agapeo

Stephen T-B
Darn! All this time I’ve been waiting to go to heaven and all I had to do was hop on a plane.
Thanks! I appreciate that you would.
This sounds like a reasonable response. But would the same hold true if the person was blind from birth? In that scenario the person would be totally dependent on the word of others as to the veracity of trees. The possibility (as you suggest above) would not be an available avenue to determine whether trees are real and thus he/she would be left with only the option to believe or not. You and I being privy to first-hand knowledge would say in either case his/her belief would be reasonable at least from our perspective.
True to a point. But the “standard reference work” as you say is the existence of a god. That they “adopt” different interpretations of that god doesn’t negate the possibility of that god’s existence. What would be left to determine is whose viewpoint is more reasonable. Going back to my picture illustration it could be said that all see a picture of a god but from different paradigms.
Can’t argue with ya on that one. This never made much sense to me either.
That’s one possible explanation and one I alluded to with the picture analogy. But the point of the matter is that even though the picture is seen differently they all our looking at something. Then too, couldn’t it be argued that a tree only exists in the mind. Oh, never mind on that one. That perhaps can lead to an off-shoot discussion.
Good point! And I agree. In fact your point is one that I myself have argued over the years. But then my position has always been that there could only be one truth regarding the same subject of the Bible.
Well, so far you sound like myself with this point. So I can’t argue with ya since I essentially would be arguing with myself.
Exactly! But the point is – regardless of your belief or non-belief his existence would still be true. IOW your belief has little to do with his existence. The evidence that is before you is all that you can go on and thus . . .
Is true but my point was belief in a particular man being my father.
And so trees are real regardless of our belief or non-belief. IOW they are not dependent on our belief for their existence. Thus this statement . . .
IMO is false because the reality of an entity, although not subject to belief or disbelief, can still be disputed. Its existence is not dependent on common acceptance. And . . .
I disagree with this because it can be shown that there are those that do “believe” in trees and yet have never seen one. And so . . .
this conclusion is not necessarily true IMO, because the existence of gods is not dependent on our belief. We don’t have to “see” a god to believe in one.

agapeo

Jamie_L:
Oh, I thought so too!
Well, there has been times when my eyes have turned red and my skin seemed a little greenish. Yikes! Take me to your leader.

agapeo

Hmm . . . yeah I see that. Therefore I apologize for the inference made.
Well, I never subscribed to this tactic because I think it’s impossible to convince another of one’s position. To be convince is an internal thing that one becomes as a result of the evidence presented. But even in the case of extremely strong evidence it’s been shown that one is still not convince. This leads me to believe that the state of certainty for a person is dependent on the person him/herself.
If at first you don’t succeed . . .
And what would that be? Oh nevermind. You’ve probably heard that line from one of those “Christians” that tried to convince you.
Now that would be interesting. I hope He doesn’t light a fire first if He does.
Now I wonder exactly how many of these others are actually convinced? If push came to shove I wonder how many would crumble and walk away or how many would just refuse to listen? In my own case I can say that I’m convinced but then based on experience I can’t say I would never be persuaded otherwise.
You would only be “a robot” if you didn’t need to be convinced. You would be so without any effort because that would be how you were programmed.
Then you agree that you have some choices that you make in forming your personality, right?
Good point! And I agree to an extent. These may involve the “variables” that I implied. But as you
say. . .
and with that self-control do you not re-shape your personality? Such that whereas you may at one time have been shy you find through that conscience choice to overcome that shyness you no longer are. That to me indicates you do “create” your personality to a degree.
Ya know what? I don’t think I’ve met a person yet that didn’t have some skepticism. I don’t view that as being a negative thing.
Seems to me you understood it perfectly well.
As with any artist’s endeavor it’s not always the case that others perceive the point of the art produced. I recall the controversy over the Beatle’s song “Hey Jude”. It was considered to be a song about heroin. It was later explained by the writer of the song to be about John Lennon’s son. But perhaps that is a poor analogy. The point that I’m trying to make is that artists sometimes have little control over how others perceive the intent of the “work of art” they make. Or perhaps the true intent was not to figure out what that intent was but to just enjoy the art for the art sake.
I get your point (I think). But being all powerful is not the same as being able (without restraints) to do all that is possible. You may know what’s best for your children, but you don’t always have control over them doing what is best.

[ October 16, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

Stephen T-B

Agapeo: I continue to think that the reality of a thing is established by certain knowledge of its existence And this applies to the blind man inhabiting a tree-less plain because there are ways a blind person gains information which can substantiate whether a thing - even one never physically encountered - exists or not.
If god were real, we would all know it. That much, I think, is established.
I was, however, wrong to infer that because the existence of gods is open to belief or disbelief, they cannot therefore be said to be real.
They might be, they might not be; all we can say is that we lack the necessary evidence which would make it reasonable to conclude that one or the other was the case.

Jamie_L makes a point (or I think he does) which theists do need to address: Why would a god remain so mysterious that its existence could be disputed?
My question is: What merit is there in blind faith? In what way is a person who believes in god better than a person who doesn�t?
It has been argued in these forums that belief in god makes people behave better, and demonstrated that it doesn�t.
It seems that if they are indeed �better� then it is in respects which are undetectable to the observer who is concerned with the here-and-now, rather than the here-after.
Jamie�L and I remain mystified as to why he lurks around in the shadows, some people certain they see him, others certain they don�t. Those who do see him say that those who don�t aren�t looking in the right places, either wilfully - in which case they will end up in hell - or out of ignorance (in which case they will also end up in hell.)
I don�t find this at all satisfactory, and cannot for the life of me identify in this strange behaviour the traits of a Loving Father.
Rather than believe in the existence of this inexplicable, contrary and illusive Being, I find it preferable to assume it is a multi-faceted fantasy figure. And lacking the proof that it isn�t, that is as reasonable a position to hold as yours.