Evie.. I think you're saying nothing new again.

You don't get religion. Faith in a God that you can't prove. *shrugs*

I've already explained in my last post the reason people adopt religion... for the alternate lifestyle. The moral guidelines; the full life; the positivity. These things are extremely desirable to most humans. Religion is one way to attain these among many. Personally I don't think any other philosophy gets anywhere near what's possible with Christianity. This is why I think there's a damn strong case for religion. Whatever else people have come up with just can't touch it.

Like you I'm on a constant search for truth. I see truth in statements of wisdom such as those the bible is crammed full of (but not exclusively to the bible). To me these are as close to real truth as I've found. These make stingingly acute sense to me.

The truth of Gods existence is beyond the reach of sensual proof you can feel or measure. The truth is, God isn't provable. This is a fundamental truth.

---

(June 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 6:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Religion has (here, as I have pointed it out) stated that God is timeless. This interpretation isn't 'absolute' and it is at the same time consistent with current scientific understanding of the universe.

And I could state that god is cream cake ... just because I state it does that give it worth? NO. If a hundred people state that does that give it worth? No. A thousand? No ... that people state something DOES NOT confer upon it any inherent value.

Belief in ANYTHING without evidence, without logical reason is utterly at odds with scientific thought so the question becomes how logical the belief in a given god is and since you can't or won't provide any validatable supporting evidence I believe it is fair to say that it IS inconsistent with what we currently understand about the universe.

None of which deals with the point discussed. A logical assertion written in the bible that you do not contend it seems.

(June 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 6:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You're dreaming thinking that religion ever changed it's mind bludgeoned by facts. Show me one tenet of Christianity that has changed at all. How come the bible isn't constantly being re-written if it had ever realistically been proved to be wrong? I get the feeling that being slapped with a wet kipper you'd still insist everyone else was imagining it.

EVERY mainstream religion has hard to accept evolution ... they had no fucking choice! I rest my case!

Sorry that's utter nonsense and you know it.

(June 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 6:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 6:05 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Of course I know it would be absurd but not, I suspect, for the reasons I think you would think I think it absurd ... I think it absurd because I am well aware that you have no bloody evidence and never will do, that you are FORCED to wax philosophical/metaphysical and to claim that we would expect no evidence for deity precisely because you know you CANNOT supply it.

Well I told you first that there was no evidence nor would there ever be. It's not me that's insisting on evidence. I've explained many times why it isn't relevant. Scientific philosophy apparently requires a certain amount of blind repetition

IOW your god does not exist ... simples!

Kyu

A humorous jump of logic. You should try faith - it's far more rational

---

(June 20, 2009 at 4:51 pm)Darwinian Wrote:

(June 20, 2009 at 4:37 pm)LEDO Wrote: Okay, everyone pray for Frodo's death. If he posts again that would be proof there is no God.

Or proof that prayers don't work

How quaint! Naive; but quaint.

(June 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Evie.. I think you're saying nothing new again.

And once again the things I keep trying to explain, you fail to refute.

Quote:You don't get religion. Faith in a God that you can't prove. *shrugs*

I don't see how "Faith" defined as 'belief without evidence' can possibly be rational, no - it's totally irrational to believe in other things without evidence...why would it be different with God?

Quote:I've already explained in my last post the reason people adopt religion... for the alternate lifestyle. The moral guidelines; the full life; the positivity. These things are extremely desirable to most humans. Religion is one way to attain these among many. Personally I don't think any other philosophy gets anywhere near what's possible with Christianity. This is why I think there's a damn strong case for religion. Whatever else people have come up with just can't touch it.

But none of these things give any reasons whatsoever to believe God exists. And if God doesn't exist then you can't get any powers from believing in God that you can't get from anywhere else. The best you can get is a placebo - and the point there, is that there are many other placebos. If a placebo is all you are after then fine. But if it's merely a placebo you are admitting that there's no reason to believe God actually exists - because there's no evidence...if there was indication that God exists that would be evidence.

Is the actual existence of God important to you or not? Or is it just a placebo for you?

Quote:Like you I'm on a constant search for truth. I see truth in statements of wisdom such as those the bible is crammed full of (but not exclusively to the bible). To me these are as close to real truth as I've found. These make stingingly acute sense to me.

But if God doesn't actually exist then all the things God-related are merely a personal placebo at best...and nothing you couldn't get from elsewhere - cos the God part isn't special if God doesn't actually exist!

Quote:The truth of Gods existence is beyond the reach of sensual proof you can feel or measure. The truth is, God isn't provable. This is a fundamental truth.

And my fundamental point is regardless of whether God is provable or not...if there's no evidence then there's, in other words, no indication that he actually exists (whatsoever, in any sense in actual reality).

So to believe anyway, admitting this is to believe without actually caring about the actual existence of God. So do you care whether God actually exists or not when you believe in him? Or is it just an emotional thing for you? Just a placebo?

EvF

(June 20, 2009 at 6:08 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:You don't get religion. Faith in a God that you can't prove. *shrugs*

I don't see how "Faith" defined as 'belief without evidence' can possibly be rational, no - it's totally irrational to believe in other things without evidence...why would it be different with God?

You're saying the same thing again. Let me put it yet another way for you:

So you're saying, categorically, that without evidence there is no possibility of rationality?

The rationale for faith is that there is no evidence. That's what you're asked to accept. You can't accept it. Fair enough. That doesn't make it irrational. That just makes you unwilling to consider it rationally.

Why shouldn't it be different with God? So what if that's a unique requirement? Does that make it any less valid? There are thousands of expressions of descriptions of the phenomenon throughout human history. Trying to belittle it as 'special pleading' is saying nothing is allowed to be unique. This dismissal doesn't carry.

You're asked to consider it so that you might understand what follows. To those that have tried it, it makes sense. It logically follows. It works out. You cry that you can't understand it whilst refusing to follow the logic. That makes you deliberately ignorant.


Belief is never certainty. Belief isn't like you believe you have an arm. You can know you have an arm. You don't have to believe it.

You're going to have to remove 'belief' from our vocabulary, along with 'faith', because neither make sense using your rationalisation.

Belief in God is just that. A trust. A faith. Why? Because we cannot know. Rational? It's purely rational, because it can't be evidential. We can't know, therefore we have to rationalise it and believe or not. As a result of that rational decision we cna take further logical steps. These steps form religious thought.

(June 20, 2009 at 7:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So you're saying, categorically, that without evidence there is no possibility of rationality?

I have no reason to believe 'faith' can at all be rational, no. Every single case seems irrational simply because believing something exists when you know of no indication whatsoever that it actually exists, is deluded. If you can show me otherwise, fine, if anyone can show me otherwise, fine. Until then, "Faith" will remain irrational because it's believing in the existence of things when there's no reason to believe they actually exist, because there's no indication whatsoever that they actually exist. That's what I mean by no evidence.

Quote:The rationale for faith is that there is no evidence. That's what you're asked to accept. You can't accept it. Fair enough. That doesn't make it irrational.

So are you saying believing in the FSM when there's no evidence isn't irrational? It wouldn't be more rational to believe with evidence? In the case of anything else, belief without evidence=irrational. How is God any different whatsoever? You pick him out despite the fact there's no more indication that he actually exists than the FSM.

Quote:That just makes you unwilling to consider it rationally.

There is no way to possibly have bearing on the existence of God without evidence. Because that's what evidence is for, if I had some indication that God actually existed then that would count as evidence. If I don't have any indication then I'd be believing in God despite the fact there's no more indication he actually exists than the FSM. So how exactly is it being 'unwilling to consider' God rationally if God cannot be considered rationally, in the sense that there's no more indication that he actually exists than the FSM, cos if there was, that would be evidence so you couldn't have faith?

Quote:Why shouldn't it be different with God?

Or the FSM?

Quote:So what if that's a unique requirement?

So what if your God is no more valid than the FSM, other than you simply believing he is, regardless of the fact there's no more indication that he actually exists than there is for the FSM; because if there was it would count as evidence so you couldn't have faith?

Quote:Does that make it any less valid?

Well - you presumably believing things like "So what if it's a unique requirement?" and picking God out because you can't find a reason not to believe without evidence, like how you say "Why shouldn't it be different for God", doesn't make God any more valid than the FSM though. Fair enough?

Quote:There are thousands of expressions of descriptions of the phenomenon throughout human history. Trying to belittle it as 'special pleading' is saying nothing is allowed to be unique. This dismissal doesn't carry.

There's no indication that God actually exists any more than the FSM, unless you can enlighten me. Subjective experience of God is no more of an indication of his existence than subjective experience of the FSM is an indication of its existence. If you're fine with that, then cool. But your God is just as invalid as believing in the FSM for exactly the same reasons. There's no indication that either exist and 'The bible' is no more evidence for God than the 'FSM Gospel' is for the FSM, it would be circular reasoning to say it was and special pleading.

Quote:You're asked to consider it so that you might understand what follows. To those that have tried it, it makes sense. It logically follows. It works out.

Writing in a book doesn't give objective indication that "God" actually exists. It makes sense to those who believe it makes sense, but that's entirely irrelevant because it doesn't matter who it makes sense to, the point is that it doesn't make sense because it's fallacious to say that it does. A book doesn't give indication to the existence of a supernatural superbeing. For exactly the same reason why the FSM Gospel doesn't give indication to the existence of the FSM.

Quote:You cry that you can't understand it whilst refusing to follow the logic.

What logic? The logic of believing in X without evidence as opposed to Y without evidence for personal preference?

Cry? When? It's not that I don't understand it. It's that I do understand exactly why there is no reason to believe God exists. For exactly the same reason to believe that the FSM doesn't exist. Subjective experience gives no indication for the existence of either of them in reality, Books are not indication either, whether labeled "Holy" or not is irrelevant because they don't truly give any credence to God (or the FSM ) actually existing until you already assume he (or it ) exists, in order to make them truly "Holy" rather than simply labeled as such and believed as such.

Quote:That makes you deliberately ignorant.

Sorry, I'm just too busy with the FSM I'm not going to do special pleading with your God, sorry but I'm just too busy with the FSM to follow this 'logic' of yours. I'll do my special pleading with the FSM instead. To each his own, fair enough?

Hmm but tomorrow I feel like a change. Tomorrow I might randomly dream up some other random thing to believe 'On faith' (out of the countless conceivable things to believe in without evidence that there are) that's just as valid (or invalid rather) as your God.

Quote:Belief is never certainty. Belief isn't like you believe you have an arm. You can know you have an arm. You don't have to believe it.

I do believe I have an arm though. I don't disbelieve it. I believe it so strongly to the point of saying I 'know' (as strong as my belief will go). But I don't absolutely know, if only in the sense that I can't prove the negative of me being a brain in a jar, that is being fed by a computer and that this entire life I am having is just an illusion and so, I don't really have a body You can't prove a negative, it's a logical fallacy

Quote:You're going to have to remove 'belief' from our vocabulary, along with 'faith', because neither make sense using your rationalisation.

I disagree. I don't disbelieve in the existence of my arm. Nor do I disbelieve in Evolution, for example. But this doesn't mean I have faith in them because I don't believe on these things without evidence. Assuming we are continuing to define faith as nothing more than "Belief without evidence".

Belief in God is just that. A trust. A faith. Why? Because we cannot know. Rational? It's purely rational, because it can't be evidential.[/quote] It's purely rational because it can't be evidential? So it's purely rational to believe in the FSM for exactly the same reason then? Or Zeus? Or the IPU? Or Russell's Teapot? Or [Insert a random string of more unprovable things there can be no evidence of here, regardless of the absurdity level]?

Quote:We can't know, therefore we have to rationalise it and believe or not. As a result of that rational decision we cna take further logical steps. These steps form religious thought.

So how do you rationalize it if you have no indication that your God exists any more than the FSM? Because if you did have indication of your God's existence, then that would count as evidence so you couldn't have faith. That's what evidence is - something that indicates that something actually exists.

So how exactly can you rationalize that? How is it not simply special pleading when there's no more indication for your God than there is for the FSM (or whatever else without evidence (cos that's what evidence is for remember)).

EvF

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(June 20, 2009 at 7:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So you're saying, categorically, that without evidence there is no possibility of rationality?

I have no reason to believe 'faith' can at all be rational, no. Every single case seems irrational simply because believing something exists when you know of no indication whatsoever that it actually exists, is deluded. If you can show me otherwise, fine, if anyone can show me otherwise, fine. Until then, "Faith" will remain irrational because it's believing in the existence of things when there's no reason to believe they actually exist, because there's no indication whatsoever that they actually exist. That's what I mean by no evidence.

I didn't mention faith. You're avoiding the question. Is there no point of rationality without evidence?

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:The rationale for faith is that there is no evidence. That's what you're asked to accept. You can't accept it. Fair enough. That doesn't make it irrational.

So are you saying believing in the FSM when there's no evidence isn't irrational? It wouldn't be more rational to believe with evidence? In the case of anything else, belief without evidence=irrational. How is God any different whatsoever? You pick him out despite the fact there's no more indication that he actually exists than the FSM.

No. Faith of any kind requires there to be no evidence. Full stop. It's a word of the english language with a strict definition. You can't make it mean anything else. You're changing a subject that wasn't implied. Yes, faith in the cream cake in the centre of the earth requires there to be no knowledge of said cream cake.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:That just makes you unwilling to consider it rationally.

There is no way to possibly have bearing on the existence of God without evidence. Because that's what evidence is for, if I had some indication that God actually existed then that would count as evidence. If I don't have any indication then I'd be believing in God despite the fact there's no more indication he actually exists than the FSM. So how exactly is it being 'unwilling to consider' God rationally if God cannot be considered rationally, in the sense that there's no more indication that he actually exists than the FSM, cos if there was, that would be evidence so you couldn't have faith?

Your talking evidence for God when the statement is about considering faith. Try again: Are you willing to consider faith rationally or not? The actual existence of the subject HAS to be unknown remember. So FSM, tooth fairy, or serious entity has to be completely unknown to exist to you.

You can rationally consider faith. But the rules are that you cannot know.

Rationally doesn't mean use proof. It just means using logic. To say you can't start thinking without proof is absurd.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Why shouldn't it be different with God?

Or the FSM?

Quote:So what if that's a unique requirement?

So what if your God is no more valid than the FSM, other than you simply believing he is, regardless of the fact there's no more indication that he actually exists than there is for the FSM; because if there was it would count as evidence so you couldn't have faith?

Potential evidence for my God is everything there is. Evidence for the FSM as a joke deity is a non starter.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Does that make it any less valid?

Well - you presumably believing things like "So what if it's a unique requirement?" and picking God out because you can't find a reason not to believe without evidence, like how you say "Why shouldn't it be different for God", doesn't make God any more valid than the FSM though. Fair enough?

So you agree that Special pleading is an unreasonable limitation. Good.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:There are thousands of expressions of descriptions of the phenomenon throughout human history. Trying to belittle it as 'special pleading' is saying nothing is allowed to be unique. This dismissal doesn't carry.

There's no indication that God actually exists any more than the FSM, unless you can enlighten me.

snore

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Subjective experience of God is no more of an indication of his existence than subjective experience of the FSM is an indication of its existence.

snore

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If you're fine with that, then cool. But your God is just as invalid as believing in the FSM for exactly the same reasons. There's no indication that either exist and 'The bible' is no more evidence for God than the 'FSM Gospel' is for the FSM, it would be circular reasoning to say it was and special pleading.

Well that was short lived. You're back on with special reasoning... with no reason. Cool.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:You're asked to consider it so that you might understand what follows. To those that have tried it, it makes sense. It logically follows. It works out.

Writing in a book doesn't give objective indication that "God" actually exists. It makes sense to those who believe it makes sense, but that's entirely irrelevant because it doesn't matter who it makes sense to, the point is that it doesn't make sense because it's fallacious to say that it does.

Exsqueeze me? Fallacious how? Because the book doesn't give proof of God's existence when it says it can't?

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: A book doesn't give indication to the existence of a supernatural superbeing. For exactly the same reason why the FSM Gospel doesn't give indication to the existence of the FSM.

I'm glad I can agree with you on something at last.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:You cry that you can't understand it whilst refusing to follow the logic.

What logic? The logic of believing in X without evidence as opposed to Y without evidence for personal preference?

You just contradicted the logic again.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Cry? When? It's not that I don't understand it. It's that I do understand exactly why there is no reason to believe God exists.

Same thing.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: For exactly the same reason to believe that the FSM doesn't exist. Subjective experience gives no indication for the existence of either of them in reality, Books are not indication either, whether labeled "Holy" or not is irrelevant because they don't truly give any credence to God (or the FSM ) actually existing until you already assume he (or it ) exists, in order to make them truly "Holy" rather than simply labeled as such and believed as such.

So can you get over this now?

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:That makes you deliberately ignorant.

Sorry, I'm just too busy with the FSM I'm not going to do special pleading with your God, sorry but I'm just too busy with the FSM to follow this 'logic' of yours. I'll do my special pleading with the FSM instead. To each his own, fair enough?

Hmm but tomorrow I feel like a change. Tomorrow I might randomly dream up some other random thing to believe 'On faith' (out of the countless conceivable things to believe in without evidence that there are) that's just as valid (or invalid rather) as your God.

Yeah. You're too tied up with thinking bollocks to consider anything remotely sensible for a moment. your choice though.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Belief is never certainty. Belief isn't like you believe you have an arm. You can know you have an arm. You don't have to believe it.

I do believe I have an arm though. I don't disbelieve it. I believe it so strongly to the point of saying I 'know' (as strong as my belief will go). But I don't absolutely know, if only in the sense that I can't prove the negative of me being a brain in a jar, that is being fed by a computer and that this entire life I am having is just an illusion and so, I don't really have a body You can't prove a negative, it's a logical fallacy

You don't 'believe in your arm. You 'know'. It's different. That isn't 'believe'. Believe means something different. Again, you can't change the meaning of words to suit yourself. They have accepted definitions in the english language.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:You're going to have to remove 'belief' from our vocabulary, along with 'faith', because neither make sense using your rationalisation.

I disagree. I don't disbelieve in the existence of my arm. Nor do I disbelieve in Evolution, for example. But this doesn't mean I have faith in them because I don't believe on these things without evidence. Assuming we are continuing to define faith as nothing more than "Belief without evidence".

I hope you see the glaring faults in this paragraph. Like I said, you need to erase those words.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Belief in God is just that. A trust. A faith. Why? Because we cannot know. Rational? It's purely rational, because it can't be evidential.

It's purely rational because it can't be evidential? So it's purely rational to believe in the FSM for exactly the same reason then? Or Zeus? Or the IPU? Or Russell's Teapot? Or [Insert a random string of more unprovable things there can be no evidence of here, regardless of the absurdity level]?

Your suggestions are absurd yes. Mine isn't.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:We can't know, therefore we have to rationalise it and believe or not. As a result of that rational decision we cna take further logical steps. These steps form religious thought.

So how do you rationalize it if you have no indication that your God exists any more than the FSM? Because if you did have indication of your God's existence, then that would count as evidence so you couldn't have faith. That's what evidence is - something that indicates that something actually exists.

If you KNEW God existed you wouldn't have to rationalise it. HOW MANY times have we been over that?

(June 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: And I could state that god is cream cake ... just because I state it does that give it worth? NO. If a hundred people state that does that give it worth? No. A thousand? No ... that people state something DOES NOT confer upon it any inherent value.

Belief in ANYTHING without evidence, without logical reason is utterly at odds with scientific thought so the question becomes how logical the belief in a given god is and since you can't or won't provide any validatable supporting evidence I believe it is fair to say that it IS inconsistent with what we currently understand about the universe.

None of which deals with the point discussed. A logical assertion written in the bible that you do not contend it seems.

Actually the analogy of god being a cream cake (or any other stupid analogy I care to use including the FSM) very much does deal with it ... the point I am making is that it is just a claim with no greater or lesser merit than any other UNTIL you provide verifiable evidence to support it.

(June 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 6:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: EVERY mainstream religion has hard to accept evolution ... they had no fucking choice! I rest my case!

Sorry that's utter nonsense and you know it.

No it's not ... the bible does get rewritten (this explains the variety of the bloody things ... wanna tell me which bible is the authoritative one?) and it is the case that religions have been dragged unwilling to face up to modern day thought.

(June 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: IOW your god does not exist ... simples!

A humorous jump of logic. You should try faith - it's far more rational

Like fuck it is! And humorous or not the point remains that you do what you do, say what you say and do so in the way you do because you have no other choice!

Kyu

(June 21, 2009 at 3:48 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: None of which deals with the point discussed. A logical assertion written in the bible that you do not contend it seems.

Actually the analogy of god being a cream cake (or any other stupid analogy I care to use including the FSM) very much does deal with it ... the point I am making is that it is just a claim with no greater or lesser merit than any other UNTIL you provide verifiable evidence to support it. [/quote]

I agree there is no more merit for the claim but that's besides the point. I was asking about the scientific logic of the biblical statement of God being timeless. That's all.

(June 20, 2009 at 4:46 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 18, 2009 at 6:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: EVERY mainstream religion has hard to accept evolution ... they had no fucking choice! I rest my case!

Sorry that's utter nonsense and you know it.

No it's not ... the bible does get rewritten (this explains the variety of the bloody things ... wanna tell me which bible is the authoritative one?) and it is the case that religions have been dragged unwilling to face up to modern day thought. [/quote]

We're still using exactly the same original source in EVERY version there is. The most accurate version currently is the NIV originally published in 1978, with a minor revision in 1984.

Interpretation and what people take as meaning varies but the source remains the same.

Evolution is not contrary to the bible. Some peoples interpretation of the bible is. There's more evidence to suggest that the bible is actually more accurate scientifically than has been interpreted down the centuries. Flat Earth theory for example wasn't biblical.

(June 21, 2009 at 3:48 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: A humorous jump of logic. You should try faith - it's far more rational

Like fuck it is! And humorous or not the point remains that you do what you do, say what you say and do so in the way you do because you have no other choice!

Kyu

Sorry.. who has no choice?

(June 21, 2009 at 5:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 21, 2009 at 3:48 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Actually the analogy of god being a cream cake (or any other stupid analogy I care to use including the FSM) very much does deal with it ... the point I am making is that it is just a claim with no greater or lesser merit than any other UNTIL you provide verifiable evidence to support it.

I agree there is no more merit for the claim but that's besides the point. I was asking about the scientific logic of the biblical statement of God being timeless. That's all.

There is no "scientific logic" for god at all so how can there be "scientific logic" for the claim that such a being is timeless?

(June 21, 2009 at 5:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 21, 2009 at 3:48 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: No it's not ... the bible does get rewritten (this explains the variety of the bloody things ... wanna tell me which bible is the authoritative one?) and it is the case that religions have been dragged unwilling to face up to modern day thought.

We're still using exactly the same original source in EVERY version there is. The most accurate version currently is the NIV originally published in 1978, with a minor revision in 1984.

No you're not ... there are many Christians who reject all versions of the bible except King James and careful reading of the two in parallel demonstrate differences that can be significant.

(June 21, 2009 at 5:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Interpretation and what people take as meaning varies but the source remains the same.

Not if you're using NIV as your source no.

(June 21, 2009 at 5:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Evolution is not contrary to the bible. Some peoples interpretation of the bible is. There's more evidence to suggest that the bible is actually more accurate scientifically than has been interpreted down the centuries. Flat Earth theory for example wasn't biblical.

Yes it is because it specifies a god that created animals and humans personally when evolution most definitely does not specify that and it does it in a 6 day period for which there is even less. Furthermore it claims evidence of a 40 day rainstorm & consequent flood that covered every mountain (to more than 5 cubits as I recall) for which there is no geological support and which, if true, would result in VERY different evolutionary evidence ... it's that that sends the fundies into such hysterical cataclysms of evidence twisting.

(June 21, 2009 at 3:48 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 20, 2009 at 5:20 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Like fuck it is! And humorous or not the point remains that you do what you do, say what you say and do so in the way you do because you have no other choice!

Sorry.. who has no choice?

You don't. You have to argue your god is somewhere else, somewhere that can't be tested or reached by science ... you have no choice.

Kyu

(June 20, 2009 at 7:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I didn't mention faith. You're avoiding the question. Is there no point of rationality without evidence?

Avoiding the question? I thought we were defining faith as simply 'belief without evidence' though. And if by "No rationality without evidence" you don't mean "no rationality in belief without evidence" then what do you mean? How can you 'have evidence' how can you be 'with evidence' without believing/disbelieving in that evidence. How can you rationally consider it without a belief stance? And if by 'without evidence' you do mean 'belief without evidence' then that is faith (by the definition we've been going by) so it was implied in your statement. And if you don't mean that, then what do you mean exactly?

Quote:Yes, faith in the cream cake in the centre of the earth requires there to be no knowledge of said cream cake.

So to believe anyway is irrational. Because to believe anyway with no indication of the existence of (IOW evidence for) the Cream Cake is irrational. And "God" is irrational for exactly the same reason. The personal absurd incredulity of the Cream Cake is irrelevant; I find God pretty personally absurd anyway, but that's irrelevant. The reason why I don't believe he exists is for exactly the same reason that I disbelieve in the said cream cake; and that's the reason why it's irrational to believe in either. And that reason being that there's no indication that either exists, no more indication for "God" than the Cream Cake, whatsoever.

The Bible doesn't give indication to God's actual existence any more than if I wrote on a piece of scrap paper right now, the words "There is a cream cake at the center of the universe" - gives evidence for such a cream cake. The personal credulity or incredulity of either is completely irrelevant in both cases. That isn't the reason to disbelieve in either - entirely personal reasons have no bearing on objective matters. They are both to be disbelieved by me because there's no indication that either exist.

Quote:Your talking evidence for God when the statement is about considering faith. Try again: Are you willing to consider faith rationally or not?

If you can explain, in any way...how "Faith" simply defined as "belief without evidence", nothing more and nothing less - really can be at all rational, then yes. How on earth could that be rational to the matter of the actual existence?

Quote:The actual existence of the subject HAS to be unknown remember. So FSM, tooth fairy, or serious entity has to be completely unknown to exist to you.

And obviously you can only know what you know. So if all these things are equally unknown, then you have no more reason to believe that any of them exist than any other. God's actual existence is on even footing with the FSM - there's no indication for either.

I'm not talking about absolute knowledge. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence as in any indication whatsoever that God exists... or any indication that he exists, whatsoever any more than the FSM

Quote:You can rationally consider faith. But the rules are that you cannot know.

With "Faith", you not only can't absolutely know, but you are believing without any indication that the thing you have Faith in, exists at all, right? So there's no more indication God actually exists than the FSM and yet you believe anyway. Because if there was indication of God's actual existence then you couldn't 'have "Faith"' in him (by the definition we're going by) because such an indication would count as evidence, and you can't have faith if you have evidence.

Quote:Rationally doesn't mean use proof. It just means using logic. To say you can't start thinking without proof is absurd.

I'm not speaking of proof. I'm speaking of any indication that such a "God" exists whatsoever. That's what I mean by evidence. I'm not talking about 'Proof'. I'm not being absolutist here.

Quote:Potential evidence for my God is everything there is. Evidence for the FSM as a joke deity is a non starter.

There's no indication that God exists any more than the FSM, if there was there would be evidence and then you couldn't have faith. So God is just as much a non-starter as the FSM because there's no indication whatsoever that either exist. The fact that the FSM is 'a joke diety' is completely irrelevant because that's a personal thing. Whether the FSM or God are a joke or not is irrelevant to whether they actually exist - the point is whether there's any any indication that they actually exist, whatsoever (IOW any evidence...that's what I mean by "evidence").

Quote:So you agree that Special pleading is an unreasonable limitation. Good.

I do agree, yes. So I just wonder why you do such special pleading to your "God". Because there's no more indication that he exists than the FSM and yet you pick him out.

If there is any indication that "God" actually exists then that would be evidence of his existence. So you couldn't have faith. If not you're doing special pleading.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: There's no indication that God actually exists any more than the FSM, unless you can enlighten me.

Fr0d0 Wrote:snore

I'm deadly serious tho. You may think the FSM is absurd, you may say (as you have said on another thread that you "pity" me for "not being able to tell the difference", but as I said on the thread, I pity you (to some extent anyway) for not being able to clarify the difference, you seem to only be capable of expressing that you have special pleading. There is no indication that God exists any more than the FSM, I'm deadly serious about that, 100% serious, absolutely. So indeed, unless you can show that there's any more indication that God exists any more than the FSM...then yes it's just special pleading on your part.

Quote:Well that was short lived. You're back on with special reasoning... with no reason. Cool.

I do have a reason why it's special pleading. The reason being, that it's special pleading...because there's no more indication that your "God" exists any more than the FSM or anything else without evidence!. So that's why to believe anyway is special pleading.

fr0d0 Wrote:Exsqueeze me? Fallacious how? Because the book doesn't give proof of God's existence when it says it can't?

It not only doesn't give proof. It doesn't give any indication that God exists whatsoever. Nor does it give any reasons to believe that any experience in life is indication that he exists. To say that the Bible is in any way valid to matter of whether God exists or not is fallacious because it would be circular reasoning to believe as such. If you are not saying that, then I can simply conclude that if there's no indication to believe that God exists then there's no reason to believe he does any more than the FSM and so it's also special pleading to believe in God anyway. So if the Bible is any way special, is only special on a subjective personal level to whoever finds it that way; and it has nothing to say on the matter of God in reality...because if it did we would need to believe he actually existed first - and as I said, the bible doesn't give any indication that he exists whatsoever. And nor does anything else...as I said - unless you can enlighten me?

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: A book doesn't give indication to the existence of a supernatural superbeing. For exactly the same reason why the FSM Gospel doesn't give indication to the existence of the FSM.

fr0d0 Wrote:I'm glad I can agree with you on something at last.

So we agree that the Bible gives no indication that "God" (as a supernatural superbeing, a creator of the universe) exists in reality, any more than the FSM Gospel gives indication that the FSM exists in reality? Right?

In which case if you are believing in God over the FSM it's simply a case of special pleading. Because there's no more indication that God exists than the FSM, in the Bible or the FSM Gospel. And no more indication elsewhere...at all that God actually exists, than there is of the FSM either, so it's special pleading As I say - unless you can enlighten me.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:You cry that you can't understand it whilst refusing to follow the logic.

What logic? The logic of believing in X without evidence as opposed to Y without evidence for personal preference?

You just contradicted the logic again.

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Cry? When? It's not that I don't understand it. It's that I do understand exactly why there is no reason to believe God exists.

fr0d0 Wrote:Same thing.

Eh? What do you mean? Do you mean you saying that 'not understanding it' is the same as 'understanding why there's no reason to believe it' is the same thing? Or do you mean that 'understanding why there's no reason to believe it' is the same thing as 'crying'?

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: For exactly the same reason to believe that the FSM doesn't exist. Subjective experience gives no indication for the existence of either of them in reality, Books are not indication either, whether labeled "Holy" or not is irrelevant because they don't truly give any credence to God (or the FSM ) actually existing until you already assume he (or it ) exists, in order to make them truly "Holy" rather than simply labeled as such and believed as such.

fr0d0 Wrote:So can you get over this now?

Get over what? I am just pointing out that there's no more indication that "God" exists than the FSM is all, so you're doing special pleading. That's all.

fr0d0 Wrote:That makes you deliberately ignorant.

EvF Wrote:Sorry, I'm just too busy with the FSM I'm not going to do special pleading with your God, sorry but I'm just too busy with the FSM to follow this 'logic' of yours. I'll do my special pleading with the FSM instead. To each his own, fair enough?

Hmm but tomorrow I feel like a change. Tomorrow I might randomly dream up some other random thing to believe 'On faith' (out of the countless conceivable things to believe in without evidence that there are) that's just as valid (or invalid rather) as your God.

fr0d0 Wrote:Yeah. You're too tied up with thinking bollocks to consider anything remotely sensible for a moment. your choice though.

The point is there's no more indication that your God exists than anything I randomly dream up. That's whats not remotely sensible...your belief - in terms of the truth of whether it's actually true, whether your God actually exists, is all.

Quote:You don't 'believe in your arm. You 'know'. It's different. That isn't 'believe'. Believe means something different. Again, you can't change the meaning of words to suit yourself. They have accepted definitions in the english language.

I do believe my arm exists because I don't disbelieve that it exists. I can't help but believe it exists, the belief can be really strong, as strong as any belief can be. It doesn't have to be vague.

EvF Wrote:I disagree. I don't disbelieve in the existence of my arm. Nor do I disbelieve in Evolution, for example. But this doesn't mean I have faith in them because I don't believe on these things without evidence. Assuming we are continuing to define faith as nothing more than "Belief without evidence".

fr0d0 Wrote:I hope you see the glaring faults in this paragraph. Like I said, you need to erase those words.

Hmm..what faults? Perhaps I failed to clarify the fact that I obviously do believe in the existence of my arm...because I certainly don't disbelieve in it's existence (that's what I was trying to imply). It's not that I deny that it exists!! I believe it does - based on evidence (that's at least mostly self-evident

(June 20, 2009 at 8:51 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: It's purely rational because it can't be evidential? So it's purely rational to believe in the FSM for exactly the same reason then? Or Zeus? Or the IPU? Or Russell's Teapot? Or [Insert a random string of more unprovable things there can be no evidence of here, regardless of the absurdity level]?

fr0d0 Wrote:Your suggestions are absurd yes. Mine isn't.

The 'absurdity' of them doesn't in and of itself give them any more or less indication to whether they actually exist than the level of God's absurdness (whatever level that be). The absurdness is irrelevant, the point is there's no indication that either exist. Personal credulity or incredulity is irrelevant to the question of whether something actually exists or not.

fr0d0 Wrote:if you KNEW God existed you wouldn't have to rationalise it. HOW MANY times have we been over that?

And as I have said before - I'm not talking about 'knowing' I'm talking about whether there's any indication...whatsoever - that God actually exists or not, any more or less than the FSM. If there isn't then how can you rationally believe God exists if there's no indication that he does whatsoever? You'd simply be doing special pleading to your "God" rather than the other countless things there's no indication of the actual existence of whatsoever (E.G, the FSM).

EvF

(June 21, 2009 at 7:51 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: There is no "scientific logic" for god at all so how can there be "scientific logic" for the claim that such a being is timeless?

I agree. I was wanting you to separate the two. But nevermind.

(June 21, 2009 at 7:51 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 21, 2009 at 5:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: We're still using exactly the same original source in EVERY version there is. The most accurate version currently is the NIV originally published in 1978, with a minor revision in 1984.

No you're not ... there are many Christians who reject all versions of the bible except King James and careful reading of the two in parallel demonstrate differences that can be significant.

The KJV is the poetic version supposedly. It certainly isn't the most accurate. Although I know people who favour i fervently those same people would never justifiably exclude other versions. Yeah there's the street bible; but this isn't a strict translation; maybe not much more accurate than the lolcat translation. Time moves on, we have greater or less understanding of the original meaning and the translations reflect that. The fact remains though: all translations are just that: translations of the original.

(June 21, 2009 at 7:51 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 21, 2009 at 5:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Interpretation and what people take as meaning varies but the source remains the same.

Not if you're using NIV as your source no.

Like I said the NIV is the most accurate around today.

(June 21, 2009 at 7:51 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(June 21, 2009 at 5:47 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Evolution is not contrary to the bible. Some peoples interpretation of the bible is. There's more evidence to suggest that the bible is actually more accurate scientifically than has been interpreted down the centuries. Flat Earth theory for example wasn't biblical.

Yes it is because it specifies a god that created animals and humans personally when evolution most definitely does not specify that and it does it in a 6 day period for which there is even less. Furthermore it claims evidence of a 40 day rainstorm & consequent flood that covered every mountain (to more than 5 cubits as I recall) for which there is no geological support and which, if true, would result in VERY different evolutionary evidence ... it's that that sends the fundies into such hysterical cataclysms of evidence twisting.

Again your interpreting by stating 6 x 24 hour days. The text doesn't say that. Genesis 1 is quite strongly accepted as an allegorical account. Same with the flood story. You couldn't even claim that it's debatable that it's meant to be a scientific account.

(June 21, 2009 at 3:48 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

fr0d0 Wrote:Sorry.. who has no choice?

You don't. You have to argue your god is somewhere else, somewhere that can't be tested or reached by science ... you have no choice.

Kyu

I agree.