No stuffing; no nothing; no pudding; no go on the simpleton scheme.
The Simpleton Notion of ‘God’ is Unveiled Here
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
No stuffing; no nothing; no pudding; no go on the simpleton scheme.
SciWriter said:
Here's a situation that even simpletons might understand--let's see how well you do:
Person A claims that despite having experienced a lot of things in their life, they haven't seen (or heard, or felt) anything that they could remotely ascribe to a god of any kind--no god in person A's life.
Person B claims that despite having experienced a lot of things in their life, they can't avoid ascribing all of it to the existence of a god, which they call "God"--person B claims that God exists, which contradicts person A.
Why should anyone care which person is right? Why even think it's important, as you so obviously do?
Sure, the concept has been used and abused throughout history, mainly by ambitious and powerful people. But again, so what? Why is it so important that all religions have demonstrably false beliefs? And why is it impossible for anyone to prove that there is no God (see above)?
given that you accept form is essentially compose of nothing, you are admitting that I have thoroughly undone the form of your argument ... not that its too difficult
Um, while in life there can be much "live and let live", on SciForums we especially try to get to the bottom of things, for that's what the place is for.
How's that working for you?SciWriter said:
That's what it gets down to, unless you can show otherwise.
There is literally nothing to make anything of that any one can say and I don't see anyone surmising anything else but forever stuff, which still doesn't say, and neither are showing 'God'. Nor does an infinite regress of things.
— A Further Complication From Simpleton Thinking —
Since life’s complex, some say it must have origin:
It couldn’t have made itself or always have been!
The answer: God; but they’ve begged the question:
He couldn’t have made himself or always have been!
Since life’s complex, some say it must have origin:
It couldn’t have made itself or always have been!
The answer: God; but they’ve begged the question:
He couldn’t have made himself or always have been!
Just fine, on the outside, and here the God talk gets into a lot of cosmology.
given that you accept form is essentially compose of nothing, you are admitting that I have thoroughly undone the form of your argument ... not that its too difficult
Nor does word play do anything.
Haven't you an ounce of anything to show?
Nope, what it gets down to is this:
I can see that God exists (I don't even have to think of what I see as being God, or anything except "my experience"), unless you can show otherwise.
But I think you'll have a bit of trouble showing anything, otherwise or . . . otherwise.
This is an internet forum, right?
I can see that God exists (I don't even have to think of what I see as being God, or anything except "my experience"), unless you can show otherwise.
But I think you'll have a bit of trouble showing anything, otherwise or . . . otherwise.
This is an internet forum, right?
Nope, you showed nothing at all, and there are threads on the validity or not of personal testimonies.
Sorry, nothing to work with.
Exactly--your personal testimony, by your own argument, is just as empty as anyone else's.SciWriter said:
It doesn't give you anything to "work with".
precisely
For this reason alone you lose at the onset
Sheesh
Have you?
So far all you have done is inflate your opinions with hot air.
I am using externals, not internal subjective feelings and sensations of 'no God'.
Spider got it right:
Logic, knowns, and what exists versus opinion of internal sensation claiming unknowns as known to be God. The double error is to ignore what is, in favor of what isn't.
It's a simpleton proposition to require life to come from Life, but then not have Life come from LIFE, etc.
Beliefs In the Unknown—Ungrounded Beliefs Upheld
A belief is that construct that states we consider something as true. But considering and knowing are two different words. One implies holding something up as true, while the other stands on the ground as being true. Indeed, that is the ‘hold up’, for a belief hangs in the air, because it is upheld by the owner of the belief.
1) A person has a belief—a consideration.
A) If it’s of the known, fine—it has facts and evidence behind it, but here we are examining another type of belief.
B) Maybe it’s a hope or a wish for normal Earth happenings that might be possible. This belief may or may not be true or come true.
C) For paranormal or supernatural beliefs, it gets worse, for this kind of belief is of the invisible.
2) Can this kind of belief, as in (C), be used as its own proof? Can a definite pronouncement be made?
No, it gets even worse, for the belief is not even guaranteed to be a truth, much less a proof of a truth. How is it, then, that this kind of supernatural hypothesis, theory, notion, idea, wish, hope, etc., can be proclaimed and firmly pronounced to be a truth instead of being stated as merely a consideration or a superstition, even ones that were/are taught by/to many by rote?
3) Well, these shouldn’t really be taught as a truth, but only as a notion; however, the believer indeed presents it as a truth. This is a clear error. We see it all the time (of course, anyone’s elses mere and contrary pronouncements must obviously be totally false). The believer should really say that the belief is just a notion that s/he hopes and wishes might be true.
Now, does this analysis really apply to those who have a belief that is simply comforting and consoling to have? No. for they may already only regard it as just a notion.
Otherwise, do some yet ever yet persist to claim a theory as the truth, even going beyond that to regard it as an extra firm proof without even any evidence at all, much the extraordinary kind?
Yes, and it is likely that they would ‘neglect’ any of the logic preceding. We can blame both natural selection and other deeply ingrained or indoctrinated notions that added the extra wiring.
So, of course, I will not be expecting to reach anyone in this state, but just the fence sitters.
A belief is that construct that states we consider something as true. But considering and knowing are two different words. One implies holding something up as true, while the other stands on the ground as being true. Indeed, that is the ‘hold up’, for a belief hangs in the air, because it is upheld by the owner of the belief.
1) A person has a belief—a consideration.
A) If it’s of the known, fine—it has facts and evidence behind it, but here we are examining another type of belief.
B) Maybe it’s a hope or a wish for normal Earth happenings that might be possible. This belief may or may not be true or come true.
C) For paranormal or supernatural beliefs, it gets worse, for this kind of belief is of the invisible.
2) Can this kind of belief, as in (C), be used as its own proof? Can a definite pronouncement be made?
No, it gets even worse, for the belief is not even guaranteed to be a truth, much less a proof of a truth. How is it, then, that this kind of supernatural hypothesis, theory, notion, idea, wish, hope, etc., can be proclaimed and firmly pronounced to be a truth instead of being stated as merely a consideration or a superstition, even ones that were/are taught by/to many by rote?
3) Well, these shouldn’t really be taught as a truth, but only as a notion; however, the believer indeed presents it as a truth. This is a clear error. We see it all the time (of course, anyone’s elses mere and contrary pronouncements must obviously be totally false). The believer should really say that the belief is just a notion that s/he hopes and wishes might be true.
Now, does this analysis really apply to those who have a belief that is simply comforting and consoling to have? No. for they may already only regard it as just a notion.
Otherwise, do some yet ever yet persist to claim a theory as the truth, even going beyond that to regard it as an extra firm proof without even any evidence at all, much the extraordinary kind?
Yes, and it is likely that they would ‘neglect’ any of the logic preceding. We can blame both natural selection and other deeply ingrained or indoctrinated notions that added the extra wiring.
So, of course, I will not be expecting to reach anyone in this state, but just the fence sitters.
Does it get even worse when look for the proof of the extraordinary belief in the ultimate supernatural such as God?
Indeed it does, for the proof is zero, which is far from the ordinary, and infinitely far from the extraordinary. Worse yet, this is exactly the nature of the claim, that is, that the invisible is just believed in. That’s it—“God did it.” This is the definition of faith—there can be no more religious inquiry beyond that, and none desired. Even the statement itself serves to often halt any inquiry, even in other areas such that may pertain, such as where did God’s energy come from that then made our energy. The answer: nowhere, but then that, too, could have been the answer to where our lessor energy came from.
What makes people take beliefs on just faith, a word that means the belief in the ever unknowable unseeable supernatural dimension?
Well, we’ve already said enough about natural selection causing this, but there are also familial, social, and geographic influences on a growing child. This is called enculturing. It can be relatively good or bad.
A child learns that its parents know stuff. They show the child the dangers of falling off a cliff and the child sees this straight out, maybe throwing a rock down. The child thinks, “Hey, my parents have great knowledge. They also tell me of the sun god, and thus it must be so.”
Years of conditioning and reinforcement of brain associations and reinforced memory can wire this kind of belief ever deeper and stronger. It then seems that one’s thoughts know about it. Who is ever going to deny their own thought? Well, we do in many other areas, but those are of feedback from happenings in the real world.
Kids grow into adults then get busy with life and may then keep the belief, perhaps passing it on as a meme. Besides, when a whole tribe believes in the Sun God, it might not be of the greatest result to go against this ‘sure thing’ belief. Might get thrown out of the tribe, or now-a-days, the family, not usually literally, except in strict Faiths, but at least getting more intense indoctrination and perhaps made to read the Torah daily.
Indeed it does, for the proof is zero, which is far from the ordinary, and infinitely far from the extraordinary. Worse yet, this is exactly the nature of the claim, that is, that the invisible is just believed in. That’s it—“God did it.” This is the definition of faith—there can be no more religious inquiry beyond that, and none desired. Even the statement itself serves to often halt any inquiry, even in other areas such that may pertain, such as where did God’s energy come from that then made our energy. The answer: nowhere, but then that, too, could have been the answer to where our lessor energy came from.
What makes people take beliefs on just faith, a word that means the belief in the ever unknowable unseeable supernatural dimension?
Well, we’ve already said enough about natural selection causing this, but there are also familial, social, and geographic influences on a growing child. This is called enculturing. It can be relatively good or bad.
