mountain thereby proving a reality formerly unseen.indeed. I figured if God could change my dad so drastically, he had to exist and I wanted that change in my life.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 07:56 AM
indeed. I figured if God could change my dad so drastically, he had to exist and I wanted that change in my life.
This hints at something I said in another post about God being in the here and now.

The testimony of Scripture, textual criticism, miracles didn't change your perspective - that was the past.
The threat of possible blowback/reward in the after life didn't change your perspective - that is the future.

You had to see God in the here and now and after that the past and future took on a new significance.
Only after the here and now did the other 'proofs' become important.

This is where apologetics fails.

We've too many people who believe evolution, textual criticism, logic, and deep thinking are powerful forces that change the hearts and minds of mankind when in fact, as any skeptic will attest, all of this nonsense is entirely incapable of moving entire trailer parks full PBR guzzling, 'Murica loving hicks. In Scripture love is identified as the great power that changes men's minds - that is demonstrated throughout the gospels - it is demonstrated by your life.

Once you've seen love in action the rest of life is just noise.
As a dear wise friend of mine once said, "At this point I'd believe that Jonah swallowed the whale."

Sparko
04-08-2016, 08:10 AM
This hints at something I said in another post about God being in the here and now.

The testimony of Scripture, textual criticism, miracles didn't change your perspective - that was the past.
The threat of possible blowback/reward in the after life didn't change your perspective - that is the future.

You had to see God in the here and now and after that the past and future took on a new significance.
Only after the here and now did the other 'proofs' become important.

This is where apologetics fails.

We've too many people who believe evolution, textual criticism, logic, and deep thinking are powerful forces that change the hearts and minds of mankind when in fact, as any skeptic will attest, all of this nonsense is entirely incapable of moving entire trailer parks full PBR guzzling, 'Murica loving hicks. In Scripture love is identified as the great power that changes men's minds - that is demonstrated throughout the gospels - it is demonstrated by your life.

Once you've seen love in action the rest of life is just noise.
As a dear wise friend of mine once said, "At this point I'd believe that Jonah swallowed the whale."

I agree, I think belief always starts with something personal and significant in someone's life. THEN apologetics can take a hold and make that faith grow. I have seen a couple of people be convinced by apologetics, but not many. And even those probably had something in their life that confirmed the reality of God to them.

Without proper apologetics though, people can and do fall into false religions and cults. To me that is the strength of apologetics, to teach true orthodox Christianity and defeat heresy and false religions.

I have pretty much given up on trying to convince atheists on the reality of God via apologetics. They just find ways to handwave away any evidence (see First Floor for an example of that in this very thread)

Juvenal
04-08-2016, 08:16 AM
You really need to stop eating the Brylcreem - it's not to be taken internally.

You always lash out after you've been busted. It's your tell.

This isn't about you (http://clergyproject.org/).

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 08:19 AM
I have pretty much given up on trying to convince atheists on the reality of God via apologetics. They just find ways to handwave away any evidence (see First Floor for an example of that in this very thread)
Same.

Significant truth has to be quick and easy or the vast majority of humanity would be condemned to darkness.
I think the empiricists condemn far more to 'hell' than any religious system - and their arrogance approaches that of Trout.

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 08:22 AM
Enduring years of lies has turned me into a caricature.

That's my job!

Juvenal
04-08-2016, 08:23 AM
Does that make any sense?

As troll threads go, this is a heavy fail. People keep on posting interesting responses.

I'm giving you the +1 point I just got from Gerbil.

Cow Poke
04-08-2016, 08:23 AM
You always lash out after you've been busted. It's your tell.

"lash out"? :huh: I had made a comment in jest, which you took as...

You're weird.

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 08:25 AM
Probably not as interesting as you imagine.

Briefly, my former, restricted view of divinity failed to account for the myriad ways in which my fellow humans have approached the divine. Mark Smith (http://www.amazon.com/The-Early-History-God-Biblical/dp/080283972X) and Peter Enns (http://www.amazon.com/Inspiration-Incarnation-Evangelicals-Problem-Testament/dp/0801027306) led me to look more broadly at both the origins of religion and the proper appreciation of their sacred texts.

Taoism had already given me a comfortable, fairly philosophical view of theistic faiths, including those like your own which venerate a creator. Conversations with students who tend to stick around after lecture led me to examine more carefully the more-or-less offhand acceptance of Platonic idealism that's almost a sine qua non for mathematicians. The transition from there was natural and unforced, if rather boring.

Ideas exist.
God is certainly an idea.
God exists.

I don't find the claim especially important, or even interesting. I did say it was likely to prove unsatisfying to Biblical theists.

I'd settle for understanding what it means. There is an idea called God that all descriptions of ultimately point to? If there are ideas of God, wouldn't each idea be a different God?

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 08:25 AM
That's my job!
Are you a politician?
If you are I want you to know that I hope you die in a fire.

It isn't personal.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 08:26 AM
As troll threads go, this is a heavy fail. People keep on posting interesting responses.
I'm giving you the +1 point I just got from Gerbil.
Those credits cannot be transferred.... to Trout.

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 08:29 AM
That it what I have been explaining with the zombie and sociopath examples. That inner life is first not open to science. The brain of the sociopath may be physically the same as ours but his inner life is completely different. The same with the zombie. Though that inner life rises from the physical brain, it can not be reduced to physicalism.

