Evidence of God

[Owlswing]

To become a pagan, start to believe in gods, follow paganism, join with other pagans?

Sorry for the delay in responding, I missed this reply!

To become a pagan - it was a religion that didn't demand the kind of things that Christianity did. They have no equivalent of the Bible unless you become a Gardnerian, which I didn't. It did not demand that I believe as a matter of fact that the Goddesses and Gods exist. All they ask is that you have a personal faith that they do and during a ritual, you have faith that they hear what you say and that you understand that like humans, they may choose to ignore you without any other reason than, like humans again, they just can't be bothered or are too busy with something else. Also, there are different deities who look after different things, they don't expect you to believe in one entity that does it all (and then fucks most of it up").

To start to believe in Gods - see above.

To follow paganism - the cycle of Life - Birth, Life, Death and Rebirth - No Hell, just the Summerlands in which to go over what has happened during your previous life and to use that to prepare for Rebirth.

To join with other Pagans - A sip of communion wine? Sod that for a game of soldiers. wait 'til the ritual is over and get out a few bottles of the Moniak or Lindisfarne, work out which ritual is going to be the next one you go to, which need not be the one of your own coven's as you might be invited to go to a different coven's ritual! As long as you clear your absence with your own High Priestess, of course! Also, there are no 'different denominations' separated by differences in dogma (again except the Garnerians). they are ALL pagans and they accept every pagan's right to work in his or her own way (except the Gardnerians!)!


 

     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sorry for the delay in responding, I missed this reply!

That’s fine, thank you very much for responding. If you feel that if my responses don’t apply please let me know.

To become a pagan - it was a religion that didn't demand the kind of things that Christianity did.

which demands? I don’t think demands necessarily affect the truth status of any religion. For myself I think religion is probably less real if it isn’t promoting some sense of challenge within you. That promotes a sense of rubbing up against something other.

They have no equivalent of the Bible unless you become a Gardnerian, which I didn't.

Although I believe God opened up my understanding of the bible prior to becoming a Christian I have a modicum of sympathy in that early in my Christian life I noted some brothers and sisters held the bible in a different position of ascendancy neatly summed up by the local vicar when I discussed the situation with him. He described their position as making the bible almost the fourth member of the trinity which of course it isn’t. I think non Christians also think this.

It did not demand that I believe as a matter of fact that the Goddesses and Gods exist. All they ask is that you have a personal faith that they do and during a ritual, you have faith that they hear what you say

This statement looks self contradictory and only seems to make sense if you take the word exist, to mean exist in the material sense.

If you do not believe they exist in any sense, how can you have faith that they hear what you say?

It looks that you have misunderstood the nature of existence as meant by Christians in my opinion.

If something is actually not real at all then it makes sense that they have no power except over the imagination and they do not actually hear anything.

I have not said your gods are not real....but you have apparently. Neither do I believe your religion to be bollocks. Have you asked your atheist friends here.if they believe that?

understand that like humans, they may choose to ignore you without any other reason than, like humans again, they just can't be bothered or are too busy with something else. Also, there are different deities who look after different things, they don't expect you to believe in one entity that does it all (and then fucks most of it up").

Does your belief have a supreme God or Goddess?

To start to believe in Gods - see above.

To follow paganism - the cycle of Life - Birth, Life, Death and Rebirth - No Hell, just the Summerlands in which to go over what has happened during your previous life and to use that to prepare for Rebirth.

To join with other Pagans - A sip of communion wine? Sod that for a game of soldiers. wait 'til the ritual is over and get out a few bottles of the Moniak or Lindisfarne, work out which ritual is going to be the next one you go to, which need not be the one of your own coven's as you might be invited to go to a different coven's ritual! As long as you clear your absence with your own High Priestess, of course! Also, there are no 'different denominations' separated by differences in dogma (again except the Garnerians). they are ALL pagans and they accept every pagan's right to work in his or her own way (except the

Most religions have their schismatic but it sounds like you guys are working overtime to keep up a united front. However Please excuse and indulge me in your resolve in this matter..... You have Gods.....and I have a God, You believe in freestyle worship, I worship in my own way. What is it then that excludes from being in your group of pagans? Same for the gardnerians.


 

     
[/quote]

[Outrider]

And how is that not the necessary entity or radically different from God?

Whether or not it's necessary rather depends on which definition of necessary you're deploying today.  How it's different from gods is that there's no suggestion of consciousness, intent, purpose, goals, judgement, magic, deliberation or direction in the explanation.

None of which was actually the point, I was just showing that you keep failing to appreciate the implications of a potentially infinite reality with regards to ideas like 'before' or 'creation'.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whether or not it's necessary rather depends on which definition of necessary you're deploying today.  How it's different from gods is that there's no suggestion of consciousness, intent, purpose, goals, judgement, magic, deliberation or direction in the explanation.

Immediately and on the off. If there is only one entity there is only one degree of freedom and therefore only one direction.  Unless of course other potentialities are contained within this one entity. Since there is no randomness, no possible accident since there is nothing external to blunder in and nothing external to influence or determine, then something very much like a choice, and more like choice than anything else would have to be made about which potentiality to enact.
Something without the aforementioned properties would enact all potentialities and therefore a chaos would ensue. Whether that would occur simultaneously or progressively one could only hazard.

[Stranger]

Immediately and on the off. If there is only one entity there is only one degree of freedom and therefore only one direction.  Unless of course other potentialities are contained within this one entity. Since there is no randomness, no possible accident since there is nothing external to blunder in and nothing external to influence or determine, then something very much like a choice, and more like choice than anything else would have to be made about which potentiality to enact.
Something without the aforementioned properties would enact all potentialities and therefore a chaos would ensue. Whether that would occur simultaneously or progressively one could only hazard.

This is still utter nonsense and baseless assertions. You can't have anything like a choice without time. What's more, if there is a choice then it could have been different with flatly contradicts what you've previously said about necessity.

And I'm still actually waiting for you to set out this supposed argument from necessity, or reference a summary that you're prepared to stand by. What are the premises, what logic steps lead you to a necessity that is anything like any god-ideas? If you can make a logical argument how is the 'necessary' entity not contingent on logical self-consistency itself?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is still utter nonsense and baseless assertions. You can't have anything like a choice without time.

The floor is yours!
Outrider and I are discussing an infinite reality. What do you think you are discussing?

[jeremyp]

No gobbledy gook.

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

Just plain facts

How are you determining that what you assert is fact?

about what science is or isn't capable of. Anything beyond that and we are into isms

You're the one who keeps wanting to talk about isms. I'm trying to avoid all that useless jargon.

There are other realities or aspects of reality, maths and history, morality for example.

Mathematics by itself will not tell you anything about reality. Morality is a set of rules that define the bounds of acceptable human social behaviour. It's not meant to tell you about reality.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well the question can certainly be asked. How does that help naturalism since the natural seems to be contingent?

No-one said it “helps” naturalism. What was actually being said was that transferring an unknown to a new (supposed) entity doesn’t make it any less of an unknown. “It’s magic innit” answers nothing.

Whereas something Non Contingent seems the most logical position to embrace.

No it doesn’t. The “most logical position to embrace” is to proceed from known precepts to seek a coherent, investigable and testable answer – it’s not to think that “it’s magic innit” is any kind of answer at all. "God" in other words isn't an answer - it's the abnegation of an answer.     

Admission that one does not and probably cannot detect the necessary event, condition or entity has given way to the temptation to say things like ''the universe just is'', or there is no necessary entity, event or condition (explaining away) and one is left with appeal to infinite regresses which it can be argued are unproductive.

First, you’ve yet to demonstrate that there must have been a “necessary event”.

Second, a “don’t know” isn’t “unproductive” – it’s just a statement of the current state of knowledge. There’s nothing more productive about trying to fill a gap in understanding with “it’s magic innit”.   

There has been compromise. I have said that I am willing, if it is found, to be shown the necessary aspect, event, moment etc in/of the universe and I think many atheists are happy to have an eternal necessary so long as it isn't God.

Yet again, atheism doesn’t say “so long as it isn’t God” at all. What it actually says is, “the arguments you attempt to justify your belief “god” are either missing, incoherent or wrong. Therefore there’s no need to take the claim seriously”.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just saying it doesn't make it so.

How are you determining that what you assert is fact?
You're the one who keeps wanting to talk about isms. I'm trying to avoid all that useless jargon.
Mathematics by itself will not tell you anything about reality. Morality is a set of rules that define the bounds of acceptable human social behaviour. It's not meant to tell you about reality.

Well, I guess i've punted what I consider to be reality. Perhaps it's about time you told us what your conception of it is.

[Owlswing]

 . . . it sounds like you guys are working overtime to keep up a united front.   Same for the Gardnerians.

Before I answer any of the other points made in your post I must clarify one thing from the quote above.

There is no "United Front" and if you read some of the posts on the Pagan Topic, especially those of the Lady Rhiannon and myself, that should be blindingly obvious. 

Paganism is in no way a formalised religion. Each and every Pagan is free to follow whichever path he or she wishes, solitary, coven, or a mixture of both. The only "united front" is probably the Pagan Federation which will, if requested, represent any and all pagans who are experiencing difficulties of any sort in the practice of their beliefs due to opposition by non-Pagans or, even, from other pagans who follow a different path, such as, occasionally, the Gardnerians.

It is, and this is one of the things that attracted me to it, highly individualistic. A Pagan car=n follow his/her own path entirely separate from every other Pagan on Earth for 364/365 days/nights of the year/leap year and yet join a coven of witches to celebrate Samhain (look it up in a dictionary) should they wish so to do and the Coven was willing to accept their presence.

Gardnerians are followers of Gerald Brosseau Gardner who (quite literally) invented Gardnerian Witchcraft in the 1950s and whose followers consider themselves the elite of the Craft and will not countenance the presence of any non-Gardnerian at any ritual that they perform.

If you cannot understand these points it is going to be a long and difficult road to explain my beliefs and my attachment to them in place of the Christianity in which I was brought up!

Owlswing

)O(
 

PS - It might be an idea to get the Mods to move our posts from this thread to the Pagan Topic

   
[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No-one said it “helps” naturalism. What was actually being said was that transferring an unknown to a new (supposed) entity doesn’t make it any less of an unknown. “It’s magic innit” answers nothing.

No it doesn’t. The “most logical position to embrace” is to proceed from known precepts to seek a coherent, investigable and testable answer – it’s not to think that “it’s magic innit” is any kind of answer at all. "God" in other words isn't an answer - it's the abnegation of an answer.     

First, you’ve yet to demonstrate that there must have been a “necessary event”.

Second, a “don’t know” isn’t “unproductive” – it’s just a statement of the current state of knowledge. There’s nothing more productive about trying to fill a gap in understanding with “it’s magic innit”.   

Yet again, atheism doesn’t say “so long as it isn’t God” at all. What it actually says is, “the arguments you attempt to justify your belief “god” are either missing, incoherent or wrong. Therefore there’s no need to take the claim seriously”.

It and you can assert that as much as it and you likes even unto Bovine homecoming. Bovine Homecoming, Bovine excretion more like it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

It and you can assert that as much as it and you likes even unto Bovine homecoming. Bovine Homecoming, Bovine excretion more like it.

So I explain point-by-point where you've gone wrong, and in reply you just spit the dummy.

In the unlikely event you ever feel like attempting at least an argument to counter-argue, let me know. In the meantime, your abject collapse (yet again) is noted.   

[Outrider]

Since there is no randomness, no possible accident since there is nothing external to blunder in and nothing external to influence or determine, then something very much like a choice, and more like choice than anything else would have to be made about which potentiality to enact.

I don't see how you get to that.  In order for there to be choice there has to be a) something to do the choosing and b) possibilities.  In a deterministic and eternal reality there is neither anything 'before' the reality in order to choose it, and no possibility of an alternative for there to be a choice of.  The concept of choice makes no sense to me in that context.

O.

[jeremyp]

Well, I guess i've punted what I consider to be reality. Perhaps it's about time you told us what your conception of it is.

That which still exists when we stop believing in it is one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see how you get to that.  In order for there to be choice there has to be a) something to do the choosing and b) possibilities.  In a deterministic and eternal reality there is neither anything 'before' the reality in order to choose it, and no possibility of an alternative for there to be a choice of.  The concept of choice makes no sense to me in that context.

O.

But I am arguing that the eternal reality and God are one and the same. So the eternal reality is self determining and since it is the one thing there is no accident to have, no direction to unconsciously blunder into, no randomness. Any potentialities as far as a temporary or temporal universe is concerned must exist within the eternal reality for there is nowhere else to exist.

That the universe is a single consistent actualised potentiality points to self control which a single eternal reality, entity or necessary must logically be imbued with.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

So I explain point-by-point where you've gone wrong, and in reply you just spit the dummy.

In the unlikely event you ever feel like attempting at least an argument to counter-argue, let me know. In the meantime, your abject collapse (yet again) is noted.

Bullscat.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you can make a logical argument how is the 'necessary' entity not contingent on logical self-consistency itself?

Sorry I missed this. If you are saying logic might be the necessary entity, I would say you might be in the right direction. Since regards to any matter something has to be logical, logic must be involved.
However, I would say that we need the matter, entity, process in question for the logic to operate, so the logic is dependent or contingent on the matter. In the case of the ultimate, this is resolved, I would move where the logic and the matter in question are one.

I’m sure there are those here who would say that without a physical universe logic would not exist.
I say that without God it would not exist. In fact, the early Greek Christians held that Jesus is the logos as held in Greek philosophy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


Second, a “don’t know” isn’t “unproductive” – it’s just a statement of the current state of knowledge. There’s nothing more productive about trying to fill a gap in understanding with “it’s magic innit”.   

Of course a Don’t know is unproductive and certainly on it’s own. Don’t know leading to humility might be productive but I don’t quite see that in your case.

A magician with a hat and a rabbit has got to be less magical than an ultimately unproductive infinite chain of magicians, rabbits and hats.........or one infinitely old rabbit.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That which still exists when we stop believing in it is one.

I believe we can make something out of this.
In terms of still existing, will you exist in a million years?
How long will your atoms last? How long will the quarks and electrons exist?
Now go back and ask how long have they existed?
And then ask yourself what then is real after or before everything you know or can measure existed?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

Bullscat.

Still no argument then.

Of course a Don’t know is unproductive and certainly on it’s own. Don’t know leading to humility might be productive but I don’t quite see that in your case.

Nope. “Don’t know” is “productive” in that it provides a starting point for investigation, testing, validation etc of the likely answer. Just filling the gap it creates with “god” though serves to shut that down – you have the answer to your satisfaction already, so why bother looking for another one that’s coherent, cogent, justified with reason and evidence etc? “God” is the beginning and end of enquiry – though having eructated that white noise you’re left with the problem that there’s nothing useful you can do with it.   

A magician with a hat and a rabbit has got to be less magical than an ultimately unproductive infinite chain of magicians, rabbits and hats.........or one infinitely old rabbit.

So now you’re dicking around with the difference between “conjuring” and “magic”. Look, if you don’t like “it’s magic innit” for your position and would prefer another term for a claim that’s incoherent, vague and non-investigable about an entity that apparently exists outwith all physical, temporal and it seems logical constraints then think of another word for it. Until you do though, describing your position as “it’s magic innit” seems a good fit to me. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

Still no argument then.

Nope. “Don’t know” is “productive” in that it provides a starting point for investigation, testing, validation etc of the likely answer. Just filling the gap it creates with “god” though serves to shut that down – you have the answer to your satisfaction already, so why bother looking for another one that’s coherent, cogent, justified with reason and evidence etc? “God” is the beginning and end of enquiry – though having eructated that white noise you’re left with the problem that there’s nothing useful you can do with it.   

So now you’re dicking around with the difference between “conjuring” and “magic”. Look, if you don’t like “it’s magic innit” for your position and would prefer another term for a claim that’s incoherent, vague and non-investigable about an entity that apparently exists outwith all physical, temporal and it seems logical constraints then think of another word for it. Until you do though, describing your position as “it’s magic innit” seems a good fit to me.

‘Magic innit”sounded like a jolly piece of spin to the North Essex mind. But when the implications of it are realised....blame anyone else......I see parallels here with Sir Bernard Jenkins voting for the withdrawal agreement,

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

Still no argument then.

Nope. “Don’t know” is “productive” in that it provides a starting point for investigation, testing, validation etc of the likely answer.

OK so how are your plans, your investigation, testing and validation coming on? Development of a hypothesis might be in order too. My guess is that YOU HAVEN’T made much effort in this direction. I thought it was established that science doesn’t do god.

All you are doing Hillside is substituting  thinking with science  and science with scientism.

That i’m Afraid should sicken every person to the core of their very being.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Pidge,

‘Magic innit”sounded like a jolly piece of spin to the North Essex mind. But when the implications of it are realised....blame anyone else......I see parallels here with Sir Bernard Jenkins voting for the withdrawal agreement,

Anyway, as I was saying…if you don’t like “magic” as your “argument” to justify your claim “god” that’s incoherent, vague and non-investigable about an entity that apparently exists outwith all physical, temporal and it seems logical constraints then think of another word for it.

It’s your problem to describe how you'd justify that claim, not mine.

OK so how are your plans, your investigation, testing and validation coming on? Development of a hypothesis might be in order too. My guess is that YOU HAVEN’T made much effort in this direction. I thought it was established that science doesn’t do god.

Wow – you’ve done some pretty epic shifting of the burden of proof before now, but this one surely takes the biscuit. “God” is your claim, not mine so it’s your job to propose a method to justify it, not mine. You know, the question you always run away from when it’s asked: if you don’t think science can do the job, tell us which method we should employ instead (cue sound of slamming door, wind whistling, a lonely coyote yelping in the distance etc as Vlad makes his escape yet again) .

All you are doing Hillside is substituting  thinking with science  and science with scientism.

Stop lying. I’m quite prepared to agree that science has nothing to say about your claim “God”. Your problem though remains that nothing else has either.

Remember? 

That i’m Afraid should sicken every person to the core of their very being.

What should – your lying?

I agree.

[ippy]

I haven't seen any of the evidence of god I assume was proffered in this threads title yet Vlad.

There's been plenty of going around the houses words though, all without the viable evidence that would be required to convince the, so called, atheists, you know Vlad, 'atheists' the more level headed people that post on this forum.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Pidge,

Anyway, as I was saying…if you don’t like “magic” as your “argument” to justify your claim “god” that’s incoherent, vague and non-investigable about an entity that apparently exists outwith all physical, temporal and it seems logical constraints then think of another word for it.

It’s your problem to describe how you'd justify that claim, not mine.

Wow – you’ve done some pretty epic shifting of the burden of proof before now, but this one surely takes the biscuit. “God” is your claim, not mine so it’s your job to propose a method to justify it, not mine. You know, the question you always run away from when it’s asked: if you don’t think science can do the job, tell us which method we should employ instead (cue sound of slamming door, wind whistling, a lonely coyote yelping in the distance etc as Vlad makes his escape yet again) .

Stop lying. I’m quite prepared to agree that science has nothing to say about your claim “God”. Your problem though remains that nothing else has either.

Remember? 

What should – your lying?

I agree.

While you dismiss the reasons people believe their religion to be sensible, while people paint religious people as somehow mentally unstable or thick while substituting thinking with a doctrinaire scientism themselves, it is necessary to counter those views. Not to save God, he’s already old enough and ugly enough to look after himself but as an antidote to ignorance and professional turdpolishing.
We know God cannot be proved or disproved scientifically so that is not in question.
The Johnsonian level of hypocrisy in calling NPF on believers and then freely owning up to not being able to disprove God but acting as though you have needs flagging up regularly.
Nor can you retreat into ''atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods''. Since your definitions have gone further into the reasonableness of what believers have said about God and the obviousness of your following Dawkins in the attitude and relationship he thinks atheists should have with religion.

“Question everything” the skeptics say but some of them don’t like it when it’s them.