(January 17, 2014 at 7:18 am)(╯°◊°）╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: I don't agree that you have evidence of anything except a possible neurological condition.

Anyone can state their own opinion as a fact it's not a rational argument. You're not explaining why materialism is the valid conclusion to begin with, you can only state the naturalistic/neurological explanation for God after you have presented the case for that otherwise it's the same thing as me saying "No it's something to do with God" and expecting to floor you with the impeccable logic of the argument.

(January 17, 2014 at 9:19 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: Anyone can state their own opinion as a fact it's not a rational argument. You're not explaining why materialism is the valid conclusion to begin with, you can only state the naturalistic/neurological explanation for God after you have presented the case for that otherwise it's the same thing as me saying "No it's something to do with God" and expecting to floor you with the impeccable logic of the argument.

Nature actually exists, though; there's no reason to support naturalistic explanations as though they're as likely as godly explanations, because naturalistic explanations are more likely than godly ones. At least we already know that naturalistic explanations could exist: nobody has provided evidence that god explanations are even possible.

(January 17, 2014 at 9:35 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 17, 2014 at 9:19 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: Anyone can state their own opinion as a fact it's not a rational argument. You're not explaining why materialism is the valid conclusion to begin with, you can only state the naturalistic/neurological explanation for God after you have presented the case for that otherwise it's the same thing as me saying "No it's something to do with God" and expecting to floor you with the impeccable logic of the argument.

nobody has provided evidence that god explanations are even possible.

Which is why some are skeptic when it comes to believing in a deity. Following something without a shred of evidence could mean you're gullible, and/or not very rational. There are commercials where people state that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet, but the same people advising that, are the ones who fully accept the bible as the word of god, even though it was written THOUSANDS of years ago, with no credible authors.



This single picture alone denies any argument you put forth claiming that your god is, in fact, who he says he is. If you were to say he's a selfish, homicidal fuck that deserves to burn in hell, in that case, you would be correct. I guess you just gotta have faith though, right? ; )

(January 17, 2014 at 9:46 am)Yahweh Wrote: Which is why some are skeptic when it comes to believing in a deity. Following something without a shred of evidence could mean you're gullible, and/or not very rational.

I agree entirely but who said there isn't any evidence? You have evidence and different ways interpreting it. Now evidence isn't the same thing as proof no-one has that and no-one would claim such a thing. Proof would entirely negate the need for faith of course, if such a thing was even possible in relation to God. You can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist in terms of matter, energy in the dimensions of time and space. You could potentially have evidence for existence of Zeus who would exist in that sense if he existed but hardily anyone has faith in Zeus these days so that's irrelevant.

Quote:There are commercials where people state that you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet, but the same people advising that, are the ones who fully accept the bible as the word of god, even though it was written THOUSANDS of years ago, with no credible authors.

So if something is very old it can't be any good? No-one with an education is saying the Bible is a reliable book of science but it isn't a scientific journal. If something was a genuine revelation of God thousands of years ago then it would still be a revelation of God today.

(January 17, 2014 at 9:46 am)Yahweh Wrote: This single picture alone denies any argument you put forth claiming that your god is, in fact, who he says he is. If you were to say he's a selfish, homicidal fuck that deserves to burn in hell, in that case, you would be correct. I guess you just gotta have faith though, right? ; )

The problem of evil? That's been very seriously well covered in theology by now. What you have here is a natural world which can be seen as an arena for the action to take place, created for the purpose of generating beings with freewill who are subject to sin/flaws who will then have a genuine opportunity to have a relationship with God and live a life of good or evil.

(January 17, 2014 at 9:59 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: I agree entirely but who said there isn't any evidence? You have evidence and different ways interpreting it. Now evidence isn't the same thing as proof no-one has that and no-one would claim such a thing. Proof would entirely negate the need for faith of course, if such a thing was even possible in relation to God. You can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist in terms of matter, energy in the dimensions of time and space. You could potentially have evidence for existence of Zeus who would exist in that sense if he existed but hardily anyone has faith in Zeus these days so that's irrelevant.

Three things come to mind: One, there isn't any evidence for god, just philosophical tricks and spin papering over legitimate scientific discoveries with wishful thinking. Evidence can be provided easily and to anyone, and is concordant only with a single conclusion.

Two, what use is faith, that it has a need that can be negated?

Three, unless you can demonstrate that there's something other than matter, time and space, your claim that god lives beyond it and thus can't be tested is nonsensical, and begging the question.

Quote:So if something is very old it can't be any good? No-one with an education is saying the Bible is a reliable book of science but it isn't a scientific journal. If something was a genuine revelation of God thousands of years ago then it would still be a revelation of God today.

"If."

Quote:The problem of evil? That's been very seriously well covered in theology by now. What you have here is a natural world which can be seen as an arena for the action to take place, created for the purpose of generating beings with freewill who are subject to sin/flaws who will then have a genuine opportunity to have a relationship with God and live a life of good or evil.

And if I see a crime being committed, would you not say I have a moral duty to report it? If I see a rape in progress, would morality not dictate that it would be good to stop it? Does the fact that the rapist and criminal have free will in any way impact the moral nuances of the situations?

And yet your claim is that god, who can see every crime and every rape, is somehow absolved from the same moral guidelines because those actions were freely chosen? And that's okay to you, from a being who you claim to be good and worthy of worship?

(January 16, 2014 at 10:24 am)Yahweh Wrote:

Yes, it is impossible. The materials came from God and His ability to create them. After that, if you would pay attention to what you read, God made the universe from them, the greatest work of art ever.

GC

Before you read, know that this is half-assed. Replying to you isn't worth my time, but I'm one those people who must have the last word.

Quote:I agree entirely but who said there isn't any evidence? You have evidence and different ways interpreting it. Now evidence isn't the same thing as proof no-one has that and no-one would claim such a thing. Proof would entirely negate the need for faith of course, if such a thing was even possible in relation to God. You can't prove the existence of something that doesn't exist in terms of matter, energy in the dimensions of time and space. You could potentially have evidence for existence of Zeus who would exist in that sense if he existed but hardily anyone has faith in Zeus these days so that's irrelevant.

I say there isn't evidence. Millions of atheists across the world say there isn't evidence. Hence, why we're atheists. Of course you can't prove the existence of something, or someone. It is YOUR duty to prove that your god exists. Get to it.[/size][/font]

Quote:So if something is very old it can't be any good? No-one with an education is saying the Bible is a reliable book of science but it isn't a scientific journal. If something was a genuine revelation of God thousands of years ago then it would still be a revelation of God today.

By logic, anything that is old and depreciated can't be good. It has no worth. Would you eat an old banana? Would you want to buy a 60 year old, rusted, banged up car? No? Alright then. I'm glad you mentioned that the bible is still a "revelation of god today". That means you should partaking in:

Killing gays
Romans 1:27
I really wish I could cite more cruel shit from the bible, but I'm not that dedicated. You know your own bible, so I don't have to tell you anyway.

Quote:The problem of evil? That's been very seriously well covered in theology by now. What you have here is a natural world which can be seen as an arena for the action to take place, created for the purpose of generating beings with freewill who are subject to sin/flaws who will then have a genuine opportunity to have a relationship with God and live a life of good or evil.

How valuable is that relationship with god if he completely ignores your cry for help? Why do we even need a god? It's clear he/she is of no help. You can continue to use the free will as a cop out. If free will is always the reason why he doesn't intervene, why do some christians state that god has a bigger plan, or that god works in mysterious ways, or he does things for a reason. You see, I'm beginning to think you have the education of a 5 year old. I could go on all day about how god created gays, diseases, poverty, etc. God is the CREATOR of all things, correct? So if you hate those things listed previously, that means you hate god. If you STILL believe there is a caring god, or a god at all for that matter, I strongly suggest you seek the best mental hospital in your area. You're trapped behind the lies that you're told, and you agree with the shit that occurs in the bible. I'm sure you know what shit I'm talking about, since you're a christian and all. You have read it, correct? Of course not, because you're still a christian.

---

Quote:And yet your claim is that god, who can see every crime and every rape, is somehow absolved from the same moral guidelines because those actions were freely chosen? And that's okay to you, from a being who you claim to be good and worthy of worship?

(January 17, 2014 at 10:27 am)Godschild Wrote: Yes, it is impossible. The materials came from God and His ability to create them. After that, if you would pay attention to what you read, God made the universe from them, the greatest work of art ever.

GC

Fiat assertions are not answers, and special pleading is not rational. Next!

(January 17, 2014 at 9:19 am)Sword of Christ Wrote: Anyone can state their own opinion as a fact it's not a rational argument. You're not explaining why materialism is the valid conclusion to begin with

The notion of Dualism is nothing more than a shift of perspective. You seem to think that there are 2 etities, but it is not even debatble anymore. You just really need to look beyond the bible, and your own ignorant intuition for answers. I mean no offense by referring to your intuition as ignorant, but when you insist on pushing these ideas into a 21 century conversation, I'm left with no other adjective. Here's an intro to psychology lecture from Yale. Take a look:

http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/psyc-110/lecture-2

There's plenty of additional information out there, but that should get you in the right direction...


In the mid 600s B.C., Thales introduced the philosophical thought that everything was made of water. It was significant because it was an early and primitive attempt for a man to understand his existence. It is of course false, but you learn about it in your first day in PHIL 001. Nobody maintains this theory today, and just as it is recognized as an inviable solution, so should you recognize the same about Dualism. It is fraught with errors, and all of the evidence points to materialism.


When understanding thoughts, you need to look at the whole explanation, and not just certain aspects of one or the other. The thrid person perspective is what the brain and body are doing and how they are doing it (recognizing the brain activity associated with decision making, nerve and muscle activity, and then the movement itself) and then there's the First Person perspective which experienced the decision to move and the internal sensations associated with it (What being/using a body is like). The first person perspective is unaware of HOW the body is moving, only the descriptive experience of it. You are confusing the two perspectives by attributing the experience with the power to cause movement. They are two different complimentary aspects that make up the whole of the entire explanation. But they are seperated only by perspective. Just like the camera. It's the difference between an internal viewpoint and an external view point. The internal view point is the effect of what can be observed externally. You're blurring the line and it's causing you to draw flawed inferences.

Not to mention you've got your work cut out for you when you consider the sense organs responsible for producing the experiences encountered in consciousness. If you are suggesting that there is an additional "thinking stuff" through which consciousness survives after death, what exactly is this stuff? How does it think and perform physical action while holding zero physical properties? Why is it that when specific brain organs responsible for sight and sound are damaged by physical causes, we lose our ability to see or hear. When we imbibe alcohol, your ability to reason is affected. If certain regions of your brain are damaged, and certain synapses do not deliver sensory data to the right places, you will no longer be able to recongize faces? Or, you can recognize a likeness, but be convinced they are an imposter. This can even affect your ability to recognize your own mother. And through science, there are neurophysiological explanations for all of it. All of it is physical. When the whole brain is dead, how will you recognize your mother in a non-physical realm? Exactly what is it that you think is being added to the conversation, by insisting the existence of some magical substance for which there is no evidence or reason to envoke? If all of our physical brain functions are crossed out one by one, we quickly find ourselves unable to percieve anything about our surroundings or even our own bodies. If our entire body is destroyed, what exactly is it that you think will be surviving? An agent stripped away from all physical means of manifestation is indistinguishable from an agent that doesn't exist at all. Reconcile all of this with logic and reason, and you will have the potential to overturn the modern scientific concensus which is constructed of mounds upon mounds of evidence for "materialism". But until, and unless you do, your position is indistinguishable from delusion, and that IS a psychological condition. Stop trying to shift your burden, and either prove it, or shut up. It's you that is baselessly asserting your position. Not the other way around.

P.S.
The Earth is actually round. Or, is this just my opinion that has no evidence? This seems to be the type of rational line you like to take when something you really want to be true is refuted by evidence to the contrary.

(January 17, 2014 at 10:13 am)Esquilax Wrote: Three things come to mind: One, there isn't any evidence for god, just philosophical tricks and spin papering over legitimate scientific discoveries with wishful thinking.

That's your own opinion of the evidence we have. That's not the same thing as having no evidence. There's no proof certainly there would nothing to have an opinion on if we did, we would just know it factually. You don't need proof to have a reasonable belief based on evidence however.

Quote:Three, unless you can demonstrate that there's something other than matter, time and space, your claim that god lives beyond it and thus can't be tested is nonsensical, and begging the question.

You can't prove there is and you can't prove there isn't so either you believe there is or believe isn't based on the evidence we have. There is scientific evidence but there can be other kinds of evidences. Certainly nothing we know from science would negate the existence of God and may even point towards him if you into fine tuning of the cosmos in relation the conditions required for the complex structure of living beings to form. Heck there was even a point of creation where time itself began to exist. Theists were claiming that for thousands of years while atheists were postulating an eternally existent self contained universe.

Quote:And if I see a crime being committed, would you not say I have a moral duty to report it? If I see a rape in progress, would morality not dictate that it would be good to stop it? Does the fact that the rapist and criminal have free will in any way impact the moral nuances of the situations?

How about implanting a microchip in peoples brains that causes their head to explode if they attempt to do someone harm or do anything wrong in at all? Before the explosion they well have a splitting headache warning them not to carry out the action. God doesn't particularly want us to live under that kind of control he wants us as free agents. As free agents we can be good benefit other or evil and harm others. Without freewill we wouldn't have the true capacity for good or evil we would be controlled like machines.

Quote:And yet your claim is that god, who can see every crime and every rape, is somehow absolved from the same moral guidelines because those actions were freely chosen? And that's okay to you, from a being who you claim to be good and worthy of worship?

You're saying we should have no independent freedom from God?