Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 199 of 417 (26562)
12-13-2002 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by gene90
12-13-2002 11:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Really? John claims that his position is based upon evidence.
Yes gene, you know the stuff that you smell and touch and taste and hear and see? That stuff? Maybe you aren't familiar with it?
quote:
So you're once again claiming that you have positive evidence that there is no God?
And this is where you venture once again deep into fantasy.
Lego. Think of Lego. I walk up to my little Lego set and start building with what is there. Some kid comes up to me and starts asking me why I don't build with blocks you can't see or touch and that have no discernable effect on any of the other blocks that I can see. What do you say to this kid? "Shut-up. That's stupid." But until you disprove the invisible blocks you can't discount them either. Then the kid exclaims triumphantly, "Since you are building with the blocks you can see you must be claiming to have positive evidence against the invisible blocks which is contradictory because you don't have evidence against blocks which you can't see or touch so you are assuming that the blocks don't exist so building with the blocks you can see is faith-based too." And the kid sticks out his tongue and scrunches his nose. You BELIEVE this kid is reasonable? Rational? Sensible? Not freaking thoroughly insane?
quote:
Agnostics, by definition (two of which I have provided above) do not claim to have evidence either way.
Do you know the difference between 'evidence against' and 'no evidence for'? You seem to have no grasp of this distinction.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by gene90, posted 12-13-2002 11:04 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by gene90, posted 12-13-2002 11:50 PM John has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 200 of 417 (26563)
12-13-2002 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by John
12-13-2002 11:36 PM


quote:
Yes gene, you know the stuff that you smell and touch and taste and hear and see? That stuff?
Then, I suppose you have found a way to use the material world to give you insider knowledge of the supernatural world?
Perhaps you can clear up how an agnostic that claims to have evidence regarding the existance or non-existance of God is not an internal contradiction?
quote:
You BELIEVE this kid is reasonable? Rational? Sensible?
My advice would be that you leave the kid alone because you have no evidence against the 'blocks' he uses and there is no way for you to prove him wrong. Therefore, if you were to engage in a debate with this kid it would turn into a shouting match because neither can prove the other wrong. Either is running on faith.
But that's all hypothetical because this is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy because we all have experience with Lego blocks because they are a part of our natural, everyday world. Hypothetical God(s) are not. God is more elusive and is not necessarily manifest in our physical world in any obvious way, you have to go looking. That does not necessarily mean that God is not there. A real agnostic would admit that he doesn't know if there is a God or there isn't.
You're just like the crowd in the art museum in my earlier analogy. You don't know if the box is really empty any more than anybody else, because if you tried to open it security would escort you out. You're just running on faith like the rest of us, no matter how much you want to look superior to us "stupid" Christians.
quote:
Do you know the difference between 'evidence against' and 'no evidence for'?
I've made that distinction, because you seem to be struggling to turn "no evidence for" into "evidence against". That's why you called the kid in your analogy "insane", just as you called my beliefs "insane".
Basically, it seems that if you cannot collect direct observations of something, it doesn't exist? What happens when I put my money in a bank? When it's in the vault and you're locked outside you can't "smell", "touch", "taste", "hear", or "see" it. Does that mean it ceased to exist?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-13-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by John, posted 12-13-2002 11:36 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by John, posted 12-14-2002 12:52 AM gene90 has replied
 Message 202 by John, posted 12-14-2002 1:01 AM gene90 has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 201 of 417 (26566)
12-14-2002 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by gene90
12-13-2002 11:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Then, I suppose you have found a way to use the material world to give you insider knowledge of the supernatural world?
Supernatural world? Oh yes, that is that extra-physical universe that your ilk made up and which you insist I disprove.
quote:
Perhaps you can clear up how an agnostic that claims to have evidence regarding the existance or non-existance of God is not an internal contradiction?
Perhaps you could explain why you have such a hard time resisting the urge to claim I have said things I haven't?
quote:
My advice would be that you leave the kid alone because you have no evidence against the 'blocks' he uses and there is no way for you to prove him wrong.
So, in short, you do believe it is reasonable. LOL......
quote:
Therefore, if you were to engage in a debate with this kid it would turn into a shouting match because neither can prove the other wrong. Either is running on faith.
But one can point to stuff, the other can point to nothing at all.
quote:
It's a bad analogy because we all have experience with Lego blocks because they are a part of our natural, everyday world. Hypothetical God(s) are not.
Of course you need to think so, otherwise the foolishness of what you maintain would come crashing down and sufocate you.
It isn't a bad analogy. It is dead-on. Blocks == perceptual data. (The invisible blocks that have no descernable effect on the other blocks, as you have gone to great lengths to point out) == (God or trancendental entities.) The kid building with the tangible blocks would be me and the other kid would be you.
quote:
God is more elusive and is not necessarily manifest in our physical world in any obvious way, you have to go looking. That does not necessarily mean that God is not there.
Doesn't really matter to the analogy.
quote:
A real agnostic would admit that he doesn't know if there is a God or there isn't.
LOL..... What else can I do but start to laugh at this hard-headed repetition?
quote:
You're just like the crowd in the art museum in my earlier analogy. You don't know if the box is really empty any more than anybody else, because if you tried to open it security would escort you out. You're just running on faith like the rest of us, no matter how much you want to look superior to us "stupid" Christians.
I don't base my life around what I think is inside that box. I don't argue based upon what I think is inside that box. I don't pretend to know what is inside that box. Christians, and you, do all of these things. You may claim that I don't know. Fine. Never claimed differently. I can argue and investigate and work around that box, without having to know what is in it. You pretend to know. That is the absurd part. You do claim to know. Its funny, really. And claim that that basing a life around pretending to know what is in the box is reasonable.
quote:
I've made that distinction, because you seem to be struggling to turn "no evidence for" into "evidence against".
Actually, dear gene, you are the one desperately trying to make this connection.
quote:
That's why you called the kid in your analogy "insane", just as you called my beliefs "insane".
It was a question.
quote:
Basically, it seems that if you cannot collect direct observations of something, it doesn't exist?
No. This is Gene's Logic Fantasy World again. Or, if you prefer, the Misrepresent John Workshop. It doesn't matter if it exists or not, you can't use it, you can't do anything with it if there is no evidence for it.
quote:
What happens when I put my money in a bank? When it's in the vault and you're locked outside you can't "smell", "touch", "taste", "hear", or "see" it. Does that mean it ceased to exist?
Talk about bad analogies. Maybe you should be asking if that money exists even though you never had it and thus never deposited it in a bank that has no known connection to the sensory would in which we live? And then ask yourself if it is reasonable to base your life around the assumption that it does, or if it is more reasonable to live as if the money you never had isn't in a bank that you can't see and does not show up on intangible bank statements that never arrive in an ethereal mailbox from which you cannot retrieve the mail anyway?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by gene90, posted 12-13-2002 11:50 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by gene90, posted 12-14-2002 12:55 PM John has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 417 (26567)
12-14-2002 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by gene90
12-13-2002 11:50 PM


{Duplicate of previous message - content deleted - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by gene90, posted 12-13-2002 11:50 PM gene90 has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 203 of 417 (26581)
12-14-2002 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by John
12-14-2002 12:52 AM


quote:
What else can I do but start to laugh at this hard-headed repetition?
You could provide a definition of agnostic that you find more suitable. Or you could redefine your beliefs.
quote:
Doesn't really matter to the analogy.
Of course it does. Legos are a part of our naturalistic world. We're quite familiar with them. My problem with your analogy is that you've tried to make belief in God analagous to something that, on the surface, seems ridiculous. Just as your problem with my analogy is that it makes your assumption that what you cannot detect with your sense does not exist ridiculous.
Let me ask again. Does not detecting something mean that that something does not exist?
quote:
You may claim that I don't know. Fine. Never claimed differently.
But you are claiming to know what is inside that box. Or more to the point, you are claiming to know what is not inside the box. You do that whenever you claim that Christianity is invalid. I'm merely asking you to support your beliefs.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by John, posted 12-14-2002 12:52 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by John, posted 12-14-2002 2:15 PM gene90 has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 204 of 417 (26587)
12-14-2002 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by gene90
12-14-2002 12:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Of course it does. Legos are a part of our naturalistic world. We're quite familiar with them. My problem with your analogy is that you've tried to make belief in God analagous to something that, on the surface, seems ridiculous.
Because it is analogous to something which is ridiculous. Your critique of the analogy, twice now, has involved claiming that Legos are physical objects unlike God. Of course, that is why I chose them. The Legos represent perceptual reality. What your critique has never touched upon is how the invisible blocks are not analogous to the way you describe God and how the kid advocating the invisible blocks is not like you or like anyone else advocating the belief in a god.
quote:
Just as your problem with my analogy is that it makes your assumption that what you cannot detect with your sense does not exist ridiculous.
What analogy are you talking about? Because the art gallery analogy makes you look ridiculous, not me, as I explained in my previous post.
The money analogy is invalid since it involves only perceptual objects and no untestable objects at all.
quote:
Let me ask again. Does not detecting something mean that that something does not exist?
No. What it does mean is that the undetectable thing cannot be used as a premise. Using an undetectable thing as a premise is ridiculous, except in the context of testing the premise perhaps.
quote:
But you are claiming to know what is inside that box.
BS.
quote:
Or more to the point, you are claiming to know what is not inside the box.
Wrong again. I claim that it is silly to argue based upon what is in the box when one has no way of finding out what is in the box and no way, even, of determining IF there is a box at all.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by gene90, posted 12-14-2002 12:55 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by gene90, posted 12-15-2002 7:10 PM John has replied

joz
Inactive Member


Message 205 of 417 (26592)
12-14-2002 2:49 PM


Just a quick one John surely the "box" in this case is the uncertainty principle....
I mean thats about the only place it is theoretically impossible to be detected, prime real estate for shy and demure semitic tribal deities I would assume.....

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by John, posted 12-14-2002 2:54 PM joz has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 206 of 417 (26593)
12-14-2002 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by joz
12-14-2002 2:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Just a quick one John surely the "box" in this case is the uncertainty principle....
I mean thats about the only place it is theoretically impossible to be detected, prime real estate for shy and demure semitic tribal deities I would assume.....

Gene's box, I think, is some kind of metaphysical universe in which God resides. Both the box and the contents are undetectable, even to the point that they cannot be infered statistically. I happen to think that any God that actually has an hand in the working of the universe ought to be inferrable via some means. Gene disagree though. He has to disagree. Admitting that God can be inferred means that God can be tested and a testable God can be disproven. He appears to fear that more than I.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by joz, posted 12-14-2002 2:49 PM joz has not replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 417 (26618)
12-14-2002 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by forgiven
12-13-2002 10:12 PM


quote:
i don't believe God punishes us at all, whether saint or sinner... the word "discipline" actually means "to train"... that's what God does... punishment implies judgement, it implies retrobution, it implies vengenance... there will be a time and place for those things, but as far as *I* (personally) am concerned, Jesus was judged, he was punished, God's wrath was poured out on him FOR ME... God will never ever never ever punish me for anything i do, think, or say... he will allow the consequences of those things in my life, but as the means to an end, the training in holiness he knows i need...
not arguing semantics i hope, merely giving my understanding of his word
Thanx for this piece of wisdom Forgiven, I never thought of this, that God just allows us to suffer the consequences of our actions, that the actual punishment is self inflicted, by a bad decision. Then God uses these things to his purpose on my life. I was just thinking of the book of James (one of my favourite) chapter 1: 2Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
Paul says this almost exact thing in Romans. Anyways thank you Forgiven.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by forgiven, posted 12-13-2002 10:12 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by forgiven, posted 12-15-2002 12:24 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 417 (26633)
12-15-2002 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by funkmasterfreaky
12-14-2002 7:48 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Thanx for this piece of wisdom Forgiven, I never thought of this, that God just allows us to suffer the consequences of our actions, that the actual punishment is self inflicted, by a bad decision. Then God uses these things to his purpose on my life. I was just thinking of the book of James (one of my favourite) chapter 1: 2Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
hi funky... we make good and bad decisions our whole lives... those decisions have absolutely nothing to do with our standing with God or our acceptance by him... he isn't always pleased, of course, just as a human parent wouldn't be pleased when his child behaves poorly... but imo punishment for our actions doesn't enter into it... what would we be punished *for*? sinning? nah, Jesus already paid that debt...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-14-2002 7:48 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by zipzip, posted 12-15-2002 8:18 AM forgiven has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 417 (26642)
12-15-2002 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by forgiven
12-15-2002 12:24 AM


Hi guys. First of all, I have just read this post for the first time from start to finish. To the current post -- this fits with Hebrews 12 -- punishment for sons that he loves. Just remember that God uses *all things* for the good of those who love him, even their own sins. He allows us our mistakes because his first goal is our salvation and our condition in the next life, not necessarily this one. Funkmaster, your addictions may look like failures in one sense but as far as I can see they were blessings, because they brought you to him.
Funkmasterfreaky, you are a real encouragement to my faith and a solid voice of wisdom (also some other folks here too, but I was struck by your story). Not a drug addict myself but as a physician I have seen a lot of struggles and I don't think many things speak as clearly of God's power as an addict who has been lifted up out of the sewer, shaken clean, and set walking on his/her feet with *dignity*.
The problem I see over the last few hundred posts is that this is futile. John, you are not looking to know God. I have a relationship with God that is real, and that is something that you lack, even if you refuse to acknowledge that such a relationship can exist. That is the ultimate point that cannot be gotten over or argued.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he sent his only son, so that whoever [even me, even you] believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." That is the root of the Good News, John -- God offers us a relationship now and later, eternal life with him and you have to say Yes or No, knowing that your decision will be taken so seriously by God that he will allow you to choose eternity apart from him.
If you say Yes, even if you don't know how to believe but want to believe that there is something more to life, he will find you where you are (with all the baggage, self-loathing, old mistakes and embarrassments, vices, failures, physical imperfections, and personality flaws) and help you grow into who you were meant to be. If you continue to say No he will continue to seek you out and call to you (wake up John, he is calling to you *now*), but the call will grow fainter.
That said, this thread now serves no purpose that I can see. Maybe it is time to shake the dust off your sandals, Gentlemen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by forgiven, posted 12-15-2002 12:24 AM forgiven has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2002 5:04 PM zipzip has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 417 (26659)
12-15-2002 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by zipzip
12-15-2002 8:18 AM


That, as I see it, is your big problem, John. You don't know how to believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by zipzip, posted 12-15-2002 8:18 AM zipzip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by John, posted 12-15-2002 5:55 PM robinrohan has not replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 417 (26664)
12-15-2002 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by robinrohan
12-15-2002 5:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by robinrohan:
That, as I see it, is your big problem, John. You don't know how to believe.
yeah... I guess... ?????
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by robinrohan, posted 12-15-2002 5:04 PM robinrohan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 12-15-2002 6:23 PM John has replied

funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 417 (26667)
12-15-2002 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by John
12-15-2002 5:55 PM


We are all very good at figuring out what other peoples problems are, let's try looking at our own.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by John, posted 12-15-2002 5:55 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by John, posted 12-15-2002 7:32 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 213 of 417 (26671)
12-15-2002 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by John
12-14-2002 2:15 PM


quote:
I claim that it is silly to argue based upon what is in the box when one has no way of finding out what is in the box and no way
I agree. Why then, do you argue that the box is empty?
Or that, (if it better describes your position) the Judeo-Christian God isn't in there?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by John, posted 12-14-2002 2:15 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by John, posted 12-15-2002 8:56 PM gene90 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024