Prove God Exists - Act Three

[WS78]

What is the bible? A compilation of "witness" reports and secondhand stories.

 

[Perfection]

Hearsay in my book, not neccesarily wrong, but not something to base an arguement off of.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Countdown: six days until Spain!

Birdjaguar: Again, I don’t disagree. Truth takes no prisoners and destroys without mercy. My wise blind man quote was worded deliberately to evoke a unifying stance rather than a divisive one. This thread is already divisive enough.

FredLC: Well, I am afraid that this does not really challenge my point about how the human desire to unification don’t concern the universe nor the uncompromising nature of the truth, whatever it may be..

Again I agree. The human desire to find unity tho’ must have some origin or function. I would attribute it to some feature of our genetic heritage. And, if at some point, science reduces the universe to a “uniformity” of some sort, then such a trait might be explained.

Birdjaguar: Such a methodology is a perfectly fine one. The issues will revolve around how one characterizes “real data.” The religionists will say their X data is as real as your Y data and you will say it is not. Your data will fail their tests for truth and theirs will fail yours. An impasse at the most basic level. And we haven’t even gotten to an agreed methodology.

FredLC: Ok, than, we come to a real meaningful point in our debate. If the methodology is agreed upon, and the issue lies only in defining what can be categorized as “evidence” – what pretty much makes this a discussion of the Plato’s cave – I am forced to ask a question – is there any axiological postulate you consider invalid? Do you consider “interpretation of empirical data”, “inspiration from unknown source” and “elf’s gossip in my ear at sleep hours” to have the same convincing value as bases for a system of claims?

Of course not. And I don’t believe in pixies, astrology or crop circles either. I suspect that my rules of evidence include all of yours, but I probably allow items in that you do not. I do believe that there is mystery to the universe and there are things that reason cannot understand. That is not a carte blanche for crackpot ideas, but it leaves the door open for…poetry. Don’t be mislead by my undisciplined language here, by poetry I mean a host of non empirical experiences.

Birdjaguar: I am taking to task all those parties who refuse to look beyond their cubical. Your language above: “…of those who aren’t willing to treat a wild and unlikely guess just like they treat a solid and well-put idea.” shows your strong prejudices. Those who don’t think like you make only wild and unlikely guesses and you put forth only solid well put ideas. I don’t disagree with the remainder of your statement.

Here is what made me say that the case wasn’t closed; you keep insisting on this necessity to attribute skepticism with a closed mind. This in itself would allow me to give back the accusation of “strong prejudices”, even if I hadn’t more to say… but I do.

I was responding to the very words you used, not slamming you for having a closed mind. You use “wild, unlikely and guess” to characterize the other side, and “solid, well-put and idea” to characterize your position. I concur that you are open minded in your posts here, but please explain to me how those two sets of words offer an unbiased viewpoint. Each of them is heavily value laden.

Birdjaguar: I’m not a lawyer or scientist. By trade I am marketer with a knack for copy and poetry. My writing style reflects that, as yours does the law. If you want to quibble about my characterizations of the thought process through which creativity emerges, I concede the point.

FredLC: Not the law, exactly. All technical disciplines demands a purity of terms. Poetry, however – your field of choice as you said – isn’t resilient to vague statements, misleading the reader and even false assertions in the name of artistic accomplishments and esthetics.

You said poetry is my field of choice. I merely stated I had a knack for copy and poetry. But, I am not offended.

What brings me to ask, what are we seeking here? Artistic satisfaction or clear understanding? At the realm of the second one – that seems to be the goal here – parabolas and half answers are useless… what, I come to think now, can very well be the actual core of our disagreement.

I will think about this one.

“The difference between Reality and Imagination exists only in the mind.”

FredLC: I disagree entirely with the reality/imagination sentence. Any bases that allow you to claim this?

I knew you would. It was written by a scientist. With thought, you should be able to reason out some meaning. If you then still disagree, we can discuss it further. If anyone else cares to offer any explanation please do so!!

Those who claim to have knowledge outside logic haven’t been doing it through alternative means; they have being doing it randomly and without method. Assertions and conclusions that lacks bases or merit, simple as that.

Maybe they don’t know how. This does not excuse most of those who you are referencing, but maybe, just maybe, for some, language and logic are insufficient to express their experiences. So they stumble. The fault may be in language and logic and not in the experience.

Birdjaguar: As I said, my goal was not to bring god into the mix. I think I follow your logic. The first flaw I see is in your definition (or lack of definition) of god. That is the lynchpin of the argument. The success or failure of the logic rests on that definition. You should define it.

FredLC: Well, considering the title of this thread, it’s hard not to bring God into our discussion. Nevertheless, you are mistake in your requirement that I define God. I don’t have to define it. I Think God do not exist. If I were to define everything that doesn’t exist, all eternity would never be enough.

This burden relies on those who believe in God. Only in this realms God has characteristics that allows for a definition. Only that not doing so is one of the favorite tricks of the religious mind; the more vague you allow God to be, the most unlikely is to get trapped in a corner. As I said, I favor the purity of terms. Please, all you God-fearing CIVFanatics; define God so I can analyze it.

You introduced god into this series of posts. You brought him in to bolster your position. You claim the importance of the purity of terms and staying away from vague and poetic language. Your unwillingness to define key terms you introduce shows disrespect for your own position. No one is asking you to define everything that doesn’t exist, just the single item you chose to include. You don’t have to believe in the god you define, you just have to define the god you used in your own argument.

Your challenge to all CIVFanatics is interesting, but a poor distraction to the situation at hand. This crowd is far to smart to fall for that. It would though make a great thread. If you are brave enough to take this step, I promise not to make any comments about it or even return to that small discussion without your expressed permission.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well that's a bitter dissapointment. Can you at least guess what number I'm thinking of between 1 and 10

How about 12?

A universe in which there both is and is not a god/s? Or do I misunderstand you?

Not necessarily. Maybe one that merely satisfies both theists and atheists. The important arguement may not really be over god, but over evidence, knowledge, or some other very basic issue.

I will have to come back to the rest of your post later. Sorry.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Countdown to Spain: 5 days

Would the assumptions questioned include your own, including the assumption that there is something we could call "god"? Or would it basically be a process of questioning in such a way as to arrive at a broad pre-existing viewpoint. I don't mean that you would dishonestly set out to do that, but without any objective method of weighing assumption against assumption, it's the likely outcome. Either that or no outcome at all.

This is not a solitary process, but a multi person endeavor. (Well, I guess you could do it on your own) It could be focused and goal oriented or open ended, intellectual or Truth seeking. So much would depend upon the participants. Rules of evidence could be loose at the start and slowly squeezed to tighten the process as it moves along. Personally, I see the process as one which has little likelihood of actually changing beliefs, but a good prospect of enhancing the process of discovery and changing the way people look at problems and prejudices. And it might even be fun!

One approach is to start with a foreign set of assumptions and then try to build our universe on those assumptions. Can you make the world work like we know it in that frame? Would it change how theists and atheists view things? You don't know until you try.

 

[Phydeaux]

Science cannot prove anything? apart the quest to find God's home?

I didn't say any thing about "the quest to find God's home".

Maybe you're right, maybe we all "are" "on something" and all we have is dillusions and see green creatures from mars.

What ever.

You're wrong here: Religionists don't dare to challenge God's existence before the creation of the universe: According to them, God existed always. How naive..

.

First, I am a as you call it "Religionist", and I dare.

All we know until our current age is based on science: all you religionists who accuse science, I have something to propose for you: go back to the caves and away from civilization, away from shots against diseases, away from electricity, from hospitals, away from everything. After all, all the previous are in collision with faith(maybe God invented telephone too, so he could spek with his girlfriend?)

Maybe God didn't invent the telephone, but some one did, and they used God's stuff.

This discussion reminds me this: after the fall of the USSR, many soviets and people of eastern countries came to Greece: they had no television in their homes(in USSR), they eat meat once a month, they lived 8-10 people inside 3 rooms, etc.. They got jobs here, they were happy that for the first time in their life they could have all the modern comforts, they could BUY a home to live, etc...
When they gained enough money and had everything, they started to accuse Greece's political system(who ever said that other goverments than Communism haven't flaws, also?) and they recalled the good old days of Communism. How hypocritical!!! They'd never actually wish to live again under Communism, but they accused our Democracy: you could call them ungratefull, if you want, but, that is the human nature. Humans quickly forget and accuse anything, they're greed.

I don't accuse science, I only express the limitations of science.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@King Alexander

If science is flawed, what would a better alternative be? Could you "logically" argument your case for this "hyperscience"?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

FredLC:
If you want to know who my God is, read the Bible.

 

[Iggy]

FL2. That does not narrow it down much, as many bible readers "see" a different God to others who read the same book.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm willing to give FredLC's reading comprehension abilities the benefit of the doubt, yours too. There is only one God described in the Bible, and if you stick with what it says about Him and ignore personal preferences and interpretations, you ought to do just fine.

 

[Blasphemous]

I'm willing to give FredLC's reading comprehension abilities the benefit of the doubt, yours too. There is only one God described in the Bible, and if you stick with what it says about Him and ignore personal preferences and interpretations, you ought to do just fine.

And here we go again.
There are many contradictions in the bible, and "ignoring personal preferences and interpretations" means sticking to every word (with the obvious fact in mind that they were written ages ago [and translated, in some cases]) and not adding anything that's not actually written.
As someone who has not yet had the pleasure of reading the New Testament, I would like to ask you if it actually says anywhere that god changed his ways and decided to stop performing miracle. Or is that just an interpretation?

 

[Iggy]

I'm willing to give FredLC's reading comprehension abilities the benefit of the doubt, yours too.

Awefully kind of you.

There is only one God described in the Bible, and if you stick with what it says about Him and ignore personal preferences and interpretations, you ought to do just fine.

I will ignore interpretations of him; however as the bible is basically second, third, or fourth hand info I would have to ignore the bible. So really we need God's direct input here.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

And here we go again.
There are many contradictions in the bible, and "ignoring personal preferences and interpretations" means sticking to every word (with the obvious fact in mind that they were written ages ago [and translated, in some cases]) and not adding anything that's not actually written.
As someone who has not yet had the pleasure of reading the New Testament, I would like to ask you if it actually says anywhere that god changed his ways and decided to stop performing miracle. Or is that just an interpretation?

Jesus states that men will come along and claim to cast out demons in God's name and such, and that he will tell them, 'I never knew you.'

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I will ignore interpretations of him; however as the bible is basically second, third, or fourth hand info I would have to ignore the bible. So really we need God's direct input here.

The Bible is inspired of God, and beneficial for all things. It's words are God's, not men's.

 

[Iggy]

It's words are God's, not men's.

How do you know that?

 

[CurtSibling]

The Bible is inspired of God, and beneficial for all things. It's words are God's, not men's.

What is the basis of your belief in that?

Why would a cosmic being even care to create a series of texts?

 

[CurtSibling]

I'm willing to give FredLC's reading comprehension abilities the benefit of the doubt, yours too. There is only one God described in the Bible, and if you stick with what it says about Him and ignore personal preferences and interpretations, you ought to do just fine.

@FL2:

I think you are out of line making such comments about Fred and Iggy.
Their wording and level of debate are mostly without peer here in CFC.
If you can only answer pressing arguments with unworthy abuse,
I then politely ask you to refrain from posting here.

Until such times as you can develop some civility.

 

[FredLC]

FredLC:
If you want to know who my God is, read the Bible.

Tsk. Don't mistake my desire do narrow down the debate object with some urge for acquaintance with your deity of choice through paraboles that pretend to be wisdom.

Nevertheless, FYI, I have already read the bible. I think I already told you that I was catholic half my life, didn't I?

As for BJ and OJH, you guys wait, the replies will come. But I have some other fish to fry now and it may take a few days, unless I find some time within the next hours.

Regards .

 

[Blasphemous]

Jesus states that men will come along and claim to cast out demons in God's name and such, and that he will tell them, 'I never knew you.'

Well now, I don't think that it would be without "ignoring personal preferences and interpretations" to say that means god had decided to quit the miracling business and stop smiting people so damn much.
Looks to me rather than Jesus was just warning people against charlatans.

 

[Birdjaguar]

As for BJ and OJH, you guys wait, the replies will come. But I have some other fish to fry now and it may take a few days, unless I find some time within the next hours.

Not a problem Fred.