For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.

[James R]

phlogistician:

Apologies for late reply, had to attend a funeral, and then had a minor crisis at work upon my return.

I actually thought you'd come to your senses and realised that this little exercise is going nowhere fast. I'm expecting you to slink away at some point. It doesn't bother me.

Yet you struggle to define said God. You have so few words to describe this thing to me. I still don't really have a good picture of what it is you are proposing. That's is what you are supposed to be creating: a description in words I can imagine myself.

I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have about my conception of God. So far, you haven't asked very many. One, in fact, about God's sex. And that's about all I have had from you so far in this thread, apart from demands that I repeat myself over and over again for your benefit.

Bear in mind that God, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, is actually beyond the capacity of the human mind to truly comprehend in all His glory. You can't possibly hope to truly understand the perspective of an omniscient being. Besides, God has never, to my knowledge, given anybody a really good description of himself. We have to work with what we have. As human beings, we are necessarily limited. We no more have perfect knowledge of God than we have perfect knowledge of astronomy.

I might equally ask you where your beliefs about astronomy come from

Beliefs? Odd use of the word, given that proofs are required for publications.

There are no proofs in astronomy, outside of the proofs contained in mathematical models used in that field. As soon as you start looking at the real world, proof becomes impossible. The most you can do is collect evidence for or against a proposition.

No astronomical paper ever published has included a proof of anything outside a mathematical model.

because I'm betting you take a lot of astronomy facts on "faith" or on the basis of authority that you respect. There's really no other option but to do that.

Given I worked with a bunch of Astronomers, a lot has been demonstrated to me, from instrument, to data gathering, through to analysis. Sure, a lot of it was quite complex, some of this stuff is hardcore Physics, but I understand enough of it to understand the high level, and what's more, others can follow, and repeat, and get the same results. I'm not quite sure why you mention this, because it only underlines the disparity between a rigorous scientific approach, and the prose you have so far given us yourself.

What you're saying is that astronomers have a lot of data that tends to support certain theories. You're also saying that certain observations are repeatable. The same things could be said concerning evidences of God.

It can't possibly be that you claim to have personally checked all the results you believe from astronomy, can it?

Assuming that you have not done this, would you say that you don't believe any results you haven't personally checked? Or, if you do believe certain things you haven't checked, on what basis do you believe?

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician:

I actually thought you'd come to your senses and realised that this little exercise is going nowhere fast. I'm expecting you to slink away at some point. It doesn't bother me.

Oh please, so far every post you've made has had more holes than Emmental. You nearly threw the towel in on the other thread. I'm just waiting for you to abuse your mod powers, to be honest.

I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have about my conception of God. So far, you haven't asked very many. One, in fact, about God's sex.

Ohh, short memory? We've had a few, ... Sex, biology, free will,... none answered adequately.

And that's about all I have had from you so far in this thread, apart from demands that I repeat myself over and over again for your benefit.

This entire thread is for my benefit.

Bear in mind that God, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, is actually beyond the capacity of the human mind to truly comprehend in all His glory.

Interesting point. Elsewhere you've said one cannot disbelieve in something you have no concept of, but now you seem to be saying it's perfectly OK to believe in something you admit you have a very limited understanding of. Care to reconcile these contradictory views?

You can't possibly hope to truly understand the perspective of an omniscient being.

Well, no, and Epicurus rather nailed that one to it's own cross a long time ago:

Besides, God has never, to my knowledge, given anybody a really good description of himself.

Can you actually cite instances where it's happened at all? Where God has appeared to a group, and not that the appearance relies on the testimony of an individual?

There are no proofs in astronomy, outside of the proofs contained in mathematical models used in that field.

No proofs? Nothing is 100%, but that isn't the point, is it. The point is that within experimental accuracy, people following the same experiment will achieve the same results, and derive the same conclusions. Or are you doubting the composition of the Sun, based upon Fraunhofer lines correlated against spectra gathered in the lab?

No astronomical paper ever published has included a proof of anything outside a mathematical model.

So the composition of the Sun is just a mathematical model? We haven't proven the existence of various elements inside stars? Are you really saying that? Abandoning science while playing this silly game of yours now?

What you're saying is that astronomers have a lot of data that tends to support certain theories. You're also saying that certain observations are repeatable. The same things could be said concerning evidences of God.

Please link to an experiment that will lead to the conclusion of God then!

It can't possibly be that you claim to have personally checked all the results you believe from astronomy, can it?

No, just like I bet you haven't checked out the exact biochemistry involved in taking painkillers, or even simply digesting foods. This is a straw man you are stuffing here again James.

 

[James R]

phlogistician:

I'm happy to answer any specific questions you have about my conception of God. So far, you haven't asked very many. One, in fact, about God's sex.

Ohh, short memory? We've had a few, ... Sex, biology, free will,... none answered adequately.

Short, adequate answers:

1. No sex because not biological like a human being, but you can think of him/her/it as a him/her/it.
2. No biology in the sense that it is applied to human beings. No evidence of it, anyway.
3. Free will is an open philosophical question still being actively debated by philosophers today.

This entire thread is for my benefit.

What have you learned so far?

Bear in mind that God, being an omniscient and omnipotent being, is actually beyond the capacity of the human mind to truly comprehend in all His glory.

Interesting point. Elsewhere you've said one cannot disbelieve in something you have no concept of, but now you seem to be saying it's perfectly OK to believe in something you admit you have a very limited understanding of. Care to reconcile these contradictory views?

Sure. For example, I believe in the efficacy of many different drugs, even though I'm not an expert in chemistry and I have no idea how all these different drugs work. All I really need to know is that they have been tested by experts and found to be effective. I trust the medical scientific community to test these things on my behalf. That's not to say that medical science is perfect or that all tested drugs are safe. But I hope you see the point.

Perhaps you disagree, though. I assume you personally perform your own clinical tests on every drug. Do you?

You can't possibly hope to truly understand the perspective of an omniscient being.

Well, no, and Epicurus rather nailed that one to it's own cross a long time ago...

Did he really? Please cite, if you can, the exact writing of Epicurus that your quote is taken from. Because to me it looks a lot like a piece of internet mythology that you've swallowed, hook line and sinker.

Besides, God has never, to my knowledge, given anybody a really good description of himself.

Can you actually cite instances where it's happened at all? Where God has appeared to a group, and not that the appearance relies on the testimony of an individual?

I hear that God appears to groups of Church-goers every Sunday. I assume you personally have never experienced the presence of God. Maybe you're not open to that experience. Church-goers will tell you that they feel and see and sense God's presence everywhere.

There are no proofs in astronomy, outside of the proofs contained in mathematical models used in that field.

No proofs? Nothing is 100%, but that isn't the point, is it. The point is that within experimental accuracy, people following the same experiment will achieve the same results, and derive the same conclusions. Or are you doubting the composition of the Sun, based upon Fraunhofer lines correlated against spectra gathered in the lab?

Well, lots of people go to church every Sunday and perform an experiment with communicating with God. And guess what? They get repeatable, similar results. Or are you doubting this?

So the composition of the Sun is just a mathematical model? We haven't proven the existence of various elements inside stars? Are you really saying that? Abandoning science while playing this silly game of yours now?

I don't remember making any claim that the Sun is just a mathematical model.

We have strong evidence for the existence of various elements in stars, but no proof. I explained this point to you previously.

Please link to an experiment that will lead to the conclusion of God then!

In a sense, every experiment leads to the conclusion of God, because God was the one who created the universe with all its natural laws. The mere observation that the universe behaves rationally and lawfully leads us to the conclusion of God.

Or do you have some better explanation for the regularities we observe?

It can't possibly be that you claim to have personally checked all the results you believe from astronomy, can it?

No, just like I bet you haven't checked out the exact biochemistry involved in taking painkillers, or even simply digesting foods. This is a straw man you are stuffing here again James.

So you agree with me!

You trust people who tell you painkillers are safe (when used properly). You believe in digestion, though that belief might follow from personal observation so that's not saying much. With the painkillers, you basically accept what doctors tell you on faith. Don't you?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Power=work/time. Work=force*distance. In order for there to be a force, an equal and opposite force must be exerted. If in the beginning there was nothing, then there was no opposing force for there to be any resistance to creating the universe. If there was no opposing force then there was no force. If there was no force then there was no work done, as work=force*distance. No work done means no power, as power=work/time. If God created the universe with no power it was powerless, and what good is a powerless God anyway?

I'm an atheist that goes to a Christian church every Sunday.

While I don't believe a God created the universe, or is there a heaven, I do believe that a god can exist in one's brain, and that existence can lead people to live a better life and have positive results in the real world. The god that exists in one's brain is a spiritual being that has enormous psychological power that can be transformed into actions in the real world through one's physical being.

If you want to work on your body you go to a gym.
If you want to work on your spirit you go to a church!

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician:

Short, adequate answers:

1. No sex because not biological like a human being, but you can think of him/her/it as a him/her/it.
2. No biology in the sense that it is applied to human beings. No evidence of it, anyway.
3. Free will is an open philosophical question still being actively debated by philosophers today.

1 and 2, you have to admit, are unsubstantiated claims, and no more. You have to admit your own inability to prove these things, and that you should own up to doubt in them, if you are truly open minded.

3, So we don't agree on Free Will. I don't actually subscribe to the idea, and you could have used that as a get out, had you had the wit.

What have you learned so far?

That you are a shifty.

Perhaps you disagree, though. I assume you personally perform your own clinical tests on every drug. Do you?

Straw man James. Please desist. You know damned well there is scientific rigour behind drug testing, or are you now trying to pull some kind of Solipsist twist on me?

Did he really? Please cite, if you can, the exact writing of Epicurus that your quote is taken from. Because to me it looks a lot like a piece of internet mythology that you've swallowed, hook line and sinker.

It's attributed to Epicurus, and paraphrased in various forms. Doesn't change the sentiment or message, does it? In the same way "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." is mis-attributed to Voltaire, he never actually spoke those words, but the quote is a summary of his attitude.

But on attributed quotes and texts,... can you show me the train of provenance for the religious texts that have lead you to God?

I hear that God appears to groups of Church-goers every Sunday.

Cool, got pictures?

I assume you personally have never experienced the presence of God. Maybe you're not open to that experience. Church-goers will tell you that they feel and see and sense God's presence everywhere.

Weak James. Spiritualists will say they speak to the dead. UFOlogists keep seeing UFOs. We've already disposed of the notion of holding all claims with equal merit, and again, we fall back to 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' (Carl Sagan, but feel free to sling mud at that quote too if you like).

Well, lots of people go to church every Sunday and perform an experiment with communicating with God. And guess what? They get repeatable, similar results. Or are you doubting this?

Yes I am! The simple results they DO NOT agree, and this RESULTS (pun intended) in the Abrahamic schisms proves my point entirely. If there were a shred of truth in it, how come there are many religions? The experiment does not yield consistent results.

I don't remember making any claim that the Sun is just a mathematical model.

ROFL! You are hiding now James. Come out, and stand by your own inferences.

We have strong evidence for the existence of various elements in stars, but no proof. I explained this point to you previously.

It's proven within experimental accuracy. But if you doubt these things sincerely, feel free to doubt gravity, and see if one day you'll float, instead of falling.

In a sense, every experiment leads to the conclusion of God, because God was the one who created the universe with all its natural laws.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim lacking one iota of evidence.

The mere observation that the universe behaves rationally and lawfully leads us to the conclusion of God.

No it does not.

Or do you have some better explanation for the regularities we observe?

Which regularities? The arrow of time is coupled to entropy. You remember entropy? From your science lessons?

you basically accept what doctors tell you on faith. Don't you?

No.

 

[James R]

phlogistician:

1. No sex because not biological like a human being, but you can think of him/her/it as a him/her/it.
2. No biology in the sense that it is applied to human beings. No evidence of it, anyway.
3. Free will is an open philosophical question still being actively debated by philosophers today.

1 and 2, you have to admit, are unsubstantiated claims, and no more.

No. Clearly an omniscient, omnipotent being cannot be confined to a limited biological body. Or, if you think it can, please explain how the omniscience and omnipotence might fit that picture.

3, So we don't agree on Free Will. I don't actually subscribe to the idea, and you could have used that as a get out, had you had the wit.

Your position is unclear. Are you saying you believe free will exists or that you don't believe free will exists? Or is free will one of those things you disbelieve but can't define?

Perhaps you disagree, though. I assume you personally perform your own clinical tests on every drug. Do you?

Straw man James. Please desist. You know damned well there is scientific rigour behind drug testing, or are you now trying to pull some kind of Solipsist twist on me?

You claimed that you believe nothing on faith. Yet you trust scientists who tell you they have tested the efficacy of drugs. Explain to me how that is not a faith position.

But on attributed quotes and texts,... can you show me the train of provenance for the religious texts that have lead you to God?

