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.
What's the word for making up excuses for one's own failures by blaming the failures on the failures themselves?
Bad workman blaming tools. I'll look up whether its am informal fallacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by overcastg4
First the lifestyle, then the world according to that lifestyle. Materialism will only provide evidence for itself.
Yes. But one either validates the non -materialist claims or one is at a loss which of them to believe, unless one is taught which one or just chooses one that fits the lifestyle preferences.
True, there is a common instinct to reverence something and there is a fair bit of mileage in this 'God instinct'. But it runs into the same problem as the argument from First cause. As soon as you say "Cosmos proves a god; divine instinct proves a god" (and there are other possibilities) you have the 'which god' question.
If you just say: "Well, I just think a god of some sort in the best explanation.", you and I have no quarrel. Though we may have academic logical disagreement.
If you then want to relate it to a particular religion, you are either going to appeal to Faith (which is only relevant to yourself) or you are going to have to turn to evidence in order to say why a particular god is the one that dunnit, and a particular Holy book and religion is the one we should believe.
And, if you turn to evidence, you are saddled with the methods of materialist science, and if you reject those as mere fallible human wisdom, I don't know how you are going to make a case.
It doesn't seemed to have yet dawned on the Darwinist scientists, athiest professors, evilooshunists and the like perditionbound pondscum that the first time your critic dismisses science as unreliable and logic as a mere human convention, they have deprived themselves of any right to use them to support their own argument.
Except they could say that they don't accept science and logic but the scientists and atheists do, but I'll let them work that one out for themselves.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 12-08-2015 at 06:11 AM..
Right. This is exactly the problem. If we're talking possibilities - particularly based on "not being able to disprove" them - then literally anything is a possibility, but something being a possibility (there's a Biblegod, there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster, at night I can fly around on a broomstick - but I just don't feel like showing you right now, there may be leprechauns) doesn't mean proof or even evidence that any one of those given things exists.
Possibility + probability. Probability factor for Flying Spaghetti monster is zero especially since the concept was obviously created from the mind of an atheist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerZ
As Arequipa has pointed out, were "the supernatural" proven it would no longer be "super"natural but instead a part of the world, hence natural...and it still wouldn't prove or even provide evidence for there being a God. For instance, what if it were proven that energy keeps vibrating after death, hence there really are "ghosts"? Why would that provide "proof" of God? We have energy. It vibrates. Just us walking around doesn't prove there's a God. If that energy keeps going after death there's no reason for a God to be proven that way either.
If the supernatural is proven then you have to contend with the fact that there is a reality that does not align with the physical world and its laws which is pretty much all that science can observe. In the physical world, laws and forces of nature are recurrent and predictable. Like I said, no it is not direct evidence for God, but the probability factor goes up. Now when those supernatural occurrences consistently involve demonic entities, the probability factor goes up even more. When you can experience or observe and see real changes and effects take place through the power of God's Word and His people in interactions with such entities, now we have really good evidence.
Here's the problem. Atheists stand defiantly with arms folded and say convince me, but God is a personal god. Everyone's spiritual path in life is differently and God reveals Himself in different ways. But man wants things easy. We want everything to be the same. Everyone go pray at the wall and get your blessing. Do this, get this result everytime.. Doesn't work that way. You don't find consistently in the spiritual realm which is why some people will have paranormal experiences and others do not.
If you truly want evidence for God, you have to make the effort and go seek Him. Otherwise, this is just a game where you want the Christian to put out his best evidence, and then enjoy shooting it down to feel better about yourself.
My mother's "evidence" for God, as stated by her about 2 1/2 to 3 weeks before she just happened to die, was expressed by her as such (character formatting added by myself):
"I know there is a God . . . because I feel it in my heart!
"I know there is a God . . . because it makes me feel good!"
Well, what can I say?
I had a latte with a side of coffee cake this morning (rewarding myself for a rough night of waking up every hour to clear my airways -- I have a nasty cold). I know it wasn't harmful because it FELT GOOD!
My doctor of course would beg to differ. I have type 2 diabetes and he would explain how it might feel good at present but later there will be peripheral neuropathy, and maybe appendages and retinas falling off.
I indulge anyway, just to feel good now and then, and interrupt the day to day one foot in front of the other, on the theory that an occasional lapse doesn't matter much, if it's TRULY occasional. But the point is that most of us understand that how something feels in the short term has little to do with the long term consequences. But we are so accustomed to special pleading for god and things related to god, that we don't apply the same logic to ... well, for lack of a better term, godly situations.
Here's the problem. Atheists stand defiantly with arms folded and say convince me, but God is a personal god. Everyone's spiritual path in life is differently and God reveals Himself in different ways. But man wants things easy. We want everything to be the same. Everyone go pray at the wall and get your blessing. Do this, get this result everytime.. Doesn't work that way. You don't find consistency in the spiritual realm which is why some people will have paranormal experiences and others do not.
Actually it's you who want it easy, not I. Going with the evidence whether or not it points to a reality that pleases you or conforms to your presuppositions is harder than "just believing", or you'd be doing it.
You're trying to turn inconsistency into a virtue, and suggesting that it points to greater rather than lesser probabilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If you truly want evidence for God, you have to make the effort and go seek Him. Otherwise, this is just a game where you want the Christian to put out his best evidence, and then enjoy shooting it down to feel better about yourself.
Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. Made the effort in spades.
But thanks for admitting that the best evidence a Christian can put out is easy to shoot down. Even if you misread that the motivation for shooting it down has anything to do with how I feel about myself. But this is typical loaded biased statements from you, assuming things you actually know very little about, and zero that you'd be willing to admit to knowing anyhow.
Possibility + probability. Probability factor for Flying Spaghetti monster is zero especially since the concept was obviously created from the mind of an atheist.
It makes the probability low, but not zero. In the same way the God you worship is clearly an amalgamation of manmade ideas that have accreted over millennia, but that doesn't make it impossible, just unlikely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
If the supernatural is proven then you have to contend with the fact that there is a reality that does not align with the physical world and its laws which is pretty much all that science can observe. In the physical world, laws and forces of nature are recurrent and predictable.
This is where the difference in the ideas of proof and evidence between many belivers and rationalists is very evident. If the supernatural were to be proven, that is, if there is reliable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence for its existence, then it is squarely within the realm of science! It simply means our natural laws would need to be extended to take the "supernatural" into account, and thus what we think of as supernatural would become natural.
What you appear to mean is that is there is anecdotal evidence, unfalsifiable hypotheses, and coincideneces that you feel are inadequately addressed by the current state of science, that proves that there are forces beyond the natural, which are inherently unpredictable, nor repeatable, testable or falsifiable, but nevertheless are real, and in the face of a lack of evidence supporting these claims, others must simply believe that you are correct. I have trouble with labeling this state of affairs as "proven"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Here's the problem. Atheists stand defiantly with arms folded and say convince me, but God is a personal god. Everyone's spiritual path in life is differently and God reveals Himself in different ways. But man wants things easy. We want everything to be the same. Everyone go pray at the wall and get your blessing. Do this, get this result everytime.. Doesn't work that way. You don't find consistently in the spiritual realm which is why some people will have paranormal experiences and others do not.
If you truly want evidence for God, you have to make the effort and go seek Him.
I did this for the better part of my life. What I found was that either God does not exist, or He hates me and has predestined me for eternal punishment regardless of my sincere belief, faith, and repentance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Otherwise, this is just a game where you want the Christian to put out his best evidence, and then enjoy shooting it down to feel better about yourself.
Absolutely not. I do want Christians, or anybody really, to put forth their best evidence, and I will subject that evidence to scrutiny. I take no pleasure in "shooting down" someones assertions, but I don't think any assertion should be beyond reasoned evaluation of the claims and the evidence.
It makes the probability low, but not zero. In the same way the God you worship is clearly an amalgamation of manmade ideas that have accreted over millennia, but that doesn't make it impossible, just unlikely.
This is where the difference in the ideas of proof and evidence between many belivers and rationalists is very evident. If the supernatural were to be proven, that is, if there is reliable, repeatable, and falsifiable evidence for its existence, then it is squarely within the realm of science! It simply means our natural laws would need to be extended to take the "supernatural" into account, and thus what we think of as supernatural would become natural.
What you appear to mean is that is there is anecdotal evidence, unfalsifiable hypotheses, and coincideneces that you feel are inadequately addressed by the current state of science, that proves that there are forces beyond the natural, which are inherently unpredictable, nor repeatable, testable or falsifiable, but nevertheless are real, and in the face of a lack of evidence supporting these claims, others must simply believe that you are correct. I have trouble with labeling this state of affairs as "proven"...
I did this for the better part of my life. What I found was that either God does not exist, or He hates me and has predestined me for eternal punishment regardless of my sincere belief, faith, and repentance.
Absolutely not. I do want Christians, or anybody really, to put forth their best evidence, and I will subject that evidence to scrutiny. I take no pleasure in "shooting down" someones assertions, but I don't think any assertion should be beyond reasoned evaluation of the claims and the evidence.
-NoCapo
Would not the type of evidence for a god that you are responding to from Jeff, if it is a personal God and appears to everyone differently possibly mean that if there is a God than all the religions are equally correct and that God simply appeared differently to each of the groups? This I am asking you and not a believer as you have been on both sides of the Does God Exist question.
Actually it's you who want it easy, not I. Going with the evidence whether or not it points to a reality that pleases you or conforms to your presuppositions is harder than "just believing", or you'd be doing it.
You're trying to turn inconsistency into a virtue, and suggesting that it points to greater rather than lesser probabilities.
Wrong. I have a hunger for the truth, and if that truth really does turn out that Christianity is a lie then I'll accept it. But it would require some pretty compelling evidence to show me that everything I've experienced personally is a figment of my imagination. Inconsistency is a virtue. It builds our faith. I once knew a girl who received a message from God telling her the name of the man that she would marry. She didn't even know him, but sure enough, some years later, this man came into her life and they got married. That was something unique to her life path and it served to build her faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. Made the effort in spades.
But thanks for admitting that the best evidence a Christian can put out is easy to shoot down. Even if you misread that the motivation for shooting it down has anything to do with how I feel about myself. But this is typical loaded biased statements from you, assuming things you actually know very little about, and zero that you'd be willing to admit to knowing anyhow.
The only thing I admit that it is easy to shoot down just about ANY evidence, no matter how rock solid it is. There are very few things that can't be disputed on some level. If I provide video evidence, you could say it was manipulated. Tests could be faked. If an entire town says they saw an angel, you could say they were all hynotized by a tv signal. There's always some way to shoot it down from your camp with knee jerk reaction. That's my frustration with atheists. They don't fairly examine the evidence. They scramble immediately to find some way to discount it. That doesn't mean in any way that the evidence is weak.
Absolutely not. I do want Christians, or anybody really, to put forth their best evidence, and I will subject that evidence to scrutiny. I take no pleasure in "shooting down" someones assertions, but I don't think any assertion should be beyond reasoned evaluation of the claims and the evidence.
Exactly. Jeff decries it as "just a game" only because it has rules he doesn't like. It is not a game, it is reality. The real game-playing is in concocting and advocating for the supernatural -- which, as you ably point out, is a meaningless concept and simply a gambit. The supernatural is beyond (dis)proving or discussing because it can not be apprehended by the natural; and if it WERE apprehended by the natural, it would then BE INCORPORATED INTO the natural. There can be no supernatural anything; as evidenced by the simple fact that 100% of what we once though to be supernatural turned out to be naturally explicable. There is basically no reason to think that the balance of what some still consider supernatural will turn out to be anything other than a natural thing that we simply didn't understand, either through ignorance or because the necessary framing conceptualizations haven't yet been conceptualized.
Would not the type of evidence for a god that you are responding to from Jeff, if it is a personal God and appears to everyone differently possibly mean that if there is a God than all the religions are equally correct and that God simply appeared differently to each of the groups? This I am asking you and not a believer as you have been on both sides of the Does God Exist question.
For me, no.
This explanation comes in two parts, so bear with me...
Let me put it like this. I have a friend named Bob. I have personal experience with Bob. He is a tall man, who is thin and athletic, with red hair. He likes peppermint candies. You have a friend named Bob, with whom you have personal experience. You friend Bob is a short, rather rotund man, with a jocular personality and an inexplicable love of plaid hats and a hatred of peppermint. Are we talking about the same man? Common sense would tell us no, we are describing two different people.
Likewise, if I worship a triune God who demanded blood sacrifice for the remission of sin, and you worship a singular God who asks for obedience as a condition for forgiveness, why would we assume these are the same beings? They are clearly different, and the only reason we would balk at that is if we have a predetermined religious belief that there is only one Bob, I mean God... On the face of it, these are not the same entities.
So if we recognize that the unity of God, the idea of a singular God who manifests differently is as much a faith claim as the existence of God, then we should be looking for evidence. What evidence do we have for each variant of God that is claimed, and what evidence do we have that these variants are simply a matter of perspective, not some underlying reality?
So if we have insufficient evidence to support any single idea of God, it does not make the case any more compelling to try to take all these insufficient justifications for multiple contradictory, and sometimes mutually exclusive God-concepts and aggregate them as if they all supported the same thing.
Just my view.
-NoCapo
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.
