You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

antiskeptic

Romans 1: wrote:

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

I found myself stopping on this word 'invisible'. In the context of this forum it struck that for the word 'invisible' you can safely insert the term "not empirically nor rationally demonstrable or provable"

The statement in this passage then, is that God is self-evident to everyone. And no excuses exist.

It follows that each individual has to decide whether what He has made is sufficient evidence of self-evidency.

If one decides not and it is nevertheless true*, then one has also decided against that which was in fact, self-evident.

The only thing that can deny a self evidence is wilfulness. Straight self denial of truth ... a.k.a. lying to self. But the one person you can't successfully lie to, besides God, is yourself. You know the truth .. because it is self evident. Denial can do many things. It can buy time. But it can never trump self-evidency because what is true can't be trumped by a denial. At least not forever.

Ignorance is not an excuse because the definition of self-evident is that there is no ignorance: it is evident to every self, all selfs have sufficient information.

From what has been made. Which is everything, whether an expression of Him directly or an expression of will in those whom He has created and enabled to co-create with Him.

And man has no excuse for wilfullness. It is fully right that he position his view below God's view. Man is wonderful, but he is not the creator of wonderfulness. He fully ought to occupy the position he rightfully, logically and rationally was created to occupy.

Much wanted and much loved children of God. Created by their Father to be ever-children.

For there is no death as God's children or in the new Earth they will occupy. No being born into entropy.

All we are asked to becomes, is those children. To allow ourselves to be led, by self-evidency, away from the death march we travel because we have not yet become His children. It IS God who attempts to lead us. We might be blind to him, but we are not blind to His self-evidency.

Instead, what we are trying to be, and insist on being, is that which we can't be. Which is God. Or rather, equal to God. Our equality comes through our seemingly being able to operate without any reference to Him.

We are merely believing the serpent when he tells us we can be like God. When it is utterly self evident, from the things WE have made, that we have made a complete mess. We have made the kind of mess what unruly, destructive and hateful can be expected to make.

By their fruit shall ye know them, writ large.

What we actually are (truth again) is unruly, destructive and hate capable little gods. Each with their own mutated, fast-burn attempt at equalling God. Come and gone in the blink of an eternal eye.

Self-as-god (or false God) is the problem. It was what Adam was doing in his deliberate construction of the first sin. It's still the primary sin in each one of us. The root problem.

Hence too, the solution to the problem. That rotten root, that hook, has to be dug out of us.

Wisdom and sense in the 1st Commandment so.


-

The way of salvation is to trust God to lead you to Him. He has evidenced Himself in all He has made. We have evidenced ourselves in all we have made. So go look at what He and we have made. You don't have to trust a God you can't see. But you can a God you do see. The evidence, as it sought for, will be found and assimilated and will produce conviction. And as you are convicted, He will reveal Himself more. Until one day you believe. And become a child of God.

A first step is to ask for help, taking the stance the healthy child He wants you to become would take. For it is in you to be a child of His. Be respectful, hopeful, trusting, patient. Humble, yes, but not cowering, or sullen or half-hearted or angry.

"I want to find You. Help me find You." would be a fine 1st prayer.





* where the definition of true is that it is true. That every objection that can be made to its truth is truly false, truly erroneous, truly mad, truly wilful.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

I found myself stopping on this word 'invisible'.

Mod: I humbly suggest you may have stopped in the wrong place so, as your lengthy post appears as no more than soap-boxing. While your contribution is always welcome, please have another read of the charter and construct your posts in such a ways as to encourage debate rather than treating this forum as a pulpit. Thanks for your attention.

the_syco

antiskeptic wrote: »

The statement in this passage then, is that God is self-evident to everyone. And no excuses exist.

I find it offensive that your god helped the SS gas so many Jews.

antiskeptic

the_syco wrote: »

I find it offensive that your god helped the SS gas so many Jews.

God made us co-creators, what can I say. Creativity expresses in many ways, some godly, some not so.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Mod: I humbly suggest you may have stopped in the wrong place so, as your lengthy post appears as no more than soap-boxing. While your contribution is always welcome, please have another read of the charter and construct your posts in such a ways as to encourage debate rather than treating this forum as a pulpit. Thanks for your attention.

Understand the overarching point but there are good talking points in there. I mean, you hear a lot of excuse on this forum. Like our SS objection above.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Understand the overarching point but there are good talking points in there. I mean, you hear a lot of excuse on this forum. Like our SS objection above.

Your post is based on the statement "that God is self-evident to everyone" which is clearly not the case, particularly in this forum. There is nothing whatsoever that suggests to me that there is even the faintest hint of truth in Christian mythology and more than Norse mythology, Egyptian mythology or any other broadly held supernatural belief. That religion has also been the excuse for acts of barbarity throughout history is also no doubt the case but not really relevant.

Quoting random bits of scripture on this forum does not constitute a valid basis for argument as most of us on this forum consider the bible to be a work of fiction.

the_syco

antiskeptic wrote: »

God made us co-creators, what can I say. Creativity expresses in many ways, some godly, some not so.

So your god only takes credit for the good things, and not the bad things?

Your god sounds like a narcissist.

NIMAN

Why did he allow 40 churches to be damaged in the recent Venice flooding?

You'd think he'd look after his own properties, wouldn't you?

corks finest

Yes he exists end of ðŸ‘

jaxxx

And this is what happens when you ingest magic mushrooms. Say no kids.

5uspect

Are you okay, antiskeptic? You’ve posted here long enough to know the exactly the types of response you will get. I’m left with the thought that you’re looking for something in your life and that you use religion to fill it, but it’s still empty and you think throwing yourself to the lions here will somehow validate the decisions you’ve made.

You’re argument isn’t going to convince anyone and of course you know that. If posting these kinds of things makes you feel better maybe you need a healthier outlet in life.

antiskeptic

5uspect wrote: »

Are you okay, antiskeptic? You’ve posted here long enough to know the exactly the types of response you will get. I’m left with the thought that you’re looking for something in your life and that you use religion to fill it, but it’s still empty and you think throwing yourself to the lions here will somehow validate the decisions you’ve made.

You’re argument isn’t going to convince anyone and of course you know that. If posting these kinds of things makes you feel better maybe you need a healthier outlet in life.

It wasn't so much as an argument as a statement (well the statement of scripture expounded upon).

The question is whether evidence sufficient is true. Which does damage (if true) to the varying excuses generated here.

Clearly, if true, the lions have no teeth and there is little to fear.

All depends on your view (true or not true). Obviously, the statement dispenses with argument from the empirical mindset. Such argument would have no relevancy to the issue of what is self evident.

5uspect

antiskeptic wrote: »

It wasn't so much as an argument as a statement (well the statement of scripture expounded upon).

The question is whether evidence sufficient is true. Which does damage (if true) to the varying excuses generated here.

Clearly, if true, the lions have no teeth and there is little to fear.

You know most people here think it’s all nonsense. You may as well read the script of Dr Who to us. It’s like me asking you about your thoughts on the latest episode of Coronation St as if it’s somehow the most important question ever when it really is utterly irrelevant.

Are you okay? Do you have friends and family to talk to? Or are you here because all you have is arguing about religion with people on the internet?

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

It wasn't so much as an argument as a statement (well the statement of scripture expounded upon)

Mod warning: If you're planning on starting a debate which assumes the veracity of a piece of scripture as the opening gambit can I suggest you do so on the Christianity forum where it is a more reasonable assumption. Further posts of that nature, intended as statement rather than argument, will be considered intentionally inflammatory soap boxing and result in infraction. Again, your contribution to this forum is welcome, but please remember your audience and post with a view to encouraging civil debate on that basis. Thanks for your attention.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

It wasn't so much as an argument as a statement (well the statement of scripture expounded upon).

The question is whether evidence sufficient is true. Which does damage (if true) to the varying excuses generated here.

Clearly, if true, the lions have no teeth and there is little to fear.

All depends on your view (true or not true). Obviously, the statement dispenses with argument from the empirical mindset. Such argument would have no relevancy to the issue of what is self evident.

"If true"

How do you make a statement of fact based on the premise of "if true"?

nozzferrahhtoo

Having read it twice the only thing that I am getting from the OP is that it says in around 700 words what the writers user name already says in 1. Which is that the wish/agenda is to establish one baseless assertion as "default true" and that the sceptic of this asserted and baseless "truth" is merely to be derided in every way from merely "erroneous" to "mad".

The user is against, in fact "anti" scepticism. And that is all the 700 or so words in the OP appears to be saying. I can literally find no other content or meaning or agenda or interpretation of the text here.

Content containing any actual argument, evidence, data or reasoning that a god entity actually does exist however, is entirely lacking in the OP just like every other post ever written on this forum by that user.

On a linguistic note though I have never before in any dictionary, or any other context I have encountered to date, heard it suggested that "not empirically nor rationally demonstrable or provable" is even tangentially related to the word "invisible" let alone a valid full replacement for it. The move above appears not to much to have been a replacement of a word in scripture.... but a wholesale re-writing of it's content and meaning to suit an agenda.

One wonders what the divine author/inspiration of the text, were it to actually exist, would think of having the meaning of it's text not just mangled or distorted, but entirely changed from one thing to an entirely different thing in this fashion. Were I to believe in that author, and were I to make such a move against it's will, intent, meaning and design, I would find myself somewhat in desperate need of repentance and restitution in fear of the well being of my eternal soul.

Thankfully there is no reason on offer, least of all here on this thread, to think this malicious, malignant, capricious, emotional snowflake entity exists and is out to get us.

smokingman

Here's a statement.
I wear red glasses and the world looks red. If I know I'm wearing red glasses then I might discern that the world might not be red. If I know, but ignore, that I'm wearing red glasses then maybe I'm doing that because I like red.
Is it that you like red and don't want to accept a rainbow?

the_syco

antiskeptic wrote: »

well the statement of scripture expounded upon

I dismiss it as the folklore of the times.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

The statement in this passage then, is that God is self-evident to everyone. And no excuses exist.

But many different contradcitory religions all say this same thing, that their god is self evident in some way.
So we have the problem of how do you know if your god is what is self-evident and that you aren't just misinterpreting a very different god or gods and, wait, didn't we do this before?
Oh yes, in the "Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker" thread from a few months back, that you had to stop posting in because you got busy.
Well you are back posting know, and I'm sure you didn't just start this thread with no intention of actually further discussion, so would you like to get back to that thread?

robindch

Romans I wrote:

[...] God’s invisible qualities [...] have been clearly seen [...]

Not sure Paul understands how "invisible" works.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

God made us co-creators, what can I say. Creativity expresses in many ways, some godly, some not so.

