Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8963 total)
86 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Pressie (2 members, 84 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Happy Birthday: CosmicChimp
Post Volume: Total: 870,986 Year: 2,734/23,288 Month: 925/1,809 Week: 44/313 Day: 44/33 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
ringo
Member
Posts: 17919
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2461 of 2469 (870061)
01-11-2020 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 2454 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 10:33 PM


Re: Protestant is Evil
Sarah Bellum writes:

For example, one may rely on the advice of a friend who has a reputation of good judgment and make a wrong choice (rational, but wrong)...


That's not a good example. It relies on a "wrong decision", which is subjective. I'm saying that a thought process can be rational but still be objectively wrong. For example, geocentrism is rational but wrong, phlogiston is rational but wrong, etc.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2454 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 10:33 PM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17919
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2462 of 2469 (870062)
01-11-2020 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 2455 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 10:45 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:

Yes, just as sentences can be true or false one concept may be illogical while a different concept may be logical.


But you have to have a reason for deciding something is illogical - i.e. your conclusion has to be rational.

Why do you refuse to give us your reasons? Just give us a list of logical errors in the concept of gods.

Unless you have concrete reasons (specific errors), your conclusion is irrational.


"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2455 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 10:45 PM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17919
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 2463 of 2469 (870063)
01-11-2020 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 2456 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 10:53 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:

Logic that has gaps has flaws, does it not?


Then for fuck's sake tell us what the flaws are.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2456 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 10:53 PM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17919
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 2464 of 2469 (870065)
01-11-2020 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 2457 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 11:01 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:

To say that, despite the evidence it's not solar radiation and the Coriolis effect but Poseidon who brings the great storms, is not logical.


We have not been talking about "despite the evidence" at all. But evidence has nothing to do with it anyway. Logic does not require evidence.

There is no evidence that James Bond exists but the idea of James Bond is not illogical. There is no evidence that Holden Caulfield exists but the idea of Holden Caulfield is not illogical. There is no evidence that Tom Joad exists but the idea of Tom Joad is not illogical. There is no evidence that Long John Silver exists but the idea of Long John Silver is not illogical. There is no evidence that Lemuel Gulliver exists but the idea of Lemuel Gulliver is not illogical. There is no evidence that Jesus exists but the idea of Jesus is not illogical.

There is no evidence that God exists but the idea of God is not illogical.


"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2457 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 11:01 PM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17919
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 2465 of 2469 (870067)
01-11-2020 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 2458 by Sarah Bellum
01-10-2020 11:09 PM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah Bellum writes:

But not following up, simply leaving it at "there can be sound reasoning behind the concept of deities" without giving us some whys is leaving the answer incomplete (ducking).


You're the one making the claim that the concept of deities is illogical. i am simply challenging your claim. I am in no way obligated to prove that you are wrong. You are the one who is obligated to back up your claim.

"I'm Fallen and I can't get up!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2458 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-10-2020 11:09 PM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7337
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 2466 of 2469 (870071)
01-11-2020 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 2460 by Sarah Bellum
01-11-2020 7:56 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
SB writes:

But the point is that the arguments aren't rational

You have yet to demonstrate that, simply saying that they aren,t rational doesn't make them so.

they are all pure wish-fulfillment or a vague sort of "How could all this wondrous etc. etc. etc. without a designer?" It's emotional, not logical.

You're calling some of the greatest philosophers of all time irrational; that isn't rational.

Of course many of the arguments *are* rational, they just happen to be wrong. In my opinion.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2460 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 7:56 AM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 34693
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 2467 of 2469 (870155)
01-13-2020 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 2460 by Sarah Bellum
01-11-2020 7:56 AM


Re: No evidence = irrational
Sarah B writes:

Tangle writes:

But the existence of rational arguments for something doesn't make that something true

But the point is that the arguments aren't rational, they are all pure wish-fulfillment or a vague sort of "How could all this wondrous etc. etc. etc. without a designer?" It's emotional, not logical.

Are you talking about actual real arguments here or what? I really don't know what you're talking about although maybe I just haven't been following the thread well enough. In my own case I wasn't argued into belief, I came to understand that I had to believe what witnesses told us about phenomena that could only be attributed to a universal intelligence or personal God. I wasn't inclined to dismiss witness evidence out of hand as so many are, however, simply because I myself never experienced what they claimed to experience. Of course I expected it would need to be put to a test but I don't think of people as that crazy or stupid that they just go around making stuff up although so many here seem to think that about their fellow human beings.

Is believing what people tell you about what they claim to have experienced irrational? Perhaps so, I'd need to think about it more, but we arrive at many of our convictions by irrational processes. Not everything can be substantiated rationally or scientifically.

Witnesses to miracles are reported abundantly in both the Old and New Testaments, all kinds of miracles including people brought back to life through faith in the Creator God who made us all. If I hadn't believed in the credibility of those witnesses I guess I couldn't have become a Christian, and if you just dismiss it all as delusional you cut yourself off from that belief. is this argument? There is certainly great wondrousness to someone who has always thought only in terms of this physical universe as all there is and all there ever will be; and there may certainly be an element of wish fulfillment involved, but you might keep in mind that giving up sin is required of us and that is not easy and a lot of us fail at it many times. It costs to be a believer in other words. Not like "going to heaven on beds of flowery ease" as it's been put, but giving up some things that in some cases may cost us a lot of happiness. I lost many friends. It's hard to lose friends. I know Christians who went back to marriages they'd ended by divorce, understanding that God hates divorce. I know people who confessed to crimes and took punishment for them, certainly made restitution where possible. Not the simple thing you seem to be imagining.

But anyway....

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2460 by Sarah Bellum, posted 01-11-2020 7:56 AM Sarah Bellum has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 13695
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 2468 of 2469 (871857)
02-13-2020 4:44 PM


Tangles Logic & Phats Dogma
Resuming this discussion from a Bible Study Topic:
If God did turn out to exist, you would likely pay Him far more respect than most Christians now do.
Tangle writes:

Not if he's the evil bastard in your book I wouldn't.

Here is how I would explain your statement using my own "preachy" dogma.

There are 3 levels concerning God and a given human.
You all would add a 4th question: Which God are we talking about?

I always move past that one because in my mind it is silly. God is God...either He exists or He does not, but He most definitely is not a relativistic individuated subjective concept.

To clarify, however, we can talk of the God I market.

There are 3 basic levels in a relationship.
1) Knowing about someone. Take the late Kobe Bryant. None of us have met the man. All that we have to go on is what we saw of him through videos, live games, recorded interviews, and journalism stories. Thus we knew about Kobe.
2) Meeting Someone. This would be the day you got an autograph from him and he may have even spent a minute shooting a hoop or two with you. You caught a glimpse of his humanity one on one. This is what believers claim happens when they get born again. Critics say it is exclusivist, fantasy-driven, and unevidenced. So be it. We believe we have met the Creator of all seen and unseen through his human Character of Jesus Christ Who we believe is alive eternally and knowable in the present through the comforter known as The Holy Spirit. We believe that when people become aware of this presence they have essentially "met God."

Level 3 is internalizing the Holy Communion and decreasing (your own ego and selfishness) while allowing the Holy Spirit to increase within you.

Many skeptics get as far as level two and conclude that logic and evidence dictate no way to "meet" God...either as Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. Im not blaming or criticizing you for this. it is how you are wired.

My point is this: You claim that the only reference we have is in the book. Thus I cannot explain to you the idea that God is before the book, interpreted by humans during the times of the book until the present, and eternally present to the limits of the future.

Thus when you say [qs]

Tangle writes:

Not if he's the evil bastard in your book I wouldn't.

I don't limit Him to what was written by humans. You obviously will again call it a made up belief.

“The only way I know to drive out evil from the country is by the constructive method of filling it with good.”Calvin Coolidge
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
“As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.”-RC Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

- You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.
Anne Lamott
Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it.~Andre Gide

Replies to this message:
 Message 2469 by Tangle, posted 02-13-2020 5:32 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7337
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 2469 of 2469 (871860)
02-13-2020 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 2468 by Phat
02-13-2020 4:44 PM


Re: Tangles Logic & Phats Dogma
Phat writes:

He most definitely is not a relativistic individuated subjective concept.

To coin a phrase “what does that even mean?” Anything at all?

Meeting Someone. This would be the day you got an autograph from him and he may have even spent a minute shooting a hoop or two with you. You caught a glimpse of his humanity one on one. This is what believers claim happens when they get born again. Critics say it is exclusivist, fantasy-driven, and unevidenced. So be it. We believe we have met the Creator of all seen and unseen through his human Character of Jesus Christ Who we believe is alive eternally and knowable in the present through the comforter known as The Holy Spirit. We believe that when people become aware of this presence they have essentially "met God."

And we say you're deluded.

Level 3 is internalizing the Holy Communion and decreasing (your own ego and selfishness) while allowing the Holy Spirit to increase within you.

Which is total gibberish. Words without meaning. Typical preacherish tosh. You thrive on this kind of ridiculous verbiage. I reckon it's to avoid thinking.

You obviously will again call it a made up belief.

From now on I think I'll call it “ a relativistic individuated subjective concept.”


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2468 by Phat, posted 02-13-2020 4:44 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020