Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Nov 11, 2017.
Man you totally fooled them, with this nonsense. Thanks. It was entertaining.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You don't accept anything in scripture, how will you recognise God, if God appeared?
Don't you realise as yet, that you are the one preventing yourself, from accepting the possibility of even recognition?
A mile high guy? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You want parlour tricks?
Irrationality has no bearing on the question of God. If you have to be convinced of God's existence, you are atheist by default.
One doesn't become convinced that God exists, one comes to the realisation that God Is. To do that, we have to come to the realisation that we are essentially spiritual, by nature. The the connection can be made.
To do that is not particularly impressive, or outstanindimg. It is basically comprehending what you are.
In the case of the ugly duckling, life started for the little Swan when he came to the realisation he wasn't a duck, but a swan.
Nothing fancy. Just plain old realisation.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes you are correct or at least make a reasonable observation that I would not challenge.☺
Other than the inescapable fact that I am always right and I can offer you nothing else other than I am always right☺
Being honest I can only say that I dont know because I accept that there may be things I dont know although that is extremely unlikely.
And in expected fashion, threads trail off to general religious discussion, which is usually harmless.
DaveC, if god did do our (your) parlor tricks. And it was recorded on camera. And a conspiracy theorist published the opinion that it can't be truly god, because god wouldn't need to do tricks to prove himself for his creation, so it must be a ploy by the government or something to hoodwink the people. would you find the conspiracy theorist's logic to be weak?
And which parlor tricks? I'm sure every athiest would need different criteria to he met, is god expected to meet each and every one?
What about 10 generations of humans down? Should god preform the tricks annually? Would our recording media be still considered as strong evidence 10 or 50 or 1000 years from now?
If there truly was a god, and I ask you to truly simulate that possibility in its entirety as a system.. for example, if you were a god, would you feel the need to prove yourself to each and every one of your germ subjects?
And why did you create them in the first place? Just to prove to them beyond a shred of doubt that you exist? That's why you created them?
Many athiest in their examination of the concept of god put him as if he was a fake musician and they're masters of the art and he needs to meet their demands in order to get their approval. Imagine every undergrad student you teach demands that you pass their own custom written series of examinations to prove to them that you really do have a PhD .
You can also ditch school because college is for snobs :shrug:
So you find describing the world etc using fairey tales reliable?
Who's describing the world?
That depends, do I desire to be worshipped? Do I have a plan of salvation for my germ subjects?
I was trying to be inclusive but if you like I will limit your description to describing the etc.
It need not be a position that one knows that no one can know (which would probably be based on a matter of faith somewhere along the line).
One merely needs to not know whether or not anyone can know.
The various interpretations of quantum behavior.
Deterministic action is the only behavior that we can reasonable describe. So until such time when action can be determined to act to the contrary, it remains the most sensible belief to hold.
Since you brought up syne aptic action in neurochemistry as an example of indeterminacy, how is this condition suppose to contribute to an assertion of free will?
... to which one will be bringing a whole host of faith based comclusions the moment they start to extrapolate beyond their own (limited) experiences. Bridging a knowledge based claim with "how" is simply specious footwork that can't hope to avoid leaving footprints.
Yet if the "I don't know..." is the limit of their conclusion and is based on their own (limited) experiences... ?
Where am I talking about bridging a knowledge based claim, let alone with "how"?
If you are confident to answer "can they know?" you are already bringing a form of "how" (and knowledge) to the table. If you doubt it, just try to talk about how they can/not know.
I am confident enough to say that I do not know if one can know or not (as per "One merely needs to not know whether or not anyone can know").
How is that bringing any form of "how" to the table?
Please don't just reiterate that that is what (you think) I am doing, but rather explain.
Just to clarify: you do understand the difference between knowing whether one can know or not, and not knowing whether one can know or not?
One cannot talk of "can they know?" or "can they not know?" or the perplexity of "can they know or not know?" without invoking some idea of a subject. If there is no subject to bring conviction, doubt or perplexity to, the question itself (either for, against or undecided) is robbed of the opportunity to have meaning.
There is a subject: God - as in "cause of all".
It is simply a concept with a given definition, and at this stage no implication as to its actual existence or otherwise.
So what exactly is the issue?
Interesting discussion however we should note that no one is addressing the OP and all are using this thread to discuss anything at all but fail to answer the question in the OP.
In the absence of input from the theists paricipating here one must conclude they have nothing to offer that takes us past the atheist position that as there is presumably no God we will not be hearing about anything God does.
Perhaps the best way to proceed is to ask the inconvenient question "what are the things we could expect God to do and assess if any of those expectations are ever met"
My expectations..... of a God who alledgely created us and indeed everything, and who loves us etc etc etc ( opportunity to focus on the grammar folks and avoid an answer and drift in to a sidestepping discussion again) and who has clearly abdicated any responsibility for careing about his creation ... would be (my expectations that I am getting back to) that he adjust the dials so we dont have wars that kill millions and that if he has the ordacity to presume to tell humans about morallity via his dictated scriptures that he amend the free will rule to allow inoccent victims the free will to chose not to be victims.
The free will notion is yet another example of a made up cop out notion fed to the gullible who proclaim their gullibility by accepting such made up nonsence...made up...how those simple words describe what we deal with when we would sum up scripture.
Of course Jan always has a logical answer which I am sure he will trot out yet again "God is" oh fall down in the presence of greatness ... and Jan will then arrogantly tell us atheists that "an theist is without God" (forget the dictionary) and take the discussion forward with a tiresome repetition of his worn out words "God is" and ignoring the dictionary proclaim that an atheist is one without God...and all the while following a course akin to a circle with a diminishing radius.
And how stupid I was to conceed that I dont really know if there is a God or not, given such a concession could never come from a theist.
I guess that in itself demonstrates the arrogance of the theists unsupportable position.
And thinking about it one observation I make is undeniably correct..."its all made up" ... Just try to wipe that mud off your boots with a sidestep and then go back to play at being the philosopher.
The most inconvenient unavoidable fact on the table is its all made up.
Made up. Made up. Made up. Bears repeating made up made up made up.
So again what does God do?you know the question in the op... I expect my request to be ignored of course as the theists here guide the discussion to more important matters perhaps to consider how many angles can dance on a pin or similar pretend phillosophy.
Where is the description?
Bit of religious news from Australia
Any chance of seeing god doing anything here?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Separate names with a comma.