God did it! What's the point?

[wesmorris]

So, is your explanation useless too? Or is it valuable as an approach?

It's only useful if we agree it is. It will remain usefull to me until usurped by what I deem superior reasoning.

I can't say for sure, but it would seem that you find your "explanation" useful in analysis or has a use for something. Unless your "explanation" is just a knick-knack you keep around the house.

Of course it's useful to me, but if it isn't to you, then its use is pointless. We could perhaps gauge their effectiveness in terms of some sort of competetive advantage if we choose a goal and agree on a metric.

Also, Occam never said the simplest answer is the correct one.

Neither did I. My point is a basic tenent of hueuristics and problem solving. Consider the set of sets to be the basis for any solution to any problem. The solution to the problem you pose to the set is in there somewhere, but you don't know where without investigation/problem solving. Each assumption you make takes its related set of possible solutions and excludes them from consideration in terms of your solution. This is done in hopes of making it easier to find the solution. However in doing so - there is no gaurentee the actual solution still remains in the set of possible solutions. If you can demonstrate clearly that your assumptions are valid, you can be more confident that you didn't exclude the actual solution from consideration. Hence, though assumptions are necessary to render the solution set managable, we must ensure they are as simple and few as possible. Well that is, if a truthful solution is our goal.

With that in mind, GOD is the worst possible assumption to make in that it narrows the potential solution set to one possibility: god.

Seems pretty dishonest and narcissitic (in that one presumes that they know god is the answer, even though it can't be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a "nuetral" observer) to me, but I think that's the opportunity cost of tentatively believing what I just said. I will tentatively accept superior reasoning if I can comprehend and integrate it into my world-view.

 

[cole grey]

It will remain usefull to me until usurped by what I deem superior reasoning.

This is my approach too. However, I seem to have more confidence in my ability to reason incorrectly, given a lack of information, than you do. Or I assume the lack of information is greater than you do?

With that in mind, GOD is the worst possible assumption to make in that it narrows the potential solution set to one possibility: god.

I think the opposite view, that once we have scientifically found the patterns to everything God has done we will have shown God to be absent, is another "worst possible assumption".

Why do I burp? God.
Why did I just think that thought? God.
Why is the sky blue? God.
I agree that that is silly and meaningless. I agree that if I believe God is all, and that is all, I will have no place to go from there. It may be one useful idea to knock around against a bunch of other ideas, though.

Seems pretty dishonest and narcissitic (in that one presumes that they know god is the answer, even though it can't be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a "nuetral" observer)

I'm not sure that it can't be demonstrated to a "nuetral" observer. Completely nuetral in conscious and subliminal thought? How do we know when we find someone like this? Because they profess nuetrality?

 

[water]

Gnosticism is based in narcissim. It sheilds its presumed knowledge in circular logic it deems divine. It is impervious to critical thinking. This is faith.

Is it narcissistic for me to believe I exist? Yes, I think so.

False humility.
Next thing you know, you'll say you're not worthy to be alive? Nah, you wouldn't be *that* consequent.

Is it MORE narcissitic for me to believe I know how the universe came to be, especially when the claim cannot withstand skepticism? YES, I THINK SO.

You know what? You will believe in God, but only if you are at the same time alllowed to back out for whatever reason.

In the case of god, well that's just stupid from an intellectual angle, but justifiable within the emotional context of an individual's experience. Their experience tells them its valid and there's no stimulous to contradict it - so the belief can persist. You can't contradict something that is the reason for everything. No matter what happens, new stimulous is accounted for in the context of your presumption. That is, excepting the emotional utility - pointless.

Translated: God is unknowable. God is unknowable. God is unknowable. God is unknowable. Should I say it again? God is unknowable.

This is all you've been saying.

I value emotional utility, but this thread is about accounting, comprehending, looking at the overall system with minimal presumption.

Yes, and you are commiting reductionism.

I want to understand how these things relate to one another in a schematic sense. God folks don't. They can't. They already know. If they decide to not know, then they can't be god people, as their faith has changed to inquiry.

You know shit. You never had religious faith.


Yes, an ad hominem it is. But at some point, it becomes meaningless to try to have a discussion, at some point, listening is not in place anymore.
You, too, go suck Ayn Rand's hemorrhoid ass.

 

[wesmorris]

This is my approach too. However, I seem to have more confidence in my ability to reason incorrectly, given a lack of information, than you do.

I think that's a misperception. I'm trying to further my understanding of a system I've come to see in my mind. I'm just telling you what I think, always hoping to find a better model. I'm driven by innate curiosity in this matter, as I've leaned toward this type of investigation since I was a kid.

Or I assume the lack of information is greater than you do?

I have no idea how big of a lack of information you think there is as compared to mine. Information is pointless outside of context. I have certain models that seem universally applicable. They're quite simple as in the context I proved in my last post. I can't insist they are representative of the tao... only my impression of it. What I offer is of course the best that I've discerned from my experience. I do not hold it to be absolute outside of my own context, but of course it seems that way.

I think the opposite view, that once we have scientifically found the patterns to everything God has done we will have shown God to be absent, is another "worst possible assumption".

God is irrelevant to the problem solving process. That we may find solutions to problems does not lend anything as to the god's existence or lack thereof.

Why do I burp? God.
Why did I just think that thought? God.
Why is the sky blue? God.
I agree that that is silly and meaningless. I agree that if I believe God is all, and that is all, I will have no place to go from there. It may be one useful idea to knock around against a bunch of other ideas, though.

I disagree because as you demonstrated, once the answer is accepted - you're at a dead end. I suppose that's fine if your problem is already solved, but it cannot provide utility in seeking the solution.

I'm not sure that it can't be demonstrated to a "nuetral" observer. Completely nuetral in conscious and subliminal thought? How do we know when we find someone like this? Because they profess nuetrality?

I should have prefaced it with "hypothetical"... the hypothetical nuetral observer.

 

[water]

I'm not sure that it can't be demonstrated to a "nuetral" observer. Completely nuetral in conscious and subliminal thought? How do we know when we find someone like this? Because they profess nuetrality?

Courtesy of Fraggle Rocker's succint formulation:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=727602&highlight=frelling#post727602

Hey dude. This is the frelling internet here. We get no body language, no facial expressions, no tone of voice, no gestures. We don't even get to see how you dress or whether you're typing with a beloved pet in your lap.

That deprives us of about 75 percent of the carrier wave of human communication. Sure, it's the band with the smallest bandwidth, but that bandwidth is important. It tells us what kind of member you are of this community, whether we can let our guard down and trust you, whether we'd be comfortable asking you for advice, etc. All we have left to go on is your keystrokes.

I understand that posting here is not on the same level as writing a graduate thesis, and that there's a point of diminishing returns for an obsession with proofreading such as the one I have.

But you must understand that if you make someone angry, they can't get back at you by dissing your ugly shirt or your unkempt hairdo or your funny-looking dog or your habit of cracking your knuckles. All they can diss is what they see: the message, the choice of words, the spelling, composition, and punctuation.

I repeat: This is the internet.

It's

nEUtral
nEUron
hEUristic

 

[wesmorris]

False humility.

It's not even humility related. Apologize for calling me a liar. Hung up on labels are you?

Next thing you know, you'll say you're not worthy to be alive?

Uhm.. where the shit did that come from? How that question even comes to mind is beyond me? Man you read a lot of shit into what I say don't you? How about stopping that? Well whatever. I think we can reach some common understanding, but it's apparently going to be a bumpy road.

You know what? You will believe in God, but only if you are at the same time alllowed to back out for whatever reason.

I'll borrow your line: "You know shit." God is irrelevant to me.

Translated: God is unknowable. God is unknowable. God is unknowable. God is unknowable. Should I say it again? God is unknowable.

This is all you've been saying.

Maybe so. The boundaries of logic get me spinning a bit sometimes. I try to stay the course, but I keep bouncing off the edges and getting caught in little eddies. I think I've said more than that.

Yes, and you are commiting reductionism.

*shrug* I can't fit it all into my head at the same time. It's too big. I can see little pieces and how they relate to one another, and sometimes it seems I get a glimpse of the bigger picture. So far, I haven't noticed inconsistencies within what I see except for where they belong. If you can point out a particular problem, please do. Otherwise, do you have an actual point or are you just venting because I don't buy what you're selling? I like your perspective, find it interesting and consistent. That doesn't mean that I'll adopt, as it seems to me that my own is as good or better... at least to me.

You know shit.

And you?

You never had religious faith.

So what?

Yes, an ad hominem it is. But at some point, it becomes meaningless to try to have a discussion, at some point, listening is not in place anymore.

So high and mighty. It doesn't seem to me you've heard a thing I've said... do you know sometimes it takes a long, tough road to get over one's pre-conceived notions of this and that? It's often so difficult that people just give up, like this:

You, too, go suck Ayn Rand's hemorrhoid ass.

Uhm, fuck you.

