Why do we need a God?
- Thread starter aaqucnaona
- Start date
Lets try it slightly different
Do you deny that it is due to the position of the president (ie being in a unique position at the apex of a hierarchy of power) that there are further issues (namely the issue of whether he wants to see you) that can effectively curtail one having direct perception of him, no matter how much you want to see him (and whatever expertise one may have in climbing stairs and opening doors) .... and all his is despite that there are some people (like his wife) and even some animals (like his dog) that can see him directly, even though they might only be half as good as you at climbing stairs and opening doors (or they even might be totally incapable of opening doors and such .... as evidenced by the giraffes)?
Arioch:
This is a standard ploy of lightgigantic's.
He doesn't know much about science, so he tries to avoid getting into scientific discussions by claiming that scientific methods and reasoning don't apply to religion. However, he is unable, as you have noticed, to specify any alternative method that may be used to evaluate religious claims.
lightgigantic wants to make sure that his religious claims can't actually be evaluated. If we fall for his ploy, this protects them from all possible criticism, which is just how he likes it.
There's nothing rational or logical about lightgigantic's religious beliefs. Since his rationalisations tend to immediately implode when subjected to the usual methods of analysis, he will always do his best to claim that no such methods can be legitimately applied.
In practice, lightgigantic usually starts by making specific claims with wide application. Upon being directly questioned, he then routinely talks around the point in a rambling way. When backed up against a wall, he pulls out his standby escape card - the one that says "Your methods can't be applied to evaluating any of my claims". Then, he leaves, only to reappear with similar or the same claims in the next thread.
This is a standard ploy of lightgigantic's.
He doesn't know much about science, so he tries to avoid getting into scientific discussions by claiming that scientific methods and reasoning don't apply to religion. However, he is unable, as you have noticed, to specify any alternative method that may be used to evaluate religious claims.
lightgigantic wants to make sure that his religious claims can't actually be evaluated. If we fall for his ploy, this protects them from all possible criticism, which is just how he likes it.
There's nothing rational or logical about lightgigantic's religious beliefs. Since his rationalisations tend to immediately implode when subjected to the usual methods of analysis, he will always do his best to claim that no such methods can be legitimately applied.
In practice, lightgigantic usually starts by making specific claims with wide application. Upon being directly questioned, he then routinely talks around the point in a rambling way. When backed up against a wall, he pulls out his standby escape card - the one that says "Your methods can't be applied to evaluating any of my claims". Then, he leaves, only to reappear with similar or the same claims in the next thread.
lightgigantic:
No. I accept all of that.
Are you going to answer Arioch's questions now?
No. I accept all of that.
Are you going to answer Arioch's questions now?
@James --
Oh I'm well aware of that. It's the best explanation available for why I've been asking(though not nearly as doggedly) him and Wynn the same questions for over a month now and not gotten any answers. At least Wynn attempted to give me an answer to the first question, which shows some degree of sincerity.
Oh I'm well aware of that. It's the best explanation available for why I've been asking(though not nearly as doggedly) him and Wynn the same questions for over a month now and not gotten any answers. At least Wynn attempted to give me an answer to the first question, which shows some degree of sincerity.
Actually at least as far as your posts go, I usually honour them with a reply.
With others, like arioch, I might simply drop it because it gets repetitive or it ends in his trademark single phrased "strawman" accusations which usually means he has reached the end of his discussion capacity.
With others like grumpy I might usually drift off because their arguments tend to lose track of their original points (particularly if I drift offline for a few days).
I think you will find that its you who tends to leave a discussion.
I generally assume its because you have more engaging threads to participate in or are simply engrossed in mod-related stuff
Lg, can you give a direct answer? As a new and impartial party in this discussion, please tell me what I should use to examine, understand, confirm and elaborate religious/theistic claims.
lightgigantic:
That's strange. I wrote, or at least half wrote, a reply to the post you have linked, but it is not in the thread. I was busy at the time with other things, so maybe I actually left it half finished and unposted. In any case, it is gone now, and I really can't face writing it again.
I do sometimes leave conversations at the point where I consider that further discussion is unlikely to be fruitful, for whatever reason, but this particular one wasn't at that point.
That's strange. I wrote, or at least half wrote, a reply to the post you have linked, but it is not in the thread. I was busy at the time with other things, so maybe I actually left it half finished and unposted. In any case, it is gone now, and I really can't face writing it again.
I do sometimes leave conversations at the point where I consider that further discussion is unlikely to be fruitful, for whatever reason, but this particular one wasn't at that point.
Does the investigation/direct perception of the planets and stars require that the stars want to see you first (or that you see the planets and stars on terms dictated by the planets and stars), or is it primarily a subject dictated by how eager one is to investigate/perceive such things( assuming the candidate has the adequate resources of education, training etc to grant the powers of analysis to pursue such investigation).
Does the investigation/direct perception of the president require that the president want to see you first (or that you see the president on terms dictated by the president), or is it primarily a subject dictated by how eager one is to investigate/perceive such things( assuming the candidate has the adequate resources of education, training etc to grant the powers of analysis to pursue such investigation).
Does the investigation/direct perception of molecules require that the molecules want to see you first (or that you see the molecules on terms dictated by the molecules), or is it primarily a subject dictated by how eager one is to investigate/perceive such things( assuming the candidate has the adequate resources of education, training etc to grant the powers of analysis to pursue such investigation).
Does the investigation/direct perception of god require that god wants to see you first (or that you see god on terms dictated by god), or is it primarily a subject dictated by how eager one is to investigate/perceive such things( assuming the candidate has the adequate resources of education, training etc to grant the powers of analysis to pursue such investigation).
Can you assign these 4 statements into two general categories based on similar qualities?
I think many people who engage in discussions with LG are not seeing their own part in those discussions, especially, they seem to be unaware of their own intentions, desires.
Many come here with the desire for someone to convince them. This is how competitive interactions (that tend to devolve into mudslinging fests) develop.
Approaching interactions with others with the desire to become convinced of the rightness of their stances, and not being aware one is acting with such a desire, is a recipe for conflict (and useless verbiage).
It seems that it is especially those who claim to be objective, that also tend to be the least aware of their desires in interactions with others.
I already did! Please, would you tell me what I should do to understand, explain and comfirm the claims when the mormons come evagelising or some of my muslim friends try to convince me of the loving and peaceful prophet? How do I know either one of them is true or which parts are? How and why is it different from my indian friends' polytheism? Without using science, how do I know that there is even an actual god, that God is not just a conceptual placebo in mind? How do I know whom to pray to and how? How do I acertain any of those?
lightgigantic:
I can assign your statements into two categories, certainly. Category 1 consists of planets and stars, the President and molecules. Category 2 consists of God.
For Category 1, we have sound scientific evidence of existence. In fact, when it comes to stars all you need to do is walk outside at night and look up. For molecules, admittedly things are a little trickier, but the evidence is there.
For Category 2, we have no scientific evidence of existence, other than as a concept or belief specific to human beings. So, there seems to be nothing to investigate. Moreover, the question of direct perception is very much argued, in a way that direct perception of starlight is not. This only seems to support the initial conclusion that there is nothing to investigate in terms of a "real" thing.
You assert, of course, that a completely different set of investigative criteria must be applied to Category 1 and Category 2 objects to establish even the mere existence. Yet, strangely, you seem unable to spell out any definite criteria for detection of or investigation of Category 2 objects.
Or, maybe I have that wrong. Maybe you're saying we just need to believe in Category 2, and forget those pesky and inapplicable scientific notions of things like repeatability, reliable evidence, and so on. Then, once we have chosen to belief, all other "investigations" become possible.
This idea of believing first and seeking support for the belief later is the diametric opposite of how science works, which is perhaps why you have such issues with the scientific approach to investigating claims.
I can assign your statements into two categories, certainly. Category 1 consists of planets and stars, the President and molecules. Category 2 consists of God.
For Category 1, we have sound scientific evidence of existence. In fact, when it comes to stars all you need to do is walk outside at night and look up. For molecules, admittedly things are a little trickier, but the evidence is there.
For Category 2, we have no scientific evidence of existence, other than as a concept or belief specific to human beings. So, there seems to be nothing to investigate. Moreover, the question of direct perception is very much argued, in a way that direct perception of starlight is not. This only seems to support the initial conclusion that there is nothing to investigate in terms of a "real" thing.
You assert, of course, that a completely different set of investigative criteria must be applied to Category 1 and Category 2 objects to establish even the mere existence. Yet, strangely, you seem unable to spell out any definite criteria for detection of or investigation of Category 2 objects.
Or, maybe I have that wrong. Maybe you're saying we just need to believe in Category 2, and forget those pesky and inapplicable scientific notions of things like repeatability, reliable evidence, and so on. Then, once we have chosen to belief, all other "investigations" become possible.
This idea of believing first and seeking support for the belief later is the diametric opposite of how science works, which is perhaps why you have such issues with the scientific approach to investigating claims.
Even though I neglected to put question marks on them, did you realize that all four statements were questions?
And as a further detail, did you notice that the questions are addressing precisely how one begins to evidence them in a particular manner (as opposed to making outright claims of the validity of their existence)
Last edited:
If you can somehow come to favour a particular approach to abiogenesis, pre big bang physics or any one of a number of scientific claims that excludes/contextualizes other claims that seek to do the same, you already have the tools to solve this problem.
@LG --
We're not asking about the ways in which you think science fails, you've already made those abundantly clear since you've stated as a categorical fact that science can't(which is always a bold thing to assert) adequately evaluate spiritual/religious claims. We've accepted that for the sake of the argument already and said "fine, now tell me what will work."
We're not asking about the ways in which you think science fails, you've already made those abundantly clear since you've stated as a categorical fact that science can't(which is always a bold thing to assert) adequately evaluate spiritual/religious claims. We've accepted that for the sake of the argument already and said "fine, now tell me what will work."
well why does one particular approach fail dismally with the president (even though it works wonderfully for things like molecules and planets ... at least to a degree but thats a bit more involved)?
What is it particularly about the president that renders the other approach valid?
lightgigantic:
It seems, then, that you're merely asking whether one must have a desire to investigate something in order to find out something about it. That seems to me to be a fairly uncontroversial point that nobody is arguing.
My point is that the same principles of evidence ought to apply to everything. The method one uses to investigate a claim, at its most basic level, ought to be consistent (i.e. the same) for different claims.
You say you disagree with this, and that was what I expanded on in my previous post. You say scientific methods can't be applied to God, and total different methods are required. But when pressed, you can't say what those different methods are.
It seems, then, that you're merely asking whether one must have a desire to investigate something in order to find out something about it. That seems to me to be a fairly uncontroversial point that nobody is arguing.
My point is that the same principles of evidence ought to apply to everything. The method one uses to investigate a claim, at its most basic level, ought to be consistent (i.e. the same) for different claims.
You say you disagree with this, and that was what I expanded on in my previous post. You say scientific methods can't be applied to God, and total different methods are required. But when pressed, you can't say what those different methods are.