Fr0d0,

Hmm, well I see how he agrees with you and it makes sense to me while STILL not being a first cause argument but rather speaking to the pure actuality of God, but you STILL fail to explain how God can change his mind which was the crux of our argument. According to JP's actus purus definition, as I understand it, God is as unchanging as it gets and yet you claim he can change his mind. So, do you retract your statement or do you have an explaination for what you claim?

Rhizo

Well I said already that changing a mind and changing a nature are distinct. And that time affects how change would be understood. As Gods revelation unfolded, God, looking from a perspective of all time, would just put in place the change when needed. In this scenario God hasn't 'changed his mind' but implemented changes that were always there.

(September 30, 2009 at 2:12 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: IMO it is as it never ties up logically for me. I see no one counter the logic only dodge and avoid. I'm no authority on this.. I just say what I see. You come out with your ignorant statements on Christianity (check the blaspheming day thread for example) so I'm merely doing the same.

The posts of mine in the blasphemy thread, are deliberate strawman arguments. I'm not trying to make logical arguments there. I'm just blaspheming. I'm stereotyping myself, if you will. Looks like you fell for it

Quote:You ignored the bit where I did.

I disbelieve that you've substantiated your claim yet. As far as I can tell, I haven't seen you do so yet.

Quote:You have, you replied to them! LOL ...oh - you mean 'see' as in understand.. yeah I agree then - you haven't understood - I've witnessed that

From your point of view, I haven't understood. From my point of view, there has been no content there supporting your claims to understand.

Quote:[reading the Bible?]From beginning to end I'm afraid. [he (fr0d0) quoted the Bible Gateway website before this quote]

From my point of view reading the Bible for evidence for God, is as pointless as reading the FSM Gospel for evidence for the FSM. Or if there were, hypothetically speaking, millions of different books for millions of different hypothetical deities - it's no more probable that the Bible is evidence for the Christian God, than it would be that any one of those books would be for any one of their respective deities.

Quote:Well we're talking about that in our debate. Care to continue?

Sure, I could be wrong, but I thought my post is the last post there.

I haven't been arguing about Faith here yet though, so at least we're not getting into the whole EVsF thing, in which case I'm not sure if discussing one of the matters is out of bounds.

Quote:Of course not. That is entirely rational. Well it would be more plausible if you didn't approach it from a position of not wanting to understand it.

I don't not want to understand it. Just as I don't not want to understand the FSM, I just see pursuing it as a serious subject as kind of futile. I'm more interested in why you believe, and how you justify it (along with other theists of course (and not to leave out the deists, them too)), and then questioning whether your reasons are really reasonable and whether your justifications are really justified.

From your point of view, you may think it's a case of 'not wanting to understand it', but that's your opinion, I myself do not agree - that's not my position. From my point of view, my position is, as you said - entirely rational.

EvF

(September 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I'm just blaspheming. I'm stereotyping myself, if you will. Looks like you fell for it

You say the same elsewhere.

(September 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:You ignored the bit where I did.

I disbelieve that you've substantiated your claim yet. As far as I can tell, I haven't seen you do so yet.

"Atheist argument relies on screwey logic.. cherry picking as with denying philosophy with science."

(September 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:You have, you replied to them! LOL ...oh - you mean 'see' as in understand.. yeah I agree then - you haven't understood - I've witnessed that

From your point of view, I haven't understood. From my point of view, there has been no content there supporting your claims to understand.

I was speaking of claims made by JP and Arcanus. My claims you skilfully circled around too.

(September 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: From my point of view reading the Bible for evidence for God, is as pointless as reading the FSM Gospel for evidence for the FSM. Or if there were, hypothetically speaking, millions of different books for millions of different hypothetical deities - it's no more probable that the Bible is evidence for the Christian God, than it would be that any one of those books would be for any one of their respective deities.

So you mean no one has inspired you enough to look into it seriously. That's a bit different from saying there is no evidence. You are simply taking other people's word for that, having never looked into it yourself to make up your own mind.

(September 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Well we're talking about that in our debate. Care to continue?

Sure, I could be wrong, but I thought my post is the last post there.

It is. I had nothing to say. I've suggested we resume before and you've declined.

(September 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I haven't been arguing about Faith here yet though, so at least we're not getting into the whole EVsF thing, in which case I'm not sure if discussing one of the matters is out of bounds.

Funny I thought evidence was our topic and not faith.

(September 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: I don't not want to understand it. Just as I don't not want to understand the FSM, I just see pursuing it as a serious subject as kind of futile. I'm more interested in why you believe, and how you justify it (along with other theists of course (and not to leave out the deists, them too)), and then questioning whether your reasons are really reasonable and whether your justifications are really justified.

From your point of view, you may think it's a case of 'not wanting to understand it', but that's your opinion, I myself do not agree - that's not my position. From my point of view, my position is, as you said - entirely rational.

So it's not that you don't want to understand it it's that you don't want to look into it

I've detailed my case up to that point in support of my logic. I've taken you to the book shop and placed TGD in your hands. Now all you have to do is read it. Why did you read TGD if looking into this subject was futile as you say? You take great interest and research around anti God because somehow this interests you, yet you refuse to give the same importance to the very subject you're dismissing... without ever wanting to look into it.

(September 30, 2009 at 8:44 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You say the same elsewhere.

If I do, it's hypothetical. I don't assert such things as if I actually believe them, like I did in the blasphemy thread. I was joking in the blasphemy thread of course.

Quote:"Atheist argument relies on screwey logic.. cherry picking as with denying philosophy with science."

How does that substantiate your previous claim? That's just covering it with a paraphrasing of the same claim! That also lacks substantiation!

How does the definition of atheism (since you say "atheist argument" - that's my point)=denying philosophy? Atheism in and of itself says nothing of philosophy or science at all actually. Atheism is just non-belief in God. As I said, how does non-belief in God=screwy logic? How does it make sense for you to say Atheist argument relies on screwy logic? And I still fail to see how you've substantiated this. You've just told me that atheists cherry-pick and deny philosophy 'with science', but how so?

Quote:I was speaking of claims made by JP and Arcanus. My claims you skilfully circled around too.

I know you were, you're referring to the logical arguments that have been 'demonstrated' or 'presented' on these forums according to you. That according to you, I have 'ignored' or 'failed to understand'. But I'm just saying that...that's, as I said - from your point of view. From my point of view however, I haven't ignored anything. Because in my view there's nothing to ignore, because despite what you think you, Arcanus and JP, etc, have said that have been logical arguments for God according to you - I have seen no such logical arguments that in any way provide evidence for God. So from my perspective I haven't ignored, because there's no evidence of anything to ignore. Why would I believe if, in my view, there's no evidence?

Quote:So you mean no one has inspired you enough to look into it seriously. That's a bit different from saying there is no evidence. You are simply taking other people's word for that, having never looked into it yourself to make up your own mind.

Why would I look into it or find it any more inspiring than the FSM, or countless of other hypothetical deities? Just because it's popular? That's not logical.

Quote:It is. I had nothing to say. I've suggested we resume before and you've declined.

Did I? What the fuck? I never do that. Please provide a quote if you can! I mean, when did I? I certainly never explicitly did. I've been waiting for you to reply this whole time. If you have seen an implication of me saying I don't want to continue with our debate, no such implication was ever intended, if that is so.

Quote:Funny I thought evidence was our topic and not faith.

It is, I was just saying how it was okay to mention just evidence here, so long as I don't mention faith I think...if we are to mention both, then that goes in the debate, right?

I only mentioned faith to try and confirm this...

Quote:So it's not that you don't want to understand it it's that you don't want to look into it

Correct, I'm questioning why you and other theists believe (and also why deists believe), and why you think there's evidence, and what you think that evidence is. I don't expect there to be evidence. I'm not saying it's impossible - but I might as well go searching for the IPU!!

Quote:I've detailed my case up to that point in support of my logic. I've taken you to the book shop and placed TGD in your hands. Now all you have to do is read it. Why did you read TGD if looking into this subject was futile as you say? You take great interest and research around anti God because somehow this interests you, yet you refuse to give the same importance to the very subject you're dismissing... without ever wanting to look into it.

The subject may be the same, but the motives are different. I read TGD because I'm interested in religion. But that's a whole other ball game anyway, because my position was completely different then. Because when I was to read TGD, I didn't consider it as futile because I was more unsure of if there was a God or not at the time, but my superstition in pseudo-scientific New Age bullshit was decreasing, so I was giving it a shot to see if the New Age BS really was BS, and if God was less 50/50, 60/40, 80/20 or even 90/10 odds and if the odds were in fact more against him than that.

From the position I'm at now however, what would motivate me into thinking that looking for evidence for God was any less futile than looking for the IPU?

No, I look into religion now because I just find it interesting, for moral/immoral and historical reasons, etc. And I find it fascinating the sort of stuff people can believe. I mean, I find religion interesting just as someone who is interested in Mythology is interested in it, without actually thinking Zeus is in any way plausible (not that he's impossible..you can't prove a negative, etc).

EvF

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:"Atheist argument relies on screwey logic.. cherry picking as with denying philosophy with science."

How does that substantiate your previous claim? That's just covering it with a paraphrasing of the same claim! That also lacks substantiation!

I said you missed it & this is what you missed.

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: How does the definition of atheism (since you say "atheist argument" - that's my point)=denying philosophy? Atheism in and of itself says nothing of philosophy or science at all actually. Atheism is just non-belief in God. As I said, how does non-belief in God=screwy logic? How does it make sense for you to say Atheist argument relies on screwy logic? And I still fail to see how you've substantiated this. You've just told me that atheists cherry-pick and deny philosophy 'with science', but how so?

You asked me for an example and I gave it to you.

How so? you do it - I'm not going to tell you what you think!

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:I was speaking of claims made by JP and Arcanus. My claims you skilfully circled around too.

I know you were, you're referring to the logical arguments that have been 'demonstrated' or 'presented' on these forums according to you. That according to you, I have 'ignored' or 'failed to understand'. But I'm just saying that...that's, as I said - from your point of view. From my point of view however, I haven't ignored anything. Because in my view there's nothing to ignore, because despite what you think you, Arcanus and JP, etc, have said that have been logical arguments for God according to you - I have seen no such logical arguments that in any way provide evidence for God. So from my perspective I haven't ignored, because there's no evidence of anything to ignore. Why would I believe if, in my view, there's no evidence?

"According to Christianity, whether you are revealed the truth from God does not depend on some coincidence, but on your own willingness and purity to see and want it's truth, your own spiritual condition and free will."

"in the words of the Anglican particle physicist who helped discover the quark, John Polkinghorne, that "the nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be ... the Quantum Vacuum."."

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:So you mean no one has inspired you enough to look into it seriously. That's a bit different from saying there is no evidence. You are simply taking other people's word for that, having never looked into it yourself to make up your own mind.

Why would I look into it or find it any more inspiring than the FSM, or countless of other hypothetical deities? Just because it's popular? That's not logical.

If you're interested in finding out about something the usual thing to do is invest something into that quest. You did it for TGD but are unable to somehow for this. I think that's revealing.

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:It is. I had nothing to say. I've suggested we resume before and you've declined.

Did I? What the fuck? I never do that. Please provide a quote if you can! I mean, when did I? I certainly never explicitly did. I've been waiting for you to reply this whole time. If you have seen an implication of me saying I don't want to continue with our debate, no such implication was ever intended, if that is so.

You said it last week. If I find it I'll tell you.

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:Funny I thought evidence was our topic and not faith.

It is, I was just saying how it was okay to mention just evidence here, so long as I don't mention faith I think...if we are to mention both, then that goes in the debate, right?

I only mentioned faith to try and confirm this...

LOL no evidence is our taboo subject IIRC

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:So it's not that you don't want to understand it it's that you don't want to look into it

Correct, I'm questioning why you and other theists believe (and also why deists believe), and why you think there's evidence, and what you think that evidence is. I don't expect there to be evidence. I'm not saying it's impossible - but I might as well go searching for the IPU!!

That's just so contradictory.

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

Quote:I've detailed my case up to that point in support of my logic. I've taken you to the book shop and placed TGD in your hands. Now all you have to do is read it. Why did you read TGD if looking into this subject was futile as you say? You take great interest and research around anti God because somehow this interests you, yet you refuse to give the same importance to the very subject you're dismissing... without ever wanting to look into it.

The subject may be the same, but the motives are different. I read TGD because I'm interested in religion. But that's a whole other ball game anyway, because my position was completely different then. Because when I was to read TGD, I didn't consider it as futile because I was more unsure of if there was a God or not at the time, but my superstition in pseudo-scientific New Age bullshit was decreasing, so I was giving it a shot to see if the New Age BS really was BS, and if God was less 50/50, 60/40, 80/20 or even 90/10 odds and if the odds were in fact more against him than that.

RD talks bullshit about religion. It would be like me reading Ray Comfort on Evolution. Maybe you can understand the respect I have for that position.

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: From the position I'm at now however, what would motivate me into thinking that looking for evidence for God was any less futile than looking for the IPU?

So you're saying you're mind is closed?

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: No, I look into religion now because I just find it interesting, for moral/immoral and historical reasons, etc. And I find it fascinating the sort of stuff people can believe. I mean, I find religion interesting just as someone who is interested in Mythology is interested in it, without actually thinking Zeus is in any way plausible (not that he's impossible..you can't prove a negative, etc).

So it's some kind of sport to you that you have no interest in investing time in. This is like saying to your guitar teacher that you have no interest in playing the guitar you just want to understand this foolish pastime he indulges in. I'd guess the teacher would walk out.

(September 30, 2009 at 10:35 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I said you missed it & this is what you missed.

And then I said that it doesn't substantiate your claim, it's pretty much just a paraphrasing of the same thing. You mention how according to you atheists cherry pick and ignore philosophy with science, but you don't substantiate this, so throwing it in does nothing. How do atheists do that? You're speaking of atheist argument and atheist's 'screwy logic'. But the definition of atheism does no coincide with that, unless you can explain how all atheists are by definition like that...even when by definition they just don't believe in God.

Like I said, how does mere non-belief in God='screwy logic'? That's a huge logic jump and you need to do a lot more to substantiate that, than simply asserting that atheists 'cherry pick' and 'ignore philosophy with science'.

Quote:You asked me for an example and I gave it to you.

How so? you do it - I'm not going to tell you what you think!

I asked for you to substantiate your claim of there being such a thing as screwy 'atheist logic', what is atheist logic? Logic that applies to those who don't believe in God, right? So as I've said, how does non-belief in God necessarily='Screwy logic'?

I'm not asking you to tell me what I think. You say that 'I do it', so you are implying that I have 'screwy logic'/cherry pick/'deny philosophy with science', etc, right? Now I don't think this is true, but even if it was, it would do nothing for your claim. Because you spoke of screwy atheist logic, not an atheist's screwy logic. My logic could be completely screwy, a number of atheist's logic could be screwy, but that doesn't mean atheist logic is screwy. To substantiate that claim you have to substantiate that all atheist's have screwy logic, you have to substantiate that it's necessarily true by the definition of atheism, to have 'screwy logic'.

fr0d0 Wrote:"According to Christianity, whether you are revealed the truth from God does not depend on some coincidence, but on your own willingness and purity to see and want it's truth, your own spiritual condition and free will."

1. Why should I believe that? 2. Why should I give it priority over searching for the IPU, in terms of probability of it being true that the Christian God actually exists. 3. How is the Christian God actually any more reasonable than the IPU in terms of probability of existence? 4. How does quoting a baseless assertion that 'willingness and purity and wanting to see the truth', and 'spiritual condition and free will [which I also know of no evidence of for that matter, in a meaningful non-compatiblist sense anyway]' remotely substantiate the claim of it's truth? How does the assertion substantiate the assertion? So you're just giving me more baseless assertions then? No argument for them?

Quote:"in the words of the Anglican particle physicist who helped discover the quark, John Polkinghorne, that "the nearest analogy in the physical world [to God] would be ... the Quantum Vacuum."."

Can you elaborate on this? How does Quantum Vacuum= The Christian God, with the Father, The Holy Spirit, and Jesus Meek and Mild? And all the rest of the stuff in the bible for that matter? how close is "close" exactly, in this analogy? Unless you're arguing for deism...? But even then......

fr0d0 Wrote:If you're interested in finding out about something the usual thing to do is invest something into that quest. You did it for TGD but are unable to somehow for this. I think that's revealing.

Reveals what? I already explained that I was in a completely different position then. Then I had a motive because I was unsure about whether God existed or not, and wanted to find out. Now I'm in the position that searching for God is as futile as searching for the IPU.

Is it revealing that you won't go searching for the IPU?

fr0d0 Wrote:You said it last week. If I find it I'll tell you.

I don't believe I ever said it. If I did, it's completely out of character, and I've been spending all this time waiting for your response. If I really did, I apologise. If you think I implied it, there was no such implication (and least not intended).

Quote:LOL no evidence is our taboo subject IIRC

What does IIRC mean? I've wanted to know whenever you say it, but I forgot to ask till now.

From how I understand, what was taboo was the battle between Evidence and Faith outside the debate forum. And if evidence alone was disallowed, why not faith? Because I distinctly remember that there definitely was no bias of one over the other - outside the debate forum, it's either one of them alone, or neither. We're not going to favour one over the other outside the debate forum.

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: Correct, I'm questioning why you and other theists believe (and also why deists believe), and why you think there's evidence, and what you think that evidence is. I don't expect there to be evidence. I'm not saying it's impossible - but I might as well go searching for the IPU!!

fr0d0 Wrote:That's just so contradictory.

Please do explain, I see no such contradictions. What I see in the above quote of mine, is me not giving God special treatment over the IPU. And I can be interested in what you believe, any why you believe it, without expecting to be converted myself - where, in that logic, are the contradictions you speak of??

fr0d0 Wrote:RD talks bullshit about religion. It would be like me reading Ray Comfort on Evolution. Maybe you can understand the respect I have for that position.

Maybe you could understand, that from my point of view, you, and everyone else who's ever tried - has failed to demonstrate to me (and anyone else as far as I know), that there's any more to God than the IPU, or that Theology can somehow study God, in a way any more or less unreasonably than the IPU can (or can't) be studied. That it is in any way a real subject, any more than studying the IPU would be. The fact that it is called a subject does nothing to the reality. Popularity is not evidence. If the IPU had a subject and God didn't, that wouldn't make the IPU any more reasonable, and it's same the vice-versa you see.

(September 30, 2009 at 10:11 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: From the position I'm at now however, what would motivate me into thinking that looking for evidence for God was any less futile than looking for the IPU?

fr0d0 Wrote:So you're saying you're mind is closed?

No. By that logic, your mind is closed for not spending your time searching for the IPU. How is God any more reasonable?

fr0d0 Wrote:So it's some kind of sport to you that you have no interest in investing time in. This is like saying to your guitar teacher that you have no interest in playing the guitar you just want to understand this foolish pastime he indulges in. I'd guess the teacher would walk out.

I do have interest in investing my time in religion. In the same sense as I would with Mythology, I just don't search for Evidence for the existence for Zeus, for the same reason I do for the IPU, and also for the same reason...I don't for God. Because as far as I know, it's all completely futile. But just as I can still be interested in Mythology without searching for evidence for the existence of Zeus, the same can be said for God.

If IPUism was really popular in the world, it would be no less futile to search for evidence for the existence of the IPU, but that doesn't mean I couldn't find the fact people believed in the IPU interesting - so why should it be any different for God??

EvF

Well there's nothing there I haven't answered directly to you countless times before Evie so I fail to see why I should waste my time on it again. You don't see how you spend your effort on trying to oppose everything everyone says to you. You pick your ignorant stance and stick to it no matter what logical absurdity that may involve. I considered the IPU... I thought for a second, I laughed, and moved on. This is all the consideration she requires. I've detailed finely the reasoning for my beliefs and you are already aware of the answers I would give to all of your questions.

(September 30, 2009 at 3:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Oh quit it Eillonwy - and you Rhiz - FFS is a person not allowed a reasonable time to respond!!! What IS IT with you guys!!!

Sorry, is asking for evidence too demanding for you?

When you make a full post and don't refer to someone, it gives the impression you've been ignored, FYI. And you did it in another thread again to Rhiz when discussing ways to "test" God.

(October 1, 2009 at 9:10 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: Sorry, is asking for evidence too demanding for you?

When you make a full post and don't refer to someone, it gives the impression you've been ignored, FYI. And you did it in another thread again to Rhiz when discussing ways to "test" God.

Yes Eilonnwy, 5 minutes after his post was a bit rash of him, and you. I had answered the other posts before his, and hadn't yet got around to his. In both cases I did actually answer within about 20mins IIRC.

What do you want me to do? Put in a note - "I see your post Rhiz - go take some sedative and I'll be answering your question in due course"?

You are being ridiculous.