Care to try again when you get over your mood or whatever?

 

[wesmorris]

And now she resorts to criticizing spelling? All is lost.

 

[wesmorris]

Water,

I don't know why you're being a poopy-head. I assume it's frustration. I guess it doesn't matter.

First of all, the following doesn't have anything to do with whether or not god is knowable. It's about solving problems and how god is a useless tool for aiding in that process, regardless of its (god's) existence. Please refute it:

My point is a basic tenant of heuristics and problem solving. Consider the set of sets to be the basis for any solution to any problem. The solution to the problem you pose to the set is in there somewhere, but you don't know where without investigation/problem solving. Each assumption you make takes its related set of possible solutions and excludes them from consideration in terms of your solution. This is done in hopes of making it easier to find the solution. However in doing so - there is no guarantee the actual solution still remains in the set of possible solutions. If you can demonstrate clearly that your assumptions are valid, you can be more confident that you didn't exclude the actual solution from consideration. Hence, though assumptions are necessary to render the solution set manageable, we must ensure they are as simple and few as possible. Well that is, if a truthful solution is our goal.



Okay.

Now, please elaborate on how you propose to justify god or circular reasoning via something other than a thought experiement.

 

[cole grey]

I think that's a misperception.

I said " seem" because I realize it may not be true, but it actually does "seem" that your wonderful confusion implies a person who is not dogmatic enough to insist they are being reasonable, so I retract the other statement.

God is irrelevant to the problem solving process. That we may find solutions to problems does not lend anything as to the god's existence or lack thereof.

Which problem is God irrelevant to? 2+2=4, ok God is irrelevant. But all problems?

Today I looked out my kitchen window, decided to look up at a faraway tree instead of the tree in my backyard, and I saw a cool bird fly by. This wasn't me experiencing God necessarily, but it is an excellent metaphor for me experiencing God. The God concept is useful, as it opens up the potential solution set, therefore giving me more places to look for information. You may say these places are all devoid of "true" information, which is an incredibly haughty thing to say. Would you limit what is valuable to that which is mathematically logical?

Once I was told to search for God. It wasn't put that way, more like, "God is there, believe, etc.", but that wasn't good enough for me because I have to see for myself. By opening my eyes to the possibility of God, I was able to make many connections that would not have been available to me - mental, emotional, etc. These experiences are my experience of God. Have I "found" God? You would be crazy to say no. Unless you want scientific proof, in which case I say, good luck. Needing scientific proof is a bias against any other proof you may find. It is a bias against the validity of love to many people here on this forum. Sad.

Also, you say God people can't think because they know, but then how do so many people lose faith if they weren't thinking about it? And what then of people who lose faith and return, like myself? Have I stopped thinking again now?
Now?
Now?
(Sorry, I had to throw in that joke, because I thought of the, "the future is now... Now... Now... thing. I am not a great comedian.)

Also, if you think it is wrong to "narrow the potential solution set" too much, wouldn't it be even more wrong for you to try to narrow my solution set? Sounds dogmatic to me. "You must reasearch using my method", so says Wes.

 

[cole grey]

I guess what I'm really trying to say is... you can't apply the same problem-solving technique to all problems.

 

[wesmorris]

I said " seem" because I realize it may not be true, but it actually does "seem" that your wonderful confusion implies a person who is not dogmatic enough to insist they are being reasonable, so I retract the other statement.

I would ask how you find yourself so sure my world is confused. Please elaborate.

Which problem is God irrelevant to? 2+2=4, ok God is irrelevant. But all problems?

All problems in which god has not already been presumed, yes. Please understand I'm not talking about solving a particular problem, I'm talking about problem solving in general. I'm not talking about a method, I'm talking about what seems to me to be the limits of the how the system works.

Today I looked out my kitchen window, decided to look up at a faraway tree instead of the tree in my backyard, and I saw a cool bird fly by. This wasn't me experiencing God necessarily, but it is an excellent metaphor for me experiencing God.

That's dandy and all, and I don't diminish your personal experience, but how is that relevant to a discussion of problem solving... in... gaining comprehension?

The God concept is useful, as it opens up the potential solution set, therefore giving me more places to look for information.

It's useful to you, because you've already accepted it. There are a number of advantages offered by belief, as with anything.

You may say these places are all devoid of "true" information, which is an incredibly haughty thing to say.

What information did you gain? I don't see any information gained at all. You saw something pretty, attributed it to your presumption and got a warm fuzzy. Maybe you can clarify.

Would you limit what is valuable to that which is mathematically logical?

Not at all, but I would say that what is valuable doesn't necessarily solve problems. It's value that creates problems. I value something I don't have, the problem is getting it (be it knowledge, whatever). People value all kinds of eronious things, all of which are subjectively justifiable and sensible. That's dandy, it just doesn't really mean much in the context of this conversation. Presuming the bird is cool because of something you already presumed is not problem solving.

Once I was told to search for God. It wasn't put that way, more like, "God is there, believe, etc.", but that wasn't good enough for me because I have to see for myself. By opening my eyes to the possibility of God, I was able to make many connections that would not have been available to me - mental, emotional, etc.

The possibility of god is not in question for me. Who am I to say god is well, anything. IMO, reverence for the concept renders attempts to know it moot.

These experiences are my experience of God. Have I "found" God? You would be crazy to say no.

You surely think you have. Nothing personal, but your rationalization offers me little information regarding the status of "god's" existence. It offers me more information about your psychology. No, I'm not saying your crazy. You are however, a believer. Most humans are. It's really somewhat endearing to me in a number of ways.

Unless you want scientific proof, in which case I say, good luck.

Well, all this is really off topic, as I'm trying to examine the question of god as a utility for gaining knowledge, solving problems... etc. As I've mentioned, it seems like a dead-end solution to me. That's my rationalization.

Needing scientific proof is a bias against any other proof you may find.

Scientific proof is only really necessary for matters outside of self. For instance, I don't need proof that I love my family. I know it. Further, I don't really care if you believe me or not... though you likely would from experience of knowing fathers and that the answer has little bearing on you personally. The cost of being wrong is nominal, so belief is non-critical.

It is a bias against the validity of love to many people here on this forum. Sad.

I don't understand what you mean. I don't doubt most people's love for god if they proclaim it. I'm skeptical of the basis for which they arrived at the conclusion "god did it". I think actually, I understand how it generally comes to pass. I'm generally only annoyed by it when one claims their belief... which is wholly personal, to be a factual undoubtable aspect of reality. "god is real" may work for you, but proclaiming it true outside of one's self is nonsense. It could be, but you really can't know regardless of how convinced you are. At best, you're hedging your bet.

Also, you say God people can't think because they know, but then how do so many people lose faith if they weren't thinking about it?

I didn't mean exactly what I said... pardon. The only way out of the circle is skepticism. People can lose faith if they decide that the value gained by being inside it no longer offers utility. If you're questioning your faith, you're not a god person. Faith cannot be questioned because you have faith. Once you begin to question it, you're not really faithful... true faith is unquestionable.

And what then of people who lose faith and return, like myself?

Obvious in terms of the response above.

Have I stopped thinking again now?

Sorry, didn't mean you stop thinking.. just questioning that particular topic. If you didn't, you're not really faithful. You'll still think about things of course. That's what brains do. Those things you associate with god will be attributed to god though, and gaining new insights regarding those things will all be in terms of that presumption. You won't however, necessarily associate everything with god. Your personal context/circumstance/propensity/experience/will will influence how your relationship with god is weaved into your mind.

Now?
Now?

Only you know.

(Sorry, I had to throw in that joke, because I thought of the, "the future is now... Now... Now... thing. I am not a great comedian.)

Not a problem. I did get a smidge of a chuckle, so maybe you have potential. Hehe. Then again, I've got a low threshold for humor.

Also, if you think it is wrong to "narrow the potential solution set" too much, wouldn't it be even more wrong for you to try to narrow my solution set?

Do you think that's what I'm doing?

Sounds dogmatic to me. "You must reasearch using my method", so says Wes.

I have a hard time seeing how you get that from what I said. This medium is rich with that though. I'm sure I do the same to people frequently.

 

[Godless]

You, too, go suck Ayn Rand's hemorrhoid ass.

Spoken like a true theist! Hypocrite.

You profess to love, yet you hate those who disagree with you.
Turn the cheek? hell no Just slap an insult.

First of all an existence has to have an identity.
What kind of identity have you given this entity you call god?.
(they keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identitifications consists of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say--and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge--God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their defenitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.)AYN RAND!.

Godless.

 

[cole grey]

I would ask how you find yourself so sure my world is confused. Please elaborate.

If you concede that your reasoning ability is fallible, and that there is a lack of information regarding the proof of god's existence, it becomes hard for you to blindly follow dogmatic principles. I think that is good, it shows that you are still thinking. I wasn't being sarcastic. Are you saying that you have found all the answers, and are not confused at all? That doesn't seem to be what your posts have implied throughout this forum. If there are two possibilities, at least, and you cannot vouch for either definitively wouldn't that equal confusion?

What information did you gain? I don't see any information gained at all. You saw something pretty, attributed it to your presumption and got a warm fuzzy. Maybe you can clarify.

What information have you gained? I'm sure there is a ton of information we have both gained using different life ideals. Are you just saying that the concept of God is not useful in figuring out logic problems? Or that having a belief in God keeps one from researching well? Take einstein as an example. He had a belief in an organizing principle of some kind. The force, or whatever. This may be part of his motivation for figuring out some of the things he did. If he hadn't said, "this universe makes complete sense, but we haven't figured out how yet", he may have stayed in the patent office. Now, he may not have used his principle of an organized universe, on every little part of every problem, but I think it was an important part of his work.
Are you just saying that blindly ignoring everything around you, and ooh-ing and aah-ing at the universe saying "god did it", with no problem solving work solves no problems?
Are you saying, "God did it" is not a good "proof" of god's existence? I think that is entirely subjective, and you are right the belief in God can't be forced on anyone.

If you're questioning your faith, you're not a god person. Faith cannot be questioned because you have faith. Once you begin to question it, you're not really faithful... true faith is unquestionable.

Nothing is unquestionable.

If you think the only type of faith is one with no doubts, you are wrong. How could any sane person have faith if that were so? After I read this, I don't think you are an expert on faith, to be euphemistic about it. It sounds like you only know of one viewpoint on faith. One which I wholeheartedly reject.

 

[Gambit Star]

Religion and spirituality goes way back, when we used to sit around our wood campfires before we even comprehended societies.

The idea of "god did it, so thats all" is purely for someone who is comfortable in others exploring the unknown possiblities.
The fact is nobody knows what we are, but the possibilities should not be left to science. Afterall science does not create our buildings, technology and love, it is our imaginations and thought creations, we just apply the physical formulae after that.

Just like god, we have thought about it so much, it has become the ultimate reality in our minds and in the second level.
Earth is to learn how to take control of our imaginations, so there is no chaos in the second level.

Ill never stop imagining my nearer existance, that is what gets me up in the morning.

 

[Prester John]

... and that condension is so general that it is useless.

Perhaps you would show an example of how using goddidit has enriched human understanding of any subject. How does goddidit futher debate?

 

[Silas]

Today I looked out my kitchen window, decided to look up at a faraway tree instead of the tree in my backyard, and I saw a cool bird fly by. This wasn't me experiencing God necessarily, but it is an excellent metaphor for me experiencing God. The God concept is useful, as it opens up the potential solution set, therefore giving me more places to look for information. You may say these places are all devoid of "true" information, which is an incredibly haughty thing to say. Would you limit what is valuable to that which is mathematically logical?

This is exactly why I'm an atheist, and why it is the diametric opposite of the truth to characterise atheists as lacking in soul or awe or wonderment. It is the fact that something beautiful happened, totally naturally, in the absence of some all-Powerful puppet-master that on occasion fills me with something akin to transcendence. To be so incredibly fortunate to be alive, and experiencing - coupled with the unbelievably small chance of having been born a member of the only known living species in the entire universe capable of appreciating such a thing (to say nothing of understanding it) is a concept the uh, bigness of which is more than I can readily express in words.

(they keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identitifications consists of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say--and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge--God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their defenitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.)AYN RAND!.

Yeah, she does talk shit sometimes, doesn't she?

 

[water]

God is irrelevant to me.

You do realize that taking this position means that no matter what anyone would say about God, nothing can be a valid argument to you, as you have, in advance, discarded God and said God is irrelevant to you?

You never had religious faith.

So what?

So you can't possibly know what it is like to have that kind of faith. And yet you keep talking about it as if you knew first hand.
You are like a teenage *virgin* who speaks about rough sex, and how she knows everything about it.

Our expectation of something, the thought experiment we make, our prediction of something yet to happen is NEVER the same as our experience of this thing.
This is why experience is necessary, crucial.


And yet you insist on your thought experiments to be a valid way to understand and even to prove something. Some empiricist you are.

So high and mighty. It doesn't seem to me you've heard a thing I've said... do you know sometimes it takes a long, tough road to get over one's pre-conceived notions of this and that?

The same goes for you.

Care to try again when you get over your mood or whatever?

It's not my "mood". You just don't know me well.

I don't know why you're being a poopy-head. I assume it's frustration. I guess it doesn't matter.

How feeling you are. Uh.

First of all, the following doesn't have anything to do with whether or not god is knowable. It's about solving problems and how god is a useless tool for aiding in that process, regardless of its (god's) existence. Please refute it:

My point is a basic tenant of heuristics and problem solving. Consider the set of sets to be the basis for any solution to any problem. The solution to the problem you pose to the set is in there somewhere, but you don't know where without investigation/problem solving. Each assumption you make takes its related set of possible solutions and excludes them from consideration in terms of your solution. This is done in hopes of making it easier to find the solution. However in doing so - there is no guarantee the actual solution still remains in the set of possible solutions. If you can demonstrate clearly that your assumptions are valid, you can be more confident that you didn't exclude the actual solution from consideration. Hence, though assumptions are necessary to render the solution set manageable, we must ensure they are as simple and few as possible. Well that is, if a truthful solution is our goal.

What the hell does this have to do with God?! There is nothing to refute, and your proposed strategy doesn't exclude God. It may exclude the Skydaddy, but I think it is a shame to understand God as 'that old man with a beard'.

Now, please elaborate on how you propose to justify god or circular reasoning via something other than a thought experiement.

You are suggesting as if faith is something static, unchangeable, robotic -- hence circular.

Love, faith can be "justified" only in real life, in actual actions. And the same goes for God. Thought experiments won't do.

 

[water]

Once I was told to search for God. It wasn't put that way, more like, "God is there, believe, etc.", but that wasn't good enough for me because I have to see for myself. By opening my eyes to the possibility of God, I was able to make many connections that would not have been available to me - mental, emotional, etc. These experiences are my experience of God. Have I "found" God? You would be crazy to say no.

Exactly.
Declared atheists seem to search for God there where God surely is least likely to be found, and then they say "There is no proof of God".

"You must reasearch using my method", so says Wes.

I've been telling him this all along.

 

[water]

That's dandy and all, and I don't diminish your personal experience, but how is that relevant to a discussion of problem solving... in... gaining comprehension?

Fuck it. You ask a question, people answer, but then you say, "No, this is not a good answer because it doesn't align with my thinking."

What information did you gain? I don't see any information gained at all. You saw something pretty, attributed it to your presumption and got a warm fuzzy. Maybe you can clarify.

Again: Our expectation or prediction of something that is yet to happen is never the same as the experience of this thing.

Not at all, but I would say that what is valuable doesn't necessarily solve problems. It's value that creates problems. I value something I don't have, the problem is getting it (be it knowledge, whatever). People value all kinds of eronious things, all of which are subjectively justifiable and sensible. That's dandy, it just doesn't really mean much in the context of this conversation. Presuming the bird is cool because of something you already presumed is not problem solving.

Wes, are you after some Theory Of Everything?

The possibility of god is not in question for me. Who am I to say god is well, anything. IMO, reverence for the concept renders attempts to know it moot.

That's because you think that when it is said that God wants you to serve Him, this means you have to serve God the way you would serve a human -- the way you would be a slave to a human slave owner. And that respect for God comes at the cost of your own self-respect.

Well, all this is really off topic, as I'm trying to examine the question of god as a utility for gaining knowledge, solving problems... etc. As I've mentioned, it seems like a dead-end solution to me. That's my rationalization.

That's because you operate with the concept of God meaning something like 'Skydaddy', 'Nobodaddy', 'Slave owner'.

I didn't mean exactly what I said... pardon. The only way out of the circle is skepticism. People can lose faith if they decide that the value gained by being inside it no longer offers utility. If you're questioning your faith, you're not a god person. Faith cannot be questioned because you have faith. Once you begin to question it, you're not really faithful... true faith is unquestionable.

??!! True faith is unquestionable?
If one treats one's faith as "unquestionable", one is taking it for granted. And this is the worst one can do -- to take one's own faith for granted.

 

[water]

You, too, go suck Ayn Rand's hemorrhoid ass.

Spoken like a true theist! Hypocrite.

You profess to love, yet you hate those who disagree with you.
Turn the cheek? hell no Just slap an insult.

First of all an existence has to have an identity.
What kind of identity have you given this entity you call god?.
(they keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identitifications consists of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say--and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge--God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their defenitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.)AYN RAND!.

Godless.

You don't know who I am or what I believe. You never bothered to investigate. And yet you accuse me of things!


* * *

Perhaps you would show an example of how using goddidit has enriched human understanding of any subject. How does goddidit futher debate?

Can you say "strawman", 10 times, real fast?