bobhhh

mapaghimagsik

bobhhh
It's clear you have no argument if you sink to semantics. Congratulations!!

Its an argument about G(g)od, of course there really is no argument.

Sure you and I know that, but the rules of debate require I give my opponent the benefit of the doubt for purpose of discussion. I sure would like one of them to make some rational statement, and not one that essentially translates as god works in mysterious ways.

Cheers! ;)

LOL!!!! I keep laughing at this! BTW you are so welcome Bob! It is a discussion as well but you are focused on just the debate, aren't you? The whole problem with arguementative debate is if you find one flaw in the arguement, the arguement is destroyed. Then you can come in and you can erect a new one...and then some new sparkling kid comes in destroys that one as well...its a cycle...for all the logical arguments you assert and all the ones that I put forward, none will ever be steel tight either way! This is how it has played out through out history. Are we really making any headway either way? Not really.

If a logical argument from a theist was even asserted and presented to you, do you honestly think you would change your mind?

BTW its Rhetoric, not Semantics.

If I were God, I'd fix that.

mapaghimagsik
If I were God, I'd fix that.

fix what?

TheMidge28
LOL!!!! I keep laughing at this! BTW you are so welcome Bob! It is a discussion as well but you are focused on just the debate, aren't you? The whole problem with arguementative debate is if you find one flaw in the arguement, the arguement is destroyed. Then you can come in and you can erect a new one...and then some new sparkling kid comes in destroys that one as well...its a cycle...for all the logical arguments you assert and all the ones that I put forward, none will ever be steel tight either way! This is how it has played out through out history. Are we really making any headway either way? Not really.

If a logical argument from a theist was even asserted and presented to you, do you honestly think you would change your mind?

Would I change my mind? Yes absolutely, but there would have to be a convincing argument, one with facts, you know facts? Stuff that's true? Small issue I know, but call me crazy, I need some proof. When Senator McCarthy help up an empty envelope with the names of communists, faith in his assertion got a lot of innocent people in trouble. That's the trouble with faith, it can cause people to act without any factual justification.

That tiny flaw you mention that pesky old me finds in your argumnet is that you have none. You're argument is that you don't need one because god doesn't need one. If god is all powerful he should be able to whip my ass in a debate about his existence. He wouldn't even have to speak, he'd just have to stop by and make a tree or part a pond or something.

bobhhh

TheMidge28
LOL!!!! I keep laughing at this! BTW you are so welcome Bob! It is a discussion as well but you are focused on just the debate, aren't you? The whole problem with arguementative debate is if you find one flaw in the arguement, the arguement is destroyed. Then you can come in and you can erect a new one...and then some new sparkling kid comes in destroys that one as well...its a cycle...for all the logical arguments you assert and all the ones that I put forward, none will ever be steel tight either way! This is how it has played out through out history. Are we really making any headway either way? Not really.

If a logical argument from a theist was even asserted and presented to you, do you honestly think you would change your mind?

Would I change my mind? Yes absolutely, but there would have to be a convincing argument, one with facts, you know facts? Stuff that's true? Small issue I know, but call me crazy, I need some proof. When Senator McCarthy help up an empty envelope with the names of communists, faith in his assertion got a lot of innocent people in trouble. That's the trouble with faith, it can cause people to act without any factual justification.

That tiny flaw you mention that pesky old me finds in your argumnet is that you have none. You're argument is that you don't need one because god doesn't need one. If god is all powerful he should be able to whip my ass in a debate about his existence. He wouldn't even have to speak, he'd just have to stop by and make a tree or part a pond or something.

With any arguement you need to agree on the terms. With this we need to agree on what we agree and what we don't agree. To have a civil discourse or arguement we need to understand where each other is coming from. You hold suppositions or even presuppositions which may in turn cast doubt or suspect on any given statements which may be put forward by anyone...including me. So to start we need to understand what we agree upon first so an actual discussion to reach a logical conclusion can be reached, otherwise it will be subjective bantering with neither one of understanding or agreeing with the other and no one hearing each other.

So to begin with, what constitutes "fact"? I understand what you mean by "stuff that are true" as facts but I am sorry but that even seems suspect. But what is truth? What defines something as true? I am not trying to be funny or facetious but as I said terms need to be defined so we understand each other. I don't take anything for granted.

Also when you use the term "faith" do use this term interchangeably with belief, trust, and assumption?

And on what you say here,

Bobhhh]"[color=re
That tiny flaw you mention that pesky old me finds in your argumnet is that you have none. You're argument is that you don't need one because god doesn't need one. If god is all powerful he should be able to whip my ass in a debate about his existence. He wouldn't even have to speak, he'd just have to stop by and make a tree or part a pond or something. "

Your right I don't have one because I am not trying to argue his existence. So the bold statement from you is false. This statement also seems funny and ironic. Because honestly him standing in front of you arguing his existence seems like a very hilarious scene. But isn't that really the rub, even if he was standing in front of you he would have to argue his existence. also your last line seems funny too. He would just have to make a tree or part of a pond or something...It is already accepted daily he does that. But I know what you mean. I would ask him to make a gold leprechaun or a griffin... but that's me.

bobhhh
How about creating a race of elevated beings who do not make each other suffer, not because god is policing them like a mortal dictator, but because they lack the desire to cause pain to their fellow man? No, that would make way too much sense.

Are you truly good when you can do no wrong?

To be completely honest, I'm very reluctant in jumping back into this discussion. Not because I'm afraid of discussions about God. I've been in so many of these discussions that I can safely say that having someone challenge my beliefs generally don't bother me.

But if the whole argument against the existence of God rest on the idea that humanity sucks too much and/or you're just too incapable of personal responsibility without divine intervention, then I don't know what to say really. I think we are capable of many good things, we just make very poor choices sometimes. But we can agree to disagree on that.

As I've said before, if you are stripped of the ability to do wrong or to cause pain, then you've made no active choice in being good. You're simply incapable of doing wrong. I've never clawed at anyone or shed all over their furniture before. That's not because of some active decision on my part, but rather due to the fact that I'm not actually a cat.

Continuing along the lines of honesty, it doesn't bother me that people don't believe in God. We're all free to believe in whatever we want in whatever parameters we like. It's this idea that the divine doesn't exist because life sucks too much or we suck too much that bothers me. This whole idea that if God really exist, not only would our lives be better but we would be better people too. It is an idea rooted in deep dissatisfaction, in both ourselves and at the world, which is then used to dismiss the divine.

It is also based on the notion that God is a divine being that lives to serve humanity and the world. I admit to not being a very good Catholic but I didn't think I was that out of touch. The fact is, I've never thought of God as my own personal genie and a discussion wouldn't go anywhere if we're not even on the same page about what God is.

Black_Kitty
The fact is, I've never thought of God as my own personal genie and a discussion wouldn't go anywhere if we're not even on the same page about what God is.

My point exactly. The terms need to be defined so we can engage in civil discourse.

TheMidge28

mapaghimagsik
If I were God, I'd fix that.

fix what?

that.

Black_Kitty
Are you truly good when you can do no wrong?

Something abbout this bugs me, why is it that the notion that if god created people who are inherently good is so awful? Why is the urge to do bad so important to god?? And again, what about the good people who have excercized the free will to avoid their bad nature. What about the meek? Why should they suffer at the hands of evil?? What was their mistake? Think about it, some kid lives in an urban hell, against all odds he doesn't get into a gang or drugs, he excells at school and is the first person in his family to go to college. Then he gets killed by a stray bullet in a drive by. Where is god in that scenario? What does this kids death prove? Or maybe you feel like Pat Robertson claimed that 9/11 was god's punishment for our lack of grace.

Fine, then god if he exists can just ignore us and let us suffer, way to go god. If we are truly god's children then he is a lousy father.

And I don't seriously think I'll debate with god, in fact I don't seriously expect god to do anything since he doesn't exist as far as i can tell.

Finally, it's nice that you guys claim to not force god on the rest of us, but the fact is many do, so I come by my frustration and skepticism honestly.

bobhhh
Finally, it's nice that you guys claim to not force god on the rest of us, but the fact is many do, so I come by my frustration and skepticism honestly.

I respect that...not that many do but why you are so skeptical and frustrated.
God's Marketing Team as I like to call them needs to be fired.

bobhhh
Finally, it's nice that you guys claim to not force god on the rest of us, but the fact is many do, so I come by my frustration and skepticism honestly.

And I come to my frustration and skepticism honestly as well. There's only so many times I can stand having people suggest that I only believe in God because I'm too weak minded, too backwards, or too stupid, or anything along that line.

I think you and I are not really on the same page. I actually find the notion of choosing to do good to be something wonderful. You cannot make a choice if there are no choices to begin with however. The choices you make often speak of what kind of a person you are. If you consistently choose to do good, then you are inherently good. And people can be inherently good. You don't really need divine intervention to be that.

Lacking the capacity to do something does not necessarily mean you made an active choice to not do something. I do not congratulate you on aging for example. Much to the woe of millions everywhere, you cannot wake up one day and decide not to age anymore. You will age whether you like it or not.

Bad things happen in this world. People make poor choices and it effects other people. Not to sound preachy but what do you do in the face of other people's bad choices? When people do bad things, do you say anything? Do you do anything? Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

What do you value more? The ability to choose good over bad, or the inability to do bad? And what is God to you? Is God suppose to be a divine being that fixes not just the injustices of this world but you/humanity as well? Or is God a divine being that values the freedom to choose and hopes that we will choose good over bad?

This is why I'm suggesting we're not quite on the same page. I prefer free will. Yes the bad choices taste more bitter but the good is all the more sweeter. When I think about all the nice things people have done for me, I think about what wonderful people they are. Not how I am entitled to it or how they are incapable of doing otherwise. They could have just as easily chose not to do the things they do but they did it anyway.

Black_Kitty

bobhhh
Finally, it's nice that you guys claim to not force god on the rest of us, but the fact is many do, so I come by my frustration and skepticism honestly.

And I come to my frustration and skepticism honestly as well. There's only so many times I can stand having people suggest that I only believe in God because I'm too weak minded, too backwards, or too stupid, or anything along that line.

I think you and I are not really on the same page. I actually find the notion of choosing to do good to be something wonderful. You cannot make a choice if there are no choices to begin with however. The choices you make often speak of what kind of a person you are. If you consistently choose to do good, then you are inherently good. And people can be inherently good. You don't really need divine intervention to be that.

Lacking the capacity to do something does not necessarily mean you made an active choice to not do something. I do not congratulate you on aging for example. Much to the woe of millions everywhere, you cannot wake up one day and decide not to age anymore. You will age whether you like it or not.

Bad things happen in this world. People make poor choices and it effects other people. Not to sound preachy but what do you do in the face of other people's bad choices? When people do bad things, do you say anything? Do you do anything? Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?

What do you value more? The ability to choose good over bad, or the inability to do bad? And what is God to you? Is God suppose to be a divine being that fixes not just the injustices of this world but you/humanity as well? Or is God a divine being that values the freedom to choose and hopes that we will choose good over bad?

This is why I'm suggesting we're not quite on the same page. I prefer free will. Yes the bad choices taste more bitter but the good is all the more sweeter. When I think about all the nice things people have done for me, I think about what wonderful people they are. Not how I am entitled to it or how they are incapable of doing otherwise. They could have just as easily chose not to do the things they do but they did it anyway.

Since you are saking I believe god is a construct, an idea. I don't believe he exists, but I can't prove he doesn't because you can't prove a negative.



I say to all of you prove it, show me a scintilla of proof. You may not feel the need to bother, and that's ok, but its also ok that I think it's a bunch of hoo ha.

And it's ok to have differing opinions, again I say, as long as I don't have to put up with religion in my government and daily life.

And I value the ability to see right from wrong and value my free will, but that doesn't mean I think the privelige comes from god. And I do think if he existed he might referee some more ugly moments in his creation.

I blame us for our situation because there is no one else to blame, and I never shake my fist angrily in the air and ask why because no one is there to answer.

bobhhh
I say to all of you prove it, show me a scintilla of proof. You may not feel the need to bother, and that's ok, but its also ok that I think it's a bunch of hoo ha.

Again if you want proof we need to understand the terms and agree upon those first. I asked you questions earlier but you either ignored them because they didn't interest you or you didn't have an answer. Start there and then we can begin actually having a civil discourse as to the existence of God...otherwise we are just going to bark at each other and not understand where each of us are coming from.

bobhhh
I blame us for our situation because there is no one else to blame, and I never shake my fist angrily in the air and ask why because no one is there to answer.

I agree with this statement, except the grayed out part. I think 90% of each persons problems stem from their own actions or inactions and blaming god is just a cop out.

I believe I have been civil. I also think informed debate is never barking. You want to discuss terms? OK. Where is god? And please don't give me the touch your face argument, because there is ample evidence we evoved naturally. That is science not superstition. What you would call god's creation is just existence, and I remain unmoved at people's insistence that somebody had to be responsible. I just don't get that suppostion. Why does somebody have to be responsible for the universe?? Couldn't it just have happened??? Does it make it any less beautiful? Must you attach a creator to life to give it meaning?

I believe it is us who give life meaning, and if that is true then god, if he does exist is unimportant.

TheMidge28
Again if you want proof we need to understand the terms and agree upon those first. I asked you questions earlier but you either ignored them because they didn't interest you or you didn't have an answer. Start there and then we can begin actually having a civil discourse as to the existence of God...otherwise we are just going to bark at each other and not understand where each of us are coming from.

I guess you mean this.

TheMidge28
So to begin with, what constitutes "fact"? I understand what you mean by "stuff that are true" as facts but I am sorry but that even seems suspect.

OK, I'll bite. Fact: Put your hand in the fire and it will burn. Supposition: The afterlife. One can be proven, the other is an article of faith.

TheMidge28
But what is truth? What defines something as true? I am not trying to be funny or facetious but as I said terms need to be defined so we understand each other. I don't take anything for granted.

Truth-noun
1 the quality of being true:
2 the truth the real facts about a situation, event or person:
3 FORMAL a fact or principle which is thought to be true by most people.

TheMidge28
Also when you use the term "faith" do use this term interchangeably with belief, trust, and assumption?

faith-noun
great trust or confidence in something or someone.

I hope this can clear up some semantics in our discussion.

bobhhh
And I value the ability to see right from wrong and value my free will, but that doesn't mean I think the privelige comes from god. And I do think if he existed he might referee some more ugly moments in his creation.

I think it's pretty obvious that I disagree with the last point. I don't feel that God necessarily have to act as referee during the ugly moments of humanity.

I blame us for our situation because there is no one else to blame, and I never shake my fist angrily in the air and ask why because no one is there to answer.

Well, neither do I. I think my past posts have been rather clear that I do not believe it's God's fault that bad things happen in this world. For me to do so would run contradictory to what I've been saying.

I actually find this rather...ironic in a way. If I haven't misunderstood your earlier posts, you've been suggesting that if God were to exist, then He's a pretty lousy God since it's His fault that His creations are capable of doing wrongs. Should He exist, it would be His responsibility to make us all good people. Meanwhile I do believe in God but I don't blame him for all the bad things that happen in this world.

I'm actually not even out to prove to you that God exists. I could certainly be poetic about it but I personally think that short of God Himself appearing in front of you, talking to you, and shaking your hand (so that you can be certain it's not a hallucination), you will not believe there is a God. And even then that might not convince you.

But I could talk to you about what my personal concept of God is. I mean, I'm pretty sure about what I think about certain matters. ^^;;

Black_Kitty
If I haven't misunderstood your earlier posts, you've been suggesting that if God were to exist, then He's a pretty lousy God since it's His fault that His creations are capable of doing wrongs. Should He exist, it would be His responsibility to make us all good people. Meanwhile I do believe in God but I don't blame him for all the bad things that happen in this world.

No, not make us all good people, but why not stop some really horrendous bad things from continuing once in a while? In the bible, if you want some precedent, he was supposed to have stopped by all the time to fix things, test people and prove his existence. Supposedly. So where is he now? Is he camera shy? What's the harm in him stopping by and ending genocide in Darfur. Why is that such a big problem for you? You would celebrate this action if a man did it, why is god exempt from doing some good when its within his scope of ability?

Why does it have to black and white? To you any intervention by god would be robbing us of self determination. I say that's a convenient rationalization for his absence, or rather his nonexistence.

I have absolutely no idea why God is suddenly "camera shy." However if we're going to use the Bible to set some precedents, then we can also talk about how after hundreds of miracles, prophets, and sending His only son down to the world, people still don't believe. So God sends a guy over who can walk on water, turn water into wine, raise the dead, and then came back to life himself after he was nailed to a cross. Yet we're still having philosophical arguments about whether or not God exists. This leads to two possible conclusions:

1. It takes a lot to convince us of anything and even then we're not totally convinced.
2. God and Jesus didn't exist. Nothing in the Bible occurred.

To you any intervention by god would be robbing us of self determination. I say that's a convenient rationalization for his absence, or rather his nonexistence.

If you like. I say that anyone who thinks that if God exists, then He should save everyone from their bad decisions and make our lives easier do so on the assumption that God exists solely to serve human beings and keep them happy. There's nothing wrong with that except a lot of Christians don't really subscribe to that thought.

You ask about ending the genocide in Darfur as if that would be enough and holds no real consequences. So God ends the conflict in Darfur. Nevermind that it's a complicated situation involving multiple factors including human and political motivations. So will you be just satisfied with Darfur? What about Africa? North Korea? Or maybe even high crime neighbourhoods? Cancer patients? Car accidents? Toddlers accidentally falling out of high rise buildings? People tripping down fights of stairs? Failing a crucial exam? Being bulled at school?

Where is the human satisfaction point? There is a lot of suffering of varying degrees in this world. At what point will people say "I've made a really bad decision and it affected a lot of people including myself. I must take responsibility for this instead of asking God to fix it for me."

This may seem a bit off topic but in society, there exist two kinds of law-abiding citizens: the kind that obeys the law because it is the right thing to do and the kind that obeys the law because they're afraid of the consequences.

If the world was only full of the former, then there would be no need for jails and police officers in society. There are a lot of jails and police officers though.

TheMidge28
So to begin with, what constitutes "fact"? I understand what you mean by "stuff that are true" as facts but I am sorry but that even seems suspect. But what is truth? What defines something as true?

Allow me to follow through on the semantics (and another god argument) with the following story, once believed to be factually true... Zeus, the father and ruler of all the gods of Ancient Greece was attracted by Leda and assuming the shape of a swan, raped her when she was having a swim. She had twins, one of the children was Helen, the cause of the Trojan war.

So, there are facts in this story.
1) There was a Trojan war.
2) Helen of Troy was one of the main catalysts of the war.
3) Helen of Troy was born.
4) Helen was the daughter of mortal people.
5) Helen was the daughter of Zeus.
6) Helen's mother was raped by Zeus.
7) Zeus was a god who can take the form of swans.
8) Zeus was a god who raped women.

Which of these facts are true? And which of these facts do you believe to be false? I can tell you which I believe are true, but I'm curious which ones theists believe are true and which are false.

arteestx

TheMidge28
So to begin with, what constitutes "fact"? I understand what you mean by "stuff that are true" as facts but I am sorry but that even seems suspect. But what is truth? What defines something as true?

Allow me to follow through on the semantics (and another god argument) with the following story, once believed to be factually true... Zeus, the father and ruler of all the gods of Ancient Greece was attracted by Leda and assuming the shape of a swan, raped her when she was having a swim. She had twins, one of the children was Helen, the cause of the Trojan war.

So, there are facts in this story.
1) There was a Trojan war.
2) Helen of Troy was one of the main catalysts of the war.
3) Helen of Troy was born.
4) Helen was the daughter of mortal people.
5) Helen was the daughter of Zeus.
6) Helen's mother was raped by Zeus.
7) Zeus was a god who can take the form of swans.
8) Zeus was a god who raped women.

Which of these facts are true? And which of these facts do you believe to be false? I can tell you which I believe are true, but I'm curious which ones theists believe are true and which are false.

Facts of the myth or facts within history?
Because all can be considered facts within a certain context.

I stand by my statement which nobody refuted.

I can prove my hand will burn in the fire. It's a scientific fact.

The afterlife, Satan, Zeus, God, Jesus's resurrection are all suppositions. You can't show any proof. You can't apply the scientific method.

Sytems of scientific measure can be so precise, we can sling robotic spacecraft thru space with startling accuracy. We can prove with near certainty the age of fossils. But religion would have us believe the earth is only tens of thousands of years old. Where is the damn proof of god creating the earth???

We can look to historical texts to prove there was a Jesus, but where is the proof he was the son of god?? Nevermind only Christians believe this, but there just isnt any proof. You can spin the semantics all you want, you can call me doubting Thomas (remember him his gospel was edited out of the bible by an angry Pope) but the fact remains I can prove fire, it's a fact. You can't prove shit about god, therefore he is just a figment of your imagination as far as I can tell, about as real as Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy, and even more useless.

At least Santa brings presents and the Tooth Fairy swaps teeth for $$.

TheMidge28
Facts of the myth or facts within history?
Because all can be considered facts within a certain context.

In whatever way you consider God to be factually true. Which of the above facts are true in the same way as the existence of God?

Black_Kitty
You ask about ending the genocide in Darfur as if that would be enough and holds no real consequences. So God ends the conflict in Darfur. Nevermind that it's a complicated situation involving multiple factors including human and political motivations. So will you be just satisfied with Darfur? What about Africa? North Korea? Or maybe even high crime neighbourhoods? Cancer patients? Car accidents? Toddlers accidentally falling out of high rise buildings? People tripping down fights of stairs? Failing a crucial exam? Being bulled at school?

If the world was only full of the former, then there would be no need for jails and police officers in society. There are a lot of jails and police officers though.

A complicated situation??? What is god a third rate diplomat? What is so difficult about divine intervention? You think if god appeared and said,"My children, Hear the word of the lord, this useless slaughter must end. I created you to rejoice in each other not slaughter each other. Murder is an affront to my creation. Make peace now and do not tempt the wrath of the lord thy god" that any body would have unsoiled shorts?

You're not really comparing genocide to a toddler falling out a window, are you? Pleae tell me you can tell the difference. Please tell me god can tell the difference.

Why must everything subscribe to the slippery slope argument? You ignore the matter of degree. With your logic we should either shoot all prisoners or let them go. Where do you draw the line??? If we start jailing some and killing some, we may end up by killing jaywalkers. You mean to say god is so stupid that he can't make an intelligent decision about when to intervene, so he stays out of everything just to be safe?

arteestx

TheMidge28
Facts of the myth or facts within history?
Because all can be considered facts within a certain context.

In whatever way you consider God to be factually true. Which of the above facts are true in the same way as the existence of God?

Hey Jimmy grab that gun over there...yeah that one...oh don't worry... it's not loaded...

Well that question doesn't seem loaded at all...

Honestly that would get to personal for my own tastes because I am trying to keep the discussion and debate academic and not have my beliefs cloud the discussion or get misconstrued(sp?)

As per the statements from your earlier post... the historical facts would be...
-There was a Trojan war.
-Helen of Troy was born.

The others are either up for interpretation and subjectively biased.

TheMidge28
Honestly that would get to personal for my own tastes because I am trying to keep the discussion and debate academic and not have my beliefs cloud the discussion or get misconstrued(sp?)

But that's what I want to know. I don't want to debate terms or semantics or the academic definition of truth. I want to know, within your worldview, within what you consider to be true, what is truth? That will give me some notion upon which to talk about God.

TheMidge28
The others are either up for interpretation and subjectively biased.

What is your interpretation of claims about Zeus compared to claims about God?

bobhhh
You mean to say god is so stupid that he can't make an intelligent decision about when to intervene, so he stays out of everything just to be safe?

Can you then? I wasn't really asking a rhetorical question earlier. I know I asked a whole lot of rhetorical questions but when I asked about the human satisfaction point, that wasn't rhetorical. When should God stop intervening then?

You also either misunderstand my point or lack a certain degree of empathy. It's very easy to compare a genocide to toddlers falling out of windows and go "that's absurd! How dare you compare the slaughter of millions to a bunch of children falling out of windows! Clearly the genocide is so much worse!"

Except is a parent any more comforted when their only child died because millions died elsewhere? Is their suffering any less or lacking in validity? Do they go "sure I felt bad but thinking about that genocide in Darfur made me feel so much better about the death of my only child!" Would those who are religious not pray to the divine and wish that it never happened?

I intentionally listed those examples in a vague order from "big" to "small". So tell me, where do you think God should draw the line? After car accidents but before toddlers falling out of buildings? Or after high crime neighbourhoods but before cancer patients? At what point should God bail out and let the humans experience the suffering? At what point will people say "well, I won't pray to God to help me out here. I'm perfectly satisfied and can handle it myself." When does the entitlement end? These are not rhetorical questions.

Not everything in this world can be measured with science. I'm surprised I even have to say this in an art-orientated website. There are a such thing as abstract ideas. There are a such thing as emotions. These are not things that can be measured or cemented into theories. They are not tangible objects. I cannot hold love, nobility, or goodness in my hands. I cannot tell you how it looks like or at what precise time is someone in love. They do not sell those in packets at Wal-Mart or are the subject of scientific journals. Yet they exist.

It doesn't mean that science is bad or inferior. Nor does it mean that everyone has to believe in God. It means what it means.

I realize that I sound intensely religious at times but the reality is that I'm not really. I don't really care if you don't believe in God and I can respect that. If you find the idea of God silly, that's cool. But you finding the idea of God silly isn't permission for you to disrespect my beliefs.

Black_Kitty
Can you then? I wasn't really asking a rhetorical question earlier. I know I asked a whole lot of rhetorical questions but when I asked about the human satisfaction point, that wasn't rhetorical. When should God stop intervening then?

Like any artist staring at a blank page, just begin. You can spend eternity wringing your hands, or you can just do what you feel you need to. I can't believe the god you describe, one who is all knowing and responsible for creation can be overwhelmed by the problems of man.

Black_Kitty
You also either misunderstand my point or lack a certain degree of empathy. It's very easy to compare a genocide to toddlers falling out of windows and go "that's absurd! How dare you compare the slaughter of millions to a bunch of children falling out of windows! Clearly the genocide is so much worse!"

One baby dying is tragic, millions dying is a tragedy, I believe you understand that but are just splitting hairs for the purpose of argument. 9/11 was heinous because of its scope and part of that was the body count. Is a cafe bombing in Israel any less terrible? No, but you can you honestly say 9/11 isn't more tragic?

Black_Kitty
Except is a parent any more comforted when their only child died because millions died elsewhere? Is their suffering any less or lacking in validity? Do they go "sure I felt bad but thinking about that genocide in Darfur made me feel so much better about the death of my only child!" Would those who are religious not pray to the divine and wish that it never happened?

Did I say this, you are just twisting my words here. I said this:

bobhhh
You're not really comparing genocide to a toddler falling out a window, are you? Please tell me you can tell the difference. Please tell me god can tell the difference.

My point is that god should see the wisdom of intervening in a situation where his singular act could save multiple lives. Never did I state something as inflammatory or ridiculous as "sure I felt bad but thinking about that genocide in Darfur made me feel so much better about the death of my only child!"

Hey you disagree with me present a reasoned response, don't put words in my mouth.

Black_Kitty
Not everything in this world can be measured with science. I'm surprised I even have to say this in an art-orientated website. There are a such thing as abstract ideas.
There are a such thing as emotions. These are not things that can be measured or cemented into theories. They are not tangible objects. I cannot hold love, nobility, or goodness in my hands. I cannot tell you how it looks like or at what precise time is someone in love. They do not sell those in packets at Wal-Mart or are the subject of scientific journals. Yet they exist.

It doesn't mean that science is bad or inferior. Nor does it mean that everyone has to believe in God. It means what it means.

Abstract ideas exist as ideas, not as fact. That is to say the idea is a fact, not the abstraction. If I believe in fairies, my belief is a fact, but the fairies aren't unless I can prove it. I respect and revere art, but art does not require fact to be beautiful, only honesty. The converse is more true, if yoiu try to render art down to facts you will dissipate its essence. You want to consider god as art, I'm with you, the concept is one of our enduring artisticc constructs, but its not a fact. Painting a porttrait, writing a poem, creating a bible, these things are all art, but they don't prove god exists.

Again I never said everything can be measured by science, here you seem to think not being able to tell you how many grams love weighs invalidates my argument. Nice try, but I never meant to measure god, just to prove what a lack of proof there is for a lot of common assumptions about "his" creation as detailed in the bible. I simply stated that we can accurately measure many things and they would seem to refute faith based assertions, like the age of the earth or the evolution of species.

Black_Kitty
I realize that I sound intensely religious at times but the reality is that I'm not really. I don't really care if you don't believe in God and I can respect that. If you find the idea of God silly, that's cool. But you finding the idea of God silly isn't permission for you to disrespect my beliefs.

Here you totally got me. I apologize for insulting you. I assure you it wasn't my intention, in fact I meant to imply that god shouldn't be rendered to be so etheral and insigificant if he in fact existed. I was trying to endow him with more responsibility in order to understand him, but it came out wrong. You deserve respect for your beliefs, as do I, and we should be able to provide differing opinions without rancor.

Sorry.

arteestx
But that's what I want to know. I don't want to debate terms or semantics or the academic definition of truth. I want to know, within your worldview, within what you consider to be true, what is truth? That will give me some notion upon which to talk about God.

Well I don't either but we need to define these terms first to understand what we agree upon. If the presuppositions you hold and I hold are just assumed the same then we will never understand each other or agree. So these terms or semantics or the academic definition of truth needs to be discussed so that agreed upon ground work can be laid. Then we both can understand each other and truely understand each others points of contention. Right now through this thread and previous threads that has been the problem. No one has truely tried to understand the others position because to them it seems ridiculous, so to speak. I merely want to understand what the fly in the oinment is...for you and me and others. So forgive the me my desire to define these terms first.

My personal beliefs need not enter the discussion. All you need to know is that I believe there is a god.

arteestx
What is your interpretation of claims about Zeus compared to claims about God?

Ancient Greeks and even some modern believers believe in Zeus...its no different than any other person who believe in a god. I have no idea what you are asking for here... That's why the terms need to be discussed and defined.

TheMidge28
....No one has truely tried to understand the others position because to them it seems ridiculous, so to speak. I merely want to understand what the fly in the oinment is...for you and me and others. So forgive the me my desire to define these terms first. My personal beliefs need not enter the discussion. All you need to know is that I believe there is a god.

Look I understand being jaded about other conversations. But to me, if someone asks "what are facts" and "what is truth," then asking the same question (in a different way) back to that person seems legitimate, not unfair or loaded. I find that a pool of examples can help clarify defintions and terms far easier than abstract semantic discussions. That's all.

TheMidge28

arteestx
What is your interpretation of claims about Zeus compared to claims about God?

Ancient Greeks and even some modern believers believe in Zeus...its no different than any other person who believe in a god. I have no idea what you are asking for here... That's why the terms need to be discussed and defined.

I do think there is a distinction. The characteristics of Zeus are much different than the God of the bible (at least the New Testament). Unless you want to equate the characteristic of Zeus raping women and say that God shares that quality, I think there are differences between gods. So here's my position.

I don't believe in Odin
I don't believe in Thor
I don't believe in Zeus
I don't believe in Isis
I don't believe in Kokopelli
I don't believe in Ra
I don't believe in Radegast, Hermes, Lahar, Veles, Kus, Rod, Honos, Utu, Shamash, Hades, Aken, Bata, Osiris, Ha, Pluto, Apollo, Heka, Eeyeekalduk, Xochipilli, Himerus, Kamadeva, Siebog, Nezha, Gwydion, Bamapana, Huh, Meni, Kala, Fabulinus, Mimir, Yuanshi Tianzun, Jabru, Mot, Namtar, Wepwawet, Rudra, Saa, Aker, Petbe, Vidar, Kaus, Dhara, Zempat, Sumugan, Enki, Ash, Buxenus, Sucellus, Viridios, Shara, Laran, Ares, Huitzilopochtli, Dionysus, Thoth, Ganesha, Dagr, Lugus, Crom Cruach, Aah, Hilal, Mensis, Amm, Juthrbog, Tecciztecatl, Chandra, Alignak, Mummu, Enki, Omai, Qat, Rod, Bumba, Gukumatz, Cghene, Con-Tici Viracocha, or any of the other thousand gods that have been worshiped over the past millenia.

I think the stories about these gods can be very revealing and helpful, but I don't believe these stories to be literally true. I imagine that you do not pray to any of these gods, and don't know about or literally believe their stories either. So we share 99.99999% of our disbelief in gods. So I just want to know on what basis you might disbelieve other gods but believe in the one you do.

arteestx

TheMidge28
....No one has truely tried to understand the others position because to them it seems ridiculous, so to speak. I merely want to understand what the fly in the oinment is...for you and me and others. So forgive the me my desire to define these terms first. My personal beliefs need not enter the discussion. All you need to know is that I believe there is a god.

Look I understand being jaded about other conversations. But to me, if someone asks "what are facts" and "what is truth," then asking the same question (in a different way) back to that person seems legitimate, not unfair or loaded. I find that a pool of examples can help clarify defintions and terms far easier than abstract semantic discussions. That's all.

TheMidge28

arteestx
What is your interpretation of claims about Zeus compared to claims about God?

Ancient Greeks and even some modern believers believe in Zeus...its no different than any other person who believe in a god. I have no idea what you are asking for here... That's why the terms need to be discussed and defined.

I do think there is a distinction. The characteristics of Zeus are much different than the God of the bible (at least the New Testament). Unless you want to equate the characteristic of Zeus raping women and say that God shares that quality, I think there are differences between gods. So here's my position.

I don't believe in Odin
I don't believe in Thor
I don't believe in Zeus
I don't believe in Isis
I don't believe in Kokopelli
I don't believe in Ra
I don't believe in Radegast, Hermes, Lahar, Veles, Kus, Rod, Honos, Utu, Shamash, Hades, Aken, Bata, Osiris, Ha, Pluto, Apollo, Heka, Eeyeekalduk, Xochipilli, Himerus, Kamadeva, Siebog, Nezha, Gwydion, Bamapana, Huh, Meni, Kala, Fabulinus, Mimir, Yuanshi Tianzun, Jabru, Mot, Namtar, Wepwawet, Rudra, Saa, Aker, Petbe, Vidar, Kaus, Dhara, Zempat, Sumugan, Enki, Ash, Buxenus, Sucellus, Viridios, Shara, Laran, Ares, Huitzilopochtli, Dionysus, Thoth, Ganesha, Dagr, Lugus, Crom Cruach, Aah, Hilal, Mensis, Amm, Juthrbog, Tecciztecatl, Chandra, Alignak, Mummu, Enki, Omai, Qat, Rod, Bumba, Gukumatz, Cghene, Con-Tici Viracocha, or any of the other thousand gods that have been worshiped over the past millenia.

I think the stories about these gods can be very revealing and helpful, but I don't believe these stories to be literally true. I imagine that you do not pray to any of these gods, and don't know about or literally believe their stories either. So we share 99.99999% of our disbelief in gods. So I just want to know on what basis you might disbelieve other gods but believe in the one you do.

I am not jaded about other discussions or debates I am only trying to bring the discussion back to what this thread is supposed to be about...I understand examples work for you to define terms but they don't so much for me. Interpretation doesn't resolve the issue. Too much is taken for granted and I believe much of the debate can be resolved if said terms were actually defined and agreed upon. So throwing up an example may adress your defining of a said term but may not for many others, including myself.

I agree that there is a difference between these gods and the god I believe in. But the question is directed towards why do I believe in the god I believe in and not any of these gods. To that I choose not to answer due to the fact that those beliefs although to some may seem ridiculous or suspect from someone who doesn't share those same beliefs or presuppositions, have meaning within the context of my world view. I am not trying put forward an agenda or convert anyone to my beliefs. My questions are more directed to the discussion of the idea of god not my personal beliefs of the god I worship and how I decided on this god over other gods. Do you see what I am trying to get at? We can have a civil discourse about the idea of god without making it personal...or have I missed the understanding of this thread. If so I guess I'll stop posting.