RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God



Message

wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/1/2008 9:12:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

(theo) That is not the basis of my argument. Proof has not a lot to do with logic, nor with deduceing empirically. It has to do with agreement. It is that simple.


That is very wrong. Ideas do not gain truth as they gain adherants or people who believe them to be true.


quote:

Then we all get together and compare conclusions based on the results of our examination and analysis. If there is one of me, one of you, and sixty thousand of them, the result will be the same. All we need to do is develope a majority concensus of opinion as to the validity of a common conclusion. WHICHEVER conclusion has the most agreement is the winner, and is pronounced "TRUE." THAT is the basis of all truth among men.


What a sad state of affairs we would endure if that were actually how its done. What is found by the means you describe is consensus, but it is absolutely NOT truth by default because of how many people believe it.


quote:

(theo) If I understand what you said, this would be why Evolution is a theory and not a fact; even though many on these boards teach and preach it as the "fact of evolution."


It is why evolution must be regarded as a theory in order to be technically correctly labeled. If someone teaches it as fact they are being slightly lazy, but for all intents and purposes they are correct. It now falls in line with the operationally or functionally factual. We have discovered not one shred of information to give cause for doubting it. Every day new work in genetics, biology and chemistry adds to the already staggering heap of data points that confirm it, and we continue to call it theory because we are unable to "observe every single instance of the event in question". Yes evolution is a theory, but if it didn't contradict with an already popular set of beliefs, we would all regard it is obviously very true.

The initial inclination to call it "Fact" stems from the creationist inclination to latch on to its theoretical nature. I've explained that evolution will always remain a theory because "every instance of it is not observable". Because we cannot observe EVERY instance of it we cannot state without ANY doubt that what we see will always apply to EVERY instance. It is true though, that it has applied to EVERY INSTANCE that we have seen. This is what makes it functionally true or factual. There is not one single solitary observed instance that contradicts it.

quote:



And much that is "evidence" is subject to our analysis and evaluation which is based upon my experience; my education; my biases; my level of comprehension; my command of language; my ability to imagine; my understanding of basic scientific principles.p


Yes of course, perhaps tens of thousands of learned scholars have failed to interpret the data correctly. This is definitely possible. Remember we already established that it is also possible for the sun to rise in the west tomorrow.

quote:



(theo) I think that is understood to be "accomodative language."


It is not meant as such. It is meant to more firmly establish the "questionable nature" of all truths that theists insist on using to justify belief in any old thing that pleases them. It is meant to admit that yes it is always a "questionable" finding that science will come up with, but appealing to that questionability as grounds for believing in magic will not cut the mustard.

quote:



(theo) "The earth is flat" is one such example. Of course it was the brainchild of Portugese traders who wanted to keep their trade routes secret from the English and Spanish. They started telling it in every port worldwide into which their ships were docked, and voila, "flat earth society."


Ah yes, the bible played no part in spreading this myth.


quote:

(theo) I think science CAN prove the existence of God, from evidence and reason. The fact that they don't is from choice and free will. It is the result of a decision. The creation, the flood, the crucifixion of Christ, is is claimed are all "accepted by faith by the Christian community."


The supernatural is untestable. The fact that scientists don't attempt to prove God's existence is because there would be no starting point. Nothing exists on earth anywhere that would be considered valuable or even admissible for evaluation. In fact any evidence for similar phenomena would also be rejected prior to the hypothesis stage. Science has nothing to say about God in either the positive or negative direction. It can say only that without repeatable and consistent material things to observe, it will have no way to determine likelihood of truth or existence.

quote:

That is a singular fallacy of reasoning with a total disregard for evidence. All of those events have sufficient evidence to sustain analysis and evaluation resulting in a majority concensus of "truth."


No no no, it's just a disciplined application of the vitally important scientific method.

quote:

The ONLY thing Christians are to accept by faith, is the promise of God, that we also will be in the resurrection. And this "faith" is sustained by two things; the FACT of the resurrection of Christ, with eye-witness testimony sufficient to convince hundreds of thousands in the ancient world; and the promise of God, based upon the experiences of a people who walked accross a wilderness world for forty years, eating manna on a daily basis; witnessing, seeing, and tasting a miracle. And for forty years they did this. That does not have to be proved any more than the seven wonders of the ancient world have to be "seen and touched and felt" by each occuring generation before we can consider it as fact. It has already been proved by generations. It does not have to be proved again. The "Fact" may be accepted, or it may be rejected, but it does to have to be reproved.


Ok.

(theo) And your expenditure of testimony is a testimony to the fact of its importance in communicating the evidence in favour of that fact to us.

Do you know why the "facts" of scripture are now in such disfavour in the scientific world?

quote:

In 1753 a French Physician named Astruc analyzed the book of Genesis by dividing its account according to whether God was identified as "Elohim" or "Jehovah." Astruc argued for the Mosaic authorship, though he denied the "source" material within its pages.

In 1787, and 1803, Eichhorn, who has been called "The Father of Higher Criticism," agreed with Astruc's analysis and finding that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. Neither of them carried the analysis beyond the beginning chapters of Exodus.

In 1805, De Wette challenged the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and assigned Deuteronomy to the time of Josiah. this stirred a calamitous controversy, causing many writers to come forward in defense of the traditional view.

By 1823, Eichhorn no longer insisted upon the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

In 1823, Bleek extended the analysis to Joshua, and confirmed the critics in their opinion that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, as they now considered it to extend beyond the lifetime of Moses, so how could he be its author? Which in turn, called into question much of the source material attributed to him. This is circular reasoning at its worst. "The Pentateuch couldn't have been written by Moses, because his sources have been determined, by our theory, to post date him, therefore could not have been his work;" so goes the argument of Higher Criticism.

The original theory, as proposed by Astruc and Eichhorn, was a "two-document" hypothesis, depending upon two documents as source material for the Mosaic documents. Publication of their "theory" opened the floodgates for many other "higher criticism" theories, which are in reality, nothing but an attack upon the accepted scriptures, as from God; with its built-in "authority," and all that implies.


So you're telling me the rest of the scientific world just fell in line with these guys and decided to hold the "facts" of scripture in "disfavor"?

quote:

...This is the beginning of why we hold the KJV so dear. It has problems, but we begin to recognize them from familiarity, as we have dealt with them, and do not have to "relearn" the errors of translation.



Sorry, the rest of that is just over the top for me.



theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/1/2008 8:04:29 PM)

quote:

(theo) Proof has not a lot to do with logic, nor with deduceing empirically. It has to do with agreement. It is that simple.

(wayward1) That is very wrong. Ideas do not gain truth as they gain adherants or people who believe them to be true.


(theo) That is out of touch with reality. Pilate himself asked "What is truth?" [John 18:38] Jesus himself said "I am the truth." [John 14:6]

My question to you is, how many recognize the ultimate "truth" of Jesus' statement? I know, it will be somehow tied in argument to "faith," but that is not the issue here. The only issue is not "what is truth?" But rather, "How is truth perceived?" And it is perceived through majority concensus. And majority concensus is perceived through agreement as to what is true.

quote:

(theo) Then we all get together and compare conclusions based on the results of our examination and analysis. If there is one of me, one of you, and sixty thousand of them, the result will be the same. All we need to do is develope a majority concensus of opinion as to the validity of a common conclusion. WHICHEVER conclusion has the most agreement is the winner, and is pronounced "TRUE." THAT is the basis of all truth among men.

(wayward1) What a sad state of affairs we would endure if that were actually how its done. What is found by the means you describe is consensus, but it is absolutely NOT truth by default because of how many people believe it.


(theo) Agreed! But, as I pointed out THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is not "What is true;" The issue is "what is the perception of truth?" People do not care what is true. They only want to be convinced, sometimes contrary to reason, and against evidence. But convinced they want and convinced they will be. And they will perceive their own truth.

quote:

(theo) If I understand what you said, this would be why Evolution is a theory and not a fact; even though many on these boards teach and preach it as the "fact of evolution."

(wayward1) It is why evolution must be regarded as a theory in order to be technically correctly labeled. If someone teaches it as fact they are being slightly lazy, but for all intents and purposes they are correct. It now falls in line with the operationally or functionally factual. We have discovered not one shred of information to give cause for doubting it. Every day new work in genetics, biology and chemistry adds to the already staggering heap of data points that confirm it, and we continue to call it theory because we are unable to "observe every single instance of the event in question". Yes evolution is a theory, but if it didn't contradict with an already popular set of beliefs, we would all regard it is obviously very true.


(theo) While that is a popular perception among evolutionists, and some scientists, it is not true. If it were true, there would be no debate among scientists themselves over the issues. There would be no books written by Christians who are scientists and against the perception of evolution; and who are convinced it is in fact error. What you lack is a majority concensus.

quote:

(wayward1) The initial inclination to call it "Fact" stems from the creationist inclination to latch on to its theoretical nature. I've explained that evolution will always remain a theory because "every instance of it is not observable". Because we cannot observe EVERY instance of it we cannot state without ANY doubt that what we see will always apply to EVERY instance. It is true though, that it has applied to EVERY INSTANCE that we have seen. This is what makes it functionally true or factual. There is not one single solitary observed instance that contradicts it.


(theo) Sure there is. It is not repeatable. Put as many apes as you want into controlled environmental experimentation, and you will never develope human progeny. The evolutionary theory that humans evolved from apes is not provable, nor is it repeatable as an experiment. THAT "singly solitary observed instance" contradicts it.

quote:

(theo) And much that is "evidence" is subject to our analysis and evaluation which is based upon my experience; my education; my biases; my level of comprehension; my command of language; my ability to imagine; my understanding of basic scientific principles.

(wayward1) Yes of course, perhaps tens of thousands of learned scholars have failed to interpret the data correctly. This is definitely possible. Remember we already established that it is also possible for the sun to rise in the west tomorrow.


(theo) Actually what you have established is that it is unproved that it cannot rise in the west. That is not the same thing as saying it is possible for it to rise in the west. It is not possible, but it has not been proved not possible. It is highly improbable, however, and so totally against every natural law, it is considered proved by majority concensus, therefore true.

quote:

(theo) I think that is understood to be "accomodative language."

(wayward1) It is not meant as such. It is meant to more firmly establish the "questionable nature" of all truths that theists insist on using to justify belief in any old thing that pleases them. It is meant to admit that yes it is always a "questionable" finding that science will come up with, but appealing to that questionability as grounds for believing in magic will not cut the mustard.


(theo) Welcome to reality. The exact same standard of skepticism (questioning everything) is found in religious confrontation. That is why so many denominations vie for supremacy in the hearts and minds of adherents.

quote:

(theo) "The earth is flat" is one such example. Of course it was the brainchild of Portugese traders who wanted to keep their trade routes secret from the English and Spanish. They started telling it in every port worldwide into which their ships were docked, and voila, "flat earth society."

(wayward1) Ah yes, the bible played no part in spreading this myth.


(theo) Isa 40: 21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH..."

quote:

(theo) I think science CAN prove the existence of God, from evidence and reason. The fact that they don't is from choice and free will. It is the result of a decision. The creation, the flood, the crucifixion of Christ, is is claimed are all "accepted by faith by the Christian community."

(wayward1) The supernatural is untestable. The fact that scientists don't attempt to prove God's existence is because there would be no starting point. Nothing exists on earth anywhere that would be considered valuable or even admissible for evaluation. In fact any evidence for similar phenomena would also be rejected prior to the hypothesis stage. Science has nothing to say about God in either the positive or negative direction. It can say only that without repeatable and consistent material things to observe, it will have no way to determine likelihood of truth or existence.


(theo) Scientists make studies all the time of the paranormal, super normal, poltergeists, ghosts, esp, and a myriad of other matters focused on the unnatural world.. And scientists are all the time making quotable declarations about the FACT that there is no God. They have just failed to gather a majority concensus, or we would not be having this discussion. It would be illegal. Just as surely as teaching creation theory is now illegal in many schools where it once was legal.

quote:

(theo) The ONLY thing Christians are to accept by faith, is the promise of God, that we also will be in the resurrection. And this "faith" is sustained by two things; the FACT of the resurrection of Christ, with eye-witness testimony sufficient to convince hundreds of thousands in the ancient world; and the promise of God, based upon the experiences of a people who walked accross a wilderness world for forty years, eating manna on a daily basis; witnessing, seeing, and tasting a miracle. And for forty years they did this. That does not have to be proved any more than the seven wonders of the ancient world have to be "seen and touched and felt" by each occuring generation before we can consider it as fact. It has already been proved by generations. It does not have to be proved again. The "Fact" may be accepted, or it may be rejected, but it does to have to be reproved.

(wayward1) Ok.


quote:

(theo)
Do you know why the "facts" of scripture are now in such disfavour in the scientific world?

In 1753 a French Physician named Astruc analyzed the book of Genesis by dividing its account according to whether God was identified as "Elohim" or "Jehovah." Astruc argued for the Mosaic authorship, though he denied the "source" material within its pages.

In 1787, and 1803, Eichhorn, who has been called "The Father of Higher Criticism," agreed with Astruc's analysis and finding that Moses was the author of the Pentateuch. Neither of them carried the analysis beyond the beginning chapters of Exodus.

In 1805, De Wette challenged the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and assigned Deuteronomy to the time of Josiah. this stirred a calamitous controversy, causing many writers to come forward in defense of the traditional view.

By 1823, Eichhorn no longer insisted upon the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

In 1823, Bleek extended the analysis to Joshua, and confirmed the critics in their opinion that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, as they now considered it to extend beyond the lifetime of Moses, so how could he be its author? Which in turn, called into question much of the source material attributed to him. This is circular reasoning at its worst. "The Pentateuch couldn't have been written by Moses, because his sources have been determined, by our theory, to post date him, therefore could not have been his work;" so goes the argument of Higher Criticism.

The original theory, as proposed by Astruc and Eichhorn, was a "two-document" hypothesis, depending upon two documents as source material for the Mosaic documents. Publication of their "theory" opened the floodgates for many other "higher criticism" theories, which are in reality, nothing but an attack upon the accepted scriptures, as from God; with its built-in "authority," and all that implies.

(wayward1) So you're telling me the rest of the scientific world just fell in line with these guys and decided to hold the "facts" of scripture in "disfavor"?


(theo) Actually it was the religious zealots who fell in line with the "higher criticism" claims, because they wanted to gain the glory and pomp of leadership. Science only followed their lead, as the zealots began to write books condeming ancient scriptures, based on "modern scholarship." In Tampa Florida, a professor went public with the concept "God is dead." Scientists ran with it, never realizing that they had just aknowledged God had "been."



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/2/2008 6:53:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

(theo) Proof has not a lot to do with logic, nor with deduceing empirically. It has to do with agreement. It is that simple.

(wayward1) That is very wrong. Ideas do not gain truth as they gain adherants or people who believe them to be true.


(theo) That is out of touch with reality. Pilate himself asked "What is truth?" [John 18:38] Jesus himself said "I am the truth." [John 14:6]


It is out of touch with reality to assert that things become more true as they gain people who believe them to be true. It is directly in line with reality to assert that things DO NOT get MORE TRUE as MORE PEOPLE believe them. They only get more popular. Their truth is an entirely seperate thing from their popularity. Don't make this mistake in your life any more now that this is clear.

quote:

But rather, "How is truth perceived?" And it is perceived through majority concensus. And majority concensus is perceived through agreement as to what is true.


No, the ONLY question is what is TRUE, regardless of how it is perceived.

quote:



(theo) Agreed!


Good, because it's a fact.

quote:

But, as I pointed out THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.


Yes it is.

quote:

The issue is not "What is true;"


Yes it is

quote:

The issue is "what is the perception of truth?"


no it's not

quote:

People do not care what is true.


yes they do

quote:

They only want to be convinced, sometimes contrary to reason, and against evidence.


no they don't. Maybe you do, but no, people want the truth.

quote:

But convinced they want and convinced they will be. And they will perceive their own truth.


wrong, most people want to be intellectually honest with themselves, hence the decline in religiosity through time.

quote:



(theo) While that is a popular perception among evolutionists, and some scientists, it is not true. If it were true, there would be no debate among scientists themselves over the issues. There would be no books written by Christians who are scientists and against the perception of evolution; and who are convinced it is in fact error. What you lack is a majority concensus.


No I don't lack a majority consensus, so you better be careful about asserting that majority concensus establishes the truth of a thing. Scientists who are "convinced it is in fact error" are on the fringe, writing to an audience who desperately wants to hear a "scientist say it ain't so"

quote:



(theo) Sure there is. It is not repeatable. Put as many apes as you want into controlled environmental experimentation, and you will never develope human progeny. The evolutionary theory that humans evolved from apes is not provable, nor is it repeatable as an experiment. THAT "singly solitary observed instance" contradicts it.


And if evolutionary theory predicted that such a thing would happen then that would constitute an observed contradiction. You have done little else than make it clear that you don't know the first thing about evolution.

quote:



(theo) Actually what you have established is that it is unproved that it cannot rise in the west. That is not the same thing as saying it is possible for it to rise in the west. It is not possible, but it has not been proved not possible. It is highly improbable, however, and so totally against every natural law, it is considered proved by majority concensus, therefore true.


you don't get it do you? It is not "proved by majority concensus". It is functionally true by repeated observation.

quote:



(theo) Welcome to reality. The exact same standard of skepticism (questioning everything) is found in religious confrontation. That is why so many denominations vie for supremacy in the hearts and minds of adherents.


Divide and conquer.


quote:

(theo) Scientists make studies all the time of the paranormal, super normal, poltergeists, ghosts, esp, and a myriad of other matters focused on the unnatural world.. And scientists are all the time making quotable declarations about the FACT that there is no God. They have just failed to gather a majority concensus, or we would not be having this discussion. It would be illegal. Just as surely as teaching creation theory is now illegal in many schools where it once was legal.


Oh give me a break. And when astrology and alchemy were replaced by their "scientific big brothers" astronomy and chemistry did we outlaw astrology and alchemy? Do you really believe the stuff you say?

quote:

(theo) Actually it was the religious zealots who fell in line with the "higher criticism" claims, because they wanted to gain the glory and pomp of leadership. Science only followed their lead, as the zealots began to write books condeming ancient scriptures, based on "modern scholarship." In Tampa Florida, a professor went public with the concept "God is dead." Scientists ran with it, never realizing that they had just aknowledged God had "been."


That's surely not what they acknowledged but that's funny none the less.



theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/2/2008 11:28:38 AM)

quote:

(theo) Proof has not a lot to do with logic, nor with deduceing empirically. It has to do with agreement. It is that simple.

(wayward1) That is very wrong. Ideas do not gain truth as they gain adherants or people who believe them to be true.

(theo) That is out of touch with reality. Pilate himself asked "What is truth?" [John 18:38] Jesus himself said "I am the truth." [John 14:6]

I offer as a major premise, Jesus is the truth. ALL ELSE is a perception of truth. I offer as a minor premise, Jesus is qualified to assert his "self" as being "truth." I would then procedd to offer evidence from authenticated books of scripture, showing the probability of Jesus' assertions to be in the rough proximity of 100% accurate. My conclusion would be something along the line of "The probability therefore, of his assertion as regards truth, is correct.

(wayward1) It is out of touch with reality to assert that things become more true as they gain people who believe them to be true. It is directly in line with reality to assert that things DO NOT get MORE TRUE as MORE PEOPLE believe them. They only get more popular. Their truth is an entirely seperate thing from their popularity. Don't make this mistake in your life any more now that this is clear.


(theo) The issue was clarified by my statement about truth and "the perception of truth." You can argue all day long about "real truth" versus "the perception of truth" and call the one "popular" but the result remains, the "popular truth" is the "Perceived truth." And sometimes it is even the real truth.

I would like to see you explain how you know when something is false when it is the perceived truth;i.,e., the "popular concensus" of truth. Unless of course, you are talking about after more investigation is done with different conclusions about different results. But that becomes an entirely different consideration.

Explain how you differentiate between what you perceive to be truth, and what you know is real truth.

quote:

(theo) But rather, "How is truth perceived?" And it is perceived through majority concensus. And majority concensus is perceived through agreement as to what is true.

(wayward1) No, the ONLY question is what is TRUE, regardless of how it is perceived.


(theo) Well I guess that is the issue isn't it? How can you differentiate "real truth" from "the perception of truth?" If everyone in the world thinks something is true, but it is not, it is still true to everyone in the world. THAT is the worlds reality. What is realy true is to the world's perception, unreal. THAT is also the world's reality.


quote:

(theo) The issue is not "What is true;"

(wayward1) Yes it is

(theo) The issue is "what is the perception of truth?"

(wayward1) no it's not

(theo) People do not care what is true.

(wayward1) yes they do


(theo) And so on ad nauseum.

Why are you arguing for the reality of real truth when the issue I raise has rto do with the perception of truth? There is NO WAY there can be a conciliation between two such opposing concepts. YOU KNOW what I am discussing is true, but you try to force YOUR "real truth" as a parameter into the issue. It is not the issue in MY debate.

quote:

(theo) They only want to be convinced, sometimes contrary to reason, and against evidence.

(wayward1) no they don't. Maybe you do, but no, people want the truth.

(theo) But convinced they want and convinced they will be. And they will perceive their own truth.

(wayward1) wrong, most people want to be intellectually honest with themselves, hence the decline in religiosity through time.


What does "intellectual honesty" have to do with "perceived truth?" Anyone who lives by a "perceived truth" is "intellectually honest" if they live by the truth as they perceive it. You can argue all day long about "real truth" and you will not change that. If people perceive that what they believe is true, they will consider themselves intellectually honest, and move on with their life, often not giving it another thought.

quote:

(theo) What you lack is a majority concensus.

(wayward1) No I don't lack a majority consensus, so you better be careful about asserting that majority concensus establishes the truth of a thing. Scientists who are "convinced it is in fact error" are on the fringe, writing to an audience who desperately wants to hear a "scientist say it ain't so"


(theo) Hey wayward1, do you understand what a "majority concensus" about a "perception of truth" really means? What effect it has on the majority? How it effects the majority's perception of their own "intellectual honesty?"

quote:

(theo) Sure there is. It is not repeatable. Put as many apes as you want into controlled environmental experimentation, and you will never develope human progeny. The evolutionary theory that humans evolved from apes is not provable, nor is it repeatable as an experiment. THAT "singly solitary observed instance" contradicts it.

(wayward1) And if evolutionary theory predicted that such a thing would happen then that would constitute an observed contradiction. You have done little else than make it clear that you don't know the first thing about evolution.


(theo) You are correct I know nothing about what does not exist. I was talking about why evolution is a theory based on error. Evolution does not "predict such a thing will happen." They claim it ALREADY DID and doesn't have to be proved. WHY do you think humans are listed with the APES in the scientific world?

quote:

(theo) Actually what you have established is that it is unproved that it cannot rise in the west. That is not the same thing as saying it is possible for it to rise in the west. It is not possible, but it has not been proved not possible. It is highly improbable, however, and so totally against every natural law, it is considered proved by majority concensus, therefore true.

(wayward1) you don't get it do you? It is not "proved by majority concensus". It is functionally true by repeated observation.


(theo) Tell me, if something is found to be "true by repeated observation" how does that differ from "true by majority concensus?" It takes a majority of the observations and a majority of the observors to come up with a majority concensus that a thing is true BECAUSE it has been repeatedly observed.

quote:

(theo) Scientists make studies all the time of the paranormal, super normal, poltergeists, ghosts, esp, and a myriad of other matters focused on the unnatural world.. And scientists are all the time making quotable declarations about the FACT that there is no God. They have just failed to gather a majority concensus, or we would not be having this discussion. It would be illegal. Just as surely as teaching creation theory is now illegal in many schools where it once was legal.

(wayward1) Oh give me a break. And when astrology and alchemy were replaced by their "scientific big brothers" astronomy and chemistry did we outlaw astrology and alchemy? Do you really believe the stuff you say?


(theo) astrology and alchemy were not outlawed but many other practices were as awareness showed the damage done by them. Witchcraft, wizardry, black magic, and voodoo for example, though still practiced in many parts of the world, and even in this country in secret, sometimes. There was recently a case in Orlande Florida where a woman was cursed with a voodoo curse, and died on the day appointed in the curse.

quote:

(theo) Actually it was the religious zealots who fell in line with the "higher criticism" claims, because they wanted to gain the glory and pomp of leadership. Science only followed their lead, as the zealots began to write books condeming ancient scriptures, based on "modern scholarship." In Tampa Florida, a professor went public with the concept "God is dead." Scientists ran with it, never realizing that they had just aknowledged God had "been."

(wayward1) That's surely not what they acknowledged but that's funny none the less.


(theo) Any time you jump on the "God is dead" bandwagon, you aknowledge God lived.



cognitivemagic -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/2/2008 5:36:21 PM)

quote:

So you're suggesting that we can't compare ideas to reality and determine which ideas are good and which ideas are bad because no matter what we will always have the potential for flawed perception or a flawed basis for our initial doubt?


Skepticism is not an empirically observable object, like a chair or a tree. Rather, it's an attitude that you bring to your experiences. I'm less inclined to say that "skepticism" is even a belief.

What I was suggesting is that "skepticism" fails it's own internal test....because if you were skeptical of "skepticism", you wouldn't be a skeptic. But if you weren't skeptical of "skepticism", you also wouldn't be a skeptic. Either way, skepticism fails.

quote:

I hope you never get a doctor who ignores our ability to "compare ideas to reality" to determine whether to give you cyanide or morphine for pain. Our observed reality is that cyanide will kill you and morphine will make you feel less pain. Shall we select this opinion as a good one or a bad one? There was undoubtedly some level of skepticism that went into determining which ancient elixirs were having their intended effect and which ones were not. I'd say that is some skepticism we can all be thankful for. If someone is ever skeptical of a current treatment method they will have to provide justification for the skepticism because this opinion has been grounded in repeated observation and positive results.


Science and skepticism, seen as equivalent ideologies, is a modern heresy. Scientists are not "skeptical" of their methodologies, ethical standards in reporting data or openness in allowing public scrutiny of their work.

However, skeptics do "use" science, insofar as it can help confirm their own prejudices....ohh, I mean "rationally grounded beliefs" (whatever that really means).

quote:

It was a matter of opinion and now you are in the process of determining if my opinion deserves more respect or less respect than yours, therefore you are the embodiment of my "opinion" on this matter and a direct representation of why my opinion on this matter is correct, that we all make value judgments of each other's opinions constantly.


You made your bed....but now you don't want to lie in it? I wasn't the one who brought the word or concepts of "opinion" into this discussion. You did. But you switch gears when it's convenient to do so. Your stance in some paragraphs suggest that you affirm rational "objectivity"; and in others, cognitive "relativism".

Your forked tongue has given you away...don't get mad at me just because I pointed that out.

quote:

You have offered no grounds for considering anything I've written to be contradictory. You think you've found a slick little way to twist skepticism back on the skeptic and it is a useless and shortsighted endeavor. Skepticism being an abstract concept does not make all abstract concepts equally believable or unbelievable. No one is insisting that skepticism created the heavens and the earth.


Is this an "opinion" or a "fact"? Should I be skeptical of what you're saying here?

Consider these statements of yours:

quote:

1. There is no "good reason" to believe that "space and matter began."

2. There is no evidence for anything that is "immaterial." There is vast amount of evidence for things that are material. Therefore, based simply on the evidence, a material cause for anything that IS will be a better explanation than an immaterial or "magic" cause.


Your first statement is rejected by the near consensus of physicists and astrophysicists living today; including Stephen Hawking. For those "scientists" that do reject Big Bang Cosmology....well, they're on the fringe. And by that token, so is your statement.

And statement 2: you glossed over my prior response.

There is no "evidence" for skepticism. Nor could there be since this is a principle, not a particle.

quote:

But the sun does not actually rise in the east at all. In fact, the sun's own motion has nothing to do with our experience of the sunrise. It is the earth's rotation towards what we call the "east" that creates the illusion of the rising sun. We now have better evidence and better reasoning that allows us to understand that the conjecture "the sun rises in the east" (considered "proved" by many for most of human history) is not actually true at all. And no matter how many times you wake me up, turn me to the east and point out that "the sun is rising in the east," you are still offering no proof. You are merely providing an additional piece of evidence for a conjecture that ultimately is not true at all.


Actually, north-south-east-west are meaningless in light of relativity physics.

Look, why is their quibbling over literal and non-literal language in describing phenomena?

For instance, when pinch my thumb and index finger in front of someone's face and say "I crush your head", do I really mean that I am crushing them? No, but that's what it looks like from my perspective. And besides, the language is employed for self-amusement; not scientific accuracy.

But let's look at a real "scientific" example from Newtonian physics: action at a distance.

What could Newton be thinking? Objects acting on each other from distances? That's odd.

Yet he meant that in a literal way. We may look back on that, and his views of the aether, and laugh. Yet it was good "science" in it's time. Today we accept Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrodinger. But 1000 years from now? Probably not.

Especially so, if you consider that all scientific theories are "tentative" by nature....prone to future revision or scrapping as new data is gathered and tested. Why are scientists inclined to treat all "theories" as such? Because they understand that they are still very ignorant of much of the workings of the physical universe; unlike the "skeptic" who, ironically, claims that certain theories (i.e. evolution) are proven beyond doubt.

So much for being "skeptical"..heh?

quote:

We can have great confidence that many of our conjectures are true.


quote:

Here, for once and for always allow me to concede that science cannot prove anything. But it can AND DOES do a fabulous job of discriminating between good ideas (those with reason and evidence in their favor) and bad ideas (those without). And in this way, science can demonstrate that certain specific sectarian beliefs do not deserve the intellectual allegiance of any thinking person.


This is disingenuous at best. What is a "good idea" vs. a "bad idea"? More importantly, why is it "good" vs. "bad"? Why employ any criterion at all, if the best we can do is merely conjecture about "unprovable" realities? How can we "have great confidence that many of our conjectures are true" in light of your concluding remarks? Aren't your statements self-contradictory?

It doesn't require cognitive sorcery to see incoherence here.

I wasn't attempting to state some indubitable criterion of "rationality" in order to show how belief in God meets such criteria. Rather, I was pointing out deep problems with the God-doubter's claims that theism is rationally suspect, due to some epistemic malfeasance, when the doubter's themselves don't have an unambiguous and rationally "provable" vantage point in which they can critique theistic belief.

Does this commit me to the idea that theism and atheism are on equal footing? No.

I already employed the principle that thought begets thought; mind begets mind.

Keeping that in view, I said that theism offers a better "explanation" than atheism, when accounting for the features of consciousness and cognition. I wasn't employing an "argument" so much as I was employing an "explanation".

Atheology can only serve piping hot nomic repetition on it's explanatory plate. In other words, cause-and-effect relationships may help explain why rocks erode and planets rotate as they do, but, in fact, fails to explain why humans think; especially why they think "scientifically".

This was C.S. Lewis' point in his chapter "The Cardinal Difficulty Of Naturalism", in his book Miracles. Until you're acquainted with this argument I cannot go into more a more nuanced defense of it.



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/3/2008 12:16:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic

Skepticism is not an empirically observable object, like a chair or a tree. Rather, it's an attitude that you bring to your experiences. I'm less inclined to say that "skepticism" is even a belief.

What I was suggesting is that "skepticism" fails it's own internal test....because if you were skeptical of "skepticism", you wouldn't be a skeptic. But if you weren't skeptical of "skepticism", you also wouldn't be a skeptic. Either way, skepticism fails.


Something has failed, but it's not skepticism. I will not entertain this diversionary tactic any longer. Believe as you wish. That's what you'll do anyway.

quote:



Science and skepticism, seen as equivalent ideologies, is a modern heresy. Scientists are not "skeptical" of their methodologies, ethical standards in reporting data or openness in allowing public scrutiny of their work.


How can you even say that? As has been explained here before, they operate on a publish or parish policy. If you don't get published, as in "allow public scrutiny of your work", then you don't last.


quote:



You made your bed....but now you don't want to lie in it? I wasn't the one who brought the word or concepts of "opinion" into this discussion. You did. But you switch gears when it's convenient to do so. Your stance in some paragraphs suggest that you affirm rational "objectivity"; and in others, cognitive "relativism".


My stance is quite clear. You may have missed it in which case I believe you are sincerely only mistaken. I'm beginning to fear something much worse though, which is that you are a fraud, creating a diversion from the crystal clarity of my logic.

quote:



Your first statement is rejected by the near consensus of physicists and astrophysicists living today; including Stephen Hawking. For those "scientists" that do reject Big Bang Cosmology....well, they're on the fringe. And by that token, so is your statement.


You are mistaken. It's not that they reject the big bang. It's that the big bang says nothing of the beginning of space, matter, or time. You simply don't understand the very basic big bang model.


quote:



Actually, north-south-east-west are meaningless in light of relativity physics.


Relativity physics huh? I should stop now and ignore you forever. I'm hopeless I guess. I shall persist.

quote:

For instance, when pinch my thumb and index finger in front of someone's face and say "I crush your head", do I really mean that I am crushing them? No, but that's what it looks like from my perspective. And besides, the language is employed for self-amusement; not scientific accuracy.


again, a better man than me would simply click ignore under your screen name.



quote:

Today we accept Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrodinger. But 1000 years from now? Probably not.


Wanna' bet? Newton's theories are as valid in macroscopic mechanics today as they were in Newton's time. Are you used to debating 4th graders?

quote:

Especially so, if you consider that all scientific theories are "tentative" by nature....prone to future revision


Yeah, that's what I explained to you in post 247 of this thread. It would appear that was the moment you learned it, as your application of it here is infantile.

quote:



This is disingenuous at best.


It was very very genuine and very very correct.

quote:

What is a "good idea" vs. a "bad idea"? More importantly, why is it "good" vs. "bad"? Why employ any criterion at all, if the best we can do is merely conjecture about "unprovable" realities?


No need to say "if" here. You should say "since the best we can do is merely conjecture about unprovable realities", because it is fact.

quote:

How can we "have great confidence that many of our conjectures are true" in light of your concluding remarks? Aren't your statements self-contradictory?


No, your cognitive ability is limited.

quote:

It doesn't require cognitive sorcery to see incoherence here.


Perhaps you should stop performing it then, Mr cognitivemagic

quote:

Rather, I was pointing out deep problems with the God-doubter's claims that theism is rationally suspect, due to some epistemic malfeasance, when the doubter's themselves don't have an unambiguous and rationally "provable" vantage point in which they can critique theistic belief.


Sincerely, I don't mean to be terse but do yourself a favor, and go read post 247 about fifty more times.



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/3/2008 7:16:38 PM)

quote:

I would imagine you'd get some significant push back from economists, social scientists, political science undergrads and many others.


Actually, I think (as a biology major who studied his share of political science) that there is general agreement that there are ‘hard’ sciences (like physic, chemistry, and the like) and there are ‘soft’ sciences – in particular the ones you mentioned. The latter aren’t particular amenable to direct experimentation, observation, and repeatability.

quote:

But to me, even if your assessment could be considered exactly correct, the perspective gained by scientific study of what it can study would lend itself to better behavior and healthier approaches to the areas it can't. It definitly has done so for me at least.


How has science helped you have more political freedom? Be a better husband? Be a better father? Be more honest, or loving, or creative? I would be interested in seeing your application of science to these areas.

quote:

If science was based on an underlying philosophy then that would mean it had preconceived ideas. Science depends on no one establishing "underlying philosophies" beyond the obvious pursuit of understanding that goes without saying.


Science certainly does have preconceived ideas – the primary one being that the universe according to certain laws which are amenable to observation, experimentation, and repeated testing.

quote:

I disagree.


Well, I would challenge you to apply the scientific method to the aspects of life I listed above. Indeed, we are having this conversation in large part because this discussion is being hosted in a country that believes humans have certain inherent rights, one of them being freedom of speech – please tell me how we could have derived that inherent right as the result of scientific study? What data would have led us to the conclusion that human inherently are endowed with such rights?



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/4/2008 12:36:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

The latter aren’t particular amenable to direct experimentation, observation, and repeatability.


Surely "direct experimentation, observation, and repeatability" are not requirements of science if ID is science.

quote:



How has science helped you have more political freedom? Be a better husband? Be a better father? Be more honest, or loving, or creative? I would be interested in seeing your application of science to these areas.


Science has helped me find my place in the world, and helped me get my priorities straight. It has softened my heart to the needs of the whole of humanity and made trivial my own desires and wants. My scientific world view makes me feel fortunate and it makes be behave as though I owe everyone around me just as much patience and caring as I can muster. In these ways I have been made more loving and I am perhaps the most honest person you will ever meet. I tell the truth to you even though I fear it may one day cause you much stress.

quote:



Science certainly does have preconceived ideas – the primary one being that the universe according to certain laws which are amenable to observation, experimentation, and repeated testing.


I think science is as desperate for that answer as anyone else, and thus reserves its opinion of whether we will ever have an "explanation of everything".

quote:


Well, I would challenge you to apply the scientific method to the aspects of life I listed above.


It's easy to agree that there are intangible human traits that are currently beyond the scope of direct observables. For me though it's not so much applying the scientific method to those aspects as it is applying the perspective gained from knowledge of the aspects that can be directly studied.

quote:


Indeed, we are having this conversation in large part because this discussion is being hosted in a country that believes humans have certain inherent rights, one of them being freedom of speech


It is your perception that there is freedom of speech at this site because you are a Christian. Some of us are censored here and the grounds for this are plainly stated in the TOS.

quote:

Pease tell me how we could have derived that inherent right as the result of scientific study? What data would have led us to the conclusion that human inherently are endowed with such rights?


Free inquiry and the openness that begs for new ideas and recognizes both their value and the danger of supressing them. Please tell me you're not ignoring the concept of blasphemy and heresy and asserting that free speech comes from religion.



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/4/2008 3:27:08 AM)

quote:

Surely "direct experimentation, observation, and repeatability" are not requirements of science if ID is science.


A tu quoque does not contradict the main argument.

quote:

Science has helped me find my place in the world, and helped me get my priorities straight. It has softened my heart to the needs of the whole of humanity and made trivial my own desires and wants. My scientific world view makes me feel fortunate and it makes be behave as though I owe everyone around me just as much patience and caring as I can muster. In these ways I have been made more loving and I am perhaps the most honest person you will ever meet. I tell the truth to you even though I fear it may one day cause you much stress.


Science is a tool like a hammer. This is the equivalent of saying “A hammer made me want to build houses for people”. It’s nonsense. The science of chemistry can be used to develop new medicines, or develop poison gases – which it is used for has nothing to do with science itself. Your metaphysical view isn’t science; sorry.

quote:

I think science is as desperate for that answer as anyone else, and thus reserves its opinion of whether we will ever have an "explanation of everything".


Now you are personifying science. Science isn’t ‘desperate’ for anything – some scientists may be, but science is simply a method of thinking.

quote:

It's easy to agree that there are intangible human traits that are currently beyond the scope of direct observables. For me though it's not so much applying the scientific method to those aspects as it is applying the perspective gained from knowledge of the aspects that can be directly studied.


Well, again, science isn’t a ‘perspective’, it’s a methodology. Either something is subject to scientific scrutiny or it isn’t – and many things, as I have shown, aren’t – nor do they need to be.

quote:

It is your perception that there is freedom of speech at this site because you are a Christian. Some of us are censored here and the grounds for this are plainly stated in the TOS.


You are avoiding the point because you can’t argue against it – the basis upon which the freedom is asserted can’t be validated by science – science is limited and cannot be a basis for all human endeavors.

quote:

Free inquiry and the openness that begs for new ideas and recognizes both their value and the danger of supressing them. Please tell me you're not ignoring the concept of blasphemy and heresy and asserting that free speech comes from religion.


You failed to meet the challenge; ignored it in fact – your proposition is proved false.



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/4/2008 9:39:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Surely "direct experimentation, observation, and repeatability" are not requirements of science if ID is science.


A tu quoque does not contradict the main argument.

quote:

Science has helped me find my place in the world, and helped me get my priorities straight. It has softened my heart to the needs of the whole of humanity and made trivial my own desires and wants. My scientific world view makes me feel fortunate and it makes be behave as though I owe everyone around me just as much patience and caring as I can muster. In these ways I have been made more loving and I am perhaps the most honest person you will ever meet. I tell the truth to you even though I fear it may one day cause you much stress.


Science is a tool like a hammer. This is the equivalent of saying “A hammer made me want to build houses for people”. It’s nonsense. The science of chemistry can be used to develop new medicines, or develop poison gases – which it is used for has nothing to do with science itself. Your metaphysical view isn’t science; sorry.

quote:

I think science is as desperate for that answer as anyone else, and thus reserves its opinion of whether we will ever have an "explanation of everything".


Now you are personifying science. Science isn’t ‘desperate’ for anything – some scientists may be, but science is simply a method of thinking.

quote:

It's easy to agree that there are intangible human traits that are currently beyond the scope of direct observables. For me though it's not so much applying the scientific method to those aspects as it is applying the perspective gained from knowledge of the aspects that can be directly studied.


Well, again, science isn’t a ‘perspective’, it’s a methodology. Either something is subject to scientific scrutiny or it isn’t – and many things, as I have shown, aren’t – nor do they need to be.

quote:

It is your perception that there is freedom of speech at this site because you are a Christian. Some of us are censored here and the grounds for this are plainly stated in the TOS.


You are avoiding the point because you can’t argue against it – the basis upon which the freedom is asserted can’t be validated by science – science is limited and cannot be a basis for all human endeavors.

quote:

Free inquiry and the openness that begs for new ideas and recognizes both their value and the danger of supressing them. Please tell me you're not ignoring the concept of blasphemy and heresy and asserting that free speech comes from religion.


You failed to meet the challenge; ignored it in fact – your proposition is proved false.


sometimes it's as if we speak entirely different languages. Either that, or you just write whatever you want to write no matter how sincere I am with my replies. Either way, I've lost interest.



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/4/2008 10:09:57 AM)

quote:

sometimes it's as if we speak entirely different languages. Either that, or you just write whatever you want to write no matter how sincere I am with my replies. Either way, I've lost interest.


Lost, yes, interest, irrelevant. Sincerity does not prove a point.



theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/4/2008 10:45:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

sometimes it's as if we speak entirely different languages. Either that, or you just write whatever you want to write no matter how sincere I am with my replies. Either way, I've lost interest.


Lost, yes, interest, irrelevant. Sincerity does not prove a point.


And you judge him lost by what criteria?



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/4/2008 11:01:55 AM)

quote:

And you judge him lost by what criteria?


Lost the logical exchange; I can't judge any other aspect of his presumptive lostness.



Shrommer -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/4/2008 6:55:36 PM)

Two books that bear on the subject of whether belief in God is logical are Reason Enough by Clark Pinnock, and Reason for God by Tim Keller. Belief in God is not so much logical as it is reasonable.

Logic is a set of rules that can be applied to statements. Logic cannot tell us whether a given statement is true or false. It only helps us build on statements which we admit as either true or false, and relate other statements to them in a way that makes sense and is internally consistent (i.e. logical).



Shrommer -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/4/2008 7:06:35 PM)

Depending on what aspects of evolution we are considering, evolution is a hard science. Evolution can be proven, but not everything that an "evolutionist" believes can be proven.

Michael Behe has a book out called The Edge of Evolution, and many people miss that one of his goals is to show us aspects of evolution which are well established facts. Too often, atheists accuse creationists of denying these facts out of ignorance, and too often they are right. Also too often, atheists try to use these facts to try and prove beliefs which the facts really do not prove, even though by reasoning a certain way the facts can be shown to support those beliefs.

If we want to talk about belief in God being supported by facts, we have to explore other reasoning, but this other reasoning is even more explanatory and supported.

Belief in God is not all that great anyway. The demons believe in God and they tremble. They are able to perceive God with their senses, and his existence is undeniable to them. A lot of good it does them to just know that fact.

Dr. Tim Keller explains that for us to think that God must be detectable in creation in order to exist is like Hamlet thinking that the only way to prove Shakespeare exists is to find proof of him in the play.



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/4/2008 8:06:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shrommer

Dr. Tim Keller explains that for us to think that God must be detectable in creation in order to exist is like Hamlet thinking that the only way to prove Shakespeare exists is to find proof of him in the play.


This is a very accurate thing to say I think. He establishes very well that there is no reason to expect God to be detectable. And he is very correct, but this says nothing of why it is logical to believe it. I could agree with Bertrand Russell that there is a delicate, undetectable china teapot in orbit around mars, but its undetectability wouldn't add to the likelihood that it's there... And, much more importantly, its undetectability wouldn't make it unacceptable for other people to doubt the existence of my china teapot.

Dr Keller's Shakespeare example, though very correct, becomes utterly useless in this light. And the bigger problem is that the Doctor expects us to then make the instant leap all the way from "A" single abstract god (lower case "g") being impossible to detect, to "THE" very specific God of Abraham being likely to exist and logical to believe in. The God of Abraham is not abstract first of all, and the fact that it is unreasonable to expect "a" god to be detectable, does not make it logical to believe in a God you think you know the name and wishes of. We believe we know MUCH about what He wants and expects.

That's why a few of us were asking for clarification early on as to how God was meant to be defined for the purposes of this thread. What you've said here is absolutely correct for the universal God that I described several pages back.

I think it's very hard for ANYONE to get to a place where they are confident in atheism unless they are very shallow thinkers indeed. We simply have to ask ourselves why there is something instead of nothing. If you accept ALL of what science suggests you must still struggle with the notion of there being no good reason for there to be anything at all when there could just as easily have been nothing at all.

What there is room to argue however is whether observable phenomena are able to make belief in the specific God of Abraham seem illogical.



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/5/2008 2:24:34 AM)

quote:

This is a very accurate thing to say I think. He establishes very well that there is no reason to expect God to be detectable. And he is very correct, but this says nothing of why it is logical to believe it. I could agree with Bertrand Russell that there is a delicate, undetectable china teapot in orbit around mars, but its undetectability wouldn't add to the likelihood that it's there... And, much more importantly, its undetectability wouldn't make it unacceptable for other people to doubt the existence of my china teapot.

Dr Keller's Shakespeare example, though very correct, becomes utterly useless in this light. And the bigger problem is that the Doctor expects us to then make the instant leap all the way from "A" single abstract god (lower case "g") being impossible to detect, to "THE" very specific God of Abraham being likely to exist and logical to believe in. The God of Abraham is not abstract first of all, and the fact that it is unreasonable to expect "a" god to be detectable, does not make it logical to believe in a God you think you know the name and wishes of. We believe we know MUCH about what He wants and expects.

That's why a few of us were asking for clarification early on as to how God was meant to be defined for the purposes of this thread. What you've said here is absolutely correct for the universal God that I described several pages back.

I think it's very hard for ANYONE to get to a place where they are confident in atheism unless they are very shallow thinkers indeed. We simply have to ask ourselves why there is something instead of nothing. If you accept ALL of what science suggests you must still struggle with the notion of there being no good reason for there to be anything at all when there could just as easily have been nothing at all.

What there is room to argue however is whether observable phenomena are able to make belief in the specific God of Abraham seem illogical.


There is no room to believe any particular thing based purely on 'observable phenomena' - so it is good that as humans we have other means of understanding what is true.



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/5/2008 2:51:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

There is no room to believe any particular thing based purely on 'observable phenomena' - so it is good that as humans we have other means of understanding what is true.


You mean our imagination?



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/5/2008 2:54:50 AM)

quote:

You mean our imagination?


Imagination, experience, history, the experiences of others, logic, and revelation.



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/5/2008 3:03:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You mean our imagination?


Imagination, experience, history, the experiences of others, logic, and revelation.


Well there you go again, right down the rabit whole I can't fit into. No matter how many times I try to jump in my big old head gets stuck, or maybe it's my butt, and I have to wiggle back out. I swear these experiences push me further and further away.



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/5/2008 3:06:29 AM)

quote:

Well there you go again, right down the rabit whole I can't fit into. No matter how many times I try to jump in my big old head gets stuck, or maybe it's my butt, and I have to wiggle back out. I swear these experiences push me further and further away.


How do you gain knowledge yourself?



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/5/2008 3:08:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well there you go again, right down the rabit whole I can't fit into. No matter how many times I try to jump in my big old head gets stuck, or maybe it's my butt, and I have to wiggle back out. I swear these experiences push me further and further away.


How do you gain knowledge yourself?


slowly, lol. I'm not too bright.



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/5/2008 3:20:25 AM)

quote:

slowly, lol. I'm not too bright.


Bright enough to answer the question?



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/5/2008 3:29:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

slowly, lol. I'm not too bright.


Bright enough to answer the question?


By carefully applying logic and reason in the comparison of the infinite bits of evidence that flow before me minute to minute each day to arrive at tentative operational reality. I sleep soundly, confident that I am true to myself in all things, not willing to kowtow to my emotions or human frailty in favor of even the slightest hint of self deception or indulgence in things it would be nice to believe.



cognitivemagic -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (8/5/2008 5:06:08 AM)

Wayward:

Your replies were petty and teeming with sophistry.

Skepticism has not only failed....you have failed to be a skeptic!!!

Why?

You are ready to believe whatever you feel like; as long as it's not theism. You have your skeptic meter set to "partial" and your critique laser set to arbitrary.

Why do you accept your beliefs? I doubt that even you know "why"? As long as someone out there agrees with your viewpoint, why should it matter to you whether there really is good grounds for that point-of-view?

I suppose you could say that the "educational system" has taught you what to believe. But that only shows that you allowed some Institution to think for you. That your "skeptical" mouth didn't bite the hand that fed it ought to suffice to show that your not really "skeptical", but rather capricious and arbitrary in belief selection; or subject to the same non-rational factors that you detest in Christians.

After all, you didn't subject most (if any) of those beliefs that you were taught as a child and young adult to skeptical scrutiny....until someone came along and persuaded you to be skeptical, right? And you weren't skeptical in being persuaded of skepticism, right?

Or, perhaps, your skepticism arose suddenly and without warning by some particular "mood" that you were in? Is that right? Or maybe a "bad experience" with a church has made you become vindictive towards all "religious" persons (especially Christian persons); hence the adoption of "skepticism", and this crusade of yours on a Christian blog, in order to reinforce your conviction that Christianity is stupid because Christians are....and that your "skepticism" was right all along. Am I right?

What about being skeptical of yourself.....being skeptical of the beliefs you were taught in school....being skeptical of the means of acquiring information (i.e. the mind and/or brain)....being skeptical of science.....being skeptical that you are currently "right" in this debate.....being skeptical that atheism and agnosticism are true.....being skeptical that the future will resemble the past.....finally, why not be skeptical of skepticism?

"Well there's the indubitable fact of the universe, stupid...that's gotta prove something about atheism, right?"

"There's all these natural laws, dummy. I don't care how it's even possible that they "exist"....I only care about how they make the idea of "miracles" irrational"

"Humans can't help but think, magician boy. It's irrelevant how "thought" is even possible....I just accept it."

"Science is rational, ya meat-head....duh, everyone should know that!!"

I introduced an argument that you admit that you don't have any answers to. But does that deter you from bold hypocrisy when you insist that the theist is irrational because he/she can't support his/her position by "reason" (whatever that means)? No, it doesn't.

Instead, you trivialize the entire discussion with potshots like:

quote:

I'm beginning to fear something much worse though, which is that you are a fraud, creating a diversion from the crystal clarity of my logic.

You simply don't understand the very basic big bang model.

Relativity physics huh? I should stop now and ignore you forever.

again, a better man than me would simply click ignore under your screen name.

Are you used to debating 4th graders?

It would appear that was the moment you learned it, as your application of it here is infantile.

No, your cognitive ability is limited.

Perhaps you should stop performing it then, Mr cognitivemagic

Sincerely, I don't mean to be terse but do yourself a favor, and go read post 247 about fifty more times.


But that's nearly the bulk of your supposed "rebuttal" to my points. No substantive response....just contrary assertions and insults.

quote:

Are you used to debating 4th graders?


Maybe....especially ones who perish the thought of editing without a spellchecker and diversionate from the topic with phantom words and grammatically iffy sentences in order to hypocritastically insult my very beingness.


What was that proverb, "answer an atheist according to his/her folly", all about? Or maybe it went "answer a deist according to her folly"? I can't remember right now. I'm sure it will come to me sometime.

Finally, what business could you possibly have at "crosswalk.com", other than proselytizing Christians?

Perhaps I'm being a bit hasty, here. Maybe you really are looking for a good "reason" to believe in God and Christianity.

Is this true? Or are you trying to lead Christians away from their faith?

Personally, I don't care if you are here to proselytize Christians. I think they are going to see that your posts are foolish and unsubstantiated intellectual dreck.

My hope is that other Christians will learn the truth that, "God's foolishness is greater than any man's wisdom" (1 Cor. 1:25); and that there are answers to tough questions. There is no objection that doesn't have a good response...in fact, there's many different answers to the same question. I only offer one or two.

I have, personally, spent 20 years seeking answers to tough questions by educating myself, having good mentors and role models in "truth", talking to dozens and dozens of other people.....and above all, praying. Not because I had an agenda to proselytize; rather, I, myself, was plagued with doubts and questions since my youth. It took a lot of time and love to help me regain some faith. And if I can give back to just one person who is plagued by doubts....to offer some solace and encouragement...then I say "bring the best and brightest skeptics to me". Christians have nothing to fear.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 [11] 12   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI