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.
No desire to insult anyone, no. It would be a mistake to assume that I judge those who are as I once was. Or think myself better than they. I am happier with my own life now, and I think there are others who might benefit from my thoughts. That is all.
It's interesting. There is comfort in "believing right"...however there is relief in examining and rejecting "right belief" when "right belief" doesn't pass the smell test.
A person like you can understand both of these states of being. People who have always been "religious" cannot. People who go from disbelief to belief probably could be capable but usually aren't simply because to be able to relate to non believers after conversion demonstrates a "lack of faith".
That 'Ol Godwin is gonna surface! Hitler....HAHAHA!
You not understanding the logic doesn't mean it isn't logical.
Hitler could be perceived as a "Hero" by some, and a "tyrant" by others. He is thus BOTH a hero & a tyrant. As the perception of him as either, by anybody, indelibly imbues him with those designations...regardless of what anyone else may think.
Here is what you, et al, refuse to acknowledge.
"GOD" is a TITLE...like "hero", "friend", "sweetheart", etc...that can be assigned by one that perceives someone/something as such.
That another doesn't have the same perception...does not diminish invalidate, or nullify their perception.
I will give you an example:
I say that I think some man that ran into a burning building and helped people to find their way out safely is a "Hero" for doing that because of the risks he took to do it.
BUT...someone else claims they have a different perception.
They argue that: Running is no big deal, most people can run...helping those people wasn't special, lots of people help others...that the building was on fire isn't of much of a factor, the guy was a trained firefighter, knew the risk was minimal, and besides was being paid to do it as a job. Many people have dangerous jobs, that involve risk and they are not considered "Hero's" for doing them.
They also heard there was evidence of him stealing money and jewelry while he was in the building.
They then say that they don't consider him a "Hero"...and furthermore they don't believe in the concept of "Hero's" at all...that there is no such thing.
They argue...They feel, simply because some people are willing to take risks others won't...is nothing special in their perspective. Cliff climbers and people surfing big waves, take the same, if not greater risk, for fun.
And besides that, he did bad things at the same time while he was in there.
They even challenge me to provide "Objective Proof that can be demonstrated by the Scientific Method" of the truth that "Hero's Exist".
NOW...answer these:
Does that now mean my perception is completely invalidated and nullified...and that I cannot reasonably title that man a "Hero"? Does any differing perception completely divest someone of their perceptions?
Does that now determine that there really is no such thing as a "Hero"?
OR
Does my perception of that man as a "Hero" not only validate his designation as a "Hero"...but also validates the existence of such a thing as a "Hero"?
Though I can't imagine how anyone could think the effort would make any sort of difference, I've been asked to go back and answer these questions. I didn't think it worth the time then, and I feel no more optimistic now, but I'll admit a bit of curiousity about what the logic here might be...
Questions are in bold below:
First: Here is what you, et al, refuse to acknowledge.
"GOD" is a TITLE...like "hero", "friend", "sweetheart", etc...that can be assigned by one that perceives someone/something as such.
That another doesn't have the same perception...does not diminish invalidate, or nullify their perception.
I have no problem acknowledging the fact that "GOD" is a TITLE. Quite the opposite. Title is exactly what it is and of course people have different versions about God. I can't agree everyone is right or that everyone's version is as valid as the next however. I can't do that any more than to think someone who has their reasons to be racist are just as right or valid as someone who is not a racist.
Second: I have no problem understanding who is a hero to some people and why can and will be different from who a hero may be to others. Why the time to explain this, I really don't know.
Third: Does that now mean my perception is completely invalidated and nullified...and that I cannot reasonably title that man a "Hero"? Does any differing perception completely divest someone of their perceptions? Does that now determine that there really is no such thing as a "Hero"?
No. Of course not.
Fourth: OR
Does my perception of that man as a "Hero" not only validate his designation as a "Hero"...but also validates the existence of such a thing as a "Hero"?
Does. To a point, yes. Hero's exist in the opinion of people. Again, who is a hero and who is not is a rather subjective matter. Not sure I understand your logic here in terms of the connection to notions about God, but needless to say all notions about God exist. Whether they are all equal, correct, valid is also a rather subjective matter, but they are not all the same in all these regards.
Subjective matters should not be confused with matters that can be determined to be objectively true. Universally true. I think my wife is a beautiful women. You may not. A subjective matter. "Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder," and your opinion is no less valid than mine. That my wife is my wife is an objective truth. I've got the paperwork and scars to prove it. Not a subjective matter.
Understand the difference?
Have I adequately answered your questions? Is there any reason to think these questions and answers prove anything with regard to the existence of a God? Again, the logic here is utterly lost on me...
My point is, once someone perceives someone/something in some way...they/it is then imbued in that way.
If, as a U.S. Army Veteran, someone views me as a "enemy",...or, for that same reason, someone views me as a "Hero" or a "ally", etc...then I am those descriptors. All of them.
Whether I, or anyone else has a similar of different perception is inconsequential. The differing perceptions of others do not have any effect to divest someone of theirs...that's not how subjective perceptions work.
It is not a matter of others "giving credence" or concurring with the perception.
The only "fact" that needs to be determined is whether the perception is held...not whether another or others have the same perception.
For Example: My perception of the taste of caviar, is that it is "disgusting". I know that others perceive it as "delicious". So, it is then, necessarily, BOTH "disgusting" & "delicious"...and it could't be declared to not be either one.
Each perception has it's power to establish itself...but cannot and does not nullify any other perception.
You have a different way of explaining what I explain with my Cement Theory, but in no way do I think a person's perception, opinion or belief about something is equal in terms of justification. All perceptions, opinions and beliefs are justified in the minds of those who hold them of course, but fortunately we all judge them in order to decide what is right and what is wrong. Who to believe and who not to believe. Who to follow. Who should lead. What to do and what not to do.
Ideally, most of us will judge intelligently and correctly so that we can make the progress I am forever explaining we should be able to make despite all the people who think in a way that retards that progress.
Yet, you don't believe it. I've also heard everything you're saying. It's not my first rodeo, either. But I don't believe it.
And the bottom line is, you're willing to say anything did it.....except a creator. And you believe it's reasonable to simply write off that possibility, because it doesn't seem logical to you.
Until you can make the case for a better alternative, cause and effect tells us there had to be a cause.
At this point I really haven't brought the Bible into the idea of creation, other than to refer to Romans 1, where it points out that creation testifies to God's existence. I'm not using it to argue, really.
You seem to be agreeing with me, and/or at least we should both recognize the "disconnect" that has you thinking one thing and me another. Much as we do about each other, and despite the obvious dead end here, you keep coming back for more. Why I wonder? Good at least to clarify a thing or two as though it might help matters here. Help reconcile a fact or two...
I am not "willing to say anything did it... except a creator." What I try to do is not say anything as if it is the truth when I can't justify the claim to be true. That's why I'm willing to admit I don't know rather than come up with notions that I can't justify as truth.
I don't "write off" any possibility. I simply stick with what possibilities and/or truths seem most logical to me. I don't know how to do otherwise. The notion about God was introduced to me at a young age, and for a good while as a young man I thought not only that God was a good explanation but the only one. I've since learned that's not the case. Also not a choice. I call it learning, knowledge and critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion most justified given all facts and evidence we have to consider.
I have made the case for a better alternative. Over and over again, but you can't or won't consider it. "Cause/effect" is also important to understand, but you are assuming cause as God. You can't do that anymore than you can assume God to be the cause of thunder. There may always be a cause for every effect. This does not mean we are to presume or assume what the cause may be.
There are many cause/effect scenarios for which cause is unknown. All existence is just one of them...
You seem to be agreeing with me, and/or at least we should both recognize the "disconnect" that has you thinking one thing and me another. Much as we do about each other, and despite the obvious dead end here, you keep coming back for more. Why I wonder? Good at least to clarify a thing or two as though it might help matters here. Help reconcile a fact or two...
I am not "willing to say anything did it... except a creator." What I try to do is not say anything as if it is the truth when I can't justify the claim to be true. That's why I'm willing to admit I don't know rather than come up with notions that I can't justify as truth.
I don't "write off" any possibility. I simply stick with what possibilities and/or truths seem most logical to me. I don't know how to do otherwise. The notion about God was introduced to me at a young age, and for a good while as a young man I thought not only that God was a good explanation but the only one. I've since learned that's not the case. Also not a choice. I call it learning, knowledge and critical thinking to arrive at a conclusion most justified given all facts and evidence we have to consider.
And that's the disconnect there. You believe God is not the answer, but you don't know.
Would you be willing to consider a creator but not call him "God"? Because the evidence certainly does point to the idea that it had to be caused.
Quote:
I have made the case for a better alternative. Over and over again, but you can't or won't consider it. "Cause/effect" is also important to understand, but you are assuming cause as God. You can't do that anymore than you can assume God to be the cause of thunder. There may always be a cause for every effect. This does not mean we are to presume or assume what the cause may be.
There are many cause/effect scenarios for which cause is unknown. All existence is just one of them...
Forgive me, but I believe all I saw was you suggesting the idea of the universe being eternal. Please correct me if I'm wrong and elaborate on what alternatives you have suggested.
I follow your position, I just disagree, and while I could create a list of examples to illustrate why I think it irrational, there's little value in spending time on it (at least for me tonight). I think, when stating a thing you hold as fact, that you know damn well others do not, it helps to preface with "I believe". If you say, "I believe military veterans are heros", carries a different context than, "military veterans are heros", as a universally accepted fact, especially when you know there are good reasons other have to disagree.
You say, "I believe G-O-D is ALL"
I say, "I don't believe there's any reason to assign the Universe the additional title of God, when the words in common use are not synonymous"
Most people understand where each of us are coming from. But if I say, "GOD is ALL", it sounds like I'm stating a fact, an objective perception everyone agrees with, not a subjective perception. That's where these discussions go off the rails. Everyone stating their unproveable beliefs as though absolute truth. Sure believe it yourself no sweat, but don't get so tweaked when others don't embrace the same.
I will ask you the same question I asked previously, what is different about the title god vs. the title universe, that you feel requires the additional label? Why is universe insufficient?
I explained that. It is about perception...and how "G-O-D" is defined.
"Universe', "Nature", etc...those are the names.
"God" is a title.
"G-O-D" is defined as Reality (aka The Universe, Nature, etc).
I noted how people have names...but we can add titles like "friend", if they are perceived as such.
I also note that once someone perceives another as a "friend"...though it is understood that most others do not perceive that person as a "friend", that in no way nullifies the perception of those that do, or the status that imparts.
And those are the questions that the reasonable answers to are explanatory about this:
What is the difference between the title "friend" or "enemy", and the name of a person (James, Mary, etc)?
Why isn't just using their name sufficient?
Does the differing perception of someone you view as a "friend" then nullify their status as a "friend" or "enemy" as perceived by another?
It's interesting. There is comfort in "believing right"...however there is relief in examining and rejecting "right belief" when "right belief" doesn't pass the smell test.
A person like you can understand both of these states of being. People who have always been "religious" cannot. People who go from disbelief to belief probably could be capable but usually aren't simply because to be able to relate to non believers after conversion demonstrates a "lack of faith".
I'll give you a good example of that (which I've told before). For 13 years I was an earth science teacher and, of course, evolution was part of the curriculum. Not often, but occasionally I would have the heavy duty religious-type parent come in and LITERALLY say, "I don't want my son (or daughter) to think".
You have a different way of explaining what I explain with my Cement Theory, but in no way do I think a person's perception, opinion or belief about something is equal in terms of justification. All perceptions, opinions and beliefs are justified in the minds of those who hold them of course, but fortunately we all judge them in order to decide what is right and what is wrong. Who to believe and who not to believe. Who to follow. Who should lead. What to do and what not to do.
Ideally, most of us will judge intelligently and correctly so that we can make the progress I am forever explaining we should be able to make despite all the people who think in a way that retards that progress.
You are looking at it from a standpoint of "right", "wrong", "justification", etc...and those are assessments you introduce as an attempt at a counter-argument...but they are inconsequential and irrelevant.
I will try again: Look at a war/conflict situation...the very same people are perceived as both "friend/ally" and "foe/enemy", depending which side they are on.
I contend that the perception of BOTH imparts that status. It does not negate the differing perception of the other, or nullify its effect to impart that status...it simply adds another equally valid, logical, and reasonable status. Based upon perception.
And that's the disconnect there. You believe God is not the answer, but you don't know.
Would you be willing to consider a creator but not call him "God"? Because the evidence certainly does point to the idea that it had to be caused.
Forgive me, but I believe all I saw was you suggesting the idea of the universe being eternal. Please correct me if I'm wrong and elaborate on what alternatives you have suggested.
I've really got to run because I've got some things I need to go do, but real quick before I do...
I am very interested to know what caused the observable or known universe, and I have read quite a bit about theories along those lines. Theories including God that was actually the first theory about all this that I was introduced to. You are right about what I don't know. Nobody does. My focus is on whatever facts, evidence or proof that helps us with better understanding about what we should believe and what we should not.
"Because the evidence certainly does point to the idea that it had to be caused."
Again that something must have been caused does not explain the cause. How hard is it for you to understand and accept this simple fact?
Say we go back in time. Before anything was known about what caused earthquakes. We're sitting around the fire and all of a sudden the earth below us begins to shake violently. You look at me with wide eyes and tell me that God must be angry. That God is shaking the entire earth, "because what other explanation could there be?"
This is what your argument and logic sounds like to me. Until you can change that any, you are really going to just waste more of our time, and/or I've really got to leave you be with your logic that I know is not just yours. It certainly is not mine however.
I've really got to run because I've got some things I need to go do, but real quick before I do...
I am very interested to know what caused the observable or known universe, and I have read quite a bit about theories along those lines. Theories including God that was actually the first theory about all this that I was introduced to. You are right about what I don't know. Nobody does. My focus is on whatever facts, evidence or proof that helps us with better understanding about what we should believe and what we should not.
"Because the evidence certainly does point to the idea that it had to be caused."
Again that something must have been caused does not explain the cause. How hard is it for you to understand and accept this simple fact?
Say we go back in time. Before anything was known about what caused earthquakes. We're sitting around the fire and all of a sudden the earth below us begins to shake violently. You look at me with wide eyes and tell me that God must be angry. That God is shaking the entire earth, "because what other explanation could there be?"
This is what your argument and logic sounds like to me. Until you can change that any, you are really going to just waste more of our time, and/or I've really got to leave you be with your logic that I know is not just yours. It certainly is not mine however.
We could say to BaptistFundie: "And that's the disconnect there. You believe God is the answer, but you don't know".
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.
