infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« on: November 16, 2011, 09:34:22 am »
twice i have come into chat, twice i have said I am (now) a skeptic, and twice, the question "how do you know you are real" has been asked. is this red harring the best you can do to defend an invisibile thing that has no emperical way to know that it exists?


1

Thomas Larsen

  • **
  • 273 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Thomas Larsen
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2011, 04:34:04 pm »
How do I know "you're" really a person? In fact, I suspect that a highly sophisticated, unconscious, zombie-like artificially intelligent bot posted the above comment.

Just kidding.

Thomas Larsen
tomlarsen.org

2

Thomas Larsen

  • **
  • 273 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Thomas Larsen
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2011, 04:41:20 pm »
But, on a more serious note, I don't think there is any reason to think that God's existence could be known merely by examining the world and looking for empirical evidence for His existence. God is; He will not be subject to a certain model of empiricist thought, particularly when it is (a) implausible and (b) overtly hostile to theism in the first place—it was born, at least recently, in the context of Enlightenment rationalist deism.
Thomas Larsen
tomlarsen.org

3

FNB - Former non-believer

  • ***
  • 4048 Posts
  • Do you REALLY make your decision based on reason?
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2012, 01:26:18 am »
infinitehope wrote: twice i have come into chat, twice i have said I am (now) a skeptic, and twice, the question "how do you know you are real" has been asked. is this red harring the best you can do to defend an invisibile thing that has no emperical way to know that it exists?



I am not aware of the context of your conversation, but I wonder if they weren't responding to some claim like this on your part: "we should be agnostic about something unless we have emperical evidence for its existence." It sounds nice, but if you do believe things without empirical evidence, then you aren't holding to your own principle. So if you believe yourself to exist without empirical evidence, then you are not holding to the principle: "we should be agnostic about something unless we have empirical evidence for its existence." Was the context anything like this? And if it was, do you see why, if it was, it is very relevant to the principle of skepticism that I quoted: "we should be agnostic about something unless we have empirical evidence for its existence?"

4

infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2012, 10:03:28 am »

emailestthoume wrote: I am not aware of the context of your conversation, but I wonder if they weren't responding to some claim like this on your part: "we should be agnostic about something unless we have emperical evidence for its existence."

No, I made no claim(s) at all, I said that I am (at the moment) not sure of God's existance. And instatly (twice) whomever it was in the chat room asked "how do you know you exist"

This is a red harring , as it is not relevent to my question.

And even if, for the moment I alow the logical falacy to pass, if I am indeed not "sure" of my own existance, then how sure can I be of anything else, even God. So its a lose-lose in the sence.

Catagory 1:

Premis 1: (X) person says they can not be sure of God's existance.

Premis 2: (X) person is not sure they exist.

Conclusion, (X) person can not be sure that anything exists.

Catagory 2:

Premis 1: (X) person says they can not be sure of God's existance.

Conclusion: They are not sure of God's existance.

I am in catagory 2, but the """""augment"""" is that if (X) can not prove there own existance but claims they exist, then they must alow for claims about things they can not prove. This is non-sencical, but hey, there you go.

It sounds nice, but if you do believe things without empirical evidence,

I do not belive in anything - I can only know or not know about something. If I have no emperical evedance about it, I am skeptical about the claim untill I have emperical evedance.

So if you believe yourself to exist without empirical evidence,

Emperical evedace of my exstance is that I can verify my own existance as it is a common thing to me. Again, even if this medaphyical idea is falce then it becomes more true, (not less) that I should be skeptical of any and all other claims, that is to say, if I can not or for whatever reasion you (or whoever) will not let me state that my (and yours) existance is emepricaly proven just by the fact that we can observe our own life then we must assume (not belive) that we are existing. We might be wrong about said assumtion, call it theroy. Unless I wake up in the Matrex - I can not know that I am indeed in the Matrex, the person who claims that reality is really false has the burden of proof.

"we should be agnostic about something unless we have empirical evidence for its existence?"

No, I would put it - we should be skeptical about all claims untill we have emperical evedance. On existance of self again, even if you want to say that I have no such proof this then brings me full circile again - we should be even more sketpical of a universe where we can not even be sure that we exist.

But its silly. I'm not going to augue that I exist as it is not relevent to my issue at hand. Its a red haring and if you think that its a formualtion for a good augment you are way, way off.


5

infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2012, 10:07:52 am »

tlarsen wrote: But, on a more serious note, I don't think there is any reason to think that God's existence could be known merely by examining the world and looking for empirical evidence for His existence. God is; He will not be subject to a certain model of empiricist thought, particularly when it is (a) implausible and (b) overtly hostile to theism in the first place—it was born, at least recently, in the context of Enlightenment rationalist deism.

Right if we knew God existed there would be:

1 no augments about what God was like.

2 no athests.

That would of course destroy all need for augments of relgions agenst other relgions and themselfs, but that would make far, far to much sence for God to do, its much better to remain invisible and not speak and let people kill in its name and sacerfice people and alow suffering to contune without telling anyone anything execpt though Holy Books, Mystics, etc, etc, etc that make it impossible to KNOW that God exists, what version, who is God, what is God like? I dont know!! One thing for sure, God will never tell us. You might BELIVE that God did, but wow, God sure choose the most absurd system possible to tell us about itself - when I dont know, JUST BEING THERE ALL THE TIME VISIBLE AND AUDIBLE WOULD HELP ALOT. *facepalm*

Guess God cant do that because... it would put every thisit out of a job - you wouldnt have to augue for your verison of God, no one would - we would all KNOW what and who God was.

But that just makes too much sence for God to do eh?


6

FNB - Former non-believer

  • ***
  • 4048 Posts
  • Do you REALLY make your decision based on reason?
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #6 on: January 12, 2012, 11:49:13 am »
infinitehope wrote:

Quote from: tlarsen
But, on a more serious note, I don't think there is any reason to think that God's existence could be known merely by examining the world and looking for empirical evidence for His existence. God is; He will not be subject to a certain model of empiricist thought, particularly when it is (a) implausible and (b) overtly hostile to theism in the first place—it was born, at least recently, in the context of Enlightenment rationalist deism.

Right if we knew God existed there would be:

1 no augments about what God was like.

2 no athests.

That would of course destroy all need for augments of relgions agenst other relgions and themselfs, but that would make far, far to much sence for God to do, its much better to remain invisible and not speak and let people kill in its name and sacerfice people and alow suffering to contune without telling anyone anything execpt though Holy Books, Mystics, etc, etc, etc that make it impossible to KNOW that God exists, what version, who is God, what is God like? I dont know!! One thing for sure, God will never tell us. You might BELIVE that God did, but wow, God sure choose the most absurd system possible to tell us about itself - when I dont know, JUST BEING THERE ALL THE TIME VISIBLE AND AUDIBLE WOULD HELP ALOT. *facepalm*

Guess God cant do that because... it would put every thisit out of a job - you wouldnt have to augue for your verison of God, no one would - we would all KNOW what and who God was.

But that just makes too much sence for God to do eh?


Given God's goal in life is not to make people believe he exists, it makes a lot of sense to me why his existence wouldn't be more obvious. God is interested in many other things, such as humbling man, glorifying himself, bringing people to a free experience of the knowledge of God (not meaning knowledge he exists), testing people, showing the greatness of virtue and the terribleness of wickedness, etc…

I wrote a blog post defending God's hiddenness here,

http://sententias.org/2012/01/04/evolution-the-bible-and-the-3-5-million-dollar-violin/

7

infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #7 on: January 12, 2012, 06:54:46 pm »
emailestthoume wrote:
Given God's goal in life is not to make people believe he exists,
How do you know that to be true?
it makes a lot of sense to me why his existence wouldn't be more obvious.
Premis one: God's goal is not to make people belive it exists.
Premis two: God exstance is not obvious.
show premis one to be true, I totaly agree with premis 2.
God is interested in many other things,
How do you know?
such as humbling man,
Why do humans require humbling?
glorifying himself,
Oh, God has an issue with Narcissism?
bringing people to a free experience of the knowledge of God (not meaning knowledge he exists)
I ... do not even know how to begin to break this down into components that make logical sence. "free experance" reflects that an experance is something that I can have, or do - say, skydiving. Knowalge of something that I do not know now, is learning or education - I supose you could say that too is an experance - I can experance learning about something new; IE I can directly learn about skydiving by experancing said event or I can learn about skydiving by studying it, its pitfalls, what is required, costs, etc -
However you seem... to be saying here you can experance knowlge of (G) but not know that (G) exists.... that is to say, I can have knowalge about (G) but still think (G) does not exist...?!?!
Please put this sentence in a structure that is logical - or explain it better, I can not grasp what you are trying to say.
, testing people
Oh, so God does not know the fucture? See, if God knows everything, then God need do no test - for it knows that I will do (X) if (Y) is done. So no test need happen. If you are, however saying that God is unaware how I might perfom, okay - why test me indirectly, if I do not know God is testing me I might assume that whatever is happening is something that I like or do not like and think that it is perfectly normal in life to experance hardship or good times - what makes a test - how do I know God is testing me? What is the test about, how will I know what my score is? What is the function of the test? The goal? The critera?
, showing the greatness of virtue
When did God do this, if it was shown how can I know God was showing the greatnes of virtue?
and the terribleness of wickedness,
Why must this be shown, given that the eternal relm is claimed to be a relm without such wickedness and yet one (I assume) has free will in said relm, then we can know that wickness is not something that has to be in existance - still my question would remain, why or how would God show this, how do I know its God showing this?

I wrote a blog post defending God's hiddenness here,

http://sententias.org/2012/01/04/evolution-the-bible-and-the-3-5-million-dollar-violin/

To bad God will never write a blog itself or you would not have to defend it.

Your free of course to defend your IDEAS about God's so called hiddeness, I supose I could write a blog defending that my invisible freind is real and its just you cant see him. I might belive that my friend is real - and to me it might be, but there is no reasion to belive that my friend really exists. I can make up all sorts of resaons why my friend is invisible, you see it was a tragic lab experment gone horably wrong - genetic drift caused my friends invisiblity, my friend is magic and so on, the question you should ask if I make a claim that my invisble friend is real is what grounds do you have to belive that my invisible friend REALLY IS REAL? Defending my invisible friend's invisibleness will in no way help you aferm that it is real.

Invisible Friend = IF.

My IF exists. I know it is true, my IF commucates with me, and me alone because IF is not YOUR friend yet.

To become friends with my IF you must first experance IF's knowalge of IF's exstance, IF might give you that experance or you might have to find it on your own.

I told a number of people about IF and we wrote a book called "Glorous and True Book about Invisible Friend" we wrote all the propecys that my IF made to me that all have come true, historans who study my book will see that I and my friends who belive in this book really belive its true because we are willing to die for our belife.

If you belive that IF exists you will be rewarded with his friendship! And more! Oh so much more!

If you dont you will be PUNNSIHED horrably punnished!

Now, look IF is invisible, but you just nead to belive in IF and then you can know IF exists.

....

Just replace IF with God and you will see where I am comming from. I'm not telling you to not belive in God. Your free to belive in anything even if that thing is not true. I am saying there is no good reasion for me to belive in God since God is invisible and there is no OTHER test to perform (that I know of) to see if God is real. As far as I know, its made up, fiction, illusion. You must show and give reasion for me to think otherwise.

No one has yet done this.


8

Thomas Larsen

  • **
  • 273 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Thomas Larsen
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #8 on: January 12, 2012, 08:07:23 pm »
infinitehope wrote: I do not belive in anything - I can only know or not know about something. If I have no emperical evedance about it, I am skeptical about the claim untill I have emperical evedance.


I'm curious. Do you believe in empiricism?

I'm pretty certain that you don't have access to empirical evidence for quarks or black holes or dark matter or quantum mechanics: are you sceptical about these things, or do you accept them on the basis of testimony? How do you know that claims like A world exists independently of my mind, Minds other than my own exist, The natural world operates according to consistent principles, Physical laws are intelligible, Logic works, Empiricism is true, and so on are true?

Cheers,
Tom.
Thomas Larsen
tomlarsen.org

9

infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2012, 08:47:37 pm »

tlarsen wrote:
Quote from: infinitehope
I do not belive in anything - I can only know or not know about something. If I have no emperical evedance about it, I am skeptical about the claim untill I have emperical evedance.


I'm curious. Do you believe in empiricism?

I'm pretty certain that you don't have access to empirical evidence for quarks or black holes or dark matter or quantum mechanics: are you sceptical about these things, or do you accept them on the basis of testimony? How do you know that claims like A world exists independently of my mind, Minds other than my own exist, The natural world operates according to consistent principles, Physical laws are intelligible, Logic works, Empiricism is true, and so on are true?

Cheers,
Tom.

Point 1:

Your right, as far as I know, and of yet, humans do not yet have tech to explore ideas such as quarks or black holes, and thus they are therotical. So yes, I myself am skeptical that there might be quarks, black holes, and so on.

Point 2:

Philopicers are really the only ones who grapple with the issue of minds exesiting outside of your own, reality in general and so on, the adverage person does not worry that reality is real (unless they go insian, recovery takes awhile) sceintests know and would afferm that reality is indeed real since, well - we can test it.

You ask, "how can (you) know that there is..." I cant. You made my point for me. I stated above, as a skeptic I am not sure of the claim you are making in regard to God. On the claim that minds exist outside my own I can be shown good reasions and emperical evedance this is true and I can even conduct tests. Should I question those tests - to an extent that is reasonable sure. But I can at least hold a brain in my hand. I might not fully understand it but I can learn about it and explore what it is and how it works, to some degree. The phyical world is known to me and anyone else. Now, can we "know" that such things are really - really real? No, not really, but conseder it as a thery. I theroise that it is real untill such a time that it is shown to be not. Even in (most) dreams I act as if the dream is real untill I wake up, this is why when strange things that happen in dreams offen are frighting, as they are not common in real life. IE; I am flying, but lose control of my abltiy to fly. The dream becomes terifiyng rather then plesent. In the dream world I did not queston my ablity to fly, in the real would I would. If someone said I had the abltiy to fly I would not jump off a tall building, I would see if I could levetate, jump off a 1 foot tall object, and so on to see if I had said ablity. If I did not I would conclude that I can not fly.

Back to the point at hand, if I can not really, REALLY be sure then - in a sence, skepticsem holds the best stance of all - because if reality and minds outside my own and so on is not something I can be sure about then I am better off being skeptical then I am beliving they are real and being wrong. I might assume they are real, and as I said my theroy stands that they are real. I could be wrong, but like all theroys, I am open to that possiblity.

Now, lets go back to point 1. I when I was a christan made this augment that we (humans) will augue for a quantom partical but we cant prove it exists... therefor we can augue for God and not prove it exists. Sure, of course you can augue for anything and everything. As long as your augments have true premisis's that can withstand critical analises and rebutals then I have to consed to them being true. That is to say, if I can not find a flaw in the premis then the premis will lead to the conclusion, as long as it is logical.

But, the issue I realised with my augment was- it does not matter if quarks exist at all. Quarks existing or not existing has no bering to me as a matter of a person - I might find such informon to be great to learn, or boring to learn, or feel nothing at all about finding it out - but it does not empericaly matter on an extental plane to me if quarks do or do not exist. The claim of quarks can be accepted or rejected without any issue. It just does not matter. Now, if I care about truth (and I do) then I want to know what reasion someone has for claiming quarks exist - and if they can show me then I can afferm that there are reasions to accept such evedance or dismiss it.

The question though - is a strawman - quarks are not (as far as I know) God. (but for all i know a quark is God) We must first identify the word "God" since I am on a chirstan fourm , I expect and assume we are talking about the patular version of God that (some) chistans belive in. I no longer belive such a God exists.

I am asking again and again for some reasion to know - not belive - that God exists. Again, no one  has yet to give me any answer that is logicaly sound.


10

Thomas Larsen

  • **
  • 273 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Thomas Larsen
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2012, 09:31:31 pm »
The trouble is that all arguments for God's existence presuppose, by definition, that Logic works. Many arguments presuppose that A world exists independently of my mind, that Minds other than my own exist, and that The natural world operates according to consistent and intelligible principles. You hold that Empiricism is true, but can you empirically prove the truth of empiricism, or of these other statements?Of course not. In other words, the way you look at the world is not just self-defeating, it won't even allow arguments for God's existence. So you need to stop being so sceptical. Sure, ask lots of questions and seek the truth wherever it leads, but don't think that saying, "I don't believe—I only know (or lack knowledge) about things! I am sceptical about everything in absence of empirical evidence," puts you on some moral or intellectual high ground. Surely you should be sceptical of your scepticism in the absence of empirical evidence for it!

Now, knowledge is justified true belief. A person need not have a reason, other than her own personal experience, to possess knowledge about some things: clearly, one can know that a world exists independently of her mind, and that people (not just zombies or machines that act like people) with minds distinct from her own exist, without having non-experiential reasons for these beliefs. I could give you a few arguments that hint at God, but nothing that would convince you firmly and fully of His existenceparticularly since you hold to empiricism. So, have you tried asking the God whose existence you are sceptical  about to show that He exists?  Do you want God to exist?Would you earnestly seek and trust and delight in Him if you knew He existed? What has your experience with Christianity  been?

Edit: I recommend Matthew Flannagan's essay Showing Christianity is True.

Tom.
Thomas Larsen
tomlarsen.org

11

infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2012, 11:01:05 pm »

tlarsen wrote: The trouble is that all arguments for God's existence presuppose, by definition, that Logic works

All augments assume logic works. You can not show logic does not work without resorting to... logic. IT might be that in the end , we do not exist in a universe that is logical or it might be that, in the end logic does not work, thus my theroy is - logic is assumed to work unless and untill I see that it fails to work.

. Many arguments presuppose that A world exists independently of my mind, that Minds other than my own exist, and that The natural world operates according to consistent and intelligible principles. You hold that Empiricism is true, but can you empirically prove the truth of empiricism, or of these other statements?Of course not.

I've allready explained that I do not hold to empericism. I hold to being a skeptic about God. I hold that I should eximine and criticaly analise all claims made about truth to see if they are true, or not.

In other words, the way you look at the world is not just self-defeating, it won't even allow arguments for God's existence.

Lets assume, for the moment your (invalad) assertion that I am an emperisist is true. No augment should be nessary for God. God neads to just show up. Reveal itself, talk to (all) of humanity. Let us get to know you God, whatever you are. Augments would end about God. We could KNOW about God, and verify it.

Guess God screwed up on that one. But someone made a claim (and has yet to show its true) that God's goal is not that I belive in God... well then God really did well there because I no longer belive in God.

So you need to stop being so sceptical

The bleep I do.

Skepticem protects me from:

Scams.

Bad relationships.

Cults.

Falce advertiesment.

and more.

. Sure, ask lots of questions and seek the truth wherever it leads,

....thats what skepticisem is. (sigh)

but don't think that saying, "I don't believe—I only know (or lack knowledge) about things! I am sceptical about everything in absence of empirical evidence," puts you on some moral or intellectual high ground.

Adhomin - you  are asserting what YOU think and YOU feel that I think/feel is true. EVEN IF YOU ARE RIGHT (YOU ARE NOT) it does not invalade my augment, even if I do think that it puts me on a higher moral/intellecutal ground is IRREVELENT TO MY AUGMENT. My word. Serously. Basic informal logic.

Surely you should be sceptical of your scepticism in the absence of empirical evidence for it!

Yes I am. I am skeptical that it works. I assume it works. I could be wrong.



Now, knowledge is justified true belief. A person need not have a reason, other than her own personal experience, to possess knowledge about some things: clearly, one can know that a world exists independently of her mind, and that people (not just zombies or machines that act like people) with minds distinct from her own exist, without having non-experiential reasons for these beliefs.

I agree to most of this. You do have a "reason" your own imputs alow you to verify such things. You can know that a mind exists outside of yours - the mind is the brain. I can see a brain. I can test a brain. I can see my brain (xray/catscan etc) I can testt my brain. That is evedance that I can accept, and do.

I could give you a few arguments that hint at God

Go for it. If your augments can:

1: Withstand critical analis.

2: Be shown to be logicaly sound.

Then I will accept them and look further into the matter. But "hint" I can "HINT" at you with my augment? Must be a rather week augment if it only hints. But I await your augment(s).

, but nothing that would convince you firmly and fully of His existenceparticularly since you hold to empiricism.

   yle="margin: 0px;">

God's existance can easly be proven... by God. Pretty simple. God will never do that as far as I know has not done it before and will not do it tommorow.

I do not hold to empiricsm again, but - again augments for God are not emperical should allready clue you in that something is off. Existance should be verifyable to some degree. God's exsitance is not. We can not KNOW. You can belive all you want, of course.

So, have you tried asking the God whose existence you are sceptical  about to show that He exists?  

Yes.

Right now I'll do it.

Dear God. Whatever you are. I am not sure you exist. If you do I do not know if you can read the words I am now typing. If you can read them I assume you understand them. I am asking if you would please show that you exist within the next few moments before I post this message. Just say "hi" that will be good enough for now, if you say "Hi" I will look futher into what and who you are, and/or you can say any word you like, or even a sound. You could levetate the table across from me. Please God, I want to know if you exist. Please show me. Any moment within the time before I finnish would be fine.

....


(9:44 pm)

...

945 pm.... nothing.

Okay, moving on. Eather God can not read, or does not want to do any of those things.

Do you want God to exist?

Wanting something does not make it so, I can wish and hope and belive that God exists all I want, it does not make it true. Emotional desire is not relevent for truth. I will accept God's existance if I can be shown it is true.

Would you earnestly seek and trust and delight in Him if you knew He existed?

It depends.

First, how do I seek God? Where is it located, how will I know it when I find it?

Trust - that is earned, not nessarly given, granted, I assume the person is trustworthy and as I get to know them I can make assments about them. God did not talk to me just awhile ago when I asked it to. God clearly does not care enough about me to say "hi" I am not sure I can trust a God - if this God exists, who will not talk to me. Perhaps he will write me an email. He could take over the control of the keyboard. No... I'll wait? ... Nope. Nothing so far. I am not sure I can trust God as of yet since it will not commucate with me.

Delight - no idea, if God is a nice thing I might just delight in it. I might like God if I could just get to know it.

What has your experience with Christianity  been?

Irrevelent to the quesiton at hand.

BUT. I'll give you a back drop.

Rased Christan, we attended:

Christan Science (shot time I was young, dont remember much)

Lutheran chirch - this was for quite some time. I really love and still care for my pastor who is very old now and working in a new chirch in a difernet state.

Gospil Chirch. (visit)

Covent chirch. youth group was here, I love and still talk to one of the youth volenters  who has been there 28 years someodd, he is a fun loving guy who is very hard working and entergitic.

-

On my own (without family nessarly)

I went to the above Covent chirch for quite some time.

Baptist chirch.

Southern Baptist

Pentacostal

Chirch of Christ

New Life chirch (colorado springs)

Bolder Chirch (also coloardo)

-

I have studyed:

Informal Logic.

Apolgitics (Chistan)

Apolgitic study bible. (most of it)

I've talked personaly to Doug Powell when I had a youtube channel - reasionablefaith.com is his web page.

I'm studying augments agenst God right now as well as philopicy, ethics,

world relgions and more.

---

I recomend this essay:

http://www.spiritwatch.org/firelangsave.htm

Ask yourself this question:

Why didn't Jesus come for Langston in the way (Langston) was told (Jesus) would? Langstom wanted (desperatly) to belive, and was WAITING for Jesus... and finaly gave up and lied that Jesus came... and cryed at night.... why would Jesus do thi
   s to him? Is it more likely to conclude that:

1: Jesus does not care.

2: Jesus does not recive prayers.

3: ?????

-----------

Give me your augemnts I will explore them and analise them and show you why they are flawed. IF I can't then they are most likely right, and I might agree with them. The fact that there is zero emperical evedance for God gives me pause, and baffles me, but it might be that is what is true... I suspect that greatly, but I await an actual , logical augment.

I am open minded to the truth. Are you?


12

FNB - Former non-believer

  • ***
  • 4048 Posts
  • Do you REALLY make your decision based on reason?
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2012, 12:58:10 am »
How do you know that to be true?

The direct experience of God which I cannot deny.

Premis one: God's goal is not to make people belive it exists.
Premis two: God exstance is not obvious.
show premis one to be true, I totaly agree with premis 2.

Those are simply propositions, not premesis, but it's not my responsibility to prove the first. You should, in fact, have a good argument for the judgment: "if God existed, he would make his existence more evident" if you believe it. Otherwise, you should simply remain agnostic about whether God's existence would be more obvious or not.

Quote
God is interested in many other things,
How do you know?

From my experience of God which testifies to the bible, that the bible is a reliable source for truths about God, and the bible teaches it. In any case, how do you know he isn't?


Why do humans require humbling?

All of the horrible things they do. Just watch the news.

I ... do not even know how to begin to break this down into components that make logical sence. "free experance" reflects that an experance is something that I can have, or do - say, skydiving. Knowalge of something that I do not know now, is learning or education - I supose you could say that too is an experance - I can experance learning about something new; IE I can directly learn about skydiving by experancing said event or I can learn about skydiving by studying it, its pitfalls, what is required, costs, etc -

I don't understand the difficulty. I eat soup, I experience eating soup. I can tell you many things about the soup from that experience. I have some knowledge of the soup from the experience of eating soup. Likewise, I taste honey, and I can tell you that it is sweet from my experience of tasting honey.
However you seem... to be saying here you can experance knowlge of (G) but not know that (G) exists.... that is to say, I can have knowalge about (G) but still think (G) does not exist...?!?!

I don't think I was saying this, but sure its possible to experience something, and not recognize the significance of what you are experiencing. If I am a baby and I go to the white house and meet the president… I experience all these things but don't recognize what they are or their significance.

To bad God will never write a blog itself or you would not have to defend it.

Your free of course to defend your IDEAS about God's so called hiddeness, I supose I could write a blog defending that my invisible freind is real and its just you cant see him. I might belive that my friend is real - and to me it might be, but there is no reasion to belive that my friend really exists. I can make up all sorts of resaons why my friend is invisible, you see it was a tragic lab experment gone horably wrong - genetic drift caused my friends invisiblity, my friend is magic and so on, the question you should ask if I make a claim that my invisble friend is real is what grounds do you have to belive that my invisible friend REALLY IS REAL? Defending my invisible friend's invisibleness will in no way help you aferm that it is real.

Invisible Friend = IF.

My IF exists. I know it is true, my IF commucates with me, and me alone because IF is not YOUR friend yet.

To become friends with my IF you must first experance IF's knowalge of IF's exstance, IF might give you that experance or you might have to find it on your own.

I told a number of people about IF and we wrote a book called "Glorous and True Book about Invisible Friend" we wrote all the propecys that my IF made to me that all have come true, historans who study my book will see that I and my friends who belive in this book really belive its true because we are willing to die for our belife.

If you belive that IF exists you will be rewarded with his friendship! And more! Oh so much more!

If you dont you will be PUNNSIHED horrably punnished!

Now, look IF is invisible, but you just nead to belive in IF and then you can know IF exists.

....

Just replace IF with God and you will see where I am comming from. I'm not telling you to not belive in God. Your free to belive in anything even if that thing is not true. I am saying there is no good reasion for me to belive in God since God is invis
   ible and there is no OTHER test to perform (that I know of) to see if God is real. As far as I know, its made up, fiction, illusion. You must show and give reasion for me to think otherwise.

No one has yet done this.

I think your comparison is misleading. An invisible friend is something everyone recognizes to be a creation of a child who is bored. It is something that even the child creating it recognizes is fake. Of course when you compare that concept to God, you come up with something sounding ridiculous.

The fact is, I don't believe your invisible friend exists because I lack evidence, I believe your invisible friend does not exist because of all of the positive evidence I have against this proposition. (such as my knowledge that an invisible friend is something people make up when they are bored)

On the other hand, the vast majority of the worlds population believe in God, and these include some of the most intelligent people alive and who have ever lived. You can't just apriori consider it to be imaginary like the invisible friend.

Your full of confidence but no evidence. And I don't consider it my responsibility to prove to you that God exists, and in fact, even if I could, I don't think you would believe that he does because you are so blinded by overconfidence and sloppy logic. I believe God to be something like a properly basic belief like an intuitive belief that you know is true simply by intuition, and not argument. This is how we actually know our most important fundamental beliefs. And if you would like to deny that last statement I look forward to replying.



13

infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2012, 04:51:35 pm »
emailestthoume wrote:
How do you know that to be true?

The direct experience of God which I cannot deny.

If postive claims for an experance are proof of a thing, why are negitve - void- experances not proof that the thing does not exist. Plenty of phygolists have allready pointed out, and rightly so - that experancing something does not make it true - I might experance that I am a bunny. I might belive I am a bunny. That does not make me a bunny.
You can deny it. Because everyone who is religous claims to experance God.
But not all people experance God, even if they try. An experance is proof that you feel something, not that something exists.
Premis one: God's goal is not to make people belive it exists.
Premis two: God exstance is not obvious.
show premis one to be true, I totaly agree with premis 2.

Those are simply propositions, not premesis, but it's not my responsibility to prove the first. You should, in fact, have a good argument for the judgment: "if God existed, he would make his existence more evident" if you believe it. Otherwise, you should simply remain agnostic about whether God's existence would be more obvious or not.
And, you lose the debate here, if there was one. You must prove your points to be true. At least give me a reasion to afferm them. You have failed the burdan of proof.
I can provide a logical augment why God should make its extance more evedant - from the idea that God might have made us - then it has a responcilbity to that creation to explain itself to it. If not, then as far as I know it does not care.

Quote
God is interested in many other things,
How do you know?

From my experience of God which testifies to the bible, that the bible is a reliable source for truths about God, and the bible teaches it.
Circular augment. Thats two negitve logical points agenst you so far.
In any case, how do you know he isn't?
I do not think God would be a "he" or "she" or a hermfidite, but who knows. God, whatever it is apprently is invisible, untestable, and only precived by SOME people who hold vastly diferent outlooks on what God is. None of them can agree and as yet - none have made a logical augment that God really exists other then in there mind.

Why do humans require humbling?

All of the horrible things they do. Just watch the news.

Thats 3 points agenst you now - this is not an augment that people require humbling, can you show that when someone is humble they will never do something horrible? Apprently making people humble is not working effectivly since people are still doing horrable things. When something does not work, you try something new, unless you are insain. Perhaps God is insain and keeps trying the same thing over and over again expecting a new result.
I ... do not even know how to begin to break this down into components that make logical sence. "free experance" reflects that an experance is something that I can have, or do - say, skydiving. Knowalge of something that I do not know now, is learning or education - I supose you could say that too is an experance - I can experance learning about something new; IE I can directly learn about skydiving by experancing said event or I can learn about skydiving by studying it, its pitfalls, what is required, costs, etc -

I don't understand the difficulty. I eat soup, I experience eating soup. I can tell you many things about the soup from that experience. I have some knowledge of the soup from the experience of eating soup. Likewise, I taste honey, and I can tell you that it is sweet from my experience of tasting honey.
Soup and honey are things I can know exist as I can test them independly of my own experance about them, as well as direct experance of them.
However you seem... to be saying here you can experance knowlge of (G) but not know that (G) exists.... that is to say, I can have knowalge about (G) but still think (G) does not exist...?!?!

I don't think I was saying this, but sure its possible to experience something, and not recognize the significance of what you are experiencing. If I am a baby and I go to the white house and meet the president… I experience all these things but don't recognize what they are or their significance.

The diferace is that you are expercaning something that someone else can verify. Also you are saying - its possible that I (or anyone) have experanced God, and
   just .... did not know it was God. Wonderfull. Thanks God for not making it more clear. Guess God screwed up on that one.

To bad God will never write a blog itself or you would not have to defend it.

Your free of course to defend your IDEAS about God's so called hiddeness, I supose I could write a blog defending that my invisible freind is real and its just you cant see him. I might belive that my friend is real - and to me it might be, but there is no reasion to belive that my friend really exists. I can make up all sorts of resaons why my friend is invisible, you see it was a tragic lab experment gone horably wrong - genetic drift caused my friends invisiblity, my friend is magic and so on, the question you should ask if I make a claim that my invisble friend is real is what grounds do you have to belive that my invisible friend REALLY IS REAL? Defending my invisible friend's invisibleness will in no way help you aferm that it is real.

Invisible Friend = IF.

My IF exists. I know it is true, my IF commucates with me, and me alone because IF is not YOUR friend yet.

To become friends with my IF you must first experance IF's knowalge of IF's exstance, IF might give you that experance or you might have to find it on your own.

I told a number of people about IF and we wrote a book called "Glorous and True Book about Invisible Friend" we wrote all the propecys that my IF made to me that all have come true, historans who study my book will see that I and my friends who belive in this book really belive its true because we are willing to die for our belife.

If you belive that IF exists you will be rewarded with his friendship! And more! Oh so much more!

If you dont you will be PUNNSIHED horrably punnished!

Now, look IF is invisible, but you just nead to belive in IF and then you can know IF exists.

....

Just replace IF with God and you will see where I am comming from. I'm not telling you to not belive in God. Your free to belive in anything even if that thing is not true. I am saying there is no good reasion for me to belive in God since God is invisible and there is no OTHER test to perform (that I know of) to see if God is real. As far as I know, its made up, fiction, illusion. You must show and give reasion for me to think otherwise.

No one has yet done this.

I think your comparison is misleading. An invisible friend is something everyone recognizes to be a creation of a child who is bored.
Nope. You are wrong. A child can make up invisible friends for all sorts of reasions, not just becuse they are bored. So can an adult.
It is something that even the child creating it recognizes is fake.
Wrong again. The child does not nessarly know they have made up this thing, for them it might be very real. Same for the adult. It depends on the brain structure, what events lead up to the idea, and so on.
Of course when you compare that concept to God, you come up with something sounding ridiculous.
Not at all, plenty of phycolgists have identifyed God as a wishfullment. God is invisible, and your friend. It exists in your mind. You bevlive its true.

The fact is, I don't believe your invisible friend exists because I lack evidence, I believe your invisible friend does not exist because of all of the positive evidence I have against this proposition. (such as my knowledge that an invisible friend is something people make up when they are bored)
And thats why I dont belive in your version of God. Congratulatous, you understand - somewhat. You just want to belive that God is real. You need God to be real, you WANT God to be real. I do not know if God is real, if God is real, great! I want to know what God is, how to interact with it, if it cares about me, and so on. If it is not real then its a concept, nothing more. You have yet to show that God exists anywhere but your mind.

On the other hand, the vast majority of the worlds population believe in God, and these include some of the most intelligent people alive and who have ever lived. You can't just apriori consider it to be imaginary like the invisible friend.
Point 4 loss in logical format. You have just made an apeal to popularaty - just because most of the worlds population belive in God/god/Gods/gods does not make that belife justifyed. Whats more, none of them agree on what God is. Intelgence is not relevent eather, you can be smart, and wrong. You can be dumb and right.
Yes, I can consider it to be just like the invisible friend because I have no evedance it is anything more.

Your full of confidence but no evidence.
No sir. You are.
And I don't consider it my responsibility to prove to you that God exists
1 Peter 3:15: "15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, "
---
Nope, not your responcliby at ALL.
, and in fact, even if I could, I don't think you would believe that he does because you are so blinded by overconfidence and sloppy logic.
Not blinded by overconfidence (adhomin) sloppy logic - when? Show me where my logic is sloppy. I will belive God exists when you, or anyone can give me good reasions to afferm it.
I would switch the shoe to you - even if I could show you that God does not exist, you are blinded by fath and sloppy logic.
I believe God to be something like a properly basic belief like an intuitive belief that you know is true simply by intuition, and not argument. This is how we actually know our most important fundamental beliefs. And if you would like to deny that last statement I look forward to replying.

And I know God to be a mytholigy, created by humans, for humans, in order to help us explain the world/universe. I know you belive (X) thats great. Belives can be wrong. Show me that God IS a properly basic belife. Do not just SAY it is.
----
So final count 4 negitve logical points for you sir. You have yet to show anything. Your doing slightly better then those in chat, but not much, I sugest reading an informal logic book - I am studying "informal logic a pragmatic approach douglas walton"
I dont think you read the blog I provided, as I asked deep questions about it that you did not answer.
I do not think you want to understand my point of view, you just want to insisit that God exists, without providing any reasion for me to. You use bad logic, but cliam I am doing so. You push your emotional state onto me by projecting what I think and feel or that I am blind or whatever so that you can keep on beliving. Well, if no augment will convince you that there is no God, why would any augment convince me there is? The point is , God could settle this for me. I prayed - nothing happened. You omit that I tryed and nothing happened. My conclusion is that eather God does not exist, or if it does, does not care. In eather case, I await a reasion to think that it does. I have not seen such an augment or reasion, but I am looking. You clearly do not have it. Thats fine, keep belivng what you want. I cant stop you. I'm mearly saying, that I do not belive it, and I have more then good reasions for not doing so.
And , according to you, thats OKAY, its okay for me to not belive in God, since thats not God's goal. Okay, well - I dont. So God got what it wanted. I dont belive or afferm it exists.
When I was christan, I belived, when I went hunting for the truth, I found answers I did not want. It emotionaly hurts to come to grips with reality.
Peace.

14

FNB - Former non-believer

  • ***
  • 4048 Posts
  • Do you REALLY make your decision based on reason?
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2012, 04:01:34 pm »
 

If postive claims for an experance are proof of a thing, why are negitve - void- experances not proof that the thing does not exist. Plenty of phygolists have allready pointed out, and rightly so - that experancing something does not make it true - I might experance that I am a bunny. I might belive I am a bunny. That does not make me a bunny.

 

You can deny it. Because everyone who is religous claims to experance God.

 

But not all people experance God, even if they try. An experance is proof that you feel something, not that something exists.

 

By this logic, you could never know that the external world exists, because the only way you know that it does is by your experience. If you experienced eating a steak yesterday, and I said to you that your experience of eating a steak is no proof that you did actually eat a steak, you would certianly think I am being overly skeptical. If I experience God just as clearly as you experience eating a steak, and we both accept our beliefs here, both of us are basing our beliefs on experience. You could say experience is never valid, in which case almost none of your most important beliefs could be justified. How do you justify believing that there is such a thing as the past (for example, you could be stimulated by mad alien scientists who have put your brain into a machine to believe that there is a past). Also, I have subjected my experience to every test I can think of and it still passes all of my tests.

 

And, you lose the debate here, if there was one. You must prove your points to be true. At least give me a reasion to afferm them. You have failed the burdan of proof.

 

I don’t care about winning or losing here… I don’t claim to be able to prove God exists. However, from that it doesn’t follow that God does not exist. I believe the primary way people know God exists is that this belief is a basic one (not built on other beliefs) given to us by God. (thought it can be lost by sin) This seems to be more probable in light of the fact that most of the people in the world believe in some sort of divine reality.

 

I can provide a logical augment why God should make its extance more evedant - from the idea that God might have made us - then it has a responcilbity to that creation to explain itself to it. If not, then as far as I know it does not care.

 

I believe God has made his existence evident, but I believe that this is by intuition and not argument.

 

Circular augment. Thats two negitve logical points agenst you so far.

 

Its not circular to say I believe in God because of the personal experience of God, and I believe in the bible because this experience testifies to the bible.

 

It’s undeniable experience -> bible -> more specific truths

 

I do not think God would be a "he" or "she" or a hermfidite, but who knows. God, whatever it is apprently is invisible, untestable, and only precived by SOME people who hold vastly diferent outlooks on what God is. None of them can agree and as yet - none have made a logical augment that God really exists other then in there mind.

 

This was your response to my question, “how do oyu know there is no God.” You say, because God is untestable and invisible. That is not evidence that God does not exist… in fact, it seems to assume you will never be able to say there is no God because you can’t test God’s existence. And Dr. Craig has made lots of logical arguments for the existence of God. Even if I don’t give you some argument that God exists, it in no way follows that you cannot know he exists.

 

Working on responding to the rest… this is getting long…

 

Thanks for your time,

 

 

- Jeff