Post: #351

(03-31-2016 01:10 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(03-31-2016 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  You're assuming what you're trying to prove. You don't know if God exists or not yet you assume biology comes before God.

Technically speaking, you cannot be certain of this.

I am assuming nothing, I am merely looking in the mirror at my human self and trying to see more than just my face. "You don't know if God exists" is a sentence with no meaning. It's point of origin is the question I'm trying to answer. As I see it, when a man stubs his toe, he says "ouch"; and when he strikes the boundaries of the low-fidelity model of the world he carries in his head, he says "god" (or sometimes "gods" or "spirits" etc). The fact that god is then frequently presented in rebuttals to these ideas I have presented is thus consistent with them.

Just because there is no sensory perception of something does not mean it does not exist.

Quote:Because the sound "god" (or "allah" or "spirit animals" or names of various norse gods etc) is generated by humans in a social manner, and is inconsistent, I can assume that biology proceeds religion.

Does not follow.

Quote:There are many religions produced by one biological species; not one religion producing many biological species (who each follow it). The history books are full of thousands of different religions, but only one humanity is producing those books.

The fact that so many different people, most of whom had no contact with each other, have all claimed to interact with the being known as God is actually very strong proof that something is there.

Quote:

(03-31-2016 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  But the problem of subjective interpretation when applied to objective phenomenia is present when discussing anything, not just God. Whether it is discussing one political system is superior to another, or whether or not one type of rocket is better than another for exploring space there is always an element of subjectivity involved. The idea that anything can be purely objective is fantasy.

But which kind of statement is this? That you present it to me in debate is an admission that you actually recognize objective reality. For if we could simply choose our own versions of reality, there would be no point in debate. Both of us accepting that we are observing the same objects is the core of debate, the process by which we reconcile our differing observations of the same thing. Otherwise this is just noise. Do you think it is just random noise, or more meaningful?

Reality is purely objective, subjectivity merely stems from the limited, grainy, and inconsistent rendering of reality that exists in our minds. Subjectivity is then whittled down, not 'objectivity being inflated up'.

But if reality were purely objective, there would never be any disagreements. Reality is far from objective because two different people can interpret the same events with different concepts and ideas of causal relations.

For example, one guy sees the stars spinning around the earth and assumes the earth is at the center, another guy assumes the earth is moving and the stars are barely moving at all. Both people see the same things yet have totally different interpretations of the events.

However, I do not deny there is any objective truth. If two people's accounts differ than almost certainly someone is wrong. But let us not pretend that subjective interpetation of the events do not exist at all.

Quote:

(03-31-2016 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  It is an objective question that deserves serious consideration. What created the universe?

It is not a question that deserves serious consideration, because no consideration (serious or not) could provide more answers. It is akin to making a photocopy of a fuzzy picture, expecting the result to be sharper. Using a label of "god" in place of "I don't have the knowledge" is only a different language of response, not differing levels of understanding. As always, where science ends, god begins, precisely because "god" just means "I don't know" and nothing more.

Not true. You do not know if the consideration of God is meaningless or not. You're just assuming what you're setting out to prove.

Everything we're discussing here was already discussed by Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason. He destroys the idea that atheism or theism can be proven.

Post: #352

No, I do not. I am a person that likes to operate on logic, and god is simply too much of a logical fallacy for me to find sense.

Post: #353

Quote:

Quote:

(03-31-2016 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  It is an objective question that deserves serious consideration. What created the universe?

It is not a question that deserves serious consideration, because no consideration (serious or not) could provide more answers. It is akin to making a photocopy of a fuzzy picture, expecting the result to be sharper. Using a label of "god" in place of "I don't have the knowledge" is only a different language of response, not differing levels of understanding. As always, where science ends, god begins, precisely because "god" just means "I don't know" and nothing more.

Not true. You do not know if the consideration of God is meaningless or not. You're just assuming what you're setting out to prove.

I think again this is telling. You said "It is an objective question that deserves serious consideration. What created the universe?". I then respond with "it [the above question] doesn't deserve serious consideration because...". You then responded "you don't know if the consideration of God...". You swapped out "what created the universe" with "god" without even noticing it.

This just evidences a programmed response, and this behaviour merely evidences automaton-like replication. Your position on this is fixed as a result of the factory (culture) you came out of. It is produced as a hard-wired setting, like a robot. Had you come out of India, you'd just replace the word "God" with Hindu deities, or out of ancient Greece, with Zeus and his side-kicks. Did this not make you uncomfortable about the legitimacy of your beliefs?

You didn't really address the point that humans have a variety of religions, some of a single god, some of gods, some of spirits/animism etc. This is always the one that religious people shy away from. Why do you think this?

Post: #354

(03-31-2016 11:05 PM)AntiMediocrity Wrote:  No, I do not. I am a person that likes to operate on logic, and god is simply too much of a logical fallacy for me to find sense.

We strike a problem here though, and funnily enough it's a nice fat juicy logical fallacy.

You say you operate on logic.
You say you're your own "sense finder", implying you use your own logic and reason to interpret reality.

How do we know our senses and reasoning are accurate in telling us the truth about reality? You can only know that by using your own senses and reasoning. Which is the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Is the logic and reason of a mentally handicapped person valid? No.
Can someone use invalid senses and reasoning to conclude the truthfulness of what they perceive? No.

Therefore, how do you know you're not retarded?

Post: #355

Started reading this from start to finish, and I gotta say I'm really surprised to see Pascal's Wager being used. I thought everyone here would be well informed on its existence and how it has no value in a debate on theism.

Post: #356

(04-01-2016 03:48 AM)Sooth Wrote:  How do we know our senses and reasoning are accurate in telling us the truth about reality? You can only know that by using your own senses and reasoning. Which is circular reasoning.

Is the logic and reason of a mentally handicapped person valid? No.
Can someone use invalid senses and reasoning to conclude the truthfulness of what they perceive? No.

I tend to avoid theistic debates, I'm came here to state my lack of faith and as above declare my surprise at seeing Pascal's Wager crop up amongst intellectuals. I learned several years back that you can convince someone god is/isn't real just as much as you can convince them to go to them gym or to eat less, stop sleeping with the wrong people etc. However I will bite:

The argument that "there may be a god but we do not have the senses to comprehend him" is a valid one, I'll concede that. In fact I have many times explained the film Interstellar in terms of future humans understanding beyond 3 dimensions, and using the knowledge to create the tesseract.

However that does not mean I should believe in a god even if I can't comprehend him. It goes beyond that, the lack of logic in an argument for god comes from the many contradictions that lie within the faith. I need not go into detail, no doubt you've heard many already and yet people prefer to say "because god" rather than realise there probably isn't one. That or god is something completely different than what most theistic people consider.

While I'm here I want to make a point about someone who mentioned you can choose to believe in god. That is like choosing to believe in Unicorns or faeries, either you consider it in the realm of fiction or part of you thinks they could exist but we have yet to record any evidence of them.

The only ever god I would consider legitimate is from a deist point of view-a god that set everything in motion and has had no involvement since. There's no need to pray to him, there is no book containing his will, and of course it makes logical sense because a deist god doesn't contradict anything, being that the only contradiction would be our non existence.

Post: #357

Samseau said:

"The fact that so many different people, most of whom had no contact with each other, have all claimed to interact with the being known as God is actually very strong proof that something is there."

Many different people, most of whom had no contact with each other, also claimed: 1) the earth was flat; 2) the sun rotates around the earth; 3) leeches were a sound medical practice; 4) Kanye West is a genius; 5) you get the point

As sure as people were of those falsehoods, that certainty didn't end up providing any proof of their validity.

What it comes down to, brass tacks, is that people confuse their strong emotion and bias with facts.

Most people also seem to forget all the times they changed their mind about something they once believed strongly in. This happens all the time. But then these people just move on to the next strong belief. I see this all the time even here, on RVF.

Post: #358

(04-01-2016 12:33 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

Quote:

Quote:

(03-31-2016 12:12 PM)Samseau Wrote:  It is an objective question that deserves serious consideration. What created the universe?

It is not a question that deserves serious consideration, because no consideration (serious or not) could provide more answers. It is akin to making a photocopy of a fuzzy picture, expecting the result to be sharper. Using a label of "god" in place of "I don't have the knowledge" is only a different language of response, not differing levels of understanding. As always, where science ends, god begins, precisely because "god" just means "I don't know" and nothing more.

Not true. You do not know if the consideration of God is meaningless or not. You're just assuming what you're setting out to prove.

I think again this is telling. You said "It is an objective question that deserves serious consideration. What created the universe?". I then respond with "it [the above question] doesn't deserve serious consideration because...". You then responded "you don't know if the consideration of God...". You swapped out "what created the universe" with "god" without even noticing it.

Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. Whether or not God exists is related the fact of the existence of the universe; what created this universe? Saying there is no meaning in asking if the universe was created by someone is not a proof in itself.

Quote:This just evidences a programmed response, and this behaviour merely evidences automaton-like replication. Your position on this is fixed as a result of the factory (culture) you came out of. It is produced as a hard-wired setting, like a robot. Had you come out of India, you'd just replace the word "God" with Hindu deities, or out of ancient Greece, with Zeus and his side-kicks. Did this not make you uncomfortable about the legitimacy of your beliefs?

This is a weak criticism. It's like saying that since my culture taught me what a rock is, therefore using the word rock is nothing more than a hard-wired setting like a robot.

But the rock exists which is why people talk about it and pass down the knowledge of rocks. Likewise the same for God.

Quote:You didn't really address the point that humans have a variety of religions, some of a single god, some of gods, some of spirits/animism etc. This is always the one that religious people shy away from. Why do you think this?

Because despite experiencing the same phenomenia, people have had differing subjective experiences of what we call God and differing explanations for God, hence all of the many religions. Just as humanity has refined its scientific knowledge, so too have they refined their religious knowledge.

Post: #359

Existence has to exist before consciousness. There has to be an existence to be conscious of. However, there can be existence without consciousness.

An atheist is not a person who insists that god does not exist. An atheist is simply a person who does not believe in god. People when they are born are all atheists.

The burden of proof is on the believer. It is impossible to prove a negative. I can't prove that god doesn't exist.

I do believe that there are things in the universe that we don't understand. There are things that are beyond our ability to perceive them, even with instrumentation. But that does not necessarily mean that this unknown thing or things is an intelligent being or machine. It is simply unknown.

I believe that religion and its long hold on the human mind is largely due to people's unwillingness to say, "I don't know." Most people would rather a bad answer than none. Religion is purely emotional, an appeal to emotion.

Go out and live a good life, whether you believe or not. The most important thing is what you do with your time here on Earth. Love life, and choose wisely.

Post: #360

In my opinion, "God" is simply a synonym for, or a personification of, truth. Not believing in God is the same as not believing in truth (i.e. believing that truth is relative; that the truth can be different for different people). The reason we use the term "God" instead of "truth" or "natural order" is that it is just easier to explain to a kid, for example, that "God wants you to behave this way, it is God's will" than having to explain "you must behave this way because it is in accordance with the natural order of the universe." A kid, or even an uneducated adult, would have trouble understanding the latter.

Telling someone that a certain behavior is "against the will of truth" just doesn't have the same ring as "against the will of God."

I used to think I was a hardcore atheist because I thought all religious people believed that God was literally a man living in the sky with a human face and a big white beard. That's what mainstream culture and atheists like Richard Dawkins and Hitchens make it seem like religion is.

Are there any Christians here who actually believe in a literal God in the sky with a white beard, or who otherwise disagree with me?

Post: #361

(04-13-2016 06:58 PM)pot of smoke Wrote:  In my opinion, "God" is simply a synonym for, or a personification of, truth. Not believing in God is the same as not believing in truth (i.e. believing that truth is relative; that the truth can be different for different people). The reason we use the term "God" instead of "truth" or "natural order" is that it is just easier to explain to a kid, for example, that "God wants you to behave this way, it is God's will" than having to explain "you must behave this way because it is in accordance with the natural order of the universe." A kid, or even an uneducated adult, would have trouble understanding the latter.

Telling someone that a certain behavior is "against the will of truth" just doesn't have the same ring as "against the will of God."

I used to think I was a hardcore atheist because I thought all religious people believed that God was literally a man living in the sky with a human face and a big white beard. That's what mainstream culture and atheists like Richard Dawkins and Hitchens make it seem like religion is.

This is a good idea but to be precise it is very wrong and for me is exactly where the debate stands. Truth and God are very different things, just look at the persecution of Galileo or the Churches fervent opposition of the Theory of Evolution. It's important to be clear and not mince our words, if we are talking about Truth then we should use that word, mention God if you mean a man-in-the-sky.

Let us take the story of The Binding of Isaac. In it God commands Abraham to sacrifice his own son Isaac. Abraham agrees but before the act can be carried out an angel appears and stops him at the last minute, saying "now I know you fear God". So what is meant to be the point of the story? Well, it seems to me point of the story is to demonstrate how OBEDIANT Abraham was, so that it is an example to people. Abraham didnt think, or question, he simply followed orders like a good slave. This is what is expected by the Abrahamic "God".

But this approach cannot lead one to Truth, because the search for Truth requires debate, discussion and experimention, and these are incompatible with blind obediance.

I have a question for the Christians here. I really dont mean to be unnecessarily crude, but my question is

If God asked you to torture an innocent child, would you do it?

I want to know your answers. Dont say, "God would never do that" because "God" already commanded Abraham to slaughter his own son. This type of what-if is perfectly legitimate in debate.

Also, if a person today dreams or "hears" God tell him to slaughter his son, and he does so, would you consider that moral or immoral behaviour?

I just want to know how far you can stretch the whole "God is the definition of Truth and Goodness" mantra.

Post: #362

(04-13-2016 08:41 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  This is a good idea but to be precise it is very wrong and for me is exactly where the debate stands. Truth and God are very different things, just look at the persecution of Galileo or the Churches fervent opposition of the Theory of Evolution.

Are you saying Galileo was telling The Truth? Because if so, you might want to review what he actually said. Galileo's assertion was that the universe was heliocentric and not geocentric. That is, he held that the entire universe revolved around the Sun (heliocentricity) rather than the Earth (geocentricity, that is, the Ptolemaic model, which had been the prevailing scientific view up to the point, quite independently of anything the Church had to say about it).

I warned you before you risk falling into Category Error if you don't define your terms properly. We're not going to get very far if you can't get what you define as "Truth" correct in your first paragraph.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #363

(04-08-2016 10:25 PM)puckerman Wrote:  It is impossible to prove a negative.

It is possible to prove a negative. I can prove to you there is no tennis ball in my desk drawer by opening the draw and having you look inside.

Also, we can prove immaterial negatives with logic, such as the non existence of a married bachelor.

Post: #364

(04-14-2016 12:44 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  Are you saying Galileo was telling The Truth? Because if so, you might want to review what he actually said. Galileo's assertion was that the universe was heliocentric and not geocentric. That is, he held that the entire universe revolved around the Sun (heliocentricity) rather than the Earth (geocentricity, that is, the Ptolemaic model, which had been the prevailing scientific view up to the point, quite independently of anything the Church had to say about it).

I warned you before you risk falling into Category Error if you don't define your terms properly. We're not going to get very far if you can't get what you define as "Truth" correct in your first paragraph.

It seems to Galileo was more right than the prevailing view of the time. Anyway, its not important.

Neither is my definition of "Truth". I think we all know the difference between true and false. If not look up "Truth" in the dictionary.

Mentioning ideas and concepts such as 'Category Error' to over complicate the discussion is not likely to be fruitful. This isnt the first time you've done this. Karl Popper, Falsifiability, Inductive Reasoning blah blah blah. Just because you know the name of some idea doesnt mean you've used it correctly and it can be a huge waste of time for me to look it up qnd find it isnt actually relevant. Just say whaf you mean to say in laymans terms, no need to show everyone how well read you are.

You never answered any of my questions...

(04-13-2016 08:41 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  I have a question for the Christians here. I really dont mean to be unnecessarily crude, but my question is

If God asked you to torture an innocent child, would you do it?

I want to know your answers. Dont say, "God would never do that" because "God" already commanded Abraham to slaughter his own son. This type of what-if is perfectly legitimate in debate.

Also, if a person today dreams or "hears" God tell him to slaughter his son, and he does so, would you consider that moral or immoral behaviour?

I just want to know how far you can stretch the whole "God is the definition of Truth and Goodness" mantra.

Post: #365

Why is the God of the Bible lauded as a being who has gifted mankind freewill? Christains will mention it during debates like this as if it is true, an assumptive position that is usually conceeded by the other side as well. But how can one say "Worship me, or you will suffer for all eternity in a lake of fire", and then have the audacity to say that it is a choice of freewill?

Lets extrapolate this example. If I said "Come to my house and cook dinner. Or, I will slaughter both your daughters, then rape your son." If I was an all powerful being, and you knew this, is there really a choice? Of course you would cook dinner to save your family. You are choosing to cook to avoid punishment. I can not understand how anyone can consider this freewill.

Post: #366

(04-14-2016 01:49 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  It seems to Galileo was more right than the prevailing view of the time. Anyway, its not important.

Actually, it is. You used him as your first example of the difference between God and Truth. Let's also leave aside that your second observation, evolution, had an author - Charles Darwin - who believed in God notwithstanding the theory of evolution he had just propounded. If you want to argue this stuff at least get your examples right.

(04-14-2016 01:49 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  Neither is my definition of "Truth". I think we all know the difference between true and false. If not look up "Truth" in the dictionary.

Mentioning ideas and concepts such as 'Category Error' to over complicate the discussion is not likely to be fruitful. This isnt the first time you've done this. Karl Popper, Falsifiability, Inductive Reasoning blah blah blah. Just because you know the name of some idea doesnt mean you've used it correctly and it can be a huge waste of time for me to look it up qnd find it isnt actually relevant. Just say whaf you mean to say in laymans terms, no need to show everyone how well read you are.

You're seriously saying that to properly define the issue is to overcomplicate the discussion?

Atheists of all stripes should be very familiar with falsifiability at least and inductive reasoning at least. The latter because it's the main error they keep screaming theists commit and the former because it puts a hard limit on the god they would put in the place of the one they criticise. A common complaint is made by atheists that they apparently know more about theology than the average believer does. We seem to have a reverse here: you would appear to know less about secular philosophical concepts and scientific theory than I do. If you don't know what falsifiability and inductive reasoning are, go and fucking look them up, unless you deliberately want the conversation to be on the level of a twitter debate.

(04-14-2016 01:49 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  You never answered any of my questions...

I don't have to. They aren't being seriously asked and therefore don't deserve an answer - not in the trolling, adversarial way you are framing them, and not until you have answered my objections to the form of the observation.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #367

(04-13-2016 08:41 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  This is a good idea but to be precise it is very wrong and for me is exactly where the debate stands. Truth and God are very different things, just look at the persecution of Galileo or the Churches fervent opposition of the Theory of Evolution.

Your remark is such bullshit that I don't know where to start. You seem to have a very strange conception of history of science... perhaps you should read Ronald Numbers' Galileo Goes to Jail or his book about creationism.

Or remain ignorant and spouting New Atheist claptrap.

Post: #368

(04-15-2016 02:36 AM)Truth Teller Wrote:  Your remark is such bullshit that I don't know where to start. You seem to have a very strange conception of history of science... perhaps you should read Ronald Numbers' Galileo Goes to Jail or his book about creationism.

Or remain ignorant and spouting New Atheist claptrap.

Ok bro thanks for that. I'll just go and buy that book because after years of researching this subject i now know that this is the one piece of high wisdom that will make it all fit together.

Give me a few weeks to digest it and I'll get back to you....

Post: #369

(04-14-2016 08:23 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:49 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  It seems to Galileo was more right than the prevailing view of the time. Anyway, its not important.

Actually, it is. You used him as your first example of the difference between God and Truth. Let's also leave aside that your second observation, evolution, had an author - Charles Darwin - who believed in God notwithstanding the theory of evolution he had just propounded. If you want to argue this stuff at least get your examples right.

Are you saying the Church was correct to denounce Gallileo and Copernicus and call heretic their theory of Heliocentrism in favour of Geocentrism. It seems absurd to me you would hold that view. Yes, I agree the Sun is not the centre of our universe, only the Solar System but the debate in those days was not really concerned with bodies outside of our solar system. It was just Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism, and the Church was quite clearly wrong to back Geocentrism.

It's not relevant that Darwin believed in God, what is relevant is that Evolution is at odds with the Biblical narrative.

(04-14-2016 08:23 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  You're seriously saying that to properly define the issue is to overcomplicate the discussion?

Atheists of all stripes should be very familiar with falsifiability at least and inductive reasoning at least. The latter because it's the main error they keep screaming theists commit and the former because it puts a hard limit on the god they would put in the place of the one they criticise. A common complaint is made by atheists that they apparently know more about theology than the average believer does. We seem to have a reverse here: you would appear to know less about secular philosophical concepts and scientific theory than I do. If you don't know what falsifiability and inductive reasoning are, go and fucking look them up, unless you deliberately want the conversation to be on the level of a twitter debate.

Ok, I just went and looked them up. These are just names of concepts, and to be honest it is not very important. People reading this may also not know what they are and it wont help them if we use specialist terminology in our debates. If you have a strong grasp of those concepts you should be able to refute my arguments in laymans terms without having to resort to claims such as

"This concept is called X and X has been refuted by Mr Y, go and look it up".

This just creates a disjointed narrative for anyone reading this.

Same goes above for Truth Teller and his book recommendation.

(04-14-2016 08:23 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(04-14-2016 01:49 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  You never answered any of my questions...

I don't have to. They aren't being seriously asked and therefore don't deserve an answer - not in the trolling, adversarial way you are framing them, and not until you have answered my objections to the form of the observation.

I suppose you mean I didnt properly define Physical Reality and Truth. Are you telling me you dont understand these terms? If so I find the following somewhat objectionable

Paracelsus Wrote:you would appear to know less about secular philosophical concepts and scientific theory than I do

Physical Reality is the basis our world, our existence and pretty much everything. Truth is the validity of our language when applied to Physical Reality.

These two are very basic ideas and yes, philosophers may sometimes push them to breaking point (see Descartes Ergo Cogito Sum). But in general these are the main concepts to which all debate and discussion is based. We all know the meaning of Right and Wrong, Correct and Incorrect. If someones says "X statement is not true" you dont say "Define True", if so the human race would never get anywhere.

As beings that exist (assuming that you believe we are beings that exist) it is somewhat pointless and even insincere to question the existence of Physical Reality, because without one everything we do is pointless. Similarly, questioning the concept of Truth is to question the validity of language itself.

Physical Reality is the base, the only thing that is real and unquestionable. It is from Physical Reality that humans are made. Had it not been for Language Physical Reality would be everything. Things go wrong when Language diverges away from Physical Reality, Truth is what ties Language to Physical Reality and stops it from diverging away.

It seems those people who question the concept of Truth and Physical Reality, are motivated to do so by a desire to see Language move away from its constraint by Physical Reality. This is a rather perverted, and I would say "evil", goal.

Humans are the only species with Language, we are also the only one with Religion. Think about that. Those are the only two things that we possess exclusively of other animals. Try and see the connection between the two.

Language cannot be allowed to supercede Physical Reality, because then it becomes meaningless. Reality and Truth is what keeps Language meaninigful and useful, if we start debating the validity of those concepts then we give a dangerous amount of power and freedom to those who misuse language. Ultimately, we lose contact with the only thing of real value, the Physical Reality.

Post: #370

(04-15-2016 10:17 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  Are you saying the Church was correct to denounce Gallileo and Copernicus and call heretic their theory of Heliocentrism in favour of Geocentrism. It seems absurd to me you would hold that view.

It seems absurd to me that you would not properly research the history that applies to the matter. As with your grasp of philosophy, secularism, and logic, it's pretty fucking superficial and therefore misleading.

The Church never called Copernicus a heretic, never called his teaching heresy. Indeed Galileo himself was never found to be guilty of heresy either. You may be getting Copernicus mixed up with Giordano Bruno, who was not executed for his scientific beliefs.

Galileo's enemies had convinced the Pope, Urban VIII, who had been Galileo's own patron (did you happen to know the Church supported and funded the sciences in the period? I didn't fucking think so.) that Galileo had made an unsympathetic character in his book, Simplicio, a veiled caricature of the Pope. And Galileo badly miscalculated his political influence in Rome. As with most historical incidents, the truth -- to use your expression -- is a lot more complex than it first appears.

(04-15-2016 10:17 AM)Atheistani Wrote:  It's not relevant that Darwin believed in God, what is relevant is that Evolution is at odds with the Biblical narrative.

I'd call it relevant that Darwin believed in God, since you're presenting evolution as an example of The Truth. Darwin did drift towards disbelief at the end of his life, but he resolutely remained agnostic: he was smart enough even in the face of the evidence he had assembled over a lifetime not to call the matter conclusively one way or the other. And he well understood that the Bible was not to be understood literally in all instances. His own posthumously-published autobiography summed it up in one line: "Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories."

Quote:Ok, I just went and looked them up. These are just names of concepts, and to be honest it is not very important. People reading this may also not know what they are and it wont help them if we use specialist terminology in our debates. If you have a strong grasp of those concepts you should be able to refute my arguments in laymans terms

This is amusing. As an exercise, would you like to explain the intricacies of quantum physics in layman's terms? Most physicists have had a very strong grasp of those concepts and the vast majority of them fail badly at explaining the concepts in "layman's terms".

"Laymans terms" is an appeal to oversimplifying the debate. As said, if you want a discussion at the level of a twitter debate, that's fine, but don't expect it to be tolerated here.

But this much is true: falsifiability essentially renders any atheist who demands scientific proof of a God an idiot. Popper demonstrates that if you make a proposition which is not falsifiable, you are not conducting science. The existence of God is not a falsifiable concept, so any atheist who demands scientific proof of him is being intellectually dishonest.

The remainder of your post is circular reasoning and a priori advanced conclusions in large degree. Shut down your belief system and reboot.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #371

I never asked for proof of God so that is not relevant. By the way, the existence of Santa Clause, Unicorns and Flying Pigs are also unfalsifiable. Just saying.

Anyway, why cant you or Truth teller have a go at

Quote:If God asked you to torture an innocent child, would you do it?

I want to know your answers. Dont say, "God would never do that" because "God" already commanded Abraham to slaughter his own son. This type of what-if is perfectly legitimate in debate.

Also, if a person today dreams or "hears" God tell him to slaughter his son, and he does so, would you consider that moral or immoral behaviour?

I just want to know how far you can stretch the whole "God is the definition of Truth and Goodness" mantra.

That is all.

Post: #372

(04-15-2016 09:09 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  If God asked you to torture an innocent child, would you do it?

No. If some entity asked me to torture anything I know it's not God.

"But he told Abraham to torture his son". No, he asked him to sacrifice his son 4000 years ago when blood offerings were common and required by God. However by God sacrificing himself in "the final sacrifice" means that these are no longer required, therefore an entity asking for a blood sacrifice is not God. Why exactly did God require blood sacrifices of animals etc in the old testament? I don't know.

(04-15-2016 09:09 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  Also, if a person today dreams or "hears" God tell him to slaughter his son, and he does so, would you consider that moral or immoral behaviour?

Not just immoral but deplorable. That person is insane and should be locked up.

Post: #373

Whatever happened to female goddesses and fertility cults? From what I read the latter were bangfests.

Post: #374

(04-15-2016 09:09 PM)Atheistani Wrote:  I never asked for proof of God so that is not relevant. By the way, the existence of Santa Clause, Unicorns and Flying Pigs are also unfalsifiable. Just saying.

So are economics, mathematics, and historicism. By some miracle the world seems to get on rather well with them and use them notwithstanding they are not scientific nor capable of being proven to work scientifically.

(A flying pig's existence is, in fact, falsifiable: "There are no pigs that fly" is a falsifiable proposition because it is testable: if one locates a pig that can fly, the proposition is proven false.)

The point being: scientific evidence is not the sole evidence that can exist for an individual to decide whether or not God exists. Science itself functions off deductive reasoning; there are more forms of reasoning and thereby evidence than the scientific - which is why trying to make science the sole arbiter of proof for existence of something is a bit silly.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #375

Some quick reading on blood sacrifices: http://www.gotquestions.org/blood-sacrifice.html
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfun...acrifices/
http://www.the-covenant-kingdom.com/new-covenant.html

The significance of the story of Abraham and the binding of Isaac is often misunderstood. God had promised Abraham innumerable descendents through his son Isaac, who was himself a literal miracle baby, having been conceived when Abraham and his wife Sarah were both over 90 years old. So when Abraham is told by God that he must sacrifice his only son -whose birth was miraculous and upon whose life God's promise of future descendents rests - Abraham must have been fearful and confused. And yet he trusted God enough to proceed. Why? Because Abraham's faith was so great he literally believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead, since he knew God had promised him descendents through Isaac. The story is a demonstration of exceptional faith, and the Bible says clearly Abraham was blessed on account of his great faith. It also foreshadows the death of Christ - in which God would sacrifice his only son, by whose blood sin would be forgiven, and whom would rise from the dead and conquer death forever.