For the Creationists

[lightgigantic]

Direct perception.

And SnakeLord, it was from a different thread from a few months back. I'll try and find it for you if I can.

I am yet to hear of the claims of direct perception from atheists, so please divulge

 

[ashura]

I am yet to hear of the claims of direct perception from atheists, so please divulge

Heh, my mistake. Hinduism and Islam then. But really the religion should be irrelevant.

And I'd also like to hear what your view would have been if I had said "theoretical counterpart."

 

[SnakeLord]

there are good reasons why driving a vehicle and intoxication are not recommended - similar principles hold up in philosophical discussions

I see. The fortunate thing is that I will still be able to read exactly what you have written when all that alcohol has found it's way out of my system. So please, don't let some crushed grapes stop you.. continue..

How much have you been drinking and for how long now?

You know, I'm one of these perhaps old fashioned Englishmen that believes that manners means someone will answer a question before asking one of their own. Clearly it doesn't suit everyone but please, indulge me. Your gods would surely encourage it? By morning I shall be purely sober, your post will either be inspiring or horseshit regardless. This isn't a chatroom, your crap stays.

So, to repeat myself: "Could you kindly show me exactly where this was said - Namely the "ok yes I have perception of god"? (and kindly add a 'direct')"

Thank you lg.

if you accept empiricism as the ultimate authority in determining the nature of reality there is no scope for discussing this topic

Wait, that isn't of relevance. Tell me how 1 entity can occupy nothingness better than 2.

Thank you lg.

in the sense that the sunlight is nothing but the sun

The sunlight is not EVERYTHING, (emphasis yours). So you're saying that god also is not EVERYTHING, (emphasis yours)?

once again, problems with your knowledge base

Ok then. So how about you add to that knowledge base and explain it to me? That is certainly better than answering absolutely nothing.

 

[Enterprise-D]

in the sense that the sunlight is nothing but the sun

...

once again, problems with your knowledge base

I am yet to hear of the claims of direct perception from atheists, so please divulge

LG, Saquist...all of this (and similar answers) are what folks with an investigative career would call red herrings. It is what the french would call a few "bon mots" and what Will Truman would call a "canarrrrd".

Saquist has made a claim, which you support. A claim based on logic (so you maintain) where, not only god exists, but only ONE can exist. (bearing in mind that LG has stated in other threads that "lesser" gods exist, but let's just pretend I hadn't pointed that out).

Our knowledge base and direct perceptions are IRRELEVANT to us asking you to even step through the logic of what you are supporting. We have all asked questions that provide "reasonable doubt" on your claims, yet you both continually try to derail the conversation by basically saying that our questions are our own fault for not subscribing to your beliefs. You assert that this non-subscription is enough for you guys not answering our questions. You constantly evade the loopholes that we expose with pseudo-philosophical, zero-value, claptrap.

Do you understand then LG that we cannot then, as logical thinking people, accept any of your claims as anything but flights of fantasy?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

there are good reasons why driving a vehicle and intoxication are not recommended - similar principles hold up in philosophical discussions
”
I see. The fortunate thing is that I will still be able to read exactly what you have written when all that alcohol has found it's way out of my system.

provided you still have the faculty of recollection

“
How much have you been drinking and for how long now?
”
You know, I'm one of these perhaps old fashioned Englishmen that believes that manners means someone will answer a question before asking one of their own.

I understand, therefore I request that you pay attention rather than making repeat requests that have already been addressed

Clearly it doesn't suit everyone but please, indulge me. Your gods would surely encourage it? By morning I shall be purely sober, your post will either be inspiring or horseshit regardless. This isn't a chatroom, your crap stays.

So, to repeat myself: "Could you kindly show me exactly where this was said - Namely the "ok yes I have perception of god"? (and kindly add a 'direct')"

Thank you lg.

somewhere in and around this vicinity

I guess we have two options here
the long option - you go over rehashed ideas that you can't seem to recall and find out that i said yes

the short option - for the sake of argument, assume i said no, and you explain how a lack of direct perception on my behalf makes my presentations on the subject valueless, since most secondary science teachers also teach things at school that they have no direct perception of either (and their lessons are not perceived of as valueless)

“
if you accept empiricism as the ultimate authority in determining the nature of reality there is no scope for discussing this topic
”
Wait, that isn't of relevance. Tell me how 1 entity can occupy nothingness better than 2.

Thank you lg.

the issue is that you think "somethingness" is ultimately materially reducible, hence my statement ....

"if you accept empiricism as the ultimate authority in determining the nature of reality there is no scope for discussing this topic"

(are you sober?)

