The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: cut to the chase...

Re: cut to the chase...
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Tuesday, December 6 2011, 0:43:07 (UTC)
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
Website:
Website title:

Arrow wrote:
> >>When you say “proof”, you mean a priori or a posteriori? Does the possibility of an uncaused instigator sound more illogical than its alternative: infinite regression?


...you have to forgive me if I pass on the bait. Proof is proof...it is evidence for the truth of a statement. Is a statement true or not....can it be verified, or not. I don;t mean "proof" as in convoluted verbal gymnastics....let's just stick to the case at hand; Whatever kind of proof you want to call proof...do you have any for the existence of any god? It's really rather simple.


...and try not to answer a question with a question...it will help us get to the point.
>>
>>...there you go again. No proof PERIOD!
>
>That's not an answer to the questions above. Anyway, in scientific or philosophical discourses, there is no such thing as “no proof, period”. When it comes to the issue of God, you tend display the following fallacy: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

...this is not a philosophical debate...what is there to debate about the earth being flat? There can be no debate. 700 years ago you might have been able to have such a debate...but not any longer. There is no evidence for the existence of a god...period! What you claim to be evidence, isn't. That trees exist has no bearing on whether a god made them. That is YOUR expectation...because of that old watchmaker...but we aren't talking about watches or things we KNOW already that humans make.,...we don;t know who if anything made trees....you say god...I say there is no evidence for that...and then you say that because I can't match you with some answer...because I don;t have a competing god, or some other idea I am certain of, or, since I can't prove to you that your god didn't create trees...there fore i MUST accept your explanation....no way. There's no logic there.
>
> If in the next breath you say, "oh yeah, then how do you explain the sky"? My response is that I don't try to explain the sky...the sky is there, I don;t have to explain it, I'd just like to keep it blue and clean.
>
>That has nothing to do with the discussion. That's more like existentialism.

...just trying to keep it simple..because it really is. You are claiming the existence of something you cannot prove...not like we understand the word "proof". You find some poop on the ground and say "Jesus did it"! I find the same poop and say, "I don't know who did it". One of us is being reasonable and the other is shoveling poop.
>
> And you can't explain it, or god, either. You think you've explained things but you start out BELIEVING them to begin with.
>
>And you start out BELEIVING that there is no God.

...not at all. I don;t start out "believing" the earth is round. I know it is. Just because you start out believing it is flat, does not make it flat! Our "beliefs" are not equally correct...you can't say, "I believe it is flat and you believe it is round...we BOTH have our own views and mine is as valid as yours."

..it is not a belief that there is no god...it is a belief that there IS a god. It is a FACT that there is no God...it is not a belief. And remember that the person making the outlandish claim is the one with the burden of proof. It is not outlandish or outrageous of me to say there is no god, as you describe him, or anyone else for that matter. Seeing is believing, and I see no god and no evidence for one.

...300 years ago, had you seen an airplane, you might have called it proof that there are gods because "how else do you explain such a miraculous thing"? It is ignorance that makes people think gods make airplanes..or trees. Now you see an airplane and you know damn well a god didn;t make it...
>
> You already believe there is a god, therefore your questions are loaded, as are your proofs
>
>I do not get the “therefore”.

...because you start out believing what you claim you are going to prove, or show evidence for.
>
> a scientist doesn't go looking for the evidence that will prove his point....a scientist has no point to prove..he's just LOOKING...and he'll take whatever comes.
>
>Not really. Scientists come up with all sorts of theories and then try to back them up with empirical evidence, not the other way around. But I am not trying to prove anything here. How about you prove that I'm trying to prove God existence!

...why are we having this discussion? If you don't believe there is a god then say so.
>
> Aquinas starts out by saying "we know a god exists"...and then he thinks to prove it.
>
>Source? Quote? I don't think so.

...his first point or premise or whatecer...he states that we know SOMETHING must be behind all of this...his four or five other steps are merely to prove that that someone is HIS god...very silly.
>
> I am not asking for blind faith but at least let's not adamantly negate a hypothesis purely on the bases of lack of evidence. We do not have proofs for the existence of parallel universes or extraterrestrial life but scientists do postulate and discuss them.

...you can postulate and discuss...what you can't do is burn people and hang people and induce guilt and terror in children...this is something religions do and they know they can only get away with if they claim a god told them so.
>>
>>...yes but they have never killed anyone for not believing.
>
>That's another discussion. You have shifted from one topic to another.

...no. I don;t care what anyone believes...makes no difference to me...unless they claim that they have a right to deny me anything because their god told them to....when you presume to damn people and kill people and scar people, based on your belief in god and what he demands, then you become a menace to society, certainly to children, and then all bets are off.
>
> Anyone who looks out to the night time sky would be foolish to not admit the almost certainty that life must exist on other planets
>
>I don't see why one would be foolish to consider the possibility of a creator. At first, you used the word “silly”, and now “foolish”. What next? That's not an argument. It's not a refutation. What seems foolish to you might not seem foolish to others like Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein or Francis Collins who recently headed the human genome project.

...smart people become foolish where religion and god are concerned....you'll be talking perfect sense to someone and all of a sudden he'll tell you he believes he'll live on a cloud when he dies...this stuff makes smart people stupid...that's how dangerous it is.
>
> ...but to begin describing and explaining that life is the work of a fool
>
>Why? Are you anti-philosophy, anti-metaphysics, anti-science, anti-research?

...no, just anti-foolishness.
>
> ...as foolish as claiming god only made life on THIS planet.
>
>God is one of the possibilities. Not only you reject it, you reject also the search for an alternative explanation. It would be foolish to do so, you say.

...he is not a possibility...any more than a red wagon is a possibility. YOU think he is a possible explanation...but based on what? On nothing except your belief that he MUST...that's circular and gets nowhere.
>
> by the way, which god do you believe exists? Thor...Isis....Zeus? Let's establish that first.
>
>The name doesn't matter. What matters is the notion of a creator whose essence carries with it the unique property of being uncaused, something you have discarded as silly. Maybe God and nature in its entirety are one as opposed to being a separate entity, a view espoused by Einstein. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/

...no one is an expert on god...my views are as sensible as anyone else's....and since my views reject fantastical statements which can't be proven AND those same statemants and beliefs can be shown to have caused countless ages of human misery..it is easy to reject them and claim anyone who sees any benefits in such gods and religions as daft.
>
> >In my opinion: IF God exists then we are under his control, and therefore
>>
>>...then how do you explain that I am NOT in his control? I'll tell you how...by saying that whether I know it or not, he is in control
>
>Perhaps the words “under his control” implies determination as opposed to free will. That's another discussion. Let's just say that he, as a creator, has enough control to decided whether or not his creation should be granted the privilege to prove his existence.

.."let's just say" won't do". Like I said; you start out already accepting that he exists. I am asking for evidence...and you give me, "let's just say". Let's not...let's SHOW!
>
> ...I ask you, how can you have an intelligent discussion with someone who is going to tell what YOU should think?
>
>I don't see what you mean. No one is telling you what you should think.
>
> we can prove his existence ONLY if HE wants us to prove it. It follows that: IF we proved God's existence AGAINST his will, then in this case he wouldn't be God.
>>
>>...how do you know we can only prove his existence if he wants us to?
>
>Please reread the paradox. I sometimes get the impression that you reply hastily, that you respond to a sentence as soon as you stumble upon it, that you treat it separately without putting it in its intended context, and that you spare no time for reflection. Have you ever considered reading the entire reply before responding?

...all the time. I keep brushing aside the distractions...big words....supposedly convoluted thoughts which can be expressed in no other way...I am wary of these. It is very, very simple. So simple that people who WANT to believe in a god injure themselves in muddying the waters.

...I ask you for any evidence that there is a god and you give me trees, or watches...I tell I know where watches come from...but not where trees come from...so you tell me again, that they come from god, they must because you haven't any better answer and you NEED an answer..or want one very badly. I respond that your needs do not create a god for me. It's very simple.
>
> And by the way, you are using the word "proof" again....you want to watch that.
>
>I don't see what you mean... What I provided was simply a one-sided logical paradox. An example of a two-sided one is: “can God create a stone which he himself cannot lift?”. If we say yes, then he's not God because he can't lift the stone. And if we say no, then he's not God either because there's something he can't do.

...do you not see? You don;t answer the question...it is NOT a paradox but a poorly stated attempt to get around the central issue..which is not "can god lift stones"...but does he even exist? You again assume that he DOES exist, and so you "wonder" about his attributes...but "he" does not exist! We're still stuck at that and you want to run on ahead with "let's just say" and then, before I can blink, are already telling me he can pick up stones...or not! How the hell do you know?
>
> >>but you start out saying you BELIEVE, and on no evidence.
>>>
>>>When? When? When? When did I, or the author I quoted, start out by saying “I BELIEVE”? When did I ever begin an argument by saying: “GIVEN that God exists....”?
>>
>>...you said earlier that you believe it...glad to hear you don't. Then why do you make claims about something you DON'T believe?
>
>You have not answered the above questions. I do believe in God. When I told you so, I was giving you a personal answer. It was not in the context of a debate. What I meant to say is that neither I nor the author I quoted has ever employed personal beliefs as a premise or a basis for an argument, otherwise you would have provided a quotation.
>

...well, if you believe there is one...and I believe there isn't...we have nothing to discuss...we can fight and argue about it but we can't discuss. For a logical discussion we have to agree on the premises and then maybe argue about how each of us reached a different conclusion.

...I thought we were putting the existence of gods aside in favor of discussing the effect of religious belief and practices when people BELIEVE there is a god. It doesn't matter, as a practical thing, whether he exists or not...for me the issue is what people do IN HIS NAME and because they believe him to be real..
>* * *
>
>I see you have commented twice on subject of absolute and relative morality. Please I'd like delve into it later... regards.

,,,stay away from absolutes if you can help it.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9