Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 50172 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #522 on: February 20, 2014, 06:22:36 PM »
There seem to be three groups, as (ill-)(re-)defined by Jesuis:
 
1) theists-- apparently this category is made up only of prophets or mystics who know god personally; they have god's cell number, are Facebook friends with god, they hang out with god at the bowling alley, they can tell you god's zodiac sign, they have a beer with god on Friday nights. So there are not very many theists, according to Jesuis. Only a handful of folks like Jesus, Buddha, L. Ron Hubbard, Muhammed, Moses, Joseph Smith, Zoroaster, and Mary Baker Eddy. [1]

2) followers of theists-- members of the various religious denominations who think that the theists of their particular cultural background are correct, although they themselves have no first-hand information about god or his shoe size. They are willing to listen for hours while their favorite  theist goes on and on about god's holy sleep apnea.

3) atheists--folks who, like the followers, don't have any first-hand info about gods. But unlike the followers, they don't believe the theist knows any gods, either.  Atheists are, in other words, ordinary rational thinkers.[2]

The possibility of there not being any gods to know (meaning that the situation of the atheists is the only reasonable one, because theists as he has defined them are simply nuckin' futs, and their followers are being misled by crazy people) has apparently not occurred to Jesuis.
 1. We are getting even fewer theists nowadays than ever before. It could be because we are nearing the endtimes. But it's probably because we have become better at diagnosing frontal lobe epilepsy, schizophrenia, fictional status..... and fraud.
 2. This is, presumably because no gods have chosen to show up and introduce themselves to anyone not suffering from frontal lobe epilepsy, schizophrenia, fictional status... or fraud.

A theist knows God and is therefore not concerned with the names "we give them". We may call them prophets, mystics or Messiahs but that is not the nature of knowing. We can use the method they teach to know what they know. An atheist knows he does not know and knows he does not follow the method taught and knows he has no teacher.

According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #523 on: February 20, 2014, 06:29:00 PM »
Notice how you imply that ParkingPlaces said "Atheists assume there is a God", when, in fact, ParkingPlaces said "The atheists among us assume that there is no god".  That was what I was hoping you would see.
Meaning what exactly.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2101
  • Darwins +375/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #524 on: February 20, 2014, 06:35:48 PM »
REALLY???!?!?!??!?

Notice how you imply that ParkingPlaces said "Atheists assume there is a God", when, in fact, ParkingPlaces said "The atheists among us assume that there is no god".  That was what I was hoping you would see.
Meaning what exactly.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12501
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #525 on: February 20, 2014, 06:47:10 PM »
My original language was banned by the slave masters generations ago out of fear that my ancestors would take up arms against them.

What language was that?

And what prevented you from properly learning English?

I've heard better English in China town than from this guy.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #526 on: February 20, 2014, 08:46:22 PM »
REALLY???!?!?!??!?

Notice how you imply that ParkingPlaces said "Atheists assume there is a God", when, in fact, ParkingPlaces said "The atheists among us assume that there is no god".  That was what I was hoping you would see.
Meaning what exactly.
I was talking about the underlined bit
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6466
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #527 on: February 20, 2014, 09:30:35 PM »
Okay, I think I get it.

Theists know god, whether he exists or not, and the superior process that they use to reach that conclusion makes them better than atheists, who lack a sophisticated mechanism for conjuring up excuses and irrational thoughts, since that's not how we roll.

Theists,who can't tell their a** from a hole in the ground, at least use structured thought processes, however erroneous, when making stuff up, thanks to their teachers, and that makes them better than us.

So the process is more important than the conclusion, and the lack of absolute certainty dooms atheists to always being wrong about why they are right.

Am I getting warm?

Added: I tried to use some poor english to make it easier for you to read, Jesuis. I hope you appreciate that.




« Last Edit: February 20, 2014, 09:32:11 PM by ParkingPlaces »
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #528 on: February 20, 2014, 10:12:39 PM »
Okay, I think I get it.

Theists know god, whether he exists or not, and the superior process that they use to reach that conclusion makes them better than atheists, who lack a sophisticated mechanism for conjuring up excuses and irrational thoughts, since that's not how we roll.

Theists,who can't tell their a** from a hole in the ground, at least use structured thought processes, however erroneous, when making stuff up, thanks to their teachers, and that makes them better than us.

So the process is more important than the conclusion, and the lack of absolute certainty dooms atheists to always being wrong about why they are right.

Am I getting warm?

Added: I tried to use some poor english to make it easier for you to read, Jesuis. I hope you appreciate that.
I do not think so.

I like the warmness. Thanks for trying to sound like me - but there is no need. Just be yourself.

Theists are not making anyone better than anyone else. To thine ownself be true is a human birth right. Intellect applied in the moment of every moment - the most consciously aware of their minds intent.

The mounting evidence that less and less know God means they are not doing the method that helps them in that goal.

"If" we want to "know God" then We need to find "the theist", use "the scientific method" he is teaching, and discover the truths for ourselves. It is a Master Disciple Relationship. 

No one is any better than any other.


PS As atheists we know there is no God. We are not looking for God. We have no such need. We have an intellect that when it has been shown evidence we can choose the path we want.

People who hear a Theist and are drawn to him, want to know what he knows.
The parable of the sower takes place. And it has got nothing to do with us.
 
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2524
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #529 on: February 21, 2014, 03:38:30 AM »
I sort of agree with Jesuis, this thread has somewhat lost its way. We were supposed to be considering the probabilities of the existence of a god. So far we have achieved -

1. the atheists here pointed out that there is no evidence to support the idea of there being an existing god

2. Jesuis continually saying there is a god and pointing us to books. (sorry, Jesuis, if this is an abbreviation of your views.)

To move on we need some evidence of any god and, Jesuis needs to produce it. Please just pop down the three best bits of evidence for god, Jesuis, in your own words so we can start to discuss them.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #530 on: February 21, 2014, 07:40:09 PM »
I sort of agree with Jesuis, this thread has somewhat lost its way. We were supposed to be considering the probabilities of the existence of a god. So far we have achieved -

1. the atheists here pointed out that there is no evidence to support the idea of there being an existing god

2. Jesuis continually saying there is a god and pointing us to books. (sorry, Jesuis, if this is an abbreviation of your views.)

To move on we need some evidence of any god and, Jesuis needs to produce it. Please just pop down the three best bits of evidence for god, Jesuis, in your own words so we can start to discuss them.

On this thread I was actually pointing out that there is a probability base on the writing of Karen Armstrong and Robert J Spitzer.
But I keep getting dragged into defending myself and my character and not the arguments made by these people in their books. Why is that? Why my character or my English. Why not Karen says ----- or Robert J Spitzer says.... I conclude that it is not the debate they are after but the trashing or character assassination that they are intent on doing.

This is part of the blurb on the back cover of the book "The Case For God" by Karen Armstrong.

"There is wide spread confusion about the nature of religious truth.  For the first time in history, a significantly large number of people want nothing to do with God. Militant Atheists preach a gospel of godlessness and find an eager audience. What has happened?
Tracing the history of faith from the palaeolithic age to the present, Karen Armstrong shows that the meaning of the words such as "Belief" "Faith", and "Mystery" has been entirely altered, so that atheist and theists alike now think and speak about God and reason in a way that our ancestors would have found astonishing. " 

Join me on my thread "Theists know God and Atheists don't. to help work out the meaning of the words that have changed over time. Or lets engage in the probabilities of Gods existence as pointed out by the authors of these books.
1. The case for God
2. New proofs for the existence of God
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2524
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #531 on: February 22, 2014, 06:11:52 AM »
Jesuis,

The problems with the words are ones which we have had for a long time and must be something that happens in a lot of languages. Certainly 'belief' and 'faith' are often discussed in these forums but some posters deliberately or not, use the various meanings of these words to help their cause. For example 'belief'. Consider the following -

I believe me car with start this morning because, ever since I bought it, it has started first time.

I believe god will take me to heaven when I die and give me 70 virgins.

Now in the first case, belief is based on facts - facts that could be checked. My car might not start but this is not that likely. In the case of the second sentence, the subject is believing something that can never be checked, has nothing to substantiate it and so on. Belief can mean trusting something with no evidence or trusting something because of lots of evidence that something is true. So here we have a classic case of words getting in the way of understanding.

Anyway, I don't have a copy of either of the books you mention so I can't comment on them. However, if you could outline some of the evidence we could all discuss it. Could you do that?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #532 on: February 22, 2014, 03:23:37 PM »
 
When we buy a second hand old banger. We believe it would start when we turn the key.

The day it stops starting the belief changes.

We buy a new car - we believe that the car will start every time we turn the key.

If every time we turn the key it works then we have faith in it.

As humans we need belief first. If the things we believe does not pan out we change it, but not for something worse. We keep seeking something better that works for us. We do not want to be hassled.

The more evolved amongst us seek peace compassion human unity conscious awareness.

The probabilities of God's existence is how we analyse the cases made for God's existence by the men who teach that there is a God.

Their agenda is one of peace, love and human unity. It is about non violence, truth, conscious awareness.

If we adopt these values in our lives we would realise they only seek the human evolution -- angels if nothing else.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 03:27:14 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12501
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #533 on: February 22, 2014, 03:33:13 PM »
^so full of shit. And more evidence you're a theist.

Religious texts, many of them, advocate those things through violent means. It's a hypocritical contradiction. It's hatred through fictional peace, love, and unity.

You don't fool any of us with your nonsense.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2524
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #534 on: February 22, 2014, 03:34:24 PM »

<snip.

The probabilities of God's existence is how we analyse the cases made for God's existence by the men who teach that there is a God.

Their agenda is one of peace, love and human unity. It is about non violence, truth, conscious awareness.

If we adopt these values in our lives we would realise they only seek the human evolution -- angels if nothing else.

Really? Non-violence? Are you sure? Perhaps you have not seen the new lately and noticed the Christians and the Muslims killing each other? Maybe you haven't noticed the Muslim suicide bombers at various times. Either way that's not necessarily the message of preachers and it certainly isn't the example given the the holy books of these religions. The OT god, for example, thinks nothing of instructing the killing of a whole town - save the virgins, of course, the use of the men. Not a good example I think.

Moreover, who has anything concrete to teach about any god? It seem that we have holy books and the traditions that come with them together with the stories of people who claim god had answered a prayer or let them see the Virgin Mary in their toast. not exactly knowledge - not exactly convincing either. So, no to this one.

Religions anyway aren't about knowledge but about faith which is best defined as "believing something even when there is no evidence for it." I'm sure you will agree that for anything to do with an afterlife this is a completely accurate description.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #535 on: February 22, 2014, 03:45:39 PM »
To paraphrase Victor Stenger: "If we're going to calculate the odds of a universe with a god and a universe without one, we'd have to have numbers for both".

what are the odds of an unobservable, invisible, untestable being existing? the answer is "Improper Syntax".

If we're arguing for the existence of god we have to argue necessity, we can not argue likelihood
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #536 on: February 22, 2014, 03:48:55 PM »
If we're arguing for the existence of god we have to argue necessity, we can not argue likelihood

I can argue certainty. Wanna see me do it?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #537 on: February 22, 2014, 03:58:08 PM »
^so full of shit. And more evidence you're a theist.

Religious texts, many of them, advocate those things through violent means. It's a hypocritical contradiction. It's hatred through fictional peace, love, and unity.

You don't fool any of us with your nonsense.

-Nam

I am not trying to fool anyone - nor am I trying to impress you. Just in case you have not noticed.

I was told that everyone finds what they are looking for. Some seek peace some seek violence. Some seek a Higgs Boson.

The theists teach one thing and some say the theists said something else.

One has to know the intent of the one is saying the teacher said this or that.

It is the intent is one of being bad - he has that dominant activity and claims the theists said that. So he can do it.

and if another person with a good intent has that activity in his nature is doing good wherever he goes - he says that the theist says do this.

Many people want to claim the theist told them to do something bad or good perhaps to impress others. When in reality the Theist had one agenda to raise the

mindset of the human beings in the environment.

The probabilities of God's Existence is in how we make that case. For good or for bad. Our intent is our nature.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #538 on: February 22, 2014, 04:00:00 PM »
If we're arguing for the existence of god we have to argue necessity, we can not argue likelihood

I can argue certainty. Wanna see me do it?

If it involves you stating that you are either certain that there is a god or certain that there isn't, it's not going to be very compelling. 
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2524
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #539 on: February 22, 2014, 04:06:28 PM »

<snip>

The probabilities of God's Existence is in how we make that case. For good or for bad. Our intent is our nature.

Sorry, Jesuis, but no! Definitely no!  Either a god exists or it does not. Just like you either exist or you do not. That you have posted messages and I have answered them suggests we both exist though it is possible someone else posted on our behalf. That's how the word works - something either exists or it does not (Schroedinger's cat excepted of course) . The same applies to gods - they can't be like the cat,l existing and not-existing at the same time. Most gods are supposed to have created the earth / world/ cosmos/ universe and that sort of task cannot be carried out by something that doesn't exist.

The next thing to say about existing is that existence is not dependant on who starts looking. All along, if one person finds a god, another person ought to be able to find the same god assuming the method was given to them by the first person. Certainly it should not depend on who looks because if it does it strongly suggests that the god is located in the neurons of the person looking and has not other existence.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #540 on: February 22, 2014, 04:13:13 PM »
If it involves you stating that you are either certain that there is a god or certain that there isn't, it's not going to be very compelling. 

Those are conclusions; not arguments.
My argument is simple. A god (but not necessarily one worthy of worship) is omnipotent and omniscient. The omnipotence paradoxWiki effectively destroys any hope of "true" omnipotence. You could claim that a god can do anything that can be done, but, in that event, it isn't truly omnipotent. Moving on to omniscience, a true omniscient would be able to see past, present, and future. In short, it should know everything. Could an omniscient being know how to create something it doesn't know? If it does, it's not omniscient, since it doesn't know the thing it can create. If it doesn't, it's not omniscient, since it doesn't know how to create things it doesn't know. Must I move on to a omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god? Because that one's easy (or, to be more precise, easier than the previous problems with gods).
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #541 on: February 22, 2014, 04:26:44 PM »
If it involves you stating that you are either certain that there is a god or certain that there isn't, it's not going to be very compelling. 

Those are conclusions; not arguments.
My argument is simple. A god (but not necessarily one worthy of worship) is omnipotent and omniscient. The omnipotence paradoxWiki effectively destroys any hope of "true" omnipotence. You could claim that a god can do anything that can be done, but, in that event, it isn't truly omnipotent. Moving on to omniscience, a true omniscient would be able to see past, present, and future. In short, it should know everything. Could an omniscient being know how to create something it doesn't know? If it does, it's not omniscient, since it doesn't know the thing it can create. If it doesn't, it's not omniscient, since it doesn't know how to create things it doesn't know. Must I move on to a omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent god? Because that one's easy (or, to be more precise, easier than the previous problems with gods).

I've never understood the compulsion on the part of believers and theologians to use terms like omniscient and omnipotent. what would that even mean?

I think what you're demonstrating here is, not that God is paradoxical, but that omniscience and omnipotence are paradoxical. How could a being know what is unknowable?

I think these ideas spring from theologians and apologists need to thin of God as being "the best" as opposed to trying to determine what it "is". they dislike thinking of god as having limitations because they thin that that somehow makes god "less perfect" (whatever that means).

In my view; if there is a God and that God is a being, then that being has a nature by which it is limited. 
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #542 on: February 22, 2014, 04:32:22 PM »
I've never understood the compulsion on the part of believers and theologians to use terms like omniscient and omnipotent. what would that even mean?

They mean exactly what their etymology shows: that a being knows everything and can do everything.

I think what you're demonstrating here is, not that God is paradoxical, but that omniscience and omnipotence are paradoxical. How could a being know what is unknowable?

Given that gods are defined using those terms, then gods are also paradoxical.

I think these ideas spring from theologians and apologists need to thin of God as being "the best" as opposed to trying to determine what it "is". they dislike thinking of god as having limitations because they thin that that somehow makes god "less perfect" (whatever that means).

There's no such thing as degrees of perfection. A being is either perfect or it's not.

In my view; if there is a God and that God is a being, then that being has a nature by which it is limited. 

If your definition of "god" is a limited being, we have nothing to discuss. Limitations do not agree with me when it comes to defining the most powerful being in all of existence.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #543 on: February 22, 2014, 04:51:02 PM »
Really? Non-violence? Are you sure? Perhaps you have not seen the new lately and noticed the Christians and the Muslims killing each other? Maybe you haven't noticed the Muslim suicide bombers at various times. Either way that's not necessarily the message of preachers and it certainly isn't the example given the the holy books of these religions. The OT god, for example, thinks nothing of instructing the killing of a whole town - save the virgins, of course, the use of the men. Not a good example I think.

Moreover, who has anything concrete to teach about any god? It seem that we have holy books and the traditions that come with them together with the stories of people who claim god had answered a prayer or let them see the Virgin Mary in their toast. not exactly knowledge - not exactly convincing either. So, no to this one.

Religions anyway aren't about knowledge but about faith which is best defined as "believing something even when there is no evidence for it." I'm sure you will agree that for anything to do with an afterlife this is a completely accurate description.

We know the laws of Moses. Only followers of these laws are True Jews
We know the laws of Jesus.  Only the Lover of his enemy is a True Christian
We know the path of Mohammad i"Peace" be unto you. Only the True Muslim brings peace and leaves you with peace.



According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #544 on: February 22, 2014, 04:58:32 PM »
If your definition of "god" is a limited being, we have nothing to discuss. Limitations do not agree with me when it comes to defining the most powerful being in all of existence.
If evolved theists say God is Truth does that help you move forward? (Why evolved because mankind is not static - As he evolves so do the theists). Raising the bar.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #545 on: February 22, 2014, 04:59:40 PM »
If evolved theists say God is Truth does that help you move forward? (Why evolved because mankind is not static - As he evolves so do the theists). Raising the bar.

Define "Truth" and show how it's different from "truth".
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6466
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #546 on: February 22, 2014, 05:05:54 PM »
If your definition of "god" is a limited being, we have nothing to discuss. Limitations do not agree with me when it comes to defining the most powerful being in all of existence.
If evolved theists say God is Truth does that help you move forward? (Why evolved because mankind is not static - As he evolves so do the theists). Raising the bar.

It doesn't really help too much. Especially when spouted by theists who say evolution never happened.

In fact, it doesn't help at all.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6466
  • Darwins +769/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #547 on: February 22, 2014, 05:08:40 PM »
The more evolved amongst us seek peace compassion human unity conscious awareness.

I ca't speak for others, but I seek commas.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #548 on: February 22, 2014, 05:23:02 PM »
They mean exactly what their etymology shows: that a being knows everything and can do everything.

Again, how can a being that knows everything know the unknowable? To say that a being knows everything MUST be qualified. a being that knows everything knows everything that is knowable.

Given that gods are defined using those terms, then gods are also paradoxical.

Defined by whom? so far as I know, only theologians and I think they're dead wrong.


There's no such thing as degrees of perfection. A being is either perfect or it's not.

I consider the term "perfect" to be vacuous and untenable. 

If your definition of "god" is a limited being, we have nothing to discuss. Limitations do not agree with me when it comes to defining the most powerful being in all of existence.

Even here you're contradicting your self. By your own admission, a limitless being, IE: one that is omniscient and omnipotent, is impossible. If a limitless being is incapable of existing then such a being can not be perfect or "the most powerful". Hence, limitations MUST agree with you when it comes to defining the most powerful being (whatever that means) in all existence, because a limitless being is by definition impossible and thus by definition not perfect.


« Last Edit: February 22, 2014, 05:24:52 PM by Philosopher_at_large »
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #549 on: February 22, 2014, 05:24:19 PM »
If evolved theists say God is Truth does that help you move forward? (Why evolved because mankind is not static - As he evolves so do the theists). Raising the bar.

Define "Truth" and show how it's different from "truth".
God is truth. It cannot change - it always was and will always be the same.
The concept in the mind of man changes but God does not.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2524
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #550 on: February 22, 2014, 05:38:45 PM »
Really? Non-violence? Are you sure? Perhaps you have not seen the new lately and noticed the Christians and the Muslims killing each other? Maybe you haven't noticed the Muslim suicide bombers at various times. Either way that's not necessarily the message of preachers and it certainly isn't the example given the the holy books of these religions. The OT god, for example, thinks nothing of instructing the killing of a whole town - save the virgins, of course, the use of the men. Not a good example I think.

Moreover, who has anything concrete to teach about any god? It seem that we have holy books and the traditions that come with them together with the stories of people who claim god had answered a prayer or let them see the Virgin Mary in their toast. not exactly knowledge - not exactly convincing either. So, no to this one.

Religions anyway aren't about knowledge but about faith which is best defined as "believing something even when there is no evidence for it." I'm sure you will agree that for anything to do with an afterlife this is a completely accurate description.

We know the laws of Moses. Only followers of these laws are True Jews

Nearly, they are laws which the book claims to be the laws of Moses.

Quote
We know the laws of Jesus. 

No we don't - we only know what people who never met him or heard Jesus and between them cannot even manage to get the stuff the same as each other even though Mark was copied by Matthew and Luke.

Quote
Only the Lover of his enemy is a True Christian.

Is that the only thing the defines a Christian? Really?

Quote
We know the path of Mohammad i"Peace" be unto you. Only the True Muslim brings peace and leaves you with peace.

I'm not sure we do that way we hear many Muslims speak or how their Sharia Law deals with gay people, women and, or course those who leave Islam. Quite peaceful really.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)