|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Charismatic Chaos | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Phat writes:
I would remind you that illusions, mirages, and hallucinations are known phenomenon. They can be recognized, quantified, and ultimately logically discounted to yield a more accurate view of reality. If, as Phage0070 maintains, God is nothing but an illusion of the human mind, I might remind him that if he is right, nothing I could ever say would prove otherwise, yet if he is wrong, no amount of logic would refute nor correct that fact. I know you may not be a fan of the fact but reality *can* be distinguished from imagination. Illusions don't have to fool people forever. ICANT writes:
If I don't know the answer what am I supposed to say I don't know.Phat writes:
Phage0070 writes: I can tell. I just don't want to. ...it seems like you cannot tell the difference between reality and your imagination. Or at least you don't want to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Phat writes:
You are not using that term properly. Both an agnostic and an atheist have considered the possibility of God existing, an atheist just does not consider it to be true.
The issue needs to be framed from an agnostic point of view...where God is possible.(apart from our imagination)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
iano writes:
I blame my opponents for taking stances that are unfalsifiable.
Unfortunately for Phages no-god-of-any-kind position, he can never be proved right
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Phat writes:
Atheism is very falsifiable: Simply prove that a god exists. Perhaps you were confusing it with something else? If, in fact, you are an atheist, you too have taken a stance that is unfalsifiable...so I will concede the argument that God has to possibly exist. I am also extremely confused about the "*has* to possibly exist" line. How exactly do you pair definite and and indefinite terms like that, and what does it mean?
Phat writes:
Certainly, that is the first step.
Very well, fine. For the sake of argument, I'll admit that my idea of God is an illusion. Shall we go on? Phat writes:
Nothing cancels anything out; they are not in the picture remember? So for the sake of argument, lets assume that repentance and salvation are human concepts and that neither God nor Satan are in the picture. The only difference is that instead of God nullifying Satans stranglehold, both cancel each other out. (not to suggest Dualism, mind you) What aspect of human behavior has to change for this to be a possibility? I propose that no aspect of human behavior need change for this to be a possibility. Can you come up with something that humans do that could not possibly happen without a god in the picture?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
iano writes:
You have a claim. I don't believe it. When your opponent isn't trying to prove anything then the issue of falsifiablity doesn't arise. You're boxing with an argument of your own making - not with me. You are not trying to prove your claim because you cannot prove it. It also cannot be falsified. My disbelief cannot be proved correct because your position cannot be falsified. Therefore my position being unprovable is a direct result of your position being unfalsifiable, without requiring you trying to prove your claim. Interestingly it also does not require me to put forward an argument, so I don't have anything to box.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Phat writes:
That would certainly be a compelling argument, if there was some shared ethical knowledge independent of nature or nurture. I assume since you would argue the point that you have some examples you think are universal? If both are thrown out, there is no need to worry about God, but there is, I would argue, still an intrinsic awareness of right and wrong. Before outlining those examples I would remind you of the neurological conditions of Psychopathy/Socipathy. These conditions are described as chronic disregard for ethical principles, with the former being considered to originate by nature, and the latter through nurture. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) requires that those classified as having this disorder exhibit a lack of remorse, guilt, and empathy. I suggest that this is strong evidence that ethics are not universal.
My point is this: Assume that I concede that there is no way to prove God and that for the sake of this argument, God is entirely imaginary.
For your first point, an obligation to whom exactly? Society perhaps, but there are many social obligations we are comfortable to ignore if our personal views differ. As for the second, that is quite true. Of course the problem comes when people do not consider what they do to be wrong. How many illegal drug dealers beat themselves up about their trade? Thieves? Murderers? In my experience people who have a choice in the matter will stop doing things that they believe are morally wrong. In many cases acts that are considered immoral are justified as excusable for a variety of reasons. A thief might admit theft is wrong, but justify their actions as only stealing from those who "can afford it". An illegal drug dealer might admit breaking the law is wrong, but that it is OK because they don't agree with that law, or their life is hard enough that they can ignore it. A murderer may recognize murder as immoral, but claim strong emotion temporarily removed their moral obligation, or that they just "couldn't control" the impulse to kill.
Phat writes:
If God turns out the exist then my personal opinion on how it should judge people would be worthless. However, I don't see how a god could be fair or just for judging anyone who never had a chance to consider the question. As for those who chose wrongly they must be the vast majority, and on tests that is often a sign of a bad question rather than a stupid class.
Finally, and hypothetically, IF God turns out to exist after all....when we die should we be judged for ignoring Him? (Or just plain never considering that He existed?) Or....rationally, logically, and honestly concluding that he did not exist? Phat writes:
I agree with you there. Does this mean that if the Christian god were to exist then you allow the possibility of disagreeing with its actions on moral grounds? My point is that it would be wrong of God to allow these people to be punished. Judgment is an individual thing.(be the judge God or be the judge our own internalized beliefs and morality) Edited by Phage0070, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
iano writes:
To clarify what I believe is his point, he cannot listen to *or* ignore something he does not hear.
A radio has a knob. God does not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
iano writes:
Why not? I thought your god was omnipotent, yet it appears you think it is constrained by the logical bounds of our universe. An omnipotent god could make an object too heavy for it to lift, as well as be able to lift it. It simply would be illogical by our standards, and we would not understand how it is possible. God cannot create an object too heavy for him to lift. Nor can he create music without a creator of music. You're desiring an irrational and illogical form of God. It appears. Why can you not understand that your god is limited by your imagination? A god that exists only within your own mind is nothing worthy of worship. You are very happy to admit that your god does things that you don't know the reasons for but when it comes right down to it, if you don't understand it it cannot be part of your god. Your god is make-believe.
iano writes:
This is the root of the problem it seems. Most of the posters on this board are seeking the truth of matters. You are not seeking truth, you are trying to push an agenda that you at times call "the Truth". Generally I remind folk that I'm discussing from the point of view of supposing God to exist and the Bible to be his word. And generally my conversations with others look at the workings of the mechanisms of God from that standpoint. My apologies if I've led you to suppose I'm attempting to make any absolute statements which would be supported by facts (that said, I frequently base my arguments on what I figure would be areas of commonly held belief: notions of what constitutes just actions, etc) The distinction here is that the primary concern of truth-seeking posters is that their position is correct, and then conveying how they determined that conclusion. Your primary concern seems to be wrapping your agenda in just enough logical buzzwords to be considered, and the justification for your position never enters into your process. This is why it is a problem when we ask for facts; truth-seekers have found them to be the source of truth, yet you simply have a story to tell regardless of the facts. Regardless of the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
iano writes:
It isn't a constraint if it is something it is capable of. Superman *could* cut people in half with his laser vision, he just does not. It isn't a "constraint" on his power, it is just something he does not do. There are various ways to understand the word omnipotent. I apply one that supposes God constrained to operate according to his own nature. His being constrained so doesn't impinge on his omnipotence. You have stated that your god *cannot* be illogical. Would you like to reverse that statement?
iano writes:
Or any other atheist? Or didn't you know that is what every atheist thinks?
You sound like a Dawkinsian7 iano writes: I would disagree. I very frequently argue a justification for my position. But rather than basing it on facts (which don't apply to a case "built on the assumption, for the sake of argument, that God exists and the Bible is his word"), I base it on areas where I expect there might be common agreement. So you base your persuasive writing on assuming the reader already agrees with you. How has that been working out for you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Rather than reverse it, let me reword it: according to the theological model I am using (based as it is on the nature of God revealed in the Bible), God cannot be illogical. Being logical is part of his nature. Clearly, the God revealed in the Bible could be hiding part of his nature and could in fact be lying when he says he's incapable of lying. Or be capable of illogic when revealing himself to be logical. So you don't believe in the god of the Bible? Or are you continuing to be dense on the difference between "cannot" and "will not"?
iano writes: Few atheists would score themselves 7 on Dawkins scale. Or make statements indicating that they score themselves 7 on that scale. Declaring 'your God is make believe' is a Dawkinsian7 style statement. That would only be so if I had also declared myself to be infallible. A 6 on the scale is sufficiently convinced to make such statements but recognizes the potential to be in error. Your above statement sounds like a Dawkinsian1 style statement. (A thick one, who claims to be incapable of error and assumes the same claim in others.)
iano writes: Which allows discussion to progress along channels of common agreement. For example, folk think that God should act justly in order to be considered good. And I think God should act justly in order to be considered good. I suppose the wheels fall off when you try to go from common agreement in "ought" to common agreement in "is". Making that leap without evidence must be difficult, perhaps you could clarify?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024