To quote David Chalmers

To quote Thomas Nagel:

I don't think there's any reason to think the brain of a sociopath is physically the same as the rest of us. Your brain is not physically the same as mine. It's like that bit about chimps and humans sharing ~98% of the same genes. It's more or less true, but that ~2% is really important. You can take certain genetic sequences from a mouse and put them into a species of fruit fly and get it to work perfectly, but one of those has wings.

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 08:30 AM
Are you a politician?
If you are I want you to know that I hope you die in a fire.

It isn't personal.

I've considered becoming one, but I don't think I'd get very far. :smile:

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 08:32 AM
I've considered becoming one, but I don't think I'd get very far. :smile:
Slick your hair back, put on a suit, claim to love Jesus and flip flop on every issue depending on the audience.
You could at least be a Senator.

seer
04-08-2016, 08:32 AM
I don't think there's any reason to think the brain of a sociopath is physically the same as the rest of us. Your brain is not physically the same as mine. It's like that bit about chimps and humans sharing ~98% of the same genes. It's more or less true, but that ~2% is really important. You can take certain genetic sequences from a mouse and put them into a species of fruit fly and get it to work perfectly, but one of those has wings.

I have read a little bit over the years about this - and there doesn't seem to be any abnormalities in the brains of sociopaths.

Sparko
04-08-2016, 08:37 AM
Same.

Significant truth has to be quick and easy or the vast majority of humanity would be condemned to darkness.
I think the empiricists condemn far more to 'hell' than any religious system - and their arrogance approaches that of Trout.

Surely not! :stunned:

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 08:38 AM
I have read a little bit over the years about this - and there doesn't seem to be any abnormalities in the brains of sociopaths.

I didn't say abnormalities. There's no reason I'm aware of that sociopaths must exist outside the range of normal human physiology. Some of us are emotional people. Some of us are less so. There are extremes on both ends.

seer
04-08-2016, 08:58 AM
I didn't say abnormalities. There's no reason I'm aware of that sociopaths must exist outside the range of normal human physiology. Some of us are emotional people. Some of us are less so. There are extremes on both ends.

But that is kind of the point. That inner life is not open to science. A man on the extreme end of being sociopathic will not have the same empathetic or compassionate sense that we do. And that we can not know - unless of course he tells us. Apart from that his mind (inner life) is a black box.

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 09:10 AM
But that is kind of the point. That inner life is not open to science. A man on the extreme end of being sociopathic will not have the same empathetic or compassionate sense that we do. And that we can not know - unless of course he tells us. Apart from that his mind (inner life) is a black box.

And yet, we know a lot about how sociopaths function. Psychology has been a thing for a while. You don't have to take apart the motor while it's still running to know more or less how it works. The particulars can be examined after the fact. I don't think 'science' is useable as a blanket term the way you tend to use it.

seer
04-08-2016, 09:15 AM
And yet, we know a lot about how sociopaths function. Psychology has been a thing for a while. You don't have to take apart the motor while it's still running to know more or less how it works. The particulars can be examined after the fact. I don't think 'science' is useable as a blanket term the way you tend to use it.

Yet, you would really know nothing about sociopath's inner mental state unless he told you or betrayed in a physical act.

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 09:28 AM
Yet, you would really know nothing about sociopath's inner mental state unless he told you or betrayed in a physical act.

Who says I have to?

seer
04-08-2016, 09:49 AM
Who says I have to?

Again, that is the point. There is something in the universe that is not open to science. Hence physicalism may not be true.

Trout
04-08-2016, 09:52 AM
As troll threads go, this is a heavy fail. People keep on posting interesting responses.

I'm giving you the +1 point I just got from Gerbil.Gerbil and I left a steaming pile of beaten atheists here years ago, our legacy still stands.

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 09:53 AM
Again, that is the point. There is something in the universe that is not open to science. Hence physicalism may not be true.

:doh:

That's not how it works.

seer
04-08-2016, 10:03 AM
:doh:

That's not how it works.

Please explain how science can determine the inner life of a man.

seer
04-08-2016, 10:04 AM
Gerbil and I left a steaming pile of beaten atheists here years ago, our legacy still stands.

A legend in your own mind! :wink:

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 10:10 AM
Again, that is the point. There is something in the universe that is not open to science. Hence physicalism may not be true.
Five hundred years ago the dark side of the moon wasn't open to science.
That doesn't mean the dark side of the moon was extra-physical.

If you were making this argument 10,000 years ago would you be a cavemen arguing that thunder must be of supernatural origin since they've no science to measure it?

In short, I'm a theist and I'm finding this line of reasoning to be problematic.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 10:11 AM
A legend in your own mind! :wink:
You don't see any mentally competent atheists around here, do you?
Q.E.D.

seer
04-08-2016, 10:19 AM
If you were making this argument 10,000 years ago would you be a cavemen arguing that thunder must be of supernatural origin since they've no science to measure it?

In short, I'm a theist and I'm finding this line of reasoning to be problematic.

This may not be like that at all. And I'm not claiming a super-nature event. Let me go at it this way. What is my favorite color? My favorite food (OK that is easy, bacon is everybody's favorite food)? My favorite landscape? Can science examine my brain and divine that? No, those are first person experiences or knowledge - qualia.

Juvenal
04-08-2016, 10:20 AM
Enduring years of lies has turned me into a caricature.

Disregarding the sentiment for a moment, as prose, that's freaking beautiful. Sure, it could be tightened, but I can hear Pete Seeger spinning that into lyric in his grave.

Props, rodent.


Good for you - the hyperbole that this is a nasty election cycle is just media selling newspapers.
My wife read a book about the election of ~1894.
They were a bit nastier back then.

I seem to recall Adams trying to get Jefferson arrested before an election back when.*


Perhaps after you get accustomed to the idea you'll feel more comfortable expanding upon it.
Regardless, I think it is a pretty significant step in my general direction.
I award myself +1 points.

Thanks for the PM.


I think I've made a significant step in your direction in as much as I'm now as equally offended at the Bible worshipping Christians of the West as I am of the Icon/Relic worshipping Christians of the East. Furthermore, I am not content with those forms that place the answer to all questions/the receipt of all rewards in the after-life. I think most of the propositions that an initiate is expected to pretend to understand and embrace in the Christian faith are idiotic(1). If God isn't here with me now than He is nowhere. The upshot of that is that God has to be real for me right now and that eternity has to be a continuation of that reality.

Oddly, for much the same reasons, I find myself less and less offended by Christians as the years go by. I know Jed thinks I've become harsher, and a couple of other posters have said the same, so it's probably fair to say it likely doesn't come off that way. I don't know. Where's the guy who can be a fair judge of themselves?

But look at Sparko's post about his dad the way I see it. His dad turned his life around, gave Sparko a chance to have a relationship I've only heard about, influenced his community for the better, and gave Sparko himself a hope that passes his understanding, that's likely going to last him the rest of his life.

I can't find anything not to like about that.

Because God doesn't exist, there's nothing to credit there? That it's all turned out right for the wrong reason? How could that possibly matter?

I'm not that inhuman. I feel joy for him.


Let's stop with all the theoretical nonsense and see this thing work.
Testing is ongoing.
I think that awards you +1 points.


Those credits cannot be transferred.... to Trout.

Can I give that point to Kurt?


Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.” — Kurt Vonnegut




* There's nothing like tossing an obvious mistake into your post to get someone else to do the research.

That term is not permitted

One Bad Pig
04-08-2016, 10:20 AM
You don't see any mentally competent atheists around here, do you?
Q.E.D.
I miss LakeGeorgeMan.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 10:20 AM
Please explain how science can determine the inner life of a man.
I don't grant that the inner man exists (1).
You cannot prove it exists because by definition it is unmeasurable by science.

So your claim is that the unmeasurable is in fact unmeasurable and that it proves the unmeasurable exists.



NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I believe the extra physical exists. I cannot prove it. I wouldn't use my lack of ability to measure it as proof it exists.

Trout
04-08-2016, 10:22 AM
A legend in your own mind! :wink:
I appreciate the compliment. Let me check in with firstfloor to see if my mind really exists though.

Juvenal
04-08-2016, 10:23 AM
Gerbil and I left a steaming pile of beaten atheists here years ago, our legacy still stands.

I certainly remember the "leaving" part, but to be honest, I'm happy to let that legacy fade away.

Sparko
04-08-2016, 10:23 AM
Gerbil and I left a steaming pile of beaten atheists here years ago, our legacy still stands.I still remember the fun we three had during the tweb banning auction over at Reggie's forum. I notice it closed down shortly after that.

Trout
04-08-2016, 10:24 AM
I still remember the fun we three had during the tweb banning auction over at Reggie's forum. I notice it closed down shortly after that.

Its taoist's fault.

seer
04-08-2016, 10:25 AM
I don't grant that the inner man exists (1).
You cannot prove it exists because by definition it is unmeasurable by science.

So your claim is that the unmeasurable is in fact unmeasurable and that it proves the unmeasurable exists.



NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I believe the extra physical exists. I cannot prove it. I wouldn't use my lack of ability to measure it as proof it exists.

See post 177.

Sparko
04-08-2016, 10:26 AM
I don't grant that the inner man exists (1).
You cannot prove it exists because by definition it is unmeasurable by science.

So your claim is that the unmeasurable is in fact unmeasurable and that it proves the unmeasurable exists.



NOTES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I believe the extra physical exists. I cannot prove it. I wouldn't use my lack of ability to measure it as proof it exists.

As a comedian you know that humor exists, yet it is not physical, but it is measurable.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 10:27 AM
Can I give that point to Kurt?
Kurt is the only reason I have books from 20th century American authors on my shelf.

Juvenal
04-08-2016, 10:27 AM
This thread moves too fast.

seer
04-08-2016, 10:28 AM
Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.” — Kurt Vonnegut

And from what I remember Vonnegut was a grade A dick.

Seer, please review decorum rules on language .

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 10:29 AM
And from what I remember Vonnegut was a grade A dick .
He'd be comfortable with that assessment.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 10:31 AM
As a comedian you know that humor exists, yet it is not physical, but it is measurable.
Gallagher says otherwise:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErppAlOIGQE

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 10:31 AM
Please explain how science can determine the inner life of a man.

Again, who says it has to?

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 10:34 AM
This thread moves too fast.
Hey guys, let's slow down so the nappy haired fellow in beach sandals can catch up.

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 10:36 AM
This thread moves too fast.

:whip:

Trout
04-08-2016, 10:36 AM
First book I ever read was Breakfast of Champions.

I wish it wasn't.

seer
04-08-2016, 10:39 AM
He'd be comfortable with that assessment.

Then he is not practicing what he preached according to lao tzu's quote.

seer
04-08-2016, 10:39 AM
Again, who says it has to?

