Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God and the blind Tailors
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 121 of 135 (517096)
07-29-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by RevCrossHugger
07-29-2009 11:05 AM


Re: Good Work DA
Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, ... The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation
I know because I sue. If damages are incurred its different as well.
There are a number of jurisdictions that allow for criminal prosecution for lible, but niether you nor DA live in any of them.
I wouldn't sue for for anything said here for several reasons.
I hope one of of them is you don't like lawyers laughing you out of their offices.
I am just getting tired of the personal BS, that's all .
Don't use your personal qualifications as an argument from authority cudge and you'll find it happens a lot less.
Philosophy yes law no Theology yes law no...see simple..Of course you more than likley will try to make something out of it.
I tried to make something out of that but was unsuccessful. Dude, how did you edit that post six time and still produce that thing.
AbE:
Its useless tripe and only serves to flame the hate.
Hate has taken the form of me giggling and peeing my pants.
Edited by lyx2no, : Edit for the next post.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-29-2009 11:05 AM RevCrossHugger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-29-2009 1:23 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5352 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 122 of 135 (517101)
07-29-2009 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by lyx2no
07-29-2009 1:00 PM


Re: Good Work DA
Please stay on topic. I am not reading nor responding to anything that is off topic. Its useless tripe and only serves to flame the hate. I wont be a party to that any longer. Thanks in advance for abiding by this sites guidelines.
BRB gotta give my crosses a hug, for they as this thread tells us represent the 'cause' and are the reason the hate stops here.
: {>
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : add ons

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by lyx2no, posted 07-29-2009 1:00 PM lyx2no has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by AdminNosy, posted 07-29-2009 4:54 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 123 of 135 (517126)
07-29-2009 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by RevCrossHugger
07-29-2009 1:23 PM


Topic
You are correct that this is all off topic. I'll keep an eye on the thread for awhile. Lets see if we can find the topic again.
I suggest RCH that if you want to avoid this kind of thing then don't mention your credentials again. They don't count anyway just what you actually present. So present your arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-29-2009 1:23 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 124 of 135 (517136)
07-29-2009 6:51 PM


Back to the topic
An attempt to get back to the topic:
RCH, you have suggested that all (most? some?) religions are simply multiple attempts to describe a single truth. You've used the analogy of multiple student tailors, some of whom make suits that fit the real client better than others.
What makes you think this? Do you have an objective reason, or is this simply an attempt to grant validity to other religions while holding your own as what you consider the "best fit?"
When I look at the religions of the world, I see typically mutually-exclusive ideas. For example, is God omnipotent? Christians think so, but the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other all thought that there were multiple gods who had absolute authority and power only over their own domains.
This is the equivalent of several of the student tailors making partial suits for multiple clients.
Several religions (Buddhism, Scientology, various ancestor-worshiping or animist religions, lots of new-age beliefs) do not believe in a god at all.
That's rather analogous to several of the tailoring students insisting that there is no client to tailor a suit for.
In the face of all of the mutually exclusive beliefs regarding god(s) and the supernatural, what makes you think they are all attempts to describe the same thing with differing degrees of success? Isn't that like asking art students to paint a dog, and several of them painting houses, stars, and flowers? Isn't there a limit at which point you say "you cannot be describing the same thing I am, our descriptions are simply too different?"
You further claim that your specific religion is the "very best fit" of all. What makes you think so? Is there an objective reason, some sort of evidence showing that your religion more accurately describes "the real god(s)" than any other religion? Or is your assessment based only on your own personal emotions and feelings, with no objective basis?
Why do you consider the Christian concept of god to be superior to Allah? To Thor, or Odin? To Buddha, or Shiva? To the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Is there an actual, objective reason, some sort of evidence that the Christian concept explains better than the others?
In science, we often have multiple hypotheses attempting to describe a single observation. We then test the predictions of each hypothesis against further observation and experimentation to determine which hypothesis is the most accurate. What observations, if any, do you believe support the Christian explanation of god(s) better than any others?
What makes you think there is a client at all? Could the student tailors have simply convinced themselves that there is a client and each began making a suit to fit their own conceptualization of the imagined clients' measurements would be? Wouldn't that more accurately fit a situation where it doesn't seem like any of the students have ever actually seen the client, but instead make suits (or do not make them) for completely different clients, or even different numbers of clients?
Do you have any objective evidence, something outside of faith, that suggests that god(s) may actually exist?

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5352 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 125 of 135 (517139)
07-29-2009 7:54 PM


quote:
An attempt to get back to the topic:
RCH, you have suggested that all (most? some?) religions are simply multiple attempts to describe a single truth. You've used the analogy of multiple student tailors, some of whom make suits that fit the real client better than others.
What makes you think this? Do you have an objective reason, or is this simply an attempt to grant validity to other religions while holding your own as what you consider the "best fit?"
Its simply a tool for visualizing a difficult concept.In my world I feel that a God which can create a universe and have it produce sentient man as a 'truth'. What I mean by 'truth' is that God would have to know every physical process in the universe to design one start to finish. So, I think its reasonable to assume that when man became sentient, he began questioning "why". Eventually this curiosity of everything developed into the different religions. However, all these religions are really trying to describe the one creator God. The creator of the universe and everything in it. So I think that the original god was a mono being who created our universe.
quote:
When I look at the religions of the world, I see typically mutually-exclusive ideas. For example, is God omnipotent? Christians think so, but the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other all thought that there were multiple gods who had absolute authority and power only over their own domains.
Well that is what you would expect from the many source descriptions of God. This Christian thinks that God is omnipotent only in his own "realm". However, I also believe that God created this universe to run on probabilities, Chaos, and uncertainty. Additionally its my belief that God can 'enter time', but does so only in very rare events.
quote:
This is the equivalent of several of the student tailors making partial suits for multiple clients. Several religions (Buddhism, Scientology, various ancestor-worshiping or animist religions, lots of new-age beliefs) do not believe in a god at all.
Some Buddhism 'sects' have supernatural aspects to their religion some may not. Of course if they do not worship any God at all I feel that those tailors are making God parade around in a very ill fitting suit! . I personally feel that a non spiritual non deity "religion" is about as incorrect as one can get, and of course with all due respect to atheism & to any atheists here, all forms of atheism is the most wrong of all, with hard or strong atheism making no suit at all! partial levity again guys> .
quote:
That's rather analogous to several of the tailoring students insisting that there is no client to tailor a suit for. In the face of all of the mutually exclusive beliefs regarding god(s) and the supernatural, what makes you think they are all attempts to describe the same thing with differing degrees of success? Isn't that like asking art students to paint a dog, and several of them painting houses, stars, and flowers?
I touched on that above. Due to several reasons a mono-god seems most probable (not statistically probable). My art student example would be like this; I would instruct my students to paint a image of the creator of everything. If God exists some of the paintings etc would be more accurate than others (if God had a form that could be expressed in a temporal universe).
quote:
Isn't there a limit at which point you say "you cannot be describing the same thing I am, our descriptions are simply too different?"
No, but I could say 'your painting is way off God looks nothing like that'. Of course my critique would only be valid if I knew what God looked like. That is precisely why I never say my painting is correct and yours is wrong to an accuracy of 100%. I would say rather 'my beliefs lead me to believe that my painting is more accurate, do you want to know why?', which I am sure makes some people happy and a few people not so happy.
quote:
You further claim that your specific religion is the "very best fit" of all. What makes you think so? Is there an objective reason, some sort of evidence showing that your religion more accurately describes "the real god(s)" than any other religion? Or is your assessment based only on your own personal emotions and feelings, with no objective basis?
This is a personal claim for a personal God. I may be incorrect. However I use many evidences that some other religions may not have at their disposal. Also I use some of the sciences (archeology and astronomy for example). I use a cosmological argument for the existence of God as evidence. And I use the bible. I use writings from secular roman historians and other things. Another is a near death experience and some faith based events which I rarely mention in a non religious metaphysical setting.
quote:
Why do you consider the Christian concept of god to be superior to Allah? To Thor, or Odin? To Buddha, or Shiva? To the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Because their religious books texts and beliefs seem less credible when taken as a whole. Of course as I have said many times I respect all beliefs and non beliefs. I have empathy for non believers, not disdain.
quote:
Is there an actual, objective reason, some sort of evidence that the Christian concept explains better than the others? In science, we often have multiple hypotheses attempting to describe a single observation.
Just what I have touched on above. Science and Philosophy religion and metaphysics have different criteria to meet. So its like trying to put a square science pole in a round religious hole if either discipline(s) are held to the others standards etc. That's not to say science and religion cannot agree in many instances, its simply that they are two different disciplines.
quote:
We then test the predictions of each hypothesis against further observation and experimentation to determine which hypothesis is the most accurate. What observations, if any, do you believe support the Christian explanation of god(s) better than any others?
Just what I touched on above. There is more trace reasons but I am pretty sure what I have already said will keep us busy for awhile!
quote:
What makes you think there is a client at all? Could the student tailors have simply convinced themselves that there is a client and each began making a suit to fit their own conceptualization of the imagined clients' measurements would be?
Of course that is a possibility but not a very valid one. As per the KCA nothing begins to exist without a cause, and that cause in my opinion was God. So, in my world its more reasonable to assume that there is a creator. "Why is there a universe at all, rather than just nothing?
quote:
Wouldn't that more accurately fit a situation where it doesn't seem like any of the students have ever actually seen the client, but instead make suits (or do not make them) for completely different clients, or even different numbers of clients?
Not to my way of thinking. Back to your art student example, if more than one painting were completed there should be some more accurate than the others. That may be a logical fallacy but you know what I mean. One creator/God is the most simple explanation and therefore the best choice as per Ockham's razor.
quote:
Do you have any objective evidence, something outside of faith, that suggests that god(s) may actually exist?
Just what I outlined above. The KCA is a pretty good objective evidence. However there is no empirical way to prove God exists to my knowledge.
; }>
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixing the odd characters by redoing the ' and ". Oddly, some uses of these had worked fine. Is he entering text via Microsoft Word and also directly into the text box?
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset "signature" after fixing coding errors at profile.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
Albert Einstein

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by lyx2no, posted 07-29-2009 9:56 PM RevCrossHugger has replied
 Message 131 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2009 2:47 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 126 of 135 (517141)
07-29-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by RevCrossHugger
07-29-2009 7:54 PM


Wheels Within Wheels
Its simply a tool for visualizing a difficult concept.
Or it's another rationalization forced upon you because of your inability to accept that folks make up gods a the drop of a hat without consulting each other.
Well that is what you would expect from the many source descriptions of God.
It's what I would expect if the object under consideration was fictitious. I've never heard anyone describe the moon as cubic or tetrahedral.
Some Buddhism 'sects' have supernatural aspects to their religion some may not. Of course if they do not worship any God at all I feel that those tailors are making God parade around in a very ill fitting suit! . I personally feel that a non spiritual non deity ”religion’ is about as incorrect as one can get, and of course with all due respect to atheism & to any atheists here, all forms of atheism is the most wrong of all, with hard or strong atheism making no suit at all! partial levity again guys> .
Firstly, there's really no reason to titter. Very few atheists have an emotional attachment to their simple non belief in a god. How upset would you get if someone told you you were wrong about the Tooth Fairy being made up? No one cares so long as you don't have the force of law to insist.
Secondly, you've made no progress at all in explaining why you are right and everyone else is wrong. Your feeling so isn't one of the more impressive theses exhibited on this board in the last 24 hours. You've SO running against you.
Due to several reasons a mono-god seems most probable (not statistically probable).
Are any of those reasons unrelated to what your mommy and daddy told you when you were growing up?
My art student example would be like this; I would instruct my students to paint a image of the creator of everything. If God exists some of the paintings etc would be more accurate than others (if God had a form that could be expressed in a temporal universe).
Your analogies are not so difficult to follow that you need to keep explaining them. They are not misunderstood: they are rejected. Your analogy say nothing more then "My image of god is the right one, and people who agree with me have the right idea too. Others, not so much. But that just means I've had better access to god, but they still love the same god." Handy for you to have a ministry to to update them.
No, but I could say 'your painting is way off God looks nothing like that'. Of course my critique would only be valid if I knew what God looked like. That is precisely why I never say my painting is correct and yours is wrong to an accuracy of 100%. I would say rather 'my beliefs lead me to believe that my painting is more accurate, do you want to know why?', which I am sure makes some people happy and a few people not so happy.
How could you type that without cringing? If you don't know what god looks like, how can you say anything? If I draw a picture of some random person from the phone book, do you think you'd be in a position to say it doesn't look like them?
However I use many evidences that some other religions may not have at their disposal. Also I use some of the sciences (archeology and astronomy for example).
Ever hear the expression "Cut to the chase."? This would be the important bit around here. Screw the personal experience. How have you not caught on to that simple principle?
Because their religious books texts and beliefs seem less credible when taken as a whole.
The Bible is piss your pants funny if your not disposed to excusing every last, dim witted misadventure. Few of the stories in the Bible are more sophisticated than Marvel Comics.
its simply that they are two different disciplines.
NOMA fails miserably as soon a religion make a claim in the real world.
As per the KCA nothing begins to exist without a cause, and that cause in my opinion was God. So, in my world its more reasonable to assume that there is a creator.
and
The KCA is a pretty good objective evidence. However there is no empirical way to prove God exists to my knowledge.
KCA is a joke. It's putting a fancy name on a silly rationalization. Ignorance should not be an excuse to say anything but a reason to say nothing. It is not possible for something to be both objective and non empirical.
One creator/God is the most simple explanation and therefore the best choice as per Ockham's razor.
Not when you have thousands of mutually exclusive descriptions. Then it is more parsimonious to assume separate causes. Parsimony still requires one to take all the fact into account. That there is no real world evidence of magic combined with the knowledge that people pick answers a through d rather than answer "e: none of the above" no creator/god is even more parsimonious.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Suspended, in part because of incivility in this message

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-29-2009 7:54 PM RevCrossHugger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-29-2009 10:28 PM lyx2no has replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5352 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 127 of 135 (517142)
07-29-2009 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by lyx2no
07-29-2009 9:56 PM


