You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

So you're saying that subjective truth and objective truth are the same thing - since the first, in your strange world, dictates the second. And that your own opinions hold supreme authority over all external reality.

That's complete self-centered nihilism. Or in maths terms, you've divided yourself by zero and declared that you possess infinite knowledge.

/overandout

But remember, it's the atheists who are really the arrogant ones who put themselves over god, (and not the person who says that what they decide is true is true and that they can do what they like and still get into heaven) :pac:.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Please don't lie about what I did.
I both took your term and showed how it doesn't stop my term still applying and took your term and showed how you were still wrong even if we only used it. You deleting large swathes of my post to pretend I didn't does not change what I wrote and what is visible for everyone to see.

I did precisely what I was suggesting you do. I started at the top and worked my way down until a snag was hit.

A line or two into the relevant section of your post and a problem is encountered: you introduce a term of yours and and conclude that God saves arbitrarily. The term is: Choice.

It had been specifically stated that choice isn't involved in my theology and moreover, how it is not involved.


That choice-based theology is yours (because the term introduced is yours). Your theology might well hold together and rightfully show "arbitrary". I didn't follow it down to see if that was the case though - the purpose isn't for me to examine your theology, but for you to examine mine).




Here is what you said. Why are you talking about choice when choice specifically doesn't feature in what I say??

Mark wrote:

If we do not actively choose to reject god, if it is not a choice that we are even aware of, then god saving us is not based on something we are actively, or even aware of, doing. Therefore it is as a result of gods own choice and as god is completely unbound by any rules (all powerful, omnipresent), it is 100% arbitrary. Calling if "choose to" or "will to" makes no difference here

Sure, I can correct for you as I read, inserting 'will against' and 'no will action' where I think it might be appropriate. But it would be more straightforward if you used the correct terminology. You might resolve things for yourself.

But lets correct using no will act/ will act against. God saving those who don't (fatally) will against his effort to save them, isn't an employing an arbitrary salvation. There is a fixed and very specific criterion he applies, the same criterion for everybody in the audience. A salvation involving a fixed, universally applicable criterion cannot be said to be an arbitrary one. That criterion is this:

Anyone who wills against the truth he exposes them to, won't be saved.

[NB: We all "will against the truth" every day, me included - so it is not as if anyone reading this with even a vague sense of unease, should attempt not to sin with a view to aiding salvation. Attempting not to sin is what every Religion encourages you to do and every Religion is a false god. You can't will for, in any case. I meant in the sense of 'willing against beyond the point of no return'. A point where it taken by God that our answer is our final answer. God will stoop. If he is found it is invariably at the bottom of our barrels, in amongst the sh1t and grime. This, because he has followed us that far down in the attempt to rescue us. There is no reason, that I know of, which says our final answer can't be given before the day we die]




-



As for awareness. We are aware when we suppress the truth. We have a conscience that informs us and we choose to bury what we know we ought and do that which we know we ought not do. We even get the blessing of a guilty conscience to double up, lest we forget the original suppression. And we bury that nudge too.

When we don't suppress the truth and do what the truth presses us to do, our consciences commend us. We are not commended for willing to do what truth would press us to do - there is no willing for in this theology. Rather, we are exposed to the positive and pleasant that comes with not having willed against.

Negative awareness when we suppress and act against the truth we are exposed to. Positive awareness when we don't act.

Good cop, bad cop.



-


If you were considering a wiring diagram I was presenting and you switched polarity of a segment of it and said the circuit didn't do as I was suggesting, then you would be right. Because of the polarity switch by you.

So again, by all means start at the top. Roll down until you find a problem then highlight what you think the problem is. In what I say

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't need to define any of that. Objective, regardless of which definition you want to weasel in, is not the same as subjective.

objective (small o) is whatever the argument behind it concludes it is. I think you are erring in thinking a definition is the source of meaning rather than a word used to identify a meaning sourced elsewhere.

Words in a dictionary use other words in a dictionary to unpack them. The meaning of the words are sourced in philosophies. A fact is something proven true. How something proven true stems from a philosophy of what constitutes proof. The philosophies cannot be proven though. And there is room for other philosophies which will alter the understanding of downstream labels such as 'objective'



I have differentiated between Objective (the external reality) and objective (our most concretely held conclusions about the external reality. Including the conclusion there is an external reality in the first place)

But if objective stems from self, then these objectives can't be said to be certainly Objectives. Or if said, then said only by subjective self.

And so, the word 'objective' becomes defined and understiod in that light. You cannot claim a definition for yourself and say the definition demonstrates the philosophy behind it. The philosophy generates the definition.

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

I think they've decided they are god
:rolleyes:



Maybe thats the idea of this thread, antiskeptic wants people to believe in them as a god. A weak, meaningless, useless god, but a god none the less.

If you can tell me how you defer to others views (e.g. scientific method) without first deciding for yourself that it is best fit for you to do so, then I am all ears.

Remember, if you have the power to grant another authority over you, you also have the power to ungrant. If anothers authority over you rests and relies on your granting them that authority, then you are the actual authority.

Every two bit politician knows that.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

How could my opinions hold supreme authority over, for example, God?? Clearly that is not what I am arguing towards.

Well, it's what you've said - that you are the "supreme authority" when it comes to deciding what's true and false. As Cabaal points out, you've essentially given yourself the power of a god.

A strange position for a religious person to argue himself/herself into, but that's where we find ourselves.

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Well, it's what you've said - that you are the "supreme authority" when it comes to deciding what's true and false. As Cabaal points out, you've essentially given yourself the power of a god.

A strange position for a religious person to argue himself/herself into, but that's where we find ourselves.

I've laid out how I avoid your conclusion ..

You skip past that and assemble a montage to your own liking. I'm sure you have your reasons.

Whatever they may be, such an approach cannot but beget a Frankenstein.

smacl

Mod: @Antiskeptic, I've deleted a substandard part of your prose in accordance with the charter. Please have another read of the charter, paying specific attention to soap-boxing and posting standards. Please do not reply to this in thread, remembering we have a feedback thread if you have any issues. Thank you for your attention.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I did precisely what I was suggesting you do. I started at the top and worked my way down until a snag was hit.

The "snag" was addressed further down in my post. Stopping a few sentences in and pretending the rest of my post doesn't exist will get us nowhere.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Here is what you said. Why are you talking about choice when choice specifically doesn't feature in what I say??

Mark Hamill wrote:

If we do not actively choose to reject god, if it is not a choice that we are even aware of, then god saving us is not based on something we are actively, or even aware of, doing. Therefore it is as a result of gods own choice and as god is completely unbound by any rules (all powerful, omnipresent), it is 100% arbitrary. Calling if "choose to" or "will to" makes no difference here

I am specifically talking about a situation were choice does not come into it, I am accepting your criteria and showing how you are still wrong regardless.

antiskeptic wrote: »

A salvation involving a fixed, universally applicable criterion cannot be said to be an arbitrary one.

It is arbitrary if the act of satisfying that criterion is in gods hands alone. If what we do is not our choice then we do not do it willingly. You distinction between "choice" and "will" is meaningless, the same problem arises.

antiskeptic wrote: »

As for awareness. We are aware when we suppress the truth. We have a conscience that informs us and we choose to bury what we know we ought and do that which we know we ought not do. We even get the blessing of a guilty conscience to double up, lest we forget the original suppression. And we bury that nudge too.

When we don't suppress the truth and do what the truth presses us to do, our consciences commend us. We are not commended for willing to do what truth would press us to do - there is no willing for in this theology. Rather, we are exposed to the positive and pleasant that comes with not having willed against.

Negative awareness when we suppress and act against the truth we are exposed to. Positive awareness when we don't act.

Good cop, bad cop.

If we are aware of the only two possible outcomes, and if it is only our action or inaction that decides between them then it is by our choice that one specifically happens. So, again, to repeat, ad nauseum, there is no distinction between "will to" and "choose".

And then, if our ability to choose is restricted by god blinding us to the choice, and we can only choose one of the possibilities if god chooses to "open our eyes", then that choice is not a free choice. God chooses for us and, as god = omniscient/omnipowerful etc, that choice is 100% arbitrary.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

objective (small o) is whatever the argument behind it concludes it is. I think you are erring in thinking a definition is the source of meaning rather than a word used to identify a meaning sourced elsewhere.

Words in a dictionary use other words in a dictionary to unpack them. The meaning of the words are sourced in philosophies. A fact is something proven true. How something proven true stems from a philosophy of what constitutes proof. The philosophies cannot be proven though. And there is room for other philosophies which will alter the understanding of downstream labels such as 'objective'



I have differentiated between Objective (the external reality) and objective (our most concretely held conclusions about the external reality. Including the conclusion there is an external reality in the first place)

But if objective stems from self, then these objectives can't be said to be certainly Objectives. Or if said, then said only by subjective self.

And so, the word 'objective' becomes defined and understiod in that light. You cannot claim a definition for yourself and say the definition demonstrates the philosophy behind it. The philosophy generates the definition.

Are you really trying to argue that two antonyms mean the same thing? Do you realise how stupid this line of argument is? Lets take your argument to it's logical conclusion, shall we:

You have reduced yourself to questioning the meaning of words in dictionary, but I notice you haven't redefined "dictionary". Or "word", or "philosophies" or "definition". Or any of the words in the post above, so lets start there. reDefine every single word so that we can have a solid base to continue this discussion on. Well, you have started with "objective", so you don't to redefine that, but you do point out a different definition for big "o" and little "o" "objective", so you should probably do the same for every word in the above post too. And then all the rest of your posts. And probably mine as well (because I'm just using the dictionary to define words, so I obviously don't know what they really mean and need you to tell me what you want them, ahem I mean, know them to mean).

You get started on that and I will meet you back here, say, just after the heat death of the universe and maybe then we can get started with an actual discussion

Midster

there are so many things that make earth special.

The fact the earth was first made inside the Goldilock zone

The fact we had a twin

The fact we collided

That the collision cause earth to spin on a tilt

The broken bits of our twin formed our moon

We were then bombarded with comets giving us water.

And while our surface cooled, the moon being close enough to us at that point it cracked the surface, giving us tectonic plates

The earths tilt gave us seasons

The moon gave us tides

Single cell organisms then formed early underwater vegetation

Then oxygen

Without all of the things happening before, early life on earth would never have formed.

Without the meteorite striking the earth exactly in the right place (a huge natural sulfer deposit buried deep in the earths crust were it hit) the dinosaurs would still be here.

And without that, more complicated life wouldn’t be hear, like us.

All life on earth came from a single point

Every star, planet, and galaxy in existence today also came from a single point.

In quantum science, scientists are also asking the very serious question of is something only ever real because we are here (life) to see it

Does the universe exist for us to see it?

Or are we only here so that the universe can exist?

Was someone watching our tiny solar system from somewhere else and thats why all of the above even happened?

Is the reason our universe is so massive simply because there are so many other complicated life forms also watching the stars on there own planets?

I’m getting a headache

And what this has to do with the god you read about in the bible, I just don’t know

But doesn’t it still keep the door open for some kind of creator?

Not a creator that anyone on earth has ever seen, written about, or spoken to. And definitely not one that boasted creating everything in just seven days.

But one that every being on earth and every complicated life form in the universe has always felt, but failed to describe accurately.

A being that rolls a trillion, million sided dice knowing that the odds are in his favour that life will begin somewhere in what what is now a vast universe.

Maybe one that requires no thanks, praise or churches.

Instead one that only requires life to spread and populate.

I’m done, time for a coffee

smacl

Midster wrote: »

A being that rolls a trillion, million sided dice knowing that the odds are in his favour that life will begin somewhere in what what is now a vast universe.

Maybe one that requires no thanks, praise or churches.

Instead one that only requires life to spread and populate.

Why one, why he, why not many? Where did he / she / it / they come from? Basically once you have any creation myth that involves a 3rd party you're not actually answering the problem of creation you're just kicking the can down the road and resorting to another form of mysticism.

My take on things is that it is more sensible to simply admit to not knowing the answer rather than shoehorn in some invented one.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If what we do is not our choice then we do not do it willingly. You distinction between "choice" and "will" is meaningless, the same problem arises.

A will act IS willingly. In the face of the option for the will to do nothing. In the face of a will-restraining force having to be broken free from.

Absolutely willingly

There is no force that can move a person from having being placed in truth by someone else. There is no force that can break shackles of truth which hold a person in that place. And there is no force that can set a persons mind and body towards pursuits that serve evil interests.

Other than the persons own will. The will is the seat of a man. The high throne on which each man sits.

The will might only be able to operate one way when it acts. But if it is not forced to act, indeed, if it is restrained from acting, yet wills to break the constraint and act in the opposite direction

Will-ingly. Arising from the will. This automatically excludes something done unwillingly or done in the absence of will involvement.

The will is defined thus. Each man's head honcho.

If we are aware of the only two possible outcomes, and if it is only our action or inaction that decides between them then it is by our choice that one specifically happens. So, again, to repeat, ad nauseum, there is no distinction between "will to" and "choose".

If you want to argue that:

- no will action (which doesn't take any act of will to come about) is one half of a potential 'choice'

- the other (potential) 'choice' option is achieved by act of will

...then be my guest.

We can define 'choice, in that way for the purposes of our discussion. If you don't like choice being defined so, then that's okay too. We will call the 'two options/one will act' mechanism presented in this theology 'zog' from now on.

You chose which word is used. I don't mind which it is, it's what lies behind it which is the important bit.



[Granted, normally we think of consequences being obtained because we opt, by act of will, for those consequences. The way I am describing sees consequences obtained by will not-acting

Like a light switch in the 'on' position offering us two options dependent on one act of will. Do nothing and remain in the light ... or will for the dark.

The truth God presents us is the "light". And we will it off. There is nothing unusual about this - we are addicts to sin and all it offers us. Light shines into all of that. It would seem to want to take our drug away. We don't hate it totally, most of us in any case. We appreciate bravery, selflessness, generosity. But we don't love it either, for we are cowardly, selfish and stingy too.

Trouble is, we usually calibrate our position on the good/bad scale against other sinners! You might appreciate how circular that particular measuring method is!

Someone else had something to say about where we score. Only thing matters is .. is He Objective?

19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed."

So, Jesus places us far further down the scale than we might have thought. If not too bad compared to folk around us.

And then, if our ability to choose is restricted by god blinding us to the choice,

Er.. sin blinds us alright. But not to the options.

We have awareness regarding both options we can obtain. We know what good is. And we know what evil is. And we know when we do good and when we do evil.

And we know that knowledge of good and evil is no small thing. Our society is shaped and held together by our knowing it. Dawkins says it is universal and strikingly similar amongst all mankind. No reason to think it ever was other than universal or ever will be. The law if our lands assumes we know what's right and wrong - ignorance as to the precise letter of it, being no defence under law.

Blind to God. Blind to the fact that good and bad are referenced against God - Most Certainly. But not blind to the good/bad options presented to us. Presented as they are in a million subtle and not at all so subtle ways. All. Day. Long.

and we can only choose one of the possibilities

Per above, zog says will for only one possibility

Like a light switch in the on position offering us two options depending on one act of will.

if god chooses to "open our eyes", then that choice is not a free choice.

God choosing to open our eyes or not is based on a criterion first met, or not met, by us.

Whether it is met or not depends utterly upon what our will does and doesn't do. The doesn't do isn't a doing .. as we have seen.

God's choice? A cop choosing to give a ticket to people caught speeding doesn't render him part of the persons free decision to suppress the truth conveyed to them by the law. He chooses to give the consequence their will opted for.

Try telling a judge your speeding wasn't a free choice just because the cop delivered on the consequences of your speeding

God chooses for us and, as god = omniscient/omnipowerful etc, that choice is 100% arbitrary.

Since:

- criterion satisfied or not is entirely in your hands.

- you will is free to act or not act, such that our final option truly is of our doing (if damnation) or not doing (if salvation)

.. this statement doesn't follow.



Edit. If you are still arguing, at this stage, that man has no choice then remember he has zog. The question is: can a man be condemned for what he did will after been given ample opportunity for the alternative.

Assume a fair judge declaring on what was 'ample'. This demands, of course, that you accept there can be such a thing as a fair judge. The whole point about 'every knee bowing' points to the idea that Empirically Demonstrable Evidencing of a fair Judge will be overwhelming convincing.

If you think the case for a spherical earth is empirically sound, why would you suppose the Creator of the empirical realm, from which we derive our method, can't demonstrate his fairness to your utter satisfaction?

.."and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord". Lord over us in every way, including fair and impartial Lord Chief Justice.

Even the Lord Chief Justices of our world will be bow to that fact.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Are you really trying to argue that two antonyms mean the same thing..

..You have reduced yourself to questioning the meaning of words in dictionary

A word in a dictionary doesn't suppose to trace things back to start. Take the following dictionary definitions:

A fact is something proven.

A proof is demonstrating by evidence or argument.

Evidence is the available body of facts.

Kind of circular isn't it? No problem though - if we are not looking at the Start but were assuming a Start to provide a certain platform we can push off from. A bubble to work within.


But we're looking at things outside the bubble. Once outside:

I start with the lone view, I am. There is no other place to start.

Whatever conclusions I come to about an outside environment (its existence in the first place and anything descriptive thereafter, by whatever means that description is arrived at) are subjective.

I cannot start with 'we' since I must first decide there is a 'we'.

-

As I said, these definitions, though handy, only function once there is an agreed platform to stand on. You might speak to me about up/down. Up and down are defined. But if joining me on the space station, such definitions won't fit anymore. We are outside the up/down bubble.

It really depends on whether you are speaking about the position inside or outside a bubble. These definitions.

And in the discussion 'we' can switch inside to discuss outside the bubble. At least I think we can, because I assume I am right about there being other I's like I.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Why one, why he, why not many? Where did he / she / it / they come from? Basically once you have any creation myth that involves a 3rd party you're not actually answering the problem of creation you're just kicking the can down the road and resorting to another form of mysticism.

My take on things is that it is more sensible to simply admit to not knowing the answer rather than shoehorn in some invented one.

Do you accept an answer so complete and so monumental can exist that renders 'I am' convincing enough?

'Convincing' in the sense that the question 'Yes, but who created you?' would strike you as the most insanely bizarre thought that had ever crossed your mind up to that point.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

A will act IS willingly.

Willingly means by free choice. If a will act means willingly, then you are contradicting yourself by saying it is not also an act of choice.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Blind to God. Blind to the fact that good and bad are referenced against God - Most Certainly. But not blind to the good/bad options presented to us. Presented as they are in a million subtle and not at all so subtle ways. All. Day. Long.

So we are not blinded by god to the earthly outcomes of our actions, we are only blinded by god to god being behind them? But that blinding is by no action of our own (we are born blind and must have our "eyes opened" by god) and we are ultimately punished based on whether or not we are blind. So the difference is semantic, but doesn't change the argument. God is blinding us by his own choice and punishing us for his choice to not "open our eyes". You are spending a lot of time supporting my argument.

antiskeptic wrote: »

God choosing to open our eyes or not is based on a criterion first met, or not met, by us.

Whether it is met or not depends utterly upon what our will does and doesn't do. The doesn't do isn't a doing .. as we have seen.

God's choice? A cop choosing to give a ticket to people caught speeding doesn't render him part of the persons free decision to suppress the truth conveyed to them by the law. He chooses to give the consequence their will opted for.

Try telling a judge your speeding wasn't a free choice just because the cop delivered on the consequences of your speeding

Except that this is a judge, cop and a law that purposefully keeps you blind to all of them and then punishes you based purely on if they don't make themselves known.

You are saying that we must not will against god in order for god to open our eyes. But this is just another way of saying that we must (passively) accept god in order for him to open our eyes. Which means that we must believe in god without evidence in order for god to give us the real evidence (open our eyes) to really believe in him.
Didn't you spend a long time trying to claim this wasn't the case, that we could get evidence first and then belief? I guess the mystery of why you couldn't supply even one example of that evidence is solved.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

A word in a dictionary doesn't suppose to trace things back to start. Take the following dictionary definitions:

A fact is something proven.

A proof is demonstrating by evidence or argument.

Evidence is the available body of facts.

Kind of circular isn't it? No problem though - if we are not looking at the Start but were assuming a Start to provide a certain platform we can push off from. A bubble to work within.


But we're looking at things outside the bubble. Once outside:

I start with the lone view, I am. There is no other place to start.

Whatever conclusions I come to about an outside environment (its existence in the first place and anything descriptive thereafter, by whatever means that description is arrived at) are subjective.

I cannot start with 'we' since I must first decide there is a 'we'.

-

As I said, these definitions, though handy, only function once there is an agreed platform to stand on. You might speak to me about up/down. Up and down are defined. But if joining me on the space station, such definitions won't fit anymore. We are outside the up/down bubble.

It really depends on whether you are speaking about the position inside or outside a bubble. These definitions.

And in the discussion 'we' can switch inside to discuss outside the bubble. At least I think we can, because I assume I am right about there being other I's like I.

Now now, I don't see any definitions for any of these words, so how can we discuss any of them? You start with "A" (with a capital "A"), but how can we get anywhere if you don't even differentiate "A" (with a capital "A") with "a" (with a small "a"). And next you have "word" and then "in" ...
Look, we are now a whole day closer to the heat death of the universe, you really need to get started on your personal redefinition or every word in existence if you want to get anywhere.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you accept an answer so complete and so monumental can exist that renders 'I am' convincing enough?

This thread reminds me of an early computer program called ELIZA which sometimes kind of looked as if it was keeping up a conversation by trotting out stock responses and word salad.

...and of course, it turns out ELIZA is alive and well!

Mark Hamill

Midster wrote: »

But doesn’t it still keep the door open for some kind of creator?

It amazes me how theists of all sorts don't understand how doors work. I, for instance, don't leave my front door open open because of the possibility that someone might come knocking. Who knows what will come in if I leave it open (never mind letting all the heat out)? Better to close the door and return to open it if someone evidences that they are looking to get in and entitled to do so.

Midster wrote: »

Not a creator that anyone on earth has ever seen, written about, or spoken to. And definitely not one that boasted creating everything in just seven days.

But one that every being on earth and every complicated life form in the universe has always felt, but failed to describe accurately.

A being that rolls a trillion, million sided dice knowing that the odds are in his favour that life will begin somewhere in what what is now a vast universe.

Maybe one that requires no thanks, praise or churches.

Instead one that only requires life to spread and populate.

You see? You start with the simplistic, almost reasonable, "just leave the door open to some sort of a creator", but then start tacking on whatever flavours you personally like and which suit you and expect everyone else to sit there happily, heat bellowing out the open door, waiting for your desired creator to make themselves known.

Recognising a technical possibility is not the same thing as leaving the door open to it. In theistic discussion, it is always used as an infiltration to insert your desired deity into our incomplete understanding of the universe (argument from ignorance). There is as much support for me claiming that I created the universe, but are you really "leaving the door open" that I could be the creator?

spacecoyote

Midster wrote: »

But doesn’t it still keep the door open for some kind of creator?

Not a creator that anyone on earth has ever seen, written about, or spoken to. And definitely not one that boasted creating everything in just seven days.

But one that every being on earth and every complicated life form in the universe has always felt, but failed to describe accurately.

A being that rolls a trillion, million sided dice knowing that the odds are in his favour that life will begin somewhere in what what is now a vast universe.

Maybe one that requires no thanks, praise or churches.

Instead one that only requires life to spread and populate.

I’m done, time for a coffee

So, if there has to be a creator of the universe, who created the creator. And who created the creator of the creator, and on & on ad infinitum.

I just find the argument for a creator god depressingly small.

So you can accept that some mystical being, that can never be evidenced has just always been there, but can't accept that the universe in some form has, even though we live in it, and science allows us to learn more fact based information about it on nearly a daily basis

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This thread reminds me of an early computer program called ELIZA which sometimes kind of looked as if it was keeping up a conversation by trotting out stock responses and word salad.

...and of course, it turns out ELIZA is alive and well!

Pretty much stock yourself. Deserving of the old stock 'asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence' response beloved of this forum!

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Now now, I don't see any definitions for any of these words, so how can we discuss any of them? You start with "A" (with a capital "A"), but how can we get anywhere if you don't even differentiate "A" (with a capital "A") with "a" (with a small "a"). And next you have "word" and then "in" ...
Look, we are now a whole day closer to the heat death of the universe, you really need to get started on your personal redefinition or every word in existence if you want to get anywhere.

2nd last paragraph of the post is for you. You can either remain in the bubble and define in a circle. Or seek to break out of the bubble and see where the definitions might terminate.

Copied from the post below

Edit: 'will' is another example of defintions requiring digging into. The definition of will refers to a philosophy concerning will. The definition isn't true as such.

You can discuss those philosophies (as we are doing now). The only contention regarding defintions are the words under discussion: choice, will, objective, subjective. Other than that, words used to discuss these contentious words have their normal understanding.

That is how new words are created and defined - by using agreed on words.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Willingly means by free choice. If a will act means willingly, then you are contradicting yourself by saying it is not also an act of choice.

Willingly means arising from the will. Which naturally means free (since if not from the will then from somewhere else and not thus arising from the will)

I'm not so sure about choice - if you are demanding that choice is defined by will act free both for and against. We have two different philosopies of will thus

Free willingly (my philosophy: the will freely against or doing nothing).

Free choice (classic philosophy: the will freely for or freely against)


You might clarify which we are talking about?



Edit: 'will' is another example of defintions requiring digging into. The definition of will refers to a philosophy concerning will. The definition isn't true as such.

You can discuss those philosophies (as we are doing now). The only contention regarding defintions are the words under discussion: choice, will, objective, subjective. Other than that, words used to discuss these contentious words have their normal understanding.

That is how new words are created and defined - by using agreed on words.

antiskeptic

spacecoyote wrote: »

So, if there has to be a creator of the universe, who created the creator. And who created the creator of the creator, and on & on ad infinitum.

I just find the argument for a creator god depressingly small.

So you can accept that some mystical being, that can never be evidenced has just always been there, but can't accept that the universe in some form has, even though we live in it, and science allows us to learn more fact based information about it on nearly a daily basis

A Creator doesn't require a Creator. It need only always have been/is/will be and whatever other realms it need occupy.

Could all (putting an unbelievers hat on for a moment) we observe arise without God? I don't see why it is impossible since we don't know what can and can't be. One thing is sure, the Creator is whatever it is.

As to which possibility is preferred?

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. We can 'why my boat floats best' til the cows come home, it doesn't change the conclusion.

Or the fact it is your own personal conclusion. So that man is without excuse in the event he feels he is in serious need of one.

They can hardly turn to 'goddidit'.

antiskeptic

It is fascinating to see the resistance to the idea of self sitting on the throne. Self the ultimate authority, will, self assessment, lone view, our being subjective doesn't necessarily mean we are in error, etc.

All discussed. Lots of resistance to the self on throne observation.

We know in our heart of hearts that we sit on the throne. So why would someone who knows they sit on the throne, have such difficulty in admitting it?

Self on throne, whether we decide true or not, does mean self is responsible. Is that what is being avoided? Responsibility?

If so, what are we seeking to avoid responsibility FOR?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

2nd last paragraph of the post is for you. You can either remain in the bubble and define in a circle. Or seek to break out of the bubble and see where the definitions might terminate.

Copied from the post below

Subjective and objective are antonyms.
So, if you want to describe something that is not defined by these words, then you need to use a different word that actually describes what you want to describe. You do not get to redefine two opposite meaning words to the same meaning in order to suit your argument.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Subjective and objective are antonyms.

According to a particular philosopy.

Definitions are circular like I say (because philosophies are cicular). You can't hide behind a circular argument.

Huntergonzo

Again I think people should really keep their imaginary friends to themselves but alas this has never been the religious way.

There have been hundreds if not thousands of gods in documented human history, and everybody seems to think there's is the coolest.

So which god is the real one, and how do we prove his existence?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

Willingly means arising from the will. Which naturally means free (since if not from the will then from somewhere else and not thus arising from the will)

I'm not so sure about choice - if you are demanding that choice is defined by will act free both for and against. We have two different philosopies of will thus

Free willingly (my philosophy: the will freely against or doing nothing).

Free choice (classic philosophy: the will freely for or freely against)


You might clarify which we are talking about?



Edit: 'will' is another example of defintions requiring digging into. The definition of will refers to a philosophy concerning will. The definition isn't true as such.

You can discuss those philosophies (as we are doing now). The only contention regarding defintions are the words under discussion: choice, will, objective, subjective. Other than that, words used to discuss these contentious words have their normal understanding.

That is how new words are created and defined - by using agreed on words.

Nope, "will" and "willingly" and "choice" do not require us to delve into their definitions as they are already clearly defined. Do you think this isn't transparent? Every time it is pointed out how your claims contradict themselves you bring in a new term to redefine and try and obfuscate things, but it always circles back to the same problem:

-Ultimately, we can only make a fully informed decision re: accepting god after god "opens" our eyes.
-Anything we do before then is not fully informed because our "eyes" aren't opened to God.
-If we are expected to make such a decision beforehand, then we are expected to (at least in some way) believe in god without evidence (something you were adamant wasn't the case).
-If we can only make the decision afterwards then any reward or punishment is ultimately because of gods actions (seeing as it is god who decides when, or even if, our "eyes" get opened). God is not restricted to anything (not even to our good and bad actions, according to your earlier posts) therefore gods choice is 100% arbitrary.

Can you contradict this without redefining the English language? Because I'm done following you down that rabbit hole.

antiskeptic

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Again I think people should really keep their imaginary friends to themselves but alas this has never been the religious way.

There have been hundreds if not thousands of gods in documented human history, and everybody seems to think there's is the coolest.

So which god is the real one, and how do we prove his existence?

You don't prove it. You worship it. Even you your god.

After that what will be will be.

Huntergonzo

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nope, "will" and "willingly" and "choice" do not require us to delve into their definitions as they are already clearly defined. Do you think this isn't transparent? Every time it is pointed out how your claims contradict themselves you bring in a new term to redefine and try and obfuscate things, but it always circles back to the same problem:

-Ultimately, we can only make a fully informed decision re: accepting god after god "opens" our eyes.
-Anything we do before then is not fully informed because our "eyes" aren't opened to God.
-If we are expected to make such a decision beforehand, then we are expected to (at least in some way) believe in god without evidence (something you were adamant wasn't the case).
-If we can only make the decision afterwards then any reward or punishment is ultimately because of gods actions (seeing as it is god who decides when, or even if, our "eyes" get opened). God is not restricted to anything (not even to our good and bad actions, according to your earlier posts) therefore gods choice is 100% arbitrary.

Can you contradict this without redefining the English language? Because I'm done following you down that rabbit hole.

In fairness the words contradict, redefine and obfuscate sum up religion very well. You can also throw in there vague, mysterious, authoritarian and cover up.

The Catholic Cult should never be forgiven nor forgotten for the horrific crimes they committed in this country.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

According to a particular philosopy.

Definitions are circular like I say (because philosophies are cicular). You can't hide behind a circular argument.

Nope, according to the dictionary, they are antonyms. It is not circular to state that opposite meaning words have opposite meanings.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nope, "will" and "willingly" and "choice" do not require us to delve into their definitions as they are already clearly defined. Do you think this isn't transparent? Every time it is pointed out how your claims contradict themselves you bring in a new term to redefine and try and obfuscate things, but it always circles back to the same problem:

Philosopy determines definitions. When discussing a particular philosophy (mine) you go with my definitions.

You don't prove philosophies, you decide upon them.

-Ultimately, we can only make a fully informed decision re: accepting god after god "opens" our eyes.

In the mean time we get to decide upon our response to truth. If truth is God then..

-Anything we do before then is not fully informed because our "eyes" aren't opened to God.

If God is truth, love, joy, peace, life.. and we have decided our attitude to these things (with our responses to truth telling about the worth of these thungs), then..

We don't need to be fully informed. We choose all the time without being fully informed. We need to be adequately informed.

-If we are expected to make such a decision beforehand, then we are expected to (at least in some way) believe in god without evidence (something you were adamant wasn't the case).

See adequacy above

-If we can only make the decision afterwards then any reward or punishment is ultimately because of gods actions (seeing as it is god who decides when, or even if, our "eyes" get opened).

See adequacy. If we are adequately equipped to fulfill the criterion or not.

God is not restricted to anything (not even to our good and bad actions, according to your earlier posts) therefore gods choice is 100% arbitrary.

God is restricted. I nevee said he wasn't in any case. There are things he cannot do. Like make us the criterion deciders and make him the criterion deciders at the same time. He can make us the criterion deciders alright

Can you contradict this without redefining the English language? Because I'm done following you down that rabbit hole.

Adequately informed seems the phrase most important to this response of mine.

Huntergonzo

antiskeptic wrote: »

You don't prove it. You worship it. Even you your god.

After that what will be will be.

Haha I see.

What if I told you I am god, would you believe me? I mean there's no reason not to in fairness, afterall you don't prove things, you just worship.

Be very careful what you say now, I could be on here testing your faith, you don't want to be another doubting Thomas!

antiskeptic

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Haha I see.

What if I told you I am god, would you believe me? I mean there's no reason not to in fairness, afterall you don't prove things, you just worship.

Be very careful what you say now, I could be on here testing your faith, you don't want to be another doubting Thomas!

It doesn't matter what I believe. It is what you believe that matters. For what you believe is what you hold prime. That's all worship is.

spacecoyote

antiskeptic wrote: »

A Creator doesn't require a Creator. It need only always have been/is/will be and whatever other realms it need occupy.

Could all (putting an unbelievers hat on for a moment) we observe arise without God? I don't see why it is impossible since we don't know what can and can't be. One thing is sure, the Creator is whatever it is.

As to which possibility is preferred?

Whatever floats your boat, I suppose. We can 'why my boat floats best' til the cows come home, it doesn't change the conclusion.

Or the fact it is your own personal conclusion. So that man is without excuse in the event he feels he is in serious need of one.

They can hardly turn to 'goddidit'.

I'm a creator, who required a creator.

My parents created me. If I have kids, I've created them. So the first point you make is just an absurdity. Or is it, every creator needs a creator except your creator?

So "the" creator doesn't require a creator, but the universe does?

Huntergonzo

antiskeptic wrote: »

It doesn't matter what I believe. It is what you believe that matters. For what you believe is what you hold prime. That's all worship is.

Which god do you worship as a matter of interest?

Eg: Thor, Zeus, Allah, Catholic god? Jew god? Jesus? Etc

antiskeptic

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Which god do you worship as a matter of interest?

Eg: Thor, Zeus, Allah, Catholic god? Jew god? Jesus? Etc

God of the bible (as I interpret it) appears to me to be the best fit.

antiskeptic

spacecoyote wrote: »

I'm a creator, who required a creator.

My parents created me. If I have kids, I've created them. So the first point you make is just an absurdity. Or is it, every creator needs a creator except your creator?

So "the" creator doesn't require a creator, but the universe does?

I allowed for there being a Creator that isn't a god. Big bang or a perpetual multiverse or whatever.

spacecoyote

antiskeptic wrote: »

I allowed for there being a Creator that isn't a god. Big bang or a perpetual multiverse or whatever.

That still doesn't answer the question of who created this creator, or why they don't need a creator

Huntergonzo

antiskeptic wrote: »

God of the bible (as I interpret it) appears to me to be the best fit.

That's fair enough, you're entitled to believe whatever you wish.

I think the god/religion people choose/chose to believe in has more to do with where/when they were born than anything else.

For instance if you were born in Irish in modern times you're likely to be catholic (at least for a few years anyway, huge drop off in recent years), if you born in Saudi Arabia you'd most likely be Muslim, if you were born in Israel you'd likely be jewish if you were born in ancient Greece you'd likely believe in Zeus etc etc

More than just coincidental that I'd say.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Nope, according to the dictionary, they are antonyms. It is not circular to state that opposite meaning words have opposite meanings.

State? You can state what you like. According to the dictionary says nothing about how it came to be according to the dictionary.

You don't seem keen to be crowbarred from your dictionary-as-authority.

I thought I showed you fact > proof > evidence>fact circularity? It doesn't seemed to have helped.

Probably little point in continuing.

antiskeptic

Huntergonzo wrote: »

That's fair enough, you're entitled to believe whatever you wish.

I think the god/religion people choose/chose to believe in has more to do with where/when they were born than anything else.

For instance if you were born in Irish in modern times you're likely to be catholic (at least for a few years anyway, huge drop off in recent years), if you born in Saudi Arabia you'd most likely be Muslim, if you were born in Israel you'd likely be jewish if you were born in ancient Greece you'd likely believe in Zeus etc etc

More than just coincidental that I'd say.

That there are gods isn't coincidental, yours included. The question is just why they aren't coincidental.

And for that you have to assess for yourself. As you and I appear to have done. Even if coming to different conclusions.

One way I assessed was to lift up the bonnet and see what lay beneath. The outward looks may be remarkably different. But the engine is the same.

Self as god. Answerable only to self, ultimately. As you yourself highlight:

 you're entitled to believe whatever you wish.

Midster

smacl wrote: »

Why one, why he, why not many? Where did he / she / it / they come from? Basically once you have any creation myth that involves a 3rd party you're not actually answering the problem of creation you're just kicking the can down the road and resorting to another form of mysticism.

My take on things is that it is more sensible to simply admit to not knowing the answer rather than shoehorn in some invented one.

Humans have felt, been in communication with, been in the presence of, in some cases been in the company of some kind god since further back than our history books began. And archeology even further back in time.

Why be so dismissive?

After all if 99.99999% of those cases were untrue, and wrong, that still leaves at least a small percentage of truth.

antiskeptic

Midster wrote: »

Humans have felt, been in communication with, been in the presence of, in some cases been in the company of some kind god since further back than our history books began. And archeology even further back in time.

Why be so dismissive?

After all if 99.99999% of those cases were untrue, and wrong, that still leaves at least a small percentage of truth.

Mores the point. The fact that man is a religious animal (a fact not dented by the latest naturalistic religions) is evidenced by long history.

The slightly transparent trick is to rely on a dictionary for your definition of religious!

antiskeptic

spacecoyote wrote: »

That still doesn't answer the question of who created this creator, or why they don't need a creator

Well if the creator needs a creator then its creators all the way down. Or else the creator doesn't need a creator (whether God or naturalistic creator)

Them's the logical options. I'm not telling you which one to believe.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Well if the creator needs a creator then its creators all the way down. Or else the creator doesn't need a creator (whether God or naturalistic creator)

Or else nothing needs a creator.

nthclare

Hypothetically I think the God of the Bible deserves an accolade as a God of war, and aggression.

Supposedly he gave us all these defects of character and shortcomings which are naturally ingrained in us.
Then plays games with our psyche, like come on if it was true he's not exactly stable or fair in his game of toss the coin.
Im sure the op is on the highway to hell too if its all true and there's only 10,000 place's in heaven anyhow so we're all going to hell according to the Christian doctrinal teachings.

I have a friend who's a Pagan and he reckons the abrahamic god is an actual demon like Pazuzu in the exorcist, a jin if you like.

And this Jin or Demon the Abrahamic god is actually more dangerous than lucifer but not as mad as pazuzu.

Huntergonzo

antiskeptic wrote: »

That there are gods isn't coincidental, yours included. The question is just why they aren't coincidental.

And for that you have to assess for yourself. As you and I appear to have done. Even if coming to different conclusions.

One way I assessed was to lift up the bonnet and see what lay beneath. The outward looks may be remarkably different. But the engine is the same.

Self as god. Answerable only to self, ultimately. As you yourself highlight:

No but what I'm saying is history & geography seem to play a vital role in which god people happen to believe in.

For instance, lets say you were born and raised in Riyadh to Saudi parent, if you lifted up a bonnet in Riyadh do you think you'd find a muslim engine or a christian engine?

My money says you might just be muslim, hence geography has decided your faith.

antiskeptic

nthclare wrote: »

Hypothetically I think the God of the Bible deserves an accolade as a God of war, and aggression.

Interesting book I read which argued that the God of War attributes of God of the Bible are projections. A people taken from paganism by God (whose gods were invariably powerful) projected these attributes onto God.

God is at war alright. But not with us.

antiskeptic

Huntergonzo wrote: »

No but what I'm saying is history & geography seem to play a vital role in which god people happen to believe in.

Born here and now and your god is likely to be a naturalistic one. And you'll visit A&A forum where fellow believers congregate.

For instance, lets say you were born and raised in Riyadh to Saudi parent, if you lifted up a bonnet in Riyadh do you think you'd find a muslim engine or a christian engine?

My money says you might just be muslim, hence geography has decided your faith.

Indeed. But as I say, little matter what the outer packaging looks like.

Of course, you can say your god is different. That it is the real God over all other gods. We shalt have no gods but this God.

But that's not going to get you far. It doesn't me!