God is like Dark Matter, or Dark Energy. One's intellect perceives an apparent effect of an Entity, but one does not have (and may never have) the full faculties (of perception) and evidence to describe it with much objective certainty (read concensus). In that vein, this life is short: one then has to put to full use whatever faculties are available given the potentially life changing stakes involved - among those faculties is faith. Faith that one is doing the best with their available faculties, in their belief in God. In the end, there's either God, nothing, or whatever else is predicted by some belief that one did not subscribe to. :shrug:
For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.
- Thread starter phlogistician
- Start date
phlogistician:
My opinion never changed.
You asked me the widest possible question about God. Specifically, you asked:
"Could you describe your God to me please?"
That's rather like asking "Can you describe astronomy to me please?". Suppose I ask you that question. You answer and then I start complaining that you didn't specifically say that astronomy includes the study of black holes, therefore you implied that black holes are not part of astronomy. I take you to task for "changing your story" when you are forced to admit that, in fact, astronomers do study black holes sometimes.
I had to start somewhere. How many words did you think I should write? A million? 8000? I wrote a hundred or so.
If you have some specific questions, I'm very happy to answer them. But if you ask general questions you can't complain that I answer them in general terms.
It is not the most important feature of God that he is neither male nor female, so I left out that specific detail in my initial hundred words. I put in a few matters that are just a tad more important, such as that God is omnipotent and omniscient and is Creator of the universe.
Ok. If you can't understand the original...
God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. God is omniscient and omnipotent.
Do you think it is impossible to be honest and wrong simultaneously? Suppose that for whatever reason I think your car is blue when it is in fact red. Maybe somebody told me you own a blue car. Maybe you described the approximate location of your car in a parking lot, I went and had a look, and mistook a similar-model blue car for your red car, which was parked nearby.
Whatever the reason, I have a belief that you own a blue car. Is that an honest belief or a dishonest belief, in your opinion? If you think it's dishonest of me to believe you own a blue car, you need to tell me where the dishonesty comes into it.
Being wrong is not the same as being dishonest. I'm truly surprised that you seem unable to distinguish between the two.
My opinion never changed.
You asked me the widest possible question about God. Specifically, you asked:
"Could you describe your God to me please?"
That's rather like asking "Can you describe astronomy to me please?". Suppose I ask you that question. You answer and then I start complaining that you didn't specifically say that astronomy includes the study of black holes, therefore you implied that black holes are not part of astronomy. I take you to task for "changing your story" when you are forced to admit that, in fact, astronomers do study black holes sometimes.
I had to start somewhere. How many words did you think I should write? A million? 8000? I wrote a hundred or so.
If you have some specific questions, I'm very happy to answer them. But if you ask general questions you can't complain that I answer them in general terms.
It is not the most important feature of God that he is neither male nor female, so I left out that specific detail in my initial hundred words. I put in a few matters that are just a tad more important, such as that God is omnipotent and omniscient and is Creator of the universe.
Ok. If you can't understand the original...
God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. God is omniscient and omnipotent.
Do you think it is impossible to be honest and wrong simultaneously? Suppose that for whatever reason I think your car is blue when it is in fact red. Maybe somebody told me you own a blue car. Maybe you described the approximate location of your car in a parking lot, I went and had a look, and mistook a similar-model blue car for your red car, which was parked nearby.
Whatever the reason, I have a belief that you own a blue car. Is that an honest belief or a dishonest belief, in your opinion? If you think it's dishonest of me to believe you own a blue car, you need to tell me where the dishonesty comes into it.
Being wrong is not the same as being dishonest. I'm truly surprised that you seem unable to distinguish between the two.
Honest theists do not exist, because they exclude all possibilities except their own believes.
What? All of them? You're as bad as phlogistician.
Have you considered the possibility that some theists have considered a range of other possibilities and honestly come to the conclusion that God is the best explanation?
I thought God is everywhere? I mean that's what most Christians have been preaching anyway.
unlike "honest" atheists I take it .....
Yes it did. First you were guilty of anthropomorphising God and fitting this concept into a patriarchal world view. When questioned, you backpeddled.
I note you haven't added your explanation of your gender re-assignment to your new definition. That needs to be added, as it's now an additional claim you have made about God. Please note all claims are cumulative and must also be added to your initial description, so we do not have to reference several posts.
Please restate your position, including all claims you have thus far made.
so do i. but i also think that you place very strict limits on justification based on your beliefs. would you agree with that?
people are dishonest, to varying degrees, and it seems to me as if people are dishonest about religion for the same reason they're dishonest about anything else. some fucked up human nature. all of us are conditioned by lies. i think that's why i damn near lost my mind when i had that odd spiritual experience.
would you consider our discussions here on sciforums as having met?
i may not be able to justify everything i've experienced in scientific terms and i may not have a crystal ball to tell you everything it means, but i sure as hell will tell you the truth to the best of my ability, even if it sounds batshit crazy to you. even if it does to me. because after what i've experienced with god, i would have to be batshit crazy to ever lie about it. the scripture calls it the fear of god, but imo it's just an honest interpretation of what i'm dealing with.
'beliefs' no, experience, yes. Experience has told me it's worthwhile questioning everything I have been told, 'cos I was sure fed a lot of horse crap as a kid.
I agree, in fact, Religion is a tool used by people to dishonestly gain power. People don't necessarily like being told what to do by other people. Instead, if the message comes from the 'man upstairs', well, enough people are superstitious enough to buy that, and fall in line. Some so much they'll chop parts off their penis. Now that was an amazing bit of bullying, by a mortal pretending to speak for God.
I agree too. I guess when we are young, we need to trust people with more experience than us 'Don't eat that, it's poisonous', well test that at your peril,... etc. But as we get older, some of the things we were told, we were told just to keep us inline, ... tales of the BoogeyMan. We need to question what we have been told, and realise which parts were just for convenience, to save justification, and fallacious, and which were true.
No, if we met I'd use some informal hypnosis games to fuck with your head a bit, and and hopefully change your perspective a little. I would of course divulge the methods, it would only be fair, but once you realised how easy it is to do, well, like I said, it should change your outlook.
I can honestly say I've heard a compelling argument for God.
That said, I can't understand why those that believe are satisfied with the answers they gave me.
If you're not going to do me the courtesy of responding to the entire content of my replies, I see little point in continuing this discussion. I am inclined at this point to write you off as an ill-mannered pedant who has no real desire to participate in honest debate. You can pull out now if you want to wimp out of your initial claim that you could show dishonesty on my part.
If you can't keep track of the claims that have been made, that's your problem, not mine. I'll humour you in this post only. After this one, you'll have to keep your own records and put a little effort in.
So far, you're doing an appalling job of proving me to be dishonest in this discussion.
What's the matter with you? Ok. Here are all the claims I have made about God so far:
James R said:
And here are the optional claims that you haven't decided whether you want included in the current discussion:
James R said:
me too. you believe what you do because of your experience. is that scientific? are you holding yourself to the same standards of justification that you hold me to?
are you talking about circumcision?
that sounds fun (if i trust you that is), but i don't understand why you would think that would change my outlook all that much. would you explain?
Last edited:
I knew you'd cop out James.
What planet are you on, phlogistician? I have done exactly as you asked and reposted all the claims I made previously about God.
I knew you'd cop out, phlogistician. What a poor effort!
I assume you now retract your claim that there are no honest thiests. I win by your default.
I knew you'd cop out, phlogistician. What a poor effort!
I assume you now retract your claim that there are no honest thiests. I win by your default.
Experiences, re-examined logically, and scientifically. I've had some headfuck moments, I really have. Examined with a clear head later though, I got beyond the adrenalin and confusion.
The latter part I think you mean to ask am I hold others to my standards? Well yes. Everyone has the option to question things.
Yes, but more importantly, doing it for no medical reason.
Simple parlour games, but what it should make you wonder, is that if these work on you, what else does?
No James. The conditions of this debate are that you will re-frame your definition each and every time you change you mind. Play by the rules, or don't play and cop out. You aren't humouring me, these are the conditions of the debate.
But I think you see where I am going with this. Within two questions I've got you to revise your claim. You know you are going to have to keep restating it, with addendums, and want to hide that in the trail.
Sorry, that isn't going to happen. When we're done, we're going to contrast your final statement with your first, in their entirety. Unless you are resigning.
It's not a discussion between you and I btw. It's a question and answer session. I ask the questions, and you answer them. That's all.
i worded that wrong. sorry, i edited it. i mean do you hold yourself to the same standards? i mean, nothing you've said here is really scientific, or is it? aren't we really our own scientist when it comes to learning from experience? many times when i've spoken with you i've gotten the impression that in order to have any credibility, benefit of the the doubt, not to be entirely dismissed, even to the point of being called insane, i would have had to have a team of scientists following me around observing and measuring me for my entire life.
and that's not reasonable.
you're not circumcised?
wow. i've only seen one uncircumcised penis in my whole life. he was scottish i think, and in the british navy. aren't you british? you've never been enlisted have you? hahaha...i was going to make the same point to you.
I haven't changed my mind so far, but if it happens I'll be sure to let you know. See my above re-post of all my claims, which are identical to the first time they were posted. None of the statements there are inconsistent.
I like it, by the way, how you get to set all the terms of the debate. It's like you're in control. You're so big and powerful. I'm almost afraid of you.
You're humouring me. I thought you'd fire questions at me and try to catch me out in an inconsistency or - and this was the original aim, wasn't it - a dishonesty.
But instead, you're waffling on about the terms of the debate - how it will all be conducted according to your whims and that any deviation will result in your pulling the plug.
You know what I think? I think you're on some kind of deluded power trip. Or you're actually afraid to debate the issue that you raised in the first place. Probably because you're afraid you actually can't substantiate your original expansive claim about the dishonesty of theists, and you feel it's better to wimp out than to continue and end up being shown up.
I haven't revised. I clarified when you asked me a specific question.
Look, would it be easier for you if I dropped my claim that God is neither male nor female? If you like, I can argue on the basis that God is male. That's if you require that to prove my supposed dishonesty.
Maybe we ought to make this a Formal Debate in the Formal Debates forum. In that case, rather that you inventing rules as we go along, we can establish all the ground rules in advance and - like - mutually agree on what the ground rules are, like civilised people. That way, we can avoid your self-appointed Emperor complex.
Sounds like another rule you imposed after the fact.