Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RJS · 10-05-2002, 06:30 PM

Quote:

RJS, the theists who come here and stay for long periods- HelenM, seebs, luvluv, Rev. Joshua, and many more- are fine and intelligent people

Where is Seebs btw? I recall posting with Seebs on the Yahoo Finance chat boards back in mid to late 1998. We both thought Yahoo and the other internet stocks were overvalued then - well I guess we were ultimately right. It was curious seeing him here. It is the same guy, as the email is still plethora and from MN. Small internet, I guess. Hi Seebs if you are reading. My experience with the internet stocks ultimately led me to the Lord, but that is a long story inappropriate for this forum.

Jobar · 10-05-2002, 07:48 PM

Seebs was in #infidelchat tonight. He hangs out there fairly often, and posts here occasionally.

Are there any other comments concerning the idea of hell? If not, let's let this thread die a natural death, instead of wandering off further. J.

10-05-2002, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:
Amos:
"it is possible that we become one with God in the Beatific Vision and will henceforth be of singular identity in the I AM."

And at that point, we may say with all humility "I am God" because we realize this is at root true for all "I"'s. THOU art THAT. Remember that I once said I found your expression of pantheism in the language of Catholicism to be like trying to do quantum mechanics in Chinese, Amos? Well, perhaps it's possible to come to correct answers using Chinese, after all.

Your "at that point we may say . . . " sounds futuristic and that is not my intention. I just wrote that the possibility exist, and if that is true, it certainly has come to pass for many who have travelled that road and is why we have "the Church Triumphant" (without humility).

Philosoft · 10-05-2002, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


No, I do not see or hear God, either. However, from that I am not justified in declaring that he doesn't exist.

Sure you are. As a matter of fact, you can't even give me a coherent description of what it is that I'm not supposed to be able to declare doesn't exist. I don't even know what thing it is I'm supposed to be declaring doesn't exist. All I see are the letters G-o-d.

Quote:

You are not setting up a fair comparison. Indeed, we do have an equivalent to your example of "words on the monitor." That would be the visible, purposeful universe.

No no no no no. The words on the monitor are proof only of words on the monitor. The reason I can use them to form mental images is because we as a species have agreed that we can use them to stand for certain mental images so that we can more easily describe our mental images to each other. We have no such conventions for the alleged purposes of the "purposeful universe."

Quote:

You cannot justfiably infer that he doesn't exist (and that he doesn't care) because you are unable to detect him directly and empirically.

No kidding. I can't even infer that "he" in the above sentence refers to anything at all.

Quote:

It would seem that another analogy is more appropriate: footprints on a dirt path. If I see on the ground the distinct outline of a Technica boot sole, I can directly infer that a human has recently been walking the trail.

I'm sure Paley had some profound thoughts. The argument from design, however, was not one of them.

Quote:

Similarly, I may directly and quite reasonably infer the existence of a Creator from the Creation.

No no no no no. This is a two-part argument.

How do you know there is a creator? I observe the universe, its creation.

How do you know the universe was created? <insert well-refuted apologetic argument here> This is where you're stuck right now. Stop moving the goalposts.

Quote:

Instead of nothing, Something does exist, Philo.

Meaningless. Nothing cannot exist.

Quote:

That Something has all the marks of design for a purpose.

All the marks, huh? What would a purposeless universe look like? Do you happen to have one for comparison?

Quote:

Sure, you may suspect that my subjective views entail the desire for a designer, whether I realize it or not. However, you cannot conclusively eliminate the role of a designer.

Slow down there. I'm still trying to understand what you theists mean when you say "designer."

Quote:

In fact, the burden of demonstration is upon the atheist, who must necessarily go to great lengths to argue that no Creator can be responsible for what is empirically detectable.

Or I can just show that your alleged creator-concept isn't a concept at all.

[snip appeal to anthropic principle that has already been dealt with ad nauseam]

Kosh · 10-05-2002, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RJS:
 My experience with the internet stocks ultimately led me to the Lord, but that is a long story inappropriate for this forum.

Well, I guess that's twice you've been taken.

Dr. Retard · 10-06-2002, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Vanderzyden:
Humans have decided in favor of the non-good (non-God). Their faults are the result.

Who was the jerkhole who chose Tay-Sachs? Do you have his address? Let's all go beat him up!

10-06-2002, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kosh:


Well, I guess that's twice you've been taken.

Vanderzyden · 10-06-2002, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by K:
I'll grant you that this particular one doesn't work if you don't consider God omniscient in the traditional sense of the word. So far the only definition of omniscient I've seen that would invalidate the reasoning is if omniscient doesn't include knowledge of the future. This isn't traditional omniscience by the way.

Don't you see the difficulty, K?

The problem lies in the attempt to put God in a box. Sure, we can know some things about him, but we cannot fathom his immensity. Certainly, we do not know his limits.

Let us discard these "traditional" views of omniscience, whatever they are. Instead, if you would "argue" on behalf of the biblical theist, then you should use biblical references to support your claims. You won't find the "omni" terms in scripture.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden · 10-06-2002, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amos:


What you are saying here is that there is two of us. Our God identity and our human identity (or ego identity) wherein we have self-worth as humans.

Michelangelo's painting in the Sistine Chapel called "The Creation of Adam" (?) clearly shows Adam outside of the human skull to show this division.
...

Amos,

While I find myself in agreement with a small number of the points you have made, I must say that I am generally confused when I read your posts.

In this particular case, I don't think that I am saying what you have me saying. So, to start, would you care to elaborate upon these first two (apparently disconnected) points?

Thanks,

Vanderzyden

RJS · 10-06-2002, 08:56 AM

xeren

I attempted to send you a private message, but you are set up not to receive them. I'll try later, maybe you can switch the setting.

Regards.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-05-2002, 07:48 PM	#322
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Seebs was in #infidelchat tonight. He hangs out there fairly often, and posts here occasionally. Are there any other comments concerning the idea of hell? If not, let's let this thread die a natural death, instead of wandering off further. J.

10-06-2002, 08:56 AM	#330
RJS Regular Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Tampa Posts: 303	xeren I attempted to send you a private message, but you are set up not to receive them. I'll try later, maybe you can switch the setting. Regards.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.