Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 12, 2002 13:47:45 GMT -5
I believe in God because I have come to that conclusion through philosophical method. I spend alot of time debating all the issues so I hope no one will come up to me saying I'm closed minded. I'm a non denominational believer because belonging to a denomination seems to bring too many stereotypes. As a few points, I don't think the fact that God brings hope is adequate as proof against his existence. I believe the afterlife has been changed so much over time to some sort of paradise that it has become unbelievable, much like the 'sugarcandy mountain' of Animal Farm, its original meaning of oness with God. I don't claim to be a true christian, or to be perfect, and I certainly don't claim that any religion is right or wrong. I also think its too easy just to see that there are some who are religious and not intelligent at the same time and draw that what they believe is false. While there are many unintelligent Christians (which is inevitable judging from how large the religion is), there are also many intelligent ones. It also all too easy too assume that all christians take the bible literally, and pigeon hole them all into one category. I get this alot. I argue that God is a logical neccesity to our existence. You can debate about it where I do, if you wish pub18.ezboard.com/fhavetheologywillargueapologetics
|
|
Blackadder
RPG Town Newbie
I am the Blackadder!
Posts: 13
|
Post by Blackadder on Nov 12, 2002 14:50:36 GMT -5
Yay!
At last we have someone that can post as complicated as Sleepy! Maybe this "Tim" kid could be like our saviour (kinda like Neo in the Matrix) and comtradict everything Sleepy says and find holes in his arguments and stuff! Yay! Tim's gonna save us!
Oh wait, what am I thinking? No one can defeat the mighty Sleppy with his long replies and big words. Bah, we need Cecil from FF4 and a pick-axe and some explosives. Die!
Anyway... I believe that if someone believes in god then god is real, at least to them. God is a being that exists only in ones mind (kinda like a feeling) he can comfort people and give their life direction etc. God is real if you want god to be real.
Sleepy said something earlier about soemone else needing evidence that God exists, well maybe the human brain is like using metal detector to dectect the presence of water, we know that water is real but the metal detector can't prove it, maybe the human mind and the existance of god is the same... the mind being the wrong "tool" for the job.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 12, 2002 16:11:35 GMT -5
Too bad "Tim" didn't leave any arguments. It's easy to assert without evidence.
I have explosive penguins that have laser beams for eyes. They'll kill anyone that comes near me unless I say otherwise. They also know Ultima, and can use the cheesy Knights of the Round summon. Plus, they auto-revive. Bring it. ;D
That's nice and dandy, but since the claim "God exists" is being applied on an OBJECTIVE level, in the sense that it actually exists, is what is being debated.
Considering the mind is the only tool humans have for gaining knowledge, you're advocating agnosticism. You might try saying faith is an alternative means to gathering knowledge, but there's serious flaws in abandoning reason for blind faith. Now, granted that perhaps there is a sixth sense humans have yet to uncover, in the event one advocates the existence of this additional sense, which one claims to experience god, then they must provide evidence such a sense exists, and how it can be duplicated.
I'd be most interested in hearing your coherent, non-contradictory definition of god, how your belief is falsifible, and then evidence for this god. I should point out that the classical proofs cited for god contain quite a few flaws, and even if they were sound arguments, would only point to deism, at best.
And I've met many closed-minded theists who have spent much time debating. The length of time debating matters little. Whether your belief is falsifible or not does.
[/QUOTE]As a few points, I don't think the fact that God brings hope is adequate as proof against his existence.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe anyone said it was a disproof, but rather that emotionalism better justifies belief.
The "oneness with God" afterlife is more part of Eastern religions that Christianity. Hinduism, Sikhism, and so on preach this, and Hinduism predates Christianity by a significant amount of time. The Christian idea of the afterlife differs from the Judaism account, in which in "hell" (Hebrew Sheol) is synonymous with the grave, or rather, death. There were some groups that believed in a physical resurrection of the body after death, but I would have to read up on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 12, 2002 16:11:56 GMT -5
Then you're arguing cognitive subjectivism, if not completely, then on the matter of religion. Surely, given your knowledge of logic, know that the Law of Noncontradiction and Excluded Middle state that for any given claim, it must be true or false. It cannot be true and false at the same time in the same respect. So, if Christianity, which states one must believe in Jesus as the son of god and saviour of mankind to go heaven, then the opposite must be false, IF this is true. Islam, on the other hand, states Jesus was NOT the son of god, but a prophet, and that anyone who worships him will go to hell. Here, we have one religion that says Jesus is the son of god (A), and one that says he isn't (~A). A*~A is a contradiction, and so they cannot be both true, nor both false. One must be right, and the other wrong. In addition, if you believe Christianity true, then you must believe its doctrine which says all other religions are false. Only if you wish to plunge yourself into a self-defeating position would you want to maintain your current stance.
I know quite a few intelligent Christians. However, they've yet to do the three forementioned bits. It all boils down to them believing upon blind faith. Sadly, because you haven't presented anything, I can't really have much of an opinion of you.
I've met plenty of liberal Christians. They rarely use their own Bible except when convient, and will say anything bad is symbolic. In addition, liberalism destroys any criteria for evaluating the Bible as truth. After all, if you say Noah's Flood, for example, is an allegory, when it is presented as true (in other places as well), then one can say ANYTHING in the Bible is an allegory, and not real. Heaven, afterlife, god, it all descends into symbolic status, and becomes little better than reading Aesop's fables.
Argument? Evidence? Definition? Are these something unfamiliar to you? If you're going to spout the Transcendental Argument, at least put it in the form of an argument rather than blatantly assert.
I may head over there if I have time. However, considering you've entered into our conversation here, perhaps you would try answering my points.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 12, 2002 16:19:22 GMT -5
Yay! At last we have someone that can post as complicated as Sleepy! Maybe this "Tim" kid could be like our saviour (kinda like Neo in the Matrix) and comtradict everything Sleepy says and find holes in his arguments and stuff! Yay! Tim's gonna save us! Did you know Neo is a anagram of 'oNe'? As in, 'The One'? And you know what? Tim is an anagram of..... 'Tmi'. Which stands for The.... Maximum...... Illustrator.......... Um... Never mind. You should know there are a few long words I hate. 'Assertion'. And most of all 'basically'. Basically has to be the most overused word of the people and it gets on my nerves alot. I would have to disagree with you there, I'm afraid. If God is 'real', in the actual sense of the word, or 'existent', then he/she/it wouldn't simply be something that is real whether you want it to be or not. If God's reality is a creation of mankind then he loses all reality. The God I talk about, and what most other people talk about when they say the word God are reffering to a causeless, governing being who caused the universe to exist. Well what other tools have we got? Maybe the 'soul'... whatever that is. The question of evidence is one that takes several threads to answer. But I have an answer for alot of people who talk about only believing in things if they can pick them up on the 5 senses. The problem with this rule is that it denies the existence of many fundumental things to life. For example, gravity is implicit through empirical study but we cannot detect gravity on the 5 senses. The same goes for neutrinos and many other things in the world around us. When I argue for God's existence, I don't argue using direct empirical evidence. By that I mean, I cant pick up a certain object and say 'this is God'. But rather make him a logical neccesity in order for the universe to exist. I won't go into detail here (unless you REALLY want), but join me at the boards at the link in my last post and I'll more than happily debate some hardcore stuff with you lot.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 12, 2002 16:36:28 GMT -5
Too bad "Tim" didn't leave any arguments. It's easy to assert without evidence. Um... my name isn't "Tim". It's Tim. Please no! Knights of the Round takes far too long for my liking. Why not just stick with Omnislash. My point exactly. Thats fair. Not all faith is blind, however. And if there was a sixth sense, like all the other senses, it would probably not be able to be turned on and off or 'duplicated' so easily. By interested do you actually mean interested or do you mean completely skeptical? Take a look at this link, leads to an interesting portrayal of God as the 'Ground of Being'. www.geocities.com/meta_crock/Groundbeing.htmRead the link, and then I shall be very 'interested' ( ) to hear these flaws of which you speak. Well I never said the amount of debating changed whether you were closed minded or not. I said that I am opened minded and that I spend alot of time debating. Your coming across as a little hostile sleeptemplar. Though Im not one to judge by first impressions. What I really meant to say was that it wasn't a valid criticism. If God didn't give hope you'd say he didn't fill the qualities of a bonevelent being, thereby disprooving the Judeo-Christian God. Its a complicated matter. Who knows how the authoritys could have altered it to become 'the opiate of the people' as it is so commonly described. The entire idea of hell didn't come round to Judaism until about 300BC. I also find it hard to find bible passages that suggest hell as a reality. The only one from Jesus is in a parable, and even then he doesn't talk about it being eternal.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 12, 2002 17:01:54 GMT -5
Then you're arguing cognitive subjectivism, if not completely, then on the matter of religion. Surely, given your knowledge of logic, know that the Law of Noncontradiction and Excluded Middle state that for any given claim, it must be true or false. It cannot be true and false at the same time in the same respect. Of course! But this is alot more complicated than the simple 'penny or the quater' example. There are many different aspects to Christianity as there are many different aspects to Islam. One aspect of christianity maybe wrong, while an aspect of Islam maybe right. What I am saying is that I do not rule out other religions as impossibilities, but see them as different form of worship for the same God. Perhaps they don't have it all right. Perhaps I don't. But it is well known that in Christianity God does not ask his people to come to him perfected, but knowing that they don't know everything. This is the faith of which the bible speaks. Not faith of whether God exists or not (which almost went without saying back then), but faith that Christ's teaching was right. Now I don't KNOW that Christ was right, that is where faith/trust comes in. Such faith can be augmented by religious experience and theology. You say 'sadly' though I'm sure you don't mean it. Faith is not blindness, on the contrary it is sight to those who believe it. I argue that the belief in God can be argued succesfully in deductive, logical terms but not the faith in Jesus Christ, which is the faith based on personal augmentation. What most of it comes down to is parables. Parables are one of the most useful literal devices. Jesus used them alot. We use them alot. They can make things alot simpler for the person we are describing to. As Philips's said, whether truth or fiction, a story can inspire us. e.g if we hear a story (i.e good samaritan) of a man doing good then it might inspire us to do good in out lives. The story of Noah's ark inspires us, the concluding promise being that God would never cause such a disaster again. I would like to debate, but methinks this thread should keep on topic. Thats why I say 'To the other forums we go!' Oh good. I look forward to seeing you over there. Good to meet you!
|
|
Tool 666
RPG Townie
Remember, we are eternal, all this pain is an illusion...
Posts: 130
|
Post by Tool 666 on Nov 12, 2002 17:25:31 GMT -5
Could someone (I'm talking to you Sleepy!) give me a response on the Catholic Church theory?
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 12, 2002 17:51:25 GMT -5
Does anyone every speculate about the origins of the CHURCHES?
Church Theory #1: The Catholic Church started as a cult following and attempting to emulate a local hero (that being "Jesus Christ"), and soon grew into a small religeon. They popularised and then embellished his actions. After a few decades, the religeon was spreading, and the original group saw this as an opportunity to gain power and status in the world. However, there were a few different factions within this group, and they each split off and established themselves as the leaders of these new faiths (explaining why Chirstianity, Judaisim and Islam all consider Jerusalem to be their holy city).They sent "emmisaries" and "preists" to distant places in an attempt to gain an influx of new members. Centureis later, their infulence extended over most of Europe, and they began to consolidate their control by preying on the people's fears. You all know the rest.
Conclusion: The Catholic Church was a scheme whereby a group of people and their decendants could get rich quick, but spread far further and grew far larger than those who concieved it could anticipate.
Anyone feel like posting other theories? Well, if you want me to take you seriously, its an okay theory. I have a few criticisms however... 1) There is alot of a lot of evidence to suggest that Jesus did in fact exist, and that he was not created by the authorities. 2) What kind of idiots make up a messiah character opposed to making alot of money, and against all kinds of authority, if they plan to later make a fortune out of it? Why would they need to hide the translation of the bible from the masses if it was designed for the very purpose of getting their own money? As for my own theory.... 1) A very inspring and profound yet contraversial guy called Jesus came along one day, preached his word for 3 years then got crucified, alledgedly rising again 3 days later. 2) The evil caniding disciples and apostles decided to take his teachings and create a religion organisation based around it. 3) The relgion still exists even to this day. OOOooooooooo. A conspiracy plot worthy of Deus Ex.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 12, 2002 18:25:25 GMT -5
Now if you could kindly define this god, state how your belief is falsifible (if it is not falsifible, you are beyond rational discourse), and then provide evidence.
That's another can of worms, and as you have yet to address my previous points, you shouldn't steer the conversation into the mind/body debate at this time, since it has little impact *at the moment*.
Apparently you have an odd means of induction for gaining knowledge. Objects dropped fall to the ground, to which from this bit of induction we give the explanation "gravity" to explain why this happens. The same goes for abstract concepts such as love. Love is a behavioral pattern, and so we observe its existence through the behavior of others. When dealing with causal process you observe them through the 5 senses, which allows us to be aware of them to begin with.
Well, first you'd need to completely define god, tell how this view is falsifible, and then present evidence that supports this view. How many times have I said this? Please note that I am not just going to take you at your word.
The link didn't work for me. I'm also beginning to have doubts as to whether you can debate hardcore stuff, since you've yet to address the simple stuff.
Which is why I didn't say simply "faith". "Reasonable faith", so to speak, is the other type, but is ultimately contigent upon reason.
It was implied in your original post that because you debate religion, that somehow makes you open-minded. It doesn't. I'm still waiting to hear how your belief is falsifible...
It would disprove an omnibenevolent being, yes, but then again the Bible doesn't present the Christian god as omnibenevolent.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 12, 2002 18:26:02 GMT -5
Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mat 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Mat 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can ye escape the d**nation of hell? Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Luk 10:15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. Luk 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
A few quotes that should help you along. Reading your Bible also helps. Also, I should point out that Jesus' parables consistently invoke a reward/punishment bit that makes sense with the mentioning of heaven and hell. I look forward to reading how you re-interpret such verses. I should remind you that "watering hell" down, a typical manuver of liberals, does not erase the notion of hell.
Oh, Metacrock's stuff eh? Not too impressed, especially after seeing that article. I have, however, not had the "fun" of coming across a "Tillichite" before (the closest was a pantheist, who does about the same thing). First, I should point out the article assigns an arbitrary aspect to god, of which I fail to see how it is falsifible. It's very similiar to John Robinson's claim that "God is, by definition, ultimate reality." The pantheists make a similar claim. It's simply re-defining things to suit one's needs (If I define apple to be leprechaun, I haven't proven a leprechaun exists, because the apple lacks the characteristics of what we term leprechaun). Of course, the term god traditionally relates to a supernatural entity, or in the case of pantheism, the identifying of reality with god (which only adds incoherence on the matter). In the article which draws upon Tillich, by saying god is the "ground of being", it is basically saying the concepts of existence and non-existence do not apply to it. In other words, one cannot say god exists, a position atheists have no problem with.
I also notice that not a shred of evidence is presented for this view. Is one supposed to just take Metacrock, Tillich, Robinson, and you at their word? How convincing of an argument!
Oh, and as a final bit of the article, if, as Metacrock seems to advocate, that their view is one that god cannot be defined by logic, then we've plunged ourselves into agnosticism. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 12, 2002 18:46:29 GMT -5
1. Excluding the Bible (which isn't credible for other reasons), there isn't much to help you there, Tim. Unless, of course, you consider hearsay to be credible.
2. Consistency isn't necessarily needed amongst religious leaders. Think of all that wealth the Catholic Church has now that could be applied towards feeding the poor, and you'll see my point. As for the second point, persecution of non-dominant religions by the main one in power usually occurs. Surely you know what happened when the Catholic Church gained power and become the dominant religion in Europe? *Cough cough Inquisition cough cough Crusades cough cough*. That, of course, is simply one example.
Simply look at the origin of cults. Religions are simply cults with more members, and greater social acceptance.
I will agree that Christianity has many aspects which win converts amongst those unfamiliar with such matters, due to it's belief, as opposed to action basis for salvation. That, and the heaven/hell aspect is a good motivation for some. Let's not also forget Christianity's religious intolerance.
These bits made it quite easy for Christianity to gain control. Now, whatever the motivation as to beginning it is unclear. It could have been based upon an actual fellow and a radical branch of Judaism, a combination of several earlier myths, a scheme by some fellows, some of each, and undoubtedly other possible explanations. I really don't care too much, overall. I'm quite content to argue whether or not the doctrine is true or not.
It could have been such a scheme, or simply people with a strong religious conviction. What we do know, is that Christianity didn't flow well in Israel. It sprang up in Greece.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Nov 12, 2002 21:05:43 GMT -5
Pity. I overlooked one of your replies.
Christianity centers itself on Jesus being the son of god. Islam, on the other hand, says Jesus was NOT the son of god, another important aspect of Islam. These are tenets central to the religion itself, so that especially in the case of Christianity, it falls apart if it's false. Because they are both right yields a contradiction, either Islam is right on the matter, or Christianity is right on the matter. If Islam is right on the matter, then Christianity collapses. Not to mention Christianity states that it is the only true path, which would rule out any such claims for other religions, if Christianity were true.
Read Matthew 5:48 sometime.
Nice thought, but then again just believing something without evidence doesn't make it so, regardless how comforting it is.
Either faith comes from reason or it doesn't. If you advocate faith over reason, you're advocating blind faith, which leads to a seriously flawed position. If you're instance advocating reason, there's no need to appeal to faith.
Religious experience is subjective, circular, inconsistent, and unable to be confirmed. Not only to religious experiences fail to happen in a repeatable, objective manner, but involves contradictory experiences, and such people who have an experience, say, of Buddha, are or were, or somehow connected, with Buddhists.
I've yet to see god coherently defined, much less defended without fallacious arguing.
As I previously stated, a Sikh can take the classic proofs to "prove" Waheguru, and then state their faith proves it further. Believing in something does not make things so, nor does it gain knowledge. Blind faith is simply emotionalism which gets one nowhere.
Why yes, there's only several other disasters for "god" to inflict upon people.
To be less sarcastic, and more germane, the 6-day Creation story, Noah's Flood, and other such stories are presented (and re-affirmed) as truth. To say them to be allegorical or symbolic is to say anything, even god, is just symbolic.
So maybe it's just that you've been believing to make yourself feel better about things, even though it's a lie.
Your link didn't work, and plus having started here where others besides myself respond, it is far easier to continue, and finish, here.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 13, 2002 5:01:34 GMT -5
Now if you could kindly define this god, state how your belief is falsifible (if it is not falsifible, you are beyond rational discourse), and then provide evidence. That response was actually replying to another person, but if you insist. God, as a basic definition is causeless (infinite), and created the universe. Now, since you keep on asking, I'll debate for God thereby oppening up the biggest can of worms in existence. But do you mind if we do it in another thread? For now, lets keep up this debate. Thats exactly why I said very little on it. But you cannot feel, see, touch, taste or smell gravity, you simply witness the effect of it. I am argueing that the very fact that the universe exists, implies inductively that God exists. And this fact can be discovered deductively. I'll go into greater detail in the other thread. You don't have to say it more than once. I don't expect you to take me at my word. Thats odd, it works for me. I AM debating the simple stuff but whenever I do you say that I shouldnt and instead just go straight onto the Hardcore stuff. Reason through augmentation. All science is descriptive, and therby can never be 100% true but can be made so likely that its silly to deny it. Like with gravity or evolution. Then you read any implications wrong. I've yet to show you how I'm open minded, as have you. At the moment you appear to me not to be open minded but that doesn't mean you aren't. Christianity is based around Jesus and his teachings, and the God of these teachings is bonevelent. No use giving me an OT quote when Christianity is centred around Jesus.
|
|
Atolmazel
RPG Townie
"That's one spicy tamale"
Posts: 650
|
Post by Atolmazel on Nov 13, 2002 6:19:41 GMT -5
1. Excluding the Bible (which isn't credible for other reasons), there isn't much to help you there, Tim. Unless, of course, you consider hearsay to be credible. What of the over 50 accounts of Jesus from independent viewers (and those are just the ones who can write) dating back before Mark? What about Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Phelgon, Lucian, Suetonius, Galen, Celsus and Talmud? Honestly, I dont see why the whole Jesus never existed idea has come up. History is in Jesus' favour greatly, why not simply argue that he was not the Son of God? Whats so bad about him existing? Hes alot more believable as a historical character than lots of others you take for granted. If a religion is designed to gain money for a certain group we definitely need consitency in that aspect. Otherwise it wasn't originally designed to gain money. To your second point, you are probably aware of 'absolute power corrupts absolutely', which is true to anyone, religion or otherwise. (and for the record, the inquistion and crusades are two examples, not one).
|
|