What if you KNEW there was a God.

[Thanda]

They are a danger to law abiding citizens. Every society has expectations of how people should behave towards one another. If someone is dangerous, they should be isolated from the "normal" population. That's how it works.

Also keep in mind that not all people who go to jail are a threat to law abiding citizens. For example a father who doesn't pay child support may end up in Jail - indeed anyone who doesn't pay a particular creditor may eventually end up in jail. Theoretically just prevent the debtor from being able to borrow again should be sufficient to protect society right?

 

[Thanda]

Human beings are capable of learning and changing their behaviors. In most circumstances. Circumstances are also a factor. Did you steal to feed your family or just because you are a kleptomaniac?

If you believe people can change then what is your definition of free will that leads you to believe we don't have it?

 

[JustWondering]

Lol. Evidence is anything that can be used to prove the truth or falsity of a proposition. No, you don't ruffle my feathers, I just prefer atheists to use the better arguments.

Hopefully you realize you are begging the question.

Out of curiosity have you a reason for requiring physical evidence? Have you a reason to assume the validity of physical evidence? What physical evidence have you to support such arguments?

What evidence would you accept to believe leprechauns exist? What evidence would you accept to believe aliens exist? What evidence would you accept to believe big foot exists? What evidence would you accept to believe I fart out underpants gnomes exist? Am I still begging the question?

 

[Altfish]

Yes. Keep it vague to that each person can use the guiding principle in their circumstances as they arrive. Were God to attempt to give commandments for every situation both present and future the Bible would be an endless book. None would get around to reading all of it so it would be useless.

Do you know of a business book that teaching every single thing you need to do in every single business in every single country with every type of people?

But the ambiguities lead to splits, conflict and discord.

The business book analogy is not very good; firstly business books are a lot clearer but, more importantly, people don't worship the writer and build their lives around their teachings. People do not go to war to defend the principals of Keynesian economics, business books are known for what they are, guidance not the divine word.

 

[JustWondering]

Also keep in mind that not all people who go to jail are a threat to law abiding citizens. For example a father who doesn't pay child support may end up in Jail - indeed anyone who doesn't pay a particular creditor may eventually end up in jail. Theoretically just prevent the debtor from being able to borrow again should be sufficient to protect society right?

Not supporting a child you created is a crime, IMO. Not paying a bill, depends on if you purposely decided not to pay when you could and should have. What point are you trying to make?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, that is how you always establish the truth of something. You first make an assumption one way or the other.

Um... No. That is absolutely, categorically not the way to establish the truth about something. You start by making no assumptions, and see where the evidence leads - otherwise, you are leading the evidence.

This is called the null hypothesis.

No, the null hypothesis is a position of disbelief.

You then determine what you would expect to observe if that something was true. You then run the test to see if you get the result you expected.

But you can do that without any assumptions, so why assume something is true before you test for it. What would you expect to observe if God exists/didn't exist?

From my personal first hand experiences and the second hand experiences of those I know, I have decided to take God's existence as the null hypothesis. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, because you're assuming something is true before investigating it. It is the opposite of investigation - it is pure assumption. You're not using the null hypothesis. How on earth can you expect to investigate something honestly and objectively if you're already assuming the truth of the claim you're investigating from the start? What kind of person thinks that's a reasonable, rational way to investigate the truth?

Personally I expect an experience that will be impactful and unique. It cannot be something I have experienced before. There experience needs to remove all feelings of doubt and anxiety. The fruits of the spirit (according to Christianity) are "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,". If the God of Christianity is true, then I expect these elements to attend his manifestation.

You've not answered either of my questions.

1) How do you verify God's existence?
2) How do you verify that what God is supposedly communicating to you is accurate?

What are their experiences. Who has experienced the non-existence of God?

Absolutely everyone who has never had an experience that they would claim is a direct intervention than God. So, you could say, the vast majority of people.

Secondly I do not discount anyone's experience. But I am just one person. I can only deal with one thing at a time.

So you don't discount anyone's experience except when it's convenient to?

Their lives were the evidence.

No they weren't. People can be wrong, and history has shown us that people can be wrong en masse. We also know that the human brain tends towards theistic explanations for the world naturally because it is an easier and more intuitive way for our brains to grasp more complex problems than we are prepared to confront. The fact that people believe a claim, therefore, is not evidence of the truth of a claim, and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

And that is the evidence I expect to give to the World when I have found God.

You're just leading the evidence. You're discounting absolutely every single thing that doesn't fit and counting spurious hearsay as solid evidence. You are not investigating this in an honest or objective fashion.

I could likewise say few atheists can claim to be investigating the claim that there is a God since most are biased towards the idea that he doesn't exist.

Can you demonstrate that? Am I biased toward's God's non-existence? I've never said anything that you could derive that from.

In fact I could extend it and say that anyone who lives and loves to live a life that is contrary to the teachings of the Christian God cannot honestly investigate his existence since they will likely have a clear bias towards his non-existence.

How would that make your bias any less significant?

 

[JustWondering]

If you believe people can change then what is your definition of free will that leads you to believe we don't have it?

Machines can learn. Do they have free will?

 

[Thanda]

But the ambiguities lead to splits, conflict and discord.

The business book analogy is not very good; firstly business books are a lot clearer but, more importantly, people don't worship the writer and build their lives around their teachings. People do not go to war to defend the principals of Keynesian economics, business books are known for what they are, guidance not the divine word.

Well people went to war to defend capitalism against communism.

The splits arise because people are people. You can have a great idea and all the evidence to back it up and people can continue to ignore you and do their own things. Human beings choose what they want to believe. God knows this. Therefore he knows that no amount of spelling it out would make people keep his commandments. So he gives the guidelines and he knows that those who are sincere about their desire to follow truth will ask for further guidance from him. He has already promised that the Holy Ghost would come and teach us all things. So the Holy Ghost comes to the humble and sincere follower and he gets specific answers to specific questions in his life. While the rest of the people go on in the pride of their hearts to bend God's word to whatever they want it to mean without ever thinking of asking him for the truth.

 

[Curious George]

What evidence would you accept to believe leprechauns exist? What evidence would you accept to believe aliens exist? What evidence would you accept to believe big foot exists? What evidence would you accept to believe I fart out underpants gnomes exist? Am I still begging the question?

No, you are asking questions. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. It does not mean asking or prompting a question.

But my actual questions to you were not rhetorical. See if you cannot work your way through them.

 

[JoStories]

I'm searching for God because that is my starting point (historically). I also believe in the Spirit of God but presently I'm inclined to believe that that spirit emanates from a being who is called God. Should God not turn up though, then I may consider the Buddhist position that there is no actual being called God but there is just some sort of consciousness going around. But I'll cross that bridge when I get there.

That is one view of some Buddhists. I do believe in God, although I use that word as a way to communicate the concept. God, for me, is a spirit. One we strive to become one with. IMO, all faiths have some parts of truth. But all also suffer from having been poured onto paper through the mental constructs of the person writing. The best way to find God, IMO, is without all the sacred texts, or at least, only using them as guides.

 

[JoStories]

The comparison I was making is simple: Not everything that is real can be verified by the five senses. If you were following my whole conversation from where it started you would have realised this.

I had read it all, I was following it and there is really no reason to be snarky, IMO. I was merely pointing out that some things cannot fall into the 5 senses of perception. But my next question would be, are you limiting yourself to these 5? What if there are more we are, at present, unaware of>

 

[JustWondering]

No, you are asking questions. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. It does not mean asking or prompting a question.

But my actual questions to you were not rhetorical. See if you cannot work your way through them.

Asking questions is one thing. Making claims is another. See if you cannot work your way through that.

 

[Thanda]

Machines can learn. Do they have free will?

No, because they must learn. If a have programmed a machine to learn a particular thing the machine will learn it. However if I teach a human being something they may or may not decide to follow the advice I have given them. So for example we may all attend a class where we learn that drunk driving can lead to death. None of us want to die but some of us will choose to listen and others won't. They are exercising their free will. Our ability to put our own subjective value on certain concepts is at the heart of free will. Today I can decide studying is more important than partying. Later I can decide it is the other way around. Later again I can decide it is the other way around. You would have to program a machine for it to keep giving different values for the importance of the same thing.

 

[Thanda]

Not supporting a child you created is a crime, IMO. Not paying a bill, depends on if you purposely decided not to pay when you could and should have. What point are you trying to make?

That we don't just jail people to protect law abiding citizens. We also do it as a punishment. Is it just to punish someone who had no choice in doing what they did?

 

[Thanda]

That is one view of some Buddhists. I do believe in God, although I use that word as a way to communicate the concept. God, for me, is a spirit. One we strive to become one with. IMO, all faiths have some parts of truth. But all also suffer from having been poured onto paper through the mental constructs of the person writing. The best way to find God, IMO, is without all the sacred texts, or at least, only using them as guides.

Indeed. As Jesus said - "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.". I believe God is a spirit who inhabits a body of flesh and bones. So when he created us "in his image and after his likeness" he also created both a spirit and a body of flesh and bone. The body is a machine. The real person is the Spirit. We therefore cannot seek God using the senses of our bodies. We must seek him using our spirit and seek to connect to his spirit. God has said he would confirm the truth of all things to us by the power of the Holy Ghost / Spirit.

If we all saw God today in the flesh as Moses saw him we would be initially impressed. But after a time that impression would fade further back in the memory and one day we might even wonder whether we didn't imagine the whole thing. But when the Spirit of God testifies to our spirit I believe (or am led to believe) that the impression created goes deep in the soul and has the power to transform us.

 

[JustWondering]

No, because they must learn. If a have programmed a machine to learn a particular thing the machine will learn it. However if I teach a human being something they may or may not decide to follow the advice I have given them. So for example we may all attend a class where we learn that drunk driving can lead to death. None of us want to die but some of us will choose to listen and others won't. They are exercising their free will. Our ability to put our own subjective value on certain concepts is at the heart of free will. Today I can decide studying is more important than partying. Later I can decide it is the other way around. Later again I can decide it is the other way around. You would have to program a machine for it to keep giving different values for the importance of the same thing.

A sufficiently complex learning machine would be no different than a human brain. You have yet to convince me of the mystical existence of free will.

 

[Thanda]

I had read it all, I was following it and there is really no reason to be snarky, IMO. I was merely pointing out that some things cannot fall into the 5 senses of perception. But my next question would be, are you limiting yourself to these 5? What if there are more we are, at present, unaware of>

I don't get what you are now asking me. Of course I am not limiting myself to the five: that is what I was getting at. We can sense and experience things that are beyond fives senses' power and capacity. I am sure we have senses that we are not currently aware of. That is why it is dangerous to assume that those who claim to have experienced God are wrong because what they experienced can not be verified by the fives senses.

 

[JustWondering]

That we don't just jail people to protect law abiding citizens. We also do it as a punishment. Is it just to punish someone who had no choice in doing what they did?

People are jailed for any number of reasons depending on the society they live in. What's your point?

 

[Thanda]

A sufficiently complex learning machine would be no different than a human brain. You have yet to convince me of the mystical existence of free will.

I'm not interested in convincing you. I am simply trying to gauge your understanding of free will in comparison with my own. Your statement that a sufficiently complex machine would do that is simply your belief for which there is unfortunately no proof. When such a machine exists we can resume our conversation.

 

[Thanda]

People are jailed for any number of reasons depending on the society they live in. What's your point?

Do you agree with punishing people?