Why should a deity exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-01-2017, 07:45 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 09:52 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  You are arguing for the existence of god. god by definition is supernatural. You are also arguing for creationism which is miraculous or magic. Magic and miracles are synonymous.

I never said anything about magical and non-magical, supernatural, and non-supernatural. In fact I make it a point not to, because for one it's not particularly clear to me what that distinction is. So your attempt to drag me into an argument about the supernatural and the miraculous, is an attempt to drag me into an argument that I didn't raise. Or in other words a strawman.

Quote:You did not argue about the validity of other faiths. I pointed that out to show you that your arguments were not sufficient to merit belief.


I didn't argue about the validity or the invalidity of other faiths.

Quote:While in another post you did use the word "similar", in the above quote you are clearly implying that the two are synonymous.

As I said, I only argued about the meaning of the word faith, not the validity of it. I used a variety of sentences to illustrate the meaning, like dictionaries use sentences to help clarify the meaning of a term.

Quote:The religious and secular definitions of faith clearly differentiate between faith in god and faith in a person.

The only real difference between the writers of the bible using the term "faith" when it comes to God, and someone talking about "faith" in a person, is that one is talking about god, and the other is talking about a person.

Quote:And once again, my example of other faiths is not a strawman. It is an statement that your justifications can be used to prove unreasonable and unbelievable claims.

No, an argument about the meaning, and definition of the word faith, is not the same as an argument about whether or not having faith is warranted in some scenarios but not the other. To imagine my argument as about the later here, is a strawmen.

Quote:This statement argues against physical evidence:
(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, that's your misrepresentation of my argument. I didn't argue against physical evidence. An imperfect analogy for my argument here would be: "Atheist seem to want to suggest that we can't infer our house has been robbed, without first confirming the identify of the perpetuator."

Quote:This statement also argues against the need for physical evidence:
(15-01-2017 12:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Nope. VIA analogy again: "we can infer we've been robbed, absent of any physical evidence of the perpetrator".

Quote:[quote]Yes, in another thread, not this one, and in regards to a historical Jesus.

The fact that it was made in another thread in no way invalidates the fact.

It does invalidate the need to argue for a point raised in another thread, dealing with an entirely different matter than the one being discussed here.

Quote:The fact that you do not have an argument to refute a point does not make that argument a strawman.

I never raised that argument, so why would I devote myself to refuting it?

(Just to be clear, I expect nothing more than another series of straw-man from you, more attempts to tell me what I meant, even after correcting your misinterpretations. No harm in admitting that you didn't understand the point the first time around, but I have no patience to continue much longer doing this with you, addressing one straw-man after the other. )

"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
17-01-2017, 08:07 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(17-01-2017 07:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No harm in admitting that you didn't understand the point the first time around, but I have no patience to continue much longer doing this with you, addressing one straw-man after the other.


Right back 'atcha. Drinking Beverage

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-01-2017, 08:32 AM (This post was last modified: 17-01-2017 11:04 AM by mordant.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Imagine if were claiming an iPhone was designed, And you try to argue that isn’t by pointing to the way the battery communicates with the CPU, and the cpu communicates to the graphics chips, and display etc… and how they do so naturally, without any additional tinkering. Perhaps you could extend even further, to point out how the variety of machines operate in producing and assembling it parts. You explanations here would be entirely about the functions and mechanics here, and not about whether the iPhone was designed or not.
The difference between an iPhone and the universe is that the universe is just what we find ourselves existing in, and it is ubiquitous, and what we know about it is uniformly the same as far in distance or time as we can see. Whereas an iPhone is not part of that pattern, and it clearly says on the back, "Designed by Apple in California, assembled in China". That might be actual evidence that it was designed as well as whom it was designed by.

We know experientially that which arises by natural processes and that which doesn't. And we as humans get better at it over time. For example probably beyond 500 or so years ago especially, a desert nomad who came upon a solitary mountain (the more remarkable or suggestive its shape the better) would tend to assume it was created simply because it was outside experience. We now know how mountains form, and know virtually 100% of the mountains on the planet and many not on it at all.

As with all gaps in which gods live, once the mystery is gone, the god is gone.
(16-01-2017 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  All you’d be left with is claiming that this entire system, all of which brought it about, was entirely unintentional, all it’s profound and intricate properties, were just present, are just that way it is. That matter had the properties when arranged in certain ways to produce conscious self-aware creature, that it’s a property it just had. That the sort of creatures that resulted from it, with a nagging suspicion that life is more than the sum of it’s part, that there’s something spiritual, transcendent, moral, meaningful, and purposeful about it, are just pursuing an illusion.
That you frame this in terms of "what I am left with" as if it represents an unfortunate poverty of explanations, is rather telling. It is only "what I am left with" in terms of the most economical explanation consistent with the knowledge base that humans currently have -- and therefore the most likely to be closest to the truth of the matter. The weakest link in our knowledge is how life arose from non-life -- an area in which we have only unproven hypotheses at this time. But even there, an invisible Being speaking life into existence is far from the most likely explanation.
(16-01-2017 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Why a desire, for meaning, truth, fulfillment, purpose, goodness, to find something to live for, if those things we’re so inherently inclined to seek does not exist? The richness, complexity beauty, that need not be here, but is.
You are just water in a puddle exulting how perfectly shaped and suited to you the hole in the ground that you find yourself in, is.

Not that your are unusual in this regard. My late wife had a similar view. She could not see how a belief in god and an afterlife could be so ubiquitous and not be either true or at least pointing to truth. Somehow she chose not to see the ubiquity of other human strivings and beliefs -- tribalism, the need for war, former ubiquitous beliefs like flat earth or bleeding with leeches, current ones like fascination with celebrity -- did not point to god generically or her god specifically, but to common human perceptual tics and quirks -- confirmation bias, need for social reciprocity, and the like.

Religious faith simply takes what is already present in human nature and the human condition and pretends to explain it by the most baroque, fanciful and contrived means possible, but one which conforms to human desire to render existence fully explained and coherent, and affirms the individual as a special snowflake with access to favor in high places. Religious faith is a circle jerk of denial of what we are: part of the natural order, nothing more nor less, and unique only in being lucky enough to be the apex species (so far).
(16-01-2017 09:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Stuff like this, make it hard for to believe than anyone can with a straight face, truly believe it was all unintentional. That all of us at some level see an order in the midst of chaos, that we can’t decipher all that well. It’s perhaps why there’s a lack of confidence, and this desire to be comfortable with the uncertainty, of what seems indecipherable. Why you’re left with a lack a belief, rather than a belief. A true atheists, in that old, traditional sense, never seems to have existed. There are no fools who truly believe in their hearts that God does not exist, though you might occasionally find someone pretending to be one. In the pursuit of being honest to himself, the atheist can only profess his lack of belief.
And of course now you resort to the age-old smear tactic of claiming to know what is in other's hearts so you can dismiss their belief positions as less than genuinely held. Maybe you should ask yourself why that tactic is so attractive to you, and why it is so intolerable for you to accept that others could have a considered opinion that the supernatural, and gods, and other invisible beings and realms, don't exist. I could, after all, make the exact same argument in the other direction: it is hard to believe anyone can with a straight face, truly believe in invisible beings and realms that designed, built, and determine the operation of reality. A true theist, in that old, traditional sense, never seems to have existed. There are no fools who truly believe in their hearts that god does exist, though you might occasionally find someone pretending that he does. In the pursuit of being honest to himself, the theist can only profess his belief.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
17-01-2017, 09:17 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(17-01-2017 07:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The only real difference between the writers of the bible using the term "faith" when it comes to God, and someone talking about "faith" in a person, is that one is talking about god, and the other is talking about a person.

Well then you've destroyed your own argument right there, sport.
You said Paul in Romans was talking about confidence that's god's promises were reliable.

When people talk about "faith" in a god, it's about existence.
When people talk about confidence in a person, there is no question of the existence of the person, is there ?

STILL WAITING :
1. What are the criteria for your "assessment" ?
2. You said you failed to see yourself as putting yourself on a pedestal. Then when questioned about that you were asked if you included yourself in the insult (one of many) about atheists. Are you or are you not one of the "messy" thinkers YOU talked about in the concept YOU initiated ?

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
17-01-2017, 09:36 AM
Why should a deity exist?
(17-01-2017 09:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  When people talk about "faith" in a god, it's about existence.
When people talk about confidence in a person, there is no question of the existence of the person, is there ?

Well there's your problem. When the writers of the Bible not just Paul use the term faith they are not talking about God's existence.

When Paul talks about Abraham's faith, he's not talking about Abrahams belief that God exists. When Jesus talks about those with little faith, he's not talking about those with little belief that God exists, etc....







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"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
17-01-2017, 11:12 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(17-01-2017 09:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well there's your problem. When the writers of the Bible not just Paul use the term faith they are not talking about God's existence.

When Paul talks about Abraham's faith, he's not talking about Abrahams belief that God exists. When Jesus talks about those with little faith, he's not talking about those with little belief that God exists, etc....
Nope. There are two common usages of the word "faith" in English. Religious faith, and trust. They are almost opposite things. And theists are constantly conflating them, trying to legitimize religious faith as a variant of trust.

Trust is an expectation of future events based on past experience (yours and others) with tangible things (actual people and their behaviors for example). It is evidenced.

Religious faith is affording belief to a thing without a requirement of substantiation. It is a failed epistemology that is not evidenced in any way.

Not just apples and oranges, but apples and rocks.

Religious faith is not about the existence of god but the existence of other invisible beings, the supernatural, the afterlife, and theological abstractions such as sin as well as claimed divinely bestowed and mediated moral systems. It is promoting ANY belief strictly by fiat. Saying a thing is so because god or those claiming to speak or write for god said so.

Since the authors of the Bible, just like everyone else, cannot substantiate an invisible, intangible (and in your case, non-intervening) being called god, then all appeals to god's existence or commands or actions are appeals of religious faith, not of justified trust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
17-01-2017, 12:28 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(16-01-2017 02:37 PM)theBorg Wrote:  
(10-01-2017 02:33 PM)Cypher44 Wrote:  So.. after my last posts, and the users on this site making it clear, I'm just repeating stuff. I got a good question from a couple of users on this site.

Why does there need to be an deity??
Good question.
The answer .........

You have zero reputation in the forum of the false atheists, and after such long discussion. Thumbsup

"You have zero reputation in the forum. "

Thank you sir.

"false atheists"- Actually no. no. These people know what they're discussing very well.. As for you.. judging from your rep... You seem to be a fountain of bullshit.

No offence.

Oh no. He's here - God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Cypher44's post
17-01-2017, 12:52 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(17-01-2017 09:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well there's your problem. When the writers of the Bible not just Paul use the term faith they are not talking about God's existence.

When Paul talks about Abraham's faith, he's not talking about Abrahams belief that God exists. When Jesus talks about those with little faith, he's not talking about those with little belief that God exists, etc....

(You have no clue what they were thinking or meant or were talking about or what they "believed" in). You made that up.

Your single definition of what 'faith" meant to them is WRONG.
http://caseyjaywork.wordpress.com/2012/08/10/184/
You may be partially correct, but you have not explained why what they thought then, should be relevant TODAY.

Why is it you have not answered the QUESTIONS ?
You objected and said "you didn't see" that YOU were putting yourself on a pedestal. Now you can't even explain what you WERE saying or meant by you insult. You SAID you did "an assessment". If you really did that, you had criteria you used to do that. What were they ? Or were you just lying again ?

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
17-01-2017, 12:55 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(17-01-2017 09:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(17-01-2017 09:17 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  When people talk about "faith" in a god, it's about existence.
When people talk about confidence in a person, there is no question of the existence of the person, is there ?

Well there's your problem. When the writers of the Bible not just Paul use the term faith they are not talking about God's existence.

When Paul talks about Abraham's faith, he's not talking about Abrahams belief that God exists. When Jesus talks about those with little faith, he's not talking about those with little belief that God exists, etc....

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


And BTW, nice STRAWMAN.
I said "when PEOPLE", not when "writers of the Bible"....

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
17-01-2017, 01:31 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(17-01-2017 11:12 AM)mordant Wrote:  Nope. There are two common usages of the word "faith" in English. Religious faith, and trust. They are almost opposite things. And theists are constantly conflating them, trying to legitimize religious faith as a variant of trust.

I'm talking about the usage of the term faith in the bible. Where it clearly is a variant of trust.

Quote:Trust is an expectation of future events based on past experience (yours and others)

It would still be trust in an expectation of future events, even if you had no past experience to base it on it. But the interesting thing here is that when the term "faith" is often used in the bible, such as when Paul writes of Abraham's faith, of God fulfilling his promises, God has in Paul views fulfilled Abrahams promises on multiple occasions. From Paul perspective, God fulfilled his promises to his people throughout history. As can be said of a black slave, who had faith that God would deliver through his bondage, based on his perception that God had done this for the Israelites in the past. They had faith that he would also do it for them.

Again it's not whether you think they were justified in having faith, whether you think the basis of their faith is valid or not, but the word faith, being a variant of the word trust here. Which is pretty evident when reading the usage of the term across scripture.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: