Theists, I want your best reasoning
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-12-2014, 08:19 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 08:08 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 03:52 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  An anthropologist working with a qualified historian, sociologist and psycologist.

But not someone who studies literature? A Shakespeare scholar wouldn’t be the best resource to turn to for interpreting Shakespeare? Do you think psychologist and historians and sociologist, and anthropologists are better equipped for this? Are Shakespeare scholars scientist in your view? If so, can New Testaments scholars be?

Neither Shakespearean nor New Testament scholars are scientists.

Quote:But I do find something contradictory about this statement. Here you seem to suggest that such individuals can come closer to the true meaning of a text than others, while at the same time claiming:

Quote:There are no wrong interpretations in textual analysis either. Only more correct interpretations.

If there is no such thing as a wrong interpretation, then all interpretations are equally correct.

No, it doesn't mean that. That is just your black and white thinking.

Quote:So how can the interpretations of anthropologist etc.. be any more closer to the truth than any other interpretations?

Because they probably have a better grasp of the social context in which those writings were created.

Quote:And more importantly, if someone interprets life as having no intrinsic meaning, as being in essence nothing but meaningless noise, would you say his interpretation is no less true or false, than an interpretation that life does have an intrinsic meaning, that human history has a moral arc, etc..? Or do you think one of these interpretations is wrong? Or are they just two correct ones?

They cannot both be correct, but since we have no knowledge of any intrinsic meaning we are left to create our own.

Quote:I’m also curious as to how this plays out in regards to the scripture.

Take a passage like this:

“"Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world”

Interpreter A, claims in this verse John is saying that jesus is a crocodile that makes giraffes.

In your view this is not a wrong interpretation? Just one more correct one?

It is, of course, nonsense - not an interpretation at all.
Or, if you insist it is an interpretation, then it is an unlikely one.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
05-12-2014, 08:19 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 07:15 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  So... you're going to completely ignore the problem I presented (Not even going to dismiss or comment on whether it might be a problem.) Do a quick cut and paste and fill in the blank with something completely different for your own pontification and/or amusement.

Because the problem doesn't exist, the problem only exists only for those with trouble framing it.

In the same way the problem of why we haven't seen a monkey give birth to a human being, is a problem only for Creationist, and doesn't exists for anyone who actually believes in evolution.

I've written several post already explaining this, which seemed to have been ignored, because it seems rather than exploring the very question of God, people seem more interested in pursuing their own ideological misconceptions.

OK then, let’s take a look at what you have “already explained” shall we?

"I'll step up. The tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that.”

"Well, I don't believe God looks like an "ape-descendant", or has any real form to speak of. But I believe there is God, not because the show needs running, but because the show goes on as it always has, that there is in fact a show to begin with. Because there is a show, rather than no show.”

“Why would God have to come from anywhere?”

"I don't see how something can come from nothing. I've seen people attempt to argue this, but it typically involves us having to define what clearly is something, to be nothing.

“You can't call something which has all the potential, all the ingredients, to give rise to something, a "nothing".

“...I don't see why I would have to assume this first something, had no beginning, yet have to assume that God had a beginning.
So if atheists don’t have to assume a beginning for a first cause, why would i have to?”

OK, I’m going to stop here. I was going to cut and copy/paste all your answers to see what I could have missed and apparently I haven’t missed much and neither has anyone else. You haven’t been ignored, you have been thoroughly refuted. Big difference.

As for persuing ideological misconceptions you certainly fit the bill.

Do me a favor and “frame” your idea of god in a way even I can understand. Drinking Beverage

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
05-12-2014, 08:36 AM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2014 08:43 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 08:19 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  You haven’t been ignored, you have been thoroughly refuted. Big difference.

I don't see how I've been thoroughly refuted, when all that we've been dealing with is addressing miscommunications, unlike tides of course for which there's never a miscommunication.

Quote:Do me a favor and “frame” your idea of god in a way even I can understand. Drinking Beverage

God a working definition, to avoid misconceptions:

The source, power or force, behind the music in the air. "Over my head I hear music in the air". What ever source and power lay behind that rhythm of life; behind the philosopher's stone always found, despised and buried in the mud; behind the great pearls, when found, one would sell their entire life to possess.

The only competitor to this, is that it is all just meaningless noise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 06:16 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 05:44 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Actually, he/she sort of has a point. We don't have the faintest idea how or why gravity works. We can mathematically describe its effects, but we don't understand it at all. Might as well be God...

Wouldn't mathematically describing the effects of gravity be a precise understanding of how it works?

Grasshopper said both how and why. We understand a lot of the "how", but I don't think we have any inkling as to the "why".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 08:49 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Because the problem doesn't exist, the problem only exists only for those with trouble framing it.

?

Pardon?

The tenet is that god is beyond time and space. Was there before time and space. Will be there after time and space. hence, by all that, is outside time and space.

We know when (Roughly, give or take.) when time and space began as well as an idea of just how big the amount of time and space we are floating around in.

The deity is waaaay out there... and back in the past etc.

How is it's supposed possible interaction with us and reality NOT a problem? Please, explain this to me. (I did miss your posts previously)

(05-12-2014 07:44 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In the same way the problem of why we haven't seen a monkey give birth to a human being, is a problem only for Creationist, and doesn't exists for anyone who actually believes in evolution.

I've written several post already explaining this, which seemed to have been ignored, because it seems rather than exploring the very question of God, people seem more interested in pursuing their own ideological misconceptions.

But... my question is exactly such a question of god. Consider

I'm not even into the ideology bit yet....

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
05-12-2014, 08:53 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 08:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-12-2014 08:19 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  You haven’t been ignored, you have been thoroughly refuted. Big difference.

I don't see how I've been thoroughly refuted, when all that we've been dealing with is addressing miscommunications, unlike tides of course for which there's never a miscommunication.

Quote:Do me a favor and “frame” your idea of god in a way even I can understand. Drinking Beverage

God a working definition, to avoid misconceptions:

The source, power or force, behind the music in the air. "Over my head I hear music in the air". What ever source and power lay behind that rhythm of life; behind the philosopher's stone always found, despised and buried in the mud; behind the great pearls, when found, one would sell their entire life to possess.

The only competitor to this, is that it is all just meaningless noise.

Got it, makes perfect sense to me know Facepalm

The only rhythm I acknowledge as being other-wordly is this Banana_zorro




“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 09:13 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(04-12-2014 12:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The meaning of a book, a story is intrinsic to it’s nature.

Nope.

The rest of your post isn't even worth following if it's based on such a nonsensical premise.

(04-12-2014 12:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If there was some uniformity on the answer...

There's not.

(04-12-2014 12:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... would this indicate that there likely is an underlying meaning to human life, since you appealed to contradiction to negate this very thing?

No.

(04-12-2014 12:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Does a book lack intrinsic meaning, because readers differ in some respects to what that meaning is?

Yes - but that's not why.

(04-12-2014 12:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The more complex a work is, like a great novel, though possessing intrinsic meaning, yields multiple interpretations of the work. Would you say these multiple interpretations were not the product of scientific investigation since one interpretation could not be decided upon?

Literary criticism is not science. Are you so incorrigibly obsessed with infantile teleology that you can't tell the difference?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 09:16 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 08:49 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Pardon?
How is it's supposed possible interaction with us and reality NOT a problem? Please, explain this to me. (I did miss your posts previously)

The other day I was at the beach, and I saw a gigantic rubber duck in the ocean, and even took pictures of it to show my friends. I was blown away by it. And there I was believing/knowing there was in fact a huge rubber duck in the ocean.

Your problem is not about me believing there is a rubber duck in the ocean, your problem is one about how it got there, the mechanics behind it's arrival in the ocean.

But just to address your problem, God could just as well be an author who penned the living novel of human history, who can defy the time and space of his penned universe, with a flick of his quill. And like all authors in the relation to their characters, are not only superior summo meo—beyond my utmost heights—but also interior intimo meo—more inward to them than their inmost depths.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2014, 09:19 AM
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
The force behind music is kinetic energy, if I'm not mistaken. A vibration moving the air. I'm fairly certain, this is not a god.

The rhythm of life sounds like a metaphor for a beating heart. That is an electrical impulse through nerves to muscle tissue, causing it to contract. I hope I have all of that basically right. And again, this is not a god. Its biology.

You can't properly describe your god, because you have no idea what it is. You can only describe what it isn't. It isn't material. It isn't part of nature. It isn't in this universe. You can't see it. You can't touch it. You can't hear it.

What I just described is something that is by definition non-existent.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
05-12-2014, 09:34 AM (This post was last modified: 05-12-2014 09:47 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Theists, I want your best reasoning
(05-12-2014 09:13 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-12-2014 12:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Does a book lack intrinsic meaning, because readers differ in some respects to what that meaning is?

Yes - but that's not why.

Then why?

Quote:Literary criticism is not science. Are you so incorrigibly obsessed with infantile teleology that you can't tell the difference?

I'm interested in how you understand these things, and that to me is not all that clear.

When I personally hear someone say something like thinking scientifically, to me that's just another way of saying to thinking critically, and rationally, and I personally believe you can read novels, or the writings of Shakespeare, or Dostoevsky critically, and rationally, to derive at the likely intentions and meanings of the authors. But we seem to have a fundamental disagreement on this point.

The problem with your view, is that we are in essence dealing with a truth, the authors meaning and intent, and you seem to suggest that we either have no means of deriving at that truth, that this is forever unknowable to their readers, or that it can possibly be knowable, but not by means of "science". Or in other words there are other methods of knowing, or uncovering the truth, other than science.

Or maybe this is not what you mean to suggest, and you would like to clarify?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: