Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nice cop out. Isn't it great the way with the simple use of ad hominem you can avoid actually replying to anything at all someone has actually said or typed? If you actually want to read what I just wrote about your use of the word god and reply to it, then I am here for you and have time for you. If you want to cop out, call it or me names like "tedious" before running away, then I have no time, nor respect, for that approach.
False. It is not sans any knowledge whatsoever. It is based entirely on the only knowledge I CAN have about you.... that obtained by reading what you write on this forum. Based on reading what you have written on this forum I have seen no display of an education in philosophy that is not obtainable simply by reading Sophies World.
I am not sure what qualifications you CLAIM to have, but I tend to ignore when people claim to be qualified with a certain phd, or degree or other, because more often than not they are lying. I simply judge WHAT they say, not WHO they claim they are when saying it.
This was a lesson I learned the hard way, when on one forum a guy who claimed over and over to have several high level qualifications in physics THEN went on to claim that gravity on earth exists because the earth is spinning. This is an error that in my country of Ireland a 12 year old 1st year science student would spot and I quickly learned that it does not matter how many qualifications someone claims to have, they very quickly let you know how many they really have simply by opening their mouth.
However I think I am preaching to the choir here as I am sure you are wise and intelligent enough not to take peoples word for it when they tell you what their masters, phd, or other qualifications are in? I am sure you know the fallacy of Argument from Authority already. I know myself what degrees, phds and masters I do and do not have. I simply never... EVER mention them on forums such as this. They are irrelevant, they are unverifiable to the reader, and they help my argument in no way to claim I have them. My arguments stand for themselves. I do not need to fail to make them sound better by claiming I happen to be massively qualified in some area or other. I am certainly willing to believe your username however in that your own phd is solely mystical in nature.
AH crap . . . I just noticed your join date. You are a newbie . . . no wonder you haven't a clue about me or my views. God is the original and only reasonable word for the "Source of everything that exists." It was the religious authoritarians who persecuted the early scientists and produced the schism that required the fabrication of the euphemisms "Nature" and "natural" or the "Universe," etc. The schism served both camps . . . it protected religious dogma from science and it protected science from religious interference. All the baggage results from religious dogma. But the differences are ALL in the beliefs about God . . . not the existence of God. Science has no basis for denying the existence . . . only the attributes . . . since they haven't got a clue what the Source is. The universal field that establishes the parameters of our reality is simply not known.Our ignorance is covered over by the use of euphemisms for that ignorance giving the appearance of explanation and a scientific imprimatur to it. But it is ignorance nonetheless.
AH crap . . . I just noticed your join date. You are a newbie . . . no wonder you haven't a clue about me or my views.
I am not sure a person's point of view, or the validness of anything they say, is proportional to the amount of time and/or the number of posts they have made on a single given forum.
As I said, try and deal with WHAT I have said not WHO you think is saying it. Pointing out that I am new to this particular forum is nothing more than ad hominem. My "age" on this forum is not relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
God is the original and only reasonable word for the "Source of everything that exists."
So you say, but I do not see why. Unless you are talking about what most people are when they use that word, I see no good reason to use it. There is too much baggage attached to it's use. People have too many preconceptions about what the word means.
If you re-use and redefine a word that is in that common a usage, then you are just making work for yourself. You will inevitably spend more time telling people what you do NOT mean by the word rather than what you do.
It is, for example, one of the reasons I never use the word "atheist" to describe myself. People who hear that word think they know many things about me, none of which actually apply to me. I spent more time telling people what I am NOT than what I AM because they they think they know all about you from one word.
If you want to make that much work for yourself however then that is your choice. It is no skin off my nose nor will I try to change you. I am simply espousing my confusion as to why anyone would want to open such an inevitable chasm of tautology for themselves is all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Science has no basis for denying the existence . . . only the attributes . . .
Very true as Science is not in the business of denying negatives.
However it is very important to realise what you are saying when you point that out.... because there are MILLIONS of things Science can not deny the existence of. Two Headed Gnomes for example. Unicorns. Alien Abductions.
If YOU want to put your god on the same level as those things then that is great as that is where I place the concept of god too. The concept of god has exactly the same evidence for it (none) and against it (none) as any other thing I just listed... or could just make up right now on the spot from my imagination.
What most atheists want, and pretty much all secularists (a label I do prefer to use over atheist for myself), is simply to have that categorisation recognised and enforced, and that people in our halls of power and education treat the idea there is a god in the same way as they do the idea that the word is populated by invisible two headed gnomes.... that is to say NOT AT ALL... to leave it out entirely.... and dismiss anything that is suggested to them on it's basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
they haven't got a clue what the Source is.
They might not have conclusions, but they have many many many clues. I advise watching the Laurence Krauss You Tube video titled "A Universe from nothing" for example.
Very true as Science is not in the business of denying negatives.
However it is very important to realise what you are saying when you point that out.... because there are MILLIONS of things Science can not deny the existence of. Two Headed Gnomes for example. Unicorns. Alien Abductions.
If YOU want to put your god on the same level as those things then that is great as that is where I place the concept of god too. The concept of god has exactly the same evidence for it (none) and against it (none) as any other thing I just listed... or could just make up right now on the spot from my imagination.
You seem less clear about this issue than your other points would suggest you are capable of being. There is no negative to deny. Everything positively exists and it must be accounted for . . . yet all you do is name it . . . not account for it. I define it in the only way that makes sense given the scope and dominance of it. What else but a God could create, sustain, control, direct, evolve our entire reality on such a scale? Unlike your millions of imaginary creatures for which there is no evidence of existence whatsoever.
Quote:
What most atheists want, and pretty much all secularists (a label I do prefer to use over atheist for myself), is simply to have that categorisation recognised and enforced, and that people in our halls of power and education treat the idea there is a god in the same way as they do the idea that the word is populated by invisible two headed gnomes.... that is to say NOT AT ALL... to leave it out entirely.... and dismiss anything that is suggested to them on it's basis.
That would require believing reality itself is non-existent and unaccounted for.
Faith is defined in many ways. One of the major definitions of faith is:[*]strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence[*]belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that
I have faith that there is an essence of spirit that unites all people outside of religious philosophy.
You seem less clear about this issue than your other points would suggest you are capable of being. There is no negative to deny.
Well spotted, this was a typo. I was meant to write "proving negatives". Science is not in the business of "proving negatives".
You can make up anything you like, Science can not prove it does not exist. It is not in the business of Proving Negatives in this fashion.
There is no evidence for or against a god, just as there is none for or against unicorns, that I am being made aware of.
What you are doing instead is playing "god of the gaps". You are essentially saying "All this needs to be explained... you can not explain it.... I can not explain it.... therefore what else could it be but god".
This is very poor argument. It is essentially the same as saying "Because it can not be explained.... it can be explained".
Just because we can not explain something, does not mean we can fit in any old answer we want. Take this imaginary conversation between 2 very young boys....
Boy1: Where do babies come from.
Boy2: The stork brings them.
Boy1: How do you know this?
Boy2: Well do you know where they come from?
Boy1: No.
Boy2: See? Then it can only be the stork.
We ARE those young boys and we are missing data that would answer our questions were we to obtain it. Just like us Boy1 and Boy2 are unlikely to hit on the truth because there is data they are missing which they should go looking for.
Boy2 however is using their lack of data to "default" his claim to true. This is what you do with god. We are mutually in a "dont know" position. One of us however is using that fact to declare their theory right by fiat, which is not useful... and is not intellectually honest. Even if I could not think of other possible answers (I can but it doesnt serve my point to do so) at all, not even one, this does not mean there ARE no other answers... just that I can not think of them. Youre answer which you have thought of.... and given the lack of evidence for it you have entirely made it up... does not become the right one by default.
Learn this rule and we will do well: AN answer does not become the RIGHT answer, SOLELY because it is the ONLY answer being offered. The problem is many people can not stand to not have answers to questions. "We dont know" simply is not in their vocabulary. Therefore they are inclined to accept ANY answer before they will accept there is no available answer at all. This fact about our species is one of the primary reasons religion has been so successful.
Last edited by Nozzferrahhtoo; 04-15-2011 at 03:38 AM..
Can't rep you again Nozzferrahhtoo but would like to give you one for each of your posts.
Many of us have presented the same arguments to Mystic but none so well,IMO
So actually seeing for your self that the earth is round or seeing other galaxies, which are all possible with the tech we have today, would not convince you?
I dont need to be convinced that the earth is round; if you had read my post you'd see that i have some degree of faith in the mathematicians and scientists that it is true.
A telescope does not convey all the proper information required that tells me that I'm looking at a galaxy. All I see is little dots. I have to take the word of scientists that their interpretation of those dots is correct, that they are actually a formation of stars and planets.
You want to make a claim, YOU provide the backup for that claim. Simple as. So if you want to say there is a god, the onus of proof lies with you, not those who simply are not moved to accept your claims for no reason.
I've made the claim and backed it up. I'm willing to make the claim again: God exists.
What folks like you fail to understand is that a discussion is supposed to be a two-way street. It doesn't take a high degree of intellect for one to sit back and casually dismiss "claims" and "proof" which they alone, in there own infinite wisdom, determine to count as a false claim/proof. "Proof" and "evidence" are in the eye of the beholder. All I've ever asked any atheist/agnostic on this board to do is provide an HONEST and reasonable counter to my "claims" and assertions.
So, let's just cut through the BS. The only reason you don't believe that God exists or that Christianity is false is because you've chosen to and there is no amount of reasoned argumentation that will persuade you otherwise.
I've made the claim and backed it up. I'm willing to make the claim again: God exists.
What folks like you fail to understand is that a discussion is supposed to be a two-way street. It doesn't take a high degree of intellect for one to sit back and casually dismiss "claims" and "proof" which they alone, in there own infinite wisdom, determine to count as a false claim/proof. "Proof" and "evidence" are in the eye of the beholder. All I've ever asked any atheist/agnostic on this board to do is provide an HONEST and reasonable counter to my "claims" and assertions.
So, let's just cut through the BS. The only reason you don't believe that God exists or that Christianity is false is because you've chosen to and there is no amount of reasoned argumentation that will persuade you otherwise.
In front of a crowd of hundreds, if I declare that there is a mouse in my pocket, some will believe me, some won't and some will suspend a decision.
If I produce the mouse, all will believe the 'evidence' and the 'proof'.
Where's your mouse?I must have missed it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
