For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.

[James R]

phlogisitician:

Just look at this thread! I asked for a description of your God.

And I gave you one. Is there anything else you'd like to know about him?

Right now, you have a question to post ratio of about 1:100. Can't we speed things up a bit? How about a list of, say, 10 questions you have?

You claimed to have drawn upon many sources to arrive at your conclusions, yet when pushed for your most recent definition, I get two sentences WITHOUT supporting reasoning. That's it? Two sentences?

Plus the 299 other posts in this thread expanding on that answer and the answers to your two other previous questions. Have you forgotten those?

]

"God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. He is omniscient and omnipotent."

'Supernatural',... well, you know that excludes proof, and that it's just a faith based proposition, yet you utterly fail to admit reasonable doubt.

There's no proof in science, either, so we needn't worry too much about a lack of absolute proof.

Unlike you, I am happy to admit to reasonable doubt. You're the one claiming certainty here, aren't you?

Omniscience and omnipotence. The 'all powerful' part of your first sentence is a tautology considering you say 'omnipotent' later. I guess you have to little to feel the need to pad out the description!

I guess so. It's a good thing I did, seeing as you don't seem to be able to remember it for more than a few seconds at a time, judging by your endless requests for me to repeat it.

So, 15 pages in, and the BEST you have so far come up with, is two sentences, and it's padded at that.

No. You also asked two other questions, if I recall correctly. And in amongst the 300 posts, I answered those ones too. Read back if you're interested.

Anything else?

But thankyou for that, because your attitude has proven to be you cannot support your claims honestly.

So you best you can do is to say my attitude is dishonest? Really?

That is, you can't point to any actual examples of where I've knowingly told a lie, which would be the usual definition of dishonesty.

What, exactly, does it mean to have a dishonest attitude? That's quite a novel concept. Please explain it for me.

But anyway, just for laughs, let's hear you justify the few claims you have made, wrt omniscience, and omnipotence, given you have said God is supernatural and therefore you cannot have evidence for such.

Obviously, a proof of omniscience or omnipotence is impossible. I don't have the resources to verify such things; to have them I'd need to be omnipotent and/or omniscient myself.

However...

Look around you at the big wide wonderful universe you inhabit. The God who created all that must have been damn powerful, if not actually omnopotent, wouldn't you say?

And to observe the whole universe at once requires quite good eyesight, wouldn't you say?

 

[phlogistician]

You're the one claiming certainty here, aren't you?

James. Stop with this tiresome bullshit. I'm not making ANY claim whatsoever.

 

[phlogistician]

phlogisitician:



And I gave you one. Is there anything else you'd like to know about him?

You gave me two sentences. One contained a tautology. You think that is 'job done'? It was lazy. In fact, you were so lazy in your initial post you adopted patriarchal stereotyping and used the term 'He'.

Right now, you have a question to post ratio of about 1:100. Can't we speed things up a bit? How about a list of, say, 10 questions you have?

When confronted with the Epicurean questions, you started getting a bit uppity James. Clearly, you don't have answers for all the questions already asked, yet you want more? How about we just concentrate on the one question I asked, and for you to define your God. Two sentences isn't enough, I expect a small essay at the very least.

Plus the 299 other posts in this thread expanding on that answer and the answers to your two other previous questions. Have you forgotten those?

Unsatisfactory answers. Hand waving. Obfuscation. Not making you look honest.

There's no proof in science, either, so we needn't worry too much about a lack of absolute proof.

Already dispensed with. That doesn't boil all propositions down to being faith based, and mean all propositions are equal. Shame on you.

Unlike you, I am happy to admit to reasonable doubt. You're the one claiming certainty here, aren't you?

There was no doubt expressed in your definition. Such as starting with 'I feel', or 'The folllowing things have led me to believe'.

I guess so. It's a good thing I did, seeing as you don't seem to be able to remember it for more than a few seconds at a time, judging by your endless requests for me to repeat it.

You got caught out. Take it on the chin and move on. A lazy two sentences with a tautology, because you are so arrogant you think you can be so slack and still make your case. You cannot.

No. You also asked two other questions, if I recall correctly. And in amongst the 300 posts, I answered those ones too. Read back if you're interested.

300 posts of others chiming in and diversions. I;ve had very little of substance from you.

So you best you can do is to say my attitude is dishonest? Really?

Yes. You have a lazy two sentence description, and then lots of backpeddling arrogance, appeals to authority and so on. I expected better.

That is, you can't point to any actual examples of where I've knowingly told a lie, which would be the usual definition of dishonesty.

Er, yes, you saying 'God is supernatural' You cannot know that, so stating it without qualification is telling lies.

Obviously, a proof of omniscience or omnipotence is impossible. I don't have the resources to verify such things; to have them I'd need to be omnipotent and/or omniscient myself.

Would you? Seems you are now hiding in that gap alongside your God.

Look around you at the big wide wonderful universe you inhabit. The God who created all that must have been damn powerful, if not actually omnopotent, wouldn't you say?

No I wouldn't say that.

And to observe the whole universe at once requires quite good eyesight, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't say that.

 

[James R]

phlogisitician:

In fact, you were so lazy in your initial post you adopted patriarchal stereotyping and used the term 'He'.

What would you prefer? We have to use some pronoun. Do you think "it" is more appropriate than "he"? If so, explain why.

When confronted with the Epicurean questions, you started getting a bit uppity James.

You've been uppity all through this thread, including in your latest reply, so don't bother talking to me about uppity.

Moreover, I answered the Epicurean question earlier in the thread. Don't you remember?

How about we just concentrate on the one question I asked, and for you to define your God. Two sentences isn't enough, I expect a small essay at the very least.

See below for more on this.

There's no proof in science, either, so we needn't worry too much about a lack of absolute proof.

Already dispensed with. That doesn't boil all propositions down to being faith based, and mean all propositions are equal. Shame on you.

You're attempting to erect a straw man. I never made those arguments, and you know it. Shame on you.

There was no doubt expressed in your definition. Such as starting with 'I feel', or 'The folllowing things have led me to believe'.

When have you ever expressed doubt in your claim that there are no gods?

Go on, show me your doubt.

Er, yes, you saying 'God is supernatural' You cannot know that, so stating it without qualification is telling lies.

Nonsense. Of course I can know that. More on this later.

No I wouldn't say that. [times 2]

Merely expressing your disagreement is fairly pointless. You have pointed out no flaws in my claims. I already know you disagree. But it seems you have no rational basis on which you disagree. Which says a lot about how dogmatic your stance is, and how unreasoned.

 

[James R]

Er, yes, you saying 'God is supernatural' You cannot know that, so stating it without qualification is telling lies.

A brief search of common definition of God on the internet reveals a number of definitions that I am happy to go with. In particular, by definition God is supernatural.

For example:

God:

1. a Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force
3. the Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
4. the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
5. the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
6. a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

---

God, as creator of nature, is by definition supernatural.

 

[phlogistician]

God, as creator of nature, is by definition supernatural.

God is supernatural because mortals that compiled a dictionary say so?

Is that an appeal to authority? Is it just more laziness that you refer me to a dictionary? I'm pretty sure I asked you to define _your_ God. Especially when you made the grandiose claim (emphasis mine):

I first heard of the concept of God in a Christian context. Since then, I have expanded on and generalised that concept with reference to other religious traditions and philosophical ideas. There's rather an extensive body of thought available concerning God. I don't pretend to be across even a small part of it all, but I've absorbed enough to understand how a lot of people have conceived of and understand God, and I have come to form my own conceptions based on that.

And the best you have, after all of these pages, and several weeks thought, is to defer to a dictionary?

Utterly weak.

 

[phlogistician]

When have you ever expressed doubt in your claim that there are no gods?

I never claimed there are no gods, and yet again you are caught being dishonest saying I have said that. Quote me if you can,.... you can't. All I have ever said is I lack faith. Period. But thankyou, you have proven yourself dishonest time over by bashing the same tired old drum of lies.

So, unless you can quote me and show where I have made such a statement, I am going to claim victory that you have had to rely on dishonesty in this thread.

 

[James R]

phlogistician:

God is supernatural because mortals that compiled a dictionary say so?

No.

There is general agreement among people that God is supernatural. And that agreement is reflected in various dictionary definitions.

If you have any evidence or basis for arguing that God is not supernatural, feel free to present it.

Is that an appeal to authority?

No. It's a definition. If you can find any dictionary that claims God is natural, I might start to take you seriously.

I'm pretty sure I asked you to define _your_ God.

What did you not understand when I wrote that the definitions I quoted correspond to my personal definitions?

Especially when you made the grandiose claim (emphasis mine):

I'm flattered that you find my personal opinions to be grand.

And the best you have, after all of these pages, and several weeks thought, is to defer to a dictionary?

Utterly weak.

If you have any questions, please ask them.

I never claimed there are no gods, and yet again you are caught being dishonest saying I have said that. Quote me if you can,.... you can't. All I have ever said is I lack faith. Period.

I recall you repeatedly stating that you lack belief in gods - not simply that you lack faith.

Not that you're in any position to form a belief either way, given you're apparently incapable of defining the term "god" in any way, by your own admission.

But let's see. Now you're changing your tune and saying that there might be gods, even though you lack a belief that there are gods? Is that correct?

But thankyou, you have proven yourself dishonest time over by bashing the same tired old drum of lies.

If I had lied about anything, you would be able to quote the lie and reference the post where the lie appeared. But you can't.

 

[phlogistician]

James, quote me or die.

You said

your claim that there are no gods?

I NEVER made that claim. So unless you can find a quote to back this up, I'm calling you out as a liar. You then have failed to make the case of an honest theist, resorting to lies to make your point. Your next post on this matter had better be that quote or an apology.

 

[Search & Destroy]

Then you need to read up on Ariely's work:

We're All Predictably Irrational

The Upside of Irrationality: The Unexpected Benefits of Defying Logic at Work and at Home

Predictably Irrational, Revised and Expanded Edition: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions

Thanks for the links!

 

[Ophiolite]

Background: I have frequently agreed with Phlogistician's position in diverse threads over several years. IIRC we have tag teamed against creationists and nutters from time to time.
My interfacing with James has been more heated. I believe I have directed several ad homs at him and criticised his actions as a member and a moderator.

However, in this thread Phlog is behaving like an ignorant, self indulgent, intellectually stunted spolt child with all the charm of fresh turd and all the logic of squashed wallaby.

Phlog, it is frigging obvious that in Western society, until very recently the male gender was the default one, especially as far as God was concerned. To accuse James of changing his mind on this matter means one of two things: either you are being as thick as retarded bullfrog with Alzeihmers, or you are being deliberately obtuse. The first merits pity, the second is deserving of robust condemnation.

Now fucking grow up or more than I will lose respect for you that took years to build.

 

[phlogistician]

Phlog, it is frigging obvious that in Western society, until very recently the male gender was the default one,

It's a bit more than that though isn't it?

James was supposed to be giving me his definition of God. He said God was a 'He', I questioned that, and he changed his mind and said God was genderless. This means his initial post was rather lazy and ill thought out.

He knew I was going to pick the bones, that was the entire point of this thread. He was lazy, because he's arrogant, and thinks doing half a job enough to vanquish me.

Given he only gave me 19 words in his initial definition too, those few words should have been chosen better. There was redundancy too, and that redundancy also shows he didn't really think it through.

 

[James R]

phlogisitican:

You said

your claim that there are no gods?

What was the rest of what I said? This looks like quote mining.

I NEVER made that claim. So unless you can find a quote to back this up, I'm calling you out as a liar.

We can clear this up right here.

Are you now saying that gods exist? Yes or no?
Are you now saying that gods might exist? Yes or no?

You seem to avoid direct questions, so it's difficult to know where you stand on these issues. Hopefully, you can answer this time.

James was supposed to be giving me his definition of God.

And I gave you 6 or 7 more just a few posts ago.

He said God was a 'He', I questioned that, and he changed his mind and said God was genderless.

No. It appears you're trying dishonestly to re-write history. You may be able to bullshit some people who came to this thread late, but you're certainly not going to bullshit me about what I wrote and what I didn't change my mind about.

Resorting to lies is a sure sign you're losing something. Wouldn't you say?

Given he only gave me 19 words in his initial definition too, those few words should have been chosen better. There was redundancy too, and that redundancy also shows he didn't really think it through.

It's sure kept you busy for 300 posts. And you haven't found any dishonesty yet.

I would have thought you'd have more than 3 questions about God. I would have thought you could do a lot better than this in attempting to catch me out in a lie. Instead, what do we get? Just page after repetitious page of a strained attempt to rewrite history.

 

[phlogistician]

James. Quit stalling. I have caught you out in a downright lie. I will not fall for diversion or obfuscation. I insist you back up your claim I have said there are no gods. INSIST. Get it? One last chance, don't blow it.

 

[James R]

I didn't think you'd answer simple yes/no questions put to you, phlogistician.

Wiggle wiggle, squirm squirm phlogistician.

It looks like this thread has been turned on its head. We have phlogisitician the dishonest athiest.

 

[Search & Destroy]

Ten points Sir!

No, zero points for me.

As I agree with Wittgenstein (pg 79 / Philosophical Investigations 3rd edition)

"When we do philosophy we are like savages, primitive people, who hear the expressions of civilized men, put a false interpretation on them, and then draw the queerest conclusions from it."

That's really all I did. I showed that in some ways, and in some specific philosophy I can say theists are dishonest. But I can't say that in plain English.

 

[James R]

phlogisitician:

I found the source of the quote from me that you are referring to. It's in post #304:

phlogistician: There was no doubt expressed in your definition. Such as starting with 'I feel', or 'The folllowing things have led me to believe'.

James R: When have you ever expressed doubt in your claim that there are no gods? Go on, show me your doubt.

---
I repeat: show me your doubt! Can you, or can't you, answer the following simple questions honestly?

1. Are you now saying that gods exist? Yes or no?
2. Are you now saying that gods might exist? Yes or no?

Obviously, if you avoid answering these questions, or if both answers are "no" then your claim must surely be that no gods exist.

 

[phlogistician]

OK James, you blew it. You cannot support your assertion that I made a claim that there are no gods.

All you had to do was argue honestly, but you couldn't do that. You had to resort to lies.

 

[James R]

I repeat: show me your doubt! Can you, or can't you, answer the following simple questions honestly?

1. Are you now saying that gods exist? Yes or no?
2. Are you now saying that gods might exist? Yes or no?

....

[A tumbleweed blows in the wind. Somewhere, a pin drops.]

In other words: no, phlogistician can't answer two simple questions honestly.

Ho hum.

OK James, you blew it. You cannot support your assertion that I made a claim that there are no gods.

As I said in my previous post, by failing to answer those two questions, you nailed your own coffin. Nothing more needs to be said.

All you had to do was argue honestly, but you couldn't do that. You had to resort to lies.

If I had lied anywhere in this thread, you would be able to quoet the relevant post and demonstrate the lie. But you can't.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

A brief search of common definition of God on the internet reveals a number of definitions that I am happy to go with. In particular, by definition God is supernatural.

For example:

God:

1. a Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. a supernatural being, who is worshipped as the controller of some part of the universe or some aspect of life in the world or is the personification of some force
3. the Supreme Being, eternal, spiritual, and transcendent, who is the Creator and ruler of all and is infinite in all attributes; the object of worship in monotheistic religions
4. the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
5. the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
6. a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

---

God, as creator of nature, is by definition supernatural.

Now I see why Rock Stars are Gods . That explains everything James . They fit the description. Mainly the last one . " Controlling a particular aspect or part of reality . O.K. I got a question ? Is imagination part of reality . Are Yarns and stories part of reality ? I don't mean buzzard Men with dicks growing out were there nose should be . I mean the motivation of imagination that causes actions . Is that part of reality ? Even if it involves future events imagined in the present . Is that a real power and is it reality.
Is it yet to be seen ? What if many people dream the same thing ? Is it reality then ? I know what the pessimist would say ,don't count any those chickens . Once it is reality does the imagination that happened in the beginning become reality at that point ? Was it reality all the time ?