Believing God does NOT exist with certainty suggests ignorance comparable to theists

[lightgigantic]

Unfortunately you claimed the sentence was rational, not the argument.

I'm not sure why you would get hung up on that .... but anyway, glad we cleared up the issue

Crunchy cat

but it cannot be demonstrated to all people at all times

if you doubt this I will pretend to be a highschool drop out inimical to science and you can pretend to be a physics professor.

Demonstrate to me an electron.
”
If someone can demonstrate it to one person then the demonstration can be recorded and shown to anyone who'se interested.

and when you have vocal element that is interested in not interested, you have problems

That's a neat thing about technology... we can capture the past and replay it over and over again. For example here is a demonstration of an electron that was recorded:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-O...eature=related

there's some problem with the link but I can guarantee there will be ample opportunities for me to say "what a load of horse shit" in my persona as a high school drop out.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
only if they accept your testimonial authority - otherwise they can argue with you until the cows come home.
”
There would not be anything to argue about with me.

hehe

Just wait until you have kids ....

Light, magnification, and fish water. Then you just watch the little critters do their thing. What happens is that my "testimony" is validated by reality. It becomes truth. Technically, my testimony doesn't even matter because what is being seen is self-evident.

Your explanation on why something is happening can be hotly contested however

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
then you have problems since the average joe schmuck probably can't even switch on an advanced piece of lab equipment, what to speak of make sense of it.
“
”
That's ok, we can do it for him. He just has to observe.

and accept your testimonial authority, eh?
how convenient ....

“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
hehe

every time you use empiricism to validate a metaphysical claim you shoot yourself in the foot.

certainly no empirical evidence for that statement .... a good rule of thumb to test whether you are entering into areas of metaphysics is when you tag the bit in italics to your statements.
”
Of course there is empirical evidence for that statement.

Everything that has been demonstrated to be true follows the pattern. No exceptions exist.

erm .....the only thing that has been demonstrated by empiricism is empirical claims.

Effectively what you are doing is saying that in order for something to be true it must be approachable by our (human) ability to measure, control and repeat.

Do you want to clarify and retract your statement or dig yourself down deeper?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic

except the big question of a persons ability to perceive the nature of reality
”
Use the visibility tools luke. They can translate the things (or their unique effects) that we can't see into a presentation that we can. Look at a drop of your blood under an electron microscope.

so you feel that a good insurance policy against delusion is to own a microscope? .... meh



“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Soft science disagrees since it is primarily involved in discussing these topics

I think you would be hard pressed to find a practical example (a researcher, a discipline, etc in a field of soft science that can somehow resist the temptation to venture into issues of how or why a human emotional state exists) of what you suggest
”
I think the point was rather missed. It's irrelecant to this discussion as only the "what's" are necessary. We know that anthropomorphism and human psychological needs exist. That alone explains a large portion why people very easily conceive of and believe in the existence God/Gods.

interesting that you mention psychology and offer belief in gods as a "how or why" ..... but anyway, I'll give you another chance to mention some discipline of soft science that can somehow resist the temptation of venturing into "how's and why's"

You can't even get that part right. That would be that the conclusion logicly follows the premises, not simply that they're related. Of course that yet doesn't make a logical argument.
You have no business speaking of credibility.
Yes, even you could benefit from learning how to make a coherent argument.

logic is the investigation of the premises as they relate to the conclusion

truthfulness is the investigation of the validity of the premises

good luck and happy debating

with all that critique but perhaps you never looked at religion that way?

meaning:

who is the last word to define the correct religion?

god of course

and in a more practical sense, god as revealed by the saintly person

(therefore you find that much of scripture deals with the analysis of the nature of being saintly, or in a state where one can determine the nature of god by dint of one's own direct experience)

 

[Bishadi]

logic is the investigation of the premises as they relate to the conclusion

truthfulness is the investigation of the validity of the premises

this sounds so scientific

then you say

god of course

is who you claim is substantiating your foundation.

When it is a book, then the interpretations that are imposing the bias to your witnessing

it is as if the belief requires you to lie

and in a more practical sense, god as revealed by the saintly person

like roger bacon... a friar that spent over a decade under house arrest in the 1200's for studying and representing 'light' as important to understanding.

or st darwin who spent years on a boat and islands simply documenting first hand, specimens of varieties of species that many would have never known existed, all because he cared for the future. Not only did he never use the word evolution in his book, but included only a few line regarding man in the whole book. Nothing about apes to man. All that came from others.

Galileo was dead; how many years before the church realized they made a mistake?

(therefore you find that much of scripture deals with the analysis of the nature of being saintly, or in a state where one can determine the nature of god by dint of one's own direct experience)

and that means be HONEST. (witness what is truly experienced, not what others tell you to experience)

have compassion for others and what is true over your own personal beliefs.

no one can take anything from God by describing 'nature' but lying does by misdirecting ........ all based on selfish isolation... not for GOD!

That is what is wrong with a claim to hold old texts as literal; often the interpretations require a person to deny truth. (breaking the very laws we all hold so dear of God)

And like what you are doing, suggesting that God doesn't talk to us about science and medicine, only morals and religious homage.

God is all about 'life'.............. that is why anyone even observe a religion!

It was the religions that divided truth from faith. Lies divided man, not God.

 

[lightgigantic]

Bishadi

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
logic is the investigation of the premises as they relate to the conclusion

truthfulness is the investigation of the validity of the premises
”
this sounds so scientific

then you say

“

god of course
”
is who you claim is substantiating your foundation.

When it is a book, then the interpretations that are imposing the bias to your witnessing

it is as if the belief requires you to lie

I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say.

I am stating that religious principles are derived from god (since religion is primarily about knowing the nature of god ... so who better to explain it)

“
and in a more practical sense, god as revealed by the saintly person
”
like roger bacon... a friar that spent over a decade under house arrest in the 1200's for studying and representing 'light' as important to understanding.

or st darwin who spent years on a boat and islands simply documenting first hand, specimens of varieties of species that many would have never known existed, all because he cared for the future. Not only did he never use the word evolution in his book, but included only a few line regarding man in the whole book. Nothing about apes to man. All that came from others.

Galileo was dead; how many years before the church realized they made a mistake?

I mean saintly persons in a qualitative sense ... as opposed to an official rubber stamp sort of sense.

To state quite comprehensively ....

SB 11.11.29 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O Uddhava, a saintly person is merciful and never injures others. Even if others are aggressive he is tolerant and forgiving toward all living entities. His strength and meaning in life come from the truth itself, he is free from all envy and jealousy, and his mind is equal in material happiness and distress. Thus, he dedicates his time to work for the welfare of all others. His intelligence is never bewildered by material desires, and he has controlled his senses. His behavior is always pleasing, never harsh and always exemplary, and he is free from possessiveness. He never endeavors in ordinary, worldly activities, and he strictly controls his eating. He therefore always remains peaceful and steady. A saintly person is thoughtful and accepts Me as his only shelter. Such a person is very cautious in the execution of his duties and is never subject to superficial transformations, because he is steady and noble, even in a distressing situation. He has conquered over the six material qualities—namely hunger, thirst, lamentation, illusion, old age and death. He is free from all desire for prestige and offers honor to others. He is expert in reviving the Kåñëa consciousness of others and therefore never cheats anyone. Rather, he is a well-wishing friend to all, being most merciful. Such a saintly person must be considered the most learned of men. He perfectly understands that the ordinary religious duties prescribed by Me in various Vedic scriptures possess favorable qualities that purify the performer, and he knows that neglect of such duties constitutes a discrepancy in one's life. Having taken complete shelter at My lotus feet, however, a saintly person ultimately renounces such ordinary religious duties and worships Me alone. He is thus considered to be the best among all living entities.

I'm not sure how Galileo, Darwin and Bacon fit into this description

“
(therefore you find that much of scripture deals with the analysis of the nature of being saintly, or in a state where one can determine the nature of god by dint of one's own direct experience)
”
and that means be HONEST. (witness what is truly experienced, not what others tell you to experience)

yes
there is a difference between being a saintly person and merely hearing about the qualities of a saintly person ... although hearing about the qualities of a saintly person is certainly helpful

have compassion for others and what is true over your own personal beliefs.

yes

that and a whole lot more

no one can take anything from God by describing 'nature' but lying does by misdirecting ........ all based on selfish isolation... not for GOD!

That is what is wrong with a claim to hold old texts as literal; often the interpretations require a person to deny truth. (breaking the very laws we all hold so dear of God)

The problem with neglecting scripture in one's pursuit of spiritual purity is that one invariably takes shelter of one's conditioned mind and senses as absolute authorities (which takes one god knows where ....)

And like what you are doing, suggesting that God doesn't talk to us about science and medicine, only morals and religious homage.

God is primarily concerned about our liberation from this illusory concept of life ... something that cannot be accomplished by mere morality (what to speak of medicine, etc)

God is all about 'life'.............. that is why anyone even observe a religion!

God is the source of everything ... which includes life

It was the religions that divided truth from faith. Lies divided man, not God.

It's illusion driven by conditioned nature that divides the living entities .... after all, it's not like atheist communities are reservoirs of the inclusive and stress free.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its not that the only card you can play is the "heavy moderator" because you have nothing else to prop yourself up. Its more like the one you favor when the going gets tough in your discussions, and you simply give in to confidence statements and tentative statements. ("You're deluded" "No, you're deluded" "Listen, I'm the mod here and I say you are deluded" etc etc ”


“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Please provide Thread Names & Post #s. ”

“ Originally Posted by SkinWalker
Yes. Please post where I said, "listen, I'm the mod here and I say you are deluded."
In fact, those that remember me from before I was moderator here probably wonder why I don't hammer you the way I used to then. ”

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
erm, post 45 stands fresh in my memory ”

Not only does he not mention being moderator, from Post #45 or any he posted in this thread, no 1 can tell he's the moderator until you mention it.

Such accusations should not be tolerated without the accuser providing proof or admitting his error.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not sure why you would get hung up on that .... but anyway, glad we cleared up the issue

If you use one word but mean another, then you must expect disagreement.
Either way, your apology is accepted.
Might I suggest that you try to be more accurate in your choice of words in future?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

The "argument" is not rational unless the premises are reasonably thought to be true. Actually it's not even an argument otherwise. Might as well say any gibberish is a logical argument.

 

[lightgigantic]

If you use one word but mean another, then you must expect disagreement.
Either way, your apology is accepted.
Might I suggest that you try to be more accurate in your choice of words in future?

I guess I wasn't quite certain where the topic changed from issues of argument structure to issues of grammar and sentence structure.

 

[lightgigantic]

Such accusations should not be tolerated without the accuser providing proof or admitting his error.

erm .... I did .... but they have since been deleted by a vigilant moderator who chooses to remain anonymous

 

[lightgigantic]

The "argument" is not rational unless the premises are reasonably thought to be true.

notice the last word you ended your sentence on?

Actually it's not even an argument otherwise. Might as well say any gibberish is a logical argument.

logic is one thing
truth is another

At the risk of totally doing your head in on the topic, here's an example of a truthful statement that isn't logical.

I have brown shoes on, my hair is cut short therefore it is Tuesday.

Everything in that statement is true .... but the premises bear no logical connection to the conclusion

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi
I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say.

that you critique the scientific method and even examine just like a scientist would but then say

I am stating that religious principles are derived from god

but you failed to ask whether the material is actually from God or even qualify the works

(since religion is primarily about knowing the nature of god ... so who better to explain it)

in which the material was written by men, simply saying it is from God

and THAT is your bottom line; the acceptance of someone's opinion

I mean saintly persons in a qualitative sense ... as opposed to an official rubber stamp sort of sense.

then who rubber stamps all the books of the bible as being legitimate?

I have never seen a quality control 'God stamp', have you?

To state quite comprehensively ....

SB 11.11.29 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O Uddhava, a saintly person is merciful and never injures others.

then it ain't the blue guy called krishna, he is supposed to have had 16000 gopis

and ask any man you know.... 'would your wife be unhappy if you touched another women?" That would mean, that 15,999 of them gopis are not happy because their man is touching another.

I'm not sure how Galileo, Darwin and Bacon fit into this description

contributers to the evolution of knowledge......... and since, their works were good.......... we still talking about them (saints and still alive in their gifts to us all)

yes
there is a difference between being a saintly person and merely hearing about the qualities of a saintly person ...

why not just say, "each opinion may have a different qualification for their saints...."

for example Muhammed........ or even Nostradamus who spent much of his life, assisting the people during the plague. He lost 2 wives and his families to the plague, but continued to help people. He probably assisted more people directly than Jesus himself. Is he a saint to you?

God is primarily concerned about our liberation from this illusory concept of life ...

Exactly.... most think life is of consciousness but fail to realize when they sleeping they are still alive but don't know it. Such is the same as the actual life of each person is not just being conscious

something that cannot be accomplished by mere morality (what to speak of medicine, etc)

ah... but that is not true otherwise why would we be here in which our lives are dependent on what we do?

If you are correct, then why do religions even exist, if not to allow understanding, with the best available knowledge of the time; why even have books and literature?

Or perfectly put........ why does knowledge evolve?

God is the source of everything ... which includes life

such as to observe mother nature (the garden)........... or all of existence combined, then the same exact analogy applies.

It's illusion driven by conditioned nature that divides the living entities ....

nothing is divided from nature except what opinions from mankind teach us to believe.

God sure didn't divide man...... we all still his kids, equally!

after all, it's not like atheist communities are reservoirs of the inclusive and stress free.

i don't really know any atheist, personally.... nor have i been in a community of such to be able to measure the differences

but i can see what is occuring in the middle east all based on religious beliefs.

 

[lightgigantic]

Bishadi

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Bishadi
I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say.
”
that you critique the scientific method and even examine just like a scientist would but then say
“

I am stating that religious principles are derived from god
”
but you failed to ask whether the material is actually from God or even qualify the works

you missed the reference to qualifying a saintly person?

“
(since religion is primarily about knowing the nature of god ... so who better to explain it)
”
in which the material was written by men, simply saying it is from God

and THAT is your bottom line; the acceptance of someone's opinion

once again, if you think you can gain knowledge and simultaneously reject all testimonial authority you are going nowhere .... doesn't matter whether we are discussing god or car mechanics

“

I mean saintly persons in a qualitative sense ... as opposed to an official rubber stamp sort of sense.
”
then who rubber stamps all the books of the bible as being legitimate?

Its well understood that the bible has numerous text critical issues ... but legitimacy, as a rule, is determined by practitioners .... after all, you don't see many treatises on physics composed by archeologists

I have never seen a quality control 'God stamp', have you?

probably because you have never encountered religiousity that is "do-able"

“
To state quite comprehensively ....

SB 11.11.29 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O Uddhava, a saintly person is merciful and never injures others.
”
then it ain't the blue guy called krishna, he is supposed to have had 16000 gopis

and ask any man you know.... 'would your wife be unhappy if you touched another women?" That would mean, that 15,999 of them gopis are not happy because their man is touching another.

Its common for people to begin discussing Krishna by discussing "any man" .... that's why people do not commonly understand the topic

“
I'm not sure how Galileo, Darwin and Bacon fit into this description
”
contributers to the evolution of knowledge......... and since, their works were good.......... we still talking about them (saints and still alive in their gifts to us all)
“

its clear we have different understanding of the implications of "saintliness"

yes
there is a difference between being a saintly person and merely hearing about the qualities of a saintly person ...
”
why not just say, "each opinion may have a different qualification for their saints...."

If you wouldn't say the same about medical practice, its not clear why you expect I should say that here

for example Muhammed........ or even Nostradamus who spent much of his life, assisting the people during the plague. He lost 2 wives and his families to the plague, but continued to help people. He probably assisted more people directly than Jesus himself. Is he a saint to you?

and the relationship between altruism and the highest goal of existence being?

“
God is primarily concerned about our liberation from this illusory concept of life ...
”
Exactly.... most think life is of consciousness but fail to realize when they sleeping they are still alive but don't know it. Such is the same as the actual life of each person is not just being conscious

yes
but merely talking about it doesn't accomplish anything
(IOW there must be a "do-able" course of action, much like there is a "do-able course of action" for car mechanics and anyone else who is professionally qualified)

“
something that cannot be accomplished by mere morality (what to speak of medicine, etc)
”
ah... but that is not true otherwise why would we be here in which our lives are dependent on what we do?

I made suggestion that morality/altruism is not sufficient for liberation.

I don't understand how this relates to your comment

If you are correct, then why do religions even exist, if not to allow understanding, with the best available knowledge of the time; why even have books and literature?

to enter into the "real" nature of existence .... as opposed to being fixated in activities of the temporary or even sub-religious principles like altruism

Or perfectly put........ why does knowledge evolve?

you mean change?
or by evolve, are you suggesting some ultimate pinnacle or direction?

“

“
It's illusion driven by conditioned nature that divides the living entities ....
”
nothing is divided from nature except what opinions from mankind teach us to believe.

to begin with you are dividing mankind from living entities in general, so its clear you still have a few issues of division yourself

God sure didn't divide man...... we all still his kids, equally!

yet someone is thinking "I am a man/woman" "I am american/japanese" "I am intelligent/untalented" "I am a human/dog" ... all based on the bodily concept of life

“
after all, it's not like atheist communities are reservoirs of the inclusive and stress free.
”
i don't really know any atheist, personally.... nor have i been in a community of such to be able to measure the differences

telling, isn't it?

but i can see what is occuring in the middle east all based on religious beliefs.

and by golly if you can't find wholesale functional religious principles in the midst of tumultuous politics you can't find it anywhere, right?

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi
you missed the reference to qualifying a saintly person?

pope couldn't even pick a bishop without half the world whinning, are you suggesting popes are qualified to pick saints?

once again, if you think you can gain knowledge and simultaneously reject all testimonial authority you are going nowhere

religious leaders and idiots want control

the truth sets 'all' mankind free

Its well understood that the bible has numerous text critical issues ... but legitimacy, as a rule, is determined by practitioners .... after all, you don't see many treatises on physics composed by archeologists

so muslims can pick christian saints?.......... they in the same field

or let me guess Ted Haggart can pick the saints, too?

to begin with you are dividing mankind from living entities in general,

how is that?

 

[lightgigantic]

Bishadi

you missed the reference to qualifying a saintly person?
”
pope couldn't even pick a bishop without half the world whinning, are you suggesting popes are qualified to pick saints?

once again, you missed the reference to qualifying a saintly person?

“
once again, if you think you can gain knowledge and simultaneously reject all testimonial authority you are going nowhere
”
religious leaders and idiots want control

the truth sets 'all' mankind free

so says your testimonial authority, eh?
“

Its well understood that the bible has numerous text critical issues ... but legitimacy, as a rule, is determined by practitioners .... after all, you don't see many treatises on physics composed by archeologists
”
so muslims can pick christian saints?.......... they in the same field

or let me guess Ted Haggart can pick the saints, too?

saintliness can certainly cross cultural boundaries, if that's what you are alluding to

“
to begin with you are dividing mankind from living entities in general,
”
how is that?

mankind, altruism, etc etc

 

[Bishadi]

Bishadi
once again, you missed the reference to qualifying a saintly person?

is that a question or statement

so says your testimonial authority, eh?

the word religion means; to bind

'and the truth will set you free'....... that was charlton heston....... playing Moses..........

saintliness can certainly cross cultural boundaries, if that's what you are alluding to

Does that mean Osama bin Laden will be a saint too?

 

[lightgigantic]

is that a question or statement

is a rhetorical question a statement?

the word religion means; to bind

'and the truth will set you free'....... that was charlton heston....... playing Moses..........

I've never been one for etymological arguments

Does that mean Osama bin Laden will be a saint too?

erm ... am I involved in the same conversation with you?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

erm .... I did .... but they have since been deleted by a vigilant moderator who chooses to remain anonymous

NO. You didn't.
You made a sweeping accusation which requires more than 1 thread reference.
I was reading this thread from the start. I can't remember every little detail & assure nothing has been deleted but I do know that nothing resembling your accusation was in this thread.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

notice the last word you ended your sentence on?
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
The "argument" is not rational unless the premises are reasonably thought to be true. ”

notice the last word you ended your sentence on?

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
The "argument" is not rational unless the premises are reasonably thought to be true. ”

notice the last word you ended your sentence on?


“ Actually it's not even an argument otherwise. Might as well say any gibberish is a logical argument. ”


logic is one thing
truth is another

At the risk of totally doing your head in on the topic, here's an example of a truthful statement that isn't logical.

I have brown shoes on, my hair is cut short therefore it is Tuesday.

Everything in that statement is true .... but the premises bear no logical connection to the conclusion

I did not say that if the premises are reasonably thought to be true, the argument is rational.

 

[lightgigantic]

NO. You didn't.
...... I can't remember every little detail & assure nothing has been deleted but ......

your premises are irrational and contradictory

 

[Hapsburg]

Believing God does NOT exist with certainty suggests ignorance comparable to theists.

I wouldn't say "ignorance" because I don't think theism is ignorant, necessarily.
However, I would say that it is as arrogant as absolute theism, i.e. a certainty, not belief, in one's theological convictions.

 

[lightgigantic]

I wouldn't say "ignorance" because I don't think theism is ignorant, necessarily.
However, I would say that it is as arrogant as absolute theism, i.e. a certainty, not belief, in one's theological convictions.

what do you claim it is precisely about theological convictions that prevents one from being certain about them?