Why do we need a God?

Us asserting that alone cannot motivate anyone to reciprocate with further questions.

You need to tell us more about your intentions.

How come the assertions of some posters grab your attention and compell you to reply? What have you got at stake here?

Myself, I am pursuing a course of reasoning to see where it will go, because I find it pleasant to do so.

I've already began answering your question, on several occasions, but you didn't like the answer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@wynn --

When people make such bold assertions, apparently by fiat, I get curious.

My intentions are irrelevant. The fact that you and LG apparently can't answer is what's relevant.

So that's why it took me about a month of badgering you two to get any sort of answer at all? Sorry if I'm skeptical but those who are interested in seeing where a line of reasoning is going to go would typically answer the questions right away.

You're right, I didn't like your nonsensical answer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not at all. Having clarity about one's intentions helps one direct one's actions to one's satisfaction.

IOW, instead of relying on us to dissolve your frustration, you could dissolve it yourself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@wynn --

Who said I was frustrated? I've been enjoying myself watching LG bluster and grandstand to avoid answering what should be a simple question. And taking your answer apart gave me some enjoyment as well, but at least you tried to answer.

However all of this is simply a distraction, a red herring. Something to draw attention away from the fact that neither of you have been able to give me a valid tool to use in the evaluation and understanding of spiritual/religious claims. So, rather than indulge your fallacy any further I'm simply going to repeat my questions and hope that you can defend your assertions.

What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims? And why does this tool work better than science?

 

Seconded again.

 

given that you are clueless about any answer to the problem outside of empiricism, what makes you think they weren't valid and logical ???(... unless of course you are already so absolutely convinced that you already have the answer :shrug

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

start by not balking at the onset of a discussion about the answer

:shrug:

 

@LG --

Before any discussion can take place I must first know what we're discussing. In light of that, no discussion on the topic will take place between us until you answer my two questions.

1. What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

2. Why does this tool work better than science?

Any attempt to avoid answering these two questions will result in me repeating them until you answer them.

Understood?

 

since you asked the question I assumed I didn't have to paraphrase that for you

Go to post 340
try not to balk this time

:shrug:

 

@LG --

You, sir, apparently don't understand the rules you're going to have to play by to play this game with me. That was not an answer to my questions.

1. What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

2. Why does this tool work better than science?

 

Strangely enough, both questions are addressed in post 340 ... the one you have consecutively balked on (for about the 20th consecutive time in this thread).

The real question is why do you ask questions with no real intent of discovering how one answers them.

My guess is that your display of inquiry is simply a show since you are more interested in discussing what you think the answer is.

:shrug:

 

Those other than the wishful and the indoctrinated may claim the tool of the sensation of God, yet, this is backwards, for ‘God’ is not a given, but what is sought, plus, sensation is neurological.

 

I agree.

How about we give him a chance to discuss what he thinks the answer is?

 

@LG and wynn --

I've already told you what my rules are.

1. What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

2. Why does this tool work better than science?

 

Funnily enough, if we look at the problem of getting direct personal audience of the president bereft of any "neurological" "tool's of sensation" we are left with a problem of mere navigation over perhaps a couple flights of stairs/elevator rides and opening maybe one or two dozen doors - something perhaps 97% of the world's human population (and perhaps even a sizable percentage of the animal kingdom - like the one's who can ride bicycles or smoke ) is capable of

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And furthermore, funnily enough, if we look at the problem purely in a such manner, such an approach grants failure to well over 97% of the human population (including other sundry categories who can smoke and ride bicycles ).

And on a further note, even if an entity cannot smoke, ride a bicycle, open a door or ride in an elevator, they can meet with success.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I guess the president moves in mysterious ways, no?

 

Do you deny that the president enjoys being in a category highly esteemed in terms of power/social hierarchies?

Or is it you deny (some) persons get direct perception of him due to do the simple physical manouvers of negotiating the architecture of buildings (climbing stairs, opening doors etc)

Or is it simply that you cannot see the parallel to this example of approaching god?

 

already explained why you fail even by the standard of your own rules
:shrug:

 

sorry arioch you have dropped the ball too many times

other people have already achieved in 2 posts what you couldn't do in 20

:shrug: