Author Topic: I will not prove God exists  (Read 22281 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4660
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #58 on: July 20, 2011, 10:17:13 PM »
 I will not prove God exists,but here let me show you he exists. I asked you if it worked for all gods or just yours. You have failed to answer.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline voodoo child

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1823
  • Darwins +10/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #59 on: July 20, 2011, 10:25:00 PM »
its back!  could you at least say something?  rather than posting a shit load of crap.
The classical man is just a bundle of routine, ideas and tradition. If you follow the classical pattern, you are understanding the routine, the tradition, the shadow, you are not understanding yourself. Truth has no path. Truth is living and therefore changing. Bruce lee

Offline LadyLucy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • No one leaves the Nightosphere
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #60 on: July 20, 2011, 10:32:31 PM »
Geek, please ignore the insane theist that wrote the long post.

Funny how he believes in the same religion as you do, only he takes it a step further by wanting to kill all atheists.

So, tell me fizixgeek: How does religion make me better than I am now?  :?


Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12452
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #61 on: July 20, 2011, 10:40:50 PM »
To be fair, Dennis Markuze doesn't share Geek's religion.  He's not a Mormon.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline LadyLucy

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1408
  • Darwins +1/-0
  • Gender: Female
  • No one leaves the Nightosphere
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #62 on: July 20, 2011, 10:43:35 PM »
To be fair, Dennis Markuze doesn't share Geek's religion.  He's not a Mormon.

Doesn't make him any less of a Christian, IMO. Latter Day Saint, Jehovas's Witness, Lutheran, Protestant, Baptist, etc. They all believe in Christ.

The nice thing is, fizixgeek is not insane. Whew.


Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #63 on: July 20, 2011, 11:30:25 PM »
This would undeniably be special pleading if I were trying to prove God exists, which I am not. My post can be thought of as a constructive proof of the statement "There exists a self-consistent concept of God which allows for

1. The existence of God
2. The absence of evidence for God's existence"

As such, I will not attempt to prove that this concept is true, just that it's consistent.
I don’t want you to be disappointed, but there is little requirement for the proof of a concept of an imaginary being. I’m sure that most people have a concept of unicorns, pixies and dragons. We know that these are distinct concepts as they can distinguish one from another.

I will challenge you to show to me that unicorns, pixies and dragons, as a concept, do not exist. If you wish, 

I will show "There exists a self-consistent concept of unicorns, pixies or dragons which allows for

1. The existence of unicorns, pixies or dragons
2. The absence of evidence for unicorns’, pixies’ and dragons' existence."

Well said. I should expand my requirements. That one is just too easy. I hope to find a self-consistent concept that allows for
1. A god that exists.
2. A god that wants me to follow what he commands.
3. A god that I cannot see.
 

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #64 on: July 21, 2011, 12:01:40 AM »
I think Ambassador Pony rephrased what I'm saying very well on another thread:

Quote
I noticed in another thread that you are interested in demonstrating the internal consistency of your belief system, axioms granted. And, that you have a "just try it out" offer.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You have to do the experiment yourself. There's no other way to know.

Reading all this and trying to keep up from one thread to the other including a whole different web address to try and get a handle on what you are trying to say has given me a migraine.

Please answer these questions for me as directly and simply as possible;

1)What experiment are you talking about?

2)What do you mean by internal consistency?

I am willing to forget about my other questions you ignored but please for the love of God and for the sake of my dying soul help me understand what the fuck you are talking about.
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #65 on: July 21, 2011, 02:40:06 AM »
I think Ambassador Pony rephrased what I'm saying very well on another thread:

Quote
I noticed in another thread that you are interested in demonstrating the internal consistency of your belief system, axioms granted. And, that you have a "just try it out" offer.

That's exactly what I'm saying. You have to do the experiment yourself. There's no other way to know.

Reading all this and trying to keep up from one thread to the other including a whole different web address to try and get a handle on what you are trying to say has given me a migraine.

Please answer these questions for me as directly and simply as possible;

1)What experiment are you talking about?

2)What do you mean by internal consistency?

I am willing to forget about my other questions you ignored but please for the love of God and for the sake of my dying soul help me understand what the fuck you are talking about.


Hi Jay,

What I mean by an experiment is that you must study the scriptures, then pray to know if they're true. I told Ambassador Pony that the first thing you'll begin to notice is that you'll like the scriptures more and that you'll find yourself more patient, more forgiving and generally more able to live by even your own standards.

When I say I want to defend the internal or self-consistency of my belief system, I mean that I think it's important that the system not contradict itself. That is, you grant me a few axioms and we test to see whether we can arrive at something manifestly impossible. As an example, I stated on my blog that it is important for believers to reconcile the idea that God exists and the He has the power to show himself with the fact that I've never seen Him. Even if we agree that the system is self-consistent, we still haven't proven it's real. To do that, you need to do the experiment mentioned above. But, it sometimes helps to clear away some of these apparent paradoxes.

Thank you for taking the time to rephrase your questions. It was inevitable that I would lose a few in the melee. It's just me answering the objections of a dozen posters, which is kind of exhausting.

Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #66 on: July 21, 2011, 03:00:26 AM »
What are the success criteria?

You'll begin to feel more of what believers call the fruits of the Spirit. You'll be naturally more loving, more patient, more self-assured, happier. It'll get easier to be the person you want to be. You'll start to enjoy the scriptures, even to draw strength from them. It'll be easier to forgive those who've hurt you, not because you find an appropriate excuse for them, but because you wish to be forgiven by God and want to allow others the same release.

These all seem, theoretically, at least, like measurable effects. That would allow one to scrutinize a sample population to determine the efficacity of the treatment along those spectra (happiness, forgiving behaviour, enjoyment of scripture...etc). A simple Likert scale would do the trick to get the ball rolling.

Are there any other effects?

Edit: Have you watched the JugofMilk video from WWGHA? A JOM type treatment would make a nice placebo group. Compare mormon-style treatment, JOM-type treatment, and no treatment.

Edit edit: Chinese traditional / folk religious treatment! It dates well.

I propose we try this at once! We'll collect volunteers here on WWGHA. We give everyone a Likert test. Then, one-third of volunteers will read the Book of Mormon once a day and pray to God to know whether it's true. This group (and, in fact, each group) will have to certify that, if they discover the Book of Mormon to be true, they will strive to live by the precepts they read there. One-third will read the phone book once a day and pray (something) to the jug of milk. The last third will continue to live their dreary godless, JOM-less lives ;). After 4 weeks, we'll administer our test again and look for improvement and I'll go report that I got 6 atheists to read the Book of Mormon daily for a month. Imagine all the Mormon points I'll get for that!

Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #67 on: July 21, 2011, 03:07:25 AM »
Geek, please ignore the insane theist that wrote the long post.

Funny how he believes in the same religion as you do, only he takes it a step further by wanting to kill all atheists.

So, tell me fizixgeek: How does religion make me better than I am now?  :?

Thanks, LadyA. I missed the whole thing and it's clearly been deleted now.

Faith in God (which, I suppose, is not always the same as religion) helps me in 2 ways:
1. It leads me to learn and accept new standards and morals which help me to live a happier life and more effectively improve others' lives as well.
2. It helps me to more consistently live by those morals I already espouse.

It will (possibly does) do the same for you.

Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #68 on: July 21, 2011, 03:45:34 AM »
Hi fiz
It begins with an understanding of faith.

Faith is something I have spent a lot of time thinking about.  I thought about it when I was a believer, but I probably thought about it more since I lost my god beliefs. Faith is a slippery word and has several semi-related meanings that slippery theists will shift between without warning and at their convenience. 

In the Bible, faith is described as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

What, in your own words, does that mean?  Be clear and specific.  Try to avoid mystical sounding poetry like that bible quote.  To me, it means nothing.  Gobbledeegook.

In my own words (the gospel of fizixgeek), faith is the knowledge you receive not in a carefully designed lab experiment, but by seeking to communicate with God. If you were to read the scriptures and pray to know if they're true, the evidence you receive in return would be faith.

Quote

It’s easy to see that, if God were visibly present in your life, you could not have faith in Him.

nope.  My wife is present in my life.  I have faith in her.  That is to say, I trust she will not only not hurt me, but she will strive to be of benefit to me.  I trust she is my partner. 

I also am faithful to her.  See how the meaning changed slightly?  That can be taken to mean she can trust me in the same way I trust her.  But it also means, I am loyal.  And this faith - mine in her and to her - is based not on "evidence of things not seen" but on observed behavioral patterns.  I have faith in her because she has never screwed me over.  At least, not on purpose.   I have faith in her because she does nice things for me and expresses kindness and love.  Without this history together, I could not have the faith in her and to her that I do.

Correct me if you disagree, but I think that's a different definition of faith. Also valid, but not what we're discussing here. It is a slippery topic and I'm trying to stick to just one definition.

Quote
That is not to say you wouldn’t need faith in Him.

There is a big difference in having faith in god and having faith that god exists.  I have heard other religious people explain faith that way - faith in god, rather than faith that he exists.  But that is putting the cart before the horse, no?  Have faith in god?  What god?

A point well taken. I should be more careful. I think the thought makes sense even without this sentence. Feel free to ignore it altogether.

Quote
I mean only that it’s impossible to have faith, according to the scriptural definition, in something that is seen.

The scriptural definition is crap, innit?  And I argue the opposite. You can only have faith in things you have observed.  Also, notice that here you have shifted[1] from faith in god to faith that god exists.  And by that you are saying blind faith.  That is, believing in god without evidence. 
 1. as I predicted

In one sense, yes, I'd say we're believing in God without evidence. At least, its not evidence that I can point you to. Some days, doubt enters the heart of every believer in a way that it wouldn't if God were visibly present always. It's a lot more work to rely on knowledge gained in spiritual ways.

Quote

So, one reason for God to remain hidden is to enable us to have faith.

Well, if you mean have faith that god exists, then yes.  Blind faith that something exists is only possible when you have absolutely no reason to believe it.  But it is still possible to have faith in a myriad of other things. 

Why do you think blind faith is something a god would want?  Why would it not want us to be supremely reasonable?  Or to be expert jugglers?  Or fast runners?  Why do you think blind faith would be valued by the omnimax god?  That is an extremely important question.

I agree. These are extremely important questions. That's another paradox worth exploring: "If we presuppose a god that is all-powerful and wants us to be perfectly good and perfectly wise, why aren't we perfectly good and perfectly wise?" This post is already getting long and I want to be careful to note that this is not anyone's doctrine but my own, but I believe, when it comes to humans, God is not all-powerful. God cannot, for example, force men to do right without making them *less* than they are now. In the words of CS Lewis, "He cannot ravish, He can only woo." God expressed that we are the "offspring" of God. I think that by this He meant that we are different that a "creation" of God. A skilled sculptor can make of clay whatever he wants, but may have a harder time with his son. You are God's son and he can't make of you what He wants without your consent.

Again, just my speculative ideas.

Quote
But, faith is a principle of power. Having and exercising faith in things that are not seen empowers us to master ourselves and become more like God.

Malarkey.


The process of hoping and waiting on the Lord in faith strengthens the part of us that has access to spiritual truths.

Dude, I am sorry to be rude, but you are completely talking out your ass here. What part of us is that?  Define "spiritual".  Define "spiritual truths" and give me examples.  I reject the idea that blind faith leads to making anyone better in any way.  I reject the idea that this unexamined version of faith you are trying to foist on us leads to any kind of truth.

I'm sorry if you disagree. It's really quite possible I'm completely wrong, but I'm fairly certain it's not ridiculous.

Quote
One important extension of this is the conclusion that a person is (morally) more than the sum of his or her knowledge.

Again, you are talking out your ass.  How is a person morally summed up?   

Come on, fiz.  You are better than this.

Does that phrase not make sense? I may not have expressed it very well. If we take out the parenthetical "morally" does that help:

"A person is more than the sum of his or her knowledge."

What I mean to say is that God's goal for us is not just that we *know* truth, but that we *follow* truth. It happens quite often that I know I should act a certain way, even that it will make me happier, but I don't do it. I can't. God wants to help us get from knowing to doing. And, people are more able to follow the knowledge they gained through revelation from God than the knowledge they gain through seeing it with their eyes. Spiritual knowledge comes harder, but sticks better.

Sincerely, thank you for reading. Even if we disagree, it was a civil thing to do.

Corrections? comments? Where are my fellow Christians here?

Offline fizixgeek

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • Darwins +0/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • U can't win an argument with someone dumber than u
    • Fizixgeek's blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #69 on: July 21, 2011, 03:48:07 AM »
Oh, and who keeps giving me demerits!? I'm doing my best here.

Offline jetson

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 7292
  • Darwins +170/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Meet George Jetson!
    • Jet Blog
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #70 on: July 21, 2011, 06:14:19 AM »
Oh, and who keeps giving me demerits!? I'm doing my best here.

Don't let the negative Darwins bother you.

On a side note, we have about 5 months until Christmas.  I'm wondering if you could spend the 5 months reading " The Night Before Christmas", as an experiment.  I'm thinking that you stand a good chance of bringing Santa Claus back into your life if you simply read, and believe as if you were still a child.  Many adults simply lose faith, and stop believing.  But I'm here to tell you how much your life will improve, not to mention the increase in gifts under the tree!

I will add that not everyone celebrates Christmas in the same way, but Santa Claus most definitely rewards all who continue to believe...and he does it in ways that fit well no matter what your religious beliefs.  I think you will be pleased at how your life improves, once you get Santa back into your heart and mind.

P.S.  Do not replace God with Santa, they get long very well and do not mind sharing their love with you.

Offline HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5017
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #71 on: July 21, 2011, 06:29:15 AM »
Oh, and who keeps giving me demerits!? I'm doing my best here.

It's all in the notices on the front page which you get notified of in PMs. For someone so tuned in to faith in invisible beings, it sure is amazing you can't see what's in plain view.

Online Hatter23

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3950
  • Darwins +265/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • Doesn't believe in one more god than you
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #72 on: July 21, 2011, 06:56:02 AM »

 No one ever claimed religion would make you better than someone else, just better than you are now.

facepalm.

Joining you. Double Facepalm.
An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

And you should feel guilty for this. Give me money.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12575
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #73 on: July 21, 2011, 07:44:05 AM »
To be fair, Dennis Markuze doesn't share Geek's religion.  He's not a Mormon.

Doesn't make him any less of a Christian, IMO.

mormon is not xian any more than islam is xian or xian is jewish. 

Islam was based on xianity.  However, they added a book that supercedes the bible.  Yes, they believe some things in the bible, but not all.  They added beliefs and doctrines that supercede xian beliefs and doctrines.  It is not longer xian.

xianity was based on judaism.  However, they added several books that supercede the hebrew bible.  Yes, they believe some things the jews do, but not all.  They added beliefs and doctrines that supercede jewish beliefs and doctrines.  It is not longer judaism.

the chruch of latter day saints is based on xianity. However, they added a book that supercedes the bible.  Yes, they believe some things in the bible, but not all.  They added beliefs and doctrines that supercede xian beliefs and doctrines.  It is not longer xian.

mormons are as xian as muslims.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #74 on: July 21, 2011, 07:58:21 AM »
I propose we try this at once! We'll collect volunteers here on WWGHA. We give everyone a Likert test. Then, one-third of volunteers will read the Book of Mormon once a day and pray to God to know whether it's true. This group (and, in fact, each group) will have to certify that, if they discover the Book of Mormon to be true, they will strive to live by the precepts they read there. One-third will read the phone book once a day and pray (something) to the jug of milk. The last third will continue to live their dreary godless, JOM-less lives ;). After 4 weeks, we'll administer our test again and look for improvement and I'll go report that I got 6 atheists to read the Book of Mormon daily for a month. Imagine all the Mormon points I'll get for that!

That's not a good sample group. I know what science knows about how religious behaviour functions, how and why folk adopt such beliefs as mormonism, and what the source of the effect is that you propose exists. Whether I am correct or not, my expectations might colour my perception of any effect, and/or determine the effect itself, as would most other atheists here, who think it's a load of horseshit.

We'd have to likewise ban all mormons or people that know a lot about mormonism for the same reason. Random sample with pre-experiment religious attitude questionnaire to accompany the baseline measurement is essential.

Phonebook isn't a good placebo. It has to be another religious-type text. I'd go with Confucius' Analects.

How else, do you think, might we remove bias, so as not to colour our result?

Edit: Will we tell all participants what to expect as a result of their study, or set it up so they don't know what we're testing for before and after?

Edit edit: Do you think a mormon can have a false positive? That is to say, to mistakenly attribute a positive outcome to scripture study that in fact has no connection to that behaviour.

<-- Can a brother get some darwins here? 
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 08:25:47 AM by Ambassador Pony »
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #75 on: July 21, 2011, 08:07:42 AM »
Thank you for taking the time to rephrase your questions. It was inevitable that I would lose a few in the melee. It's just me answering the objections of a dozen posters, which is kind of exhausting.

It's good exercise though!

Quote
...it is important for believers to reconcile the idea that God exists and the He has the power to show himself with the fact that I've never seen Him.

Already reconciled that one in my own life. It's almost like the paradox of light. most people are wired for absolutes; black and white certainties. So when one group of people observed that light behaved as a particle while other groups observed light behaving as a wave, a paradox was born. Einstein said, "hey can't we all just get along? you are both right! it's a particle AND a wave!"[1]

Quote
What I mean by an experiment is that you must study the scriptures, then pray to know if they're true. I told Ambassador Pony that the first thing you'll begin to notice is that you'll like the scriptures more and that you'll find yourself more patient, more forgiving and generally more able to live by even your own standards.

Sounds like self hypnotic suggestion[2] to me. Suppose someone prays for understanding so that they can better argue against the scriptures. Does it work both ways? What then?

 1. I'm paraphrasing here :P
 2. ever heard of the make believe friend method?
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12575
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #76 on: July 21, 2011, 08:29:42 AM »
If you were to read the scriptures and pray to know if they're true, the evidence you receive in return would be faith.

I've done that.  I spent several years doing that and I got nothing in return.  In fact, I came to the conclusion it was complete baloney.  Now what?

When you say "the evidence you receive in return", what exactly do you mean?  Is it "well, I feel like god is talking to me"?  Or do you mean actual evidence - plates of gold will appear, or jesus will manifest before me, or what?

Correct me if you disagree, but I think that's a different definition of faith. Also valid, but not what we're discussing here. It is a slippery topic and I'm trying to stick to just one definition.

As I said, there are several meanings.  That is why any discussion that involves "faith" is inherently a difficult one.  I would like to eliminate the word altogether because it is so confusing.  It is like the way the smurfs would use the word "smurf".  All purpose and fits in where ever you need it to. 

So if you would like to stick to one definition, great.  I don't think you can do it though.  You need different definitions.  Part of being religious is employing Orwellian doublethink.  You probably don't realize when you slip in and out of different definitions of faith.  I won't yet get into how you also probably slip in and out of different definitions of god.


Quote
The scriptural definition is crap, innit?  And I argue the opposite. You can only have faith in things you have observed.  Also, notice that here you have shifted from faith in god to faith that god exists.  And by that you are saying blind faith.  That is, believing in god without evidence. 

In one sense, yes, I'd say we're believing in God without evidence. At least, its not evidence that I can point you to. Some days, doubt enters the heart of every believer in a way that it wouldn't if God were visibly present always. It's a lot more work to rely on knowledge gained in spiritual ways.

So, do you also take my point about faith being a slippery bugger?

"If we presuppose a god that is all-powerful and wants us to be perfectly good and perfectly wise, why aren't we perfectly good and perfectly wise?"

That is a tough question, but not the one I was getting at. 

Why is the criterion of judgment faith?  Why not some other measure?  Intelligence, knowledge, strength, whatever.  Why faith?  If, as you suggest, god is some kind of father to people, what kind of father would want its children to believe it exists and loves them without any any evidence of either?  For what purpose? 

Consider this: whom does blind faith benefit? 

 
In the words of CS Lewis, "He cannot ravish, He can only woo."

Despite my namesake, I have more respect for Jerry Lewis than I do C.S..  He apparently never opened a bible.  The Canaanite deity yhwh ravished as a matter of course.  It is only in these modern days where we know lightning, earthquakes, floods, droughts and fertility are not the work of yhwh that he has retreated and hidden. Prior to our technological advancements, yhwh was a very hands on kind of god.

God expressed that we are the "offspring" of God.

Where did god do that?  Are you sure it was god expressing that and not some guy who said it was god expressing that?  If so, how can you be sure?

You are God's son and he can't make of you what He wants without your consent.

Cannot or will not?  A god that is not omnipotent is not God.  It is merely a god. And what is that, really?  Just some guy who has more power than us and lives a lot longer than us.  Meh.  I see not reason to grovel for that guy.

Again, just my speculative ideas.

Naturally.  It is not like there is any way to test them out.

I'm sorry if you disagree. It's really quite possible I'm completely wrong, but I'm fairly certain it's not ridiculous.

Certainty is a terrible thing.  But remember, it is just an emotion, like "sad" or "ecstatic".  On what is your certainty based?  My guess - social reinforcement.  You say you were raised eating Brigham Flakes[1], up to your eyeballs in LDS[2].  I am aware the prophecy is a core component of your groupthink. 

Also, you missed these questions:  What part of us is that?  Define "spiritual".  Define "spiritual truths" and give me examples.


Does that phrase not make sense? I may not have expressed it very well. If we take out the parenthetical "morally" does that help:

"A person is more than the sum of his or her knowledge."

That helps.  I agree with that part. But that seems kind of, I dunno, obvious. 

What I mean to say is that God's goal for us is not just that we *know* truth, but that we *follow* truth. It happens quite often that I know I should act a certain way, even that it will make me happier, but I don't do it. I can't. God wants to help us get from knowing to doing. And, people are more able to follow the knowledge they gained through revelation from God than the knowledge they gain through seeing it with their eyes. Spiritual knowledge comes harder, but sticks better.

Supposing there is a god, and supposing there is no evidence of it (as you have already granted), how do we know what it wants?  Your theory is that if you pray, with blind faith, you can have a great deal of certainty that god will give you "evidence", though what that evidence is we have not defined just yet.

But there are several problems with that.  You say it[3] wants one thing.  I have heard lots of people say it wants other things that conflict with what you say.  I heard 19 assholes thought it wanted them to fly airplanes into buildings a few years ago.  I am pretty sure they were as certain about that as you are about your beliefs.

Let me give you an example that hits a little closer to home for you.  Have you ever heard of Dan and Ron Lafferty?

 1. and he was flakey
 2. which is more dangerous than being raised in LSD
 3. god.  calling god a "he" is strange to me, though technically accurate, but only if we are speaking about the primitive god yhwh, which did have a gender.  The more modern, evolved version of yhwh is God, which is an invisible, intangible abstraction, which should be genderless.  Afterall, how can a thing without a body have gender?  Maleness requires male sex organs, or at least, a Y chromosome.  So take your pick. He or it.  Just be cognizent of which one each speaks
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6777
  • Darwins +545/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #77 on: July 21, 2011, 09:16:03 AM »
I don’t want you to be disappointed, but there is little requirement for the proof of a concept of an imaginary being. I’m sure that most people have a concept of unicorns, pixies and dragons. We know that these are distinct concepts as they can distinguish one from another.

I will challenge you to show to me that unicorns, pixies and dragons, as a concept, do not exist. If you wish, 

I will show "There exists a self-consistent concept of unicorns, pixies or dragons which allows for

1. The existence of unicorns, pixies or dragons
2. The absence of evidence for unicorns’, pixies’ and dragons' existence."

Well said. I should expand my requirements. That one is just too easy. I hope to find a self-consistent concept that allows for
1. A god that exists.
2. A god that wants me to follow what he commands.
3. A god that I cannot see.
Hmmm... This is exceptionally ambitious because (i) your argument will have to start with a definition of 'god' otherwise we will not know what it is you have shown and (ii) show that you included every known god in your considerations. I do hope that this is not going to focus solely upon Yahweh/The Trinity.

If it helps you, I have seen one goddess, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/07/new-living-goddess-appoin_n_132610.html (not that one, the one who was around in 1981-2) and after you have visited the link, you will at least have seen a photograph of one.
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #78 on: July 21, 2011, 09:41:43 AM »
No one ever claimed religion would make you better

Actually, you did.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #79 on: July 21, 2011, 09:45:27 AM »
Hmmm... This is exceptionally ambitious because (i) your argument will have to start with a definition of 'god' otherwise we will not know what it is you have shown and (ii) show that you included every known god in your considerations. I do hope that this is not going to focus solely upon Yahweh/The Trinity.

Except that he has stated unequivocally numerous times that he will not attempt to prove that God exists and further he has admitted that he is making up his own definition of God HERE

He has implied that he is talking of the God of the scriptures[1] but at this point who really knows.

Edit: to add footnote
 1. which scriptures?
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 09:54:19 AM by jaybwell32 »
I show affection for my pets by holding them against me and whispering, "I love you" repeatedly as they struggle to break free.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #80 on: July 21, 2011, 10:00:04 AM »
What are the success criteria?

You'll begin..

Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt, again:

Furthermore, this isn't an actual criteria that can be known beyond a subjective experience, nor is it evidence of anything other than emotional dependency on a conditional belief.  You'll never actually know what you feel is true or caused by what you claim it to be caused by, not to mention that the value systems you're trying to impose are based on arbitrary implied notions of what you culturally accept as 'good'.  Your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premises and is instead concluded upon a circular fallacy.  Someone could find happiness in mutilating chlidren with a spoon and because it brings them happiness as well as peace, it is therefore good and by your own reasoning 'consistent'.

Not to mention that if it were true, that is to say if it demonstrated a conditional aspect of increasing happiness and love then we would expect to see a correlation between religious belief and societal health.  We do not and in fact, we see the absolute opposite as I pointed out for you and you dutifully ignored/dodged.  That would be the only testable criteria from your assertions.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #81 on: July 21, 2011, 10:01:14 AM »
How on earth are any of these premises more true than Scientology, Catholicism, Islam, Baha'i etc...

Honestly.

Thanks for the summary. Some of these are true, most are invented. In the interest of time and staying on topic, I'll not go into these here. More on Mormon beliefs can be found at www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com and www.mormon.org.

If you can't demonstrate your premises to valid then your theistic beliefs are not consistent.  You ignored Elliot's request.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #82 on: July 21, 2011, 10:03:49 AM »
You'll begin to feel more of what believers call the fruits of the Spirit. You'll be naturally more loving, more patient, more self-assured, happier. It'll get easier to be the person you want to be. You'll start to enjoy the scriptures, even to draw strength from them. It'll be easier to forgive those who've hurt you, not because you find an appropriate excuse for them, but because you wish to be forgiven by God and want to allow others the same release.
Funny on how I got that by finally accepting that God didnt' exist.  So, again, your experiment fails completely.  Except the want to be forgiving by God part.  What a bunch of yet more nonsense.

not to mention that I've said I've prayed to keep my faith and still say "hey,  God you out there?" and still have gotten nothing. Golly, I just mustn't be "sincere" enough.  What a pathetic sequene of excuses from theists.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2011, 10:11:48 AM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #83 on: July 21, 2011, 10:05:45 AM »
Such reasoning doesn't account for the idea that those who practice the deviant behavior very likely are not "practioners" of the religion in question.
No true scotsman fallacy. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4660
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #84 on: July 21, 2011, 10:13:28 AM »
Oh, and who keeps giving me demerits!? I'm doing my best here.

Don't let the negative Darwins bother you.

On a side note, we have about 5 months until Christmas.  I'm wondering if you could spend the 5 months reading " The Night Before Christmas", as an experiment.  I'm thinking that you stand a good chance of bringing Santa Claus back into your life if you simply read, and believe as if you were still a child.  Many adults simply lose faith, and stop believing.  But I'm here to tell you how much your life will improve, not to mention the increase in gifts under the tree!

I will add that not everyone celebrates Christmas in the same way, but Santa Claus most definitely rewards all who continue to believe...and he does it in ways that fit well no matter what your religious beliefs.  I think you will be pleased at how your life improves, once you get Santa back into your heart and mind.

P.S.  Do not replace God with Santa, they get long very well and do not mind sharing their love with you.
Does this method work with any God who has scriptures? if I read the OT and not the NT will that bring the God of the Jews back?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #85 on: July 21, 2011, 10:17:27 AM »
What I mean by an experiment is that you must study the scriptures

That's not an experiment, plus your religious text are contradictory and vague.  Conclusions drawn from it are based on presupposed context arrived to without evidence or reason.  Rationalizations are drawn to what is presupposed, rather then what can be shown.

This negates any experimentation or valid criticism/analysis.

Quote
then pray to know if they're true.

This is also laughably contradictory, your earlier assertions were based on a criteria of belief making one happier, patient, and loving 'etc'.  Ignoring that socially that that is contradicted by the data we have at hand, that doesn't actually lend itself to determining anything to be true.  Prayer would also render it impossible to know anything as 'true', it would be an experience without any objective context to know anything and inseparable from make believe.

Quote
When I say I want to defend the internal or self-consistency of my belief system, I mean that I think it's important that the system not contradict itself.

You've contradicted yourself dozens of times now, ignoring individuals that point out those contradictions.

Quote
That is, you grant me a few axioms

We don't have to grant you anything that you can't demonstrate and you haven't made an argument yet that doesn't try to presuppose conditions that are either baseless or contradictory.  Axioms do not necessarily require proof, but nothing about your axioms are self evident.  Constantly we have to point out that many of your premises, the idiotic questions you ask, and even the conclusions you've reached have nothing to do with atheism.  Yet, that doesn't stop you from imposing a false dichotomy with every other post.

Quote
and we test

There is nothing to test.  You're kind of dishonest presuppositionalism inherently presumes all truth and rationalizes towards a preconceived notion of truth which renders any attempt at pointing out contradictions useless.. since you can always change the truth or rationalize it in a new way because you've assumed it to be true absolutely.

Quote
whether we can arrive at something manifestly impossible

It would be impossible to arrive at any conclusion, because all assertions are reduced to blank imaginations that one cannot separate from them being false much less being true.  IE, everything your trying to do renders knowledge meaningless and inseparable from make believe.  You instead insert qualifications as special pleading, as if the labels themselves somehow rationally or reasonably explain the conclusion ( which is a fallacy ) and such examples would be: spiritual truth, faith, etc.

Quote
it is important for believers to reconcile the idea that God exists and the He has the power to show himself with the fact that I've never seen Him.

Of course you would, having all absence of evidence to demonstrate your claims to be true, you instead need to engage in obfuscation and sophistry to attack the basic ability to 'know' anything.  You have in place of arguing in the affirmative of your beliefs, began to distance your beliefs from any criteria from which it can be known in any way possible.  After that you began to impose presupposed conditions through fallacies of pleading and arguments from ignorance, literally 'creating' a belief system based on all of your presupposed constraints.

It would only be important for a person to do what you suggested above if they had no reason to actually believe.  If they had a reason to believe, they wouldn't have to go to the lengths you are to make knowledge meaningless.  Occams razor, try it sometime.

Quote
Even if we agree that the system is self-consistent,

It is not.

Quote
To do that, you need to do the experiment

Can't, its not an experiment and doesn't present any conditions that can be tested for objectively and logically.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4660
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #86 on: July 21, 2011, 10:21:39 AM »
But ....but ..but if you just read the book of mormon I am sure you will see what I see if you pray hard enough GIMME A BREAK
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)