Post Reply
Page 13 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 28 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why Theists Won't Think
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 11:05PM #121
teilhard
Posts: 49,873

"God" Is "Self"-Defined ...


So you and I are DOOMED in our Attempts -- even well-meaning -- to CAPTURE "God" in a "Definition" or a Photo ...


May 4, 2012 -- 10:52PM, Thetwofish wrote:


Will somebody PLEASE define "God" so we can get to the heart of the matter?


GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZ....


I have yet to see a definition of "God" that ALL theists can agree on.


And yet atheists are attacked for not seeing the evidence of this "God".


Can this argument get any more inane???


Peace


<'{{><





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 11:09PM #122
F1fan
Posts: 11,127

May 4, 2012 -- 8:18PM, Fodaoson wrote:


If we define “God “ as the creator, then the creation is evidence of that creator.  The creator methodology may appear to the created as a big bang, as something from nothing, mudballs into flesh etc.  but the beginning is that creation came from a creator or creator event tah ahs been called “God”..   




By this way of thinking, you ( a mortal) creates an invalid conclusion from an invented definition.  You maight as well say Santa was the creator.  Valid conclusions can ONLY come from objective and verifiable evidence.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 11:18PM #123
F1fan
Posts: 11,127

May 4, 2012 -- 10:46PM, teilhard wrote:


Wow ... Insults ... VERY convincing (IF one is an "Idiot") ...




It's only an insult if a god existed.  So don't worry about it.


"God" Is "Self"-Defined ...



Really?  I only see mortals defining gods.


Point to an actual god that defines itself (no books).

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 12:01AM #124
Blü
Posts: 24,645

Twofish


The problem is that we have no definition for 'supernatural being' that's useful both to theology and to reasoned enquiry. 


That's why we have no objective test that will tell us whether any candidate is a supernatural being or not.


This hasn't been a problem so far, because we've had no candidates so far. 


But it's said they have objective existence, and if that's so, well, they've got to be out there somewhere.


If it's not so then they're imaginary.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 12:06AM #125
Thetwofish
Posts: 565

May 5, 2012 -- 12:01AM, Blü wrote:


Twofish


The problem is that we have no definition for 'supernatural being' that's useful both to theology and to reasoned enquiry. 


That's why we have no objective test that will tell us whether any candidate is a supernatural being or not.


This hasn't been a problem so far, because we've had no candidates so far. 


But it's said they have objective existence, and if that's so, well, they've got to be out there somewhere.


If it's not so then they're imaginary.





Blu...I know that...you know that...I was trying to attempt to get THEISTS to get it.  But I'm probably just beating my head against the wall.  I mean no disrespect to good ole' t...but that doesn't cut it for the reasons already stated.


Peace


<'{{><

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 4:10AM #126
JCarlin
Posts: 6,340

May 5, 2012 -- 12:06AM, Thetwofish wrote:

May 5, 2012 -- 12:01AM, Blü wrote:


Twofish


The problem is that we have no definition for 'supernatural being' that's useful both to theology and to reasoned enquiry.




Blu...I know that...you know that...I was trying to attempt to get THEISTS to get it.  But I'm probably just beating my head against the wall.  I mean no disrespect to good ole' t...but that doesn't cut it for the reasons already stated.


Peace


<'{{><



The OP explains it. Theists can't think analytically about their intuitive concept of God, because analytical thinking destroys the intuitive. 

J'Carlin
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 10:10AM #127
Blü
Posts: 24,645

twofish


good ole' t...


He's a dear feller, no doubt, but unfortunately reasoned replies aren't something he's ever done.


As JCarlin has said, the OP bears on the problem.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 10:26AM #128
Sparky_Spotty
Posts: 751

May 5, 2012 -- 10:10AM, Blü wrote:


twofish


good ole' t...


He's a dear feller, no doubt, but unfortunately reasoned replies aren't something he's ever done.


As JCarlin has said, the OP bears on the problem.




The "block" function works well for this.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 11:15AM #129
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,122

May 4, 2012 -- 8:57PM, JCarlin wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 8:18PM, Fodaoson wrote:

If we define “God “ as the creator, then the creation is evidence of that creator.


If we define "God" as the idiot, then all the idiots running around believing there is a God is proof of that idiot.





This is a superfluous, dodge of an argument.  One of the theist attributes of God is as creator; what makes it a Superior being is that it is above and not limited to the creation, i.e. the universe   mortality.  Therefore the presence of a creation is evidence of a creator.   Some theistic thought limits the deity to creation and then it moves on to other deity places.  Some, like Christianity and Islam , have the deity continually  involved in the creation and the creatures.


The historical reality ofJesus of Nazareth  has little to do with theism.  IF, a conditional word  ignored or misinterpreted as in the referenced post,  he existed as an itinerant  rabbi , his followers deified him after his death. In early and pre-Christian literature , the deity of Jesus is often not referenced  and or denied . In  Christianity, sometimes referred to as pseudo Christianity or heretical , certain sects do not  deify Jesus.  Jesus and Jesus Christ are two different persons. Mohammed is not deified in Islam, and  Buddha is not in all of Buddhism . 


The introduction of Santa Clause into a theistic discussion is also an irrelevant diversionary  tactic.  Santa Claus never was a deity. Santa is based loosely on the  persons of St. Nicolas of Myra ,who gave gifts to the poor   and   Basil of Caesarea Who passed out coins  January 1 in Greece. Greece give gifts on New Year’s not Christmas.  Santa Claus arose in Folk Christmas /New Year’s celebration most prominently in America   where several cultures were intermixed. Santa Claus represents the   tradition of Gift giving not a deity.  


 


 

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 11:19AM #130
F1fan
Posts: 11,127

May 4, 2012 -- 6:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


We're talking ideas, not science. I was pointing out, the conclusions that any ideas force. The ideas  and conclusions that atheism, at least as largely expressed here, point to, ultimately don't seem very rational to me.



Do you notice how you never explain yourself?  Perhaps you can elaborate on why you don't think non-belief isn't rational?


Not that science and sprituality are at odds. They are not.



Neither is poetry and science.  But poets are smart enough to not let poetry interfere with what they can know about science, as some theists do with their religious beliefs.


But, again, I'm talking about looking at a proposal, or idea, taking a step back, looking at where it leads, and then weighing it accordingly. By that standard, some claims made by atheism are, well, incredible and difficult to accept from a reasonable point of view.



Why?  Could it be that you want science to validate your religious beliefs, and since it cannot due to a lack of evidence you find it "unreasonable"?  If so, that isn't reason, it is emotions not being satisfied.


And yes, absolutey, "evidence" is a matter of perspective. There is ample evidence to give a reasonable person cause to think God exists. Strarting with -- our own ability to reason.



That humans can reason only points to how our mature brains function.  Notice that infants can't reason.  Notice how brain damaged people may not have the ability.  Notice how some aged peolple have lost cognitive ability.  Other animals can problem solve, but not to the degree that most humans can.  This points to a natural process, no supernatural.  


To deny that is to deny the obvious, and merely a weak attempt to claim atheism has a monopoly on something it simply does not. Every idealogy that wants a monopoly insists that things can be framed only a certain way. And every such idealogy tends to get huffy whenever somebody simply steps outside that frame, and points out the inherent flaws.



This illustrates the liability in stepping back and looking at all this vaguely.  What you call "obvious" is actually outdated and obsolete.  Recent work in the cognitive sciences inform us of a purely natural process.  


Hence, atheism continuing to pound the table and insist upon "evidence" -- when the evidence is more than ample. I once read that it's like a man sitting on a pile of leaves and insisting "there is no tree." The more time I spend on these boards, the more I see that.



Bad analogy.  Trees exist equally to leaves.  We can't deny trees existing since they are there to see.  Show us any god that is there to see.


Anyway, let's continue:


Also "Written accounts" seems like a weak deflection. And misses the point. Either way, you're making an incredible claim about someting that's obvioulsly there. That being, those figures' influence on human history.



If it is obvious then you won't have any trouble showing us.


There's no a priori assumption of the "supernatural" (whatever that is supposed to be) needed to see what is obvious. That is purely a straw man on your part.



Do you notice how you talk about this "obvious" evidence without actually presenting it?


The evidence of those figure's influence on humanity and human history is plain as day. What conclusions can be drawn from that then becomes a matter of perspective. I find the perspective that they were, in fact Manifestations of and aided by a higher power to be ultimately far more rational and reasonable than attempts to explain that away.



Why?  You basically admit that you are interpreting/inventing a conclusion here.


If your perspective is that nature implies or indicates a god exists, then that is going to taint how you perceive it.  That means you are not making objective observations, but seeing what you want what you see to mean.  THAT is why it isn't reasonable.  It doesn't matter to anyone else what your perception MEANS to you.  What you see has to mean something objectively.  If for us to "see" what you see requires a special assumption, then you fail at making a reasonable assertion.


"Sensory experience" is also hugely missing the point. Once again, you're getting hung up on the hardware. Which seems to happen over and over -- whenever I challenge you to consider sapience -- not just mere "intelligence."



Yes, you are hung up on the MEANING you give the raw sensory data.  But your meaning is irrelevant to us.


If we both were walking down the street and saw five trees in a yard, neither of us can deny the trees existm and are certain types of trees.  But they are just trees to me, no more special than the other trees on the street.  But to you, these trees are special, and you are expecting me to see them as special too, but I don't.  What makes them special to you is that you planted these trees when you were a child, and you have emotions and memories tied to them.  I don't.  But you are insisting that I am unreasonable because I have no special perception about these ordinary five trees.  What you fail to understand is how your experiences and beliefs related to what you see ENDS with you.  So when you notice that humans can reason, and think it indicates a god exists, that is merely a result of your personal experiences, and not a reasoned conclusion of raw, unprejudiced, sensory data.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 13 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 ... 28 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook