Why do we need a God?

@LG --

It's because you simply haven't taken all of the variables into account and are working from a painfully, and purposefully, limited set of data. The same approach will work when you stop deliberately limiting what you think the method can do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Similar as with the President.


If you're just an ordinary Joe, you can't go to visit the President just like that; you can't even take pictures of him in public without getting special permissions - regardless of how much you want to meet the President.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@wynn --

Which is the element that LG deliberately left out of his examples to make it seem as though the rational method wouldn't work in this situation. LG's example is too simplistic to be comparable to the others he mentioned, and deliberately so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

did the giraffe desire to meet the president?

Did osama bin laden or saddam hussein get to meet the president (even though they were itching from the seams to meet him - I think saddam even issued a request for a one on one meeting)?

My point is that it doesn't.

If you try to meet the president like his wife, dog or even the giraffe in the photo does you won't make it past the first of his 100 secretaries/security personal

If you have a clue why a giraffe can meet the president and you cannot, you are only pretending to be clueless when discussing god along the same lines

:shrug:

 

No, he hasn't. Again, with some formatting added:


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)?


Notice the striking similarity between B and D?

 

@LG --

James' point still stands. When anyone asks you what method to use in the evaluation of spiritual/religious claims, claims like "god exists", you either can't or won't tell us.

Of course, you could always prove us both wrong right here and now by just telling us what tool we need to use.

 

Its precisely what you have to add to the president example (the same something that never gets added to any investigation of planets or molecules) that makes it rational.

IOW to begin an attempt for direct perception of the president in the same manner that one would rationally begin the attempt to directly perceive molecules and planets is irrational ... simply for the reason that the president occupies a superior hierarchical position of power and culture that renders his exercise of will vastly superior to yours.

 

@wynn --

Nope, I don't.

In example B the president doesn't have to want to see you first because he's out in public frequently and all you have to do to investigate/directly perceive him is to get a line of sight, pretty simple really(been to DC many times, seen the president many times)

In the case of D we simply are told that we're unable to directly observe god because.....well, we're never exactly told why, but we assume it's a good reason(lol).

 

@LG --

Wrong. I've seen the president many times throughout my life, though he may or may not have seen me. All I need to do is get a direct line of sight, which isn't actually all that difficult.

 

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)?
precisely - you saw him on his terms - not yours

Also explains why saddam and ossama had such a hard time trying to directly perceive him too I guess

Why talk of god when what you talk of isn't even vaguely effective for a mundane man like the president or even bill gates or richard dawkins

:shrug:

 

@LG --

Nope, he didn't even know I existed, perhaps you should read more thoroughly.

However, I'm still game. I'll accept your flawed premise for them moment, if only so you'll fucking tell me what tool I need to use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims.

 

you saw him purely on his terms.

If you don't believe me just try going back to the same public square tomorrow and ask yourself why he is not there

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)?

Must be your lack of eagerness, training or skills of analysis if he doesn't show up, no?

You've already used it to directly perceive the president and you still can't figure it out?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@LG --

Just tell me because apparently I'm a dunce.

 

I re-edited the last post so maybe you missed a few things.

If you still can't work it out I will give you a hint - its not in bold

 

@LG --

Why are you dancing around this? Could it be that you simply don't have an answer for my questions?

 

I just did answer it.

Go back to the same public square and wait for the president.

If that doesn't work out try opening the front door of the white house.

After you try all this and fail, ask yourself precisely what occurred in the public square the day that enabled you to directly perceive the president.

When you have an answer for all these deeply mysteriously topics, you will have an answer for how one begins the task of investigating the nature of god, and how this is remarkably distinct from the manner one begins the task of investigating molecules, planets or even chimpanzees smoking pipes.

 

@LG --

Name it.

 

I already did in post 436

If you are just going to repeat yourself ad nauseum like you did from post 340 onwards you might as well give up until someone with the capacity to progress discussion (even the discussion of topics they don't necessarily agree with)shows up on the thread since its obvious, in this regard, you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.

:shrug:

 

@LG --

Oh, you mean that bullshit I tried when I was a christian that never provided me with any answers? You mean faith? Really?

 

"It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers. "
James Thurber