God says this, and God says that

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?

let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

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.

quote:

---

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

---

I don't see how you can and I'm not being nasty here. 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.------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

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...

I see my mistake. I will be more careful with you in phrasing my words more carefully and not posting when it's late at night.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. They only thing we can do is show that current figures of gods described in books may or may not exist as they are defined in those books.However, I saw an interesting twist on words here:

quote:

---

Mr. D:

quote:

---

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?

---

That's not what I said. I said that any god or gods could be unaware of our existance juat as we unaware of dust mites that live all around us. Also, just because something is powerful does not mean it is intelligent. Crocs are powerful yet I would not call them smart.One thing I will say is that I doubt we are its or their crowning acheivement instead of the absolute that we are not.

quote:

---

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...

---

Thanks for the concern, but no thanks. Your point is not valid. I have a several ideas of god and gods, from one I was brought up to fear or else I'd go to hell, pantheons of gods, and even dead gods.What I can argue against is the existance of what you feel your god is quite easily using the bible as a starting point. 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.------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

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 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.

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?

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?

The reason why we are not justified in making any decision can be summarised by a simple discussion1: 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 notetc.. x nand yet how are we justified in denying this paradox?

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

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]

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]

Crud:This is what it is supposed to say:I don't believe in any god yet I am NOT 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 even more UNUSUAL BEINGS than any of us could imagine.Sorry, not enough Java.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.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.------------------
When all else fails, check the manual

quote:

---

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

---

Ah, I see what you are doing. When you find that your God is under attack, change the playing field. If a person's an atheist, tell them that to deny the "supernatural god" you want them to acknowledge is the same as denying reality. Make sure that you place all of the tools that humanity has off limits while doing so. You then claim that these tools are the very same thing that comes from god, your God in this particular case, so you can hamstring them and make them waste time chasing red herrings while we go around trying to define the meaning of what "Is" is.How you get that one can't use logic, a purely human invention, plain silly. Where did it come from? I'd say chemical interactions in the brian. Why does it do those things? Well, I don't know and I don't think anybody does, yet. The "ghost in the machine" is what you hold on to to make your point. Logic is usuable as we know it comes from humans. We can define it. We may not know where exactly it comes from inside of us is at the moment immaterial. If we listen to the likes of you, we will forever be stuck in the cave, afraid to venture outside fearing what we don't know and taking great pains not to find out.As for "being only atoms reacting to other atoms" is a misnomer. While I am, as are you, comprised of atoms, actually very complex compounds that I can't pronounce, does not make me anything less. I am still the father to my children, still a husband to my wife, still another wage slave to my employeer, still a son to my parents, and so on. The problem is you can't see your life as anything but meaningless without your God. I can find meaning even without a god.------------------
When all else fails, check the manual