Then you agree that this is something that science can not determine.

rogue06
04-08-2016, 10:40 AM
First book I ever read was Breakfast of Champions.

I wish it wasn't.
Cereal boxes aren't books :no:

14708

I read Machiavelli's The Prince and Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil shortly after turning 11 (or was it 12?). And folks wonder why I'm screwed up. Then again, perhaps they don't.

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 10:46 AM
Then you agree that this is something that science can not determine.

No. I think you're using 'science' improperly and insisting on a bar that doesn't exist in practice.

seer
04-08-2016, 10:51 AM
Cereal boxes aren't books :no:

14708

Since when? :huh:

seer
04-08-2016, 10:53 AM
No. I think you're using 'science' improperly and insisting on a bar that doesn't exist in practice.

How so? If materialism is true shouldn't everything be open to scientific understanding or investigation?

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 11:28 AM
How so? If materialism is true shouldn't everything be open to scientific understanding or investigation?
Not necessarily as we may simply not have the means or understanding required to investigate something.
Our inability to detect sub atomic particles 500 years ago doesn't mean those sub atomic particles were non-physical.

Being open to investigation isn't the same as being possible to investigate, that is, sub atomic particles may be open to investigation but we only recently became possible to investigate them.
The burden would be on you to prove the consciousness is not open to investigation instead of merely being out of range of our capabilities to investigate at this time.

seer
04-08-2016, 11:53 AM
Not necessarily as we may simply not have the means or understanding required to investigate something.
Our inability to detect sub atomic particles 500 years ago doesn't mean those sub atomic particles were non-physical.

Being open to investigation isn't the same as being possible to investigate, that is, sub atomic particles may be open to investigation but we only recently became possible to investigate them.
The burden would be on you to prove the consciousness is not open to investigation instead of merely being out of range of our capabilities to investigate at this time.

You said:


If you were making this argument 10,000 years ago would you be a cavemen arguing that thunder must be of supernatural origin since they've no science to measure it?

In short, I'm a theist and I'm finding this line of reasoning to be problematic.

I said:


This may not be like that at all. And I'm not claiming a super-nature event. Let me go at it this way. What is my favorite color? My favorite food (OK that is easy, bacon is everybody's favorite food)? My favorite landscape? Can science examine my brain and divine that? No, those are first person experiences or knowledge - qualia.

Check this short piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32m969xUlNk&nohtml5=False

And remember Chalmers is an atheist.

Carrikature
04-08-2016, 11:55 AM
How so? If materialism is true shouldn't everything be open to scientific understanding or investigation?

For one thing, it has to be reproducible to be testable. We're getting better at drawing information from large sample sizes, but that tends to show us correlation only. For another, science is better used as a framework upon which to investigate individual pieces. Natural selection is a framework. It won't necessarily tell you which species is going to win out long term, though. Likewise, we can understand the framework of rewards in the brain, but that doesn't mean we can know which activities will be rewarded in your brain. We can come up with generalizations, but specifics take observation. Not everyone likes bacon, but we still know that fattier foods taste better to most people.

Christianbookworm
04-08-2016, 11:58 AM
Pretty biased quiz, but I got:

You Are Very Skeptical

Your personal motto is: "Prove it."
While some ideas, like life after death, may seem nice...
You aren't going to believe them simply because it feels good.
You let science and facts be your guide... Even if it means you don't share the beliefs of those around you.

I got very skeptical also. Doesn't hurt that the majority of the questions were about stuff that Christians would consider bunk/potentially dangerous.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 12:03 PM
This may not be like that at all. And I'm not claiming a super-nature event. Let me go at it this way. What is my favorite color? My favorite food (OK that is easy, bacon is everybody's favorite food)? My favorite landscape? Can science examine my brain and divine that? No, those are first person experiences or knowledge - qualia.
I think we could agree that a lie is something akin to a preference in that it is a state of truthfulness which is non-physical.

That said, according to this article scientists are beginning to detect lies using physical measurements:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15744871

Perhaps preferences (for bacon) are stored in the brain.
The smell of bacon is associated with a happy memory (1) while hot dogs trigger sad memories (2).
You don't actually recall the memories beyond a vague feeling of happiness, hence the preference.



NOTES
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Susie Pommet had a bacon grease soaked moustache the first time she let you kiss her.
2: Your dad used to flog you with hot dogs. They were actually bratwurst but I don't want my point to be derailed by Godwin's Law.

37818
04-08-2016, 12:15 PM
As a whole it all comes down to a matter of truth. If God is not Cod, that there being no God, my beliefs only have any value now in this life. When I am dead it will not likely make any difference to me. Most likely will not know it.

But if what I believe is true. Me not believing it would be very bad, not just for me, but maybe others I would fail to warn.

Meh Gerbil
04-08-2016, 12:20 PM
If God is not Cod...
Up until this point I'd taken your designation as 'Nontraditional' with a side of lemon butter.

firstfloor
04-08-2016, 12:56 PM
That is the point FF. I'm not worried about the Matrix, but we can not logically justify our experience of the external world. You have nothing except your personal experience. Everything you know or think you know is filtered through your subjective mind.This might interest you.

https://www.auburn.edu/~marcuea/zombies.pdf

“[WHY ZOMBIES ARE INCONCEIVABLE - Eric Marcus
I argue that zombies are inconceivable. More precisely, I argue that the conceivability-intuition that is used to demonstrate their possibility has been misconstrued. Thought experiments alleged to feature zombies founder on the fact that, on the one hand, they must involve first-person imagining, and yet, on the other hand, cannot. Philosophers who take themselves to have imagined zombies have unwittingly conflated imagining a creature who lacks consciousness with imagining a creature without also imagining the conscious-ness it may or may not possess.]”

seer
04-08-2016, 01:03 PM
This might interest you.

https://www.auburn.edu/~marcuea/zombies.pdf

“[WHY ZOMBIES ARE INCONCEIVABLE - Eric Marcus
I argue that zombies are inconceivable. More precisely, I argue that the conceivability-intuition that is used to demonstrate their possibility has been misconstrued. Thought experiments alleged to feature zombies founder on the fact that, on the one hand, they must involve first-person imagining, and yet, on the other hand, cannot. Philosophers who take themselves to have imagined zombies have unwittingly conflated imagining a creature who lacks consciousness with imagining a creature without also imagining the conscious-ness it may or may not possess.]”

FF, that does not change anything I said about logically justifying our experience of the external world. And if you don't like zombies you can use sociopaths like I mentioned earlier.

And if you don't like Zombies try the bat: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf

firstfloor
04-08-2016, 02:31 PM
FF, that does not change anything I said about logically justifying our experience of the external world. And if you don't like zombies you can use sociopaths like I mentioned earlier.

And if you don't like Zombies try the bat: http://organizations.utep.edu/Portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdfNagel argues that the inner experience of a brain is truly knowable only to that brain. He goes for a very extreme position (truly) but in practice it is not the stumbling block you suppose because brains, particularly brains like your own can be interrogated in great detail because they are programmed with a common language and they share the world with other brains. A bat brain cannot be interrogated in the same way.

http://chronicle.com/article/Where-Thomas-Nagel-Went-Wrong/139129/

Sea of red
04-08-2016, 02:40 PM
That's the $64 question.

It seems that some are born with an apriori knowledge of the existence of the Divine.

Some become believers from a near death event.

Some become believers after a miraculous happening

Some become believers after they receive some kind of communication from God.

Some become believers after an answered prayer.

I'm sure there are many other ways to come to theism.

The bottom line seems to be some kind of missing puzzle piece that suddenly or slowly appears.

Does that make any sense?
Then it sounds like it's completely out of an individuals hands as to whether he is 'saved' or not. If we are not all given the same evidence then that's Gods fault, not the human race. As Steven Weinberg once said: "if there is a God, he has gone to great pains to hide himself, and the one truth".

What you described are anecdotes that are not very useful to someone trying to seek knowledge of God. If God wants people to know him, then maybe he should make himself more apparent to the world - and not just a select group. He could settle so much if he'd just reveal himself to us like he did to all of the figures in the Bible.

Sea of red
04-08-2016, 02:44 PM
I still remember the fun we three had during the tweb banning auction over at Reggie's forum. I notice it closed down shortly after that.
Yeah, I used to be a member of IG and it's cousin forum AtheistForums. The threads by Trout and Gerbil are actually what brought me here

Trout
04-08-2016, 02:57 PM
Then it sounds like it's completely out of an individuals hands as to whether he is 'saved' or not. If we are not all given the same evidence then that's Gods fault, not the human race. As Steven Weinberg once said: "if there is a God, he has gone to great pains to hide himself, and the one truth".

I couldn't agree more.

My father was an atheist, quite vociferous and opinionated. He would sit us down and have us watch Cosmos as Carl Sagan narrated. It was like church. He saw God in absolutely nothing.

He had an experience with God at some point, which he is still quite private about, that changed him. Now he sees God in everything.

So it seems, God hides in plain sight.


What you described are anecdotes that are not very useful to someone trying to seek knowledge of God. If God wants people to know him, then maybe he should make himself more apparent to the world - and not just a select group. He could settle so much if he'd just reveal himself to us like he did to all of the figures in the Bible.
Also good points.

However, perhaps God reveals himself to those he chooses? Not that we're positioned in this thread to talk coherently about the Bible, but I have to think that he revealed himself to only a tiny fraction of the population biblically speaking, perhaps a smaller percentage than he does today?

37818
04-08-2016, 07:26 PM
Up until this point I'd taken your designation as 'Nontraditional' with a side of lemon butter.

Aside from the fact that God cannot cease from being God. The only way there would be no God is if God was not God.

To be an atheist, knowing what God is, without being a pantheist, would have to deny existence itself. God being essentially the uncaused existence behind all things that exist. To say God does not exist, with that understanding of who and what God is, is no different than if to say there is no existence. All caused existences are contingent on the uncaused existence Who is God.

shunyadragon
04-09-2016, 04:55 AM
Aside from the fact that God cannot cease from being God.

Anecdotal assertion! IF a Source some call God(s) exists.



The only way there would be no God is if God was not God.

Yes, it is a possibility that 'not God' is true.


To be an atheist, knowing what God is, without being a pantheist, . . .

Pantheism is another word for atheism describing the universe as God.


. . . would have to deny existence itself. God being essentially the uncaused existence behind all things that exist. To say God does not exist, with that understanding of who and what God is, is no different than if to say there is no existence. All caused existences are contingent on the uncaused existence Who is God.

Your biting yourself in the butt again 'begging the questions . . ., 'God exists because God exists.'

Juvenal
04-09-2016, 08:20 AM
Its taoist's fault.

I'm not going to feed your amen jones, but yes, I did see what you did there.

Trout
04-09-2016, 09:17 AM
I'm not going to feed your amen jones, but yes, I did see what you did there.

Potty mouth

Trout
04-09-2016, 09:18 AM
Aside from the fact that God cannot cease from being God. The only way there would be no God is if God was not God.

To be an atheist, knowing what God is, without being a pantheist, would have to deny existence itself. God being essentially the uncaused existence behind all things that exist. To say God does not exist, with that understanding of who and what God is, is no different than if to say there is no existence. All caused existences are contingent on the uncaused existence Who is God.

Posts like this one make me want to be an atheist

37818
04-09-2016, 08:00 PM
There is an uncaused existence.

If that is not God, of course there is none.

I'll explain this again in some other words. If there is no God and I believe in this non existent God. When I'm dead it is not likely I will know that I was wrong. On the other hand, if the uncaused existence is God, as I believe His Name means the Self-Existent, and should I not believe in Him, then I would be toast, as a matter of speaking, and know this for all eternity. And I would not be in a position to warn anyone.

37818
04-10-2016, 08:19 AM
Aside from the fact that God cannot cease from being God. The only way there would be no God is if God was not God.

To be an atheist, knowing what God is, without being a pantheist, would have to deny existence itself. God being essentially the uncaused existence behind all things that exist. To say God does not exist, with that understanding of who and what God is, is no different than if to say there is no existence. All caused existences are contingent on the uncaused existence Who is God.

Posts like this one make me want to be an atheistWhy? And how is it you remain a Christian?

shunyadragon
04-10-2016, 10:43 AM
Why? And how is it you remain a Christian?

Not with contorted circular logic. You remain what you believe by faith, and not self-justified misuse of logic.

Teallaura
04-10-2016, 06:39 PM
Because I'm pretty sure God exists.
Just pretty sure? I know God exists. :yes:




Not so sure about Canada, however... :noid:

37818
04-10-2016, 07:31 PM
Not with contorted circular logic. You remain what you believe by faith, and not self-justified misuse of logic.And this is as you believe.

Sparko
04-11-2016, 06:52 AM
Yeah, I used to be a member of IG and it's cousin forum AtheistForums. The threads by Trout and Gerbil are actually what brought me here

Not mine? :bawl:

shunyadragon
04-11-2016, 07:55 AM
And this is as you believe.

As I believe? You need to better than that. I present my case by actual citations of metacrock's posts, and not what I believe. I am still waiting for coherent rational rebuttal why these are not logical fallacies, but substantial coherent responses do not appear to be forthcoming.

37818
04-11-2016, 12:16 PM
As I believe? You need to better than that. I present my case by actual citations of metacrock's posts, and not what I believe. I am still waiting for coherent rational rebuttal why these are not logical fallacies, but substantial coherent responses do not appear to be forthcoming.My responce was to your responce to my comment. Again, your arguments are according to your underetandings and beliefs. Now if you want to deal with one specific.

Meh Gerbil
04-11-2016, 12:24 PM
Not mine? :bawl:
Trout and I brought them here, you're why they stick around. :smile:

Carrikature
04-11-2016, 04:03 PM
However, perhaps God reveals himself to those he chooses? Not that we're positioned in this thread to talk coherently about the Bible, but I have to think that he revealed himself to only a tiny fraction of the population biblically speaking, perhaps a smaller percentage than he does today?

I always need an answer to 'why'. I could accept the idea of an elect of which I'm not counted, but I don't understand why I would be excluded.

seer
04-11-2016, 04:15 PM
I could accept the idea of an elect of which I'm not counted, but I don't understand why I would be excluded.

You smell funny? :shrug: Though it may be that God reveals himself more fully to those He knows will respond positively.

Carrikature
04-11-2016, 08:57 PM
You smell funny? :shrug: Though it may be that God reveals himself more fully to those He knows will respond positively.

This is a common enough answer. I find it to be utter rubbish. God can show you what you need to convert, but he won't show me what I need to convert? "But free will!" the Christian says, to which I'll point out that if free will isn't violated by your experience, it won't be by mine.

Far better, and more honest (imo), to not attempt a rationalization.

seer
04-12-2016, 05:13 AM
This is a common enough answer. I find it to be utter rubbish. God can show you what you need to convert, but he won't show me what I need to convert? "But free will!" the Christian says, to which I'll point out that if free will isn't violated by your experience, it won't be by mine.

Far better, and more honest (imo), to not attempt a rationalization.

Yes and that is your opinion. How do you know you would not find God repulsive? What you need for conversion is Him - and that is the very thing that you may reject. Which would cause you greater condemnation. Having said that - your life if not over, you still have hope.

37818
04-12-2016, 05:44 AM
This is a common enough answer. I find it to be utter rubbish. God can show you what you need to convert, but he won't show me what I need to convert? "But free will!" the Christian says, to which I'll point out that if free will isn't violated by your experience, it won't be by mine.

Far better, and more honest (imo), to not attempt a rationalization.

Actually, through a writing of an Apostle citing claims attributed to Jesus as the Christ, there is a way to know from God. When was the last time you read the gospel account according to John? The means is found in that writing.

Sparko
04-12-2016, 06:04 AM
This is a common enough answer. I find it to be utter rubbish. God can show you what you need to convert, but he won't show me what I need to convert? "But free will!" the Christian says, to which I'll point out that if free will isn't violated by your experience, it won't be by mine.

Far better, and more honest (imo), to not attempt a rationalization.

He still might. I didn't become a Christian until I was almost 40 years old.

Do you WANT to believe in God? Or do you want to believe there is no God?

Not asking what you DO believe about God, but what you want to believe? Do you think the universe is better with a God or without?

Meh Gerbil
04-12-2016, 06:31 AM
He still might. I didn't become a Christian until I was almost 40 years old.
Do you WANT to believe in God? Or do you want to believe there is no God?
Not asking what you DO believe about God, but what you want to believe? Do you think the universe is better with a God or without?
For right or for wrong I've a tendency to shy away from these sorts of questions.

From the atheist perspective 'God' is undefined and even if the atheist acquiesces to your particular definition the question is overloaded with the baggage of two thousand years of utter foolishness. The thinking goes like this: If I do believe in 'God' I will get sucked into an entirely ridiculous world view wherein I either end up kissing the pope's ring finger for my salvation or decrying the pope as antichrist while I protest the funerals of homosexuals.

The baggage of Christianity alone is enough to make the question "Do you believe in God?" a horrifying consideration.

I think legalistic Christians and atheists (in fact, all people) have basically the same problem.
They all have to be willing to set the ego down long enough for God to reveal Himself as He exists.
I think that approach fosters curiosity and humility.

Sparko
04-12-2016, 06:56 AM
For right or for wrong I've a tendency to shy away from these sorts of questions.

From the atheist perspective 'God' is undefined and even if the atheist acquiesces to your particular definition the question is overloaded with the baggage of two thousand years of utter foolishness. The thinking goes like this: If I do believe in 'God' I will get sucked into an entirely ridiculous world view wherein I either end up kissing the pope's ring finger for my salvation or decrying the pope as antichrist while I protest the funerals of homosexuals.

The baggage of Christianity alone is enough to make the question "Do you believe in God?" a horrifying consideration.

I think legalistic Christians and atheists (in fact, all people) have basically the same problem.
They all have to be willing to set the ego down long enough for God to reveal Himself as He exists.
I think that approach fosters curiosity and humility.
Well even if your thinking is what is going through Car's brain, it answers my question. If someone doesn't WANT to believe in God, then they won't. They will do everything in their power to avoid "getting sucked in" - and therefore they can't expect God to knock on their door and say "here I am" because even if he did, they would turn away and deny it happened. You first have to be open to the idea of God before you can recognize any calling by Him. If you unplug your phone, you aren't going to get any calls.

Meh Gerbil
04-12-2016, 07:19 AM
Well even if your thinking is what is going through Car's brain, it answers my question. If someone doesn't WANT to believe in God, then they won't. They will do everything in their power to avoid "getting sucked in" - and therefore they can't expect God to knock on their door and say "here I am" because even if he did, they would turn away and deny it happened. You first have to be open to the idea of God before you can recognize any calling by Him. If you unplug your phone, you aren't going to get any calls.How do you square this with Paul's conversion?

I cannot say who has the correct view on this issue, again, as I usually do on this forum I'm just spit ballin'.

Key verses for me are '[you] are dead in your sins' and '[you] are slaves to sin'.
It seems to me the atheist may not have the ability to open himself up to anything.
To my way of thinking 'It is too painful, too uncertain, too weird to believe in God' seems less arrogant than 'I mustered enough strength to open myself up to God and give the ole' boy a fair shot'.

As for the sucked in comment all I was suggesting there was that 'Do you believe in God?' is question that carries the weight of more than simply acknowledging a God exists - the implications are enormous. For many atheists answering that question in the affirmative means utterly abandoning logic and science because, let's be honest, in America we have some truly nutty believers and they make belief in God look like a renunciation of one's brain.

Sparko
04-12-2016, 07:29 AM
How do you square this with Paul's conversion?

I cannot say who has the correct view on this issue, again, as I usually do on this forum I'm just spit ballin'.

Key verses for me are '[you] are dead in your sins' and '[you] are slaves to sin'.
It seems to me the atheist may not have the ability to open himself up to anything.
To my way of thinking 'It is too painful, too uncertain, too weird to believe in God' seems less arrogant than 'I mustered enough strength to open myself up to God and give the ole' boy a fair shot'.

As for the sucked in comment all I was suggesting there was that 'Do you believe in God?' is question that carries the weight of more than simply acknowledging a God exists - the implications are enormous. For many atheists answering that question in the affirmative means utterly abandoning logic and science because, let's be honest, in America we have some truly nutty believers and they make belief in God look like a renunciation of one's brain.

Well I think Paul was a special case. I haven't heard of too many Damascus road type conversions, have you? Besides, Paul already believed in God and was indeed open to him. He just needed a kick in the head to realize that Jesus was the Messiah.

I think God can show himself to someone, but if they are determined to not believe, then he won't force them. Usually. Remember the story of the rich man and Lazarus, when the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to convince his relatives? ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’

Carrikature
04-12-2016, 08:03 AM
Yes and that is your opinion. How do you know you would not find God repulsive? What you need for conversion is Him - and that is the very thing that you may reject. Which would cause you greater condemnation. Having said that - your life if not over, you still have hope.

If he's anything like what he's claimed to be, I have no idea why anyone would find him repulsive.

seer
04-12-2016, 08:15 AM
If he's anything like what he's claimed to be, I have no idea why anyone would find him repulsive.

