Religion

[B_spiker067]

What you offered before that was simply "argumentum ad ignorantiam", which is the logical fallacy that a premise is true if there is no evidence that it is false.

You are saying that I'm saying God must exist because you don't have all the information. I believe what I meant was that you can't with intellectual honesty declare there is no God since you do not have perfect knowledge. Like I said I understand agnostics and believers its the atheists who believe they stand with reason (or are rational) when they say there is no God that I don't understand.

The only real rational position is to be agnostic. It takes faith to be a believer or an atheist.

 

[JustAsking]

The thing is though I have no need to believe if there is a Teacup floating around Jupiter or not. I am not compelled by that notion. But I and generations before me have felt compelled to believe in something such as God, it is inate and it is real.

The Teacup question is just a probability question where you can argue that you have a greater weight of information or an information set that well encompasses the physical manifestation of a Teacup and how likely in orbit around Jupiter it could be. On the other hand God is not a Teacup So it is kind of a false argument.

No, God and the teacup share the same lack of empirical evidence regarding their existence, so they are equally improbable empirically. The fact that a lot of people believe in one of them more than the other doesn't really constitute a proof. There was a time when a lot of people believed in Zeus or that the earth was flat. The population of the entire world can be wrong about something.

It is true that there seems to be a greater need for people to believe in God than believe in the teacup, but that still doesn't constitute a proof in a rational sense. There have been plenty of other explanations offered for that and you mentioned one of them in an earlier post.

Your arguments are emotional and perhaps persuasive, but they are not logical. Plus I think you don't do your faith justice by trying to fit it into an empirical argument. You should embrace the total outrageousness of believing in a God who created the universe and is continuously active in bringing it to a culmination, yet leaves no discernable evidence of any of it in the natural world. Ya gotta love a God like that.

 

[B_kewlhandle]

I was wondering like some religions dont allow women to reveal there faces or hair or any part of there body how is it for men. Do they have some of the same rules or its ok for a man to display his penis.

Horny, it is never a good idea to start a thread when you are either off your medication or after polishing off a bottle of the fruit of the vine.

Now to your question. Where exactly are these men displaying their penises, at the urinal, the zoo, the day care center or during evening prayers at the local church, mosque or synagogue? Please enlighten us so that we may give you a proper reply as to the religious aspects of such a display.

 

[B_spiker067]

Then again your are more polished in this line of reasoning. When the going gets tough I just fall back on Pascal's Wager and retreat.

Yes spiker, I do understand you better now. Like me, you acknowledge completely that your faith in God is irrational but the way to understand the world is empirically, even if you take empiricism itself as an article of faith. It is no surprise that there is no intersection between the two.

The problem with fundamentalists is that they demand their faith to be empirical. The problem with rationalists is that they don't realize that empiricism is an article of faith.

But hey, you defused this whole discussion by making all kinds of sense just when it looked like we were going to have a good debate. I was ready to do my best Richard Dawkins imitation and everything.

My favorite Dawkins routine is when he asks Christians if they believe in Zeus and Apollo. When they say no, he says "well there you are. We are both Atheists, but I just happen to be an Atheist about one more God than you are. We are not much different, you and I."

 

[JustAsking]

You are saying that I'm saying God must exist because you don't have all the information. I believe what I meant was that you can't with intellectually honesty declare there is no God since you do not have perfect knowledge. Like I said I understand agnostics and believers its the atheists who believe they stand with reason (or are rational) when they say there is no God that I don't understand.

The only real rational position is to be agnostic. It takes faith to be a believer or an atheist.

Yes I agree with your comment about agnostic vs atheism. It is much easier to defend agnosticism. And like you, I have more respect for an agnostic point of view than a rigidly dogmatic atheistic one. I find that indistinguishable from religion.

But your that argument you gave before that is still not convincing. You can say the same thing about the Jupiter Teacup or Zeus that you said about God. Actually, what we are arguing about is epistemology. The problem with your argument is that you haven't stated your epistemology. You are using an empirical argument but you are rejecting empiricism at the same time. By that token, nothing is knowable at all.

 

[JustAsking]

spiker,
Here is a much better way to rebutt an atheism born from rationalism. You need to attack the foundation of rationalism itself, instead of working within it. Look at the section called Reactions to Logical Positivism. Also Thomas Kuhn.

 

[B_spiker067]

No, God and the teacup share the same lack of empirical evidence regarding their...

Empirically there is no evidence.

I may be mixing my metaphysical arguments into the fray but I contend that the Teacup (or Flying Spaghetti Monster) are more constructs than actually really viable examples to use when talking about the existance of God.

You are trying to juxtapose my concept of God (which is not a white haired man reaching finger tip to finger tip with Adam) and a Flying Spaghetti Monster. :0)

And I have far more empirical information about the FSM, Teacup, and Jupiter than I have of God. Therefore a somewhat false argument in their comparison, in an empirical context.

 

[B_spiker067]

spiker,
Here is a much better way to rebutt an atheism born from rationalism. You need to attack the foundation of rationalism itself, instead of working within it. Look at the section called Reactions to Logical Positivism.

Thanks.

 

[Simon9]

Ah, I always enjoy a good abstract discussion about religion or politics. But I wish I had a clue about what I've been reading. I suspect a lack of sleep is to blame...

 

[Simon9]

What I mean is, of course you can't see any flying teacups around Jupiter. Not any more. Zeus had them all sent to Mars. Silly.

 

[B_spiker067]

Actually, what we are arguing about is epistemology. The problem with your argument is that you haven't stated your epistemology. You are using an empirical argument but you are rejecting empiricism at the same time. By that token, nothing is knowable at all.

I'm going to work this out and get back to you.

 

[JustAsking]

Empirically there is no evidence.

I may be mixing my metaphysical arguments into the fray but I contend that the Teacup (or Flying Spaghetti Monster) are more constructs than actually really viable examples to use when talking about the existance of God.

You are trying to juxtapose my concept of God (which is not a white haired man reaching finger tip to finger tip with Adam) and a Flying Spaghetti Monster. :0)

No, an atheist would argue that they are all constructs. What is the difference between the FSM and your imaginary friend called Jesus who allegedly died and then flew up to heaven and is still watching over you? How can you claim that one is that is more reasonable than the other? (speaking empirically, of course). In fact there is no way to draw an analogy about belief in God except to create an outrageous fabricated example like FSM or the Teacup. Anything more reasonable would actually have empirical evidence of its existence.

My only reason for saying this is to suggest that faith is sufficient. There are no rational arguments for the existence of God nor does there need to be for people of faith. By invoking rational explanations, you run the risk of making the same mistake as the fundamentalists who want to squeeze faith into an empirical world run on Biblical science.

So just like you rejected the atheist's rational explanation for his disbelief, I suggest you also reject any rational explanations for your belief. Its either Agnosticism or Faith. Anything else is indefensible.

 

[JustAsking]

What I mean is, of course you can't see any flying teacups around Jupiter. Not any more. Zeus had them all sent to Mars. Silly.

Shhhhhh, I was hoping he wouldn't notice that.

 

[Simon9]

Well never mind anyway. I was speaking epistomo...epistalmalogicall...errr....OK. I got no clue...

 

[Simon9]

So if you're naked, and no one can actually see your penis, is it really there? Epistemologically speaking, I mean.

 

[B_spiker067]

JA,

Let me ask you something about the nature of your faith. Do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Do you believe he turned water into wine, or fed the masses at the sermon on the mount, or walked on water?

Spiker

 

[JustAsking]

JA,

Let me ask you something about the nature of your faith. Do you believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. Do you believe he turned water into wine, or fed the masses at the sermon on the mount, or walked on water?

Spiker

Yes, I do. But what is more interesting about these miracles is how cheesy they are and how reluctant he was to use any worldly power at all. What is more interesting is Jesus's complete voluntary submission to natural processes.

 

[JustAsking]

So if you're naked, and no one can actually see your penis, is it really there? Epistemologically speaking, I mean.

No, I think you meant to say, Epenistemology, which is what we contemplate here on LPSG. Although some twisted individuals concentrate mostly on a related philosophy called Episstemology.

 

[B_spiker067]

Yes, I do. But what is more interesting about these miracles is how cheesy they are and how reluctant he was to use any worldly power at all. What is more interesting is Jesus's complete voluntary submission to natural processes.

JAy:

Your faith is far stronger than mine.

I eventually try to reconcile the empiric with the metaphysical. When I watch astronomy shows or go to NASA image galleries online I initially feel overwhelmed trying to wrap my mind around such incredible vastness. I just begin to grasp it when it just kind of falls apart leaving me kind of dissolute.

Then when I go to the extremely small say cellular level and try to comprehend just how with such few genes my features can so uncannily resemble my Grandfathers, I realize how very little we actually know about how life processes really work (must be gene folding). Even String Theory, which may never be falsifiable, with its somewhat metaphysical qualities compels me to believe in a God. I know, atheists look at the same thing and conclude there is no God (it is merely hubris or possibly a lack of wonder).

So as far as the Miracles go I would at one time try to explain them rationally. Now I simply say they are not important to me if they were actual miracles or not. The Universe to me seems to indeed have been a throw of the dice by God (who cares what Einstein says) except that it is a well planned throw. So well planned that the guy born next door to Jesus might have been the Messiah. That Jesus (or a Jesus) was inevitable, simply a product of evolution. Jesus may even have suffered delusions or been genetically ‘flawed’ to believe himself the Messiah. It doesn’t matter to me. That was God’s plan. He was and is the son of God and the Messiah.

I don’t believe there is necessarily a dichotomy between the empiric and the metaphysical. This is long enough. Sorry.

Spiker


P.S. Yes, I have spent time deconstructing rationalist and their basic idea that only they can see truth with empirical methods.

P.P.S. Please expand on "What is more interesting is Jesus's complete voluntary submission to natural processes."

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
But you are on like 2or3 threads complaining about believers.

No, that is wrong. I have no problem with believers. I do have a problem with evangelists.
<...>So I gave it too you. Do you really think I care let alone believe your related workspace experiences? No, I don't.[/quote]Well, what you believe or don't believe matters not in the least to me. Sorry to break your heart, but your disbelief will not have me crying myself to sleep. I am fully cognizant of the events in my life, I do not require your validation.