Atheist vs. Religious

[SpecterGT260]

Do you guys remember the movie black sheep with Chris fairley? That part where he is at the rally with all the Jamaican dudes and is getting them all riled up by saying a bunch of popular things? Then loses them entirely when he says "kill whitey!"... its kinda like that. Attack the practice all you want. And obviously we are all free to believe whatever we want. But to conclude "because Christian A is wrong about B, god cannot exist" is terrifyingly illogical. That's my only point. Without such statements these threads start to sound like the RNC/DNC. Whole bunch of hootin and hollering with nobody actually sure what they are saying

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[sibitrum]

How am i putting words in your mouth? I believe I stated this as true explicitly a few times in here. So who is putting words where now? no, there is no direct evidence for the existence of a god. I didn't claim there was. P.s. religious people do not like to do this. They like to stick like crazy glue to their mantras and criticize you for not having faith. I'm not doing that. Rather, you are just arbitrarily attacking a statement you don't like. Butthurt people like to do this all the time because it ignores the glaring invisible unicorn in the room: they have no rebuttal


So..... On what greater authority do you ask me to make an argument for the existence of god? Just because you know it can't be done and you wanna see the tides turn here? No thanks. I'm under no obligation to do such things, nor does an inability to provide what you ask for at all undermine my previous statements.

If you think this is a target I will go back and quote the 40 some odd replies which relate to this topic. Unless, by tangent you mean you just wanna get back to a good ol fashioned god bashin hootenanny. But from where I sit the conversation has been about the possible existence of a god many statements have been made which are not logically sound. You only need to defend a statement if you make it, unless someone wants to be as guilty as the religious nuts they scorn

I think your inability to make a positive argument for the existence of god speaks volumes about your position. Not much more needs to be said honestly.

 

[SpecterGT260]

I think your inability to make a positive argument for the existence of god speaks volumes about your position. Not much more needs to be said honestly.

You're more than welcome to think that

But of course that logic is unidirectional right? The inability to make an argument against doesn't get to speak volumes right? this is what I am talking about.... neither argument means anything yet while thiests throw blind faith on their banner atheists like to throw this fallacy on theirs.... as if it makes them somehow different.

Its pseudo intellectualism which is blind to its own biases.

You keep coming at me with a "well prove the opposite true then! " and I would... if I gave half a **** about that argument (and you know... there is that whole impossibility thing). No, for now it is sufficient to criticize the fallacious arguments on the atheistic side.

After all, one of their favorite attacks focuses on adherence and cherry picking when it comes to the religious. Yet those making the arguments are proposing irrational and fallacious arguments. Honestly, do you not see the irony there? The inappropriate extensions like the one kprew made above are exactly the same as the logical errors they attempt to point out in the first place. Its silly

 

[SpecterGT260]

I think your inability to make a positive argument for the existence of god speaks volumes about your position. Not much more needs to be said honestly.

Tell me, what is my position again? Do you even know or do you just assume that because I am calling out absurdities in the atheists logic that I give myself away?


The ironic thing (one of many) is that you are now simply dismissing my statements based on an irrelevancy so as not to have your views further challenged. Sounds like a church goer to me!

 

[Stacker]

I think your inability to make a positive argument for the existence of god speaks volumes about your position. Not much more needs to be said honestly.

I'm an agnostic but I've been told C.S. Lewis provides a logician's perspective of his view of God's existence. You could give me a thousand arguments of why God might not exist but you could never prove to me God's absence/existence or the FSM's absence/existence. You could always weigh the arguments of both sides and determine your position but you'll always end up with Pascal's Wager and remain just as clueless as anyone else.

http://www.ministrymaker.com/c-s-lewis-moral-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

Granted, this is a controversial moral origin argument.

"Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for Kryptonite [with the possibility of satiable satisfaction and happiness] on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you."

 

[sibitrum]

"Pascal's wager: Believing in and searching for Kryptonite [with the possibility of satiable satisfaction and happiness] on the off chance that Superman exists and wants to kill you."

Pascal's wager is not a convincing argument to believe in a given god. 1) It is a very small probability that you pick the true god, given that a god exists, 2) a god might punish you for believing in the wrong god, 3) what you think is a god might be a "devil".

 

[Stacker]

Pascal's wager is not a convincing argument to believe in a given god. 1) It is a very small probability that you pick the true god, given that a god exists, 2) a god might punish you for believing in the wrong god, 3) what you think is a god might be a "devil".

Exactly. I could be by myself at a lake and yell out, "I bet Bill Gates a billion dollars that I I can skip this rock four times across the lake." But this bet is baseless without Bill Gates actually being there and accepting my wager. Pascal's wager assumes that only Christianity is the true religion and that if God exists, whatever the Bible says is true.
Pascal's Wager focuses on the outcome rather than the premises to determine a decision. Since some agnostics, including myself, can't be convinced by any premise, we resort to determining which decision's outcome is most advantageous. Some people are very content and happy with their lives as a result of becoming born-again Christians (or other religion) and others are happy, albeit sometimes insatiably, with their materialistic value system and put their faith solely on human society.

 

[RandomChampion]

To those in this question who question the Abrahamic religions, you should look into Sanatana Dharma.

http://veda.wikidot.com/sanatana-dharma
http://www.swamij.com/sanatana-dharma-what-is.htm
http://chippit.tripod.com/vedas.html

It is the pure and original form of what is today called Hinduism. The whole basis of Sanatana Dharma is (rational) Truth, nothing more and nothing less

 

[Stacker]

To those in this question who question the Abrahamic religions, you should look into Sanatana Dharma.

http://veda.wikidot.com/sanatana-dharma
http://www.swamij.com/sanatana-dharma-what-is.htm
http://chippit.tripod.com/vedas.html

It is the pure and original form of what is today called Hinduism. The whole basis of Sanatana Dharma is (rational) Truth, nothing more and nothing less

 

[Noyoudinit]

Who cares about god, hes not doing shi.t

 

[SpecterGT260]

Who cares about god, hes not doing shi.t

Well there is no refuting that logic....
welcome to SDN

 

[Lokhtar]

Nope. The universe is complex and we aren't sure how it began (it may not have had a beginning, because time as a physical property of the universe may not have existed due to the incredible densities -- but we won't know for sure until we have a TOE). But ignoring that, if in order to answer the question of the origin of the universe, you are positing an entity which is by definition more complex than the universe itself, you are merely doubling the size of the initial problem.

Simply naming that entity a certain word in order to evade having to explain its origin does not yield a satisfactory answer as far as I'm concerned because such a strategy could be applied to the universe itself, thereby removing the need for a separate entity in the first place.

 

[LaCasta]

Nope. The universe is complex and we aren't sure how it began (it may not have had a beginning, because time as a physical property of the universe may not have existed due to the incredible densities -- but we won't know for sure until we have a TOE). But ignoring that, if in order to answer the question of the origin of the universe, you are positing an entity which is by definition more complex than the universe itself, you are merely doubling the size of the initial problem.

Simply naming that entity a certain word in order to evade having to explain its origin does not yield a satisfactory answer as far as I'm concerned because such a strategy could be applied to the universe itself, thereby removing the need for a separate entity in the first place.

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)." -Alexander Vilenkin (a leading, atheist cosmologist)


If anyone is interested in an Islamic perspective on this topic, this guy does a good job of describing the rational, Islamic foundations for belief in the existence of God; he is a greek convert to Islam:

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/

The Quranic argument for God's existence:

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays...logy/the-quranic-argument-for-gods-existence/

Here is a debate of his with Dan Barker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rOn4vYwa0w&feature=player_embedded

 

[CuttingCorneas]

I highly recommend this book, if you're looking for a scientific perspective on religion. Buy it, read it. It's amazing.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Part-Brain-Interpretation-Spirituality/dp/1402214529/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1350517124&sr=1-1&keywords=the+god+part+of+the+brain

 

[Seahawk]

Well here is the MD of all MD's (director of the human genome project and director of national institutes of health) giving his opinion.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGu_VtbpWhE&feature=plcp[/YOUTUBE]




Craig is also worth watching if you are interested in this kind of thing:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R7b-xrCxyc&list=UUWyWFV9K5Ei0jiTttfnDpXQ&index=22&feature=plpp_video[/YOUTUBE]

Links to rest of the talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqEnCnRvBXI&feature=channel&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWjqHk0wF1g&feature=channel&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyiDRoqGh1I&feature=channel&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3k7ABMY74Y&feature=channel&list=UL

 

[sibitrum]

Well here is the MD of all MD's (director of the human genome project and director of national institutes of health) giving his opinion.

Francis Collins on how he decided to convert:

"I was hiking in the Cascade Mountains on a beautiful fall afternoon. I turned the corner and saw in front of me this frozen waterfall, a couple of hundred feet high. Actually, a waterfall that had three parts to it — also the symbolic three in one. At that moment, I felt my resistance leave me. And it was a great sense of relief. The next morning, in the dewy grass in the shadow of the Cascades, I fell on my knees and accepted this truth — that God is God, that Christ is his son and that I am giving my life to that belief. "

Brb, gonna go visit a waterfall.

 

[Seahawk]

I think it's quite obvious he didn't convert because he saw a waterfall.

 

[DrSnips]

I think it's quite obvious he didn't convert because he saw a waterfall.

It wasn't just any waterfall, it was a highly symbolic waterfall.

The waterfall had 3 parts, representing the Christian trinity. If the waterfall had only 1 part, it would have represented the one true god. With 2 parts, it would have represented the duality of Christ as both human and divine.

The waterfall was frozen, showing it represents the cold, hard truth. If the waterfall were warm it would show the warmth in God's heart for all of us.

Hopefully you won't so readily dismiss the importance of waterfall symbolism in the future.

 

[SpecterGT260]

It wasn't just any waterfall, it was a highly symbolic waterfall.

The waterfall had 3 parts, representing the Christian trinity. If the waterfall had only 1 part, it would have represented the one true god. With 2 parts, it would have represented the duality of Christ as both human and divine.

The waterfall was frozen, showing it represents the cold, hard truth. If the waterfall were warm it would show the warmth in God's heart for all of us.

Hopefully you won't so readily dismiss the importance of waterfall symbolism in the future.

Or a tree being the symbolic tree of Eden in the absence of a waterfall

 

[Lokhtar]

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176)." -Alexander Vilenkin (a leading, atheist cosmologist)

You didn't read the rest of my post. If the universe had a beginning, it doesn't change anything. In fact, the argument I presented as to why God is unlikely was based on the idea that the universe had a beginning.

And I'd like to see this 'proof' - it doesn't exist. I am not sure what he was referring to, but I do know physics and it's a pretty basic well known fact that our understanding of the universe falls apart at 1x10^-41 seconds "after" the Big Bang. Therefore it is impossible for anyone to claim anything prior to that - the densities are too high and so our equations no longer work (you end up dividing by zero because you're effectively trying to squeeze a lot of mass in a volume of zero - density = mass/volume, if volume is zero, the equation doesn't make sense). That's why we are trying to find the theory of everything - to help us work out how to deal with those densities.

Maybe he was referring to something else - could you be more specific?

 

[munchymanRX]

Agnostic here. Simply for the reason that I don't believe the existence of god (can anyone even define in concrete terms what god is?) will ever be refutable or defensible from a scientific standpoint.

Any discussion on the matter is going to enter the realm of philosophy and metaphysics. I'm perfectly happy living my life unsure. If I'm thrown in front of a celestial IRB someday to examine my life, I'm hoping to have many decades of service to patients and a healthy family life behind me. Any god that would marginalize the actions and events in someone's life over a question of the 'correct' faith isn't a god worth believing in, in my opinion.

And, if I end up decaying in the ground and there turns out to be no hereafter (which there probably isn't), I'm not really in a position to complain because in the wise words of Jim Jeffries, "I'll be ****in' dead".

 

[KinasePro]

This 8 minute video is pretty fitting for this thread and articulates the core of the ongoing debate. Whether you agree or disagree with this priest, this is the conversation worth having. The "sky unicorn spaghetti monster" and "empirical proof or GTFO" debates aren't really worth our time.

[YOUTUBE]3ZkHv8iTJPo[/YOUTUBE]

 

[peteB]

My point is that we actually use "faith" everyday in our assessment of the world around us, and empirical proof cannot be the only yardstick for how we evaluate "truth." For example, I believe you have a mind and are not a figment of my imagination or some automata, but I can't prove it.

How else would we evaluate truth? How can we say that certain things are true and other things aren't?

I think what you're saying is valid- which means that there is no way to really assure that anything, including religion and science, is "truth".

On a side note, I find it interesting that there are many people out there who are extremely skeptical about everything, including things they can see and verify with their own eyes, but when it comes to a God they've never seen, they are 100% confident.

 

[KinasePro]

How else would we evaluate truth? How can we say that certain things are true and other things aren't?

I think what you're saying is valid- which means that there is no way to really assure that anything, including religion and science, is "truth".

Agreed 100%. I think this is the core existential crisis that we face as humans. We can never be sure, and I think it's important to remember this to keep science from being elevated to a weird neo-religion.

That being said, I empathize with the argument that we can only work with what we have (i.e. the 5 senses and logical constructs). I understand when someone rejects the idea of God, and in the case of someone like Christopher Hitchens, I can respect and admire other ideas of truth. But after serious reflection, it seems reasonable to me that we have natural tendencies that point us toward a higher meaning, truth, goodness, etc..., and I think this can be better understood through the world religions and, in particular, the history of western philosophy.

 

[Lokhtar]

This 8 minute video is pretty fitting for this thread and articulates the core of the ongoing debate. Whether you agree or disagree with this priest, this is the conversation worth having. The "sky unicorn spaghetti monster" and "empirical proof or GTFO" debates aren't really worth our time.

[YOUTUBE]3ZkHv8iTJPo[/YOUTUBE]

I stopped listening at 'the sciences will never be able to understand the meaning of a book.'

 

[KinasePro]

I stopped listening at 'the sciences will never be able to understand the meaning of a book.'

Then you missed the majority of the argument. Can't say I agree with your approach to entertaining opposing beliefs, but to each his/her own.

 

[peteB]

I stopped listening at 'the sciences will never be able to understand the meaning of a book.'

I agree with the priest on some of his points. Science may not ever have the right tools or approach to discover God. But that doesn't mean that God definitely exists, or that God is the Christian God as opposed to any other God, which the priest is implying.

We do not know that what the priest said about science will always hold, though. We are already seeing computers which are able to read passages and determine their emotional value, much like a human does. The scientists designing these things are unlocking the algorithms that human brain uses. With time, technology like this will probably get very advanced and it is too premature to say that science will never be able to understand the meaning of a book. I don't agree with anyone who says with certainty that science and technology will never be able to do something, because there is no way you can predict the future. Anything can happen.

 

[KinasePro]

we do not know that what the priest said about science will always hold, though. We are already seeing computers which are able to read passages and determine their emotional value, much like a human does. The scientists designing these things are unlocking the algorithms that human brain uses. With time, technology like this will probably get very advanced and it is too premature to say that science will never be able to understand the meaning of a book. I don't agree with anyone who says with certainty that science and technology will never be able to do something, because there is no way you can predict the future. Anything can happen.

I agree with your comments about science, we can't say how far it will go. But even when we map the human brain and understand the basis of cognition, which will likely happen eventually, there's still this issue of potentiality. Why are things one way and not the other? Nihilistic and theistic views are the two possible explanations, I can't think of any other explanations off the top of my head.

 

[peteB]

But after serious reflection, it seems reasonable to me that we have natural tendencies that point us toward a higher meaning, truth, goodness, etc..., and I think this can be better understood through the world religions and, in particular, the history of western philosophy.

Yes, I agree with you, but we should also keep in mind that just because an explanation makes sense doesn't mean that it is true. We should always have healthy skepticism.

What bothers me about many world religions is that they force people to accept and trust every bit of their religion 100%. Any sort of doubt or questioning is punished, often harshly. I don't think that is right. What I like about science is that questioning and doubt is encouraged. Truth will remain truth whether you question it or not, and if you do question it, you may just find that the answer is that you were right all along, and that will only improve your belief. So why are religions so against questioning?

I find it hard to believe that a God we describe as caring and loving would put us in a situation where it is impossible or at least incredibly difficult for a human being to know the truth, and then punish us for not knowing it. We don't even have enough time in our lives to fully understand all the religions, so how can we possibly be sure we have chosen the right one?

 

[peteB]

I agree with your comments about science, we can't say how far it will go. But even when we map the human brain and understand the basis of cognition, which will likely happen eventually, there's still this issue of potentiality. Why are things one way and not the other? Nihilistic and theistic views are the two possible explanations, I can't think of any other explanations off the top of my head.

Yes, nihilistic and theistic explanations are both possible answers. However, it is also possible that the answer is something so complex that it is outside the limits of the human brain's capabilities. What do we do then?

 

[KinasePro]

Yes, nihilistic and theistic explanations are both possible answers. However, it is also possible that the answer is something so complex that it is outside the limits of the human brain's capabilities. What do we do then?

Great question, and I definitely don't have an entirely comfortable answer. I'd put my money on the answer being far more complicated than something we can readily comprehend, but to me, that's actually a pretty good description of God, as well.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Great question, and I definitely don't have an entirely comfortable answer. I'd put my money on the answer being far more complicated than something we can readily comprehend, but to me, that's actually a pretty good description of God, as well.

The nihilistic view says that all meaning is intrinsic to he who derives it in the first place so something beyond our comprehension is by definition meaningless

 

[KinasePro]

The nihilistic view says that all meaning is intrinsic to he who derives it in the first place so something beyond our comprehension is by definition meaningless

But the nihilistic view presupposes that there is no greater meaning beyond self derived meaning. We can postulate that there is a greater objective meaning that we cannot fully appreciate now, and we are then no longer within the nihilistic definition.

 

[SpecterGT260]

But the nihilistic view presupposes that there is no greater meaning beyond self derived meaning. We can postulate that there is a greater objective meaning that we cannot fully appreciate now, and we are then no longer within the nihilistic definition.

Sure we are. Every bit as much as we are within the theistic

 

[KinasePro]

Sure we are. Every bit as much as we are within the theistic

How so? Meaning is not self-derived in this idea, there is a single objective benchmark that dictates truth. The challenge is how to access this truth.

Nihilism says there is no meaning, period. You derive your own purpose, ideas of right & wrong, etc... But those preferences & opinions are objectively meaningless in nihilism.

 

[peteB]

Great question, and I definitely don't have an entirely comfortable answer. I'd put my money on the answer being far more complicated than something we can readily comprehend, but to me, that's actually a pretty good description of God, as well.

I agree with you, I believe that the answer is much more complicated than we can understand. That could very well be "God" of some sort. However, I find that the descriptions of God in most major religions are just too simplistic for me. The Gods in these religions are often portrayed as very human-like and think and act in ways humans do. The stories are just too simple and are usually limited to the knowledge and experiences humans had in the time they were written.

I might be wrong, but I feel like there is a lot more to the creator/creation of the Universe than what the religious scriptures I've read tell me. The universe is just too complicated to be explained that simply. Is there truth to those scriptures? Maybe, but I feel like we are missing a huge part of the story.

 

[Lokhtar]

Great question, and I definitely don't have an entirely comfortable answer. I'd put my money on the answer being far more complicated than something we can readily comprehend, but to me, that's actually a pretty good description of God, as well.

You can't hypothesize an entity with without any properties and have it be a good description of anything. It's not a description at all, that's just using the word God to describe a question mark.

 

[KinasePro]

You can't hypothesize an entity with without any properties and have it be a good description of anything. It's not a description at all, that's just using the word God to describe a question mark.

Well, specific beliefs about the nature of God are difficult to discuss unless all parties can agree to the possibility of God... But if we're talking about my faith, I'd say God isn't meant to be an entity w/ properties that describes things. Christianity teaches that God is existence, sometimes referred to as "I am." It's basically panentheism, and God's nature is admittedly mysterious.

But anyway, I'm not in this thread to try to convince anyone of anything or to say that I personally know truth, etc... My main point was to argue that this ol' conflict is worth considering beyond the level of "science or GTFO."

 

[Akali]

...


But after serious reflection, it seems reasonable to me that we have natural tendencies that point us toward a higher meaning, truth, goodness, etc..., ...

I wouldn't call the systemic indoctrination of children from their birth on by churches, their religious family members, and other religious institutions and people as all that "natural".

I would more likely call it "insane child mind-raping".

 

[Akali]

Well, specific beliefs about the nature of God are difficult to discuss unless all parties can agree to the possibility of God... But if we're talking about my faith, I'd say God isn't meant to be an entity w/ properties that describes things. Christianity teaches that God is existence, sometimes referred to as "I am." It's basically panentheism, and God's nature is admittedly mysterious.

But anyway, I'm not in this thread to try to convince anyone of anything or to say that I personally know truth, etc... My main point was to argue that this ol' conflict is worth considering beyond the level of "science or GTFO."

How about "logical reasoning or GTFO"? That's what it really is. The Christian god also commands and teaches a bunch of other things like that women must marry their rapists, people who cheat be killed, people have have ever had homosexual intercourse be killed, and that owning fellow human beings as slaves is completely fine.

 

[SpecterGT260]

How so? Meaning is not self-derived in this idea, there is a single objective benchmark that dictates truth. The challenge is how to access this truth.

Nihilism says there is no meaning, period. You derive your own purpose, ideas of right & wrong, etc... But those preferences & opinions are objectively meaningless in nihilism.

Because by definition meaning is what you make it in this perspective

 

[KinasePro]

How about "logical reasoning or GTFO"? That's what it really is. The Christian god also commands and teaches a bunch of other things like that women must marry their rapists, people who cheat be killed, people have have ever had homosexual intercourse be killed, and that owning fellow human beings as slaves is completely fine.

Christianity doesn't actually teach any of this. Have you read this thread?

Logic alone is as simplistic as science alone and still has the problems of solipsism and potentiality.

Because by definition meaning is what you make it in this perspective

This isn't true at all if there is an objective reality & truth, which nihilism rejects.

 

[SpecterGT260]

Christianity doesn't actually teach any of this. Have you read this thread?

Logic alone is as simplistic as science alone and still has the problems of solipsism and potentiality.



This isn't true at all if there is an objective reality & truth, which nihilism rejects.

Right. That's why I prefaced with "the nihilistic view says...."

If meaning is internally derived, a higher source of meaning or order wouldn't apply to those below as they wouldn't simply be subject to this set of rules. If there is a grander order of things beyond our comprehension, per the nihilistic view, because it is beyond our comprehension it is by definition also meaningless. Nihilism doesn't reject the personal truths that personal meanings convey. Such a higher order would only have meaning to those which can understand it. After all, even if it exists, what does it mean if we go through our lives never impacted by knowledge of it? It just depends on where you draw the line on what meaning means

 

[KinasePro]

Right. That's why I prefaced with "the nihilistic view says...."

If meaning is internally derived, a higher source of meaning or order wouldn't apply to those below as they wouldn't simply be subject to this set of rules. If there is a grander order of things beyond our comprehension, per the nihilistic view, because it is beyond our comprehension it is by definition also meaningless.

I'm only countering the idea in bold IF it's being applied to theism, which is what I thought you were doing.

Sure we are. Every bit as much as we are within the theistic

 

[SpecterGT260]

I'm only countering the idea in bold IF it's being applied to theism, which is what I thought you were doing.

I was just referencing your earlier reply stating that this 3rd alternative of something beyond our understanding is in line with theism. It is. It is also not outside of nihilism either though.

 

[Lokhtar]

Well, specific beliefs about the nature of God are difficult to discuss unless all parties can agree to the possibility of God... But if we're talking about my faith, I'd say God isn't meant to be an entity w/ properties that describes things. Christianity teaches that God is existence, sometimes referred to as "I am." It's basically panentheism, and God's nature is admittedly mysterious.

But anyway, I'm not in this thread to try to convince anyone of anything or to say that I personally know truth, etc... My main point was to argue that this ol' conflict is worth considering beyond the level of "science or GTFO."

How can we consider it at any level at all if you can't/won't define the entity you are talking about? Isn't that a prerequisite if we are going to talk about it?

It's like having a curtain and without telling someone whats behind it, asking them what their opinion is of it. That's not a way to have a discussion.

 

[peteB]

How can we consider it at any level at all if you can't/won't define the entity you are talking about? Isn't that a prerequisite if we are going to talk about it?

It's like having a curtain and without telling someone whats behind it, asking them what their opinion is of it. That's not a way to have a discussion.

That's the thing about the notion of God in a lot of religions. You just take it or leave it.

 

[KinasePro]

How can we consider it at any level at all if you can't/won't define the entity you are talking about? Isn't that a prerequisite if we are going to talk about it?

It's like having a curtain and without telling someone whats behind it, asking them what their opinion is of it. That's not a way to have a discussion.

We first need to agree that there can possibly be something behind that curtain before we even bother to describe what that is. Put another way, whether something exists or not is not dependent on satisfactory descriptions of that thing. How we perceive what's behind the curtain is irrelevant to whether or not it exists.

If we can agree that something is likely behind the curtain, then its worth discussing what that might be. But if we can't even get beyond the first premise, then we're wasting keystrokes, and all descriptions of the item will seem unsatisfactory.

 

[peteB]

We first need to agree that there can possibly be something behind that curtain before we even bother to describe what that is. Put another way, whether something exists or not is not dependent on satisfactory descriptions of that thing. How we perceive what's behind the curtain is irrelevant to whether or not it exists.

If we can agree that something is likely behind the curtain, then its worth discussing what that might be. But if we can't even get beyond the first premise, then we're wasting keystrokes, and all descriptions of the item will seem unsatisfactory.

Isn't our ability to compute the likelihood of something being behind the curtain dependent on what we think that thing is? I mean, if you said there's air behind the curtain, the likelihood of that would be 100%. If you said you're behind the curtain, the likelihood is 0% given that you're standing in front of me. If you said a person we know to be in the area but isn't directly in front of us is behind the curtain, the probability lies somewhere in between. So we need to be able to describe the thing in order to determine how possible it is that it's there.

We can't agree that it is likely for there to be something behind the curtain that we know nothing about.

 

[KinasePro]

Isn't our ability to compute the likelihood of something being behind the curtain dependent on what we think that thing is? I mean, if you said there's air behind the curtain, the likelihood of that would be 100%. If you said you're behind the curtain, the likelihood is 0% given that you're standing in front of me. If you said a person we know to be in the area but isn't directly in front of us is behind the curtain, the probability lies somewhere in between. So we need to be able to describe the thing in order to determine how possible it is that it's there.

We can't agree that it is likely for there to be something behind the curtain that we know nothing about.

I think the problem should be approached by dividing it into it's constituents: A) is anything behind the curtain? and B) what exactly is behind the curtain? If I understand what you're saying, it seems like you and Lokhtar are using B) to analyze the problem. The issue with that approach is that B) assumes that everyone has answered question A) with "yes", and I'm not sure that's the case at this point. If we can't agree on question A), then I'm doubtful any answer to question B) will suffice.

I also think this is where the curtain analogy fails us, in that we're talking about something very testable and subject to observation & description. Why even argue about the what's behind the curtain, anyway? We can just move the curtain and look for ourselves.