Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1441 of 3207 (858777)
07-23-2019 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1439 by ringo
07-23-2019 11:47 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Your logical fallacy hinges on the question of how we determine if the reasoning was rational or irrational, valid or invalid. In fact, in an earlier post, you write, "As long as the logic is internally consistent, the concept of God is not irrational." You cannot claim that the reasoning of the neolithic people who personified natural phenomena as deities was rational by our standards, even if it was rational by their standards (it may not even have been rational by their standards, of course, just a legend made up as we would write a best-selling novel, but that's neither here nor there).
So you may, if you like, say it's rational by their standards but irrational by ours. What doesn't make any sense is saying, "If it is rational to somebody, it is not inherently irrational."
Perhaps you are confused about the terms. What do you intend the word "inherently" to mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1439 by ringo, posted 07-23-2019 11:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1442 by ringo, posted 07-23-2019 10:43 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1442 of 3207 (858803)
07-23-2019 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1441 by Sarah Bellum
07-23-2019 3:51 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
So you may, if you like, say it's rational by their standards but irrational by ours.
The standards of rationality do not change. The reasoning does not go away over time. The premises that they thought were true might turn out to be false; that is the only way that we can determine that their conclusions were false.
You're still making the same mistake of confusing the premises with the reasoning. I wish you would address that instead of just repeating the same wrong assertion over and over.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1441 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-23-2019 3:51 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1443 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-24-2019 12:45 AM ringo has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1443 of 3207 (858806)
07-24-2019 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1442 by ringo
07-23-2019 10:43 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
If you could answer my question it would help. What do you intend the word "inherently" to mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1442 by ringo, posted 07-23-2019 10:43 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1444 by ringo, posted 07-24-2019 11:17 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 1444 of 3207 (858823)
07-24-2019 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1443 by Sarah Bellum
07-24-2019 12:45 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
If you could answer my question it would help. What do you intend the word "inherently" to mean?
"Inherently" means naturally, fundamentally, permanently, built-in, etc. What do you think it means? And what is there, specifically, about the idea of God that makes it inherently irrational?

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1443 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-24-2019 12:45 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1445 by Phat, posted 07-24-2019 1:27 PM ringo has replied
 Message 1450 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-25-2019 12:06 AM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1445 of 3207 (858852)
07-24-2019 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1444 by ringo
07-24-2019 11:17 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
whats irrational is when people make up gods. jar claims that Biblical Christians make up God (and Jesus) in their image of what such a God would be. I can accept that to a degree but would insist that within the church and various clubs in general there is little variance. Granted Mormons are way off as are Jehovahs Witnesses but within the mainline clubs the idea is similar. Faith never goes to church and hangs with political ideology over Theology though she knows better.
I get mad and show my carnal nature also....I cant stand shoplifters, for example...though God is telling me to love them. I'm slowly coming around. They just make me so mad when they dare to take stuff that isn't theirs.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1444 by ringo, posted 07-24-2019 11:17 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1446 by ringo, posted 07-24-2019 1:34 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1446 of 3207 (858853)
07-24-2019 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1445 by Phat
07-24-2019 1:27 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Phat writes:
whats irrational is when people make up gods.
I would say that your made-up god is more irrational than some because it isn't consistent. You can't make up your mind whether only a few will accept him or whether everybody will get chances to escape Hell. You scoff at the Book and you scoff at what he taught. If he was communing with you, you should know better than that.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1445 by Phat, posted 07-24-2019 1:27 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Dredge
Member
Posts: 2850
From: Australia
Joined: 09-06-2016


Message 1447 of 3207 (858892)
07-24-2019 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1382 by Sarah Bellum
07-20-2019 11:35 PM


Re: chances
Sarah Bellum writes:
But even if that was the case, you're stuck with a dilemma: either there was some point before there was intelligence in the universe or the universe is infinitely old and there always was intelligence.
What you present here is a fallacy of the false alternative. The intelligence that is evident in the universe came from the intelligence of God. So you were almost right in that intelligence has always existed ... but that eternal intelligence exists outside the universe.
Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1382 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-20-2019 11:35 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1449 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-25-2019 12:05 AM Dredge has not replied

  
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1240 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 1448 of 3207 (858893)
07-25-2019 12:03 AM


According to OP's framework, everyone knows that God does not exist.
But in the scouring of information about God, the OP has neglected certain forms of information: narrative, myth, story, tradition, vision, and man's creative ability to worship.
There is probably little difference in "knowing" between OP and a Jamaican woman inside of a roadside church fervently clapping, singing, dancing, writhing, and praying to an "unknown" God, but this does not impede her worship.
I think that for many believers, the first step of belief is to acknowledge that we cannot know enough about the universe to presume that we are not created beings.
I would really question the power of knowing. In fact it seems that knowing is a trap to create a false worldview. Knowing is not a power that mankind has; we must rely on belief.
I believe in Creationism. You "know" that the world was built out of evolutionary mechanisms. But really all we are doing is choosing to believe certain things about a dark and mysterious world. The science of the physical world is but glimmers into the nature of reality.
As humans, we must often rely on revelation to reconcile what we do not know, with what is.
We did not know that God walked on earth as man, named Jesus Christ, until it was told to us by those who heard of it from others who invariably heard it from the men and women to whom it was divinely and interpersonally revealed to by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Edited by messenjaH of oNe, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1451 by Phat, posted 07-25-2019 7:32 AM Trump won has replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1449 of 3207 (858894)
07-25-2019 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1447 by Dredge
07-24-2019 10:01 PM


Re: chances
The universe is all there is. If you're insisting that there is something outside the universe, you're abusing language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1447 by Dredge, posted 07-24-2019 10:01 PM Dredge has not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1450 of 3207 (858895)
07-25-2019 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1444 by ringo
07-24-2019 11:17 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Ah! Now we're finally getting somewhere.
You've already conceded that, logically, the idea of a deity is irrational by our standards, whether it was an ancient thunder god worshipped by neolithic shamans or a more "advanced" notion of someone who could forgive offenses not committed against him personally, or anything else.
Your only claim of rationality is for some people in the past who may (we'll say they did for the sake of argument, rather than that they took it as an article of faith) have had a line of reasoning that they considered logical that they thought led them to the concept of a deity.
Considering this disagreement, how could you say rationality is inherent in the concept of a deity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1444 by ringo, posted 07-24-2019 11:17 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1452 by ringo, posted 07-25-2019 11:44 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 1451 of 3207 (858898)
07-25-2019 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1448 by Trump won
07-25-2019 12:03 AM


Hashing Out Belief and Rationality
Phat,addressing Stile writes:
You mention God, but never seem to have even pretended to have a relationship with Him. Or am I premature...
Stile writes:
I suppose part of my problem would be that I'm not sure how I could have identified such a relationship. Which, again, is kind of what this thread is about.(...)
I certainly believed God was real, and I certainly believed I was talking and sharing with God and He was comforting and walking with me.
I may have had a relationship with God, and now have found better sources for spiritual requirements.
Or, maybe I only thought I had a relationship with God, and I just didn't know I was mistaken.
When I became born again in 1993, there was most definitely a dramatic change. Critics could say I was brainwashed or emotionally predisposed to fitting in to the charismatic culture but I am 95% convinced that an actual change occurred in that I "met" God.
jar would and does continue to nag me about how I would or could *know* such a thing, but I refuse to get on his merry-go-round of endless questioning which prevents me from declaring my belief. Some of course would argue that its better to be scientifically certain before committing oneself to belief at all. You (Stile) are likely one of them.
Stile writes:
I'm not really worried about whether or not God exists. I'm more concerned with where I am in life now, and if there's anything I'm missing. If you believe that a relationship with God would provide something that cannot be obtained otherwise, please feel free to attempt a description of such a thing. So far, no one is able to identify anything that is unattainable without God anyway.
That is, I'm not calling any relationships with God useless. I'm only saying that a relationship with God is not necessary for me (and likely others) to have a level of spiritualism that is equal to or surpassing the level of spiritualism that comes from a relationship with God.
And my only question would be to ask how it is even possible to have "spiritualism" without a Spirit? Unless of course you mean the human spirit, which you likely identify as metaphorical...this changes the definition of what spirit is, however.
ringo writes:
You can't make up your mind whether only a few will accept him or whether everybody will get chances to escape Hell.
Both. Everyone has the opportunity, but they must make a choice. If they choose to ignore the reality of A Creator who is over and above their own human thinking and reasoning, they will be left to their own course...which will end up destroying them. Ultimately a minority of today's global population will accept Him and we will go through the time of Jacobs Trouble. I will grant everyone that this is simply a belief and cannot be factually proven. I also acknowledge that some may portray those of us who believe in the prospect of Last Days Theology as being negative and perhaps even vindictive against the idea that humans without God (or need of one) will flourish and grow in this brave new secular universe that they imagine. All that I am suggesting is that we all need Jesus. There is no rational reason to reject that pronouncement.
messenjaH of oNe writes:
I think that for many believers, the first step of belief is to acknowledge that we cannot know enough about the universe to presume that we are not created beings.
I would really question the power of knowing. In fact it seems that knowing is a trap to create a false worldview. Knowing is not a power that mankind has; we must rely on belief.
I agree. Having objective physical evidence of God as most Christians understand Him is an impossibility as He is invisible. Some cling to hope in relics such as the Shroud of Turin or a supposed "splinter" of wood from the cross or Noah's Ark remnants high on some Turkish Mountain, but I tend to lean more towards the subjective evidence that I have experienced on my belief journey.
I believe in Creationism. You "know" that the world was built out of evolutionary mechanisms. But really all we are doing is choosing to believe certain things about a dark and mysterious world. The science of the physical world is but glimmers into the nature of reality.
As humans, we must often rely on revelation to reconcile what we do not know, with what is.
We did not know that God walked on earth as man, named Jesus Christ, until it was told to us by those who heard of it from others who invariably heard it from the men and women to whom it was divinely and interpersonally revealed to by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
I'm glad to see you back at EvC again. You have grown and matured in the past 5 years since you last posted here. I would like to have a conversation online someday. Did you ever see my online page? I would be interested in having a discussion via facebook,skype, or audio phone call with you and/or your brother sometime. I am more of a charismatic(some say charismania) as you say Charlie also is, but I have studied a bit about Orthodox and Catholic beliefs also...I don't write them(Catholics) off as being "of satan" as so many ignorant charismatics tend to do---they vilify Islam as well, and I don't agree with that either.
Stile insists that this topic be approached scientifically rather than based on faith, tradition, and dogma...so all I will conclude in this post is that I believe that subjective experience should be allowed as a valid consideration within the available scientific evidence.
Edited by Thugpreacha, : fixed a few glitches

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1448 by Trump won, posted 07-25-2019 12:03 AM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1458 by Trump won, posted 07-25-2019 9:42 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1462 by Stile, posted 07-26-2019 10:03 AM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1452 of 3207 (858912)
07-25-2019 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1450 by Sarah Bellum
07-25-2019 12:06 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:
You've already conceded that, logically, the idea of a deity is irrational by our standards...
Who is "us"? The idea of a deity may seem irrational to some of "us" but not to all of "us".
Sarah Bellum writes:
... a more "advanced" notion of someone who could forgive offenses not committed against him personally, or anything else.
What's irrational about that idea? Our justice system does nothing but handle offenses not committed against itself. It acts on behalf of society, so why is it irrational for a god to do the same thing?
Sarah Bellum writes:
Your only claim of rationality is for some people in the past who may (we'll say they did for the sake of argument, rather than that they took it as an article of faith) have had a line of reasoning that they considered logical that they thought led them to the concept of a deity.
The question is: Was their thinking logical? If you want to show that their thinking was irrational, you need to point out the specific problems with their logic. Why do you continually refuse to do that?
Sarah Bellum writes:
Considering this disagreement, how could you say rationality is inherent in the concept of a deity?
I didn't.
I said that the concept is not inherently irrational.
Edited by ringo, : No reason given.
Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1450 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-25-2019 12:06 AM Sarah Bellum has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1453 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 07-25-2019 3:25 PM ringo has replied
 Message 1455 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-25-2019 6:04 PM ringo has replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1153 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 1453 of 3207 (858926)
07-25-2019 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1452 by ringo
07-25-2019 11:44 AM


I'm not a god - I Am What I Become
.
A nice subject / thread You created here, but it still might be lost, the discussion might be going into perdition once more, because the Opening Post is using a very bad translation for EL (ELYON).
The Hebrew EL (which means ELYON; most High righteousness) must not be applied to the deities' names such as elohiym or god(s). You know ELYON has nothing to do with common generic designations for deities.
both words to not mean the same; both words to have the opposite meaning.
The first of ten transcribed laws as originally written says
You'll have no god/elohyim (oracle) at all. That is, no religion at all.
And that is why EL (ELYON) has been very badly translated for the religions,
mistranslated as god or elohyim (a common generic term, a common designation for deities).
You know the common generic term elohyim must not be applied for EL, because You see that the most High righteousness always had utilized elohyim or god for deities, (that is, EL always had utilized the common generic term god or elohyim in reference to the deities, things we don't like; e.g. god or elohyim when I'm referring to any deity or abomination, a common generic deity, a god or anything we don't like, a god as the deities that are less than nothing.
Simple solution: Find the real meaning of My ancient Hebrew word EL (Aleph - Lamed), You realize it is the Abbreviated form of ELYON, which means The most High righteousness. You know it has nothing to do with the common generic term: god or elohim (which means oracle). The first of Ten commandments as originally written says You'll have no god/elohim (oracle) at all.
.
Edited by celestialGyoud, : update

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1452 by ringo, posted 07-25-2019 11:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1454 by ringo, posted 07-25-2019 5:17 PM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 1454 of 3207 (858931)
07-25-2019 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1453 by goldenlightArchangel
07-25-2019 3:25 PM


Re: I'm not a god - I Am What I Become
A nice subject / thread You created here, but it still might be lost, the discussion might be going into perdition once more, because the Opening Post is using a very bad translation for EL (ELYON).
Well, I didn't create it - and nothing I have said in it has anything to do with translation. We're talking about a general concept of God, not necessarily even the Biblical one.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1453 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 07-25-2019 3:25 PM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 596 days)
Posts: 826
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 1455 of 3207 (858933)
07-25-2019 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1452 by ringo
07-25-2019 11:44 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
The idea of someone forgiving offenses not committed against him (or her) is wholly irrational. If someone punches you in the face and then apologizes and you say, "I forgive you," that makes sense. If someone punches you in the face and then a third person says, "I forgive you" that makes no sense.
In a logical world, both you and the person who punched you would turn to that third person and say, "Huh?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1452 by ringo, posted 07-25-2019 11:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1456 by ringo, posted 07-25-2019 6:10 PM Sarah Bellum has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024