Religion And God

[mis-t-highs]

Nobody has met god? That might be true of your experience but not others - what logic do you apply to arrive at the conclusion that noone has met god?

you are having a laugh, "HALLO" no f**king evidence.

What are some examples of the evidential ways that you say the ferrari boss exists and god doesn't?

you most definitely are having a laugh, shall we ask his new wife or should we ask the camera man or journalist, or should we ask the mechanics at ferrari or even the drivers, if they believe Jean Todt exists. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/05/content_406014.htm.
http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=120921

 

[Student of Yoga]

The last person who met God was a person called Swami Vivekananda.
I suggest you try and find out more about him

 

[KennyJC]

Nobody has met god? That might be true of your experience but not others - what logic do you apply to arrive at the conclusion that noone has met god?

I think what you are asking for is two impossabilities:-

1) A living intelligent creator exists
2) It is possible for a human being to meet this intelligent creator

I do not exaggerate in saying that I am more likely to give birth to Popeye the Sailor Man. There is no evidence that says I will never give birth to Popeye the Sailor Man, but you'd still have to be a fucking idiot to say I will.

 

[lightgigantic]

you are having a laugh, "HALLO" no f**king evidence.you most definitely are having a laugh, shall we ask his new wife or should we ask the camera man or journalist, or should we ask the mechanics at ferrari or even the drivers, if they believe Jean Todt exists. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-01/05/content_406014.htm.
http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=120921

Well the links you provided are as authoratative as scripture in the sense of god - like there are stacks of scriptures or scriptural commentaries or philosophical treatises that attest to the existence of god and there are also heaps of newspaper articles and the like that attest to the existence of the ferrari boss.

In other words the evidence that the ferrari actually has a designer/manufacturer are dependant on the direct perception of someone else. You have never personally met the ferrari boss - and nor are you likely to in the immediate future because you are not qualified - The same is true of god. Just as most people have never met someone who has personally met the ferrari manufacturer, most people have never met god - and inboth cases there are very good reasons why not everyone and anyone can directly see them.

Regarding the mechanics, they can point to the ferrari and say it must have a designer. Someone can point to any aspect of the universe (which is a million times more complex than a ferrari) and say the same thing.

 

[lightgigantic]

I think what you are asking for is two impossabilities:-

1) A living intelligent creator exists
2) It is possible for a human being to meet this intelligent creator

I do not exaggerate in saying that I am more likely to give birth to Popeye the Sailor Man. There is no evidence that says I will never give birth to Popeye the Sailor Man, but you'd still have to be a fucking idiot to say I will.

Ok so now you have stated your opinion so it behooves you to follow with a logical explanation - otherwise on what grounds should I respond to this?
Is it just about displaying willpower and charismsa to get a point through?

 

[Cris]

Student,

The last person who met God was a person called Swami Vivekananda.
I suggest you try and find out more about him

Very funny. You aren't serious, are you?

 

[KennyJC]

otherwise on what grounds should I respond to this?

You can respond to it however you wish, so long as you don't give merit to dimwit theists who hold such ancient fantasies.

 

[mis-t-highs]

Well the links you provided are as authoratative as scripture in the sense of god

I dont know why I'm responding as it quite clear your blinkered, with a sky daddy fixation,

like there are stacks of scriptures or scriptural commentaries or philosophical treatises that attest to the existence of god

all of it is refutable, every microbe of it can be argued, it only take one microbe of a thing to prove it exist. your sky daddy does'nt even have that much.

and there are also heaps of newspaper articles and the like that attest to the existence of the ferrari boss.

this is irrefutable evidence that jean todt exists.

In other words the evidence that the ferrari actually has a designer/manufacturer are dependant on the direct perception of someone else.

not necessarily so.

You have never personally met the ferrari boss - and nor are you likely to in the immediate future because you are not qualified

and how in the hell would you know that, I've actually been at the same table as the man. wtf are you talking about.(qualified)

The same is true of god.

not so

Just as most people have never met someone who has personally met the ferrari manufacturer, most people have never met god - and inboth cases there are very good reasons why not everyone and anyone can directly see them.

if only one person in the whole of jean todts life had ever objectively met him, thats one more person than a god, has objectively met.

Regarding the mechanics, they can point to the ferrari and say it must have a designer. Someone can point to any aspect of the universe (which is a million times more complex than a ferrari) and say the same thing.

how so. why would a god did it, scenario be more likely.

 

[lightgigantic]

I dont know why I'm responding as it quite clear your blinkered, with a sky daddy fixation, all of it is refutable, every microbe of it can be argued, it only take one microbe of a thing to prove it exist. your sky daddy does'nt even have that much. this is irrefutable evidence that jean todt exists.
not necessarily so. and how in the hell would you know that, I've actually been at the same table as the man. wtf are you talking about.(qualified) not so if only one person in the whole of jean todts life had ever objectively met him, thats one more person than a god, has objectively met.
how so. why would a god did it, scenario be more likely.

The point is that just as most people do not directly perceive the ferrari boss because they are not qualified (they couldn't make it past the first of his 10 000 secretaries) most people perceive the truth of his existence due to the direct perception of someone one else - in other words they accept the truth through the medium of newspapers, tv etc.

In the same way perception of god is gained rarely through direct perception - your statement that no one has seen god obviously indicates that you haven't done much research in the field - because the face of the globe is jam packed with religions that have numerous claims to perceiving the presence of god.

You may say you have not perceived god, but if you want to use your experience as a yardstick for determining what others have seen your statement falls short -

Now you claim that you have met the ferrari owner - I have not - does the fact that I have not met him detract from your claim that you have?

 

[superluminal]

LG,

This is interesting. I hate to bring this up but, do you believe in the easter bunny and santa? What is the qualitative and quantitative difference between these entities and god? Or the fferrari boss? Let's think about this...

 

[Cris]

light,

Does that mean we can also reject other mystical entities like electrons and people's minds?

Neither are mystical. These are merely labels for demonstrable phenomena.

 

[Cris]

Light,

The point is that just as most people do not directly perceive the ferrari boss because they are not qualified (they couldn't make it past the first of his 10 000 secretaries) most people perceive the truth of his existence due to the direct perception of someone one else - in other words they accept the truth through the medium of newspapers, tv etc.

No not true. It is demonstrable that such corporations have a clear management structure, there is extensive precedent. This provides a very strong inductive argument that there is a Ferrari boss.

In the same way perception of god is gained rarely through direct perception - your statement that no one has seen god obviously indicates that you haven't done much research in the field - because the face of the globe is jam packed with religions that have numerous claims to perceiving the presence of god.

Yet there is absolutely no precedent for gods to have actually existed. You neither have a deductive or inductive argument for the existence of gods.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

This is interesting. I hate to bring this up but, do you believe in the easter bunny and santa? What is the qualitative and quantitative difference between these entities and god? Or the fferrari boss? Let's think about this...

Well say santa claus - The evidence for him is that there are some presents that appear under a christmas tree - no w obviously the presents didn't come from nowhere, so we assume that perhaps it was santa claus - later on however it is revealed that one's parents actually placed the presents there - thus santa claus doesn't exist -

The presents however don't just spontaneously appear from nowhere - they are dependant on a sentient creature - we were wrong in our perception of the exact sentient person who laid them there - we were not mistaken that the presents were laid down by a sentient being.

Similarly to advocate that the universe appeared from nothing is like advocating that the christmas presents appeared from nowhere .

 

[lightgigantic]

LG,

This is interesting. I hate to bring this up but, do you believe in the easter bunny and santa? What is the qualitative and quantitative difference between these entities and god? Or the fferrari boss? Let's think about this...

How do you demonstrate an electron and how do you demonstrate a person's mind?

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,

No not true. It is demonstrable that such corporations have a clear management structure, there is extensive precedent. This provides a very strong inductive argument that there is a Ferrari boss. .

Its only inductive if you are the accountant or on the managing board - otherwise you just perceive the reality of the ferrari business by via media like everyone else -

Yet there is absolutely no precedent for gods to have actually existed. You neither have a deductive or inductive argument for the existence of gods.

You are saying that there is no precedent for gods to exist - but on the basis of what body of enquiry do you make that statement?

For example if I say "No germans have manufactured a spacecraft" you would hope that I was familiar with space craft as a field of knowledge and that I was in a position to perceive whether any germans had actually made any spacecraft. If there were some evidence that germans had created spacecrafts you would also expect that I was able to dismantle such statements by my superior position of knowledge if in fact I wanted to maintain my statement "No germans have created spacecraft"

So in other words you say that there is no precedent for gods to exist and there are numerous philosophers, etc that state there is - How do you reconcile that clash? Did they imagine it? Were they all victim of some global propaganda campaign?

 

[Cris]

Light,

Its only inductive if you are the accountant or on the managing board - otherwise you just perceive the reality of the ferrari business by via media like everyone else –

And likewise there is ample precedent to show that our media is sufficiently accurate about things to create a strong inductive conclusion.

You are saying that there is no precedent for gods to exist - but on the basis of what body of enquiry do you make that statement?

Total absence of any credible demonstration. Notice I am not saying that gods do not exist only that there exists no precedent to show they exist.

For example if I say "No germans have manufactured a spacecraft" you would hope that I was familiar with space craft as a field of knowledge and that I was in a position to perceive whether any germans had actually made any spacecraft. If there were some evidence that germans had created spacecrafts you would also expect that I was able to dismantle such statements by my superior position of knowledge if in fact I wanted to maintain my statement "No germans have created spacecraft"

You are arguing from the perspective of having knowledge I am arguing from the perspective that no one has demonstrated any such knowledge.

So in other words you say that there is no precedent for gods to exist and there are numerous philosophers, etc that state there is - How do you reconcile that clash? Did they imagine it? Were they all victim of some global propaganda campaign?

You’ve missed the point. It is irrelevant what they say, the issue is that no one has demonstrated that what they believe has any truth.

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,

And likewise there is ample precedent to show that our media is sufficiently accurate about things to create a strong inductive conclusion.

Total absence of any credible demonstration. Notice I am not saying that gods do not exist only that there exists no precedent to show they exist.

You are arguing from the perspective of having knowledge I am arguing from the perspective that no one has demonstrated any such knowledge.

You’ve missed the point. It is irrelevant what they say, the issue is that no one has demonstrated that what they believe has any truth.

Chris,

let's take this issue up in the other thread (God is real) because you seem to be applying the same general principles in both

 

[superluminal]

Well say santa claus - The evidence for him is that there are some presents that appear under a christmas tree - no w obviously the presents didn't come from nowhere, so we assume that perhaps it was santa claus - later on however it is revealed that one's parents actually placed the presents there - thus santa claus doesn't exist -

The presents however don't just spontaneously appear from nowhere - they are dependant on a sentient creature - we were wrong in our perception of the exact sentient person who laid them there - we were not mistaken that the presents were laid down by a sentient being.

Similarly to advocate that the universe appeared from nothing is like advocating that the christmas presents appeared from nowhere .

Ok LG. This argument of the universe being "designed" by a "sentient being" because we now, as a species, design "things" is not very convincing. Before humans designed "things" this argument could not even exist. It also always begs the question "who designed the designer?". Your response may be "no one. He/she/it was the 'uncaused cause' ". The response, as you well know, is "if god can be 'uncaused' why not the universe itself, and just dispense with the extra step of having a 'being' be the cause". This argument has been shown to be basically useless in the defense of god.

 

[superluminal]

How do you demonstrate an electron and how do you demonstrate a person's mind?

1) Photoelectric effect, Millikan oil drop experiment, Electron microscopes, etc.

2) I do not understand this.

 

[lightgigantic]

Ok LG. This argument of the universe being "designed" by a "sentient being" because we now, as a species, design "things" is not very convincing. Before humans designed "things" this argument could not even exist. .

What do birds do when they make a nest? Actually you are begging the question because you start on the principle that matter created life, which is an intrinsically atheistic proposal. Design is intrinsic to sentient thought - not necessarily human

It also always begs the question "who designed the designer?". Your response may be "no one. He/she/it was the 'uncaused cause' ". The response, as you well know, is "if god can be 'uncaused' why not the universe itself,.

Because the universe is not god .... If a universe can create itself why not a ferrari? Why can't christmas presents self manifest under christmas trees ?- as you can see if we apply the general principles that you are advocating to other situations we end up with a funny picture of reality

and just dispense with the extra step of having a 'being' be the cause". This argument has been shown to be basically useless in the defense of god.

Your error is to assume that god is a mundane creature just like ourselves - if you begin with the assumption that no one can be of greater intelligence and capacity than myself you limit yourself from the onset.