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

looksee · 28-11-2019 5:30pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

In the process described nozz (assuming the process was to result in salvation in his case) would be:

- exposed to evidence.
- believe what the evidence attempts to have him believe
- be saved because he believes
- God would evidence himself to Nozz to Nozzs' satisfaction
- Nozz would now believe in God
- Nozz would be on here saying the same things I'm saying:)
- you guys would all be saying Nozz is deluded.

I'm not trying to prove this mechanism exists.

Lets take an example. Say Nozz was an alcholic and reached the bottom of the barrel. Nozz would be convinced by evidence that he was at the bottom of the barrel. He believes it. He doesn't believe in God

Now lets suppose Nozz figures he cannot escape his predicament under own steam. That too is something he believes based on evidence of however many failures to quit drinking

Now lets say Nozz, in desparation, turns to a higher (as yet unbelieved in) power. And is saved.

God evidences himself amd Nozz believes in God.

His being saved wouldn't prove the mechanism to you. Nevertheless he is saved by it. It is proven to him

Can you not see the humongous flaw in that argument, the non-sequiturs, the lack of logical thinking?

Apart from anything else, you have produced a solution to a problem that did not exist, and a problem that has not found a solution.

Mick_1970 · 28-11-2019 5:37pm

How does god evidence himself to Nozz? This is the critical piece of information I would like to know.

Cabaal · 28-11-2019 5:38pm

Honestly, its like trying to talk to a zealot from a cult.
There is no reasonsing or logic, everything is twisted to try justify their unproven belief and saying people will be saved.
Even the majority of catholics don't go on about being saved and such nonsense.

Scary stuff

antiskeptic · 28-11-2019 5:41pm

looksee wrote: »

Can you not see the humongous flaw in that argument, the non-sequiturs, the lack of logical thinking?

It would help greatly if you could point things out.

antiskeptic · 28-11-2019 5:42pm

Mick_1970 wrote: »

How does god evidence himself to Nozz? This is the critical piece of information I would like to know.

Who cares? The question is whether God can. And whether God does. If he can and he does then that's what's critical. The how is irrelevant to born again Nozz (although he will know how)

antiskeptic · 28-11-2019 5:46pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Honestly, its like trying to talk to a zealot from a cult.
There is no reasonsing or logic, everything is twisted to try justify their unproven belief and saying people will be saved.
Even the majority of catholics don't go on about being saved and such nonsense.

Scary stuff

The only "proof" involved is showing a mechanism which sidesteps the objection "I have to believe without evidence"

You don't have to believe without evidence in this mechanism because evidence comes first and belief second.

It can't be that hard to trace that much.

antiskeptic · 28-11-2019 5:54pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Strawman galore. It is YOUR claim there is a god, so it is YOUR problem to provide the evidence and tell me how it evidences itself.

Speaking of strawmen.

I was dealing solely with an objection you had. You say you are required to believe without evidence and that this is something you cannot or willnot do.

I say that is not the way it is. That your objection barks up the incorrect tree.

I show an alternative mechanism. The route is evidence > belief all the way.

I don't say you'll experience that, since not all will believe. Just that if believing this is the way belief occurs. Evidence first.

I don't say I'll prove it. I just say this mechanism circumvents other unproved mechanisms you object to. If you take the time to object to one unproved mechanism then you are fair game for being proposed another unproved mechanism.

A route proposed. An alternative to the one you object to. Your objection doesn't apply to this mechanism. By all means object saying it isn't proven. But leave aside your objection that you have to believe without evidence.

Huntergonzo · 28-11-2019 6:02pm

I'm all for people having imaginary friends, but I'm not such a big fan of people trying to introduce me to their imaginary friends.

Admittedly though, I am partial to the flying spaghetti monster, fúckin love spaghetti, bates the b0ll0x out of a few miserable loaves and fishes any day of the week!

antiskeptic · 28-11-2019 6:13pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I'm all for people having imaginary friends, but I'm not such a big fan of people trying to introduce me to their imaginary friends.

Admittedly though, I am partial to the flying spaghetti monster, fúckin love spaghetti, bates the b0ll0x out of a few miserable loaves and fishes any day of the week!

Nutritionally, if nothing else, you are challenged.

Bannasidhe · 28-11-2019 6:16pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nutritionally, if nothing else, you are challenged.

MOD.
STOP IT.
You have been warned already for making snarky uncivil comments. Next time it will be a card.

Huntergonzo · 28-11-2019 6:32pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Nutritionally, if nothing else, you are challenged.

Thanks man, love a challenge me :-)

Bannasidhe · 28-11-2019 6:34pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Thanks man, love a challenge me :-)

MOD.
Don't you start.
Let it go, let it gooooooooooo.
Thanking you.

antiskeptic · 28-11-2019 6:34pm

Anyone find a way out of the stalemate: delusion vs. blind?

For the delusion side we have God just another god. An argument from commonality. And there being no evidence of God

For the blind side we have gods and science-ism and philosophy being ways for man to be independent of God. An argument from commonality, And there being no evidence that man can see all reality. He can see what he can see, is all.

Huntergonzo · 28-11-2019 6:42pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyone find a way out of the stalemate: delusion vs. blind?

For the delusion side we have God just another god. An argument from commonality. And there being no evidence of God

For the blind side we have gods and science-ism and philosophy being ways for man to be independent of God. An argument from commonality, And there being no evidence that man can see all reality. He can see what he can see, is all.

Well in fairness if you've gotten yourself into that silly conundrum then you probably have far too much time on your hands.

Do some exercise, good for the body and mind.

mickuhaha · 28-11-2019 6:44pm

If you know God exists yet provided no evidence of its own existence why would you presume there is only one God and why would you presume that any of an unlimited amount of god's would care of our existence in life or death. If the said unlimited amount of gods don't interact with us why would we need to be aware of their existence.

antiskeptic · 28-11-2019 6:57pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well in fairness if you've gotten yourself into that silly conundrum then you probably have far too much time on your hands.

Do some exercise, good for the body and mind.

And if I haven't gotten myself into this silly conundrum, then what? Lounge on the sofa with a slab?

antiskeptic · 28-11-2019 7:04pm

mickuhaha wrote: »

If you know God exists yet provided no evidence of its own existence why would you presume there is only one God

I'm not quite following. God not providing empirical, verifiable evidence to others is not the same thing as not providing evidence to others. The claim that evidence isn't evidence unless it is empirical and verifiable is the product of a philosophy which itself isn't verifiable, empirically or otherwise.

In other words, its a bootstrap claim.

Whilst I can't exclude there being a god above God, God has dealt with gods (i.e. makey uppey gods) to my satisfaction by explaining what they are and why they were made up. When you look at them you find out that they fit the overall bill.

If the said unlimited amount of gods don't interact with us why would we need to be aware of their existence.

Again, I'm not sure what you are saying. God (gods if they existed) can interact without us knowing it is him/them. Surely?

Mick_1970 · 28-11-2019 7:04pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who cares? The question is whether God can. And whether God does. If he can and he does then that's what's critical. The how is irrelevant to born again Nozz (although he will know how)

I care, I'm sure other people would like to know as well. You are already presuming a god exists ( without evidence) and pondering if they can perform some action that crosses the imaginary/reality divide.

You are saying the evidence for a god is subjective which is impossible to validate.

Would it be possible for you to explain why you believe in your chosen god and what evidence you used to confirm your belief.

Bannasidhe · 28-11-2019 7:09pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Well in fairness if you've gotten yourself into that silly conundrum then you probably have far too much time on your hands.

Do some exercise, good for the body and mind.

MOD

Huntergonzo, your 'opponent' in this snarkfest has received 2 warnings to play nice and be civil to other posters in this thread, I will extend you the same in the interests of fairness. But as I told him/her stop it or cards will be flourished.
Thanking you.

antiskeptic · 28-11-2019 7:24pm

Mick_1970 wrote: »

I care,

In the context of the specific discussion, who cares? It is of no relevance to the workings outlined for the reasons outlined.

And since I hold folk are blind and antagonistic by nature, there isn't any profit that I can see (for anyone) granting your wish.

I'm sure other people would like to know as well. You are already presuming a god exists ( without evidence)

I am presuming nothing. I know God exists. I accept there is no evidence for his existence that you can see (aside from the manner in which he deniable-evidences himself per the OP. The point of that isn't to evidence himself so that you know he exists, it has another purpose)

You are saying the evidence for a god is subjective which is impossible to validate.

I am saying the evidence is objective and impossible to validate (in a validate to all way). The idea that something isn't objective if it isn't externally verifiable is a philsophical construct. It's not necessarily true

Like, if God exists, then that is objective, even if no one can validate it.

Would it be possible for you to explain why you believe in your chosen god and what evidence you used to confirm your belief.

See my tale about Nozz some posts back. I wasn't an alcoholic but my tale is the same in essence. And its the same tale for everyone who arrives at God. You see it all over life and you see it all over the Bible: Desperate Abraham turning to God, Roman ruler whose kid is dying turning to a untermensch itinerent rabbi, thief on a cross turning to his Lord, the sick, the outcast, the poor in spirit all arriving at the only place left for them.

The desperate with no place left to turn in short. When there's no place left to go, God is found in the muck and mire down at the very bottom of the barrel.

Arrival at end of self is something that, when it occurs, provides you with all the evidence you need to believe that's the state you are in. The state you are in is in your face. It's all the confirmation you need. Verified, empirical evidence of the very personal kind.

A surrender at that point is surrender on our maintaining allegience to the first sin, the one all are afflicted with. For Adam's sin was the sin of seeking self sufficiency. We were, afterall, created for God dependency.

Surrender is the salvation criterion. Surrender results in salvation.

As for evidence for God when saved? Well, God turns up. He's kind of hard to miss, being somewhat larger than life.

Huntergonzo · 28-11-2019 7:43pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

MOD

Huntergonzo, your 'opponent' in this snarkfest has received 2 warnings to play nice and be civil to other posters in this thread, I will extend you the same in the interests of fairness. But as I told him/her stop it or cards will be flourished.
Thanking you.

Card for encouraging exercise??? that's a new one in fairness, card away if that's a crime!

Huntergonzo · 28-11-2019 7:44pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

And if I haven't gotten myself into this silly conundrum, then what? Lounge on the sofa with a slab?

Well whatever you're into chief, but I'd say exercise is probably the more healthy option.

Cabaal · 28-11-2019 7:44pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't have to believe without evidence in this mechanism because evidence comes first and belief second.

It can't be that hard to trace that much.

You've produced no evidence so there no second step.
:rolleyes:

Your argument has no basis in logic.

Even lets throw some nonsense at the wall and speculate that IF a being exists that is more powerful then humans that does not make it a god to us, it just makes it more advance.

Any being that requires people to worship it or it gets upset with them is a pretty pathetic species. It would be like a single human getting upset with a ants nest in Africa because the ants don't worship it.

Mick_1970 · 28-11-2019 7:49pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

See my tale about Nozz some posts back. I wasn't an alcoholic but my tale is the same in essence. And its the same tale for everyone who arrives at God. You see it all over life and you see it all over the Bible: Abraham, Roman ruler whose kid is dying, thief on a cross, the sick, the outcast, the poor in spirit.

The desperate with no place left to turn in short.

Arrival at end of self is something that, when it occurs, gives you all the evidence you need to believe that's the state you are in. The state you are in is in your face. All the confirmation you need. Verifiable, empirical evidence.

As for evidence for God when saved? Well, God turns up. He's kind of hard to miss, being somewhat larger than life.

Thank you for your reply, I understand completely why some people find god when their mortality is laid bare in front of them. I often think god is a form of hope.

On a personal note, even as a staunch atheist I can imagine the beauty and simplicity of having a god to rely upon when life gets tough.

Having said all that, I will continue to relish the reality of living on a spec of dust in the middle of nowhere and thank the serendipity of the stars for my existence.

smacl · 28-11-2019 7:50pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Anyone find a way out of the stalemate: delusion vs. blind?

For the delusion side we have God just another god. An argument from commonality. And there being no evidence of God

For the blind side we have gods and science-ism and philosophy being ways for man to be independent of God. An argument from commonality, And there being no evidence that man can see all reality. He can see what he can see, is all.

For the delusion side you have your belief in one specific god.

For the side that dismisses your beliefs there is the evolving state of human knowledge based on observation, experimentation and refutation.

The thing is that comparing these two, even if you accorded them equal merit, is a false equivalence. On the delusion side you also have the devout Muslim and her belief in Allah, the devout Hindu and his devotion to Shiva, the wannabe Jedi knight and his attempts to control The Force, and every other god, supernatural creation myth and random fantasy that has ever entered anyone's mind or ever will in the future. From a purely logical point of view the delusion of Christianity has no more or less merit than that of the Flying spaghetti monster.

So given we have a potentially infinite number on unevidenced supernatural truths, yet just one evolving state of human knowledge, the probability of any one preferred supernatural truth being reasonable becomes one over infinity. Until you can separate your supernatural beliefs from the infinity of other possible beliefs, your argument has all the strength of a fart in a hurricane.

What you seem to have missed is that atheists don't just not believe in your rendering of your god. They also don't believe the unsupported assertions put forward by all the other theists and delusional fantasists with their various deities, mythologies and colanders either.

Bannasidhe · 28-11-2019 7:50pm

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Card for encouraging exercise??? that's a new one in fairness, card away if that's a crime!

MOD.

Huntergonzo you have gotten a yellow card for ignoring mod instructions and questioning a mod warning in-thread. Perhaps you should consider stepping away from this thread as you seem unable to add to the discussion in a civil manner.
Do not question this in-thread. Take it to PM if you have an issue.

Fourier · 28-11-2019 8:01pm

Again this is just:

There's no empirical evidence of God
But we don't really know anything right?
So we don't really know if empiricism is well-founded
So no empirical evidence for God doesn't mean he doesn't exist
I have a special sense, also not open to empirical knowledge that let's me know he exists
You can't refute that either, because we don't really know anything right?
So who's making the real leap of faith huh?

It's basically just saying that looking at a tree and presuming a tree is there is an act of faith since it requires holding empirical evidence as having some access to the truth.

This "stalemate" is an equivocation of all claims. Everything is just as reliable as anything else, because we don't really know anything right?

antiskeptic · 28-11-2019 8:03pm

Cabaal wrote: »

You've produced no evidence so there no second step.
:rolleyes:

Your argument has no basis in logic.

I don't have to produce evidence to lay out a mechanism. Anymore than a wiring diagram need produce light.

Even lets throw some nonsense at the wall and speculate that IF a being exists that is more powerful then humans that does not make it a god to us, it just makes it more advance.

Fair enough if you figure it untoward to call that powerful enough to create other than God. That would be a semantical issue.

Then again, when you see how people reacte when someone very powerful walks into the room you can suppose all falling on their face when power beyond comprehension turns up.

We'll only know come the day but if there is one who confounds scripture saying that every knee will bow then I'll take it thats you

Any being that requires people to worship

Not require. Deserves - if we knew our place and what he has done to attempt a rescue.

And if you die still refusing to be taught your right, appropriate and very exhalted place, so as to become a child of his (and so worship as children naturally worship their father), then no worship will be required of you by him.

So. No worship ever required of you by him. You will bow of course. Either in total respect. Or as an overcome foe.

it or it gets upset with them is a pretty pathetic species.

Hey maan. Waddya getting upset with me raping these kids man. Get a life.

It would be like a single human getting upset with a ants nest in Africa because the ants don't worship it.

Scale wise you are on the mark. Status wise hopelessly off. Ants don't wilfully do evil.

antiskeptic · 28-11-2019 8:28pm

Fourier wrote: »

Again this is just:

There's no empirical evidence of God

Not that evidence need be empirical. There are soft evidences for things. Great poetry, writing, music..

But we don't really know anything right?

We know what we know. And we think we know things that are probably incorrect. Flat earth anyone?

So we don't really know if empiricism is well-founded

Well founded, no matter how well founded doesn't mean complete. Indeed we don't know how much of reality we can detect or how much of reality is open to being empirically evaluated.

So no empirical evidence for God doesn't mean he doesn't exist

Indeed.

I have a special sense,

It's not as uncommon as you might think. I wouldn't label it 'special'.

[Quotw]also not open to empirical knowledge that let's me know he exists[/quote]

Indeed.

You can't refute that either, because we don't really know anything right?

We know plenty. But as I found out missing a 1st for my degree, no matter how full the basket for project work, it couldn't compensate for a deficient basket in thermodynamics. And so a 2:1

I wouldn't say so much "1 trick pony" but empiricism is a bit 1 trick. Its great at what its great at. And that's it

So who's making the real leap of faith huh?

You are? In supposing empiricism uber alles. That you are not blind and the problem is with another?

It's basically just saying that looking at a tree and presuming a tree is there is an act of faith since it requires holding empirical evidence as having some access to the truth.

This "stalemate" is an equivocation of all claims. Everything is just as reliable as anything else, because we don't really know anything right?

I have no idea, and presume you don't either, how to stretch empiricism to comment on all reality. Other than presume there is no more reality than that encompassed by empiricism.

That's very circular. All we can see is all that there is because thats all we can see.

Fourier · 28-11-2019 8:41pm

antiskeptic wrote:

In supposing empiricism uber alles.
how to stretch empiricism to comment on all reality
That's very circular. All we can see is all that there is because thats all we can see.

I flat out don't believe empiricism encompasses reality. That's not my point.

10fathoms · 28-11-2019 9:02pm

Is this sh*te thread still going!

smacl · 28-11-2019 9:08pm

10fathoms wrote: »

Is this sh*te thread still going!

Mod: Please read the charter and only post if you have something to contribute that is worth saying. Thanks for your attention.

mickuhaha · 28-11-2019 9:20pm

"Whilst I can't exclude there being a god above God, God has dealt with gods (i.e. makey uppey gods) to my satisfaction by explaining what they are and why they were made up. When you look at them you find out that they fit the overall bill."

So you could be open to there being a god above God and other god's but not the gods made up by humans?

If Gods do interact with us without our knowledge would it be to their benefit and doesn't that in itself take away free will to some degree.

28-11-2019 9:25pm

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.

We needed the Hubble Telescope to show us the billions of galaxies that are invisible to our naked eye. Why did he manifest his divine nature in something invisible to us?

Did he know we would one day invent a technology that would let us see this? Because if so, that's just a narcissistic test of our faith. The only plausible explanation for those galaxies existing is that he wants people to use them to question his existence.

Mark Hamill · 28-11-2019 9:39pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

Presumably applied to smart intelligent believers?

That is circular: they believe because of cog diss. Because they believe it must be cog diss

No it's cognitive dissonance because it doesn't satisfy the same criteria their educated beliefs are based on. Nothing circular about it.

mickuhaha · 28-11-2019 9:44pm

If gods created everything did gods also create themselves? Why did everything need a god to create it? If Gods always existed why can't everything always have existed without god? Does a mind need to exist before something or can something exist before a mind?

Mark Hamill · 28-11-2019 9:56pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

In desperation and because he has nowhere else to turn to escape the belief (knowledge) brought about by the evidence he turns to a higher (as yet unbelieved in) power.

Satisfying God's requirement: Nozz is in a state of belief about what God has been telling him (for without law on heart and conscience(God's voice) Nozz wouldn't be as desperate as he is), God saves Nozz.

Now that he is saved, God evidences himself and Nozz believes in God.

His being saved wouldn't prove the mechanism to you. Nevertheless he is saved by it. It is proven to him

So the only way you can suppose that nozzferrahhtoo is saved is in a hypothetical were you are required to assume he is in absolute desperation, such that he accepts evidence that god exists and believes in god and then god gives him evidence to believe in god? And this is somehow an example which shows how evidence doesn't matter?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Who cares? The question is whether God can. And whether God does. If he can and he does then that's what's critical. The how is irrelevant to born again Nozz (although he will know how)

But any god can, and in an appropriate hypothetical, any god does. So what the evidence actually would entail is crucially important if you want your hypothetical to tell us anything about your god.

Mark Hamill · 28-11-2019 10:05pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

The claim that evidence isn't evidence unless it is empirical and verifiable is the product of a philosophy which itself isn't verifiable, empirically or otherwise.

In other words, its a bootstrap claim.

You've ignored this before but, to repeat myself, if a claim is in no way empirical and verifiable then it is indistinguishable from any other claim that is no way empirical and verifiable. It is also indistinguishable from it's counter claim. Therefore, empirical philosophy or otherwise, the claim is useless.

antiskeptic · 29-11-2019 12:29am

Fourier wrote: »

I flat out don't believe empiricism encompasses reality. That's not my point.

Then what is your point. In as nutshell as you can.

Fourier · 29-11-2019 12:39am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then what is your point. In as nutshell as you can.

That there is no discussion here. The problem you're raising is as old as epistomology as a field. We have to have some assumptions to be capable of concluding things yes. Your critique is basically that you have an additional sense completely inaccessible to those without it.

Well okay, why would anybody take that seriously?

victor8600 · 29-11-2019 12:40am

God exists, and this can be proven mathematically. Our Universe is infinite and everything is possible somewhere, sometime. Now, if we are talking about the God of Moses -- that is just a superstitious rubbish.

victor8600 · 29-11-2019 12:44am

mickuhaha wrote: »

If gods created everything did gods also create themselves? Why did everything need a god to create it? If Gods always existed why can't everything always have existed without god? Does a mind need to exist before something or can something exist before a mind?

Ah, this one is easy! God exists outside of our Universe, therefore It is not bound by the Universe's laws. God is incomprehensible by our minds limited by the time-space constraints of our existence.

antiskeptic · 29-11-2019 1:01am

mickuhaha wrote: »

"Whilst I can't exclude there being a god above God, God has dealt with gods (i.e. makey uppey gods) to my satisfaction by explaining what they are and why they were made up. When you look at them you find out that they fit the overall bill."

So you could be open to there being a god above God and other god's but not the gods made up by humans?

I am open to us all being brains in jars, supposing what we suppose because some sort of Frankenstein scientist/alien form sticks probes in various places. And so I must suppose there could be a God above God. Or, if a number of beings involved, God's above God

But since such musings are pointless(solipsitic, to give it a formal title) I don't bother with such musings. I take it as I find it and suppose how I find it real.

I, like you, are the ultimate determinator in what we hold to be the case. And occupying that position, we rightfully reap what we sow. If ultimately a brain in jar then so be it.

The gods (zeus, diana, science-ism, etc), all human inventions, all fulfill a common function when they are inputted into a larger-than-them algorothm.

(If there is an even larger algorithm, which encloses God also, then I am all ears.)

That common function is to support, allow and enable human-individual self sufficency. That's the bottom line. Human desire for self sufficiency was, it must be noted, the point of split between God and man, starting at the start with Adam. Whether you take Adam as real or an allegory for something else that brought about a rupture isn't relevant to the point.

Rupture is the point.

Self sufficiency is the common feature in all the above mentioned gods. They allow, support and enable self sufficiency. They have been at it forever and in our day work through science-ism and philosophy.

For what do science-ism and philosophy tell us, but precisely the same as Zeus, Diana .. and Satan. "You don't need God. You can do without God. Heck! You can be god!"

The planet and our resources-a-dwindling are, not unpredictably, informing us to the contrary. The gods never fulfill their promises. And we most certainly have denonstrated our inability to be God. Coffin nailed shut on that one.

For what do we really, really prize? Well, relationship, love, joy, peace, tranquility, safety and security, courage, happiness, understanding, compassion, generosity, loyalty, friendship, health....

What have we, as gods, actually managed.

Well, ersatz just about everything at this stage. And the hollowing out has gone exponential, now that science and big business have combined to form the perfect storm: analysing the real desire and synthesizing the fake to fill it. With just enough flavour of the real left to extract from you.

Square tomatos and straight bananas and big tits? How we laughed at the idea once. Well, the ludicrous has become real beyond our wildest nightmares.

Older viewers might agree.

-

A new paradigm, which includes all these gods AND God would need some similarly harmonising feature in order to be coherent. To me at least.

Don't bother espousing the wonders of science/progress/ever onward and upward to me though. That recent god has sailed and unless you are blind upon blind, with the world falling into rack and ruin around us, you ought see it too.

antiskeptic · 29-11-2019 1:15am

Fourier wrote: »

We have to have some assumptions to be capable of concluding things yes.

Of course you do. Now, what do you reckon as to the objectivity, independence and purity of those assumptions. Are they not suspended from air ultimately?

You will recognise that a bad tree bears bad fruit. And if the starting point is skewed (these assumptions of yours) so too is all downstream?

Your critique is basically that you have an additional sense completely inaccessible to those without it.

Well okay, why would anybody take that seriously?

Your critique is the opposite, that I and a not insignificant number like me don't have this sense (or if we do then so what? if it doesn't pass muster re: these air assumptions). Why should I take you seriously when its as plain as the nose on our faces?

Stalemate follows of course.

Yet I have no trouble in making my points and hearing counters to those points, despite the overarching stalemate.

I know what my agenda is - it's no secret. But I am not so sure what yours is, knowing, as you know it must, end in stalemate.

Fourier · 29-11-2019 1:23am

antiskeptic wrote: »

Of course you do. Now, what do you reckon as to the objectivity, independence and purity of those assumptions. Are they not suspended from air ultimately?

You will recognise that a bad tree bears bad fruit. And if the starting point is skewed (these assumptions of yours) so too is all downstream?

They're the same assumptions that lead me to think that when I see a tree that there actually is a tree. Do you think those assumptions are in serious doubt?

antiskeptic · 29-11-2019 1:41am

Fourier wrote: »

They're the same assumptions that lead me to think that when I see a tree that there actually is a tree. Do you think those assumptions are in serious doubt?

And when I see God? Do you seriously think that the kind of faculties, soft and hard, that lets us suppose trees real are somehow thrown overboard when it comes to supposing God?

Seriously?

Two points.

Man is a spiritual animal. You can go the path of crass regarding that reality (a.k.a. evasion) or you can take note of it. Man as spiritual might be messy but so are crime scenes.

Note antagonsism against the idea of a God over you. Whether the antagonsim in you or others. Man rails violently against the idea - even when he doesn't believe in God! Clue.

Fourier · 29-11-2019 1:44am

antiskeptic wrote: »

And when I see God?

Like see as in visually see him? What does God look like if so?

Do you seriously think that the kind of faculties, soft and hard, that lets us suppose trees real are somehow thrown overboard when it comes to supposing God?

No, I didn't say that.

antiskeptic · 29-11-2019 2:32am

Fourier wrote: »

Like see as in visually see him? What does God look like if so?

To be honest, I'm somewhat reticent about the prospect of face to face seeing Him ("we see now, as if through a glass darkly" - says Paul of living believers - "but then we shall see Him face to face").

For he knows every inch of me. He knows all my thoughts and motivations. Every hidden thing I wouldn't tell a soul. Tell me anyone who wouldn't be a bit hesitant at the prospect.

On the other hand, he is the very source and essence of all the things I mentioned a post or two above - the things we most desire and which have been ersatzed and copied and faked in our world.

Its hard to describe what seeing him through a glass darkly is like. Often it is a reframing: you look at a father smile into the eyes of his child in the playground and you feel your fathers eyes smile into your eyes (of your soul). Him rejoicing in you as that father is rejoicing in his child. You are known, you are loved, you are safe (even if you might be crippled in a car crash on the way home). You feel as that child in the playground feels .. as you worry whether your own kid is dressed warmly enough.

Not empirically demonstrable but nevertheless.

Or he can speak a word of admonishment or encouragement or give you an idea to run with as a father would. Search antiskeptic + balloon and you'll get an example of what the breathe of God is like - someone reminded me of the story today.

[It can be taken as something to run the probability figures over: wind direction, number of like ballons released in the vicinity, etc. .. with a bent on concluding it naturalistically possible. Or it can be taken as a thing of tender beauty. Your salvation doesn't depend on getting the right answer btw. We are all antagonistic, often moreso as we near salvation, if I'm anything to go by]

Or you can be reading what he says and its as dull as ditchwater then in an instant, something that speaks into your life and situation right now. A wisdom, encapsulation and direction you'd pay the very nest therapists '000's to bring you to .. if you had the money.

Hard to capture in words, but when you see the whole world and everything that has happened, is happening and will happen gel to make harmonious, congruent sense, it really becomes hard to take man sized theories of everything as other than faintly comical.

Indeed, that might be the best grasp I can give you. You are educated, so you know how your field works. You know the various branches of it and how each branch has developed. You also know the effort to harmonize branches, to find unity amongst divergent branches. And the further out each branch goes the harder it is to maintain coherency.

Your insights into your field let you know its the same in every field: engineering, medicine, psychology, sociology, politics, law. And you know that the unity between all of these fields is far less than the unity in your own field.

The whole is very messy.

Now imagine insight into a whole that is unified. Where you can see how the world is and why the world is as it is. And why it doesn't work and why it never will

Seeing God enables that. Seeing clearly now the disunity. And by direct contrast, with how it is now and can't but be, the unity that is to.come.

For that is His intent. To unify and make right all that has gone wrong.

For what its worth, the route to God involves a recognition that there is something gone wrong that will never be put right. Not just with the world. Not primarily with the world. But with yourself.

Hotblack Desiato · 29-11-2019 4:19am

antiskeptic wrote: »

To be honest, I'm somewhat reticent about the prospect of face to face seeing Him ("we see now, as if through a glass darkly" - says Paul of living believers - "but then we shall see Him face to face").

For he knows every inch of me. He knows all my thoughts and motivations. Every hidden thing I wouldn't tell a soul. Tell me anyone who wouldn't be a bit hesitant at the prospect.

On the other hand, he is the very source and essence of all the things I mentioned a post or two above - the things we most desire and which have been ersatzed and copied and faked in our world.

Its hard to describe what seeing him through a glass darkly is like. Often it is a reframing: you look at a father smile into the eyes of his child in the playground and you feel your fathers eyes smile into your eyes (of your soul). Him rejoicing in you as that father is rejoicing in his child. You are known, you are loved, you are safe (even if you might be crippled in a car crash on the way home). You feel as that child in the playground feels .. as you worry whether your own kid is dressed warmly enough.

Not empirically demonstrable but nevertheless.

Or he can speak a word of admonishment or encouragement or give you an idea to run with as a father would. Search antiskeptic + balloon and you'll get an example of what the breathe of God is like - someone reminded me of the story today.

[It can be taken as something to run the probability figures over: wind direction, number of like ballons released in the vicinity, etc. .. with a bent on concluding it naturalistically possible. Or it can be taken as a thing of tender beauty. Your salvation doesn't depend on getting the right answer btw. We are all antagonistic, often moreso as we near salvation, if I'm anything to go by]

Or you can be reading what he says and its as dull as ditchwater then in an instant, something that speaks into your life and situation right now. A wisdom, encapsulation and direction you'd pay the very nest therapists '000's to bring you to .. if you had the money.

Hard to capture in words, but when you see the whole world and everything that has happened, is happening and will happen gel to make harmonious, congruent sense, it really becomes hard to take man sized theories of everything as other than faintly comical.

Indeed, that might be the best grasp I can give you. You are educated, so you know how your field works. You know the various branches of it and how each branch has developed. You also know the effort to harmonize branches, to find unity amongst divergent branches. And the further out each branch goes the harder it is to maintain coherency.

Your insights into your field let you know its the same in every field: engineering, medicine, psychology, sociology, politics, law. And you know that the unity between all of these fields is far less than the unity in your own field.

The whole is very messy.

Now imagine insight into a whole that is unified. Where you can see how the world is and why the world is as it is. And why it doesn't work and why it never will

Seeing God enables that. Seeing clearly now the disunity. And by direct contrast, with how it is now and can't but be, the unity that is to.come.

For that is His intent. To unify and make right all that has gone wrong.

For what its worth, the route to God involves a recognition that there is something gone wrong that will never be put right. Not just with the world. Not primarily with the world. But with yourself.

Is that "as nutshell as you can" ?

nozzferrahhtoo · 29-11-2019 7:25am

antiskeptic wrote: »

- exposed to evidence.

Great. Any time you're ready.

antiskeptic wrote: »

- Nozz would be on here saying the same things I'm saying

You do like inventing straw men positions for me and now straw men actions. As flattering as it is you have a post all about me, mentioning me by name no less than 13 times, you have not represented me well at all.

This of all your fantasies about me is the most false however. I have become convinced of things in my life by evidence I have seen but can not reproduce. Guess what? I do NOT talk about them as you have claimed, attempt to convince others of them, or in fact do anything but keep them to myself.

If I make a claim of any kind on a forum like this it is because I feel I can, if asked or challenged, offer SOME arguments substantiation for my position. You might try it sometimes, this is where you and I differ it seems given you have offered not just paltry, not just little, but NO evidence for yours.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Speaking of strawmen.

Nice of you to be honest about it and pre-label it this time because....

antiskeptic wrote: »

I say that is not the way it is. That your objection barks up the incorrect tree.

.... you can say this all you want but you do not know me. I know me. And all I did was tell you something about ME. If you do not believe someones subjective description of their own subjective experience solely in the context of how it applies to themselves..... as I said this is not my problem and I do not intend to make it my problem.

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

Comments