Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

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


Message 350 of 417 (27793)
12-24-2002 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by gene90
12-16-2002 12:31 PM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
quote:
Is my dismissal of giant pink invisible unicorns unreasonable because I hanven't had any direct sensory experience of them?
This is one of those analogies I dislike. The problem with analogies dealing with things not detectable with direct sensory experience is that they can be as reasonable or as unreasonable as you make them. When my money is in the bank vault and I'm locked outside I don't have direct sensory verification of it either. Does that necessarily mean that the money does not exist? The museum patrons don't have direct sensory experience with the contents of the box, but that doesn't mean that the 'empty box' theorist necessarily has an advantage over the others (though perhaps he can make a convincing case by speculating upon motives of the artist).
By the way your analogy contains an internal contradiction: invisible objects have no color.

Well, let's look at it from another angle guys
'When my money is in the bank vault and I'm locked outside I don't have direct sensory verification of it either. Does that necessarily mean that the money does not exist?'
no it doesn't, you are right, you have absolutely no idea, the money could be there, but equally probable is that it isn't there.
however, having established that you have no reason to believe or not believe anything, how can you be punished for not believing?
This is the flaw in religions that profesy damnation. Jesus said,
'all those who have heard the gospel and yet do not believe, will be condemned'- i seem to remember somewhere from sunday school.
but the question 'is the gospel true?' is very much the same as 'is there money in the bank'. you have no reasonable obligation to believe it.
The argument that most christians/mormons/etc use to counter this is
'but God is within each of us and he speaks to us' hence (supposedly) obliging us to believe because after all, god is telling us.
Agnostic: 'but i can't hear him'
Christian: 'that's because you have no faith'
Agnostic: 'but how am i obliged to have faith?'
Christian: 'because the bible says so'
Agnostic: 'why should I believe the bible?'
Christian: 'because otherwise YOU GO TO HELL!'
at which point the agnostic wins because the christian has descended into dogma.
In the end, the 'why should I's always win.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by gene90, posted 12-16-2002 12:31 PM gene90 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by forgiven, posted 12-24-2002 6:25 PM Gzus has not replied
 Message 352 by doctrbill, posted 12-24-2002 10:14 PM Gzus has not replied
 Message 358 by Gzus, posted 12-25-2002 1:42 PM Gzus has not replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 358 of 417 (27834)
12-25-2002 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Gzus
12-24-2002 3:07 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Gzus, posted 12-24-2002 3:07 PM Gzus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 2:33 PM Gzus has replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 362 of 417 (27844)
12-25-2002 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by forgiven
12-25-2002 2:33 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 2:33 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 3:08 PM Gzus has replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 364 of 417 (27855)
12-25-2002 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by forgiven
12-25-2002 3:08 PM


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)
"it is in fact true that we can not know truth?" — yes, well,
noting the absurdity of the statement, I have attempted to formulate a ‘better’ one.
Truth, undeniable, perfect argument immune to the powers of scepticism. This can never be achieved by humans because there is always the sceptical argument
‘what if logic itself is flawed’ you cannot ‘logically’ prove that ‘logic’ is unflawed since it is ‘logic’ which is in question. This is the shortfall of nihilism, religion and everything else that ‘we’ experience or claim to experience.
[This message has been edited by Gzus, 12-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 3:08 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 4:40 PM Gzus has not replied
 Message 366 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 4:44 PM Gzus has not replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 373 of 417 (27925)
12-26-2002 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by forgiven
12-25-2002 2:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
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?

Well, to be truthful, I neither believe nor do not believe, I abstain. I neither have nor do not have a God and my definition of God is undefined.
Everything is both rational and irrational, for who can say that either is more ‘true’?
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.
I cannot say that there is no dogma in this statement for the statement ‘I cannot say that there is no dogma in this statement’ is a ‘choice’ and therefore a violation of my abstention. In saying ‘I abstain’, I have violated my abstention, and yet by not stating my abstention, I have denied my indecision.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by forgiven, posted 12-25-2002 2:33 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by forgiven, posted 12-26-2002 3:43 PM Gzus has replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 375 of 417 (27928)
12-26-2002 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 374 by forgiven
12-26-2002 3:43 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by forgiven, posted 12-26-2002 3:43 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by forgiven, posted 12-27-2002 9:17 PM Gzus has replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 376 of 417 (27929)
12-26-2002 4:07 PM


The reason why we are not justified in making any decision can be summarised by a simple discussion
1: What do you see?
2: I see an apple on the table
1: How do you know that your senses aren’t fooling you?
2: Well, I don’t
1: how do you know you aren’t mad?
2: I don’t
1: how do you know anything?
2: I don’t.
1: then how are you justified in saying there’s an apple on the table
2: I suppose I’m not, but how are you justified in questioning me?
1: I’m not
2: how are we justified in saying anything?
1: we’re not
2: and yet how are we justified in saying that we are not justified in saying anything?
1: we’re not
2: and yet how are we justified in saying ‘how are we justified in saying that we are not justified in saying anything?’
1: we’re not
2: and yet how are we justified in saying ‘how are we justified in saying that we are not justified in saying that we are not justified in saying anything?’
1: how are we justified in saying ‘we’re not’?
2: we’re not
etc.. x n
and yet how are we justified in denying this paradox?

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by forgiven, posted 12-26-2002 6:07 PM Gzus has replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 378 of 417 (27960)
12-27-2002 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by forgiven
12-26-2002 6:07 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 377 by forgiven, posted 12-26-2002 6:07 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by forgiven, posted 12-27-2002 6:34 PM Gzus has not replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 383 of 417 (28016)
12-28-2002 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 380 by forgiven
12-27-2002 9:17 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by forgiven, posted 12-27-2002 9:17 PM forgiven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 11:01 AM Gzus has replied

Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 392 of 417 (28033)
12-28-2002 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by forgiven
12-28-2002 11:01 AM


quote:
Originally posted by forgiven:
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 right
i 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

Fine, you win, but I have posted a new topic which uses what you have just said to refute religions that profess damnation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by forgiven, posted 12-28-2002 11:01 AM forgiven 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