Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,102 Year: 5,359/9,624 Month: 384/323 Week: 24/204 Day: 24/21 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God says this, and God says that
John
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 417 (26781)
12-16-2002 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by funkmasterfreaky
12-16-2002 3:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
This evidence sadly can still be denied.
It isn't all that hard then is it?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-16-2002 3:56 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:54 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 262 of 417 (26788)
12-16-2002 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by gene90
12-16-2002 12:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
What is 'extreme' and what is not 'extreme' depends on your worldview.
It doesn't matter. My argument doesn't rest on the extreme nature of anything, whatever that thing may be. You are the one who brought that up.
quote:
Your worldview is peculiar as well (you mistook this observation for an argument from authority last time around).
ummmm.... it is an argument from authority. It rests on the idea that "most people believe.... " How is that not an argument from the authority of public opinion?
quote:
We share the same view of 40 carat diamonds; that they are rare.
Rare makes no difference. Use a stick of gum instead. Use anything. The object doesn't matter. I just thought it was more convincing, and appropriate, to have someone look for something of value rather than something like a paper football.
quote:
The reason for this difference of opinion is that we can test the rarity of 40 carat diamonds and not the presence of God.
It doesn't make any difference. The key element is the claim that 1) the diamond or 2) God, exists. It is the claim that is under attack.
quote:
Although I have never claimed that a 40 carat diamond is impossible for you to own, it is improbable.
Can't argue there. But probability isn't the issue. The issue is the claim that God exists. In that respect, both claims are identical.
The inability to even calculate a probability makes the situation worse for God. My diamond analogy is actually slightly weighted towards your side. Even at that, it is pretty obvious that that believing I have a diamond which I refuse to produce is patently absurd.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:46 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 417 (26792)
12-16-2002 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by gene90
12-16-2002 12:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
quote:
It isn't all that hard then is it?
That could depend on how creative you are at hand-waving the alleged evidence away.
I contend that disbelief in God is non-falsifiable because any evidence of God, even a manifestation of God Himself, can be waved away. (To drugs, altered brain states, etc)
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-16-2002]

Like I said, gene. It isn't that hard then is it?
It is funny though that I am the one who thinks that we ought to be able to accumulate enough statistical evidence for God to, if not prove it, at least bring it into the realm of rationality. While you insist it cannot be done. Why is that? Are you more afraid of the result than I?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:54 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:35 PM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 417 (26800)
12-16-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by gene90
12-16-2002 1:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
To denounce something is to claim it has no validilty.
The issue is who is claiming that the study has no validity. Scientist? Nope. Congress. This is inappropriate.
quote:
Therefore the clause "regardless of the validity" is irrelevant.
So reword it. Congress has dismissed a properly done study not for scientific reasons, but due to political, religious and emotional implications and reactions.
This is censorship. Period.
quote:
And you will notice that the APA even called in for independant analysis.
Well, of course. I'd call for independant analysis too. THIS IS THE PROPER COURSE OF SCIENCE. And this isn't the issue. That Congress took the role of peer review board and then judge, jury, and executioner is the issue.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:30 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 417 (26808)
12-16-2002 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by gene90
12-16-2002 1:46 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Quite the contrary, I've been making analogies of my own. Money in the bank, the exhibit at the art museum...
This hard empiricism is no better for your belief. Are you sure you want to go there?
quote:
What happens to the money when it is outside the vault is irrelevant to the analogy.
No it isn't. The fact that you can access it is the reason the analogy is faulty. It doesn't track with the claims made by religion.
quote:
And non-theists do the same. John is sitting around arguing with me because he insists that my view of what is in the box is wrong.
Sorry. No.
I insist that your view of what is inside the box is unfounded, not wrong, and that the fact that it is unfounded is sufficient to make it unreasonable.
Why is it that you cannot understand that "ignoring what we don't know" is different from "assuming that we know something for which we have no evidence?"
quote:
Because if it's pink it isn't invisible.
If it is intangible it isn't male. But you are just making semantic quibbles.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:46 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 2:15 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 417 (26812)
12-16-2002 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by gene90
12-16-2002 1:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
But they don't have to live in any social structure.
Yeah, you do. Our key adaptation is social structure. Even if you deny that, it would be very hard to avoid society.
quote:
God's law cannot be eluded.
Right, and when God's law includes slaughtering sinners the executioner cannot be blamed either.
quote:
Bit religious people generally have morals that non-theists do not.
Wait. Aren't you anti-stereotype Gene? Or is it only a problem when the stereotype offends you? I happen to believe exactly the opposite and that really seems to piss you off.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 1:54 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 2:29 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 417 (26819)
12-16-2002 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by gene90
12-16-2002 2:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I'm talking about the money when it's in the vault.
And your analogy is not like the claim made by religion about God. Hence it is a false analogy and a fallacy.
quote:
Yes. You. I wasn't talking about you.
What?
John is sitting around arguing with me because he insists that my view of what is in the box is wrong.
Is that not me?
quote:
How is "unfounded" equated with "unreasonable"?
Strike me as tautological actually-- id, by definition.
quote:
If I claim that there's a rock in that box in the museum, my claim is unfounded. But that doesn't make it unreasonable.
Sure it does. You pulled it out of thin air.
quote:
It only becomes unreasonable if you presuppose that there are no rocks anywhere, that they do not exist.
ummmm.... no. The existence of other rocks has nothing to do with the existence of this particular rock in this particular box.
quote:
What is "reasonable" and what is not is at least partially based upon worldview and what you already believe or disbelieve.
Your version of what is reasonable is essentially "anything that anybody makes up"
quote:
And an agnostic who claims that Christianity is wrong is an internal contradiction and inconsistent.
Not knowing whether there is a God is not necessary to argue that a particular religion is wrong, or highly questionable. Internal contradictions are quite sufficient for the purpose. Religion and GOD are not the same thing.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 2:15 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 2:41 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 308 of 417 (26845)
12-16-2002 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by gene90
12-16-2002 2:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
If lack of evidence for God is sufficient for an atheist to claim there are no gods (no religion is correct), how can an atheist criticize Christianity for its lack of evidence, and be consistent?
           
The athiest's claim is that:
where E = evidence and B = belief
"If no evidence then no belief."                             1) ~E ⊃ ~B
Which is equivalent to "If belief, then evidence"       2) B ⊃ E Transposition.
Christians claim to have belief.                              3) B
Therefore, there must be evidence.                 4 ) ∴ E Modus ponens
The christian claim is:
"Not evidence and belief"       ~E • B
And that is pretty much the end of it. Now if we merge the two arguments and use the Christian claim as premise #3. Like so:
1) ~E ⊃ ~B
2) B ⊃ E Transposition.
3) ~E • B
Then seperate #3
4) ~E Subtraction
5) B Subtraction
You can easily see that premises #1 and #4 give ~B which conflicts with #5.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 2:33 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by robinrohan, posted 12-16-2002 5:11 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 311 of 417 (26848)
12-16-2002 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by gene90
12-16-2002 2:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Still, you could be a hermit or a fugitive.
I doubt I could cut all ties to society. Even so, once a critical number of people becomes hermits and fugitives, the social structure collapses and people start dying. We are simply not built to survive outside a society.
quote:
If Christianity theology is correct, is it wrong for God to kill sinners?
That is a big if... and you have no evidence, as you keep insisting. Consequently, an enormous moral power can be wielded by anyone who can convince people that he or she speaks for GOD. This is the problem.
quote:
No, I'm stating fact.
You are stating what you want to believe. Do you know all athiests?
quote:
Non-theists only have to live the laws of their country.
Really? How is it then that I, a non-theist, disagree?
quote:
If I were to say that atheists were "stupid", "evil", or "dishonest" that would be an opinion.
Yes, it would. Just like your claims about morality are opinions.
quote:
I said "generally". I allow lots of exceptions.
hmmm.... I don't believe you. Isn't that what you told me when I said that I am very tolerant of individuals?
quote:
Unlike the intolerant claims on your website.
And do you really need to have tolerance defined for you again?
Lets see. There is a roofing supply house in town. This supply house is run by a man whom we'd probably both label religiously fanatical. Scripture is spray painted on the walls of the store. Religious fliers and books are all over the place. The place is pretty breath-taking actually. It also happens to be the best roofing supply house in town. Do I avoid it because the guy is Christian? Nope. Do I threaten him? Nope. Organize protests? No. And I'd oppose the protests if they were organized. I respect the guys right to push his religion. I buy stuff from him knowing that my money is going to go to his cause. This is tolerance. This is necessary for peaceful cooperative living. But you seem to think it means keeping one's mouth shut.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 2:29 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 313 of 417 (26856)
12-16-2002 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by robinrohan
12-16-2002 5:11 PM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
John, you crack me up with your little formulas.
Symbolic logic ala Irving M. Copi. It is great fun.
quote:
I like your example about the roofing company though. A very good example of "tolerance."
Well, that's what tolerance means to me. It is about living together constructively, not about censoring ideas.
I have also been working in a Synagog for a couple of months now. I don't go there and hassle people. In fact, if I can catch someone willing to chat, I quiz them on Judaism-- not why do you believe but what do you believe and what's up with the knotted rope around your waist.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 12-16-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by robinrohan, posted 12-16-2002 5:11 PM robinrohan has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 322 of 417 (26872)
12-16-2002 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by gene90
12-16-2002 2:41 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
????
For an analogy to be valid it has to track the relevant feature of that to which it is supposed to be analogous.
Money
1) Gene has cash
2) Gene goes to bank
3) Gene deposits money
4) Money is in vault and as such is not directly observable
5) Gene withdraws money
God
1) hmmmmm.... No one has ever seen God
2) No one has ever seen the supposed bank
3) One has never had God to deposit into the bank which no one has ever seen.
4) God is undetectable. Wow. Got one!!!
5) One cannot test withdraw God from the bank-- ie, one cannot test God.
One out of five, gene. That is a pretty bad score.
quote:
Just like God the money in the bank is not generating any evidence you can detect with the senses.
You are trying to make the whole analogy rest on this one thing. It doesn't. Rather, if you want the analogy to rest on this one thing you have to reformulate it like so:
1) Somebody claims that there is money in the bank, but doesn't know who deposited it, or where the bank is located, or how to get the money back out.
The fact that money can be shuffled into and out of the bank screws up your analogy. This isn't direct observation, but I never claimed direct observation was necessary. Inference from data is acceptable.
quote:
Therefore, if a lack of evidence is sufficient to disbelieve God, then a lack of evidence is sufficient for you to avoid investing in banks. Or else you are inconsistent.
There is no lack of evidence. The existence of the money can be inferred. I'd accept this with God as well.
quote:
That sounds tautological to me.
It is. All definitions are.
[quote](From Merriam-Webster OnLine, Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary )
reasonable: being in accordance with reason b : not extreme or excessive [/b][/quote]
You are really going to claim that unfounded assertions are reasonable.
quote:
I see nothing "extreme" or "excessive" about a rock sitting in that box.
There isn't anything extreme or excessive about a rock sitting in that box. But the statement, based on no evidence, THAT a rock is sitting in that box, is unreasonable. How can it be REASONABLE when there is NO REASON for the claim?
quote:
Therefore I disagree with "unfounded"="unreasonable".
Reasonable == having reason
Unfounded == not having foundations-- IE, not having REASONS
quote:
If I hadn't been outside yet today and I guessed the sun were up by now that guess would be unfounded by observation.
But could be inferred.
quote:
But it would not be unreasonable.
Because it could be inferred.
quote:
Plus it is loaded to call something "reasonable" or "unreasonable" because it is an appeal to your worldview, not to logic.
Not really. Founded is based on something, unfounded is based on nothing. Based on nothing is having no reasons. Hence, it is unreasonable.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 2:41 PM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 326 of 417 (26888)
12-16-2002 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by forgiven
12-16-2002 7:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
I suppose you could call yourself a Catholic and not believe in the Immaculate Conception but it is an official doctrine.
you *could* call yourself a catholic i guess... a heretical catholic... there is no room here, if one is a catholic one believes in all the church says to believe or one is anathema

It wasn't always so. It didn't become doctrine until 1854.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by forgiven, posted 12-16-2002 7:32 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by forgiven, posted 12-16-2002 7:46 PM John has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 401 of 417 (28110)
12-30-2002 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Mr. Davies
12-29-2002 10:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
What forgiven is really trying to do is show that all of these things one could call metaphysical, morality, logic, good/evil, and more are divine gifts.
I've been through this same romp with forgiven. It is interesting to see the same assertions recur.
quote:
He's challenged basic things to throw a person out of their train of thought to muddle the issue.
Actually, I think forgiven quite believes what he says. Any muddling isn't intentional.
quote:
In the end, he's pulling another "God of the Gaps" approach to show us all that there is a real need to have a deity to give all of those emotions, freewil, and such.
If you read forgiven carefully you'll notice how extraordinarily Platonic he is. He treats ideas and concepts as if they were independently existing things. This is the base for his statements that atheists cannot account for metaphysical entities. The catch is that forgiven simply assumes that such entities exist, so the argument is toothless.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-29-2002 10:55 PM Mr. Davies has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-30-2002 10:36 AM John has not replied
 Message 403 by forgiven, posted 12-30-2002 6:56 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 406 of 417 (28161)
12-30-2002 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by forgiven
12-30-2002 6:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
hi john, hope you're feeling better...
thanks... i am-- a little.
quote:
i don't think atheists can account for metaphysical entities, and you're quite right that i "simply assume" they exist...
ummm..... if you simply assume, there is no reason anyone has to account for them. It is something you made up. Big deal.
quote:
if i recall, nobody ever quite came out and said the law of non-contradiction didn't exist before man
Calling something 'the law of non-contradiction' doesn't make it a thing either. This the the error you make repeatedly -- assuming that concepts that have names are actually things. See your own statement below:
quote:
but naming something isn't the same as creating it...
Yes, indeed. Nor is naming something proof that it is a metaphysical thing, yet this is precisely what you insist.
quote:
either quasars predated man or they didn't... either the laws of logic predated man or they didn't...
This is meaningless. Either object A is or it isn't. Very profound.
The implicit comparison of energy jets associated with super-massive black holes and an artificial analytical system is laughable.
quote:
and if they did, i maintain i can account for them from within my worldview and the atheist (materialist) can't
You assume that meta-entities exist, ie. you make them up, and then gloat that you can account for them by making up more stuff? How can you take yourself seriously?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by forgiven, posted 12-30-2002 6:56 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by forgiven, posted 12-31-2002 6:43 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 408 of 417 (28192)
12-31-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 407 by forgiven
12-31-2002 6:43 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
maybe i see the problem here... do you deny the laws of logic exist?
The laws of logic are concepts-- descriptions-- not THINGS. They are derived from our experiences of the world. The underlying physics may be stable, and that isn't looking too good, but the physics isn't the DESCRIPTIONS we have made up to describe them.
quote:
one would think so from this post, one would think that you deny the law of non-contradiction's existence
ummm.... it doesn't exist. It is a concept we made up to describe the world around us, and it applies almost universally. Almost, but not quite... particle physics has been shooting this myth down for nearly a century. Welcome to the present.
quote:
accusing me of "assuming that concepts that have names are actually things"... this is beneath you, john, it appears to be another attempt at a "dictionary war" on your part...
It is you who are attempting a dictionary war. This is precisely what I was pointing out. "We have the word 'logic' so logic is a meta-thingie. We have the 'love' so love is a meta-thingie." Yes? Sorry, but no. Labelling something does not make it exist. A hundred years ago much of physics was based on something called 'ether.' Does ether exist in the meta-world as a thing-in-itself, or was it just a concept that didn't work out well? Applying your logic, ether exists as a meta-thingie. In fact, everything I, or anyone else, can make up exists as a meta-thingie. Its silly. Everything exists, lets go home and play dominoes.
quote:
in another post you said of course logic exists, but man "created" it, that it didn't exist before man labeled it... do you still maintain this indefensible view?
Actually, I said what I said above, that the underlying physics existed but that logic is our invention, like mathematics and language.
quote:
john, how can you take yourself seriously? do you really think i made up the laws of logic?
If I ever say that YOU made up the laws of logic then I certainly couldn't take myself seriously. But that isn't what I have said.
quote:
and then that i gloat over this?
Indeed you do gloat over being able to account for things which you merely assume exist. It is comical, really. I wish you could get the joke. You just make stuff up and challenge everyone else to account for that stuff. LOL.....
This is probably where you got the notion that I accuse you of making up the laws of logic. I accuse you not of making up those laws, but of making them into metaphysical things.
quote:
try a little less rancor and a little more rational argumentation...
Rational? Make up stuff and challenge everyone to account for it? LOL.....
quote:
don't come at this as if logic doesn't exist, john, or as if someone made it up...
I'm sorry. Answer the question, BUT ONLY GIVE THE ANSWER FORGIVEN WANTS!!!!! LOL.......................... LOL..................... LOL................. LOL....................
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by forgiven, posted 12-31-2002 6:43 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by forgiven, posted 12-31-2002 5:07 PM John 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