“
in the sense that the sunlight is nothing but the sun
”
The sunlight is not EVERYTHING, (emphasis yours). So you're saying that god also is not EVERYTHING, (emphasis yours)?

therefore I said that god is everything, and used the relationship between the sunlight and the sun as an analogy (I didn't say that the sun was everything - I guess I took it for granted that you understood the principles that analogies operate on)

“
once again, problems with your knowledge base
”
Ok then. So how about you add to that knowledge base and explain it to me? That is certainly better than answering absolutely nothing.

to begin with, these are the inherent limitations with empiricism

---imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
--- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
----a cheating propensity ... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc

 

[lightgigantic]

LG, Saquist...all of this (and similar answers) are what folks with an investigative career would call red herrings. It is what the french would call a few "bon mots" and what Will Truman would call a "canarrrrd".

Saquist has made a claim, which you support. A claim based on logic (so you maintain) where, not only god exists, but only ONE can exist. (bearing in mind that LG has stated in other threads that "lesser" gods exist, but let's just pretend I hadn't pointed that out).

in one sense we are also lesser gods - doesn't mean we created the universe

Our knowledge base and direct perceptions are IRRELEVANT to us asking you to even step through the logic of what you are supporting.

provided you don't switch tactics midway and hanker for "evidence" when you use "logic" as your departure point

We have all asked questions that provide "reasonable doubt" on your claims,
yet you both continually try to derail the conversation by basically saying that our questions are our own fault for not subscribing to your beliefs.

actually I say there is a distinction between meeting challenges of logic and challenges of truth

You assert that this non-subscription is enough for you guys not answering our questions. You constantly evade the loopholes that we expose with pseudo-philosophical, zero-value, claptrap.

Do you understand then LG that we cannot then, as logical thinking people, accept any of your claims as anything but flights of fantasy?

if you want to discuss the logic of it (that time/space is contingent on god) one doesn't require evidence for it (in other words you have to temporarily work outside of your belief that empiricism is the foundation for determining reality)

if you want to discuss the truth of it (how one can determine the nature of god's existence in relation to his potencies) one doesn't require logic (in other words you have to temporarily work outside of your belief that your knowledge base, aka empiricism, is sufficient, and instead examine the process advocated that grants qualification)

anything less than this is outside of the realm of intelligent discussion

 

[lightgigantic]

Heh, my mistake. Hinduism and Islam then. But really the religion should be irrelevant.

And I'd also like to hear what your view would have been if I had said "theoretical counterpart."[/QUOTE]

To begin with, here is a basic break down of the advancement of knowledge
If one accepts theory, they have the opportunity for practical application
If one successfully performs practical application, the have the opportunity for perceiving evidence/realization/etc

now the problem with this

"I believe a while back I asked how one attains such a knowledge base. You mentioned doing a lot study in that field under a qualified teacher, and you said that without such a knowledge base, a person is not qualified to argue against said field. I then tried to apply that to other fields, such as hinduism and atheism, and asked if that meant you, who I assume have not developed a knowledge base in those fields (my assumption, correct me if i'm wrong), are not qualified to say that those fields are wrong."

is that there is a distinction between religion and atheism - namely religion lays claim to direct perception ("god exists") whereas as atheism lays claim to nothing more than a theoretical notion ("god probably doesn't exist") - in atheism there is no means of practice and certainly no position of direct perception of this theory.

so saying that I am not sufficiently versed in atheism to counter the claims of atheism doesn't really work since there are no claims of direct perception based on practice/methodology (there is theory however)

Now to switch to your suggestion "what if we were discussing the theoretical counterpart of religion", that would be okay, but it frequently appears that we are not discussing merely theory on sites like these

atheist - where is your evidence for god?
theist - where is your qualification for perceiving the nature of god?

In other words discussion of theory is fine (in fact its even healthy, since such discussion is the foundation of theory) but if one expects to arrive at conclusions/evidence without going through the medium of practice, they are violating the foundation of knowledge, regardless of the topic.

 

[Enterprise-D]

in one sense we are also lesser gods - doesn't mean we created the universe

Claptrap.

provided you don't switch tactics midway and hanker for "evidence" when you use "logic" as your departure point

actually I say there is a distinction between meeting challenges of logic and challenges of truth

I'll barely grant you this point. Yet you still fail to provide a logical set of steps to your conclusion. Neither have you logically dispelled our questions that challenge your logic, preferring rather to dismiss the questions as if they're beneath your lofty views LG. Simply provide a logical reason why two creator gods couldn't exist...yet you can't.

if you want to discuss the logic of it (that time/space is contingent on god) one doesn't require evidence for it (in other words you have to temporarily work outside of your belief that empiricism is the foundation for determining reality)

if you want to discuss the truth of it (how one can determine the nature of god's existence in relation to his potencies) one doesn't require logic (in other words you have to temporarily work outside of your belief that your knowledge base, aka empiricism, is sufficient, and instead examine the process advocated that grants qualification)

anything less than this is outside of the realm of intelligent discussion

More claptrap, and the attempted slight is noted and laughable. At the risk of appearing repetitive, you have yet to logically support your point.

 

[lightgigantic]

EnterpriseD

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
in one sense we are also lesser gods - doesn't mean we created the universe
”
Claptrap.

sorry, but Issac Asimov is a fiction writer

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
provided you don't switch tactics midway and hanker for "evidence" when you use "logic" as your departure point

actually I say there is a distinction between meeting challenges of logic and challenges of truth
”

I'll barely grant you this point. Yet you still fail to provide a logical set of steps to your conclusion. Neither have you logically dispelled our questions that challenge your logic, preferring rather to dismiss the questions as if they're beneath your lofty views LG. Simply provide a logical reason why two creator gods couldn't exist...yet you can't.

if you can't determine how omnipresence can not be met by two distinct personalities try perusing this

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you want to discuss the logic of it (that time/space is contingent on god) one doesn't require evidence for it (in other words you have to temporarily work outside of your belief that empiricism is the foundation for determining reality)

if you want to discuss the truth of it (how one can determine the nature of god's existence in relation to his potencies) one doesn't require logic (in other words you have to temporarily work outside of your belief that your knowledge base, aka empiricism, is sufficient, and instead examine the process advocated that grants qualification)

anything less than this is outside of the realm of intelligent discussion
”
More claptrap, and the attempted slight is noted and laughable. At the risk of appearing repetitive, you have yet to logically support your point.

if you think these premises are wrong, it behooves you to explain why - otherwise you just go off the map of logic and truth

 

[SnakeLord]

somewhere in and around this vicinity

Strange because nowhere in the link you gave was what I asked for or are looking for. It's ok though, I have come to expect it from you.

the short option - for the sake of argument, assume i said no, and you explain how a lack of direct perception on my behalf makes my presentations on the subject valueless

Fine, you tell me how much value you think there is in you giving all of us the lowdown on leprechauns without having ever seen one.

the issue is that you think "somethingness" is ultimately materially reducible, hence my statement ....

Nice dots, we playing hangman? However, your statement doesn't address how 1 entity can occupy nothing better than 2. Try again. So lg, how can 1 being occupy nothing better than 2? Well?

therefore I said that god is everything, and used the relationship between the sunlight and the sun as an analogy

So.... ultimately saying that god isn't everything. Got it.

to begin with, these are the inherent limitations with empiricism

Nobody, but you, mentioned empiricism. I am asking you to tell me how 1 entity can occupy "nothing" better than 2. Kindly pay attention and answer the question.

---imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"

Ok what a great answer to "how can 1 god occupy nothing better than 2". Way to go.

---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake

Ok what a great answer to "how can 1 god occupy nothing better than 2". Way to go.

--- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
----a cheating propensity ... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc

Ok what a great answer to "how can 1 god occupy nothing better than 2". Way to go.

 

[Saquist]

LG, Saquist...all of this (and similar answers) are what folks with an investigative career would call red herrings. It is what the french would call a few "bon mots" and what Will Truman would call a "canarrrrd".

Saquist has made a claim, which you support. A claim based on logic (so you maintain) where, not only god exists, but only ONE can exist. (bearing in mind that LG has stated in other threads that "lesser" gods exist, but let's just pretend I hadn't pointed that out).

Our knowledge base and direct perceptions are IRRELEVANT to us asking you to even step through the logic of what you are supporting. We have all asked questions that provide "reasonable doubt" on your claims, yet you both continually try to derail the conversation by basically saying that our questions are our own fault for not subscribing to your beliefs. You assert that this non-subscription is enough for you guys not answering our questions. You constantly evade the loopholes that we expose with pseudo-philosophical, zero-value, claptrap.

Do you understand then LG that we cannot then, as logical thinking people, accept any of your claims as anything but flights of fantasy?

I understand. However you yourself have done some derailing and your own "red herrings." Before, if you were'nt so busy contending with every detail of every analogy I offered to you, we might have progressed.

You were being contrary.
There is a perspective to consider and you've refused to consider that perspective.

I can't speak of LG but I can speak for myself. While I can not prove beyond a shadow of doubt through all the empirical evidence in the world that there is one God and only one true God. The evidence merely suggest that there is but one creator. However I can show you through reasoning that it is very clear that everything we know has first begining, an origin.

Andwhen it comes to our universe "Firsts" are far more logical than "untrackable infinites."

 

[Sarkus]

I know I put you on ignore - but for some reason I wasn't logged in properly - so your post above was shown to me. And who am I to refuse the worm on the hook.

While I can not prove beyond a shadow of doubt through all the empirical evidence in the world that there is one God and only one true God. The evidence merely suggest that there is but one creator.

There is NO empirical evidence that can be rationally interpreted as being for a Creator God.
The available empirical evidence does NOT "merely suggest that there is but one" - for it in fact does not suggest ANY Creator God - not a singular, not a plurality, NONE.
If you think there is - please state it.

WHAT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT THERE IS BUT ONE CREATOR GOD?

However I can show you through reasoning that it is very clear that everything we know has first begining, an origin.

Everything? Please explain the origin of this Creator God of yours.

Andwhen it comes to our universe "Firsts" are far more logical than "untrackable infinites."

Rubbish. Nothing but a confidence statement aimed at those, apparently like you, who don't fully grasp logic and reason.

The eternal universe is more rational than one that begins.
To have a universe that begins requires an additional unknown over the eternal universe (i.e. God - the creator of the universe) and is thus less rational than the one that does not require the creator.

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
somewhere in and around this vicinity
”
Strange because nowhere in the link you gave was what I asked for or are looking for. It's ok though, I have come to expect it from you.

seems like you missed the "LG - Yes" segments huh?

“
the short option - for the sake of argument, assume i said no, and you explain how a lack of direct perception on my behalf makes my presentations on the subject valueless
”
Fine, you tell me how much value you think there is in you giving all of us the lowdown on leprechauns without having ever seen one.

I guess we can also throw the lessons of high school teachers on the nature of atoms in the same waste paper basket, huh?

“
the issue is that you think "somethingness" is ultimately materially reducible, hence my statement ....
”
Nice dots, we playing hangman? However, your statement doesn't address how 1 entity can occupy nothing better than 2. Try again. So lg, how can 1 being occupy nothing better than 2? Well?

its not obvious?

“
therefore I said that god is everything, and used the relationship between the sunlight and the sun as an analogy
”
So.... ultimately saying that god isn't everything. Got it.

no - unless you can effectively separate, as given in the analogy, sunlight from the sun

“
to begin with, these are the inherent limitations with empiricism
”
Nobody, but you, mentioned empiricism.

Nobody, but you, mentioned "nothing" as the residence of god - if it looks like a chicken, and if it walks like a chicken, and if it sounds like a chicken ....

I am asking you to tell me how 1 entity can occupy "nothing" better than 2. Kindly pay attention and answer the question.

if you can't understand how the above has an empirical basis you are wasting your talent in other fields

“
---imperfect senses... we cannot hear sounds below 20Hz, or alternatively we can only manufacture machines that operate within certain thresholds of "reality"
”
Ok what a great answer to "how can 1 god occupy nothing better than 2". Way to go.


“
---tendency to make mistakes ... perceive a rope as a snake
”
Ok what a great answer to "how can 1 god occupy nothing better than 2". Way to go.

“
--- tendency to fall in to illusion ....seeing a mirage in the desert
----a cheating propensity ... our perception of objectivity is manipulated due to the influence of avarice, wrath, lust etc
”
Ok what a great answer to "how can 1 god occupy nothing better than 2". Way to go.

it is however a suitable beginning for an answer to your

“
Me - once again, problems with your knowledge base
”
You - Ok then. So how about you add to that knowledge base and explain it to me? That is certainly better than answering absolutely nothing.

or would you prefer and talk about how you already understand everything from the platform of empiricism?

:shrug:

 

[SnakeLord]

seems like you missed the "LG - Yes" segments huh?

Must we really keep going over things I've already covered? The 'yes' you gave was a claim to having experience of god - which in itself is fine, but failed due to the answer: "the material world exists". This statement most certainly does not indicate that you have 'direct perception of god' or 'experience of'. Indeed the only thing it does indicate is that you have direct perception/experience of the material world.

I did mention last time that this would be the same as me saying I have 'direct perception' of leprechauns because shamrocks exist. If you cannot see the serious error contained therein then I cannot be of any help to you and this discussion cannot progress.

I guess we can also throw the lessons of high school teachers on the nature of atoms in the same waste paper basket, huh?

What you need to understand is that we're talking about vastly and completely different things. The testable vs the untestable, the observed vs the unobservable etc. Trying to lump them together is worthless. Let's stick to leprcechauns as they are in the same realm.. So, once again: tell me what value there is in you giving us all the lowdown on leprechauns without ever having observed one, without being able to test or validate your claims etc?

its not obvious?

Clearly not, I am not the only one to have pointed out the inherent problems here. It has been claimed, and is often claimed by theists that god exists "outside of time and space". In saying, it has to exist in no-space and surely can't even move because doing so indicates the passing of time. If one can manage to exist in a place of no-space and no time, why can't 2 or 100?

no - unless you can effectively separate, as given in the analogy, sunlight from the sun

But sunlight isn't the sun. It is caused, or created by the sun - but it isn't the sun. Likewise god might have created the universe, but the universe isn't god, and god isn't the universe.. they are separate things. You claimed that "god is everything". Your sun/sunlight analogy fails to support such a claim.

Nobody, but you, mentioned "nothing" as the residence of god - if it looks like a chicken, and if it walks like a chicken, and if it sounds like a chicken ....

Inaccurate. Even you yourself indicated that there was a time before time and space, ("god created time and space"). To have created it there had to be something before it. It couldn't have been 'space' because he created it, so it would have to be no-space, (or nothing to put it bluntly). As addressed by myself and others, (but never satisfactorily answered), why and how can 1 entity occupy "outside of time and space" any better than 2 or 50 gazillion?

Answer it, don't answer it.. I don't really care what you do as long as you don't waste my time with irrelevancies, (as is your habit).

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord

“
seems like you missed the "LG - Yes" segments huh?
”
Must we really keep going over things I've already covered?

only at your behest

The 'yes' you gave was a claim to having experience of god - which in itself is fine, but failed due to the answer: "the material world exists". This statement most certainly does not indicate that you have 'direct perception of god' or 'experience of'. Indeed the only thing it does indicate is that you have direct perception/experience of the material world.

I did mention last time that this would be the same as me saying I have 'direct perception' of leprechauns because shamrocks exist. If you cannot see the serious error contained therein then I cannot be of any help to you and this discussion cannot progress.

at the risk of going over things already brought up, the next question would be what would you hold as an indication of god (since it appears we are in a quandary - you don't accept anything existing outside of matter and refuse to entertain explanations of matter indicating something beyond itself)

“
I guess we can also throw the lessons of high school teachers on the nature of atoms in the same waste paper basket, huh?
”
What you need to understand is that we're talking about vastly and completely different things. The testable vs the untestable,

testable by who?
It wouldn't happen to be persons qualified in the field would it?

the observed vs the unobservable etc.

observable by who?
It wouldn't happen to be persons qualified in the field would it?

Trying to lump them together is worthless. Let's stick to leprcechauns as they are in the same realm..

perhaps to persons unqualified in the field ....

So, once again: tell me what value there is in you giving us all the lowdown on leprechauns without ever having observed one, without being able to test or validate your claims etc?

depends whether we are talking about children's activities on St Patricks day or the philosophical foundation of religious experience

“
its not obvious?
”
Clearly not, I am not the only one to have pointed out the inherent problems here. It has been claimed, and is often claimed by theists that god exists "outside of time and space". In saying, it has to exist in no-space and surely can't even move because doing so indicates the passing of time. If one can manage to exist in a place of no-space and no time, why can't 2 or 100?

from the platform of empiricism there are many puzzling things

“
no - unless you can effectively separate, as given in the analogy, sunlight from the sun
”
But sunlight isn't the sun. It is caused, or created by the sun - but it isn't the sun. Likewise god might have created the universe, but the universe isn't god, and god isn't the universe.. they are separate things. You claimed that "god is everything". Your sun/sunlight analogy fails to support such a claim.

hence there are capacities for distinctions (namely between the energy and the energetic) despite the fact that the notion of the energy existing independent from the energetic is merely academic

“
Nobody, but you, mentioned "nothing" as the residence of god - if it looks like a chicken, and if it walks like a chicken, and if it sounds like a chicken ....
”
Inaccurate. Even you yourself indicated that there was a time before time and space, ("god created time and space").

at the risk of going over things already discussed, should we have a refresher on how contingent relationships can logically exist between several eternal phenomena?

To have created it there had to be something before it. It couldn't have been 'space' because he created it, so it would have to be no-space, (or nothing to put it bluntly). As addressed by myself and others, (but never satisfactorily answered), why and how can 1 entity occupy "outside of time and space" any better than 2 or 50 gazillion?

notions of infinity and eternity are very puzzling on the platform of empiricism

Answer it, don't answer it.. I don't really care what you do as long as you don't waste my time with irrelevancies, (as is your habit).

its a waste of time if one thinks the essence of "somethingness" can essentially be empirically determined - it still stands - you use the word "nothingness", not me