"god exists" <Why is this a relevant argument?

[ib.me.ub]

Because there are people who don't share the same view that's why, people who exploit for gain and those who believe their purpose is to 'bask in the glory of god' etc are not meanings i have any relationship with.

This is speculation and a very extreme judgement on your behalf.

Speculation, how so?

People exploit others for power and money, that is a fact, example, Robert Mugabe. This is directly opposite to to my own sense of meaning.

People claim that their purpose is to praise god, another fact not speculation, this is not part of my meaning of life and therefore there is a difference.

Also where did i judge anyone? I pointed out the fact that my meaning of life is not objective and other people have different meanings.

He probably enjoys his life and could possibly think his moarls are good. You are speculating on how other people think.

Isn't moral value subjective!

[fr0d0]

i completly agree in every way, we arent able to do what we can do for long, we'll get old and wither away, so everyone get out there and LIVE BEFORE YOU REGRET IT

Damn straight.. let's do it!

[Ashes1995]

yep, ill get my mum to take me skydiving for my birthday XD

[fr0d0]

Your mum skydives!? Shit!

[theVOID]

If God exists and has a purpose for each of us then a purpose derived from naturalism would be false, so no you cannot have both, it would be contradictory. That is not at all to say that you cannot embrace the truth of nature, it seems you misunderstood me there, but that purpose from the higher authority would surpass any materialist subjective purpose.

Also, what specifically am I ignorant of fr0d0?

I don't embrace your naturalistic purpose of course ...sentient human development strives in the opposite direction to naturalism so it's your stance that is contradictory.

More assumptions with no attempt to show why it's valid reasoning It's no surprise from you.`

You are ignorant of Christianity if you believe what you spout.

No examples?

Based on my current understanding it seems less desirable to have purpose and meaning passed from the top down than to have t build it yourself from the bottom, it's just my opinion and i don't expect you, or any theist for that matter to agree.

Is God not a dictator?

Give me a reason why your belief in God is a valid logical undertaking and i won't have reason to make a mockery of it.

I see. So when it suits you you assume religion is top down, then when it doesn't you assume it's all man made. Convenient huh.

I am assuming that God is real for that statement, not religion. God being the designer is commonly described as a top-down process.

Anything else?

Like I said, morals fly against naturalistic development. Everyone has progressed from 'the bottom up', no one was born knowing everything. And theists who say they never considered anything are worthless as theists.. again it's yet another of your strawmen. You have no argument so you need to continually construct this ridiculous smoke screen.

If you are just going to assert that as fact and not even attempt to show your reasoning then don't bother, im not interested in what you can assert, only what you can prove. Now if you have proof that Morals are contradictory to the concept of naturalistic development, specifically in the structures of social animals where they are relevant then please do so for once.

Belief in God is a valid logical undertaking because it perfectly reflects the desire of human nature. It's what you seek yet deny.

1) What humans desire of nature, or anything else, does not at all necessitate that it is true.

2) Anthropomorphising is more commonly regarded as a literary technique, not a logical argument for the existence of God

Because there are people who don't share the same view that's why, people who exploit for gain and those who believe their purpose is to 'bask in the glory of god' etc are not meanings i have any relationship with.

Here we go with the bad examples again - people exploit people and have a weakness where power and greed are concerned. This isn't religion... this is people gone bad. Is this another joke or are you being deliberately foolish?

FFS can you read? Ib.me.ub asked me why i should think that my meaning of life is different from anyone else's and i gave two unrelated examples, one of the exploiter and one of the religious, both demonstrate that life for some has a different meaning. I never once said that religious people are exploitative or anything else along those lines. I despise the argument that religion is evil and agree fully when you said it's people gone bad, it's correlation not causation, and it applies in all world views.

[fr0d0]

I don't embrace your naturalistic purpose of course ...sentient human development strives in the opposite direction to naturalism so it's your stance that is contradictory.

More assumptions with no attempt to show why it's valid reasoning It's no surprise from you.`[/quote]

Get stuffed VOID you're the master of Bare Ass's - human development has been shown to be reversing natural selection... which is a result of moralistic development.

You are ignorant of Christianity if you believe what you spout.

No examples?

Too many to cite mate - look at virtually every post you make.

Based on my current understanding it seems less desirable to have purpose and meaning passed from the top down than to have t build it yourself from the bottom, it's just my opinion and i don't expect you, or any theist for that matter to agree.

Is God not a dictator?

Give me a reason why your belief in God is a valid logical undertaking and i won't have reason to make a mockery of it.

I see. So when it suits you you assume religion is top down, then when it doesn't you assume it's all man made. Convenient huh.

I am assuming that God is real for that statement, not religion. God being the designer is commonly described as a top-down process.

Anything else?

You're pleading ignorance again. Ignoring what goes in through your eyes. Nice trick if you can pull it off. I'm sure there are other equally blind people who could back you up too. Shame though it isn't reality.

If you are just going to assert that as fact and not even attempt to show your reasoning then don't bother, im not interested in what you can assert, only what you can prove. Now if you have proof that Morals are contradictory to the concept of naturalistic development, specifically in the structures of social animals where they are relevant then please do so for once.

See above.

Belief in God is a valid logical undertaking because it perfectly reflects the desire of human nature. It's what you seek yet deny.

1) What humans desire of nature, or anything else, does not at all necessitate that it is true.

2) Anthropomorphising is more commonly regarded as a literary technique, not a logical argument for the existence of God

Human nature, not 'nature'.

FFS can you read?

I think it was a fair to assume you meant to link the two. If you didn't, as you say, then I apologise.

[TruthWorthy]

Ok, the proposition (or supposition) of "god exists" doesn't fit into any of the criteria of theory evaluation listed here:

Empirical validity
Parsimony
Comprehensiveness
Internal consistency
Testability
Usefulness
Acceptability
(Liebert, M., Spiegler, M., 1994., On making scientific theoretical construct evaluations Personality: themes and perspectives(7th Ed.). Brooks/Cole: USA)

So I think:
The only sort of adaption that can be made in favour of the "god exists" proposition amongst the acceptable criteria is that on the "Usefulness", but not in the correct sense that would seek to put that proposition to use in validating some relationship or dynamic process; except in the usefulness of emotional comfort and relief from difficult to answer, or to accept, questions, or answers.

[Rhizomorph13]

Wow a thread with, "God exists" in the title and questioning the validity of such a statement and no word from Rabbit about Theological Noncognitivism. Who would have thunk?

[Tiberius]

Ok, the proposition (or supposition) of "god exists" doesn't fit into any of the criteria of theory evaluation listed here:

Empirical validity
Parsimony
Comprehensiveness
Internal consistency
Testability
Usefulness
Acceptability
(Liebert, M., Spiegler, M., 1994., On making scientific theoretical construct evaluations Personality: themes and perspectives(7th Ed.). Brooks/Cole: USA)

For the last time:

"God exists" is a statement (proposition) in logic.
"God exists" is not a scientific statement.
"God exists" is not a scientific theory.

Why you expect a statement that isn't scientific to adhere to criteria on scientific theoretical construct evaluations is completely beyond me.

It's like saying a "cat" cannot exist because it doesn't adhere to the rigorous standards of building regulations. Absurd.

[Purple Rabbit]

Wow a thread with, "God exists" in the title and questioning the validity of such a statement and no word from Rabbit about Theological Noncognitivism. Who would have thunk?

Well there was something with new year and stuff.

According to my recollection of earlier encounters fr0d0 already has denied the sentence "god exists". So what's the fuzz about it anyway?

The Theological Noncognitivism stance has made me still more aware of the importance to first let the theist define their "god" before discussing anything. If gods are made of rubber that conveniently bends in all directions, then there is no basis for intellectual integrity and discussion has no meaning.