Which god?
Odin?

You'll need to be far more specific

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Not sure Paul understands how "invisible" works.

Hence my insertion. The question is: do we have access to non-empirical information? If we do then without excuse follows.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But many different contradcitory religions all say this same thing, that their god is self evident in some way.
So we have the problem of how do you know if your god is what is self-evident and that you aren't just misinterpreting a very different god or gods and, wait, didn't we do this before?
Oh yes, in the "Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker" thread from a few months back, that you had to stop posting in because you got busy.
Well you are back posting know, and I'm sure you didn't just start this thread with no intention of actually further discussion, so would you like to get back to that thread?

As I pointed out, all hinges on whether trueor not. If true then ignorance isn't an excuse. Similarily, if true then conflicting claims isn't an excuse - since what's true is true and trumps conflicting.

If you can know God exists then all else is subsiduary.


As for our impartial onlooker. Iirc we were bogged down in the impossibility of same. We had to rely on a particular worldview being true (i.e. yours) in order to enable impartiality. But if we relied on my worldview being true then there could be no such thing as an impartial onlooker.

The problem was a cart before the horse one. We couldn't overcome the problem of deciding which view was the correct one in order to progress.

And so a stalemate came about.

If you have thoughts on how to circumvent that problem then I am all ears.

weisses

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hence my insertion. The question is: do we have access to non-empirical information? If we do then without excuse follows.

I saw the image of Maria on a slice of toast .. does that count ?

PHG

The religious stuff you quote was written 100s of years after any Jesus or other odd nonsense prophet was about. If Chinese whispers can't go further than 10 people, how can any of what you say be relevant when written so far after.

How many times in life do we convince ourselves/feel we know what others are thinking or feeling and it is a pile of nonsense.

Life is simple, try to be a decent person, we cannot always be good but the good things in life tend to come from the kindess of people not some Ghost making them do it.

The closest and only thing that moves me internally is my coffee in the morning, not some religion. You would spend your time better helping someone than 30mins writing that opening passage.

antiskeptic

the_syco wrote: »

So your god only takes credit for the good things, and not the bad things?

Your god sounds like a narcissist.

If the good things are the result of him (including his attributes in us outing themselves) and the bad things not-him, then you're in non sequitur territory.

Being good can't be narcissitic since narcisstic (you appear to hold) is bad.

antiskeptic

PHG wrote: »

The religious stuff you quote was written 100s of years after any Jesus or other odd nonsense prophet was about.

Other than being asked to submit to the faintly ludicrous idea than man is on an ever upwards trajectory, I've never understood the 'it's old therefore irrelevant' argument

The question is whether true. Not whether old.

How many times in life do we convince ourselves/feel we know what others are thinking or feeling and it is a pile of nonsense.

Life is simple, try to be a decent person, we cannot always be good but the good things in life tend to come from the kindess of people not some Ghost making them do it.

The closest and only thing that moves me internally is my coffee in the morning, not some religion. You would spend your time better helping someone than 30mins writing that opening passage.

Classic 'close the art galleries and museums and feed the poor with the money saved' think.

As if you cannot have both.

Timberrrrrrrr

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I pointed out, all hinges on whether trueor not. If true then ignorance isn't an excuse. Similarily, if true then conflicting claims isn't an excuse - since what's true is true and trumps conflicting.

If you can know God exists then all else is subsiduary.


As for our impartial onlooker. Iirc we were bogged down in the impossibility of same. We had to rely on a particular worldview being true (i.e. yours) in order to enable impartiality. But if we relied on my worldview being true then there could be no such thing as an impartial onlooker.

The problem was a cart before the horse one. We couldn't overcome the problem of deciding which view was the correct one in order to progress.

And so a stalemate came about.

If you have thoughts on how to circumvent that problem then I am all ears.

If I remember correctly didn't you claim that you wanted a stalemate and in fact did everything you could to create a stalemate as it somehow got you out of the debate/gave you a win (in your mind)?

Odhinn

the_syco wrote: »

I dismiss it as the folklore of the times.

Slayer FTW.

smacl

Life is simple, try to be a decent person, we cannot always be good but the good things in life tend to come from the kindness of people not some Ghost making them do it.

Agreed.

PHG wrote: »

The closest and only thing that moves me internally is my coffee in the morning, not some religion.

Same. The Christians may have ditched Limbo some time back but I find myself there or thereabouts most mornings sometime between rolling out of bed and getting the first gulp of coffee.

antiskeptic

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If I remember correctly didn't you claim that you wanted a stalemate and in fact did everything you could to create a stalemate as it somehow got you out of the debate/gave you a win (in your mind)?

It wasn't so much my wanting but my sense that that is where things will end up. Mark (the main protagonist) required that his worldview hold sway in order that the impartial onlooker be conceived of - even if by thought experiment.

But didn't seem to understand that he was relying on his worldview holding sway to get going.

Naturally, I wasn't going to grant him such a convenience.

Which produces a stalemate, for, if my worldview was the one assumed from the get go, there could be no such thing as an impartial observer. There is only two kinds of men in the world (according to that worldview): the lost and the found. No impartal inbetweeners.

So how could such a thread get going if it was doomed from the off by irreconcilable worldviews on the matter of an impartial onlooker?

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Your post is based on the statement "that God is self-evident to everyone" which is clearly not the case, particularly in this forum. There is nothing whatsoever that suggests to me that there is even the faintest hint of truth in Christian mythology and more than Norse mythology, Egyptian mythology or any other broadly held supernatural belief. That religion has also been the excuse for acts of barbarity throughout history is also no doubt the case but not really relevant.

Quoting random bits of scripture on this forum does not constitute a valid basis for argument as most of us on this forum consider the bible to be a work of fiction.

It wasn't so much an argument aiming to convince you that you possess evidence of God.

Rather, it was a statement that you do have evidence of God and looks at things from there.

Presumably, if to your great surprise you found yourself standing on front of God one day, you would present an excuse for your position (assuming your current position held until that day).

Presumably that excuse would center on non empirical evidence? Or would center on the existence of conflicting religious claims unto too much choice?. Or the barbarism of Christianity?

Presumably you would say you energetically countered the Christian faith on boards.ie .. and not Hinduism because you objected to Christian influence in a land you felt better secularised and freed from superstition?

There will be no excuse. Not because God issues diktat and your valid excuses are silenced as in a kangeroo court. Rather, your excuses would shrivel in light of it being shown you that you did know. But choose to suppress and write off and attach yourself to explanations which served the purposes of rejection.

Rejecting that you know in your knower, for example, that your wrongdoing is objectively wrong. Wrong against some absolute standard, outside the shifting customs and fads of men. And that no matter how much you wriggle and turn, that objective standard has to have a source. And that wrong has always been and will always be wrong no matter what the fad of the day. Cowardice, selfishess, cruelty. You know it: the invisible of God made manifest to your knower.

-

It is interesting that when you look at the mode of salvation, it doesn't involve a choice FOR God. Man cannot make a choice for that which he is born into not believing. You cannot say to a man 'believe' and he chose for believing.

Rather the mode is 'salvation the default for everyman unless choice (or better said, will) against salvation. In which case the obtaining, through granting own will be done, of not-God (a.k.a. damnation)

"They refused to believe the truth and so be saved" is the way it is put.

A denial of objective wrong (objective, as in referencing a standard outside man) is a refusal to believe the truth. The truth that there exists a standard outside man.

A worked example, thus, of what the OP is talking of. An invisible, non empirical, non demonstrable quality of God. That you know. And are able to maintain denial of if you so will. But since you know it (and you do know it) you won't have legitimate excuse on the point.

It's not that one makes an about turn on a single thinf. To overnight accept objective wrong as defined above. That's not the way. Rather it is something that is accepted away from arguing against it. It is something ackowledged privately and which can be asked about in private. Between you who knows it and whatever the objective standard setter is. For those who aren't willing to maintain a refusal in private, that is.

So no argument from me. Just statement. For you to do with as you will.

antiskeptic

5uspect wrote: »

You know most people here think it’s all nonsense. You may as well read the script of Dr Who to us

There is no 'us'. There are only individuals. Who are not identical, whatever about their public pronouncements.

Are you okay? Do you have friends and family to talk to? Or are you here because all you have is arguing about religion with people on the internet?

That's a double edged sword you're wielding there.

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Having read it twice the only thing that I am getting from the OP is that it says in around 700 words what the writers user name already says in 1. Which is that the wish/agenda is to establish one baseless assertion as "default true" and that the sceptic of this asserted and baseless "truth" is merely to be derided in every way from merely "erroneous" to "mad".

The user is against, in fact "anti" scepticism. And that is all the 700 or so words in the OP appears to be saying. I can literally find no other content or meaning or agenda or interpretation of the text here.

Content containing any actual argument, evidence, data or reasoning that a god entity actually does exist however, is entirely lacking in the OP just like every other post ever written on this forum by that user.

On a linguistic note though I have never before in any dictionary, or any other context I have encountered to date, heard it suggested that "not empirically nor rationally demonstrable or provable" is even tangentially related to the word "invisible" let alone a valid full replacement for it. The move above appears not to much to have been a replacement of a word in scripture.... but a wholesale re-writing of it's content and meaning to suit an agenda.

One wonders what the divine author/inspiration of the text, were it to actually exist, would think of having the meaning of it's text not just mangled or distorted, but entirely changed from one thing to an entirely different thing in this fashion. Were I to believe in that author, and were I to make such a move against it's will, intent, meaning and design, I would find myself somewhat in desperate need of repentance and restitution in fear of the well being of my eternal soul.

Thankfully there is no reason on offer, least of all here on this thread, to think this malicious, malignant, capricious, emotional snowflake entity exists and is out to get us.

You might read my reply to smacl a post or two above.

The issue isn't my finding the bootstrap argument for transcendent morality laughable. Or trying to convince someone who is happy to hold the rather more sustainable position that there are no objective morals that there indeed is.

The question is whether you are convinced. And only you can answer.

Clearly, in the event the verse quoted in the OP is true you can't be convinced yourself. There will be a flaw in your argument and you know it. But can opt to bury that inconvenience. To paper over the crack.

Now, the paper might be thick so that the crack is well hidden. But since you are the paper applicator, you'll know where to look


😉

Hotblack Desiato

OP, may I ask what your motivation in starting this thread is?

It is to save souls? Win converts? Justify your held views? Or just win an argument on the internet?

I could start all sorts of threads in the Christianity forum picking holes in their beliefs, I choose not to for several reasons - among them that the mods over there frown on that sort of thing; I have no motivation to "win souls"; and I respect people's right to belief even if I consider those beliefs rather silly.

I remember the previous thread that MarkHamill linked to - the only reasonable conclusion I can draw from that, and from the god debate in gerneral, is "I don't know, and you don't know either."

So all reasonable people are agnostics. Gnosticism is a question of knowledge, not belief, and I've yet to hear of a human with a reasonable claim to have knowledge of a god.

Where we differ is belief - you are prepared to believe without evidence, I am not. That's just the way I am, the way my brain is wired up for better or for worse. I can no more choose to believe in the christian god than you could choose to believe in Zeus.

If I go to hell then so be it, I will go down proudly knowing that your god made me this way

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

There will be a flaw in your argument and you know it.

I have not presented an argument, so how can there be a flaw in it? It is YOUR claim there is a god, and it if YOUR claim you have failed to offer any substantiation for.

Again, you are just "antiskeptic". You want your view to be the default, and you are against scepticism of it. There is nothing contained in the 700+ word OP that is not already contained in your username.

If you have anything more than assertion.... assertion that there is a god, assertion that this is self evident, assertion that there are objective morals.... then by all means come back to us with it. But until such time as mere assertion is not all you have.... you're on your own.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Presumably, if to your great surprise you found yourself standing on front of God one day, you would present an excuse for your position (assuming your current position held until that day).

Presumably, if to your great surprise, you found yourself standing in front of Thor one day, you also might be in a bit of a pickle. Both propositions are unsupported fantasies however, so not really worth getting concerned about.

Your chosen God is precisely as self evident as Thor, or any other unsupported mythological or supernatural claim, i.e. 'not at all'.

antiskeptic

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

OP, may I ask what your motivation in starting this thread is?

It is to save souls? Win converts? Justify your held views? Or just win an argument on the internet?

Winning souls, as you put it is the motivation generally. And although I like winning arguments, I know I won't. But no matter - since winning souls isn't reliant on my winning arguments. That said, in the main I also know I won't lose arguments either - say in the matter of their being no morals without God. Stalemate is the usual outcome.

I don't so much want to justify my view as develop it (since my view of how it all works isn't by any means complete). For example, in a discussion elsewhere with Arminians (who believe salvation/damnation involves choice for /choice against God) and Calvinists ( who believe God picks who to save and damn aside from any will involvement of man), I test my own view against theirs and find it holds up well.

I could start all sorts of threads in the Christianity forum picking holes in their beliefs, I choose not to for several reasons - among them that the mods over there frown on that sort of thing; I have no motivation to "win souls"; and I respect people's right to belief even if I consider those beliefs rather silly.

To be fair, your view doesn't offer anything of particular note, in comparison. How could you be that motivated? If you held people's worth to be on an eternal scale of significance, rather than something of lifetimes worth then you might be motivated differently. Self-defined meaning of life will always have a hard time elevating itself against another self-defined meaning of life. What has one to commend itself over another when its all for nowt anyway?

Scale matters.

I remember the previous thread that MarkHamill linked to - the only reasonable conclusion I can draw from that, and from the god debate in gerneral, is "I don't know, and you don't know either."

It was a bit more nuanced than that. The possibility of no impartial onlooker had significant consequences. Stalemate was okay .. and like I say, something I'm comfortable with. It removes the certainty with which Mark spesks of his view - since he supposes it undergirded by any impartial onlooker. No impartial onlooker demonstrable, no undergirding to stand on. He's back to own beliefs.

The way he views me.

So all reasonable people are agnostics. Gnosticism is a question of knowledge, not belief, and I've yet to hear of a human with a reasonable claim to have knowledge of a god.

That's patent rubbish. Very smart and reasonable people believe. Indeed, many fathers of science attributed their work to the cause of exploring that which their creator has made. It was their exposure to his atteibutes, logical, reasoned, purposeful, coherent, systematic .. that had them suppose those same tools could be used in exploring and understanding ehat he made.


The problem with your view involves the issue in the OP. The demand for evidence in a particular form. There is nothing whatsoever that rules thatis all there can be. You could as easily be speaking as a blind man to the sighted as speaking any kind of sense.

Where we differ is belief - you are prepared to believe without evidence, I am not.

This is your category mistake (and another place of stalemate). I am not prepared to believe without evidence. It is precisely the evidence which brings about the belief. You are supposing you can see all, and in that all there is no evidence. I'm suggesting (well, the Bible is and I'm merely repeating it here) that you are blind.

The issue is whether you are drawn towards the place where all is revealed (you won't believe on the way bit that doesn't mean you aren't moving towards unbeknownst). Or not.

Along the way, evidences unto being drawn (which you wouldn't connect with anything to do with God, except in retrospect).

Along with the problem of blind vs not blind is the issue of your supposing how a person must come to belief, were God true. You think it has to be the way you think it need be. That it connect with parts of you you think it oughtto connect with. Why on earth you would suppose God (if he existed) is confined to operating the way you think he has to operate is beyond me.

Beyond, were it not for the OP which states precisely why. Each their own little god. Supposing that they know best.

A thought experiment: think what God would be like if he existed. Take the scale of the universe as your cue and use it to concentrate on might and intelligence. And consider the universe spoken into existence (i.e. the scale of the universe is a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of God)

Now pop back out of the thought and consider how feeble the idea that God evidencing himself is limited to what you suppose it should be.

That's just the way I am, the way my brain is wired up for better or for worse. I can no more choose to believe in the christian god than you could choose to believe in Zeus.

If I go to hell then so be it, I will go down proudly knowing that your god made me this way

Unfortunately, pride won't be an option. For it is pride which rules the roost of a man who ends up damned. And it has a limited shelf life. There will be no pride in hell - for there will be nothing to be proud of. You would see all, including the ways in which the attempt to bring you to submit to what you rightfully ought to submit, was rejected by an inappropriate proudness.

Pride says "my will be done". Pride says " I know, I decide". Pride says "I am an independent of God being"

To which God says, if Pride insists to the bitter end, "thy will be done". And the person gets precisely that: on their own, without God. And of course, without all the things they rely on God for. Pretty awful that.

"Every knee will bow, every tongue confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord".

It won't be God's henchmen rapping the back of your knees forcing you to bow. Nor magical powers having you say what you don't believe. You will because bow and speak becuase you will see, with mich regret, that it is true.

It is interesting that you say your 'brain'. The bible says that the law is written on the heart, the conscience sometimes defending your actions, sometimes accusing you for your actions.

The great thing is that you have no choice in the matter of God opting to attempt to draw you in. He doesn't ask your permission to make the attempt. And it doesn't necessarily matter what your brain says. It's but one voice. He will access where and by the means he sees fit. And you will answer because you have no choice but to answer. This is his gig, not yours.

The only matter you have involvement in is the nature of your answer. You might not understand the algorithm. It might be end to end encryption such that you have no brain-idea its happening. But it happens.

I wonder do you get to declare a lot of arguments 'stalemates' on your way out?

i know some are raised to evangelism, and some feel themselves called to it, but really it's a shabby aul way to spend one's time in 2019 imo.

A_Lost_Man

There are two types of god personal gods and impersonal god. Personal gods are selfish, mean, abusive, jealous. Many religious believe in personal gods. But when they get busted. They start arguing impersonal god or a general god.

antiskeptic

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wonder do you get to declare a lot of arguments 'stalemates' on your way out?

i know some are raised to evangelism, and some feel themselves called to it, but really it's a shabby aul way to spend one's time in 2019 imo.

I enjoy it in the main. I'm not that keen on puzzles but this is one I like.

There is no such thing as victory on an internet discussion forum , but since the puzzle is my own puzzling and since there is not much fun in ramming pieces together that don't fit, I'm happy enough to puzzle away and watch the picture build to my own satisfaction.

Where it doesn't, I'll get back to that bit later.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Mark (the main protagonist) required that his worldview hold sway in order that the impartial onlooker be conceived of - even if by thought experiment.

But didn't seem to understand that he was relying on his worldview holding sway to get going.

Naturally, I wasn't going to grant him such a convenience.

Which produces a stalemate, for, if my worldview was the one assumed from the get go, there could be no such thing as an impartial observer. There is only two kinds of men in the world (according to that worldview): the lost and the found. No impartal inbetweeners.

My thought experiment works regardless of worldview, that's why I came up with it.

Many theistic beliefs and their justifications, to me, are identical in nature (my religious says "x", I feel "x") and really only different in the subject who says them. I could not see a justification for any one belief over another, it looked like people either have the beliefs indoctrinated from birth or choose the beliefs that make them happy, either way without much though or questioning. I wondered if my atheistic position looked to same to different theists. So I came up with a tool, a mental exercise, to take away the subjective and see what was left. Thinking about it now, I realise that its just a form of rubber duck debugging, just with the added step that the duck would point out if you were making the same subjective argument as a contradictory theist/atheist and expect you to add more.

But you couldn't even make an attempt with my thought experiment. And you seem to think that puts your beliefs on a stronger foothold.

It is not a stalemate if you do not even put your pieces on the table. It is a forfeit.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Winning souls, as you put it is the motivation generally.

But you said before that God decides who believes what (when he chooses whose "eyes" to open), so you can't win any soul.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't so much want to justify my view as develop it (since my view of how it all works isn't by any means complete). For example, in a discussion elsewhere with Arminians (who believe salvation/damnation involves choice for /choice against God) and Calvinists ( who believe God picks who to save and damn aside from any will involvement of man), I test my own view against theirs and find it holds up well.

And yet you can't test your view against no view at all.

antiskeptic wrote: »

To be fair, your view doesn't offer anything of particular note, in comparison. How could you be that motivated? If you held people's worth to be on an eternal scale of significance, rather than something of lifetimes worth then you might be motivated differently. Self-defined meaning of life will always have a hard time elevating itself against another self-defined meaning of life. What has one to commend itself over another when its all for nowt anyway?

This reads as "Atheism doesn't feed my superiority complex over others, therefore I don't like". Am I missing something?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Stalemate was okay .. and like I say, something I'm comfortable with.

Being happy with stalemating kind undermines your previous claim that you want to save souls and develop your own views. You cannot develop my mind or yours by "stalemating" my questions to you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's patent rubbish. Very smart and reasonable people believe.

You misread Hotblack, I'm sure. They said "Gnosticism is a question of knowledge, not belief". Very smart and (otherwise) reasonable people do believe. How many claim to know?

antiskeptic wrote: »

This is your category mistake (and another place of stalemate). I am not prepared to believe without evidence. It is precisely the evidence which brings about the belief. You are supposing you can see all, and in that all there is no evidence. I'm suggesting (well, the Bible is and I'm merely repeating it here) that you are blind.

How do you know that you and Hotblack are not both blind to some other real god?

antiskeptic wrote: »

It is interesting that you say your 'brain'. The bible says that the law is written on the heart, the conscience sometimes defending your actions, sometimes accusing you for your actions.

The great thing is that you have no choice in the matter of God opting to attempt to draw you in. He doesn't ask your permission to make the attempt. And it doesn't necessarily matter what your brain says. It's but one voice. He will access where and by the means he sees fit. And you will answer because you have no choice but to answer. This is his gig, not yours.

The only matter you have involvement in is the nature of your answer. You might not understand the algorithm. It might be end to end encryption such that you have no brain-idea its happening. But it happens.

So God forces us to answer him at some random point, we can't choose not to be we can choose, in some way what we answer. But, what we answer is not decided by our brain, but by our heart upon which god wrote our conscience. So we don't actually have any choice at all, everyone in hell is there because specifically decided they should be? I'm really trying to follow you here, but you are all over the place. Is this the first time you have thought of this? Do you need a rubber duck?

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you said before that God decides who believes what (when he chooses whose "eyes" to open), so you can't win any soul.

His decision is based on criterion. The criterion met is a function of the persons will.

You might see it as a fishing expedition. The person can either be landed on shore (in which case criterion is met, they are landed, and eyes are opened). Or they can will unto breaking the line and never thus being landed and the criterion

I doubt I've said anything else than that (certainly in recent years when that view crystalized)

And yet you can't test your view against no view at all.

Not sure what that means.

This reads as "Atheist doesn't feed my superiority complex over others, therefore I don't like". Am I missing something?

Certainly. The atheist view isn't offering a whole lot. Morals and meaning are an exercise in bootstrap suspension. Morals and meaning are what you decide them to be. If you go with this argument/philosophy then you go with this. If that that. You decide.

And so long as you are satisfied with what you decide then it's okay for you. And so we get a world full of mini-gods who are all correct by own measure.

You only have to decide your measure is correct. Which is hardly something worth evangelising on, given that's the way things operate by default.

Being happy with stalemating kind undermines your previous claim that you want to save souls and develop your own views. You cannot develop my mind or yours by "stalemating" my questions to you.

That supposes that salvation is achieved by winning argumentation. Since it's not, there is no particular problem in stalemate for me.

The positive about stalemating is that until stalemate, the person thinks their argument a winning one (at least in their own mind). If a person with a previously winning (in their own mind) position must move to a stalemated position, then that is a defeat of sorts.

Not that I'm interested in such defeats from a personal perspective. Such defeats represent movement away from the lost position. They move nearer found.

You misread Hotblack, I'm sure. They said "Gnosticism is a question of knowledge, not belief". Very smart and (otherwise) reasonable people do believe. How many claimed to know?

I'm sure if you talked to them they would say they know. But because they deal with empiricists for whom knowing is only empiricially arrived at, they use the term believe.

I'm okay with the term believe, once clarified what it is that means to a believer. That is: knowing of the non empirical kind.

How do you know that you and Hotblack are not both blind to the real god?

The same way as you know anything: the evidence available persuades. You merely try to elevate empirical when there is no particular need for anyone to consider it supreme.

Remember: the idea that empirical evidence is supreme is a belief. And a belief that only holds until such time as you have reason not to believe it anymore.

So God forces us to answer him at some random point,

Not at all random. A hundred times a day? A thousand? Your will is in action all day long. Your thinking is in action all day long. Your conscience guides you all day long.

It's a process. Not a moment. Your answering that is.

we can't choose not to be we can choose, in some way what we answer. But, what we answer is not decided by our brain, but by our heart upon which god wrote our conscience. So we don't actually have any choice at all, everyone in hell is there because specifically decided they should be? I'm really trying to follow you here, but you are all over the place. Is this the first time you have thought of this? Do you need a rubber duck?

Your brain is obviously part of it. How could someone utilise the internet to spread porn unless they used their brains to navigate the technical aspects of same. How could they figure to go industrial with Zyklon B unless they engaged their brains.

But their brain isn't the driver. Their heart is (where ever that be located since it's not the physical heart being spoken of). Now if you want to locate the "heart" in the brain then fine.

Point is: the claim is that man is aware of the law (rather, the spirit of it rather than the limited letter given in the 10 Commandments). And he has a compass which guides, defends and admonishes his actions.

It doesn't matter that he doesn't assign this knowledge to God. Or suppose it knowledge at all. All that matters is that he is communicating with God and God with him, whether he likes it or not, or believes it or not.

For once the communication, then means sufficient to either save, or, if the man insists on damnation, condemn.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My thought experiment works regardless of worldview

Worldview: all men are born sinners and are by nature* antagonistic towards God, God hating and will sin as soon as their little legs can carry them

Now, tell me how your thought experiment permits an impartial observer who is by nature God hating.

*nature. Like a cat catching mice is nature. It's not something someone is taught or develops over time. It's as natural for them as is breathing air.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

His decision is based on criterion. The criterion met is a function of the persons will.

You might see it as a fishing expedition. The person can either be landed on shore (in which case criterion is met, they are landed, and eyes are opened). Or they can will unto breaking the line and never thus being landed and the criterion

I doubt I've said anything else than that (certainly in recent years when that view crystalized)

You said, not long ago, that people couldn't have their eyes open until god reset the framework of their logic and reason.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not sure what that means.

You are happy to test your view point against other theists, but not present to something with no view point at all.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Certainly.

Did you read what I wrote? Are you going to try and argue that a superiority complex is a good thing?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That supposes that salvation is achieved by winning argumentation. Since it's not, there is no particular problem in stalemate for me.

The positive about stalemating is that until stalemate, the person thinks their argument a winning one (at least in their own mind). If a person with a previously winning (in their own mind) position must move to a stalemated position, then that is a defeat of sorts.

Not that I'm interested in such defeats from a personal perspective. Such defeats represent movement away from the lost position. They move nearer found.

You don't know what stalemating is.
Again, by not bringing your pieces to the table you haven't created a stalemate, you have forfeited. If we cannot discuss my position then I have no reason to question my position and if nothing else you have reassured myself in my opinion. And if we cannot discuss your position, never mind me ever admitting it is correct, I can never consider it and ever be saved by it. Your "stalemating" completely undermines what you claim you are trying to do.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm sure if you talked to them they would say they know. But because they deal with empiricists for whom knowing is only empiricially arrived at, they use the term believe.

I'm okay with the term believe, once clarified what it is that means to a believer. That is: knowing of the non empirical kind.

This has nothing to do whit the statement that Hotblack made and you contradicted.

antiskeptic wrote: »

The same way as you know anything: the evidence available persuades.

What evidence?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Point is: the claim is that man is aware of the law (rather, the spirit of it rather than the limited letter given in the 10 Commandments). And he has a compass which guides, defends and admonishes his actions.

It doesn't matter that he doesn't assign this knowledge to God. Or suppose it knowledge at all. All that matters is that he is communicating with God and God with him, whether he likes it or not, or believes it or not.

For once the communication, then means sufficient to either save, or, if the man insists on damnation, condemn.

But man doesn't insist, that's my point. God starts the communication and god sets our responses, by giving us the law in our hearts. God sets both sides of the test, yet it's our fault if we are wrong. God has to decide to "reset the framework of our logic and reason", thereby actually letting us be open to him, in order for us to pass the test he tests.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Worldview: all men are born sinners and are by nature* antagonistic towards God, God hating and will sin as soon as their little legs can carry them

Now, tell me how your thought experiment permits an impartial observer who is by nature God hating.

*nature. Like a cat catching mice is nature. It's not something someone is taught or develops over time. It's as natural for them as is breathing air.

Rubber ducks hate god, do they? This was explained in my post.

antiskeptic

antiskeptic wrote: »

It doesn't matter that he doesn't assign this knowledge to God. Or suppose it knowledge at all. All that matters is that he is communicating with God and God with him, whether he likes it or not, or believes it or not.

You make the cardinal error of projecting your subjective belief as commonly held truth, as if you are the spokesperson for humanity at large. You are not remotely qualified to second guess my thought process or faith, nor I yours. Speak only for yourself, adopting a stance as the lone arbiter of truth is passive aggressive at best and obnoxious at worst.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Rubber ducks hate god, do they? This was explained in my post.

Lets see:

Many theistic beliefs and their justifications, to me, are identical in nature (my religious says "x", I feel "x") and really only different in the subject who says them.

Understood. That's how it seems to you. Not necessarily how it is in fact, but how it seems to you.

I could not see a justification for any one belief over another, it looked like people either have the beliefs indoctrinated from birth or choose the beliefs that make them happy, either way without much though or questioning.

Understood. Again, not the way it is necessarily, but the way it appears to you.

I wondered if my atheistic position looked to same to different theists. So I came up with a tool, a mental exercise, to take away the subjective and see what was left. Thinking about it now, I realise that its just a form of rubber duck debugging, just with the added step that the duck would point out if you were making the same subjective argument as a contradictory theist/atheist and expect you to add more.

Understood. But the rubber duck aims to get the speaker to improve their explanation and improve their understanding of their code so as to objectively improve it such that it achieves the desired result: i.e. it works.

There is no improvement to an explanation which will make an explanation work for you. I could improve it from my point of view: clear out poor explanation, assemble the argument to be more followable, cut excess explanation and double explanation.

But not matter how good it was, it would make no difference to you. My worldview says that you cannot be impartial. The lack of impartiality - unto antagonism - means you simply won't be able to follow the argument down.

Not because it doesn't make sense but because you are antagonistic to what is being said by nature (according to the Christian worldview).

I've seen it this morning in the Israel Folau thread. Although not saying by any means that gays should be compared to paedophiles, the mere mention of the words in the same post saw two mods land in on top of me (see AA feedback)

I remember it myself when my born again mam began explaining to me. We had massive rows with me telling her to stick her god where the sun don't shine. Antagonism.

You presume rationality and sober assessment of the argument rules man. It doesn't. Not in my world view. Man's antagonism will block the building blocks being laid from the get go. Since he cannot accept certain things, by very nature, those building blocks cannot be laid and the structure cannot be explained.

Take for example:

If God created you, is it right that you are subject to him. Subject to the purpose he has for you. Subject to the constraints he sets for you. Whatever that might be?

KWAG2019

Gibberish. Take it to church to be savored by the deluded.

antiskeptic

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Gibberish. Take it to church to be savored by the deluded.

Welcome to the A&A forum. Might I suggest The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins as a way of obtaining A&A Kindergarden qualifications?