OK James, you said you would take the part of the honest theist. I'll ask some simple questions, and we'll see if you can answer then honestly.

My first question:

"Could you describe your God to me please?"

Awww! That ought to be interesting!

http://www.weirdspace.dk/SouthPark/Graphics/God.gif

i didn't realize james r was a theist.

so phlog, do you think i'm dishonest? and by that i mean, less honest than you are, of course.

"Could you describe your God to me please?"
how can one describe something indescribable?
..you already know this..so why are you asking?

next question.


('I don't know' is perfectly honest)




<what,you don't think i'm honest?>

James isn't a theist.

James isn't a theist.

Then how can he answer phlog's question?

how can one describe something indescribable?
..you already know this..so why are you asking?If you cannot describe, in any way at all, something you profess to believe in then why do you believe in it?

how can one describe something indescribable?
..you already know this..so why are you asking?

next question.


('I don't know' is perfectly honest)




<what,you don't think i'm honest?>

God's not indescribable. For example, he's not in the box.

God's not indescribable. For example, he's not in the box.

what he is not, is easy..

(i think phlo got me on ignore..:poke:)

what he is not, is easy..

(i think phlo got me on ignore..:poke:)

How do you know he is outside the box?

Yeah phlog who is apparently an expert on theists probably has most of us on ignore.

If you cannot describe, in any way at all, something you profess to believe in then why do you believe in it?

because I want to believe.

Phlog didn't start this thread because he's sincerely interested in an answer. He started it because james gave him a warning for saying he's never met an honest theist. Which all considered, pretty much makes him full of shit, and a hypocrite.

OK James, you said you would take the part of the honest theist. I'll ask some simple questions, and we'll see if you can answer then honestly.

My first question:

"Could you describe your God to me please?"

Im god . I am 6' one half inches tall . I can kill a Man 150 different ways . My word is my bond and I do contracts with a hand shake . If you don't live up you pay consequences. Not only do I enforce the rule nut , all the people that support Me enforce the rule . I am the house that Jack built . Made by humanity but not with there hands . It was a pharaohs wish. The promise is another name for it . I lived up too the wish because my word is my bond. It is not smart to cross me only because my word is my bond. You can say I am a honest Theist for My God my word is my bond

because I want to believe.In what? You can't assign any description to what you believe in? Do you realise how ridiculous and stupid that is, if taken literally?

What you mean to say is that you do have plenty of things to say in regards to describing what you believe but that doesn't completely describe what you believe. I hear plenty of Christians say their god can't be described yet they then talk about the god of the bible and his views and behaviour and intentions and attitudes. So clearly they can describe what they believe it sufficiently to distinguish it from other religions or Santa or unicorns or the creature from South Park posted further up in this thread.

If you literally cannot say anything, ANYTHING, about what you believe exists then you're either lying or an idiot.


Im god . I am 6' one half inches tall . I can kill a Man 150 different ways . My word is my bond and I do contracts with a hand shake . If you don't live up you pay consequences. Not only do I enforce the rule nut , all the people that support Me enforce the rule . I am the house that Jack built . Made by humanity but not with there hands . It was a pharaohs wish. The promise is another name for it . I lived up too the wish because my word is my bond. It is not smart to cross me only because my word is my bond. You can say I am a honest Theist for My God my word is my bondYou're either under the influence of medication/alcohol or in need of said medication. The fact you're always like this suggests you're either a massive addict or not taking enough medication. See a doctor.

In what? You can't assign any description to what you believe in? Do you realise how ridiculous and stupid that is, if taken literally?

What you mean to say is that you do have plenty of things to say in regards to describing what you believe but that doesn't completely describe what you believe. I hear plenty of Christians say their god can't be described yet they then talk about the god of the bible and his views and behaviour and intentions and attitudes. So clearly they can describe what they believe it sufficiently to distinguish it from other religions or Santa or unicorns or the creature from South Park posted further up in this thread.

If you literally cannot say anything, ANYTHING, about what you believe exists then you're either lying or an idiot.

You're either under the influence of medication/alcohol or in need of said medication. The fact you're always like this suggests you're either a massive addict or not taking enough medication. See a doctor.

God is about attributes . The fairy tale is about how to live . My word is my bond . It is an attribute of god. It is a life style. Your the one that needs medication if your thick skull can't understand that. . You say something and then you act and make it true . If you can't don't say it. Kids love it for it gives then stability in there life , which I might add is lacking in the word because people don't believe there word is there bond. You would be surprised how true those words are good or bad

You're either under the influence of medication/alcohol or in need of said medication. The fact you're always like this suggests you're either a massive addict or not taking enough medication. See a doctor.

just because you don't understand him doesn't mean he needs to see a fucking doctor. :mad:

...see a fucking doctor.
This is a kind of pornography? :D

This is a kind of pornography? :D

no, that would be a doctor fucking. :D

no, that would be a doctor fucking. :D
LOL Im sorry but I cannot stop laughing.

LOL Im sorry but I cannot stop laughing.

ah good! the best medicine!

just because you don't understand him doesn't mean he needs to see a fucking doctor. :mad:Does he sound coherent to you? Does he ever sound coherent? It's not a matter of spelling (though he gets your/you're and there/their mixed up) or English not being his first language, his manner of posting seems to imply he thinks in that manner. If someone struggles to hold even basic conversations then something is wrong.

Does he sound coherent to you? Does he ever sound coherent? It's not a matter of spelling (though he gets your/you're and there/their mixed up) or English not being his first language, his manner of posting seems to imply he thinks in that manner. If someone struggles to hold even basic conversations then something is wrong.

i don't understand a lot of what he says, but i do understand where he's coming from. i don't think it's drug-induced, and i don't think drugs are the answer.

there are things that some people go through that are so "out there" that it's nearly impossible to speak about them "coherently". that doesn't mean that they're sick, it just means you don't get it, and don't feel bad, because no one else does either. it was isolating and frustrating for me but i don't get the impression it is for mekigal.

Then how can he answer phlog's question?

He can't. Phlog is asking because James gave him a warning or something for suggesting there is no such thing as an honest theist. I guess he assumed james reacted negatively because he himself is a theist but alas he is not.

Does he sound coherent to you? Does he ever sound coherent? It's not a matter of spelling (though he gets your/you're and there/their mixed up) or English not being his first language, his manner of posting seems to imply he thinks in that manner. If someone struggles to hold even basic conversations then something is wrong.

You know I like to think of your a smart guy . You not understanding me worries Me. If you are best the human race has to offer in the way of the male species then man is one stupid animal . You don't have a clue do you. F--ck Alpha male all that math and still can't put it together. There is rhythm to it all dude. I don't know why you can't find it? You need a women to teach you is all I can say .

i didn't realize james r was a theist.


James isn't a theist.

For the purposes of this thread, I will argue the theist position to the best of my ability. I am quite happy for other people to participate too. My aim here is to show phlogistician that being a theist is not "unreasonable".

This thread was prompted by another one in which phlogistician was arguing essentially that theists shouldn't be given the time of day on sciforums.

phlogistician:


OK James, you said you would take the part of the honest theist. I'll ask some simple questions, and we'll see if you can answer then honestly.

My first question:

"Could you describe your God to me please?"

Yes.

God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. He is omniscient and omnipotent.

Perhaps you'd like me to go further than this and to take the line of a Christian. If so, I would also say that God is concerned with human beings. He sent his son, Jesus, to Earth to tell human beings about the kingdom of God and the hope of everlasting life in heaven. God listens to prayers. God is Good. God loves us.

Next.

. He sent his son, Jesus, to Earth to tell human beings about the kingdom of God and the hope of everlasting life in heaven. God listens to prayers. God is Good. God loves us.


hallelujah!
praise be to jesus for our brother has returned to the fold!
god is truly great!
welcome back brother james

This thread was prompted by another one in which phlogistician was arguing essentially that theists shouldn't be given the time of day on sciforums.


That sir, is a lie. Keep this shit up and I really will pursue having you demoted.

.

God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. He is omniscient and omnipotent.


God is a He?

God is a He?
yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_god)

For the purposes of this thread, I will argue the theist position to the best of my ability. I am quite happy for other people to participate too. My aim here is to show phlogistician that being a theist is not "unreasonable".

This thread was prompted by another one in which phlogistician was arguing essentially that theists shouldn't be given the time of day on sciforums.

no offense james, but how are you going show that any better than the real theists on this site?

his point was that theists are somehow inherently dishonest, but this thread is also inherently dishonest. the premise behind it, and also you pretending to be a theist.

:confused:

hey phlog,

would you please answer my question and clarify if, by "dishonest", do you actually mean "less honest than i am"?

or are you asserting that you're never dishonest?

In what? You can't assign any description to what you believe in?
any label i could use to describe what i believe God is, would limit him.


Do you realise how ridiculous and stupid that is, if taken literally?
depends if you listening for an argument or are seriously seeking answers.
i think the arguers ask a question then attacks the answer, the serious will ask more questions.which are you?


What you mean to say is that you do have plenty of things to say in regards to describing what you believe but that doesn't completely describe what you believe.
if i am reading that right..yes, what happens when too many things can describe God..and it still falls short of what/who God is..


I hear plenty of Christians say their god can't be described yet they then talk about the god of the bible and his views and behaviour and intentions and attitudes. So clearly they can describe what they believe it sufficiently to distinguish it from other religions or Santa or unicorns or the creature from South Park posted further up in this thread.

because ppl want to be told what to believe, its easier than to take responsibility for ones own beliefs.
religion capitalizes on this..
all religions have a common denominator,God.
the rest is man made..

AND
the term 'God of the bible' I have a prob with, it limits God.God is more than one book.
AND
there is a difference in describing what i believe, and describing God.
your original question was for me to describe God, not to describe what i believe.



If you literally cannot say anything, ANYTHING, about what you believe exists then you're either lying or an idiot.

so you are not seeking answers, you are only looking to judge and insult?

God is a He?

Now that you ask, no. God doesn't really have a gender because he is not a biological entity like a human being. He is, however, a person, and we're most comfortable referring to persons as "he" or "she". The convention in religious texts has traditionally been to refer to God using masculine pronouns and terms. But you don't need to think of him that way if you don't want to. You may prefer to think of him as a kind of disembodied spirit of indeterminate gender.

These questions are easy so far. Got any others?


no offense james, but how are you going show that any better than the real theists on this site?

I was invited into this thread by phlogistician. I did not set out to do this. I make no advance assumption that I'll do any better than the "real theists".


his point was that theists are somehow inherently dishonest, but this thread is also inherently dishonest. the premise behind it, and also you pretending to be a theist.

You can correct me any time you think I'm not saying what a real theist like you would say.

@James

But James if you, as a non-theist, argues for the theist world-view wouldn't Phlog only see this as an intellectual deception? Or a propaganda for other purposes leading him to conclude there really isn't such a thing as an 'honest theist'?:shrug:

As I told phlogistician in the thread that led to this one, I was once a theist myself, and I assert that I was also an honest one. He thinks that such a thing is impossible, and told me he would demonstrate as much in this thread.

There's no deception here. I'm not pretending to be something I'm not. I have said that I will give the best answers I can to phlogistician's questions from the point of view of a theist, as best I understand it. I'm not usurping theist's rights to speak for themselves. They are very welcome to contribute here if they wish, and to correct me if I am wrong about something.

You have heard the term "Devil's advocate", have you not?

You have heard the term "Devil's advocate", have you not?

Ok. :)

hey phlog,

would you please answer my question and clarify if, by "dishonest", do you actually mean "less honest than i am"?

or are you asserting that you're never dishonest?

Hi Lori, no, I'm not saying 'less honest than I am' that's James making some weak ad-homs and diversions. Of course I've been less than honest, I used to work in sales,....

But by 'dishonest' in this context, (and James was banging on about that in the thread that started this ball rolling) I mean that theists often hold beliefs that they cannot justify, and I think that is dishonest. You at least have had a convincing experience (even if I think you misinterpreted it), yet many just go along with what they have been told, without question. I find this latter approach, especially when coupled with proselytism, dishonest.

Now that you ask, no.

OK, each time you change your story, I'm going to have to ask you to restate your answer, re-worded to accommodate your newly found opinion.

This way we won't have to refer back to several posts to understand what it is you are declaring.

So please restate your answer using non-gender specific terms.

As I told phlogistician in the thread that led to this one, I was once a theist myself, and I assert that I was also an honest one. He thinks that such a thing is impossible, and told me he would demonstrate as much in this thread.

Ha, we need another thread for this perhaps. If you were an 'honest' theist, why did you change your mind?

God is like Dark Matter, or Dark Energy. One's intellect perceives an apparent effect of an Entity, but one does not have (and may never have) the full faculties (of perception) and evidence to describe it with much objective certainty (read concensus). In that vein, this life is short: one then has to put to full use whatever faculties are available given the potentially life changing stakes involved - among those faculties is faith. Faith that one is doing the best with their available faculties, in their belief in God. In the end, there's either God, nothing, or whatever else is predicted by some belief that one did not subscribe to. :shrug:

phlogistician:


OK, each time you change your story, I'm going to have to ask you to restate your answer, re-worded to accommodate your newly found opinion.

My opinion never changed.

You asked me the widest possible question about God. Specifically, you asked:

"Could you describe your God to me please?"

That's rather like asking "Can you describe astronomy to me please?". Suppose I ask you that question. You answer and then I start complaining that you didn't specifically say that astronomy includes the study of black holes, therefore you implied that black holes are not part of astronomy. I take you to task for "changing your story" when you are forced to admit that, in fact, astronomers do study black holes sometimes.

I had to start somewhere. How many words did you think I should write? A million? 8000? I wrote a hundred or so.

If you have some specific questions, I'm very happy to answer them. But if you ask general questions you can't complain that I answer them in general terms.

It is not the most important feature of God that he is neither male nor female, so I left out that specific detail in my initial hundred words. I put in a few matters that are just a tad more important, such as that God is omnipotent and omniscient and is Creator of the universe.


So please restate your answer using non-gender specific terms.

Ok. If you can't understand the original...

God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. God is omniscient and omnipotent.


Ha, we need another thread for this perhaps. If you were an 'honest' theist, why did you change your mind?

Do you think it is impossible to be honest and wrong simultaneously? Suppose that for whatever reason I think your car is blue when it is in fact red. Maybe somebody told me you own a blue car. Maybe you described the approximate location of your car in a parking lot, I went and had a look, and mistook a similar-model blue car for your red car, which was parked nearby.

Whatever the reason, I have a belief that you own a blue car. Is that an honest belief or a dishonest belief, in your opinion? If you think it's dishonest of me to believe you own a blue car, you need to tell me where the dishonesty comes into it.

Being wrong is not the same as being dishonest. I'm truly surprised that you seem unable to distinguish between the two.

Honest theists do not exist, because they exclude all possibilities except their own believes.

Honest theists do not exist, because they exclude all possibilities except their own believes.

What? All of them? You're as bad as phlogistician.

Have you considered the possibility that some theists have considered a range of other possibilities and honestly come to the conclusion that God is the best explanation?

God's not indescribable. For example, he's not in the box.

I thought God is everywhere? I mean that's what most Christians have been preaching anyway.

Honest theists do not exist, because they exclude all possibilities except their own believes.
unlike "honest" atheists I take it .....

phlogistician:



My opinion never changed..

Yes it did. First you were guilty of anthropomorphising God and fitting this concept into a patriarchal world view. When questioned, you backpeddled.

I note you haven't added your explanation of your gender re-assignment to your new definition. That needs to be added, as it's now an additional claim you have made about God. Please note all claims are cumulative and must also be added to your initial description, so we do not have to reference several posts.

Please restate your position, including all claims you have thus far made.

Hi Lori, no, I'm not saying 'less honest than I am' that's James making some weak ad-homs and diversions. Of course I've been less than honest, I used to work in sales,....

But by 'dishonest' in this context, (and James was banging on about that in the thread that started this ball rolling) I mean that theists often hold beliefs that they cannot justify, and I think that is dishonest. You at least have had a convincing experience (even if I think you misinterpreted it), yet many just go along with what they have been told, without question. I find this latter approach, especially when coupled with proselytism, dishonest.

so do i. but i also think that you place very strict limits on justification based on your beliefs. would you agree with that?

people are dishonest, to varying degrees, and it seems to me as if people are dishonest about religion for the same reason they're dishonest about anything else. some fucked up human nature. all of us are conditioned by lies. i think that's why i damn near lost my mind when i had that odd spiritual experience.

would you consider our discussions here on sciforums as having met?

i may not be able to justify everything i've experienced in scientific terms and i may not have a crystal ball to tell you everything it means, but i sure as hell will tell you the truth to the best of my ability, even if it sounds batshit crazy to you. even if it does to me. because after what i've experienced with god, i would have to be batshit crazy to ever lie about it. the scripture calls it the fear of god, but imo it's just an honest interpretation of what i'm dealing with.

so do i. but i also think that you place very strict limits on justification based on your beliefs. would you agree with that?

'beliefs' no, experience, yes. Experience has told me it's worthwhile questioning everything I have been told, 'cos I was sure fed a lot of horse crap as a kid.


people are dishonest, to varying degrees, and it seems to me as if people are dishonest about religion for the same reason they're dishonest about anything else.

I agree, in fact, Religion is a tool used by people to dishonestly gain power. People don't necessarily like being told what to do by other people. Instead, if the message comes from the 'man upstairs', well, enough people are superstitious enough to buy that, and fall in line. Some so much they'll chop parts off their penis. Now that was an amazing bit of bullying, by a mortal pretending to speak for God.


all of us are conditioned by lies.

I agree too. I guess when we are young, we need to trust people with more experience than us 'Don't eat that, it's poisonous', well test that at your peril,... etc. But as we get older, some of the things we were told, we were told just to keep us inline, ... tales of the BoogeyMan. We need to question what we have been told, and realise which parts were just for convenience, to save justification, and fallacious, and which were true.


would you consider our discussions here on sciforums as having met?

No, if we met I'd use some informal hypnosis games to fuck with your head a bit, and and hopefully change your perspective a little. I would of course divulge the methods, it would only be fair, but once you realised how easy it is to do, well, like I said, it should change your outlook.

unlike "honest" atheists I take it .....

I can honestly say I've heard a compelling argument for God.

That said, I can't understand why those that believe are satisfied with the answers they gave me.

Yes it did. First you were guilty of anthropomorphising God and fitting this concept into a patriarchal world view. When questioned, you backpeddled.

If you're not going to do me the courtesy of responding to the entire content of my replies, I see little point in continuing this discussion. I am inclined at this point to write you off as an ill-mannered pedant who has no real desire to participate in honest debate. You can pull out now if you want to wimp out of your initial claim that you could show dishonesty on my part.


I note you haven't added your explanation of your gender re-assignment to your new definition. That needs to be added, as it's now an additional claim you have made about God. Please note all claims are cumulative and must also be added to your initial description, so we do not have to reference several posts.

If you can't keep track of the claims that have been made, that's your problem, not mine. I'll humour you in this post only. After this one, you'll have to keep your own records and put a little effort in.

So far, you're doing an appalling job of proving me to be dishonest in this discussion.


Please restate your position, including all claims you have thus far made.

What's the matter with you? Ok. Here are all the claims I have made about God so far:


God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. He is omniscient and omnipotent.

God doesn't really have a gender because he is not a biological entity like a human being. He is, however, a person, and we're most comfortable referring to persons as "he" or "she". The convention in religious texts has traditionally been to refer to God using masculine pronouns and terms. But you don't need to think of him that way if you don't want to. You may prefer to think of him as a kind of disembodied spirit of indeterminate gender.

And here are the optional claims that you haven't decided whether you want included in the current discussion:


Perhaps you'd like me to go further than this and to take the line of a Christian. If so, I would also say that God is concerned with human beings. He sent his son, Jesus, to Earth to tell human beings about the kingdom of God and the hope of everlasting life in heaven. God listens to prayers. God is Good. God loves us.

'beliefs' no, experience, yes. Experience has told me it's worthwhile questioning everything I have been told, 'cos I was sure fed a lot of horse crap as a kid.

me too. you believe what you do because of your experience. is that scientific? are you holding yourself to the same standards of justification that you hold me to?




I agree, in fact, Religion is a tool used by people to dishonestly gain power. People don't necessarily like being told what to do by other people. Instead, if the message comes from the 'man upstairs', well, enough people are superstitious enough to buy that, and fall in line. Some so much they'll chop parts off their penis. Now that was an amazing bit of bullying, by a mortal pretending to speak for God.

are you talking about circumcision?





No, if we met I'd use some informal hypnosis games to fuck with your head a bit, and and hopefully change your perspective a little. I would of course divulge the methods, it would only be fair, but once you realised how easy it is to do, well, like I said, it should change your outlook.

that sounds fun (if i trust you that is), but i don't understand why you would think that would change my outlook all that much. would you explain?

I knew you'd cop out James.

I knew you'd cop out James.

i won't. :)

What planet are you on, phlogistician? I have done exactly as you asked and reposted all the claims I made previously about God.

I knew you'd cop out, phlogistician. What a poor effort!

I assume you now retract your claim that there are no honest thiests. I win by your default.

me too. you believe what you do because of your experience. is that scientific? are you holding yourself to the same standards of justification that you hold yourself to?

Experiences, re-examined logically, and scientifically. I've had some headfuck moments, I really have. Examined with a clear head later though, I got beyond the adrenalin and confusion.

The latter part I think you mean to ask am I hold others to my standards? Well yes. Everyone has the option to question things.


are you talking about circumcision?

Yes, but more importantly, doing it for no medical reason.


that sounds fun (if i trust you that is), but i don't understand why you would think that would change my outlook all that much. would you explain?

Simple parlour games, but what it should make you wonder, is that if these work on you, what else does?

What planet are you on, phlogistician? I have done exactly as you asked and reposted all the claims I made previously about God.

I knew you'd cop out, phlogistician. What a poor effort!

I assume you now retract your claim that there are no honest thiests. I win by your default.

No James. The conditions of this debate are that you will re-frame your definition each and every time you change you mind. Play by the rules, or don't play and cop out. You aren't humouring me, these are the conditions of the debate.

But I think you see where I am going with this. Within two questions I've got you to revise your claim. You know you are going to have to keep restating it, with addendums, and want to hide that in the trail.

Sorry, that isn't going to happen. When we're done, we're going to contrast your final statement with your first, in their entirety. Unless you are resigning.

If you're not going to do me the courtesy of responding to the entire content of my replies, I see little point in continuing this discussion.

It's not a discussion between you and I btw. It's a question and answer session. I ask the questions, and you answer them. That's all.

Experiences, re-examined logically, and scientifically. I've had some headfuck moments, I really have. Examined with a clear head later though, I got beyond the adrenalin and confusion.

The latter part I think you mean to ask am I hold others to my standards? Well yes. Everyone has the option to question things.

i worded that wrong. sorry, i edited it. i mean do you hold yourself to the same standards? i mean, nothing you've said here is really scientific, or is it? aren't we really our own scientist when it comes to learning from experience? many times when i've spoken with you i've gotten the impression that in order to have any credibility, benefit of the the doubt, not to be entirely dismissed, even to the point of being called insane, i would have had to have a team of scientists following me around observing and measuring me for my entire life.

and that's not reasonable.



Yes, but more importantly, doing it for no medical reason.

you're not circumcised? :eek: wow. i've only seen one uncircumcised penis in my whole life. he was scottish i think, and in the british navy. aren't you british? you've never been enlisted have you? hahaha...




Simple parlour games, but what it should make you wonder, is that if these work on you, what else does?

i was going to make the same point to you. :eek:

No James. The conditions of this debate are that you will re-frame your definition each and every time you change you mind.

I haven't changed my mind so far, but if it happens I'll be sure to let you know. See my above re-post of all my claims, which are identical to the first time they were posted. None of the statements there are inconsistent.

I like it, by the way, how you get to set all the terms of the debate. It's like you're in control. You're so big and powerful. I'm almost afraid of you. ;)


Play by the rules, or don't play and cop out. You aren't humouring me, these are the conditions of the debate.

You're humouring me. I thought you'd fire questions at me and try to catch me out in an inconsistency or - and this was the original aim, wasn't it - a dishonesty.

But instead, you're waffling on about the terms of the debate - how it will all be conducted according to your whims and that any deviation will result in your pulling the plug.

You know what I think? I think you're on some kind of deluded power trip. Or you're actually afraid to debate the issue that you raised in the first place. Probably because you're afraid you actually can't substantiate your original expansive claim about the dishonesty of theists, and you feel it's better to wimp out than to continue and end up being shown up.


But I think you see where I am going with this. Within two questions I've got you to revise your claim. You know you are going to have to keep restating it, with addendums, and want to hide that in the trail.

I haven't revised. I clarified when you asked me a specific question.

Look, would it be easier for you if I dropped my claim that God is neither male nor female? If you like, I can argue on the basis that God is male. That's if you require that to prove my supposed dishonesty.


Sorry, that isn't going to happen. When we're done, we're going to contrast your final statement with your first, in their entirety. Unless you are resigning.

Maybe we ought to make this a Formal Debate in the Formal Debates forum. In that case, rather that you inventing rules as we go along, we can establish all the ground rules in advance and - like - mutually agree on what the ground rules are, like civilised people. That way, we can avoid your self-appointed Emperor complex.


It's not a discussion between you and I btw. It's a question and answer session. I ask the questions, and you answer them. That's all.

Sounds like another rule you imposed after the fact.

Look, would it be easier for you if I dropped my claim that God is neither male nor female? If you like, I can argue on the basis that God is male. That's if you require that to prove my supposed dishonesty.

If you swap back to saying that God is male, please restate that, along with a footnote showing the interim statement without the gender claim.

Oh, and of course I get to set the terms. I said in the other thread I'd ask you some questions. That's the entirety of it. I ask questions, you answer. It really is that simple.

So, decide what your statement now is, and repost it please.

For the purposes of this thread, I will argue the theist position to the best of my ability. I am quite happy for other people to participate too. My aim here is to show phlogistician that being a theist is not "unreasonable".

I think that being a theist can often be unreasonable. But that isn't typically dishonest. Those are two separate things. It's possible to be honest and mistaken. It's even possible to be honest and stupid.

We often see the same thing with atheists. There are people out there (often adolescents perhaps) filled with faith that atheism is more 'intelligent' than theism, so that if they simply boast of being an atheist, then they will automatically be smarter than any theist. There's an unshakeable faith that every atheist argument will beat every theist argument.

So there's no way that either side is going to acknowledge any weakness in their own thinking. One side has God's revelation to depend on. The other side is a-priori brilliant. Both sides are simply locked into their rhetorical positions.


This thread was prompted by another one in which phlogistician was arguing essentially that theists shouldn't be given the time of day on sciforums.

I think that religion is a fascinating subject of discussion. (It's my academic specialty.) It's certainly a core aspect of human culture and likely of human psychology as well. The agitation that religion discussion generates here on Sciforums suggests the kind of passion that the subject can still generate, even among people who claim to totally reject it.

One weakness that many (but not all) atheists display is abysmal ignorance of the whole subject of religion. Atheists often seem to think that religion is bullshit, so why should discerning people waste any of their time learning the details of global religious history, doctrine and practice? Unfortunately, these same people are filled with an unshakeable confidence that they already understand and can summarily dispose of any religious idea or argument. I don't know, it just kind of rubs me the wrong way when militantly ignorant people try to pose as the sophisticated ones. Sometimes I enjoy popping those kind of bubbles.

My point here isn't really about whether atheism or theism is correct. (I'm essentially an atheist myself.) It's about the quality of discussion.

how can one describe something indescribable?

A great deal of theology and religious philosophy, both theist and non-theist, has imagined the ultimate principle, source, "God" or whatever we call it, as being entirely transcendent and beyond the realm of human conceptualization. We see it exemplified in Christian apophaticism, for example. So a theist responding as NMSquirrel did is consistent with tradition.


If you cannot describe, in any way at all, something you profess to believe in then why do you believe in it?

That's a legitimate question. I think that this kind of religious non-cognitivity is usually associated with some form of religious mysticism. The idea is that the mystic experiences some kind of non-conceptual and non-cognitive meeting (or merging perhaps) with the ultimate divine principle. Leaving the mystic in a position, once the mystical experience is over, where he or she can only refer kind of psycho-ostensively to "that", the unspeakable object of the experience, in the presence of which every human word falls short.

A theist could probably answer Phlogistician's original question in a variety of ways. (There are whole theological traditions in several religions that argue about the supposed attributes of God and how they should be understood.) NMSquirrel suggested one of the more interesting and defensible ways of doing it, in my opinion.

My point here isn't really about whether atheism or theism is correct./.../ It's about the quality of discussion.

But if everyone would be really open-minded and educated - would there be much to discuss at all?
:o

What? All of them? You're as bad as phlogistician.

Have you considered the possibility that some theists have considered a range of other possibilities and honestly come to the conclusion that God is the best explanation?

yes, all of them. It is what defines a theist.

Not that any human is honest in nature. After all human nature prevents this from happening.

It's just that the definition of theist requires the abandonment of skepticism and the acceptance of blind belief. And these two processes vary in intensity in different theists.

Some theists will be more skeptical. Some will be more 'blind'. There is variation.

But the moment blind belief stops a person isn't a theist any more. They become agnostic or atheist.

Blind belief is the opposite of honesty, because you lie to yourself. You are not willing to accept all factors as equal.

Blind belief is the opposite of honesty, because you lie to yourself. You are not willing to accept all factors as equal.

Well, if you don't brush your teeth with the toilet brush, I suppose that makes you dishonest, lying to yourself, because you are, after all, not willing to accept all factors as equal ...

:shrug:

Well, if you don't brush your teeth with the toilet brush, I suppose that makes you dishonest, lying to yourself, because you are, after all, not willing to accept all factors as equal ...

:shrug:

That would be a strawman tactic you are presenting here. That's uncivilized.

---

Theism is more like brushing your teeth with a toilet brush because you refuse to accept a study that shows that toothbrushes are more effective at doing so.

Or you have a collection of brushes: tooth brush, hair brush, toilet brush etc. and you prefer the hair brush because you 'believe' in it, and will not open your mind to the possibility that another brush might be more functional.

Or more in the line of thought we discussed. You refuse to go to a level of skepticism that would dismiss the toilet brush as being a functional tool for brushing your teeth.

It's just that the definition of theist requires the abandonment of skepticism and the acceptance of blind belief. And these two processes vary in intensity in different theists.

Some theists will be more skeptical. Some will be more 'blind'. There is variation.

But the moment blind belief stops a person isn't a theist any more. They become agnostic or atheist.

You're probably giving many atheists more credit than they deserve. They don't typically have sound and convincing justification for their belief that God doesn't exist, do they?


Blind belief is the opposite of honesty, because you lie to yourself. You are not willing to accept all factors as equal.

Why is theist belief necessarily "blind"? You guys just kind of toss assumptions like that in there, hoping that nobody will notice that they are gratuitous.

A theist can point to their own religious experience. How can some stranger discredit what somebody else has (supposedly) experienced firsthand for themselves?

Atheists 'know' that God doesn't exist because they know of no evidence for God. (Never mind the epistemological problems with that.) But even that weak justification doesn't appear to be true -- people often insist that they've had experiences of divine presence. In history, that claim is rather common. Isn't that evidence? Well no, it can't be evidence, it has to simply be delusion. Why? Because it's an experience of something that doesn't exist! (And that's circular reasoning.)

Now it so happens that I don't place a whole lot of credibility in other people's religious experiences myself. Another person's religious experiences aren't likely to convince me to convert to their religion. I think that there are probably naturalistic explanations for religious experiences that are more likely than supernatural explanations. So I'm quite comfortable in my own agnosticism.

What I don't want to do is MORALLY dismiss every religious believer as "dishonest". Those believers might have what seems to be excellent justification for their beliefs from their perspective.

Atheists' moral condemnation of believers isn't really any better than believers' moral condemnation of unbelievers, in my estimation.

...people often insist that they've had experiences of divine presence. In history, that claim is rather common. Isn't that evidence? Well no, it can't be evidence, it has to simply be delusion. Why?

It doesn't have to be delusion, but it is most likely delusion. Delusion, insanity, mass hysteria, and hallucinations are common, but there is no evidence of the divine anywhere other than in the minds of men.


How can some stranger discredit what somebody else has (supposedly) experienced firsthand for themselves?
More to the point, why are these experiencers not doubting their own experiences? They should be.

This is for all the people that have woke up from the illusion that there is free will . So if we don't have free will we must be governed by a force? Right ? With Me so far ? What kind of name could we possibly give this force so we could understand that there are Forces Governing our actions ? Anybody ? Our minds can't fathom what the force is ( much less the people that live in the past and believe there is free will ) Anybody ? What would humans call this force that governs ? Mind you laws of determinism state information is lock up in silos like grain silos and the information trickles out . Could we call it the word possibly ? Is that not another word for God in scripture. I read that d. Did you read that ? I read that " In the beginning god was the Word .

In the beginning god was the Word

There is undiscovered truth to this, if you think about it logically. Before there was science, the word/concept god (s) was used as an explanation for anything unknown. Why do waves move ashore; God. As humans first began to explore the world, god was the word, that was used to describe everything new. That one word had endless meanings and became the placeholder word that helped differentiate reality until science could give it other words.

A very loose analogy in modern times is the F-word. Although this is only one word, it has a very wide range of meanings and can express a very wide range of emotions. Some college students, high school students, and gang members, can communicate extensively with this one word.

If we go back to the beginning of civilization, there was the "G-word" and that word was God. Why does the sun rise and set; God. Why do the rivers flow; God, etc. God being omnipotent and omnipresent was in everything, thereby providing a verbal place holder for the brain onto which the details of nature would stack. Later the G-word is differentiated into many words, with science adding its share of words.

There is undiscovered truth to this, if you think about it logically. Before there was science, the word/concept god (s) was used as an explanation for anything unknown. Why do waves move ashore; God. As humans first began to explore the world, god was the word, that was used to describe everything new. That one word had endless meanings and became the placeholder word that helped differentiate reality until science could give it other words.

A very loose analogy in modern times is the F-word. Although this is only one word, it has a very wide range of meanings and can express a very wide range of emotions. Some college students, high school students, and gang members, can communicate extensively with this one word.

If we go back to the beginning of civilization, there was the "G-word" and that word was God. Why does the sun rise and set; God. Why do the rivers flow; God, etc. God being omnipotent and omnipresent was in everything, thereby providing a verbal place holder for the brain onto which the details of nature would stack. Later the G-word is differentiated into many words, with science adding its share of words.

Some one with a friggen brain . F--ck I can feel my face turning from blue back to its normal color . Shit there is hope in the world after all. Good job my man for your support !

So a theist responding as NMSquirrel did is consistent with tradition.
eck..I am not traditional...
i understand that God is too complex for any one definition.


NMSquirrel suggested one of the more interesting and defensible ways of doing it, in my opinion.

notice how phlo has not responded to my posts..
he just said that as an emotional outburst and now he is having probs justifying his comment.
admit it phlo,you are defeated.

my vote is for JamesR as winner of this debate as phlo has done nothing but waffle..



------------


Not that any human is honest in nature. After all human nature prevents this from happening.
good point..


It's just that the definition of theist requires the abandonment of skepticism
why?
in order to separate God from religion one must be skeptical,
If all you are doing is 'do as your told' then you have to take responsibility for that yourself,IOW if someone tells you to do something, and you do it, and it goes screwy, its your fault for choosing to listen to him in the first place.

there has to be a certain amount of skepticism for the true seekers..(the others are happy with 'do as your told')


But the moment blind belief stops a person isn't a theist any more. They become agnostic or atheist.
i think the terms theist/atheist are generally used in a general context, cept when someone wants to argue somantics..


Blind belief is the opposite of honesty, because you lie to yourself.
sounds like you are either trying to justify an attitude.
Blind in this context means 'accept without question'
you do not have to lie to accept.


You are not willing to accept all factors as equal.
who you? not me.

------------


Atheists' moral condemnation of believers isn't really any better than believers' moral condemnation of unbelievers, in my estimation.

here at Sciforums the atheist earn the prejudice/bigot badge.
in the real world its pretty much 50/50..

phlogistician:

Here is a list of my claims (again - *yawn*).


God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. He is omniscient and omnipotent.

God doesn't really have a gender because he is not a biological entity like a human being. He is, however, a person, and we're most comfortable referring to persons as "he" or "she". The convention in religious texts has traditionally been to refer to God using masculine pronouns and terms. But you don't need to think of him that way if you don't want to. You may prefer to think of him as a kind of disembodied spirit of indeterminate gender.

Do you want me to state them again, or can you work with these?

This is going to be a very slow process if I have to keep repeating things over and over again for you.

Mr MacGillivray:


It's just that the definition of theist requires the abandonment of skepticism and the acceptance of blind belief.

No it doesn't. Beliefs are generally informed by evidence of some kind. People don't ordinarily believe things for no reason at all.


But the moment blind belief stops a person isn't a theist any more. They become agnostic or atheist.

Both theists and atheists, if they are honest (which is what this thread is about), will admit that they don't know whether God exists or not. So, both of them judge the evidence they have seen for God and make a judgment call on whether they believe in God or not. The atheist comes down on one side of the line; the theist comes down on the other side. Agnosticism is different, because it's a philosophical position about what is provable.

That would be a strawman tactic you are presenting here. That's uncivilized.

---

Theism is more like brushing your teeth with a toilet brush because you refuse to accept a study that shows that toothbrushes are more effective at doing so.

Or you have a collection of brushes: tooth brush, hair brush, toilet brush etc. and you prefer the hair brush because you 'believe' in it, and will not open your mind to the possibility that another brush might be more functional.

Or more in the line of thought we discussed. You refuse to go to a level of skepticism that would dismiss the toilet brush as being a functional tool for brushing your teeth.

I am still continually amazed by our vigilante atheists at Sciforums!

I am not a theist, but they nevertheless attack me as if I were one!

:eek:

I am still continually amazed by our vigilante atheists at Sciforums!

I am not a theist, but they nevertheless attack me as if I were one!

:eek:

How do you know I am an atheist? I have given no proof for that. It's your blind belief that assumes I must be an atheist.

Notice that I did not say that religion is the toilet brush or for instance the toothbrush is science.

Your prejudiced mind filled in the blanks automatically.

Hence I believe that you are somewhat dishonest with yourself. You do not allow for conclusions outside your comfort zone.

It's ok. We are all somewhat dishonest with ourselves. But as I stated before, some are dishonest per definition. Others have an option, although this option is almost never taken, since it is very very difficult to be honest.

More to the point, why are these experiencers not doubting their own experiences? They should be.

Do you doubt all your experiences?

Why don't you doubt that you are enlightened?

How do you know I am an atheist? I have given no proof for that. It's your blind belief that assumes I must be an atheist.

That post I replied to was atheistic, hence I was right.

If you want to role-play, that is your prerogative. But if this then leads to confusion for others, they are not to be blamed, Mr. Honest.



It's ok. We are all somewhat dishonest with ourselves. But as I stated before, some are dishonest per definition. Others have an option, although this option is almost never taken, since it is very very difficult to be honest.

And you are the Omnimax Galactic Judge on who is honest and who isn't, right?

This is going to be a very slow process if I have to keep repeating things over and over again for you.

Well, given you have had a lifetime to hone and perfect your understanding of your deity, what's the rush?

Back to your definition:


God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. He is omniscient and omnipotent.

God doesn't really have a gender because he is not a biological entity like a human being. He is, however, a person, and we're most comfortable referring to persons as "he" or "she". The convention in religious texts has traditionally been to refer to God using masculine pronouns and terms. But you don't need to think of him that way if you don't want to. You may prefer to think of him as a kind of disembodied spirit of indeterminate gender.

How do you know God is not a biological entity? Surely, you have to admit at the very least, you don't know, and have to entertain this possibility.

It doesn't have to be delusion, but it is most likely delusion. Delusion, insanity, mass hysteria, and hallucinations are common, but there is no evidence of the divine anywhere other than in the minds of men.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Goat. Of course, theists typically believe that the universe around us is evidence for the existence of God.

My point was that the delusions, hallucinations, or (just conceivably) experiences of transcendental realities are apparently totally convincing to the people that experience them. Religious experiences transform lives. So I can't agree with the presumption in some of the earlier posts that there's no evidence for the reality of God. There is evidence, and it can be devastatingly persuasive evidence to the person who experiences it.

Of course you and I might choose to interpret it in a totally different way. A schizophrenic's hallucinations and delusions are equally convincing to the schizophrenic, after all. It would be foolishness for us to believe everything that psychotics tell us because they insist that they experienced it.

But the point is that even in the case of schizophrenics, the fact that the delusions are convincing to the psychotic suggests that he/she isn't knowingly lying and isn't being 'dishonest' to anybody. The person who hears voices might be totally crazy, but that isn't necessarily equate to immorality.

This thread is confusing epistemological issues with moral issues.


More to the point, why are these experiencers not doubting their own experiences? They should be.

There's a huge professional literature on religious experience and much of it is rather skeptical and analytical. I'd be willing to bet that theists are well represented among those authors.

Meditation teachers have to counsel their students not to be too credulous about or be swept away by the powerful feelings of bliss that meditation can sometimes induce. Those emotional effects are said to be relatively early events in much longer and deeper paths.

Theistic and non-theistic religious traditions are often extremely careful when it comes to religious contemplation. It requires great discernment and should typically only be practiced under the guidance of a qualified meditation master.

Of course, these traditions do believe that these kind of practices can ultimately lead to an inner 'place' that's very important. And some of us might indeed protest that such a belief is an unjustifiable leap. But then again, the atheist certainty that none of this can possibly lead anywhere beyond navel-gazing might be unjustified as well, absent a worldview that already presumes that nothing is there to be found.

How do you know I am an atheist? I have given no proof for that. It's your blind belief that assumes I must be an atheist.
typically when a person is anti-theist, they are atheist..
why do you have a thing for the term 'blind belief', you are using it so much it makes me think you are projecting..what is it that you have a 'blind belief' in? or is it more of a 'if i say it enough times, then it will be true' thing?


Your prejudiced mind filled in the blanks automatically.
pot/kettle..


Hence I believe that you are somewhat dishonest with yourself. You do not allow for conclusions outside your comfort zone.

actually that argument applies to atheist also, actually more so, as they won't accept any argument outside their comfort zone (evidence/proof).



It's ok. We are all somewhat dishonest with ourselves. But as I stated before, some are dishonest per definition. Others have an option, although this option is almost never taken, since it is very very difficult to be honest.
and how many times have you used the word 'dishonest'?
projecting?
or was someone just recently that way with you and you are just venting here..


IOW..are you gonna be OK..?

phlogistician:


How do you know God is not a biological entity? Surely, you have to admit at the very least, you don't know, and have to entertain this possibility.

I actually wrote "God ... is not a biological entity like a human being".

What I mean is that God is not your average animal. That stands to reason, because no known animal is omniscient, omnipotent or supernatural, at least as far as I am aware.

But this is really another quibble over definitions. You haven't attempted to define "biological entity". It is possible that you might define that in wide terms to mean something like "living thing", but then you may need to explain what life is, and that is conceptually a very difficult thing to do.

Obviously, if God is omniscient, he can't see the world from the perseptive of an animal with eyes located in one place. So, if he is biological (whatever that means) then he is unlike a human being in this particular respect.

Hope this helps.

phlogistician:



I actually wrote "God ... is not a biological entity like a human being".

What I mean is that God is not your average animal.

You are just making more claims that need more support. Please justify this position you hold.



That stands to reason, because no known animal is omniscient, omnipotent or supernatural, at least as far as I am aware.

But you can't rule it out.


But this is really another quibble over definitions. You haven't attempted to define "biological entity".

Nor have you, and you are telling me what God is, supposedly.


It is possible that you might define that in wide terms to mean something like "living thing", but then you may need to explain what life is, and that is conceptually a very difficult thing to do.

I wouldn't do that at all. It's supposed to be you telling me what God is. I'm just asking for clarification each time you make a definitive statement.


Obviously, if God is omniscient, he can't see the world from the perseptive of an animal with eyes located in one place. So, if he is biological (whatever that means) then he is unlike a human being in this particular respect.

Not really, because you haven't established God is omniscient. So can't really limit the other attributes based on that assertion.

phlogistician:



I actually wrote "God ... is not a biological entity like a human being".

What I mean is that God is not your average animal.

You are just making more claims that need more support. Please justify this position you hold.

This is a silly conversation. Going back to my astronomy example, which you dishonestly ignored the first time I brought it up, our conversation would go something like this (with our roles swapped):

J: Do you believe in astronomy?
P: Yes.
J: Define astronomy for me.
P: Astronomy is the study of stars and planets.
J: So astronomy is not the study of black holes then?
P: Astronomers do study black holes, as a matter of fact.
J: Please re-state your definition of astronomy, because now you have added something you originally didn't say. I'm going to have to demand that you do this each time you add something new.
P: Ok. Astronomy is the study of stars and planets and black holes and some othere extraterrestrial things. It is not the study of beetles.
J: You just made an extra claim that you need to support. Please prove to me that astronomers don't study beetles. And don't forget to repeat all the statements you made earlier about astronomy, since my memory isn't very good. Please justify this position about astronomy that you hold.
P: Astronomy isn't the study of beetles because astronomers are physicists, not biologists.
J: That's another claim you'll have to prove for me. And don't forget to repeat all your previous claims! Also, you can't rule out the possibility that some astronomers do biology, can you?
P: Astronomers may study beetles in their spare time, but it's not their professional concern.
J: Oh, but you didn't say anything about professions before. You'd better add that as an extra claim. And don't forget to repeat all your previous claims now that you've changed your mind.
P: I didn't change my mind.
J: Yes you did. Yes you did! Caught you out!
P: I thought I could take it as given that astronomy is a profession.
J: No! You're telling me what astronomy is, supposedly. If it's really important that it's a profession, why didn't you say so at the start? I think you'd better start again from scratch and make sure you carefully state all your claims this time.
P: What a complete waste of time.
J: It's supposed to be you telling me what astronomy is. I'm just asking for clarification each time you make a definitive statement.
P: No you're not. You're just making me repeat myself by being a dumb arse and pretending not to understand common language and common knowledge.
J: See! I knew I'd prove you are dishonest! Nyah nyah nyah!

----
So, moving on from the idiotic stuff, let's tackle the one other point you made:


Not really, because you haven't established God is omniscient. So can't really limit the other attributes based on that assertion.

I didn't set out to "establish" anything. Remember, your job is to prove that I am somehow dishonest in my role as a theist. I have not said anything that makes me dishonest so far. As a theist, I believe in God. I believe he is omniscient. As an atheist, you are free to disbelieve. You can't prove that God is not omniscient any more than I can prove that he is. So, we're on an equal footing.

I didn't set out to "establish" anything. Remember, your job is to prove that I am somehow dishonest in my role as a theist. I have not said anything that makes me dishonest so far. As a theist, I believe in God. I believe he is omniscient. As an atheist, you are free to disbelieve. You can't prove that God is not omniscient any more than I can prove that he is. So, we're on an equal footing.

Equal footing? Sorry, but we already dispensed with the notion that the odds are 50/50, so we are NOT on a equal footing. The burden of proof, is as ever, on the claimant. I'm not trying to prove anything btw, I'm asking you questions, in the hope you'll have some convincing answer, which so far, you haven't managed.

Oh, I ignored the astronomy analogy, because it's not a good analogy. I used to work with Astronomers. They could demonstrate Astronomy to me, it had things that could be measured, and verified, and repeated. You remember, using the scientific method.

The burden of proof, is as ever, on the claimant.
so prove your claim that all theist are dishonest.



I'm not trying to prove anything btw,
you should be, your the one who made the claim.


I'm asking you questions, in the hope you'll have some convincing answer, which so far, you haven't managed.
no you are only looking for a fight..you have NO desire to be convinced of anything.



Oh, I ignored the astronomy analogy, because it's not a good analogy. I used to work with Astronomers. They could demonstrate Astronomy to me, it had things that could be measured, and verified, and repeated. You remember, using the scientific method.

James analogy still stands..
you are incapable of being reasonable.

Equal footing? Sorry, but we already dispensed with the notion that the odds are 50/50, so we are NOT on a equal footing. The burden of proof, is as ever, on the claimant. I'm not trying to prove anything btw, I'm asking you questions, in the hope you'll have some convincing answer, which so far, you haven't managed.

Oh, I ignored the astronomy analogy, because it's not a good analogy. I used to work with Astronomers. They could demonstrate Astronomy to me, it had things that could be measured, and verified, and repeated. You remember, using the scientific method.

Who exactly established that the odds are or are not 50/50? Sciforums lol? Not exactly the place to get a reliable result. Honestly if you go by the amount of the world that believes vs. the amount of the world that does not the odds are distinctly not in your favor.

phlogistician:

Fine. Next question, please.

Oh, I ignored the astronomy analogy, because it's not a good analogy. I used to work with Astronomers. They could demonstrate Astronomy to me, it had things that could be measured, and verified, and repeated. You remember, using the scientific method.


i thought astronomy was in large part, an inferential science
kinda like geology
my bad

you really have supernovas at your beck and call? :eek:

i thought astronomy was in large part, an inferential science
kinda like geology
my bad

you really have supernovas at your beck and call? :eek:

You do know when you make posts like that, you just compound my impression of you being a troll with a grudge?

Who exactly established that the odds are or are not 50/50?

I'll explain it to you, because clearly this has gone over your head. Why would the odds be 50/50? Because there's a pro/not pro divide? Oh hold on, are there just two positions? Just two gods? No, there are hundreds of gods. So each claim of a deity gets a slice of that pie, they jostle for likeliness, ... followers of the one God trying to pull percentage points from polytheists,... and back again. Do you get that?


Honestly if you go by the amount of the world that believes vs. the amount of the world that does not the odds are distinctly not in your favor.

So if we got the majority of the planet believing in the FSM, the FSM would be more likely? Do you realise just how absurd what you just said was? Do you not realise that beliefs in god(s) has changed over the millennia, from polytheism to the one Abrahamic God (and there still are polytheists), so does that mean the Roman and Greek Pantheons were real, but now aren't?

phlogistician:

Fine. Next question, please.

If god is omniscient (not that you have established this claim) how can we have free will? And if we cannot, how can be judged for our actions?

I must've missed it, where did James say anything about free will or judgment?

I must've missed it, where did James say anything about free will or judgment?

He didn't yet. The game is that James is playing the role of a theist, and I am asking James questions about his supposed theism, in the goal that he will satisfactorily answer all my questions, and demonstrate the point of view is honestly held.

So far James has flipped flopped on whether God is male or even has gender, and skipped over admitting that he cannot know whether God is a biological entity or not.

I am now revisiting his claim God is omniscient. This is a classic conundrum, if God knows what we are going to do, and God created us, how can we have free will? We hear arguments about predicting other's behaviour, but these fall flat, because we are not omnipotent, nor did we create the others whose behaviour we predict. For instance, if we humans create create a machine to perform a task, and understand fully how it functions, can we say it is demonstrating free will when it does what we designed it to? Apply that idea to humans made by God, and I think we all see the problem.

I must've missed it, where did James say anything about free will or judgment?

On another note, I would be interested to know if you have ever met, in your opinion, a truly honest theist.

hey phlog,

god told me once "there is no time here". if god is not subject to the time constraint, then god could very well be omniscient without hindering free will. i've expressed this more than a few times on this forum. i love how people flat out ignore it every time, you know, because it makes sense and then they'd have an answer to their question and no reason to argue about it.

On another note, I would be interested to know if you have ever met, in your opinion, a truly honest theist.
I don't know that I've ever met a truly honest person - period. But I know many theists who are as honest as the rest of us (for a given value of honest). I.E. - They don't deliberately try to deceive anyone as to what they "believe" and/or why.

He didn't yet. The game is that James is playing the role of a theist, and I am asking James questions about his supposed theism, in the goal that he will satisfactorily answer all my questions, and demonstrate the point of view is honestly held.

So far James has flipped flopped on whether God is male or even has gender, and skipped over admitting that he cannot know whether God is a biological entity or not.

I am now revisiting his claim God is omniscient. This is a classic conundrum, if God knows what we are going to do, and God created us, how can we have free will? We hear arguments about predicting other's behaviour, but these fall flat, because we are not omnipotent, nor did we create the others whose behaviour we predict. For instance, if we humans create create a machine to perform a task, and understand fully how it functions, can we say it is demonstrating free will when it does what we designed it to? Apply that idea to humans made by God, and I think we all see the problem.
Humans are quite capable of building elaborate labyrinths of rationalizations to hide their own contradictions from themselves. But I don't know that dishonesty with one's self equates to general dishonesty.

On another note, I would be interested to know if you have ever met, in your opinion, a truly honest theist.

Have you ever met a truly honest human?

Hi, I'm sniffy pleased to meet you.

Could you define 'truly honest' for me please?

Have you ever met a truly honest human?

Hi, I'm sniffy pleased to meet you.

Could you define 'truly honest' for me please?

it's redundant right? lol. i asked him to clarify earlier in the thread, since no one is 100% honest all the time, and if i understood his answer correctly, he's only talking about honestly regarding one's theistic beliefs.

since phlog doesn't believe in god, he assumes that people only believe without any proof (from god), or without any substantiating experience or philosophy. he seems to think that everyone who believes in god does so because they are spoonfed belief without questioning, or claim to believe due to some dishonest motive they possess.

which i think some people do what he's claiming they do, but i know not everyone does, because i don't.

it's redundant right? lol. i asked him to clarify earlier in the thread, since no one is 100% honest all the time, and if i understood his answer correctly, he's only talking about honestly regarding one's theistic beliefs.

since phlog doesn't believe in god, he assumes that people only believe without any proof (from god), or without any substantiating experience or philosophy. he seems to think that everyone who believes in god does so because they are spoonfed belief without questioning, or claim to believe due to some dishonest motive they possess.

which i think some people do what he's claiming they do, but i know not everyone does, because i don't.

Ah there's nothing like an unsubstantiated claim.

There's also nothing like personal experience to make your mind one way or the other as to who is right and who is wrong. Relatively speaking.

Ah there's nothing like an unsubstantiated claim.

There's also nothing like personal experience to make your mind one way or the other as to who is right and who is wrong. Relatively speaking.

But here's the thing: I have spent a lot of time seeking out theists opinions, and none so far have been been able to give me honest answers to my questions.

So it's not just like I base these assumptions on meeting a handful of people, and so far, James, champion of the 'honest theist' camp. isn't doing a very good job of presenting a coherent or consistent point of view.

But if you think you can provide an honest theist, or a bunch of them, to answers a few questions, by all means, do so.

he seems to think that everyone who believes in god does so because they are spoonfed belief without questioning, or claim to believe due to some dishonest motive they possess.

.. and you don't question why certain religions are prevalent in specific geographic areas? I mean, did God sell franchises, OR is general consensus and tradition a HUGE factor in determining religious persuasion?

But here's the thing: I have spent a lot of time seeking out theists opinions, and none so far have been been able to give me honest answers to my questions.

So it's not just like I base these assumptions on meeting a handful of people, and so far, James, champion of the 'honest theist' camp. isn't doing a very good job of presenting a coherent or consistent point of view.

But if you think you can provide an honest theist, or a bunch of them, to answers a few questions, by all means, do so.

All people are humans.
All humans are dishonest.
Some humans are theists.
All theists are dishonest.

See what I did there for you?
Now chill out and have a nice cup of tea.

Unless you can prove to me that not all humans are dishonest.....you and James are barking up the loony tree.

cowers before an infraction.

.. and you don't question why certain religions are prevalent in specific geographic areas? I mean, did God sell franchises, OR is general consensus and tradition a HUGE factor in determining religious persuasion?

i would say that it is, yes.

i think you know i'm not a big fan of religion for the same reasons you're arguing in this thread, and yet i'm a theist, and i'm a christian in america.

But here's the thing: I have spent a lot of time seeking out theists opinions, and none so far have been been able to give me honest answers to my questions.

So it's not just like I base these assumptions on meeting a handful of people, and so far, James, champion of the 'honest theist' camp. isn't doing a very good job of presenting a coherent or consistent point of view.

But if you think you can provide an honest theist, or a bunch of them, to answers a few questions, by all means, do so.

you ignored my answer in post #97 (again, just like i said you would).

you ignored my answer in post #97 (again, just like i said you would).

Yeah I ignored it because you haven't spoken to God.

Yeah I ignored it because you haven't spoken to God.

i asked a question and i received an answer, and it just happens to be an answer to your question as well. you're arbitrarily ignoring that because of your own BELIEFS.

i have indeed addressed god many times and received an answer. who are you to tell me what i have and haven't done?

.. and you don't question why certain religions are prevalent in specific geographic areas? I mean, did God sell franchises, OR is general consensus and tradition a HUGE factor in determining religious persuasion?

God Fuck Me Almighty . Ask away . I just happen to be an honest Theist. Fuck anyway . I get accused of not being Coherent all the time . What the fuck . Did any of you ever think it might be you and not Me . People have a habit of latching on to my incoherency and making it there own you know. Shit some of the things I have told people can take months even years and then one day they wake up from there dead sleep , jump to there feet and say to them selves . Fuck Can you believe that Fuck What was I thinking . They finally make a change in there ruts they call there life .
So you throw down the gantlet. Lets Party . You have to be like a real human animal though . You have to communicate . You can't just dictate to Me . Don't give me a question but rather ask me

Don't give me a question but rather ask me

What's the difference?

What's the difference?

ironically, sincerity.

But here's the thing: I have spent a lot of time seeking out theists opinions, and none so far have been been able to give me honest answers to my questions.
I guess you're going to have to define "honest".

"Believing" contradictory things != dishonesty.

i asked a question and i received an answer, and it just happens to be an answer to your question as well. you're arbitrarily ignoring that because of your own BELIEFS.

You asked a question, and you got an answer. Just not from God, but from a part of your own psyche. It therefore has no particular meaning or insight, or truth.

Like I said, the religious experience can be recreated in a Laboratory. It's nothing special.

I guess you're going to have to define "honest".

"Believing" contradictory things != dishonesty.

Ah, that's where we differ. I think that is at least intellectual dishonesty, and it certainly is self delusion, if people recognise the discrepancy and just accept it.

God Fuck Me Almighty . Ask away . I just happen to be an honest Theist. Fuck anyway . I get accused of not being Coherent all the time . What the fuck . Did any of you ever think it might be you and not Me . People have a habit of latching on to my incoherency and making it there own you know. Shit some of the things I have told people can take months even years and then one day they wake up from there dead sleep , jump to there feet and say to them selves . Fuck Can you believe that Fuck What was I thinking . They finally make a change in there ruts they call there life .
So you throw down the gantlet. Lets Party . You have to be like a real human animal though . You have to communicate . You can't just dictate to Me . Don't give me a question but rather ask me

OK, describe your God to me.

OK, describe your God to me.

My God is a Metaphor for forces not yet understood

Ah, that's where we differ. I think that is at least intellectual dishonesty, and it certainly is self delusion, if people recognise the discrepancy and just accept it.
But that does not equate to being dishonest with you.

Self delusion != lying.

You asked a question, and you got an answer. Just not from God, but from a part of your own psyche. It therefore has no particular meaning or insight, or truth.

Like I said, the religious experience can be recreated in a Laboratory. It's nothing special.

why would i ask a question if i already knew the answer? do you think that "there is no time here" makes any sense to me? no, i can't relate, but it does however answer your question regarding omniscience and free will.

also, usually if something can be recreated in a lab, adds validity to the experience. so why in this case does it refute validity (in your opinion)?

You do know when you make posts like that, you just compound my impression of you being a troll with a grudge?


ahh
an astronomer and a rocket scientist?
i'll be goddamned!

ahh
an astronomer and a rocket scientist?
i'll be goddamned!

Careful Gus , the closet Christians will get you and eat you for lunch . You know starts with an F

But here's the thing: I have spent a lot of time seeking out theists opinions, and none so far have been been able to give me honest answers to my questions.
i will give your questions a once over.
shoot.

ahh
an astronomer and a rocket scientist?
i'll be goddamned!

AHH Gustav so glad you are back!!!!

So far James has flipped flopped on whether God is male or even has gender, and skipped over admitting that he cannot know whether God is a biological entity or not.
since when is an unknown a lie?
do you know whether God is male or female or whatever?
so don't make it a point of failure.
James is perfectly honest in saying he doesn't know Gods gender.



if God knows what we are going to do, and God created us, how can we have free will?
what makes you think that God is a controlling God?
why can't God exist and we still have free will?
i believe he created us with the ability to choose, why would he do that if he didn't want us to exercise that free will?

you already have a preconceived notion of who/what God is Phlo. pry from catholic teachings..

how come you associate 'God knows' to 'loss of free will'? this intones that God is a controlling God, I for one, do not believe that..




For instance, if we humans create create a machine to perform a task, and understand fully how it functions, can we say it is demonstrating free will when it does what we designed it to? Apply that idea to humans made by God, and I think we all see the problem.
you saying that a program couldn't be made that lets the machine make its own decisions? (surpass its programing?)



But here's the thing: I have spent a lot of time seeking out theists opinions, and none so far have been been able to give me honest answers to my questions.
here we get into what your definition of honest is.
and what you accept as a valid answer.

specially when your ignore valid points..why haven't you reply'd to any of my post? do you really think me dishonest?


so far, James, champion of the 'honest theist' camp. isn't doing a very good job of presenting a coherent or consistent point of view.
i think he is doing an excellent job of it,
in a real debate it is not the debaters who determine the winner..

so what do you think ppl?
james or phlo?
who is the better debater?


JamesR

did i deserve this: ?


phlogistician
You are starting to piss me off. Any more of your ad-homs and trolling and you are getting reported, do you understand?

on my wall no less..he didn't even PM it..

Believers in anything invisible really do believe what they believe, so there is no outright dishonesty. For the very strong believers, little or nothing can be done abut it. See SciForums or life for evidence. Best to ignore or use for investigation into the nature of strong belief. Yet, there will be clashes, such as in the political arena, with the talk being geared more for the voters. And of course with the indoctrination of children or unsuspecting adults. Energy will ever go through its paces, settling, and then reforming and moving on. Meanwhile, live life.

My God is a Metaphor for forces not yet understood

In what way is that different to the study of science? Science is trying to understand things not yet understood.

But that does not equate to being dishonest with you.


There just has to be dishonesty, it needn't involve me.


Self delusion != lying.

It's lying to yourself, and that is as bad as any form of deception.

ahh
an astronomer and a rocket scientist?
i'll be goddamned!

Oh, you are so witty! With your trolling, and sniping, and character assassination attempts, and not contributing to the thread, and OH! You got banned.

I was not an Astronomer. I spent four years working with a bunch of Astronomers as their technician. There was a hardware facility. Those guys were rocket scientists, and built parts for satellites. I supported some of their equipment too. Projects I have contributed to are in orbit currently. Not that any of this has any bearing on the debate, but hopefully it will allow others to dismiss your derision as easily as I do.

It's lying to yourself, and that is as bad as any form of deception.

And you are so compassionate and so concerned for their wellbeing that you go on a crusade against them. Just like militant Christians and militant Muslims, torturing and killing all those heathens for their own good, yes.

Really, Phlog, you employ the same strategy that militant preachers do.

phlogistician:


If god is omniscient (not that you have established this claim) how can we have free will? And if we cannot, how can be judged for our actions?

Just because somebody (God) knows what you will do doesn't mean that you can't make a free choice about what to do. As far as you're concerned, your choices are unconstrained. You do what you want, don't you?

I fear we're going to get into another one of your definitional arguments here. If you want to go down that path, you'll have to grasp the bull by the horns and specify exactly what is needed for a choice to be "free".


So far James has flipped flopped on whether God is male or even has gender, and skipped over admitting that he cannot know whether God is a biological entity or not.

I never flip-flopped on the gender point. You made an initial assumption based on what I wrote. I corrected your misconception of my position on gender.

As for the biological entity thing, my conception of God is quite different from my conception of biological entities. I can't speak for yours, because you maintain that you have no conception of God at all.

If you want to advance this particular point, you should specify what kinds of characteristics you'd expect God to have were he a biological entity. Then you can ask me whether God has those characteristics or not, and I'll do my best to answer them. Working together, I'm sure we can settle the issue.


For instance, if we humans create create a machine to perform a task, and understand fully how it functions, can we say it is demonstrating free will when it does what we designed it to? Apply that idea to humans made by God, and I think we all see the problem.

We can design computers to make random choices. We can fully understand how they function and yet be unable to predict what they will do. Pure randomness, of course, is not a good model of free will. But we can also program computers to use some randomness in combination with varying their responses according to particular environmental conditions. Again, we end up with a situation in which we cannot be sure how the computer will act in a given environment/situation. Is it demonstrating "free will"? Again, it comes back to exactly what you mean by "free".

why would i ask a question if i already knew the answer?

Simples. 'The Power of Prayer' does not invoke an answer from the almighty. Simply, vocalising a problem, or feeling helps you understand it. I solve problems for a living. There is a saying 'A well defined problem is a framework for a solution'. Simply, when you vocalise and describe a personal problem (believers through prayer), you have to put feelings and emotions, into words, and then, things become a little more clear, rather than just nagging emotion. When you ask questions out loud, your subconscious listens too, different parts of your brain can work on the solution.

So when confronted with a particular problem, I read through the details, discuss it with a colleague, and then put it to one side for a day or two. Often, when I revisit, it seems clearer. My subconscious has done the hard work. Sometimes, I'll read through a problem, and just describe the problem out loud, as if I was talking to a colleague. Sometimes, and answer just pops into my head at some point later, like a computing batch job just completed. This is not the work of God, but different levels of my own consciousness.


do you think that "there is no time here" makes any sense to me? no,

Sure, it's a cop out to all the problems there are with God. Clearly you'd been struggling with these problems, and this was your proposed answer.


i can't relate, but it does however answer your question regarding omniscience and free will.

It's not an answer, it actually begs more questions, and introduces more logical problems.



also, usually if something can be recreated in a lab, adds validity to the experience. so why in this case does it refute validity (in your opinion)?

Do you think the scientists push a button to induce the effect, and it summons God? ROFL!

Summons aliens to abduct people? ROFL!

It proves the experience is solely derived from brain function, it what it proves. It demonstrates that no matter how powerful the experience, it's a subjective one, and simply a matter of brain function. It eliminates God.

phlogistician:
Just because somebody (God) knows what you will do doesn't mean that you can't make a free choice about what to do.

It means exactly that! If we humans make a machine to perform a task, and the machine works, and performs that task, we cannot say it is expressing free will in doing what we created it to do.

Same goes for god creating humans, except the machine (us) is a bit more complicated, and the understanding of the machine being a bit more complicated, but the principle holds.



As far as you're concerned, your choices are unconstrained. You do what you want, don't you?

How would I know that? The impression of free will does not mean we actually have it.


I fear we're going to get into another one of your definitional arguments here.

The devil is in the detail. Definitions are paramount.


If you want to go down that path, you'll have to grasp the bull by the horns and specify exactly what is needed for a choice to be "free".

It' simple, and I feel you are being obtuse again, and should be aware of this argument. If God created us, and knows exactly what we will do, given he knew what we would do _BEFORE_ he created us, he created us to perhaps commit what is labelled sin. It's hardly fair to cast the creations he made, knowing full well we would sin aside. We cannot be said to have free will therefore, and God is merely casting defective machinery aside, but into Hell, allegedly, if you believe in such.




I never flip-flopped on the gender point.

Yeah you did.


You made an initial assumption based on what I wrote.

What else was I supposed to base it on, divination?


I corrected your misconception of my position on gender.

You said 'He', then you backpeddled and added some 'non biological' reference, which was also unqualified. Flip Flop!


As for the biological entity thing, my conception of God is quite different from my conception of biological entities. ...

If you want to advance this particular point, you should specify what kinds of characteristics you'd expect God to have were he a biological entity. Then you can ask me whether God has those characteristics or not, and I'll do my best to answer them. Working together, I'm sure we can settle the issue.

Not at all. You simply have to admit that you cannot know if God is a biological entity or not. Or justify your statement that God is not.



We can design computers to make random choices.

No we can't. Computers use programs, and programs are determined. We have pseudo-random number generating algorithms, usually time based, but computers cannot generate true random numbers.


We can fully understand how they function and yet be unable to predict what they will do.

That's just not true.


But we can also program computers to use some randomness in combination with varying their responses according to particular environmental conditions. Again, we end up with a situation in which we cannot be sure how the computer will act in a given environment/situation. Is it demonstrating "free will"? Again, it comes back to exactly what you mean by "free".

A combination or determinism and randomness = freedom? Seems odd to judge a soul based on predictable and unpredictable actions, .... God knows the predictable part, he created us to perform those acts,... and we are not in control of the random elements, ... so unless our soul in in control, how can a God judge it?

Also, your case for prediction of the model you propose is flawed. The outcome is predictable: within the limits we allow the randomness to affect the outcome. See, I like shooting James. I can't hit a perfect 10 every shot, little things can add up, wind, heartbeat, thermals distorting air, air pockets of differential temperature, all things I try to predict and control, but I cannot do perfectly. Doesn't mean I'm going to abandon my telescopic sights and rangefinder, because they don't give perfect results. They work well within their limits. As a scientist, you know we always quote errors of measurement, because we understand systems vary. All you a proposing is a system _designed_ to vary. We can still predict it's behaviour, within limits.

phlogistician:

Unfortunately, I'm getting the impression that in arguments over things like free-will, I'm considerably more well-read than you are. Have you taken any formal courses in philosophy? How much of the philosophical literature have you actually read on free will? Are you aware of the various compatibilist arguments for free will? Because at this stage I'm getting the impression you probably have never heard of combatibilism. This makes my job much harder here, because I simultaneously have to defend my statements about God and also try to educate you on basic philosophical issues. It would be better for you to go away and learn some philosophy first, before raising those kinds of issues.



Just because somebody (God) knows what you will do doesn't mean that you can't make a free choice about what to do.

It means exactly that! If we humans make a machine to perform a task, and the machine works, and performs that task, we cannot say it is expressing free will in doing what we created it to do.

That all depends on exactly what you mean by "free will". Like I said before.



As far as you're concerned, your choices are unconstrained. You do what you want, don't you?

How would I know that? The impression of free will does not mean we actually have it.

So you don't know whether we have it or not.

But that's beside the point. Your point was that you were trying to make an argument that omniscience somehow nullifies the possibility of free will. You haven't established that.



If you want to go down that path, you'll have to grasp the bull by the horns and specify exactly what is needed for a choice to be "free".

It' simple, and I feel you are being obtuse again, and should be aware of this argument.

Tell me how the compatibilists define "free" in this context. Just so I know that you're aware of this argument, you understand. I don't want to waste time telling you stuff you already know.

Or, failing that, please tell me why the compatibilist argument doesn't work.


If God created us, and knows exactly what we will do, given he knew what we would do _BEFORE_ he created us, he created us to perhaps commit what is labelled sin.

We make the choices, not God. Also, you haven't asked me about sin yet.


It's hardly fair to cast the creations he made, knowing full well we would sin aside. We cannot be said to have free will therefore, and God is merely casting defective machinery aside, but into Hell, allegedly, if you believe in such.

Why would it be unfair to hold you responsible for actions that you choose to carry out - whether those actions are "free" or not? I mean, the law does that all the time. When you choose to go over the speed limit in your car, the law holds you responsible for that. Why should God be different?



I never flip-flopped on the gender point.

Yeah you did.

"No I didn't."
"Yes you did."
"You smell!"
"You're fat!"
"Your mum eats hamburgers!"
"I hate you."

The evidence is in the thread. Enough schoolyard nonsense.


Not at all. You simply have to admit that you cannot know if God is a biological entity or not. Or justify your statement that God is not.

If God is a biological entity, he is complete unlikely any other biological entity that I am aware of. Good enough for you?



We can design computers to make random choices.

No we can't. Computers use programs, and programs are determined. We have pseudo-random number generating algorithms, usually time based, but computers cannot generate true random numbers.

Yes they can. Hook one up to radioactive source if you like.



We can fully understand how they function and yet be unable to predict what they will do.

That's just not true.

Even without "true" randomness, many physical systems are unpredictable. You're heard of chaos theory, haven't you? We know what drives the weather, but our ability to predict it is limited.


A combination or determinism and randomness = freedom?

Depends how you define "freedom". Determinism alone may be compatible with freedom.

Phlogistician said:
It's lying to yourself, and that is as bad as any form of deception.

Would you please expand on this?

I think I'm inclined to disagree. I view one's personal headspace as entirely free ground.

But I'd like to know why you find it offensive that people practice self-deception?

I mean, if they are deceiving others, that's a whole different ball of wax, of course.

phlogistician:

Unfortunately, I'm getting the impression that in arguments over things like free-will, I'm considerably more well-read than you are.

If it's done and dusted, just give me you learned definition of free will please.


So you don't know whether we have it or not.

And I would argue, nobody does.


But that's beside the point. Your point was that you were trying to make an argument that omniscience somehow nullifies the possibility of free will. You haven't established that.

Yes I have. I established that complexity is not an argument for free choice. Keep up.


Or, failing that, please tell me why the compatibilist argument doesn't work.

Because compatilibilism is a belief, not a proof?


We make the choices, not God. Also, you haven't asked me about sin yet.

We make choices. I agree. Based upon stimuli, which trigger determined and random events. I think you need to define 'free will' because I don't think we possess it, so yet again, I can't really define something I don't believe exists.


Why would it be unfair to hold you responsible for actions that you choose to carry out -

Because it would be like scrapping a vending machine for selling candy bars, just like it was designed to do.


whether those actions are "free" or not?

Well, I do not believe in free will, so I see the actions of people driven by determined, and random factors.


I mean, the law does that all the time. When you choose to go over the speed limit in your car, the law holds you responsible for that. Why should God be different?

That's a lame analogy and you _should_ know it. The difference being the law is not omniscient. The difference being that the law did not create us, knowing how we would turn out beforehand. The law is reactive,... God allegedly knows the future!





The evidence is in the thread. Enough schoolyard nonsense.

Yes it is in the thread. You used the term 'He', then retracted it, then asked which if I'd prefer you to use the term. You're not exactly consistent here.


If God is a biological entity, he is complete unlikely any other biological entity that I am aware of. Good enough for you?

No, I'd rather you retract the statement entirely as you just cannot know.


Yes they can. Hook one up to radioactive source if you like.

Then that's not the computer calculating a random number, but assigning a value to a random event. The is a difference. A prescribed program CANNOT create a random number.


Even without "true" randomness, many physical systems are unpredictable. You're heard of chaos theory, haven't you? We know what drives the weather, but our ability to predict it is limited.

Which is exactly my point. The human nervous system suffers from quantum effects at the synapses,.. so there is random input. On a large scale, things are more deterministic. But a program (or for example, us, the program that God wrote) cannot create random events, but merely have it's output altered, within limits, by them.



Depends how you define "freedom". Determinism alone may be compatible with freedom.

I disagree. The Determinism, is just that. Like I said, if you make a machine to perform a task, and you switch it on, and it does what you designed it to, is it exhibiting free will?

Would you please expand on this?

I think I'm inclined to disagree. I view one's personal headspace as entirely free ground.

Not all all. You might lie to yourself that your behaviour, while despicable to others, is acceptable, but deep down know you can get away with it somehow. This is often why serial offenders get sloppy,... they want to get caught, because they are tormented by differing opinions inside their own mind, the urge to do wrong, vs knowing what is right. Being true to yourself is of utmost importance. How can you be honest in dealings with others if you delude yourself?


But I'd like to know why you find it offensive that people practice self-deception?

Did I say it was offensive?


I mean, if they are deceiving others, that's a whole different ball of wax, of course.

Who is a two faced person?

since when is an unknown a lie?

I haven't said it is.


do you know whether God is male or female or whatever?

Why are you asking me? It's about what believers claim, nothing to do with me.


so don't make it a point of failure.

It's a point of failure if a claim is made, and retracted


James is perfectly honest in saying he doesn't know Gods gender.

Apart from when he used the word 'He'.


what makes you think that God is a controlling God?

I never said that.


why can't God exist and we still have free will?

Go read the argument about a machine created to perform a task. If you don't get it, keep reading it.


i believe he created us with the ability to choose, why would he do that if he didn't want us to exercise that free will?

Omniscience is the fly in that ointment.


you already have a preconceived notion of who/what God is Phlo. pry from catholic teachings..

Mind reader are you? I do not have an idea of what your god is, no. See, that would mean that some of the description I have been given stuck in my head as being reasonable. None of it was. So no, I have no 'preconceived' idea.


how come you associate 'God knows' to 'loss of free will'? this intones that God is a controlling God, I for one, do not believe that..

Nope. Omniscience does not imply control.


you saying that a program couldn't be made that lets the machine make its own decisions? (surpass its programing?)

Yes.


did i deserve this: ?


on my wall no less..he didn't even PM it..

Yes, because you told lies about me. Would you rather I just report you in future?

Simples. 'The Power of Prayer' does not invoke an answer from the almighty. Simply, vocalising a problem, or feeling helps you understand it. I solve problems for a living. There is a saying 'A well defined problem is a framework for a solution'. Simply, when you vocalise and describe a personal problem (believers through prayer), you have to put feelings and emotions, into words, and then, things become a little more clear, rather than just nagging emotion. When you ask questions out loud, your subconscious listens too, different parts of your brain can work on the solution.

So when confronted with a particular problem, I read through the details, discuss it with a colleague, and then put it to one side for a day or two. Often, when I revisit, it seems clearer. My subconscious has done the hard work. Sometimes, I'll read through a problem, and just describe the problem out loud, as if I was talking to a colleague. Sometimes, and answer just pops into my head at some point later, like a computing batch job just completed. This is not the work of God, but different levels of my own consciousness.

that's great, but has absolutely nothing to do with what happened to me and i'll tell you why, and then you won't care, because no matter what, you'll only believe what you want to believe. how much do you want to bet on that?

i wasn't in some quandry about omniscience when i received that answer nor had i ever been. i really don't care how god is omniscient, and that wasn't the topic of conversation. this was the conversation...

god, "davey havok is joey spagota"

me, "what?"

god, "davey havok is joey spagota"

some background...davey havok is the lead singer of the bands afi and blaqk audio. joey spagota is my childhood imaginery friend that i hadn't thought about in a long long time.

me, "but davey wasn't even alive back then?"

granted, that was a really stupid question on my part.

god, "there is no time here".

now then, does it matter to you at all that the explanation you entirely made up (based on some form of projection) is entirely not applicable here? no, of course it doesn't matter to you. all that matters to you is that you continue to believe whatever the fuck you want to believe. right?




Sure, it's a cop out to all the problems there are with God. Clearly you'd been struggling with these problems, and this was your proposed answer.

clearly? uh, no. i have never entertained that struggle, and have never testified to entertaining that struggle. you fucking made it up out of the clear blue sky and attributed it to my experience in order to erroneously rationalize your own BELIEFS. which are incorrect. now who's dishonest?




It's not an answer, it actually begs more questions, and introduces more logical problems.

no it really doesn't, and for someone who supposedly solves problems for a living, it should be obvious. if you remove time as a constraint, you can then be aware of what happens in our perceived future without directing our perceived future. it's quite simple really. you just have to get your ego out of the way.




Do you think the scientists push a button to induce the effect, and it summons God? ROFL!

Summons aliens to abduct people? ROFL!

It proves the experience is solely derived from brain function, it what it proves. It demonstrates that no matter how powerful the experience, it's a subjective one, and simply a matter of brain function. It eliminates God.


no, no, and no. if the brain function is induced in a lab, then what induces it outside the lab?

now then, does it matter to you at all that the explanation you entirely made up (based on some form of projection) is entirely not applicable here?

Riiiight, and perfectly well balanced healthy people wig out and have visions. I don't think so, Stress does funny things to people. Or you may just have an underlying condition.



clearly? uh, no. i have never entertained that struggle, and have never testified to entertaining that struggle. you fucking made it up out of the clear blue sky and attributed it to my experience in order to erroneously rationalize your own BELIEFS. which are incorrect. now who's dishonest?


You've catalogued periods of stress and strife in your life right here at SF. I'm not making stuff up, just joining the dots.


no it really doesn't, and for someone who supposedly solves problems for a living, it should be obvious. if you remove time as a constraint,

You just deconstructed the entire Universe there. You can't just remove time.


you can then be aware of what happens in our perceived future without directing our perceived future. it's quite simple really. you just have to get your ego out of the way.

In my perception of time and the Universe, I don't even think of myself being in it,... rather, I think of the birth of the Universe from a singularity, the separation or matter and energy, ponder Baryon asymmetry and anisotropy, formation of clouds of matter, the swirling patterns induced by gravity,... the formation of stars, the Chandrasekhar limit, and supernovae, and the formation of 2nd generation stars. All the really interesting stuff happened long before life evolved. All of these events, guided via entropy, and the 'arrow of time'. You can't just dispense with time, and to assert so, is rather ludicrous.


no, no, and no. if the brain function is induced in a lab, then what induces it outside the lab?

The mental aberration can be induced in the lab. It happens due to other reasons, explained in the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe_epilepsy#Causes) I gave. The effects of the lab experiment are explained here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet). Although I've liked to Persinger's studies before, and it seems you've wantonly ignored them.

Many people place "God" outside of space and time. If you consider "God" to be the creator of the universe, then this only makes sense. Personally, I don't know what to think of the idea. Seriously, the imagination is free to make up all kinds of shit. As such, I find the idea to be meaningless. Once someone decides to accept that there is an "outside of the universe", all bets are off.

Riiiight, and perfectly well balanced healthy people wig out and have visions. I don't think so, Stress does funny things to people. Or you may just have an underlying condition.

i didn't wig out and have a vision. we're not even talking about visions here. there was no stress initiating the multitude of events over a course of my life and there IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN UNDERLYING CONDITION. now stop making shit up! and then calling other people dishonest! god you're a real piece of work!





You've catalogued periods of stress and strife in your life right here at SF. I'm not making stuff up, just joining the dots.

there are no dots. first of all, we weren't even talking about stress, we were talking about my alleged quandry regarding omniscience. since there was no quandry regarding omniscience, now you're grasping at stress. and if you look back at what i've testified to here on sciforums you'll find, that stress did not induce the experience. however, the experience induced stress. again, you're being completely dishonest.




You just deconstructed the entire Universe there. You can't just remove time.

you don't even know what time is!




In my perception of time and the Universe, I don't even think of myself being in it,... rather, I think of the birth of the Universe from a singularity, the separation or matter and energy, ponder Baryon asymmetry and anisotropy, formation of clouds of matter, the swirling patterns induced by gravity,... the formation of stars, the Chandrasekhar limit, and supernovae, and the formation of 2nd generation stars. All the really interesting stuff happened long before life evolved. All of these events, guided via entropy, and the 'arrow of time'. You can't just dispense with time, and to assert so, is rather ludicrous.

yeah, it's not an "arrow", and as you've stated here, it only relates to the physical, as we in our ignorance understand it. congratulations.




The mental aberration can be induced in the lab. It happens due to other reasons, explained in the link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporal_lobe_epilepsy#Causes) I gave. The effects of the lab experiment are explained here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet). Although I've liked to Persinger's studies before, and it seems you've wantonly ignored them.

i don't have epilepsy phlog. so would you please stop lying about that?

Many people place "God" outside of space and time.

That however is just an expression of 'The god of gaps' argument. It's not a valid claim by any means.


If you consider "God" to be the creator of the universe, then this only makes sense. Once someone decides to accept that there is an "outside of the universe", all bets are off.

People stop making sense when they say 'outside the universe' given the definition of 'Universe' is 'all that exists'. Things exist that are outside of the set of things that exist? I think not.

i didn't wig out and have a vision. we're not even talking about visions here. there was no stress initiating the multitude of events over a course of my life and there IS NO EVIDENCE OF AN UNDERLYING CONDITION.

The episode you had was caused by something. Not god.


there are no dots.

Stress, recreational drug use,.. sure there are dots.


you don't even know what time is!

It's a fundamental dimension. It's the direction of entropy.


yeah, it's not an "arrow", and as you've stated here, it only relates to the physical, as we in our ignorance understand it. congratulations.

I think you need to do some reading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time).



i don't have epilepsy phlog. so would you please stop lying about that?

You may have suffered from it once. Temporal Love Epilepsy can have a trigger, maybe you only got triggered that one time.

People stop making sense when they say 'outside the universe' given the definition of 'Universe' is 'all that exists'. Things exist that are outside of the set of things that exist? I think not.
On this, we agree.

The episode you had was caused by something. Not god.



Stress, recreational drug use,.. sure there are dots.





You may have suffered from it once. Temporal Love Epilepsy can have a trigger, maybe you only got triggered that one time.

phlog, don't you see that what you're doing here is speculation at best, and pulling stuff right out of your butt at worst? which makes you, by your own standards, dishonest, and by my standards, a hypocrite.

the fact is, you have no fucking idea what happened to me or how or why, but you insist on telling yourself and others that you do. it's nothing but your belief.

it's an unfounded belief. admit it, and then apologize.

It means exactly that! If we humans make a machine to perform a task, and the machine works, and performs that task, we cannot say it is expressing free will in doing what we created it to do.
the major flaw in that argument is humans are not machines.


You said 'He', then you backpeddled and added some 'non biological' reference, which was also unqualified. Flip Flop!
get a clue, and move on phlo..


------
JamesR;

thanks for the new word James..compatibilists..had to look it up..
so those that argue strongly for compatibility are combatibilist?..(..boo..)


When you choose to go over the speed limit in your car, the law holds you responsible for that.
i didn't choose to forget to take care of my insurance ticket...(stupid DBS)

and i am with phlo on the computer generated random number. i have limited experience with programming, played with basic for awhile, thought about learning another, but never did..but i believe computers can not generate truly random numbers, i cannot argue this point,as my experience is limited.

so when you say

Yes they can.
explain please.

----------------

Simples. 'The Power of Prayer' does not invoke an answer from the almighty.
not always. and not the answer you want.


Simply, vocalising a problem, or feeling helps you understand it. I solve problems for a living. There is a saying 'A well defined problem is a framework for a solution'. Simply, when you vocalise and describe a personal problem (believers through prayer), you have to put feelings and emotions, into words, and then, things become a little more clear, rather than just nagging emotion. When you ask questions out loud, your subconscious listens too, different parts of your brain can work on the solution.
this part i agree with.



Sometimes, and answer just pops into my head at some point later, like a computing batch job just completed. This is not the work of God, but different levels of my own consciousness.
do you fully understand everything there is to know about your own subconscious?
when you say 'this is not the work of God' that statement assumes that you know what God would do.

so i submit that it is not theist that you have a problem with, you are fighting against your own ideas about who/what God is, i will explain this more in response to another of your comments.




It proves the experience is solely derived from brain function, it what it proves. It demonstrates that no matter how powerful the experience, it's a subjective one, and simply a matter of brain function. It eliminates God.
i don't see how it eliminates God..

----



Why are you asking me? It's about what believers claim, nothing to do with me.

your own ideas about who/what God is corrupting you.



It's a point of failure if a claim is made, and retracted
it would be a point of failure if he did NOT retract it.


Now that you ask, no. God doesn't really have a gender because he is not a biological entity like a human being. He is, however, a person, and we're most comfortable referring to persons as "he" or "she". The convention in religious texts has traditionally been to refer to God using masculine pronouns and terms. But you don't need to think of him that way if you don't want to. You may prefer to think of him as a kind of disembodied spirit of indeterminate gender.


Apart from when he used the word 'He'.
can you move on please..



I never said that.
<facepalm>


Mind reader are you? I do not have an idea of what your god is, no.
didn't say anything about 'my God'


See, that would mean that some of the description I have been given stuck in my head as being reasonable.None of it was.
didn't say anything about 'reasonable' either..
but it is still stuck in your head.


So no, I have no 'preconceived' idea.
your inflections and demeanor betray you, every time someone presents an idea of who/what God is you throw it out cause it does not match your ideas of who/what God is.



Yes, because you told lies about me.
if it is not true, then why does it bug you so?
do you have anger issues?


Would you rather I just report you in future?
you think threats will make your point?

your not a stupid person phlo, you do have SOME good points..don't let a bad attitude keep you from wisdom.

-----

Seriously, the imagination is free to make up all kinds of shit.
if it is true it will stand up to intelligent scrutiny.

if it is true it will stand up to intelligent scrutiny.
Will it? If time and space are out the window, then so is everything else we think we understand. Including logic.

Why does knowing the future eliminate free will? Just because you know what is going to happen does not mean that choices were not made to get there. Just because the behavior is predictable does not mean you don't have free will. If I would meet you face to face I could prove this in about a second by doing random weird/mean crap that you couldn't possibly predict because I have free will (or maybe I would just stare at you menacingly without talking for while).

Granted, societal constraints limit this freedom unless you are willing to live outside that society (i.e. jail) to a rather large extent but this does not mean that I don't have the ability to pee on my desk work if I want. I just don't want because I like my job and I do not want to go to jail. My free will allows me to choose. Literally I can do anything within my grasp at anytime, I just have to willing to deal with the consequences of my actions.

Will it? If time and space are out the window, then so is everything else we think we understand. Including logic.

logic is a tool for inteligence, not the intelligence itself.

phlogistician:


If it's done and dusted, just give me you learned definition of free will please.

How about I give you a compatibilist definition of it?

A compatibilist says that you have made a free choice if you would have done something different had you chosen to do something different.

Perhaps an example will help. Suppose you are confronted by a choice between two flavours of icecream for dessert - chocolate or strawberry. You decide to have the chocolate icecream, let's say. Then, according to the above definition of "free choice", you have made a free choice to have chocolate, because if you had chosen the strawberry instead then you would have had the strawberry.

In comparison, your choice would not be free if something would have prevented you from having the strawberry icecream even if you had chosen it. In that case, the freedom to choose chocolate or strawberry is an illusion, because you only really had the "choice" of chocolate.

Be careful when you apply the above definition. Note that it says nothing about determinism. It may be that the laws of physics, your past history, your brain configuration, and other things, determine that you will choose chocolate over strawberry. But it doesn't matter. According to the definition, your choice is still free, even if it is determined.


I established that complexity is not an argument for free choice. Keep up.

I don't remember arguing that complexity is an argument for free choice. But then, nor do I remember you establishing that it is not such an argument. Oh well.


Because compatilibilism is a belief, not a proof?

Nobody has a proof of free will or determinism.


Well, I do not believe in free will, so I see the actions of people driven by determined, and random factors.

Free will is not incompatible with determinism. Unless you can show how it is, of course.


Yes it is in the thread. You used the term 'He', then retracted it, then asked which if I'd prefer you to use the term. You're not exactly consistent here.

I never retracted the term "he". In fact, I have consistently used that pronoun to refer to God in this thread. I said you can read "he" as "he/she/it" if it makes you happier.


No, I'd rather you retract the statement entirely as you just cannot know.

I'd rather you retract your claim that free will doesn't exist, as you just cannot know.


I disagree. The Determinism, is just that. Like I said, if you make a machine to perform a task, and you switch it on, and it does what you designed it to, is it exhibiting free will?

Quite possibly. Suppose you program a machine to choose between chocolate and strawberry icecream...

phlog, don't you see that what you're doing here is speculation at best, and pulling stuff right out of your butt at worst? which makes you, by your own standards, dishonest, and by my standards, a hypocrite.

Speculation? Not at all. The episode you experiences can be recreated in the lab. That completely negates the involvement of 'God', sorry.


the fact is, you have no fucking idea what happened to me or how or why, but you insist on telling yourself and others that you do. it's nothing but your belief.

Sure I do, you had some kind of mental episode, which is hard to diagnose via the WWW. You did not however, get a message from God.


it's an unfounded belief. admit it, and then apologize.

Nope. Like I said, your experience has been recreated in the Lab. This experiment has been repeated over and over and good statistics are available. Your experience was just a statistic.

the major flaw in that argument is humans are not machines.

Who said that? Complex biological machines, but still machines. What else are we in your mind then?



get a clue, and move on phlo..

I don't need a clue, the change of position is documented right here at SF. No 'clues' required, it's in black and white.

James, your definition of 'free will' could be applied to a coin toss. You really are going to have to do better than that.

Speculation? Not at all. The episode you experiences can be recreated in the lab. That completely negates the involvement of 'God', sorry.



Sure I do, you had some kind of mental episode, which is hard to diagnose via the WWW. You did not however, get a message from God.



Nope. Like I said, your experience has been recreated in the Lab. This experiment has been repeated over and over and good statistics are available. Your experience was just a statistic.


you're a statistic.

i tell you what phlog, for over a decade now i've been out here listening to all the people just like you who lie through your teeth while you demand proof, and even though i know you're lying, i'd still love to give it to you, or rather, be of service to god in providing it for you. and i will. that doesn't mean you'll believe. there are some people who will remain in denial no matter what they're presented with, but i don't think you're one of them. imo you're egotistical, but not entirely retarded.

i think that something is going to happen to me that will bring attention to what i experienced and what i've testified to in regards to it. i don't know what exactly. but when it happens, people will be forced to investigate and take seriously, what i've been saying for a long time now. shame it has to come to that, but whatever.

when it does you'll be choking on crow with a big slice of humble pie for dessert.

it'll be hard for you, but you'll do it. and it'll be hard for me, but i'll do it for you.

James, your definition of 'free will' could be applied to a coin toss. You really are going to have to do better than that.

Coins don't make choices. They aren't conscious.

Pretty weak reply, by the way. Keep at it.

Coins don't make choices. They aren't conscious.

Pretty weak reply, by the way. Keep at it.

Your definitions are weak, I can only work with what you give me.

You have boiled down free to a description of an event that applies to a coin toss. You now say coins aren't conscious, but I've already dispensed with the complexity argument for a machine (human brain) performing a task it was designed to do, so really, you got nothing.

i think that something is going to happen to me that will bring attention to what i experienced and what i've testified to in regards to it. i don't know what exactly. but when it happens, people will be forced to investigate and take seriously, what i've been saying for a long time now. shame it has to come to that, but whatever.

Care to set a date for this event?

Will the world end?

Are you saying you are a prophet now?

Your definitions are weak, I can only work with what you give me.

You failed to comment on the definition I gave you.

In fact, as is becoming your habit, you avoided responding to the vast majority of my post. Instead, you posted an irrelevancy.

I'm beginning to think that you're incapable of facing issues head-on. Instead, you hide behind definitions and demand standards of proof that you don't abide by yourself. I guess it's because when you do attempt a substantive reply you so often reveal your lack of knowledge. So, better to hide your ignorance behind an assumed air of superiority.

Probably you haven't come across many people who've seen through your act before.


You have boiled down free to a description of an event that applies to a coin toss.

No. Like I said, a coin doesn't choose anything.

In fact, as is becoming your habit, you avoided responding to the vast majority of my post. Instead, you posted an irrelevancy.

The posts are becoming rather fragmented James. If I don't respond to a point, it's because I see all this fragmentation as obfuscation, and would really rather concentrate on the core tenet.

All I want is for you to post a decent description of your God, but instead, there you are hiding behind the straw man you are busy stuffing. It's degenerated into you picking nits, instead of making statements that bear scrutiny.

Let's start again. Restate your current definition of God.

In what way is that different to the study of science? Science is trying to understand things not yet understood.

Scientist are the modern Prophets . They seek the God qualities . Natures ways and as of late the qualities are trying to tell you something . Issac Newton was a Christ . He said it and every one dismissed his claim . He thought Jesus was not the true Christ , Why ? He saw him self as the true Christ . He was for his day and Age. You can tell by his contribution to humanity. that he was !

Scientist are the modern Prophets . They seek the God qualities . Natures ways and as of late the qualities are trying to tell you something . Issac Newton was a Christ . He said it and every one dismissed his claim . He thought Jesus was not the true Christ , Why ? He saw him self as the true Christ . He was for his day and Age. You can tell by his contribution to humanity. that he was !

Please substantiate your claims about Newton. He did not buy into the idea of the Trinity, but then that is rather a problematic concept.

Care to set a date for this event?

Will the world end?

Are you saying you are a prophet now?

no, no, and no.

no, no, and no.

So I guess nothing is actually going to happen.

Please substantiate your claims about Newton. He did not buy into the idea of the Trinity, but then that is rather a problematic concept.

I read a paper he wrote . He stated Jesus was not the Christ, with reasoning why he was not . Then He signed the paper "The one True God" There are more religious writings by Newton . I just read the one and the one was plain and clear that He thought him self the Christ . I think he understood that he who makes change for humanity for the better is a Christ . You know he was sure there was a bible code . From what I read about him he underlined his bible a lot. I think if I looked at it I could figure out exactly why he underlined what he underlined . I am positive he was picking out verses that supported His actions as being the Christ . I bet you a dollar he underlined the passage that talks about the Seed being Isaac . I am sure he saw him self as Issac the seed who is not subject to the conditions of the rest of the people, but is the seed of the promise . The seed in the bible is the ones who the promise was made . Nobody talks about these verses or they read there own greed in the verses. I think the verses are misunderstood is why. I believe Issac Newton interpretation is correct. It would be similar to Over-Man concepts in Marxism . Super man ideas . Consider this : Would we be super man to a person that lived 3,000 years ago . O.K. if some one reasons the direction of human activity there by seeing the future out come of inevitability . Would they already live in that future ? Would they be motivated to make corrections of flaws in that future . Your a smart guy . You can look at the past and reason why the present is what it is . It starts to look like a bunch of box cars being pulled by trains and even if the train stops pulling the mass of the train continues to push the box cars forward . You can't stop the motion ( Unless enough force is applied , Kaboom ) I think the conclusion is at hand because of the information age and the fall of information silos my self . Now consider The conditioning of churches . The people that live in that mind set ? Where are they on the past / future time scale . Could they be trapped in there circle of influence . Where they are at a different level in the progression of time. Just about every one lives in the past . Have I meet anyone who does not . Yeah . but they tend to be crazier than bat shit , or at least seen by peers as crazier than bat shit

So I guess nothing is actually going to happen.

why? why does the world have to end? what does that even mean? i could speculate and say that i think society will continue to become exponentially destructive and destroyed for a variety of reasons. i hope the planet isn't destroyed though. i like this planet. it's beautiful.

and honestly i don't even know what a prophet is really. seems like propheteering (i made that up) is overrated. i was channeling something for a while, and a lot of that was written down. i don't know what it was i was channeling, but it came up with some nice poetry, and had what i thought were some enlightened ideas. whatever it was was pretty pissed off too.

i think more than anything, the capabilities of whatever entities that were causing me to experience what i did is what is impressive, and most meaningful. a lot of what i went through was documented by myself and by other people who were involved. it's just that nobody pays attention to that because it's not important to them. i've felt all along that one day something will happen to make it important.

Let's start again. Restate your current definition of God.

What? Again? How many times is it now?


God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. He is omniscient and omnipotent.

God doesn't really have a gender because he is not a biological entity like a human being. He is, however, a person, and we're most comfortable referring to persons as "he" or "she". The convention in religious texts has traditionally been to refer to God using masculine pronouns and terms. But you don't need to think of him that way if you don't want to. You may prefer to think of him as a kind of disembodied spirit of indeterminate gender.

Ah, I see, still making the claim God is not a biological entity I see.

I guess you haven't derived your theism from Judeo Christian sources then;

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

So where does your belief in God come from?

phlogistician:


Ah, I see, still making the claim God is not a biological entity I see.

Not like a human being, no.


I guess you haven't derived your theism from Judeo Christian sources then;

Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Previously, I offered you the option that I could argue from a Judeo-Christian point of view. That is especially true since I have some knowledge and personal experience of that point of view. You did not take up the offer. Would you like to take it up now? Will it require that I repeat all my claims yet again? Because that alone makes me a little reticent about offering yet again.

Supposing that I did want to argue from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint, Genesis 1:27 is no particular obstacle. You don't have to take it literally, unless you're a fundamentalist (which I never was). That is, humans don't have to look like God to be created "in his own image". They can be like God in other ways. In fact, one of the main injunctions of Judaism and Christianity is that believers should do their best to be like God.


So where does your belief in God come from?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Are you asking how I first learned there was a being called "God"? Or are you asking my reasons for believing in him? Or how I came to accept certain things about God?

James, if _you_ want to support your assertions from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint, that's your choice. I should not be involved in that choice, because supposedly, you are answering earnestly (if not honestly).

On the word image,... well there's the phrase 'the spitting image', which means exact likeness. If we use less specific interpretations, it could mean similar form, like a sculpture, that implies God has arms, and legs, and eyes, and ears, and a nose, and a mouth, and these are all very physical, biological human possessions.

So is your belief derived from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint? If not, where does it come from?

James, if _you_ want to support your assertions from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint, that's your choice. I should not be involved in that choice, because supposedly, you are answering earnestly (if not honestly).

On the word image,... well there's the phrase 'the spitting image', which means exact likeness. If we use less specific interpretations, it could mean similar form, like a sculpture, that implies God has arms, and legs, and eyes, and ears, and a nose, and a mouth, and these are all very physical, biological human possessions.

So is your belief derived from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint? If not, where does it come from?
It comes from the Pharaohs Wish . Live long and prosper kind of thing . It is why it is refereed to as the Great House Of God , Or Mighty Fortress. That was the last symbolism I saw on Prayer Day this year. It is all about the promise of good things to come . You know what a promise is don't yeah . I don't know when the promise was real first made ? Long time ago . Well people are still working towards the goal . Many here on this forum are helping build the Great House and I thank you all

The paradigm shift . What causes it ? O.K. lots of things have caused Paradigm shifts in the past , Agriculture , Industrialism, Smart Growth in human habitations . So we got a bunch of religious people fractured into there separate circles of what they consider righteousness. Just about all of them are Messianic . It is the promise of religion. The bible says " God will Walk the earth . The American native talk about Quetzalcoatl return. The Muslim talks about the 12 Iman. The list goes on and on . All part of the original promise if you ask Me . See it is funny to Me that the Hopi say there will be a great house in the sky built by many people and then we have our promissory note that you all call paper money showing a piramid with the all seeing eye of Horus . The symbolism of Masons where there is a hung man . What do you think that means ? The hanged Man ? The masons are way into Temple stuff . You know the other name of the Sanctuary in the temple design . The Holy of Holies . It is called the Great House . You take the saying in revelations and how it says " He will have the temple with him and it also says The Temple not made with human hands . It all starts to sound the same after awhile . Pharaoh wish , Temple with him , Great House in the sky made by many People , yet not made with physical hands according to christian doctrine. Any way I am pretty good at making wishes come true because of determination . Have you ever been followed or stalked is a better explanation. People writing songs and script that tell everything you do . Makes a person wonder if they are being talked about . On camera or something . Our could it be the wish and all are subject to the determination of the wish . What will it take to bring the Paradigm shift? Does the promise have to be kept first ? You have a pretty heavy duty mind set ? Yet you do live further in the future than most . Maybe you don't need the promise kept , but what about all the people that depend on the promise and have spent there lives believing the promise will be kept ?

The Muslim talks about the 12 Iman.
tell me about the 12 Iman, please.

Does the promise have to be kept first ?
Maybe you don't need the promise kept , but what about all the people that depend on the promise and have spent there lives believing the promise will be kept ?

what promise?

James R,

I am curious.

I also realize your playing a role here but don't want to go through the whole thread. If you have answered this earlier, maybe you can point me to it. Thanks in advance.


How do you go from a statement of belief in god, which then justifies a definition of the god.

Any definition of the god would imply a claim of knowledge.

Since nobody can have such knowledge, isn't any person who claims a belief in god acting dishonestly or fooling themselves regarding the subject, or worse delusional ?

Not that they can't be honest in many ways, as atheists can be dishonest in many ways.

Thoughts.

James R,

I am curious.

I also realize your playing a role here but don't want to go through the whole thread. If you have answered this earlier, maybe you can point me to it. Thanks in advance.


How do you go from a statement of belief in god, which then justifies a definition of the god.

Any definition of the god would imply a claim of knowledge.

Since nobody can have such knowledge, isn't any person who claims a belief in god acting dishonestly or fooling themselves regarding the subject, or worse delusional ?

Not that they can't be honest in many ways, as atheists can be dishonest in many ways.

Thoughts.


Scriptures have knowledge of God, and some have knowledge by God.


jan.

Scriptures have knowledge of God, and some have knowledge by God.


jan.

All scriptures are claims of who, what god is and what it wants and does and wants from us.

So show me a scripture that can only be the work of god and not of man.

Considering that apparently this same god, gave different ideas and stories to many others at various times makes each one suspicious.

As you say there is only one god, so which one is correct ?

If you claim it is yours that is correct, you then claim through your religion to know, so it is then you who are making the claim of knowledge.

jpappl:


How do you go from a statement of belief in god, which then justifies a definition of the god.

Any definition of the god would imply a claim of knowledge.

Since nobody can have such knowledge, isn't any person who claims a belief in god acting dishonestly or fooling themselves regarding the subject, or worse delusional ?

A point I have been making over the last week or so is that you can't believe in something of which you have no concept. You must have some idea of what you're talking about before you can say you believe in God. In other words, some kind of definition must come first, prior to the statement of belief - or disbelief.

As for knowledge of God, a lot of people claim to have direct knowledge of God through personal contact or experience - even people on this forum. Other people get knowledge through holy books, such as the bible, or from prophets, or whatever.


phlogistician:


On the word image,... well there's the phrase 'the spitting image', which means exact likeness. If we use less specific interpretations, it could mean similar form, like a sculpture, that implies God has arms, and legs, and eyes, and ears, and a nose, and a mouth, and these are all very physical, biological human possessions.

My previous post was that "image" need not mean "spitting image". It may mean that humans were created to be thinking, rational beings with a consciousness, a moral sense etc.


So is your belief derived from a Judeo-Christian viewpoint? If not, where does it come from?

I first heard of the concept of God in a Christian context. Since then, I have expanded on and generalised that concept with reference to other religious traditions and philosophical ideas. There's rather an extensive body of thought available concerning God. I don't pretend to be across even a small part of it all, but I've absorbed enough to understand how a lot of people have conceived of and understand God, and I have come to form my own conceptions based on that.

I might equally ask you where your beliefs about astronomy come from, because I'm betting you take a lot of astronomy facts on "faith" or on the basis of authority that you respect. There's really no other option but to do that.

Apologies for late reply, had to attend a funeral, and then had a minor crisis at work upon my return.


jpappl:

phlogistician:

My previous post was that "image" need not mean "spitting image". It may mean that humans were created to be thinking, rational beings with a consciousness, a moral sense etc.

That's a rather weak use of 'image', given it's translation at the time, in context. Image meant a good likeness, not just pictographically, but in form, and essence. I think you have diluted it somewhat.


I first heard of the concept of God in a Christian context. ... but I've absorbed enough to understand how a lot of people have conceived of and understand God, and I have come to form my own conceptions based on that.

Yet you struggle to define said God. You have so few words to describe this thing to me. I still don't really have a good picture of what it is you are proposing. That's is what you are supposed to be creating: a description in words I can imagine myself.


I might equally ask you where your beliefs about astronomy come from,

Beliefs? Odd use of the word, given that proofs are required for publications.


because I'm betting you take a lot of astronomy facts on "faith" or on the basis of authority that you respect. There's really no other option but to do that.

Given I worked with a bunch of Astronomers, a lot has been demonstrated to me, from instrument, to data gathering, through to analysis. Sure, a lot of it was quite complex, some of this stuff is hardcore Physics, but I understand enough of it to understand the high level, and what's more, others can follow, and repeat, and get the same results. I'm not quite sure why you mention this, because it only underlines the disparity between a rigorous scientific approach, and the prose you have so far given us yourself.

James R,


A point I have been making over the last week or so is that you can't believe in something of which you have no concept. You must have some idea of what you're talking about before you can say you believe in God. In other words, some kind of definition must come first, prior to the statement of belief - or disbelief.


Yes, some kind of definition must come first, agreed.


As for knowledge of God, a lot of people claim to have direct knowledge of God through personal contact or experience - even people on this forum. Other people get knowledge through holy books, such as the bible, or from prophets, or whatever.


Those that claim to have knowledge (justified true belief) through direct contact I can understand as being honest with themselves, they believe that contact was with god, although this god never seems to offer them information that would be evidence to anyone else :rolleyes:

However, knoweldge of god can not be obtained through scripture or prophets because there is no evidence to support the initial claim other than someones word. In fact, if we consider holy books then if anything there is evidence to doubt the claims. Which is another discussion entirely.

My point is, it's like the discussion about aliens. Until we actually have evidence of aliens or gods we can not define them, thus we have nothing to base a justified true belief on, thus we can not have knowledge at least not yet and thus we are either not being honest with ourselves to make the claim of knowledge or we are delusional about the claim.

So for me it's not a matter of whether someone is being honest about their belief, it's that they tend to forget they don't actually know and the line between belief and knowledge gets crossed.

tell me about the 12 Iman, please.


what promise?

The 12 Iman is the Muslim Teacher that is to come . He comes out of a hole in the earth and is the spirit that lives in the earth . The equivalence of Jesus's return for Christian and Messiah for the Jews , Yokan Bolon for the native American, or Quezacotl also a name in the America's , The Muslim says Mahdi , You could say Mithra or you could say Enki from Sumerians . Many names all point to the same end . The Bird Man . Sara posted a new name " The Demon Eagle " The old testament says the guy who walks on the top of a wall with a plumb line in his hand. The guy that measures the earth. The Book of Danial says his name is Michael . Atlantis tales call him Milquat . The spirit that lives on from Atlantis . It is the equivalence of Melchizedek which I believe is all myths about the same guy said to have invented the plough that started the Agriculture revolution . Mekigal . The Micheal Myth . The one yet to come . That promise . Every one thinks it was Jesus . Jesus was thief that stole the tittle . Why did he do it ? Well if you read it right it was to give glory to the the Father . Who is the Father? The promise of the one to come . You should be able to work this out . Look around the internet . There many who claim to be the Father . They get this Idea from Scripture . They didn't just make it up .
The seed is the promise . I forget how it is exactly put in scripture . Something like " If there was not a seed then ? I forget . Read the book of Hebrews real slow and you will find it and understand better . Everybody works to full fill the promise . That is why you all act like ass holes to Me . To full fill the promise . I call it my necessary beating . Got kill the kings spirit you know . Make sure the King is dead . You all did a pretty good job . I don't ever do anything for my self because of it . You fuckers , You ruined Me . I could of had all the money by now if you all would not be so hell bent on destroying my life . I know you all think I might just be delusional . You have no Idea . Destiny rules my life and you fuckers are the players that make it all happen . You don't even know your doing it . That is the funny thing . Some day you to will hear the wind cry Mary , then I will no longer weep alone . The weeping man will have lots of company then . I look forward to the day people see what they have done and how much effect it was had on the world . Maybe it is better you stay ignorant. The pain might kill you . So don't listen to the wind , stay ignorant and that way you can keep chasing the money and doing god knows what to get it .

O.K. here is a little test for you , Look at your bible and read all the verses that have the word Me in it . All the Me's that are capitalized . O.K. it you listen to the radio listen and see how many songs reference the word Me . Think of it as all being one person instead of just conceit of each individual artist , This Me character is how I define it .

This is not directed to one person . but all that live on the earth , no exceptions :

Fuck you! I am a musician , not your wood carrying lackey social slave.

Yeah look that up too ! It is in the bible . The Children of Israel made to carry wood instead of playing there musical instruments . I was 8 when I became a prisoner in my own House . A Mercenary trained to kill was my Master . Lots of you in the greater Sacramento area know him as Little Jimmy . He would say " I will Cut your dick of an inch at a time if you don't get the hustle in your step boy. then he who kick us with his boots on . Oh what joy that was . Fun days aye . I lived no tears . It did shape my thinking process though. It was kind of like being name Sue and being a boy . Get tough or die . I must have been about 13 when that Johny Cash song came out

phlogistician:


Apologies for late reply, had to attend a funeral, and then had a minor crisis at work upon my return.

I actually thought you'd come to your senses and realised that this little exercise is going nowhere fast. I'm expecting you to slink away at some point. It doesn't bother me.


Yet you struggle to define said God. You have so few words to describe this thing to me. I still don't really have a good picture of what it is you are proposing. That's is what you are supposed to be creating: a description in words I can imagine myself.

I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have about my conception of God. So far, you haven't asked very many. One, in fact, about God's sex. And that's about all I have had from you so far in this thread, apart from demands that I repeat myself over and over again for your benefit.

Bear in mind that God, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, is actually beyond the capacity of the human mind to truly comprehend in all His glory. You can't possibly hope to truly understand the perspective of an omniscient being. Besides, God has never, to my knowledge, given anybody a really good description of himself. We have to work with what we have. As human beings, we are necessarily limited. We no more have perfect knowledge of God than we have perfect knowledge of astronomy.



I might equally ask you where your beliefs about astronomy come from

Beliefs? Odd use of the word, given that proofs are required for publications.

There are no proofs in astronomy, outside of the proofs contained in mathematical models used in that field. As soon as you start looking at the real world, proof becomes impossible. The most you can do is collect evidence for or against a proposition.

No astronomical paper ever published has included a proof of anything outside a mathematical model.



because I'm betting you take a lot of astronomy facts on "faith" or on the basis of authority that you respect. There's really no other option but to do that.

Given I worked with a bunch of Astronomers, a lot has been demonstrated to me, from instrument, to data gathering, through to analysis. Sure, a lot of it was quite complex, some of this stuff is hardcore Physics, but I understand enough of it to understand the high level, and what's more, others can follow, and repeat, and get the same results. I'm not quite sure why you mention this, because it only underlines the disparity between a rigorous scientific approach, and the prose you have so far given us yourself.

What you're saying is that astronomers have a lot of data that tends to support certain theories. You're also saying that certain observations are repeatable. The same things could be said concerning evidences of God.

It can't possibly be that you claim to have personally checked all the results you believe from astronomy, can it?

Assuming that you have not done this, would you say that you don't believe any results you haven't personally checked? Or, if you do believe certain things you haven't checked, on what basis do you believe?

phlogistician:

I actually thought you'd come to your senses and realised that this little exercise is going nowhere fast. I'm expecting you to slink away at some point. It doesn't bother me.

Oh please, so far every post you've made has had more holes than Emmental. You nearly threw the towel in on the other thread. I'm just waiting for you to abuse your mod powers, to be honest.



I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have about my conception of God. So far, you haven't asked very many. One, in fact, about God's sex.

Ohh, short memory? We've had a few, ... Sex, biology, free will,... none answered adequately.


And that's about all I have had from you so far in this thread, apart from demands that I repeat myself over and over again for your benefit.

This entire thread is for my benefit.


Bear in mind that God, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, is actually beyond the capacity of the human mind to truly comprehend in all His glory.

Interesting point. Elsewhere you've said one cannot disbelieve in something you have no concept of, but now you seem to be saying it's perfectly OK to believe in something you admit you have a very limited understanding of. Care to reconcile these contradictory views?



You can't possibly hope to truly understand the perspective of an omniscient being.

Well, no, and Epicurus rather nailed that one to it's own cross a long time ago:

http://www.sciforums.com/picture.php?albumid=21&pictureid=93



Besides, God has never, to my knowledge, given anybody a really good description of himself.

Can you actually cite instances where it's happened at all? Where God has appeared to a group, and not that the appearance relies on the testimony of an individual?


There are no proofs in astronomy, outside of the proofs contained in mathematical models used in that field.

No proofs? Nothing is 100%, but that isn't the point, is it. The point is that within experimental accuracy, people following the same experiment will achieve the same results, and derive the same conclusions. Or are you doubting the composition of the Sun, based upon Fraunhofer lines correlated against spectra gathered in the lab?


No astronomical paper ever published has included a proof of anything outside a mathematical model.

So the composition of the Sun is just a mathematical model? We haven't proven the existence of various elements inside stars? Are you really saying that? Abandoning science while playing this silly game of yours now?




What you're saying is that astronomers have a lot of data that tends to support certain theories. You're also saying that certain observations are repeatable. The same things could be said concerning evidences of God.

Please link to an experiment that will lead to the conclusion of God then!


It can't possibly be that you claim to have personally checked all the results you believe from astronomy, can it?

No, just like I bet you haven't checked out the exact biochemistry involved in taking painkillers, or even simply digesting foods. This is a straw man you are stuffing here again James.

phlogistician:



I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have about my conception of God. So far, you haven't asked very many. One, in fact, about God's sex.

Ohh, short memory? We've had a few, ... Sex, biology, free will,... none answered adequately.

Short, adequate answers:

1. No sex because not biological like a human being, but you can think of him/her/it as a him/her/it.
2. No biology in the sense that it is applied to human beings. No evidence of it, anyway.
3. Free will is an open philosophical question still being actively debated by philosophers today.


This entire thread is for my benefit.

What have you learned so far?



Bear in mind that God, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, is actually beyond the capacity of the human mind to truly comprehend in all His glory.

Interesting point. Elsewhere you've said one cannot disbelieve in something you have no concept of, but now you seem to be saying it's perfectly OK to believe in something you admit you have a very limited understanding of. Care to reconcile these contradictory views?

Sure. For example, I believe in the efficacy of many different drugs, even though I'm not an expert in chemistry and I have no idea how all these different drugs work. All I really need to know is that they have been tested by experts and found to be effective. I trust the medical scientific community to test these things on my behalf. That's not to say that medical science is perfect or that all tested drugs are safe. But I hope you see the point.

Perhaps you disagree, though. I assume you personally perform your own clinical tests on every drug. Do you?



You can't possibly hope to truly understand the perspective of an omniscient being.

Well, no, and Epicurus rather nailed that one to it's own cross a long time ago...

Did he really? Please cite, if you can, the exact writing of Epicurus that your quote is taken from. Because to me it looks a lot like a piece of internet mythology that you've swallowed, hook line and sinker.



Besides, God has never, to my knowledge, given anybody a really good description of himself.

Can you actually cite instances where it's happened at all? Where God has appeared to a group, and not that the appearance relies on the testimony of an individual?

I hear that God appears to groups of Church-goers every Sunday. I assume you personally have never experienced the presence of God. Maybe you're not open to that experience. Church-goers will tell you that they feel and see and sense God's presence everywhere.



There are no proofs in astronomy, outside of the proofs contained in mathematical models used in that field.

No proofs? Nothing is 100%, but that isn't the point, is it. The point is that within experimental accuracy, people following the same experiment will achieve the same results, and derive the same conclusions. Or are you doubting the composition of the Sun, based upon Fraunhofer lines correlated against spectra gathered in the lab?

Well, lots of people go to church every Sunday and perform an experiment with communicating with God. And guess what? They get repeatable, similar results. Or are you doubting this?


So the composition of the Sun is just a mathematical model? We haven't proven the existence of various elements inside stars? Are you really saying that? Abandoning science while playing this silly game of yours now?

I don't remember making any claim that the Sun is just a mathematical model.

We have strong evidence for the existence of various elements in stars, but no proof. I explained this point to you previously.


Please link to an experiment that will lead to the conclusion of God then!

In a sense, every experiment leads to the conclusion of God, because God was the one who created the universe with all its natural laws. The mere observation that the universe behaves rationally and lawfully leads us to the conclusion of God.

Or do you have some better explanation for the regularities we observe?



It can't possibly be that you claim to have personally checked all the results you believe from astronomy, can it?

No, just like I bet you haven't checked out the exact biochemistry involved in taking painkillers, or even simply digesting foods. This is a straw man you are stuffing here again James.

So you agree with me!

You trust people who tell you painkillers are safe (when used properly). You believe in digestion, though that belief might follow from personal observation so that's not saying much. With the painkillers, you basically accept what doctors tell you on faith. Don't you?

Power=work/time. Work=force*distance. In order for there to be a force, an equal and opposite force must be exerted. If in the beginning there was nothing, then there was no opposing force for there to be any resistance to creating the universe. If there was no opposing force then there was no force. If there was no force then there was no work done, as work=force*distance. No work done means no power, as power=work/time. If God created the universe with no power it was powerless, and what good is a powerless God anyway? ;)

I'm an atheist that goes to a Christian church every Sunday.

While I don't believe a God created the universe, or is there a heaven, I do believe that a god can exist in one's brain, and that existence can lead people to live a better life and have positive results in the real world. The god that exists in one's brain is a spiritual being that has enormous psychological power that can be transformed into actions in the real world through one's physical being.

If you want to work on your body you go to a gym.
If you want to work on your spirit you go to a church!

phlogistician:

Short, adequate answers:

1. No sex because not biological like a human being, but you can think of him/her/it as a him/her/it.
2. No biology in the sense that it is applied to human beings. No evidence of it, anyway.
3. Free will is an open philosophical question still being actively debated by philosophers today.



1 and 2, you have to admit, are unsubstantiated claims, and no more. You have to admit your own inability to prove these things, and that you should own up to doubt in them, if you are truly open minded.

3, So we don't agree on Free Will. I don't actually subscribe to the idea, and you could have used that as a get out, had you had the wit.



What have you learned so far?

That you are a shifty.



Perhaps you disagree, though. I assume you personally perform your own clinical tests on every drug. Do you?

Straw man James. Please desist. You know damned well there is scientific rigour behind drug testing, or are you now trying to pull some kind of Solipsist twist on me?


Did he really? Please cite, if you can, the exact writing of Epicurus that your quote is taken from. Because to me it looks a lot like a piece of internet mythology that you've swallowed, hook line and sinker.

It's attributed to Epicurus, and paraphrased in various forms. Doesn't change the sentiment or message, does it? In the same way "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." is mis-attributed to Voltaire, he never actually spoke those words, but the quote is a summary of his attitude.

But on attributed quotes and texts,... can you show me the train of provenance for the religious texts that have lead you to God?


I hear that God appears to groups of Church-goers every Sunday.

Cool, got pictures?


I assume you personally have never experienced the presence of God. Maybe you're not open to that experience. Church-goers will tell you that they feel and see and sense God's presence everywhere.

Weak James. Spiritualists will say they speak to the dead. UFOlogists keep seeing UFOs. We've already disposed of the notion of holding all claims with equal merit, and again, we fall back to 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' (Carl Sagan, but feel free to sling mud at that quote too if you like).


Well, lots of people go to church every Sunday and perform an experiment with communicating with God. And guess what? They get repeatable, similar results. Or are you doubting this?

Yes I am! The simple results they DO NOT agree, and this RESULTS (pun intended) in the Abrahamic schisms proves my point entirely. If there were a shred of truth in it, how come there are many religions? The experiment does not yield consistent results.



I don't remember making any claim that the Sun is just a mathematical model.

ROFL! You are hiding now James. Come out, and stand by your own inferences.


We have strong evidence for the existence of various elements in stars, but no proof. I explained this point to you previously.

It's proven within experimental accuracy. But if you doubt these things sincerely, feel free to doubt gravity, and see if one day you'll float, instead of falling.


In a sense, every experiment leads to the conclusion of God, because God was the one who created the universe with all its natural laws.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim lacking one iota of evidence.


The mere observation that the universe behaves rationally and lawfully leads us to the conclusion of God.

No it does not.


Or do you have some better explanation for the regularities we observe?

Which regularities? The arrow of time is coupled to entropy. You remember entropy? From your science lessons?




you basically accept what doctors tell you on faith. Don't you?

No.

phlogistician:



1. No sex because not biological like a human being, but you can think of him/her/it as a him/her/it.
2. No biology in the sense that it is applied to human beings. No evidence of it, anyway.
3. Free will is an open philosophical question still being actively debated by philosophers today.

1 and 2, you have to admit, are unsubstantiated claims, and no more.

No. Clearly an omniscient, omnipotent being cannot be confined to a limited biological body. Or, if you think it can, please explain how the omniscience and omnipotence might fit that picture.


3, So we don't agree on Free Will. I don't actually subscribe to the idea, and you could have used that as a get out, had you had the wit.

Your position is unclear. Are you saying you believe free will exists or that you don't believe free will exists? Or is free will one of those things you disbelieve but can't define?



Perhaps you disagree, though. I assume you personally perform your own clinical tests on every drug. Do you?

Straw man James. Please desist. You know damned well there is scientific rigour behind drug testing, or are you now trying to pull some kind of Solipsist twist on me?

You claimed that you believe nothing on faith. Yet you trust scientists who tell you they have tested the efficacy of drugs. Explain to me how that is not a faith position.


But on attributed quotes and texts,... can you show me the train of provenance for the religious texts that have lead you to God?

Again, it's not clear what you're asking. Are you asking me to educate you on the historicity of the bible, for example? Or the sources? Or the writers? Or what? It's a big topic.



I hear that God appears to groups of Church-goers every Sunday.

Cool, got pictures?

I'm sure I can find you pictures of churches and congregations, but what for?


Weak James. Spiritualists will say they speak to the dead. UFOlogists keep seeing UFOs. We've already disposed of the notion of holding all claims with equal merit, and again, we fall back to 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' (Carl Sagan, but feel free to sling mud at that quote too if you like).

Isn't the existence of the universe extraordinary enough for you?



Well, lots of people go to church every Sunday and perform an experiment with communicating with God. And guess what? They get repeatable, similar results. Or are you doubting this?

Yes I am! The simple results they DO NOT agree, and this RESULTS (pun intended) in the Abrahamic schisms proves my point entirely. If there were a shred of truth in it, how come there are many religions? The experiment does not yield consistent results.

Maybe different religions emphasise or interpret aspects of God in different ways. Maybe some religions are just plain wrong. That says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.



I don't remember making any claim that the Sun is just a mathematical model.

ROFL! You are hiding now James. Come out, and stand by your own inferences.

Laugh it up all you like, but you can't produce an actual quoet from me that the Sun is a mathematical model, or anything that infers that - and you know it.



We have strong evidence for the existence of various elements in stars, but no proof. I explained this point to you previously.

It's proven within experimental accuracy. But if you doubt these things sincerely, feel free to doubt gravity, and see if one day you'll float, instead of falling.

What on earth does "proven within experimental accuracy" mean? Does it mean "not really proven; we just have some evidence"? Like what I said?



In a sense, every experiment leads to the coclusion of God, because God was the one who created the universe with all its natural laws.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim lacking one iota of evidence.

Nothing refutes it.



The mere observation that the universe behaves rationally and lawfully leads us to the conclusion of God.

No it does not.

Let me see. How does it go? Ah, that's right: yet another unsubstantiated claim lacking one iota of evidence.



Or do you have some better explanation for the regularities we observe?

Which regularities?

All of them.


The arrow of time is coupled to entropy. You remember entropy? From your science lessons?

Explain to me how this is not a complete non sequitur.



you basically accept what doctors tell you on faith. Don't you?

No.

So you personally check everything they tell you, do you? Or do you not believe anything they say? Or do you disbelieve them because you can't define medicine?

OK James, I'll respond to this later, but you really are on your back foot now. You are being shifty and dishonest, and I rather think my point is made. This is, allegedly, a science board, yet you have been brought down to this? Using tactics that you know to be false? Point in question:


Nothing refutes it.

This really is your low point. Nothing refutes the FSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) or the Celestial Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot).

Yet here you are, resorting to that. That point was defeated before you made it, and I think rather, that means so are you.

OK James, I'll respond to this later, but you really are on your back foot now. You are being shifty and dishonest, and I rather think my point is made.

The whole aim of this thread was for you to prove how all theists are dishonest. And yet, while you have resorted to making vague, unsupported accusations, you haven't nailed me with ONE dishonest statement yet. (Caveat: of course, we accept the up-front dishonesty in that I am playing the part of a theist when I may not actually be one, but we entered into this particular dishonesty with eyes wide open.)


This really is your low point. Nothing refutes the FSM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster) or the Celestial Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot).

Yet here you are, resorting to that. That point was defeated before you made it, and I think rather, that means so are you.

The probability of Russell's teapot actually existing is minuscule. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is obviously a parody; I'm surprised you take it seriously.

God is a whole different kettle of fish.

The probability of Russell's teapot actually existing is minuscule. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is obviously a parody; I'm surprised you take it seriously.

I take it as seriously as I take the proposition that is God, ie all are degenerate. Of course, and you you damned well know this, but again are being dishonest, is that it needn't be Teapot. That object can be substituted for anything, demonstrating the fallacy that a proposition has validity because it cannot be disproven, and proving YOU dishonest for saying:


Nothing refutes it.

But you got caught out using a fallacy. You of course knew it was a fallacy when you posted it. That is dishonest.


God is a whole different kettle of fish.

I hope this is merely a kettle/teapot pun, because if it's anything more, it's a re-iteration the fallacy, and shame on you.

I take it as seriously as I take the proposition that is God, ie all are degenerate.

What on earth does that mean? You think all gods are the same? Or all gods are immoral? Or all gods are as likely to exist as one another?

Three possibilities, at least, and all of them wildly wrong.


Of course, and you you damned well know this, but again are being dishonest, is that it needn't be Teapot. That object can be substituted for anything, demonstrating the fallacy that a proposition has validity because it cannot be disproven, and proving YOU dishonest for saying:

Suppose I substitute the teapot for an asteroid, so that I claim there is an asteroid orbiting the Sun.

Is it really your claim that such a theory can be dismissed out of hand?


But you got caught out using a fallacy. You of course knew it was a fallacy when you posted it. That is dishonest.

What fallacy? Unsupported claims are worthless.


I hope this is merely a kettle/teapot pun, because if it's anything more, it's a re-iteration the fallacy, and shame on you.

What fallacy? And yes, it was also a pun. See how clever I am?

What on earth does that mean? You think all gods are the same? Or all gods are immoral? Or all gods are as likely to exist as one another?

Yes, depends if it is claimed they are omnipotent then yes, and yes.


Three possibilities, at least, and all of them wildly wrong.

This should be funny, go on then, why am I wrong to think this way?


Suppose I substitute the teapot for an asteroid, so that I claim there is an asteroid orbiting the Sun.

Wow, you managed to find one thing that might actually be a valid substitution,... but that isn't the point, is it? The point is that you are not right just because you cannot be proven wrong. YOU would have to show us that asteroid. Not that we are talking about asteroids anyway. We have observed asteroids, collided objects into them, we monitor them, hardly the point Russell was making, and yet again, you are being rather dishonest, because you know the crux of the issue, but are trying diversionary tactics.

You aren't off the hook wrt Epicurus yet either. How do you answer the critique?

Yes, depends if it is claimed they are omnipotent then yes, and yes.

So the Great Green Arkleseizure is as likely to exist as Allah, in your opinion?


Wow, you managed to find one thing that might actually be a valid substitution,... but that isn't the point, is it? The point is that you are not right just because you cannot be proven wrong. YOU would have to show us that asteroid.

We were discussing probabilities. Remember?


You aren't off the hook wrt Epicurus yet either. How do you answer the critique?

I disagree that if God is able but unwilling to prevent evil then he is necessarily malevolent.

So the Great Green Arkleseizure is as likely to exist as Allah, in your opinion?

Equally unlikely



We were discussing probabilities. Remember?

Yeah, and you'd need to beef up the description of that Asteroid, and give some precise co-ordinates. Being vague doesn't add credibility.




I disagree that if God is able but unwilling to prevent evil then he is necessarily malevolent.

So your God is malevolent.

So your God is malevolent.

If you want an answer to a question, ask it!

"Is your God malevolent?"
Answer: "No!"

Sorry James, Epicurus says your God is malevolent. I side with Epicurus, the logic is faultless. The fact you disagree matters not, it's just you being obstinate.

Sorry James, Epicurus says your God is malevolent. I side with Epicurus, the logic is faultless. The fact you disagree matters not, it's just you being obstinate.
And Epicurus is who?
The final authority on defining god?

:shrug:

And Epicurus is who?
The final authority on defining god?

:shrug:

Try falsifying his statement, rather than doubting the man himself. Typical dishonest theist tactics, yet again, from you.

Try falsifying his statement, rather than doubting the man himself. Typical dishonest theist tactics, yet again, from you.

i will say it again..stick with debating science..your not that good at debating God.

Try falsifying his statement, rather than doubting the man himself. Typical dishonest theist tactics, yet again, from you.

1-not stopping evil can result in good. especially in the absence of foresight, inherent of humans.
simple example; by a kid's logic, a shot is pure evil, so are vegetables. but the parent is not malevolent for not stopping said evil upon their children.

2-there is no "evil" per se, a women being raped is evil for the raped women, but the rapist being caught is evil for the rapist.

athiests' philosophical paradoxes regarding god are almost always built upon their own misuse of logic. Epicurus's is most elemental.

sorry phlog, james whooped your ass in this thread, go fish somewhere else.

sorry phlog, james whooped your ass in this thread, go fish somewhere else.

thank you..
i said so also..but no-one else did..
so we got two votes for JamesR..

thank you.. i said so also..but no-one else did.. so we got two votes for JamesR..Arguing with James is as pointless as arguing with God. No wait... it's much worse, since James is REAL!

Try falsifying his statement, rather than doubting the man himself.
You mean to say in your studies about Epicurus you have never encountered the grounds for refuting his arguments?


Typical dishonest theist tactics, yet again, from you.
scifes provided a decent overview

I see you are not up to date on ideas about theodicy that have have been current for the past few thousand years ...

In your quest to highlight the phenomena of the so-called "dishonest theist" it appears you are simply presenting the plight of the "fanatical ill informed and philosophically impoverished atheist who subjects the scientific process to their own pathological literal-mindedness"

:shrug:

Sorry James, Epicurus says your God is malevolent. I side with Epicurus, the logic is faultless. The fact you disagree matters not, it's just you being obstinate.

Point 1: There's no evidence that Epicurus made this argument.
Point 2: Your reliance on Epicurus is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. I might also point out that your reliance on 4 other people on sciforums supposedly agreeing with you is another fallacy, known as an appeal to popularity.
Point 3: The statement from Epicurus is unsupported by any argument. It cannot be simply taken as proven, but must be established before we can accept it. You have made no attempt to defend the statement.

1-not stopping evil can result in good. especially in the absence of foresight, inherent of humans.
simple example; by a kid's logic, a shot is pure evil, so are vegetables. but the parent is not malevolent for not stopping said evil upon their children.

We are talking about bigger things here, like Malaria and Cancer. Not veggies. Like earthquakes and tsunamis. Events that kill and maim and cause real suffering.


2-there is no "evil" per se, a women being raped is evil for the raped women, but the rapist being caught is evil for the rapist.

I can't take anyone seriously that relies on rape to make their point.


athiests' philosophical paradoxes regarding god are almost always built upon their own misuse of logic. Epicurus's is most elemental.

Then clearly in saying that you have a perfectly logical argument for God. Please share.


sorry phlog, james whooped your ass in this thread, go fish somewhere else.

Afraid not. Let's have your logic for God, rather than your egotistical dismissal of just one of the arguments against your God.

Point 1: There's no evidence that Epicurus made this argument.

So what, doesn't mean that it's not a good argument.


Point 2: Your reliance on Epicurus is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. I might also point out that your reliance on 4 other people on sciforums supposedly agreeing with you is another fallacy, known as an appeal to popularity.

Nope, I don't give a rat's ass who said it, whether it's attributed to him, paraphrased, a summary or whatever. It's a good argument. So good in fact you prefer to play the man, rather than tackle the substance. I guess you cannot refute it, hence are using the fallacious debating tacting of questioning the source.


Point 3: The statement from Epicurus is unsupported by any argument. It cannot be simply taken as proven, but must be established before we can accept it. You have made no attempt to defend the statement.

It stands for itself. It it logically self supporting, IF the claims made by theists are taken at face value. If you want to start excusing your claims of omnipotence and omniscience, feel free, but that's you being reduced to being an apologetic.

You mean to say in your studies about Epicurus you have never encountered the grounds for refuting his arguments?

If you think you have, please share.



scifes provided a decent overview

That wasn't good, it was pretty weak.


I see you are not up to date on ideas about theodicy that have have been current for the past few thousand years ...

Oh please. If there was any decent logic or argument, theists would make such. You don't. You are vague, apologetic, and your argument remains the 'god of gaps'.


In your quest to highlight the phenomena of the so-called "dishonest theist" it appears you are simply presenting the plight of the "fanatical ill informed and philosophically impoverished atheist who subjects the scientific process to their own pathological literal-mindedness"



Oh really. James has flipped flopped on God's gender, made unsupportable statements about whether God is a biological entity, refused to admit that he just cannot know that, whilst trying to use the same argument that hangs him on that point against me on proving a negative! But if you have a better definition of God than the one JamesR has so far offered, please feel free to share it, and we can discuss that.

It stands for itself. It it logically self supporting, IF the claims made by theists are taken at face value.

Why do you take them at face value - your face value, that is?

We are talking about bigger things here, like Malaria and Cancer. Not veggies. Like earthquakes and tsunamis. Events that kill and maim and cause real suffering.
veggies are big things for kids, they're small relative to adults.
what are big things for adults may be small things for god.

and my point was that just because something looks evil to you, doesn't mean it is so objectively, just because there is pain at a certain time and place, doesn't mean there isn't joy because of that pain in another time and place.

malaria and cancer may actually make people happy, for example it may make them appreciate what they've got left more than how they appreciated what they lost. and with that new outlook on life, be happier.

earthquackes may cause sadness in a part in the world, but happiness in a another bigger part of the world. tsunamis may flush out bad governments, expose which by getting fixed will lead to a better life for future generations.
you must look at the bigger picture, for those big things. and the one who can see the biggest picture is god, not you.

look, to break it down for you, in order to label an action or happening as evil, you need to know the repercussions of that actions on everything, and i mean EVERTYHING everywhere future and present, and when the gross evil outweighs the gross good, then that action can be labeled as evil.
since nobody has such knowledge but god himself[by definition], you cannot judge his actions.
understood?



I can't take anyone seriously that relies on rape to make their point.

:rolleyes:
strong argument.


Then clearly in saying that you have a perfectly logical argument for God. Please share.
no. not "clearly".




Afraid not. Let's have your logic for God, rather than your egotistical dismissal of just one of the arguments against your God.
not my point here. stop shifting goal posts. you provided an argument against god, it was logically rejected, admit that.

Scifes, when you lose a loved one to Cancer, come back and try and tell me it was OK because somewhere, someone enjoyed the experience.

My argument has not been logically rejected, because your points are bogus. Natural disasters cause anguish and suffering. That you claim there could be some benefit is meanwhile, pure speculation. I have facts, you have speculation. You lose.

Why do you take them at face value - your face value, that is?

Dissect the quote for yourself.

Scifes, when you lose a loved one to Cancer, come back and try and tell me it was OK because somewhere, someone enjoyed the experience.


phlog, when the best thing in your life happens to you, know that the long chain of events that led to that best thing happening has included people dying of cancer, and that if it weren't for them the present would've changed in ways that would've prevented you from experience that best experience.


besides, not necessarily others in other places would "enjoy" cancer. but those who got cancer themselves may feel better in other ways than before getting cancer.

and remember, no matter how bad things are, they are good compared to being an alternative future that which is worse.


and since we're talking theists' viewpoints, challenges and pain in this life is considered cleansing from god, and any pain you get now in this world you will be rewarded it joy tenfold in the afterlife. so it's a win-win situation, which is why religion is very important for people's lives, especially the poor and misfourtunate.

phlog, when the best thing in your life happens to you, know that the long chain of events that led to that best thing happening has included people dying of cancer,

But that is bogus logic, because there was no need for them to have died from cancer.


and that if it weren't for them the present would've changed in ways that would've prevented you from experience that best experience.

Not true. This is a mis-understanding of 'The Butterfly Effect'. Somethings are prone to change due to the most subtle persuasion, others not. You cannot make the statement honestly that my wellbeing relies on other's suffering.



besides, not necessarily others in other places would "enjoy" cancer. but those who got cancer themselves may feel better in other ways than before getting cancer.

Now you are talking complete and utter bullshit.

Oh please. If there was any decent logic or argument, theists would make such.
there are heaps of them
There are literally stacks of arguments in the defense of theodicy.

In fact you could say it has been the hottest topic in religious philosophy for at least the past 400 years.

IOW I think you would be hard pressed to find any body of scriptural commentary from the past 1000 years that doesn't touch on the defense of theodicy.


Your questioning is kind of like a person making a scientific inquiry yet being totally ignorant of physics

It's like, "Where the hell have you been?"


You don't. You are vague, apologetic, and your argument remains the 'god of gaps'.
I'm not sure what makes you think dialogue surrounding the defense of theodicy requires a "god of the gaps".

Perhaps you can cite your sources




Oh really. James has flipped flopped on God's gender, made unsupportable statements about whether God is a biological entity, refused to admit that he just cannot know that, whilst trying to use the same argument that hangs him on that point against me on proving a negative! But if you have a better definition of God than the one JamesR has so far offered, please feel free to share it, and we can discuss that.
The points he has made have been clear and concise.
Apart from a need for obfuscation on your behalf to support the obviously biased claim "theists are dishonest", its not clear why you don't see that.

IOW the real topic of this discussion (in regards to the in/validity of theistic claims) is why you need to move outside the standard philosophical tools of thesis vs antithesis and instead opt for "you are wrong because I said so" (the later admittedly being a popular tool amongst great boneheads of history on both sides of the a/theistic spectrum)


We are talking about bigger things here, like Malaria and Cancer. Not veggies. Like earthquakes and tsunamis. Events that kill and maim and cause real suffering.
Given that the individual soul is bestowed with eternity (and accepts corporeal existence within biological frameworks as a temporary phenomena), there are also bigger things that contextualize your reference to "real" suffering.

I mean you do understand how death and deprivation of liberty at the hands of other living entities also afflicted with the same issues of mortality (along with a several other key sufferings - like old age, suffering from one's own mind - eg the cycle of lust, anger, regret, etc) are inherent qualities of this world, yes?



I can't take anyone seriously that relies on rape to make their point.
Ironically enough you also get similar hard luck cases in mental and prison institutions (or even grounded children) who some how or other fail to acknowledge their current state of deprived liberty as a consequence of their previous choices or actions



Afraid not. Let's have your logic for God, rather than your egotistical dismissal of just one of the arguments against your God.
On the contrary, the picture of a world where you have a plethora of necessarily free willed fallible entities who (somehow or other) can't make mistakes is not only absurd but contradictory.

IOW trying to argue for free will and the inability to not make mistakes in a living entity stuffed to the hilt with material desire that has no scope for absolute lordship is bonkers.

(or alternatively, trying to argue for the absence of free will effectively puts the boot in any discussion of good or evil so you might as well end your tirade about god's malevolence right now)
The best use of a bad bargain is to relegate all such afflicted entities to a sort of virtual existence - ie one where they can role-play out their dramas of ignorance in a safe environment to come to grips with their stupidity

It is dishonest to claim the truth of a Creator Being that cannot be shown. It doesn’t matter why the believers say it can’t be shown, Can it be outright shown? No, plain and simple. They then go on to speak for it, which is just more dishonesty piled on. They would have been OK if they had said instead that they just wanted it to be true.

Now add to this that science finds otherwise, such as no immutable forms, and more, and that there are paradoxes of self-contradiction left and right. Even all this doesn’t matter, for the Creator Being cannot be shown in the first place. All that follows the Being claim thus becomes baloney that then approaches the ridiculous, ever deepening the intellectual black hole, even leading to the posting of false religious ‘science’. For example, on another site, it was said that the Creator Being gave power to the Hebrew alphabet. Yeah, sure thing.

It is dishonest to claim the truth of a Creator Being that cannot be shown. It doesn’t matter why the believers say it can’t be shown, Can it be outright shown?
what a nonsense statement

Why or how something cannot (or can) be shown is something even a 5 year old can fathom.

If you disagree please explain how you would (outright) show the colour blue to a blind person.



:shrug:

But that is bogus logic, because there was no need for them to have died from cancer.
think of it this way, your mother meets your father while she stays up late nursing a cancer patient who dying.
you turn out to be the savior of humanity.
:shrug:





Not true. This is a mis-understanding of 'The Butterfly Effect'. Somethings are prone to change due to the most subtle persuasion, others not. You cannot make the statement honestly that my wellbeing relies on other's suffering.

everything is interconnected in ways you can't grasp.
so you shouldn't act if you DO.
if god is just, then he will reward us for all the pain he puts us through magnified and eternal.
in that case, the more pain in this life the better. you have omitted that part in your reply.


Now you are talking complete and utter bullshit.
am i (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8922u9f4MU&feature=player_embedded)?
i personally know who accomplished wonders, ONLY after they lost their sight in their forties, and were able to do things they couldn't before.

happiness is relative, problems battering you lower your expectations and your standards for happiness, that makes you appreciate things more, and so become happier.

not always, but it happens.

phlogistician:


So what, doesn't mean that it's not a good argument.

Of course not.


Nope, I don't give a rat's ass who said it, whether it's attributed to him, paraphrased, a summary or whatever. It's a good argument. So good in fact you prefer to play the man, rather than tackle the substance.

So I take it I won't be hearing any more appeals to authority or appeals to popularity from you.

Great! Let's move on.


It stands for itself. It it logically self supporting, IF the claims made by theists are taken at face value. If you want to start excusing your claims of omnipotence and omniscience, feel free, but that's you being reduced to being an apologetic.

Very little stands for itself.

Let's break it down. The statement is: "If God is able to prevent evil from occurring, but unwilling to do so, the he is malevolent."

Breaking it up into a structured argument we have:

1. Premise: any being who is able to prevent evil yet is unwilling to do so is malevolent.
2. Premise: God is a being who is able to prevent evil yet is unwilling to do so.
3. Conclusion: God is malevolent.

This argument can be attacked by questioning either premise 1 or premise 2. Note, in particular, that the argument is not "self-supporting". It relies on two premises, either of which may be questioned.

To get you started:

Premise 1 may be attacked on the basis that there might be an omnipotent being who has good reasons for being unwilling to prevent evil from occurring. One such argument revolves around the notion of free will. I can explain if you're unfamiliar with it.

Premise 2 may be attacked on the grounds that perhaps God is not omnipotent. However, for the purposes of this thread I will not pursue this line of argument.


Oh really. James has flipped flopped on God's gender, made unsupportable statements about whether God is a biological entity, refused to admit that he just cannot know that, whilst trying to use the same argument that hangs him on that point against me on proving a negative!

Empty, repetitive claims, amply refuted in prior discussion.

Premise 1 may be attacked on the basis that there might be an omnipotent being who has good reasons for being unwilling to prevent evil from occurring. One such argument revolves around the notion of free will.

Just how does 'Free Will' get someone killed by an Earthquake? Or make them prone to anaphylactic shock when they get stung by a wasp?

…nonsense…

Anything that can’t be shown to exist cannot be claimed to have a true existence, that’s all; yet, many state their beliefs as truth and fact to all, and it is therein that the dishonesty comes about, not in having the subjective belief itself. Whether the belief is helpful or not doesn’t enter in to its claim as true. Nor does denigration enter in, for the truth of the belief cannot be shown in the first place, and so there isn’t even a place for it. Because of human nature, the belief will even be elaborated upon, these additional layers also constituting a dishonest presentation.

The war is between the knowns and the claims of the unknowns that can’t be shown as ‘knowns’.

If the beliefs could be shown then there would be no unbelievers.

Anything that can’t be shown to exist cannot

the only persons advocating that wholesale regarding god are atheists ... which effectively makes the statement "anything that cannot be shown to me cannot be shown to exist" (which bears a parallel to showing a colour to a blind person - IOW both blind people and atheists share by default an epistemological inability to approach the said objects)

Just how does 'Free Will' get someone killed by an Earthquake? Or make them prone to anaphylactic shock when they get stung by a wasp?
by having made decisions that relegate one to an environment where that and a whole lot more is the norm

by having made decisions that relegate one to an environment where that and a whole lot more is the norm

That doesn't make any sense. Babies do not choose to be born in earthquake prone areas, yet they are killed by earthquakes. Please think before you post.

That doesn't make any sense. Babies do not choose to be born in earthquake prone areas, yet they are killed by earthquakes. Please think before you post.

there is the whole issue of the living entity appearing in the material world (which affords mortality at every step of the way, earthquake zone or no) which you are conveniently avoiding .....

please think before you post

;)

there is the whole issue of the living entity appearing in the material world

Welcome to my ignore list. Life is too short for your mumbo-jumbo.

Your questioning is kind of like a person making a scientific inquiry yet being totally ignorant of physics


kinda like when i post in the science forums?
(not totally ignorant, but close enough to count)

Welcome to my ignore list. Life is too short for your mumbo-jumbo.

thats his answer to everything..ignore everything that doesn't line up with his own beliefs..
(sounds like what he accuses theists of)

Welcome to my ignore list. Life is too short for your mumbo-jumbo.
Apparently the brevity of your life only becomes a problem if you die from earthquakes ....

:shrug:

Just how does 'Free Will' get someone killed by an Earthquake? Or make them prone to anaphylactic shock when they get stung by a wasp?

You might want to consider why everybody is not immortal, assuming that it is within God's power to make them so.

The points he has made have been clear and concise.
Apart from a need for obfuscation on your behalf to support the obviously biased claim "theists are dishonest", its not clear why you don't see that.


I think it's fairly clear why he doesn't see that. He is operating out of a God-the-vending-machine notion of God.

For him, God would be God, if there would be no evil in this world.

Why people (theists or atheists) operate out of a God-the-vending-machine notion of God - that is the interesting question!

You might want to consider why everybody is not immortal, assuming that it is within God's power to make them so.

You could answer my question James.

How does free will get people killed and maimed in natural disaters, or get them cancer, or see them have congenital medical problems?

An omnipotent creator God need not test people with such things, but supposedly chooses to make people suffer.

And don't try and sell me some holistic 'God moves in mysterious ways', 'Big picture' crap, when people are dying painfully from cancer.

phlogistician:


You could answer my question James.

And you could answer mine.


How does free will get people killed and maimed in natural disaters, or get them cancer, or see them have congenital medical problems?

It doesn't.


An omnipotent creator God need not test people with such things, but supposedly chooses to make people suffer.

Who said anything about testing people?

James, stop with the diversions. We are discussing the quote attributed to Epicurus at this point.

Oh, and I'm not answering your questions here, have you forgotten that? This isn't a debate, it's where I ask you questions about your God, and you answer honestly. You keep trying to make this a debate, but that's yet again another dishonest deviation.

Back onto what you have said on topic.


Premise 1 may be attacked on the basis that there might be an omnipotent being who has good reasons for being unwilling to prevent evil from occurring. One such argument revolves around the notion of free will.

then I asked:

"Just how does 'Free Will' get someone killed by an Earthquake? Or make them prone to anaphylactic shock when they get stung by a wasp?"

And you said


It doesn't.

So God does not prevent the natural disaster, because of free will, but then you contradict yourself when I ask you how free will gets someone killed in said natural disaster.

For him, God would be God, if there would be no evil in this world.

I haven't said that at all. I wouldn't arrive at the conclusion there must be a God is I saw no evil or suffering, it's a non-sequitur.

I am questioning omnipotence and omniscience, and the notion of a loving God.

Epicurus makes a simple argument. Please, if you have something to say on that argument, say it, but do not put words into my mouth.

I haven't said that at all. I wouldn't arrive at the conclusion there must be a God is I saw no evil or suffering, it's a non-sequitur.

I am questioning omnipotence and omniscience, and the notion of a loving God.

Epicurus makes a simple argument. Please, if you have something to say on that argument, say it, but do not put words into my mouth.

You are putting words in my mouth.

I said:

For him, God would be God, if there would be no evil in this world.

Ie. if there would be no evil in this world, then you would consider that God (if God existed) would be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

For you (and Epicurus), the existence of evil is proof that either God doesn't exist at all, or God exists, but is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (and in that case, not worthy to be considered God, ie. omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent).

You are putting words in my mouth.

I said:

For him, God would be God, if there would be no evil in this world.

Ie. if there would be no evil in this world, then you would consider that God (if God existed) would be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

No I wouldn't, so stop putting words into my mouth.


For you (and Epicurus), the existence of evil is proof that either God doesn't exist at all, or God exists, but is not omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (and in that case, not worthy to be considered God, ie. omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent).

Well, you get to the ramifications of the quote in the end,.... 'God' as described, clearly isn't some perfect being, so isn't God. The concept is logically self defeating.

Well, you get to the ramifications of the quote in the end,.... 'God' as described, clearly isn't some perfect being, so isn't God. The concept is logically self defeating.

The concept of God is "logically self-defeating"
only
if we posit that this world and life as it is usually lived are
the necessary and sufficient
measures of God's nature.

phlogistician:


So God does not prevent the natural disaster, because of free will, but then you contradict yourself when I ask you how free will gets someone killed in said natural disaster.

I never made the claim that God does not prevent disasters because of free will. Nor have I contradicted myself at any point in this thread.

Here's what I said:


[phlogisitician's argument] may be attacked on the basis that there might be an omnipotent being who has good reasons for being unwilling to prevent evil from occurring. One such argument revolves around the notion of free will. I can explain if you're unfamiliar with it. (emphasis added)

And a little later:


You might want to consider why everybody is not immortal, assuming that it is within God's power to make them so.

James, I asked you how free will gets someone killed by an earthquake, and you said 'it doesn't' but you also said one of the reasons God doesn't prevent such is because of free will. That means free will is the ingredient getting people killed, and you have contradicted yourself.

James, I asked you how free will gets someone killed by an earthquake, and you said 'it doesn't' but you also said one of the reasons God doesn't prevent such is because of free will. That means free will is the ingredient getting people killed, and you have contradicted yourself.

As you say, I said one argument for why God might be unwilling to act concerns free will. That argument is not likely to be applicable to an earthquake.

So, there must be some other reason God might be unwilling to act to prevent earthquake deaths. Of course, that's assuming that he doesn't act to prevent some deaths, which remains to be proven.

Have you thought of any reasons why God didn't make everybody immortal yet?

As for the contradiction thing, obviously you're wrong again. I never mentioned free will as the relevant "ingredient" in earthquake deaths.

People here who are referring to God as being actual truth and fact is probably the basis of the claim of being dishonest, for God has not been shown to be true.

This doesn't have to be stated outright, but just as in saying God could have done this and that, etc.

So, it's not the belief itself that is dishonest, but the claims of its truth.

phlog is embarrassing himself by being dishonest, he should stop.

People here who are referring to God as being actual truth and fact is probably the basis of the claim of being dishonest, for God has not been shown to be true.

This doesn't have to be stated outright, but just as in saying God could have done this and that, etc.

So, it's not the belief itself that is dishonest, but the claims of its truth.

your ideas about god being purely a limb of speculation aside, if you want to write off speculation as an act of dishonesty you have just given the boot to about 60% of science

:shrug:

As you say, I said one argument for why God might be unwilling to act concerns free will. That argument is not likely to be applicable to an earthquake.

So give me a reason that does apply.


So, there must be some other reason God might be unwilling to act to prevent earthquake deaths. Of course, that's assuming that he doesn't act to prevent some deaths, which remains to be proven.

'must' be? That sounds rather certain, when you don't have any proof of anything. Ah, and now you say God may save some people. We know people die, however, so the question still stands, and you have wasted yet another opportunity to acquit yourself.


Have you thought of any reasons why God didn't make everybody immortal yet?

Now you are being absurd and diversionary. One, this thread is where I ask you questions, and you attempt to answer honestly, it's not a debate where you counter with questions. Two, we've gone over and over that I have no concept of your God, so how am I supposed to assign motives to such?


As for the contradiction thing, obviously you're wrong again. I never mentioned free will as the relevant "ingredient" in earthquake deaths.

You said 'evil', and I wanted to keep the scope broader, but you've excused yourself through a rat hole, trying to evade natural disasters, because you cannot counter the argument.

your ideas about god being purely a limb of speculation aside, if you want to write off speculation as an act of dishonesty you have just given the boot to about 60% of science

:shrug:

That's fine, for science is ongoing. It doesn't just prove things in a day.

The other side has nothing. 100% speculation, with nothing ongoing.

phlog is embarrassing himself by being dishonest, he should stop.

You've got a week to qualify that statement, while I'm off surfing, and if you don't, you're getting reported.

it's the same statement you've made regarding a big portion of this site's posters, and it's been much more than a week and you haven't qualified it.
in failing to qualify your statement, you have rightfully earned mine.

if you beleived thiests to be dishonest, you had plenty of time and space to show it. you haven't.

instead, you kept changing your requirements of your opponents, sending them to your ignore list, and intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding their arguments.
i never knew james had this much patience.

you feel like reporting, report to your heart content, wanna put me on ignore, go ahead. but 13 pages of explanations turned down by you is nothing less than dishonest, you simply will not accept otherwise.

but 13 pages of explanations turned down by you is nothing less than dishonest, you simply will not accept otherwise.

What reason is there to accept otherwise?

There is plenty of theoretical solutions to the problem of theodicy.

But to accept them, one would need to overhaul one's whole knowledge and meta-knowledge base.
Which is a big task. There would need to be some considerable incentive for a person to do so.


As far as things stand, what reason is there to not measure God's nature by this world and life as it is usually lived?

This world and life as it is usually lived are all most of us know.

You've got a week to qualify that statement, while I'm off surfing, and if you don't, you're getting reported.

ooo..threats..i bet he is scared...NOT!

and it's been much more than a week and you haven't qualified it.

if you beleived thiests to be dishonest, you had plenty of time and space to show it. you haven't.

instead, you kept changing your requirements of your opponents, sending them to your ignore list, and intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding their arguments.

you feel like reporting, report to your heart content, wanna put me on ignore, go ahead. but 13 pages of explanations turned down by you is nothing less than dishonest, you simply will not accept otherwise.

im glad im not the only one who see's that..


i never knew james had this much patience.
someone give him a raise..