Re: Wheels Within Wheels
quote:
Or it's another rationalization forced upon you because of your inability to accept that folks make up gods a the drop of a hat without consulting each other.
Wrong. I said that people DO make up gods easily. In fact that was the bulk of my response. However out of these fabrications only one I suspect is true.
quote:
It's what I would expect if the object under consideration was fictitious. I've never heard anyone describe the moon as cubic or tetrahedral.
No, but you have seen the moon. As I said above the descriptions are fictitious, so we agree. Some are more accurate than others. That was what I said.
quote:
Firstly, there's really no reason to titter. Very few atheists have an emotional attachment to their simple non belief in a god. .
The first sentence was a bit off topic but not too bad, but I will attempt to answer anyway. Speak for yourself. I have experience debating atheists and many are very very touchy about their simple non belief in a god.
quote:
How upset would you get if someone told you you were wrong about the Tooth Fairy being made up? No one cares so long as you don't have the force of law to insist.
Again you are speaking about your personal experience and I from mine.
quote:
Secondly, you've made no progress at all in explaining why you are right and everyone else is wrong.
I didn’t say I was right and everything else is wrong. I said some is more accurate than others. If God exists that is probably correct.
quote:
Your feeling so isn't one of the more impressive theses exhibited on this board in the last 24 hours. You've SO running against you.
And do you think I am impressed by your personal opnion. Be aware that you are getting too close to teasing a personal response out of this debate. I will copy this part of the exchange just in case.
quote:
Are any of those reasons unrelated to what your mommy and daddy told you when you were growing up?
That is off topic and this will be reported. When you abide by the administrators advice I may respond to the rest of this post, well the non personal remarks.
REPORTED FOR BEING OFF TOPIC AGAIN
; {>
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by lyx2no, posted 07-29-2009 9:56 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by lyx2no, posted 07-29-2009 11:39 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5352 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 128 of 135 (517144)
07-29-2009 10:59 PM


After some reconsideration and reporting for being somewhat off topic, I placed a disclaimer at the bottom of the thread (OFF TOPIC AGAIN) that read if you would delete your reply then remove the personal content and the off topic off color remark maybe we could work together and I would finish replying to your reply. Lets try to be civil and lose the snide remarks, it would benefit everyone at this forum.
Thanks in advance for your consideration ~
; }>
BTW I created a new thread concerning the KCA. You may enjoy it.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
Albert Einstein

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 129 of 135 (517148)
07-29-2009 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by RevCrossHugger
07-29-2009 10:28 PM


Re: Wheels Within Wheels
Wrong. I said that people DO make up gods easily. In fact that was the bulk of my response. However out of these fabrications only one I suspect is true.
Have you abandoned your position that we all describe the same god then? A fictitious god can't be the same god as the real one can it?
As I said above the descriptions are fictitious, so we agree. Some are more accurate than others. That was what I said.
Are the descriptions ficticious or the gods? Which are they making up?
The first sentence was a bit off topic but not too bad, but I will attempt to answer anyway. Speak for yourself. I have experience debating atheists and many are very very touchy about their simple non belief in a god.
You can attempt to bite me too. Why not leave moderation to the moderators. I'd be more prone to believe that the atheist are annoyed with the way you speak as if you have your thumbs under your suspenders there, Mr. Brady. (Inherit the Wind, not the demented 70'd tv show.)
I didn’t say I was right and everything else is wrong. I said some is more accurate than others. If God exists that is probably correct.
Couching your statements in uncertainty doesn't change the question much. You're not merely asserting that some are more accurate than others; you're asserting that you've cause to believe that yours is not only more accurate than theirs but accurate. You have yet to offer any reason that couldn't be used with equal validity by someone defending the FSM. Until such time you've said much about nothing.
That is off topic and this will be reported.
That Are any of those reasons unrelated to what your mommy and daddy told you when you were growing up? is likely one of the more on topic things I've said this week. Have you failed to notice that 99% of people grow up to espouse their parents beliefs. If you didn't notice that, it is likely you too have fallen into the same trap.
You could just present the scientific evidence that you've made claim to several time, you know? Then there would be something to debate other then your personal feelings.
AbE:
After some reconsideration and reporting for being somewhat off topic, I placed a disclaimer at the bottom of the thread (OFF TOPIC AGAIN) that read if you would delete your reply then remove the personal content and the off topic off color remark maybe we could work together and I would finish replying to your reply. Lets try to be civil and lose the snide remarks, it would benefit everyone at this forum.
Thanks in advance for your consideration ~
I say you should loosen your white belt, lower your plaid pant, pull your panties out of your crack, and get on with the evidence already. You're the one who keeps introducing your opps! My bad. I thought this was a science thread. Go on with whatever you were saying. I'll not interrupt again.
Edited by lyx2no, : Answer following post.
Edited by lyx2no, : Formating.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Suspended, in part because of incivility in this message

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-29-2009 10:28 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5352 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 130 of 135 (517150)
07-29-2009 11:49 PM


No deal no debate. With you anyway. I have no desire to debate with someone that has to be hostile. Sorry. If you would attempt to do as the administrator asked we would not have this problem. The reason I can't let the moderators moderate is because they let it get to the point that an administrator had to intervene. Or did you miss that?
Redo your replies to comply with the administrators requests and I will be happy to win er go on with this debate.
;{>
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
Albert Einstein

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 131 of 135 (517165)
07-30-2009 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by RevCrossHugger
07-29-2009 7:54 PM


quote:
An attempt to get back to the topic:
RCH, you have suggested that all (most? some?) religions are simply multiple attempts to describe a single truth. You've used the analogy of multiple student tailors, some of whom make suits that fit the real client better than others.
What makes you think this? Do you have an objective reason, or is this simply an attempt to grant validity to other religions while holding your own as what you consider the "best fit?"
Its simply a tool for visualizing a difficult concept.
That's not what I asked. I'm not asking why you chose the metaphor, I'm asking why you believe what the metaphor represents to be accurate. Why do you believe that all religions are attempts to explain the same, "true" deity? Couldn't some (most? all?) be completely made-up and have nothing to do with reality at all?
In my world I feel that a God which can create a universe and have it produce sentient man as a 'truth'.
But why? What makes you think this? Family tradition? Social pressure? "Gut feeling?" A revealed truth? In what form? Objective evidence? We all live in the same world - yours is no different from mine objectively. Only our subjective opinions and interpretations, and our specific chain of personal experiences are different. What makes you conclude that this world includes a deity?
What I mean by 'truth' is that God would have to know every physical process in the universe to design one start to finish. So, I think its reasonable to assume that when man became sentient, he began questioning ”why’. Eventually this curiosity of everything developed into the different religions. However, all these religions are really trying to describe the one creator God. The creator of the universe and everything in it. So I think that the original god was a mono being who created our universe.
Again, why? That's some very interesting speculation, and I'll admit to thinking along the same lines in the past. But it's just speculation unless you can give a reason. What ties all religions together to make you think they're all various attempts at the same truth? Why did "curiosity" branch out so differently? Why do you assume that god(s) are omnipotent? Omniscient? Why do you assume that god(s) created the Universe? Not all religions say this was the case - in fact, many suggest no such thing.
quote:
When I look at the religions of the world, I see typically mutually-exclusive ideas. For example, is God omnipotent? Christians think so, but the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other all thought that there were multiple gods who had absolute authority and power only over their own domains.
Well that is what you would expect from the many source descriptions of God.
Why? Why would you expect, given that there is only one objective truth that all are attempting to divine, that wildly different mutually exclusive ideas would be prevalent? If I quickly flash a picture of a dog in front of an audience and then ask them to draw what they saw, most would at least draw something with four legs. Even if I gave each person a different view, or only let some of them touch a dog briefly without looking, we'd expect to find some strong similarities. We wouldn't expect anyone to draw a house or a car; we wouldn't expect anyone to draw flowers or a star. Yet with religion we find disparities on that level.
This Christian thinks that God is omnipotent only in his own ”realm’. However, I also believe that God created this universe to run on probabilities, Chaos, and uncertainty. Additionally its my belief that God can 'enter time', but does so only in very rare events.
Again, this ignores the question. I asked why different religions do not believe god(s) are omnipotent, or that there are more than one. This directly conflicts with your own belief; you would say that it's a poorly fitting suit. But it's not just poorly fitting - it's multiple suits that don't resemble any of the suits made for a single model. Why is this the case, if there is one truth that everyone is trying to describe? What caused the difference?
quote:
This is the equivalent of several of the student tailors making partial suits for multiple clients. Several religions (Buddhism, Scientology, various ancestor-worshiping or animist religions, lots of new-age beliefs) do not believe in a god at all.
Some Buddhism 'sects' have supernatural aspects to their religion some may not. Of course if they do not worship any God at all I feel that those tailors are making God parade around in a very ill fitting suit!
Buddhism does not include any deity. Buddha is simply a man who has achieved enlightenment. Some denominations believe in the supernatural, others less so. Some believe in reincarnation, others do not.
I personally feel that a non spiritual non deity ”religion’ is about as incorrect as one can get, and of course with all due respect to atheism & to any atheists here, all forms of atheism is the most wrong of all, with hard or strong atheism making no suit at all! partial levity again guys>
RCH, we know that this is what you believe. You're stating your position but failing to give the requested explanation. What makes you think god(s) exist at all? What reason? "I personally believe..." is a statement, not an answer, and more it's a statement of a fact we already know. Why do you think god(s) exist?
quote:
That's rather analogous to several of the tailoring students insisting that there is no client to tailor a suit for. In the face of all of the mutually exclusive beliefs regarding god(s) and the supernatural, what makes you think they are all attempts to describe the same thing with differing degrees of success? Isn't that like asking art students to paint a dog, and several of them painting houses, stars, and flowers?
I touched on that above. Due to several reasons a mono-god seems most probable (not statistically probable).
But that's nonsense. Probability is statistics. You cannot separate the two.
What fact or observation makes you think that one-god or any-god is more probable than many-gods or no-gods?
My art student example would be like this; I would instruct my students to paint a image of the creator of everything. If God exists some of the paintings etc would be more accurate than others (if God had a form that could be expressed in a temporal universe).
And yet your suggestion requires the premise that any god(s) exist at all, and further implies a single "creator." What if the Universe simply exists? What if existence is inevitable? What tells you, one way or the other?
quote:
Isn’t there a limit at which point you say "you cannot be describing the same thing I am, our descriptions are simply too different?"
No, but I could say 'your painting is way off God looks nothing like that'.
...doesn't that precisely mean that we cannot be describing the same thing? If I describe a house while you describe a chicken, why would you assume that we were describing the same thing, and one of us was simply inaccurate? Are we not in fact describing completely different things that have no relation to each other?
Of course my critique would only be valid if I knew what God looked like. That is precisely why I never say my painting is correct and yours is wrong to an accuracy of 100%. I would say rather 'my beliefs lead me to believe that my painting is more accurate, do you want to know why?', which I am sure makes some people happy and a few people not so happy.
You just said "my beliefs lead me to believe that my beliefs are more accurate." This is circular reasoning, and it is a logical fallacy.
quote:
You further claim that your specific religion is the "very best fit" of all. What makes you think so? Is there an objective reason, some sort of evidence showing that your religion more accurately describes "the real god(s)" than any other religion? Or is your assessment based only on your own personal emotions and feelings, with no objective basis?
This is a personal claim for a personal God. I may be incorrect. However I use many evidences that some other religions may not have at their disposal. Also I use some of the sciences (archeology and astronomy for example). I use a cosmological argument for the existence of God as evidence. And I use the bible. I use writings from secular roman historians and other things. Another is a near death experience and some faith based events which I rarely mention in a non religious metaphysical setting.
This isn't even bare assertion - you're referring to evidence you haven't presented. What evidence, specifically, do you believe supports your position? Feel free to leave out the personal bits if you like, but surely you can describe some of the archeological/astronomical evidence, or why you believe historical roman writings support your views.
quote:
Why do you consider the Christian concept of god to be superior to Allah? To Thor, or Odin? To Buddha, or Shiva? To the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Because their religious books texts and beliefs seem less credible when taken as a whole. Of course as I have said many times I respect all beliefs and non beliefs. I have empathy for non believers, not disdain.
Personal credulity is irrelevant - in fact, it's another logical fallacy. What seems personally credulous has nothing to do with accuracy - it's an example of speculation, not of rigorous adherence to reality. Is there an objective test you apply to all religious texts to measure their accuracy?
quote:
Is there an actual, objective reason, some sort of evidence that the Christian concept explains better than the others? In science, we often have multiple hypotheses attempting to describe a single observation.
Just what I have touched on above. Science and Philosophy religion and metaphysics have different criteria to meet. So its like trying to put a square science pole in a round religious hole if either discipline(s) are held to the others standards etc. That’s not to say science and religion cannot agree in many instances, its simply that they are two different disciplines.
If the goal is to accurately describe reality, I don't see how different standards and methods work. Only by testing the predictions of our hypotheses against reality can we gauge the relative accuracy of those hypotheses. Bare speculation followed by naked faith is demonstrably no more accurate than guessing. Why would we believe such a method has greater accuracy in describing that which we cannot test, when it has no accuracy at all when the same method is used for hypotheses we can test?
quote:
We then test the predictions of each hypothesis against further observation and experimentation to determine which hypothesis is the most accurate. What observations, if any, do you believe support the Christian explanation of god(s) better than any others?
Just what I touched on above. There is more trace reasons but I am pretty sure what I have already said will keep us busy for awhile!
Not really - you haven't said anything. You haven't given a single explanation, not answered a single "why." You haven't presented any evidence. You've given a circular argument, an appeal to personal credulity, and the rest has been "I have evidence, trust me" or "this is just what I think, I could be wrong."
What is there in that to keep anyone busy? You've been busy dodging questions, nothing more.
quote:
What makes you think there is a client at all? Could the student tailors have simply convinced themselves that there is a client and each began making a suit to fit their own conceptualization of the imagined clients' measurements would be?
Of course that is a possibility but not a very valid one.
That's a rather significant assertion.
As per the KCA nothing begins to exist without a cause, and that cause in my opinion was God.
Please explain this in your own words. What does KCA stand for? What makes you assert that nothing can exist without a cause? Why can the Universe not simply exist? How do you know that the Universe is not simply the default state?
So, in my world its more reasonable to assume that there is a creator. "Why is there a universe at all, rather than just nothing?
I can just as easily ask "why should there be nothing? Why do you assume that nonexistence if the default state?"
quote:
Wouldn't that more accurately fit a situation where it doesn't seem like any of the students have ever actually seen the client, but instead make suits (or do not make them) for completely different clients, or even different numbers of clients?
Not to my way of thinking. Back to your art student example, if more than one painting were completed there should be some more accurate than the others. That may be a logical fallacy but you know what I mean. One creator/God is the most simple explanation and therefore the best choice as per Ockham's razor.
That's simply an inconsistent application of Occam's Razor. Why are all gods other than yours considered extraneous entities? Do you have some bit of evidence distinguishing your deity from the others? What makes your deity a required term, and all other deities unrequired?
quote:
Do you have any objective evidence, something outside of faith, that suggests that god(s) may actually exist?
Just what I outlined above. The KCA is a pretty good objective evidence.
Please explain. Referring to KCA doesn't tell us much; a brief summary of what you think objectively supports the existence of god(s) would be a big help.
However there is no empirical way to prove God exists to my knowledge.
Is there at least an empirical method to support the god hypothesis with evidence? Is there an observation or fact that increases the likelihood of god(s) existing beyond the probability of them not existing, even if that observation or fact stops short of actually proving their existence?
If not...why should I believe you? Why should I consider you any different from any other person who genuinely believes in magical men in the sky? How would I differentiate your beliefs from those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It's been shown that many portrayals of deities are simply made-up nonsense; Zeus does not throw lightning bolts from Olympus, and Apollo does not drive a chariot across the sky with the Sun for a wheel. Why should I consider your deity to be any less made-up than the deities of the past?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-29-2009 7:54 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5352 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 132 of 135 (517194)
07-30-2009 8:17 AM


quote:
. That's not what I asked. I'm not asking why you chose the metaphor, I'm asking why you believe what the metaphor represents to be accurate. Why do you believe that all religions are attempts to explain the same, "true" deity? Couldn't some (most? all?) be completely made-up and have nothing to do with reality at all?
Yes God may not exist. I have said that in the past. The reason I think there is one God and the religions (including Christianity) are all just attempts at describing God is that one God is the most simple explanation as per Occam's razor, and the claims of various religious texts.
quote:
But why? What makes you think this? Family tradition? Social pressure? "Gut feeling?" A revealed truth? In what form? Objective evidence? We all live in the same world - yours is no different from mine objectively. Only our subjective opinions and interpretations, and our specific chain of personal experiences are different. What makes you conclude that this world includes a deity?
Cosmological arguments were a reason I rejected my atheism or more accurately my agnosticism. Then there was archeology verifying some biblical claims. And the concept not to be confused with theological. That some other things such as personal revelation resulting from a and a NDE. As I said why is there a universe instead of nothing?
quote:
.Again, why? That's some very interesting speculation, and I'll admit to thinking along the same lines in the past. But it's just speculation unless you can give a reason. What ties all religions together to make you think they're all various attempts at the same truth? Why did "curiosity" branch out so differently? Why do you assume that god(s) are omnipotent? Omniscient? Why do you assume that god(s) created the Universe? Not all religions say this was the case - in fact, many suggest no such thing.
It gets back to the same thing I alluded to above. With different cultures and environments I would be astonished if all the religions were the same! Each culture had their version and reasons for describing God why they did. So its obvious that if God exists and he was fairly deistic and does not intervene too much in mans affairs different religions would be expected.
quote:
When I look at the religions of the world, I see typically mutually-exclusive ideas. For example, is God omnipotent? Christians think so, but the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other all thought that there were multiple gods who had absolute authority and power only over their own domains.
quote:
Why? Why would you expect, given that there is only one objective truth that all are attempting to divine, that wildly different mutually exclusive ideas would be prevalent? If I quickly flash a picture of a dog in front of an audience and then ask them to draw what they saw, most would at least draw something with four legs. Even if I gave each person a different view, or only let some of them touch a dog briefly without looking, we'd expect to find some strong similarities. We wouldn't expect anyone to draw a house or a car; we wouldn't expect anyone to draw flowers or a star. Yet with religion we find disparities on that level.
If no one had actually seen a dog but I told them a dog does exist I highly doubt if any of them would draw a picture of a dog. However I bet some would look more like a dog than others.
quote:
again, this ignores the question. I asked why different religions do not believe god(s) are omnipotent, or that there are more than one. This directly conflicts with your own belief; you would say that it's a poorly fitting suit. But it's not just poorly fitting - it's multiple suits that don't resemble any of the suits made for a single model. Why is this the case, if there is one truth that everyone is trying to describe? What caused the difference?
As I said above. Different cultures have different ideas of God because they have different needs and desires. They use different criteria and different source material , so its logical that each would come up with a different explanation of God.
quote:
Buddhism does not include any deity. Buddha is simply a man who has achieved enlightenment. Some denominations believe in the supernatural, others less so. Some believe in reincarnation, others do not.
Yes I agree with that, I dabbled in eastern religions before I accepted Christianity.
quote:
RCH, we know that this is what you believe. You're stating your position but failing to give the requested explanation. What makes you think god(s) exist at all? What reason? "I personally believe..." is a statement, not an answer, and more it's a statement of a fact we already know. Why do you think god(s) exist?
I gave you several reasons. The KCA and the cosmological arguments for the existence of God, archeological evidence emerging to fit what the bible says, the argument from design. Now I have said this three times are you rejecting these reasons ?
quote:
But that's nonsense. Probability is statistics. You cannot separate the two.
What fact or observation makes you think that one-god or any-god is more probable than many-gods or no-gods?
Well its not nonsense. Anyway I have already defended that as per Occam's razor etc
quote:
And yet your suggestion requires the premise that any god(s) exist at all, and further implies a single "creator." What if the Universe simply exists? What if existence is inevitable? What tells you, one way or the other?
Nothing begins to exist without a cause not even a universe. My reasons for believing in god are stated above a few times over.
quote:
You further claim that your specific religion is the "very best fit" of all. What makes you think so? Is there an objective reason, some sort of evidence showing that your religion more accurately describes "the real god(s)" than any other religion? Or is your assessment based only on your own personal emotions and feelings, with no objective basis?
Again I feel Christianity is the best fit due to a variety of reasons that I explained above in detail and redundancy. Only a couple are “based only on your own personal emotions and feelings”.
quote:
This isn't even bare assertion - you're referring to evidence you haven't presented. What evidence, specifically, do you believe supports your position? Feel free to leave out the personal bits if you like, but surely you can describe some of the archeological/astronomical evidence, or why you believe historical roman writings support your views.
I already covered the cosmological arguments and the teleological concept. The archeological evidences support that real people, real places of the bible existed. The secular writers were we writing about Jesus followers (Christ) causing trouble for the roman authorities and some remarks about Jesus himself. It lends credence that Jesus actually existed.
quote:
.Personal credulity is irrelevant - in fact, it's another logical fallacy. What seems personally credulous has nothing to do with accuracy - it's an example of speculation, not of rigorous adherence to reality. Is there an objective test you apply to all religious texts to measure their accuracy?
Personal credulity is irrelevant to what exactly? Anyway, I don’t document and validate the red sea scrolls and such texts but I do know of the process they go through and believe me its rigorous.
quote:
If the goal is to accurately describe reality, I don't see how different standards and methods work. Only by testing the predictions of our hypotheses against reality can we gauge the relative accuracy of those hypotheses
Again that is true for scientific theories. Valid arguments of philosophy have a very different criteria than the claims of science.
.
quote:
Bare speculation followed by naked faith is demonstrably no more accurate than guessing.
Again faith and trust are only one component of a multi tiered (see above) evidence for the existence of God.
quote:
Why would we believe such a method has greater accuracy in describing that which we cannot test, when it has no accuracy at all when the same method is used for hypotheses we can test?
Because logic and reason (valid philosophical arguments) can tease answers out that science can’t.
quote:
Not really - you haven't said anything. You haven't given a single explanation, not answered a single "why." You haven't presented any evidence. You've given a circular argument, an appeal to personal credulity, and the rest has been "I have evidence, trust me" or "this is just what I think, I could be wrong."What is there in that to keep anyone busy? You've been busy dodging questions, nothing more.
The KCA the argument of teology , etc etc. It is you that have not attempted to rebut any of these. Not one. Its time for you to get busy and stop asking redundant questions.
quote:
Please explain this in your own words. What does KCA stand for? What makes you assert that nothing can exist without a cause? Why can the Universe not simply exist? How do you know that the Universe is not simply the default state?
Do you mean we have been discussing this all this time and you don’t know what the KCA is? No worries. Ok the director was correct I should of used the full name. The KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) is a valid cosmological argument for the existence of God. It uses thee premises to form a syllogism. The reason I think the universe is not in a default state (what exactly do you mean by that?) is that I subscribe to standard big bang cosmology.
quote:
That's simply an inconsistent application of Occam's Razor. Why are all gods other than yours considered extraneous entities? Do you have some bit of evidence distinguishing your deity from the others? What makes your deity a required term, and all other deities unrequired?
My deity is everyone’s else’s deity they just don’t know it! I have already explained why I feel my religion may be more accurate.
quote:
Please explain. Referring to KCA doesn't tell us much; a brief summary of what you think objectively supports the existence of god(s) would be a big help.
Its difficult to explain a book length subject in a sound byte. Please google The Kalam cosmological argument and you even will find some ways to attack it! Then Google teleological argument, or argument from design. That’s enough to get us started.
quote:
How would I differentiate your beliefs from those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It's been shown that many portrayals of deities are simply made-up nonsense; Zeus does not throw lightning bolts from Olympus, and Apollo does not drive a chariot across the sky with the Sun for a wheel. Why should I consider your deity to be any less made-up than the deities of the past?
Use your common sense and research the design thing. Then read the bible front to back with an open mind. Then take at least a few semesters of comparative theology. You are like I was, faith alone did not do it for me at first.
Thanks for cleaning up your reply it bodes well for our continuing dialog, best of all its productive now!
; }>

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
Albert Einstein

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2009 1:12 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 134 by bluescat48, posted 07-30-2009 6:23 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 133 of 135 (517238)
07-30-2009 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by RevCrossHugger
07-30-2009 8:17 AM


quote:
That's not what I asked. I'm not asking why you chose the metaphor, I'm asking why you believe what the metaphor represents to be accurate. Why do you believe that all religions are attempts to explain the same, "true" deity? Couldn't some (most? all?) be completely made-up and have nothing to do with reality at all?
Yes God may not exist. I have said that in the past. The reason I think there is one God and the religions (including Christianity) are all just attempts at describing God is that one God is the most simple explanation as per Occam's razor, and the claims of various religious texts.
And as I explained, this is an inconsistent application of Occam's Razor. You have still not explained why your deity is a required term and all other deities are extraneous.
Let's explain Occam's Razor in more specific terms:
The Principle of Parsimony, frequently called Occam's Razor, states that, all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is to be preferred. If we take for example the equation 1+1+x=2, parsimony suggests that we should remove the x term, as it is extraneous. x=0, and so it doesn't make any difference to the equation - it is an extraneous term. You could just as well write the same equation as 1+1+x+x+x=2. All of the x terms are irrelevant, and should be excluded; at best they have absolutely no practical effect on the equation, and at worst they simply do not exist.
In science, a required term is one whose presence is required to complete a theoretical model. For instance, when describing the Theory of Gravity, the price of tea in China is an irrelevant and thus extraneous term; it has no effect on the observed effects of gravity, and removing the term changes absolutely nothing. There is no evidence, no observation that requires the price of tea to be included in the Theory of Gravity.
In the context of our discussion, you are claiming that Zeus, Thor, and all other gods are extraneous terms; you consider them unlikely to exist and don't think they have a place in our representation of the real Universe. However, you believe your deity to be a required term, without having shown the observation that requires your deity to be included while the others are excluded. You are differentiating between god concepts without providing any objective, evidential reasons for that discrimination. You are applying Occam's Razor inconsistently; you are engaged in special pleading because you differentiate your preferred deity from all others on no objective basis, counting yours as required and all others as extraneous without demonstrating the difference.
What observation requires your deity to be included? Without an actual, objective observation that requires your deity to be included, your deity seems to be just as extraneous a term as Zeus, Thor, and the Easter Bunny. Occam's Razor should remove your deity along with all of the other unevidenced propositions from the currently understood model of the Universe.
quote:
But why? What makes you think this? Family tradition? Social pressure? "Gut feeling?" A revealed truth? In what form? Objective evidence? We all live in the same world - yours is no different from mine objectively. Only our subjective opinions and interpretations, and our specific chain of personal experiences are different. What makes you conclude that this world includes a deity?
Cosmological arguments were a reason I rejected my atheism or more accurately my agnosticism. Then there was archeology verifying some biblical claims. And the concept not to be confused with theological.
What specific cosmological argument requires the inclusion of god(s)? Why does the archeological verification of some Biblical claims give credence to the more extraordinary claims of the Bible, such as the existence of god(s)? Why do you not apply the same importance to the Iliad, when its claims of a city called Troy and a war fought there have turned out to be accurate? Does this lend veracity to its claims of a man invulnerable to harm except for his heel, or the existence of the Greek pantheon? Why does the falsification of such Biblical claims as a global Flood, 6-day Creation, and the Exodus not decrease the credibility of the Bible?
Why do the extraordinary claims of ancient writings carry credibility when those specific claims (the existence of god(s), the raising of the dead, etc) are completely untestable, unfalsifiable and unverifiable by independent sources? Why does your ancient collection of writings carry more weight than does the Rig-Veda, a far older religious text?
Why does your ancient collection of writings carry more weight than modern fiction? After all, in the Harry Potter series, London is real; is this evidence that the Wizarding World actually exists as well? You referred to fulfilled prophesy - in the Harry Potter series, several prophesies are made that are later fulfilled according to the collection of texts, frequently in later, separate books. Should we all fear the return of Voldemort? I'm not saying this to be mocking; I'm pointing out the obvious disparity in holding one text to be absolutely true because some of it is true while other similar works are considered pure fiction.
That some other things such as personal revelation resulting from a and a NDE.
I certainly cannot say much about a personal experience. I've had some personal experiences that I found convincing as well, and later found what I consider very good reasons to compeltely discard any such personal experiences. I don't trust my eyes, or my gut. I trust what I can repeatedly verify through independant means. Did I really see a cat dart around the corner, for instance? If I can go around the corner and observe the cat again, and then walk up to the cat and touch it, observe its tracks in the ground, and perhaps find some of its leavings, I'll consider the cat's existence verified. If however I go around the corner and see no cat and no sign of a cat's passing, I'll consider it very likely that I may have misinterpreted what my eyes saw.
Remember, eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence; people recognize false patterns, engage in compeltely illogical thinking and come up with false conclusions, and even unintentionally distort their own memories.
As I said why is there a universe instead of nothing?
And again I ask, why should there be nothing? Why is "something" not the default state? How would you know? Perhaps the existence of the Universe is inevitable.
quote:
Again, why? That's some very interesting speculation, and I'll admit to thinking along the same lines in the past. But it's just speculation unless you can give a reason. What ties all religions together to make you think they're all various attempts at the same truth? Why did "curiosity" branch out so differently? Why do you assume that god(s) are omnipotent? Omniscient? Why do you assume that god(s) created the Universe? Not all religions say this was the case - in fact, many suggest no such thing.
It gets back to the same thing I alluded to above. With different cultures and environments I would be astonished if all the religions were the same! Each culture had their version and reasons for describing God why they did. So its obvious that if God exists and he was fairly deistic and does not intervene too much in mans affairs different religions would be expected.
Different, sure. I'd accept differences like those between Christian denominations, or even those differences between all of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). But the extreme differences between all other religions, such as Hindu or Buddhism or the various Native American religions, suggests that there is no commonality between them.
quote:
When I look at the religions of the world, I see typically mutually-exclusive ideas. For example, is God omnipotent? Christians think so, but the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other all thought that there were multiple gods who had absolute authority and power only over their own domains.
...
Why? Why would you expect, given that there is only one objective truth that all are attempting to divine, that wildly different mutually exclusive ideas would be prevalent? If I quickly flash a picture of a dog in front of an audience and then ask them to draw what they saw, most would at least draw something with four legs. Even if I gave each person a different view, or only let some of them touch a dog briefly without looking, we'd expect to find some strong similarities. We wouldn't expect anyone to draw a house or a car; we wouldn't expect anyone to draw flowers or a star. Yet with religion we find disparities on that level.
If no one had actually seen a dog but I told them a dog does exist I highly doubt if any of them would draw a picture of a dog. However I bet some would look more like a dog than others.
So what you're saying is that all religions have absolutely no common data to base themselves upon? How can you then say they are trying to describe the same thing? How could any of them be likely to accurately describe what you're getting at?
If I ask you to describe a glormfreeb, but don't give you any information, what would you describe? How would your description have absolutely any accuracy at all?
Aren't you saying at this point that all religions are no better than random guessing at what may or may not exist, with no basis in evidence and no testability for any of them? How then would you differentiate between guesses? If one person says a glormfreeb looks like a cow and another person says a glormfreeb is a type of office building, how would you tell who is more or less accurate? What if I made it up, and there's no such thing as a glormfreeb?
quote:
again, this ignores the question. I asked why different religions do not believe god(s) are omnipotent, or that there are more than one. This directly conflicts with your own belief; you would say that it's a poorly fitting suit. But it's not just poorly fitting - it's multiple suits that don't resemble any of the suits made for a single model. Why is this the case, if there is one truth that everyone is trying to describe? What caused the difference?
As I said above. Different cultures have different ideas of God because they have different needs and desires. They use different criteria and different source material , so its logical that each would come up with a different explanation of God.
What you've described is random guessing. That certainly explains the differences, but it doesn't explain why you believe all religions to be attempts to explain a single objective truth.
quote:
RCH, we know that this is what you believe. You're stating your position but failing to give the requested explanation. What makes you think god(s) exist at all? What reason? "I personally believe..." is a statement, not an answer, and more it's a statement of a fact we already know. Why do you think god(s) exist?
I gave you several reasons. The KCA and the cosmological arguments for the existence of God, archeological evidence emerging to fit what the bible says, the argument from design. Now I have said this three times are you rejecting these reasons ?
Once again - you haven't presented anything. You've repeated the words "KCA" and "cosmological arguments," but you have not explained what those mean. What cosmological argument? What does KCA stand for, and what makes it an effective argument for the existence of god(s)? I keep asking you to present them, and you keep on saying "KCA and cosmological arguments." Repeating yourself is not an explanation. Please state, in your own words, what KCA is and how it supports the existence of god(s); please also state, in your own words, what cosmological argument supports the existence of god(s).
quote:
But that's nonsense. Probability is statistics. You cannot separate the two.
What fact or observation makes you think that one-god or any-god is more probable than many-gods or no-gods?
Well its not nonsense. Anyway I have already defended that as per Occam's razor etc
It is nonsense. You referred to probability but excluded statistical probability. That's like me saying "light, but not electromagnetism." And as I showed above, your Occam's Razor argument is simply an inconsistent application of the principle based on evidence you either have refused to show or simply do not have.
quote:
And yet your suggestion requires the premise that any god(s) exist at all, and further implies a single "creator." What if the Universe simply exists? What if existence is inevitable? What tells you, one way or the other?
Nothing begins to exist without a cause not even a universe.
What makes you think that? Why should the Universe require a cause? Even if it does, why should we consider that the cause must be god(s)?
By that same principle, don't god(s) need to be caused as well? Or are you making a special exception for god(s)? On what basis? Couldn't we just as easily make a special exception for the Universe itself and consider god(s) to be an extraneous term based on Occam's Razor?
My reasons for believing in god are stated above a few times over.
Yes, but you gave those reasons without explaining them, when I asked not for repetition but for explanation. Your responses have been the equivalent of me claiming that I believe the Theory of Evolution to be accurate because of biology and the fossil record; that statement may be true, but I haven't explained how the fossil record or general biology are evidence for evolution, have I? In the same way, you have mentioned "KCA" and "cosmological arguments," but you have not stated how those support the existence of god(s).
quote:
You further claim that your specific religion is the "very best fit" of all. What makes you think so? Is there an objective reason, some sort of evidence showing that your religion more accurately describes "the real god(s)" than any other religion? Or is your assessment based only on your own personal emotions and feelings, with no objective basis?
Again I feel Christianity is the best fit due to a variety of reasons that I explained above in detail and redundancy. Only a couple are “based only on your own personal emotions and feelings”.
But you haven't given any detail at all. Redundancy, sure - you've said "KCA and cosmological evidence and some archeological support for the Bible and fulfilled Biblical prophesy" several times, but you haven't said once what KCA is, or what cosmological arguments support the existence of god(s), or what archeological evidence supports the veracity of the Bible, or what Biblical prophesies you consider to have been fulfilled. I've asked for explanations several times now; please, in your reply don't just repeat the same words, but explain what those words mean.
quote:
This isn't even bare assertion - you're referring to evidence you haven't presented. What evidence, specifically, do you believe supports your position? Feel free to leave out the personal bits if you like, but surely you can describe some of the archeological/astronomical evidence, or why you believe historical roman writings support your views.
I already covered the cosmological arguments and the teleological concept.
So your "cosmological argument" is simply that everything needs a cause, ergo god(s) caused the Universe?" That's it?
That's rather poor reasoning. You're making an unfounded logical leap by throwing god(s) in as an explanation without any evidence that god(s) even exist at all - the fact is that you don't know what caused the Universe, or if the Universe even had a cause at all. You're arguing for the existence of god(s) out of ignorance (as in, "I don't know, ergo god(s)"). You're asserting that everything requires a cause...except god(s), meaning you're engaged in special pleading. Surely there's more to this argument than that, or are you really so easily swayed by such obviously fallacious reasoning?
The archeological evidences support that real people, real places of the bible existed.
Harry Potter refers to real people and places. Is the Harry Potter series fiction or nonfiction? The Epic of Gilgamesh refers to real places and even a real event. Do the gods of Gilgamesh actually exist?
The secular writers were we writing about Jesus followers (Christ) causing trouble for the roman authorities and some remarks about Jesus himself. It lends credence that Jesus actually existed.
We have detailed historical accounts of Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, and David Koresh. Does independent verification for their existence lend credibility to their extraordinary claims? Should we all be Mormons? Should we all fear the return of Xenu, the Galactic Emperor? Was David Koresh actually the Second Coming of Jesus Christ?
quote:
Personal credulity is irrelevant - in fact, it's another logical fallacy. What seems personally credulous has nothing to do with accuracy - it's an example of speculation, not of rigorous adherence to reality. Is there an objective test you apply to all religious texts to measure their accuracy?
Personal credulity is irrelevant to what exactly?
An Argument from Personal Credulity is a logical fallacy. If I went back in time 2000 years and told a random person that the Earth was actually an ovoid sphere orbiting the Sun, and the person laughed at me in incredulity, has my claim been refuted? Certainly not. Personal credulity, what you instinctively find to be believable, has absolutely nothing to do with actual real-world accuracy. You may find the existence of god(s) to be more palatable than their nonexistence, and a child may find the notion that Santa is made up to be ludicrous; neither of you is necessarily accurate. Only evidence and logic can support an argument, not personal believability.
Anyway, I don’t document and validate the red sea scrolls and such texts but I do know of the process they go through and believe me its rigorous.
Certainly the scientists who authenticate ancient scrolls are thorough. Their findings are peer reviewed. But the age and authenticity of the scrolls themselves was never a question. What is at question is what the scrolls say. Remember, we have far older and better-preserved ancient religious texts in the form of the Rig-Veda. Other ancient documents go through the same rigorous testing and authentication process. None of that means that their religious claims have any accuracy.
quote:
If the goal is to accurately describe reality, I don't see how different standards and methods work. Only by testing the predictions of our hypotheses against reality can we gauge the relative accuracy of those hypotheses
Again that is true for scientific theories. Valid arguments of philosophy have a very different criteria than the claims of science.
And what have they to do with reality? How can you claim that one speculative proposition is more valid than another without using the scientific method to test them?
quote:
Bare speculation followed by naked faith is demonstrably no more accurate than guessing.
Again faith and trust are only one component of a multi tiered (see above) evidence for the existence of God.
And again, you've shown no evidence beyond a multitude of logical fallacies.
quote:
Why would we believe such a method has greater accuracy in describing that which we cannot test, when it has no accuracy at all when the same method is used for hypotheses we can test?
Because logic and reason (valid philosophical arguments) can tease answers out that science can’t.
And yet I've already demonstrated that your arguments are logical swiss-cheese, filled with fallacious and inconsistent reasoning.
quote:
Not really - you haven't said anything. You haven't given a single explanation, not answered a single "why." You haven't presented any evidence. You've given a circular argument, an appeal to personal credulity, and the rest has been "I have evidence, trust me" or "this is just what I think, I could be wrong."What is there in that to keep anyone busy? You've been busy dodging questions, nothing more.
The KCA the argument of teology , etc etc. It is you that have not attempted to rebut any of these. Not one. Its time for you to get busy and stop asking redundant questions.
WHAT IS THE KCA?! How can I possibly try to rebut the KCA if you won't tell me what it is in your own words? I cannot address an argument you have not vocalized.
quote:
Please explain this in your own words. What does KCA stand for? What makes you assert that nothing can exist without a cause? Why can the Universe not simply exist? How do you know that the Universe is not simply the default state?
Do you mean we have been discussing this all this time and you don’t know what the KCA is? No worries. Ok the director was correct I should of used the full name. The KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) is a valid cosmological argument for the existence of God. It uses thee premises to form a syllogism.
FINALLY you at least state what KCA stands for. From Wiki:
quote:
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Conclusion 1: Therefore, the universe must have a cause.
So KCA and your cosmological argument are the same, and it's a simple reasoning that everything must have a cause, therefore god(s) caused the universe. I've already shown why this reasoning is horrendously fallacious.
The reason I think the universe is not in a default state (what exactly do you mean by that?) is that I subscribe to standard big bang cosmology.
It seems you're basing your beliefs on a popular misconception of the Big Bang. Big bang cosmology is not a theory of cosmological origins. It describes only the continual expansion of the Universe, and makes certain predictions regarding the state of the Universe at different locations in time based on that expansion. The Big Bang predicts that the Universe long ago would have been more dense in the past, leading up to the moment of T=0 where the spacial dimensions would be only a single point. It does not posit that the Unvierse had a "beginning" any more than it posits that "length" had a "beginning." Instead, it shows that, quite literally, the Unvierse has existed at every point in time.
Further, it posits that expansion seems to be a basic trait of space. It says absolutely nothing about requiring a "cause" for the Universe itself. It is still entirely within the realm of scientific possibility that the Universe simply exists, with no additional cause; that something must exist and "nothing" is not the default state (by default state, I mean the state of rest without any cause; you assert that the default state, for example, must be "nothing" until god(s) cause "something. I am simply pointing out that this is an unfounded assumption on your part - "something" may be the default state without any cause required).
The Laws of Thermodynamics further contradict your claims of a "beginning." Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If they can neither be created nor destroyed, they must have always existed in some form or another for every location in time.
quote:
That's simply an inconsistent application of Occam's Razor. Why are all gods other than yours considered extraneous entities? Do you have some bit of evidence distinguishing your deity from the others? What makes your deity a required term, and all other deities unrequired?
My deity is everyone’s else’s deity they just don’t know it! I have already explained why I feel my religion may be more accurate.
This is circular reasoning - your conclusion (all religions are attempts to describe the One True Religion) is contained in your premise (all other gods are your god). You've also ignored Occam's Razor - you haven't suggested why your deity is a required term but others are not.
quote:
Please explain. Referring to KCA doesn't tell us much; a brief summary of what you think objectively supports the existence of god(s) would be a big help.
Its difficult to explain a book length subject in a sound byte. Please google The Kalam cosmological argument and you even will find some ways to attack it! Then Google teleological argument, or argument from design. That’s enough to get us started.
Now that you've told us what KCA stands for, I've done so as you can see above. But please, here at evcforum we discourage arguments by bare links or references, and require that you state a summary in your own words to the rest of us.
quote:
How would I differentiate your beliefs from those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It's been shown that many portrayals of deities are simply made-up nonsense; Zeus does not throw lightning bolts from Olympus, and Apollo does not drive a chariot across the sky with the Sun for a wheel. Why should I consider your deity to be any less made-up than the deities of the past?
Use your common sense
"Common sense" is foolishness. Human reasoning ability is horrendously flawed. Only strict adherence to logic and evidence can ensure at least some degree of accuracy. Again, personal credulity is the basis of a logical fallacy.
and research the design thing.
I see nothing in the universe that appears designed, save what human beings have made. "The design thing" has been discussed here many times, and I have never seen an effective argument for Intelligent Design.
Then read the bible front to back with an open mind. Then take at least a few semesters of comparative theology. You are like I was, faith alone did not do it for me at first.
I reject faith entirely as a method for obtaining accurate information. Belief not based on evidence is nothing more than a gigantic logical fallacy; a series of unfounded logical leaps with no objective tie to reality. It requires that you have greater confidence in one assertion than in others despite equivalent evidence. I cannot hold myself to such mental gymnastics and inconsistencies. I believe what can be shown based on evidence. Faith is worthless tripe.
I say this as a former Christian who once believed with all my heart that God existed. I had personal experiences that I counted as evidence of his existence and love for me. I believed the Bible.
All of my reasoning from that time was based on logical fallacies. My faith was built on tradition and social conditioning, on gullibility and wishful thinking, on false pattern recognition and self-deception. If you look at my posting history here, you can actually see some of the transition (when I joined I was a non-literalist Christian, believing the basic message of the Bible even if some of the specifics were inaccurate). I have seen absolutely nothing that demonstrates that anyone else's faith is any different.
Perhaps you'll be the first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-30-2009 8:17 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 134 of 135 (517276)
07-30-2009 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by RevCrossHugger
07-30-2009 8:17 AM


Then read the bible front to back with an open mind.
I have, the last few times that I read it. Prior to that I read from a theistic prospective. When I read it with an open mind I finally realized something, it is a combination of historical fiction, allegory & mythology. The Bible is one of the reasons I became an Atheist.
Edited by bluescat48, : clarity

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-30-2009 8:17 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RCS
Member (Idle past 2608 days)
Posts: 48
From: Delhi, Delhi, India
Joined: 07-04-2007


Message 135 of 135 (539967)
12-21-2009 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by RevCrossHugger
07-03-2009 4:46 AM


In closing I will state to those in your group who's inability to reply without insult (to myself or my religion), you only lack a swastika and a brown shirt to make your personal package complete,
So you think that Hindus who have swastika and are not likely to give it up are Nazis?
Edited by RCS, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RevCrossHugger, posted 07-03-2009 4:46 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024