Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,261 Year: 5,518/9,624 Month: 543/323 Week: 40/143 Day: 2/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

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


Message 4 of 417 (25610)
12-05-2002 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by David unfamous
12-05-2002 2:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by David unfamous:
quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
He does with those who'd like to chat with him. but i guess that's not falsifiable.

Ok. Ask him something for me, just to verify it's him: What's my greatest fear?

David has a very good point, funkie. God's speaking to you isn't unverifiable. All you need to do is have God give you the answers to a few questions. But there is that prohibition against testing God.... wonder why that is?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by David unfamous, posted 12-05-2002 2:36 PM David unfamous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-05-2002 3:57 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 417 (25665)
12-06-2002 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by funkmasterfreaky
12-05-2002 3:57 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
I guess this is exactly the answer you were expecting but here goes.
Yup. Sure is.
quote:
Your greatest fear is something between you and God and unless he thinks it necessary for me to know this then why would he tell me?
God could sure clear up a lot of thing very quickly just by filling out a quiz. It doesn't really seem too much to ask.
quote:
As to the don't test your God I'm not sure why that is.
... because God would fail the test.
quote:
Maybe if you actually knew me and saw the work that God has done, that may be evidence but with words I cannot describe or verify my communication with God.
Maybe if you knew me and knew the work that god hasn't done ...
quote:
He said to us preach the gospel always, and when necessary use words. The proof of God's existance and his love is in the actions of those who pour the love of Jesus out onto the sick, starving, homeless and dying.
Can't complain about the practical consequences...
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-05-2002 3:57 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by gene90, posted 12-06-2002 11:47 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 417 (25775)
12-06-2002 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by gene90
12-06-2002 11:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
I think, John, most of your difficulty with God is that you're just not an insider.
This is the easy answer.
quote:
You're not supposed to test God because that is cheating. It's like taking an exam with the answer key.
Your analogy doesn't make sense to me.
quote:
You have to earn your faith through diligence.
Earn faith? Isn't that oxymoronic?
quote:
If you want to walk with God, you've got to find Him first.
Cute.
quote:
It isn't hard to start out, it doesn't take long either, but you have to make an effort first, with at least enough faith that you won't immediately reject whatever the result is.
So you'll be starting you quest for Thor soon then? With just enough faith that you won't immediately reject whatever the result?
quote:
You're going to have suspend your disbelief and you're going to have be humble.
This is getting trite, gene. In any other arena you'd realize how absurd this logic is.
quote:
If you refuse to do these things, why should God do your work for you?
My work? You mean fasting, beating myself and taking drugs so I can talk to him?
quote:
You earn what you work for just as the believers do.
ok ????
quote:
God has done a lot for you already, but you have to make a conscious decision and stick with it to get the best results.
Nope. Twas the Easter bunny helping out. And you can't prove differently using the same logic you've been using so far. Its absurd.
quote:
Until then, don't expect anything so blatant you can't explain it away as coincidence.
In other words, don't expect anything that might qualify as evidence. This is insane, gene.
quote:
I happen to believe that there is "a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven, upon which all blessings are predicated" and it is through adherence to that law that you might find answers to the question of whether or not there is a God, if you would only devote the time and interest to find out for yourself.
Now I am going to get offended. Don't pretend to know what time and effort I have put into finding out for myself. My life has been devoted to it.
quote:
Otherwise, it's easy for you to post comments like "I can't believe! I'm set up for failure! It's unfair!" when the path is clear for you but you refuse to follow it.
The path isn't clear, gene. And there is no way to investigate, as your entire post has explained.
quote:
I admit having little sympathy for that because it is a consequence of one's own inaction and one's own self-inflicted ignorance.
I admit having little respect for this kind of arrogant self-righteous crap.
quote:
This state of mind amazes me: blame God for your non-belief and, then, don't show any interest in God because you don't believe!
Don't pretend to know me. It is irritating. I believe what I believe because I have spent the last twenty years tearing myself apart.
quote:
It's circularity.
Funny, considering the post you have composed.
quote:
It is also an easy way to shirk the knowledge that there are certain obligations in life beyond eating, drinking, and breathing, and that you should be humble.
Sorry, the easy way out is 'a book told me so'
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by gene90, posted 12-06-2002 11:47 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-06-2002 8:28 PM John has replied
 Message 26 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 2:56 PM John has replied
 Message 32 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 3:56 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 417 (25796)
12-06-2002 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by funkmasterfreaky
12-06-2002 8:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Okay anywhere in history was it standard procedure for a peasant to storm into the throne room making demands.
Where is history is it standard procedure for a kng to NOT demonstrate his power?
quote:
How often do you think this aproach had a positive result for the peasant?
The effect would have likely been very unpleasant for the peasant, but he would have gotten a response. That is the point, Funk. There is no response. NONE.
quote:
How often do you think the king just listened and allowed this kind of insubordination?
I would think that the king would cut the insubordination very short. YOUR GOD DOES NOT. Again, this is exactly the point.
quote:
Since when does the potter answer to the clay?
When does the clay talk back? I'd answer if it did.
quote:
This is the humbling yourself part.
This is the shutting off your brain part.
quote:
Approaching God with respect realizing that this is God you are talking to.
Funk, would you walk into a room and start talking to a being you can not see, hear, smell, taste or touch because someone told you there was a being in the room? This is what you ask. Would you walk in and start chatting on faith? I doubt it. And if you did, how long would you talk before giving up? Would you show respect to the empty room? Probably not. And after hours, days, weeks and months of jabbering to the empty room, certainly you would show no respect to it. Would you humble yourself to the invisible silent being in the empty room? Nope.
quote:
Do you answer to someone who comes at you in arrogance, slandering your character before they even know you? Why then should God?
No. I do not answer to such a person, but I ANSWER someone who comes at me in arrogance, slandering my character.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-06-2002 8:28 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-07-2002 4:13 AM John has replied
 Message 33 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 4:17 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 417 (25812)
12-07-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky
12-07-2002 4:13 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
This King is a different kind of king he's a king, friend and brother to those who choose to bow their knee down. There is no other king like this one John.
Then you have invalidated your own analogy. This would also qualify as back-pedaling to save an argument I've shown to be poorly constructed. It doesn't speak much for your credibility, though I don't think any of this is intentional on your part.
quote:
Any king can make you serve him. What king makes you thirst to serve him?
The king that controls the aquaduct. Actually, a lot of power can be and has been wielded by he who controls the water supply.
quote:
What king is like your brother to lift you up? What king is your friend always there by your side with that wise counsel?
You must enjoy gutting your own argument.
quote:
Yes,you know a normal king offended like that would have cut off your head or thrown you in the dungeon. This King cries. He wants to know you. This King has already laid down his life to know you.
Ditto.
quote:
This is not a normal King, as you might guess by now.
Then why the analogy?
quote:
Not the kind of King that will destroy you for this insubordination.
This isn't the guy to who toasted Sodom?
quote:
Would I walk into a room and ask someone I can't see, to answer me, would I give that someone respect, not normally I don't think so.
There you go. All this trouble and you understand.
quote:
Somehow I did, and that someone reached out and picked me up. When I laid that knee down, that broken self, that empty lost apathetic self, was taken.
Funk, I felt much the same fifteen years ago when I first read Diary of a Drug Fiend. Does this mean Crowley picked me up and fixed my broken self? Not really. But by your logic it does.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-07-2002 4:13 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 417 (25830)
12-07-2002 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by gene90
12-07-2002 2:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
"Christians are evil" ?
Sorry you disagree. This makes me a sick puppie?
You write essays that promote pedophilia?[/quote]
Like hell, gene. I've went through this crap with nos482 at length and I do not feel like doing it again. The slander is going to piss me off very quickly.
quote:
You use your webspace to distribute pornography?
What pornography?
quote:
And you wonder why God isn't in your life?
No, I don't. It isn't hard to understand why a non-existent entity isn't taking part in my life.
quote:
By the way, after your comment about using drugs to see God
It happens to be a terribly common means to the end. Virtually every culture used such methods at one point or another.
quote:
taken with the views you promote on your personal website, I no longer consider your message worth further response.
Do you habitually duck out when your views are challenged? Or is this just a means to avoid the topic?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 2:56 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 3:37 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 417 (25887)
12-07-2002 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by gene90
12-07-2002 2:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
You sound just like Nos482. Most of your replies were one-liners devoid of any sufficient material at all.
And they were replies to insubstantial material. "You've got to find God before you can walk with him." Come on Gene, can you get more trite?
[quote][b]I spent actual time writing my post and you will spend time in your replies if you wish to continue the thread. [/quote]
I spend an enormous amount of time researching and writing my posts, so drop the attitude.
Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.
Excuse me? It seems that you are violating this very rule. It strikes me that you are avoiding the issues I am trying to raise, and you don't like the logic. If the admins have a problem with my posts, they'll let me know.
Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person.
Oops... hang on...
quote:
John, I have seen your website.
"Christians are evil" ? You write essays that promote pedophilia? You use your webspace to distribute pornography?
And you wonder why God isn't in your life?
You sound just like Nos482.

This isn't in violation of the rule you cite? And what about this?
oh... wait... I see you edited out that 'sick puppy' quip.
quote:
Your argument is circular because you do not believe in God, therefore you see no reason to seek God.
Nope. That is not my argument. I ask for evidence. There isn't any, unless I believe first. Guess what? I started out believing. I was raised believing.
quote:
If you do not seek God, you will never believe in God.
I have sought God. I spent the better part of my first 25 years doing that. I see no reason to believe that such a thing exists. I follow the evidence the best I can.
[quote]If I had not found a religion I liked, then eventually it would have been expedient for me to investigate Thor./quote
Like? It boils down to what you like? Gene, how do you know? This is the problematic question.
quote:
Your comments are remarkably similar to those of Nos. You might want to consider that in the future.
You post a string of assinine arguments and complain when such is pointed out to you? And splatter a healthy helping of ad hominem attacks at me to boot. The problem, dear gene, is that what you posted to me was ridiculous and hardly worth the replies I gave. Replies, which by the way, were dead on target, on topic and quite sufficient to the task.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 2:56 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-07-2002 9:33 PM John has replied
 Message 44 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 11:16 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 417 (25891)
12-07-2002 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by gene90
12-07-2002 3:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
As I said, faith is something you go looking for. It is usually not something you were born with. Why should God give you faith if you have done nothing to earn it? You have to be worthy.
How long would you believe a scientific theory if you were told you could not test it? Not long I imagine. Yet, this is what you ask.
quote:
Thanks, Nos.
I am sure you are aware of my problems with nos. In that light, I can only conclude that this quip is meant for no purpose but to injure. Thanks.
quote:
I always try to be amusing to people who won't condescend enough to give an actual, substantive reply.
Give me an actual substantive problem. "To walk with God you have to find him" Well, to walk down the street you have to find it too. To drive a car you have to get inside. To watch TV you have to turn it on. You can't truly believe that quip had substance? The problem is THE FINDING, not the walking with. Think about this. To walk with God, you have to find him, to find him you HAVE FIRST TO WALK WITH HIM. That is patently absurd, and you know it.
quote:
I don't know your background but from what you have placed on the Internet, and the views you link to in your sig file (and personal website?) clearly indicate otherwise.
Indicate that I have not spent my life investigating these things? No. Indicate that I disagree with you. And you take the childish attitude that since I disagree then I must not have looked.
quote:
Here you are, I've done nothing to you and neither has my faith but you are here ridiculing my beliefs as "insane" and (on the website) "evil".
I discuss with you what comes up on the forum and I do not pull punches. I have no problem with you personally. Or, I didn't until you started posting slander. In fact, I quite respected you.
quote:
You spend too much time on this board fighting theists, and that website is in a completely different league.
I appreciate that.
quote:
If my God were real, do you think He would approve of that?
You can make up if until we both rot, but it won't make any of them true. I look for true. I do not gamble.
quote:
I don't see you looking. I see open rebellion and a war against God.
Not against god, but against human irrationality.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 3:56 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Chara, posted 12-07-2002 9:48 PM John has not replied
 Message 46 by gene90, posted 12-08-2002 12:15 AM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 417 (25894)
12-07-2002 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by gene90
12-07-2002 3:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Is this your website? http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
It is. The relevance of that to the thread is lost on me. It seems you visited to gather material for your ad hominem.
quote:
Is God non-existant, or have you not gone looking?
Why must I repeat this over and over agian? I have been looking for my entire adult life.
quote:
Admit that you don't know if there is or is not a God and we can move on.
I have said numerous times on this forum that I am technically agnostic. I see no evidence for god.
quote:
John: Virtually every culture used such methods at one point or another.
But I don't and I'm highly offended by this slander.
I didn't say that you did.
Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
Like this bits about promoting pedophilia?
quote:
What challenge? Where is an actual reply worthy of comment?
From what I can tell, pretty much the whole reply I made to you was on target.
quote:
How about you spend an actual paragraph in rebuttal to one of my posts?
Why? When you post garbage I am not going to waste my time. Christians nearly universally propose the same 'faith-experiment' but it isn't really an experiment. Step one: Believe. Step two: look around and see if god is in your life. ie. look for evidence. The trick is that once you perform step one, you ARE GOING to see evidence of God or of whatever else you fill into the blank-- the easter bunny, zorloft the conquerer, my girlfriend. It is a mind-trick, a self-fulfilling system. If you believe, you will see evidence. That is why astrologers still have jobs. That is why card readers can still set up shop.
quote:
Plus, I expect reasoned replies, not trite one-liners to my comments like "Cute" or "Better than a book told me so" that add nothing to the debate but only serve to insult my intelligence.
I hit nearly everything you said in that post to me. That you don't like the implications does not make it trite or ill-considered. For some reason you could not or choose not to respond to my counterpoints and questions. Instead, you chose to directly attack my person.
As I see it, your post to me was nothing but an insult my intelligence, right from the get go with 'its because you are not an insider'. That is the easy answer. It is dismissive. You move on to make claims about me that you cannot possible have information to back up.
I'm sorry, gene. You don't like your faith examined, but you stepped into this of your own accord.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 3:37 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by gene90, posted 12-07-2002 11:48 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 417 (25908)
12-08-2002 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by gene90
12-08-2002 12:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
We're not talking about science.
So it is ok to throw reason out the window then? I apply the same rules to any investigation. You want to plead that religion is a special case. It isn't.
quote:
Unfortunatley you have made the deliberate decision, based upon no evidence, that only what you can detect empirically exists.
You've got this backwards. I made no such decision. I start with what we've got and follow the leads. And what we've got is sensory data. You can make up any number of extra-sensory entities but 1)they make no difference or 2) their presence can be inferred by reference to sensory data.
quote:
Prove yourself correct. Or are you only as "deluded" as I am, running with no evidence?
Prove a negative? You know how ridiculous this claim is. Prove that Valhalla doesn't exist. Ok. Done. Prove that green fairies don't exist. Ok. Done. Prove that... and so on and so on and so on... And with no evidence, how can one prove anything?
quote:
And you know how to find Him, don't you?
Ummm.... no. Do you read these posts?
quote:
But you won't.
Right. I won't believe in and worship an entity for no reason. That is damning. Assume I take the leap of faith, how do I choose between your god and any other? There is no evidence, not cross-checking, nothing. Nothing.
[quote][b]You won't give up your lifestyle.[quote][b]
What lifestyle is that? The fact is that you don't know what my lifestyle is and so you are just blowing smoke. It is hard to take you seriously.
quote:
You won't give up your pride, because you have elevated yourself so far above the "evil", "stupid", and "dishonest" Christians you could not bare to a Christian, even if you were not "evil", "stupid", or "dishonest".
quote:
So you're trying to make it circular, huh?
Trying? It is blatantly self-fulfilling as you preach it. I don't need to try.
quote:
Well like you said, to walk down the street you have to find it first. I presume you got to work on Friday morning...so you don't have to walk or drive on it first.
You are missing one bit. I can walk outside and find a street WITHOUT having to believe in it first.
quote:
I have my doubts.
But no knowledge of my history. This means that you are again just blowing smoke.
quote:
No you didn't.
Now this is interesting. You now believe that you know my thoughts better than I. How can I take you seriously?
quote:
I might have pointed out some of your flaws but I didn't talk about your parents, now did I John? Did I talk about whatever sibling(s) you might have? Did I talk about whatever children you might have or will have? Did I talk about your girlfriend? Did I talk about your colleagues? Did I talk about nearly your entire family back at least five generations? Did I?
You fault me because my opinions are contrary to those of most of your acquaintances?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by gene90, posted 12-08-2002 12:15 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-08-2002 1:20 AM John has replied
 Message 112 by gene90, posted 12-10-2002 9:21 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 417 (25924)
12-08-2002 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky
12-08-2002 1:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
No he faults your stereotyping,that is blatant on your website.
I give reasons and I give evidence for I what I believe. Not everything applies to everyone, obviously, but am I to list 5 billion names and note exceptions?
quote:
You make a general assumption of people on their beliefs.
Actually, the beliefs imply things about the people. This isn't an assumption. The belief in a flat earth, for example, implies certain things about the people who believe it. There is nothing I do about this fact.
Secondly, I speak from MY experience and the vast majority of Christians I have known fit the descriptions I give. And I have known a lot of Christians. I was raised in the religion. I went to church three or more times a week during my formative years.
quote:
You seem to take offence when you think Gene knows what you think.
I take offense at gene's sometimes patronizing, arrogant and self-righteous attitude and his assertions about my motives and thoughts.
quote:
Why then should I not feel the same anger when you label me "stupid", "dishonest" ect,not just me but my family friends and congregation.
But I didn't call YOU anything, funkie. You and gene seem to have a real problem seperating the abstract from the specific. I criticise the faith and the general mindset required by the followers. You can decide if that portrayal fits your case.
BTW... There is a forum on my site. If you have a problem with something you read there, please comment on it there.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-08-2002 1:20 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-08-2002 5:35 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 417 (25940)
12-08-2002 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by forgiven
12-08-2002 11:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
well said... "only that which can be empirically verified exists" is a truth claim and requires, at the very least, elaboration
How does one verify a particular claim without appeal to some form of sensory information? It is that simple. You and gene both insist on formulating the problem as above, but that is a misrepresentation. I'll gladly admit the possibility of non-empirically verifiable something-or-others but how does one verify the ACTUAL existence of such things? It can't be done, in my opinion. Perhaps you can tell me how it can be done?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 11:02 AM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 1:01 PM John has replied
 Message 66 by gene90, posted 12-08-2002 6:58 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 417 (25947)
12-08-2002 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by forgiven
12-08-2002 1:01 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
the point i (and i believe gene) was making is that in a materialistic universe, one in which all things that exist do so because of accident, nothing can possibly exist but that which is natural, ie. material...
This is your claim, not mine. I haven't said anything about a materialistic universe, only about the verification of statements.
quote:
atheists (for the most part, there may be exceptions) cannot explain the powers of reason they use to argue with christians, they can't explain where this logic/reason comes from...
Why not? This really doesn't make sense.
quote:
christians can explain these things.
By appeal to an unverifiable entity? I can explain anything I wish in the same manner, but no one would take me seriously. Why should I take you seriously?
quote:
so my statement above, and in other places, was meant to show that the atheist has to borrow from the christian worldview to even discuss these things
Then no peoples prior to christianity have been able to discuss these thing or think these things, as there was no christian worldview from which to borrow?
quote:
now then, either what i wrote is true or it isn't... is the above statement a knowledge claim?
It is a knowledge claim, but it isn't my knowledge claim. I have explained my position.
quote:
if so, more than merely asserting it as such should be attempted...
Certainly, but I haven't made the assertion you present. I don't make the claim that that the universe is material-- the word doesn't mean a lot to me actually-- nor do I make the claim that only empirically verifiable things exist. The claim I make is that empirical evidence is the only evidence we've got and that believing something without evidence is irrational.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 1:01 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 2:29 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 417 (25959)
12-08-2002 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by forgiven
12-08-2002 2:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
it isn't a "claim" john, it's the truth.. it's self-evident that in a universe where only materiality exists, transcendenence doesn't...
It is a claim, forgiven. It is a claim about the nature of reality and further claims about the consequences of those claims, but that is really beside the point since I haven't made the claim that reality is material. I suppose you could call it a definition as well, but that is still beside the point. It is also tautological-- a or not-a-- but again that is beside the point. I don't even believe in matter in any but a sort of metaphorical and colloquial way. You aren't arguing against me with this line of reasoning.
quote:
what doesn't make sense? a materialist is one who believes nothing exists outside of nature, nothing that isn't suspended in space/time... to a materialist, where does her power of reason come from?
It a function of the brain, assuming the premise of materialism. Things fall down, not up. The critters that figure this out survive, the ones that don't figure it out die. Millions of years of trial and error produce patterns of thought. Logic isn't something mystical. It is really just a condensed version of what works.
quote:
what makes her beliefs more or less reasonable than anyone else's?
I believe strongly that I must drink water to survive. My buddie believes strongly that he must drink drano to survive. Which of us do you think actually will survive? Which do you think is the more reasonable? I don't see why this calculation requires any more than a little bit of experience.
quote:
if her very existence is an accident, why should we believe her apparently reasonable arguments and not those from another purely accidental conciousness?
Because we can walk out and check. You say it is raining? I can go look. It isn't complicated.
I also notice that you ask very much the question I asked you earlier. How do we distinguish between one unverifiable claim and any other?
quote:
yes you can, but do you?
Do I appeal to unverifiable entities? Nope.
quote:
i have a worldview in which there is no contradiction...
That isn't hard to come by. But internal consistency doesn't make a theory true. There are many theories that are internally consistent, but don't match observations.
quote:
the atheist has no such luxury...
There is nothing self-contradictory about atheism. That fact alone doesn't make it true though.
quote:
what you call unverifiable i call obvious evidence...
The obvious has never been proven wrong?
quote:
if your reasoning ability is based on the accident of this solar system's existence, how can it be accepted as anything more than a result of that accident?
Why would it have to be anything more? Reasoning is a means of coping with the world around us.
quote:
why should your opinions be any more acceptable than anyone else's?
Not my opinions or any one else's either. This is where verifiability becomes important. I say the steak is raw. Well, you look and see for yourself. You say that jesus saves... hmmm, just have to take your word for it. I say, no, but Allah saves. By the same logic you have to take my word for it. And surprise, the two religions are mutually exclusive. We find ourself in very short order having to accept contradictory assertions. And there is no way to sort out which is correct.
quote:
here's a simple question for you, john... is logic material or immaterial?
Logic is a description of how things work in our neck of the woods. Is that material or immaterial? It is a human construct portions of which are likely shared by many animals on earth. Even plants react to changes in the environment, so there must be a simple logic engine running in flora as well-- a turing machine of sorts.
quote:
that does not follow from anything i said
You said that atheists must borrow from the christian worldview in order to discuss 'these things.' It does follow that in the absence of christianity people would not be able to discuss 'these things.'
quote:
assume abiogenesis to be a fact for a moment... there is no human life yet, nobody to classify things... now, did laws of logic exist at this time? was the law of non-contradiction still a law, even with noone around to 'name' it? could, apart from man's existence, a = ~a in the same way at the same time?
Not really. Logic is a description like mathematics. It doesn't exist until it is created, though the underlying local and applicable physics do. But I think that may be what you mean.
quote:
so you see, it does not follow that the christian worldview needed to be articulated for it to be true... logic need not be known to exist for it *to* exist
The christian world view existed as a thing in itself for thousands of year without being verbalized? And humankind borrowed from this ethereal worldview? What possible reasons can you have that this was actually the case?
quote:
then i wasn't speaking to you, i was speaking to whomever made the original statement... it was made as if it contained a truth value... but it was merely asserted and the person asserting it should be held to account
I believe the original statement in this thread was made by gene while representing what he thought was my reasoning.
quote:
if truth can be ascertained from immaterial entities, why is one considered irrational for maintaining something to be true utilizing those entities?
I said nothing about truth being gathered from immaterial entities. I said nothing about material entities either.
quote:
if, as you affirm, empirical evidence is the *only* evidence we've got, and if, as you affirm, other than material entities exist ("empirically verifiable things" are surely material, are they not?), from whence the logic required to hold that view?
Again, you are dragging in this concept of material entities. Are you talking about what science considers matter, or about philosophical materialism of some variety? There is a big difference. The scientific version is a description of phenomena. Philosophical materialism is a metaphysics.
You have really got to disentangle empiricism and materialism. They are not the same thing. Empirically verifiable things don't have to be material. There doesn't have to BE any material. History is full of philosophers who did not believe such a thing actually exists. And the atoms of science are nothing like the 'matter' spoken of by the more famous philosophical materialists. It is difficult to keep track of what you are actually arguing.
Finally, I don't affirm anything about material entities or about non-material ones.
quote:
you are using an entity that can't be empirically verified to assert that only empirically verified entities can be used for evidence
What entity?
quote:
since you state several times that you don't hold a certain position, why not just say what you do believe?
Gee. My position is what you just misrepresented. Don't get back
quote:
in your view, is existence made up of only those things which are termed 'material'?
I don't really believe in 'material' except, as I said earlier, in metaphorical sort of way.
quote:
iow, is all that exists suspended in space/time?
I don't know. All I have to deal with is space-time. How can I speculate outside of that?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 2:29 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by gene90, posted 12-08-2002 7:07 PM John has replied
 Message 68 by forgiven, posted 12-08-2002 7:27 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 417 (25987)
12-08-2002 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by gene90
12-08-2002 7:07 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
To make the statement: There is no God empirically true you must have evidence to support it. But then: cannot be verified empirically poisons the well. One minute you're demanding evidence, the next you are insisting there is none and can be none.
Correct. But once again, you do not represent my position in this matter.
1) I do not make the claim that God has been proven empirically to not exist. This would be a ridiculous undertaking, along the lines of proving the non-existence of Santa Claus. How is it that we know that Santa Claus does not exist? hmmm... there is no evidence for Santa Claus. The Easter Bunny? No evidence for the EB. But is Santa or the EB empirically PROVEN to not exist? Not really. There is no evidence at all. I doubt you have a problem with this reasoning where it regards childhood fantasy, yet you fail to understand the same reasoning when applied to your god?
quote:
Do you or do you not agree that if you demand evidence before you believe in God you must demand evidence that there is no God before you believe there is no God, in order to be consistent?
No. I do not agree. Do you require evidence to not believe in grey aliens among us? Or to not believe in purple elephants? Or Borg in the breakroom? Or fire-breathing dragons? No, you don't require such evidence I'll wager. Why? The same reasons I apply to your god, so please stop pretending to not understand.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by gene90, posted 12-08-2002 7:07 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-08-2002 11:08 PM John has replied
 Message 77 by gene90, posted 12-09-2002 3:47 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