Theli

Yes, move on.

Yes, moving on.

Now, you have really lost it. This is antropomorphism at it's worst. To think that particles choose to do this or that. Have you read about chemistry or biology?

Ok, this shows you have read some biology, but I don't see what your getting at.

Why do you include knowledge or care in chemistry?

Does independent atoms have a standpoint?
Are they aware?

I still don't know what you're trying to prove here.

What do you mean by "me"?
If you are not made of atoms then what are you made of?
Is your brain you?

[/QUOTE]Soon enough, those atoms will all escape from my grasp and my own existence will find its end in the ground.[/QUOTE]

I have never ever said that you are just a cluster of atoms that stays constant. You are an organism, and matter comes and goes.
I think you have looked at this whole thing from a wrong perspective. Organisms are not identified by wich speicific atoms they are built from. I have never said this, so go bark at someone else.

I know this. The reason I gave you an F- was that you even included such a thing as volunteering to the issue.

Ok, thanks. But I can't really celebrate as you don't think anything is real.
It would be like fooling an idiot. No big challenge - no big victory.

What conclution?
I followed your rantings to the end, and the only conclution you gave me was "god is mysterious".
The only mystery here is your own godbeleif.

You have also missed alot of my arguments/questions.

1st. You are a strong atheist.
You haven't refuted this one yet.

2nd. Your god is only in your imagination.
You haven't refuted this one either.

3rd. What is real?
Here you just pointed me to some previous self-refuting, "mysterious" statements and strawmen.

Premise: X is not eternal.
Conclution X is not real.
Non sequitor, anyone?

But from your argument here, every change is unreal. The only real thing that exist is that wich don't change.

First of all - faith is not magical. This is something I usually state to christians before getting in on the subject.
You never said anything about objective empirical criteria, just knowledge.
Isn't what you read in the bible knowledge?
Didn't you at some point learn the word god?
Isn't that knowledge.

Strawman again.

You are really stretching it now.
If you know someting "inside" a beliefsystem it is not knowledge?
And also, you admit that your belief is just based on unfounded assumptions?

You read their scriptures, even if scriptures outside christianity is of no use for you?
Why?

So, your contradiction with the comprehended attributes to the incomprehensible god. Were they based on lack of knowledge, or lack of intelligence?
If a being is descibed with 2 contradictory attributes, the existence of such an entity becomes impossible and one of the attributes must be deleted for us to say that such a being exist.

Yes it most certainly does. Is spiderman real?
Is spider man not imaginary. Name one being that is unreal, but not imaginary. (And don't say god, because that is a circular argument).

Oh, yes it is. Most imaginary beings transcends reality in one way or the other.

Excacly, an imaginary being.
With imaginary attributes kepts alive with faith.
This is too easy.

Including you?
Weren't you a christian?
If you can't comprehend his existence, how can you say that he's eternal? or even existing?

You're a funny little fool, David. I must say. "Necessary paradox". Rhetoric word game.

"Strong theist"?
What's that?

You have managed to squease in 2 lies about me here.
1. I wan't you to be an atheist.
2. I "find" that you are a theist.

What is your definition on "Strong Atheism"?
And what is your definition on "Strong Theism"?

I thought you'd never ask.
You describe your god using illusive attributes, and then you refute these attributes as not being able to descibe your god properly.
You also claim that your god exist outside reality. And where does "outside reality" exist? In your imagination ofcourse.
In your imagination, god doesn't have to be tied to any logic, he doesn't need to be comprehensible and he doesn't need to be proven.
The real trick here, that I don't think you have pulled of yet is to tie your "god" with the world outside your head and show him to me.
Something you cannot do until your god has taken form.

All other christians I have discussed with has in one way or the other tried to establish real attributes to their god. Ties between that god and the reality we live in, in order to show that their god exist.
But for some reason you have not. All godbeliefs I have heard have had more or less a fictional quality to them. But I have never met two christians who believes in the exact same god.
The god you believe in is not the same god milions of other people believes in just because you call it "the christian god", "Jehova" or "Yahweh".

If you wan't to show that your god is not fictional you must give me some sort of solid attributes to tie to the world we live in.
I'm tired of chasing phantoms of your imagination. If you have any solid regarding your god I will continue this discussion. If you don't then... maybe.


And as before I will end my reply with a question.
Well... actually it's 2, since you didn't answer my last one.

1. Is anything real?
2. What's the difference between god and nothingness? (New one)

Ted Hoffman

REPOSTED(3rd time)
David,
[ July 04, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Jobar

Speaking as a mod, I want to remind David that it is perfectly permissible to pick out one, or a few of the many people addressing you, and limit your conversation to those few. Having 20 or 30 atheists attempting to debate one theist is a constant problem around here; David is doing a capital job of keeping up with everyone addressing him, but let's not keep piling on until he collapses!

I'd also like to echo Pompous, who a few pages back pointed out that too many loaded terms are being used. If you feel David is avoiding a specific question feel free to point it out, or simply to keep repeating it- but no ad homs, even subtle ones.

Now, doffing my moderator hat- I want to say that I agree with David that no method of investigating/explaining the universe will ever give *all* answers. Theism, naturalism, mysticism- none can ever be complete. There are various complex mathematical proofs of this. I point out Bell's Theorem to any who care to try to wrap their minds around it- I have read a book called "Philosophical Implications of Bell's Theorem" four times now, and still can't say I understand it!

Granting that though, I want to tax David for his stubbornness in clinging to outmoded and ineffective beliefs. True, we cannot answer *all* questions using the methods of science and naturalism. Plenty of unanswered questions out there, and it seems fair to say that there always will be- but the totality of our experience shows that the methods of naturalism are overwhelmingly effective at finding good and workable answers to our questions, both the deep and complex ones and the simple and practical ones. More and more, we see practical philosophy is reducing to physics and information science.

Supernaturalism- theism- is on the other hand sterile. It gives us no practical answers to any questions at all.

So we are not to a point where we can say definitively that naturalism is THE correct method for understanding reality. But such a huge weight of evidence and experience points in that direction, that it is disingenuous- indeed, downright dishonest- to deny the explanatory power of naturalism, without providing massive evidence of specific errors, or else massive evidence of the correctness of some other paradigm for viewing the universe.

Onward. A few comments on Zen- although it can indeed be 'sweet' and 'humorous' that is far from the entirety of Zen. Plenty of seriously deadly martial arts techniques are also Zen. There have been Zen masters who made a regular practice of beating the hell out of any student who asked stupid questions, or gave stupid answers. In medieval Japan, it was not unknown for Zen masters to kill students- and suffer no legal consequences. The Shinto religion of WWII Japan had a heavy admixture of Zen- and no one thinks that Japanese soldiers were sweet or humorous.

Zen is also atheistic. One way of looking at it- it is a method of avoiding silly or useless or unanswerable questions, and the waste of time and effort from trying to answer such questions. (One of the common questions which might earn a student a beating, was a question like "What is the meaning of the Tao?") It is a surprisingly practical religion- if indeed it is properly a religion.

I am, obviously, a longtime student of Zen. I joke about being a Master- and I do, I think, have some mastery of some of its techniques- but a Japanese Master would sneer at me, I fear!

99Percent

David Mathews:Then how do you, as an atheist, explain the existence of the Universe and your own self?

This is simpler than what you think: Existence is. If the universe or I didn't exist I would not be able to ask that question.

What does atheism have to do with facts or logic, if it is only and exclusively a denial of the existence of any deity?

Facts and logic deny supernaturalism.

As an atheist, how do you comprehend the Universe? As an atheist, how can you have any confidence in human intellect and perceptions?

Yes, I comprehend the universe and have confidence in the human intellect and perceptions enough for me to live a fulfilled and happy life, which is our ultimate goal.

Quantum mechanics appears like a perpetual, eternal incomprehensibility. The laws of physics appear to forbid forever human knowledge of certain things.

At least it tries. Comprehending God is impossible. In fact if you comprehend God, it ceases to be God, so its a losing proposition from the start.

In your opinion naturalism can explain all things. You have faith in naturalism's ability to explain all things. Perhaps you would use different terminology, but the analogy between your faith in naturalism and my faith in God remains the same.

Naturalism attempts to explain all things through logic and reason. Theism does not even try to explain anything in terms of human understanding it just gives outright explanations without any coherence or logic. There is no faith involved in naturalism. Faith is blind acceptance of explanations. Naturalism is understanding of explanations.

Naturalism cannot explain the existence of the Universe, naturalism cannot explain the origin of life, naturalism cannot explain the existence of humankind and naturalism cannot explain the characteristics of human personality, intellect and culture.

Of the above, the only thing that might never be explainable is the existence of the universe (but then again see my first point, existence does not need explanation). As to the rest at least naturalism tries to explain them in terms of human understanding. Theism is outright rejection of any possible logical explanation of the mysteries of life.

I don't care at all what happens to my flesh and blood. My body is designed to die and it will die.

And you guys complain that atheism is nihilistic!

The body does not have any real value for it is fated to die no matter what.

The body gives you pleasure and pain, it gives you the experience of life!

Jesus demonstrated as much when He made no attempt to protect Himself from disgrace as He willingly set aside His own life for a message more valuable than life.

Jesus obviously does not even exist. What is important is how you project your own perception of self toward a suffering, self-sacrificial, worldless, primitive image.

No, I did not choose to become a Christian because it would make me happy. I do remember my conversion and the time in which I contemplated conversion. Desire for happiness was not a motive for my conversion.

What was the motive? Was there any motive at all?

Bible Humper

Hello David

Actually, this is not at all what you said. Here is what you said:

------------------**Flashback**--------------------

David: In the same way, God's nature and God's activities would fall well outside the realm of human comprehensibility and therefore not resolve themselves emprically.

Splashing: Remarkable, thus a reality where God exists is indistinguishable from one where he does not.

David: This is a very important statement, so let me repeat it again in bold type: A reality where God exists is indistinguishable from one where he does not.

I must say that this is exactly what I believe. I think that we have found a truth here, a matter of agreement between theists and atheists.

-------------------**End Flashback**---------------

If you have changed your mind, and now feel that there is in fact empirical evidence of God, please share this evidence!

If the possibility that these 2 universes differ is a matter of pure philosophical speculation, we agree that this universe is consistent with a purely naturalistic scenario as far as can be discerned empirically.

Thus, Brain-in-a-laboratoryism and your theism share the same ungrounded assertion that there is something totally indiscernable beyond reality that is responsible for the creation of our reality.

This also contradicts your assertions that human consciousness and the existence of the universe won't be found to be naturalitic phenomena.

If you have changed your mind about this:

David: This is a very important statement, so let me repeat it again in bold type: A reality where God exists is indistinguishable from one where he does not.

...please show how our reality is distinguishable from a naturalistic reality.

Unless there is something in reality that is not naturalistic, eventually it will be possible to use computers to do exactly that.

If you feel that this is not the case, what phenomena will the simulation be unable to account for using science alone? You mentioned earlier that you believe that human consciousness and the existence of the universe contain proof of God, since these "proofs" are in areas of knowledge that humanity is relatively ignorant of, how did you conclude that the evidence for God will be found there? Is there something we have overlooked?

Emotional appeal? This seems to confirm that your theism has much to do with psychological and social factors, David.

Intellectual appeal? How so?

Widespread acceptance and a long history? Is this a good reason to return to feudalism also?

Nope, not at all. Your Yahweh scenario has great emotional appeal, quite unlike the "fire and brimstone" literalist psycho-fundy Yahweh scenario and indeed unlike the atheist scenario(no life after death, etc.) To "surrender" and become a theist would also tend to increase our level of social acceptance, which ties directly into our psychological needs. Thus, atheism is not a decision made emotionally.

Widespread acceptance? Not atheism!

No, if I decided to "go with the flow", I would be a theist. I am an atheist because there is not a shred of evidence that theistic assertions are anything more than primitive mans attempts to explain and influence the unknown.

No, it is not hope at all, David! It would be great if your scenario turned out to be true and I could look forward to eternal life in Paradise. Alas, this scenario is no more likely than Brain-in-a-laboratoryism, despite the greater emotional appeal.

I do assume that there will be a naturalistic explanation, because naturalism has proven to be correct time and again. I would like to hear why you think that naturalism will at last fail when we unravel the mysteries of the Brain and the existence of the universe.

I don't think that there is any particular evidence that naturalism will fail, but theism has always been forced to resort to these "God in the gaps of knowledge" arguements because it has nothing else.

If humans don't know, and will never know, about any "unknown qualities" or "mysterious qualities", how can you say that these qualities actually exist, much less assert that Yahweh had a hand in them?

This is an unfalsifiable, groundless assertion.

Do elaborate, please. As far as you have shown, theism is less grounded than Brain-in-a-laboratoryism because while there is no evidence at all of supernature, we can at least see how a Brain-in-a-laboratory scenario could come to pass when technology progresses enough.

For some reason though, theism has many adherants and Brain-in-a-laboratoryism has few, if any. Psychological and social factors are all that theism has that B.I.A.Lism lacks.

nyx

Interesting David. What did you discover about yourself or God at age 12 to decide to be baptized and devote your life to Him? Can you recall some of the more specific thoughts at that time?

Do you acknowlege that you have taken a leap of faith?(Mind you, I realize that athiests are also capable of this.)

How in depth have your studies been regarding the history of the New Testament writings? Have you explored any text deleted at the time of King James' version? Any thoughts on how Christians are affected by lack of familiarity with these?

Have you yourself noticed any contradictions among the books of the New Testament, or does it all jibe with you?

Finally. While I do understand that believing in God as Creator can be more psychologically and emotionally comfortable, why for you is it necessary to believe in anything based on faith alone?

Sincerely,

Nyx

nyx

Helen,

I believe it was you who stated ignorance of the Church of Christ.

Yes, baptism by immersion is the rite of passage, so to speak. The Church teaches that each individual must make the choice to do this, unlike baptism at infancy.

If a person grows up within the COC family, as a child it usually means attending Sunday school, Sunday evening worship and Wednesday evening worship. Indoctrination would be a mild description of what happens.

The COC takes the New Testament literally, and prides itself upon its correct interpretation, without judging others, of course.

Nyx

B. H. Manners

Helen,

I realize I should have read your posts more closely. I apologize for assuming that because you are a Christian you would neccesarily agree with Mr. Bender in all of your beliefs. I appreciate you correcting me on the matter.

HelenM

Thanks BH - apology accepted!

It seemed that you hadn't realized my posts and his were somewhat different. But evidently now you do and I appreciate that.

Thanks for the info, Nyx. I had heard that the C of C requires baptism by the C of C for salvation. Maybe this is only the strictest C of C churches.

love
Helen

David Mathews

Hello HRG,

David: In you opinion, what exactly has naturalism explained?

David: I don't know why you believe that identifying God as the ultimate cause of X requires an explanation for God's existence and also some testable method of reproducing God's methods and motives. Supposing that God is the ultimate cause, there still is no reason to imagine that humans would comprehend either his methods or his purposes.

David: I prefer the mystery of God over the naturalistic mysteries. I suppose that you prefer the naturalistic mysteries for some reason, but I don't share that preference.

Sincerely,

David Mathews