If God exists, why doesn't he come right out and show us?

[lightgigantic]

superliminal

Most enlightened humans know that the bible is a collection of myths, delusions, some historical content, self-contradictory assertions, and pure fantasy (probably opium induced much of the time).

Most high school drop outs also view physics professors as egg heads and physics books as full of crap too

It is frustrating to engage in discussion with someone who's sole (pun intended) purpose is to defend their belief in this fantasy.

Its also frustrating for a physics professor to discuss physics with a high school drop out

The value systems of highschool drop outs however says nothing about the actual nature of physics

 

[SkinWalker]

I've seen other posts where you use this fallacious analogy. But your analogy is wrong. Atheists aren't "drop-outs" in philosophical development as you suggest. They're graduates. An opinion to be sure, but one that is more reasoned than your implication that those that are no longer deluded by memes of religion are philosophical "drop-outs."

My counter argument is that atheists and agnostics are graduates and it is the theists who have yet to complete "grade school."

 

[lightgigantic]

I've seen other posts where you use this fallacious analogy. But your analogy is wrong. Atheists aren't "drop-outs" in philosophical development as you suggest. They're graduates. An opinion to be sure, but one that is more reasoned than your implication that those that are no longer deluded by memes of religion are philosophical "drop-outs."

My counter argument is that atheists and agnostics are graduates and it is the theists who have yet to complete "grade school."

Seems you haven't been reading my posts carefully

The point with the high school drop out is that they are adverse to a process of acquiring knowledge.

Atheists often claim "where is the proof of god" but atthe same time they are adverse to accepting the process that enables one to make an analysis of the evidence at hand.

Not to say that atheists are unintelligent - there are heaps of intelligent atheists - there are also heaps of intelligent theists also (BTW your statement about theists being philosophical drop outs ecrtainly isn't pertinent to the subject of philosophy, since well over 50% gave some credible attribute to the notion of god or transcendence).

But when it comes to theism, an atheist is unintelligent, just like when it comes to astronomy, a surgeon is unintelligent - when it comes to carpentary, an astronomer is unintelligent etc etc

The reason is that it requires a background of knwledge, usually acquired by training - even science operates on the same principle and to deny it is to deny the very principle of science that gives it credibility

 

[Plunkies]

How out of touch do you have to be to think anyone who drops out of highschool automatically thinks physics is witchcraft?

Anyway, I think it's nifty how you use such an obnoxious analogy that we spend more time arguing that than the actual topic itself. You keep implying that you have proof of god, and we're simply too unintelligent to see it. Well just for giggles, post this evidence. Pretend we aren't idiots and you're talking to people who would understand your proof. Just post it and let the evidence speak for itself.

 

[lightgigantic]

How out of touch do you have to be to think anyone who drops out of highschool automatically thinks physics is witchcraft?

Anyway, I think it's nifty how you use such an obnoxious analogy that we spend more time arguing that than the actual topic itself. You keep implying that you have proof of god, and we're simply too unintelligent to see it. Well just for giggles, post this evidence. Pretend we aren't idiots and you're talking to people who would understand your proof. Just post it and let the evidence speak for itself.

If I keep using the same analogy its because you are barking up the same tree-

evidence doesn't speak for itself - if it did there would be no need for qualification for the analysis of evidence
At the very least science doesn't operate on that level, so why do you constrain theism by the same principle?

Its not a question of education - it is a question of attitude - like the real reason that a high school drop out cannot understand an electron is not that it is beyond his intellectual prowess but because he has a bad attitude to the persons and the process that can enable him to understand an electron.

Just like a high school drop out who calls all physicists "egg heads" and all physics books "full of crap", just like a person who suspends all channels of critical enquiry when they label all theistic persons as "nutcases" and all scriptures as "BS stories" - there is no way of indicating the conclusions of knowledge to persons possesed of such sentiments.

Its not a question of atheism/theism or science/religion or education/stupidity
- it is a question of attitude

 

[Plunkies]

Well pretend I have a good attitude and POST THE FREAKIN EVIDENCE.

 

[lightgigantic]

Well pretend I have a good attitude and POST THE FREAKIN EVIDENCE.

lol
I am afraid that won't work because you would only be pretending

As much as you hate my analogies, if you could illuminate the process how you could teach the before mentioned high school drop out to understand what an electron is perhaps we could have a model to work with

 

[Plunkies]

lol
I am afraid that won't work because you would only be pretending

Just post the evidence. You don't have to be talking to me directly.

As much as you hate my analogies, if you could illuminate the process how you could teach the before mentioned high school drop out to understand what an electron is perhaps we could have a model to work with

Shutup and post your evidence. I don't think a highschool drop out would be asking the physics professor to teach him about physics, he'd be too busy looking at shiny things (since you seem to think all dropouts are mildly retarded or something).

 

[lightgigantic]

Plunkies

Just post the evidence. You don't have to be talking to me directly.

I have already done that on the correct epistemology thread - its all there on the opening post

Shutup and post your evidence.

Told you you weren't good at pretending

I don't think a highschool drop out would be asking the physics professor to teach him about physics, he'd be too busy looking at shiny things (since you seem to think all dropouts are mildly retarded or something)

Besides examining shining things he also has a passion for calling professors "eggheads" and the books they write "full of crap"

again its not about intelligence (after all it is damn easy to understand an electron - at least the basic theory anyway) - its about attitude

 

[Plunkies]

I have already done that on the correct epistemology thread - its all there on the opening post

I don't think you understand what evidence is. Here allow me to help....

ev‧i‧dence  /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns]
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

For example. This post by Cris is evidence that the Christian god does not exist.

You see, what you posted wasnt evidence. It was just a long explanation about why I can't see your evidence. Apparently, since I require some sort of evidence to believe something it's impossible for me to believe in a god. I can't believe in something if I first have to believe in it. See the problem?

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't think you understand what evidence is. Here allow me to help....

ev‧i‧dence  /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns]
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

For example. This post by Cris is evidence that the Christian god does not exist.

You see, what you posted wasnt evidence. It was just a long explanation about why I can't see your evidence. Apparently, since I require some sort of evidence to believe something it's impossible for me to believe in a god. I can't believe in something if I first have to believe in it. See the problem?

well I guess we have to turf out science as well since it would even be impossible to perform the most neanderthal of scientific ventures unless one believed in order in the universe.

The reason we believe in order in the universe is because our "experiments" quickly verify it (like it wasn't a co-incidence that flint causes sparks so we hang on to the flint shard so we can make fire when we need)

And to move on to a more practical example - suppose I didn't "believe" in physics - that is a major stumbling block that has to be overcome before coming to the point of receiving an education to enable me to come to the point of perceiving the evidence.

Its not like one maintains the belief for an eternity - when the high school drop out comes to the platform of actually comprehending the basis of an electron and carrying out experiments that verify such claims then his belief is confirmed.

If you want to turf out belief it is just a way to remain stabilised on one's current level of knowledge (I know what I like and I like what I know) - how could you even attempt to know more than what you know already unless you believed that there was more to know?

 

[Plunkies]

well I guess we have to turf out science as well since it would even be impossible to perform the most neanderthal of scientific ventures unless one believed in order in the universe.

I don't think you understand what science is. You don't figure out what you believe first and then find evidence to support it, you find evidence first to determine what you should believe.

The reason we believe in order in the universe is because our "experiments" quickly verify it (like it wasn't a co-incidence that flint causes sparks so we hang on to the flint shard so we can make fire when we need)

No one believed flint could make fire until someone smacked it up against a rock.

And to move on to a more practical example - suppose I didn't "believe" in physics - that is a major stumbling block that has to be overcome before coming to the point of receiving an education to enable me to come to the point of perceiving the evidence.

Go look up circular logic please. If scientists had to believe in something before accepting the evidence then science would never move forward. The point of evidence is to prove something to someone who doesn't believe it.

Its not like one maintains the belief for an eternity - when the high school drop out comes to the platform of actually comprehending the basis of an electron and carrying out experiments that verify such claims then his belief is confirmed.

You seem to think you have to have a "belief" in something to consider it a possibility.

If you want to turf out belief it is just a way to remain stabilised on one's current level of knowledge (I know what I like and I like what I know) - how could you even attempt to know more than what you know already unless you believed that there was more to know?

What the hell are you even talking about at this point? I don't have to believe I can learn something new to actually learn something new.

Earlier someone told me the croc hunter Steve Irwin was dead. I didn't immediately believe him, so I check the evidence. I found a few articles saying he was, in fact, dead...Crikey! I just learned something new and I didn't have to believe it before I figured it out.

 

[lightgigantic]

What the hell are you even talking about at this point? I don't have to believe I can learn something new to actually learn something new.

Earlier someone told me the croc hunter Steve Irwin was dead. I didn't immediately believe him, so I check the evidence. I found a few articles saying he was, in fact, dead...Crikey! I just learned something new and I didn't have to believe it before I figured it out.

So in other words you believed that you could determine whether the news was true by checking out some related news articles - if a person did not believe that the news articles were a good indication of truth what then?

 

[Plunkies]

So in other words you believed that you could determine whether the news was true by checking out some related news articles - if a person did not believe that the news articles were a good indication of truth what then?

Perhaps you can present your evidence first before we go into the credibility of it, no point in skipping steps here. If your goal is to waste my time and avoid my questions you're doing a fantastic job of it, but if it's proving your position then you're not doing nearly as well. However, I am getting the picture that even your belief in god is tenuous at best. I mean you argue about whether your evidence is credible before even presenting it. You'd also prefer to argue the aptness of an analogy rather than actually staying on topic. Am I right in guessing that your belief in god isn't based on anything other than blind faith, and that you only feign certainty and proof? Why even bother with all this? We both know you've got nothing, just admit it.

Maybe your argument is backwards? You just don't have the logical ability to accept atheism? Evidence is continually piled up and still you dismiss us as ignorant of your superstitions and rejecting the obvious that only you seem to see. Your stubborness to cling to your comforting beliefs prevents you from seeing reality, just as the dropout's unwillingness to learn protects him from finding out he's stupid.

 

[KennyJC]

So in other words you believed that you could determine whether the news was true by checking out some related news articles - if a person did not believe that the news articles were a good indication of truth what then?

If a highly respected and reliable organisation like the BBC faked a news article stating his death, I imagine they would be held accountable since immediate proof would be on hand show they were wrong.

And if one sincerely thought the article was fake without proof, they could trace the evidence directly to his grave... and you are going to say that his grave is not a good indication of truth?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Plunkies,

For example. This post by Cris is evidence that the Christian god does not exist.

This god put foreward by explicit atheists is a strawman-god, hence this one and only repetitive idea, is BS.

Jan.

 

[superluminal]

Let us all keep in mind the power inherent in the shield of "the correct epistemology" which only LG seems to understand. All of us educated laymen, who have read the bible, read other various religious books, pondered these questions througout our various lives and are generally fairly bright, can't seem to get this epistemology.

LG's epistemology (LGE) for "knowing god" seems to be immune to logic. If there can be no intersection between the LGE and common sense, how could anyone ever hope to "get it"?

As I've said before, quantum physicists using their epistemological approach seem quite able to get the ideas of QM across to us educated laymen.

We look at the LGE, see holes the size of Austrailia in the logic and reasoning.

???

 

[superluminal]

Plunkies,



This god put foreward by explicit atheists is a strawman-god, hence this one and only repetitive idea, is BS.

Jan.

This is another good one. There are so many "gods" (god ideas) out there that every single one is a "strawman" to someone else. If you can't address the issue, call it a strawman.

God scale:

1) White bearded dude sitting behind big gates on a cloud

...

10) Ethereal presence that may have only manifested briefly at the origin of the universe as we know it.

Theists should be required to provide a rating from 1 to 10 (childish to highly philosophically egaltarian) on the god scale at the start of any debate.

 

[Satyr]

You people are not feeling the spirit of the essence of the epistemological truth of God.

 

[superluminal]

You people are not feeling the spirit of the essence of the epistemological truth of God.

Oh, we're feelin' it! Hallelujah and AMEN BROTHER!