Pachomius, you repeatedly tell everyone to "think on facts and logic" yet you fail to practice what you preach. You make claims, repeatedly the same stock phrases over and over again, but at no time in your 180 posts of waffle have I seen you actually employ what you tell others to do: You have offered no facts; You have not demonstrated any logic. There may well be some there, but you have refused, through continual inaction, to provide it when asked. Instead you withdraw to other questions, or seek other people to "discuss" with. And so we go round the houses. I expect you to respond to those who have had the decency to reply to you, and for you to do so in a manner that actually progresses the discussion. Explanation can cover both the How and the Why, but in the case of our existence, or the existence of the universe, there is no explanation that can cover Why without presupposing the purpose (I.e. Question begging). If you remove all question-begging from your explanation you can only conclude "I don't know why." There may simply be no explanation as to Why. And since you repeatedly insist of others that they "think on facts and logic" I am sure you are more than capable of providing an argument that is so devoid of such fallacious logic. As for the How, we have a reasonable idea as to how life began, which the others have covered. We have ideas as to how the universe began as well (interaction of branes etc) but nothing we can say with any degree of certainty, other than some notions follow from our understanding of how the universe works better than others.[/quote]
Here mate, I asked a question concerning your scriptural support for your position, the "quick" answer from you was "start a new thread", how are we meant to debate within a thread if your answers are like this? Now you decide to preach to the masses instead of debating me... The only way an atheist/agnostic can answer this is either by using religious texts concerning the nature or "concept" of God, or looking at the dictionary. "Formulate a concept" is like asking "formulate a concept of what Santa looks like. I assume "totality of existence" means everything hence my "quick" question, which you didn't even try to explain. I thought this was a debate between us 2, now you want everyone to join, erm what exactly?
Dear Dave, I guess you are not interested in my orientation namely: Pachomius said: ↑ Dave asks: ”Can you provide scripture that actually supports your concept of God?" Pachomius replies: I am not into revelation but purely on thinking from facts and logic to come to the certainty of the existence of God in concept the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning. Here are two texts from ancient sources which I am not bringing forth as revelation but just for testimonies from ancient theists affirming their knowledge of God in concept as the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning. In the beginning God made heaven and earth. -- Gen 1:1 I believe in God the Father almighty creator of heaven and hearth. -- Apostles' Creed verse 1 Please, Dave, if you want to talk Bible in regard to the existence of God, please continue by yourself without me. Addressing people who are into talking about the existence of God by thinking on facts and logic -- no texts whatsoever from religions founded on any kind of revelation from God or other spirits,* please one of you come forward and we two can have a dialog, okay? *I am though what I call myself a liberal Christian, but in my web appearances in re existence of God I keep to thinking on facts and logic to dialog with folks who are also into thinking on facts and logic -- without bringing in texts from religions founded on revelation like the Bible. Okay, here is again my invitation, please come forward anyone keen to dialog on thinking with facts and logic to come to the existence of God or non-existence of God.
So being a liberal christian i guess your "concept" of God is influenced by this? I want to talk of a God with a book to His name, not just a made up "concept" which has no basis in reality.
I've used nothing but facts and logic, but I guess I'm being ignored. The default position should be there is no God, until such evidence is presented that shows there is one. I've noticed that you have presented no evidence in favor of your premise.
The default position should be "I don't know if there is a God or not.", ridiculous to be certain there is no God, you have to be pretty bitter with a screw loose.
I agree we can't be completely certain, but that's how science works, isn't it? We don't believe something until there is evidence for it. And the idea is falsifiable. It's Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. And the simplest idea is that everything is just natural. There is no evidence that anything supernatural is real. It's all just particles, and the emergent properties of particles. I'm not bitter, I'm a strict materialist. Would you call a Hindu "bitter, with a screw loose", for believing what they do? And that's not a fraction as well supported by science as my worldview.
I wouldn't call anyone i don't know bitter with a screw loose, that's an opinion on an individual level.
Yeah, I'm the say way about God, and to the same degree Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The "don't know" answer makes sense if the proposition is within a set of credible possibilities. If I throw a dice, hide the answer, and ask you if it was a six - you have no way to know - you would rightly say you don't know. It is easy to see that it would be wrong to say you definitely know it wasn't a six, since you know it is a distinct possibility that it might be a six. In the arena of fictional stories where characters are invented, Sherlock Holmes, for example, we can say for certain he didn't and doesn't exist. It would make no sense to say you don't know since we know it was a fictional story. In the same way, stories about gods are equally fictional. They are created from man's imagination, and they do not fall into any known set of possibilities. The difference between god stories and Sherlock Holmes is that the god stories are being portrayed as if they were not fictional - and hence confusion is created. How can we be certain god stories are definitely fictional? Easy, without any scrap of evidence, and without any precedent that such magical entities/realms are possible then we know the only source is direct from man's imagination. So where it makes sense to state that fictional characters do not exist, stories of gods can be equally included.
The man who created "Sherlock Holmes" believed in Jesus, that sort of makes your example kinda pointless, because it has no place in reality, as usual, but people keep falling for your bull. "He found solace supporting spiritualism and its attempts to find proof of existence beyond the grave. In particular, according to some,[50] he favoured Christian Spiritualism and encouraged the Spiritualists' National Union to accept an eighth precept – that of following the teachings and example of Jesus of Nazareth." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Conan_Doyle#Spiritualism
How does it make his example pointless? His point was that for some fictional accounts/stories/characters we know it is fiction. This is true regardless of who wrote the fiction. Just because Doyle believed in Jesus doesn't alter the fact that we know Sherlock Holmes is a fabrication / fiction. For other stories/characters we either can't or just don't know whether it is a fabrication. So rather ironically it is Doyle's religious position that is irrelevant here, and your attempt at rebuttal that is pointless. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dear Spider, I love for us two to dialog on God existing with us two into exclusively thinking on facts and logic. {quote from Pachomius] Pachomius said: ↑ ...Okay, here is again my invitation, please come forward anyone keen to dialog on thinking with facts and logic to come to the existence of God or non-existence of God. {/quote] {quote from Spider] I've used nothing but facts and logic, but I guess I'm being ignored. The default position should be there is no God, until such evidence is presented that shows there is one. I've noticed that you have presented no evidence in favor of your premise. spidergoat, Yesterday at 10:27 AM #105 {/quote] Okay, if you please, allow me to set forth my concept of God, namely: In concept for myself, God [in concept] is the creator and operator of the universe and everything with a beginning. What about from your part, Spider, do you have any concept at all of God?
I'm mostly an atheist with respect to the Abrahamic God. That is commonly defined as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent being that created the universe, is involved with our daily lives, and listens to prayers. I can be reasonably certain that God doesn't exist. A deistic God that created the universe and is no longer involved with it is harder to disprove, but is also unnecessary to explain the natural world. Anyway, we can use your concept. How did you arrive at this concept through facts and logic or evidence?
You mean the existence/absence of a disclaimer at the front of the work that "all characters within this book are entirely fictional, and any resemblance to people living or dead is entirely coincidental"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The example, though, is valid for purposes.
You'll note how Pachomius has utterly ignored any previous discussion up to this point and, in moving to you, spidergoat, he has effectively restarted his discussion yet again. Don't expect him to answer your question though; he will most likely just state that if you accept his concept then you must also have reached it through "thinking on facts and logic". But let's see.
He'll say that through thinking on facts and logic that everything with a beginning must have a cause and therefore God is the creator and operator of the universe. An example will be a baby came from his/her parents and then something about God and the nose on your face... That to him is "thinking on facts and logic"... He'll repeat his stock phrases several times (at least) and try to make it about his position and then your counter-position. If you don't have a counter-position he will give you one Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I think he has had a little too much curry.
