1818 replies to this topic

[IronLife]

Revelation is not worth much effort. It is not so long ago, (90's?) that the catholic church admitted that purgatory was made up. Yet just a few years before it was regarded as unassailable revelation. They also admitted that a lot of the saints and their miracles were made up. They only have to go a little further to emerge into the light and admit that, one way or another, it is all made up. There is probably some historical truth in the existence of some people in the bible, but their pre-scientific accounts of events are uselessly unreliable. Many revelations and visions would now be recognised as schizophrenia, or as epileptic in origin. Some of the others are probably just made up, for convenience or attention seeking, or political expediency or whatever. None of it is edifying.

With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. The Catholic Church never said any such thing about purgatory.

What you're thinking of is limbo, and the Church never dogmatically taught limbo: check the conciliar teachings for yourself. Rather, it was medieval speculation that became widespread. Pope Benedict simply clarified that this is not official Catholic doctrine nor has it ever been.

With regard to the biblical creation accounts, they are not meant to be scientific. Any Old Testament scholar would tell you that. The images relate to concrete things from their day such as the Serpent = fertility cults, for example. Many prominent Jewish and Christian theologians from very early in the tradition took these stories figuratively, see Origen and Augustine, to name a few.

As soon as I saw your remark I remembered I'd got the wrong made-up place. I did actually know it, but to use G W Bush's wonderful word, I misremembered it. A great deal of medieval mumbo jumbo became semi-officially incorporated. It's mostly made up.

It was a philosophical construct postulated by medieval scholastics. It didn't gain "semi-official" status, it was merely popular among piety since it sought to address the issue concerning the fate of unbaptized children.

I do realise that, outside the nutters on the fundamentalist literalist wing, nobody takes these stories as anything more than metaphorical. As for their interpretation; there are probably lots of theories but none have any bearing on the existence/nonexistence of any gods. As many creation stories have been told as gods have been proposed, but none of them, either, has much bearing on anything except cultural history. On the other hand, the huge amount of cross fertilisation between all these gods and their stories, most of which have been discarded, does suggest that the surviving god stories probably belong on the same pile.

The cross-fertilization involved borrowing and adapting of cultural images more than anything else. What is significant In the Genesis creation story is the idea that the sun and the moon are objects not gods, which was a radically foreign, indeed blasphemous, belief at the time for all of the neighboring religions.

This is not my subject but I suspect, on general cultural grounds, that that is a partial reading. Whatever, it has no bearing on reality, which is an area free of evidence for gods; all the minutiae of religious nitpicking are of no more than historical interest compared to questions about the real world.

Thanks for your opinion. In any case, I was merely correcting your inaccurate statement about limbo/purgatory. And I am not sure how my reading of either Genesis on the sun and moon or limbo can be construed as "partial."

[Castiel]

Castiel: Nice, Kennedy is not omnipotent nor does he require belief in him for salvation, so it doesn't really matter whether we have the same degree of evidence. Even if we all wanted to experience kennedy directly, kennedy being mortal born at a certain time and dying at another could not be omnipresent and grace all humans past and present with his presence.

It's going to be interesting to see the justifications for special revelation. As it seems quite clear, evident and cut that given omnipotence omnipresence and omnibenevolence making some eyewitnesses and even direct subjects of miracles and giving other mere hearsay is indeed unfair and contradicts the properties assigned to god.

You entirely missed the point. We are discussing general revelation now and whether there is evidence for God. http://www.longecity...510#entry642862

We are going to discuss why I believe Christianity is the best choice but this discussion bears on the Hiddenness of God as a subject important to evidence. What could be the reason for god not to put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.

It's so amazing that you have to divide revelation into special revelation and general revelation. Whatever argument for defending such division, is most certainly bound to be weak. Calling forth special revelation in some holybook through hearsay basically amounts to negative evidence, evidence against the described God.

And what could be the reason for giving such signs("put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.") to some so they could believe, depending on who you ask: splitting the moon, moving the sun rapidly across the sky, resurrecting the dead, touching post-resurrection wounds? or how about levitating saints, miraculous cures, etc? WHY JUST SOME? Oh they just don't have the great blessing of having blind faith through lack of direct exposure to miracles(the so called blessing of faith brought by defenders of special revelation, on the one hand those with direct exposure are blessed to get direct experience of the holy on the other hand the rest are also blessed to not get that experience and enjoy constant doubt but hold strong to their faith... such paradoxical and illogical state the product of a fictional god or an insane if not mischievious and malevolent god.).

This is just an emotional argument, even fideistic. It presumes, without basis, what an omnipotent, omniscient, omninonomonom God would do based solely on the subjectivity of a 21st century person. This is not philosophical reasoning at all. God's communication through prophets, if we grant that this is true for the sake of the argument, does not contradict any of the philosophical qualities attributed to God.

Really now?

You don't really think that sentencing a large portion of nonbelievers to eternal suffering for doubting hearsay is in accord with being just and having omnipotence? that it can actually be compatible with such properties, that would require some extreme twisting of logic, and I think any way you look at it it would be indefensible.... All while at the same time providing direct evidence to a few, and even extra evidence to some doubters?

It is borderline psychotic to be obsessed with hearsay as virtually sole(virtually because of the exception of original witnesses) means for the spread of belief, that is through word of mouth and a few ancient testimonies.

Regards the videos on hiddeness. The first one evaded the argument. The second one seems to ignore the fact that it is claimed God was extremely obvious to the originators of most any religion. Which is my point, not necessarily the hiddeness, that might be reasonable if it applied to all or if there was no consequence for disbelief such as eternal torment but the problem is with being hidden to some and not to others and not just punishing but severely and eternally punishing the former for using rational faculties and doubting flimsy ancient testimonies.

Edited by Castiel, 15 February 2014 - 03:11 AM.

[IronLife]

Castiel: Nice, Kennedy is not omnipotent nor does he require belief in him for salvation, so it doesn't really matter whether we have the same degree of evidence. Even if we all wanted to experience kennedy directly, kennedy being mortal born at a certain time and dying at another could not be omnipresent and grace all humans past and present with his presence.

It's going to be interesting to see the justifications for special revelation. As it seems quite clear, evident and cut that given omnipotence omnipresence and omnibenevolence making some eyewitnesses and even direct subjects of miracles and giving other mere hearsay is indeed unfair and contradicts the properties assigned to god.

You entirely missed the point. We are discussing general revelation now and whether there is evidence for God. http://www.longecity...510#entry642862

We are going to discuss why I believe Christianity is the best choice but this discussion bears on the Hiddenness of God as a subject important to evidence. What could be the reason for god not to put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.

It's so amazing that you have to divide revelation into special revelation and general revelation. Whatever argument for defending such division, is most certainly bound to be weak. Calling forth special revelation in some holybook through hearsay basically amounts to negative evidence, evidence against the described God.

And what could be the reason for giving such signs("put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.") to some so they could believe, depending on who you ask: splitting the moon, moving the sun rapidly across the sky, resurrecting the dead, touching post-resurrection wounds? or how about levitating saints, miraculous cures, etc? WHY JUST SOME? Oh they just don't have the great blessing of having blind faith through lack of direct exposure to miracles(the so called blessing of faith brought by defenders of special revelation, on the one hand those with direct exposure are blessed to get direct experience of the holy on the other hand the rest are also blessed to not get that experience and enjoy constant doubt but hold strong to their faith... such paradoxical and illogical state the product of a fictional god or an insane if not mischievious and malevolent god.).

This is just an emotional argument, even fideistic. It presumes, without basis, what an omnipotent, omniscient, omninonomonom God would do based solely on the subjectivity of a 21st century person. This is not philosophical reasoning at all. God's communication through prophets, if we grant that this is true for the sake of the argument, does not contradict any of the philosophical qualities attributed to God.

Really now?

You don't really think that sentencing a large portion of nonbelievers to eternal suffering for doubting hearsay is in accord with being just and having omnipotence? that it can actually be compatible with such properties, that would require some extreme twisting of logic, and I think any way you look at it it would be indefensible.... All while at the same time providing direct evidence to a few, and even extra evidence to some doubters?

It is borderline psychotic to be obsessed with hearsay as virtually sole(virtually because of the exception of original witnesses) means for the spread of belief, that is through word of mouth and a few ancient testimonies.

Regards the videos on hiddeness. The first one evaded the argument. The second one seems to ignore the fact that it is claimed God was extremely obvious to the originators of most any religion. Which is my point, not necessarily the hiddeness, that might be reasonable if it applied to all or if there was no consequence for disbelief such as eternal torment but the problem is with being hidden to some and not to others and not just punishing but severely and eternally punishing the former for using rational faculties and doubting flimsy ancient testimonies.

Massa Damnata is the theory you've postulated, not me. Belief in God has rational justifications, hence Plato and Aristotle and countless others who have and do pursue the true quest for knowledge, rather than restrict their investigation into existence strictly to empirically verifiable data. As for people who order their lives based on, say, the teachings of Jesus and his disciples, it is not because of blind adherence to hearsay, but rather being convinced and moved to such a degree that they consciously choose to order their lives towards God.

[shadowhawk]

Castiel:
You don't really think that sentencing a large portion of nonbelievers to eternal suffering for doubting hearsay is in accord with being just and having omnipotence? that it can actually be compatible with such properties, that would require some extreme twisting of logic, and I think any way you look at it it would be indefensible.... All while at the same time providing direct evidence to a few, and even extra evidence to some doubters?

ShadowHawk: SH: Hell is where God is not. It is described several ways, one of them being in darkness, away from the light. God among many things is light. Being away from God is Hell. It is obvious that some do not want to be with God, so , valuing freedom of choice God allows it. You send yourself to hell. And on top of that, it is not uncommon for those making this choice to blame God.

Castiel:
It is borderline psychotic to be obsessed with hearsay as virtually sole(virtually because of the exception of original witnesses) means for the spread of belief, that is through word of mouth and a few ancient testimonies.

SH: Most of what we learn is heresay. What do you think news media is? The minute anything passes out of the present, it becomes here say. History is here say. Education is heresay.

Castiel:
Regards the videos on hiddeness. The first one evaded the argument. The second one seems to ignore the fact that it is claimed God was extremely obvious to the originators of most any religion. Which is my point, not necessarily the hiddeness, that might be reasonable if it applied to all or if there was no consequence for disbelief such as eternal torment but the problem is with being hidden to some and not to others and not just punishing but severely and eternally punishing the former for using rational faculties and doubting flimsy ancient testimonies.

SH: There are many fascists to hiddeness. You don’t have the capacity to know exhaustively and use it as an excuse. Nothing I can say will overcome this kind of willful ignorance. You can experience almost everything without first hand knowledge. If you demand first hand knowledge, good luck. You have as much as I do.

Edited by shadowhawk, 15 February 2014 - 05:18 AM.

[Castiel]

Castiel: Nice, Kennedy is not omnipotent nor does he require belief in him for salvation, so it doesn't really matter whether we have the same degree of evidence. Even if we all wanted to experience kennedy directly, kennedy being mortal born at a certain time and dying at another could not be omnipresent and grace all humans past and present with his presence.

It's going to be interesting to see the justifications for special revelation. As it seems quite clear, evident and cut that given omnipotence omnipresence and omnibenevolence making some eyewitnesses and even direct subjects of miracles and giving other mere hearsay is indeed unfair and contradicts the properties assigned to god.

You entirely missed the point. We are discussing general revelation now and whether there is evidence for God. http://www.longecity...510#entry642862

We are going to discuss why I believe Christianity is the best choice but this discussion bears on the Hiddenness of God as a subject important to evidence. What could be the reason for god not to put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.

It's so amazing that you have to divide revelation into special revelation and general revelation. Whatever argument for defending such division, is most certainly bound to be weak. Calling forth special revelation in some holybook through hearsay basically amounts to negative evidence, evidence against the described God.

And what could be the reason for giving such signs("put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.") to some so they could believe, depending on who you ask: splitting the moon, moving the sun rapidly across the sky, resurrecting the dead, touching post-resurrection wounds? or how about levitating saints, miraculous cures, etc? WHY JUST SOME? Oh they just don't have the great blessing of having blind faith through lack of direct exposure to miracles(the so called blessing of faith brought by defenders of special revelation, on the one hand those with direct exposure are blessed to get direct experience of the holy on the other hand the rest are also blessed to not get that experience and enjoy constant doubt but hold strong to their faith... such paradoxical and illogical state the product of a fictional god or an insane if not mischievious and malevolent god.).

