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

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I had a great laugh in the debate between Dan Barker and the unfortunately named Kyle Butt. In it Barker asked him to define spirit/soul.

Butt came out with a list of things, words like "non-physical" and "incorporeal". At which point Barker pointed out Butt was telling us what it is NOT. He was not telling us what it IS.

Which struck Butt dumb. He couldn't actually answer it so de deflected quite badly by defining god as "nothing". Which kinda tracked with Barkers side of things quite well.

Defining to blind men is always going to be problematic.

Which reminds me: you never did develop on the difficulty when demonstrating things to person lacking any of the senses.

You stuck to the somewhat simpler task of a blind man to whom you could communicate the idea of sight via his other senses.

Anyone can pluck the low hanging fruit.

nozzferrahhtoo

Actually I did, and you chose to ignore my last post to you entirely and duck out. At which point the conversation died. And I am happy to leave it at that. As other users have pointed out your syntax is at times impossible to parse.... even requiring a mod to point this out on at least one occasion...... leaving your sentences appearing to be nonsense no one can parse or understand.

Enjoying engaging with some of the other users the thread is drawing out, but entirely happy to leave our previous conversation where it ended and not engage with you further. Any responses to my posts to other users on this thread, from you, I will parse as commentary not requiring my reply.

antiskeptic

"nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

acknowledging that life A) Quite probably has no meaning at all and Does not actually require one for it to BE meaningful to us.

You have zero means to evaluate the probability. 'Quite' is a non-value when there are no means.

If meaning is self decided upon then any meaning is as meaningful as any other. Something that mankind at large doesn't exactly demonstrate in his perpetual quest for an objective meaning.

MPFGLB

antiskeptic wrote: »

You have zero means to evaluate the probability. 'Quite' is a non-value when there are no means.

If meaning is self decided upon then any meaning is as meaningful as any other. Something that mankind at large doesn't exactly demonstrate in his perpetual quest for an objective meaning.

Just as you have zero means to evaluate any of your assertions or statements made in this thread about the existence of God..:D...oh oh hoisted by your own petard

So if God (as in some divine intelligence behind everything) exists what is stopping him from revealing himself to us in a manner we can comprehend with our senses ...you know appears on TV ..or sends a podcast or some such

Its possible he (or she) has had a communication breakdown for thousands of years or maybe he is tied up some where else

Or as the Catholics would believe the earth is all one big test and those who do well get to go to the next level and the rest either have to come round again , await in purgatory until someone rescue them or just go straight to eternal damnation

Or God doesn't exist and we all in some never ending pointless cycle .


But I am thinking there is a point...there usually is a point to most things (except maybe nuns) and we just wont figure it out cause we are not special enough (even though we think we are) or we will figure it out one day (like DNA) but its so far in the future that 2020 will be a dot in the past
Maybe just maybe we will find out that man created man and everything is circular or recursive

Either way all the thinking in the world wont answer these questions
Better make ones mind up to live as best one can each day and laugh at the absurdity of it all

Huntergonzo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually I did, and you chose to ignore my last post to you entirely and duck out. At which point the conversation died. And I am happy to leave it at that. As other users have pointed out your syntax is at times impossible to parse.... even requiring a mod to point this out on at least one occasion...... leaving your sentences appearing to be nonsense no one can parse or understand.

Enjoying engaging with some of the other users the thread is drawing out, but entirely happy to leave our previous conversation where it ended and not engage with you further. Any responses to my posts to other users on this thread, from you, I will parse as commentary not requiring my reply.

In fairness I don't think this thread has much more to offer. 51 pages so far and not the slightest bit of evidence provided to support the existence of god.

In fact the main protagonist (antiskeptic) wasn't even able to explain who/what god is or even what he means by 'god', which is very weak in my opinion.

Another religious dud I'm afraid....par for the course though.

antiskeptic

Huntergonzo wrote: »

In fairness I don't think this thread has much more to offer. 51 pages so far and not the slightest bit of evidence provided to support the existence of god.

In fact the main protagonist (antiskeptic) wasn't even able to explain who/what god is or even what he means by 'god', which is very weak in my opinion.

Another religious dud I'm afraid....par for the course though.

Since evidence presentation to support the existence of God wasn't the purpose of the thread .. and you haven't realised that after 51 pages.

Oh dear

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since evidence presentation to support the existence of God wasn't the purpose of the thread .. and you haven't realised that after 51 pages.

Oh dear

Go on, humour us all then, what exactly was the purpose of the thread? I've seen more meat on a tofu steak.

Huntergonzo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since evidence presentation to support the existence of God wasn't the purpose of the thread .. and you haven't realised that after 51 pages.

Oh dear

Haha but sure look you aren't even able to explain what you mean by god, that would have been a decent start!

You just gave us some incoherent rubbish about a bonnet, is Lada god?

Huntergonzo

smacl wrote: »

Go on, humour us all then, what exactly was the purpose of the thread? I've seen more meat on a tofu steak.

Honestly and I don't mean this in a personal way but I find antiskeptic's arguments very poor, evasive and incoherent, nothing new or interesting at all.

I don't believe in god at all myself but it would be nice to see something compelling from believers, not just more of the same rubbish.

I found this one of the worst ever attempts though, someone who can't even explain what they mean by god, completely useless!

Probably just a wum in fairness, you'd seriously hope anyway!

Midster

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We are dismissive of claims that are not evidenced. That is all. Throwing random %s around helps not at all. There are SOME claims where it will be 99% but there are others where it is 100%. There will even be things where it is 1% but in fact the claim turns out to be true after all!

Our job is to figure out which is which using substantiation. Not guess work.

I read with great interest your reply. And to be perfectly honest I can see exactly why the idea of some kind of sentient being is a tough pill to swallow.
We used to live in a time we’re what we used to call facts about life, the stars, the universe etc were mostly generated by the religious. And man kind has only ever really moved on from stick fires, horseback transport and pigeon communication since we had the courage to leave that and fully embraced science as true fact giver.

So I do get it.

To be honest I see both sides, and for me personally, I hold onto the thoughts of a creator of some description because if there wasn’t one at all, then to me, it would seem even less likely them that there is any kind of intelligent life anywhere else in the universe.

I watch programs and films all the time about, for example the creation of our solar system, and in my eyes there really is a clear domino effect that happened to our planet after it was formed that had they not happened in the order they did, life would have stayed single cell, or began to form more complicated but then died out and remained single cell forever after.

I’m not versed on your source of information, but mine comes from multiple programs, and documentary film.

The earth had to be on a tilt, or after the comet bombardment if you would have seen earth from space earth would have been covered in ice, except for a thin band on the equator

Did you know that when the moon first formed and began orbiting the earth, one orbit of the moon only took 4 only hours, a moon that big, and that close would have easily cracked our thin earth crust as the lava dried, giving us tectonic plates, through the edges of which come rich minerals that poor into our oceans, and volcanoes to fertilise the ice free seasonable ground. The moon also gives us tides, enabling shore creatures sometimes to be trapped, some of them being forced to adapt, and then begin to make use of the food on the land.

Earth certainly is special, so special that even with our modern ultra powerful telescopes we haven’t yet found anything like our earth.

But just like nature, I do believe our purpose is to explore all avenues of exploration, and multiply to as many other worlds as we can.

Nature and evolution is intelligent, or are you going to argue it isn’t.

Lastly, you also mentioned that had the dinosaurs not been wiped out, maybe they would have evolved into something intelligent, the reason why I think you are wide of the mark, is because from start to finish, dinosaurs were on earth for around 100 million years, and all they ever did evolution wise in all that time is to get bigger. So very little chance of them being here today using Apple iPhones to converse peacefully with an opponent. Lol

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Go on, humour us all then, what exactly was the purpose of the thread? I've seen more meat on a tofu steak.

One aspect was to take some classic objections to Christianity and propose workarounds. For example:

- "you have to believe something for which you have no evidence". The proposed solution had you believing only after you had been evidenced to your utter satisfaction.

- "there is no evidence for God". The proposed solution: there doesn't need to be any evidence for God. You are not required to believe in God (as you understand Him) in order to be saved or damned.

- "God is a choice and you can't choose for God if no evidence". The proposed solution sees two will states (not active and active against good) obtaining two options. Salvation is thus, a direct function of your will (active and non) and nothing else. But without it being a classic will for/will against choice. The responsibility is yours and yours alone.

-

We talked of false gods. I touched on the commonality of purpose of gods like Zeus, Buddhism, Diana: all bowed to to an extent, but leaving self in control. I included your gods in there too - them having the same purpose. I forgot to mention God as a false God. Your vision of him is your vision. It needn't be the right vision. "I am who I am" He says. He's not what you say he is or I say he is.


There was other interesting aspects.

People arguing from definitions not realising they are circular arguments. "What we consider objective doesn't arise from our subjective selves because .. well the dictionary says so." I hadn't realised this clearly. The circularity.

Self as final authority brought a lot of objection, but I don't recall anyone saying what their final authority was, if not them. And how it got to be their final authority. One to mull over.


-


The overarching point of the OP itself, is that there is a mechanism, to which you are subject, which is establishing your answer to the question of God or no God. One which sees you fully responsible for your damnation* if you are indeed damned.

The stage is here and now, questions are posed to you all day long and you answer. You don't have to believe in the process in order to partake in the process. You've no choice but to partake.

Which deals with another common objection. The idea that in the event God does exist, the objector reckons they have a good leg to stand on. A killer defence. "There was no empirical evidence for God" and such like.

God is being defined by yourself. You say how God is to operate. You say how belief is to be obtained. Since 'God' is defined by you, you might not be surprised to find out that that God doesn't exist.

Which is not to say God doesn't exist.

And if he says you will agree full heartedly with his judgement of you then that is sobering. It is sobering for me - and I occupy a wholly different space than you at this moment in time

Your agreement will, I'd guess, take the form of your silence. You won't deny, you won't evade, you won't misdirect or suppress - such will be the intensity of the exposure. The Light will illuminate every corner. The Truth will out showing all the denial, evasion and misdirection. This is Your Sin Life.. as it were. The point, I don't think is Tabloid. The focus will, I suspect, centre on your path to final rejection of God. How you brought it to pass.

I know what it is like to be silenced by God. To be set quiet when I tried speak what was inappropriate to speak. It happened me but once. And before I was a believer. A blast of Truth shut my mouth in a heartbeat. Silence.

There really will be no excuse.


In this world, you get to taste something of the eternal destination. Both the environment of God (love, peace, joy, relationship, humour, friendship, security, wonder, life...). And the environment of not-God (hate, greed, loneliness, addiction, pain, despair, depression, death).

That's all this gig is about: which so you want, forever.

And no credit to self if saved. Self sufficiency, the core of every false god, religious or otherwise, has to die. It is and must be God who saves, not self. But it is good news. You get to be born again, you get to be prepared for the world to come.

It's mad Ted: your eternity is in your hands and your hands alone.

Smacl, I don't mind what your response is to this post. Truly. I really just hope that one day you to come to be one of the most very blessed.





*Given they will have freely expressed their desire not to have what God is about, God grants their will be done. For that, in a nutshell is what damnation is - existence in the environment of not-God. Its only horrible because not-God is the definition if horrible. The Objective definition.


Edit: the purpose of the thread isn't to evidence in a way that works for you. The purpose of the thread is to evidence In a way that works for me. As you've probably figured out. I get to speak about God and some of the misconceptions about God. There is that evangelical side. And I get to know God better myself in that speaking. Which is no bad thing.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

Smacl, I don't mind what your response is to this post. Truly. I really just hope that one day you to come to be one of the most very blessed.

Very kind of you to say so and I don't think anyone here can argue that you haven't managed to stimulate some lively conversation if nothing else.

My take on it is that your arguments for the existence of your god necessitate a predisposition to belief in that god. From what I can see, those arguments have failed to gain any traction whatsoever with anyone else in this thread. If anything they've prompted those of us who don't share your beliefs to revisit the many reasons why we don't believe in a god or gods, share our own logic and further solidify that position. For me that included dropping in on an epistemology forum I hadn't been back to in yonks to better understand differences between belief and knowledge, so thanks for that. Apologies if the tone has been entirely dismissive but then you are where you is. Apart from the evangelical agenda naturally drawing derision, your use and abuse of well understood terminology is always going to draw flak.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Very kind of you to say so

It's worth reminding myself why I'm here from time to time.

My take on it is that your arguments for the existence of your god necessitate a predisposition to belief in that god.

Rather than argue for, I am largely describing a process. It doesn't take predisposition to follow the process and see does it overcome some of the obstacles. Say the "can't believe without evidence" objection.

That objection overcome wouldn't mean a person believes (for you need evidence first, before you believe). There will always be another objection until such time as the evidence blows them away.

Similarily, you might agree that 'will inactive/will against' is a mechanism that would bring damnation of man by man. Without having to believe there is such a process at work.

We all know we have a conscience and we all know we respond this way and that. The idea is to present a process that functions in a way you can track, using that which you can see at work in yourself. As opposed to having to track some abstract spiritual process which provides nothing you can grip onto to.

You can grip conscience. You can grip your responses to it. Without having to believe God is running it.

For me that included dropping in on an epistemology forum I hadn't been back to in yonks to better understand differences between belief and knowledge, so thanks for that.

I'd have been interested in how objective gets detached from subjective. I recall Fourier saying you needed an assumption to get going. The subjective assumes it is observing correctly and in no time is pulling objectives out of his subjective hat.

Apologies if the tone has been entirely dismissive but then you are where you is. Apart from the evangelical agenda naturally drawing derision, your use and abuse of well understood terminology is always going to draw flak.

From the above: it has proven difficult to remind folk of the source of their objectives. I suspect epistemology won't be able to break away from a starting assumption of one or other sort. The assumption that detaches things from the subjective. A kind of Hey Presto! moment.

'Well understood' means, I think, 'everyday use'. I use the word objective in that everyday way too.

I don't think its well understood though.

nthclare

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you accept for a moment that my knowing God exists is like my knowing a reality external to me exists then:

Tool sharpening: iron sharpens iron.

I might know God exists but that's a big territory to explore. The specific area (or mechanism) of salvation is of interest to me. And so I seek to understand that mechanism. I might visit a theology forum and listen to views there on that mechanism. The Arminians (e.g. Methodists) suppose man capable of choice for and against God. And the Calvinists suppose man has no involvement in his salvation - that God picks this one to save amd that one to be damned for some reason not revealed to is. I differ with both and sharpen my view against their view. Similarily, an atheist forum filled with unbelievers gives opportunity to explore what is going on in unbelieving man and how that fits in.

For instance, there is much opposition in this thread to the idea that you are the final authority on everything you believe or know. That man is that, is the biblical position and naturally everyone wriggles away from that. They want scientic method or some philosophy to lend authority to what they believe and know. They don't like the inherent responsibility that comes from being their final authority.

Another reason is that salvation is God's mission and I'm aligned with his mission. He involves man in his purposes even if you'd suppose he could do better on his own. God having children is what this is all about. And the stage for settling that question (who will and won't become his children) involves man and his interaction with man. If we love we love others. If we hate we hate others. Those interactions form our answer to the question God asks of us. Do we want the things behind which Him (love, peace, joy, relationship). Or not.

Obviously, it makes sense to understand the mechanism of salvation as best you can if evangelism (a.k.a. partaking in the salvation mechanism on God's side) is of interest. What point telling people to "believe Jesus died for your sins" if thats not the optimal route?

And lets not forget the stakes. This is a serious business. If I thought I could be utilised to aid fewer heading to Hell then why wouldn't I put myself forward. I'm thick skinned enough so its not like it takes that much out of me.





Hopefully answered above



I've no idea why he picked there. Or why he picked a particular pagan people to become a vessel through which he would incarnate. You could speculate on end times tied in with the location of oil - as you say, there is very little else to recommend the place.

End times is not really my gig. Nevertheless it seems that mans historical drumbeat desire to promote self interest (as an individual but then spreading to nationalism) is reaching a pinnacle. Where a rock meets a hard place. Whether climate driven or dwindling resource driven (or more likely, both) war beckons. Which, given our technological ability, offers the opportunity for self-destruction. Which would be both fitting, ironic and fair. As the Radiohead song goes:"you do it to yourself, you do, and that's what really hurts". God doesn't have to end times. We can do it ourselves. The self-project runs to its logical conclusion.

It might be that great civilisations are seated there, thus the opportunity for writing down and subsequent spreading of a message?

There are any number of ideas.





I don't see that it matters much to the central story. God dying for us could have happened anywhere.

Ok i get your point I see where you are coming from.

And I respect your views and, opinions and thoughts.

I do have an interest in mysticism, science fiction, fantasy, duality etc

Its part of our social cohesion, heritage and history, it means a lot to me and I'm sure if something catastrophic happened it would all happen again but with a different story.

As I said I'm more agnostic than an atheist or a believer, although my Muslim friend recons those on the fence will get the wrath of God the most he's a Sufi Muslim.

I just love the banter, id never discriminate with friendship doesn't matter what one believes.

You're very passionate about your beliefs and there's nothing to sway you?

What do you think of paganism?

Can you understand why some people don't believe in God?

Do you think non believers don't believe in God because its sexy to be an atheist or do you think they need visual and physical proof your God exists?

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

I do have an interest in mysticism, science fiction, fantasy, duality etc

Interesting you throw these all into the same pot, so to speak. Kind of ties up with noz's post here;

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Terry Pratchett put it best I think. That it was a mistake to call us "Homo Sapien" in the first place. We should have been called Pans Narrans. Meaning "The Story Telling Chimp".

I really enjoy sci-fi, fantasy and mythology but consider them all story telling. So while a Christian might take the hump when I compare the miracles in the bible to the spells in Harry Potter they really amount to much the same thing from where I'm sitting. The big difference of course is that no one has tried to force my children to learn the expelliarmus charm in school nor suggested that gay people shouldn't get married because Dumbledore was against that kind of thing.

antiskeptic

nthclare wrote: »

Ok i get your point I see where you are coming from.

And I respect your views and, opinions and thoughts.

I do have an interest in mysticism, science fiction, fantasy, duality etc

Its part of our social cohesion, heritage and history, it means a lot to me and I'm sure if something catastrophic happened it would all happen again but with a different story.

Thanks for your even handed approach.

Question: What would happen again?

As I said I'm more agnostic than an atheist or a believer, although my Muslim friend recons those on the fence will get the wrath of God the most he's a Sufi Muslim.

I think there will be shades of hell. Just as there will be shades of 'heaven'. But that based on how much you refused to love truth. You dig the depth of your own grave, so to speak.


[Quote♧You're very passionate about your beliefs and there's nothing to sway you? [/quote]


Well, I used to be a YEC and am no longer. But on the question of God other than God of the Bible (as I read it)? I doubt it. I'll go where the evidence points though so if the evidence changes, I'll change.

Take, for example, the mechanism of salvation. There are off the shelf versions long established. I found these unsatisfactory, the objections I had,not obtaining sound answer. So I move to where the evidence better points.

What do you think of paganism?

I can't say I know much about it. Bur whenever I delve into the like, I find the same end result - a belief system that supports self on the throne. The refusal to bow to an objective standard is the common denominator, however inventive the ways by which that is achieved.

Can you understand why some people don't believe in God?

Absolutely. A person needs evidence to believe anything. No evidence = no belief.

But as I say, the mechanism of salvation doesn't require you to believe without evidence.

Do you think non believers don't believe in God because its sexy to be an atheist or do you think they need visual and physical proof your God exists?

I think there is a certain amount of latest is greatest. It will appear most cutting edge and have the benefit of not having it's weaknesses exposed. Like the latest smartphones. All the talk is how great they are. In a few years the talk will be of the problems amd how the latest phone overcomes them. I mean Windows 8 was the latest and greatest until it wasn't.

There is also the 'mankind in an onwards and upwards trajectory'. Ignoring the fact that one day, folk will look back and laugh at what we hold to today.

And I think too that folk have constructed God in their own image amd likeness. He can only be evidenced as they demand it. The purpose is as all false gods, to enable self to remain on the throne. By erecting a God they can deny, there is no need to bow to him.

And as the mechanism posited explained, the evidence is presented and man responds to it. It's not evidence of God as the atheist wants it (some booming voice from the sky or something). Rather, its evidence of God as he is. Truth, for example. The key issue isn't that man decides whether God exists. The key issue is that man respond to the evidence.

If God has let man know what good and evil is, then man can't do anything about that. Certainly not by erecting a philosophy of knowledge that denies he knows what good and evil is. The philosophy being his, is his denial, not the philosophies denial.

Saying its not true that he knows, if God has installed knowledge, is like a kid thinking he can't be seen just because he holds his hands over his eyes.

God doesn't need to know how he knows. Neither, since we were created in his image and likeness, do we. If we know we know. Whether we know how we know or not.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Interesting you throw these all into the same pot, so to speak. Kind of ties up with noz's post here;



I really enjoy sci-fi, fantasy and mythology but consider them all story telling. So while a Christian might take the hump when I compare the miracles in the bible to the spells in Harry Potter they really amount to much the same thing from where I'm sitting. The big difference of course is that no one has tried to force my children to learn the expelliarmus charm in school nor suggested that gay people shouldn't get married because Dumbledore was against that kind of thing.

The question is why is he a story telling chimp. The stories are very often derivatives of The Story. Good vs Evil. The Force be with you. Supernatural entities. Darth Vader: the epitomy of evil.

We cheer the hero. And boo the villain. Then go out and be hero's and villains ourselves.

All the worlds a stage. On which we get to decide, like Edward in Narnia, which camp we want to belong to.

It ain't as easy as just wanting to be a good guy. First our bad guy has to be defeated.

nozzferrahhtoo

Midster wrote: »

there really is a clear domino effect that happened to our planet

Retrospect is really powerful in that way. You can take any event and when you work back from it, it seems like everything was contrived to make that event happen. Whether it is the rise of life on our planet, or something simple like how we meet our spouse.

When we work an event backwards in this way, our mind applies narrative. It is a human trait. It is nonsense none the less.

Midster wrote: »

life would have stayed single cell

Again: Assumption. Like the puddle that formed to fit the hole, you marvel that the shape of the hole is so perfect. Missing that it could have been ANY hole and it would have been the same thing.

However when you play the lotto once and you win, it seems amazing. If you play the same lotto 1 billion times and win, this is to be expected. You are amazed that life worked out on our planet? But you miss the fact that there are BILLLIONS of planets all with their own unique history. Eventually you are going to win that lotto. But in retrospect, it will seem amazing to you if you miss the point.

Is life all that special really? I challenge you to list the top 5 most common elements in the universe. Then list the top 5 most common elements in the human body. IF the two lists are different, that would be interesting. I bet you find they are not however.

Midster wrote: »

Nature and evolution is intelligent, or are you going to argue it isn’t.

I do not have to argue it isn't. It is YOUR claim that it is. You have not substantiated that claim in any way. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The onus of proof is on you, not me.

Midster wrote: »

all they ever did evolution wise in all that time is to get bigger.

If you map out our entire evolutionary past I think you will find that for the VAST majority of it all we did was get bigger too. Fancy that huh?

nozzferrahhtoo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

In fairness I don't think this thread has much more to offer. 51 pages so far and not the slightest bit of evidence provided to support the existence of god.

Yeah I dipped into conversation with the OP before he ran away and ignored my post. It felt a little bit like this however Wont be doing it again but I read his commentary on my posts with amusement none the less.

CramCycle

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think there will be shades of hell. Just as there will be shades of 'heaven'. But that based on how much you refused to love truth. You dig the depth of your own grave, so to speak.

What if you whole heartedly believed and chose to beevil anyway, does that mean you would get into heaven regardless?

I'll go where the evidence points though so if the evidence changes, I'll change.

Which evidence are you following at the minute?

Take, for example, the mechanism of salvation. There are off the shelf versions long established. I found these unsatisfactory, the objections I had,not obtaining sound answer. So I move to where the evidence better points.

Which is where? Your opinion or inclination or belief isn't evidence by the way

Absolutely. A person needs evidence to believe anything. No evidence = no belief.

Well that is evidently not true, I will give a certain famous person tied to this time of year. Loads of people believe in this person without evidence, just the say so of their peers, in fact, it is the perfect example of a religion that overstepped its mark. If they hadn't provided the requirement for a certain thing every year, it would be believable but then, if this person didn't do that thing, then no one would care about him, so its a lose lose situation. Most of these people eventually stop believing because the thing that they believe in this person for does not become more outrageous, they simply either realise that it is so unlikely as to be unbelievable or they catch someone engaged in the deceit.

But as I say, the mechanism of salvation doesn't require you to believe without evidence.

So me believine or not is not important here but a few sentences before it defined where I went afterwards, you see the way you are disagreeing with yourself?

I think there is a certain amount of latest is greatest. It will appear most cutting edge and have the benefit of not having it's weaknesses exposed. Like the latest smartphones. All the talk is how great they are. In a few years the talk will be of the problems amd how the latest phone overcomes them. I mean Windows 8 was the latest and greatest until it wasn't.

Windows 8 was never great :pac:

There is also the 'mankind in an onwards and upwards trajectory'. Ignoring the fact that one day, folk will look back and laugh at what we hold to today.

This I agree iwth 100%

And as the mechanism posited explained, the evidence is presented and man responds to it. It's not evidence of God as the atheist wants it (some booming voice from the sky or something). Rather, its evidence of God as he is. Truth, for example. The key issue isn't that man decides whether God exists. The key issue is that man respond to the evidence.

What?!? The evidence is not the evidence that people who would like evidence need, ie evidence of any sort. The evidence you seem to require is not in fact evidence at all, but merely belief. That is fine, but don't conflate your belief with evidence, it is not. Your belief is a theory, without proof. It doesn't mean that God does not exist, merely that at the minute, you cannot claim factually he does as you have not met any threshold as your own threshold is not a threshold at all, it is merely a state of belief, not evidence.

If God has let man know what good and evil is, then man can't do anything about that. Certainly not by erecting a philosophy of knowledge that denies he knows what good and evil is. The philosophy being his, is his denial, not the philosophies denial.

Good and Evil change throughout history, as has many religions definitions, what I consider evil today, was not considered evil by my equivalent 100, 200 or 300 years ago. In fact, probably not 40 years ago.

Saying its not true that he knows, if God has installed knowledge, is like a kid thinking he can't be seen just because he holds his hands over his eyes.

Can you provide context for this statement

God doesn't need to know how he knows. Neither, since we were created in his image and likeness, do we. If we know we know. Whether we know how we know or not.

Hello George W. I would posit that your theory/belief in god is that your god is made in your image, not that you were made in his.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

The question is why is he a story telling chimp. The stories are very often derivatives of The Story. Good vs Evil. The Force be with you. Supernatural entities. Darth Vader: the epitomy of evil.

We cheer the hero. And boo the villain. Then go out and be hero's and villains ourselves.

All the worlds a stage. On which we get to decide, like Edward in Narnia, which camp we want to belong to.

It ain't as easy as just wanting to be a good guy. First our bad guy has to be defeated.

Derivatives of which story though? Dualism in Christianity is rather limited following the genocide of the Cathars even though Gnostic Christianity is apparently on the rise again. Fantastic mythological stories of good versus evil predate Christianity by a very long and hardly come from a single source where organised religion is often seen as trick to use these stories to manipulate people. From another rather older story i used to enjoy very much based in dualism,

Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won’t be any thieves.

If these three aren’t enough,
just stay in the center of the circle
and let all things take their course.

I do like a good story, but stories are just that.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Derivatives of which story though? Dualism in Christianity is rather limited following the genocide of the Cathars even though Gnostic Christianity is apparently on the rise again. Fantastic mythological stories of good versus evil predate Christianity by a very long and hardly come from a single source where organised religion is often seen as trick to use these stories to manipulate people. From another rather older story i used to enjoy very much based in dualism,

Throw away holiness and wisdom,
and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice,
and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit,
and there won’t be any thieves.

If these three aren’t enough,
just stay in the center of the circle
and let all things take their course.

I do like a good story, but stories are just that.

But Christianity predates Christianity? And even if stories of good and evil predate the Bible, what of it? The point is that stories deal with something man recognises. He would be recognising it from the get go - whatever about a point in time when the Bible took off.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

But Christianity predates Christianity?

It really doesn't though. Christianity has a creation myth as does every other mythology. A fantasy set in the past is still a fantasy.

And even if stories of good and evil predate the Bible, what of it? The point is that stories deal with something man recognises. He would be recognising it from the get go - whatever about a point in time when the Bible took off.

Stories form a part of an oral tradition which was the principal means of transmitting and storing information in a largely illiterate population. To suggest all popular stories contain an element of truth would imply humanity lacks the ability to imagine which is clearly not true. If this were the case, Jesus would be still be battling it out with Harry Potter. Priests, as a progression from story tellers and shamans, also enjoy a privileged and powerful position within society so it has always benefited organised religion to serve organised religion first and foremost.

antiskeptic

CramCycle wrote: »

What if you whole heartedly believed and chose to beevil anyway, does that mean you would get into heaven regardless?

Of course. The criterion for salvation doesn't require you to be good. As to the extent you can choose to do evil once saved? I see no reason why a believer couldn't murder someone amd still 'get into heaven'

Salvation is a solution to a problem. But not fully and not yet. And so believers will continue to do evil until the day they die

Which evidence are you following at the minute?

The one which observes conscience at work and looks to what the bible has to say. So as to develop my understanding of God.

It appears that the notion of choosing for God doesn't appear once in the New Testament. So much for that atheist objection.

Which is where? Your opinion or inclination or belief isn't evidence by the way

To the mechanism of salvation outlined in this thread.

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. If someone can't see it or excludes it based on a philosophy of evidence then that alters not a lot.

Well that is evidently not true, I will give a certain famous person tied to this time of year. Loads of people believe in this person without evidence, just the say so of their peers, in fact, it is the perfect example of a religion that overstepped its mark

Do you mean Santa or Jesus. If the latter I am not sure where your evidently comes from. Say so of their peers may be a theory you have?

So me believine or not is not important here but a few sentences before it defined where I went afterwards, you see the way you are disagreeing with yourself?

I said you weren't expected to believe without evidence. I didn't say it wasn't important that you believe.

What?!? The evidence is not the evidence that people who would like evidence need, ie evidence of any sort.

The question of what constitutes evidence isn't the perogative of man. If what is provided suffices as evidence and man, once all is revealed, agrees that it was sufficient at the time, then we're over the line.

It doesn't matter what a man thinks now. If, for example, it is shown to him, in the future that, the evidence was there but he suppressed it and spun it and denied it
... and that is why he could not be convinced by it, then isn't that fine?

Once man agrees, at any time, that the evidence was sufficient, then the evidence was and is sufficient. To bad if he doesn't agree until it's too late.

The evidence you seem to require is not in fact evidence at all, but merely belief. That is fine, but don't conflate your belief with evidence, it is not.

Aren't you conflating what a blind mans holds to be evidence with evidence? You seem to say that because you have a philosophy of evidence (from whence your dictionary definition) that thats all evidence can be.

That God is confined to demonstrate himself as you decide it must be.

Ha ha.

Your belief is a theory, without proof.

As is the philosophy you rely on for your position. It can't be proven either.

It doesn't mean that God does not exist, merely that at the minute, you cannot claim factually he does as you have not met any threshold as your own threshold is not a threshold at all, it is merely a state of belief, not evidence.

My own threshold is not a threshold?

Okay, what is your threshold, this authority you hold above yourself?

Next question. How did it come to be your authority unless you decided so?

Good and Evil change throughout history, as has many religions definitions, what I consider evil today, was not considered evil by my equivalent 100, 200 or 300 years ago. In fact, probably not 40 years ago.

I'm talking of core values. Sure stuff round the edges will shift. But love, kindness, bravery, selflessness have always been seen as good.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

It really doesn't though. Christianity has a creation myth as does every other mythology. A fantasy set in the past is still a fantasy.

Whether you view it as fantasy or not isn't the issue. The issue is whether there is a continuous line running from start to the point where Jesus makes his entrance.

There is of course - the NT building upon and interpreting the OT. Abraham saved by the same means as people post-Christ for example. Christ is a point in time, but salvation has been running since the time of Adam (Christianity holds,)

Stories form a part of an oral tradition which was the principal means of transmitting and storing information in a largely illiterate population. To suggest all popular stories contain an element of truth would imply humanity lacks the ability to imagine which is clearly not true. If this were the case, Jesus would be still be battling it out with Harry Potter. Priests, as a progression from story tellers and shamans, also enjoy a privileged and powerful position within society so it has always benefited organised religion to serve organised religion first and foremost.

The details of the story are less of interest than the overall thrust. The so called 'moral of the story'

The fact that these morals rinse and repeat and often tie into a sense of good and evil (Dawkins version: the morality found to be shared the world over, not whether gay marriage is a good or bad thing) fits with there being an objective common ancestor.

At least, the stories regurgitating of same themes shows the deep rooted sense of good and evil people have. Their interest in stories still lends weight to the centrality of the issues being illustrated.


Things can be spun in either direction depending on our root beliefs. There is nothing in story that confounds Christianity in any case.

Donnielighto

antiskeptic wrote: »

They are the answers your god provides you. Where did I come from and where am I going to? Your belief system in a nutshell.

There is no proof of this. Only belief.

Just getting back to this. All of your ancestors back to singled did it. Behaviour and physiology is built in to carry these out across all animal species.

I don't have a god so my answers come from the world around me and what people know (experts have shown) is true.

Donnielighto

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whether you view it as fantasy or not isn't the issue. The issue is whether there is a continuous line running from start to the point where Jesus makes his entrance.

There is of course - the NT building upon and interpreting the OT.





The details of the story are less of interest than the overall thrust. The so called 'moral of the story'

The fact that these morals rinse and repeat and often tie into a sense of good and evil (Dawkins version: the morality found to be shared the world over, not whether gay marriage is a good or bad thing) fits with there being an objective common ancestor.

At least, the stories regurgitating of same themes shows the deep rooted sense of good and evil people have. Their interest in stories still lends weight to the centrality of the issues being illustrated.


Things can be spun in either direction depending on our root beliefs. There is nothing in story that confounds Christianity in any case.

Religions have similar stories because people tell stories and religion is basically santa Claus for adults in most cases.its just a behaviour control that allowed people to have consistent values. We don't need that now as we've well developed societies.

Some people just want there to be more to life than there is or something after it.

antiskeptic

Donnielighto wrote: »

Religions have similar stories because people tell stories and religion is basically santa Claus for adults in most cases.its just a behaviour control that allowed people to have consistent values. We don't need that now as we've well developed societies.

Some people just want there to be more to life than there is or something after it.

They say there are no atheists in foxholes (not to be taken too literally of course)

This "well developed" society (of not many hundred years) looks like its about to head off the edge of a climate cliff. If resource wars don't pip it to the post.

One swallow doesn't a summer make.

Indeed, our well development looks like it may be like the end of a good firework display: a last spectacular blow out.

I read Cormac McCarthy's The Road recently. Recommended.

Donnielighto

antiskeptic wrote: »

They say there are no atheists in foxholes (not to be taken too literally of course)

Our well developed society (of not many hundred years) looks like its about to head off the edge of a climate cliff. If resource wars don't pip it to the post.

One swallow doesn't a summer make.

I presume that's similar to Pascal's wager.

Society has been generally progressing since it started. Humans have broadly similar value systems across populations. It's just the way we evolved that sociality is an advantage. That includes empathy, compassion, etc.

What's the overall point of this thread btw

antiskeptic

Donnielighto wrote: »

Just getting back to this. All of your ancestors back to singled did it. Behaviour and physiology is built in to carry these out across all animal species.

I don't have a god so my answers come from the world around me and what people know (experts have shown) is true.

What experts show is true depends on the experts being in a position to establish truth.

There isn't a way to establish the experts can establish truth. Sure, you can trace things back to underlying philosophies. But philosophies cannot be proven as such. You find them fitting and satisfactory to you, perhaps. That but belief though. Something held without being proveable.

It's belief all the way back to you.

What you decide is the best place to hang your hat on.