God says this, and God says that

which part of the above would muslims, hindus, and others contest?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gzus:
No on has answered my question yet.

​

‘however, having established that you have no reason to believe or not believe anything, how can you be punished for not believing?’

​

please answer

​

Gzus

---

you established nothing that i could see... you *asserted* something, but that's an entirely different matter...evidently you believe it is true that there is "..no reason to believe or not believe anything.."... do you not see the internal tension in that statement? by what reasoning do you state as true your proposition while at the same time denying the existence of the reasoning necessary for the proposition?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
from forgiven:

quote:

---

this post and your previous might lead one to believe that while you don't deny God's existence you would need more before you could decide *which* God exists, the muslim, hindu, christian God... is this in fact your position?

---

​

In a nutshell, yes. But also from my previous posts I find it hard to call any god who makes the rules mumbled, with several different sets on the playing field yet expects those it created to play by the right set or be punished, to be anything like a just god. When people have to use the phrase "that is god's justice" to describe what most of us would call inhuman at best or down right barbaric, that is just making an excuse for a being that should be able to state what it wants clearly and directly into the minds of every creature in the cosmos.

---

then before we precede, since you affirm the existence of *some* God, tell me about the one you believe in... tell me his attributes, his teachings, his will for you... i need to know what you believe so i don't build a straw man (or straw God) to argue against

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gzus:
Ah yes, a true skeptic

​

Let me put it another way.

​

You preach the gospel to me. Why should I believe you? Can you prove that the gospel belongs to ‘truth’, which is inaccessible to humans (read Berkeley)? If not, then why should I believe you? How can God punish me for not believing?

---

when berkeley says that truth is inaccessible to humans, do you believe he is telling the truth? by what route, being human, did he reach this truth?the christian worldview is the only one that has as a set of presuppositions the things necessary for both knowledge and truth... all worldviews begin with presuppositions, the honest person admits as much... but i see a glaring inconsistency in the statement "it is in fact true that we can not know truth"... do you?i still need to know more about this god you believe in... tell me some about him/her/it

i would like to draw your attention to some things you say and hope that by doing so you will understand why i can say that christianity, while also utiliizing a certain degree of circularity in its argumentation, can at least remain consistent within its worldviewyou say above, "Truth, undeniable, perfect argument immune to the powers of scepticism. This can never be achieved by humans because there is always the sceptical argument."now look closely at that... you are making a truth claim, that being that truth "..can never be achieved by humans because there is always the sceptical argument." if that is the case, how is it you are able to state it as truth? if truth can't be achieved, it can't then be the case that such a proposition is true... this is obscenely inconsistentand again, "..you cannot ‘logically’ prove that ‘logic’ is unflawed since it is ‘logic’ which is in question."by what vehicle do you arrive at the above? logic itself? your worldview consists of, in totality, an absence of everything... you deny the very logic necessary to argue logically, you deny the very truth necessary to state any proposition as true...surely you can see that what you profess to believe is in fact irrational...i, on the other hand, know that metaphysical entities such as logic and truth exist... they exist because there is a God in whom they are embodied, perfectly... they exist in time because God has created man "in his image"... i know the material isn't all there is, you have to utilize the tools of my worldview to even put forth an argument for your worldview... doesn't that bother you?examine it closely and see if you don't come to the conclusion that irrationality can't be, in and of itself, a basis for one's belief system... if you find your beliefs to be at odds with one another, maybe it's time to examine other beliefs, ones *not* containing such unbearable tensions

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gzus:
I am referring merely to the god of the majority of the creationists on this forum, ‘jehovah’, ‘allah’, the guy upstairs, fire and brimstone. The Judaeo-Christian concept of damnation. (a problem which admittedly not all religions have)

---

i would like to know something about this god you believe in... the ones you mention above have certain things in common but also certain inconsistencies one with another... it's *your* god i'd like to know about... tell me about himDELETED BY EDIT A QUOTE INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO GZUS[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-25-2002]

hello chavalon i frankly don't see how two or more mutually exclusive truth claims can lead to the conclusion that doubt, severe or otherwise, need be thrown on any one of them... person P thinks the earth is spherical in shape, person Q says flat, person R says triangular... i agree that empiricists believe as you say, i just think they must borrow from my worldview in order to hold to their beliefshow do buddhists reconcile the seemingly mutually exclusive definitions you attach to their beliefs? for example, would a religious empiricist deny or affirm the supernatural? would a pragmatic atheist, during her religious ceremonies, affirm or deny a deity?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
forgiven:

quote:

---

then before we precede, since you affirm the existence of *some* God, tell me about the one you believe in...

---

​

That's it. I don't believe in any god or gods. There may very well be a god or gods and they or it may no longer exist.

---

but mr. davies, my question concerned your words on the subject... here they are: i'll take your last answer as being your final one, you don't believe in any god

quote:

---

Mr. D:
I don't know what is out there if anything. If there is a god or gods, we are not its or their crowning acheivement, it may be unaware or unintelligent. It may not be the only one and it could be as petty as we are, only worse as it's more powerful.

---

more powerful in its unintelligent way? i think before you decide to argue against the existence of God you might need to have some idea of what the word 'god' means to you...

hello mr. davies

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
I don't believe in any god yet I am convinced there is no god or gods. There is no evidence one way or the other. There could also be more than one god, dead gods, gods coming into being and more than any of us could imagine.

---

a strange paragraph... it seems vaguely redundant to say you don't believe in any god while at the same time being convinced no god exists... how can you accept the possibility of "more than one god, dead gods, gods coming into being and more than any of us could imagine" while at the same time being "convinced there is no god or gods?"i am as confused as you seem to be

quote:

---

A serious problem that you have is there is nothing to show that your god is any more real than say Marduk of the Sumarians or Oden of the Norse.

---

do your presuppositions prevent you from examinging my evidence? if not, what sort of evidence would you require, what would be acceptable to you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gzus:
Everything is both rational and irrational, for who can say that either is more ‘true’?

---

only if your worldview is ruled by inconsistencies... it's not a matter of who can say one thing or the other, it's a matter of who is able to account for being able to make internally consistent statements

quote:

---

I abstain from belief or non-belief and who has the right to punish me for my indecision? This is a question which cannot be denied.

---

anyone who can point out the irrationality of your statements has that right... if you don't wish your worldview to be judged, don't put it in opposition to another's

quote:

---

The question is, how am I justified in making any choice whatsoever? And yet everything that I say or do or think is a violation of my abstention which in turn is a violation of itself.

---

then why do you pretend to take part in rational discussions if you admit to irrationality in your own thinking? why not look for the weaknesses of your paradigm and throw away the parts that are obviously irrational?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gzus:
The reason why we are not justified in making any decision can be summarised by a simple discussion

​

~~~snip~~~
etc.. x n
~~~snip~~~

​

and yet how are we justified in denying this paradox?

---

that's the whole point... see, i don't have that problem... i trust my senses, i trust my reasoning abilities (such as they are), i know there's more to life than the material world... i have a worldview that allows me to make sense of such things... you don't

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gzus:
How are you justified in saying ‘that's the whole point... see, i don't have that problem... i trust my senses, i trust my reasoning abilities (such as they are), i know there's more to life than the material world... i have a worldview that allows me to make sense of such things... you don't’

​

And If you come up with an answer to that one, then how are you justified in saying that?

​

And if you come up with an answer to that, then how are you justified in saying that?

​

And etc.

​

You can never win

​

[This message has been edited by Gzus, 12-27-2002]

---

huh? one of us is very confused... aren't *you* the nihilist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gzus:
The problem is, that it’s a paradox. By claiming, ‘nothing is certain’, you are also saying that the statement ‘nothing is certain’ is uncertain, and yet how can you come to any other conclusion?

---

you keep missing the point... it isn't enough for you to make the statement, *argue* it... make your case, but do so without relying on tools your worldview does't give you... at least stand up and admit it your worldview is irrational, but don't use reason to argue!! don't use logic!!... those don't exist, can't exist, in your world... at least admit you're nothing but atoms reacting to other atoms and nothing more[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
As for evidence that your God exists? Oh, a simple "Hi, watch me pull another Universe out of a black hole" would suffice. Yes, that was in jest but why I don't believe in any god is I haven't seen the need for one.

---

so you demand empirical evidence for a transcendental entity?... are your demands re this particular entity (the christian God) consistent with your demands for all such entities? must all transcendental entities be empirically verified, or do you solve this problem by denying their existence?...your position appears arbitrary, thus irrational on its face... i don't expect that to bother you much, but most people would rather embrace a worldview that is at least consistent in its dogmas

quote:

---

As for Presumptions, yours is that your God exists and there is nothing that could disuade you from thinking otherwise, at least for now. One question, are you a biblical literalist? You know, 6 day creation, Noah's flood, that type of stuff.

---

we all have presuppositions, but you misstate my position... i have a view of the world that is internally consistent, i can give an account for things that exist yet are not suspended in time and space.. you can't, not without borrowing from my worldview... so while i believe the bible is the inspired word of God i don't see how you can argue against it without using the very tools you deny, the very tools that can be accounted for from only within my worldview

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gzus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by forgiven:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gzus:
The problem is, that it’s a paradox. By claiming, ‘nothing is certain’, you are also saying that the statement ‘nothing is certain’ is uncertain, and yet how can you come to any other conclusion?

---

​

you keep missing the point... it isn't enough for you to make the statement, *argue* it... make your case, but do so without relying on tools your worldview does't give you... at least stand up and admit it your worldview is irrational, but don't use reason to argue!! don't use logic!!... those don't exist, can't exist, in your world... at least admit you're nothing but atoms reacting to other atoms and nothing more

​

[This message has been edited by forgiven, 12-27-2002]

---

​

How are you justified in saying that?

---

i can understand why you can't grasp it, your worldview doesn't allow for such things as reason... but that does not mean i'm unjustified in what i say, my worldview gives me the righti never said "nothing is certain," you did... you arbitrarily define terms and you assert without argumentation... rational discourse is impossible with you since even the elementary principles of debate seem unknown to you... unless or until you can grasp these things and formulate arguments that account for your worldview, maybe you should just read for awhile