|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What Benefits Are Only Available Through God? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Is it? Or is it just the part of your reason that you're conscious of?
And if "I like his tie" is your reason for voting for him.. then that's a conscious reason. Stile writes:
It is. And most of what you call "conscious" reasoning is likely post facto rationalization.
And "rationalize" is different from "conscious decision." Stile writes:
That's a dishonest analogy. We can all imagine an experiment to run a combustion engine without toothpaste. But is an experiment to run thought without unconscious inputs even possible? Isn't it in the same realm as running an experiment to find God?
It is quite possible for science to prove that there is no unconscious component required in order to make a conscious decision.Just as it's quite possible for science to prove that there is no toothpaste component required in order to run a basic combustible engine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
And it seems to be going in the opposite direction from what you claim. The unconscious mind seems to have a lot more influence than we used to think. However, with consciousness... the science IS making current progress with much to test and attempt to understand. Of course its possible that science will eventually disprove evolution and germ theory and the Big Bang....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Stile writes:
You said that FULLY conscious decisions are possible. Show us where science is leading in that direction. I think conscious decisions are possible.I also think most decisions are unconscious. This seems to be exactly what the science is saying right now... and exactly where it is leading. So, which part is opposite to the direction I'm claiming? On the other hand, we have science showing us that what we thought was conscious has a lot of unconscious influences: Subliminal advertising. All advertising, for that matter. We don't decide fully consciously to buy the beer that promises us chicks in bikinis. Blondes are more likely to be acquitted by juries too. Polygraph. Your body betrays what your mind is really thinking. Body language in general. Can you decide fully consciously who you fall in love with? Can you choose fully consciously to believe in Zeus?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
And I thought you dropped it because the position was untenable.
I stopped using the FULLY because it is redundant and therefore unnecessary. Stile writes:
That's what I'm saying doesn't happen. As long as there are unconscious inputs, you can't claim to know "exactly" why you want something.
"Choosing to do something and knowing exactly why you want to." Stile writes:
I'm saying the opposite - that the UNconscious component isn't going to disappear completely.
This shift doesn't indicate that conscious decision are going to disappear completely. Stile writes:
Another bad analogy. Of course "fully land" areas DO NOT exist. They all have a water table. It's just that sometimes you're not conscious of it.
This idea by no means indicates that science will one day find that "FULLY land" areas do not exist... Stile writes:
Only if "fully" doesn't mean fully.
The science accepts that "FULLY conscious choices" (aka "conscious motivations") exist...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Riggamortis answered your question and I ran with the ball.
If anyone has any comment or explanation for the following question, please feel free to respond: Can (anyone) explain how me trying to help others is different from Jesus trying to help others?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Why does the Creator of all seen and unseen have to be perfect? When Henry created the first Ford it was the only Ford seen and unseen but was it perfect?
I'm talking about the Creator of all seen and unseen...the One whom you have no ability to correct or improve upon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Perfection itself is a product of the imagination. It doesn't exist in reality, does it?
well I suppose you could argue that the Creator does not *have* to be perfect, but the concept then becomes a creative imagination of your own mind.... Phat writes:
We also like our villains to be larger than life. What good is a hero without a villain to contrast him with? Which is why we have to make up a super-villain to match our super-hero. Which is how we get into the quagmire of who created what.
We like our deities to be larger than life. Perfection is, after all, a worthy goal and calling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
I think striving toward "perfection" definitely is a valid goal. The problem is in defining what "perfection" is. Striving to be a faster runner is easy enough - but how do you strive to make "better" use of your time and money, for example? How do you determine what is "better"?
Perhaps the question is whether perfection is a valid goal and ideal for us to strive towards...without fully understanding what it is. Phat writes:
How does trusting the Creator help YOU overcome your shortcomings? You'd have to trust that YOUR understanding of your shortcomings was reliable, whether that understanding came from the Creator or from your own head. What if failure to understand the Creator IS one of your shortcomings?
Trying to do your best every day is one method. Trusting that the Creator understands our shortcomings is another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Isn't that a bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse?
... as long as I am allowed to be a religious moderator here at this forum I will frame the paradigm and status flow in context to my own belief and authority. Phat writes:
Or maybe they seek the truth.
Critics may well say that the authors of John were redactors with an independent ulterior motive, but I will challenge that assertion even if it comes from reputed scholars. Reason being, they seek to discredit the inerrancy and authority of scripture. Phat writes:
So, Mr. Fox, you'll eat whomever you choose.
... who gave you your flipping authority to freely squawk out your propaganda at this forum? Certainly not I. Phat writes:
Bye.
And furthermore...to any others who wish to defend this right to reduce Faith & Belief to a relativistic position, fuck you too! I'll leave this forum in a heartbeat. Phat writes:
Well, you're going to get it, so you can either fasten your seatbelt or bail out. I don't need any shit from anyone here regarding the inerrancy and authority of scripture.Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Your "liberal" government? Give your head a shake. If our pagan liberal government ever allowed you people equal time with the genuine preachers, we would know that the end was near. And yes, your government, whatever its orientation, is REQUIRED by your Constitution to allow equal time. Otherwise you'd be forced to be a Puritan and you'd go to the ducking stool for smiling on Sunday.
Phat writes:
Would this be a good time to invest in barbed wire? At that point, I would be in favor of shutting all of us up publically...Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
Worst copout ever. The leprechauns want you to have faith in them. Bigfoot wants you to have faith in him. Did it ever occur to you that there may be a reason that there is no evidence that God Himself allowed happening for precisely the reason of testing the human heart?Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Phat writes:
The evidence for eternal suffering comes from the same source as the evidence for Jesus. You're cherry-picking to patch together your made-up God. We have no evidence that they suffer for eternity.Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
What does that have to do with what you quoted? ringo writes:
Ask the question of why it is important to me that you entertain the possibility? We can go down that rabbit trail if you want. You're cherry-picking to patch together your made-up God.Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I say they do, with the same authority that you say God does. Why is it okay to make that argument for God but not for other myths?
ringo writes:
And yet they don't. The leprechauns want you to have faith in them. Bigfoot wants you to have faith in him. Phat writes:
He isn't. Why is God as I understand Him any different? Edited by ringo, : Fixed quotes.Izquierdo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Is or isn't what? We disagree. I say He is. You say he isn't. I say - specifically - that your God being invisible because He wants us to have faith in Him is no different from leprechauns being invisible because they want us to have faith in them. If you think there is a difference, you have to tell us what it is.
Phat writes:
Of course not. I'm pointing out to anybody else who is interested why your beliefs make no sense.
Are you trying to convince me that He isn't? Phat writes:
Have I ever denied the "possibility" of your God?
I am attempting to show you the possibility that He is. Phat writes:
You might as well give up the claim that your God is different from a leprechaun. You're not fooling anybody.
Should I simply give up on this argument? Phat writes:
The real question is Why do you dismiss leprechauns and Bigfeet but accept a God which is no more likely? Yet ringo never seems to adopt an argument whereby he(you) suggest the possibility of God. Now, why is that?Izquierdo.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024