Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 11-10-2002, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rdalin:


I don't see what God's existence has to do with the question. What you have said translates to If you believe in God, then you believe in God. If you don't, you don't. That's unquestionably true, but hardly helpful.

Well summarized. Indeed, SOMMS, is every god-belief, as a consequent of seeking with intent to find, a justified belief? If not, how do you tell which god-beliefs are based on actual gods without assuming the truth of a particular god-concept?

Goliath · 11-10-2002, 02:26 PM

SOMMS,

Quote:

Notice that if Goliath would have simply asked nicely I would have gladly given him/her my argument.

I did ask nicely. I asked you to prove your claim. You did not. Therefore your argument has failed.

Quote:

This has nothing to do with spite...merely attitude.

My attitude towards you is neutral, SOMMS, despite how much you want me to try to persecute you and be mean.

Quote:

This situation give credence to what I am stating: our knowledge of someone else is very dependent upon our attitude towards that person.

That was not your argument.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Biff the unclean · 11-10-2002, 02:41 PM

My neighbors dog left a "present" on my walk way.
I have a very bad attitude about this.
I do not want to believe that this is real.
And yet I can't deny it. There it lies, still steaming.

How come a pile of dog crap has no trouble at all over coming my piss poor (and pissed off) attitude but Gawrdalmighty cant do it?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 11-11-2002, 10:34 AM

Jobar,

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:

SOMMS:I think a few picked up on this (Biff the Unclean). This dialog IS my proof. It is proof that 'X's revelation of Y is dependant upon X's attitude towards Y'. In this case...X is Goliath...Y is me.

Nonsense. You are simply refusing to answer a specific question. We need no "revelation" of your existence, SOMMS.

This is not the case. There are many excellent arguments why 'ones revelation/relationship with person X is dependent upon ones attitude towards person X'. I could have chosen to divulge them. However, I felt that the ramifications of Goliaths own discourse was a more visceral, relevant and effective argument.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:

SOMMS:God does care tremendously about having a personal relationship with each one of us. Similarly, I care if you (Jobar) actually wished to become friends despite the fact I live in Seattle.

Ones attitude towards God determines their relationship/revelation of God. Just like your attitude towards me would greatly affect your ability to form a relationship with me. [/b]

If God is actually what you and other Christians claim, then his wants have all the force of physical law. He's OMNIPOTENT- what he wants, he gets! Our 'attitude' towards him would matter about as much as a cotton ball matters to a supernova!

However, to hold this position you must assert that:IF God exists...THEN ones attitude towards God or the God concept has no bearing on a relationship with him.

This is absurd. Can you give *any* reason why you hold this assumption?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jobar:

SOMMS:Because IF God exists THEN he is a sentient being, not just a lifeless, inanimate object. As such, our attitude towards God affects our revelation of him.

But SOMMS, I find no difficulty in proving the existence of any number of lifeless, inanimate objects. Sentient beings are no trouble either.

This is moot since the 'thing' in question we are discussing is not A-lifeless B-inanimate or C-an object.

Moreover, you DO have trouble proving sentient beings exist. For example...you can't actually prove that I exist. You may have *some* revelation of me (ie posts in this forum)...but that can certainly be explained away if you chose to do so. I could be a chat bot, I could even be 20 monkeys in a room randomly banging away at a computer. <pause for slew of deprecating humor/>

The only way to really know that I exist and am not a chat bot or a room full of monkeys is to seek me and form a relationship with me. However, doing this is highly dependant on your attitude towards me. If you are not even open to the possibility of my existence...how could you know me? If you did not seek me (ie hop on a plane to Seattle) how could you form a friendship with me? Notice that I really couldn't care less if you thought my existence was objective fact or not, however, I would care if you wished to form a meaningful friendship.

Again...what I find dumbfounding is the athiest claim that IF God exists...then God does not feel this way at all:that he cares nothing about mans heart and all he does care about is whether or not mankind regards his existence as objective fact.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 11-11-2002, 10:48 AM

rdalin, Philosoft, beliefisbunk, TerryTryon

Quote:

Originally posted by rdalin:


I don't see what God's existence has to do with the question. What you have said translates to If you believe in God, then you believe in God. If you don't, you don't. That's unquestionably true, but hardly helpful.

This is incorrect.

I have never said the right attitude is 'assume God exists'. In fact, I have said the opposite many times. Just go to middle of page 9...

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:

Don't assume He exists...but be open and seek.

Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 11-11-2002, 10:50 AM

Biff,

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean:

How come a pile of dog crap has no trouble at all over coming my piss poor (and pissed off) attitude but Gawrdalmighty cant do it?

He can.

But why would he want to...if all he cares about in the first place IS your attitude?

Thoughts and comments welcomed,

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philosoft · 11-11-2002, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:


Again...what I find dumbfounding is the athiest claim that IF God exists...then God does not feel this way at all:

Well, no atheist yet has claimed this. It may or may not be true, I have no real way of knowing. However, I, for one, would like to know how you know this, considering it appears to be a big fat example of confirmation bias.

Quote:

that he cares nothing about mans heart and all he does care about is whether or not mankind regards his existence as objective fact.

This is bizarre, SOMMS. If I read this correctly, God desires that we love an idea (presumably given to us by other fallible beings) before we have confirmation that that idea is based on something existing?

Philosoft · 11-11-2002, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas:


I have never said the right attitude is 'assume God exists'. In fact, I have said the opposite many times. Just go to middle of page 9...

You keep talking about 'seeking with heart,' but this is an activity that is not commonly used by humans to reliably determine the state of existence of a thing. Thus, what you are saying is, "presume the validity of this method of knowledge-seeking, which incidentally has a rather poor track-record of deducing actual truths, and then apply it to a concept which is said to objectively exist in a way that must be subjectively evidenced." This is simply too much guesswork for me to take your word for it.

Biff the unclean · 11-11-2002, 11:24 AM

This is moot since the 'thing' in question we are discussing is not A-lifeless B-inanimate or C-an object.
I am always astonished that while Theists are unable to prove that God exists and don't claim to have even seen God they have no trouble at all ascribing attributes to It.
How the hell do you know if God is lifeless or not, animate or in, is or is not an object?

Moreover, you DO have trouble proving sentient beings exist. For example...you can't actually prove that I exist. You may have *some* revelation of me (ie posts in this forum)...but that can certainly be explained away if you chose to do so. I could be a chat bot, I could even be 20 monkeys in a room randomly banging away at a computer.
There is quite a difference between states of existence and nonexistence. We know that you exist because you transmit information. It matters little if you are a machine or a monkey you still exist.
If you transmitted no information at all then we would have no way of knowing that you exist and could not say that you do.
You would still transmit information even if you were a lifeless inanimate object such as a rock. You would be visible, touchable, smellable, measurable.

However, doing this is highly dependant on your attitude towards me.
Not in the least. If I were not open to your existence I could still bump into you on the street. My precieving things is not dependent upon my emotional state. It is depdent on wheither these things exist or not.

If you are not even open to the possibility of my existence...how could you know me?
This is verging on the insane.

Again...what I find dumbfounding is the athiest claim that IF God exists...then God does not feel this way at all:
First please capitalize the word Atheist if you are using it in this context. Secondly this is not an Atheist claim. It is the claim that is made by Jesus. I don't know if you have stated elsewhere if you are a member of some "out of the mainstream" religion, but the God you are talking about is not the Christian God.

Llyricist · 11-11-2002, 11:33 AM

Quote:

But why would he want to...if all he cares about in the first place IS your attitude?

Spiteful, vindictive, petulant, peevish, take your pick. Nothing you have said indicates otherwise about your God's supposed attitude toward "our" attitude. I would prefer to worship a God that was above such petty emotional reactions (if I were to worship a God at all).

Taking another tack though, how do you explain Paul's revelation?? Clearly there was nothing about Paul's attitude that God would appreciate, he was on his way to persecute God's "true" followers when God saw fit to reveal himself.

And if you say that Paul already believed in God, you'll just be reinforcing the summaries other people have made about your opening post; in order to see the evidence you must already believe. You MUST admit that Paul's attitude toward the God as revealed through Jesus was piss poor.

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

11-10-2002, 02:41 PM	#233
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	My neighbors dog left a "present" on my walk way. I have a very bad attitude about this. I do not want to believe that this is real. And yet I can't deny it. There it lies, still steaming. How come a pile of dog crap has no trouble at all over coming my piss poor (and pissed off) attitude but Gawrdalmighty cant do it?

11-11-2002, 11:24 AM	#239
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	This is moot since the 'thing' in question we are discussing is not A-lifeless B-inanimate or C-an object. I am always astonished that while Theists are unable to prove that God exists and don't claim to have even seen God they have no trouble at all ascribing attributes to It. How the hell do you know if God is lifeless or not, animate or in, is or is not an object? Moreover, you DO have trouble proving sentient beings exist. For example...you can't actually prove that I exist. You may have some revelation of me (ie posts in this forum)...but that can certainly be explained away if you chose to do so. I could be a chat bot, I could even be 20 monkeys in a room randomly banging away at a computer. There is quite a difference between states of existence and nonexistence. We know that you exist because you transmit information. It matters little if you are a machine or a monkey you still exist. If you transmitted no information at all then we would have no way of knowing that you exist and could not say that you do. You would still transmit information even if you were a lifeless inanimate object such as a rock. You would be visible, touchable, smellable, measurable. However, doing this is highly dependant on your attitude towards me. Not in the least. If I were not open to your existence I could still bump into you on the street. My precieving things is not dependent upon my emotional state. It is depdent on wheither these things exist or not. If you are not even open to the possibility of my existence...how could you know me? This is verging on the insane. Again...what I find dumbfounding is the athiest claim that IF God exists...then God does not feel this way at all: First please capitalize the word Atheist if you are using it in this context. Secondly this is not an Atheist claim. It is the claim that is made by Jesus. I don't know if you have stated elsewhere if you are a member of some "out of the mainstream" religion, but the God you are talking about is not the Christian God.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.