Why should a deity exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-01-2017, 09:02 AM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2017 09:35 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(15-01-2017 05:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Must have missed that part.

Not surprising.

Quote:But what I do think is funny, is the amount of people whose thought patterns, thinking, is so chaotically messy and incoherent, that tend to be so oblivious to this, imagining that they follow a clean, and ordered set of rules, and guidelines, labelled with buzzwords like rational, critical, skeptical, logical etc...

You can see why they prefer to cloister themselves among those as messy as them, with the same inclinations, to preserve their false self-images.

You really can't help your continued attempts at insulting atheists, can you, Mr. "I-don't-need-no-Jebus-to-be-a-Christian".
Should we "get out more" ... like maybe to fake "prestigous universities" ? Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2017, 09:41 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(15-01-2017 09:02 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-01-2017 05:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Must have missed that part.

Not surprising.

Quote:But what I do think is funny, is the amount of people whose thought patterns, thinking, is so chaotically messy and incoherent, that tend to be so oblivious to this, imagining that they follow a clean, and ordered set of rules, and guidelines, labelled with buzzwords like rational, critical, skeptical, logical etc...

You can see why they prefer to cloister themselves among those as messy as them, with the same inclinations, to preserve their false self-images.

You really can't help your continued attempts at insulting atheists, can you, Mr. "I-don't-need-no-Jebus-to-be-a-Christian".
Should we "get out more" ... like maybe to fake "prestigous universities" ? Facepalm

Yea still missed it there too, you know the part where you claimed: "Tomato putting himself up there on that pedestal, telling us how much more rational he is than that "amount" who are "messy".

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2017, 09:43 AM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2017 09:52 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(15-01-2017 09:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-01-2017 09:02 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Not surprising.


You really can't help your continued attempts at insulting atheists, can you, Mr. "I-don't-need-no-Jebus-to-be-a-Christian".
Should we "get out more" ... like maybe to fake "prestigous universities" ? Facepalm

Yea still missed it there too, you know the part where you claimed: "Tomato putting himself up there on that pedestal, telling us how much more rational he is than that "amount" who are "messy".

Yeah right, you hypocrite. So then you included YOURSELF among the "messy" ?
You really are a dishonest idiot. Everyone who read that KNOWS what you meant, including YOU. Were you saying YOU should get out more ?
Jebus no likey liars.
What are you doing here ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2017, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2017 11:44 AM by mordant.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(14-01-2017 08:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The whole point of theist claiming god is intangible, immaterial, etc.. is to say that whatever is meant by believing God exists here, that its not a belief in tangible, material properties of God, or the equivalent of a belief in a celestial super object.
We agree that belief in any invisible god inherently cannot be based on any physical properties of god. If I understand you correctly you are further suggesting that it cannot be based on a belief in an imagined supernatural object either. I would agree with both of these statements in so far as they go.
(14-01-2017 08:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's to say that when thinking of God's existence here, if you find yourself wondering about his physical properties, you've strayed quite far from the question.
I would call that a fair assessment from either a theist or atheist perspective.
(14-01-2017 08:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's why when pointing out why I believe God exist its almost exclusively based on a belief in a created order. And not to believe God exists would also exclusively be based on no longer believing we're a part of such an order.
No argument with this either, again, insofar as it goes. Not affording belief in any deities has more to do fundamentally with the utter lack and absence of any shred of evidence or logical argument in favor of the proposition, and a fair bit of circumstantial evidence pointing away from it. Part of that negative evidence is the substantial evidence for the universe being most likely uncreated.
(14-01-2017 08:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Atheists seem to want to suggest that we can't infer any of this until we have blood samples of God himself, the long history of theism suggests otherwise.
No we are not suggesting that you can't infer this without physical evidence. We're stating the simple fact that you can't legitimately and justifiably infer this without physical evidence.

Using "blood samples of God himself" in your argument implies us being unnecessarily picky or carping. For purposes of argument we don't normally suggest that god has to be a physical being with blood in his veins, that is quite irrelevant really. He could be a completely different sort of life form made mostly of energy for example. However to have ANY sort of discussion about god he has to be observable, directly or indirectly. IF god IS supernatural than all conversations about him are non-starters. The supernatural realm is inherently an imagined / speculated realm which is not observable or testable to physical creatures of the natural world. People making claims about its attributes or what goes on there or who or what lives there are either making it up or are in fact talking about some part of the natural world. The supernatural is an utterly useless concept. Even if it exists, and god is there, as soon as god interacts in any way with the natural world he has extended at least a pseudopod into the natural realm, and become part of the natural world. THAT is the only thing we could possibly discuss, but I have never seen the slightest evidence that it has ever happened.

When theists point to thousands of years of theist belief this is not indirect evidence of god unless god were needed to explain it. All that is needed to explain it is a basic understanding of agency inference and confirmation bias, the hypersocial nature of humans, and a few similar concepts. God is not a necessary entity to explain god-believers OR the durability / popularity of god-beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
15-01-2017, 10:24 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(14-01-2017 03:37 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  That doesn't make this superintelligence real, but it does mean that the idea of it can provide comfort.

