Jon, I entered this debate to see how you answer my questions. You behaved as I thought you would. Religion is a debate that never ends. When I said to come to an agree to disagree I ment as in this debate is getting us no where. At the end of the day, you are a theist and I'm an atheist. Our opinions are very differant when it comes to the topic of religion. Your idea of evidence is quite differant from mine. When I said I couldn't be bothered, I ment as in before I left forums because I got tired of arguing. Outside this computer there is no such thing as a religion to me. For me, this world is as I see it. Reality that has no god in it. I only hear of religion on computers because where I live, most of the population is not religious. Religion to me is a big joke. This debate isn't going anywhere and I still reject the god claim as do millions of others.

I cannot speak for other atheists but your arguments are not good enough for me to rethink the god claim. I could use your arguments to defend the existance of the easter bunny or any other crazy imagination.
To me, the world makes plenty of sense without god. I only occasionly argue about it. The rest of my time is spent ignoring religion.

This argument is not going anywhere so might as well say to agree that we disagree.
Tomorrow is sunday and I plan to sleep in and have a few drinks.

Ace

(August 8, 2009 at 2:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: How convenient.

If that is not the case, then I must ask which discipline of modern science should test the hypothesis of Gods existence? If modern science and and the aim of the modern scientific method is the investigation of the natural world, then any hypothesis that transcends the natural is a priori excluded.

Science, in the classical sense, however, makes no such a priori exclusion of the transcendent. Classical science includes the investigation of the natural world, though it does not exclude anything transcendent to the natural world. The classical sense of science is rational investigation in all it's facets, wherever it's conclusions lead. Modern science is much narrower in it's scope than this.

The only surviving discipline with a classical inclusive scope of investigation is philosophy, which you probably don't consider as "science" anyway, simply because it doesn't live up to your preconceived notion of naturalism, which is itself a philosophical school and presupposition.

---

(August 8, 2009 at 2:39 pm)Ace Wrote: I cannot speak for other atheists but your arguments are not good enough for me to rethink the god claim. I could use your arguments to defend the existance of the easter bunny or any other crazy imagination.

You certainly cannot, for my arguments no where suggest the easter bunny. They suggest God in the attributes of divine simplicity.

(August 8, 2009 at 2:45 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: You certainly cannot, for my arguments no where suggest the easter bunny. They suggest God in the attributes of divine simplicity.

Oops! you've just tripped over something there. Can any of my fellow atheists spot it?

Dotard Wrote: I was waiting for the old "The people God was communicating with were to stupid to understand." and I was not disappointed.
Jon Paul wrote:
Yes, and chatpilot is one of them.

Now Jon why do you have to directly attack me be referring to me as stupid that is not nice.I took some time to read your orthodox interpretation and it is erroneous as usual.Nothing more than pathetic apologetics to make up for all the stupidity found in your man made bible.

4.And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5.And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Read it again,first of all it is really ridiculous to state that God "divided the light from the darkness" since light and darkness cannot coexist in the same space.The correct interpretation of darkness is the absence of light.Verse 5 as you can see says nothing about light not being able to penetrate the Earth it says he defined day and night and ends with 'it was the evening and the morning."So yes in as is shown in this verse there was night and day without the sun.
You said:"As a sidenote, light (photons) existence precedes the existence of the sun, anyway."If this is true it is irrelevant because the Earth derives its light from the sun.
16.And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
If you took a moment to scrutinize this verse a little better it states that God made two lights,this is talking about an act of creation so this verse alone destroys your orthodox interpretation.He made the sun and the moons and the stars on the fourth day.So it looks like your orthodox interpreters were wrong and simply practicing what church fathers did best:Apologetics!In case you are wondering I was going to leave this issue alone but your calling me stupid just set me off again.

(August 8, 2009 at 2:51 pm)Ace Wrote: Oops! you've just tripped over something there. Can any of my fellow atheists spot it?

You suggested that my arguments suggest the existence of the Easter Bunny equally as much as they do the existence of what I call God. The problem is, I only call God exactly what my argument concludes.

This is the straw man of the "god of arbitrary predication". If I had commited this fallacy, then indeed my God would be epistemically equivalent to the easter bunny.

But the God of my theology is not a God of arbitrary predication. It's a God who is approached gradually, and not called God until the transcendent existence is properly defined and it's necessity explained.

The easter bunny, in this context, is a contingent and non-rational (sentient) being, who is itself a potentiality, which is actualised by the actualising agency of an order of pure actuality, which can contain nothing of potentiality (otherwise it would be impure actuality, not pure actuality), and therefore contains nothing of the spatiotemporal and material realm of existence (e.g. the easter bunny/FSM).

The opposite of arbitrary predication is divine simplicity. For divine simplicity only raises the attributes which are necessary emanants from the very fact of transcendence. If God is an easter bunny, then he does not transcend the spatiotemporal and material realm, and then we are not talking about God, but an actualised potentiality, which is itself contingent upon God.

(August 8, 2009 at 3:06 pm)Jon Paul Wrote:

(August 8, 2009 at 2:51 pm)Ace Wrote: Oops! you've just tripped over something there. Can any of my fellow atheists spot it?

You suggested that my arguments suggest the existence of the Easter Bunny equally as much as they do the existence of what I call God. The problem is, I only call God exactly what my argument concludes.

This is the straw man of the "god of arbitrary predication". If I had commited this fallacy, then indeed my God would be epistemically equivalent to the easter bunny.

But the God of my theology is not a God of arbitrary predication. It's a God who is approached gradually, and not called God until the transcendent existence is properly defined and it's necessity explained.

The easter bunny, in this context, is a contingent and non-rational (sentient) being, who is itself a potentiality, which is actualised by the actualising agency of an order of pure actuality, which can contain nothing of potentiality (otherwise it would be impure actuality, not pure actuality), and therefore contains nothing of the spatiotemporal and material realm of existence (e.g. the easter bunny/FSM).

The opposite of arbitrary predication is divine simplicity. For divine simplicity only raises the attributes which are necessary emanants from the very fact of transcendence. If God is an easter bunny, then he does not transcend the spatiotemporal and material realm, and then we are not talking about God, but an actualised potentiality, which is itself contingent upon God.

Oops, mistake number 2!

Whatever you call your imaginary friend does not matter in anyway. A name is just a name.
I could reverse your argument - "I only call easter bunny exactly what my argument concludes."
"But the easter bunny of my theology is not an easter bunny of arbitrary predication. It's an easter bunny who is approached gradually, and not called easter bunny until the transcendent existence is properly defined and it's necessity explained."

No matter what the purpose of the claim of a being and its name, all made up characters are the same. There are no differances between santa to easter bunny, FSM, pink uniforns or gods. God is no more special or more likely than any of these made up characters. Neither of them can be disproved. The only differances are their names and purposes.

To know that, proper hermeneutics and exegesis is required, and you find that in patristic tradition. Not re-interpretations, but a living tradition of interpretation without the discontinuity that would be implied in the kind of reinterpretation chatpilot wishes to initate.

Has it ever occurred to you that the church fathers interpretations of scripture in part or in whole could also be erroneous?They are men just like us and are not infallible in any sense so to say that just because they have studied the scriptures all of their lives does not make them entirely correct.

(August 8, 2009 at 3:14 pm)Ace Wrote: Oops, mistake number 2!
Whatever you call your imaginary friend does not matter in anyway. A name is just a name.
I could reverse your argument - "I only call easter bunny exactly what my argument concludes."
"But the easter bunny of my theology is not an easter bunny of arbitrary predication. It's an easter bunny who is approached gradually, and not called easter bunny until the transcendent existence is properly defined and it's necessity explained."

No matter what the purpose of the claim of a being and its name, all made up characters are the same. There are no differances between santa to easter bunny, FSM, pink uniforns or gods. God is no more special or more likely than any of these made up characters. Neither of them can be disproved. The only differances are their names and purposes.

No. Their difference is that the easter bunny and the flying spaghetti monster are worldly, material, spatial and temporal and contingent objects, whereas the transcendent Other who I call God is immaterial, nonspatial, nontemporal and self subsistent rather than contingent.

Your easter bunny and FSM simply do not live up to the criteria of transcendence.

(August 8, 2009 at 3:39 pm)Jon Paul Wrote: No. Their difference is that the easter bunny and the flying spaghetti monster are worldly, material, spatial and temporal and contingent objects, whereas the transcendent Other who I call God is immaterial, nonspatial, nontemporal and self subsistent rather than contingent.

Your easter bunny and FSM simply do not live up to the criteria of transcendence.

Oh really? God is as much a thought up character as any other and just like any other god is no more likely than santa, pink unicorn ect.ect.ect

A theists worst enemy is another god under another name that mimics their own arguments. A mirror effect.

There is a god and his name is Jad and you cannot see him nor hear him and nor can you detect him but he is there. "who I call Jad is immaterial, nonspatial, nontemporal and self subsistent rather than contingent."
"Your God simply does not live up to the criteria of transcendence."

You can easily make up a character that is beyond provable and disprovable.

I still call "bullshit".

Again you allude that only the long dead catholic dudes got it right. Anyone that does not agree with them are putting erroneous interpretations forward.

So now you are telling me only those who can read/write/understand the original language of the texts can correctly figure out what the fuk this God is trying to say? And only those who spend a lifetime in peity "studying" this book can 'correctly' interpret it?

Your God sucks for not making it (the proper/correct meanings) readily accessible to every human.

And now you're saying only the 1.6 million catholics got it right? Only the interpretations of the long dead ones are correct and only those who follow their teachings can gain the 'true' meaning of the bible.

And you know all this how? Oh yeah, those long dead dudes said so.