Again, it's not clear what you're asking. Are you asking me to educate you on the historicity of the bible, for example? Or the sources? Or the writers? Or what? It's a big topic.

I hear that God appears to groups of Church-goers every Sunday.

Cool, got pictures?

I'm sure I can find you pictures of churches and congregations, but what for?

Weak James. Spiritualists will say they speak to the dead. UFOlogists keep seeing UFOs. We've already disposed of the notion of holding all claims with equal merit, and again, we fall back to 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' (Carl Sagan, but feel free to sling mud at that quote too if you like).

Isn't the existence of the universe extraordinary enough for you?

Well, lots of people go to church every Sunday and perform an experiment with communicating with God. And guess what? They get repeatable, similar results. Or are you doubting this?

Yes I am! The simple results they DO NOT agree, and this RESULTS (pun intended) in the Abrahamic schisms proves my point entirely. If there were a shred of truth in it, how come there are many religions? The experiment does not yield consistent results.

Maybe different religions emphasise or interpret aspects of God in different ways. Maybe some religions are just plain wrong. That says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God.

I don't remember making any claim that the Sun is just a mathematical model.

ROFL! You are hiding now James. Come out, and stand by your own inferences.

Laugh it up all you like, but you can't produce an actual quoet from me that the Sun is a mathematical model, or anything that infers that - and you know it.

We have strong evidence for the existence of various elements in stars, but no proof. I explained this point to you previously.

It's proven within experimental accuracy. But if you doubt these things sincerely, feel free to doubt gravity, and see if one day you'll float, instead of falling.

What on earth does "proven within experimental accuracy" mean? Does it mean "not really proven; we just have some evidence"? Like what I said?

In a sense, every experiment leads to the coclusion of God, because God was the one who created the universe with all its natural laws.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim lacking one iota of evidence.

Nothing refutes it.

The mere observation that the universe behaves rationally and lawfully leads us to the conclusion of God.

No it does not.

Let me see. How does it go? Ah, that's right: yet another unsubstantiated claim lacking one iota of evidence.

Or do you have some better explanation for the regularities we observe?

Which regularities?

All of them.

The arrow of time is coupled to entropy. You remember entropy? From your science lessons?

Explain to me how this is not a complete non sequitur.

you basically accept what doctors tell you on faith. Don't you?

No.

So you personally check everything they tell you, do you? Or do you not believe anything they say? Or do you disbelieve them because you can't define medicine?

 

[phlogistician]

OK James, I'll respond to this later, but you really are on your back foot now. You are being shifty and dishonest, and I rather think my point is made. This is, allegedly, a science board, yet you have been brought down to this? Using tactics that you know to be false? Point in question:

Nothing refutes it.

This really is your low point. Nothing refutes the FSM or the Celestial Teapot.

Yet here you are, resorting to that. That point was defeated before you made it, and I think rather, that means so are you.

 

[James R]

OK James, I'll respond to this later, but you really are on your back foot now. You are being shifty and dishonest, and I rather think my point is made.

The whole aim of this thread was for you to prove how all theists are dishonest. And yet, while you have resorted to making vague, unsupported accusations, you haven't nailed me with ONE dishonest statement yet. (Caveat: of course, we accept the up-front dishonesty in that I am playing the part of a theist when I may not actually be one, but we entered into this particular dishonesty with eyes wide open.)

This really is your low point. Nothing refutes the FSM or the Celestial Teapot.

Yet here you are, resorting to that. That point was defeated before you made it, and I think rather, that means so are you.

The probability of Russell's teapot actually existing is minuscule. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is obviously a parody; I'm surprised you take it seriously.

God is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[phlogistician]

The probability of Russell's teapot actually existing is minuscule. And the Flying Spaghetti Monster is obviously a parody; I'm surprised you take it seriously.

I take it as seriously as I take the proposition that is God, ie all are degenerate. Of course, and you you damned well know this, but again are being dishonest, is that it needn't be Teapot. That object can be substituted for anything, demonstrating the fallacy that a proposition has validity because it cannot be disproven, and proving YOU dishonest for saying:

Nothing refutes it.

But you got caught out using a fallacy. You of course knew it was a fallacy when you posted it. That is dishonest.

God is a whole different kettle of fish.

I hope this is merely a kettle/teapot pun, because if it's anything more, it's a re-iteration the fallacy, and shame on you.

 

[James R]

I take it as seriously as I take the proposition that is God, ie all are degenerate.

What on earth does that mean? You think all gods are the same? Or all gods are immoral? Or all gods are as likely to exist as one another?

Three possibilities, at least, and all of them wildly wrong.

Of course, and you you damned well know this, but again are being dishonest, is that it needn't be Teapot. That object can be substituted for anything, demonstrating the fallacy that a proposition has validity because it cannot be disproven, and proving YOU dishonest for saying:

Suppose I substitute the teapot for an asteroid, so that I claim there is an asteroid orbiting the Sun.

Is it really your claim that such a theory can be dismissed out of hand?

But you got caught out using a fallacy. You of course knew it was a fallacy when you posted it. That is dishonest.

What fallacy? Unsupported claims are worthless.

I hope this is merely a kettle/teapot pun, because if it's anything more, it's a re-iteration the fallacy, and shame on you.

What fallacy? And yes, it was also a pun. See how clever I am?

 

[phlogistician]

What on earth does that mean? You think all gods are the same? Or all gods are immoral? Or all gods are as likely to exist as one another?

Yes, depends if it is claimed they are omnipotent then yes, and yes.

Three possibilities, at least, and all of them wildly wrong.

This should be funny, go on then, why am I wrong to think this way?

Suppose I substitute the teapot for an asteroid, so that I claim there is an asteroid orbiting the Sun.

Wow, you managed to find one thing that might actually be a valid substitution,... but that isn't the point, is it? The point is that you are not right just because you cannot be proven wrong. YOU would have to show us that asteroid. Not that we are talking about asteroids anyway. We have observed asteroids, collided objects into them, we monitor them, hardly the point Russell was making, and yet again, you are being rather dishonest, because you know the crux of the issue, but are trying diversionary tactics.

You aren't off the hook wrt Epicurus yet either. How do you answer the critique?

 

[James R]

Yes, depends if it is claimed they are omnipotent then yes, and yes.

So the Great Green Arkleseizure is as likely to exist as Allah, in your opinion?

Wow, you managed to find one thing that might actually be a valid substitution,... but that isn't the point, is it? The point is that you are not right just because you cannot be proven wrong. YOU would have to show us that asteroid.

We were discussing probabilities. Remember?

You aren't off the hook wrt Epicurus yet either. How do you answer the critique?

I disagree that if God is able but unwilling to prevent evil then he is necessarily malevolent.

 

[phlogistician]

So the Great Green Arkleseizure is as likely to exist as Allah, in your opinion?

Equally unlikely

We were discussing probabilities. Remember?

Yeah, and you'd need to beef up the description of that Asteroid, and give some precise co-ordinates. Being vague doesn't add credibility.

I disagree that if God is able but unwilling to prevent evil then he is necessarily malevolent.

So your God is malevolent.

 

[James R]

So your God is malevolent.

If you want an answer to a question, ask it!

"Is your God malevolent?"
Answer: "No!"

 

[phlogistician]

Sorry James, Epicurus says your God is malevolent. I side with Epicurus, the logic is faultless. The fact you disagree matters not, it's just you being obstinate.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sorry James, Epicurus says your God is malevolent. I side with Epicurus, the logic is faultless. The fact you disagree matters not, it's just you being obstinate.

And Epicurus is who?
The final authority on defining god?

:shrug:

 

[phlogistician]

And Epicurus is who?
The final authority on defining god?

:shrug:

Try falsifying his statement, rather than doubting the man himself. Typical dishonest theist tactics, yet again, from you.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Try falsifying his statement, rather than doubting the man himself. Typical dishonest theist tactics, yet again, from you.

i will say it again..stick with debating science..your not that good at debating God.

 

[scifes]

Try falsifying his statement, rather than doubting the man himself. Typical dishonest theist tactics, yet again, from you.

1-not stopping evil can result in good. especially in the absence of foresight, inherent of humans.
simple example; by a kid's logic, a shot is pure evil, so are vegetables. but the parent is not malevolent for not stopping said evil upon their children.

2-there is no "evil" per se, a women being raped is evil for the raped women, but the rapist being caught is evil for the rapist.

athiests' philosophical paradoxes regarding god are almost always built upon their own misuse of logic. Epicurus's is most elemental.

sorry phlog, james whooped your ass in this thread, go fish somewhere else.

 

[NMSquirrel]

sorry phlog, james whooped your ass in this thread, go fish somewhere else.

thank you..
i said so also..but no-one else did..
so we got two votes for JamesR..