This is just an emotional argument, even fideistic. It presumes, without basis, what an omnipotent, omniscient, omninonomonom God would do based solely on the subjectivity of a 21st century person. This is not philosophical reasoning at all. God's communication through prophets, if we grant that this is true for the sake of the argument, does not contradict any of the philosophical qualities attributed to God.

Really now?

You don't really think that sentencing a large portion of nonbelievers to eternal suffering for doubting hearsay is in accord with being just and having omnipotence? that it can actually be compatible with such properties, that would require some extreme twisting of logic, and I think any way you look at it it would be indefensible.... All while at the same time providing direct evidence to a few, and even extra evidence to some doubters?

It is borderline psychotic to be obsessed with hearsay as virtually sole(virtually because of the exception of original witnesses) means for the spread of belief, that is through word of mouth and a few ancient testimonies.

Regards the videos on hiddeness. The first one evaded the argument. The second one seems to ignore the fact that it is claimed God was extremely obvious to the originators of most any religion. Which is my point, not necessarily the hiddeness, that might be reasonable if it applied to all or if there was no consequence for disbelief such as eternal torment but the problem is with being hidden to some and not to others and not just punishing but severely and eternally punishing the former for using rational faculties and doubting flimsy ancient testimonies.

Massa Damnata is the theory you've postulated, not me. Belief in God has rational justifications, hence Plato and Aristotle and countless others who have and do pursue the true quest for knowledge, rather than restrict their investigation into existence strictly to empirically verifiable data. As for people who order their lives based on, say, the teachings of Jesus and his disciples, it is not because of blind adherence to hearsay, but rather being convinced and moved to such a degree that they consciously choose to order their lives towards God.

Let's not mix abstract punishment free hidden deist god with the god of the abrahamic faiths. Even some of the most famous atheist are open to the possibility of some noninterventionist god.

Again this is not an issue with deist gods, this is an issue with the gods of many religions such as the abrahamic faiths. So the theologian sleight of hand of switching around god definition(deist with christian) through the argument will not work.

Castiel:
You don't really think that sentencing a large portion of nonbelievers to eternal suffering for doubting hearsay is in accord with being just and having omnipotence? that it can actually be compatible with such properties, that would require some extreme twisting of logic, and I think any way you look at it it would be indefensible.... All while at the same time providing direct evidence to a few, and even extra evidence to some doubters?

ShadowHawk: SH: Hell is where God is not. It is described several ways, one of them being in darkness, away from the light. God among many things is light. Being away from God is Hell. It is obvious that some do not want to be with God, so , valuing freedom of choice God allows it. You send yourself to hell. And on top of that, it is not uncommon for those making this choice to blame God.

Here's the problem, supposedly it is said to be unpleasant a state of being away from god. This life is ephemeral, you're saying that doubting flimsy unconvincing testimony from ancient times is exactly the same as knowingly and perpetually STRONGLY refusing to be with a loving god whose presence is said to be necessary for wellbeing.

REALLY NOW?

The way it is put, is almost like they will be longing forever for god once separated and it is GOD WHO WILL REFUSE THEM ETERNALLY because they didn't embrace nebulous evidence in an ephemeral period of existence.(How convenient for churches and their donations that you aren't given a chance to believe upon death or afterwise... it must be imminent during your short stay in this world... let's not even mention that people live for different amounts of time and thus another degree of injustice some are given more time to convert.)

Oh and you go ahead and say they will blame God for it. OF course because disbelief of entities based on flimsy evidence is not properly informed refusal. JUDGING INTELLIGENT AGENTS FOR BEHAVIOR BASED ON UNCERTAIN INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION AND SEVERELY PUNISHING THEM is simply cruel and unjust. You act like God is like the devil in movies handing down severe punishment for ill informed choices, tricking people into damnation(e.g. provide insufficient evidence and condemn people on uninformed choices).

Castiel:
It is borderline psychotic to be obsessed with hearsay as virtually sole(virtually because of the exception of original witnesses) means for the spread of belief, that is through word of mouth and a few ancient testimonies.

SH: Most of what we learn is heresay. What do you think news media is? The minute anything passes out of the present, it becomes here say. History is here say. Education is heresay.

Castiel:
Regards the videos on hiddeness. The first one evaded the argument. The second one seems to ignore the fact that it is claimed God was extremely obvious to the originators of most any religion. Which is my point, not necessarily the hiddeness, that might be reasonable if it applied to all or if there was no consequence for disbelief such as eternal torment but the problem is with being hidden to some and not to others and not just punishing but severely and eternally punishing the former for using rational faculties and doubting flimsy ancient testimonies.

SH: There are many fascists to hiddeness. You don’t have the capacity to know exhaustively and use it as an excuse. Nothing I can say will overcome this kind of willful ignorance. You can experience almost everything without first hand knowledge. If you demand first hand knowledge, good luck. You have as much as I do.

wilfull ignorance? You're evading the argument, I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply stating a FACT(assuming we've been given truths), it is very puzzling that some are given abundant extremely obvious evidence while others must rely on gut feeling and remote ancient testimonies.

Again this is not an issue with deist gods, this is an issue with the gods of many religions such as the abrahamic faiths. So the theologian sleight of hand of switching around god definition(deist with christian) through the argument will not work.

Edited by Castiel, 15 February 2014 - 10:00 PM.

[Castiel]

double post

Edited by Castiel, 15 February 2014 - 10:02 PM.

[IronLife]

Castiel: Nice, Kennedy is not omnipotent nor does he require belief in him for salvation, so it doesn't really matter whether we have the same degree of evidence. Even if we all wanted to experience kennedy directly, kennedy being mortal born at a certain time and dying at another could not be omnipresent and grace all humans past and present with his presence.

It's going to be interesting to see the justifications for special revelation. As it seems quite clear, evident and cut that given omnipotence omnipresence and omnibenevolence making some eyewitnesses and even direct subjects of miracles and giving other mere hearsay is indeed unfair and contradicts the properties assigned to god.

You entirely missed the point. We are discussing general revelation now and whether there is evidence for God. http://www.longecity...510#entry642862

We are going to discuss why I believe Christianity is the best choice but this discussion bears on the Hiddenness of God as a subject important to evidence. What could be the reason for god not to put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.

It's so amazing that you have to divide revelation into special revelation and general revelation. Whatever argument for defending such division, is most certainly bound to be weak. Calling forth special revelation in some holybook through hearsay basically amounts to negative evidence, evidence against the described God.

And what could be the reason for giving such signs("put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.") to some so they could believe, depending on who you ask: splitting the moon, moving the sun rapidly across the sky, resurrecting the dead, touching post-resurrection wounds? or how about levitating saints, miraculous cures, etc? WHY JUST SOME? Oh they just don't have the great blessing of having blind faith through lack of direct exposure to miracles(the so called blessing of faith brought by defenders of special revelation, on the one hand those with direct exposure are blessed to get direct experience of the holy on the other hand the rest are also blessed to not get that experience and enjoy constant doubt but hold strong to their faith... such paradoxical and illogical state the product of a fictional god or an insane if not mischievious and malevolent god.).

This is just an emotional argument, even fideistic. It presumes, without basis, what an omnipotent, omniscient, omninonomonom God would do based solely on the subjectivity of a 21st century person. This is not philosophical reasoning at all. God's communication through prophets, if we grant that this is true for the sake of the argument, does not contradict any of the philosophical qualities attributed to God.

Really now?

You don't really think that sentencing a large portion of nonbelievers to eternal suffering for doubting hearsay is in accord with being just and having omnipotence? that it can actually be compatible with such properties, that would require some extreme twisting of logic, and I think any way you look at it it would be indefensible.... All while at the same time providing direct evidence to a few, and even extra evidence to some doubters?

It is borderline psychotic to be obsessed with hearsay as virtually sole(virtually because of the exception of original witnesses) means for the spread of belief, that is through word of mouth and a few ancient testimonies.

Regards the videos on hiddeness. The first one evaded the argument. The second one seems to ignore the fact that it is claimed God was extremely obvious to the originators of most any religion. Which is my point, not necessarily the hiddeness, that might be reasonable if it applied to all or if there was no consequence for disbelief such as eternal torment but the problem is with being hidden to some and not to others and not just punishing but severely and eternally punishing the former for using rational faculties and doubting flimsy ancient testimonies.

Massa Damnata is the theory you've postulated, not me. Belief in God has rational justifications, hence Plato and Aristotle and countless others who have and do pursue the true quest for knowledge, rather than restrict their investigation into existence strictly to empirically verifiable data. As for people who order their lives based on, say, the teachings of Jesus and his disciples, it is not because of blind adherence to hearsay, but rather being convinced and moved to such a degree that they consciously choose to order their lives towards God.

Let's not mix abstract punishment free hidden deist god with the god of the abrahamic faiths. Even some of the most famous atheist are open to the possibility of some noninterventionist god.

Again this is not an issue with deist gods, this is an issue with the gods of many religions such as the abrahamic faiths. So the theologian sleight of hand of switching around god definition(deist with christian) through the argument will not work.

Castiel:
You don't really think that sentencing a large portion of nonbelievers to eternal suffering for doubting hearsay is in accord with being just and having omnipotence? that it can actually be compatible with such properties, that would require some extreme twisting of logic, and I think any way you look at it it would be indefensible.... All while at the same time providing direct evidence to a few, and even extra evidence to some doubters?

ShadowHawk: SH: Hell is where God is not. It is described several ways, one of them being in darkness, away from the light. God among many things is light. Being away from God is Hell. It is obvious that some do not want to be with God, so , valuing freedom of choice God allows it. You send yourself to hell. And on top of that, it is not uncommon for those making this choice to blame God.

Here's the problem, supposedly it is said to be unpleasant a state of being away from god. This life is ephemeral, you're saying that doubting flimsy unconvincing testimony from ancient times is exactly the same as knowingly and perpetually STRONGLY refusing to be with a loving god whose presence is said to be necessary for wellbeing.

REALLY NOW?

The way it is put, is almost like they will be longing forever for god once separated and it is GOD WHO WILL REFUSE THEM ETERNALLY because they didn't embrace nebulous evidence in an ephemeral period of existence.(How convenient for churches and their donations that you aren't given a chance to believe upon death or afterwise... it must be imminent during your short stay in this world... let's not even mention that people live for different amounts of time and thus another degree of injustice some are given more time to convert.)

Oh and you go ahead and say they will blame God for it. OF course because disbelief of entities based on flimsy evidence is not properly informed refusal. JUDGING INTELLIGENT AGENTS FOR BEHAVIOR BASED ON UNCERTAIN INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION AND SEVERELY PUNISHING THEM is simply cruel and unjust. You act like God is like the devil in movies handing down severe punishment for ill informed choices, tricking people into damnation(e.g. provide insufficient evidence and condemn people on uninformed choices).

Castiel:
It is borderline psychotic to be obsessed with hearsay as virtually sole(virtually because of the exception of original witnesses) means for the spread of belief, that is through word of mouth and a few ancient testimonies.

SH: Most of what we learn is heresay. What do you think news media is? The minute anything passes out of the present, it becomes here say. History is here say. Education is heresay.

Castiel:
Regards the videos on hiddeness. The first one evaded the argument. The second one seems to ignore the fact that it is claimed God was extremely obvious to the originators of most any religion. Which is my point, not necessarily the hiddeness, that might be reasonable if it applied to all or if there was no consequence for disbelief such as eternal torment but the problem is with being hidden to some and not to others and not just punishing but severely and eternally punishing the former for using rational faculties and doubting flimsy ancient testimonies.

SH: There are many fascists to hiddeness. You don’t have the capacity to know exhaustively and use it as an excuse. Nothing I can say will overcome this kind of willful ignorance. You can experience almost everything without first hand knowledge. If you demand first hand knowledge, good luck. You have as much as I do.

wilfull ignorance? You're evading the argument, I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply stating a FACT(assuming we've been given truths), it is very puzzling that some are given abundant extremely obvious evidence while others must rely on gut feeling and remote ancient testimonies.

Again this is not an issue with deist gods, this is an issue with the gods of many religions such as the abrahamic faiths. So the theologian sleight of hand of switching around god definition(deist with christian) through the argument will not work.

Rejecting Massa Damnata does not necessitate that one is a deist. Conversely, being a theist does not demand that one believes in Massa Damnata.

[platypus]

The Hiddenness of God, it is like being in a pitch dark room, but knowing someone is in there with you. Presence, in everything, that deep knowing, He is there. You can’t get that by evidence alone.

Unfortunately, such a feeling still does not prove there is "someone there". It all might be an illusion created by your brain. People "meet" other people in their dreams all the time but that does not prove that the characters in their dreams have an independent existence.

[Duchykins]

That's how people psych themselves into thinking a malevolent ghost or demon is in your house with you, that feeling of being watched by unseen eyes. Even if they only do it momentarily and then shake themselves out of it. I've done it to myself a few times after watching a horror movie, to my undying shame. We're simply very suggestible like that.

[Castiel]

Castiel: Nice, Kennedy is not omnipotent nor does he require belief in him for salvation, so it doesn't really matter whether we have the same degree of evidence. Even if we all wanted to experience kennedy directly, kennedy being mortal born at a certain time and dying at another could not be omnipresent and grace all humans past and present with his presence.

It's going to be interesting to see the justifications for special revelation. As it seems quite clear, evident and cut that given omnipotence omnipresence and omnibenevolence making some eyewitnesses and even direct subjects of miracles and giving other mere hearsay is indeed unfair and contradicts the properties assigned to god.

You entirely missed the point. We are discussing general revelation now and whether there is evidence for God. http://www.longecity...510#entry642862

We are going to discuss why I believe Christianity is the best choice but this discussion bears on the Hiddenness of God as a subject important to evidence. What could be the reason for god not to put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.

It's so amazing that you have to divide revelation into special revelation and general revelation. Whatever argument for defending such division, is most certainly bound to be weak. Calling forth special revelation in some holybook through hearsay basically amounts to negative evidence, evidence against the described God.

And what could be the reason for giving such signs("put a sign on the moon with His picture, saying “I am God,” so that you could believe.") to some so they could believe, depending on who you ask: splitting the moon, moving the sun rapidly across the sky, resurrecting the dead, touching post-resurrection wounds? or how about levitating saints, miraculous cures, etc? WHY JUST SOME? Oh they just don't have the great blessing of having blind faith through lack of direct exposure to miracles(the so called blessing of faith brought by defenders of special revelation, on the one hand those with direct exposure are blessed to get direct experience of the holy on the other hand the rest are also blessed to not get that experience and enjoy constant doubt but hold strong to their faith... such paradoxical and illogical state the product of a fictional god or an insane if not mischievious and malevolent god.).

This is just an emotional argument, even fideistic. It presumes, without basis, what an omnipotent, omniscient, omninonomonom God would do based solely on the subjectivity of a 21st century person. This is not philosophical reasoning at all. God's communication through prophets, if we grant that this is true for the sake of the argument, does not contradict any of the philosophical qualities attributed to God.

Really now?

You don't really think that sentencing a large portion of nonbelievers to eternal suffering for doubting hearsay is in accord with being just and having omnipotence? that it can actually be compatible with such properties, that would require some extreme twisting of logic, and I think any way you look at it it would be indefensible.... All while at the same time providing direct evidence to a few, and even extra evidence to some doubters?

It is borderline psychotic to be obsessed with hearsay as virtually sole(virtually because of the exception of original witnesses) means for the spread of belief, that is through word of mouth and a few ancient testimonies.

Regards the videos on hiddeness. The first one evaded the argument. The second one seems to ignore the fact that it is claimed God was extremely obvious to the originators of most any religion. Which is my point, not necessarily the hiddeness, that might be reasonable if it applied to all or if there was no consequence for disbelief such as eternal torment but the problem is with being hidden to some and not to others and not just punishing but severely and eternally punishing the former for using rational faculties and doubting flimsy ancient testimonies.

Massa Damnata is the theory you've postulated, not me. Belief in God has rational justifications, hence Plato and Aristotle and countless others who have and do pursue the true quest for knowledge, rather than restrict their investigation into existence strictly to empirically verifiable data. As for people who order their lives based on, say, the teachings of Jesus and his disciples, it is not because of blind adherence to hearsay, but rather being convinced and moved to such a degree that they consciously choose to order their lives towards God.

Let's not mix abstract punishment free hidden deist god with the god of the abrahamic faiths. Even some of the most famous atheist are open to the possibility of some noninterventionist god.

Again this is not an issue with deist gods, this is an issue with the gods of many religions such as the abrahamic faiths. So the theologian sleight of hand of switching around god definition(deist with christian) through the argument will not work.

Castiel:
You don't really think that sentencing a large portion of nonbelievers to eternal suffering for doubting hearsay is in accord with being just and having omnipotence? that it can actually be compatible with such properties, that would require some extreme twisting of logic, and I think any way you look at it it would be indefensible.... All while at the same time providing direct evidence to a few, and even extra evidence to some doubters?

ShadowHawk: SH: Hell is where God is not. It is described several ways, one of them being in darkness, away from the light. God among many things is light. Being away from God is Hell. It is obvious that some do not want to be with God, so , valuing freedom of choice God allows it. You send yourself to hell. And on top of that, it is not uncommon for those making this choice to blame God.

Here's the problem, supposedly it is said to be unpleasant a state of being away from god. This life is ephemeral, you're saying that doubting flimsy unconvincing testimony from ancient times is exactly the same as knowingly and perpetually STRONGLY refusing to be with a loving god whose presence is said to be necessary for wellbeing.

REALLY NOW?

The way it is put, is almost like they will be longing forever for god once separated and it is GOD WHO WILL REFUSE THEM ETERNALLY because they didn't embrace nebulous evidence in an ephemeral period of existence.(How convenient for churches and their donations that you aren't given a chance to believe upon death or afterwise... it must be imminent during your short stay in this world... let's not even mention that people live for different amounts of time and thus another degree of injustice some are given more time to convert.)

Oh and you go ahead and say they will blame God for it. OF course because disbelief of entities based on flimsy evidence is not properly informed refusal. JUDGING INTELLIGENT AGENTS FOR BEHAVIOR BASED ON UNCERTAIN INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION AND SEVERELY PUNISHING THEM is simply cruel and unjust. You act like God is like the devil in movies handing down severe punishment for ill informed choices, tricking people into damnation(e.g. provide insufficient evidence and condemn people on uninformed choices).

Castiel:
It is borderline psychotic to be obsessed with hearsay as virtually sole(virtually because of the exception of original witnesses) means for the spread of belief, that is through word of mouth and a few ancient testimonies.

SH: Most of what we learn is heresay. What do you think news media is? The minute anything passes out of the present, it becomes here say. History is here say. Education is heresay.

Castiel:
Regards the videos on hiddeness. The first one evaded the argument. The second one seems to ignore the fact that it is claimed God was extremely obvious to the originators of most any religion. Which is my point, not necessarily the hiddeness, that might be reasonable if it applied to all or if there was no consequence for disbelief such as eternal torment but the problem is with being hidden to some and not to others and not just punishing but severely and eternally punishing the former for using rational faculties and doubting flimsy ancient testimonies.

SH: There are many fascists to hiddeness. You don’t have the capacity to know exhaustively and use it as an excuse. Nothing I can say will overcome this kind of willful ignorance. You can experience almost everything without first hand knowledge. If you demand first hand knowledge, good luck. You have as much as I do.

wilfull ignorance? You're evading the argument, I'm not demanding anything. I'm simply stating a FACT(assuming we've been given truths), it is very puzzling that some are given abundant extremely obvious evidence while others must rely on gut feeling and remote ancient testimonies.

Again this is not an issue with deist gods, this is an issue with the gods of many religions such as the abrahamic faiths. So the theologian sleight of hand of switching around god definition(deist with christian) through the argument will not work.

Rejecting Massa Damnata does not necessitate that one is a deist. Conversely, being a theist does not demand that one believes in Massa Damnata.

Massa damnata doesn't that have to deal with original sin? How does it deal with regards to those who're exposed to a religion but reject it or even blaspheme against it. Surely saying even atheist are saved even when they blaspheme, goes against the whole doctrine of accepting in the case of Christianity Jesus for salvation. If salvation can be had without accepting Jesus, then the religion does not need to be practiced at all and assuming its veracity it would be more of a historical relic.

[shifter]

I'll add my 2 cents

Thousands of years ago, in the origin of all this, what were human minds like? Our level of understanding about our universe etc?

If a supreme divine being of infinite intelligence who created everything wanted to interact with us, he would have to really really dumb down his level of talk for our puny minds to comprehend. He would have to talk in metaphors and stories and 'examples'. When your child asks you 'why is the sky blue?' do you tell them the full truth of why the sky appears blue? If you do, the entirety of your answer will be lost on them because their minds can not yet understand.

Now lets say that on the subject of Hell. The most hideous and frightful thing someone could imagine in that time could be being burned alive. So if you want 'your children' to behave and be of good character, tell them that you will be forever trapped in hellfire for eternity if you choose a bad and destructive path in your life. The end result could just be a blank. You die, thats it. You spent your whole life repressing your own spirit, not believing in anything and in the end you essentially 'killed' it yourself. You are not 'sent' anywhere. Perhaps those that spend their lives devoted to spirituality and faith live on 'in spirit' after death in some other level of conciousness or dimention etc. All that was asked of us in the past, was to have faith. Perhaps that is the key and the message He tried to get across to us in the past. Giving 'simple minded' people a set of rules makes it easier for the simple minded people to follow and obey. And I say we are still simple minded today.

The Bible should not be interpreted so literally. Hell, need not be interpreted as a place of hell fire, and eternal torture led by Satan. Paradise need not mean that our collected memories and person and body live on. Our spirit or soul may not have anything to do with life after a death. The laws of physics tell us that energy can not be forever lost. So what happens to 'our energy' in the moment of death?

Even Einstein believed there was an intelligence that created the universe. A perfect order, and we are like children in a library wondering who arranged and put the books here.

There is so much about the universe that we will not only never understand, but could never possibly understand. We see the universe with our 2 eyes in 3D in a very tiny wave length in an infinitesimal portion of the universe. We can build tools to study further and get more details but still our minds will always be forever too small to understand the enormous infinite universe. To say for certainty that no intelligence or aliens out there exist or have ever existed or whatever is in itself, a 'leap of faith' but in the other direction.

True hard Atheism in my opinion is just as height of arrogance. They claim religious people think they have all the (wrong) answers, but they forget that by saying 'No such thing as a God or higher being, other dimentions, some kind of life after death etc.' Means in order to have full faith in their answer means they must have been around since the birth of the universe and explored and know every part of it. Otherwise, how could they know for sure themselves what the actual answers are


Even Einstein, a respected scientist identified himself as being Agnostic. Agnostism is at least an open mind, free to explore any and all possibilties.

No one has all the answers so whats the argument really. Religion and science should just get along wand work together to try to uncover the truth. Unfortunately there is so much politics on both sides that cant ever happen.

Edited by shifter, 18 February 2014 - 02:08 AM.

[sthira]

Thanks, Shifter, for your perspective, and I agree with much of what you've written.  Agnosticism seems like the best option to me, too.  We don't know if god exists and we don't know if god doesn't exist.  Atheism seems almost as riddled with unsubstantiated faith claims as theism.  Why is ignorance so hard to accept?  In science we accept ignorance as just part of the process: how can we know what we don't know?  We can't; we struggle; we design new research.

The laws of physics tell us that energy can not be forever lost. So what happens to 'our energy' in the moment of death?

The materialist within me says this is easy: dead bodies rot.  Our bodies stop functioning and the worms and beetles eat us.  Then they shit out our long-dead bodies and parts of that matter become dirt.  The dirt piles up and eventually supports seeds.  Water and sunshine nourish dirt -- our long-dead bodies -- and "we" become plants or fungi or bacteria.  Transformation. This life, too, shall die, and then regenerate into more life.  Unless we're burned after we die, then what, we're smoke?

But the spiritual side of me -- like when I'm tripping on shrooms or even just meditating wildly -- feels that great alive expanse of mysterious space.  Inside, outside, here, now, God feels quite obvious.  No question "something" huge governs all.  Words fall apart. We're finite, and so like Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, our minds would be completely blown apart if we suddenly grasped the infinite.  We'd beg to release that deep understanding, and plead to return to the good ole planet earth with its late-running sketchy trains and expensive chai lattes.

Which one is true?  Fuck if I know or anyone knows, man.  Agnosticism makes sense. The rest -- theism, atheism -- feels like dishonesty.

[shifter]

There is truth to everlasting life, if you consider this:

[N.T.M.]

Even Einstein believed there was an intelligence that created the universe. A perfect order, and we are like children in a library wondering who arranged and put the books here.

Einstein was a pantheist; he used the idea of God metaphorically.

[shifter]

From wikipedia

Agnosticism, Deism and atheism

Einstein rejected the label atheist. Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." According to Prince Hubertus, Einstein said, "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God, explained:

Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.

He wasn't sure if the label Pantheist applies to him but admired and fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. He was happy to be called Agnostic. He certainly rejected the label Atheist, that's for sure.

[shadowhawk]

The Hiddenness of God, it is like being in a pitch dark room, but knowing someone is in there with you. Presence, in everything, that deep knowing, He is there. You can’t get that by evidence alone.

Unfortunately, such a feeling still does not prove there is "someone there". It all might be an illusion created by your brain. People "meet" other people in their dreams all the time but that does not prove that the characters in their dreams have an independent existence.

I did not say that lis the only evidence. There is an aspect of God beyond human ability to comprehend, otherwise we would be as great as God. God is beyond us. We see through a glass stained darkly and you will never fully comprehend, but then that is true of everything.

[shadowhawk]

' timestamp='1392674357' post='644233']
Duchykins That's how people psych themselves into thinking a malevolent ghost or demon is in your house with you, that feeling of being watched by unseen eyes. Even if they only do it momentarily and then shake themselves out of it. I've done it to myself a few times after watching a horror movie, to my undying shame. We're simply very suggestible like that.

How do you know you haven’t psyched yourself out, into thinking there is nothing in the darkness of your ignorance. Sometimes there is something in the house and that is why you are afraid. You don’t actually have a clue. Ignorance, hiddenness, causes you to have to act in faith.

Your response to your ignorance is “undying shame.” Sounds a bit unbalanced don’t you think? Shake yourself into believing there is nothing there. Shake yourself out of it. Part of it is beyond you, and that is my point.

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 February 2014 - 01:39 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Einstein was not a “Happy Agnostic,” as sugested, he simply could not come to the conclusion as Godel did, there is a God. Re-read the quote. http://www.longecity...540#entry644364
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

“Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.”

The Human mind can not only grasp the universe as Einstein argued, but it cannot fully grasp God. We must deal with the hiddenness of God and be agnostic for what we can’t see. That does not mean we do not see some things, but we all live by faith.

[sthira]

The Human mind can not only grasp the universe as Einstein argued, but it cannot fully grasp God.  We must deal with the hiddenness of God and be agnostic for what we can’t see.  That does not mean we do not see some things, but we all live by faith.

Unless I'm mistaken, these words seem to reflect different views from your past comments, Shadowhawk. I wonder if through this long process of posting messages on this forum if you've changed or altered your views?

When you write that we must deal with the hiddenness of god do you make room in your views for the possibility that God's hiddenness may be an indication that god may not exist?

When you write that we see some things, do you mean some of us "see" (or sensate) god?  If so, how may we differentiate between the thing we see and the "god" hidden behind it?  

If god exists and god wishes to remain hidden, then why attempt to "force" god (through careful attempts to understand god) out of God's hiddenness?  Maybe god exists but wants to remain hidden?  We don't know, do we?  And so we speculate ad infinitum.  So one way to speculate (since god is hidden) is maybe the real "sin" is the sin that attempts to apply logic and reason to a god which is outside of reason and logic?

I'll argue that we remain agnostic not only about what we may think we "see" in god, but we also remain agnistic in all of our other ways of deciphering incoming information about an evidently non-corporeal god.

[shadowhawk]

sthira: Unless I'm mistaken, these words seem to reflect different views from your past comments, Shadowhawk. I wonder if through this long process of posting messages on this forum if you've changed or altered your views?

Not at all. I asked “Is there evidence for Christianity?” This is the topic. I presented some evidence. I repeatedly said I was not presenting absolute proof which I do not believe exists in anything. Even science is built on faith, and you operate bu faith whether you know it or not. See the attached You Tube on science and faith.

When you write that we must deal with the hiddenness of god do you make room in your views for the possibility that God's hiddenness may be an indication that god may not exist?

Yes, in theology it is called Devine Darkness or the hiddenness of God. God may not exist, though the Atheists have shown little evidence of it. The evidence is in favor of God even though no evidence can contain Him. We live ,all of us do, by faith.

When you write that we see some things, do you mean some of us "see" (or sensate) god? If so, how may we differentiate between the thing we see and the "god" hidden behind it?

What ever we see, soon hits the vanishing point. Reality, the far majority of it lies beyond the vanishing point. We see God only in that He comes into our world. It is called the Kenosis or the emptying. We couldn’t handle the fulness of God. Hence the incarnation and a reason I am a Christian.

If god exists and god wishes to remain hidden, then why attempt to "force" god (through careful attempts to understand god) out of God's hiddenness? Maybe god exists but wants to remain hidden? We don't know, do we? And so we speculate ad infinitum. So one way to speculate (since god is hidden) is maybe the real "sin" is the sin that attempts to apply logic and reason to a god which is outside of reason and logic?

Because God is not fully hidden. He is in our world but not exhausted by it. What are his motives? He must tell us or we can’t know. God loves us. John 3:16.

I'll argue that we remain agnostic not only about what we may think we "see" in god, but we also remain agnistic in all of our other ways of deciphering incoming information about an evidently non-corporeal god.

But you do not live that way. You are only part agnostic, though your sight ruins out at the vanishing point. You think you Know and you act by faith on it. You will even argue it! See, the just shall live by faith but the unjust do so as well. You believe in agnosticism. You know by faith, you can’t know.

FAITH

[shadowhawk]

Johnross 47: "You're back to piling up rubbish and expecting it to turn into gold. It stays rubbish no matter how often you repeat it or how high you pile it. All of this nonsense has been shown to be rubbish over and over. There's no reason anyone should waste time presenting you with repeat arguments you will just ignore. If you choose to ignore the science and to believe creationist distortions instead, you're not going to find many followers on this forum, and I'll be surprised if anyone can be bothered picking all this nonsense apart and giving you the necessary biology lessons. Evolution is a demonstrable fact but if you choose to close your eyes that's just your problem. If you choose to believe it could only work with a divine hand pulling the strings, again, that's your problem and you're probably incorrigible. You've certainly demonstrated no ability to take in new information so far, or to change your views when the facts change. I suspect that, if you really are the teacher you claim to be, you know deep down inside that this stuff fails all the tests you would apply to students' work; you are suffering from a massive cognitive dissonance overload and taking it out on us."
I have made genuine point here; one I have to make often in your case. You attempt to claim that many dubious proofs add up to real evidence; I point out that two wrongs don't make a right; a massive heap of bullshit does not turn into gold. You abuse of evidence in this case is an example of the sort of mud flinging used by politicians; if you throw enough you hope some will stick and the sheer quantity will make it look like there is a real case in there somewhere. I don't know if this has a fancy Latin name so I called it , "The piling shit high and expecting it to turn into gold fallacy."

You made the bogus claim that you have answered the arguments I presented for God. I invited you to show me one example. I get this. Not one bit of evidence. Just as I expected, more of the same name calling, logical fallacies and breaking of the forum rules. This is another of hundreds of examples of endless nonsense. http://www.longecity...150#entry643688

You won’t present any example because there are none. Rave on. We know, from the real evidence, what you are doing.

[johnross47]

Other people may be confused by that last post of SH. It's from a different topic.(Gobligoop) The massive flaming capitals are, of course his, and not mine. It's a response to an enormous hate list he posted against me; he asked me to show where I had ever made a logical point and then, as usual, didn't like the example I produced. Does anyone else feel that his mental health is in doubt? Should we be encouraging this behaviour since it obviously disturbs him a great deal?

[shadowhawk]

Other people may be confused by that last post of SH. It's from a different topic.(Gobligoop) The massive flaming capitals are, of course his, and not mine. It's a response to an enormous hate list he posted against me; he asked me to show where I had ever made a logical point and then, as usual, didn't like the example I produced. Does anyone else feel that his mental health is in doubt? Should we be encouraging this behaviour since it obviously disturbs him a great deal?

The ad hominem attacks and name calling and logical fallacies belong to johnross 47 alone, not me. The topic involves this topic, “is there evidence for Christianity.” Ross claims he defeated the arguments I presented for God and I asked him for one example. He gave non, though he now claims he did. Here is the list he clams is a “Hate post.” Notice it is all his quotes, not mine. http://www.longecity...150#entry643688

I got the below response. His response contains not one example of anything. Just more of the same personal attacks. Read it, no points or examples. Not one logical point of any kind... http://www.longecity...540#entry644704
This is just more of the massive same attempt to derail the topic. Not interested.

[johnross47]

You may not have noticed SH, but your deranged attacks on me, the enormous lists of my crimes that you have spent hours compiling, are what is actually derailing this topic, and all the other topics you have posted this stuff in. The scale of it suggests to me that it is derailing your life as well.

[shadowhawk]

You may not have noticed SH, but your deranged attacks on me, the enormous lists of my crimes that you have spent hours compiling, are what is actually derailing this topic, and all the other topics you have posted this stuff in. The scale of it suggests to me that it is derailing your life as well.

Yes this is derailing the topic. http://www.longecity...150#entry643688 It is being done by you and others. THE SCALE OF IT suggests a dark motive. Off topic, lets go on.

[johnross47]

The Human mind can not only grasp the universe as Einstein argued, but it cannot fully grasp God. We must deal with the hiddenness of God and be agnostic for what we can't see. That does not mean we do not see some things, but we all live by faith.

Unless I'm mistaken, these words seem to reflect different views from your past comments, Shadowhawk. I wonder if through this long process of posting messages on this forum if you've changed or altered your views?

When you write that we must deal with the hiddenness of god do you make room in your views for the possibility that God's hiddenness may be an indication that god may not exist?

When you write that we see some things, do you mean some of us "see" (or sensate) god? If so, how may we differentiate between the thing we see and the "god" hidden behind it?

If god exists and god wishes to remain hidden, then why attempt to "force" god (through careful attempts to understand god) out of God's hiddenness? Maybe god exists but wants to remain hidden? We don't know, do we? And so we speculate ad infinitum. So one way to speculate (since god is hidden) is maybe the real "sin" is the sin that attempts to apply logic and reason to a god which is outside of reason and logic?

I'll argue that we remain agnostic not only about what we may think we "see" in god, but we also remain agnistic in all of our other ways of deciphering incoming information about an evidently non-corporeal god.

I remain agnostic about what I don't know about god. I know nothing but remain open to someone demonstrating that there is something to know.

You may not have noticed SH, but your deranged attacks on me, the enormous lists of my crimes that you have spent hours compiling, are what is actually derailing this topic, and all the other topics you have posted this stuff in. The scale of it suggests to me that it is derailing your life as well.

Yes this is derailing the topic. http://www.longecity...entry643688 It is being done by you and others. THE SCALE OF IT suggests a dark motive. Off topic, lets go on.

That sounds extremely paranoid. Dark motive? Really?

[shadowhawk]

johnross47: I remain agnostic about what I don't know about god. I know nothing but remain open to someone demonstrating that there is something to know.

Good, you gave your testimony of what you have your faith in. How about everything not just God. You don’t know a lot about everything. Look at yourself in the mirror, do I have to demonstrate there is something yet to know? You operate by faith that your little evolved brain can comprehend everything or you won’t believe anything.. OK, that is faith.

[Duchykins]

' timestamp='1392674357' post='644233']
Duchykins That's how people psych themselves into thinking a malevolent ghost or demon is in your house with you, that feeling of being watched by unseen eyes. Even if they only do it momentarily and then shake themselves out of it. I've done it to myself a few times after watching a horror movie, to my undying shame. We're simply very suggestible like that.

How do you know you haven’t psyched yourself out, into thinking there is nothing in the darkness of your ignorance. Sometimes there is something in the house and that is why you are afraid. You don’t actually have a clue. Ignorance, hiddenness, causes you to have to act in faith.

Your response to your ignorance is “undying shame.” Sounds a bit unbalanced don’t you think? Shake yourself into believing there is nothing there. Shake yourself out of it. Part of it is beyond you, and that is my point.

I don't see a cogent argument in your post. Have a good day.

[shadowhawk]

Duchykins: I don't see a cogent argument in your post. Have a good day.

ShadowHawk : You have a cogent argument here but who could expect you to see. Don't be ashamed lots if people think there is nothing in the room and you should have known. There is nothing in the dark, but how do you know? Is there ever anything in the dark? Your faith answer seems to be no, OK. Thanks, I will have a nice day and night and don't let yourself be shamed.

Edited by shadowhawk, 21 February 2014 - 01:21 AM.

[johnross47]

johnross47: I remain agnostic about what I don't know about god. I know nothing but remain open to someone demonstrating that there is something to know.

Good, you gave your testimony of what you have your faith in. How about everything not just God. You don’t know a lot about everything. Look at yourself in the mirror, do I have to demonstrate there is something yet to know? You operate by faith that your little evolved brain can comprehend everything or you won’t believe anything.. OK, that is faith.

Are you dislexic? Should we be making allowances for the disordered posts? I'm quite experienced in reading work by a dislexic, and editing it into coherence.

That apart this is just more worthless abuse.