Arguing for Theism

FiskeMiles · Posted: Tue Dec 26, 2006 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Dear Mr. P:

Quote:
Fiske: Let's try it this way. What is the foundational assumption of your world view? Put another way: what is the one thing in your belief that comes before anything else?

Mr. P: Observation.

Observation is an action (in other words a verb). It's not a belief or an assumption.

Care to try again?

Fiske

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Fiske:

If I choose to opt out of a coversation, I take it to be very insulting to be the topic of the continued conversation. Please do not irk me. I can get very irritable.

Mr. P.

Edited after original was edited to say: **Very good. Thanks.

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 12/27/06 1:31 pm

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

I really do not give a shit.

Mr. P.

** Just to make myself clear...if I ask to opt out or be left alone, the best course of action is to just do that. If people want to respond with additional comments, I will take that as an invitation to escalation. I am very easy to figure out. I usually make this fact easier to see by stating my intentions and wishes in no uncertain terms. This does not mean I am angry at the person or anything like that...and will probably not carry over to other situations. I am very direct and topic specific.

Thanks!

Mr. P's place. I warned you!!!

Mr. P's Bookshelf.

I'm not saying it's usual for people to do those things but I(with the permission of God) have raised a dog from the dead and healed many people from all sorts of ailments. - Asana

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"

I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper

Edited by: misterpessimistic at: 12/27/06 1:48 pm

FiskeMiles · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

Dear Mr. P:

Quote:
If I choose to opt out of a coversation, I take it to be very insulting to be the topic of the continued conversation. Please do not irk me. I can get very irritable.

Fine by me.

See edits.

Presumably, you won't grace this topic with any further comment. You'll certainly understand why I'll be disregarding any from you.

Fiske

FiskeMiles · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: No evidence, no prob

Dear Landroid:

Quote:
How would this differ from a universe where the supernatural does not exist?

Well for one thing, if the universe depends in some way on the supernatural, then, in fact, it wouldn't exist either which would be a pretty big difference.

Atheists can (and do) argue that this assertion cannot be supported by verifiable evidence, which I agree is true. But cosmologists are now exploring ideas that our universe is only one of many universes, and that other universes don't necessarily follow the same laws that ours does. The fact that there doesn't seem any way (at present) to observe alternate universes doesn't stop scientists from theorizing about them.

Another line of reasoning asserts that our universe doesn't have to have a cause. But on empirical evidence and widely accepted theory it did begin at a fixed point in time around 13.4 billion years ago. It is difficult to understand how that event could have occurred without a cause. I'm not saying that it was caused, mind you, or that if it was the cause would necessarily have been a supernatural entity, but it doesn't seem to me a supernatural entity can be definitely ruled out either.

The last observation I have to make about all this is something I don't think most Christians would be comfortable with. (Atheists either.) Christian world views are based on the presumption of God's existence. Whether God in fact exists or not has zero impact on their world view. It's their belief alone that shapes the way they see things. I'm not sure God's non-existence is as central to Atheistic world views, though many atheists spend a lot of time arguing about it.

Fiske

LanDroid · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:08 pm Post subject: No evidence, no prob?

Whatever, if the supernatural interacts with the natural world only in undetectable ways, there are no methods (1) to determine if that's the case, (2) to determine what those interactions are, and (3) to determine if the supernatural even exists. Sounds like *cough*nonsense*cough* a completely untestable (let alone falsifiable) hypothesis. It would be impossible to tell the difference between that universe and one where the supernatural doesn't exist.

Edited by: LanDroid at: 12/27/06 5:18 pm

FiskeMiles · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject: Re: No evidence, no prob?

Dear Landroid:

Did I say undetectable? I don't think so! What I said was no verifiable evidence (i.e. empirical evidence) has been found that supports the claim. Yet millions upon millions of people attest to detecting the presence of God or the supernatural in one way or another. To these people it is not impossible to tell the difference between a universe where the supernatural does and does not exist.

Is this testable? No. Could it be that these people are experiencing an emotional state that does not correspond with an external reality, at least not with an external supernatural reality? Sure. That's why it is unreasonable to impose decisions on other people as a result of faith-based beliefs. But is it reasonable to deride people who feel or believe things you don't believe and which you literally cannot disprove? Do you suppose that God doesn't exist because you don't believe in God?

The argument is that you should respect each person's right to be wrong on the subject so long as he or she is not attempting to impose those beliefs on others or using them to justify actions which have a negative impact on others.

Keep in mind, at the end of this discussion I'm still an atheist. I don't believe in God OR the supernatural. But when someone else tells me they believe in God, I don't know if they are right or wrong. And neither do you, and neither does anyone else. At least anyone else in THIS world.

So a little consideration, respect, tact, and diplomacy is in order and will go a long way to enabling reasonable people to live together in peace and harmony.

Fiske

MaesterAuron151 · Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:13 pm Post subject: Re: No evidence, no prob?

Quote:

Yeah...but you post it in the Religion/Philosophy section...it should be in the general discussion section if you are not meaning for it to be taken at least somewhat seriously. Admit it...you are taken with ideas like this...you WANT them to be true so bad dont ya?

You didn't notice any philosophical overtones to that post? Doesn't that qualify it for the Religeon/Philosophy/Art(not anyone ever posts about that) section?

And yeah I guess I do want that to be true because it would make the world a hell of a lot more exciting. That doesn't mean I believe its true just for that reason. And yeah I'm taken with the idea because its interesting.

That doesn't mean I'm gonna nose dive of a school roof like Kid in the Animatrix just to see if its true.

LanDroid · Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 10:33 am Post subject: It's all personal?

"I just don't think we can count on the supernatural interacting with the natural world in such a way as to demonstrate its existence."

Well I did take that to mean undetectable, but you're saying this interaction could be a personal emotional response or special insight. One problem with that is a lot of us have experienced that sort of thing and concluded it is merely an uncontrolled emotional response, usually experienced during adolescence when emotions are chemically out of whack. ::07

As to insight, although few experience that, we have taken measure of these claims (televangelist rants, etc.) and found them to be mighty small minded for such a huge potential. However, this does bring up a problem - can we really state everyone who has ever claimed an insight to God is deluded? Again, judging from the fruits of this insight *cough*MiddleEast*cough* this is quite likely.

I try to treat theists with respect even though at some level they try to impose their beliefs on others.

Edited by: LanDroid at: 12/28/06 10:37 am

FiskeMiles · Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 12:13 pm Post subject: Re: It's all personal?

Dear Landroid:

Quote:
Well I did take that to mean undetectable, but you're saying this interaction could be a personal emotional response or special insight.

Yes.

Quote:
One problem with that is a lot of us have experienced that sort of thing and concluded it is merely an uncontrolled emotional response, usually experienced during adolescence when emotions are chemically out of whack.

I don't believe this type of experience can be entirely ascribed to hormonal imbalances (adolescent or otherwise

). Adults often have visions of one sort or another or claim to feel the presence of God. In fact, though I have not read much on the topic yet, I understand neurologists are finding that a specific area of the brain, and specific types of brain activity seem to be involved with this type of experience. That might account for why it is so wide-spread. What evolutionary advantage this provides, or how it might be a side-effect of something that does have an evolutionary advantage is not immediately apparent (at least to me).

If one goes in for supernatural explanations, it might be argued that this characteristic of our neurology is specifically intended to enable perceptions or experiences of the supernatural -- purely a faith position, but an interesting ground for speculation.

Quote:
As to insight, although few experience that, we have taken measure of these claims (televangelist rants, etc.) and found them to be mighty small minded for such a huge potential. However, this does bring up a problem - can we really state everyone who has ever claimed an insight to God is deluded? Again, judging from the fruits of this insight *cough*MiddleEast*cough* this is quite likely.

This capacity for experiencing what many ascribe to the supernatural can easily be manipulated by those whose motives are, shall we say, suspect -- tele-evangelists, terrorists, fortune-tellers, etc.

The real issue to be resolved, and I think where moderates of all persuasions (theists and atheists) should concentrate their effort, is convincing as many people as possible to agree that it is unethical to impose faith-based decisions on others.

Fiske

Edited by: FiskeMiles at: 12/28/06 1:51 pm

MadArchitect · Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 2:47 pm Post subject: Re: A Miracle

To keep from derailing Fiske's thread, I'm moving my reply to another thread.

Oh, and in the interests of playing Fiske's game, I'll take the atheist side. Here's my argument:

There is no logical or emirical proof for or against the existence of a god or gods. Therefore, the decision between the two ultimately boils down to personal choice, informed by the person's experiences and desires. I see no particular reason to believe in God, therefore, I am an atheist. To convince others of atheism, I could provide a number of arguments as to why it's more practical or more personally satisfying to be an atheist (just think! Sundays off!), but they're only convincing in so far as the other person doesn't feel that they have more convincing personal reasons to be a theist. You win some, you lose some.

Edited by: MadArchitect at: 12/28/06 2:53 pm

FiskeMiles · Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: Arguing for Theism

Dear Agnostic:

I'm in the habit of copying my post (Ctrl-A followed by Ctrl-C) BEFORE clicking the Add Reply button.

I'm sorry your effort got lost in the mysterious black hole of missing bits. I'm sure I would have enjoyed reading it.

Fiske

Niall001 · Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2006 5:47 am Post subject: --

Actually Lan, you're not talking about ACTUALLY having the answer. You're talking about THINKING you have the actual answer. Every nutjob thinks they have the ACTUAL answer, and some of the crap they come up with is VERY complicated.

But we can leave it if you like. What I'm trying to show though is that while there are no doubt certain events that could occur that would convince you of God's existence, this should not be the case if you (not you in particular but atheists generally) believed in your arguments.

MadArchitect · Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:47 pm Post subject: Re: Miracle?

Fiske: I'm sorry to say your argument for atheism isn't any more convincing than your argument for theism.

It shouldn't be. It's the same argument.


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT