Clearly it wasn't - or else we wouldn't be arguing it. So now you are saying God IS everything - which then brings me to the other question that you have conveniently overlooked: If God is "everything" then why label it God? What else does your personification offer that separates it from the existing label of "everything"? Eh? You are being deliberately dishonest, Jan! You said you reserve judgement to the statement I asked until I answered your question. My statement was: "I certainly do NOT thus make the assumption that God is impossible. I have never made this assumption, and I challenge you to point out where I have ever said that." I then made the necessary response to your question and subsequently asked for you to make your answer - WHERE have I ever said that GOD IS IMPOSSIBLE? You are beginning to get more and more confused as time goes on... defending your position with an answer that bears no reference to the issue. This answers nothing about the tangle you have woven for yourself. There is a NEED due to an EXISTING LACK. The NEED and LACK arise at the same time. If there was no LACK - there would be no NEED. If there was no NEED - it is because there is no LACK. Creation is through an existing LACK - a NEED. Because that is how I conceive it to be - devoid of God. Devoid of the need for God. There is nothing to answer until you have the decency to answer my question first. Not at all. I have never taken the impossibility of God as an assumption. Again - please show me where I have done so? You can not logically conclude that merely from the asking for evidence - unless you yourself are unable to understand logic. I have never had evidence for the non-material - so I can not say what the non-material is like - so I can not ask for evidence of something that I have no concept of. This is NOT the same as saying that it is impossible. And now you also so state that it is impossible for God to produce physical evidence - yet you claim that "everything" is evidence for God. Jan - you seem so confused in your thinking it really is making me laugh. The coherency of your arguments, from one post to the next, is unravelling the longer you go on. Please explain why you would think that this concept is "taking the piss"? You either have the belief God exists - or you don't. What is so very hard for you to understand the digital nature of these positions? If you think that it is not digital but analogue, with shades of grey - please explain your thinking to me.
Sarkus, Fair enough, we'll leave it there then. ??? I've looked at it, and it does bear reference, but we have already covered it. Tangle? It is straightforward and simple. What exactly is an "existing lack"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There is a demand for prisons, due to certain peoples behaviour. You're talking nonsence. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! We'll agree to disagree on this on. I think that is your position period. I have explained this before, but i will do so once more. Asking for physical evidence of God (you know my definition), despite being shown the obvious contradiction. This implies that you are either an idiotic buffoon (which I am 99.999999% sure your not), or are just being stubborn, and holding on to what you believe is a rational position. I've already explained this to you. Oh no, not more cheap psycology! It seems in-human. When you come to that point, yes. But not everybody arrives at that point, sometimes we think we believe (or not), then our actions show something else. I don't think you fully understand what believing in God entails, that's why I find your concepts amusing. You need to start thinking outside the box. I don't think I can, Sarkus, and I don't think it would help if i could. Jan.
You claim God is everything. So... Why personify "everything" as God? What does your God, whom you have now stated IS everything, offer more than merely "everything" does? Is this simple enough for you to understand? :yawn: If you say so, Jan. If you say so. People who are lost never seem to admit it, do they.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And the "demand" is due to an "existing lack". What of this do you not understand. It is not me talking nonsense - it is you seemingly unable to grasp simple English. Feel free to think what you want. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And it remains quite simple that if you can NOT be shown evidence then to have the belief that it exists is irrational. To not understand this implies that it is YOU who are either the idiotic buffoon or it is YOU who are just being stubborn, and holding on to what YOU believe is an irrational position. At no point - and I repeat NO POINT - do I claim that God is impossible purely 'cos I can't be shown evidence. If I can't be shown God exists or not then it would be as irrational for me to say that it is impossible as it would possible. To resolve this, Jan, please have the decency to answer these few questions... 1. If I do not have evidence of something (e.g. the Snargul) - is it rational or irrational for me to believe in its existence? 2. Do you think that the only evidence we can observe is material? 3. If the Snargul is non-material, can we have evidence of it? 4. Does the lack of evidence obtainable for the Snargul mean that it is impossible? So you are arguing from incredulity?! Way to go, Jan. One logical fallacy after another. Irrelevant. It is quite simple - at any point in time you either have a belief in god/God etc - or you don't. If actions show something else to what they think then it might remain unclear whether they have the belief or not - but they still either have it or not. It is inescapable. And I don't think you fully understand what not believing in God entails - that's why I find your concepts often quite bizarre. I think you'll find that that is a requirement to break free of Theism. And yet again you avoid answering. You are nothing if not surprising, Jan.
Sarkus, Where have I stated that God IS everything? And while you're searching, can you find where I state that God ISN'T everything. Thanks in advance. Er...I think you'll find that most do. Are you losing it Sarkus? I've already asked what is meant by an "existing lack". It sounds like nonesense to me. Maybe it will make sense when/if you can explain it. It is irrational to ask for physical evidence of God, knowing the definition we are working with. Wrapped up within this dogged question is a belief that it is impossible for God, or God does not exist, or I deny the authority of God. You may not say it directly, but that can be the only reason. The only rational position you can hold it to not believe it, go home, and live your life. I don't think you actually believe God is impossible, but by doggedly asking for physical evidence, the implication is there. I think you come under the "God does not exist" camp, but playing the silent impossibility card helps in your argument (you believe). That would depend on the nature of your belief, if it is the Snargul, I have no idea, if it is God, then it is rational, as long as you adhere to the exemplary actions of a bona-devotee. That we can observe through our senses? Yes. That we can observe utilising the senses and sober intelligence? No. I know nothing of Snargul. If nothing is known of Snargul, and Snargul is not composed of any nature ie, matter/spirit, then we cannot have evidence of it. If something is known and Snargul has a nature, then we can have evidence of it. You know more about Snargul than I do, and if you say there is a lack of evidence, I will more likely believe you, than base my judgement upon my ignorance. Er... you asked me to explain why I THOUGHT the statement was a piss-take. How is it possible to have a definate belief or non-belief, one is unclear whether or not they have a belief? From your perspective, lack of experience, knowledge, and understanding. Theism can be progressive, atheism IS retardation, from how you and SnakeLord explain it. Did it cross your mind that is an answer? Jan.
Originally you said that God is the source of everything - surely meaning that God was distinct from his creation...? Post 377: Jan Ardena: "God is NOT distinct from his creation..." If you care to look up what "distinct" means, I think you'll find that, regardless of your intended claims, you were actually saying that God IS everything. At no point have you said that God ISN'T everything. So now - please have the decency to answer the questions I asked of you. Then you could probably do a lot worse than become one of the majority. Er... there exists a lack (an "existing lack") wherever there is a need. The two can not exist without the other. Where there is one there is the other. One implies the other. Again - for the umpteenth time - you fail to understand simple logic. You continually equate the impossibility of providing evidence of a thing with the claim of impossibility of existence of that thing. Yet previously you have said that you can comprehend of something existing outside our Universe that can have no means of providing us with evidence of its existence (see post 377). Does the lack of evidence rationally mean that the something is impossible? No. You baffle me, Jan, with the way you accept things in one post and are unable to take those thoughts through to another. Is it deliberate on your part? eh? I don't follow you. For (hopefully) the last time - THE IMPLICATION IS NOT THERE unless you continue to ignore simple logic. By continually making these statements, are you admitting that you can not grasp simple logic? If not - please run through your thought process to get from A to B - from my statements to this implication. Your thoughts in this regard are shown to be flawed through your inability to follow logic. Thus your conclusions are irrelevant. It is irrational. Period. To think as you do is an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. Period. Drivel. Firstly: "Observation through" and "utilising" are synonymous when discussing senses (if you disagree - please explain your terminology). The only difference, therefore, you claim is in "utilising... sober intelligence". So you're admitting to a complete and utter lack of evidence? And you're relying purely on philosophy and sophistry to reach your conclusions? Secondly: You are continually saying that my request for evidence is "impossible" - and yet here you are saying that actually it is possible. Again - you change your position. Which is it, Jan? If it is possible to obtain evidence then provide it. Nothing is known of the Snargul (other than its name) - not even whether it is composed of matter or spirit. So you admit that we can not have evidence of it? Thanks. This doesn't answer the question: 4. Does the lack of evidence obtainable for the Snargul mean that it is impossible? Yes - an argument from incredulity. You can't believe that it is possibly a "human" thought - so you claim it to be "in-human". This is an argument from incredulity. Or are you now going to provide support for the claim of "in-human". Imagine one has a numb hand, and it is pitch black. The person is either holding an apple in their hand or not. They might remain unsure until they turn the lights on and have a look - but they are still either holding an apple in their hand or not. Only from your elitist and blinkered view of atheism, Jan. I dare you to consider that Atheism is actually a progression from theism: We start of as atheist... we fall back to theism as we try to find ourselves in this wide, wonderful and scary world, using theism as a crutch to help us on our journey. Then we start to learn more and more and either want to try and rationalise our need for the crutch, or we try and finally walk on our own, progressing beyond the need for such things. Of course it is an answer, Jan. Just not an answer to the question asked.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sarkus, Correct. I explained what I meant by this by use of analogy. It means "clearly different". You are "clearly different" to your responses, but your responses are a reflection of your mind, so they contain a part of you. To deny it, is irrational. We often say things like Hendrix lives on through his music. If you care to read into my meaning (like you attempted above), you will understand that I mean God isn't everything, but is the source of everything. I apreciate the complexity of this equation, for a preset mind, and will only be too happy to help you unravel it all. My door is open. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The creation of a prision, is an intelligent solution to a problem that can stop the flow of civilisation. The "lack" is a lack of intelligence of persons who cannot live by the rules of a civilised society, therefore prisions are created to act as a form of punishment and rehabilitation. You understand the definition of God we're working with. Right? I understand your request for evidence, i.e. physical, something which can be scrutinized by the current standard of the scientific method. Right? If God IS the source of everything you, I, or anyone percieves, including the percievers, then everything is evidence. That stands to reason, regardless of whether you believe it or not. Agreed?To keep asking for evidence (something) of God's existence, despite knowing the description we are working with, is either, gross ignorance of the fact of the matter, or deliberate obtuseness, as you know that any physical evidence put forward can by explained away, thus making it impossible to deliver conclusive evidence of existence, which is what you request. Your points do not follow. You asked me to comprehend "something", as opposed to one, or the only thing. If you had asked to provide something that has the means, my answer would have been he same. A better question would have been, can you comprehend God (the source of everything) not having the means of providing us with evidence of his existence. To which the answer would have yes, if he so decides. Have you stopped beating your mum? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Either you believe, or not. To try a put your position into pole position, is an irrational, and illogical move, and no amount of fancy word-play, or academic education can alter that. You will always be found out, as you have been. Your logic is below the standard of this discussion, you have reached a point where honesty is king. I am recieving the implication, regardless of whether you think it is there or not. It is constantly being demonstrated, as is your dishonesty. I have given you examples of this. Is this your only line of defence. Of course I can understand logic, don't be a putz. Do you think logic belongs to atheists? The problem you have is that you cannot think outside of certain perimiters, and your pride will not allow you to accept anyone who can. My response is totally rational, you're the one who is irrational. Most probably because I didn't answer the question the way your preset mind would have liked. Yes. I am appealing to authority, but not in order to WIN an argument. I appeal to authorities because that is the best way to understand things you are not versed in, but need to be. puh!!!! One can utilise the senses to try and observe something specific, ie, trying to hear the triangle in an orchestra. Observation through the senses is a general habit. Nonsense. Sober intelligence is necessary to discriminate correctly. What you are requesting, i.e, physical evidence that conclusevly proves existence, is impossible, and you know it. Which is why you keep requesting it. ??? You created the Snargul, you tell me. You asked my "WHAT I THINK", another way of requesting ONE'S OPINION. Interesting. Please explaing to the world how you LOGICALLY came to the conclusion that the statement "it SEEMS in-human" is a state of NON-BELIEF? It is an opinion, my dear sir. LOL!!! This explanation is of a very poor standard, I suggest you try again, and this time actually read the question. Nope. From yours and SnakeLords defiant view. I actually disagree with it. It can't be, it implies "a lack", by your own definition. If we start of as atheist, how is it possible to fall "back" on theism? You're confused my dear sir. Why? Jan.
Round and round and round we go Where we stop, no-one will know. Thus they are DISTINCT. Things can be distinct - yet still a reflection. No - it isn't. Welcome to the world of METAPHOR! You are using nothing but sophistry to try to worm your way out of your mess - and not doing a very good job at it. Sophistry. Please explain how God can be the source of everything, remain non-Distinct from everything, and still not BE everything? There is no complexity, Jan - just confusion on your part. Why is there a NEED for a solution? Because they lacked it originally. Every need has a lack. Every creation implies a need implies a lack. You don't get it do you? I may understand the definition that you are trying to convince me of - but YOU need to provide evidence that can ONLY be attributed to God - and to nothing else. YOU need to explain why "everything" is evidence of God - and all you have so far is "through definition". In which case I ask you YET AGAIN... What does your GOD do or offer that "everything" doesn't offer? What does your personification of "everything" gain from the label of "God"? No. I don't. YOU need to conclusively show that it can ONLY be rationally shown to be evidence of God - and not evidence for anything else. You can't. Thus all "everything" can ever be is evidence for "everything" - nothing else. Definition is NOT evidence - it is NOT proof - it is nothing but a concept. In other words you can't provide any. Which makes it irrational to believe in it. Thanks for the clarification. The only gross ignorance (or it may be deliberate obtuseness) is on your part. You have merely provided a definition and said "by definition this is evidence of God" - but all you have done is provided a new label for "God". Well done. If there are two competing theories - mutually exclusive (i.e. only one can be held true) - and there is "evidence" that fits both - then that "evidence" can rationally NOT be held as evidence for anything but itself. To think that it is evidence for both is irrational and ignorant. Yes - they do. You just can not see the logic due, presumably, to your preset thinking. Correct. And you could - yet you still fail to see how this applies to the argument. Blinkered. Not a better question - as this is introducing the concept of God - which I specifically was avoiding in order to highlight the specific point. Yes thanks, the coffin tends to get in the way. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yet you argue below that belief is not digital! How bizarre. You are confirming your confused status. I still don't follow you. No - you have given no examples that hold up to scrutiny. It is also not the logic that is below the standard of this discussion but your understanding and grasp of that logic. The very fact you receive the implication is evidence of this. Then please demonstrate it. No - merely to people with a certain level of intelligence. Lol! I can think outside of certain perimeters - I just know when they are not logical / rational. strike up another piece of evidence to support the case for your lack of understanding. Pure sophistry. I don't know it is impossible. You are the one claiming it is - not me. I have told you all there is to know. Now please answer the question. Yes - and an opinion borne out of logical fallacies. Or do you contend, bizarrely, that opinions are immune from such scutiny? And thus not subject to the scrutiny of logic?
Sarkus, I stopped a while back. The rest is just experimentation. Now you're getting it. Well done. And you are trying desparately to claw back some cred. Been there done that. Actually, if you think about it, there isn't a need for a solution, but a solution is an intelligent option to keep civilisation on track. The idea of NEED, is subjective. See above. I've already provided evidence... "everything". Who or what else could that be attributed to? That is not the need, otherwise I could ask why isn't "everything" evidence of God. The point is, nobody knows. a) your question is pointless, as to have a correct answer would take our positions out of the realm theism and atheism. These positions exist because we do not have the answer. b) you can always read the scripture to understand why it is believed that God is the ultimate source. If you read it and come to conclusion that it is nonsense then your status is atheist (non-belief). But that is as far as you can take (rationally). If I could, I wouldn't be labelled "theist", you wouldn't be "atheist". What you are asking of me, is, from a human perspective, is impossible to do, which is why you are irrational, illogical, and dis-honest. From your perspective. You don't have to believe anything other than your computer is evidence of your computer, with nothing else attached, i.e. manufactorer, designer. You would be correct on a very basic level. I didn't say it was. But the definition forms the basis of intelligent analasys i.e. we gain more understand of what a compter is because of its definition, instead of calling it by its individual components. What you're asking me to do is impossible, and you know it. You are everything you claim I am. I have provided the definition as a platform for us to work from. I did not say "everything is evidence of God", I said, "it stands to reason that if God is the ultimate source, then everything is evidence of God". I also stated that this has to be realised in order to know, which is the point of belief, and religion is its pure form. But not in the case of God. Because, by definition, God is the source of everything. If you don't believe in God, then fine, but to try and beat down people who do, is a step too far imo. The truth is, I can see the logic. I concieved of a tin of pilchards in a place I deemed outside of the universe. How does that apply to your argument? That is your problem, you want to avoid the concept of God, while at the same time convince yourself he does not exist. And you call yourself rational and logical. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You're a self-confessed atheist, and I, a theist. Presumably, we have arrived at this position, not instantly, or not forced, but thoughtfully and purposefully. I am merely following from that presumption. Niether of us know if our position is absolutely correct, although we have reason which strengthens our decisions. My point is, at this stage, there is no use in saying i'm wrong or you're wrong, we either believe or not. What are you trying to acheive by claiming I am irrational and delusional? What are you trying to acheive by asking me to provide physical evidence of God? Why can't you accept that I believe in God, and you don't? What do you mean by "scrutiny", as in what type? Logic can only go so far in this discussion, because we a dealing a principle, which is defined as the source of everything including logic. This source cannot be totally understood through logical argument. But, logical argument can put things (that we can know) into perspective ensuring that we don't go out on a limb. Your logic attempts to go out on a limb, by demanding something that cannot be acheived conclusevlely. Okay. I get your point. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please demonstrate this ability? Please explain the flaw and dishonesty in that response? Of course you know its impossible, which is the reason why you stick with it. If it was possible it would have held up already. The fact that this is one of the most debated arguments is testiment to the complexity of the issue. If you want to play silly-beggars, then be my guest. no definition no nature no experience no information (outside one persons mind) no other persons making any claims My conclusion is that you have made the Snargul up. Please state the fallacy, as, "it SEEMS in-human" appears to not have enough information to draw such a conclusion, but by it's very words would suggest not enough information was given in the statement, that it was in response to? Why would such a response need to come under the scrutiny of logic, bearing in mind the dialougue is obviously incomplete? Would it not be better to scrutinise my conclusion? Jan.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I suggest you re-review this comment of yours in light of your original quip and my response - and then apologise.
You don't think I'm being serious do you? It was a light-hearted exercise in begging the question. However, as you seem to have taken it seriously, I sincerely apologise for the mis-understanding, and will try and remove it from responce. Sorry. Jan.
I was not referring to the first comment. Or maybe you find it humourous to imply that someone is an incestuous necrophiliac? I personally don't.
