RE: Why I'm not an Atheist and believe in what I believe.
June 9, 2012 at 11:53 am
(This post was last modified: June 9, 2012 at 12:01 pm by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
(June 9, 2012 at 10:46 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Everyone has a choice to make. Many Muslims believe killing apostates is wrong even though their scholars teach otherwise. Why, because they chose to. It's the right decision, but never the less a choice.[/quiote]
And again, this is irrelevant to your assertions of the existence of your gawd-x.
Quote:The question is, whom made the right decision here? To assert God exists and has given us knowledge of himself, so I made right decision would be circular reasoning. To assert God doesn't exist or that he exists but hasn't given knowledge of himself, so I made wrong decision would be circular reasoning.
To assert a bunch of nonsensical word salad is circular reasoning, too.
Quote:It seems it comes down to seeing whether it's genuine knowledge or not. We can agree to disagree on that decision, but up to that decision, I think we should agree.
And this where I want to reach an agreement.
Too bad. You haven't gone anywhere at all. And you will not go anywhere until you show evidence to support your assertion of the existence of a gawd, and for the existence of ONLY your particular version of it.
(June 9, 2012 at 10:53 am)Ace Otana Wrote: I think a more rational stance when regarding belief in god would be I think is agnostic theist.
Did you mean "agnostic Atheist"?
(June 9, 2012 at 11:07 am)Tempus Wrote: [quote='MysticKnight' pid='297049' dateline='1339247683']
Well to me if God exists, he can give us knowledge of anything he wants. This seems to be a solid premise.
If we take a god's existence as a given that still tells us nothing of its disposition toward humans. Your scenario hinges on a lot of ifs. The god can give us knowledge of its existence if it wants. The god could be the basis of morality* if it was interested in well-being of humans. I also see no reason why a being who doesn't biologically reproduce would be a "he" either.
*Have a look at the Euthyphro dilemma.
(June 9, 2012 at 9:14 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Aside from that, if he exists and we are linked to him, it seems possible that we can be aware of this link.
Yes, if someone were all-powerful they would have that ability. You know what they'd also have? Your phone number. And your address. And the ability to take human (or at least physical) form and perform miraculous deeds, demonstrate foreknowledge and repeat your thoughts to you to at least partially establish their divinity. Clearly at least slightly confused - why use such an error prone method of communication?
(June 9, 2012 at 9:14 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Also if the nature of greatness, honour, goodness, all have him as the eternal basis, then I don't see why they wouldn't point to Eternal Basis and Person-hood of God.
I think also if we a spirit/soul, then spiritual knowledge, eyes of the soul, is very possible.
Naturally if God exists, he can create us with knowledge of himself. The knowledge would be based on reality and a link to him.
If God is like the Sun behind the rays of morality, greatness, honour, why shouldn't we able to perceive him?
Basically if a god exists it's a fact of reality. I don't really see the point if saying "oh, if this exists, this, this, and this would happen!" I mean, to have fun and wonder about what could be or hypothesise is fine, but to continually muse over the same thing when even its most basic assumption hasn't been established is, to me, wasteful.
^All of this.
