Proving the Bible is false in few words.

[KichigaiNeko]

@ Fr0d0 - I have faith that all can seek truth and enlightenment, also that man (and women) are irrepairably broken and blind, some more than others.

BROKEN????

DIE mofo...DIE!! And may you rot in your Hel!!

Broken indeed!!
pfft!!

What OTHER sanctimonious INSULTS do you have for us Tacky??

[tackattack]

Perhaps it was a slight and unnecessary at that, so I do apologize if it was recieved as an insult by anyone.
So I'm all for getting this thread back on track somewhere around #105 or #106

[leo-rcc]

KichigaiNeko, can I just say that as far as playing the victim or spinning answers that is something I've seldom to never seen Tack do. You may not like his answers, but as far as I can tell he has always tried to be as truthful about them as he can.

It doesn't mean I agree with him, but I have no doubt he is sincere in his answers.

[fr0d0]

Fr0d0 you do me wrong baby!!

I apologise your highness

[tackattack]

TY leo and tav but no need, all comments I made were out of line and retracted... silence being the better part of discretion.

Would Caecilian or anyone like to comment on the usefullness of God or an absolute value relatable to God or delusion. If not hijack away.

[KichigaiNeko]

KichigaiNeko, can I just say that as far as playing the victim or spinning answers that is something I've seldom to never seen Tack do. You may not like his answers, but as far as I can tell he has always tried to be as truthful about them as he can.

I am sorry that tacky does not have english as his first language BUT ... I do take exception to having my words twisted by knaves and fools...(though I don't doubt that they will.) such as it is.

What has this got to do with YOU leo-rcc??

It doesn't mean I agree with him, but I have no doubt he is sincere in his answers.

So you are impying that I am not??

[Caecilian]

TY leo and tav but no need, all comments I made were out of line and retracted... silence being the better part of discretion.

Would Caecilian or anyone like to comment on the usefullness of God or an absolute value relatable to God or delusion. If not hijack away.

Hmmm...

As far as the usefulness of 'god' as a concept to an individual goes, thats really a matter of personal preference. While you obviously find the concept 'god' useful, I don't. There really isn't much that either of us can say beyond that.

Okay now, found the last relevant post of yours that I didn't answer:

your questions were
a-What is an 'absolute value' supposed to be?
b-How can something that lies outside of the boundaries of the known universe be a guide to anything?

to which I will answer
a- If absolute, the sum whole, perfect in relation to imperfection. An example would be a perfect circle in which every atom of the lines that make the visible circle were completely even and balanced.
b-In the same was we use the magnetic poles to navigate or used to use the sun to tell time. I could also use the analogy of us using the stars to navigate. Just because something is out of our comprehension and reach doesn't negate it's usefullness.

As I've already indicated, I don't think that its really possible to argue over the usefulness of the concept 'god' (or, for that matter, any other concept), if what you mean by 'usefulness' is something purely subjective such as 'useful to me in making ethical decisions'.

OTOH, theres the issue of whether 'god' is useful as part of an explanation that lies within public discourse. That is: are there phenomena in the world that are best explained with reference to 'god'? Another way of putting this is: does 'god' have explanatory value? I would say clearly not.

Note that the issue of personal usefulness is quite distinct from the issue of ontology. Someone may, for example, find it useful to think of the human mind in terms of ego, superego and id. But just because its personally useful, doesn't make it true. By contrast, explanatory value and truth are very much linked together- what has the most explanatory value is generally the best available approximation of reality.

I'm still confused over the 'absolute value' and 'absolute perfection' stuff. Values and perfection are relative. A circle can be a perfect circle; a square can be a perfect square; a squiggly blob can be a perfect squiggly blob. They are only im/perfect in the view of an observer.

[tackattack]

---

TY leo and tav but no need, all comments I made were out of line and retracted... silence being the better part of discretion.

Would Caecilian or anyone like to comment on the usefullness of God or an absolute value relatable to God or delusion. If not hijack away.

Hmmm...

As far as the usefulness of 'god' as a concept to an individual goes, thats really a matter of personal preference. While you obviously find the concept 'god' useful, I don't. There really isn't much that either of us can say beyond that.

Okay now, found the last relevant post of yours that I didn't answer:

your questions were
a-What is an 'absolute value' supposed to be?
b-How can something that lies outside of the boundaries of the known universe be a guide to anything?

to which I will answer
a- If absolute, the sum whole, perfect in relation to imperfection. An example would be a perfect circle in which every atom of the lines that make the visible circle were completely even and balanced.
b-In the same was we use the magnetic poles to navigate or used to use the sun to tell time. I could also use the analogy of us using the stars to navigate. Just because something is out of our comprehension and reach doesn't negate it's usefullness.

As I've already indicated, I don't think that its really possible to argue over the usefulness of the concept 'god' (or, for that matter, any other concept), if what you mean by 'usefulness' is something purely subjective such as 'useful to me in making ethical decisions'.

OTOH, theres the issue of whether 'god' is useful as part of an explanation that lies within public discourse. That is: are there phenomena in the world that are best explained with reference to 'god'? Another way of putting this is: does 'god' have explanatory value? I would say clearly not.

Note that the issue of personal usefulness is quite distinct from the issue of ontology. Someone may, for example, find it useful to think of the human mind in terms of ego, superego and id. But just because its personally useful, doesn't make it true. By contrast, explanatory value and truth are very much linked together- what has the most explanatory value is generally the best available approximation of reality.

I'm still confused over the 'absolute value' and 'absolute perfection' stuff. Values and perfection are relative. A circle can be a perfect circle; a square can be a perfect square; a squiggly blob can be a perfect squiggly blob. They are only im/perfect in the view of an observer.

---

Ok one more attepmt at the absolute thing. I agree perfection is a value and values are based off of observance. While God may seem perfect from our perspective, maybe his God buddy Bob in reality Y thinks he's a jerk. The glimpse of meaning behind a Christian saying "God just is" lies in the absolute objective value of God. Christians see God as 1 object, valued differently from different perspectives since the scope is so unfathomable. That object is, in itself, the creator of our universe. That makes it more complex than the sum of it's parts, while at the same time being a singular entity and valued as the originator an absolute and least somplex. I hope that makes as much sense as it did in my head.

OK, I'm all for discussing God's useful as part of an explanation that lies within public discourse. So we're talking about objective explainability of recorded phenomenon? Well, "Best" would be relative still, but I'll say best for me is what makes my life simpler and fits within the confines of ordinary as opposed to extraordinary. Is this understandable and agreeable?

[Caecilian]

Ok one more attepmt at the absolute thing. I agree perfection is a value and values are based off of observance. While God may seem perfect from our perspective, maybe his God buddy Bob in reality Y thinks he's a jerk. The glimpse of meaning behind a Christian saying "God just is" lies in the absolute objective value of God. Christians see God as 1 object, valued differently from different perspectives since the scope is so unfathomable. That object is, in itself, the creator of our universe. That makes it more complex than the sum of it's parts, while at the same time being a singular entity and valued as the originator an absolute and least somplex. I hope that makes as much sense as it did in my head.

Okay, I think we're getting somewhere here- your latest explanation makes sense to me, more or less.

It seems to me that your position contains a strong streak of anthropocentrism. Why should the creator of the universe be perfect from our perspective? What about the perspective of a Martian, or some other sort of alien, or an AI? What seems perfect to us might seem very imperfect to a radically different intelligence.

I'm also unconvinced that god can simultaneously be a singular entity (similar to a singularity, I guess) and also be complex (perhaps infinitely so). It sounds contradictory.

OK, I'm all for discussing God's useful as part of an explanation that lies within public discourse. So we're talking about objective explainability of recorded phenomenon? Well, "Best" would be relative still, but I'll say best for me is what makes my life simpler and fits within the confines of ordinary as opposed to extraordinary. Is this understandable and agreeable?

Yeah- 'best' is of course observer relative. However, there is a good deal of agreement on what constitutes a 'good' explanation. Some of the more important criteria are:
- The evidence on which it is based should be public
- It should make testable predictions
- It should be simple, the simpler the better
- It should be consistent with what we already know, although this is obviously not an absolute requirement

[tackattack]

1a- OK I had to look that one up. I would say because this is the only perspective we have until we can talk to animal, meet intellegent life or the like. I'd be interested in discussing religion with a martian.

1b- You are a complex entity, you when you speak or act it is based off of the "I" . That the consciousness is singular and immaterial yet your construct is material and complex. God you be both immaterial and material to affect this universe. There is no evidence for the material portion, whether that's a quantum singularity, dark energy, electrical fluxes or something as yet undiscovered. The immaterial consciousness is what we talk about most around here.


2-You're not going to like that the tests and evidence are subjective, but God fits that criteria for me.