Mps Have Voted In Favour Of Assisted...
News4 mins ago
Is there a god?
750 Answers
Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LeedsRhinos. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You still miss the point, I believe, in my insistence on the validity of the scripture documents. The point is that, if one concedes they are demonstrably historical and accurate, then the contents must be considered in light of the witnesses. Many positings ago, I gave the example of knowing anything at all about a long deceased ancestor. I made the point that the diaries, letters, or other written documentation one might study carries a great deal more weight when one realizes that other persons referenced in the same document or other documents of the same time period tell the same story. Even more weight is given to their authenticity when one understands that people still living at the time of the events attest to the events truthfulness. More wieght yet is brought to bear when the authorities of the time who have the ability to disprove the events easily do not do so.
You indicate a willingness to concede that Jesus was an historical figure (not many decades ago that was highly questioned, but now is silenced)... so, Who do you say He was?
BTW, I'm not clever enough to create a pseudonym, but will be happy to discourse on evolution, as you wish...
You indicate a willingness to concede that Jesus was an historical figure (not many decades ago that was highly questioned, but now is silenced)... so, Who do you say He was?
BTW, I'm not clever enough to create a pseudonym, but will be happy to discourse on evolution, as you wish...
<meta http-equiv="Expires" content="Tue, 01 Jan 1980 1:00:00 GMT"/>
<meta http-equiv="Pragma" content="no-cache"/>
<script language="JavaScript" src='/Common/ANSWJS.asp' type="text/javascript"></script>
<link target='_blank' href="/Styles/answ.css?a=1234" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"/>
<style type="text/css">@import "/styles/texteditor.css";</style>
<script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">
please avoid any
Text Editor Code: Sets the hidden input to the IFRAME text
function checkEditableText() {
var qTitleStyle = 'FONT-SIZE: 14px;FONT-WEIGHT: bold;COLOR: #F5F5F5;DISPLAY: inline;FONT-FAMILY: Arial;';
var qTextStyle = 'FONT-FAMILY: helvetica, arial, Verdana; FONT-SIZE: 12px;COLOR
Clever people again. It is curious from my perspective: I wonder why others can�t see it the way I do. I know these people are at least as intelligent as I consider me to be, my reasoning is simple and clear � why don�t they see it too? This could start a pointless new sub-thread about why don�t I see it the way they do. It was just a throwaway remark . I might also claim to apply your �90%� rule if I understood it.My existence � If I don�t exist, what does that say about your responding to my postings? The timing and content of �Merlin� postings in relation to the timing and content of your postings shows they are posted by an �intelligent� entity. (I am assuming that you actually exist too). It necessarily follows that said entity exists. AB rules preclude me from saying who I am, but that is relatively academic once you agree that �I� exist. Your own 90% rule would preclude your assumption that all the Merlin postings are computer-generated. <automessgen9781> <Descartes.file.quote> <incjoke> <continue> <generatesupp - - - - - - . As a supplement: I think, therefore I think I am. My humorous misquoting of that saying is in itself further evidence. ,<beep> <laughgen> Ha ha ha.
It should not be beyond us to arrange a meeting (NB: AB Ed � we are not arranging a meeting, it�s just a premiss to an argument, so please don�t bar this one � thanks). I may walk up to you and ask whether you accept that the information that your eyes convey to your brain is a 90% reliable representation of your environment. If you say �Yes�, then I shall repeatedly chant the mantra �Merlin exists� while alternately poking your left and right eyeballs.I shall deliver 91 pokes, just to be sure of providing sufficient evidence. That should do it. If not, I shall tell you that the Matrix has you and let you continue in your fantasy.
The evidence for the God of the Judaeo/Christian quite easily reaches more than 90% of what? I am assuming that it just means that there is sufficient evidence to convince you. Or does it mean that you harbour some doubts � represented by the outstanding 10%? Or do you actually mean that 90% of the evidence is convincing?. Anecdotally, recently in my discussions with another well-informed intelligent theist, we noted that we agreed on almost everything except �the God thing�. There was not a gulf between us and the saying �There is more that unites us than divides us� was apt. I like to think that I do have a good understanding of the theist position and of the position of someone with faith who cannot explain why they have that faith. I understand that the claim that God is necessarily ineffable to a great extent � though for different reasons than you have, perhaps!
My position is quite simple. Whenever I ask, of anyone, �What do you perceive God to be?�, it has so far invariably led to an understanding that simply cannot be correct, even given God�s ineffable characteristics. The object of one�s praise, worship, trust etc simply cannot be as they perceive it to be. And that then begs further questions.
My position is quite simple. Whenever I ask, of anyone, �What do you perceive God to be?�, it has so far invariably led to an understanding that simply cannot be correct, even given God�s ineffable characteristics. The object of one�s praise, worship, trust etc simply cannot be as they perceive it to be. And that then begs further questions.
Whhooooooooooaaaaaaa � I was saying that the meaning of the word �faith� is generally taken to be �belief in something for which there is no proof�. If you want to ascribe a different meaning to the word �faith�, then go ahead and let me know which one you choose. It is not my definition, nor an atheists� definition � it�s the generally accepted most popular definition in the context in which we are using it. So for now, I shall continue to use it with that definition. It�s not a fallacy.
What most certainly is a fallacy is to use the words �proof� and �evidence� as though they were interchangeable � they are not (definitions again!). Proof establishes the truth of a premiss. Evidence tends towards support of a premiss. The difference is important; one says what is true, the other says what may be true. You have interchanged the words to ascribe to me a definition of faith that is �belief in something for which there is no evidence� � not what I said and an important distinction. I have never said that there is no evidence on which to base a faith.
My �faith� does indeed, as you say it must, have a basis outside of my perceptions of the physical world via my cognitive faculties. I only used that example as an analogy. I have developed what (if I was pretentious) might be called a �philosophy� but it does not rely on the evidence of others of like beliefs. It relies, in fact, on the evidence of those with the opposite belief � on the evidence of people such as yourself, IR, priests, faithful etc. Evolution does indeed figure in my view. I firmly believe in natural evolution and the beast within us (not the �ghost in the machine�, but the animal instincts that remain). But my �faith� also does not rely on just my cognitive observation of the world around me. It relies to a great extent on the evidence I get from you and your team!
What most certainly is a fallacy is to use the words �proof� and �evidence� as though they were interchangeable � they are not (definitions again!). Proof establishes the truth of a premiss. Evidence tends towards support of a premiss. The difference is important; one says what is true, the other says what may be true. You have interchanged the words to ascribe to me a definition of faith that is �belief in something for which there is no evidence� � not what I said and an important distinction. I have never said that there is no evidence on which to base a faith.
My �faith� does indeed, as you say it must, have a basis outside of my perceptions of the physical world via my cognitive faculties. I only used that example as an analogy. I have developed what (if I was pretentious) might be called a �philosophy� but it does not rely on the evidence of others of like beliefs. It relies, in fact, on the evidence of those with the opposite belief � on the evidence of people such as yourself, IR, priests, faithful etc. Evolution does indeed figure in my view. I firmly believe in natural evolution and the beast within us (not the �ghost in the machine�, but the animal instincts that remain). But my �faith� also does not rely on just my cognitive observation of the world around me. It relies to a great extent on the evidence I get from you and your team!
Nature of God. Nor do I find it at all unreasonable to declare that there are inherent limitations in the finite attempt to describe the infinite. What I do find to be beyond reason is that if someone declares that they have faith in, or devotes themselves to, or expends time and energy in service to a deity, that they do not have any clear understanding of what that deity is: �Do you believe in God?�, �Yes�, �What is God?�, �I don�t know!�. Well, how can you believe in something you don�t know?
So when I profess my belief that genesis and evolution, for example, are entirely natural and someone says �But God did that!�, I say �What�s God�, and there�s no answer worthy of the name. So I carry on in my belief with confidence. The question that goes along with this view is �How do you acquire faith?�.
Your revision of what God has done is welcome � it is at least a small step in the right direction (sorry ). While your position is now more arguable, the �spirit� behind my objection remains: If it is God�s will that we should all know him, then he has failed in the exercise of that will. It must be his will, therefore, that some should know him and some should be in ignorance of him. Not just me, nor just those who �choose� not to see the evidence; there are those on this planet who have never had the opportunity of even being the slightest bit aware of him.
So when I profess my belief that genesis and evolution, for example, are entirely natural and someone says �But God did that!�, I say �What�s God�, and there�s no answer worthy of the name. So I carry on in my belief with confidence. The question that goes along with this view is �How do you acquire faith?�.
Your revision of what God has done is welcome � it is at least a small step in the right direction (sorry ). While your position is now more arguable, the �spirit� behind my objection remains: If it is God�s will that we should all know him, then he has failed in the exercise of that will. It must be his will, therefore, that some should know him and some should be in ignorance of him. Not just me, nor just those who �choose� not to see the evidence; there are those on this planet who have never had the opportunity of even being the slightest bit aware of him.
The only requirement I have of God�s actions is that they be described in terms that are not self-contradictory and do not contradict the description of his nature. It does not matter to me one jot whether God reputedly massacred thousands of innocents. What does matter is when he is also described as �Love�. Whatever definitions you ascribe to words and whatever hidden or overt agenda is ascribed to God�s actions, �Love� does not massacre innocents. The action is inconsistent with the nature. That is just an illustrative example. His anger is inconsistent with his knowledge of the future. That�s another. If, to carry on with the massacre theme, God is described as absolutely good and absolutely just, then massacre of innocents clearly does not square with our understanding of the terms �good� and �just� . Therefore whoever used the terms �good� and �just� must retract that description and use other terms. It is not sufficient to fall back on the Spockian idiom of �It�s good and just, captain, but not as we know it�.
I am not attempting to impose any characteristics on God. I don�t have any requirements of God. I just expect people who believe in God to be able to describe their understanding of him in consistent and coherent terms. We may not be able to comprehend absolute justness, but we do comprehend the term �just�. If you can excuse mass murder of innocents by saying that God is absolutely/infinitely just, then mass murder of innocents is being justified � we can�t fathom the reasoning behind it, but we are saying that, somehow it is possible to justify slaughtering innocent children. Now abandon reason for a moment � does that even feel like it could possibly be right?
I am not attempting to impose any characteristics on God. I don�t have any requirements of God. I just expect people who believe in God to be able to describe their understanding of him in consistent and coherent terms. We may not be able to comprehend absolute justness, but we do comprehend the term �just�. If you can excuse mass murder of innocents by saying that God is absolutely/infinitely just, then mass murder of innocents is being justified � we can�t fathom the reasoning behind it, but we are saying that, somehow it is possible to justify slaughtering innocent children. Now abandon reason for a moment � does that even feel like it could possibly be right?
You say �Their fate is in their own hands�. There are people on this planet, in deepest China, in the Amazonian rain forest, maybe in the remote villages of Montana, who have never heard of God .Their fate is not in their own hands. The totally free gift of reconciliation has not been offered to them. God's preservation of Israel: until you get time to provide a sufficient answer, I will be at a loss to equate �Thou shalt not kill� with �Go and smite that tribe out of existence for me� and a loving, caring, just god with one who goes around smiting as a resolution when he surely has an absolutely irresistible power of persuasion. There were other options in his arsenal for protecting his people.
Trinity & ancient texts: If a scientist discovered texts which described a theory of a physical phenomenon within his field and he could not reconcile the premisses of that theory, and he then discovered that others before him had failed to do so for 1700 years, then he would most sensibly assume that the content of at least one of the texts is either wrong or misinterpreted. The documents themselves may be genuine and written by recognised scientists of the time, but the content or interpretation is wrong � the theory deduced is simply wrong. It would be less reasonable to assume that the theory is correct and that the reader is just too thick to understand it. Same with the Trinity. I see where the concept has come from, but the concept must nonetheless, in my view, be wrong by the same token as the �theory� analogy. I don�t subscribe to absolute papal infallibility either, but that prevent revision of the Trinity concept. I have seen papal infallibility described as �papal edicts may not necessarily be the most correct, but they will not be wrong � he might not show you the best route, but he will not show you a wrong route�. Not what was originally intended, I think.
Trinity & ancient texts: If a scientist discovered texts which described a theory of a physical phenomenon within his field and he could not reconcile the premisses of that theory, and he then discovered that others before him had failed to do so for 1700 years, then he would most sensibly assume that the content of at least one of the texts is either wrong or misinterpreted. The documents themselves may be genuine and written by recognised scientists of the time, but the content or interpretation is wrong � the theory deduced is simply wrong. It would be less reasonable to assume that the theory is correct and that the reader is just too thick to understand it. Same with the Trinity. I see where the concept has come from, but the concept must nonetheless, in my view, be wrong by the same token as the �theory� analogy. I don�t subscribe to absolute papal infallibility either, but that prevent revision of the Trinity concept. I have seen papal infallibility described as �papal edicts may not necessarily be the most correct, but they will not be wrong � he might not show you the best route, but he will not show you a wrong route�. Not what was originally intended, I think.
Who was Jesus? � A quick answer (reserving the right to revise) � it�s probably the Jesus described in the NT but without the immaculate conception, virgin birth, voice of the Father, miracles, resurrections, ascension. In short, anything ascribed to Jesus in the NT that could have been reasonably ascribed to any human person.
Validity of scripture documents: first, I do not concede that all the content of all the documents is accurate. One cannot demonstrate that NT accounts of Easter are entirely accurate. And I wholeheartedly agree that the content must be considered in light of the witnesses. If Dr Luke writes that a patient of his told him that said patient had once spoken to an elderly man claiming to be an apostle, and said apostle reported that he had seen Jesus alive after Jesus died on the cross, then there is no need to call into question Dr Luke�s report � the patient my well have said just that. As for the rest of it � how could one say, from that report, that the fact that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected is demonstrably true? You may say that this is an easy cop-out for me, but I would say that one must give due consideration to conspiracy, to �Chinese whispers�, to copying and recopying of texts and possibly to other causes, including the phenomenon of a false witness statement and of omission of �unsuitable� material. If what is reported is incredible and goes against everything we know, then it is reasonable to have a healthy scepticism and put the reports though rigorous examination. History writers write their own versions of �history�.
I thought the number of postings exceeded 500 a while ago. Maybe someone has removed unnecessary or unsuitable postings that don�t support the main thread (LOL). Maybe we�re near the AB thread limit. As for the DIY, I have a lot of preparation to do first and I suspect (and hope) that I won�t actually get around to installation now until the weather improves in Spring.
Validity of scripture documents: first, I do not concede that all the content of all the documents is accurate. One cannot demonstrate that NT accounts of Easter are entirely accurate. And I wholeheartedly agree that the content must be considered in light of the witnesses. If Dr Luke writes that a patient of his told him that said patient had once spoken to an elderly man claiming to be an apostle, and said apostle reported that he had seen Jesus alive after Jesus died on the cross, then there is no need to call into question Dr Luke�s report � the patient my well have said just that. As for the rest of it � how could one say, from that report, that the fact that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected is demonstrably true? You may say that this is an easy cop-out for me, but I would say that one must give due consideration to conspiracy, to �Chinese whispers�, to copying and recopying of texts and possibly to other causes, including the phenomenon of a false witness statement and of omission of �unsuitable� material. If what is reported is incredible and goes against everything we know, then it is reasonable to have a healthy scepticism and put the reports though rigorous examination. History writers write their own versions of �history�.
I thought the number of postings exceeded 500 a while ago. Maybe someone has removed unnecessary or unsuitable postings that don�t support the main thread (LOL). Maybe we�re near the AB thread limit. As for the DIY, I have a lot of preparation to do first and I suspect (and hope) that I won�t actually get around to installation now until the weather improves in Spring.
Clanad, like most 'believers' I think that you believe you understand the criteria of accptability according to reason of non-believers, but in fact you do not.
Like most of them, you start (whether you admit it or not) with the assumption that god exists, then you start to try to call up all kinds of irrelevancies and misinterpreations to try to support it.
Understanding the basis of science and truly rational thinking is in fact very difficult. A great many people think that they understand enough about science or its principles to jump to a conclusion about, for example, the existence of God. God is, of course, the best conclusion reached by many people with a little bit of knowledge. Take the apparent design around you, for example. It smacks of 'God', an intelligent designer who plucked it out of nothing and shaped it for a purpose. If you're prepared to accept for a minute that there may be other possibilities (Clanad, this is something which you are not doing), then you are in a position to probe further and to see if the science can explain what you are trying to explain without recourse to 'God'.
I first struck upon this idea when I read the debate on God between Frederick Coppleston, (S.J.), and Bertrand Russell, in which Russell suggests the possibility that the universe is just 'there'. Clanad, you would do well to entertain this possibility, just for a minute.
-- answer removed --
The talk of atheists requiring some sort of 'faith' that can be equated in any way to the kind of 'faith' that a believer needs for belief in god is simply nonsense and amounts to conflation. Because of the way the brain works (just like a computer) I can hold online the conclusions reached from reason without needing to constantly call to consciousness the reasoning or evidence that led to that conclusion. This is NOT the same as the 'leap of faith' performed by believers, who throw out reason for a moment to jump from one idea to the next. I'll give you an example. There is a big, ordered world around me. <believer now puts on hold important elements of reasoning, for example possibility of universe just being there, or seeming contradictions such as evidence of poor design or absent creator> So God, the great big designer in the sky, who is probably 'infinite', must exist. Unsurprisingly, when questions are asked in a forum such as this, no evidence can be given, because the belief is not based on reason, but specifically on a lack of reason. It is very very much akin to the belief in Santa.
I know I suggest we don't harp on about Jesus, but Christianity is a good example of the collapse of an idea of 'faith' when probed by reason and knowledge. For example, Jesus came to earth and died for the 'sin of humanity', all of our sins, but crucially because of the 'sin we inherit' from the first 2 people, ie original sin of Adam/Eve. NOW we know:
I know I suggest we don't harp on about Jesus, but Christianity is a good example of the collapse of an idea of 'faith' when probed by reason and knowledge. For example, Jesus came to earth and died for the 'sin of humanity', all of our sins, but crucially because of the 'sin we inherit' from the first 2 people, ie original sin of Adam/Eve. NOW we know:
Adam and Eve didn't exist, we evolved from lower species, not through a special act of creation when two people were made 'in situ'
The thing that was posited as the seat of our will/memory/intelligence, ie the soul, which lives on beyond our body and which transmits 'original sin' and which is scarred by sin and needs the redemption of christ to fix it, is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense, and all of the properties invested in it are now wholly explicable by parts of the physical device in your bonce, namely the brain.
And yet despite this, people still believe. And they would call themselves 'informed'.
I know hundreds and hundreds of 'very informed intellectuals' who still believe this tripe.
My statements about culture/peer pressure came about to explain why people hold on to their faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. 'Culture' is important since it is actually not just a disposable 'add-on' to the human intellect, but, following studies of chimps and the african '!Kung San', may offer the best explanation for the evolution of our superior intelligence, which must therefore remain highly susceptible to cultural forces.
The thing that was posited as the seat of our will/memory/intelligence, ie the soul, which lives on beyond our body and which transmits 'original sin' and which is scarred by sin and needs the redemption of christ to fix it, is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense, and all of the properties invested in it are now wholly explicable by parts of the physical device in your bonce, namely the brain.
And yet despite this, people still believe. And they would call themselves 'informed'.
I know hundreds and hundreds of 'very informed intellectuals' who still believe this tripe.
My statements about culture/peer pressure came about to explain why people hold on to their faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. 'Culture' is important since it is actually not just a disposable 'add-on' to the human intellect, but, following studies of chimps and the african '!Kung San', may offer the best explanation for the evolution of our superior intelligence, which must therefore remain highly susceptible to cultural forces.
Some nice posting there Merlin.
I also often ask why they can't perceive as I perceive and vice versa. I do think that any enquiry about belief in god must begin with a very critical evaluation of the device doing the "reasoning" and holding the beliefs. It is a common assumption in religious, esp. christian circles, that humans are ideal reasoning machines and are 'built to come to know god, etc.' My estimation (and without blowing my own trumpet, I did study for 7 years under the forerunners in brain and belief) that humans are really not very well equipped at all at coming to know truths, it's why so few are actually scientists and why the vast majority have such a poor grasp on even the basics of philosophy and science. And why so many can hold such distorted views despite otherwise seemingly healthy reasoning skills. Evolutionary psychology does offer some explanations>why the hell create the minds we need? They're a positive handicap. So I think that fideism contains some bootstrapping problems: they don't even begin to accept that they are hugely vulnerable to distortions, the mind can fall to rest with confidence on many arguments without proper justification and the very process of reasoning contains all kind of distortions. Look up 'contraction bias' or 'confirmation bias' to see what I mean.
To clear up a couple of points. 'Falsehood' means some facts are just wrong, 'fallacy' means that there is a flaw in a process of logic, they are commonly used interchangeably.
"Cognition" and "perception" mean quite definite things. We come to know things about the world through our senses and this is interpreted at a low level according to information contained in the sensory input itself (this is weird if you think about it) and from top down information from 'higher level processing'. This is not the same as 'cognition' which is the processing of perceptual information, according to principles and filters and then gives rise to thinking, memory, and planning.
The weird thing is that at all levels, even at the very lowest, earliest levels, belief is being used. You're reading this on the screen as part of a big, definitive, 3d world in front of you? Actually, all your brain has to work on is two postage-stamp sized, upside down images on your retina. Your brain has to use belief about what kind of suspicious coincidences it detects in the sensory information.
All the more reason, therefore, to apply strict criteria to the reasoning process to have a snowball's chance in hell of arriving at any kind of truths.
"Cognition" and "perception" mean quite definite things. We come to know things about the world through our senses and this is interpreted at a low level according to information contained in the sensory input itself (this is weird if you think about it) and from top down information from 'higher level processing'. This is not the same as 'cognition' which is the processing of perceptual information, according to principles and filters and then gives rise to thinking, memory, and planning.
The weird thing is that at all levels, even at the very lowest, earliest levels, belief is being used. You're reading this on the screen as part of a big, definitive, 3d world in front of you? Actually, all your brain has to work on is two postage-stamp sized, upside down images on your retina. Your brain has to use belief about what kind of suspicious coincidences it detects in the sensory information.
All the more reason, therefore, to apply strict criteria to the reasoning process to have a snowball's chance in hell of arriving at any kind of truths.
Merlin ,in response to your post about god loving people freely, but according to OT accounts he will "smite us down" for any transgressions, a father may threaten to or even punish his child for doing wrong even when the child has been told that the action is wrong ,that does not mean the father does not love his child. Heres another interesting point merlin, you stated that faith is a �belief in something for which there is no proof�, you can no more prove that evolution occurred than i can prove that god exists, evolution has not (and never will be in my opinion) proved, there are still missing links and no matter how many ape and monkey skeletons archaelogists dig up, you are still speculating at your origins just as i do, so we are both men of faith, hehe, also id like to point out that ,although there are exceptions, many of those who try to prove us believers in god wrong, seem to go about it in a bitter manner, *ahem* fandango *ahem* ,what exactly gets them so het up in these discussions?
I'm not bitter, I just can't stand ignorance and intellectual dishonesty masquerading as any kind of expertise.
How much personal work in to back up your claim that there is/never will be evidence for evolution? To what do you attribute the many fossils we have found, not of humans like us, but of intermediates between us and our ancestor with chimps>e.g. homo africanus, homo erectus, homo neanderthalus (on a slightly different branch), etc etc. These were all homo, they all meet the criteria, and we can map out the generational tree that exists between them and us using DNA and other techniques. What story do you propose if you reject evolutionary theories? Evolution still occurs, every time someone has sex and conceives. Check out the facts.
Would you rather I accept your Adam/Eve story? Please explain how you think that came about.
Latest Posts
Car Won't Start, But Rac Can't Find...
Motoring17 mins ago
So It Was Just Another Dirty Con Trick...
News21 mins ago
Technology24 mins ago
