Poll: Do we need [there to be] God?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Thread: Why do we need a God?

  1. #461
    Quote Originally Posted by Arioch View Post
    @LG --

    Why is that relevant to why you haven't answered my questions after more than a month?

    The answer is that you simply don't have any answers and are seeking to both invalidate science(good luck with that one) and obfuscate your points so you don't have to go through the bother of supporting them. Follow that with some red herrings(the post above is a perfect example of this), some non-sequiturs, and some straw man arguments and you have a recipe to almost unfailingly replicate your posts.

    And who lacks discussion skills here? Oh that's right, it doesn't matter because you simply can't answer my questions.

    Oh, and unlike James, I refuse to play this game by your rules.
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    I'm done playing with lightgigantic in this thread.

    Let the record show that lightgigantic cannot specify which methods one must use to investigate God.

    Done.
    It seems that the two of you believe that the asker has no responsibility for the question he is asking - as if a question would be justified regardless of what it is asking and shouldn't be questioned or analyzed nor further discussion with the asker invited.



    "All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations. Which five?

    "One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment.
    One asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with greed.
    One asks a question of another through contempt.
    One asks a question of another when desiring knowledge.
    Or one asks a question with this thought,[1] 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'


    AN 5.165



    "There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four?
    There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that].
    There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms].
    There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question.
    There are questions that should be put aside.
    These are the four ways of answering questions."


    AN 4.42



    What is your motivation for asking your questions?
    What kind of answer do you expect?

  2. #462
    Valued Senior Member SciWriter's Avatar
    Posts
    3,015
    Epitaph:

    LG could not answer; nor the Seas that mourn
    In flowing Purple, of their Lord Forlorn;
    Nor rolling Heaven, with all his Signs reveal'd
    And hidden by the sleeve of Night and Morn.

    — Omar

  3. #463
    Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
    So does this apply to prayer?
    Depends on what it is a person is praying for and why.

  4. #464
    Like nailing Jello to a tree AlexG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,864
    Quote Originally Posted by wynn View Post
    What kind of answer do you expect?
    An evasive one.

  5. #465
    If I had encountered LG years ago when I was a Christian, I would have been convinced that he was just another victim of Satan's insidious and exacting plan to draw people away from the actual truth by providing approximations of it. Satan is, after all, said to be as masterful as they come, knowing precisely how best to lead us astray. What better way than to craft something that looks like the truth, but isn't the truth?

    "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." - 2 Corinthians 11:14

    Some say that Satan's lies are like rat poison; 99% delicious, and 1% poison. 99% true, and 1% false. But that 1% is enough to kill you.

    You see, part of fundamental Christian epistemology is accepting the Bible as the complete, inerrant, and only true source of knowledge concerning God. Further, any religious endeavours that are not entirely centered around the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who provided the only route via which we could actually approach God on a personal level, will ultimately fail. They may even produce 'profound' results that serve to reinforce their worth in the mind of the deceived, but those results wont translate into eternity at His side. I'm sorry to say that LG has apparently embraced the wrong religion.

    At least, that's what countless others out there would be convinced of, some of whom frequent these forums. Until this fact can be reconciled with the claim that use of the prescribed religious epistemological tool kit can produce reliable information about God, it's all just a bit ridiculous.
    Last edited by Rav; 03-29-12 at 04:05 AM.

  6. #466
    Quote Originally Posted by Rav View Post
    At least, that's what countless others out there would be convinced of, some of whom frequent these forums. Until this fact can be reconciled with the claim that use of the prescribed religious epistemological tool kit can produce reliable information about God, it's all just a bit ridiculous.
    Not at all, but any exchange depends for its satisfactoriness on the amount of goodwill that the participants have.

    This is not to say, for example, that if one had enough goodwill, then one would embrace Jesus as one's Lord and Savior. Nor is it to say that if one had enough goodwill, one would "just believe in God."

    But if one does have enough goodwill, then many things that appear problemstic, aren't so anymore, or one is able to reformulate them.
    Clear and productive thinking requires as its prerequisite a good amount of goodwill.


    Notice how requests for reliable information about God tend to come from a position of insecurity and defensiveness?
    That insecurity and defensiveness already imply that the person is operating out of the conviction that God (if He exists) is a monster.

  7. #467
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    An evasive one.
    I guess people get what they expect.

  8. #468
    Quote Originally Posted by wynn View Post
    Not at all, but any exchange depends for its satisfactoriness on the amount of goodwill that the participants have.

    This is not to say, for example, that if one had enough goodwill, then one would embrace Jesus as one's Lord and Savior. Nor is it to say that if one had enough goodwill, one would "just believe in God."

    But if one does have enough goodwill, then many things that appear problemstic, aren't so anymore, or one is able to reformulate them.
    Clear and productive thinking requires as its prerequisite a good amount of goodwill.


    Notice how requests for reliable information about God tend to come from a position of insecurity and defensiveness?
    That insecurity and defensiveness already imply that the person is operating out of the conviction that God (if He exists) is a monster.
    In all seriousness wynn, truly, honestly, I don't understand how what you just said actually addresses my post.

  9. #469
    Quote Originally Posted by Arioch View Post
    @LG --

    Why is that relevant to why you haven't answered my questions after more than a month?
    then I stand corrected.

    Why is it that JamesR can achieve in 2 posts what you can't in 30 days?

  10. #470
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    I'm done playing with lightgigantic in this thread.

    Let the record show that lightgigantic cannot specify which methods one must use to investigate God.

    Done.
    I stand corrected

    You bail after two posts (after which, it is clearly shown what tool is to be used - provided of course you can accurately group these four statements into two groups based on similar qualities)

    A:
    Does the investigation/direct perception of the planets and stars require that the stars want to see you first (or that you see the planets and stars on terms dictated by the planets and stars), or is it primarily a subject dictated by how eager one is to investigate/perceive such things( assuming the candidate has the adequate resources of education, training etc to grant the powers of analysis to pursue such investigation)?


    B:
    Does the investigation/direct perception of the president require that the president want to see you first (or that you see the president on terms dictated by the president), or is it primarily a subject dictated by how eager one is to investigate/perceive such things( assuming the candidate has the adequate resources of education, training etc to grant the powers of analysis to pursue such investigation)?


    C:
    Does the investigation/direct perception of molecules require that the molecules want to see you first (or that you see the molecules on terms dictated by the molecules), or is it primarily a subject dictated by how eager one is to investigate/perceive such things( assuming the candidate has the adequate resources of education, training etc to grant the powers of analysis to pursue such investigation)?


    D:
    Does the investigation/direct perception of god require that god wants to see you first (or that you see god on terms dictated by god), or is it primarily a subject dictated by how eager one is to investigate/perceive such things( assuming the candidate has the adequate resources of education, training etc to grant the powers of analysis to pursue such investigation)?

    Perhaps you do this to help arioch save face?

  11. #471
    Quote Originally Posted by SciWriter View Post
    Epitaph:

    LG could not answer; nor the Seas that mourn
    In flowing Purple, of their Lord Forlorn;
    Nor rolling Heaven, with all his Signs reveal'd
    And hidden by the sleeve of Night and Morn.

    — Omar
    the answer is as difficult as placing the 4 statements in 2 categories based on similar qualities.

    I find it ironic that you guys can moan literally for pages about not getting a straight answer and then fumble and waffle about anything and everything to avoid the task


  12. #472
    Quote Originally Posted by Rav View Post
    If I had encountered LG years ago when I was a Christian, I would have been convinced that he was just another victim of Satan's insidious and exacting plan to draw people away from the actual truth by providing approximations of it. Satan is, after all, said to be as masterful as they come, knowing precisely how best to lead us astray. What better way than to craft something that looks like the truth, but isn't the truth?

    "And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." - 2 Corinthians 11:14

    Some say that Satan's lies are like rat poison; 99% delicious, and 1% poison. 99% true, and 1% false. But that 1% is enough to kill you.

    You see, part of fundamental Christian epistemology is accepting the Bible as the complete, inerrant, and only true source of knowledge concerning God. Further, any religious endeavours that are not entirely centered around the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, who provided the only route via which we could actually approach God on a personal level, will ultimately fail. They may even produce 'profound' results that serve to reinforce their worth in the mind of the deceived, but those results wont translate into eternity at His side. I'm sorry to say that LG has apparently embraced the wrong religion.

    At least, that's what countless others out there would be convinced of, some of whom frequent these forums. Until this fact can be reconciled with the claim that use of the prescribed religious epistemological tool kit can produce reliable information about God, it's all just a bit ridiculous.
    similarly a panspermian can hog the mic (talk about how it is essential and how persons who think otherwise are not really scientific or whatever and so on and so forth ) in a discussion about abiogenesis


  13. #473
    Quote Originally Posted by lightgigantic View Post
    similarly a panspermian can hog the mic (talk about how it is essential and how persons who think otherwise are not really scientific or whatever and so on and so forth ) in a discussion about abiogenesis

    I was simply addressing the underlying claim, that is ever present in these sorts of discussions, that the prescribed tool for obtaining knowledge about supposed transcendental matters can produce reliable results.

    For the sake of discussion I'm happy to completely concede any points you might make regarding the veracity of scientific claims.

  14. #474
    Quote Originally Posted by Rav View Post
    In all seriousness wynn, truly, honestly, I don't understand how what you just said actually addresses my post.
    If your intention here is to compete, to prevail, then my post(s) probably seem outlandish.

  15. #475
    Quote Originally Posted by wynn View Post
    If your intention here is to compete, to prevail, then my post(s) probably seem outlandish.
    It's not. I honestly don't understand how your comments actually addressed mine.

  16. #476
    Quote Originally Posted by Rav View Post
    At least, that's what countless others out there would be convinced of, some of whom frequent these forums. Until this fact can be reconciled with the claim that use of the prescribed religious epistemological tool kit can produce reliable information about God, it's all just a bit ridiculous.
    There is religious variety (there are Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus etc.) and they all claim to have (exclusive) knowledge of God.

    And to some people (including you, it seems), this variety indicates that the prescribed religious epistemological tool kits as prescribed by the various religions
    do not produce reliable information about God,
    which is further an indication that some or all of them are wrong,

    and that if there would indeed be such a thing as a prescribed religious epistemological tool kit that could produce reliable information about God,

    this would manifest in theistic uniformity - so that everyone who claims to know God would at all times make the same claims, and there would be no variety as we currently know it.

    Is that, in roundabout, your view?

  17. #477
    Quote Originally Posted by wynn View Post
    Is that, in roundabout, your view?
    Yes, except for this part:

    this would manifest in theistic uniformity - so that everyone who claims to know God would at all times make the same claims, and there would be no variety as we currently know it.
    I feel that it is reasonable to expect some variety, but not to the extent that views on core issues (such as salvation) become diametrically opposed.

  18. #478
    I am trying to fill in the premises to get from

    Because there exists such great variety among people who claim to know God

    to

    it must be that some or all of them are wrong.


    It seems natural to me to think that since people are very different (they live in very different circumstances, they have very different needs, interests and concerns)
    they would also be at different stages of or in different places of knowing God - ie. that they would see God from vastly different perspectives and thus see vastly different images - but nevertheless all see God.

  19. #479
    Quote Originally Posted by wynn View Post
    It seems natural to me to think that since people are very different (they live in very different circumstances, they have very different needs, interests and concerns)
    they would also be at different stages of or in different places of knowing God - ie. that they would see God from vastly different perspectives and thus see vastly different images - but nevertheless all see God.
    This is exactly the sort of perspective that is diametrically opposed to the fundamentalist Christian viewpoint, which we've discussed before.

    I guess what you're suggesting then, is that the Christian's perspective is valid, but that so is everyone else's, and the fact that they sometimes run around trying to convert each other, or even cleanse each other, is also just another example of being at a different stage or in a different place of knowing God.

    Surely even you draw the line somewhere.

  20. #480
    Quote Originally Posted by Rav View Post
    Surely even you draw the line somewhere.
    What do you mean?

    That I would say about someone "This person surely is clueless about God" -?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •