|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: I know God exists & the court of highest appeal is me. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Sure iano could. iano could invite me along and I would agree that iano's God is real. I happen to have a personal relationship with the same God. Is it the same God? How do you know? I won't detail all the tests we could do independently to verify that we are looking at the same PC. But the key difference is that the tests do exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Ray writes: If this were true you would not deny the observation of design in nature to correspond to the work of invisible Designer/God. I don't deny that nature has that effect on me - but then again I'm saved. I deny that a lost person must necessarily draw the conclusion "agoddidit" from nature. Note that Percy's OP placed the onus on the individual to conclude God from nature for themselves. As if man could work his way to God rather than God working his way to man. I'm not an evolutionist, I'm a creationist and for the duration of my post count here have never taken any other position. I've no idea how old the earth is but were it 6000 years old as some have calculated then I've no problem with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I'm not an evolutionist, I'm a creationist and for the duration of my post count here have never taken any other position. I've no idea how old the earth is but were it 6000 years old as some have calculated then I've no problem with that. I have no problem admitting that I have made a bad mistake, but who was touting you against me in Percy's topic as being an evolutionist who denies the appearance of design to indicate invisible Designer? That is where I got the idea that you were a evolutionist, remember? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
but who was touting you against me in Percy's topic as being an evolutionist who denies the appearance of design to indicate invisible Designer? I've no idea. I can see why what I said might lead you to think what you thought (and led them to think what they thought too perhaps). Sometimes when fishing I can be a bit obscure. If the fish aren't biting like
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Could I request some clarification Modulous? It has to do with a leap made out of the very area I am concentrating on. I'm going to insert "I" for "we" so as to underline my starting OP position.
The first choice to face is, should I be a total sceptic? If I am, should I stop discussing it - who do I think I am discussing it with? This option needs to be brought back into the play. It will become apparent why in a minute. To bring it back in, I, the possible brain-in-a-jar might respond to my own question thus: "It doesn't matter who I think I am discussing with. The apparent fact is that I am discussing with someone and it's more fun than doing nothing."
Should I be a naive empiricist? (In order to evade the contradiction - iano) I need to develop a method for knowing when my senses are fooling me and when they are not, but this means making a few assumptions. 1. We exist There is no particular reason given by which I should pick "brain-in-jar" over "we-exist" (or vice versa). I seem to have automatically gone down the route of assuming my senses inform me about an reality external to myself. I have assumed what you suggest I assume. I have assumed..
1. We exist The tests you give weight to appear to apply to matters occurring in the Post-Assumption-Zone. They don't seem to be intended for evaluating the accuracy or otherwise of the inital assumption suggested by you ("we exist") But the point of the OP is that God is as real to my senses as is the reality you suggest I assume exists. I don't test the "we exist" assumption (for want of a way of doing so) nor do I test the assumption "God exists" (for want of a way of doing so). How should I progress with your post? Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Catholic writes: But couldn't RealityTM be some combination of the objective and subjective? Does it have to be all or nothing? I'm pretty confident that you can't simultaneously be a walking, talking being and a brain a jar. But, I don't think this is what you're asking. What kind of combination of subjectivity and objectivity do you believe could exist? And, how would this differ from complete subjectivity? Edited by Bluejay, : Added last question. There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
iano writes: But the point of the OP is that God is as real to my senses as is the reality you suggest I assume exists. I stand with PaulK in wanting to know what senses you are talking about. Surely you don't mean to say you've seen, smelled, tasted, touched or heard God? There was a point to this [post], but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. -modified from Life, the Universe and Everything, Douglas Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
This option needs to be brought back into the play. It will become apparent why in a minute. I read the post, I didn't see how it is apparent.
There is no particular reason given by which I should pick "brain-in-jar" over "we-exist" (or vice versa). By postulating you are a brain in a jar you have assumed that you exist.
The tests you give weight to appear to apply to matters occurring in the Post-Assumption-Zone. Obviously - where else would they be? You can't test the truthiness of something without making some assumptions. The three I listed have to be assumed.
But the point of the OP is that God is as real to my senses as is the reality you suggest I assume exists. And I dealt with this. The movement of acorns is as real to my senses as you claim God is to yours and yet the acorns aren't moving.
I don't test the "we exist" assumption (for want of a way of doing so) nor do I test the assumption "God exists" (for want of a way of doing so). God exists isn't an assumption, it is a conclusion. If you want to propose that it is an assumption you'll have to defend it as inescapable, which (seemingly) nobody in the history of mankind has managed to do. You conclude God exists because you sense its existence. You conclude that if you sense it, it exists. Thus it is not an assumption in this discussion. It might be an assumption in another discussion - but it is not an assumption in this one.
How should I progress with your post? How you should progress with any post. Read it through carefully, consider the key points being raised and either concede them or provide your rebutal. If providing a rebuttal, try to make sure I haven't addressed it in my post already - or if I do, deal with that too. Of course, you weren't asking me how to conduct a written debate in a forum setting - or was this just a rhetorical question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Mod writes: You conclude God exists because you sense its existence. You conclude that if you sense it, it exists. Thus it is not an assumption in this discussion. It might be an assumption in another discussion - but it is not an assumption in this one. Changing the words doesn't really alter my central query I can say "I conclude we (the world an others in it) exists because I sense we (etc) exist" or say "I assume we (etc) exist because I sense we (etc) exist". I cannot test the assumption/conclusion itself so the word change alters nothing. Remember..
Mod writes: Our senses tell us that there are other creatures with senses which are sometimes fooled. The senses that tell us there are other creatures aren't evaluated for truth. You seem to ask that we assume this sense is true so as to arrive at "we exist" - that being a start position for evaluations of stuff downstream. God belongs to this category of sense to me. Not the sense category of whether acorns move or not. I must indeed apply tests to a aspects of God just as you must to aspects of acorns. But neither of us is querying the existance of God/acorns in the first place. We have assumed they do exist in order to get going.
If you want to propose that it is an assumption you'll have to defend it as inescapable, which (seemingly) nobody in the history of mankind has managed to do. The assumption "we (etc) exists" is not inescapable. I could also assume I am a brain in a jar. But I assume God exists for the same reasons I assume we (etc) exist. It is apparent to me that he/we does/do. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Modulous,
I'm just wondering if their isn't confusion arising out of "we exist" In your initial post you said there were some assumptions we should make. The first was: 1. We exist. If you meant "we" as in "I and the world around me" then your tests can be applied downstream but not to the starting assumption. The assumed authorities cannot contribute to verifying the assumption I mean. If you meant "we" as in "I alone" then the rest of the world isn't assumed to exist and there can be no appeal to authority. I was/am assuming you meant the former but could be wrong. Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I'm just wondering if their isn't confusion arising out of "we exist" Yes, personal pronouns and the English language are well known for not being straight with each other. In order for me to make any statement about the status of my knowledge I must assume that I exist. In order for you to make any statement about the status of your knowledge you must assume that you exist. In order for them to make any statement about the status of their knowledge they must assume that they exist. Therefore, in general: In order for us to make any statement about the status of our knowledge we must assume that we exist. I am not suggesting that you and I have to assume each other exists, but we do both have to assume that ourselves exist. I could have tried to skip the ambiguity by using 'one' - 'one assumes one exists' but to remain even slightly consistent in the post would have lead to some clumsy sentences I feel. Hopefully that will clear things up enough for you enough to respond to the rest of my post. Edited by Modulous, : added the note about 'one assumes...'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2508 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Bluejay writes: I stand with PaulK in wanting to know what senses you are talking about. Surely you don't mean to say you've seen, smelled, tasted, touched or heard God? I third that request. Iano doesn't seem to agree with the creationist/I.D. types on this site, who look for external evidence of their Gods, so his evidence, perhaps, arrives in the brain directly, just like thoughts, dreams, hallucinations and delusions. These four seem to exist, but an experience of God would have to be distinguishable from them in order to convince an honest and sane person that it was valid, and could provide the same level of evidence as he has for the existence of his computer. We can all think up Gods, dream about Gods, hallucinate Gods, and have religious delusions, (for the last two, which many may not have experienced,(see here) and here ), but this kind of information arriving in the brain doesn't seem trustworthy to me at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Straggler,
Is it the same God? How do you know? From all the conversations I have had with iano and the many posts that I have read where iano talked about his God. Yes they are one and the same God. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
From all the conversations I have had with iano and the many posts that I have read where iano talked about his God. Yes they are one and the same God. I am sure your descriptions are very similar. However this is like me and you describing the colour red to each other.No matter how similar our descriptions may be we can never ever no if that which we actually perceive is identical. We cannot look with the others eyes. We can however undertake independent tests to determine the physical properties of red and to confirm that we both consistently identify these properties as 'red'ness. In this way we can establsh that red objectively exists even if we can never know that we perceive it identically. No such tests are available to your descriptions of God. No such evidence of your god existing anywhere but in your head are possible. That is the difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your thinking seems to be summed up thus -
I could be a brain in a jar If I am a brain in a jar all knowledge is necessarily equally subjective I can never establsih whether I am a brain in a jar or a conscious being sharing a reality with other conscious beings. Because it is impossible to know which scenario is true all knowledge is equally subjective regardless of which scenario is true. I agree wholeheartedly with the first three statements. However the last statement is false as it does not recognise the possibility that in the case of an objective reality shared with other conscious beings there are tests which can be done to determine the nature of that reality more objectively. The questions then becomes whether or not such tests are possible and do indeed make some forms of investigation more reliable than others. It is this last question that needs to be explored.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024