Author Topic: I will not prove God exists  (Read 22138 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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 #116 on: July 24, 2011, 08:44:21 PM »


Yeah, you ignored Elliot's request!

These things were mostly backed up on the site I found them on by quotes from the Mormon scriptures, and partially from important Mormon books.

The only thing I was unsure about is how the church changed their stance on the people of black skin colouring being evil.

However, I would like you to still tell me which of these premises are wrong.
Quote
  -   God has a tangible body of flesh and bone: D&C 130:22


  -   God lives on a planet near the star Kolob: Book of Abraham 3:3-16

  -   Jesus and Satan ("Lucifer") are brothers: D&C 76:25, Moses 4:1-4

  -   "The Lord" ("Jehovah") in the Old Testament is the same being named Jesus in the New Testament, but not the same as "God the Father": D&C 110:2-4; Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, article "Jehovah"; 1 Nephi 19:10

   <snip>

I'm completely not interesting in debating doctrine with people who don't even believe in God. Have that conversation with someone else, please. One place to pursue this might be www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com. The topic here is the wisdom (or lack thereof) of reading scriptures and asking God to show himself to you.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2011, 09:13:27 PM by fizixgeek »

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4658
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #117 on: July 25, 2011, 06:35:31 AM »
Then why are you here?
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6775
  • Darwins +543/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #118 on: July 25, 2011, 07:13:11 AM »
I'm completely not interesting in debating doctrine with people who don't even believe in God.
I am sure that your statement here will come as puzzle to many members. 12Monkeys's question requires an answer. I would be obliged if, bearing in mind that the vast majority here have no belief in deities, you would respond cogently.

Quote
The topic here is the wisdom (or lack thereof) of reading scriptures and asking God to show himself to you.
I think this would have been a relevant observation, but only to someone who had not read the title of the thread.

As your use of the word "scriptures" will, for you at least, include the passages quoted by ElliotViolin. Are you simply stating that those passages, although true, have no bearing on (A) the the wisdom of reading scripture and also (B) asking God to reveal Himself?

GB Mod
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 07:14:51 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2700
  • Darwins +78/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #119 on: July 25, 2011, 07:45:06 AM »
So Fizixgeek, let me see if I got this straight...

1) You want us to pray, to some vague notion of a god whose attributes can be made up as we go along, for understanding while we read the scriptures. That by doing so this god would open our minds to better understand his message. That we would strive to become better people. Correct me if I am wrong but you never specifically said which scriptures either.

2) According to your response to Elliot we can not ask you any questions about the scriptures we read.

You are the worst salesman ever.

I'm completely not interesting in debating doctrine with people who don't even believe in God.
If you want to preach to the choir you've come to the wrong place.
Quote
Have that conversation with someone else, please.
You are the one who started this particular conversation when you asked us to pray and read the scriptures.
Quote
One place to pursue this might be www.whatdomormonsbelieve.com.
Did you just come into our house, pick a fight then ask us to go somewhere else? Is that how you treat people in real life?
Quote
The topic here is the wisdom (or lack thereof) of reading scriptures and asking God to show himself to you.
Fine...do you think it's wise or unwise to read scriptures and ask god to show himself to you?
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 07:47:09 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 screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12573
  • Darwins +703/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #120 on: July 25, 2011, 07:59:13 AM »
Hi fiz,

I have some questions you've missed also.  I understand that Omen has been monopolozing your time, but if you could get back to me on these points, I'd appreciate it.

I wrote:

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?



"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?  


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?

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

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 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?
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 #121 on: July 25, 2011, 08:13:12 AM »
Quote
I'm completely not interesting in debating doctrine with people who don't even believe in God.

That's too bad. We're stake holders in civil societies that are greatly effected by church dogma and it's effect on the behaviour of people who do believe in the corresponding deity, or deities (of course, I would say it is implicitly a bottom-up process, in some ways).

You are only one man, though. Maybe you can bring some LDS reinforcements with you next visit? Pray on it.

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 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 #122 on: July 25, 2011, 08:20:41 AM »
Quote
I'm completely not interesting in debating doctrine with people who don't even believe in God.

That's too bad. We're stake holders in civil societies that are greatly effected by church dogma and it's effect on the behaviour of people who do believe in the corresponding deity, or deities (of course, I would say it is implicitly a bottom-up process, in some ways).

You are only one man, though. Maybe you can bring some LDS reinforcements with you next visit? Pray on it.


Or even better, since prayer can move mountains, or even just inform the spirit, perhaps he can pray for an argument that can actually convince us.
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 pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #123 on: July 25, 2011, 08:27:51 AM »
Or even better, since prayer can move mountains, or even just inform the spirit, perhaps he can pray for an argument that can actually convince us.

Why even bother with a middleman?  He can just pray for us to spontaneously convert.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline 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 #124 on: July 25, 2011, 08:38:54 AM »
Or even better, since prayer can move mountains, or even just inform the spirit, perhaps he can pray for an argument that can actually convince us.

Why even bother with a middleman?  He can just pray for us to spontaneously convert.

Unh unh, freewill is non-negotiable. Even though Omniscience completely negates it, but just lets ignore that for now.
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 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 #125 on: July 25, 2011, 09:38:52 AM »
I'm completely not interesting in debating doctrine with people who don't even believe in God.
I am sure that your statement here will come as puzzle to many members. 12Monkeys's question requires an answer. I would be obliged if, bearing in mind that the vast majority here have no belief in deities, you would respond cogently.

I think this would have been a relevant observation, but only to someone who had not read the title of the thread.

As your use of the word "scriptures" will, for you at least, include the passages quoted by ElliotViolin. Are you simply stating that those passages, although true, have no bearing on (A) the the wisdom of reading scripture and also (B) asking God to reveal Himself?

GB Mod


What I mean is that I'm only interested in answering sincere questions. Elliot doesn't have any real problem with Jesus and Satan being brothers. He doesn't believe in either. He just copied and pasted from exmormon.org. I don't feel any obligation to respond to a question he took so little thought to ask and cares about not at all. Instead, I've been meaning to respond to screwtape...
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 09:40:39 AM by fizixgeek »

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 #126 on: July 25, 2011, 11:01:48 AM »
I did want to get to these, but, like you said, I've been busy.
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?
I've been meaning to address the negative result. I hope this will answer jetson's question and a few others as well.

I'd like to first say that I am not in any way officially representing anything--the LDS church, Christianity as a whole, God, etc.--just myself. If you have studied and prayed for some period (a few weeks of diligent study I think is good) and you did so with the sincere intent to follow what you find, then you have satisfied your end of the bargain. At that point, it's God's obligation to demonstrate His existence to you. It's not your job to will yourself into believing. It's God's job to give you the knowledge that He exists. It takes time, but it doesn't require self-delusion. God's promise is that you will know He exists. I don't know exactly how he will show you.

My belief in God has built up slowly. I have had lots of experiences where the Holy Spirit guided me to good things. With few exceptions, any one of these experiences I could dismiss as a coincidence in isolation. But, taken together, they form a strong inductive "proof" that God exists, loves me, hears my prayers and knows how to lead me to happiness.

Quote

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.
That's certainly unfair. I think I've done well sticking to one definition, but nobody's perfect (present company excepted). If you have objections to specific things I've said, I'd be glad to hear about it.
Quote

"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? 

 
This is what I'm trying to say in that blog post. Faith, meaning access to the evidence of things you can't see with your eyes, is critical because it empowers us to not only hear God's will for us, but to follow it. There is a story in the Book of Mormon about 4 brothers. One of them, Nephi, has great faith, meaning that he easily hears what God is saying even when he can't see it with his eyes. A few of the others, in particular the one named Laman, do not. Through several events, God gives commandments to do some hard things. Nephi follows. Laman resists. And God demonstrates his presence to then both in increasingly visible ways. But here's the lesson. Even after seeing great manifestations making the presence of God undeniable, Laman still does not obey. It's not his habit. When we learn something with our eyes, we sometimes follow that knowledge. But, when we learn something via the Holy Spirit, we are much more likely to obey because faith gives us power to obey. So, I submit that the reason god does not provide visible evidence of his presence is to make us listen to the Holy Spirit.
Quote

Consider this: whom does blind faith benefit?

A question well worth considering. There are plenty of people using concepts of god to get rich, oppress people and "grind the face of the poor". It's critical, when you begin tuning in to your spiritual sources of truth, that you don't turn off your brain. I realize we're not talking about the Mormon church specifically here, but it's important to know that clergy in the Mormon church are not paid. When you go to a Mormon service, the man running the meeting is a volunteer. So is everyone speaking and teaching. I think you'll agree it's a better way to run a church.
Quote

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.

I realize now that was a quote from Screwtape himself. Someone else brought up the fact that miracles are more scarce these days, but I don't think that's necessarily true. We have a record of several hundred miracles in a few thousand years. That's not a high rate at all. Live baseball is going to seem a terrible bore if all you've ever done is watch Play of the Day on Sportscenter.
Quote
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?
The reference is Acts 17:29. We've been talking this whole time about how God communicates with us. Sometimes it's through the scriptures. The way to discover whether Luke was just making it up is to read Acts and pray for God to make the truth of it know to you. When you do so, make sure you really intend to follow what you read there. God will not answer a purely academic question.
Quote

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.
I really meant what I said and I'm not shy about saying that God cannot wave a magic wand and make you perfect. You can decide whether or not its worth pursuing a God who treats you more like a son than a piece of clay.
Quote

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

I guess I'm using "spiritual" to mean the things that we learn through this alternate epistemology that I've been talking about. When you begin listening to God, you begin to notice the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is something you feel more than hear and it often accompanies hearing or reading truth about God or your relationship to Him. It's hard to describe. People have called it a "burning" in your "bosom." Paul said it is accompanied by love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, etc. But, it's something you have to learn to recognize and associate with truth. Do you think such a thing is possible?
Quote

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 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?
These are very good reasons not to trust any belief system that requires you to listen without independent verification. I think you'll grant that, even without God, humans have found plenty of stupid reasons to do cruel and malicious things to one another. Here's an example.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 11:03:29 AM by fizixgeek »

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 #127 on: July 25, 2011, 11:10:15 AM »
These are very good reasons not to trust any belief system that requires you to listen without independent verification.

Everything about your inconsistent beliefs requires us to forgo independent verification.  It is as impossible to get a warranted informative and coherent basis for it as it is to separate it from make believe.  Even if it were true, there would exist no means of knowing it to be true because you're argument makes knowledge meaningless.
"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 #128 on: July 25, 2011, 11:12:51 AM »
I'm completely not interesting in debating doctrine with people who don't even believe in God.

Then you are not interested in arguing that your superstitious beliefs are consistent.

Quote
  The topic here is the wisdom

Your topic changes as fast as you can make another red herring or shift the goal post.

Quote
(or lack thereof) of reading scriptures and asking God to show himself to you.

Again, this presumes that there is a message to be understood without explanation.  First you need to argue that your claim reasonably follows from the text your deriving it from.  Hence, the logic has to follow from presentation to explanation, plus you have to argue in the affirmative as to why one would even bother in the first place without evidence to suggest that it may be true.
"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 #129 on: July 25, 2011, 11:17:39 AM »
What I mean is that I'm only interested in answering sincere questions.


So you mean to say my questions aren’t “sincere” either?  How will you go about proving that, FG?  It seems just one more bit of false witness about people.  Doesn’t your god hate that?

I’m asking you again, in that your magic formula for getting God’s attention has failed in case after case, why does that happen?  Are you willing to admit that you and your claims are simply wrong?  Or will you go ahead making the same claims again and again, taking refuge in, not even willful ignorance, but intentional lies to keep your religion intact?


"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 Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #130 on: July 25, 2011, 11:21:32 AM »
What I mean is that I'm only interested in answering sincere questions.

Sincere question = Anything that require fiz to fulfill the burden of proof for ANY claim he makes.
"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 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 #131 on: July 25, 2011, 11:22:09 AM »
I'm completely not interesting in debating doctrine with people who don't even believe in God.

Then you are not interested in arguing that your superstitious beliefs are consistent.

Elliot had nothing in there suggesting inconsistency. He didn't bother to do anything beyong cut and paste from some theist's website.
Quote
Quote
(or lack thereof) of reading scriptures and asking God to show himself to you.

Again, this presumes that there is a message to be understood without explanation.  First you need to argue that your claim reasonably follows from the text your deriving it from.  Hence, the logic has to follow from presentation to explanation, plus you have to argue in the affirmative as to why one would even bother in the first place without evidence to suggest that it may be true.

Wait, are you refuting my assertion that "The topic here is the wisdom (or lack thereof) of reading scriptures and asking God to show himself to you"? How much proof does that require and is it really important enough to debate? A wise man once said, "The forum is not about the forum."

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 #132 on: July 25, 2011, 11:27:06 AM »
What I mean is that I'm only interested in answering sincere questions.


So you mean to say my questions aren’t “sincere” either?  How will you go about proving that, FG?  It seems just one more bit of false witness about people.  Doesn’t your god hate that?

I’m asking you again, in that your magic formula for getting God’s attention has failed in case after case, why does that happen?  Are you willing to admit that you and your claims are simply wrong?  Or will you go ahead making the same claims again and again, taking refuge in, not even willful ignorance, but intentional lies to keep your religion intact?

I didn't mean to ignore your questions. I didn't miss them because I believe you are insincere. I'm just busy.

I tried to address the idea of a negative result in my post to screwtape. Let me add that someone else's claim of a negative result does not disprove the existence of God to you any more than my positive result proves to you that He exists. The only way to know is to try it yourself.

Also, I'd be glad to address the claim that God "hates" someone. That would be a serious challenge to the self-consistency of my theistic viewpoint. I realize that discussion can get very emotional, but lay it on me.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #133 on: July 25, 2011, 11:36:31 AM »
I'd be glad to address the claim that God "hates" someone.

Relax, don't worry about that... since you say you're very busy, let me take care of this one for you.

Malachi 1:2-3:  "I have loved you," says the LORD. "But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' "Was not Esau Jacob's brother?" the LORD says. "Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals."

Since I haven't yet read as much of the bible as I should, that's the only one I know of offhand, but I'd be willing to bet a million dollars that there are quite a few other places where Yahweh says that he hates someone.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

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 #134 on: July 25, 2011, 11:36:52 AM »
Elliot had nothing in there suggesting inconsistency. He didn't bother to do anything beyong cut and paste from some theist's website.

Challenging the premises of your belief system is a direct and valid criticism against the consistency of your belief system.  Your belief system claims a history that occurred on the North American continent that contradicts known facts.  Elliot pointed this out as well as other problems, ending with:

What do you think of that? These are all doctrines of your faith, revealed as you have been brainwashed after years. New converts are never told these because they sound ridiculous and would dissuade them from converting.

How on earth are any of these premises more true than Scientology, Catholicism, Islam, Baha'i etc...


Which you dutifully ignored, because like I pointed out before: You are simply arguing from a presuppositional position that is patently dishonest and avoids all burden of proof for your claims.  Your beliefs are not presumed consistent, you have to actually argue in the affirmative that they are and you are not.  You are also ignoring direct challenges to the consistency of your claims.  You also ignored the same problem I pointed out days ago:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,19491.msg432055.html#msg432055


Quote
According to the book of Mormon, a people of which no record or evidence exists of, settled in a land where native americans were already present and populated throughout.  The book of mormon also claims that horses were present, when horses were not brought to america until the 1600s.  This would also include cattle, which is also mentioned and again not present until the thousands of years later.  No major animal group is shown to be domesticated in the archaeological record.

The same goes for goats, swine, crops of barley, crops of wheat, and not to mention silk .. which of course was entirely unknown to anyone on the american continent.

on and on and on.

Again, you don't get to simply ignore inconsistencies related to your belief system and presume it to be consistent unchallenged.  This is another fine example of the evasive and obfuscating behavior that you can't seem to recognize when you do so.

Quote
Quote
First you need to argue that your claim reasonably follows from the text your deriving it from.  Hence, the logic has to follow from presentation to explanation, plus you have to argue in the affirmative as to why one would even bother in the first place without evidence to suggest that it may be true.

How much proof does that require and is it really important enough to debate?

Your question is answered in the paragraph, are you too stupid to understand or dishonestly pretending to be as dumb as fucking rock?

You are arguing from a presupposed series of assumptions that you never argue for in the affirmative.  Your 'consistency' is presupposed into the discussion and you refuse to address the lack of consistency when it comes down to your belief system.  You also offer pleading dismissals and obfuscating red herrings whenever someone refuses to allow you to continue to play this game.  Even a request for clarification or even a question that would demand you be more coherent then you are results in an evasive and dodging behavior.

Your beliefs are not consistent enough to be understood, much less to be presumed as true for everyone else unquestioningly.  Your sophistry reduces the ability to 'know' to a valueless qualification that makes it impossible to know anything.  In the place of not being able to know, you impose pleaded qualifications ( through special pleading fallacy ) as if those pleaded qualifiers need to be considered without explanation.  Asking you to argue in the affirmative of those dishonestly pleaded qualifications leads to more obfuscating bullshit.

Round and round we go.

Mods? Hello?
"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 #135 on: July 25, 2011, 11:41:12 AM »
That would be a serious challenge to the self-consistency of my theistic viewpoint.

The lack of horses in North America challenge the consistency of your superstitious mythology.

Your type of dishonest argument can be broken down as thus:

1. Presume the coherence and truth value of a claim.
2. Argue that the coherence and truth value of the claim can be known if you engage in a criteria that again you presume the coherence and truth value for.
3. Ignore, obfuscate, and dodge any burden of proof for 1 or 2.
4. Conclude upon the coherence and true value of your claim.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 11:46:55 AM by Omen »
"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 Avatar Of Belial

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • Darwins +30/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm not an Evil person; I just act like one!
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #136 on: July 25, 2011, 11:49:03 AM »
When you begin listening to God, you begin to notice the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is something you feel more than hear and it often accompanies hearing or reading truth about God or your relationship to Him. It's hard to describe. People have called it a "burning" in your "bosom."

Are you sure this isn't heartburn?

The only way to know is to try it yourself.

Now, this is one of those problems that keeps coming up. It's anecdotal. "Try it yourself" is always dangerous as a means to figure out the truth of something.

If you get a positive result, are you sure you interpreted it correctly? There are many things that could influence your interpretation (or the outcome itself). From the less-than-smart (drugs/shrooms/other hallucinogenics) to simple wishful thinking. The mind has a bad habit of filling in blanks that it really should leave well enough alone.

Seriously, if your "bosom" is "burning", you might need some heartburn medicine.
"You play make-believe every day of your life, and yet you have no concept of 'imagination'."
I do not have "faith" in science. I have expectations of science. "Faith" in something is an unfounded assertion, whereas reasonable expectations require a precedent.

Offline 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4658
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #137 on: July 25, 2011, 11:52:57 AM »
I as a North American Indian am DEEPLY offended by the LDS stance on why we were here in N.A. Science does not back it up and NIETHER do our creation stories. 
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Offline 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 #138 on: July 25, 2011, 11:56:54 AM »
I tried to address the idea of a negative result in my post to screwtape. Let me add that someone else's claim of a negative result does not disprove the existence of God to you any more than my positive result proves to you that He exists. The only way to know is to try it yourself.

Also, I'd be glad to address the claim that God "hates" someone. That would be a serious challenge to the self-consistency of my theistic viewpoint. I realize that discussion can get very emotional, but lay it on me.

Again, again, again: internal consistency is nothing compared with consistency with the external world and the hypothesis being falsifiable. "Just a feeling" is hardly a method of seperating the true and the false.
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 12 Monkeys

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4658
  • Darwins +106/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • Dii hau dang ijii
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #139 on: July 25, 2011, 11:58:48 AM »
Fizix....... ever notice your image of God is exactly what you think it is? God is never negative in any way shape or form  TO YOU!!! even though your scripture says otherwise. God is ALWAYS evil to your enemies,but never to you.  Why do you think that is? SPAG,every denomination has it,and it is always what they think it will be. God always has a way of punishing his believers,remember the flood.
There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

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 #140 on: July 25, 2011, 12:38:55 PM »
I tried to address the idea of a negative result in my post to screwtape. Let me add that someone else's claim of a negative result does not disprove the existence of God to you any more than my positive result proves to you that He exists. The only way to know is to try it yourself.
 
Okay, I’ll look at that attempt.
Quote
I'd like to first say that I am not in any way officially representing anything--the LDS church, Christianity as a whole, God, etc.--just myself. If you have studied and prayed for some period (a few weeks of diligent study I think is good) and you did so with the sincere intent to follow what you find, then you have satisfied your end of the bargain. At that point, it's God's obligation to demonstrate His existence to you. It's not your job to will yourself into believing. It's God's job to give you the knowledge that He exists. It takes time, but it doesn't require self-delusion. God's promise is that you will know He exists. I don't know exactly how he will show you.
  which pretty much doesn’t work with what you said.  Now, we get that oh you aren’t speaking for anyone, just yourself.  Funny how that works when you’ve actually been held accountable for what you say.  Suddenly from speaking authoritatively as if you do represent your faith and religion, now you don’t.  FG, I have studied and prayed and this still fails.  You fail, FG.  Your god doesn’t do anything.  You want to now put the responsibility on it to contact me and now we get the usual Christian dodge of “but we can’t understand god’s purposes”.  What a cop-out, FG and I’ve seen it again and again. It’s been about 25 years since I lost my religion and prayed to God to help me keep it.  I’ve been a student of religion for all of that time, for DECADES.  And I’ve yet to see this god of yours.  So, why is this FG?  What new excuse will you come up with?   

Quote
Also, I'd be glad to address the claim that God "hates" someone. That would be a serious challenge to the self-consistency of my theistic viewpoint. I realize that discussion can get very emotional, but lay it on me.
Hmmm, one more Christian ignorant of their bible?  Your bible says repeatedly that God hates liars. Not just lies, but liars.  And I’m sure it does offer a serious challenge to your theistic viewpoint since, as so many others, you make up what you believe in.   
"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 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 #141 on: July 25, 2011, 01:23:16 PM »
I as a North American Indian am DEEPLY offended by the LDS stance on why we were here in N.A. Science does not back it up and NIETHER do our creation stories.

Hi 12 Monkeys,
I can appreciate that. A reading of the Book of Mormon might reveal the high respect with which its writers regard Native Americans. Also, when you consider that only a small portion of the inhabitants of NA were part of the Book of Mormon civilization, the science doesn't seem so contradictory.
-FG

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 #142 on: July 25, 2011, 01:24:05 PM »
That would be a serious challenge to the self-consistency of my theistic viewpoint.

The lack of horses in North America challenge the consistency of your superstitious mythology.

Your type of dishonest argument can be broken down as thus:

1. Presume the coherence and truth value of a claim.
2. Argue that the coherence and truth value of the claim can be known if you engage in a criteria that again you presume the coherence and truth value for.
3. Ignore, obfuscate, and dodge any burden of proof for 1 or 2.
4. Conclude upon the coherence and true value of your claim.

If I can show you there were horses in NA before 1600, will you read the Book of Mormon? Let's get you some skin in the game!

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 #143 on: July 25, 2011, 01:26:15 PM »
Also, when you consider that only a small portion of the inhabitants of NA were part of the Book of Mormon civilization

What mormon civilization?

Quote
, the science doesn't seem so contradictory.

Except for that whole elements of myth that contradict science part.
"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 HAL

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5017
  • Darwins +98/-17
  • Gender: Male
Re: I will not prove God exists
« Reply #144 on: July 25, 2011, 01:26:58 PM »
If I can show you there were horses in NA before 1600, will you read the Book of Mormon? Let's get you some skin in the game!

I'll read it if you can show me where Kolob is.