Oh, sevenpatch I guess you didn't get the hint when I said : "For the existence of god discussion please go to : http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,21563.650.html"
Oh, Lukvance, I guess you didn’t get the hint when I said :
Every discussion about god or gods first require sufficient evidence of existence of said god or gods. Unless we are discussing a hypothetical situation. In any case my response is entirely relevant to the analogy we are discussing.
In the corrected analogy it is not clear whether the parents even exist. You are dodging the discussion, however if you insist, I will move this discussion to the probabilities of "God's" existence thread.
I meant for the purpose of moving THIS discussion along you will have to acknowledge the existence of God (even if it's only for this discussion) If you do not want to then this discussion does not make sense. How something that does not exist gives hormones and create rules?
I am very capable of having a hypothetical discussion about “God” existing (IMO any discussion about “God” is actually hypothetical anyway). No, actually, what you must acknowledge in order to move THIS discussion along is that “God” is, in addition to giving hormones and creating rules, is hiding and making reality appear as if “God” does not exist and all of the people who do believe in “God” or gods, each have their own interpretation. You will have to acknowledge that “God” is vague and mysterious and far from being clearly known to exist.
Whether “God” exists or not is always part of the equation even if “God” does in fact truly exist, because the current state of reality is that it is not clear whether “God” exists or not and if “God” does exist, why is the current state of “God’s” existence in question.
In this hypothetical scenario where the question is asked “why did God give hormones and then create rules about sexual life” the question of “God’s” existence is factored in even if “God” does exist.
We have both agreed that “God” does not make the rules, humans do. Of course you have different reasons than I do for coming to that conclusion. I have come to the conclusion that “God” is an invention of the human mind, a mere concept like other fictional concepts, and one of the many reasons for creating this concept is to explain something that we as humans don’t understand.
even if I wasn't listening, it would not matter because there would be no way for me to ignore the clear and coherent communication from "God"
That's where some people make the mistake, they assume that because God CAN then God MUST (or WILL). Did your parents never waited for you to be ready to listen to them before trying to communicate with you? (in a clear and coherent fashion)
Your response is a prime example of your mistake. You see, you think an assumption is being made that because “God” CAN then “God” MUST (or WILL), but you are thinking incorrectly. No assumption is being made, and instead a question is being asked. Actually, I’m slightly wrong, there are a few assumptions being made, the first is an assumption that “God” exists and the second is that you will comprehend the question.
It is true that “God” doesn’t HAVE to communicate and that just because “God” CAN, doesn’t mean that “God” WILL. We were already past this point, so you are backtracking. What is clear, is that “God” DOESN’T communicate clearly and coherently with everyone.
Can you understand that it is true that “God” DOES NOT clearly and coherently communicate with everyone? Yes, I know you will respond to that question that parents clearly and coherently communicate with children yet the children don’t understand. Your analogy doesn’t work though because even if the children don’t understand the clear and coherent communication, the children still know that their parents exist SO, if you are paying attention, if the children don’t know that their parents exist, then whatever means the parents are using to communicate is not clear and coherent is it? If the communication was clear and coherent, then even without proper understanding, all of the children would know that the parents exist.
Please note, this entire discussion is under the acknowledgement that the parents do exist. Will you please acknowledge that in this scenario, the parents exist yet the existence of the parents is not clear to some children. Do you understand that even if something exists, it might not actually be known to exist. THAT is one of the many questions posed here in this discussion which you are avoiding, WHY is it that the parents are not making their existence known to all of the children? Yes, I know that you will respond to that question with some bullshit about the children putting their hands over their ears. I’ve already explained that this does not work.
You are left with a very difficult question, of why doesn’t “God” allow everyone to clearly know that “God” exists and make the free will choice of loving “God” or not. Why are there so many religions? Why doesn’t your god do everything in its power to give everyone an equal chance to do what your god wants? Your answer of “just because God CAN doesn’t mean God MUST or WILL” might work but now you are describing an uncaring and unloving “God” which doesn’t differentiate itself from something that does not exist.
You see, if “God” CAN, and is a caring and loving “God” then “God” would, just like a caring and loving parent would. My actual parents weren’t perfect, they did the best they could as any other caring or loving mortal parent would. So what exactly are the abilities of your “God”? Is you “God” as limited in ability as my mortal parents? If so, then I can understand why your god is having difficulty in clear and coherent communication. I expect however that you view “God” as having vast power and knowledge, yet you insist on comparing something with vast power and knowledge with parents who have very limited power and knowledge.
Why do you insist on making this unfair comparison and expecting it to make sense?
What you are in affect doing is called “Special Pleading”. Mortal human parents are not perfect, so we can look the other way when they are at fault because they did everything they could, yet you insist that we should also look the other way when a god with vast power and knowledge is at fault. Is your god as imperfect as human mortal parents? Why should an imperfect being, entity or whatever your god is, call itself a god?
You don’t have to answer my questions, they are rhetorical and only meant to get you to start thinking for yourself instead of responding with cookie cutter non-answers fed to you by others who didn’t think for themselves.
the kid will still know that his parents exist
I don't get it. I know that God exist. The kid know that his parents exist. are you saying that the kid doesn't know the existence of his parents? or is it a question about the existence of God?
There is no question being asked about does “God” exist or not here, this discussion is about the actualities that both you and I live with today, right now. For the purposes of this discussion, let’s say that you do in fact know that “God” exists. You must also acknowledge for the purposes of this discussion that while you do know, I myself do not know that any god or gods exist. It should not be difficult for you to imagine what it is like to not know the state of existence of someone, something or someplace. For example, you don’t know if some guy in San Diego named Sandi Bigbuttkowski exists or not. Is this person real or did I just make him up. In theory, if Sandi Bigbuttkowski exists then it could easily be proven, perhaps a picture could be taken of him with his state photo ID for name verification. Sandi could introduce himself. However, if none of that could be done and you could find no evidence for the existence of Sandi Bigbuttkowski, you would be left with not knowing if Sandi Bigbuttkowski exists.
Back to the parents = “God” analogy.
So, in this analogy, some children know that their parents exist, other children do not know that their parents exist. Why is it that some children do not know that their parents exist? The only way for these children to not know is if their parents were completely absent from the lives of the children. This might be the equivalent to an orphan never knowing his or her parents and having no documentation or evidence at all of who they were. In the case of the orphan, the parents are either dead or they abandoned the child.
Look, I’ll make this easy for you and make this a multiple choice question, why do some children claim to know their parents exist, yet other children do not know their parents exist? (Pick one of the following answers from A to D )
A – The parents are sadistic and twisted, playing games with the children. The parents will let some children know of the parents existence but do it in a way that is confusing, vague and ambiguous while not letting other children know of their existence, making them think the parents don’t even exist at all. These parents are uncaring, unloving, evil and very poor parents. Child services would take the children away from these parents.
B – The parents are unable to care for the children properly and don’t even try to, thus are very poor parents and probably shouldn’t be considered parents at all.
C – The parents are dead, the children who think they know the parents exist are mistaken or perhaps delusional.
D – The parents don’t actually exist, the children who think they know the parents exist are mistaken or perhaps delusional.
Do not add an option E, unless it is viable, and it better be miles better than what you’ve offered so far. I’m already well aware of the band-aid fixes you’ll try to apply to this mile wide gaping hole of a problem regarding your god. Perhaps your god has a plan, F#CK your god’s plan, by saying your god has a plan you are in effect picking option A. If you say that it is my fault because I’m not listening, you are in effect picking either options B, C or D.
You might also think perhaps I am the one who is mistaken or delusional, and my response to that is, please show me how to believe something which does clearly exist, doesn’t exist. Show me how to believe that the Sun does not exist. Show me how to believe that a person standing next to me does not exist. Children who don’t actually know that their parents exist are not mistaken or delusional.
Hopefully you are able to realize that believing something, which clearly does exist, doesn’t exist is very difficult(if not impossible). Now consider how easy it is to believe that something which doesn’t exist, does exist. Realize that the human mind operates by imagining the many different possibilities that could be the cause of any experience. The human mind will naturally believe anything if it doesn’t have information necessary to know the actual cause.
If you are the best that "God" can try, then "God" has failed miserably
Thank you for the insult. I am far from the best.
Interesting that you would characterize my statement as an insult. There are probably a number of ways you could have interpreted my comment. Honestly it was more an observation regarding your god, not you. It isn’t your fault that “God” has failed miserably.
Thinking about this more, I can’t fathom why you would find my comment insulting unless you have a very devoted (and unhealthy) association with “God”. Almost like fanboys of a gaming system. Yeah if I were to go to a X-Box or Playstation forum and say Microsoft or Sony really screwed something up, I’m sure a bunch of fanboys would get all upset as if they themselves were insulted.
Another analogy might be a victim of spouse abuse who continues to worship the spouse despite the abuse. In the eyes of the victim, the spouse can do no wrong.
You may or may not be the best, but I’ll keep waiting and searching.
if I can't make sense of what a god is communicating then that means this god is not capable of clear and coherent communication. Why are the children responsible for the inability of the parents to even attempt to clearly and coherently communicate with the children?
Did you always understood what your parents where trying to tell you?
Nope, but first and foremost I was fortunate enough to grow up while my parents were alive and I know they exist even if I didn’t understand their communication UNLIKE this god thing you “know exists”.
The way you are viewing this analogy doesn’t function. Just like “God” there is no way for you to distinguish imaginary parents from real parents.
If not, does that make them incapable of clear and coherent communication?
Mortal imperfect loving and caring human parents? No. Powerful, loving and caring eternal creator god? Yes
Should we hold your god to the standards of mortal imperfect loving and caring human beings?
Where you responsible for the inability of your parents to even attempt to clearly and coherently communicate with you? Yes or no will suffice.
No. Parents are always responsible for their children’s mistakes. Children are not responsible for the mistakes of the parents.
if I were to be dishonest and pretend that "God" exists, how would you be able to tell the difference? If "God" does exist, then I would expect "God" could tell the difference, but you are a mere human, so how could you tell?
Like we do in science, we try then we see if it works. If it doesn't work, we maybe try in a different way or try again the same way with more precision to the details... until it works...or not. If it works a certain amount of time then the ones having difficulty obtaining the same result must be doing something wrong. I have tried the experiment and it worked, I couldn't hear God before and now I can (although not perfectly, I still have my sins in the way). Maybe if I was alone you might be right but I am not alone, many have tried the same experiment and it worked.
Okay, I’ll bite. What experiment exactly?
So if this experiment is so successful, why doesn’t everyone on the planet know the same exact “God”, like everyone on the planet can perform chemistry experiments and get the same results.
I suspect the results of your experiment are ever changing, like personalities of every human being are ever changing. I’ve seen and read my fair share in my short lifetime. I’ve only heard claims ripe with cognitive bias and superstition.
If you have some valuable information to share, please share it and stop wasting my time. If not, don’t respond.
If you do however agree that “God” does not make the rules and instead it is humans that make the rules then for the purposes of the analogy it is not the parents that make the rules or provide the instructions, it is the children who make the rules and provide the instructions.
I think we both would agree that it would be dishonest to use an analogy that incorrectly asserts that something is true without sufficient evidence
I like that! For me the analogy stands God = Parents, Humans = Child but I don't understand it the way you did. Saying that humans make rules is saying that children make rules (and they do!) BUT the children making rules (and following them instead of their parents) does not prevent parents to make rules (and try to teach the children these rules)
Okay, never mind then, apparently you don’t agree that “God” does not make the rules.
I’m not surprised we are not on the same page, considering how unclear, vague and ambiguous “God’s” rules and communication is. That is part of the problem being discussed. It is almost as if “God’ is completely imaginary. Wait. That is exactly what it is like.
So far however, I'm sorry but you have been merely responding helplessly to my questions instead of answering them. I asked before, why are you responding if you don't have coherent answers? Why are you pretending to have answers? [...] you haven't explained anything yet. I was being sarcastic when I said AGAIN to poke fun at your avoidance of not actually answering questions which again you didn't answer my question.
Maybe you could reformulate your question? For example if you ask me how much is 1+1 and I respond 2 and then you said "it's not coherent! because it is not 2! Please answer the question asked! and stop responding helplessly to my questions instead of answering it. By the way I love to poke fun at you so sometimes I might invent things... just for fun" That is how I feel now
I’m not surprised that THAT is how you feel. In regards to how I feel, regarding your scenario, I feel like after I asked you what 1+1 is, you responded by saying the word “blue”. So perhaps now you can understand my observation that your responses are helpless, nonsense, incoherent non-answers. In your mind, you are giving a good or reasonable answer, but unfortunately in my mind, you are not.
I’ve been trying to explain to you the problems with your responses but you aren’t actually addressing the problems. You ignore the problems and again, this is not surprising. I expect you’ll respond by asking what problems I have identified, go back and read all of my posts in this thread, if you can’t see the problems with your responses, that is in and of itself part of the problem. Unfortunately, we are not dealing with simple mathematical questions are we. We are dealing with philosophical deep questions. Your responses don’t account for the big picture, they only leave more questions which are bigger problems than the original problems.
I can see exactly why your responses seem like great answers to you. They were my answers when I was a kid. I’ve grown up now, and had a lot of time to think about these questions. Your responses don’t function, they don’t work, they are incorrect simple pieces in a complex puzzle. As I said before, whether I like your response to my questions or not has nothing to do with them not being viable answers or being non-answers. I may not like the number 2, but I have no choice but to admit that 1+1 equals 2. However if I press 1 + 1 = in a calculator and the display says “BLUE”, I’m probably not going to keep using that calculator anymore except for shits and giggles as a gag calculator.
If they did then there would be no question about their existence regardless if the children are placing their hands over their ears and shouting "lalala".
Your method for ignoring communication is not actually effective and instead is more illogical nonsense. Would you like evidence that what you are saying is illogical nonsense? Try your method out for a week. Every time someone attempts to communicate with you, put your hands over your ears and shout "lalala" and then see if who was trying to communicate with you exists or not [...] Parents = "God" = imaginary friends [...] You don't see what is cruel about parents who don't even clearly or coherently communicate with children in a house leaving the children completely in the dark about the existence of the parents.
Again with the existence of God
Again you ignore the point of the discussion.
Ps : Sorry about bringing up the babies I wanted to say children instead to stay into context.
My point remains whether you said babies or children.