|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Presuppositionalism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Assuming that we could agree that every God is Theistic, by definition.
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 "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
What does perseverance indicate? If a Muslim stands by his faith, what does that indicate about the value of his faith? Muslims live through hurricanes. Muslims are persecuted (see Myanmar). I would argue that people who stand for the faith rather than waffle on it like an armchair quarterback are themselves evidence of perseverance at least. If you have evidence of perseverance, so what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Water behaves as we determine it should behave. If it doesn't behave that way, it isn't water.
Only because the hypothetical god does not behave as you determine He should behave. Phat writes:
Evidence can not be subjective. The interpretation of the evidence can be subjective - but if it is, it is inherently inferior to an objective interpretation.
So at best the evidence is subjective. Phat writes:
Why does God have to kill a bunch of people to develop the character of the survivors? Imagine how character-filled our children would be if we killed one in every family.
I maintain that God allows the hurricane simply because micromanaging everything begets a race of couch potato people with no character development.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: Only because the hypothetical god does not behave as you determine He should behave. No. I figure that YOUR god - the one represented by the story of Jesus- would not send hurricanes to murder those that he professes to love. I agree, if you believe that god is a sadist, then the evidence is right there.
So at best the evidence is subjective. There's no such thing as subjective evidence. And in any case, there's not much more objective than a category 5 hurricane.
I maintain that God allows the hurricane simply because micromanaging everything begets a race of couch potato people with no character development. That's just utter crap and I suspect you know it. What parent would put their child deliberately in harm's way? Really Phat.....Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Every God is Theistic but every god may not be. Is deism closer to Theism or atheism?
Assuming that we could agree that every God is Theistic, by definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
You are also an example of perseverance, come to think of it. If I found that you had also lived through persecution and perhaps a hurricane or two, I would weigh your beliefs more respectfully.
As it is now, I only see you attempting to muck up the water so that it becomes harder to see the fish in the pond. You seem to have a good heart, though. The goal of EvC has been defined as Understanding Through Discussion. I would argue that understanding by definition is always evolving. 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 "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: Seems to me its closest to pantheism. This whole idea of an impersonal "force" governing everything irritates me because I cannot conceive of a natural order with no personal authority behind it. Is deism closer to Theism or atheism?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 "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Ringo writes:
You want me to leave the water clear so you can shoot fish in a barrel?
As it is now, I only see you attempting to muck up the water so that it becomes harder to see the fish in the pond. Phat writes:
That's why we can never stop questioning our understanding.
I would argue that understanding by definition is always evolving.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Tangle writes: If your analogy holds...and God is defined as a cosmic Parent...consider that He allows His children to run around in an awfully big yard...one full of danger. My point is this: What parent would put their child deliberately in harm's way? Really Phat..... How would you hypothetically imagine God removing all of the dangers in the yard and envisioning the world that would then exist?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 "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
So is pantheism closer to Theism or atheism?
Seems to me its closest to pantheism. Phat writes:
Can you picture God making every crystal personally out of His celestial tinker toys? Or personally lighting the fuse on every molecule of hydrogen in the Hindenberg? To me the idea of a personal authority behind natural order just seems silly.
... I cannot conceive of a natural order with no personal authority behind it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Why does God have to kill a bunch of people to develop the character of the survivors? My point is this: How would God remove every possibility of death or dismemberment out of the way of his children? I mean seriously stop and attempt to imagine the world with no danger. No crack in any sidewalk to trip over. No weather abnormalities. And consider how removing hurricanes would affect the global weather pattern in general. Perhaps removing the bad things would also remove the good things..(like rain) My point (I think.. ) is that demanding that God allow nobody to die or get hurt would change the world we live into something else entirely. You claim that God is evil for allowing hurt and pain. I claim that the world as e know it would be impossible if God intervened more.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 "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18332 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: I see your point. Can you picture God making every crystal personally out of His celestial tinker toys? Or personally lighting the fuse on every molecule of hydrogen in the Hindenberg? To me, the idea of a personal authority behind natural order just seems silly. IF God thus has a hands-off approach to the natural order, everyone calls Him evil. Damned if He does and damned if he doesn't.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 "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
But he's okay if he isn't. Damned if He does and damned if he doesn't. The problem with (your brand of) theism is that you can't have it both ways. You can't give God the credit for all of the good in the world and put the blame on yourself for all of the bad. Either He is the Creator of all things seen and unseen or He isn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 437 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
That's my point. I can't imagine a world without danger - and I can't imagine a God who would allow those dangers. That's why gods seem so unlikely.
My point is this: How would God remove every possibility of death or dismemberment out of the way of his children? I mean seriously stop and attempt to imagine the world with no danger. Phat writes:
My point is that the world we live in IS entirely different from a world with a loving God.
My point (I think.. ) is that demanding that God allow nobody to die or get hurt would change the world we live into something else entirely. Phat writes:
I claim that the world as we know it indicates that there is no loving God.
I claim that the world as e know it would be impossible if God intervened more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: If your analogy holds...and God is defined as a cosmic Parent It was YOUR analogy
quote: How would you hypothetically imagine God removing all of the dangers in the yard and envisioning the world that would then exist? I dunno, how about creating something like the Garden of Eden? That sounded like a decent enough place.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024