Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Would anyone want to really go to heaven?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
No offense here, but there are so many holes in your logic that as I said a week or two back in relation to something else, I'm at a loss to know where to start pointing them out. Though that's not stopped some of the forum's more durable contributors from having a go -- good on 'em!antiskeptic wrote: »If you've an issue with a point of it then by all means. I've no problem if there's a hole in it.
Yes, I hope you do. It's enjoyable not only for the interesting stories, each well-turned, but many are rather touching too. If nothing else, it should certainly help you to develop a more evidence-based understanding of the link between mind and body -- and from the typewriter of a man who's spent a lifetime at the coalface, rather than some distracted theologian, sitting in his hermitage, grinding a few of his political axesantiskeptic wrote: »(turns out my wife has that book "The man who mistook his wife for a hat". I'm off on holidays soon so will try to have a read of it then. Apparently it's quite enjoyable!)
0 -
-
-
MagicMarker wrote: »I'd like to hear antiskeptic's thoughts on evolution and why he 'doesn't not subscribe to that particular theory'.
It's probably not the place to get into it but my position hinges on a couple of points.
1) Accepting the scientific solution to a small puzzle (how life is the way it is) means throwing a spanner in the works of a larger puzzle (the biblical story of God's dealing with and plans for mankind. In short, the larger puzzle works better without evolution and since evolution is but a small spanner, it can be part-dispensed with.
2) God says he provides a delusion (I know, I know) to blind those who are perishing because they refuse to love the truth. I take this to mean that God provides an emotionally and intellectually (if not spiritually) satisfying resting place for those who would maintain their desire to reject God. Unbelievers aren't to be left in a vacuum in other words - it would interfere unduly with their maintaining unbelief. Since science (especially when it comes to evolution) is used as a core plank in the rejection of God one has extra reason to distrust.
I know it's a simple analogy but have you ever seen that optical illusion (delusion) involving the old hag/young woman? The exact same information can be interpreted in two completely different ways.
http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/young-lady-or-old-hag.html
Now imagine that someone figured the picture was an old hag. All their tests and theories harmonize to drumbeat that same message - for all the information supports that conclusion. But what about the other interpretation. A completely different one is possible. The spanner called evolution can now be fully dispensed with.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »1) Accepting the scientific solution to a small puzzle (how life is the way it is) means throwing a spanner in the works of a larger puzzle (the biblical story of God's dealing with and plans for mankind. In short, the larger puzzle works better without evolution and since evolution is but a small spanner, it can be part-dispensed with.
So basically you're going to ignore the facts to suit your religious beliefs?antiskeptic wrote: »2) God says he provides a delusion (I know, I know) to blind those who are perishing because they refuse to love the truth. I take this to mean that God provides an emotionally and intellectually (if not spiritually) satisfying resting place for those who would maintain their desire to reject God. Unbelievers aren't to be left in a vacuum in other words - it would interfere unduly with their maintaining unbelief. Since science (especially when it comes to evolution) is used as a core plank in the rejection of God one has extra reason to distrust.
So presumably you are dubious of all scientific theories? The theory of Gravity for instance?antiskeptic wrote: »I know it's a simple analogy but have you ever seen that optical illusion (delusion) involving the old hag/young woman? The exact same information can be interpreted in two completely different ways.
http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/young-lady-or-old-hag.html
Now imagine that someone figured the picture was an old hag. All their tests and theories harmonize to drumbeat that same message - for all the information supports that conclusion. But what about the other interpretation. A completely different one is possible. The spanner called evolution can now be fully dispensed with.
If you don't believe in evolution then where do you think we came from? Adam & Eve? And if so, do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm going to apply your logic to political ideology to show why it is flawed.
Me: How you know that a particular communist policy is the best one to apply in a given situation?
You: If Karl Marx was right then communism is the best ideology and therefore it is the best one to apply in this situation
Me: What if Karl Marx wasn't right?
You: You misconstrue the place of 'if Karl Marx was right'. That is there for your benefit (so that you can examine the logic) not mine. When you suggest I consider "If Karl Marx wasn't right" you might as well suggest I consider "If this reality isn't real". Next stop solipsism. Which is useless.
This reasoning is useless to anyone who does not already accept that Karl Marx was right (in which case there would be no debate because we would already agree) just as your reasoning is useless to anyone who does not already believe in god. You cannot convince someone to believe in god by telling them that they should join you in simply ignoring the possibility that he doesn't
If only I was trying to prove God exists or convince someone to believe in God. I'm not trying to do that in this argument. I'm only interested in the consequences for someone like you, someone who would say that they won't/can't believe in God until they get clear empirical evidence for his existance.
You've decided to introduce the question of what happens if God doesn't exist without actually facing fully, the dilemma for you if he does. If your willing to complete the former task, I'm quite willing to face the latter. My mistake for attemping a swift answer. My mistake for being diverted.
Assuming you agree with this then perhaps we could recap. If you disagree at any stage stop me at that point.
1) According to previous argument we have seen that if God exists, then the process whereby he reveals himself to us is irrelevant to our knowing he exists. His demonstrating himself empirically is as valid as his demonstrating himself directly and personally, in other words. The one process is to be trusted as much as the other.
2) Are you interested in finding out that God exists - if he where to exisit. I'll assume a 'yes' answer for now
3) Would you now (in light of 1) above) be equally happy with God demonstrating his existance to you empirically or directly personally - in the case that he did exist and planned to demonstrate himself to you? In other words, would you now expect personal revelation to provide as much certainty as empirical revelation - in the case that God did exist and planned to demonstrate himself to you?
4) If the answer to 3) is 'Yes' then we have concluded our task and can now look at what happens if God doesn't exist, if you like.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »If only I was trying to prove God exists or convince someone to believe in God. I'm not trying to do that in this argument. I'm only interested in the consequences for someone like you, someone who would say that they won't/can't believe in God until they get clear empirical evidence for his existance.
You've decided to introduce the question of what happens if God doesn't exist without actually facing fully, the dilemma for you if he does. If your willing to complete the former task, I'm quite willing to face the latter. My mistake for attemping a swift answer. My mistake for being diverted.
Assuming you agree with this then perhaps we could recap. If you disagree at any stage stop me at that point.
1) According to previous argument we have seen that if God exists, then the process whereby he reveals himself to us is irrelevant to our knowing he exists. His demonstrating himself empirically is as valid as his demonstrating himself directly and personally, in other words. The one process is to be trusted as much as the other.
2) Are you interested in finding out that God exists - if he where to exisit. I'll assume a 'yes' answer for now
3) Would you now (in light of 1) above) be equally happy with God demonstrating his existance to you empirically or directly personally - in the case that he did exist and planned to demonstrate himself to you? In other words, would you now expect personal revelation to provide as much certainty as empirical revelation - in the case that God did exist and planned to demonstrate himself to you?
4) If the answer to 3) is 'Yes' then we have concluded our task and can now look at what happens if God doesn't exist, if you like.
The answer to 3) is yes if god exists. Any argument that depends on the statement if god exists is wasted on anyone who does not already think they know if god exists. The question of if god exists must be answered before this reasoning can be applied, this reasoning cannot be used to answer the question of if god exists nor can we ignore the question of if god exists and simply assume he does. How are you not getting this?
I'll try it one more way. Let's say I have a decision to make and I have two choices. I can either make the decision with a coin toss or I can study it for months and work out the best choice. A coin toss has a 50/50 chance of picking the best solution. I could just toss the coin and go with it but I can never be sure if this solution was the best one. If I do the months of work I have a 50/50 chance of coming up with the same answer as the coin toss and after doing all that work I could say that it was a waste of time because I ended up with the same answer I got from the coin toss. The point you're missing is that I can't say that the work was unnecessary until after I've done the work. I have to do the work before I can say I didn't have to do the work because, although I might end up with the correct answer with the coin toss, I don't know that it is the correct answer until I've done the work.
Basically, god must demonstrate himself empirically before we can say that he didn't have to demonstrate himself empirically because the reasoning for why he doesn't have to demonstrate himself empirically only applies once he has demonstrated himself empirically. So we still wait for empirical evidence of god despite the protests of people telling us we don't have to because they had a hallucination that they thought was god0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement