Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 61 of 468 (624751)
07-19-2011 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Straggler
07-19-2011 6:18 PM


Re: The Ultimate Question
Straggler writes:
If the ultimate question is - "Why is there something rather than nothing?" wouldn't God himself have to ask that same question?
I did the best I could with that in my last post. (Message 60) As I've said before - when I get to the next life I'm definitely going to all the lectures.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 6:18 PM Straggler has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 62 of 468 (624786)
07-20-2011 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by GDR
07-19-2011 6:16 PM


Re: The Ultimate Question
quote:
I guess it all depends on how you want to phrase the discussion. Yes I agree that if god(s) exist it constitutes something, in somewhat the same way that wisdom constitutes something.
Do you mean that God is an abstract entity ? That doesn't seem to fit.
quote:
I think that essentially the discussion then is, "does some intelligent something exist outside of our material world that is responsible for our existence".
Well that isn't the question "why is there something rather than nothing", nor even a potential answer to it. It isn't even the question "is there a God" since it might be the case that lesser, natural, intelligences could take actions that would result in the existence of a new universe.
quote:
I understand Dr A as saying that if I am going to suggest that we exist as the result of some external intelligence that I also have to account for the creation of that intelligence. All I'm saying is that in that question he presupposes that this creative intelligence would have to experience change, (what we call time), in the same way that we do.
Your "understanding" seems to bear no resemblance to anything Dr. A. said. Indeed I would suggest that it would be much fairer to say that the whole idea of an "intelligence" and the act of "creation" presuppose that. Thus if such an idea is to be found anywhere in this discussion, it is inherent in your position.
quote:
I agree it is special pleading. If I can't evoke a creator without having to answer for the creation of the creator then I have nothing to offer. When asked the question all I can honestly say is I don't know. The only possible partial answer is that the time that we experience is part of this creation and so we would thus require an intelligence outside of our 4D universe to be its creator.
In short you have NO answer to the question of "why is there something rather than nothing", without reinterpreting the question to allow special pleading that favours the answer you want to give. Under those circumstances I have to say that I find it intellectually dishonest of you to raise the question as if you had a genuine answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by GDR, posted 07-19-2011 6:16 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-20-2011 1:58 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 64 by Chuck77, posted 07-20-2011 2:37 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 07-20-2011 2:55 AM PaulK has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 63 of 468 (624788)
07-20-2011 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
07-20-2011 1:38 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
I have proposed a topic on the ultimate question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2011 1:38 AM PaulK has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 468 (624790)
07-20-2011 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
07-20-2011 1:38 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
PaulK writes:
GDR writes:
I agree it is special pleading. If I can't evoke a creator without having to answer for the creation of the creator then I have nothing to offer. When asked the question all I can honestly say is I don't know. The only possible partial answer is that the time that we experience is part of this creation and so we would thus require an intelligence outside of our 4D universe to be its creator.
In short you have NO answer to the question of "why is there something rather than nothing", without reinterpreting the question to allow special pleading that favours the answer you want to give. Under those circumstances I have to say that I find it intellectually dishonest of you to raise the question as if you had a genuine answer.
Wow, so you think it's dishonest for someone to share His opinion? It's tiring to see so many non-theists rip theists opinions as if the answers/opinions one tries to provide according to their beliefs/views are intellectually dishonest.
Once you can prove the non-existance of god(s) then you can throw the "intellectually dishonest" crap around. Until then it's simply peoples beliefs/views and just because YOU don't see it that was doesn't mean it's dishonest. How absurd, to think of yoursaelf so highly as to say others people opinions are dishonest.
You're to caught up in the fight to see that YOUR comments are the ones that are "intellectually dishonest".
Did you miss the part where GDR writes
When asked the question all I can honestly say is I don't know.
???? Then, he goes on to give His answer to the question which he believes to be true.
From Wiki:
Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
-the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
-the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
-the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
Maybe you mean he is BIASED is some way, but dishonest? Please. Your atheist grandstanding is sickining. Your hero must be Richard Dawkins? You like him? You seem about as prideful and full of yourself as him.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2011 1:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2011 3:32 AM Chuck77 has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 65 of 468 (624792)
07-20-2011 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
07-20-2011 1:38 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
PaulK writes:
Do you mean that God is an abstract entity ? That doesn't seem to fit.
I agree it's far from a perfect comparison. My only point is that both exist, IMHO, as something that can't be observed by human senses.
PaulK writes:
Well that isn't the question "why is there something rather than nothing", nor even a potential answer to it. It isn't even the question "is there a God" since it might be the case that lesser, natural, intelligences could take actions that would result in the existence of a new universe.
OK, fair enough but all I'm trying to do is frame the question in a way that satisfies you. Instead of just critiquing what I say, why don't you tell me how you would frame the question?
PaulK writes:
Your "understanding" seems to bear no resemblance to anything Dr. A. said. Indeed I would suggest that it would be much fairer to say that the whole idea of an "intelligence" and the act of "creation" presuppose that. Thus if such an idea is to be found anywhere in this discussion, it is inherent in your position.
Well I think I did understand what Dr. A was saying, but I do agree with that last statement.
PaulK writes:
In short you have NO answer to the question of "why is there something rather than nothing", without reinterpreting the question to allow special pleading that favours the answer you want to give. Under those circumstances I have to say that I find it intellectually dishonest of you to raise the question as if you had a genuine answer.
It depends on what constitutes an answer. There is no answer to the question that can be shown to be true empirically. We can only offer our subjective opinions. I stated the answer to the question is objectively unknowable but I did offer a possible explanation that I have come to subjectively that you seem to reject because there is no objective evidence for it.
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2011 1:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2011 3:24 AM GDR has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 66 of 468 (624796)
07-20-2011 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by GDR
07-20-2011 2:55 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
quote:
I agree it's far from a perfect comparison. My only point is that both exist, IMHO, as something that can't be observed by human senses.
In other words your "comparison" was completely invalid, God does not exist in the same way that "wisdom" does, at all.
quote:
OK, fair enough but all I'm trying to do is frame the question in a way that satisfies you. Instead of just critiquing what I say, why don't you tell me how you would frame the question?
Presumably you mean your "question". I would phrase it as a statement. "God exists because GDR really likes the idea", which is at least honest.
quote:
Well I think I did understand what Dr. A was saying, but I do agree that last statement.
Given the complete lack of any connection between your "understanding" and what Dr. A. wrote, it seems clear that you did not.
quote:
It depends on what constitutes an answer. There is no answer to the question that can be shown to be true empirically. We can only offer our subjective opinions. I stated the answer to the question is objectively unknowable but I did offer a possible explanation that I have come to subjectively that you seem to reject because there is no objective evidence for it.
Well, no you DON'T have an answer to the actual question of why there is something rather than nothing, and you admit as much. Indeed, the whole point of reinterpreting the question in your idiosyncratic way is to avoid having to give a genuine answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by GDR, posted 07-20-2011 2:55 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by GDR, posted 07-20-2011 10:46 AM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 67 of 468 (624798)
07-20-2011 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Chuck77
07-20-2011 2:37 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
quote:
Wow, so you think it's dishonest for someone to share His opinion?
No. I claim that GDR was intellectually dishonest because he relied on a private and far from obvious interpretation of the question "why is there something rather than nothing" that was rigged to favour the answer he wanted, when he claimed to have an answer. In fact he does not have an answer to the question as it is written and naturally interpreted.
Which fits your description of intellectual dishonesty.
So, are you going to retract your false accusations and apologise ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Chuck77, posted 07-20-2011 2:37 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Chuck77, posted 07-20-2011 6:41 AM PaulK has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 468 (624817)
07-20-2011 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by PaulK
07-20-2011 3:32 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
PaulK writes:
So, are you going to retract your false accusations and apologise ?
Your delusional. Would you like me to bow to you also?
Apologise for? How do you get away with the crap you talk here? Calling people "intellectually dishonest" for answering questions according to how they see it and believe it to be somehow is dishonest in your eyes making YOUR opinion the ONLY right one?
Are you following along PaulK? Who do you think owes an apology to who while were at it? Really I wouldn't ever ask for an apology on a debate site since everyone could be apologising all day long.
I SURE wouldn't be asking for an apology from someone who called me out on calling someone else "intellectually dishonest" because of an opinion they shared.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond Belief
By JIM HOLT / NEW YORK TIMES
(from the article):
" It's all in good fun when Dawkins mocks a buffoon like Pat Robertson and fundamentalist pastors like the one who created "Hell Houses" to frighten sin-prone children at Halloween. But it is less edifying when he questions the sincerity of serious thinkers who disagree with him, like the late Stephen Jay Gould, or insinuates that recipients of the million-dollar-plus Templeton Prize, awarded for work reconciling science and spirituality, are intellectually dishonest (and presumably venal to boot)"
Page not found | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
You should stop reading so much Dawkins material. Use your own brain, not someone elses. I'll assume you are under the influence of Richard Dawkins right now and cannot formulate an original thought on your own therefore are unconsciously making statements that do not reflect the true feelings of PaulK.
Apology accepted, and I forgive you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2011 3:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2011 7:30 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 468 (624821)
07-20-2011 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by purpledawn
07-18-2011 9:09 AM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Purpledawn writes:
That's kinda the point. You believe your god exists, but not the others. Why?
dawn, it's simple, because the truth shall set you free. THEE truth.
dawn, it would be easier for me to respond to you if I knew what you believed. I dont, but it seems you are a polytheist? Or universalist? Or a born again Christian playing devils advocate?
And yet you state that the Bible is true. Now you're implying that only your subjective evidence is valid or reasonable. How can we tell which subjective evidence is valid and which isn't?
Well, dawn, once you do what the subjective evidenced Bible says to do, you'll know. That's how. It's really quite simple. DO what it SAYS and see the results
That's why I mentioned the healing issue. Even amongst believers there are those who pray for healing and don't receive it. If an answer to prayer is subjective evidence for God's existence for an individual, then unanswered prayers are subjective evidence against God's existence for an individual. Believers don't usually take unanswered prayers as evidence against their god's existence
Seriously dawn? You think it's logical to say answered prayer is subjective evidence therefore unanswered prayed is subjective evidence against God? or you think that's what IM saying?
Prayer is subjective evidence for God no matter if it's answered or not.
If I pray "God, I want this house it's perfect" and it sells to someone else that is unanswered prayer? OR, was God saving me from buying a money pit?
Unanswered prayer is as good for evidence as answered prayer. Your thinking is that God is a genie that hands out wishes and if they all don't come true that's evidence against God. That's silly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by purpledawn, posted 07-18-2011 9:09 AM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Coragyps, posted 07-20-2011 7:39 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 72 by Granny Magda, posted 07-20-2011 10:44 AM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 77 by Mazzy, posted 07-20-2011 4:45 PM Chuck77 has not replied
 Message 82 by purpledawn, posted 07-20-2011 6:48 PM Chuck77 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 70 of 468 (624830)
07-20-2011 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Chuck77
07-20-2011 6:41 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
quote:
Your delusional. Would you like me to bow to you also?
I realise that expecting honesty from a "Christian" is somewhat optimistic, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt.
quote:
Apologise for? How do you get away with the crap you talk here? Calling people "intellectually dishonest" for answering questions according to how they see it and believe it to be somehow is dishonest in your eyes making YOUR opinion the ONLY right one?
Of course I never did any such.
quote:
Are you following along PaulK? Who do you think owes an apology to who while were at it?
Really I wouldn't ever ask for an apology on a debate site since everyone could be apologising all day long.
If your idea if debate is slandering each other that might be true. And it does seem to be your approach, but it is not one favoured here.
quote:
I SURE wouldn't be asking for an apology from someone who called me out on calling someone else "intellectually dishonest" because of an opinion they shared.
Neither would I. Now, do you intend to deal honestly with what I actually said or just continue with your slanders ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Chuck77, posted 07-20-2011 6:41 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 71 of 468 (624832)
07-20-2011 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
07-20-2011 7:06 AM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
"Prayer is subjective evidence for Zeus no matter if it's answered or not."
- fixed it for you, Chuck. If you disagree that I did, explain to me why you think not.

"The Christian church, in its attitude toward science, shows the mind of a more or less enlightened man of the Thirteenth Century. It no longer believes that the earth is flat, but it is still convinced that prayer can cure after medicine fails." H L Mencken

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 07-20-2011 7:06 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 72 of 468 (624846)
07-20-2011 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Chuck77
07-20-2011 7:06 AM


Re: Subjective Evidence of Gods
Hi Chuck, hope you don't mind my cutting in.
Prayer is subjective evidence for God no matter if it's answered or not.
You mean that the act of choosing to pray is evidence for God in and of itself? I don't see how that follows.
Some people choose to avoid walking under ladders. That doesn't make it true that walking under a ladder will bring you bad luck.
Some people choose to try and make contact with aliens. that doesn't provide evidence for the existence of aliens.
Prayer is subjective evidence for God no matter if it's answered or not.
If I pray "God, I want this house it's perfect" and it sells to someone else that is unanswered prayer? OR, was God saving me from buying a money pit?
Unanswered prayer is as good for evidence as answered prayer. Your thinking is that God is a genie that hands out wishes and if they all don't come true that's evidence against God. That's silly.
Okay, I get where you're coming from. This point is often expressed by Christians in something like the form given below;
quote:
God answers ALL prayer, but sometimes the answer is "no", sometimes it is "not yet", and other times the answer is "yes".
The problem with this is that it is indistinguishable from praying to thin air. One could apply the same results to any non-divine, non-prayer answering entity and get the same results.
The late great comic George Carlin suggested that we pray to Joe Pesci. That gets you exactly the same result as you get by praying to the Christian god. Sometimes Joe Pesci says "Yes", sometimes Joe Pesci says "No" and sometimes Joe Pesci says "Get the fug outta here and wait a while you fuggin mook". Joe Pesci may have a bit more of a potty mouth, but the results are exactly the same. Sometimes you pray and get what you want, sometimes you pray and you don't get what you want. This is indistinguishable from praying to a rock (which I have seen people do. It didn't seem to be helping much).
On this basis, and with all those other prayers of rival religions achieving the exact same results, I can't see this as evidence for anything.
I urge you to view this video from the Youtuber Evid3nc3. He is an ex-Christian who came to doubt the reality of intercessory prayer. He describes something of what I'm talking about from that perspective. It's very well made, please give it a watch.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Chuck77, posted 07-20-2011 7:06 AM Chuck77 has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 73 of 468 (624847)
07-20-2011 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by PaulK
07-20-2011 3:24 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
PaulK writes:
Well, no you DON'T have an answer to the actual question of why there is something rather than nothing, and you admit as much. Indeed, the whole point of reinterpreting the question in your idiosyncratic way is to avoid having to give a genuine answer.
Part of the problem is that IMHO you see this as a debate whereas I enjoy a discussion like I was having with Straggler.
I'll go with this then.
"Why is there something instead of nothing".
Because there is/was a creative intelligence as a prime mover.
I think that is the most reasonable answer because IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that intelligence can evolve from a non-intelligent source.
I think that is the most reasonable answer because IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that love and altruism can evolve from a non-loving, non-altruistic source.
I think that is the most reasonable answer because a living cell is an incredibly complex thing and is IMHO highly unlikely to have come into existence without prior wisdom and creativity.
That is my subjective view.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2011 3:24 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by PaulK, posted 07-20-2011 11:14 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 75 by bluegenes, posted 07-20-2011 11:22 AM GDR has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 74 of 468 (624850)
07-20-2011 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by GDR
07-20-2011 10:46 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
quote:
Part of the problem is that IMHO you see this as a debate whereas I enjoy a discussion like I was having with Straggler.
I don't think that excuses misrepresenting the question, nor the special pleading.
quote:
I'll go with this then.
"Why is there something instead of nothing".
Because there is/was a creative intelligence as a prime mover.
But that isn't an answer to the question as written, because the "creative intelligence" is something.
quote:
I think that is the most reasonable answer because IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that intelligence can evolve from a non-intelligent source
The evidence seems to be against you, there (intelligence is a continuum, which seems to have increased gradually, in fits and starts over evolutionary history). Moreover, an intelligence is a complex ordered entity that begs for explanation - but you want to avoid explaining it....
quote:
I think that is the most reasonable answer because IMHO it is unreasonable to conclude that love and altruism can evolve from a non-loving, non-altruistic source.
I don't think that you have much evidence there, either. And how is it reasonable to assume a loving, altruistic intelligent force without any explanation of how it could come to exist ?
quote:
I think that is the most reasonable answer because a living cell is an incredibly complex thing and is IMHO highly unlikely to have come into existence without prior wisdom and creativity.
And modern cells are the product of billions of years of evolution. But what explanation you have for the complex entity that you propose as the creator ? Surely it is more reasonable to accept complexity from known sources than to assume unexplained, highly complex entities.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by GDR, posted 07-20-2011 10:46 AM GDR has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 75 of 468 (624852)
07-20-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by GDR
07-20-2011 10:46 AM


Re: The Ultimate Question
{Content wiped}
Edited by bluegenes, : Wiped, PaulK's post covers the point already

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by GDR, posted 07-20-2011 10:46 AM GDR 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