The God Arguement

[phookat]

Originally posted by AKIron
It would appear you know less of quantum mechanics than I. No problem, I haven't seen you claim to be a scientist either.

I have taken courses in quantum mechanics (like real physics courses, I mean, not pop philosophy), but that is an extremely deep subject and I would not presume to claim any level of expertise in that field even after that.  Yes, I've read some of the layperson QM books, as you say it is a very interesting subject.

Originally posted by AKIron
It seems to me that any person with the least sense of curiosity would have to form a belief about their own existence.

That's neither here nor there.  But you are correct to say that humans naturally look for explanations, whether they have knowledge or not.  That's one of the things that explains religions.  Whether it is the Shaman that prays to the rain god, or Zeus or Odin, or the Jewish/Christian God, it's all fairy tales that try to explain reality.  IMO.

[phookat]

Originally posted by moot
BS.  Fear is not a rational argument.  Agnostic principle that no evidence can possibly prove or disprove God is a rational conclusion.

SirLoin can defend his statement, I'm sure.  But I will say this.  I agree that fear does not provide the basis for a rational argument.  But one of the consequences of the non-existence of evidence of God, is that there is no need to fear the Eternal Celestial Totalitarian Dictator.  There's no "disproof" of the Bogeyman either, but since there's no evidence for the Bogeyman, there's no need to fear him.

Originally posted by moot
No, lack of evidence doesn't prove inexistence.

I never said it did.  And I completely agree with your statement.

Originally posted by moot
There's good (better than anything, or I'm all ears) reason to not fear anything.

This is a little convoluted, but I think I agree if I understand you right.

Originally posted by moot
An agnostic says there's no judging it, no scaling it or any such quantifying.  That's one of the simplest and most central notions of all the discussions on this topic, here in the OC and everywhere else.

I guess that's true.  I'll provisionally accept your correction, pending a little further thought.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by phookat
I have taken courses in quantum mechanics (like real physics courses, I mean, not pop philosophy), but that is an extremely deep subject and I would not presume to claim any level of expertise in that field even after that.  Yes, I've read some of the layperson QM books, as you say it is a very interesting subject.

 That's neither here nor there.  But you are correct to say that humans naturally look for explanations, whether they have knowledge or not.  That's one of the things that explains religions.  Whether it is the Shaman that prays to the rain god, or Zeus or Odin, or the Jewish/Christian God, it's all fairy tales that try to explain reality.  IMO.

I think you may be dismissing fairy tales to casually if not contemptuously. To assume that reality is limited to a physical universe which can be known completely through human "science" seems a bit imprudent if not foolishly arrogant to me.

[moot]

"But one of the consequences of the non-existence of evidence of God, is that there is no need to fear the Eternal Celestial Totalitarian Dictator."
Suppose he existed, why is there need to fear such a Dictator? Why is it a necessary consequence?

"There's no "disproof" of the Bogeyman either, but since there's no evidence for the Bogeyman, there's no need to fear him."
Like I (we) said, fear is something you can just rule out altogether, if you follow some common sense.  Being such a non-factor, it doesn't justify anything anyway.

[Gunthr]

Charlatan. LOL. Praise Jesus, he answers your prayers and heals your ills! - phookat

actually, i said you were a charlatan for your apparent refusal to define your terms, not for your beliefs...   I respect other people's beliefs.

thanks for your response, btw.  

 i don't want to play the "war of the dictionaries" game, but your definitions differ from generally accepted definitions.  However, i certainly accept your defintions as a basis for your beliefs.

i'm still wondering how you can reject all present concepts of God for lack of evidence, while acknowledging that God could exist - not a teapot in orbit - but a real Being, yet mock the beliefs of those who believe differently than you.  

i'm afraid that i'll stick with the commonly accepted definitions for myself.   An atheist doesn't believe in God.  An agnostic doesn't know if there is a God or not, and believes that God is unknowable.  i still do not see much distinction btw your atheism and agnostcism, except agnostics seem less inclined to mock the beliefs of others.

[P47Gra]

God, Family, Guns and AH what else do we need.

Jugman

[SirLoin]

Originally posted by moot
[ii]
"BS.  Fear is not a rational argument.  


Fear is the cornerstone of most every religion...You don't accept the Lord as your savior?..you ain't goooooin' up to heaven!"

My father is almost 80..Never drank,smoked,lied..He is an athiest and NEVER violated one of the Ten Commandments.But you see,he is condemned to eternity in Hell according to religion.

Being judged on your beliefs instead of your actions or morals is wrong.If there is an afterlife,i would rather spend it with people like my father..rather than "born again" liars,cheaters,rapists etc.

I would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven...Besides,who wants to sit around all day playin the harp?Much better musicians down below.

[AKIron]

There are many views of hell and who belongs there among christians Sir Loin. I think C.S. Lewis' description in "The Great Divorce" rings true though he claimed it wasn't his theology. A place where people just drift further and further apart by their own choosing. He also said in something else though I don't recall exactly what that the gates of hell are indeed locked but from the inside.

[E25280]

Originally posted by phookat
That doesn't answer the question.  Why doesn't God appear now and dispell most of our doubts by a simple demonstration as I described?

Of course it answered your question.  You, apparently, are either simply too blind to see it, or are ignorant of the subject matter that you are trying to dismiss.

You ask for his direct intervention -- to "prove his existance" beyond a shadow of the doubt.  Revelation states it will occur at the appointed time.  That is to say, HIS time, not Phookat's.

Until then, there is ample evidence of his existence, if one has the eyes to see it.  

There are many witnesses to his works throughout recorded history, if you have ears to listen.

That you refuse to do so is, in the end, your choice.

[moot]

SirLoin, you (generaly speaking) don't do the right thing out of fear, but because it is right. That's true by principle, with or without religion.
And even in the case of an honest religious perspective, consequences of wrong-doing aren't to be feared, since they are due:  you should wholeheartedly agree to damnation if you had earned it. You wouldn't fear it, since it would be exactly as things ought to happen.

In any case, fear plays no part in the agnostic idea that something such as God cannot be determined.

[lazs2]

phoo... now you are getting it..  if you think there is a good possibility that there is a god but aren't sure... you are an agnostic.

If you think that there is a good chance there is no god but admit that it is possible.. you are an agnostic..

only the thiest and athiest believe in a manner that is 100% certain and based only on faith.   As I have said.. I believe in god and have no doubt.. I base this soley on faith.

I have always said so here so the quote you attributed to me was wrong.

I seen nothing wrong with believing in a god that is different than the mainstream religious teachings either.  I don't see how that makes my arguement wrong in any way.   My god is who he is.   I can't prove it nor do I care to.  The proof is in what I have seen and felt.  I don't have any words passed down from my god to tell you or any laws.  I don't have a church and I have no advice written by me while possesed of god...  

And yes...we are all agnostic on most things.. many are not tho and they have an agenda... take man made global warming... many have a religious belief that is 100%  even tho it makes no sense scientifically.

They have an agenda just as athiests have an agenda.  

To me... the athiest has an agenda... most "athiests" are just agnostics trying to look hip to their friends...  real athiests have a burning hate that is born of either poor personalities or a wrong commited to them by a god at one time or...  just plain envy.   Even worse.. maybe political.. great wrongs have been done by the religious but some good... maybe more good than evil...but.. great evil has been done in the name of athiesm and no good.

hap.. which brings me back to you... yes I would be glad to read the book.. I read most everything.

lazs

[phookat]

Originally posted by AKIron
I think you may be dismissing fairy tales to casually if not contemptuously. To assume that reality is limited to a physical universe which can be known completely through human "science" seems a bit imprudent if not foolishly arrogant to me.

That is a strawman.  I have not said that it is guaranteed (or even likely) that our small human brains can completely know everything about the universe.  But on the contrary, it is incorrect to "assume" that the supernatural exists, simply because of our lack of knowledge.  And here's real arrogance for you: to claim not only that you *know* that the supernatural God exists, but that you know his mind and his minutest instructions and can tell everyone else what those instructions are.

As far as dismissing fairy tales.  You yourself probably dismiss all the other fairy tales: Islam, Greek Gods, Roman Gods, Norse Mythology, Scientology, and any number of other fantasies that humans have invented.  You are an atheist with respect to all those beliefs.  Are you wrong to dismiss those?  Did you study Odin and Thor and determine that those beliefs were false?  Doesn't it make you just a little suspicious of your own belief, in a myth that is as fantastic as any of the others?  Don't you think perhaps the real reason you believe in this particular myth in simply the fact that you were indoctrinated into it as a kid?

[phookat]

Originally posted by moot
Suppose he existed, why is there need to fear such a Dictator? Why is it a necessary consequence?
...
Like I (we) said, fear is something you can just rule out altogether, if you follow some common sense.

No I really disagree completely on this.  Dictatorship is bad, especially the benevolent kind.  There's no reason to assume that your dictator shares your "common sense".  We are talking about a dictatorial God who will torture you eternally for the thought-crime of "not believing in him".  Yes, this is something that we should fear and loathe.  This is not morality at all, but rather extreme immorality of a Stalinist/1984 kind.

[phookat]

Originally posted by Gunthr
i still do not see much distinction btw your atheism and agnostcism

As Moot pointed out, an agnostic thinks you can't say anything about the chances of God existing or not.  An atheist thinks you can.  You can say it is very unlikely.  There is a difference.

Laz and yourself correctly point out that some atheists *additionally* think that we can be 100% sure that God doesn't exist, that we have "disproof" of God.  I think that the number of atheists that actually think this is extremely small.  Contrasted especially with the number of theists who are 100% certain of God (and all his instructions).

[phookat]

Originally posted by E25280
You ask for his direct intervention -- to "prove his existance" beyond a shadow of the doubt.  Revelation states it will occur at the appointed time.  That is to say, HIS time, not Phookat's.

You still don't get it.  That is simply a statement of "fact" (likely a false fact in this case).  A statement of fact is not a reason.  You still haven't provided a reason why God doesn't show himself now.  It would be very easy for him to do, it would remove most doubts, and it would certainly vindicate you and all the others who are certain of God.  So why doesn't he do it?  All the obvious miracles seem to have happened in the past, none are happening now...doesn't that make you a little suspicious about the truth of the original outlandish miracle claims?

Originally posted by E25280
Until then, there is ample evidence of his existence

OK, what's the evidence?  

Originally posted by E25280
There are many witnesses to his works throughout recorded history

Such as?