A child learns that its parents know stuff. They show the child the dangers of falling off a cliff and the child sees this straight out, maybe throwing a rock down. The child thinks, “Hey, my parents have great knowledge. They also tell me of the sun god, and thus it must be so.”
Years of conditioning and reinforcement of brain associations and reinforced memory can wire this kind of belief ever deeper and stronger. It then seems that one’s thoughts know about it. Who is ever going to deny their own thought? Well, we do in many other areas, but those are of feedback from happenings in the real world.
Kids grow into adults then get busy with life and may then keep the belief, perhaps passing it on as a meme. Besides, when a whole tribe believes in the Sun God, it might not be of the greatest result to go against this ‘sure thing’ belief. Might get thrown out of the tribe, or now-a-days, the family, not usually literally, except in strict Faiths, but at least getting more intense indoctrination and perhaps made to read the Torah daily.
Hmmm this gives me an idea...start a new all-encompassing religion with designs for acquiring the simple people.
Why not? Gotta make a dollar...
Why not? Gotta make a dollar...
Start any cult today and have lots of members by tomorrow.
Does it get even worse after the initial assumption of just that there is a God, a nature spirit, or whatever invisible? Of course it gets worse, for then come more assumptions of the intent, nature, conditions, rewards and so forth of the supernatural realm behind the initial belief that merely hung in the air to begin with.
Are we done? Is the recession ever going to be over? Could there be any worse?
Yes, for there is then competition with other religions and with the complete infidels who believe in no God at all. It is usually he case that the mere existence of a competing view somehow seems to lessen the credibility of one’s own ‘sure thing’ belief. It may range from just ‘those other people are weird’ to having to fully protect one’s whole structure of belief built over many years and millenniums, i.e., thinking that those contrary people are not only weird and to be shunned as fools but also to be seen as ‘evil’ and treated as such.
Then it gets worser. Wars are fought on a high level and things like ‘you can’t marry out of your Faith’ on a lower level. A President named Younger Bush, consulted a ‘higher Father’ and got the final go ahead to wage war on Iraq.
OK, can it still get any worse, having adverse effects in other ways such as in more civilized ‘wars’? Sure, religion could and does lobby Congress against scientific progress and even make headway when trying to insist on their way. Religions could try to prevent some teachings of science in all schools and/or suppress it in their own private schools. Islamics could try to destroy the modern world. Christian scientists might refuse blood transfusions. The Pope banned birth control except for the rhythm method. Whatever, all from a simpleton notion.
Are we done? Is the recession ever going to be over? Could there be any worse?
Yes, for there is then competition with other religions and with the complete infidels who believe in no God at all. It is usually he case that the mere existence of a competing view somehow seems to lessen the credibility of one’s own ‘sure thing’ belief. It may range from just ‘those other people are weird’ to having to fully protect one’s whole structure of belief built over many years and millenniums, i.e., thinking that those contrary people are not only weird and to be shunned as fools but also to be seen as ‘evil’ and treated as such.
Then it gets worser. Wars are fought on a high level and things like ‘you can’t marry out of your Faith’ on a lower level. A President named Younger Bush, consulted a ‘higher Father’ and got the final go ahead to wage war on Iraq.
OK, can it still get any worse, having adverse effects in other ways such as in more civilized ‘wars’? Sure, religion could and does lobby Congress against scientific progress and even make headway when trying to insist on their way. Religions could try to prevent some teachings of science in all schools and/or suppress it in their own private schools. Islamics could try to destroy the modern world. Christian scientists might refuse blood transfusions. The Pope banned birth control except for the rhythm method. Whatever, all from a simpleton notion.
Well my new religion is gonna try to cash in on this new ...what I call "Cult of positive thinking". I.E anyone who thinks negatively is evil and only positive people will get to heaven (after a sufficient donation to acquire the higher levels of positive thinking).
I'm sorry sciwriter you will not do very well in my new religion you are far too negative. You must think about all the glorious things previous prophets have given us to attain our modern mandible of positive thinking power! We could never be where we are today without the words of YHWH, Jesus and Mohamed! Allah is the one true GOD! Our way to him is attained only through positive thinking! Modern prophets like Oprah Winfrey and Anthony Robbins will help me in my quest I know they will, I HAVE FORESEEN IT!
I'm sorry sciwriter you will not do very well in my new religion you are far too negative. You must think about all the glorious things previous prophets have given us to attain our modern mandible of positive thinking power! We could never be where we are today without the words of YHWH, Jesus and Mohamed! Allah is the one true GOD! Our way to him is attained only through positive thinking! Modern prophets like Oprah Winfrey and Anthony Robbins will help me in my quest I know they will, I HAVE FORESEEN IT!