I exactly the same way the idea of the Tooth Fairy provides comfort to the 4-year-old who's just apprehensively lost their first tooth? No genuine relief to any suffering, rational adult, but just plain old-fashioned bullshit.

(14-01-2017 03:37 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  Most of the parents' questions related to the "why" of the loss. We (the pastoral team) didn't pretend we had the answers; we simply encouraged the suffering family to lean on God and the church community.

So nobody outside of your church was suggested as the first port of call in helping these people through their trauma? You instead reinforced their misguided belief that a supernatural entity could somehow magically ease their genuine mental anguish, rather than a psychologist, a grief counsellor, or some other trained professional? And maybe even one of those people could've been an atheist? Shock... horror!

And yes; you did in fact pretend you "had the answers". You told them a magical, mythical entity could provide relief—which as a person of responsibility in their eyes—was a total deceit, and one you should've been aware of considering the critical nature of their needs.

(14-01-2017 03:37 PM)Heath_Tierney Wrote:  I have come to realize that it was the community of caring individuals that provided succor during hard times.

So although 30% of our community is atheist, you apparently thought—at that time—that only your church was capable and/or inclined to provide "care" for these distressed people? And yes of course your church provided due care, but that help was also predicated on there apparently being no outside help available.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
15-01-2017, 11:01 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(14-01-2017 08:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The whole point of theist claiming god is intangible, immaterial, etc.. is to say that whatever is meant by believing God exists here, that its not a belief in tangible, material properties of God, or the equivalent of a belief in a celestial super object.

So here you're saying that you believe in "something" that there is zero physical evidence for; has no observable effect in nature; has never been seen or heard by any contemporary human being; or who will not or can not alter anything on this planet despite billions of requests over thousand of years? Yeah... sounds reasonable LOL.

(14-01-2017 08:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's to say that when thinking of God's existence here, if you find yourself wondering about his physical properties, you've strayed quite far from the question.

This is nothing more than yet another theist cop-out. In effect, you're saying that you're not required to prove your god's existence because it's logically impossible, and attempting to use physical attributes or effects or signs of its existence is "straying" from the question. Using this same logic, can you thereby prove to us that leprechauns do not exist?

(14-01-2017 08:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's why when pointing out why I believe God exist its almost exclusively based on a belief in a created order.

So you're a so-called creationist. Fair enough. But can you please explain what other basis or bases you use to confirm your belief in a god, as you say it's "almost" exclusively based around the notion of creationism.

(14-01-2017 08:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Atheists seem to want to suggest that we can't infer any of this until we have blood samples of God himself, the long history of theism suggests otherwise.

Nope, we don't need to go as far as blood samples, but I take your point LOL. All theists ask for is the most absolutely minimal, empirical, verifiable piece of evidence to support a belief in a supernatural entity or a paranormal phenomenon. Thus far—even after 2,000 years, and with the most sophisticated scientific amenity—it's never been forthcoming. Why not? We've never seen gravity for example, and can't even define it using quantum mechanics, but we can prove it exists because of observation and replication.

And this is why the notion of a "god" doesn't work; we can't observe it (obviously and conveniently), and it can't replicate what it does—Bobby in this hospital bed is cured of leukemia, but Suzy in the next bed dies from it. One purportedly is due to a miracle [sic] but the other is... um... what?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SYZ's post
15-01-2017, 11:54 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(15-01-2017 11:01 AM)SYZ Wrote:  
(14-01-2017 08:52 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's to say that when thinking of God's existence here, if you find yourself wondering about his physical properties, you've strayed quite far from the question.

This is nothing more than yet another theist cop-out. In effect, you're saying that you're not required to prove your god's existence because it's logically impossible, and attempting to use physical attributes or effects or signs of its existence is "straying" from the question. Using this same logic, can you thereby prove to us that leprechauns do not exist?
I took Tomasia's assertion to mean that god, lacking physical properties, cannot be proven by physical properties. Which is true in and of itself.

I did not take it so far as "therefore I'm not required to prove a non-corporeal god exists." However, if this WAS his implication, whether or not or when he's "required" to provide proof is governed by whether he is making the positive truth-claim that "my god exists" in a forum like this where NO truth claim of ANY kind is going to un-challenged unless its substantiated.

Outside of a forum like this, T. and other believers are welcome to believe any random thing they want to WITHOUT having to substantiate it. Here, not so much.

In OR out of this forum, believers are not entitled to their own facts.

Simples.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
15-01-2017, 12:17 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(15-01-2017 09:59 AM)mordant Wrote:  Part of that negative evidence is the substantial evidence for the universe being most likely uncreated.

According my assessment, we’re most likely a part of a created ordered, regardless if my religious beliefs are true or not. And according to your assessments it’s not. Though its quite likely that we are looking at two different things, two different sets of information, and observations, in drawing our assessments here.

Quote:No we are not suggesting that you can't infer this without physical evidence. We're stating the simple fact that you can't legitimately and justifiably infer this without physical evidence.

It’s both legibility and justifiably inferred, as any variety of conditions of possibility are legitimately and justifiably inferred. Just to be clear we are talking about the idea of inferring design, a created order, from the object in question, absent of any physical evidence of it’s creator or designer. And as I said you can justifiably and legitimately do that.

In fact I’d say the only ones who say you can’t, are perhaps no one other than a handful of atheists such as yourself, who might have their own playbook as to whats constitutes as justifiable and legitimate.

Quote:Using "blood samples of God himself" in your argument implies us being unnecessarily picky or carping. For purposes of argument we don't normally suggest that god has to be a physical being with blood in his veins, that is quite irrelevant really. He could be a completely different sort of life form made mostly of energy for example.

No, I was just using an analogy. You’re sample of “energy”, or traces of God’s ectoplasm work just as well. None of which has to do with the belief that God exists. The tendency among many atheists is to equate the statement that God exists, to a statement that a celestial super object exist, in which appeals to traces of celestial energy might make sense. When in fact it’s more akin to statements that an object was designed, a part of story, etc.., and as result of this has a designer or an author. You might have you own unique rule here, that claims we are forbidden from inferring design, or a created order, without physical verification of the entity responsible for it, but that’s just you, and your own unique playbook of reasoning.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2017, 12:40 PM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2017 01:04 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(15-01-2017 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  According my assessment, we’re most likely a part of a created ordered, regardless if my religious beliefs are true or not.

You've never said what the criteria are for that assessment.
What EXACTLY are these criteria, and how much (EXACTLY) order do you have to see to conclude something is created ?
You said you "made an assessment". How was that done. Precisely.
It's just "god of the gaps".
Your "created order" goes seriously off the rails, all the time. How is that a "created order" when it doesn't work perfectly. Your god is quite inept.

Quote:In fact I’d say the only ones who say you can’t, are perhaps no one other than a handful of atheists such as yourself, who might have their own playbook as to whats constitutes as justifiable and legitimate.

There you go AGAIN. Making generalizations ... with NO evidence.
You have not answered the question above.
Are you or are you not part of the "messy" ?

Quote:The tendency among many atheists is to equate the statement that God exists, to a statement that a celestial super object exist, in which appeals to traces of celestial energy might make sense.

Prove it. Yet ANOTHER generalization. You really can't help yourself from those can you ? Did they have a class at Fake-Fast University on how to make generalizations about atheists ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-01-2017, 01:18 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(15-01-2017 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:No we are not suggesting that you can't infer this without physical evidence. We're stating the simple fact that you can't legitimately and justifiably infer this without physical evidence.
It’s both legibility [sic] and justifiably inferred, as any variety of conditions of possibility are legitimately and justifiably inferred. Just to be clear we are talking about the idea of inferring design, a created order, from the object in question, absent of any physical evidence of it’s creator or designer. And as I said you can justifiably and legitimately do that.
I am curious what your PERSONAL belief is apart from this argument. Do YOU believe in a god who is currently personal and interventionist? If yes, then you are just leaving him out of your argument for ID on the premise that he is not necessary to infer ID, but you are going to strongly tend to infer that the Designer is YOUR god. If not, then you are likely going to be biased, if at all, in favor of a more deist variety of god.

If you think you can infer design from the observable universe without saying anything for the moment about the designer, I can go along with that as a first step. But even if you succeed in making a case it does not necessarily lead where you might think it does.
(15-01-2017 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  In fact I’d say the only ones who say you can’t, are perhaps no one other than a handful of atheists such as yourself, who might have their own playbook as to whats constitutes as justifiable and legitimate.
It is not a private and eccentric playbook of my own invention. It is just standard rules of logic and burden of proof, and a very widely held view of what constitutes actual evidence and how it's evaluated in a way that tends to lead towards an understanding of experienced reality that is accurately descriptive and predictive of what one observes / can expect to observe.
(15-01-2017 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Using "blood samples of God himself" in your argument implies us being unnecessarily picky or carping. For purposes of argument we don't normally suggest that god has to be a physical being with blood in his veins, that is quite irrelevant really. He could be a completely different sort of life form made mostly of energy for example.
No, I was just using an analogy. You’re sample of “energy”, or traces of God’s ectoplasm work just as well. None of which has to do with the belief that God exists. The tendency among many atheists is to equate the statement that God exists, to a statement that a celestial super object exist, in which appeals to traces of celestial energy might make sense. When in fact it’s more akin to statements that an object was designed, a part of story, etc.., and as result of this has a designer or an author. You might have you own unique rule here, that claims we are forbidden from inferring design, or a created order, without physical verification of the entity responsible for it, but that’s just you, and your own unique playbook of reasoning.
At this point it would be great if you would make ANY sort of supportable inference, with or without identifying the alleged perpetrator. Go for it. What have you got, apart from that it seems truthy to you or you are incredulous that other explanations could apply?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: