Political Crossfire Forums

[mODULAR mAN]

[quote="Gilbert1908"] mODULAR mAN wrote:
First I want to thank you for the sincereity and thoughtfulness of your challenges. They are very serious and considered questions indeed.
...

....I see no logical way to be a Cathololic and NOT conclude that God can be contained within any natural or logical human concept? But I see no problem with attempting our best to communicate our concepts as God has given us the sklls to do.

G, I didn't see your response until now. I didn't mean to ignore it. I will respond shortly.

[BigGee]

What is already proven about god is, nothing! There is no argument!

What is already proven about faith, is that there is no basis for argument other than it is seen as superior to those that have that faith. And so can never be discussed rationally, truthfully and genuinely with anyone who has not accepted that faith. It is their trump card (faith) in their denial of substance. From that emminates all kinds of destructive quackary.

It is plain and simple; The onus is on those who believe in god to prove he exists.

The believer must justify his beliefs if he can not prove it, which would obsolete any need to believe or have faith otherwise. The believer must take a stand and not give an inch that may indicate that they might be wrong in favoring faith above raw facts. The believer must not move in the direction of utter and complete honesty as they sense that it would reveal to themselves their error. Part of its allure is that it is charged with a great deal of excitement and emotional attachment, belonging to a group of like minded people. Safety in numbers seems most evident. The easy lazy way, which in fact is the hard limiting way. Sadly, as we have witnessed on Earth and throughout history, that it can lead to even more irrational thinking to the point of great destruction.

All that is really needed, is to let go of belief in groups. Take back our responsibility to our own sanity en masse. Any real god would have to approve of that!

[BigGee]

Until there is evidence for the unexplainable being naturally understood, a supernatural explaination designed to replace genuine reality is not only decieving, it is dangerous. And the more that buy into such an idea the more dangerous it becomes.

[MJB]

CursedLemon wrote: Well, seeing as there has never been a worldly argument - empirical, rational, or otherwise - favoring any religion in existence, I figure that the only ammo that a religious person can throw at their opposition is personal revelation. "God/Allah/Satan/Sumerian deities/The Flying Spaghetti Monster/etc. have contacted me personally."

When you think about it, isn't this the only possible supporting viewpoint that a religious person can get together?

So why would you have a problem with personal revelation? Would you not like to learn the truth directly from the source?

Besides - no man can prove God's existence to another man, but God is certainly able prove the reality of his own existence, and every man is free to seek that proof from God for himself.

Whether he chooses to do so, however, is entirely up to him.

[wormwood]

Quote: What is already proven about faith, is that there is no basis for argument other than it is seen as superior to those that have that faith. And so can never be discussed rationally, truthfully and genuinely with anyone who has not accepted that faith. It is their trump card (faith) in their denial of substance. From that emminates all kinds of destructive quackary . I used to think that too. It seems that when you can't come to a logical agreement that the discussion invariably delves into a "you had to be there" situation, where one must have experienced what the religious person experienced to understand. It is hard to understand that this is the core of what having a personal God is all about. For me, I began having strange logical intuitions that there was an intelligent governing force is the universe. After I felt this way logically, even if it was only a little, I began noticing weird experiences that seemed to be much more than coincidence. Can I claim to know God or what it is like? No. But, because of my personal experiences, I have a belief in a divine power. If I were to argue why I think that, even using the scientific instances that first made me think, I would still inevitably come to an appeal to personal experience, which could be flawed. Does this make me think that I am wrong? Not really. You are basing your doubt of God based on logic and personal experience as well correct? Your opinion could be flawed, does that shake your faith in your idea? Probably not.

Quote: The believer must justify his beliefs if he can not prove it, which would obsolete any need to believe or have faith otherwise. The believer must take a stand and not give an inch that may indicate that they might be wrong in favoring faith above raw facts. What "raw facts" are there against God?

[CursedLemon]

MJB wrote: So why would you have a problem with personal revelation? Would you not like to learn the truth directly from the source?

Besides - no man can prove God's existence to another man, but God is certainly able prove the reality of his own existence, and every man is free to seek that proof from God for himself.

Whether he chooses to do so, however, is entirely up to him.

I absolutely do not have a problem with personal revelation. How could I?

[CursedLemon]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I have no idea what you mean by a non-sentient non-concious God? Please elaborate on that?

Gravity is a law of physics not Christianity.

I am unaware of any "laws" in either the new or old testament which say anything about GRAVITY? As far as I know when we are in outer space we are still bound by the God's Word but NOT gravity.

I seriously doubt that any astronauts are bound for hell because they were weightless for a week or two?

Clearly we can disagree on a wide range of things from whether there is a God to boxers or briefs, I simply fail to see how free will and human thought proves there is no God?

By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on.

Secondly, you cannot "break" the law of gravity. You can "work around it", just as having sex with another man is "working around" the Christian law of anti-homosexuality. I only made the gravity analogy to make the comparison that both gravity and the homosexuality laws were both made by God. Gravity is an indisputable law, just as anti-homosexuality WOULD be, if God indeed exists.

Uh, I don't even remember where I was going with this, because I explicitly disagree with what I just typed.

DAMINT PEOPLE. D:

[MJB]

CursedLemon wrote: MJB wrote: So why would you have a problem with personal revelation? Would you not like to learn the truth directly from the source?

Besides - no man can prove God's existence to another man, but God is certainly able prove the reality of his own existence, and every man is free to seek that proof from God for himself.

Whether he chooses to do so, however, is entirely up to him.

I absolutely do not have a problem with personal revelation. How could I?

Gee - glad you cleared that up.

[wormwood]

Quote: By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on. You misunderstood. Gilbert knows what sentient and conscious are, he was asking about this non-sentient, non-conscious concept of God that YOU keep referring to.

Quote: Secondly, you cannot "break" the law of gravity. You can "work around it", just as having sex with another man is "working around" the Christian law of anti-homosexuality. No, the mathematical laws of gravity, as proposed by Newton, are incorrect, and thus routinely broken every day, but that is irrelevant. The point is these "laws" are just our observations about life and not laws regarding the moral nature of man. The two are not comparable.

[Gilbert1908]

CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I have no idea what you mean by a non-sentient non-concious God? Please elaborate on that?

Gravity is a law of physics not Christianity.

I am unaware of any "laws" in either the new or old testament which say anything about GRAVITY? As far as I know when we are in outer space we are still bound by the God's Word but NOT gravity.

I seriously doubt that any astronauts are bound for hell because they were weightless for a week or two?

Clearly we can disagree on a wide range of things from whether there is a God to boxers or briefs, I simply fail to see how free will and human thought proves there is no God?

By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on.

Secondly, you cannot "break" the law of gravity. You can "work around it", just as having sex with another man is "working around" the Christian law of anti-homosexuality. I only made the gravity analogy to make the comparison that both gravity and the homosexuality laws were both made by God. Gravity is an indisputable law, just as anti-homosexuality WOULD be, if God indeed exists.

Uh, I don't even remember where I was going with this, because I explicitly disagree with what I just typed.

DAMINT PEOPLE. D:

And my point is that I don't see gravity mentioned in either the Old or New Testaments as something to worry about. Gravity is a law of physics observed by man not a "law" handed down by God.

Christians do not believe that God is sentient or concious "like us" so he can not be described as non sentient or nonconcious, which is what I was confused about.

[nygreenguy]

MJB wrote:

So why would you have a problem with personal revelation? Would you not like to learn the truth directly from the source? Are people reliable sources? What credibility does the average person have to critically evaluate their "revelations"? Just look at witnesses at trials, they are often the worst forms of evidence.

[nygreenguy]

wormwood wrote:

No, the mathematical laws of gravity, as proposed by Newton, are incorrect, and thus routinely broken every day, but that is irrelevant. Irrelevant, yes. But how exactly are they broken every day?

[wormwood]

Quote: Irrelevant, yes. But how exactly are they broken every day? I find it odd, that of all the things I said, this one line is what you chose to disagree with and respond to. I believe Newton's "law" of gravity was debunked by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century. The explanation is really long, but there are many anomalies that Newton's equations don't account for (free fall, and curvature of space etc). The "laws" are broken, because they were never really laws in the first place; it was an incorrect assumption, based on limited information. It is no different than Kepler's "law" which is also incorrect based on limited information and human perception. I hope that helps.

[CursedLemon]

Gilbert1908 wrote: And my point is that I don't see gravity mentioned in either the Old or New Testaments as something to worry about. Gravity is a law of physics observed by man not a "law" handed down by God.

Christians do not believe that God is sentient or concious "like us" so he can not be described as non sentient or nonconcious, which is what I was confused about.

Comparing gravity and homosexuality in and of themselves is irrelevant. My point is that God created both of those statutes, and if God exists, then homosexuality would be something totally solid, and not up for interpretation. I mean that you wouldn't be able to interpret homosexuality as "not wrong" just as you wouldn't be able to interpret gravity as not existing. The reason being that God should be the binding fiber of the universe, and any kind of law he puts down wouldn't need reasoning, it would just BE.

Therefore, I don't believe that God made laws for humans.

[CursedLemon]

wormwood wrote: Quote: By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on. You misunderstood. Gilbert knows what sentient and conscious are, he was asking about this non-sentient, non-conscious concept of God that YOU keep referring to.

Well...NOT like us. :\ As in, he is not aware of himself, he doesn't reason, and he certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.

[toddytodd]

nygreenguy wrote: MJB wrote:

So why would you have a problem with personal revelation? Would you not like to learn the truth directly from the source? Are people reliable sources? What credibility does the average person have to critically evaluate their "revelations"? Just look at witnesses at trials, they are often the worst forms of evidence.

Or alien abductees, or Loch Ness monster or bigfoot witnesses, etc.
People can believe anything that they think they have experienced regardless of the abundance (or lack of) evidence.

[nygreenguy]

wormwood wrote: I find it odd, that of all the things I said, this one line is what you chose to disagree with and respond to. I believe Newton's "law" of gravity was debunked by Albert Einstein in the early 20th century. The explanation is really long, but there are many anomalies that Newton's equations don't account for (free fall, and curvature of space etc). The "laws" are broken, because they were never really laws in the first place; it was an incorrect assumption, based on limited information. It is no different than Kepler's "law" which is also incorrect based on limited information and human perception. I hope that helps. Its just ive heard people say "look, i can jump, there goes newtons law of gravity"

[mODULAR mAN]

This is response to an earlier post.
Gilbert1908 wrote: First I want to thank you for the sincereity and thoughtfulness of your challenges. They are very serious and considered questions indeed.
I can see you are as well, I see I can learn a lot from you, since you have obviously considered many subjects surrounding theism and atheism.

I will say at the outset that we are covering a lot of issues that could justify seperate threads in their own right. Perhaps we can shed some of the more uninteresting, or obviously fruitless arguments and hone in on the "crux" of the matters? You may know the serious questions to your own faith better than I, so maybe we can start with the aspects that you find difficult?

Quote: My point is that there is NOT a uniformity of acceptance of the various theoretical aspects of how time matter and life came into being. Therefore to dismiss logical conclusions because they do not fit your philosophy is not intellectually honest by anyone.
You are correct that there is no acceptance. I don't deny this.
I also agree that one shouldn't discount logical conclusions based on their overall philosophy. However, I think people should reject, or hold off judgement on, logical conclusions if the logic is not sound. Sometimes it takes time to recognize the flaw in logic, especially with complex arguments.

Quote: And the obvious question about the vaccuum fluctuations is that it is an experiment which proves that nothing can be made out of something. There must be SOMETHING in order for something to exist. We can not conduct experiments in which NOTHING exists??? If there is a vaccuum it is a CREATED VACCUUM it is nothing made out of something, not something made out of nothing or nothing made out of nothing. But in any case no one is saying that LIFE can be made from NOTHING.
Of course, with respect to our discussion it begs the question of how did God begin? Certainly to claim He "always was" is the same thing as saying a "vaccuum always was".

However, I think the VP argues that LIFE could actually have come from a perfect vaccuum, since, if you have matter, you have the first building blocks of life.

I think your strongest argument is pre-life, since it doesn't take much of a stretch to understand that once the machinery of particle activity is started, it COULD lead to life.

However, I don't offer this as proof, since I abhor the "COULD" argument. But I mention it here because we can only both use "COULD" as our evidence for the beginning of the Uni and Life.

Since we will have no proof either way - it seems a wash. We will have to look elsewhere:

Quote: Heck we are not sure exactly how HUMAN LIFE comes into being (we have the mechanics down I think) why would there be a concensus as to how the universe was created?
Right. We can't expect one anytime soon. Plus, the mechanics are for physicists and biologists to work through. I am neither and will have to use logic in this case.

Quote: I would argue that the extraordinary claim is that ALL that is understandable is both natural and understood. And that the far less extraordinary claim is that most of what is understandable is yet to be understood and much of that is not explainable by nature. So until there is evidence for the unexplainable being naturally understood a supernatural explaination is perfectly logical and reasonable.
I see this as our biggest difference. I hope I can make my case.

1. I don't claim everything is natural and understandable. I argue that so far, everything we understand is natural. I am at a loss why we must take a leap to the Supernatural since we don't understand everything about the Natural.

2. It is, IMO, theists have an illogical position (since it is two competing ideas that result in a "God of the Gaps" fallacy)

A: In order to recognize something Supernatural, you must know all manifestations of the Natural.
B: Theists DON'T know everything about the Natural, and but assume those questions (gaps) are answered by the Supernatural.

Plus, it seems the Theist claims:
-That the Natural World is TOTALLY understandable, but there is a Supernatural element. (from A)
-That a Supernatural element exists but it is NOT understandable, yet, how would you know you are recognizing the Supernatural, and not the unknown Natural? That is, what experience of the SN do you have, that you can recognize it?

See, it is perplexing to me. To claim there is a supernatural element to anything assumes you understand EVERYTHING that is Natural, and have declared certain events impossible to be Natural. (The glaring faux pas in the past include the Sun revolving around the Earth, or attributing epilepsy to Satan).

I the VP experiment, nature has once again shown how complex it is. In Quantum Mechanics we see that Nature is quite unpredictable and even, dare I say, illogical. To assume that Natural Laws can't answer some things, and insert a Supernatural element, seems premature.

In fact, given the utter consistancy that science has continued to explain difficult questions about our Uni, I see no Reason to insert a "Supernatural", or even "Subnatural", element. In fact, I wonder where someone got the idea that there was something that existed "above" the Natural in the first place?

It seems a blatant "God of the Gaps" argument, especially when we see further along the Theist argument that the SN is undefinable. In other words, answering an unknown with another unkown isn't even really trying.


Quote: I have no issue with either your belief in NO God or someone elses belief in many Gods, you and they are free to believe what you choose for the reasons you choose. I have NO burden of proof to do anything with regard to what YOU or THEY believe.
Well, there are shades of degree to this. If you claim that God hates gay people and you are a politician that will enact laws based on your claim, then I have a right to demand that you prove your claim. After all, if there is a god AND he hates gay people, or Pre-Emptive War (or driving on the left-hand side, for that matter), I NEED to know.

If you have no intention of enacting unproven beliefs into law, then we have no problem.

If you can prove that homosexuality, based on your unproven belief, is in fact detrimental to humanity and society through logic, then the case should be made. But to say "God hates f**s" is not a logical argument - even if you believe it sincerely - since the existence of God, or his hatred towards 'f**s' is not proven, and hardly defensible.

(I am not trying to say that you think god hates f**s - it's just an example)

Quote: This thread and you by your questioning have decided to join in challenging what I(as a believer in the Christian God) believe and the associated logic I have employed to arrive at that conclusion. So you must then prove to ME that both my logic and my belief is flawed. Since I have presented NO challenge to you or your beliefs directly. My entire post was NOT meant as an expression of my Catholic beliefs but simply pointing out the inconsistancies of applying and then denying logic, when logic and nature are ALL you espouse as truth.
Yes, I appreciate logic and the idea that what we DO understand is Natural (and this has been consistant with every Gap so far). (Not as you claimed earlier - just to stop any future straw man).
I think I have addressed this concern earlier, I can clarify, if need be.

Quote: You can't be seriously asking for a response to these here? These are fascinating and very complex questions which are NOT answered within my faith by one line biblical references but by volumes of theological discourses which have a variety of logical, theological explanations. Catholocism is awash with intra theological arguments and debates which all lead to identical conclusions, this is what makes it FOR ME the most logical of human religious pathways. But the theological explanation of Free will, evil, and the definition and necessity of divine intervention DO NOT account for one's faith.
I am serious, since it it intersting to me. My reason for not being a Theist is that I see no POSITIVE evidence for a theistic entity. I think that humans are mythmaking animals, and that what people claim is God, is simply an inability to understand the Natural world. This is shown by the consistant lack of a definition for a God, and the fact that virtually every individual has a distinct (and sometimes mutually exclusive) definiton of God. And, as mentioned before, everything we know about the world conforms to a Natural view, I see no reason - except for the mythmaking attributes of the human animal - to insert the Great Unknowable into the equation.

THere, I have laid out my "beliefs" in this matter, and I am perhaps naive to think that a Theist can as succintly lay out their beliefs in a logical format? (Though I don't, as shown, require it to be in the form of a formal logic argument - though, that would be fun).

1. Quote: It is actually the LOGIC and theology of Christianity in general and Catholicism most specifically, which over years convinced me I had been mistaken not only about the possible existence of God, but most specifically about the life of Jesus Christ.
2. Quote: I would think that is nearly uanimous by even atheists that the words of Jesus Christ as represented in the New Tesatment are very logical and in fact powerfully applicable even if one denies His deity.
1. I still don't understand how logic is to help you understand the existence of God. In fact, specifically a Xian god or a divine Jesus.
2. I'm not sure which passages you mean. Surely, Jesus said related some great philosophy. Some of it, possibly, even novel.
However, there are other things that are attributed to him that are utterly illogical, or "wrong" (his prophesy of the Second Coming).
Also, I find Luke 12:47-48 abhorant. Either Jesus is supporting the idea of beating a slave (and showing approval for slavery), or it is a metaphor for how God treats us, which isn't true, since by rule, there is only Heaven or Hell: eternal reward or punishment.
Perhaps you can show me what Jesus is believed to have actually said? I understand that much was attributed to him, but was probably not he who said it. (I undersatnd that you can pull the "all the Bible is true" card, but I would honestly find this intellectually dishonest - unless you can prove that the Bible is inerrent - which I don't believe you can. Forgive me if I am offending your religious sensibilities)

Quote: Also another Catholic assertion is that The Bible is NOT the only source of truth/logic/reason (Logos in theological terms).
I would hope not. The Bible actual covers very little in terms of the Human Experience. It really only seems myopically interested in appeasing the gods. Something it has in common with all religions, in fact (another reason that I find religoins highly suspect of being created by superstitious men, not by divine authorship).

Quote: Please do not mistake my generic assertion of an architect or code designer as the supporting those who want to teach "Intelligent Design". I am well aware that Catholicism not only has NO objection to the evolution theory and most other scientific theories but that they are in fact TAUGHT, researched and formed in Catholic schools, colleges and universities. But I appreciate your enlightening me on the Vatican's position. It is the Catholic tradition of embracing logic, science and reason that attracted me. Catholicism has had a rich philosophical and scientific history, in which you can be proud. (It has another side, but we are aware that people do terrible things when they believe they are right, and have power.)

I have always admired the idea of the Monastary.

obviously, I have my problems with ID. The only interesting aspect is that perhaps they will be able to quantify the level of intelligence in an object. But, to assert that they can recognize a Supernatural intelligence because some things look like a human designed them is funny. After all, we are part of nature, and our machines are a result of natural laws, economy of movement, interpolation of the natural world, etc. A plane looks like a bird, not the other way around. We designed things, in evolved stages, just as nature did. The first cutting tool was a sharp rock, not a laser. balh, blah, blah...

I'd like to avoid ID, since it presumes a god, and we would be jumping ahead.

Plus, i realize I am not describing ID well, or my position.

Quote: But believing that God or even Jesus Christ exists DOES NOT make you as a Christian. That does take a bit more doing and by definition ANYONE who adopts a new philosophy must CHANGE (religious or not consider Buddahism, Scientology or moving from Repulican to Democrat) and most likely has a particular event which pushes one past the moment of indecision. If you want to call that a "revelation" then so be it but within Chritianity it is not "required" to be a moment of high drama or anything more spectacular than figuring out something you had been thinking about one way should be viewed another way.
I used to be a devout Xian. I had "accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior". I now deny that god exists and Jesus was just a man that had a good PR agent (Paul). So, I WAS a Xian, though, funny enough, some would still claim I was a REAL Xian, or not Xian enough or something.

My 'revelation' to atheism took years and was at times quite painful but I am now much happier for it.

Quote: What do you mean by "God"?

What ever I mean by God will be an inadequate answer for both you and I so what is the point of providing an aswer which is predictably lacking, yours due to your disbelief and mine due to the depth of my belief. To best understand what I mean read the Summa Theologica by Aquinas it has most of the basics for me both logically AND faithfully.
Here is another aspect of where I think we will find fertile ground for discussion/disagreement.

Inasmuch as I am a Strong Atheist, it is in this case. I find it illogical (totally reliant on Faith and/or self-imposed ignorance) that to believe in something that you can't prove, can't define - yet define in some terms (as you do later) to be highly suspect, to say it nicely.

I understand that I can't completely explain an elephant, but I can point to an elephant and say "that's an elephant".
I understand I can't define "Love", but I can self-define it and compare it to other peoples definitions (understanding that they, too, have self-defined it)

But, the conception of god is similar to all other claims of the paranormal or superstitious, yet I am to believe that THIS claim is real because someone fervently believes it.

You address definitions later. I will address it more, there. I will say that I am quite fond of the Non-Cognitivst argument as you may have guessed.

Quote: Your logic is perfect in your statement ONLY IF you are a non believer of course. IF you believe in the Christian God then your statment is empty and meaningless. God, if the First Cause can NOT be a result of human cognition and in fact the unique ability of human reason has been an argument FOR belief in God for as long as the debate has existed.
I'm not sure if I understand this completely. I recognize some traditional concepts in here but I don't want to assume your point. Please elaborate.

Quote: Quote: What then, brethren, shall we say of God? For if thou hast been able to understand what thou wouldest say, it is not God. If thou hast been able to comprehend it, thou hast comprehended something else instead of God. If thou hast been able to comprehend him as thou thinkest, by so thinking thou hast deceived thyself. This then is not God, if thou hast comprehended it; but if this be God, thou has not comprehended it.

—St. Augustine

I am unsure as to the purpose in quoting this excerpt from Augustine, but I am fascinated by what you believe it represents as part of your content?

I think this quote actually supports my ideas. It shows that a Non-Cognitivst position is rational, even (especially) according to the definitions of God from theists.
1. What authority does one person have over another to offer a definiton for something that can't be defined, or known in any rational sense?
2. The quote is the biggest cop-out I have ever seen.
3. The quote says "we don't know, noone knows, don't expect to know" and at the same time, says nothing. It is a lot of words that explain nothing - or, if you will, explain away the problem.

However, it seems to make total sense to theists (and once made sense to me).

Quote: Christians DO NOT percieve of God as either concious or a "being". God within Chrisitian theology, as Creator of all things, The First Cause, is in fact perfect simplicity. God does not posess intellect God IS intellect, God does not posess conciousness God is conciousness God is not A being God IS being. Again, logically speaking, One who creates time, life and matter MUST exist outside of the limitations of all three, otherwise the creation of all three would not be possible BY that Creator.
Here is where I have to cry foul. I have to know WHY you believe that. What evidence is there that intellect=god? What does that mean? Isn't intellect, intellect?
It really seems a meaningless position.

Consider: http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/#L12

Quote: Thus, we can see that the term “God” suffers from the same problem expressed in Proposition #3, concerning the term “Soul”. It is because of this that the theistic position fails on a fundamental level, as the term they are expressing has been provided no referent with which we can judge it’s coherency. Without a primary attribute applied to the term, no relational or secondary attributes can apply. One can speculate on the attributes of the term “God” if they are defining the term via route of hypothesis, but supposing that Mr. Tremblay’s critique of such a position stands firm, they cannot do this. So, from the position of Definition-Based Non-Cognitivism – it simply makes no sense to apply attributes such as “unicity”, or “loving”, or “all-powerful” when one does not know whether or not undefined referent of the term itself is even capable or related to such things by virtue of its fundamental character.
Quote: One cannot posit the existence of something if that something means nothing. The term itself, without referring to any specific concept or possible instantiation, holds no actual or even potential place in reality. In truth, it is amusing to note that the theistic position is unwittingly equivalent to the atheistic position, as to posit belief in “God” actually means “belief in nothing” – the stance of atheism.

Interesting, no? I think it is a very powerful argument.

Quote: As human beings it is our nature to attempt to describe and often even personify God (which He does for us in the presence of Jesus Christ), but we are incapable of accurately describing something we most certainly CAN NOT fully comprehend. This is not a convenient deflection as I used to think, but an obvious statement of human limitation of an Essence beyond our comprehension, much like the universe for instance. I think humans DO try to personify their gods, of course. The Greek gods were divine personifications of human attributes, as were many gods in many religions. Xianity, and some others, consolodated the definitions into one figure, and also, interestingly, seperated god from the Earth and placed him "out there" - away from any chance of human understanding. This is one of the genius moves by Xinaity.

Quote: The problem with the "intellectual" dismissal of God is that in employing logic to deny God, it is impossible not to have then dismiss logic in order to ignore the possible existence of God. This is the exact conflict I continually faced in my own "intellectual" denial of God and the one you make obvious by your dismissal of John's quote. Please elaborate. I don't understand.

Quote: I have found it far more credible to simply say you don't believe in God as a matter of faith and leave it at that.
yet, I can point to all Natural examples of there being no god, and you can only point to the possibility of there being a supernaturalness.
I will say that without a better argument on your part, you are being disingenuous if you think my a-theism is the same kind of Faith as your Theism. I simply don't believe in pixes, gubblewormps, gods, or faeries.

Is your lack of belief in gubblewormps a matter of Faith?

I don't think you can drop this bomb, and then "leave it at that". (Of course, you can, but it's not very sporting of you) ;)

Quote: Also there is more circumstantial evidence of some kind of organized approach to the origin of life than not and more clues every day (DNA for example) that points to a type of architecture or code to life.
This is getting into the Argument from Design which we can discuss, but as you would expect, I am not throroughly convinced of this direction. Especially when we haven't defined "god" yet.

[quote] Quote: Again this my not be pursuasive to you but you can not just dismiss it as non-existant when even people like Antony Flew(world renown atheist) begins to see this(DNA) as strong logical evidence of an intelligent designer, a God.
Quote: I was very careful ONLY to say that Flew changed his belief based on the possibility of a God/Deity based upon FACTS as he found them, NOTHING more but certainly NOTHING LESS.
I think Flew is a very good 'thinker", I'm glad to hear his opinion means something to you. I will remember to use him if our discussion turns to an argument for a specifically Xian god.

Quote: Is then your conclusion that ANYONE who believes in the possibility of God MUST be applying BAD logic? If so it makes any disucussion pointless.
No, there IS a possibilty of a god, or gods.

There is a possibility of a tiny teapot circling the Sun, there is a possibility of an Invisible Pink Unicorn, or a Flying Speghetti Monster, or even, a ushgouhowe (a random collection of letters I just typed).

What I propose is that some possibilities are much more likely than not. And some are far out of the realm of consideration.

Gubblewormps, for example. However, just because I made up the term, doesn't mean they don't exist. Even if I continue to define them: I claim that they are not like turmoil, they ARE turmoil; they are not like randomness, they ARE randomness. Does this make you believe in them?

So, I believe that most people have used bad logic to conclude there is a god (and to concluse there are no gods).
I have yet to see a logical argument that is convincing. (Is it because I don't want to conclude there is a God? Let's assume I am not so disingenuous, please. I, too, will assume that you are open to the possibility that there is no God, if the evidence is convincing enough.)

BTW, There are a few arguments FOR a god that I am toying with, but I have not formed them fully. That is, if I were a theist, I would use them - but they still seem specious, so I need to work through them.

Quote: I see no logical way to be a Catholic and NOT conclude that God can be contained within any natural or logical human concept?
True, i suppose, but WHY are you Catholic? I presume you believe in god, and then believe in Catholicism. So, without the Bible, what made you believe in the Bible?

Quote: But I see no problem with attempting our best to communicate our concepts as God has given us the sklls to do.
Or, evolution and human ingenuity. ;)


(I have posted this without a final read-through. Please excuse any glaring errors.)

[Gilbert1908]

CursedLemon wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: And my point is that I don't see gravity mentioned in either the Old or New Testaments as something to worry about. Gravity is a law of physics observed by man not a "law" handed down by God.

Christians do not believe that God is sentient or concious "like us" so he can not be described as non sentient or nonconcious, which is what I was confused about.

Comparing gravity and homosexuality in and of themselves is irrelevant. My point is that God created both of those statutes, and if God exists, then homosexuality would be something totally solid, and not up for interpretation. I mean that you wouldn't be able to interpret homosexuality as "not wrong" just as you wouldn't be able to interpret gravity as not existing. The reason being that God should be the binding fiber of the universe, and any kind of law he puts down wouldn't need reasoning, it would just BE.

Therefore, I don't believe that God made laws for humans.

Well you need not believe it, such is the nature of our world and the human mind as I believe God made us. The fact that you have the choice to believe or not believe or that anyone does may prove to you that there is no God, but it is completely consistent with the foundation of Christian theology and in fact is one of the many things that proves to me that there is a God, so go figure.

Any assumption you would like to make for yourself is perfectly fine, Christians, as you already have found out, will contend that we ALL break God's "laws" all the the time that was the entire reason that Jesus Christ showed up. Not by the way with the idea that we would instantly become "perfect" but that we would find The Way to practice, fail and ultimately succeed.

[cap'n queasy]

CursedLemon wrote: wormwood wrote: Quote: By "sentient and conscious", I basically mean like us. If you can't understand it that way, then I really don't know how to explain it any better. Which I am always working on. You misunderstood. Gilbert knows what sentient and conscious are, he was asking about this non-sentient, non-conscious concept of God that YOU keep referring to.

Well...NOT like us. :\ As in, he is not aware of himself, he doesn't reason, and he certainly doesn't care what we do with our lives.

That is not the God described in the Bible. :lol: That sounds more like the Deist conception of god.