Rational presumptions versus irrational presumptions (soul, pray, Christianity, Christian)

[Vic235]

I don't think an atheist like me would misunderstand what religion is.

For a matter of practicality, it's
always the case that religion tries to come out of church trying to be something else: "competing science", "moral values and worldview"...

No atheism never tries to be a religion.

[stargazzer]

Its almost impossible to conclude whether or not.....what is rational is not irrational.....
or vice versa ...."relative to one individuals expectations relative to reality" .

For example, if I believe I am sick , and... in reality am not sick and the evidence supports this , the
thought, completely irrational without evidence can determine malady and what is irrational
to be ultimately "real" and a rational reality through its "expectation"

In the onset of query put forth in thread asking to ponder the statement....
"presuming things in a specific way requires evidence" with examples to consider
above example of sick person may suggest that there is a "distinction or category of
criteria" that avails membership to the quote of presumptive integrity.
With this I find it interesting and worth noting that , it is rather unavoidable to
notice the impact "expectations have on reality relative to thought in overall persuasion or manipulation of reality...could it be ?

Lets look at the golf shot.....its well known that a golfer if requires a great putt or super drive....will visualize the shot and effect better result. Is he manipulating the potential expected reality of the evidence of a fresh mosquito bite just occurring.
It would be said that.....well the shot has not taken place and therefore is "not" a
reality . Thats right, however the expectation serves as a "motion or catalyst effecting the future well supported evidencing reality of a less than suitable golf shot. With these examples its not a bad idea to call attention to the initial statement of this relay...
Its almost impossible to conclude whether or not.....what is rational is not irrational.....
or vice versa ...".relative to one individuals expectations relative to reality".

.....These thoughts contribute to the request to consider the "presuming things in a specific way requires evidence in different examples".

[stargazzer]

Part 2 ...........of above post in reference to origin of thread and some developing comments
which is copied here from first page of threads origin........

Not everything is "your faith against my faith". Some presumptions are rational, while other presumptions are irrational. In general,

Quote:
presuming things in a specific way requires evidence.
for example,

A: "the world will come to an end in 2012." (this is very specific, unless there are evidences supporting this, it is irrational to presume such)

A-Bar: "the world will not come to an end in 2012." (this is non-specific, unless there are evidences supporting the contrary, it is rational to presume such)

You may find any other examples yourself and try it, but I recommend you try this:

A: "there is a God who created the universe in 6 days."

A-Bar: "there is not a God who created the universe in 6 days."

.......Stargazzer ...

Is the premiss for thought provoking thread...

"presuming things in a specific way requires evidence".

...complete , however incomplete in respect to our limited understanding and access
of evidence available in neurological data in examples given in above post by Stargazzer regarding golf shot or presumed malady ?
Of course.
Are there other instances ? Of course.
Is the origin of thread presuming its own presumption ? Of course.
Where do we go from here ?
While the origin of thread highlights faith, why don't we give that a go.

Origin of thread shows two conflicting statements:
A: "there is a God who created the universe in 6 days."

A-Bar: "there is not a God who created the universe in 6 days

Stargazzer says: As submitted earlier our limited ability to ascertain unequivocal
evidence in neurological data can cause alternate realities regardless of the what
may be believed to be "totality of evidence"
How difficult would it then be to exercise potential lack in totality of evidence in
both statements of "there is a God who created Universe in 6 days, and "there is not a God who created the universe in 6 days" ?
Not difficult at all. Indeed.
While the statement "there is a God who created the Universe in six days" is born
out of almost myth like stories some of which are fabricated parables to teach intended behavior principals and understanding the believability weakens. As well
there is zero evidence that would cause this happening to be substantial to the
thrust of the directed belief in God. The interesting fact is that we are still learning.
Perhaps the totality of evidence in "man's grasp presently" is in keeping with
all that man can be presumed or expected in his "ability" to "negotiate presently".
I wonder who has that evidence ?

[Vic235]

If your God is incomprehensible, why do you still worship your God?

Also, how did you decided which part of your God is comprehensible, which part is incomprehensible?

[stargazzer]

Well done Vic235.....( Of course My God is incomprehensible and will elaborate in interesting post this evening after work since questioned)
Though not in keeping with this thread will consider only relative to progress of discussion.

The true refutable aspect of your argument is ........
Stargazzer:
In both of your examples, in Part 1 of your dialog regarding golf shot and malady you elude to the illogical presumption without substantial evidence
that would allow your presumptive conclusion to make any "comparison" to
example put to you to consider, for example.....

The earth is flat ( presumed by multitudes for many years)
The world is round ( uncovered evidenced reality )

In above example we can "actually see the error" in presumptive thought. As well
we see added evidence entirely refuting Stargazzer theory as even collective
thought has not had any impact on the true reality that the earth is unquestionably round. Therefore Mr Stargazzer your submission is interesting however without use.

Stargazzer Part 3 :

It may be that a distinction in selective application to the integrity of
evidence exists. Particularly where evidence is being applied under suspect of the
entirety of its composition.

It would be stunning to apply absolute presumptive determination to the
to the question of a Creator or Source "relative" in causation to the construction of the known Universe. As well the composition of possible or likely Figurehead
could not or at least be reasonably presumed to be of " matter" we comprehend ..
Off to work and Thanks for replying Vic

[Vic235]

"My God exists, but it's incomprehensible" does not work for any religion (that's like saying: "everything in the scriptures are pure speculations about an incomprehensible God"). If it's incomprehensible, how is it going to tell the followers what to do?

When religion meets its skeptics, religion starts to crack, and that's when "incomprehensible" arguments being brought up in a desperate attempt to save religious lies.

[allen antrim]

This is a good example of an over simplistic logic that does not "gaze" at the full structure of the "thing" one is simplifying. "'My god exists, but it's incomprehensible" (therefore it) does not work for any religion'". Anyone here know why this is simplistic? Well first it has worked for christianity for 2000 years-that god is incomprehensible, and in fact that is this religion's basis (more brilliant people than posts here, have worked with this issue for centuries and it is not a very big "devastating contradiction"), that is the social physical evidence. Why else? Well, the theology of this religion has a "revelation doctrine". The very idea that god is incomprehensible requires that it be revealed in a simpler form (this is a rational idea, as in order to have a high developed concept of g-o-d, one would not be able to fully comprehend g-o-d, because if one could it would not be g-o-d, but m-a-n-so a structure has to be formed up to keep the two distinct and protect the god concept) or in this case, because this religion is obsessed with language, revealed into the language of men, and finally into a person itself. The scriptures then are not incoherent speculations but doctrine to be worked through (just like nature is a "text" with "doctrine", as well the mind, law, etc, and at first glance incomprehensible-and still is, that needs to be worked through to "reveal" it to mind), and theology is the speculative element, and as the speculative element, it is the rational element (or science in the old philosophical sense {at Hegel's time, and Hegel knew something about logic; read his logic and let me know how you made out, and remember, this man believed in the trinity}-to philosophize is to speculate, not dogmatize as one reads plenty here at the data bar in these "philosophy" threads). If one cares to inform oneself and learn about the world around oneself rather than being an ignorant "know it all machine", one will find good theology that works with the idea that its theological structures are just "images" of what it is working on and this understanding is reflected upon by the theology itself (like science, economics, law, politics etc, there are good speculations {images} and bad speculations, and most are probably, at least the bad, not reflected upon, but assumed to be correct-especially with the common people or uneducated in the ways of other systems other than the one that dominates a particular person's unreflected world view-a Cyclops if you will), just as good science is merely images of what it is working on, as it will never be "reality" as "reality" is itself: it all takes place in the mind not in "reality", as reality has no meaning apart from the mind.

When religion meets skeptics it does not crack-the skeptic cracks in his religious point of view (this happens in all points of view; I don't like our government to well and think it is flawed, some legal issues are absurd to me, same with science, etc). Religion, as genus, survives social change and reorganizes itself. A look at the situation during the enlightenment, the great atheistic experiments in Russia and China and elsewhere, will show a low point of belief but religion survived, and will continue to do so because it is a system of communication and information that can only describe the topic that it concerns itself with. Socially, it is a communication structure and mentally it is a category (not reducible to other components). Just posting about it here engages one in religion and one's negative thoughts about it places one into the mental category, whether one believes in it or not, and that all continues its communications or systemic existence.

[stargazzer]

Originally Posted by Vic235

"My God exists, but it's incomprehensible" does not work for any religion (that's like saying: "everything in the scriptures are pure speculations about an incomprehensible God"). If it's incomprehensible, how is it going to tell the followers what to do?

When religion meets its skeptics, religion starts to crack, and that's when "incomprehensible" arguments being brought up in a desperate attempt to save religious lies.

Because clarity in relay can be mis-interpeted I will make sure that we
are finding " comprehend" in mutual discription :
Comprehend :Websters....
Grasp mentally, Understand...

I agree with you, if anyone told me that they understood or had the ability to Understand God , I would then say....My God. It must be if true .
You must be God himself or herself.

Deity's are propelled by the majority's ability to grasp concepts. Otherwise
they would not avail themselves to growth.

Even if , or hopefully when the majority of followers can grasp the
notion that God more than likely is "not" a Santa Claus that rewards you
when you've been good, the notion of an existing "Figure Head" does
not suffer. Govern with Virtue, is all any deity is composed of with regards to its fundemental occupation.

Vic...there are zillions of religous lies. The majority are the majority .
Man will be man. Govern with Virtue is the quest , the majority are
only people.
( Thanks enjoyed post and notice the very clever Allen Antrim
must return a call just come in and I'm on Dial-up will be back
This thread is very thought provoking and am glad to participate.
Sorry to be short if I was

[stargazzer]

Originally Posted by Vic235

"My God exists, but it's incomprehensible" does not work for any religion (that's like saying: "everything in the scriptures are pure speculations about an incomprehensible God"). If it's incomprehensible, how is it going to tell the followers what to do?

When religion meets its skeptics, religion starts to crack, and that's when "incomprehensible" arguments being brought up in a desperate attempt to save religious lies.

Vic 235 says: If it's incomprehensible, how is it going to tell the followers what to do?
Stargazzer says : Govern with Virtue is comprehensible. As to the
comprehending or grasp of understanding of God, I don't believe so.

[Vic235]

Originally Posted by stargazzer

Vic 235 says: If it's incomprehensible, how is it going to tell the followers what to do?
Stargazzer says : Govern with Virtue is comprehensible. As to the
comprehending or grasp of understanding of God, I don't believe so.

Well, God is a human-lie.

Theists always have a hard time round such lie (they called it incomprehensible).