Question for Theists

[jarofthoughts]

I am sorry for my poor English. I did not realize how poor it was until I just read my post I was at the dialysis center where I had to use the key board with all kinds of tubes and cuffs on my arms. I punched in my message with a pencil and thought it was better than it was. Thank you for your kindness.

No problem.
Dialysis center? I hope you're ok?

Do you consider "existence" by itself as empirical data. I am of course referring to the ontological argument for God and existence.

I don't consider the ontological argument to be very persuasive and actually quite faulty in its conclusion. Just because we can conceive of something does NOT prove in any way that it does exist. If it was so then unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and crystal healing would be real, and there is absolutely no reason to think they are.

Also, how do you consider the theist position to be a minority position in the world? That does not ring true to me. If I misunderstand your position, I am sure you will enlighten me.

I think you may have misunderstood me. Perhaps I was being unclear. The theist position is statistically without a doubt the majority position in the world. That does not in any way make it true though. What is real or not is not a matter of democratic vote.

theist reasoning has worked well for Western Civilization but where has atheist reasoning ever worked well in any other?

I'm not sure what you mean by atheist and theist "reasoning". They are merely positions on whether one believes that there is a god or not, and by themselves they bring (almost) nothing to the table.
However, I would claim that secular reasoning, that is science, has worked very well for us, as is shown in the advances made in the last 100 years or so.

I hope you find this a little better of a questioning.

Much more understandable, thank you.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

If no God existed, would you still want to believe in one?

Nope, but guess what? I have many personal proofs that deities do indeed exist

 

[The Wizard]

Unless I am reading you wrong (I could be) your argument in favour of belief can be summed up like this:
A person believes -> That belief affects that persons view of reality -> Their view of reality affects how they interact with the world around them.
Is this a fair representation?
If so, then that means that according to your argument it doesn't matter what one believes in, nor does it matter if that belief is grounded in truth on any level.
And that puts god on the same level as faeries and Santa.

My personal stance on the matter is that belief without objective evidence is all the same. It doesn't matter what that belief is about, be it gods, faeries, crystal healing, Scientology or homoeopathy. It is all equal and it all amounts to blind faith, and I don't think blind faith in anything is a good thing.

Does that answer your question?

The Wizard: You said, "You do realize that your argument puts god on exactly the same level as faeries, Santa and crystal healing?

You said that statement as if it were so matter a factly. So, belief itself is the only reason you lump everything into the same category? Well, that's nothing more than your own personal broad brush. What is the source for this so blank conclusion?

And here you say," Unless I am reading you wrong (I could be) your argument in favour of belief can be summed up like this: A person believes -> That belief affects that persons view of reality -> Their view of reality affects how they interact with the world around them."

My previous post focuses on beliefs affecting many things.. but, not "affecting one's view of reality." This is where the "great twist" is seen for painting the picture that beliefs make a person delusional or are imaginary. Please re-read my post.

And here you say" If so, then that means that according to your argument it doesn't matter what one believes in, nor does it matter if that belief is grounded in truth on any level. And that puts god on the same level as faeries and Santa."

You must be reading my posts through dusty glasses or something. Anyone who reads that post would gather that you are concluding the exact opposite of the original message. 75% of your interpretation is basically the opposite .

And here you say "My personal stance on the matter is that belief without objective evidence is all the same. It doesn't matter what that belief is about, be it gods, faeries, crystal healing, Scientology or homoeopathy."

All beliefs will show "objective evidence" of affecting the world and one's own experiences in one way or the next. Lack of evidence regarding a particular belief does not mean lack of evidence that belief itself has objective and measurable results. Please distuinguish the difference.

And here you say"It is all equal and it all amounts to blind faith, and I don't think blind faith in anything is a good thing."

How is it all "equal" and amount to "blind faith". What is so blind about faith when you can "know" it affects life and one's place in the world?-- When you can "know" in is a part of objective reality. What's so imaginary about faith as you imply? Sir, faith is not blind.... people are.

Read a book about beliefs or study the Great Pyramids for a while. Upon doing so you have gotten smarter and grown some new brain cells from the event. Were beliefs in the gods or the Divine not a contributor to that brain cell growing? Are brain cells also imaginary and belong on the fairy list?

Welcome to the World in which the beliefs in God, the gods and the Divine are affecting and in essence a part of about everything currently seen and experienced. It's called Reality and its many shades and planes of cause-n-effect... :areyoucra

 

[Debunker]

No problem.
Dialysis center? I hope you're ok?

I don't consider the ontological argument to be very persuasive and actually quite faulty in its conclusion. Just because we can conceive of something does NOT prove in any way that it does exist. If it was so then unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters and crystal healing would be real, and there is absolutely no reason to think they are.

I think you may have misunderstood me. Perhaps I was being unclear. The theist position is statistically without a doubt the majority position in the world. That does not in any way make it true though. What is real or not is not a matter of democratic vote.

I'm not sure what you mean by atheist and theist "reasoning". They are merely positions on whether one believes that there is a god or not, and by themselves they bring (almost) nothing to the table.
However, I would claim that secular reasoning, that is science, has worked very well for us, as is shown in the advances made in the last 100 years or so.

Much more understandable, thank you.

One more question before I ead some of your post to see what I think about your ideas on what is real. Was your reference to science in any way a reference to ontological knowledge and what is your source of knowledge?

 

[AntEmpire]

Nope, but guess what? I have many personal proofs that deities do indeed exist

May I hear them? I'm not looking for you to convert me, I am aware what a personal proof is. C: juss curious.

 

[Debunker]

Hitchens was not in error.
The ontological argument is faulty. Just because you can imagine something that doesn't make it true.

As for how the universe got here? Well, there are a number of ideas regarding that, many which does not require any form of deity, including the concept of multiverses. However, Carl Sagan put it best when he concluded that if you decide that there had to be something that always existed (which is a normal theist argument for god), then you might as well save a step and say that the universe always existed (in some shape or form). The question nonetheless arises that if you postulate a god, then where did that god come from? And if you decide that that is an unanswerable question, then you might as well save a step and decide that the question of where the universe came from is unanswerable.

So from a logical and scientific point of view the concept of god adds absolutely nothing of value.

I think I want to step in here in your semantical argument about God. You must assume that ontological reality is a thing and not an actual existence in itself Theist do not say some "things" had to always exist. That is in fact the view of atheist because they say you can not get something from nothing. Theist agree with that and believe that a cosmological reality came from an ontological reality called God. The atheist simply must claim that cosmology must have always existed but the theist rationally explains how the physical universe came to exist. Thus, the ontological argument is not faulty and because you can not imagine something does not mean it is not true. You do present a semantic argument with much fault.

 

[Debunker]

Thank you.

You do realize that your argument puts god on exactly the same level as faeries, Santa and crystal healing?

In no way does he do what you suggest. You only by definition and faulty syllogisms do you assert this.

 

[Debunker]

Do you believe in faeries then?

This is a nonsense question and does not denounce a belief system based on ontology. It does denounce a system of reality based only on cosmological data only.

 

[Debunker]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic
I am not an athiest, I do believe in God
However, There is no evidence that God either exists or does not exist.


Exactly. There is no evidence that an invisible, intangible, pink unicorn either exists or does not exist. Do you believe that this unicorn exists? What about all the other things like big foot, vampires, were wolfs, leprechauns for which there is not evidence to prove for certain that they do not exist. Why make exception for God?

Zelar I too believe in God because the only evidence that does exist explains how God exist. Everything (cosmology) that does exist is evidence. As you say, there is no evidence that God does not exist. I think you give the atheist more than he is due. It boils down to a game of semantics and the atheist plays this game very well, but not today.

 

[Debunker]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic
I am not an athiest, I do believe in God
However, There is no evidence that God either exists or does not exist.


Exactly. There is no evidence that an invisible, intangible, pink unicorn either exists or does not exist. Do you believe that this unicorn exists? What about all the other things like big foot, vampires, were wolfs, leprechauns for which there is not evidence to prove for certain that they do not exist. Why make exception for God?

See, give the atheist an ounce of doubt and he will build it into a mountain that is difficult to move. But a little real logic will move the mountain. The atheist can not explain values with his cosmological world and that is the reason he keeps referring to imagination.

 

[Debunker]

You are somewhat right.
It is true that it can not be proven that there does not exist some supernatural being out there.
Although it can be proven that a particular understanding of this supernatural being is incorrect.

The most popular understanding of this supernatural being is that it is:
All Powerful, All Knowing, All Compassionate.

The argument "Problem of Evil" proves this God impossible.

Here is the prevalent argument against "Problem of Evil":

"We can not possibly fully understand God. It is possible that God, with
all his great wisdom and knowledge far beyond ours allows for horrid atrocities to occur from which the victims will somehow ultimately benefit and we would have a better world because of all of the suffering. From our narrow point of view, it may seem that all this suffering can not possibly ultimately benefit the total sum of the world, but it is very possible."

Here is how this counter argument completely fails:

"If God is allowing all this suffering of innocent people so that they will unknowingly ultimately benefit from it and we will have a better world... Surely, God with all his power, should be able to bring about this ultimate benefit and better world without the suffering, yet he chooses not to do so.

I think this proves that the typical idea of God - All Powerful+Knowing+Compassionate
can not exist because if self contradiction.

If your were to change the definition of the most popular idea of God to:
1) All Powerful
2) All Knowing
3) Is not concerned with our best interests
Then this being can not be disproved.

Or one could argue that God is all knowing to the point that his understanding is like all the oceans and in comparison our understanding is like a thimble of water of the oceans. We understand the thimble of water but God knows about the oceans of water. What we think is evil is just our limited concept of water and God is using the evil of the world to purify the worlld. We simply do not understand what God is doing. Thus, the problem of evil is thusly dispatched.

 

[Debunker]

Sounds like a good base to start from.
So, assuming that you do believe that a god exists, what makes you think this is the case? I'm not asking for scientific evidence for god as we all know that doesn't exist, but rather what makes you personally think that there is a god.

This is a false statement because science has its foundation in that science is the creation of an ontological being left as a tool to be used to discover the truth. Science is independent to man bur is the product of an all knowing God. Your assertion is based on a slip in logic.

 

[Debunker]

experience (to an extent, i feel its a fact that i have been influenced by it, but im all to aware that feelings can be created to fill what you believe should be there, if you understand my meaning)

various arguements, (im not quite sure how many i should state here as if i mention them all and we argue them all, then our talk is going to get very cluttered and confusing, limiting the dialogue.

I find that thiesm is a rational thing to hold ( I feel that the christian religion is a rational view to hold, also it offers a better explanation than the athiest explanations.

And I say you would be correct because your assumptions are based on ontological facts that you intuitively know to be true. Your reasoning i based on as much fact and evidence as the cosmologist's faith in science. The atheist just tells you that you are wrong but he admits he can not prove you i error.

 

[Debunker]

Well, it goes without saying that there is a lot more reality out there than we know about now - and that it's within our human capacity to continue to learn more every single day for aeons. That's not my point though. My point is that as humans with five (some would say six) senses, and all the other limitations of humanity, there is reality out there which we are simply unable to grasp or comprehend. Ever.

Definitely? You simply do not know this and cannot know this definitely. No offense, but this is, simply your opinion.

A lot more than you probably realize. You are making a classic mistake - assuming that theists are theists by default and that reasonable, intelligent, objective, inquisitive people with many life experiences under their belt have not carefully considered other possibilities and explanations...and found them lacking.

Nor does your unbelief make it UNtrue.

A very good and wise answer. Aman.

 

[Debunker]

I have a smart dog. I mean, for a DOG, WhoDat's smart - but he's only a dog, and frankly can never fully grasp human reasoning.

A few weeks ago, I took his buddy Josie away. When I brought her back several days later, I can just hear their conversation:

WhoDat: "Wow, girl, you lookin' rough. What happened to you?"

Josie: "You know that place they take us where they drag us in by our slave collars and that stinky man with the long dry fingers comes in and puts sticks up our butts and then jabs us with sharp things while our owner HOLDS US DOWN?"

WhoDat: "Yeah, dat place sucks. Just about de time we start tinkin' our slave owners are cool, dey load us up and take us to dat hell hole. And sometimes dey even LEAVE us dere for a few days! And hey, I'm not sure...but I tink dat's where dey took Big Mama when she got dose lumps all over her, cuz dey smelled like dat place when dey come home crying. And as you know...Big Mama never came home again..."

Josie: "Yeah and I think I know what happened to her. But let me tell you what happened to ME. You're not going to believe it. You know how we've talked about starting a family? Well, that's out of the question. They took me in there, and just left me in a cell. Dogs all around me were crying and howling, so I knew it was bad. The next morning that girl who tries to act nice came in talking all sweet to me, but I wasn't falling for it. Sure enough, she caught me and slipped the noose over my neck and dragged me down the hall. Then Stinky Man came in and -yep, you guessed it - stabbed me with sharp things. Next thing I knew, I woke up in another prison cell and I was so sore. I had a big piece of bed stuff wrapped around me for some weird reason so of course I tore all that off. And you WON'T BELIEVE what I say!"

WhoDat: "What dat, what dat? What choo say you saw?"

Josie starts to cry. WhoDat nuzzles her ear and then starts sniffing down her body.

WhoDat: "Girl, what dey do to you? What's dis bad place on your belly?"

Josie: "I'm so ashamed - I'll never be the same again! I think...I think..."

WhoDat: "What! You don't mean..."

Josie: "Yes...I do. I think...I think they took my girl parts out!"

WhoDat (shocked): "I been hearin' about dis! Why dey do dat? Who dey tink dey are, cuttin and maimin you and takin your joy like dat? Why dey wanna do dat? Dey act all nice, like dey love us, and all de time dey wanna mess our lives up!"

Josie: "I don't know baby, but I know this, cuz I heard them say it..."

WhoDat: "What dey say?"

Josie: "They say you're next."


My point is this - Just as my dogs can never fully grasp how people who seem to love them can allow, and even condone and organize, what they think are bad things happening in their lives - we can never, from our human perspective, fully grasp the big picture of how God works through all the events in our lives.

We have a limited perspective.

I used to raise dogs for sale. My ***** had a litter of atheist pups. I advertised to sell these pups as atheist pups but when the atheist came to buy the pups, I had sign up that said "theist pups" for sale. The atheist were disappointed but I explained that when I first advertised these pups that they had their eyes closed. As they matured they opened their eyes and became theist pups. O'wll that does explain epistemology, does it not?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

May I hear them? I'm not looking for you to convert me, I am aware what a personal proof is. C: juss curious.

I have seen and felt many of the Egyptian deities. I've also had miracles happen clearly. These may be personal proofs, but they are clear.

 

[Debunker]

Did you evolve into something other than human then?


So you agree that there are phonies in every walk of life, but when we talk about phony Christians you say there is no such thing. Quite contradictory.


So you need pleasure to help you survive? So then you are incomplete without pleasure right? You said you were not searching for completeness, but then you said you use pleasure to find completeness. Your confusing me.

I need god like you need pleasure. Sounds like pleasure is your god.


For someone that relies on science, you sure are abandoning it to make unproven speculations.

I think you successfully put him in your box.
HIS answer about electro-chemical evolution in the brain, is it not strange that only man has evolved this characteristic of reasoning. Should not other creatures' brains not also have evolved in reasoning as well as humans if nature is responsible for the development of earth creatures? The box is now closed.

 

[AntEmpire]

I have seen and felt many of the Egyptian deities. I've also had miracles happen clearly. These may be personal proofs, but they are clear.

Yes, if only things like these happened more clearly, and to more people, many would see the world differently.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Nope, but guess what? I have many personal proofs that deities do indeed exist

That sounds very interesting.
Would you tell me about them?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think you successfully put him in your box.
HIS answer about electro-chemical evolution in the brain, is it not strange that only man has evolved this characteristic of reasoning. Should not other creatures' brains not also have evolved in reasoning as well as humans if nature is responsible for the development of earth creatures? The box is now closed.

That is like saying "why didn't birds develop hard shells like a turtle" or "why didn't humans develop skin like a chameleon". Having a brain with the size and computing capabilities that we have is a very costly affair and natural selection would not necessarily allow it for many other species, or as the case may be, none at all. There are however comparable brains out there. Chimpanzees, ravens and elephants have all passed the Gallup Mirror test, and many species show potential for reasoning skills.