(January 10, 2015 at 4:30 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 10, 2015 at 4:08 pm)IATIA Wrote: I can conceive of a flying pink unicorn. I can conceive that we are nothing but emoticons on someone's smart phone. I can conceive that we did not exist until two minutes ago and all our memories are preprogrammed templates. I can conceive that time travel exists and we are nothing but shadows of the past.

You can't reasonably conceive that those are true. The difference.

Why not? If someone had heard the Christian story for the first time, it would sound as crazy as what IATA writes.

I think that I have what robo wanted.

Humans seek out patterns in everything. How many times have you looked up in the sky and noted that clouds form figures? The need to find a reason for a bigger purpose in life was implanted in us by a deity and is based on our need to find patterns. We naturally try and find pattern in the events in our life because god wants us to find him/her/it. You can test human need to find patterns.

Note: I am not arguing for the existence of god but I'd like to hear some argument that didn't also make possible the existence of fairies and goblins.

Hmm, that's interesting. There's no doubt humans are obsessed with patterns. That would be a trickster kind of god who is leaving us breadcrumbs I guess? Also he made us susceptible to imagining patterns that aren't there, to throw us off. I like it I reckon you could write a novel about that.

You're exactly right, arguing for something utterly undetectable is usually the same as arguing for anything that is undetectable. You can't detect the difference because...

(January 10, 2015 at 4:51 pm)robvalue Wrote: Hmm, that's interesting. There's no doubt humans are obsessed with patterns. That would be a trickster kind of god who is leaving us breadcrumbs I guess? Also he made us susceptible to imagining patterns that aren't there, to throw us off. I like it I reckon you could write a novel about that.

You're exactly right, arguing for something utterly undetectable is usually the same as arguing for anything that is undetectable. You can't detect the difference because...

My favorite mythological being is Loki, so the existence of a trickster god would n't bother me at all. LOL

(January 10, 2015 at 5:04 pm)Nope Wrote:

(January 10, 2015 at 4:51 pm)robvalue Wrote: Hmm, that's interesting. There's no doubt humans are obsessed with patterns. That would be a trickster kind of god who is leaving us breadcrumbs I guess? Also he made us susceptible to imagining patterns that aren't there, to throw us off. I like it I reckon you could write a novel about that.

You're exactly right, arguing for something utterly undetectable is usually the same as arguing for anything that is undetectable. You can't detect the difference because...

My favorite mythological being is Loki, so the existence of a trickster god would n't bother me at all. LOL

Loki would be best god.. well hmm.. thor

(January 10, 2015 at 4:41 pm)Nope Wrote:

(January 10, 2015 at 4:30 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You can't reasonably conceive that those are true. The difference.

Why not? If someone had heard the Christian story for the first time, it would sound as crazy as what IATA writes.

I think that I have what robo wanted.

Humans seek out patterns in everything. How many times have you looked up in the sky and noted that clouds form figures? The need to find a reason for a bigger purpose in life was implanted in us by a deity and is based on our need to find patterns. We naturally try and find pattern in the events in our life because god wants us to find him/her/it. You can test human need to find patterns.

Note: I am not arguing for the existence of god but I'd like to hear some argument that didn't also make possible the existence of fairies and goblins.

Because they don't have any actual logical coherence next to the claim of Gods logical existence as pointed out above.

The suggestion that only the material exists is actually idiotic.

If someone heard the story without the first understanding of what it was saying, yes, they wouldn't get it. Not that it's difficult to understand. 3 year olds can get it.

Logically consistent theory that accounts for theoretical physics, pure maths etc, can all be dismissed as pattern finding irrelevance? Bull shit.

---

(January 10, 2015 at 4:51 pm)robvalue Wrote: You're exactly right, arguing for something utterly undetectable is usually the same as arguing for anything that is undetectable. You can't detect the difference because...

Exactly. There is no way to differentiate either thing that has no material presence. And??

(January 10, 2015 at 5:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 10, 2015 at 4:41 pm)Nope Wrote: Why not? If someone had heard the Christian story for the first time, it would sound as crazy as what IATA writes.

I think that I have what robo wanted.

Humans seek out patterns in everything. How many times have you looked up in the sky and noted that clouds form figures? The need to find a reason for a bigger purpose in life was implanted in us by a deity and is based on our need to find patterns. We naturally try and find pattern in the events in our life because god wants us to find him/her/it. You can test human need to find patterns.

Note: I am not arguing for the existence of god but I'd like to hear some argument that didn't also make possible the existence of fairies and goblins.

Because they don't have any actual logical coherence next to the claim of Gods logical existence as pointed out above.

The suggestion that only the material exists is actually idiotic.

If someone heard the story without the first understanding of what it was saying, yes, they wouldn't get it. Not that it's difficult to understand. 3 year olds can get it.

?

Fr0d0, Christianity makes even less sense then some of what IATA wrote. The reason that it makes sense to you is because story's about Jesus are familiar to you.

Three year olds believe usually what their parents tell them. Many believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. When I was a kid, I believed that a nonexistent monster somehow appeared in my room after dark and I could hide from him by covering my head. Just because three year olds accept a story as true doesn't mean that story makes sense.

Does it make you feel better to say that 3 year olds don't get it Nope? Don't you think they are capable of making correct decisions?

I evaluate all forms of atheism and theism and chose what appears to be correct to me. Atheism makes no sense to me but I appreciate the effort and exploration of meaning where it is presented, just like I do all coherent theist expression.

Because you don't get it is no objection. Your positition is noted.

(January 10, 2015 at 4:30 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 10, 2015 at 4:08 pm)IATIA Wrote: I can conceive of a flying pink unicorn. I can conceive that we are nothing but emoticons on someone's smart phone. I can conceive that we did not exist until two minutes ago and all our memories are preprogrammed templates. I can conceive that time travel exists and we are nothing but shadows of the past.

You can't reasonably conceive that those are true. The difference.

There is absolutely no difference between that and "conceiving" of an invisible 'sky-daddy'.

Your words. QUOTE: "Because we can concieve that it's true means that we cannot rule it out."

(January 10, 2015 at 5:37 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Does it make you feel better to say that 3 year olds don't get it Nope? Don't you think they are capable of making correct decisions?

I honestly don't understand your point here, Fr0d0.

Quote:Because you don't get it is no objection. Your positition is noted.

Objection to what?

What does the statement, "Your position is noted." mean? On this thread, we are participating in a discussion together so it would be rude not to notice one another's position. Is that what you meant? Are you going to say that to everyone's posts or does mine deserve special notice? In that case, your position is noted as is Robo's and IATA's. [/quote]

The point is N, you dismiss the child as not capable of making the correct answer, which is unfair. I know, for example, that a child can make the right choice for the right reasons.

You object without any reason given. "I don't understand" is all in getting from you. Like I should take my understanding and jettison it in favour of your ignorance (meant politely). I'm happy that you're honest in stating that you don't understand. However, criticising something as false is an extra step that I'm struggling to see you justify.