Really? You don't find His judgments in the Old and New Testaments troubling? I do however think it is his Holiness or moral purity (not His grace) that would be the problem. Like I said in the other thread when I encountered God (as I believe I did) it was both dreadful and wonderful. Then there is the whole pride thing - i.e. no gods no masters - I believe that runs deeper in our nature than we realize. That is why often a man must come to an end of himself, or really be up against it, before he is humbled enough to open the door.

Carrikature
04-12-2016, 08:53 AM
He still might. I didn't become a Christian until I was almost 40 years old.

Do you WANT to believe in God? Or do you want to believe there is no God?

Not asking what you DO believe about God, but what you want to believe? Do you think the universe is better with a God or without?

I think what you've presented is a pretty common false dichotomy. The reality is that I don't have a 'want' either way. Frankly, I think people who want are going to find whatever they're 'seeking', but I've put that term in scare quotes on purpose. They're seeking reasons to believe what they want in the guise of seeking truth. I can think of one person on this board in particular that I'm relatively sure this describes.

I would like to know the truth. If that means God exists, so be it. If it means God doesn't exist, that's fine, too. Likewise, I think the universe is. I don't think the existence of a god (or gods) changes what it is at all. Finding out about its/their existence changes my understanding of what is. It's not a matter of 'it would be better if', in my opinion.

Let me point out that there are lots of ideas about what god(s) might exist. Nothing says it's a good one, or one that cares about humanity at all. Nothing says it's an evil one that glories in our destruction, either. The questions don't stop at 'is there a god?", but they at least take a huge step in the right direction.

You ever turn onto a road where you don't really know if you're supposed to go right or left? You make a best guess and go with it, and you keep driving until you decide you're wrong or find something that tells you you're wrong. I've made a best guess. I'd like to find out if I'm headed the wrong way sooner rather than later, but so far I haven't seen a sign.

Sparko
04-12-2016, 09:01 AM
I think what you've presented is a pretty common false dichotomy. The reality is that I don't have a 'want' either way. Frankly, I think people who want are going to find whatever they're 'seeking', but I've put that term in scare quotes on purpose. They're seeking reasons to believe what they want in the guise of seeking truth. I can think of one person on this board in particular that I'm relatively sure this describes.

I would like to know the truth. If that means God exists, so be it. If it means God doesn't exist, that's fine, too. Likewise, I think the universe is. I don't think the existence of a god (or gods) changes what it is at all. Finding out about its/their existence changes my understanding of what is. It's not a matter of 'it would be better if', in my opinion.

Let me point out that there are lots of ideas about what god(s) might exist. Nothing says it's a good one, or one that cares about humanity at all. Nothing says it's an evil one that glories in our destruction, either. The questions don't stop at 'is there a god?", but they at least take a huge step in the right direction.

You ever turn onto a road where you don't really know if you're supposed to go right or left? You make a best guess and go with it, and you keep driving until you decide you're wrong or find something that tells you you're wrong. I've made a best guess. I'd like to find out if I'm headed the wrong way sooner rather than later, but so far I haven't seen a sign.I understand what you are saying, and I think you are open to there being a God. That is good. There are actually people who hate the idea of religion and God completely and do not want there to be a God. I would put Richard Dawkins in that category, and here on tweb, probably FirstFloor and Tassman. I think if God ever did show himself to them, they would spit in his face.

Carrikature
04-12-2016, 09:09 AM
Really? You don't find His judgments in the Old and New Testaments troubling? I do however think it is his Holiness or moral purity (not His grace) that would be the problem. Like I said in the other thread when I encountered God (as I believe I did) it was both dreadful and wonderful. Then there is the whole pride thing - i.e. no gods no masters - I believe that runs deeper in our nature than we realize. That is why often a man must come to an end of himself, or really be up against it, before he is humbled enough to open the door.

Again, if God is anything like is claimed, I don't think there's a problem. If my dwarf friend can come to terms with the fact that she wouldn't have survived infancy if OT laws were still kept, the rest of us can probably figure out a way to deal with anything we don't particularly like or understand. "I don't have to understand it" is a useful mantra.

seer
04-12-2016, 09:10 AM
Again, if God is anything like is claimed, I don't think there's a problem. If my dwarf friend can come to terms with the fact that she wouldn't have survived infancy if OT laws were still kept, the rest of us can probably figure out a way to deal with anything we don't particularly like or understand. "I don't have to understand it" is a useful mantra.

OK, perhaps you are on your way then...

Carrikature
04-12-2016, 09:24 AM
I understand what you are saying, and I think you are open to there being a God. That is good. There are actually people who hate the idea of religion and God completely and do not want there to be a God. I would put Richard Dawkins in that category, and here on tweb, probably FirstFloor and Tassman. I think if God ever did show himself to them, they would spit in his face.

You might be right. I actually think that the idea of religion is often conflated with the idea of God. The religion seems to be the actual source of hate. Understandably so, in some cases. There have been a lot of bad things that came out of religions. I just find the common denominator to be 'humans' not 'religion'.

Sparko
04-12-2016, 09:44 AM
You might be right. I actually think that the idea of religion is often conflated with the idea of God. The religion seems to be the actual source of hate. Understandably so, in some cases. There have been a lot of bad things that came out of religions. I just find the common denominator to be 'humans' not 'religion'.

yup. Even though I know Christianity is the only true religion :smug: I know there a a lot of people that abuse it and give it a bad name. Christianity is about Christ, not about his followers, but the world sees the followers and sometimes they cringe. As do I.