|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
He carries a "mark of the beast" - support of "gay" rights and the hideous scandal of same-sex "marriage". Christian hate apparently is wider spread than I thought. Is there anything human that you people don't hate? Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: And if you did you would be telling a falsehood. You really should stop repeating this misrepresentation.
quote: That is obviously not an explanation (unless you think that being “outside time” automatically makes a being intelligent, conscious and moral). Worse, it only creates more problems for your claims.
quote: Because you don’t care that it doesn’t work at all. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined:
|
This one is funny.
Dredge writes: Nope. He reflects the zeitgeist of modern capitalism. He loved taking the money for years and years. Reaganism and Thatchertism and all that. Thats the modern zeitgeist. Rake in undeserved money. His employer reflects the zeitgeist of Western civilization, which is cultural Marxism, and all the degenerate madness that goes with it. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
GDR writes:
That would be how I would define knowledge but Stile's definition seems to be slightly broader.
Do you agree that if we claim to "know" something then we are making the claim that we have objective knowledge in order to make that claim. GDR writes:
He seems to be counting lack of objective evidence as objective evidence. I think that's valid in this case. I'm not at all clear on what objective evidence that Stile has that you are referring to. Again, my only nitpick with Stile's position is that I'd say I'm "very confident" that God does not objectively exist (very small error bar), not I "know" that God does not objectively exist.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined:
|
Again, my only nitpick with Stile's position is that I'd say I'm "very confident" that God does not objectively exist (very small error bar), not I "know" that God does not objectively exist. I think Stile is using "know" in exactly the way that means "very confident". He's tried hard to make it clear that we can never *know* anything in the way that you used the word there but we pretty much *always* use it to mean very (or very, very, very) confident.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
nosyned writes: I think Stile is using "know" in exactly the way that means "very confident". He's tried hard to make it clear that we can never *know* anything in the way that you used the word there but we pretty much *always* use it to mean very (or very, very, very) confident. The problem he has is that if he thinks that we can't actually know anything absolutely then he can't say he's an atheist, because that's a binary position. There's no room for any doubt. Personally I think it's a 'beyond reasonable doubt position. The step to absolute certainty becomes a belief - although a reasonable one.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NosyNed writes:
I agree. I think Stile is using "know" in exactly the way that means "very confident". He's tried hard to make it clear that we can never *know* anything in the way that you used the word there but we pretty much *always* use it to mean very (or very, very, very) confident. I have explained at one time or another that I would only use "know" for something that I can demonstrate - e.g. I know how to bake a cake, and when I show you the evidence, you will agree that I know. I would particularly avoid using "know" in a constroversial example like this one. This is the perfect place to be explicit about our confidence level.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
What has believing in existence got to do with it? We could walk humbly with neutrinos before we knew they existed. We can walk humbly with leprechauns whether they exist or not.
Now explain how one can “walk humbly with thy God” if one doesn’t believe in God? Dredge writes:
Ask Micah. Then explain what this means:”without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists” (Hebrews 11:6). Ask Jesus. According to Him, the ones who inherit the kingdom are NOT the ones that mouth, "Lord! Lord!" They're the ones who do the right thing, whether they think they're doing it "for Jesus" or not.
Dredge writes:
And Jesus said that the commandments boil down to loving God and loving your neighbour as yourself. It is the will of God that people believe in Him and obey His commandments.... So, how do you go about loving God? Presumably, those who inherit the kingdom are those who love God - and those who inherit the kingdom are those who love their neighbours.
Dredge writes:
How is it different?
However, this is a different argument to the one you started with in message 659, which was that Christianity is “about what you do, not what you believe or what you profess.” Dredge writes:
It's what Jesus taught, as I have quoted. You can ridicule Him all you want and you can claim that He's easy to refute all you want. (Incidentally, you may well be the only person in history who has ever proposed such a ridiculous, easily-refuted theological argument. Congratulations.)All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: Do you agree that if we claim to "know" something then we are making the claim that we have objective knowledge in order to make that claim.ringo writes: We would agree that to for either of us to say we "know" that God doesn't exist would mean absolute knowledge. Using Stile's apparent definition I am pleased to announce that I "know" God does exist, but please, not in the way that Dredge defines Him. That would be how I would define knowledge but Stile's definition seems to be slightly broader.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: Good point, but I can say the same thing for materialists who believe that we are simply the result of natural processes, driven presumably by mindless chance. We have considerable objective evidence for the evolutionary process. As a materialist I have to believe that the evolutionary process resulted from some other process. Of course that process would have required a third process and then............to the Big Bang which in itself required a process.PaulK writes: So your response is simply to say I'm wrong but you aren't able to provide an explanation of what makes me wrong. And if you did you would be telling a falsehood. You really should stop repeating this misrepresentation.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 616 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
It's a C. S. Lewis sort of view. But as there's no evidence for it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Sarah Bellum writes: Fair enough. It is philosophical as was much of what Lewis believed. It's a C. S. Lewis sort of view. But as there's no evidence for it...He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It should be obvious. You don’t get to invent your opponent’s position. Indeed, believing that human morality, intelligence and consciousness can be attribute to a cause which shares none of those properties does not invite an infinite regress. Insisting that the cause must also share those properties does. And that, too, would be obvious if you cared to consider why the suggestion of an infinite regress came up. And I for one do not believe in an infinite regress. Funny how you fail to address the more important point. How do you account for the morality, intelligence and consciousness of your hypothetical creator? Calling it timeless doesn’t do that. At all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes:
If it is obvious then tell me. What is the non-intelligent process that began the evolutionary process? Just give me one process without me even asking where that process came from.
It should be obvious. You don’t get to invent your opponent’s position. Indeed, believing that human morality, intelligence and consciousness can be attribute to a cause which shares none of those properties does not invite an infinite regress. Insisting that the cause must also share those properties does. And that, too, would be obvious if you cared to consider why the suggestion of an infinite regress came up. PaulK writes: I don't claim to be able to. A timeless deity was not about answering that question and of course doesn't explain it at all. It is faith. As Bob Dylan said, "you gotta serve somebody". Funny how you fail to address the more important point. How do you account for the morality, intelligence and consciousness of your hypothetical creator? Calling it timeless doesn’t do that. At all.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Interesting that you should ask a question which doesn’t touch on the reasons why the points are obvious - and one I’ve already answered in this thread. But to explain why the points are obvious. Inventing positions for your opponents is less than honest and does nothing to refute their actual positions. Attributing human morality to a moral creator begs the question of where that creator got it’s morality from. Without any hint of an answer to that - indeed with the implicit rejection of other causes - a moral creator is the obvious answer. Thus you invite an infinite regress. Attributing human morality to causes that are not themselves moral obviously does not beg the question. The regress doesn’t even get started.
quote: What you ask doesn’t matter. You can’t force me into believing an infinite regress just by asking questions. And I don’t even need to evade the questions the way you do. So, I’ll suggest this. The process that formed our universe is a consequence of the existence of space-time.
quote: That isn’t what you said in Message 897:
My subjective explanation for a creative intelligence is that this creative intelligence is outside of time as we perceive it.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024