• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Debate of God.

Curious George

Veteran Member
This is all bollox, mate, I did in fact describe all the hows and why's where you say I did not. Im not doing it again to humor some repetitious gallop on your part.

Let me repeat, since it seems you cannot read: Pascal's Wager is not begging the question, though you did cite it; PASCAL'S WAGER IS NOT LOGICALLY SOUND BECAUSE IT IS A FALSE DICHOTOMY.

YOU WERE BEGGING THE QUESTION USING THE APPLE EXAMPLE IN WAYS I ALREADY DESCRIBED.

Were you able to read that?
Everything else was already covered

Was everything covered? I went through the posts:

No, your analogy does not apply.
All you'd know is that there was an object in the bag.

In other words to assume it was an apple out of all other possible similar objects someone would have already told you it was an apple or not.

It could be two half-rounds of wood.

You are begging the question, another logical fallacy.

At this point you state that I am begging the question without giving any reasoning or telling me what implicit premise I have used to prove my argument.

You are mistaken. Please look up 'begging the question'.

It's ok, you made a mistake. Move on.

At this point you still have not explained

Curious George I am well aware of what begging the question is and I am not begging the question. However said:
either is an apple or there is not an apple."[/B]
That was you, begging the question.

Being condescending to the person who gently showed you you were wrong, is not becoming of you.

Here you have highlighted a statement but again you have not reasoned what implicit premise I have used to prove my statement

You were begging the question by specifying an apple when you offered the bag.

It's interesting, but you were wrong in your analogy of the bag exactly how you were wrong about Pascal's Wager.

But by all means, tell me I was mistaken again.
clip_image001.gif

Here you suggest the specificity of the apple is me begging the question. Why? You offer no reason.

Still doing it.

the point you are missing is that it could be any object similar in shape or mass to an apple, or could be another object contained within a hollowed-out apple or anything else. The instant you stated 'apple' before any examination by the person being handed to bag is begging the question.

If you are presenting a logical premise concerning the existence of any sort of deific then ALL possibilities must be included for the premise to be honest. I have showed why. You even conceded to the offered examples earlier. I don't need to do anything more.

Here you reason that it doesn't have to be an apple in the bag, so the concept of saying an apple does or does not exist within the bag is begging the question. While you actually take a stance here, you are, ironically, begging the question.

It is a vastly different situation if there are multiple Gods, though; since we are stating a very specific 'fruit'. In a sense 'many Gods exist' throws the idea of your God existing in among them very much into doubt, given 'his' own statements.

the extreme specificity of the word 'God' is the same issue as stating 'apple'; there are many possibilities. This is the basis of your error, which I have been explaining for many posts; it's not being stated to you un-clearly.

We are attempting to establish the basis for a logical question. Making it a dichotomy makes it illogical. I have rephrased the true logical question, or at least one version of it, several ways.

The very nature of the answer itself is so significant in its various implications that reducing it to either/or is not valid.

Here you again go back to saying that specificity is my error. You also suggest that making a dichotomy is illogical, but you have not specified why.

I have already explained everything plainly. You're not going to listen in any case, and my argument stands. You were not as successful as you keep claiming and attempt to move past as if it were done. But it's ok.

Here you suggest you have explained when you have not
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
At this point you state that I am begging the question without giving any reasoning or telling me what implicit premise I have used to prove my argument.

At this point you still have not explained
Here you have highlighted a statement but again you have not reasoned what implicit premise I have used to prove my statement
the highlighted statements implicitly show the references to the apples, is the issue. Every time I state you are begging the question, or say 'again', there is either a quote of you with the word 'apple' noted, or I say the word 'apple' in my statement.


Here you suggest the specificity of the apple is me begging the question. Why? You offer no reason.

Here you reason that it doesn't have to be an apple in the bag, so the concept of saying an apple does or does not exist within the bag is begging the question. While you actually take a stance here, you are, ironically, begging the question.
No, I am not begging the question; at this point you are rather childishly just gainsaying by claiming I am doing what you are doing. I don't understand this tactic [well, wait; actually I do understand it, but editorializing on my understanding of its use by you would get my post deleted by the mods], as it's rather tiresome and transparent, but I see it happen here a lot.

By narrowing the choice down to an apple right at the get-go, you are essentially eliminating the need, in your own anecdote, of the presence of the bag. What is the point of the bag? is it not, to conceal the nature of the object being sought for? By immediately defining that any object present inside the concealing bag will be an apple, rather than leaving its nature a mystery {and thus mimicking the actual thing you are attempting to illustrate in the first place, the mystery of the creator or God or etc} you are presupposing the outcome that any object, will in fact be an apple.

The specific use of the apple biases the outcome of the mystery, and since we cannot know - in the actual thing you are illustrating - the nature of the forces or deities we may find, the narrowness of the apple metaphorically limits the nature/results of the actual test to your One God, rather than all the other possibilities you keep wanting to turn a blind eye to. Since the illustration is meant to mirror what we are actually talking about, the details implicit in the actual example, must be covered by the illustration for it [the illustration] to be valid. Since you admitted yourself in another post to biasing the results to your One God, you as much as admitted this as well.

Here you again go back to saying that specificity is my error. You also suggest that making a dichotomy is illogical, but you have not specified why.
I repeatedly specify why. THE DICHOTOMY IS FALSE BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE THAN 2 POSSIBILITIES.
Di = two
more than two =/= di

Here you suggest you have explained when you have not
The concept of you disagreeing with what I say, is not the same as me not saying anything. You really, really need to learn the difference.

This will be the last time I make this effort. Continue your thoughts to another step in the process, or anything else, but Im not wasting further effort repeating myself.
 
Last edited:

Curious George

Veteran Member
now let us take on your assertion that I set up a false dichotomy

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy said:
A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither

God exists or God does not exist?

this dichotomy is exhaustive and accepting the fundamental rule of non contradiction these concepts are mutually exclusive.

^ holds true for the apple in the bag as well.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
the highlighted statements implicitly show the references to the apples, is the issue. Every time I state you are begging the question, or say 'again', there is either a quote of you with the word 'apple' noted, or I say the word 'apple' in my statement.


No, I am not begging the question; at this point you are rather childishly just gainsaying by claiming I am doing what you are doing. I don't understand this tactic, as it's rather tiresome and transparent, but I see it happen here a lot.

By narrowing the choice down to an apple right at the get-go, you are essentially eliminating the need, in your own anecdote, of the presence of the bag. What is the point of the bag? is it not, to conceal the nature of the object being sought for? By immediately defining that any object present inside the concealing bag will be an apple, rather than leaving its nature a mystery [and thus mimicking the actual thing you are attempting to illustrate in the first place, the mystery of the creator or God or etc] you are presupposing the outcome that any object, will in fact be an apple.

The specific use of the apple biases the outcome of the mystery, and since we cannot know - in the actual thing you are illustrating - the nature of the forces or deities we may find, the narrowness of the apple metaphorically limits the nature/results of the actual test to your One God, rather than all the other possibilities you keep wanting to turn a blind eye to. Since the illustration is meant to mirror what we are actually talking about, the details implicit in the actual example, must be covered by the illustration for it [the illustration] to be valid.


No, you are mistaken because narrowing down the concept to an apple does not presuppose that it will be an apple. In fact the statement that or no apple exists in the bag certainly encompasses the possibility that it will not be an apple. For instance, yet again, say there were two half rounds of wood in the bag. Well, there was no apple so the statement is still in no way false. Yes, it does limit the test to the specificity of an apple or one specific god. That does not mean that it begs the question, nor does it mean that it sets up a false dichotomy. It just means that were we able to discover what was in the bag we would find that either an apple existed within the bag or no apple existed within the bag. no matter what we found in the bag, no matter if Gods, gods, god, God or none of any these exist the dichotomy holds true.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
This will be the last time I make this effort. Continue your thoughts to another step in the process, or anything else, but Im not wasting further effort repeating myself.


Well, thank you for the effort at least. If I am wrong it will obviously take either someone else, much reflection or some epiphany on my part to recognize it. I am sorry we could not reason with each other better.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
No, you are mistaken because narrowing down the concept to an apple does not presuppose that it will be an apple. In fact the statement that or no apple exists in the bag certainly encompasses the possibility that it will not be an apple. For instance, yet again, say there were two half rounds of wood in the bag. Well, there was no apple so the statement is still in no way false. Yes, it does limit the test to the specificity of an apple or one specific god. That does not mean that it begs the question, nor does it mean that it sets up a false dichotomy. It just means that were we able to discover what was in the bag we would find that either an apple existed within the bag or no apple existed within the bag. no matter what we found in the bag, no matter if Gods, gods, god, God or none of any these exist the dichotomy holds true.
You denied the possibility of it being two rounds of wood.

You then admit it narrows the specificity.

Either you are disconnected from your own posts, or there's something more seriously wrong.

I don't really care which it is.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
You denied the possibility of it being two rounds of wood.

You then admit it narrows the specificity.

Either you are disconnected from your own posts, or there's something more seriously wrong.

I don't really care which it is.

where did I deny the possibility of it being two rounds of wood. I believe I agreed that it could be two rounds of wood and added that there could be nothing in the bag or there could even be an apple and a hamburger in the bag. none of these examples however demonstrate that the initial assertion of either an apple exists in the bag or an apple does not exist in the bag- therefore, your examples were nullified.

either you did not read my posts as thoroughly as I read yours or you are trying to change my words.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
you are mistaken again. I am not begging the question and I would not assume it was an apple or not.

are you reading my posts clearly?

we have a bag? Choosing arbitrarily an apple is not illogical. as you suggested in the bag could be two half-rounds of wood, if this were the case then we could say that their was not an apple inside the bag. Inside the bag could be nothing. Again in this case there is not an apple in the bag. Inside the could be an apple and a hamburger. In this case there is an apple in the bag.


this is what I said.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
where did I deny the possibility of it being two rounds of wood. I believe I agreed that it could be two rounds of wood and added that there could be nothing in the bag or there could even be an apple and a hamburger in the bag. none of these examples however demonstrate that the initial assertion of either an apple exists in the bag or an apple does not exist in the bag- therefore, your examples were nullified.

either you did not read my posts as thoroughly as I read yours or you are trying to change my words.
You are right. Please chalk it up to exhaustion.

You did not deny it could be two rounds of wood.

However, since you adamantly stuck to the concept of an apple, are you finally admitting to the idea that the real issue is 'someTHING/nothing in the bag' and the idea of an apple is actually irrelevant?

If so then your insistence at other points that the apple represents only your One God makes little sense.

If you desire your dichotomy form so badly that you will submit to 'it could be ANYTHING' or 'there's nothing', then perhaps something was gained here.

Christ why am I still doing this?
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
However, since you adamantly stuck to the concept of an apple, are you finally admitting to the idea that the real issue is 'someTHING/nothing in the bag' and the idea of an apple is actually irrelevant?

If so then your insistence at other points that the apple represents only your One God makes little sense.

If you desire your dichotomy form so badly that you will submit to 'it could be ANYTHING' or 'there's nothing', then perhaps something was gained here.

Christ why am I still doing this?

The specificity of the apple does not detract from any of my points. However, Anything or Nothing would be an acceptable dichotomy also I wouldn't disagree that phrasing a statement like that is illogical. But, I wouldn't think that the apple analogy is illogical either. Nor would I think it illogical to say either Indra exists or Indra does not exist; Either Shiva exists or Shiva does not exist; either Odin exists or Odin does not exist; Either Ra exists or Ra does not exist, either Christ exists or Christ does not exist.

Are you so intent on referring to the apple as "your God" because you feel that I profess a specific religion? or are you using the term "your God" simply to refer to the God which I used in an example?
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Is it necessary to ask you to define what One God you would have meant by citing him specifically in your discussion? Do you care to list his myriad properties? I suspect my suspicions will all be borne out. But that even then you will disagree somehow with my conclusions....
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Is it necessary to ask you to define what One God you would have meant by citing him specifically in your discussion? Do you care to list his myriad properties? I suspect my suspicions will all be borne out. But that even then you will disagree somehow with my conclusions....


Well, so far I have escaped without explaining my beliefs but I will give you one so you can understand a little better. I hold that the God that is taken into account in Jewish texts, Christian texts, and Muslim texts cannot exist logically if these texts are interpreted literally. Does that coincide with your suspicions? if so you are astute indeed.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Dude, save it and stay on topic. It's getting old.

Never.
I'm getting old....you obviously are old....
And this thread is very old.

I have not seen any discussion the circumvents a creative God.
I have not seen any appropriate denial of an Almighty.

All that is left is resignation of life after death.

If you believe in life after death.....There is an Almighty.
You are not your own handiwork.
The Creator will look you over.
 

cottage

Well-Known Member
'pondfrogleapsplash' is true prior to belief or opinion, and it's direct experience requires no proof. The proof is the experience itself, uncolored, as it were, via preconception or social indoctrination as filters which could render it illusory. The literature is filled with examples of those who have realized sudden enlightenment via of unexpected incidents wherein the mind was completely open. The clatter of a tile; the sound of a pebble striking bamboo; the splash of a frog into a still pond; have in many instances led to the powerful transformative experience of satori.

These experiences are not black and white. Sometimes one only catches a glimpse; other times the experience is more prolonged, but may not be that of Supreme Enlightenment. There are stages/levels and/or brief exposures, while one may still be attached to one's ordinary life. The letting go, or dropping away, of ego can occur over a very long period of time. I do not claim Supreme Enlightenment by any means, but I have had enough of these experiences that my life has been changed by them forever, and by which I see beyond a shadow of a doubt that my former life was one of a conditioned mentality, much of which I have been able to approach in a very different way than before. I am certain that such changes came about, over a period of time, as a direct result of my exposure to Higher Consciousness. But in response to your labeling these experiences as beliefs, I can only say that when they occur, no belief is present. They are pure experiences, without concept or thought, and are unmistakable as to their authentic character. The more dramatic of these can go on for weeks, as the subject can be in a complete state of rapture. The paradoxical thing about these experiences is that they do not seem to have any set pattern or prerequisite. They can happen to anyone at any time. In contrast, one who studies and/or meditates for decades may not make any progress at all. This is what occurred to the Zen nun, Chinono, who struggled for years without result, but whose enlightenment came suddenly, in an instant, as the woven basket she carried water in suddenly burst, releasing not only the water it held, but the reflection of the moon on its surface. The conditions were just right for her experience to complete itself in fullness.

Maybe we'll talk more later, but for now, it just appears to me that you have already set up your barricades to NOT allow you to lend any validity to these experiences, as your rational mind dictates to you. All I can say is for you to empty your mind and hold no preconceived notions about what they are, and go see for yourself. As long as you hold onto your logic, your reason, your analytical mind, you will never see anything, unless, of course, these methods act themselves as a self-destruct device, as the koan does, for example. In other words, the logical mind, to be honest, must indeed be tricked to see its own illogic as it applies to a higher vision.

In short, the spiritual experience simply shows one, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that what one thinks one sees as real via the rational mind, is not, although, paradoxically, great doubt is what allows one to see. There are, it seems, two kinds of certainty: one that comes via dogma, and the other via seeing things as they are.

Thank you very much.


What you describe is clearly a belief-as-faith as evidenced by your misuse of the term ‘truth’ and your belief in ‘two kinds of certainty’, the latter being an evident absurdity, which is also seen where theists propose such a thing as ‘God’s logic’. Also there are the anecdotal references to others’ supposed experiences, which would only be compelling to a fellow believer. These are all similarities seen in religions and cults. So I guess they are entirely appropriate for a religious forum.

And may I ask how do you suppose I am to lend validity to your (never recounted) experiences when you reject validity itself? And just explain to me how logic can be illogical ‘as applied to a higher vision’, when that clearly means by your own reasoning that it is the ‘higher vision’ which is illogical?
You say when you have the experiences no belief is present, and actually there is nothing basically wrong with that. For with the exception of reflexes, which have an automated or programmed response, all experience is pure and without thought at the instant that it is projected onto the mind, whether it is true or not. Processing begins after the fact.

You say the experiences were without concept of thought. Well, in many ways human beings are an open-book, for while it is quite true that we employ the highly useful method of induction to live our daily lives, based on what has gone before and the principle of cause and effect, there is no overarching dogmatic barrier as you seem to want to insist. For sure we might want to rationalize information, but if something is the case then it is the case, notwithstanding our prior beliefs. (Did you not read my last response to you on this particular matter?) Where it all goes totally pear shaped, however, is where you make the monstrous claim that you cannot be wrong in what you experience. Well, no experience is beyond doubt because no experience is a necessary truth, and despite all your vainglorious claims to the contrary you are quite unable to provide any criterion of certainty. You never answered the question I asked of you numerous times, which is this: What is true of the world that is not available from facts about the world?


Here is a link I think you might find useful:

Supreme Doctrine: a recap of Hubert Benoit's main ideas

and here is a link to his book if you decide you need to investigate further: I challenge you to read it and then return here without having undergone some change in your current thinking:


Thank you for that. However, this is a forum where I expect you to present your ideas in your own words. I don’t accept reading lists and nor do I open links. I’m only interested in what you have to say, since it is impossible to have a discussion with the third party. But on the one hand I’m very surprised that you think I might be swung to believe in mystical claims by a piece of writing, while on the other hand it seems to confirm what is already generally suspected, which is that some people are disposed and suggestible to mystical beliefs and faith systems. But why if you are so sure of what you believe is it necessary to post a plethora of links and reams of copy and paste? It’s no different to theists quoting the Bible chapter and verse.


BTW, is not your scepticism a kind of 'faith'? The key is not to lean in either direction, but simply to see things as they are.


Well if my scepticism is a faith then it is one that is amenable to being overturned. Anything, and I do mean anything, is possible if it is not self-contradictory. My method is to look for any small kernel of truth in what is claimed, upon which an argument can be mounted, and there are occasions when I can agree with theists on certain points of logic, but every step in your argument has lead to a direct contradiction and a full stop. So forgive me for saying this but the claim to ‘see things as they are’ is an empty one, and it is a conclusion that has been obvious from the very beginning of this protracted debate. We’ve had lots of references to the believed-in doctrine and its internal jargon, telling us why we cannot see what it is you claim to see while carefully avoiding the subject of the seen thing itself. The scepticism is wholly justified.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
I have not seen any discussion the circumvents a creative God.
I have not seen any appropriate denial of an Almighty.

All that is left is resignation of life after death.

If you believe in life after death.....There is an Almighty.
You haven't seen any such discussion because you essentially read nothing that is put before you.

You idea of life after death is limited. Your Creator God has nothing to do with me; it is his handiwork which is flawed, as evidenced by your 'convictions' and myriad repetitive mistakes.

An afterlife does not logically lead to your Almighty in any way; that is you, begging the question [lol!]

Your Almighty is the Least of all. :sorry1: He's never made anything correctly in his 'life'. lol!
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Well, so far I have escaped without explaining my beliefs but I will give you one so you can understand a little better. I hold that the God that is taken into account in Jewish texts, Christian texts, and Muslim texts cannot exist logically if these texts are interpreted literally. Does that coincide with your suspicions? if so you are astute indeed.
Mm, no no. Describe him in total.

Every attribute. This is wholly insufficient.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
You haven't seen any such discussion because you essentially read nothing that is put before you.

You idea of life after death is limited. Your Creator God has nothing to do with me; it is his handiwork which is flawed, as evidenced by your 'convictions' and myriad repetitive mistakes.

An afterlife does not logically lead to your Almighty in any way; that is you, begging the question [lol!]

Your Almighty is the Least of all. :sorry1: He's never made anything correctly in his 'life'. lol!

False!
In concerns of the afterlife....
You have everything to gain....and everything to lose.

That you declare the Almighty has nothing to do with you?.....
could prove true.
It's your declaration.
It might stick.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
Your idea of life after death is very limited. I don't think you understand what 'limited' means in this context.. Your bar for 'almighty' is set very low. He never got anything right, after all.
Creations: flawed
angels: rebelled
son: dead
World wide flood: didn't kill everyone
followers: rampant sinners, mostly addicts. Highly confused. Reject obvious science.

lol

Stand up with your angels over you and ask them about it later.

I'll be laughing in Valhol. And probably on my way to plunder your pearly gates of their gems. I might want a nice necklace for a pretty Valkyrie.
 
Last edited:
Top