Part 3

[Cyberman]

Interesting that you skipped straight over my response there. I can only assume that either you concur with what I said, or that you are giving my words full and frank consideration.

[Drich]

You would have to discount other possible explanations first, before leaping to the conclusion that it was something to do with a god. Psychosis, mistaken or impaired judgement, hoaxes, dreams etc. Even after surviving all that, you'd have generated one piece of evidence. Lather, rinse, repeat, until you've built up a body of mutually-supporting evidence and we might just be onto something.

Scientific enquiry is a journey, not a destination; unfortunately, all too many salesmen of bullshit want to jump over the steps inbetween.

You just illustrated my point to Max exactly!

Never mind the fact that the God of the Bible who created the universe and all of the natural occouring process contain there in, is not limited from using any naturally occouring or explainable process to complete His will. The Mirical is not in the how something occours it is in the why.

---

Again stimmy as I told RM 'proof' is meaningless if the people examining it don't know what they are looking at.

But that's not your call to make. Here's how it works: you deliver whatever you consider to be proof, or at the very least evidence. We assess your proof and dissect it, then report our findings. If your proof and/or evidence doesn't survive that process, you need to find something stronger that might.

All we are asking for is something, anything, to support the claims you make. If someone came to me for a job as a typist, the first thing I'm going to ask them to do is type something. If they claim they can type twenty million words a minute, it's not for me to say they're lying; but if they can't or won't demonstrate that, they're out the door whether I'm risking losing the world's record typist or not.

That's a little foolish is it not?

That is like you wanting me to help you look for your Dog, but you not telling what he looks like, his name or even giving me a breed. You just want me to present you with Dogs till you say that's him.

Sorry Stimmy, it does not work that way. When ever proof is requested here in the real world parameters are issued to define said proof.

[Cyberman]

You just illustrated my point to Max exactly!

Never mind the fact that the God of the Bible who created the universe and all of the natural occouring process contain there in, is not limited from using any naturally occouring or explainable process to complete His will. The Mirical is not in the how something occours it is in the why.

And yet there you illustrate my point perfectly. You've presupposed your conclusion and stopped there. Your journey consists of that one singe step and no others.

That's a little foolish is it not?

That is like you wanting me to help you look for your Dog, but you not telling what he looks like, his name or even giving me a breed. You just want me to present you with Dogs till you say that's him.

Sorry Stimmy, it does not work that way. When ever proof is requested here in the real world parameters are issued to define said proof.

No it's not foolish, because in your scenario it's me making the assertion that I have a dog. So it's up to me to show you what it looks like. Care to show me what you god looks like? Or even that there is one?

[Lemonvariable72]

" what is your 'morality' based on if not God?"

Seriously?

Gee - I don't know - what were Aesop's Fables based on? You think they were new then? What did the Egyptians do for morality? How about India or China? Hinduism or Buddhism?

So many different moralities.....its almost as if we could write a moral history of the world with Jesus somewhere in the middle historically.

Today our morality is a product of our history - just as it has been for every generation since time began for us.

So your morality is based on pop culture? What society tells you is right, and what society tells you in wrong? And if society goes off the deep end, are their any checks and balances in place to correct or preserve 'morality' as you understand it?

Before you answer, consider the pop morality you currently enjoy is way different than how it was just 20 years ago. Look at issues like smoking, how society treats gay people, how we discipline our children, How whites treat minorities.. What once was almost a soceitial mandate has now become a high crime.

If there are indeed checks and balances why the change?

I'm not asking you to try and determine whether a change is good or bad, just the fact that change happened. And then ask why did it happen? what was the catalyst? what fueled change? Now ask yourself how does this catalyst 'fuel change' and not go too far and burn through all boundries good or bad?

Remember those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it.

What seperates you and this society from others who base their morality on pop culture, that went over the edge?

---

Well a quick example of a few things that count as evidence.
A voice in the sky (in a veritable incident)
A rock that tells you the will of god
A preaching squirrel
A large craving in the moon saying "hi this is god"
And of course if caprica six offered to have my children.
Of course you still have to apply scientific inquiry vigorously.

ah, So you are looking for God to communicate to you directly. God tells us in Luke 11 that if we want direct communication with God then you must A/S/K for the Holy Spirit.

Not to say all of these thing will happen, but I also say these things wont happen either. What is promised is a measure of the Holy Spirit. If you are faithful to what you have been given more/a larger measure will be given to you. Meaning more direct and ground shaking contact will be established.

That said know that even if all of those things (Including 6's proposal to you) can and will be explained away by your doubting brothers. even though these things would convince you personally. That is the nature of God's proof. It is personal. It gives you what you need, while allowing those who do not want to be with God the opportunity to dismiss what they do not want to see or hear.

If you go to God with an open mind you will get the EXACT proof you need to not only Establish a relationship with Him, but He will provide you the on going 'proof' you need to maintain said relationship if you are indeed faithful to what you have been given

First off that is circular logic. Second of all when I was a Christian that is exactly what I did. I prayed for proof, to make me a better Christian and to strengthen my faith for months on end. You can guess at the results. Nothing, nottah, zippo

[max-greece]

" what is your 'morality' based on if not God?"

Seriously?

Gee - I don't know - what were Aesop's Fables based on? You think they were new then? What did the Egyptians do for morality? How about India or China? Hinduism or Buddhism?

So many different moralities.....its almost as if we could write a moral history of the world with Jesus somewhere in the middle historically.

Today our morality is a product of our history - just as it has been for every generation since time began for us.

So your morality is based on pop culture? What society tells you is right, and what society tells you in wrong? And if society goes off the deep end, are their any checks and balances in place to correct or preserve 'morality' as you understand it?

Before you answer, consider the pop morality you currently enjoy is way different than how it was just 20 years ago. Look at issues like smoking, how society treats gay people, how we discipline our children, How whites treat minorities.. What once was almost a soceitial mandate has now become a high crime.

If there are indeed checks and balances why the change?

I'm not asking you to try and determine whether a change is good or bad, just the fact that change happened. And then ask why did it happen? what was the catalyst? what fueled change? Now ask yourself how does this catalyst 'fuel change' and not go too far and burn through all boundries good or bad?

Remember those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it.

What seperates you and this society from others who base their morality on pop culture, that went over the edge?

---

---

Well a quick example of a few things that count as evidence.
A voice in the sky (in a veritable incident)
A rock that tells you the will of god
A preaching squirrel
A large craving in the moon saying "hi this is god"
And of course if caprica six offered to have my children.
Of course you still have to apply scientific inquiry vigorously.

ah, So you are looking for God to communicate to you directly. God tells us in Luke 11 that if we want direct communication with God then you must A/S/K for the Holy Spirit.

Not to say all of these thing will happen, but I also say these things wont happen either. What is promised is a measure of the Holy Spirit. If you are faithful to what you have been given more/a larger measure will be given to you. Meaning more direct and ground shaking contact will be established.

That said know that even if all of those things (Including 6's proposal to you) can and will be explained away by your doubting brothers. even though these things would convince you personally. That is the nature of God's proof. It is personal. It gives you what you need, while allowing those who do not want to be with God the opportunity to dismiss what they do not want to see or hear.

If you go to God with an open mind you will get the EXACT proof you need to not only Establish a relationship with Him, but He will provide you the on going 'proof' you need to maintain said relationship if you are indeed faithful to what you have been given

---

[Bad Wolf]

Your dog analogy does not work. A better one would be:
You found my dog and tell me so. But I do not believe you. I ask for evidence and you say you have none. Therefore I am forced to conclude that you do not in fact have my dog.

[Drich]

I don't know how I missed this post.

Leaving aside presupposition for the moment, in order to come to the conclusion that "God" is morality personified - or deified - you would need to assess its actions and intentions against your own inbuilt moral compass.

Why is our 'inbuilt moral compass' any sort of accept standard in which to judge what is right and what is wrong?
Our 'compasses' are so subject to our inbuilt self righteousness our 'compass' can justify all sorts of evil. Or do you think the whole nation of Nazi Germany fought against their compasses daily and lost daily? What about 18th and 19th century America on which Nazi Germany was modeled? Hitler view the Jews as we viewed the Native americans. It was our and their 'moral obligation' to wipe out the people who were a plague on our lands, thus keeping us from our 'manifest destinies.'

It's like when someone tries to argue that there's a better way of discovering truth than the scientific method, failing to realise that they have to use that very method to determine what that better way would be and whether it works.

Actually it's not because the scientific method is not subject to generational changes. 'Morality' is. The Scientific is an absolute, pop Morality is an ever changing variable.

Taking what I actually described of my morality in account, I judge "God"'s morality as vastly inferior. The character is vengeful, vain, vindictive, petty, spiteful, murderous, bloodthirsty and just plain not nice. I am none of those things, at least by nature.

Says the suspect who is about to go before the judge, that will convict him.

I've said this before. Who cares what 'morality' a inmate subscribes to, they are still outside the confines of any real tangable standard to begin with. So what if they wont rat out a partner.. Look at all of the crap they are willing to do!!

You judging God means nothing. because with out power and authority to impliment your morality any thing you believe amounts to little more than the rantings of an angry inmate awaiting trial. And again so what if an inmate judges the Judge 'immoral.' who is going to listen to him another inmate about to be judged?

We've gone over this ground of where do our morals come from if not imposed by an external agency so many times before. For now, I'd just add this. Don't you think it belittles the glory of your god's creation that you believe happened, to hold that it was incapable (for whatever reason) of creating a species that was self-maintaining?

No.

One that requires - no, needs - a sense of morality imprinted into its psyche instead of being an emergent property of its nature?

Nazis? The Cowboy part of Cowboys and indians? "self regulating" huh?? How is that imprint working for you so far?

again Man's morality is truly based on his capacity to justify his own self righteous deeds/wants. To this end he is even willing to rewrite the words of God. Which makes your morality a joke, for you are as moral as society mandates, when society falls so too falls your idea of morality.

Examples can be found is the war torn parts of this world. or even in our literary works. Lord of the flies, The Road, I am ledgend, none of these writters are so diluted as to think as you do. That our 'inner morality' is self sustaining. They all understand that our morality is based on the circumstances our society affords, and once society crumbles so goes pop morality. Which means 'Morality' as being discussed here is not a standard but a variable based on other variables.

God's Righteousness however was born out of a time the writters of those novels fear, and yet still maintains itself despite the current status of pop culture.

---

Your dog analogy does not work. A better one would be:
You found my dog and tell me so. But I do not believe you. I ask for evidence and you say you have none. Therefore I am forced to conclude that you do not in fact have my dog.

'Your analogy does not work. I will not tell you why, I will just throw out a red herring and see if you will follow that!'

Oh, you guys! you kill me.

---

And yet there you illustrate my point perfectly. You've presupposed your conclusion and stopped there. Your journey consists of that one singe step and no others.

Three steps actually. And it contain many more steps but those steps will be between you and God to figure out. Yes, God is really that involved.

No it's not foolish, because in your scenario it's me making the assertion that I have a dog. So it's up to me to show you what it looks like. Care to show me what you god looks like? Or even that there is one?

I have. I've shown you what God needed to look like for me. But it does you no good because that is not what God needs to look like for you. If God as presented to me is not what your looking for then you will not see God.

That is why I said it is your dog. You need or lost something, so you need to know what it is your looking for before I can even begin to help you find it.

Example, do you need direct contact with God. Do you need to resolve some moral or ethical demila, do you need to work past some sort of logical paradox.. etc... Again, What do you need?

[Lemonvariable72]

I don't know how I missed this post.

Leaving aside presupposition for the moment, in order to come to the conclusion that "God" is morality personified - or deified - you would need to assess its actions and intentions against your own inbuilt moral compass.

Why is our 'inbuilt moral compass' any sort of accept standard in which to judge what is right and what is wrong?
Our 'compasses' are so subject to our inbuilt self righteousness our 'compass' can justify all sorts of evil. Or do you think the whole nation of Nazi Germany fought against their compasses daily and lost daily? What about 18th and 19th century America on which Nazi Germany was modeled? Hitler view the Jews as we viewed the Native americans. It was our and their 'moral obligation' to wipe out the people who were a plague on our lands, thus keeping us from our 'manifest destinies.'

It's like when someone tries to argue that there's a better way of discovering truth than the scientific method, failing to realise that they have to use that very method to determine what that better way would be and whether it works.

Actually it's not because the scientific method is not subject to generational changes. 'Morality' is. The Scientific is an absolute, pop Morality is an ever changing variable.

Taking what I actually described of my morality in account, I judge "God"'s morality as vastly inferior. The character is vengeful, vain, vindictive, petty, spiteful, murderous, bloodthirsty and just plain not nice. I am none of those things, at least by nature.

Says the suspect who is about to go before the judge, that will convict him.

I've said this before. Who cares what 'morality' a inmate subscribes to, they are still outside the confines of any real tangable standard to begin with. So what if they wont rat out a partner.. Look at all of the crap they are willing to do!!

You judging God means nothing. because with out power and authority to impliment your morality any thing you believe amounts to little more than the rantings of an angry inmate awaiting trial. And again so what if an inmate judges the Judge 'immoral.' who is going to listen to him another inmate about to be judged?

We've gone over this ground of where do our morals come from if not imposed by an external agency so many times before. For now, I'd just add this. Don't you think it belittles the glory of your god's creation that you believe happened, to hold that it was incapable (for whatever reason) of creating a species that was self-maintaining?

No.

One that requires - no, needs - a sense of morality imprinted into its psyche instead of being an emergent property of its nature?

Nazis? The Cowboy part of Cowboys and indians? "self regulating" huh?? How is that imprint working for you so far?

again Man's morality is truly based on his capacity to justify his own self righteous deeds/wants. To this end he is even willing to rewrite the words of God. Which makes your morality a joke, for you are as moral as society mandates, when society falls so too falls your idea of morality.

Examples can be found is the war torn parts of this world. or even in our literary works. Lord of the flies, The Road, I am ledgend, none of these writters are so diluted as to think as you do. That our 'inner morality' is self sustaining. They all understand that our morality is based on the circumstances our society affords, and once society crumbles so goes pop morality. Which means 'Morality' as being discussed here is not a standard but a variable based on other variables.

God's Righteousness however was born out of a time the writters of those novels fear, and yet still maintains itself despite the current status of pop culture.

---

Your dog analogy does not work. A better one would be:
You found my dog and tell me so. But I do not believe you. I ask for evidence and you say you have none. Therefore I am forced to conclude that you do not in fact have my dog.

'Your analogy does not work. I will not tell you why, I will just throw out a red herring and see if you will follow that!'

Oh, you guys! you kill me.

---

And yet there you illustrate my point perfectly. You've presupposed your conclusion and stopped there. Your journey consists of that one singe step and no others.

Three steps actually. And it contain many more steps but those steps will be between you and God to figure out. Yes, God is really that involved.

No it's not foolish, because in your scenario it's me making the assertion that I have a dog. So it's up to me to show you what it looks like. Care to show me what you god looks like? Or even that there is one?

I have. I've shown you what God needed to look like for me. But it does you no good because that is not what God needs to look like for you. If God as presented to me is not what your looking for then you will not see God.

That is why I said it is your dog. You need or lost something, so you need to know what it is your looking for before I can even begin to help you find it.

Example, do you need direct contact with God. Do you need to resolve some moral or ethical demila, do you need to work past some sort of logical paradox.. etc... Again, What do you need?

You mean righteous acts like murdering gays?

[Drich]

Hold up everyone! Stop what you are doing! Drich knows what the true nature of the Christian god is! Please tell us. We will probably disagree but thats expected from atheists. The funny thing is, a thousand different denominations of Christianity may well disagree with you too.

There are as many gods as there believers. Drich's god is unique in that he has given it attributed based on his own faith and beliefs.

But naturally, his is the one true god.

You do know that no other religion makes that claim right?

[Cyberman]

This thread is very Shakespeareian: "It is a tale told by an idiot; full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

The sound and fury in this case being total insistence on presuppositionalism and determination to abdicate responsibilty for the burden of proof. Drich, if you actually had any such proof, you wouldn't be trying anything like this hard. That's why our bullshit meters are shooting off the scale.