trancendent dice

[fr0d0]

I don't think you answered me Kyu. I make no assertions about the beliefs of non Christians. You can't use that as proof, it isn't a given.

"are you afraid of Quetzalcoatl?" Should I be?!?

Confidence with faith is no where near absolute assurance of fact.

The theory goes that God does actually do stuff in this world, but the signature of God is that it is never provable. You can reasonably assume that God doesn't exist, sure. I think I can reason that he does. If we're talking science than yeah, I agree with Dawkins.. on probability we can say he most likely doesn't exist. Theologically that's absolutely correct too. We can't know.

[josef rosenkranz]

Quote:demaura wrote
(qoute)

Josef, I don't know if I see what you are saying quite right. to define if something exists, or has ever existed one looks for the impact it would have, or is making. If I told you a meteor hit the earth you wouldn't ask when you would ask where, because then you could check for a crater. If theres no evidence of the earth being displaced, as you would expect from a meteor hit then you could resonably say I was mistaken about the meteor. In the case of the dice, we know dice make noise when put in a jar and shaken, we expect to be able to feel them. But this jar that supposedly had dice in it made no such sounds, nor could we see or feel anything inside the jar, it was as if nothing was there.

In the case of god we apply the same methods, if a god exists who, for example answers prayers and intervenes on behalf those who pray. We would expect some measurable difference between those who pray for help and those who do not. Of course we see no such difference so we are justified in the conclusion there is not likely a god who intervenes on behalf of people who pray in this fasion. (this should sound familiar to the book club)

I think it's your last line that's throwing me off, I feel like I should know what your saying but, my minds just not making the connections.

[/quote]

You are right that we see every time the impact of an event but the same event, taking place in space-time coordinates, is preceded by another event which is it's cause.
The world is essentially deterministic although because of an indefinite number of causes which precede an event it appears in a lot of times in a dual form of previsibility and randomness.

So what I was saying was that from the point of view of the existence of God if we look to the event which preceded his appearance we really
can find reasons in the spiritual evolution of mankind which generated him.
By the way, being an atheist does not mean that we have to deny the positive role which religion,along with negative ones,played in the evolution of our spiritual world.
Even these days the majority of mankind believe in a form or other in the existence of God .
We are denying the existence of God but we are not denying the right of each human being to believe in what he feels is right for him.

Now,coming back to the jar what I was saying was that although we are not aware of the existence of that transcendent dice we can not accept the idea that it appeared in the jar out from nowhere but that someone or something has put it there with a certain purpose the same way as it happend with the appearance of the belief in God.

[Demonaura]

Ah ok, I got ya know, thanks for clarifying Josef.

Fr0d0 you contradicted yourself again. You admit that we can reasonably (meaning with reason) say there is no god yet, somehow reason leads you down a different path? If the first statment is true then you are using faith to ignore reason so that you can come to the same conclusion reguardless where reasonable thinking gets you.

If there was both evidence for and against god we could both reasonably assume different results but, you admit that the thing in common with all the acts you credit god is that you can't prove a single one of them. Telling me that you worship a god of the gaps, giving credit to whatever event appears to support your presumption that your specific god exists.

With your method of figuring out what exists I had better go buy some new pirate clothes before the FSM kicks my butt! Or a Terroja presented I might get caught up in a war between Lunos of the moon and Spatchulon, evil lord of the spatchulas.

Honestly the gaps are getting smaller too. In the risk of sounding like a theist god cannot hide in the shadows from the light of science and reason forever.

[fr0d0]

Hehe

Yes Demonaura. I accept that reasoning will lead people to different conclusions. I would hope that inside my head, you would be where I am as it's my honest standpoint. I don't see how it could be any other, or that you aren't being true to yourself too. (although one of us could be mad of course )

That God's signature is that he leaves no proof does not equate to him explaining gaps in knowledge. That doesn't follow.

God doesn't hide from reason, but he does from science.

[HalcyonicTrust]

He doesn't need to hide from reason. First you need a rational reason for how there is a God in the first place. Some evidence of some kind - non-empirical or empirical or whatever, some kind of evidence.

EvF

[fr0d0]

You're like a broken record U EvF

You talking about God now I presume? You're agreeing with me?!?

[HalcyonicTrust]

Doesn't matter if I repeat myself if its relevant.

I repeat my questions because you won't answer them. If you're going to make bare assertions I'm going to question them.

No I'm not agreeing with you.

God needs evidence - what evidence is there? You say there is no empirical evidence, what evidence do you believe there is that is NON-empirical then?

EvF

[fr0d0]

I've decided you're a bot EvF. No one could ignore responses like you have and deny what has been said.

What you're saying makes no sense to me. I don't mean the individual questions, but our wider conversation. You say you don't want to talk or think about it and that you won't listen to reason. Honestly, I'm lost.

[HalcyonicTrust]

I never said that.

I am asking for evidence. You say there is no EMPIRICAL evidence. What about other form of evidence? If you believe there is some form what's the problem? What evidence do you think there is?

When have I ignored your responses? And what do you mean deny what's been said? When have you gave me any evidence? And you are yet to back up your statement that God doesn't require evidence, considering everything else pretty much does. Why is God a special case? When did you answer? I just read digressions by you or more bare assertions.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I have answered you EvF and you don't think I have - is the problem. Check your pm's - perhaps we can communicate better using instant chat.