|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God says this, and God says that | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: To tell you the truth, I'm not sure if robinrohan was joking or not. It is a very odd thing to say, that I don't know how to believe. Is belief something you can learn like math or auto-mechanic-ing? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
quote: The more I think about that the more I wonder how you can say someone doesn't know how to believe? No offence Robinrohan, it's just spinning my head in circles here. I can see saying someone doesn't know what to believe. I don't remember learning *how* to believe. I guess what I meant by my other comment was that it's easy to see where other peoples failings may be, but it is much more difficult to see your own. ------------------saved by grace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: hmmmmm.....
John writes: 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. Where are you getting lost? Why are you not paying attention? Why are you focusing on this childish "well you do it too" argument-- oops, sorry, fallacy? There are perfectly good analogies that have gone unanswered. For example, why don't you explain why that kid advocating invisible blocks is not like you advocating an invisible God? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
quote: Theists are constantly told they have to prove God exists, (in the midst of intellectual slander and accusations of foolishness; these things are commonly directed at theists) while atheist/agnostics for some reason don't have to provide evidence of their faith. I can see why he wants you to admit you are arguing from a faith based position, because it levels the playing field. I tend to agree that if you can't prove God does not exist you cannot try and force a theist to prove that he does. How do you know those blocks aren't there? Obviously the child can see them. Maybe you just can't see them. Can you prove that those blocks aren't there? ------------------saved by grace [This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 12-15-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: Lego blocks are defined as small solid objects children play with. Invisible, untouchable Lego blocks are an internal contridiction. The analogy is a poor one because you are deliberately attempting to form a contradiction that seems, on the surface, ridiculous. But to millions of people God is not ridiculous, and therefore is better reflected by the box analogy, which you have not covered to my satisfaction and is every bit as good an analogy and is reasonable. Plus, you ignored a couple of other points. How can you claim to be an agnostic if your beliefs are based on any kind of information? Agnostics, by definition don't claim any information. This claim of information can be found in #199 and #194. Also, if you are a true agnostic, how do you claim to know that Christianity is invalid? I brought this up in #192 and #189. I also included two different definitions of "agnostic" and have asked if you would prefer to suggest an alternative definition that better fits you. In message #204 you said this:
quote: If it is "silly" to argue what is in the box, why are you arguing with me now? By the way, I still don't see a problem with the bank analogy. Like the money in the vault, you cannot test God. But just because you cannot perceive God with your senses does not imply there is no God.
quote: Money in the bank is non-perceptual and untestable. [This message has been edited by gene90, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
quote: I don't understand why this point is so difficult. I could sum it up in three sentences. If a lack of sensory evidence in favor of God is sufficient for not only an agnostic position, but "justify" an atheistic position and actively oppose religion, how can the atheist use a lack evidence in arguments against Christianity? It is inconsistent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Why do you think that the people who make a claim for the existence of a thing are asked to provide evidence? Put it in terms you know. Let's see, opening the front door. You walk to the door, turn the knob and pull. If you want more detail you can start with what you've got and see where that gets you. Pull out a screw driver and take the knob apart. Look around. Take it apart some more. Pull out the springs and the pins. Now, lets apply the principle of "prove other stuff is not responsible" Before believing that springs and levers operate the door, did you prove that mind reading martians aren't remote controlling the door? Did you prove that metaphysical monkeys's aren't playing with the door? Did you prove that the door moved and not the whole world around it? See what I am getting at? I can make up an infinite number of things that you would have to disprove before concluding that the springs and thingies in the door-knob move the latch. I'm sure you'll protest, but that is how it goes.
quote: Yes, indeed.
quote: Why not? Think about it. If I told you I had a 40 carat diamond, you'd ask me to prove it, yes? And I could do that easily by showing you the diamond. But suppose you set out to disprove that I have the diamond. You frisk me. No diamond. You search my house. No diamond. You search my yard. No diamond. You ask my friends. No diamond. You search the city in which I live. The country. The whole planet. No diamond. So you ask, "where is the diamond?" And I reply, "Its hidden and since you can't disprove it I don't even have to show it to you." All of this with no evidence that the diamond exists at all. But it hasn't been disproven either!!!!! The situation quickly becomes absurd. How long would you look before concluding that there is no diamond? How long before you challenged that man to produce evidence that the diamond exists at all? It is common sense really.
quote: So you argue that belief in the invisible blocks is reasonable? Would you believe in the invisible blocks? ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Wait a minute????? If lack of evidence for God is sufficient, how can lack of evidence be used in argument? You've constructed a tautology and called it inconsistent. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3823 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
John goes out of his way to make his analogies extreme, as if belief in God is as extreme as a pet velociraptor (PE's analogy actually) or a 40 carot diamond.
Think these out. Why is a pet velociraptor or a 40 carot diamond so extreme? Because both velociraptors and diamonds are physical, tangible entitities which are testable. If velociraptors were still around we would almost certainly know it. And in that case, the pet raptor would not be an extreme example. If we had nanotechnology, and I could have a kitchen countertop appliance produce a 40 carot diamond to my specifications anytime I wanted, then the diamond example would not be such a good analogy for him to use. But we know diamonds are not that common. We don't know about the existance of God in such a way. God is like the money in the vault and the piece of art in the box, His existance or non-existance cannot be examined like either of the above. The only really valid analogy he has produced is the Lego analogy, and even then he went out of his way to make it rather strange. The fact of the matter is, that as Sagan said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". You cannot go around assuming that something does not exist simply because it cannot be tested. Radio waves and black holes are excellent real-word analogies, and they are discussed in science, no less.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: hmmm... I could define "real-things" as solid objects and just as easily get rid of your god. This is a semantic quibble and misdirection as well.
quote: The analogy is a poor one because on the surface it seems ridiculous. Well, gene, if it is ridiculous that makes it a good analogy. That you don't like it is not sufficient to make it a false analogy.
quote: argumentum ad populum and as such fallacious.
[quote]and therefore is better reflected by the box analogy, which you have not covered to my satisfaction/quote If it has not been covered to your satisfaction why haven't you responded to my interpretation of your box analogy?
quote: What?
quote: Where did you get this? Agnostic means "I dunno" it doesn't have to mean there is no information.
quote: LOL...... The position which is refered to is the position which is made without reference to a GOD, for which there is no evidence and therefore is no reason to include.
quote: I'm not arguing about what is in the box! But about the rationality of pretending to know what is in the box and basing one's life around that fantasy.
quote: You don't see the difference between holding money in you hands, walking up and depositing it in a bank you can see and touch, and not having any money to not deposit in a bank which you have never seen?
quote: The money can be tested. I can go look. I can deposit more money or withdraw some money, and watch my balance fluctuate. I can check my balance at any ATM or I can check it online. This isn't direct observation but it is every bit as good as the methods used in science. I have never insisted on direct observation. You introduced that. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
quote: But if I walk up to the door, knock, and it's opened up for me, I do not even have to touch the door knob. I can enter in and never even have had to worry about the mechanics of a latch.
quote: I think your first analogy was much better than this one. A diamond you should be able to easily prove, it being a physical object and all. If the diamond is produced I cannot deny it's existance. Evidence of God has to be evidence of the spiritual affecting the physical, making some sort of impact of the physical. Well now this can be denied, the person can then come up with another possibility in their mind to explain away the very evidence that they seek. This is where the absurdity begins. So the diamond analogy doesn't hold that well.
quote: Why would a kid make a claim to blocks that he knew did not exist? Why would s/he hold to said claim under scrutiny?There must be some reason for the claim. ------------------saved by grace
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
zipzip Inactive Member |
When you have been taught all your life how to avoid belief by avoiding God, how to be cynical, belief in God *can* be very difficult. Eyes clouded and hearts hardened by years of misuse or abuse may not see, feel, or hear clearly enough to believe right away. Part of this is because belief can be very painful -- think of all the years of walled-up pride that must come down for some. How to start believing when your whole ego is built on self-pride and disbelief?
Mostly, this back-and-forth reminds me of the scene in C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle, in which a group of dwarves trapped in a stable are confronted by Aslan. He sets before them a sumptuous feast, but they, who have been blinded and deceived by a false god, taste only straw.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
funkmasterfreaky Inactive Member |
quote: This is why prayer is more important than words, only the Holy Spirit can open your eyes and give you hard evidence of God. This evidence sadly can still be denied.Zipzip I have found reading your posts encouraging, and I love anything God did through C.S Lewis, wow did God use that man to a wonderous end. Praise God. If I may go back to the suggestion that it is time to dust off the sandals, I do not feel led to do as such as I do not see where the desire to know God is lacking. In particular John's case (sorry if I misrepresent you John), but I believe this is a man who truly searches to know. Jesus would not dismiss such a man, nor will I. ------------------saved by grace [This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 12-16-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How many times have you (or others) prayed for pain to go away and it hadn't compared to the times you prayed and it has? Haven't been keeping records? Then you are likely subject to a fallacy called confirmation bias, where you remember the "hits" and forget or excuse the misses. What kind of pain? Pain caused by what illness? What did the doctors say about these miracle healings?
quote: How many times have you prayed for something specific and had it not come true compared to having it come true? Not keeping track like that, I'll bet. I'll bet if you were, you would find that the instances of specific prayers being anwered/not anwered would be no better than chance would predict. Of course, if you aren't being specific, and you just pray for general blessings or something, then you can always discount the bad things that happen and remember the good things, and then say after the fact that the reason the good things happen is because of answered prayers. This is called post hoc reasoning. These are exactly the kinds of very human tendencies for faulty reasoning that the scientific method is good at avoiding. Read more about them: confirmation bias - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com "Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs." post hoc fallacy - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com "The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event."
quote: BUt these aren't really pieces of evidence. They are just unsupported assertions that you have made.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But one of your churche's main activities is sending missionaries all over the world to try to convince people of other religions to convert to Mormonism!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024