On what God is

[§outh§tar]

I know this too.
And I was being myself.

She-deathbeast..

Sub specie aeternitatis and without there being a God, I agree with what you said. But we do not see ourselves and our everyday lives sub specie aeternitatis.

Noo! You keep giving all these cop-outs. STOP IT! 'Free will is inferred anyways' is not a satisfactory response, 'we do not see ourselves' is not a satisfactory response either. And if we can arbitrarily assume "God is the overarching organizational principle" then we can also arbitrarily assume God doesn't want us to believe us in Him. Why the double standard?

A certain faith.

Now you're just doing this on purpose..

 

[§outh§tar]

You sure? It all depends on what their beliefs were. They might have thought they were honouring their children or even themselves and doing a great and necessary service to their people for their survival. If love is not displayed there - I don't know what love is. Life isn't black and white. There are sacrifices of love - as in the Egyptian servants who were willingly locked into the tomb with the body of their dead Pharoah to serve Him/Her in the afterlife. There are sacrifices of devotion. Then you just have plain murder.

Grasping at straws. I guess you don't know much about the ancient sacrifices. They weren't honoring their children or that other thing either. Read it first.

If Satanism has any morals directed towards a belief in God, sure. Do Satanists have any rites of love? I don't know - I don't profess to know everything, as stated some time back, however I do have my principles which I abide by - and through them I will continue to learn and thus more completely justify my faith. Nothing about my belief is arbitrary - it is all interpreted evidence through faith in God - which is itself not arbitrary.

You have unfortunately not shown why it is not arbitrary yet.
If you abide so blindly to what you assume is true, then how do you leave room for the possibility of being wrong? I am not saying be agnostic or doubt your every move, but be prudent. Don't squeeze your eyes shut.

There is love in the world; therefore I don't believe in Deism. There are humans in the world who understand it - therefore I don't believe in an impersonal creator.

Love in the world does not disprove Deism. You should read first.

Several scriptural witnesses and at least one non-scriptural witness who testify to God's Works and Jesus', Works and his fate. One man who saw something in a cave and had both Christian and Jusaic influences is another story. This would summarise - more than summarise (more or less) - my info on Islam. I somehow see Judaism, Christianity and Islam as three views of practically the same thing. The Christian one of salvation through Jesus makes the most sense to me. I guess I was predestined.

Who is the one non-scriptural witness of Jesus' works?

Do you also realize that because more people testify to something doesn't make it any more true? If that was the case then we'd all be Muslim..

So you need a better reason there too.

Where did I state that I have "knowledge" that God is this? If you didn't know; belief is not kowledge. Belief through inference is simply belief. I don't need to boisterously claim knowledge of anything. The Christian simply needs to believe through faith. However I have attempted to show how I came by my conclusion; if you don't understand or agree just state what you don't understand or simple say you disagree.

So you believe in what you don't know?

Personhood. Then you will want to look at person. Please take care to review all the definitions. I'm sure you will find the one applicable to God. Persons communicate. If you can communicate you must share certain characteristics.

If God is omnipotent, then He doesn't need to share certain characteristics before He can communicate effectively. Therefore it does not follow that God "shares" characteristics with man and it is mere presuppositionalism. Assuming what you are trying to show.

Actually, man arbitrarily defines the characteristics of intelligence. Through that definition you can then apply the word to any such thing which displays those characteristics. That is, for example, why you can call both male and female human and an IMac and a HP device with with a housing, keyboard, monitor, CPU, memory etc... are called computers. Through the fact that we can understand what God the assumed Creator has done and use it through our intelligence (as arbitrarily defined) I assume that He is at least as intelligent as us - not to mention the fact that He created us.

Apart from himself, is there anything else you know that that is intelligent?

Not in particular. Your infidel reference is quite one sided in it's analysis, for example - assuming you read this part - the idea that if two classes of objects (x/y) have property p1 and x has property p1 as a result of p2 then it is probably the same for y may be true or false depending on the example given. The term "probably" may be invalid in use though because we can never exhaust all the possible scenarios to come up with some probability. However, it is possible and demonstrabely so. Light bulbs emit light due to a process of electron transfer - so do stars. Thus, though one may take the infidel view, the teleological view is just as valid. We have our free will - thanks to God. In the end we'll know who's faith was of true substance.

Pascal's Wager. I was bound to hear it sooner or later..

You see structure and purpose and you attribute such qualities to God - the Creator - the one who created such that we could recognise this structure and purpose. We create [purpose], and we, most times, can easily recognise something created by us [structure]. It is assumed, then, that since we recognise our creations through structure and thus purpose we may attribute the same qualities to that which we observe as structured - but beyond human capabilities.

Tell me then. How do you know if something has structure?

Well, that's up to them. If the Biblical evidence points them in one direction and they choose to go the other... too bad... their choice - free will. Faith in God is all that is needed - after that you do your best.

Faith in whose God?

Yes, for me, otherwise existence doesn't make sense. Morals become truly arbitrary - no purpose - no one can reasonably justify their position - murder is what you believe it is good or bad - love is not justifiable - hate is justifiable or not justifiable - no absolutes - nothing - just a mass of elementary physical particles - suicide - why not - kill the whole human race - why not? Without God existence is confusion - look at Wes Morris.

I see. So instead of trying to understand it, you will first relegate it all to some Cosmic Being. Ok.

 

[water]

I fail to see how water did that... but... I'm not needed here...

You may feel you are not needed, but you are welcome.

Your apparent state of agnosticism (no objective truth from a human perspective) - nothing else. Why do you accept your subjective conclusion that such reasoning is valid?

If you were to look at it (as I'm sure you have?) you'd realise that an agnostic who claims that any line of reasoning is valid or invalid... in fact... claims anything... violates the basic tenet of agnosticism. I accpet the wisdom through faith. Do you?

Agnostics and relativists would have to be quiet in order to be true to their conviction. But then they couldn't say they are agnostics and relativists.


* * *

I accept that it's valid subjectively. Note my frequent use of variations on "to me, is seems". Things make sense to me, but how can I expect you to agree when you are not privy to my perception?

Same to you: Things make sense to me, but how can I expect you to agree when you are not privy to my perception? It goes both ways, but keeping to this relativism gets us nowhere.

LOL. Did the concept of subjective validity never occur to you.. the gnostic? I suppose not as your knowledge is claimed to be objective.

Wes, I challenge you to write an essay and start a thread on subjective validity.

The problem with hueristics is that you'll might miss the optimal solution by way of assuming it out of your set of potential solutions. Faith is unavoidable, but should be kept minimal in the context of philosophy, such that goal of our endeavors - truth - is not simply assumed away. With the grab bag of presumptions in which you indulge, it seems truthful solutions are simply not your concern.

The way I see it, you seem to presume that a certain religious faith is something static and meanings permanent and set in stone.
As if belivers were robots.


* * *

Exactly. I didn't request you not to be personal. YOU said "it's not personal".

Ah, the many meanings of "personal".
I meant "it's not personal" in the sense of 'not critizing you, emotional involvement etc.'.
On the other hand, "personal" can mean 'refer to a text by its author' as opposed to 'refer to a text'.

You give me so little credit.

I might say the same. Perhaps you could consider that my argument is not from spite.

It sometimes comes across that way though.

*sigh* I don't like it when my friends bust a lecture out on me in the middle of a nice discussion. Especially those friends I hold in high regard, like yourself. Surely you can understand even if you can't relate. You seem to think my objections to the notion of god are based in spite or something. They aren't.

Given that I hold your mind in high regard, I figured you'd come up with something unique.. but you're not talking.

Oh. You caught me by surprise.
I didn't know you -- still -- think that way about me, so highly.
I really didn't know that.

Ha! Now you're assigning homework!

Nah. I just think it takes a lot to know someone's mind -- and I too know what hapens when I try to be concise and shortly present an argument within a discussion -- "The bitch is, it seems the more concise I think I am, the more prone to misunderstanding things become." This sometimes gets me so far that I avoid the whole thing.

I mostly follow your threads as you might have noticed.

Indeed.

Look, start a thread on the impossibility to know God, and we can then devote ourselves to this particular issue.

I'm sure I've done that before and it's been done to death. You don't think this thread warrants the discussion?

It does, but I am in a big style mood.

Personally, I would love to see an essay on the topic of logic bouncing off of the concept of God.

Well, I'd never phrased it just that way and have really only been reacting to what's said rather than writing an essay. I'm not sure if I have it in me but I'll try to remember to give it a go.

Really, I think you should.
I think it is complex and demanding, but I'd love to see more ... how should I say ... novel arguments, more extreme. So many threads here rehearse established topics -- nothing bad with it, but I want some excitement and challenge here in religion!

You mean you didn't get angry about it. Would you say you've never been angry with something you've read on sci? Would you say you've never let that anger show in your response? Is it better to pretend you're not angry and bottle all that shit up so you can assplode about it later?

I rarely get angry, and I haven't been angry here in months.

But tell me -- what worth and importance does Relativity theory have in my everyday life?

What relevance does that have in the context of my assertion? If you were to quote him all day because of your adoration for him, you'd suck. The words either have substance or they don't. Who said them is of little consequence on their validity.

You said:

What do you intend to imply with "your state"? Because I'm no bible thumper? I accept the wisdom because it's valid. That you think "jesus" said it is of little consequence to me. It does make me curious as to your capacity to think for yourself. It always makes me suspiscious like that though, when people hide behind the purported words of dead guys... just on the basis that they think they're cool or whatever. Pansy. Ha.

One can apply wisdom that happens to be found in the Bible on a daily basis, frequently. But one cannot apply Relativity theory that way in everday life much.


* * *

Science has no opinion on God what so ever.

Science is an agnostic, not an atheist or a deist.

Please, start a thread, and write in big letters:

Science has no opinion on God what so ever.

Science is an agnostic, not an atheist or a deist.


Okay?


* * *

She-deathbeast..

Fear me.

Sub specie aeternitatis and without there being a God, I agree with what you said. But we do not see ourselves and our everyday lives sub specie aeternitatis.

Noo! You keep giving all these cop-outs. STOP IT! 'Free will is inferred anyways' is not a satisfactory response, 'we do not see ourselves' is not a satisfactory response either. And if we can arbitrarily assume "God is the overarching organizational principle" then we can also arbitrarily assume God doesn't want us to believe us in Him. Why the double standard?

Noo! You keep calling all these cop-outs! STOP IT!

Say "God", or go suck Ayn Rand's hemorrhoid ass.

Now you're just doing this on purpose..

We'll see how brave you are.

/.../ So you need a better reason there too.

Even an omipotent God (or an omnipotent poster, like me) cannot give you what you refuse to (or cannot) accept.

If God is omnipotent, then He doesn't need to share certain characteristics before He can communicate effectively.

Again, there is the underlying assumption here that omnipotent is the same as all-controlling. It isn't.

I see. So instead of trying to understand it, you will first relegate it all to some Cosmic Being. Ok.

But this "Cosmic Being" is not a foreigner!

Where did I state that I have "knowledge" that God is this? If you didn't know; belief is not kowledge. Belief through inference is simply belief. I don't need to boisterously claim knowledge of anything. The Christian simply needs to believe through faith. However I have attempted to show how I came by my conclusion; if you don't understand or agree just state what you don't understand or simple say you disagree.

So you believe in what you don't know?

I think the whole problem lies in that we talk too much.
Imagine we'd talk so much about food as we talk about faith! We'd starve to death!

 

[MarcAC]

You like here so you're quick to jump to her defense.

Truly I haven't read anything into water's posts which suggests water is a female.

Things make sense to me, but how can I expect you to agree when you are not privy to my perception?

I just love agnostic arguments. But truly, that can substitute as a gnostic argument. So you mean subjectively "valid" - everyone else can justifiably disregard it as crap - o.k.

I accept it through reason, which is ultimately based on faith.

I keep telling you to tell Cris that - yet I'm sure he's seen if but...

Faith is unavoidable, but should be kept minimal in the context of philosophy, such that goal of our endeavors - truth - is not simply assumed away.

It can never be kept minimal if it is the basis for all Wes. It can just be ignored - that doesn't make it any less effective or necessary.

 

[wesmorris]

Truly I haven't read anything into water's posts which suggests water is a female.

Shouldn't you just know anyway? Ask Jeezus.

I just love agnostic arguments. But truly, that can substitute as a gnostic argument.

Then why the stupid crack about agnostics?

So you mean subjectively "valid" - everyone else can justifiably disregard it as crap - o.k.

Unless contradicted by circumstance, yeah. If I have my knee on your throat and argue that my knee is on your throat, it's difficult to justify the counter argument: "your knee isn't on my throat". Besides that kind of thing, "justifiable" is completely subjective. It doesn't matter if 2+2=4 if you're convinced it doesn't until circumstance demands re-assessment.

Belief in god, like many beliefs falls into an interesting category to me. As there is no means by which circumstance can contradict an assertion about something that has no real potential consequences... rather, there is nothing to contradict an assertion about something that has no physical repurcussions, belief in god can exist ad-infinitum and never be contradicted, because negatives can't be proven. That's why the example of pink unicorns compares. I can believe pink unicorns from an alternate dimension control the stock market and there's nothing you can do or say to prove it isn't true.

I keep telling you to tell Cris that - yet I'm sure he's seen if but...

He simply doesn't agree. Can't you respect that?

It can never be kept minimal if it is the basis for all Wes.

The CONTENT OF THE ASSUMPTION. Ack. There's a difference between presuming "I exist" and presuming "the bible is true" regarding what affect the assumption has on the solution set. Minimal means, assume the bare minimum stuff you have to in order to have a solvable problem. Isn't that Occam's Razor?

It can just be ignored - that doesn't make it any less effective or necessary

You simply don't know what you're talking about but your tone indicates otherwise.

 

[MarcAC]

I guess you don't know much about the ancient sacrifices.

With the statements which follow... You better...

They weren't honoring their children or that other thing either.

How so and what other thing?

Read it first.

I read everything presented to you. Did you?

Archaeologists believe they were kneeling, tied and blindfolded, facing the waves, then stabbed through the heart as an offering by their conquerors to Ni, god of the sea.

The archeologists can never be precise, but that's what they believe.
The conquerers were devoted to their god of the sea.

If you abide so blindly to what you assume is true, then how do you leave room for the possibility of being wrong?

There's always room left for the "possibility of being wrong". But as I stated somewhere else; for me, God's existence is as sure as my existence. Let's say it's difficult to leave room for the "possibility of" my existence "being wrong".

Love in the world does not disprove Deism. You should read first.

Of course it doesn't - it doesn't exclusively validate it either. Thus my belief in the Loving God. Why? I have faith in a Loving God - let's call it fate.

Who is the one non-scriptural witness of Jesus' works?

Jesus crucifiction is a part of His works, and also His fate at that instant. I was only referring only to Josephus [see the bottom]... but it seems there are a whole lot more. Thanks for that Star... yet again you've helped me onwards. Wish I could do the same for you... and you could do the same for yourself.

Do you also realize that because more people testify to something doesn't make it any more true? If that was the case then we'd all be Muslim..

So you need a better reason there too.

Actually, I apply such reasoning to every single aspect of my existence. Then it comes down to faith - and fate. Jenyar posted some rather interesting scripture with regards to predestination - maybe we are all chosen to be God's children but through the allowance of free will some of us choose to reject it. Regardless, that's how the world works - take it or leave it.

So you believe in what you don't know?

That would particularly depend on whether my belief is indeed knowledge - I'd rather not claim that - but that's just me. I believe God exists and are these things through faith and experience - just like I believe I exist. I believe that what I 'know' now is what God wants me to 'know' now (remember this all follows from God's existence). I can say I know the Sun shines in the sky. What alternative do I have? People 'knew' that the Sun and everything else went around the earth way back when - what alternative did they have with the tools they had? I like to relegate all knowledge to God. How I believe He is how I see Him. How is see Him is how He wants me to... I hope... yes... faithful statement... Let's say I try my best.

If God is omnipotent, then He doesn't need to share certain characteristics before He can communicate effectively. Therefore it does not follow that God "shares" characteristics with man and it is mere presuppositionalism. Assuming what you are trying to show.

Heh, I am not privy to state all that God in His Omnipotence can do. You seem to be? If I were omnitpotent - then... I'd have a say. What I can say now is that God in his Omnipotence can do all that I can reason is logically possible - and probably more given His Omniscience. Thus I will not assume that God can create square circles - or make a human automatically understand exactly what Whales, Dolphins or any of the myriad of communicative creatures which exist communicate. I work off what I percieve... people don't talk to stars... so... That would invalidate Omnipotence if it meant being able to do anything - when you can prove that anything is possible then such objections may be actively regarded. No square circles.

Apart from himself, is there anything else you know that that is intelligent?

Well, as defined, intelligence is ranged. Is there anything else that you know of that is intelligent? What difference does it make?

Tell me then. How do you know if something has structure?

Can you recognise structure in anything? Man creates recognisable structures - I see structure in myself. Let's say I don't assume I created myself.

Faith in whose God?

Not whose god. God as He is revealed to them. As was alluded in Jenyars post referred to above; God presents Himself to us but at times we reject His purpose for us - I do my best... life isn't perfect Star... as is alluded in Genesis 2; we attempt to go our own way while God knows the best way... I try to follow God's way as best I can.

So instead of trying to understand it, you will first relegate it all to some Cosmic Being.

You assume here that it can at all be reconciled without reference to God. I invite you to do so... but don't take too long... life is short [Pascal's Wager again].

 

[VossistArts]

i have never witnessed or experienced a single thing directly or suggestively that would cause me to believe in deity being the creator of our world and its experiences. i don't know of anyone who has experienced a deity. certainly its hard to imagine, that everything phenomenal exists solely upon it own, but That from which it comes is entirely unknown. a god is thing. phenomena. there is a incredibly slight chance that we are created from the imagination of some silent shy god, but even were that reality, you'd have to acknowledge that something created that god. THis is one reason why i only feel comfortable borrowing the designation That, to indicate whatever it is(nt) that phenomena is gained from. That from which all things manifest. It is not this or this or this, but That, whatever that might be (altho i logically cant see what it is, as being anything one could call any sort of it, or thing). i tend to be drawn to the eastern notion that That is void, un-manifested potential. there is nothing that can be said about it, for words and concepts belong to the manifested world, to phenomena, not noumena. i think its all about objects and spaces. void and creation. yin and yang. empty and full.

 

[MarcAC]

Belief in god, like many beliefs falls into an interesting category to me. As there is no means by which circumstance can contradict an assertion about something that has no real potential consequences...

Potential consequences and consequences are subject to interpretation. The best part is that you will know some time sooner or later after you die - or won't - according to your faith.

That's why the example of pink unicorns compares. I can believe pink unicorns from an alternate dimension control the stock market and there's nothing you can do or say to prove it isn't true.

Sure, as long as you can justify it why not? I attempt to justify my beleif in God as you can see - it is already justified in my head. The situation doesn't even sparsely compare to God's existence being fact - nothing can compare [Pascal's Wager].

The CONTENT OF THE ASSUMPTION. Ack. There's a difference between presuming "I exist" and presuming "the bible is true" regarding what affect the assumption has on the solution set. Minimal means, assume the bare minimum stuff you have to in order to have a solvable problem. Isn't that Occam's Razor?

Then again, as an agnostic, when will you know you have a solution? Anyway, Occam's Razor isn't that simple - especially in this case. You might see the problem solved - but other's might not. All outcomes are rarely "equal" - thus Pascal's Wager.

You simply don't know what you're talking about but your tone indicates otherwise.

You're an agnostic - neither do you. Then again you don't even know what I'm talking about - yet you assume I don't know what I'm talking about. Best to say I don't know what you're talking about or do as water indicated.
On the contrary I can say I experience faith enough to know what it is - I still prefer the definition; The ability to believe.

 

[water]

Minimal means, assume the bare minimum stuff you have to in order to have a solvable problem. Isn't that Occam's Razor?

Humans don't do that. If they would, we'd still be somewhere in the savannah.

You simply don't know what you're talking about but your tone indicates otherwise.

Ah, the tone. The conviction, yes!
Conviction -- a thing that those who can't discern between *conviction* and *content*, fear, loathe and admire.

Oh, and "You simply don't know what you're talking about" -- neither does an agnostic or a relativist. So how can he accuse others of "You simply don't know what you're talking about"?
if one truly want to be true to agnosticism and relativism, one has to apply its premises on all levels of thinking, meta- and non-meta-.

 

[§outh§tar]

With the statements which follow... You better...How so and what other thing?

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/latinamerica/topics/human_scacrifice.html

There's always room left for the "possibility of being wrong". But as I stated somewhere else; for me, God's existence is as sure as my existence. Let's say it's difficult to leave room for the "possibility of" my existence "being wrong".

If water is reading this..

See what I mean by absurd presuppositionalism. Utter unwillingness to admit that one has been a fool - or is a fool - or could be a fool. I believe because I believe.

Of course it doesn't - it doesn't exclusively validate it either. Thus my belief in the Loving God. Why? I have faith in a Loving God - let's call it fate.

See previous sentence.

Jesus crucifiction is a part of His works, and also His fate at that instant. I was only referring only to Josephus [see the bottom]... but it seems there are a whole lot more. Thanks for that Star... yet again you've helped me onwards. Wish I could do the same for you... and you could do the same for yourself.

You are very welcome. See here for a thorough shakedown of the presupposition concerning Josephus and Jesus.

Why, if you looked around that site, you would find that it inspects all this presupposed historical "evidence" for the historicity of Jesus. I'm sure you wouldn't bother anyhow. But at least you know that you are assuming what apologists have conjured. Two sides to a coin.

Actually, I apply such reasoning to every single aspect of my existence. Then it comes down to faith - and fate. Jenyar posted some rather interesting scripture with regards to predestination - maybe we are all chosen to be God's children but through the allowance of free will some of us choose to reject it. Regardless, that's how the world works - take it or leave it.

Ok so through free will, one can circumvent the timeless edict of an omnipotent God. And you "choose" to believe this?

That would particularly depend on whether my belief is indeed knowledge - I'd rather not claim that - but that's just me. I believe God exists and are these things through faith and experience - just like I believe I exist. I believe that what I 'know' now is what God wants me to 'know' now (remember this all follows from God's existence). I can say I know the Sun shines in the sky. What alternative do I have? People 'knew' that the Sun and everything else went around the earth way back when - what alternative did they have with the tools they had? I like to relegate all knowledge to God. How I believe He is how I see Him. How is see Him is how He wants me to... I hope... yes... faithful statement... Let's say I try my best.

Well you are certainly more honest than Jenyar..

I believe because I want to.

Why?

Argue from ignorance.

And yea though the disbeliever likewise does not believe because he does not want to, He still finds fault with him. Burns the disbeliever for all eternity because the disbeliever followed his heart just like you are following yours. A just God?

Heh, I am not privy to state all that God in His Omnipotence can do. You seem to be? If I were omnitpotent - then... I'd have a say. What I can say now is that God in his Omnipotence can do all that I can reason is logically possible - and probably more given His Omniscience. Thus I will not assume that God can create square circles - or make a human automatically understand exactly what Whales, Dolphins or any of the myriad of communicative creatures which exist communicate. I work off what I percieve... people don't talk to stars... so... That would invalidate Omnipotence if it meant being able to do anything - when you can prove that anything is possible then such objections may be actively regarded. No square circles.

So limit God by your own limitations. And yet why will He still find fault?

18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"​

Tell me then, why does He have a double standard? Why does He still find fault?

Can you recognise structure in anything? Man creates recognisable structures - I see structure in myself. Let's say I don't assume I created myself.

Ignores the question. How do you know if something has structure or not?

Not whose god. God as He is revealed to them. As was alluded in Jenyars post referred to above; God presents Himself to us but at times we reject His purpose for us - I do my best... life isn't perfect Star... as is alluded in Genesis 2; we attempt to go our own way while God knows the best way... I try to follow God's way as best I can.

Why then do you reject a deist's God?

You assume here that it can at all be reconciled without reference to God. I invite you to do so... but don't take too long... life is short [Pascal's Wager again].

Don't put words in my mouth.

The unknown can be reconciled without need for us to resort to presuppositionalism. I really hope water sees this.

 

[wesmorris]

Potential consequences and consequences are subject to interpretation.

Sure.

The best part is that you will know some time sooner or later after you die - or won't - according to your faith.

I don't think your faith has much to do with it. What will happen, will happen. Then again, at this point there's really no way to know... not that you'd agree.

Sure, as long as you can justify it why not?

Well, because I can't really justify it. I couldn't justify it to me, you or anyone. In fact if I could justify it to you, I'd have to wonder if you're lying or insane.

I attempt to justify my beleif in God as you can see - it is already justified in my head.

That's apparent enough. I have no cause to doubt it, as your belief in and of itself is of little consequence to me.

The situation doesn't even sparsely compare to God's existence being fact - nothing can compare [Pascal's Wager].

Of course. Your faith wouldn't be very faithful if it were otherwise.

Then again, as an agnostic, when will you know you have a solution?

I think some problems are unsolvable. I think it usually indicates a ridiculous question. Regardless, it depends on the problem. If it works for the task at hand I'll likely use it unless I can think of a better way.

Anyway, Occam's Razor isn't that simple - especially in this case. You might see the problem solved - but other's might not.

Does that necessarily mean it isn't solved? If I expend the effort to comprehend and solve a problem and can demonstrate its validity as a solution, does it matter than you don't think it's solved? To me, no.. to you, yes. This is what I find so interesting about all of this.

All outcomes are rarely "equal" - thus Pascal's Wager.

The outcome is the outcome. How individuals value that outcome if necessarily subjective.

You're an agnostic - neither do you.

Yes, I know what I'm talking about.. but it likely isn't the same as what you're talking about, as you note below:

Then again you don't even know what I'm talking about - yet you assume I don't know what I'm talking about. Best to say I don't know what you're talking about.

I'll accept that. It would have been better had I phrased that differently.

On the contrary I can say I experience faith enough to know what it is - I still prefer the definition; The ability to believe.

That's because it works for the model in your head, as my definition works in mine. I find yours unnecessarily presumptuous. You apparently find mine completely confused and possibly pointless. It seems my presumption that your presumption is extreme, and your presumption itself leaves us an an impasse. I understand where you're coming from, I just think it's stupid because of where I'm coming from. I'm sure it's not stupid in your context, but in mine it is. I don't think you're stupid as a whole, just that aspect of you. You may not use the same verbage, but I'm sure you feel similarly about me.

It seems to me that the possibilty of multiple valid conclusions from a single problem like "is there a god" suggests that my assertion "god cannot be known" is necessarily valid and that each conclusion regarding the question, being necessarily subjective... is simply that. Given that they are as such, the objective truth is that the objective truth can only be poked at. With no methodology to assist in resolving the dispute, we must agree to disagree.

You know, and I'm basically convinced that you don't know but you think you do.

That's just messed up. Of course I'm not certain that you're wrong, I just don't think you can really know what you claim (it may be true, but you don't know it any more than anyone else who ever pondered the question). Of course again, I don't expect that will matter much to you.

 

[water]

If water is reading this..

Yes, I am.

See what I mean by absurd presuppositionalism. Utter unwillingness to admit that one has been a fool - or is a fool - or could be a fool.

You are confusing the *content* of one's thoughts with one's *character*.

I believe because I believe.

S
T
R
A
W
M
A
S
S
E
S
.

Ok so through free will, one can circumvent the timeless edict of an omnipotent God.

More of false dichotomies ...

The unknown can be reconciled without need for us to resort to presuppositionalism. I really hope water sees this.

I am seeing it and it is nothing new. You just don't know me well.

 

[§outh§tar]

S
T
R
A
W
M
A
S
S
E
S
.

Or it may just be the last surviving truth. Inescapable. MarcAC practically said it himself.

More of false dichotomies ...

Haven't we already talked about this?

You just don't know me well.

Do you know yourself?

 

[MarcAC]

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/latinamerica/topics/human_scacrifice.html

Star, this site has yet to vindicate whether or not the sacrifices were made through devoation, whether or not the victims were willing, and it has yet to elaborate on whether or not through or in all that they were capable of love. Simply put; it's irrelevant - it obviously demonstrates the fact that - to us - such acts were horrible. The relevant issue (as I have been referring to) is; should one focus on the act or the intention? You have yet to make one positive or negative answer to this question.

See what I mean by absurd presuppositionalism. Utter unwillingness to admit that one has been a fool - or is a fool - or could be a fool. I believe because I believe.

The would be assuming that God is a product of my intellect. Is existence a product of my intellect? If it is; so be it.

See previous sentence.

See previous sentence.

You are very welcome. See here for a thorough shakedown of the presupposition concerning Josephus and Jesus.

Thanks, much - somewhere along my reading I noticed Doherty stated that nothing in history is proven - one can just argue one's position - he argues his, others have argued and will argue theirs. The site also directed me to a wider array of texts concerning the "historical Jesus". You may want to review them - or not. What I find most interesting is the difference with which the texts included in scripture are treated as opposed to secular texts. It most certainly seems to be due to some amount of paranoia; I wonder to what extent that paranoia can be justified... and how.

Why, if you looked around that site, you would find that it inspects all this presupposed historical "evidence" for the historicity of Jesus. I'm sure you wouldn't bother anyhow. But at least you know that you are assuming what apologists have conjured. Two sides to a coin.

Three sites were referenced. "That site" doesn't identify which you referred to; so... which is it? I frankly don't know and can't figure.

Ok so through free will, one can circumvent the timeless edict of an omnipotent God. And you "choose" to believe this?

Well let's say it makes most sense to me - when one can illustrate that the reasoning violates any biblical principles well I'll review it.

Well you are certainly more honest than Jenyar..

How do you surmise this? Jenyar simply reasons differently from me in some senses. One is simply honest to their position - not necessarily honest to yours. Get me?

I believe because I want to.

I believe because I must - the world makes no sense if God doesn't exist - life makes no sense if I don't exist. But then, yes, I also believe because I want to through my free will. For me, when one states he doesn't believe God exists it's similar to stating he doesn't believe he exists - it's just in your face - can't deny it - kind of thing.

Why?

I don't see an alternative - you'll end up asking questions the rest of your life and eventually die in a state like that which Wes Morris is in - "digusting" (hope he sees this - snicker) - or confused.

Argue from ignorance.

Argue from experience. Because I can't justify my existence through reason doesn't mean that when I say "I exist" it is from "ignorance". If it is then in this case "ignorance" is the only option. Life isn't black and white Star.

And yea though the disbeliever likewise does not believe because he does not want to, He still finds fault with him. Burns the disbeliever for all eternity because the disbeliever followed his heart just like you are following yours. A just God?

See above and see Jenyar's post again. Likewise doesn't apply. Let's call it predestination through free will. I believe that if the non-believer followed his heart he'd believe: what he follows is skeptic reasoning - with that I wonder what one will ever accept as true - except ones reasoning. This is a subjective perspective of course... I don't know you - only God does.

So limit God by your own limitations. And yet why will He still find fault?

No, simply applying a definition. Omnipotent doesn't mean being able to do the logically impossible. It means being able to do anything possible - whatever that is. I will not assume God can create square circles - let's say it's an application of Occam's Razor. Only the atheist will want to push such a notion of omnipotence in order to attempt to justify his position. Such silly repulsive crap as; "if God is omnipotent then He can 'not be' God or else He isn't omnipotent." Such is the world of the atheist - it is reduced to meaninglessness.

18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"​

Tell me then, why does He have a double standard? Why does He still find fault?

Okey dokey; now can you provide a reference so that I can refer to the passage independently. Follow Jenyar's example.

Ignores the question. How do you know if something has structure or not?

Misses the point; same as you. But to attempt and answer just in case; looking at the webpage I see this dark flat band, then I recognise these little white structures on it - letters - I think it has something to do with contrast - percieving a difference - I think that's significant. What's your point?

Why then do you reject a deist's God?

Because God is revealed to me the way I see Him. I'd rather not take thing's the way I don't see them.

Anyway, a deist's god, to me, is rather unnecessary. The world isn't black and white. Free will has it's consequences - how do you recognise one thing without the other. How do I recognise structure without the lack of it? Such is the case with Free will. I won't assume I can recognise structure without some form of contrast - like somehow seeing white letters on a black band when there's only a black band - maybe God can do it somehow - I don't kow. Love and Hate are a consequence of free will. Why then does God not remove free will? We may as well be stars in such a case or rocks or drones - there is no consciousness without free will - God loves us - I think he granted us that - consciousness - 'sentience' if there's such a word - so that we may recognise and love Him back; ask Jenyar - he/she might agree. I'd rather exist with free will than be a star - don't know about you (wink wink). He may love stars too, but I wonder if they can truly love Him back.

The unknown can be reconciled without need for us to resort to presuppositionalism. I really hope water sees this.

Good luck trying to do so; you may start by... "nonpresuppositionalismly"... (Merriam Webster here I come )... proving you exist - all follows from that.

 

[MarcAC]

...but you don't know it any more than anyone else who ever pondered the question...

The thing is I might know somehow, through some method [a step in evolution? God?]. But yes, you may never know that, and once the method escapes you it seems senseless to try to persuade you in such a state - but God is Omnipotent - he does what He Will if you allow Him through your free will. I believe and trust in God Wes, and I will do so til the day I die - no point in changing my position cause it will probably just make it worse. [Pascal's Wager]

 

[§outh§tar]

Star, this site has yet to vindicate whether or not the sacrifices were made through devoation, whether or not the victims were willing, and it has yet to elaborate on whether or not through or in all that they were capable of love. Simply put; it's irrelevant - it obviously demonstrates the fact that - to us - such acts were horrible. The relevant issue (as I have been referring to) is; should one focus on the act or the intention? You have yet to make one positive or negative answer to this question.

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask or the context for that matter.

The would be assuming that God is a product of my intellect. Is existence a product of my intellect? If it is; so be it.

Burn the straw MarcAC. Burn it black and crisp.

Oh, and that was so not what I said.

Thanks, much - somewhere along my reading I noticed Doherty stated that nothing in history is proven - one can just argue one's position - he argues his, others have argued and will argue theirs.

I think you missed the point. I was trying to show you that the Josephus claim is more fancy than fact given its context.

It most certainly seems to be due to some amount of paranoia; I wonder to what extent that paranoia can be justified... and how.[/color]

There was a pleasant satire a while back ago you would have liked then.


Three sites were referenced. "That site" doesn't identify which you referred to; so... which is it? I frankly don't know and can't figure.

That site would be the one I posted

Well let's say it makes most sense to me - when one can illustrate that the reasoning violates any biblical principles well I'll review it.

Ok then. Show me where the "biblical principles" support your assumption.

How do you surmise this? Jenyar simply reasons differently from me in some senses. One is simply honest to their position - not necessarily honest to yours. Get me?

One is never EVER honest to their position. I have been trying to tell water this but I am just a self deprecating guy, you know?

I believe because I must - the world makes no sense if God doesn't exist - life makes no sense if I don't exist. But then, yes, I also believe because I want to through my free will. For me, when one states he doesn't believe God exists it's similar to stating he doesn't believe he exists - it's just in your face - can't deny it - kind of thing.

Whether or not God exists - I think you know - cannot be answered by us. Whether or not the God claimed by Christianity exists can be answered on the other hand.

I don't see an alternative - you'll end up asking questions the rest of your life and eventually die in a state like that which Wes Morris is in - "digusting" (hope he sees this - snicker) - or confused.

You'll be shocked to know.

Argue from experience. Because I can't justify my existence through reason doesn't mean that when I say "I exist" it is from "ignorance". If it is then in this case "ignorance" is the only option. Life isn't black and white Star.

Just because it isn't black and white doesn't mean it is gray either.

See above and see Jenyar's post again. Likewise doesn't apply. Let's call it predestination through free will. I believe that if the non-believer followed his heart he'd believe: what he follows is skeptic reasoning - with that I wonder what one will ever accept as true - except ones reasoning. This is a subjective perspective of course... I don't know you - only God does.

I feel like I am repeating what I have said to water again.

YOU CANNOT TRUST YOURSELF. If your knowledge depends on itself and your reasoning is flawed, then you had better be DAMN cautious in what you assume and why you assume it.

You'll be shocked to know.

No, simply applying a definition. Omnipotent doesn't mean being able to do the logically impossible. It means being able to do anything possible - whatever that is. I will not assume God can create square circles - let's say it's an application of Occam's Razor. Only the atheist will want to push such a notion of omnipotence in order to attempt to justify his position. Such silly repulsive crap as; "if God is omnipotent then He can 'not be' God or else He isn't omnipotent." Such is the world of the atheist - it is reduced to meaninglessness.

So now you are applying limited man's definition to limitless God?

Oh, and how's that straw burning coming on? It needs to be crisp, I told you.

Okey dokey; now can you provide a reference so that I can refer to the passage independently. Follow Jenyar's example.

Sorry I thought I did. Although you could have just as easily looked it up in a search engine and left out the anal-retentiveness.. Find the verses in Romans 9

Misses the point; same as you. But to attempt and answer just in case; looking at the webpage I see this dark flat band, then I recognise these little white structures on it - letters - I think it has something to do with contrast - percieving a difference - I think that's significant. What's your point?

Do you forget what you yourself wrote?

"I see creation as I see a computer - something with structure and purpose - I assume it was created."

And I am asking, how can you tell if something has structure or not?

Because God is revealed to me the way I see Him. I'd rather not take thing's the way I don't see them.

And so if a person living in some remote part of the world doesn't see God the way God wants to be seen, God burns them in Hell for all eternity. Wow.

Anyway, a deist's god, to me, is rather unnecessary. The world isn't black and white. Free will has it's consequences - how do you recognise one thing without the other. How do I recognise structure without the lack of it? Such is the case with Free will. I won't assume I can recognise structure without some form of contrast - like somehow seeing white letters on a black band when there's only a black band - maybe God can do it somehow - I don't kow. Love and Hate are a consequence of free will. Why then does God not remove free will? We may as well be stars in such a case or rocks or drones - there is no consciousness without free will - God loves us - I think he granted us that - consciousness - 'sentience' if there's such a word - so that we may recognise and love Him back; ask Jenyar - he/she might agree. I'd rather exist with free will than be a star - don't know about you (wink wink). He may love stars too, but I wonder if they can truly love Him back.

Who told you there is no consciousness without free will? You people like to simplify everything and assume what you know and then assume that you know it.

Feels like I am talking to a wall.

Good luck trying to do so; you may start by... "nonpresuppositionalismly"... (Merriam Webster here I come )... proving you exist - all follows from that.

Yup.. just a little hotter and the straw will be ash. Don't stop now!

There is no "you". But I won't even bother.. like talking to a wall.

 

[MarcAC]

I'm not sure what you're trying to ask or the context for that matter.

Well I presented my thoughts. You stated it's "grapsing at straws" and that they "weren't honouring their children or that other thing either." I asked "how so [not honoring children] and what other thing [other thing]?" You referred me to that website - I then stated that it doesn't address the issue of devotion of the people to whichever god, the willingness of those who were sacrificed or whether love was shown in any of it - which is what my "grasping at straws" post was trying to put across.

I was trying to show you that the Josephus claim is more fancy than fact given its context.

Of course I wouldn't expect you to attempt the converse.

Ok then. Show me where the "biblical principles" support your assumption.

A good one to start with would be the one Jenyar posted that I referenced below. I think your reply to it was; "You would be shocked to know..."

One is never EVER honest to their position. I have been trying to tell water this but I am just a self deprecating guy, you know?

I don't see how one can come to such a conclusion, but my advice is never speak stereotypically.

Whether or not God exists - I think you know - cannot be answered by us. Whether or not the God claimed by Christianity exists can be answered on the other hand.

Whether or not God exists doesn't need to be answered by us; but then again you do have some who try to answer the 'question' of existence. I may entertain the thought but assuming a negative answer is particularly pointless. Such is one's state when they start to think that only reason and logic can justify.

YOU CANNOT TRUST YOURSELF. If your knowledge depends on itself and your reasoning is flawed, then you had better be DAMN cautious in what you assume and why you assume it.

Life isn't black and white Star. If my knowledge depends on itself. I don't think it does - I think it depends on God. You can never trust and love God if you don't trust and love your fellow man first.

So now you are applying limited man's definition to limitless God?

When you suggest an alternative then that question will be actively addressed.

Find the verses in Romans 9
.

Paul lays down his position quite well in Romans 9 - all your questions are answered. Whether you like them or not is another issue. I have no problem with them - I trust Paul and I trust God.

I am asking, how can you tell if something has structure or not?

I answered as best I could given my understanding of your question (strcuture is recongised through patterns). Wherever I see structure I assume structurer. That's why I then asked what's the point? Just in case I'm lost in it, which it seems I am...

And so if a person living in some remote part of the world doesn't see God the way God wants to be seen, God burns them in Hell for all eternity. Wow.

Well I'm sure God would want them to see Him the way He is; not the way they want Him to be. Simply put; if you don't like what is here go somewhere else: that place is not nice, but you were warned anyway - so happy riddance.

Who told you there is no consciousness without free will?

Well, no one did really. Let's say I can't see someone knowing what is left and what is right without deciding which is which.

Feels like I am talking to a wall.

Sure it's not a mirror?

There is no "you". But I won't even bother.. like talking to a wall.

Wall or mirror? In fact, maybe the best way to reveal the nature of the statement is to look into a mirror and say it - hopefully I don't understand what you mean.

 

[water]

The would be assuming that God is a product of my intellect. Is existence a product of my intellect? If it is; so be it.

Existence isn't a product of our intellect, but our understanding of existence (including the word "existence") is a product of our intellect.

I believe because I must - the world makes no sense if God doesn't exist - life makes no sense if I don't exist. But then, yes, I also believe because I want to through my free will. For me, when one states he doesn't believe God exists it's similar to stating he doesn't believe he exists - it's just in your face - can't deny it - kind of thing.

You see, the problem SouthStar and I and some others are getting at is this: It looks as if people believe what they do out of vanity, or because they don't know any better -- and that there is ultimately no proper justification for belief (any belief, for that matter).

The thing to do now is to know that, and still be honest.

I don't see an alternative - you'll end up asking questions the rest of your life and eventually die in a state like that which Wes Morris is in - "digusting" (hope he sees this - snicker) - or confused.

Who is so safe as we? where none can do
Treason to us, except one of us two.
True and false fears let us refrain,
Let us love nobly, and live, and add again
Years and years unto years, till we attain
To write threescore ; this is the second of our reign.

John Donne, The Anniversary

The unknown can be reconciled without need for us to resort to presuppositionalism. I really hope water sees this.

Good luck trying to do so; you may start by... "nonpresuppositionalismly"... (Merriam Webster here I come )... proving you exist - all follows from that.

Marc, it can be done -- the unknown can be reconciled by simply not taking it for granted. You know that. In a theist's words, "Put your trust in the LORD."

...but you don't know it any more than anyone else who ever pondered the question...

The thing is I might know somehow, through some method [a step in evolution? God?].

The thing is that once *you* know something, it is *personal*, and it has meaning for *you*, in *your* life. As such, you do know more than anyone else who has ever pondered the question.

Like that proverb: No proverb will mean something to you until you see its truthfulness for yourself.

It is the experiential aspect which those theory-bound atheists like to neglect so much. They want it all to be a thought experiment, even though they loudly declare to be empiricists.


* * *

One is never EVER honest to their position.

What was it that about me talking about not taking things for granted?

I have been trying to tell water this but I am just a self deprecating guy, you know?

*grumbles "Men."*

Just because it isn't black and white doesn't mean it is gray either.

It's all in the colours!

*Yes, thank you. I just had to have my moment.*

YOU CANNOT TRUST YOURSELF. If your knowledge depends on itself and your reasoning is flawed, then you had better be DAMN cautious in what you assume and why you assume it.

I have avoided this line of argument so far because of the possible implications -- but I will speak with the theist's tongue now:

Put your trust in the LORD. You do not depend on yourself, your life does not depend on you. Put your trust in the LORD and do the LORD's will.

In the tongue of the atheist, this translates as: "Nothing should be taken for granted." -- but the problem is that such a position eventually becomes unbearable. It is too much for us to consequently doubt everything. We can't live in the relative -- and still have respect for ourselves, life, the Earth.

Sorry I thought I did. Although you could have just as easily looked it up in a search engine and left out the anal-retentiveness..

"Never let it be said that your anal retentive attention to detail never yielded positive results! For you can't be anal retentive if you don't have an anus!"

Sorry, couldn't resist.

And so if a person living in some remote part of the world doesn't see God the way God wants to be seen, God burns them in Hell for all eternity. Wow.

NO.
NO.
NO.

God is omniscient and God knows everyone's mind.
But you indeed sometimes think that God is a "selfish, egomaniacal, miser" (to use Brutus' words) who will put it against you if you can't read or are deaf.

Who told you there is no consciousness without free will? You people like to simplify everything and assume what you know and then assume that you know it.

Feels like I am talking to a wall.

U-uh.


* * *

Wall or mirror? In fact, maybe the best way to reveal the nature of the statement is to look into a mirror and say it - hopefully I don't understand what you mean.

Patience, I say. SouthStar's new theory is coming.

 

[water]

Marc,

There is some other point to SouthStar's questioning and doubting strategy, even though what seems most apparent is that he is merely spiting, resenting, doubting for the sake of doubting.
I can't say more right now.

 

[MarcAC]

Existence isn't a product of our intellect, but our understanding of existence (including the word "existence") is a product of our intellect.

True. I think existence will forever be expereinced more than it is understood - at least in this life - same with God.

It looks as if people believe what they do out of vanity, or because they don't know any better -

The question remains; Is there better to be known?

- and that there is ultimately no proper justification for belief (any belief, for that matter).

Why do you believe that? How do you justify that belief? If you do, why do you believe it's justified? How do you justify your conception of justification?

Sometimes we shouldn't fear circles - in many cases things cannot make sense without them. When one ends up in a circle of reasoning (all cases I guess) one should then realise that reason alone is not the only source of justification - but this is the age of reason isn't it?

If my hand gets chopped off I don't reason that my hand is chopped off, and then conclude pain. For many, including myself - that is how it is with God - chop your hand off too and you'll know what I'm saying - you'll believe - not through reason - through experience. Of course the experience of God is a nearly incomparable antithesis.