Why should a deity exist?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 11:57 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 11:36 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 11:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have no idea what you are asking. Please clarify.
Ok...

Well?

Quote:
(02-02-2017 11:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  The surf sorts rocks on a beach by size. That is an algorithm.
How would existence be different if this algorithm didn't exist, or if it worked in "reverse" - big rocks were pushed up on the beach, and fine sand wasn't?

Who cares? It has nothing to do with the discussion.

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
02-02-2017, 12:05 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(01-02-2017 05:36 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-02-2017 02:29 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  Your observation about the participants is interesting as to the difference between the apathy of "I don't care", to the militance of some in here.

I have yet to see anyone attempt to define this "God' they reject. Only vitriol thrown at the descriptions offered.

It is not up to us to define your claim. Facepalm

There is no evidence of any of the gods people claim. We can talk about yours once you have defined it.

Best of luck with that one. Remember the last debate I had in the boxing ring, where I went round and round for pages attempting to get my opponent to supply a meaningful (e.g. falsifiable) definition for their god? Yeah, they never actually supplied a coherent or meaningful definition either...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 01:08 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(01-02-2017 02:09 PM)JHaysPE Wrote:  Design is evidenced in purpose, and intelligence is evidenced in design. That's the progression.

No. Purpose may be the intent of design but purpose does not imply design.

(02-02-2017 08:52 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  So my assertion follows from an observation that there are creatures which have evolved from what appears to be a model of purpose,

Quote:and within these properties, an intelligence (Primates, birds, etc.) can perceive and discern purpose.

Quote:Where I differ is in the observation that some creatures seem to exhibit purpose,

(02-02-2017 09:56 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  There are other examples of "purpose" that I believe I observe,

The common thread here is that you look at things and assume that what appears to be true on the surface is, in fact, true. The appearance of design alone is insufficient grounds to assume that there was actually intentional design.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
02-02-2017, 02:23 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 11:18 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 10:59 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... there's immediately a problem within this part for me.

If I'm understanding you, then....

You need a word to describe a human jaunting into hyperspace... Consider

That's the closest I can think of where you've presented the word 'Supernatural' and my own understanding of the word 'Supernatural' cross over.

Are we closer to understanding one another?

Consider
Yes...I need a word for a thing, which equips a human intellect and will for a capability or capacity for which they are not naturally suited.

Automobile, spaceship, stilts, are of this type, but they are external physical equipment and apparatus.

What I am after with this term is an internal intellectual operative. Something along the lines of such ideas as "patriotism", or "competitive spirit" - inspirational type stuff that allows humans to intellectually inform achievement of extra-ordinary accomplishments.

What would really serve this end is a link to an article to an atheist athlete who describes the motivation and inspiration for their training regimen, as an example.

This is where I am headed with the thought of "Supernatural". In Aquinian terms, it would be "motive" - that which serves to inspire the countering of appetites that might impede accomplishment if not otherwise informed by something inspirational ("motivational").

Ideas? Other than "Supernatural"?

So you're using Catholic philosophies, the Catholic version of this alleged creator made man from the dust of the ground. You warp what these ancient texts say because they are obviously mythical, then shove your own cherry-picked science into them to make them sound more plausible.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 03:19 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 03:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 11:18 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  Yes...I need a word for a thing, which equips a human intellect and will for a capability or capacity for which they are not naturally suited.

Automobile, spaceship, stilts, are of this type, but they are external physical equipment and apparatus.

What I am after with this term is an internal intellectual operative. Something along the lines of such ideas as "patriotism", or "competitive spirit" - inspirational type stuff that allows humans to intellectually inform achievement of extra-ordinary accomplishments.

What would really serve this end is a link to an article to an atheist athlete who describes the motivation and inspiration for their training regimen, as an example.

From your introduction :

Quote:A little about me. I am a Catholic Christian, so let's get that out of the way right up front.

There was a time in my life that I was atheist. Religious belief and expression made no sense. And then one day, atheism was no longer reasonable to me. So that's my story.

Excuse me. Facepalm
You're trying to tell us you were an atheist, yet never understood "patriotism" or "inspiration" when you WERE an atheist ?

What a pile of horse shit.
You can't possibly be serious. Perhaps an education would help you. http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_92.htm

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
02-02-2017, 10:09 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 11:18 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  Yes...I need a word for a thing, which equips a human intellect and will for a capability or capacity for which they are not naturally suited.

Automobile, spaceship, stilts, are of this type, but they are external physical equipment and apparatus.
.......

Ideas? Other than "Supernatural"?

(02-02-2017 11:42 AM)unfogged Wrote:  No, you are looking for "unnatural' or maybe 'abnormal'. Supernatural implies something operating outside the laws of physics; it is a suspension of what is natural. SCUBA tanks operate entirely within the bounds of normal physics, they just don't occur naturally in humans. As I've said before, when you use these really offbeat definitions you make communication incredibly difficult.

So you're looking for something else, as in Unfogged's comment above, and using the word 'Supernatural' as a place holder.

Nothing you're ascribing in you post is actually 'Supernatural'. It's all just applied knowledge/physics etc.

(02-02-2017 11:18 AM)JHaysPE Wrote:  What I am after with this term is an internal intellectual operative. Something along the lines of such ideas as "patriotism", or "competitive spirit" - inspirational type stuff that allows humans to intellectually inform achievement of extra-ordinary accomplishments.

What would really serve this end is a link to an article to an atheist athlete who describes the motivation and inspiration for their training regimen, as an example.

This is where I am headed with the thought of "Supernatural". In Aquinian terms, it would be "motive" - that which serves to inspire the countering of appetites that might impede accomplishment if not otherwise informed by something inspirational ("motivational").

Okay then. You're after a "Why do brains 'Do' their thing?" Yes

So, we end up with my answer to that as:

"Brains do their thing because of the emergent properties of having five pounds of toothpaste value of neurons all packed into a squishy 3D non-linear computational device."

As for Mr Aquinas attributing something 'Spooky' to brains... Yeah, we've moved on a ways from that and the brain (And countless other organs) are far less mysterious. Though they keep looking and working out al the things we still don't know.

So, from the above, it would seem that when you type the word supernatural you need to do something like [Supernatural] to highlight that you're actually using a different term. Thumbsup

As for what I would term supernatural as an example?

Ghosts.
Really tiny pixies.
Any deity.
Actual 'Magic' as done in certain fantasy books a.k.a. 'Lord of the Rings'.
Mental levitation or psychokinesis.

Consider

I... hope I've adequately highlighted my point?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
02-02-2017, 10:26 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
Did he just argue that only atheists think that the mind is the result of natural phenomena operating within our grey matter? Holy crap. (Or rather, holy BS!)

Look, dude, if your premise was true, then we would be unable to alter the mind by altering the brain. We could not remove Part A and get Result A. We could not label the sections of the brain as controlling specific emotions or types of neurological processing.

Also, your entire concept of how Natural Selection works is wrong. Reformulate and try again.

More importantly, you have (willfully?) misrepresented both the purpose and outcome of the Dawkins program experiment. The only question now is whether you did it intentionally or accidentally.

Either way, Lying for Jesus™ is still lying.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
06-02-2017, 11:47 AM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 03:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You can't possibly be serious. Perhaps an education would help you. http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_92.htm
Tell you what, just reference "hierarchy of needs", or summarize it as to its relevance in your reply.

I'm not going to subscribe to your website just to "research" via your link...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 12:03 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2017 12:13 PM by JHaysPE.)
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 02:23 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So you're using Catholic philosophies, the Catholic version of this alleged creator made man from the dust of the ground. You warp what these ancient texts say because they are obviously mythical, then shove your own cherry-picked science into them to make them sound more plausible.
The general direction here is the "Why should a deity exist?" That would be any deity, not a particular deity. And as one who accepts a deity, I can only attempt to define this deity, and describe how got to this deity from where I was at.

I realize "no true atheist" would be an atheist as i was an atheist. That should be fundamental to understanding that I eventually arrived to religious faith, and by reason, of all things.

I continue to feel that rejecting "God" when that term is indeterminate is simply the 3 year old rejecting "peas" because he has never before put small green spheres in his mouth before.

If there is something more to the rejection, then I am all ears. Define what it is you reject. "Angry Skyman", "rainbow-farting blue Care Bear God", and "Casper the magic Ghost God" have all been dealt with, so maybe you can erect another one.

God, as understood by the majority of faithful, is not physical. A suggestion of how to get that picture is to imagine something non-physical, but with direction and magnitude - a vector for mathematician types, a force for physics types. My sense of God is the order and lack of "randomness" in the behaviors, which may be described as "laws" (in physics, for example), said "laws" being the existence under which we humans developed and continue to survive. To the extent that the rational mind can express gratitude for these "laws" as a part of the recipe for existence, God becomes the object of that gratitude, for example. God becomes the term to which to refer to the chain of cause which resulted in the evolution of the human mind.

From this idea of God, a narrative, such as the Old testament, might follow. This collection of writings was passed orally by ancient humans, alike us in all ways, except for technology. Survival itself likely took a lot of time and effort, but for some, contemplation occurred during the sometimes tedious repetition of scratching out an existence without automation and machinery. This contemplation has resulted in religion(s).

The irony of this is that the relevance and resonance of these ideas within a quest for truth seems to have surpassed the school of "no deity". Surely, there were skeptics. Surely, they wrote some of their ideas down. Surely, some of these are preserved (and if you could share links, that would be most welcomed) by people who thought as you do.

I know where to find the writings preserved by people who think as I do.

Perhaps you could offer an economic model that would explain this preservation of these scripts and concepts? Surely, some atheist has put together a thesis regarding the use of religion to control a society and extract "thrivement" from it by deluding the masses. You could explain the overthrow of that power once the skeptics became the dominant or pervasive force. You could perhaps even point me to existing threads on this website, where these have already been offered and discussed.

Just do some homework. I'm not a Christian, posting on the Christian website, to atheists who have come to call to debate Christianity. I am a Christian, who has come to the atheist website, erected presumably for the defense of atheism. I have yet to see any of that. All i see is a bunch of people who reject God because God can't be proven.

Well, good luck with that. The idea of faith is to believe despite proof. And atheists exercise this capability every day in the course of their affairs. Just not when it comes to purpose, objective and social intercourse. And arguably in full-throttle denial about operating faith regarding practically any assumptions about others in just about any societal setting.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2017, 12:18 PM
RE: Why should a deity exist?
(02-02-2017 10:26 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Did he just argue that only atheists think that the mind is the result of natural phenomena operating within our grey matter? Holy crap. (Or rather, holy BS!)

Look, dude, if your premise was true, then we would be unable to alter the mind by altering the brain. We could not remove Part A and get Result A. We could not label the sections of the brain as controlling specific emotions or types of neurological processing.

Also, your entire concept of how Natural Selection works is wrong. Reformulate and try again.

More importantly, you have (willfully?) misrepresented both the purpose and outcome of the Dawkins program experiment. The only question now is whether you did it intentionally or accidentally.

Either way, Lying for Jesus™ is still lying.
I'm thinking you missed where I was headed. We are what we are, because our environment has shaped our evolution. The question is directed more to what has shaped our environment, that we might be the result. If you thought here is "random chance", start crunching some numbers on permutations and combinations. Remember that everything that is right now took 13.8 billion years to get this way. Based on the permutations that exist, there should be stuff changing left and right before our very eyes, because while 13.8 billion years is difficult to comprehend, it is a sliver compared to 1 x 10^35 type of numbers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: