Why do we need a God?

[wynn]

@wynn --

Because both you and LG have asserted on many occasions that science can't be used to evaluate spiritual/religious claims.

Us asserting that alone cannot motivate anyone to reciprocate with further questions.

You need to tell us more about your intentions.

How come the assertions of some posters grab your attention and compell you to reply? What have you got at stake here?

I have asked why you assert this and what tool we're supposed to use in it's place.

Myself, I am pursuing a course of reasoning to see where it will go, because I find it pleasant to do so.

I've already began answering your question, on several occasions, but you didn't like the answer.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Us asserting that alone cannot motivate anyone to reciprocate with further questions.

When people make such bold assertions, apparently by fiat, I get curious.

You need to tell us more about your intentions.

My intentions are irrelevant. The fact that you and LG apparently can't answer is what's relevant.

Myself, I am pursuing a course of reasoning to see where it will go, because I find it pleasant to do so.

So that's why it took me about a month of badgering you two to get any sort of answer at all? Sorry if I'm skeptical but those who are interested in seeing where a line of reasoning is going to go would typically answer the questions right away.

I've already began answering your question, on several occasions, but you didn't like the answer.

You're right, I didn't like your nonsensical answer.

 

[wynn]

My intentions are irrelevant.

Not at all. Having clarity about one's intentions helps one direct one's actions to one's satisfaction.

IOW, instead of relying on us to dissolve your frustration, you could dissolve it yourself.

 

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Who said I was frustrated? I've been enjoying myself watching LG bluster and grandstand to avoid answering what should be a simple question. And taking your answer apart gave me some enjoyment as well, but at least you tried to answer.

However all of this is simply a distraction, a red herring. Something to draw attention away from the fact that neither of you have been able to give me a valid tool to use in the evaluation and understanding of spiritual/religious claims. So, rather than indulge your fallacy any further I'm simply going to repeat my questions and hope that you can defend your assertions.

What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims? And why does this tool work better than science?

 

[aaqucnaona]

@wynn --

Who said I was frustrated? I've been enjoying myself watching LG bluster and grandstand to avoid answering what should be a simple question. And taking your answer apart gave me some enjoyment as well, but at least you tried to answer.

However all of this is simply a distraction, a red herring. Something to draw attention away from the fact that neither of you have been able to give me a valid tool to use in the evaluation and understanding of spiritual/religious claims. So, rather than indulge your fallacy any further I'm simply going to repeat my questions and hope that you can defend your assertions.

What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims? And why does this tool work better than science?

Seconded again.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

Because I don't what your comparisons, I want a valid, logical explanation.

given that you are clueless about any answer to the problem outside of empiricism, what makes you think they weren't valid and logical ???(... unless of course you are already so absolutely convinced that you already have the answer :shrug

However before that I need to know what we're talking about, so how about you answer my questions?

Start with what tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

start by not balking at the onset of a discussion about the answer

:shrug:

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

Before any discussion can take place I must first know what we're discussing. In light of that, no discussion on the topic will take place between us until you answer my two questions.

1. What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

2. Why does this tool work better than science?

Any attempt to avoid answering these two questions will result in me repeating them until you answer them.

Understood?

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

Before any discussion can take place I must first know what we're discussing.

since you asked the question I assumed I didn't have to paraphrase that for you

In light of that, no discussion on the topic will take place between us until you answer my two questions.

1. What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

2. Why does this tool work better than science?

Any attempt to avoid answering these two questions will result in me repeating them until you answer them.

Understood?

Go to post 340
try not to balk this time

:shrug:

 

[Arioch]

@LG --

You, sir, apparently don't understand the rules you're going to have to play by to play this game with me. That was not an answer to my questions.

1. What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

2. Why does this tool work better than science?

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

You, sir, apparently don't understand the rules you're going to have to play by to play this game with me. That was not an answer to my questions.

1. What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

2. Why does this tool work better than science?

Strangely enough, both questions are addressed in post 340 ... the one you have consecutively balked on (for about the 20th consecutive time in this thread).

The real question is why do you ask questions with no real intent of discovering how one answers them.

My guess is that your display of inquiry is simply a show since you are more interested in discussing what you think the answer is.

:shrug:

 

[SciWriter]

Those other than the wishful and the indoctrinated may claim the tool of the sensation of God, yet, this is backwards, for ‘God’ is not a given, but what is sought, plus, sensation is neurological.

 

[wynn]

Strangely enough, both questions are addressed in post 340 ... the one you have consecutively balked on (for about the 20th consecutive time in this thread).

The real question is why do you ask questions with no real intent of discovering how one answers them.

My guess is that your display of inquiry is simply a show since you are more interested in discussing what you think the answer is.

:shrug:

I agree.

How about we give him a chance to discuss what he thinks the answer is?

 

[James R]

lightgigantic:

Post #340 in no way addresses the direct questions you have been asked.

Please answer the questions, or admit you cannot or will not answer them.

 

[Arioch]

@LG and wynn --

I've already told you what my rules are.

1. What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

2. Why does this tool work better than science?

 

[lightgigantic]

Those other than the wishful and the indoctrinated may claim the tool of the sensation of God, yet, this is backwards, for ‘God’ is not a given, but what is sought, plus, sensation is neurological.

Funnily enough, if we look at the problem of getting direct personal audience of the president bereft of any "neurological" "tool's of sensation" we are left with a problem of mere navigation over perhaps a couple flights of stairs/elevator rides and opening maybe one or two dozen doors - something perhaps 97% of the world's human population (and perhaps even a sizable percentage of the animal kingdom - like the one's who can ride bicycles or smoke ) is capable of

And furthermore, funnily enough, if we look at the problem purely in a such manner, such an approach grants failure to well over 97% of the human population (including other sundry categories who can smoke and ride bicycles ).

And on a further note, even if an entity cannot smoke, ride a bicycle, open a door or ride in an elevator, they can meet with success.

I guess the president moves in mysterious ways, no?

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:

Post #340 in no way addresses the direct questions you have been asked.

Please answer the questions, or admit you cannot or will not answer them.

Do you deny that the president enjoys being in a category highly esteemed in terms of power/social hierarchies?

Or is it you deny (some) persons get direct perception of him due to do the simple physical manouvers of negotiating the architecture of buildings (climbing stairs, opening doors etc)

Or is it simply that you cannot see the parallel to this example of approaching god?

 

[James R]

Arioch:

Multiple posting of the kind you say you intend to engage in here is a waste of space, as well as everybody's time.

Clearly, lightgigantic is incapable or unwilling to answer your questions. This is a matter that is on record. Repeating your questions will not change anything.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG and wynn --

I've already told you what my rules are.

1. What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

2. Why does this tool work better than science?

already explained why you fail even by the standard of your own rules
:shrug:

 

[James R]

Do you deny that the president enjoys being in a category highly esteemed in terms of power/social hierarchies?

Or is it you deny (some) persons get direct perception of him due to do the simple physical manouvers of negotiating the architecture of buildings (climbing stairs, opening doors etc)

Or is it simply that you cannot see the parallel to this example of approaching god?

Sorry. Call me dense, but you'll have to spell out the parallel explicitly for me.

It looks like you're being obtuse.

 

[lightgigantic]

@LG --

1. What tool should we use to evaluate and understand spiritual/religious claims?

2. Why does this tool work better than science?

sorry arioch you have dropped the ball too many times

other people have already achieved in 2 posts what you couldn't do in 20

:shrug: