On faith

The God said:


    • "Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam."
Can we elevate the thread to scriptures, I can talk a bit on Upanishads and Gita ? Request no foul language, even if one wishes to counter.
Click to expand...

Let's start with...

...What Is God?
 
Yazata said:
Jan seemed to be insisting that atheists are in no position to discuss religion since they are "without God" and hence don't have a clue what they are talking about and can only 'speculate'.
Click to expand...

Well let me clear that up so that you don't carry posting disinformation.
You are without God, which is why you need confirmation of Gods existence in order to accept that belief in God is possible.
Now if there is anything wrong in that statement please say.

Secondly you can talk about God, as you see Him/It. That is what theists do. As such you do have a clue about what you're talking about from your perspective.

Yazata said:
Never mind that Jan's etymology is a bit misleading. The Greek word 'a-theos' doesn't exactly mean 'without God'. It's the negation 'a-' appended to the word 'theos' and can just as accurately be translated as 'no God'.
Click to expand...

And how does that alter anything. If I have no money, it can be said that I am without money. It doesn't mean that I will never have money, or that I'm not allowed to have money because I am currently ''without money''.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
What is the evidence that a 'natural explanation' of the origin of information found in the cell, factual?
Click to expand...
The word "information" is a distraction here. Cells, DNA, life itself, is all chemistry. We can break it down into it's chemical components and see how they function. There is no special magic there, it's like a computer.
 
spidergoat said:
The word "information" is a distraction here. Cells, DNA, life itself, is all chemistry.
Click to expand...

It is information. So how can it be a distraction?
We all know what information is, as we have experienced 'information'.
There is no ambiguoty here.

spidergoat said:
We can break it down into it's chemical components and see how they function.
Click to expand...

Because of information.

There is no special magic there, it's like a computer.
Click to expand...

Yes. Human build computers.

jan.
 
Jan Ardena said:
It is information. So how can it be a distraction?
Click to expand...
You seem to imply that there's something special about the information. Like a cell isn't special already. Also, it's typical creationist argument to talk about the origins of information in DNA. But go ahead if you must.
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena said:
Is it fair to say that philosophical arguments are based on axioms that themslves have no percieved origin, and as such are deemed true without evidence of their physical existence?
Click to expand...

Not typically. The vast majority of logical arguments can and do use statements about empirical observations of this-worldly states of affairs as their premises. That's what we do in everyday life and it's what science does. The exception might arguably be mathematics (that's controversial).

Do you use logic to define logic?
Click to expand...

It would seemingly be circular to use logic to provide a logical justification for logic.

Is someome without logic (formal training) an illogical person because he or she was not trained in logic?
Click to expand...

Not typically. I think that it's pretty clear that human beings have an innate logical ability. Logicians call it 'informal logic'. It's how people argue and make cases for themselves in everyday life, it seems to be pretty much universal among human beings and it's often implicit in the grammars of our languages.

'Without God' is like someone withoout logic. It isn't an insult, it is a position. An atheist, by definition is someone who lacks belief in God (for whatever reason).
Click to expand...

Being 'without logic' wouldn't be a position, it would be a psychiatric illness.

Is a person who lacks belief in logic, bereft of logic, or do they apply logic naturally to everyday situations without knowing that it is the law of logic that are working with their reasoning?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to suggest that being "with God" is the same kind of innate thing? I don't see a whole lot of evidence that's true, there's just too much religious diversity in the world. It ranges from many kinds of non-theists through immanent animism to every kind of theism that one can imagine: including polytheism and personal and impersonal monotheisms.

So I'm inclined to think that what people might innately have is less an innate monotheism than an innate propensity towards religiosity in general. The form that religiosity takes will typically be the result of cultural influences.

I see it as arogant because your assumption of the world as you see it, is the way the world is.
Click to expand...

Except that I don't think that and have explained why in numerous threads. I think that reality probably overflows our human ability to understand it and that there will probably always be mysteries. See posts #24 and #25 here.

Everything outside of that, has to be proven ( proof is what you desire)
Click to expand...

Again you are putting words in my mouth that I don't agree with. I have argued repeatedly in numerous threads that the word 'proof' is typically too strong for real life, more appropriate in mathematics. In real life, including science, what people want are plausible and convincing reasons, even if they don't rise to the level of apodeictic proof.

to your specification.
Click to expand...

Well sure. If you want to convince me of anything, you have to convince me. I'm the judge of when I'm convinced. I'm sure the same is true for you.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Logic is self-proving.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how?

I don't see any way to logically derive or otherwise justify concepts like logical implication (the 'if-then' relation) without use of logical implication. And what premises would we be deriving these logical ideas from?
 
Last edited:
Tiassa said:
I think you're putting too much effort into justifying ignorance and sloth.
Click to expand...

I think you're putting (way) too much effort into name calling. It's not a persuasive way to discuss anything. Maybe it's just easier?

I'll leave this thread and maybe the theists can just discuss the finer points of theism.
 
Seattle said:
I'll leave this thread and maybe the theists can just discuss the finer points of theism.
Click to expand...

An i will re-energize the thred wit how my faith came about.!!!

Many years ago i was down on my luck an i had a short stay at a shelter (for men only)... an we all took turns cleanin an cookin... an one night i was cookin tortillas... an about that time i felt as if i was struck by lightenin an fell to the floor all jerkin an stuff... an after i gained consciousness the thang that was on my mind was that the last tortilla i cooked looked like Jesus... an thru the power of God i was re-born in the name of Jesus... an ever sinse then my faith has been unshakable.!!!

Woud anybody else like to testify now... how they came by ther faith.???


PS:::

Jesus is Lord.!!!
 
cluelusshusbund said:
An i will re-energize the thred wit how my faith came about.!!!

Many years ago i was down on my luck an i had a short stay at a shelter (for men only)... an we all took turns cleanin an cookin... an one night i was cookin tortillas... an about that time i felt as if i was struck by lightenin an fell to the floor all jerkin an stuff... an after i gained consciousness the thang that was on my mind was that the last tortilla i cooked looked like Jesus... an thru the power of God i was re-born in the name of Jesus... an ever sinse then my faith has been unshakable.!!!

Woud anybody else like to testify now... how they came by ther faith.???


PS:::

Jesus is Lord.!!!
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but this sounds like a joke to me.

jan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top