Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on April 09, 2020, 01:12:28 PM
-
When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?
-
When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?
One that has a method to show the supernatural - you know the one you have ben asked for hundreds of times and which you have never provided. Yet again you are trying tediously to switch the burden of proof.
-
What evidence have you got?
-
One that has a method to show the supernatural - you know the one you have ben asked for hundreds of times and which you have never provided. Yet again you are trying tediously to switch the burden of proof.
My method was to show that the universe either had a creator, Was infinite, or spontaneously appeared all of which could not be investigated by natural means thus demonstrating the supernatural.
Because I put forward that God is the necessary being and that the necessary being is necessarily not like it's contingent i.e. matter, material or physical means cannot penetrate it.
It would need to reveal itself.
Therefore I don't know why you place method before manifestation.
-
My method was to show that the universe either had a creator, Was infinite, or spontaneously appeared all of which could not be investigated by natural means thus demonstrating the supernatural.
Because I put forward that God is the necessary being and that the necessary being is necessarily not like it's contingent i.e. matter, material or physical means cannot penetrate it.
It would need to reveal itself.
Therefore I don't know why you place method before manifestation.
That's not a method, it's simply a set of assertions. One of which is both suffering from begging the question, and the problem of induction. After all this time you are I think becoming a even worse 'thinker'
-
My method was to show that the universe either had a creator, Was infinite, or spontaneously appeared all of which could not be investigated by natural means thus demonstrating the supernatural.
Hand-waving, scientifically illiterate nonsense. This has been dealt with recently - for a start, the space-time might just be. This is anyway an argument from ignorance.
Because I put forward that God is the necessary being and that the necessary being is necessarily not like it's contingent i.e. matter, material or physical means cannot penetrate it.
That's just an assertion, where is the reasoning?
-
Hand-waving, scientifically illiterate nonsense. This has been dealt with recently - for a start, the space-time might just be. This is anyway an argument from ignorance.
That's just an assertion, where is the reasoning?
If it is affected by anything physical then it cannot be necessary but contingent.
-
If it is affected by anything physical then it cannot be necessary but contingent.
Reason free assertion
-
Reason free assertion
If you are keeping up with the thread this is the reason for my previous assertion.
Is it wrong?
-
When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?
The claim is yours, Vlad, and therefore the burden of proof is yours too - as is the floor: so, evidence-wise, what have you got?
-
If you are keeping up with the thread this is the reason for my previous assertion.
Is it wrong?
It is assertions all the way down with you. You need to show what it's right, or even possible. Your attempts at switching the burden of proof are both extremely boring and desperately sad.
-
If you are keeping up with the thread this is the reason for my previous assertion.
Is it wrong?
I personally have no idea what evidence would convince me. But if your god is anything like you say he is I'm pretty sure he would know .It is for he to demonstrate , not I to believe !
-
It would need to reveal itself.
How would it do that?
-
If it is affected by anything physical then it cannot be necessary but contingent.
Do you know the difference between an argument and an assertion?
-
Do you know the difference between an argument and an assertion?
or his arse from his elbow! ::)
-
When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?
OK, I am not an atheist, but for mine I would accept the existence of the God of the Christians if the McCanns got their daughter back alive and well and totally unaffected by whatever has happened to her since her abduction or a deeply religious couple whose first child has been born with a currently incurable disease have their prayers answered within 48 hourse of the prayers being offered.
Over to you!
-
My method was to show that the universe either had a creator, Was infinite, or spontaneously appeared all of which could not be investigated by natural means thus demonstrating the supernatural.
Two of those options don’t require a creator and the other was unsupported assertion you need a better method.
Because I put forward that God is the necessary being and that the necessary being is necessarily not like it's contingent i.e. matter, material or physical means cannot penetrate it.
It would need to reveal itself.
Therefore I don't know why you place method before manifestation.
But you failed to rule out the possibility that the a Universe itself is the necessary entity or give adequate reasons for the assertion that God is necessary.
-
If it is affected by anything physical then it cannot be necessary but contingent.
The Christian god is therefore contingent. The Bible contains a lot of stories in which God is affected by physical things.
-
OK, I am not an atheist, but for mine I would accept the existence of the God of the Christians if the McCanns got their daughter back alive and well and totally unaffected by whatever has happened to her since her abduction or a deeply religious couple whose first child has been born with a currently incurable disease have their prayers answered within 48 hourse of the prayers being offered.
Over to you!
All you have asked for is things you don't know how to explain. That is useless as to explain a claim to.the supernatural.
-
One that has a method to show the supernatural - you know the one you have ben asked for hundreds of times and which you have never provided. Yet again you are trying tediously to switch the burden of proof.
What if you get a positive result once but not a second, third etc. time after that?
-
What if you get a positive result once but not a second, third etc. time after that?
Evidence is not a word you understand. And you ignored entirely the point of my post.
-
Evidence is not a word you understand. And you ignored entirely the point of my post.
Ok, well I can only go by what is recorded in the Bible, as that is the only place where I have seen what you suggested - a method to show the supernatural. We have three accounts of a healing miracle done by Jesus in the synagogue in front of the Pharisees. There is a man who has a paralyzed hand, which is described as withered. Jesus tells him to stretch it out and he does. The Pharisees are watching closely to see whether he'll heal on the Sabbath; so this miracle is verified by people without a vested interest as having taken place.
The three accounts corroborate each other as to the nature of the disease and the words spoken by Jesus.
I know someone who had a stroke and has a paralyzed hand. Many people have asked God to heal this person's hand but he has not done so. That's what I meant by God doing something supernatural but not repeating it on other occasions.
So the method is scientific in that it involves close observation and verification by unbiased witnesses who can testify that the man's hand went from paralyzed to normal, yet it isn't repeatable in the sense that scientific method would require.
-
When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?
'Evidence for the supernatural' is an oxymoron. To demonstrate evidence for the supernatural would reveal it to be natural, after all. The problem is not so much lack of evidence, as lack of definition. 'Supernatural' is undefinable, other than by 'not natural', which is trivial.
-
Ok, well I can only go by what is recorded in the Bible, as that is the only place where I have seen what you suggested - a method to show the supernatural. ....
That isn't a method. At best, if you rule out mistakes, tricks, coincidence, none of which you can, it gets you to an unexplained incident.
And that's leaving aside that you don't know who wrote those accounts, they aren't eye witness accounts, and they aren't separate. What you have presented wouldn't even make it to a courtroom, never mind present justification for overthrowing methodological naturalism.
-
'Evidence for the supernatural' is an oxymoron. To demonstrate evidence for the supernatural would reveal it to be natural, after all. The problem is not so much lack of evidence, as lack of definition. 'Supernatural' is undefinable, other than by 'not natural', which is trivial.
No, in theory there could be a supernatural methodology. There is just never one presented.
-
No, in theory there could be a supernatural methodology. There is just never one presented.
'methodology' is a naturalistic concept.
-
Ok, well I can only go by what is recorded in the Bible, as that is the only place where I have seen what you suggested - a method to show the supernatural. We have three accounts of a healing miracle done by Jesus in the synagogue in front of the Pharisees. There is a man who has a paralyzed hand, which is described as withered. Jesus tells him to stretch it out and he does. The Pharisees are watching closely to see whether he'll heal on the Sabbath; so this miracle is verified by people without a vested interest as having taken place.
The three accounts corroborate each other as to the nature of the disease and the words spoken by Jesus.
I know someone who had a stroke and has a paralyzed hand. Many people have asked God to heal this person's hand but he has not done so. That's what I meant by God doing something supernatural but not repeating it on other occasions.
So the method is scientific in that it involves close observation and verification by unbiased witnesses who can testify that the man's hand went from paralyzed to normal, yet it isn't repeatable in the sense that scientific method would require.
This is a joke ,right?
-
'methodology' is a naturalistic concept.
No, thar's just assertion. And effectively moves to philosophical naturalism.
-
'Supernatural' is just term for something, which cannot currently be properly explained by science. However, science is such a wonderful tool it is more than likely to eventually come up with a very natural explanation for whatever puzzles people at present.
-
Ok, well I can only go by what is recorded in the Bible, as that is the only place where I have seen what you suggested - a method to show the supernatural. We have three accounts of a healing miracle done by Jesus in the synagogue in front of the Pharisees. There is a man who has a paralyzed hand, which is described as withered. Jesus tells him to stretch it out and he does. The Pharisees are watching closely to see whether he'll heal on the Sabbath; so this miracle is verified by people without a vested interest as having taken place.
The three accounts corroborate each other as to the nature of the disease and the words spoken by Jesus.
I know someone who had a stroke and has a paralyzed hand. Many people have asked God to heal this person's hand but he has not done so. That's what I meant by God doing something supernatural but not repeating it on other occasions.
So the method is scientific in that it involves close observation and verification by unbiased witnesses who can testify that the man's hand went from paralyzed to normal, yet it isn't repeatable in the sense that scientific method would require.
This post of yours Spud can be filed under 'The Bible proves the bible' fantasy thinking group of ideas and as such it'd be good idea to write it down and then place it in a receptacle, the type often kept outside, and often kept next to a back gate ready for collection on whatever day of the week the binmen call in whatever area's concerned.
When I saw this absolute rubbish of yours here Spud, my thoughts were how come in 2020 we can still have people with such naive ideas about the world and at the same time still apparently function quiet well in their every day life.
ippy
-
That isn't a method. At best, if you rule out mistakes, tricks, coincidence, none of which you can, it gets you to an unexplained incident.
And that's leaving aside that you don't know who wrote those accounts, they aren't eye witness accounts, and they aren't separate. What you have presented wouldn't even make it to a courtroom, never mind present justification for overthrowing methodological naturalism.
The nature of the description rules out mistakes, tricks, coincidence. It's just the validity of the accounts that needs verifying. I have always had the sense that we have an unbroken chain of witnesses between then and now. Paul wrote to Timothy, "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be competent to teach others also."
There is no way for me to verify that my late Grandad used to look up when my Nan cycled past him at work in his field, and that's how they met, other than to see if my Nan had told my cousins the same thing, and that I believe it because I trust my late Nan. Someone might find an account of this by me and a similar one by my cousin, and be able to believe what happened. Likewise the second generation of believers trusted the apostles though they hadn't seen the miracle in the synagogue. Their trust was based on the love shown by the disciples, which has been the same basis for determining who is a disciple of Jesus ever since. in the same way you can determine whether an event in your family's history took place (eg I have my great great grandparents' Bible, signed by them, which my Nan gave me and verified to be theirs).
-
This post of yours Spud can be filed under 'The Bible proves the bible'
Look up 'Bible' - it means 'biblia' ie it is lots of books not one.
-
Look up 'Bible' - it means 'biblia' ie it is lots of books not one.
Most of us know it is made up of documents written over a long period of time and put together by a committee in the middles ages. I believe the crazy book of Revelation was nearly left out, what a terrible pity it was included. :o
-
The nature of the description rules out mistakes, tricks, coincidence. It's just the validity of the accounts that needs verifying. I have always had the sense that we have an unbroken chain of witnesses between then and now. Paul wrote to Timothy, "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be competent to teach others also." ...
Idiotic drivel.
-
Look up 'Bible' - it means 'biblia' ie it is lots of books not one.
Irrelevant drivel
-
Idiotic drivel.
:P
-
First Vlad it's you that needs to supply evidence for your leprechaun like idea of something you refer to as a god.
Now since you ask bearing in mind I'm not the one putting up bronze age ideas as though they are worthy of notice, I'm pretty sure if someone found indisputable evidence in support of your bronze age, at the moment, idea of a god there would be a world wide media explosion supplying news of this newfound evidence event to every corner of our Earth, if this unlikely event were to happen I would have no option left but to believe the same bronze age nonsense that seems to have overtaken your ability to reason.
Without the evidence supporting your god idea, as it is at present you've got a long thankless task ahead of you Vlad, bearing in mind here in most westernised nations the growth of atheism, as you call us, non-believers, is exponential with no sign of this slowing down either and mostly thanks to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris Christopher Hitchens and the many other hero like members of the real world.
Regards, ippy.
P S 'Richard Dawkins'
-
Look up 'Bible' - it means 'biblia' ie it is lots of books not one.
O K Spud, in what way does that alter the ludicrous inane view of some that think 'the bible proves the bible'.
I wouldn't have thought you were a member of that school of thought when I see some of the most realistic comments you're capable of making on most other subjects, it seems to me as though you like to leave your brain by the door before you come in and make any comments about religion.
ippy
-
First Vlad it's you that needs to supply evidence for your leprechaun like idea of something you refer to as a god.
Now since you ask bearing in mind I'm not the one putting up bronze age ideas as though they are worthy of notice, I'm pretty sure if someone found indisputable evidence in support of your bronze age, at the moment, idea of a god there would be a world wide media explosion supplying news of this newfound evidence event to every corner of our Earth, if this unlikely event were to happen I would have no option left but to believe the same bronze age nonsense that seems to have overtaken your ability to reason.
Without the evidence supporting your god idea, as it is at present you've got a long thankless task ahead of you Vlad, bearing in mind here in most westernised nations the growth of atheism, as you call non-believers, is exponential with no sign of this slowing down either and mostly thanks to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris Christopher Hitchens and the many other hero like members of the real world.
Regards, ippy.
P S 'Richard Dawkins'
Maybe reasoning and evidence has been put forward that isn't naturalistic enough for you guys.
However this thread is about what evidence might sway you and therefore I'm not obliged to cite evidence here? Let's start with an asteroid crashing into a comet and the debris spelling out the names of God in every language. Would that move you in any direction do you think?
or being convicted that morals are real and not just made up to suit Would that change your point of view?
Growth of atheism exponential? wow sounds like you've got a movement going there, a regular stealth religion, people using amazon has grown exponentially too. Why do you think the growth of atheism is significant. Is it because it is a force of Good? A wave of righteousness?
That of course would confirm Wilson's idea that this new movement is a stealth religion.
with no sign of this slowing down either and mostly thanks to Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris Christopher Hitchens and the many other hero like members of the real world.
Blimey, a stealth religion which even obliges by presenting it's own saints.
-
'Evidence for the supernatural' is an oxymoron.
And so we come at last to it. Torridon has said what others,IMO have failed to come clean about. Only naturalistic evidence is ''evidence''. Classic philosophical naturalism.
To demonstrate evidence for the supernatural would reveal it to be natural,
I have a lot of sympathy with that. Since the naturalist is bent on naturalistic evidence how is anything other than empirical evidence going to satisfy, ever? The naturalist is therefore locked in the naturalistic circularity only ever seeking and finding nature. That doesn't even help establish philosophical naturalism which looks like a choice in which someone could be conditioned into.
This of course would explain ''the hiddenness of God'' to someone whose thought patterns were so conditioned.
-
And so we come at last to it. Torridon has said what others,IMO have failed to come clean about. Only naturalistic evidence is ''evidence''. Classic philosophical naturalism.
I have a lot of sympathy with that. Since the naturalist is bent on naturalistic evidence how is anything other than empirical evidence going to satisfy, ever? The naturalist is therefore locked in the naturalistic circularity only ever seeking and finding nature. That doesn't even help establish philosophical naturalism which looks like a choice in which someone could be conditioned into.
This of course would explain ''the hiddenness of God'' to someone whose thought patterns were so conditioned.
Your posts get crazier and crazier! ::)
-
'the hiddeness of god' looks exactly like nonexistence to me .
Now here is your chance to produce some evidence , the kind that you accept and the kind I might accept .
go on , give it a try . I dare you!
-
'the hiddeness of god' looks exactly like nonexistence to me .
I don't see things like that...………... to me God exists.
-
Two of those options don’t require a creator and the other was unsupported assertion you need a better method.
Special pleading by you in that you are saying that the other two are supported.
The support for an external creator is that everything observed is dependent on something else for it's existence.
Your conditioning has led you to avoid that obvious reason to posit an external creator as a possible reason for the universe.
That that creator may have had a creator is irrelevant to the reasoning.
-
'the hiddeness of god' looks exactly like nonexistence to me .
Now here is your chance to produce some evidence , the kind that you accept and the kind I might accept .
go on , give it a try . I dare you!
I was swayed greatly by moral realism. Moral irrealism disqualifies one, or should, from making moral statements that seek to enforce a personal morality on others.
-
'the hiddeness of god' looks exactly like nonexistence to me .
Do you not think that's just because you are conditioned just to look for naturalistic empirical evidence?
-
I was swayed greatly by moral realism. Moral irrealism disqualifies one, or should, from making moral statements that seek to enforce a personal morality on others.
Demonstrate moral realism.
-
Do you not think that's just because you are conditioned just to look for naturalistic empirical evidence?
So are you but you deceive yourself because ........ reasons (which make no sense to right thinking people) that I cant understand .
Besides, does non-natural empirical evidence exist ? If it does show it to me here, now !
-
So are you but you deceive yourself because ........ reasons (which make no sense to right thinking people) that I cant understand .
Besides, does non-natural empirical evidence exist ? If it does show it to me here, now !
Right thinking people. That's a northern brexity sort of thing isn't it. What makes them right?
-
Demonstrate moral realism.
Moral irrealism cannot make moral arbitration. Everybody acts as if morals are real.
-
Moral irrealism cannot make moral arbitration. Everybody acts as if morals are real.
The first sentence is an empty assertion. The second is an ad populum and an assertion. D-
-
I was swayed greatly by moral realism. Moral irrealism disqualifies one, or should, from making moral statements that seek to enforce a personal morality on others.
That's just silly. Even if there were some sort of objective or "real" moral standard, we have no objective means of discovering what it is, so even if moral realism is true, it might as well not be true. We are left only with people's personal views, and any consensus that is reached in societies, regardless.
-
The first sentence is an empty assertion. second is an ad populum and an assertion. D-
How can Moral irrealism make a moral arbitration?
-
The support for an external creator is that everything observed is dependent on something else for it's existence.
But we have no way at all of knowing if the universe as a whole is dependent on something else for its existence nor can we make any inference about what sort of "something" it might be dependent on if it is.
Your conditioning has led you to avoid that obvious reason to posit an external creator as a possible reason for the universe.
An external creator (some enitiy that deliberately creates) is just a guess. It's not impossible but you haven't made an argument that it is actually the case.
That that creator may have had a creator is irrelevant to the reasoning.
Not really. If you propose something as an explanation for something (that everything seems to be dependent on something else for existence) and it doesn't actually explain it, then it becomes a pointless as well as a baseless guess.
-
How can Moral irrealism make a moral arbitration?
Trying your usual tactic of reversing the burden of proof. Your assertion, your burden.
-
But we have no way at all of knowing if the universe as a whole is dependent on something else for its existence nor can we make any inference about what sort of "something" it might be dependent on if it is.
An external creator (some enitiy that deliberately creates) is just a guess. It's not impossible but you haven't made an argument that it is actually the case.
Not really. If you propose something as an explanation for something (that everything seems to be dependent on something else for existence) and it doesn't actually explain it, then it becomes a pointless as well as a baseless guess.
Yes really. When one does chemistry one doesn't have to know the origins of precursor substances. You are special pleading again.
You cannot establish that the universe has been around for ever. To expect someone to establish the reasonable proposal of external creator is again special pleading.
Your atheism has distorted your reasoning.
-
Yes really. When one does chemistry one doesn't have to know the origins of precursor substances. You are special pleading again.
You cannot establish that the universe has been around for ever. To expect someone to establish the reasonable proposal of external creator is again special pleading.
Your atheism has distorted your reasoning.
It is what passes for your 'reasoning', which is distorted. ::)
-
We are left only with people's personal views,
So how come they matter all of a sudden?
-
It is what passes for your 'reasoning', which is distorted. ::)
Of course not everything in the universe is explained by something other than that thing.
It would be unreasonable to propose either that the universe was infinite or appeared spontaneously without the third alternative of being explained by something other than the universe.
-
Of course not everything in the universe is explained by something other than that thing.
It would be unreasonable to propose either that the universe was infinite or appeared spontaneously without the third alternative of being explained by something other than the universe.
You think a god created the universe, in which case what created god?
-
Maybe reasoning and evidence has been put forward that isn't naturalistic enough for you guys.
However this thread is about what evidence might sway you and therefore I'm not obliged to cite evidence here? Let's start with an asteroid crashing into a comet and the debris spelling out the names of God in every language. Would that move you in any direction do you think?
or being convicted that morals are real and not just made up to suit Would that change your point of view?
Growth of atheism exponential? wow sounds like you've got a movement going there, a regular stealth religion, people using amazon has grown exponentially too. Why do you think the growth of atheism is significant. Is it because it is a force of Good? A wave of righteousness?
That of course would confirm Wilson's idea that this new movement is a stealth religion.
Blimey, a stealth religion which even obliges by presenting it's own saints.
Evidence is just evidence Vlad, I've never seen any that supports the idea of gods, even Richard Dorkins would agree with that statement Vlad.
I did however notice you've jumped in on your usual verbal roundabout trip rather than face up to the fact there's no viable evidence around that could or would support your idea about this he, she or it thing you mostly refer to as god.
Just a simple answer is necessary Vlad, where's the evidence that would or could support this idea of yours where you think your invisible friend does in fact exist? Only the evidence for any form of god being in existence is running at zero for now.
Try to break your habit of not giving a direct answer to a direct question.
ippy.
P S 'All Hail Richard on High'!!
-
Yes really. When one does chemistry one doesn't have to know the origins of precursor substances.
The point is that the reason you presented for positing this "creator" was to get round the problem of everything being dependent on something else for its existence. If the creator suffers from the same problem, then you've undermined your starting point. If you'd argued for a creator from some other starting point, then that would be different but you can't posit something to answer a question that it doesn't actually answer. That would be special pleading.
You also didn't address the points that we have no idea whether or not the universe as a whole is dependent on anything else for its existence and that, even if it was, we couldn't know what sort of "thing" it might be.
You cannot establish that the universe has been around for ever.
I didn't try to (but we can't rule it out).
To expect someone to establish the reasonable proposal of external creator is again special pleading.
It's called the philosophical burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)) - if you're proposing an external creator, it really is up to you to provide the reasoning (that would make it anything but a blind guess) - something you have so far totally failed to do.
-
So how come they matter all of a sudden?
Evasion noted. Who said they didn't matter?
-
Right thinking people. That's a northern brexity sort of thing isn't it. What makes them right?
Vlad
so when it comes to your turn at 'show and tell' you've actually got FUCK ALL .
A head full of wishing and hoping and praying is not going to cut it .
-
Evidence is just evidence Vlad, I've never seen any that supports the idea of gods, even Richard Dorkins would agree with that statement Vlad.
.....
No, evidence is defined by the methodology we use, and our methodology is naturalistic. It works on the basis of an assumption of naturalism. To talk about evidence for a supernatural god in that context is meaningless
Any supernatural 'evidence' would need some form of supernaralistic methodology. Despite having asked Vlad (and many other believers) for such a thing, there is never a coherent answer.
-
what would we do without our Nearly Teacher ? ;)
-
what would we do without our Nearly Teacher ? ;)
Bathe in ignorance and despair
-
Bathe in ignorance and despair
Which is quite normal for me
I'm currently trying to identify and fix an electrical fault in the 12v circuit in my MH , any ideas chief?
-
Which is quite normal for me
I'm currently trying to identify and fix an electrical fault in the 12v circuit in my MH , any ideas chief?
Have you tried switching it off, and switching it back on again?
-
The point is that the reason you presented for positing this "creator" was to get round the problem of everything being dependent on something else for its existence. If the creator suffers from the same problem, then you've undermined your starting point. If you'd argued for a creator from some other starting point, then that would be different but you can't posit something to answer a question that it doesn't actually answer. That would be special pleading.
You also didn't address the points that we have no idea whether or not the universe as a whole is dependent on anything else for its existence and that, even if it was, we couldn't know what sort of "thing" it might be.
I didn't try to (but we can't rule it out).
It's called the philosophical burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)) - if you're proposing an external creator, it really is up to you to provide the reasoning (that would make it anything but a blind guess) - something you have so far totally failed to do.
There is no way we can establish scientifically the origin of the universe. As Torridon has pointed out. Anything which satisfies science is invariably natural and cannot explain the existence of nature.
But we can make a reasoned proposal of a) external creator based on everything observed having been created from something else
b) an infinite existence for the universe
c) A spontaneous appearance of nature
In fact the only one which doesn't defy what we see in nature is a). If you fail to see that then i'm afraid you have been seriously led up the garden path.
-
Evidence is just evidence Vlad, I've never seen any that supports the idea of gods, even Richard Dorkins would agree with that statement Vlad.
I did however notice you've jumped in on your usual verbal roundabout trip rather than face up to the fact there's no viable evidence around that could or would support your idea about this he, she or it thing you mostly refer to as god.
Just a simple answer is necessary Vlad, where's the evidence that would or could support this idea of yours where you think your invisible friend does in fact exist? Only the evidence for any form of god being in existence is running at zero for now.
Try to break your habit of not giving a direct answer to a direct question.
ippy.
P S 'All Hail Richard on High'!!
Richard on High? I think it's more like your high on Richard.
-
There is no way we can establish scientifically the origin of the universe. As Torridon has pointed out. Anything which satisfies science is invariably natural and cannot explain the existence of nature.
But we can make a reasoned proposal of a) external creator based on everything observed having been created from something else
b) an infinite existence for the universe
c) A spontaneous appearance of nature
In fact the only one which doesn't defy what we see in nature is a). If you fail to see that then i'm afraid you have been seriously led up the garden path.
Your garden path be very long indeed. You spout your nonsense, which is only your take on it, you have no evidence to support it.
-
Your garden path be very long indeed. You spout your nonsense, which is only your take on it, you have no evidence to support it.
I'm not taking lectures on nonsense from the Board's chief Bollock talker emeritus...……..Thank you.
-
Have you tried switching it off, and switching it back on again?
I bloody new you'd have the solution🤣👍 8)
-
I'm not taking lectures on nonsense from the Board's chief Bollock talker emeritus...……..Thank you.
No dear that honour is all yours. ;D ;D ;D
-
There is no way we can establish scientifically the origin of the universe. As Torridon has pointed out. Anything which satisfies science is invariably natural and cannot explain the existence of nature.
But if you invent something called "supernatural" to explain the existence of nature, you're then just left with the same problem with that - what explains the existence of the "supernatural"? The term "supernatural" doesn't have a useful definition in the context, and it's anyway a blind guess that's a step in the wrong direction, because it leaves you with even more things whose existence isn't explained.
But we can make a reasoned proposal of a) external creator based on everything observed having been created from something else
b) an infinite existence for the universe
c) A spontaneous appearance of nature
Option a) is begging the question. There might be something "external" to whatever you want to define as the universe, that somehow is the reason why it exists, but calling it a "creator" when we can deduce nothing about it, is unwarranted. Option b) can't be ruled out, and option c) is still stuck in 19th century physics. As I keep saying: the space-time might well just be. The shape and extent of it in the past direction is neither here nor there.
In fact the only one which doesn't defy what we see in nature is a). If you fail to see that then i'm afraid you have been seriously led up the garden path.
No - you're "thinking" is just outdated, simplistic, and biased towards the answer you would prefer...
-
Richard on High? I think it's more like your high on Richard.
Still no evidence then Vlad?
ippy.
P S 'Richard Dawkins'
-
Have you tried switching it off, and switching it back on again?
There should be a transformer somewhere, it should have been placed somewhere that it can be accessed for servicing, obviously turn off the power to it from the mains and then check all of the connections right down to the lights I assume the 12 volts are supplying, if they're all good when you turn on the power fine if not get a new 12 volt transformer and do the appropriate connecting to your new transformer, like for like.
Safety first, turn off the power first before you do anything!
ippy.
-
Option a) is begging the question. There might be something "external" to whatever you want to define as the universe, that somehow is the reason why it exists, but calling it a "creator" when we can deduce nothing about it, is unwarranted.
It is called the creator because it creates the universe. Had I been specifically talking about a personal creator I would have done so.
-
No - you're "thinking" is just outdated, simplistic, and biased towards the answer you would prefer...
No, because I am allowing for 3 possibilities. Your thinking is well fucked.
-
It is called the creator because it creates the universe. Had I been specifically talking about a personal creator I would have done so.
The whole subject of this thread is about evidence for god(s) and if you just meant any general context that either led directly to or made possible the existence of the universe there are far less loaded terms.
No, because I am allowing for 3 possibilities. Your thinking is well fucked.
And I explained why those three are outdated, simplistic, and biased towards the answer you would prefer. Just asserting that my thinking is "fucked" isn't mush of a counterargument.
-
No, because I am allowing for 3 possibilities. Your thinking is well fucked.
You and thought is an oxymoron. ::)
-
There should be a transformer somewhere, it should have been placed somewhere that it can be accessed for servicing, obviously turn off the power to it from the mains and then check all of the connections right down to the lights I assume the 12 volts are supplying, if they're all good when you turn on the power fine if not get a new 12 volt transformer and do the appropriate connecting to your new transformer, like for like.
Safety first, turn off the power first before you do anything!
ippy.
ippy
thanks so much for your reply
I've located the transformer and discovered it was rather hot to touch .I disconnected the mains from the main inlet and let it cool down .
I then reconnected the mains to find out how long it took to get hot again (not long) so i disconnected the transformer from the mains leaving the mains circuit live .
The 12v circuit should also charge the habitation battery but the MH control panel says no charge in battery yet water pump and lighting is still working
After a good few hours of buggering about isolating various things and switching em on again one by one I have reached the conclusion the TRANSFORMER is at fault
anyway ive contacted a friendly sparks who's going to come and have a look at it in the morning
to be fair there copuld be three things all going wrong at the same time
1 faulty battery
2 faulty control panel
3 faulty transformer
or any combination of the above and without testing equipment I'm stuffed
so for now im running this laptop and my telly straight off the mains
thanks again old chap
-
You and thought is an oxymoron. ::)
Lr
forget the 'oxy' part
-
WARNING!
I've just opened a nice bottle of London Dry so things might start to.......... improve on here ;D
-
WARNING!
I've just opened a nice bottle of London Dry so things might start to.......... improve on here ;D
Have fun. Raising a glass of rather nice verdelho to you
-
The whole subject of this thread is about evidence for god(s) and if you just meant any general context that either led directly to or made possible the existence of the universe there are far less loaded terms.
And I explained why those three are outdated, simplistic, and biased towards the answer you would prefer. Just asserting that my thinking is "fucked" isn't mush of a counterargument.
Outdated? What do you mean?
Simplistic? How?
Biased? how?
There's nothing more bias than gaming and redefining the term nothing to get a wholly naturalistic answer to this.
-
Have fun. Raising a glass of rather nice verdelho to you
cheers old chap , have wonderful evening 8)
-
Have fun. Raising a glass of rather nice verdelho to you
A horn of Lindisfarne here! If it does nothing else it will ensure that I sleep well tonight!
-
A horn of Lindisfarne here! If it does nothing else it will ensure that I sleep well tonight!
cheers , enjoy :D
-
A horn of Lindisfarne here! If it does nothing else it will ensure that I sleep well tonight!
Enjoy
-
Outdated? What do you mean?
Simplistic? How?
Biased? how?
How many more times? It's outdated because you're obsessing about the start of time or an infinite past, which is Newtonian thinking. The best theory we have is general relativity that gives us the idea of a "block universe" - the space-time manifold just exists in its entirety. There is no reason to look for an explanation at some starting point in the past direction of time (if it exists) because that's just part of the manifold's shape. There are other hypotheses but the mere existence and logical consistency of that one shows up both the dated and simplistic nature of your three options.
The bias is blindingly obvious.
There's nothing more bias than gaming and redefining the term nothing to get a wholly naturalistic answer to this.
I've never tried to redefine nothing. There is a genuine mystery to existence but inventing more things that might exist simply doesn't help. If anything is redefining nothing it's the option that the universe "popped"out of it, which would mean it would have had to exist at some time and time isn't nothing.
-
Outdated? What do you mean?
Simplistic? How?
Biased? how?
There's nothing more bias than gaming and redefining the term nothing to get a wholly naturalistic answer to this.
Can you define absolute nothing in any coherent fashion?
-
However this thread is about what evidence might sway you
I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned it multiple times. The kind of evidence that would sway me is good evidence. Other than that, You can present whatever evidence you like and then I'll tell you if it's good or not and why.
and therefore I'm not obliged to cite evidence here?
Why are you asking us that?
-
I'm pretty sure I've already mentioned it multiple times. The kind of evidence that would sway me is good evidence. Other than that, You can present whatever evidence you like and then I'll tell you if it's good or not and why.
Why are you asking us that?
What is good evidence for a supernatural claim? Or indeed any evidence? Now I accept that is up to those making those claims to justify but you talk about 'good evidence' and that seems to me as of you are talking in methodologically naturalistic terms of what evidence means.
-
ippy
thanks so much for your reply
I've located the transformer and discovered it was rather hot to touch .I disconnected the mains from the main inlet and let it cool down .
I then reconnected the mains to find out how long it took to get hot again (not long) so i disconnected the transformer from the mains leaving the mains circuit live .
The 12v circuit should also charge the habitation battery but the MH control panel says no charge in battery yet water pump and lighting is still working
After a good few hours of buggering about isolating various things and switching em on again one by one I have reached the conclusion the TRANSFORMER is at fault
anyway ive contacted a friendly sparks who's going to come and have a look at it in the morning
to be fair there copuld be three things all going wrong at the same time
1 faulty battery
2 faulty control panel
3 faulty transformer
or any combination of the above and without testing equipment I'm stuffed
so for now im running this laptop and my telly straight off the mains
thanks again old chap
All transformers get hot when they're working but you have a sparks going to look at it, best thing if you're not sure or don't feel entirely confident about doing the job.
Switch the transformer off in the meantime until Mr Sparks has had a look.
I always had a job I enjoyed before I retired sparks was only one of many trades I became qualified in, I started work as an apprentice engraver of the copper plates that were used to print visiting cards, the very same process that has now developed into making electronic chips knocked any need for engravers on the head before I had finished my apprenticeship.
Any time if I can help and regards to you Walter, ippy.
-
Something just for you ippy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYOQ5XMsbIk&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2BrHOrjJX9ZZNMCZlVD2LZrsY6uJipZBp2IwGoVk9PaXAZfKmlnRiySwk
-
All transformers get hot when they're working but you have a sparks going to look at it, best thing if you're not sure or don't feel entirely confident about doing the job.
Switch the transformer off in the meantime until Mr Sparks has had a look.
I always had a job I enjoyed before I retired sparks was only one of many trades I became qualified in, I started work as an apprentice engraver of the copper plates that were used to print visiting cards, the very same process that has now developed into making electronic chips knocked any need for engravers on the head before I had finished my apprenticeship.
Any time if I can help and regards to you Walter, ippy.
much appreciated ippy
the sparks has been and his advice was to only run the power through the transformer when it is required ie, when i need water and lighting
he said it will get warm when operating normally but mine was too hot and needs replacing AND the low voltage circuit needs checking by an auto electrician
He pointed me in the direction of one he knows , however I cant do that until this is all over
I think i can manage until then
thanks again for your help ippy :)
-
What is good evidence for a supernatural claim? Or indeed any evidence? Now I accept that is up to those making those claims to justify but you talk about 'good evidence' and that seems to me as of you are talking in methodologically naturalistic terms of what evidence means.
And the great irony is if he is talking in methodologically naturalistic terms of what evidence is, where is the methodologically naturalistic evidence for the philosophical naturalism he proceeds from?
-
But if you invent something called "supernatural" to explain the existence of nature, you're then just left with the same problem with that - what explains the existence of the "supernatural"? The term "supernatural" doesn't have a useful definition in the context, and it's anyway a blind guess that's a step in the wrong direction, because it leaves you with even more things whose existence isn't explained.
Option a) is begging the question. There might be something "external" to whatever you want to define as the universe, that somehow is the reason why it exists, but calling it a "creator" when we can deduce nothing about it, is unwarranted. Option b) can't be ruled out, and option c) is still stuck in 19th century physics. As I keep saying: the space-time might well just be. The shape and extent of it in the past direction is neither here nor there.
No - you're "thinking" is just outdated, simplistic, and biased towards the answer you would prefer...
Absolute rot. If you want to posit that the universe or some manifold in which it exists just is as brute fact, that is the intellectual equivalent of taking the ball and hiding it. What for instance is ''it's'' explanation ?
-
And the great irony is if he is talking in methodologically naturalistic terms of what evidence is, where is the methodologically naturalistic evidence for the philosophical naturalism he proceeds from?
So once again, do you have a supernaturalistic methodology?
-
Absolute rot. If you want to posit that the universe or some manifold in which it exists just is as brute fact, that is the intellectual equivalent of taking the ball and hiding it. What for instance is ''it's'' explanation ?
You need to justify a need for an explanation not assume it. The problem with using the idea of necessary cause is it is as has been pointed out many many times to you based on induction, and that isn't something that can give rise to the conclusion. Further once you use that flawed approach, you then end up throwing it away for whatever thing is 'necessary '. You really don't have any conception a logical argument.
-
And the great irony is if he is talking in methodologically naturalistic terms of what evidence is, where is the methodologically naturalistic evidence for the philosophical naturalism he proceeds from?
I'm trying to work out how, aside from the fevered workings of your imagination, you think anyone here is committed to philosophical naturalism - sounds like you are suffering from an over abundance of straw again.
-
I'm trying to work out how, aside from the fevered workings of your imagination, you think anyone here is committed to philosophical naturalism - sounds like you are suffering from an over abundance of straw again.
I happily will admit to agreeing with Vlad here. I think if you rule out the possibility of a supernatural methodology as torridon has, then you are effectively committing to philosophical naturalism
-
Absolute rot. If you want to posit that the universe or some manifold in which it exists just is as brute fact, that is the intellectual equivalent of taking the ball and hiding it. What for instance is ''it's'' explanation ?
Do try to keep up. The universe, which is possibly best described as a four-dimensional manifold, does exist. It's you who are trying to make an argument about why it exists and I'm pointing out that the options you have been presenting are rooted in outdated Newtonian thinking about time.
No matter what you posit as an "explanation" of the universe, it has exactly the same problem of what its explanation is. It's a pointless guessing game.
-
I happily will admit to agreeing with Vlad here. I think if you rule out the possibility of a supernatural methodology as torturing has, then you are effectively committing to philosophical naturalism
I'd agree with that, but my reading of posts here is that people don't adopt a stance of philosophical naturalism since they recognise that there is always the risk of the dreaded 'unknown unknowns', hence the frequent requests for a methodology specifically suited to the supernatural (though what that might look like beats me).
That these requests aren't responded to puzzles me, in that were methodological naturalism to ever provide substantive evidence for the divine then the divine is no more than a newly understood natural phenomenon - a routine fact, so no faith needed - so I'd have thought theists such as Vlad would be focused more on developing a method suited to their claims.
-
I'd agree with that, but my reading of posts here is that people don't adopt a stance of philosophical naturalism since they recognise that there is always the risk of the dreaded 'unknown unknowns', hence the frequent requests for a methodology specifically suited to the supernatural (though what that might look like beats me).
That these requests aren't responded to puzzles me, in that were methodological naturalism to ever provide substantive evidence for the divine then the divine is no more than a newly understood natural phenomenon - a routine fact, so no faith needed - so I'd have thought theists such as Vlad would be focused more on developing a method suited to their claims.
There is no unknown unknown here though it’s either god or not god.
A methodology hasn’t helped philosophical naturalism.
-
There is no unknown unknown here though it’s either god or not god.
How do you know that?
A methodology hasn’t helped philosophical naturalism.
You'll need to unpack that, Vlad, since I don't know what point you are trying to make here.
-
There is no unknown unknown here though it’s either god or not god.
A methodology hasn’t helped philosophical naturalism.
First sentence empty and logically incoherent suggestion.
Second sentence irrelevant, and evasion of your long standing inability to give answer to the lack of supernatural methodology.
All of course part of your inept attempts at shifting the burden of proof from your claims.
-
Absolute rot. If you want to posit that the universe or some manifold in which it exists just is as brute fact, that is the intellectual equivalent of taking the ball and hiding it. What for instance is ''it's'' explanation ?
What, for instance, is God's explanation?
-
A methodology hasn’t helped philosophical naturalism.
That's not the point. A methodology has hugely helped our understanding of the natural world. What is missing is any methodology to investigate claims of the "supernatural".
If you want to propose the "supernatural" you need to provide a method that can be used to distinguish probably true claims from just guesses or personal, subjective impression and intuition.
-
First sentence empty and logically incoherent suggestion.
There are no unknowns here it is a known unknown …...either God is or he isn't.
Second sentence irrelevant, and evasion of your long standing inability to give answer to the lack of supernatural methodology.
Off course it's relevant. It the invocation of methodological materialism in matters of the argument between philosophical materialism and theism or philosophical naturalism that is irrelevant.
-
What, for instance, is God's explanation?
The personal creator of this universe I suppose could be contingent or it could be the necessary creator and thus the explanation is found in itself.
-
Read your recent posts Vlad, you're still managing to avoid supplying anything approaching a credible reason for you to cling on to this belief you have that there's some kind of god figure at the centre of all things, OK where's your supporting evidence, it's your idea god, so it's your need to prove your case, not mine?
See if you can find a way of giving a direct answer in place of your reams of mixed bollocks and theobabble?
ippy
-
That's not the point. A methodology has hugely helped our understanding of the natural world.
That is wholly irrelevent as to the validity of philosophical Naturalism though.
-
That is wholly irrelevent as to the validity of philosophical Naturalism though.
Which totally irrelevant to anything I've said.
-
The personal creator of this universe I suppose could be contingent or it could be the necessary creator and thus the explanation is found in itself.
And gravity could be caused by tiny, purple pixies called Eric, that pull at the fabric of space-time.... ::)
-
Read your recent posts Vlad, you're still managing to avoid supplying anything approaching a credible reason for you to cling on to this belief you have that there's some kind of god figure at the centre of all things, OK where's your supporting evidence, it's your idea god, so it's your need to prove your case, not mine?
See if you can find a way of giving a direct answer in place of your reams of mixed bollocks and theobabble?
ippy
I do not need to prove my case on an old message board Ippy.
I just have to take part in discussion.
-
And gravity could be caused by tiny, purple pixies called Eric, that pull at the fabric of space-time.... ::)
How would they do it?
-
Which totally irrelevant to anything I've said.
You've just been talking about science. Isn't there a thread for that?
-
There are no unknowns here it is a known unknown …...either God is or he isn't.Off course it's relevant.
That sounds like a false dichotomy to me, since presumably somebody could postulate a creator that isn't a 'god', and if they did you would ask them to explain themselves, yes? Therefore I can't see how you can wholly exclude 'unknown unknowns'.
It the invocation of methodological materialism in matters of the argument between philosophical materialism and theism or philosophical naturalism that is irrelevant.
I'm still struggling to understand why you think anyone is arguing from a position of philosophical naturalism, so I suspect you're just doing another spot of kite-flying (such as switching terms to suddenly include 'materialism').
-
That sounds like a false dichotomy to me, since presumably somebody could postulate a creator that isn't a 'god', and if they did you would ask them to explain themselves, yes? Therefore I can't see how you can wholly exclude 'unknown unknowns'.
I'm still struggling to understand why you think anyone is arguing from a position of philosophical naturalism, so I suspect you're just doing another spot of kite-flying (such as switching terms to suddenly include 'materialism').
If you think and argue from the point of view that nature is probably all there is then that is philosophical naturalism. Unknown unknowns is a cop out since God or no god is an unknown unknown.
-
How would they do it?
They're supernatural, of course. ::)
You've just been talking about science. Isn't there a thread for that?
I was responding to your inept attempts at talking about why the universe exists. Philosophical naturalism seems to be something you're obsessed with for some reason of your own. I'm perfectly happy to accept the possibility of something "supernatural" but we would need some way of investigating claims about it - a methodology. Otherwise it's just guessing and my claims about all the little Erics who cause gravity are just as valid as anything anybody else claims about supernatural stuff.
-
That sounds like a false dichotomy to me, since presumably somebody could postulate a creator that isn't a 'god', and if they did you would ask them to explain themselves, yes? Therefore I can't see how you can wholly exclude 'unknown unknowns'.
The example you give isn’t an unknown unknown but another known unknown.
-
If you think and argue from the point of view that nature is probably all there is then that is philosophical naturalism.
Just as well that I don't then - can you name anyone here who does?
Unknown unknowns is a cop out since God or no god is an unknown unknown.
Not a cop out at all, and since you've just cited as follows "God or no god is an unknown unknown" then you seem to be indulging in what you yourself call a "cop out": you seem very confused.
-
Just as well that I don't then - can you name anyone here who does?
Not a cop out at all, and since you've just cited as follows "God or no god is an unknown unknown" then you seem to be indulging in what you yourself call a "cop out": you seem very confused.
They're supernatural, of course. ::)
I was responding to your inept attempts at talking about why the universe exists. Philosophical naturalism seems to be something you're obsessed with for some reason of your own. I'm perfectly happy to accept the possibility of something "supernatural" but we would need some way of investigating claims about it - a methodology. Otherwise it's just guessing and my claims about all the little Erics who cause gravity are just as valid as anything anybody else claims about supernatural stuff.
Oh I see argumentum ad ridiculum. Makes a change from Leprechauns though.
-
Just as well that I don't then - can you name anyone here who does?
Not a cop out at all, and since you've just cited as follows "God or no god is an unknown unknown" then you seem to be indulging in what you yourself call a "cop out": you seem very confused.
Sorry, there are of course no unknown unknowns here both your example and god or no god are known unknowns.
-
The example you give isn’t an unknown unknown but another known unknown.
So, do you have a list of all the known potential candidates for 'creator' even if you don't know which of these are the most likely candidates? Is so, how certain are you that there could be other candidate that you can't currently conceive of?
-
Sorry, there are of course no unknown unknowns here both your example and god or no god are known unknowns.
Let me simplify it for you: do you recognise that there may be 'unknown unknowns' is a risk you can't exclude?
-
So, do you have a list of all the known potential candidates for 'creator' even if you don't know which of these are the most likely candidates? Is so, how certain are you that there could be other candidate that you can't currently conceive of?
They are either personal or impersonal but they would have had to be a creator.
-
Let me simplify it for you: do you recognise that there may be 'unknown unknowns' is a risk you can't exclude?
There may be but not in the question God or no god.
-
There may be but not in the question God or no god.
How so?
-
They are either personal or impersonal but they would have had to be a creator.
What has personal or impersonal got to do with whether or not there is a 'creator'?
-
Oh I see argumentum ad ridiculum. Makes a change from Leprechauns though.
Evasion again. Actually a reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument in which one takes a proposition (or its negation, depending on what you're trying to prove) and demonstrate that it leads to an absurd conclusion (you can even use it, in a formal way, in mathematics).
If there is no methodology for the supernatural, then all claims about it carry equal weight, so my Erics, and, for that matter, supernatural leprechauns, are just as (in)valid as any god(s) claims. That is absurd, so there needs to be a methodology if we are to take claims about it seriously.
-
How so?
Because we know it’s either god or not but we don’t know which.
A known unknown.
-
What has personal or impersonal got to do with whether or not there is a 'creator'?
It’s either conscious computational has volition and acts with purpose or it’s unconscious uncalculating without volition or purpose.
-
Evasion again. Actually a reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument in which one takes a proposition (or its negation, depending on what you're trying to prove) and demonstrate that it leads to an absurd conclusion (you can even use it, in a formal way, in mathematics).
If there is no methodology for the supernatural, then all claims about it carry equal weight, so my Erics, and, for that matter, supernatural leprechauns, are just as (in)valid as any god(s) claims. That is absurd, so there needs to be a methodology if we are to take claims about it seriously.
No, argument from ridicule is a fallacy.
Supernatural Leprechauns ? Why call the creator of the universe a pixie unless you wish to make argumentum ad ridiculum.
-
Because we know it’s either god or not but we don’t know which.
A known unknown.
Without a logically coherent definition of god, it's just a meaningless statement.
-
There are no unknowns here it is a known unknown …...either God is or he isn't.
Or something unknown is there, and if it is God we don't know whether God is the end of the trail.After all, God has to come from somewhere.
-
The personal creator of this universe I suppose could be contingent or it could be the necessary creator and thus the explanation is found in itself.
If the universe is necessary, then its explanation can be found in itself.
-
How would they do it?
How would God do it?
-
That sounds like a false dichotomy to me
No, it's a tautology. Either x or not(x) is logically always true.
since presumably somebody could postulate a creator that isn't a 'god'
Assuming the creator has agency, it would automatically fall under the definition of "god" wouldn't it?
-
If the universe is necessary, then its explanation can be found in itself.
Yes we should then be looking for the necessary in the universe. Something therefore that is not contingent.
-
I do not need to prove my case on an old message board Ippy.
I just have to take part in discussion.
Unless you come up with some evidence you've, literally, nothing to discuss, you do, it seems to me, to be going around in pointless circles arguing as yet about nothing!
ippy
-
Something just for you ippy - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYOQ5XMsbIk&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2BrHOrjJX9ZZNMCZlVD2LZrsY6uJipZBp2IwGoVk9PaXAZfKmlnRiySwk
Thanks for that Robbie, I did wonder what Vlad's actual name was and it was also interesting to hear his actual voice too.
The talk reminded me of that well known old army saying, 'Bullshit Baffles Brains', if the bloke talking to Sam wasn't Vlad? Well who else could it have possibly have been there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, there can't be two Vlads, aaaarrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!
-
No, argument from ridicule is a fallacy.
Supernatural Leprechauns ? Why call the creator of the universe a pixie unless you wish to make argumentum ad ridiculum.
Are you just not paying attention? Like it or not a reductio ad absurdum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum) can be perfectly valid (even in mathematics) and I never called the creator of the universe a pixie. I'm pointing out that claims of the supernatural lead to absurdities in the absence of a methodology.
-
No, it's a tautology. Either x or not(x) is logically always true.
Vlad's options are 'no god' or 'god', so those are two different options - so a dichotomy - whereas a tautology is essentially saying the same thing twice.
Assuming the creator has agency, it would automatically fall under the definition of "god" wouldn't it?
I don't think we have a sound definition of 'god' anyway, but if we say it is essentially supernatural rather than natural, then Vlad's approach excludes a natural alternative, however unlikely it seems, that we currently couldn't recognise, but if we ever did it would be via a naturalistic method - so not a supernatural 'god' but a third option alongside Vlad's 'no god' and 'god': a prospect that is at present an 'unknown unknown'
-
Yes we should then be looking for the necessary in the universe. Something therefore that is not contingent.
No. You should be looking for the necessary in the god you claim exists.
Oh, what, you can’t find that god? Well that’s your problem.
-
Vlad's options are 'no god' or 'god', so those are two different options - so a dichotomy - whereas a tautology is essentially saying the same thing twice.
In logic, a tautology is a technical term that applies to a statement that must be true, no matter what. “Either this Apple is red or this Apple is not red” is a tautology in logic because it’s provably true just using the rules of formal logic.
“Either there is a god or there is not a god” Is not a false dichotomy and it is a tautology because X or not(X) Is provably true no matter what X is.
I don't think we have a sound definition of 'god' anyway,
It doesn’t matter though. The only problem is if you change the definition half way through evaluating the statement.
but if we say it is essentially supernatural rather than natural, then Vlad's approach excludes a natural alternative, however unlikely it seems, that we currently couldn't recognise, but if we ever did it would be via a naturalistic method - so not a supernatural 'god' but a third option alongside Vlad's 'no god' and 'god': a prospect that is at present an 'unknown unknown'
I find the whole natural / supernatural dichotomy problematic. As soon as you have enough evidence that something supernatural exists, you relabel it as natural.
-
In logic, a tautology is a technical term that applies to a statement that must be true, no matter what. “Either this Apple is red or this Apple is not red” is a tautology in logic because it’s provably true just using the rules of formal logic.
“Either there is a god or there is not a god” Is not a false dichotomy and it is a tautology because X or not(X) Is provably true no matter what X is.
OK - I see that now. I was thinking of tautology in the rhetorical sense - as in 'we reconvened again'. Surely though 'god' and 'no god' is a dichotomy?
-
In logic, a tautology is a technical term that applies to a statement that must be true, no matter what. “Either this Apple is red or this Apple is not red” is a tautology in logic because it’s provably true just using the rules of formal logic.
“Either there is a god or there is not a god” Is not a false dichotomy and it is a tautology because X or not(X) Is provably true no matter what X is.
It doesn’t matter though. The only problem is if you change the definition half way through evaluating the statement.
I find the whole natural / supernatural dichotomy problematic. As soon as you have enough evidence that something supernatural exists, you relabel it as natural.
This is essentially correct - in fact "the law of the excluded middle", axiomatic in classical logic. Other logics exist though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-valued_logic
-
OK - I see that now. I was thinking of tautology in the rhetorical sense - as in 'we reconvened again'
I apologise for not making it completely clear that I was using "tautology" in the technical sense.
Fun fact: all of maths is tautologies.
. Surely though 'god' and 'no god' is a dichotomy?
It is a dichotomy but it is not a false dichotomy. Either there is a god or there isn't a god. Both statements can't be true at the same time or both false at the same time.
What is a false dichotomy is the way Christians often frame the statement "either there is no god or the Christian god exists".
-
As Richard Dawkins says it's not about how much nonsense you keep on coming out with Vlad, the question is, is it true stands.
You're religious beliefs don't amount to much if you can't substantiate them, and as such there's not much point discussing them.
Why don't you join the Sherlock Holmes society they're always into discussing some aspect of CD's novels or another with the benefit of not needing to falsely declare some form of supernatural prior knowledge about Sherlock.
ippy.
-
As Richard Dawkins says it's not about how much nonsense you keep on coming out with Vlad, the question is, is it true stands.
You're religious beliefs don't amount to much if you can't substantiate them, and as such there's not much point discussing them.
Why don't you join the Sherlock Holmes society they're always into discussing some aspect of CD's novels or another with the benefit of not needing to falsely declare some form of supernatural prior knowledge about Sherlock.
ippy.
External creation, infinite universe or spontaneous universe. Moral irrealism or moral realism, New testament as history or New testament as fiction. Cultural secularism or reasoned choice
Religionethics message board as atheist hangout or a discussion forum for people of religion or no religion..………...we have to make our choices.
-
No. You should be looking for the necessary in the god you claim exists.
Oh, what, you can’t find that god? Well that’s your problem.
I have found Him.
-
I have found Him.
Prove it.
-
Prove it.
You have to either prove or disprove God yourself.
-
You have to either prove or disprove God yourself.
You claim to have found god. I can’t prove that you found god. In fact, I don’t believe you.
-
You claim to have found god. I can’t prove that you found god. In fact, I don’t believe you.
OK.
-
You claim to have found god. I can’t prove that you found god. In fact, I don’t believe you.
j p you've summed up in short all of the excessively voluminous tripe Vlad's always coming out with, in one.
ippy
-
I have found Him.
Where was he hiding?
-
External creation, infinite universe or spontaneous universe. Moral irrealism or moral realism, New testament as history or New testament as fiction. Cultural secularism or reasoned choice
Religionethics message board as atheist hangout or a discussion forum for people of religion or no religion..………...we have to make our choices.
Hasn't it clicked in your head yet Vlad, that going around the houses without giving a straight answer to anything is giving the game away?
-
Where was he hiding?
he's been hiding behind a big stone for a couple of days.
-
External creation, infinite universe or spontaneous universe. Moral irrealism or moral realism, New testament as history or New testament as fiction. Cultural secularism or reasoned choice
Religionethics message board as atheist hangout or a discussion forum for people of religion or no religion..………...we have to make our choices.
There is no reason why atheists and people with religious outlooks and views can't discuss science, philosophy, religion, morality, religious texts, fiction or anything else - but what you, on this thread, and Alan, on the other thread, are arguing for is scientific, ie. logical, support for religious concepts, that are not within the scope of rational argument. So these discussions can never be resolved.
-
There is no reason why atheists and people with religious outlooks and views can't discuss science, philosophy, religion, morality, religious texts, fiction or anything else - but what you, on this thread, and Alan, on the other thread, are arguing for is scientific, ie. logical, support for religious concepts, that are not within the scope of rational argument. So these discussions can never be resolved.
Not really, I rather regard it as many atheists on this board regard science as the final word on anything, some have been dismissive of philosophical arguments and some have shown scientism as expressed in the faith that science will come up with the answers.
I'm quite prepared to discuss Science. I even have no horse in the debate on whether science will explain human consciousness.....It needs to. Science is not all of reason IMV.
I think though the message board is somewhat of an atheist hangout.
-
Not really, I rather regard it as many atheists on this board regard science as the final word on anything ...
But science is a method, not a conclusion. And the whole point about science as a method is that it is verifiable and also, crucially the whole point about science is if the evidence changes then so does the conclusion.
-
But science is a method, not a conclusion. And the whole point about science as a method is that it is verifiable and also, crucially the whole point about science is if the evidence changes then so does the conclusion.
Agreed, which is more than you can say for the more extreme religionists who will believe their version of faith to be factual in spite of there being no evidence to support it.
-
Not really, I rather regard it as many atheists on this board regard science as the final word on anything, some have been dismissive of philosophical arguments and some have shown scientism as expressed in the faith that science will come up with the answers.
I'm quite prepared to discuss Science. I even have no horse in the debate on whether science will explain human consciousness.....It needs to. Science is not all of reason IMV.
I think though the message board is somewhat of an atheist hangout.
If something's not true or is senseless, arguing about it doesn't make it true or sensible Vlad.
ippy
-
If something's not true or is senseless, arguing about it doesn't make it true or sensible Vlad.
ippy
It makes sense to me. It might be great not to be bothered by the big questions about life, the universe but don't just come over all bigoted by those who are not only interested but think them important.
In fact that would be a discussion but of course generally the atheists I would say would use it as another excuse to parade how highly they regard themselves.
-
It makes sense to me. It might be great not to be bothered by the big questions about life, the universe but don't just come over all bigoted by those who are not only interested but think them important.
In fact that would be a discussion but of course generally the atheists I would say would use it as another excuse to parade how highly they regard themselves.
Your panic buying of straw has been used up in that post.
-
It makes sense to me. It might be great not to be bothered by the big questions about life, the universe but don't just come over all bigoted by those who are not only interested but think them important.
In fact that would be a discussion but of course generally the atheists I would say would use it as another excuse to parade how highly they regard themselves.
Vlad
It's simple, if you want to become more highly regarded, become an atheist 8)
-
It makes sense to me. It might be great not to be bothered by the big questions about life, the universe but don't just come over all bigoted by those who are not only interested but think them important.
In fact that would be a discussion but of course generally the atheists I would say would use it as another excuse to parade how highly they regard themselves.
The words I actually wrote were:
'If something's not true or is senseless, arguing about it doesn't make it true or sensible Vlad'.
This post of yours that followed a post of mine and included my comment doesn't relate to that post of mine, why is that Vlad? This post looks like you've jumped a post and it's an answer to someone else, why's that Vlad? Was it a mistake? If it wasn't a mistake well it could be a worrying sign? Are you OK Vlad, Vlad?
Regards, ippy.
-
There is no reason why atheists and people with religious outlooks and views can't discuss science, philosophy, religion, morality, religious texts, fiction or anything else - but what you, on this thread, and Alan, on the other thread, are arguing for is scientific, ie. logical, support for religious concepts, that are not within the scope of rational argument. So these discussions can never be resolved.
They can be resolved. Vlad and his religious friends can admit that their beliefs are based on faith alone and admit they have no evidence. Then we can all go away happy.
-
Not really, I rather regard it as many atheists on this board regard science as the final word on anything
It is the final word on matters of reality1. Despite all the long words and philosophical waffle that people spout on the subject of science, the core idea is very simple (to paraphrase Feynman): "if your idea disagrees with experiment, it is wrong". i.e. if you compare your idea with what actually happens in the World and what happens is not what your idea says happens, your idea is wrong.
It really is that simple and nobody has yet invented a better way to find out about the World that exists outside of our minds.
1but it is a final word that can change when new evidence comes in.
-
Vlad
It's simple, if you want to become more highly regarded, become an atheist 8)
Maybe after I win The X factor on TV.
-
It is the final word on matters of reality1. Despite all the long words and philosophical waffle that people spout on the subject of science, the core idea is very simple (to paraphrase Feynman): "if your idea disagrees with experiment, it is wrong". i.e. if you compare your idea with what actually happens in the World and what happens is not what your idea says happens, your idea is wrong.
It really is that simple and nobody has yet invented a better way to find out about the World that exists outside of our minds.
1but it is a final word that can change when new evidence comes in.
What experiment has been done to prove that science is the final word on matters of reality?
When Feynman talks about science and ideas isn't he talking more about scientific hypotheses?
How come science experimentation reveals a big bang and yet there are a few on here yearning for the universe to have existed from infinity?
-
What experiment has been done to prove that science is the final word on matters of reality?
We don't need an experiment. It's the only thing that works.
When Feynman talks about science and ideas isn't he talking more about scientific hypotheses?
That's what science is. It's making hypotheses and then finding out if they are wrong. There's no need to make it any more complicated than that unless you want to obfuscate a question.
How come science experimentation reveals a big bang and yet there are a few on here yearning for the universe to have existed from infinity?
Yearning is not science.
-
We don't need an experiment.Yep, OK.
Yearning is not science.
So the final word, as you say, at the moment is the big bang?
-
We don't need an experiment. It's the only thing that works.
But you've been banging on about experiments Jeremy so how come your theory that science is the only thing that works on reality is the one thing that doesn't need experimentation.
Seems to me you have jumped the bounds of science into philosophy.
-
How come science experimentation reveals a big bang and yet there are a few on here yearning for the universe to have existed from infinity?
Who do you think is yearning for that? We have well established theories that take us back to a tiny fraction of a second after what becomes a singularity if we extrapolate GR back further. What actually happened before that is unknown because quantum effects and gravity are both involved and we don't have a tested theory that units them.
We simply don't know if time started at that point or if it extends back further (possibly infinity further), or something else we haven't even thought of yet.
However, if GR is substantially correct about what space-time is, then look back in time for the reason what the space-time exists is still wrong-headed, Newtonian thinking.
-
Yearning is not science.
It is evidence of our consciously driven freedom to choose what we want to yearn about. ;)
-
It is evidence of our consciously driven freedom to choose what we want to yearn about. ;)
Unless you are Christian, in which case that ruddy book tells you exactly and precisely what you are allowed to yearn for and what will happen to you if you yearn for something that is forbidden!
-
It is evidence of our consciously driven freedom to choose what we want to yearn about. ;)
Except we obviously don't have such a freedom. Try yearning for something you dislike.
-
Unless you are Christian, in which case that ruddy book tells you exactly and precisely what you are allowed to yearn for and what will happen to you if you yearn for something that is forbidden!
Owl, the poor bloke is totally indoctrinated into a thick catholic fog, you wont get through to him.
ippy.
-
Owl, the poor bloke is totally indoctrinated into a thick catholic fog, you wont get through to him.
ippy.
Ain't that true - it is truly the most pathetic form od indoctrination.
It would be progress if, at the very least, these sheep would agree that, as I have said on many ocassions, my religious beliefs are just that, beliefs and matters of faitrh - I do not claim it to be anything else.
-
When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?
Not speaking for anyone else here, but for my mind... I don't know. I can't really conceive of what evidence would be enough to support such a massive claim. The problem is that the very concept of 'evidence' starts to break down when you're looking at claims of magical entities - if the magic is real, no evidence is reliable, which makes claims of evidence in support of the magic problematic.
O.
-
But you've been banging on about experiments Jeremy so how come your theory that science is the only thing that works on reality is the one thing that doesn't need experimentation.
It’s not a theory, it’s an observation.
Seems to me you have jumped the bounds of science into philosophy.
Seems to me you should be Less obsessed with labels and more concerned with what people say.
-
When this question comes up atheists around here glibly say ''any''. But that is just avoidance.
What manner of evidence then would satisfy atheists?
I'm not after any evidence. There are an infinite other things I could choose to believe in apart from your god.
-
Who do you think is yearning for that? We have well established theories that take us back to a tiny fraction of a second after what becomes a singularity if we extrapolate GR back further. What actually happened before that is unknown because quantum effects and gravity are both involved and we don't have a tested theory that units them.
We simply don't know if time started at that point or if it extends back further (possibly infinity further), or something else we haven't even thought of yet.
However, if GR is substantially correct about what space-time is, then look back in time for the reason what the space-time exists is still wrong-headed, Newtonian thinking.
The physicist, Stephen Hawking, offered substantial evidence that time as we know it started from the singularity of the Big Bang. It is misleading to say "what happened before the Big Bang" because this implies time continuing to extend back. It may be more accurate to consider what happens or exists outside the Big bang, or more accurately, outside our universe. Outside the universe could be an existence which is aware of this universe and its time dimension, but not part of it.
-
The physicist, Stephen Hawking, offered substantial evidence that time as we know it started from the singularity of the Big Bang.
No, he did not.
It is misleading to say "what happened before the Big Bang" because this implies time continuing to extend back.
As I said, we simply don't know because there is no tested theory of quantum gravity and that will have an impact on what did or did not happen at the time general relativity predicts a singularity.
In any event I was talking about before the time that our tested theories allow us to go back to (when quantum gravity effects would become significant). I'm not denying that that it's perfectly possible that time started at the BB.
It may be more accurate to consider what happens or exists outside the Big bang, or more accurately, outside our universe. Outside the universe could be an existence which is aware of this universe and its time dimension, but not part of it.
And gravity could be caused by little purple, multi-dimensional pixies, all called Eric, that pull at the fabric of space-time....
-
And gravity could be caused by little purple, multi-dimensional pixies, all called Eric, that pull at the fabric of space-time....
Did you just assume Erica's gender?!?
O.
-
No, he did not.
I take it that you have not read (or understood) his book "A Brief History of Time"
-
And gravity could be caused by little purple, multi-dimensional pixies, all called Eric, that pull at the fabric of space-time....
But no little purple, multi-dimensional pixies ever came into our universe, becoming one of us in order to witness to the existence of what exists outside and offer us the choice and means to join them in eternity.
-
But no little purple, multi-dimensional pixies ever came into our universe, becoming one of us in order to witness to the existence of what exists outside and offer us the choice and means to join them in eternity.
There is no evidence any god exists either.
-
I take it that you have not read (or understood) his book "A Brief History of Time"
I have, and it didn't offer "substantial evidence that time as we know it started from the singularity of the Big Bang". IIRC in that book he proposed his "no boundary conditions" hypothesis using imaginary time.
It was and remains nothing more than one hypothesis amongst many others and there is no actual evidence for any of them. We need a properly tested theory that unites General Relativity with Quantum Field Theory to understand what happened at the time when GR predicts a singularity.
-
But no little purple, multi-dimensional pixies ever came into our universe, becoming one of us in order to witness to the existence of what exists outside and offer us the choice and means to join them in eternity.
I see no more substantial evidence that any god did this than any purple, multi-dimensional pixies did...
-
But no little purple, multi-dimensional pixies ever came into our universe, becoming one of us in order to witness to the existence of what exists outside and offer us the choice and means to join them in eternity.
but if they had done, in antiquity, allegedly, would you accept said little purple beings as your saviour ? The main difference is that Jesus was not purple. So far as we know.
-
I take it that you have not read (or understood) his book "A Brief History of Time"
Further to my last post - for an entirely different view, try Cycles of Time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_of_Time) by Roger Penrose (who has published joint papers with Hawking). Not for the maths-phobic, however.
-
I see no more substantial evidence that any god did this than any purple, multi-dimensional pixies did...
So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?
Like many others, you choose to think up reasons to dismiss the reality and walk away from it - despite all the evidence which is there to discover for anyone who chooses to seek it.
-
So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
There is no historical 'evidence' of any resurrection, Alan: just fantastical anecdotal dates of uncertain provenance that are, as I've often said, indistinguishable from fiction.
And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?
On what methodological basis do these tales represent hard evidence of Jesus, as opposed to faith-based wishful thinking?
Like many others, you choose to think up reasons to dismiss the reality and walk away from it - despite all the evidence which is there to discover for anyone who chooses to seek it.
Nope - if the 'evidence' is there then so is the method used to gather, analyse and quantify it: since you have no method then you have no evidence worthy of the term.
-
So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?
Like many others, you choose to think up reasons to dismiss the reality and walk away from it - despite all the evidence which is there to discover for anyone who chooses to seek it.
Christianity is a subset of the world's religions, which, in turn are a subset of superstitious beliefs in general. Christians can't even agree amongst themselves about substantive details, and the bible is a hopeless, incoherent mess, riddled with contradictions. As for "personal witness stories concerning life changing events", not only are witnesses notoriously unreliable, they are available in abundance for all sorts of different and contradictory superstitions including the different and contradictory religions and different and contradictory versions of Christianity.
Seriously Alan, if this is a god's attempt at communicating and important message to its creation, it's utterly pathetic. That's before we get to the glaring contradictions involved in the beliefs themselves - some of which you regularly draw attention to here. I don't need reasons to dismiss it, I need some hint of a reason to take this hopeless jumble of incoherent nonsense at all seriously.
-
So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?
Like many others, you choose to think up reasons to dismiss the reality and walk away from it - despite all the evidence which is there to discover for anyone who chooses to seek it.
Problem - There is no " historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ". The first written mention of Jesus Christ is no earlier than 100 years after his supposed death!
-
So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
There's a difference between ignoring the evidence of the life of someone that was possibly the foundation of the Jesus myth, and accepting the myth itself as truth; case in point, the concept of 'resurrection'.
And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?
And the equally thousands of personal witness stories concerning life-changing events not-relating to Jesus which show these things happen regardless of belief? And the equally thousands of personal witness stories concerning life-changing event credited to other religions?
Like many others, you choose to think up reasons to dismiss the reality and walk away from it - despite all the evidence which is there to discover for anyone who chooses to seek it.
Like many others, you confuse your belief about reality with reality.
O.
-
So you are deliberately ignoring the historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Oh dear. You're on shaky ground there. We've been discussing that on these boards for years and the evidence really all comes down to a few stories written years after Jesus died by anonymous people with unknown sources (or perhaps just one unknown source). In fact, if you just want to answer the question "did Jesus exist?" you'll find that the hard evidence is really limited to the existence of the Jesus cult as described by Paul. I'm not a Jesus mythicist but my argument for not being one is that Christianity must have been founded by somebody and it's more probable that the character in the Bible is based on that founder than invented completely from scratch. That's it. That's all there is.
And the thousands of personal witness stories concerning life changing events relating to Jesus?
You mean related to a belief in Jesus.
-
Problem - There is no " historical evidence concerning the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ". The first written mention of Jesus Christ is no earlier than 100 years after his supposed death!
Paul mentions him in the 50's CE, only about 20 years after his death.
-
Paul mentions him in the 50's CE, only about 20 years after his death.
If even one of his disciples doesn't mention him till 20 years after his death that is not exactly current is it?
Where are the records of his actions DURING HIS LIFE?
-
If even one of his disciples doesn't mention him till 20 years after his death that is not exactly current is it?
No but I was correcting your assertion that it was 100 years before anything was written down. There is no need to exaggerate the paucity of the evidence. We are talking about a dead man coming back alive: an unknown identical twin would be a more likely explanation than a bona fide resurrection.
Where are the records of his actions DURING HIS LIFE
There aren't any.
-
No but I was correcting your assertion that it was 100 years before anything was written down. There is no need to exaggerate the paucity of the evidence. We are talking about a dead man coming back alive: an unknown identical twin would be a more likely explanation than a bona fide resurrection.
There aren't any.
Does this lack raise suspicions in your mind? Does it by any chance call into question the mindless and unquestioning acceptance of the Biblical version by Christians? Do you see it as evidence of childhood brainwashing?
I am perfectly prepared to admit that it took 16 years and a inappropriate sermon shake me out of my previous blind acceptance of the Church's version drummed into me every Sunday, from age 5, at the behest of a High Church (whatever that signifies) Anglican father!
-
Does this lack raise suspicions in your mind? Does it by any chance call into question the mindless and unquestioning acceptance of the Biblical version by Christians? Do you see it as evidence of childhood brainwashing?
I am perfectly prepared to admit that it took 16 years and a inappropriate sermon shake me out of my previous blind acceptance of the Church's version drummed into me every Sunday, from age 5, at the behest of a High Church (whatever that signifies) Anglican father!
Is there any chance you might read what people write and don't indulge in strawmen about what they believe? Jeremyp does not believe in christianity, any form.
-
Does this lack raise suspicions in your mind?
Why would it? According to Jospehus there were hundreds of apocalyptic preachers around at the time of Jesus and the only documentary evidence we have for most of them is what Josephus says about them, which is almost nothing. I suspect the only reason we have anything at all on Jesus is that Christianity survived and became successful.
Does it by any chance call into question the mindless and unquestioning acceptance of the Biblical version by Christians? Do you see it as evidence of childhood brainwashing?
I wouldn't call it brainwashing, but such conditioning is not unique to Christianity.
I am perfectly prepared to admit that it took 16 years and a inappropriate sermon shake me out of my previous blind acceptance of the Church's version drummed into me every Sunday, from age 5, at the behest of a High Church (whatever that signifies) Anglican father!
It took me about the same length of time, but for me it was science and The Selfish Gene in particular.
[/quote]
-
Christianity is a subset of the world's religions, which, in turn are a subset of superstitious beliefs in general. Christians can't even agree amongst themselves about substantive details, and the bible is a hopeless, incoherent mess, riddled with contradictions. As for "personal witness stories concerning life changing events", not only are witnesses notoriously unreliable, they are available in abundance for all sorts of different and contradictory superstitions including the different and contradictory religions and different and contradictory versions of Christianity.
Seriously Alan, if this is a god's attempt at communicating and important message to its creation, it's utterly pathetic. That's before we get to the glaring contradictions involved in the beliefs themselves - some of which you regularly draw attention to here. I don't need reasons to dismiss it, I need some hint of a reason to take this hopeless jumble of incoherent nonsense at all seriously.
There are lots of people who claim to know of God and who show very differing, conflicting concepts of their knowledge. But for those who know God, there is no conflict because it is the same God for all those who have come to know Him. This is aptly illustrated in the scripture reading from Tuesday's daily mass concerning the two disciples walking away from Jerusalem who encountered the risen Jesus on the road without recognising Him. They were confused about the recent happenings and no longer wished to stay in Jerusalem. But Jesus opened their minds to the true meaning by quoting the scriptures to them and explaining their relevance. "Did not our hearts burn within us" was their response when they understood - and they eventually returned to Jerusalem to join the other disciples. This experience is true today for those who discover God in their lives - the words from scripture take on new relevance and feed us with ever deeper wonder and awe in the knowledge and power of God's love.
-
There are lots of people who claim to know of God and who show very differing, conflicting concepts of their knowledge. But for those who know God, there is no conflict because it is the same God for all those who have come to know Him.
Old Testament god vs New Testament god - two fundamentally different characters. If you've got one god, it's suffering from a multiple personality disorder.
O.
-
There are lots of people who claim to know of God and who show very differing, conflicting concepts of their knowledge.
Which just illustrates the point I was making. There isn't a clear message with lots of witnesses, just a confused mess. Why wouldn't a just and fair god with an important message for its creation not make its message clear to everybody?
But for those who know God, there is no conflict because it is the same God for all those who have come to know Him.
So, you're right and all the rest are wrong. ::) Even if I were tempted to take such an assertion seriously (which I'm not) there are still the glaring contradictions in what you believe.
-
Christianity is a subset of the world's religions, which, in turn are a subset of superstitious beliefs in general. Christians can't even agree amongst themselves about substantive details, and the bible is a hopeless, incoherent mess, riddled with contradictions. As for "personal witness stories concerning life changing events", not only are witnesses notoriously unreliable, they are available in abundance for all sorts of different and contradictory superstitions including the different and contradictory religions and different and contradictory versions of Christianity.
Seriously Alan, if this is a god's attempt at communicating and important message to its creation, it's utterly pathetic. That's before we get to the glaring contradictions involved in the beliefs themselves - some of which you regularly draw attention to here. I don't need reasons to dismiss it, I need some hint of a reason to take this hopeless jumble of incoherent nonsense at all seriously.
Hear! Hear! or is it Here! Here! whichever applies!
-
There are lots of people who claim to know of God and who show very differing, conflicting concepts of their knowledge. But for those who know God, there is no conflict because it is the same God for all those who have come to know Him. This is aptly illustrated in the scripture reading from Tuesday's daily mass concerning the two disciples walking away from Jerusalem who encountered the risen Jesus on the road without recognising Him. They were confused about the recent happenings and no longer wished to stay in Jerusalem. But Jesus opened their minds to the true meaning by quoting the scriptures to them and explaining their relevance. "Did not our hearts burn within us" was their response when they understood - and they eventually returned to Jerusalem to join the other disciples. This experience is true today for those who discover God in their lives - the words from scripture take on new relevance and feed us with ever deeper wonder and awe in the knowledge and power of God's love.
This post of yours reminds me of the person that is supposed to have said: 'I'ts not so much the end of that worries me it' more what happens the day after'?
Your posts are at the very least as sensible as that, you by some of the contents of your posts seem to be reasonably rational until someone mentions the dreaded subject whereupon you, it seems to me, then enter the twilight zone? Puzzling?
Commiserations to you Alan, ippy.
-
There are lots of people who claim to know of God and who show very differing, conflicting concepts of their knowledge. But for those who know God, there is no conflict because it is the same God for all those who have come to know Him. This is aptly illustrated in the scripture reading from Tuesday's daily mass concerning the two disciples walking away from Jerusalem who encountered the risen Jesus on the road without recognising Him. They were confused about the recent happenings and no longer wished to stay in Jerusalem. But Jesus opened their minds to the true meaning by quoting the scriptures to them and explaining their relevance. "Did not our hearts burn within us" was their response when they understood - and they eventually returned to Jerusalem to join the other disciples. This experience is true today for those who discover God in their lives - the words from scripture take on new relevance and feed us with ever deeper wonder and awe in the knowledge and power of God's love.
No True Scotsman fallacy. Believers who are not quite on message, aren't really true believers, they don't really know the 'true' Scotsman God. Anyway, you'll need something stronger than personal witness testimony to cut it with people who value critical thinking.
-
No True Scotsman fallacy. Believers who are not quite on message, aren't really true believers, they don't really know the 'true' Scotsman God. Anyway, you'll need something stronger than personal witness testimony to cut it with people who value critical thinking.
I remember the 'Twilight Zone' programmes, I can remember 'Captain Kirk' doing one of the series something to do with Gremlins I think?
Again, I was just thinking Alan's belief is just about as credible as that Gremlins edition of the 'Twilight Zone', the time he must be wasting going to all of the various pointless services etc etc.
Commiserations Alan, you need them, regards, ippy.