Jayhawker Soule

That is an underwhelming argument under the best of circumstances. There is zero reason to presume, much less insist, that the supernatural makes "sense" (whatever that might mean). What you call "sense" in this regard is little more than somewhat modern Western bias - the type of shallow cultural arrogance that seeks to demean the polytheist as somehow less intelligent.
Unfortunately, Occam's Razor is a much abused rule of thumb having zero applicability to the supernatural, where terms like "reason" and "necessity" have no standard meaning.
Brilliant. God thinks/feels/acts like Tercel! I, on the other hand, have created/engineered many systems in which I currently have zero interest. It must be hereditary, because I've often seen my grandchildren create things only to move on to more engaging pursuits.
No doubt, but so what? What is the criteria for 'making sense' in the supernatural?
Supernatural pragmatism may well be right up there with square circles. With all do respect, it seems like the only thing that you've managed to add to ...

• According to my revelation, my revelation is better than your revelation.

is the hopeful conjecture ...

• Seems to me that a Supernatural God would be like a really nice Natural Guy except, well, supernatural.

This isn't a very ompelling argument, and serves even less less as a transferable selection criteria. It's simply suggestive of a preference for nice fairy-tales over horror stories.

rainbow walking

Hi CA,
Let me see what I can contribute…

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Damned if I know. But I suspect, should it turn out that he is real, you and I should be able to agree on tests capable of falsifying one or both claims.

rw: Maybe, maybe not. Can you devise a test to falsify the claim that we all think with an “inner voice”? Some phenomena are real and do exist, which we cannot deny, yet for which no empirical method obtains.


So:

A. Why God instead of God(s)?


The orthodox answer is: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but one triune god. Which is to say that neither God nor God(s) applies.


The philosopher’s answer is: Ground of all being. Which is also an answer that is non-responsive to this question

(shrug) Who knows?

B. Why good rather than malicious?

The orthodox reply: Because god says so, has intervened with an introduction to the concept of moral agency, new beginnings from forgiveness, etc.etc. ad naseum. All positive values for man thus evidence of his benevolence towards us. Thus he must be good.

The philosopher’s answer might be: Value assignments are too arbitrary a method to define a god.

C. Why honest rather than dishonest?

The orthodox reply: Because we believe him and have seen many benefits for our personal lives associated with this trust…all evidence that he is honest in his dealings with us.

The philosopher’s response: Same as his reply to B, above.

D. Why interested rather than disinterested?

The orthodox reply: Jesus Christ, the bible, and church. All evidences of his interest in man.

The philosopher’s response: Ground of all being necessitates deontological connectives. How they are expressed can range anywhere from creation and nothing more, all the way up to literal biblical intervention, thus determining the particular persuasion of one’s philosophy as either theism or deism.

E: Why personal rather than impersonal?

The orthodox response: Same as D, above.

The philosopher’s response: Both, depending on whether you express your philosophy as a theist or a deist.

F: Why…?

Both would respond: Why what?

Once you accept God(s), your sole selection criteria is reducible to:
· According to my revelation, my revelation is better than your revelation.

Rw: This cannot be avoided. You’re dealing with a subject far more complex than the existence of Santa. Accepting the existence of a god or gods is not the end of the believer’s experience. Defining the god he’s able to accept is the real challenge. Communicating the god he’s accepted is always more revealing of the believer than of the god he’s defining. Religious organizations are built around various definitions of a god. While some latitude is tolerated within the organization, the body politic discourages definitions that veer too wildly from the baseline. One of the strengths of the Catholic expression is its willingness to modify that baseline when all else fails.

... obviously not the most robust of methodologies.

rw: Nor conducive to his privacy as an individual.

luvluv

tk:

Human beings cannot describe anything EXACTLY. Your spouse couldn't describe you EXACTLY. Heck, you couldn't describe yourself exactly. But can others form a concept of your personality sufficient to have a relationship with "you", the real person?

Philosoft:

I don't know what that has to do anything.

My only point is that it is fallacious to assume that if people describe God differently then God must not exist.

And, you know you can do the same thing with God. You can just ask Him what you want to know about Him.

lpetrich:

You could definitely come to some conclusions about Jobar. You could trust that where the various descriptions overlap there is likely to be more veracity to those portions of the accounts.

If I said that Jobar was a black atheist/pantheist who moderates a forum on an internet message board, and Philosoft said that Jobar was a white atheist/pantheist who moderates a forum on an internet message board, then you could safely assume that Jobar was at least an atheist/pantheist internet forum moderator.

He may have directly revealed the truth to one or the other.

At any rate, if this were an isolated incident, and we could be sure that ALL that Jobar wanted was for a certain person to know exactly who he was, that he could certainly do so. But if Jobar had other considerations, like not wanting people to be his friend just because he's omnipotent and omniscient (but for the swell guy he is) he might not reveal himself in a terribly direct manner to everyone, but just let people know as much about them as they sincerely want to know.

Consequent Atheist:

I would say to most of your questions that I came to know who God is and what kind of God He is by inviting Him into my life and experiencing life with Him.

I never really intended to get into a full blown theological discussion. My only interest was to point out a fallacy. It is fallacious to assume that because people describe God differently God must not exist.

Scottyman:

I believe in the God who has one plan for what is ultimately best for all mankind. What is best for all mankind may require different things at different times, but that doesn't mean God is different.

Should your children believe that the Scottyman who punishes them is the "real Scottyman" or that the Scottyman who takes them to Disneyworld is the "real Scottyman"? Your love for them requires that you both punish them when they are doing wrong and that you reward them when they do what is right.

Scottyman

This is a dodge! You have bee requested to offer proof of an etheral beings existance and you offer a rhetorical response that is unnaceptable.

Again, you offer a personal opinion and no proof!

I know that Jobar must exist. I have used the Scientific Method to deduce that he/she does indeed exist. I don't have to physically see that person to know that, the same way you could verify that there is a real or even artificial person by talking to them on the phone. The majority of human beings would be capable of hearing them. But again you offer no proof of a "god/s" existance.



More dodging!

Ditto!

When I spank my child for being bad, he know it is me because he can hear and feel me spanking him. When I am done punishing him and hold him in my arms and tell him that I love hime he knows it is the same one and only me.

When the Jews were trying to leave Egypt and Pharoh wouldn't let them, their god (who would only reveal him/herself to one person supposedly) would murder children when it suited him/her and then come back at a different time and suddenly be a loving and caring "god". If you can't see the being that is causing harm and alternatively good, how do you know it is the same "god"?

How do you "Luvluv" know that same "god" that is trying to help you be a better provider to you children isn't different from another "god" that is working to destroy your ambitions? How do you know that any "god/s" exist at all. Revelations are most likely just random events that you mistakenly attribute to nonexistant spirit.

The bottom line is you can't PROVE it and that's been everyone's point on this board. You can't verify anything! All you offer for proof is opinions and conjecture and ZERO evidence.

Jayhawker Soule

I'm waiting.

luvluv

Scottyman:

This is not a dodge, and no such thing was requested of me. I entered into the discussion (unbidden) solely to point out a fallacy.

Nothing gets by you, does it?

It was never my intention in this conversation to prove anything to anyone. Only to point out a fallacy.

Right again.

The question was not about whether or not your children know you exist, the question is whether or not your children know which scottyman IS THE REAL YOU. Can a person, out of the same character motivation (love) behave in radically different fashions in two different circumstances? The answer is obviously yes. The fact that you behaved differently (almost contradictorially) in two different circmustances (in spaking them and taking them to Disneyland) obviously does not mean you do not exist. But the point I was trying to make is it also does not mean that your children, if they were to describe you to a stranger at those two different times, would not have been ACCURATE.

When you beat them, they might have told a stranger that you hit children. When you took them to DisneyWorld, they might have told a stranger that you love children. Not only would this NOT mean that you didn't exist, it would not even mean that your children's view of you was at all innacurate. The notion that such characteristics cannot live within the same being, or that they constitute a contradiction, would be entirely the fault of the PERCEPTION of the strangers, who did not know you.

The children of the Father know the Father for themselves, and so they can recognize two seemingly opposing behaviors as flipsides of the same coin. The Stranger can take the seemingly opposing views of the two children and come to believe that the two passions cannot live in the same Being, but this is because the Stranger does not know the Father.

Scottyman

This is completely absurd.:banghead: You are trying to take an example of a completely physical/emotional human state and attempting to carry that argument as a basis for someones belief in a "god". It's obvious that you have been a regular poster on this board for quite awhile longe than I have but in the short time I've been here I've noticed major differences in thought processes.

I came here because I needed to find solace in the companionship of other like minded people. The US is so full of religious nuts, IMO, that it is difficult to hold a conversation with anyone without the mention of a "god" entering into the picture. It gets really annoying, especially when you are watching a program or even the news and some religious wacko says that "it was gods will" that allowed the terrorists to crash flying bombs into the WTC, or "god is punishing our flagrant diversion from his teachings".

I understand now why theological minded people like you are really here. You are not here to understand why people like me don't believe. You are here to save us heathens. You think by bogging the conversation down with ridiculous arguments and obvious diversions that some of us might say, " yeah well, I guess there could be a god", but you still haven't answered the main question that we all want to know.

WHERE IS THE PROOF?

I know that "I" can be a good cop or bad cop. I am a physical being made of flesh and bone. My child can see and touch me. Emotional states can be described in text because we can feel hatred, love, anger, fear, humor etc........ "God" offers us no such evidence. We can't feel, see, touch or hear him/her/it. We can only base our beliefs on one persons opinion to another and it's not sufficient. It may be to you but not to me.

Can "god" make a keyboard function without fingers performing the movements to create a beautiful story......NO! Can "god" will the surgeons knife to save the dying person or commit malpractice without manipulating the surgeons hands.....NO! Can "god" will the tidal waves, hurricanes and typhoons to stop so the islands won't be overrun and the people die.....NO! Can "god" stop the Israelis from murdering the Palastinians and VS/VS......NO! Can "god" stop the asteroid from crashing into the only place we call home and obliterating the human race.....NO!

Can you give one solid piece of evidence that proves that a non-material supposedly all knowing being that controls the fate of not only us but the universe as well?

I think we all know the answer.

Philosoft

We have options when debating Jobar's existence beyond mere assertion. Impractical options, perhaps, but options nonetheless. The God you apparently believe in has been defined precisely to eliminate any non-faith options I might have used to determine his existence.

Perhaps. I think it's eminently reasonable, however, not even to consider God's existence until such time as the conflicting accounts can be objectively reconciled.

Problem: I can't ever tell the difference between his voice and mine.

Jobar

luvluv, though I would be highly flattered, I am the first to admit that an 'Existence of Jobar' forum would last for only a very few threads. Then the topic would lose all interest (except of course to me) because my existence has been proven beyond all doubt. I find it pretty damning that this forum has been going on for years- and the core topic for millenia- without any sort of incontrovertible proof being demonstrated.

Scottyman, I agree with you that many of the believers here are trying to convert us to their way of thinking. Don't gripe, though- because that gives *us* a chance to convert *them*. And on the II Atheists vs. Theists Conversion Scoreboard, we are winning by dozens to one.

Scottyman

I appreciate what you are saying Jobar. I just can't stand this argument and the comparison that Luvluv made equating that with it's physical corolation. There's simply no comparison.

To Luvluv,
There's also no comparison to spanking a child for misbehaving and a god that murders children on a massive scale. I was raised in a Christian enviroment and I never understood why our church didn't want us to read the old testament. It's obvious to me now. How a religious movement can so blatently ignore one of the more significant parts of the bible is beyond my comprehension. It's obvious that religions want to pick and choose what parts of the bible are ok to believe in but if you read most of the passages in the old testament it's very clear that your "god" is not a loving and caring "god". He/she/it is a spiteful, revengful, jealous, murderous, keniving freak and I'll have no child of mine growing up believing in such a monster.