infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2012, 07:34:38 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,

the stake is not insivble and untestable. We both can KNOW it exists outside of tasting it.

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 experance what you call God. I have no way of identifiny who, or what God is. I lack experancing God. There are better phylogical explations of the mystical experance as I've said - plenty of people claim to experance God, who is right? An experance again, of being kidnaped by alines is something you should be skeptical of, because it has (as far as we know) never really happened. The person might BELIVE it is true, but that is not a way to show that it is true.

I don’t care about winning or losing here… I don’t claim to be able to prove God exists.

I do care about it, because informal logic is the only way (as you have admited) that one can augue for the existance of God(god/Gods/gods) and you are unable, by your own admition to prove it, thus you do not - I would say, care about what is true, or how to determin what is true, you just belive it is true.

However, from that it doesn’t follow that God does not exist.

If you (or anyone) can not prove that (X) exists, then we have reasion to question if (X) exists. Whenever anyone makes a claim they have burden of proof, basic logic. Since you have failed to prove it, I question it. I have no reasion to belive God exists.

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.

[/qutoe]

Again, whatever you "belive" is not relevent, only facts and truth. HOWEVER, lets assume you are right - God gives SOME people the belife that God exists, but others God does not - ? Doesn't that negate free will? Doesn't that make the whole point of signs and miricals etc pointless - if everyone KNOWS God exists , then you do not have a need for a bible to tell you about God. However, of course, not everyone belives in God, nor do they even agree on what God is, clearly if this statment is true, God is doing a horrable job at making people belive.

(thought it can be lost by sin)

Well, clearly then no one can know God exists even if God puts it into people, for the sins of the father carry on 7 generations or so - so even a baby is guitly of sin. So the information would be put in, and instantly erased. Even if you are willing to totaly ingore scripture, as soon as the child sins, even if they are unaware it is a sin, the idea is removed. If you are willing to ingore that idea, then as soon as the child knows what is a sin, and does it by error or by disision they lose the knowalge of God's exstance???

Nice scapegoat, but it makes zero sence.

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.

Apeal to popularaty again? -2 points this time. Read up on some logical fallacys.

 

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

If you are right, God failed to do so with me, and plenty others. And, again, what version of God would be in question. AND AGAIN its not about what you BELIVE. You could be wrong!

 

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.

You really do not get it... without the bible you would have no idea of your version of God. If the bible had never been read or known by you, how would you know about God? Of course, we can not explore such a question because you are aware of the bible, and you think the bible is true- and because you think its true, you think that your FEELING of God is conferming that the bible is true - but this happens with all relgions , so it proves nothing. AND it is circular. You just have it backwords.

 

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

[/qutoe]

Again, you can deny the experance, because there are better explations for it. The Bible - what truths does it have? As my reserch shows - none. It flys in the face of science and facts, it has immoral ideas, its assmblige is questionable, its unrelyable as histroy, and it has conflicting messages.

 

Quote
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 ag
   ree 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…

Something being untestable and non-verifible is pretty good sugestion that it does not exist. How can we know that something that is not testable and not verifable exists? Answer: WE CAN NOT. We would remain skeptical about it untill we could test or verify it.

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.

Of course I can say there is no God. But I do not have to , all I am saying is that I do not belive in your version of God. As far as any other verion of God, I am not sure, but there is no postive evedance of it. So I do not belive in it untill I see evedance for it.

And Dr. Craig has made lots of logical arguments for the existence of God.

[/qutote]

An apeal to athority fallacy! Wow! But I'll let it slide, first no - his augments are not logical, as the premise's are not true. Second here is my list of people who have made critiques of God:

Kurt Barier, John Dewey, Paul Edwards, Antony Flew, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Sidney Hook, Walter Kaufmann, Corliss Lamont, Wallace I. Matson, H.J. McCloskey, Ernst Nagel, Kai Nielsen, Richard Robinson, Bertrand Russel, Michael Scriven. I could go on. Apeal to athoridy is not a way to get out of making your own augment or I would just tell you to read the book Critiques of God... you should. But just like the essay I linked you to, you will not.

Even if I don’t give you some argument that God exists, it in no way follows that you cannot know he exists.

I can know that there are very good reasions to question if any God - more so your version, exists. I can show logicaly augments that would, if true, negate the possiblity of chartistics of God that you might assign to it. I have a valad reasion to not belive, unless or untill someone (anyone) can give me good reasions to change my mind, really though - the burdan is on God-  and God isnt doing a darn thing.

 

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

 

Thanks for your time,

- Jeff

   

I would sugest brushing up on informal logic if your goal is to convince me that I am wrong and you are right. Peace.


1

Michael Peck

  • **
  • 21 Posts
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2012, 06:29:59 am »
infinitehope wrote:
Not blinded by overconfidence (adhomin) sloppy logic - when? Show me where my logic is sloppy.

I will show you friend

Quote from: infinitehope
And I know God to be a mytholigy, created by humans, for humans, in order to help us explain the world/universe.


Genetic Fallacy.

infinitehope wrote:

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 this to him? Is it more likely to conclude that:

1: Jesus does not care.

2: Jesus does not recive prayers.

3: ?????

Appeal to Emotion.

infinitehope wrote: 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.


Appeal to Authority
Argumentum ad populum

A few quick questions...
1. Why do you keep asking what concept of God is being argued if you are skeptical about any god? It shouldn't matter to the discussion.

2. Why would the God of the Bible or any god for that matter be under an obligation to its creation to make its existence known?

3. I am not trying to sound mean but I would suggest if you want to be taken seriously then you should put some effort into actually proof reading what you write. It honestly makes your arguments and questions difficult to read. This post actually took me a long time to write because I couldn't use CTRL+F to find things you had written because the actual spelling was not found. I was forced to read through all of the topic multiple times as well as deciphering "inception quotes"

4. I also get frustrated when you get angry with people for occasionally committing logical fallacies when you have so as well (as I stated above)
Food for your thought---
Luke 6:42
How can you think of saying, 'Friend, let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.

5.  How can the biblical concept of God not be gathered from something other than the Bible? It would seem to me the people that wrote the book had theses conceptions without the Bible present.

6. Followup of 2---If we are only discussing the God of Christianity then I can answer why he is not obligated to provide you with empirical evidence.

Romans 1:20
For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.


2

infinitehope

  • **
  • 35 Posts
    • View Profile
is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2012, 03:51:52 pm »

Genetic Fallacy.

Not at all. If I had made a stament that because we can know God is a myth (if we are objective about it) we can know that
God does not exist, then you would be right - however my augment is we have good reasions to be skeptical of God because
we know that God in the past (and present) is a myth.

Appeal to Emotion.

Not at all , Langston writes passonatly about why he feels that Jesus did not come from him. The questions I rase are not
a debate, - questions here are not to be looked at from the persanary dialoge- they are answer-seeking dialgouge.
I do not apeal to emotion because I do not say, that because Langston feels this way, we should as well, or use this as part
of an augment, I am in the questions, asking why this would happen to Langston, and what reasionable conclusions we can draw
from it.


Appeal to Authority
Argumentum ad populum

No - this is a responce to what other option besides thinking that God is real, could we see the idea of God in anther light,
that is to say- we know that phycoligests have identifyed God as a wishfullment, this presents an alterntive explation for
what God is. Ad populum - no I do not say that because phycoligest all agree that it is true, they could be wrong,
but I would have to be shown that they are wrong.


A few quick questions...
1. Why do you keep asking what concept of God is being argued if you are skeptical about any god?

I am skeptical of your God, and most gods in general, but before I augue about it, I must identify what it is I am
auguing about, its as if I asked you to talk to me about shamawat. You have no idea what it is, if several people also
knew about shamawat but all had a diferent view of what it was, you would ask what concept we are speaking of before
being able to contune.


It shouldn't matter to the discussion.

Yes, it does matter. We can not talk about something if we do not know what that something is. Whats a shamawat?
I might have an answer to that quesiton, but unless I provide an answer, we can not talk about it.


2. Why would the God of the Bible or any god for that matter
be under an obligation to its creation to make its existence known?

Your quesiton contains the premis that I said there is an obligation.
This basicly asks, does God have any responbility to what its made? Yes!!

Several possible answers.
If God wants us to know God, then we nead to be sure that it exists.
Stop all the wars faught over the name of God. "Hey guys, cut it out , this is what I'm like..."

3. I am not trying to sound mean but I would suggest if you want to be taken seriously
then you should put some effort into actually proof reading what you write.

This is an emotional projection you have. You belive that if I do what you sugest, that I will be taken more seriously.
This video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RN2iU2bJ90g was made by me (as playhavock) talking about spelling. Do note,
not all of this video is relevent since I do take this serously. (rather then in kol that I do not take serouly).

I was forced to read through all of the topic multiple times

No one can force you to do anyhting, you choose to do so. I'm glad you went to the effort. If its to much for you, dont
worry about me or my posts.



4. I also get frustrated when you get angry with people..

Projecting again. I'm not angry with anyone. I'm pointing out when they are wrong.



Luke 6:42 How can you think of saying,
'Friend, let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,'
when you can't see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite!
First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well
enough to deal with the speck in your friend's eye.

"This Book is not to be doubted.... As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or
not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their
hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them."

Quran 2:1/2:6-2:10

Man, I guess if the quran is right we are both screwed. Should I look up other holy books to quote?
Sure, you might get some ideas in them that are good, but for every good idea, I can find several bad ones.
The point is, I dont know your holy book is right. Again, your passage is an okay idea, basicly make sure you
are right before saying someone else is wrong. I have allready, of course, made sure that I understand what it
is that I am being skeptical of, and why.


5.  How can the biblical concept of God not be gathered from something other than the Bible?

I don't know.
There are plenty of books about God. I dont know what one is right, if any.


It would seem to me the people that wrote the book had theses conceptions without the Bible present.

Getting into the history of the bible is tricky - I dont know who wrote it, but much of what the bible says
can be found in pre-exsting religons that the Jewish people would have known about.

If you are saying, that people can come up with a concept of God without any holy book, I agree - but the concept
they come up with is vastly difernet, they are not talking about the same God as you are. Its like talking about
how wonderfull and strong Rock is, and you think I am refering to a rock when I am actualy refering to the wrestler.
They are very and vastly difernet things - and so, is the concept of God/Gods/gods/god. The idea that God is a basic
belife would only flow if everyone agreed on what/who God is/was etc.


6. Followup of 2---If we are only discussing the God of Christianity
then I can answer why he is not obligated to provide you with empirical evidence.

Allrighty.


Romans 1:20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky.

Yes. We know more about the earth, both the EARTH planet and material now then we did in the past. Same for the sky.


Through everything God made,
they can clearly see his invisible qualities

How can you see something invisible?


--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

This makes no sence. You put invisivle qualitys - whatever they are - into everything - that people can "See" (somehow)
then say that the people who do not see them, BECAUSE THEY ARE INVISIBLE. Have no excuse?
This does present an answer - of why God does not show itself - if at least your version of God is true-  because
God is illogical.



3

DRAM

  • *
  • 2 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: is this the best the people who visit chat can do?!
« Reply #18 on: June 07, 2016, 04:56:46 pm »
Ok, I will take a bite at your challenge.

Consciousness.  Information does not come from matter, but from the realm of the mind.  Information comes from pre-existing information.  The pixels on the screen are not producing the information in this sentence, the information comes from my mind.  Likewise, our cognitive ability must have come from the pre-existing mind of a planner.

The universe.  It may not be provable, but it is certainly much more reasonable that this orderly and unimaginably fine-tuned universe was the product of design, not chance or law.  The characteristic mark of design (design theory) is specified complexity.  Products of chance are not specified or teleological.  Products of law (such as ripples on a seashore) are not complex.  Products of design are both.  Design is actually empirical.  We can positively prove design beyond our trustworthy intuition.  This should not be shocking as many professions literally exist to detect design (fire marshals, insurance detectives, autopsy doctors, fraud squads, etc...)  This hallmark of design is seen in the genome, in the cell, in biodiversity, and in the cosmos. 

Humanity's witness to an unwritten moral law.  People everywhere, in all cultures, of all beliefs, the faithful and the skeptic, all appeal to an unwritten moral code (surprisingly universal).  Mostly this appeal is unconsciously made but detectable in their language (that's not fair!, I was here first!, you hurt my feelings!, apologize!, etc...).  Furthermore, our internal experience of guilt/shame/conviction did not have to be learned.  You know this is the case if you a parent or if you are really introspective.  We all seem to know what ought to be done, yet we all fail to do what we know ought to be done.  A moral law infers a Lawgiver.

The empty tomb.  The eyewitness testimony to the resurrection appearances.  The unmovable conviction of the martyrs.  The total revolution of history since the time of Christ (BC/AD on our calendars even!)  The unprecedented number of copies of early manuscript evidence.  The cross-checked validity of the message from the 1st century to today by the Red Sea Scrolls.  Time, existence, purpose, etc.....all point to God: the greatest concept - the ultimate reality.  Everything, literally everything has to depend upon Him.

Look, there are reasonable arguments that lend credence to God's possibility of existence.  I have been convinced by them as well as by personal experience.  But, if you argue against His existence, you cannot argue positively for anything.  In order to remain consistent with your inherently trustworthy belief (according to your atheistic worldview) you must be skeptical about literally everything.  What we can do is weigh the evidence and go with what seems most reasonable, since it is impossible for us to prove conclusively.  And in the scales there really is no competition to God's existence.  You either have purposeless, matter arising out of nothing, generating complexity (against our scientific observations) by chance, becoming conscious for no reason, and theorizing on its cause..........or you have an eternal, immutable, omniscient, omnipotent, personal, transcendent, Creator of all that we see and experience.  Think about the implications of that!

We are not entitled to make demands of our Maker/Sustainer.  He has hidden Himself to be found.  That requires humility and sincerity.  It requires a stepping out from our comfy, imagined sense of control, to willfully enter a new relationship that we have no experience of.  I believe that God gave us freewill out of His great love and care for us.  That He works behind the scenes to get our attention, even when we are set against Him.  But, pride and self-centeredness will get in our way.  If we are really sincere about knowing Him, we will make the effort to tune our hearts to being open to Him.  He, by very definition, is so much higher than us, that we can only know Him to the extent that He reveals Himself.  It is no good protesting an objective fact that does not depend upon our belief, or even comprehension.  All we can do is foster a desire and willingness to see Him.  Of course, the reasonable arguments weighing down the scales in His favor, help to prop up the trust that it takes to make these necessary strides in faith.

I am happy that, at least you are thinking upon God.  That puts you in a much better place than many who carelessly go thru life without even countenancing Him.  It seems that you at least appreciate the magnitude of importance His existence, and relationship with Him is.  Don't ever lose sight of that.  Depending on your identity in Him, or apart from Him......your conception of Him will be vastly different.  When you receive Him, the way you think about everything changes.