Page 14 of 33 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 33  Next

aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,563

11 Jun 2015, 10:33 am

^^^

Just popped up to say Hi;

Me and God ALL THAT IS;

That's short for Haiku...;)

And proof THAT GOD exists..:)


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

11 Jun 2015, 6:48 pm

It's become very quiet here. Where have all of the cocky, self-righteous atheists gone? If it is, as so many of them claim, easy to show that the concept of God is itself incoherent, illogical and invalid (and that therefore God obviously doesn't exist), then why have they not thus far succeeded in demonstrating this?

Oh well, tearing apart their arguments (if I can actually call them that) was fun while it lasted :mrgreen:



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 73
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

11 Jun 2015, 7:44 pm

Lintar wrote:
It's become very quiet here. Where have all of the cocky, self-righteous atheists gone? If it is, as so many of them claim, easy to show that the concept of God is itself incoherent, illogical and invalid (and that therefore God obviously doesn't exist), then why have they not thus far succeeded in demonstrating this?

Oh well, tearing apart their arguments (if I can actually call them that) was fun while it lasted :mrgreen:

It's not our need or desire to disprove something that doesn't exist. You're the ones making extraordinary claims. Hence you have to provide extraordinary evidence...

Also, if you want a debate, you could go to this link and debate atheists to your hearts content. Be warned though, they'll tear you up.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum ... ism?page=2



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

11 Jun 2015, 8:41 pm

pcuser wrote:
Lintar wrote:
It's become very quiet here. Where have all of the cocky, self-righteous atheists gone? If it is, as so many of them claim, easy to show that the concept of God is itself incoherent, illogical and invalid (and that therefore God obviously doesn't exist), then why have they not thus far succeeded in demonstrating this?

Oh well, tearing apart their arguments (if I can actually call them that) was fun while it lasted :mrgreen:

It's not our need or desire to disprove something that doesn't exist. You're the ones making extraordinary claims. Hence you have to provide extraordinary evidence...

Also, if you want a debate, you could go to this link and debate atheists to your hearts content. Be warned though, they'll tear you up.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum ... ism?page=2


Actually, it's not this simple. First of all you cannot seriously contend that God doesn't exist. You don't know this. Secondly, what exactly is 'an extraordinary claim'? I've made this point before, but I will do so again, and that is that what may be extraordinary for one person will not necessarily be so for someone else; it's a purely subjective assessment. A third issue is that atheists seem to believe they are not making any claims, and so therefore don't have to justify their stance, but this is simply not true, as can be seen in your claim above that God doesn't exist. Whether the claim is positive or negative (ex. 'God does exist', or 'God doesn't exist') the one making such a claim needs to justify it and therefore has the burden of evidence placed upon him/her. The only ones who don't need to do this are agnostics, because they simply don't know one way or the other and are willing to admit this.

Thanks for the link, I will go there now, and we will find out who will do the tearing.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

11 Jun 2015, 8:52 pm

This

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum ... ism?page=2

does not look promising. Many of the responses here are, I have to say, rather infantile. Ex. 'Theology without evidence is worth no more than a bucket of spit'. Alternatively, there is this gem, 'And their arguments aren't sound to begin with, but your point is valid. There is no physical evidence. Just their feels and some BS prophecies'.

Okay, I'll persist with it, if only because amongst all the non sequiturs, childish logic, and philosophical naivete there may actually be a valid point or two. At least, I hope so.



Ban-Dodger
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2011
Age: 1026
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,820
Location: Возможно в будущее к Россию идти... можеть быть...

11 Jun 2015, 10:13 pm

ALL arguments & debates™ about "God" are actually futile unless the definition of said "god" is specifically defined.

Typically, the role of a "god" decides & dictates something about your life, such to the point that YOU have no control over that "god's" decision. One example, suppose somebody wanted me killed, and was after my life, you could say that they are "playing god" if no amount of effort on mine or anybody's part could change their mind or efforts from actually terminating my physical-existence.

The "history" of the "role of God" also needs to be addressed. A time existed when the "rulers" over a society or civilisation, whether they be known in human-history books as kings or queens or monarchs or presidents or prime-ministers or other such "appointed" or "official" positions, were once referred to as "gods" themselves. A time later on came where people started questioning the idea & becoming more skeptical of these "leaders" being actual gods, considering that other "gods" also rose into "competition" with these other gods, and were found to be able to bleed & even die rather than the idea that said "god" simply left or disappeared or abandoned their people.

When it became laughable that anybody would call themselves a god, the manipulative-trick was to later on claim that these "kings/chiefs/mandarins/presidents/etc" were "appointed" by god, and then humanity got tricked again into believing that all of these "government-regulations" were "god-ordained" (and some of these regulations were encoded into "bibles" & "qu'rans" & other such books which are equivalent to today's "legal-system" encodures called a law-book). Whilst remnants of that still exist to this very day, nothing has really changed, not in regards to the SAME "class-system" of leaders/kings/chiefs/mandarins/presidents/prime-minsters/etc., and their subjects/peons/followers/peasants/tax-payers/citizens/etc.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED, and whilst they may no longer be referred to as "God" in this current era, they most-certainly have taken on the "role" of "playing one" (pretenders to their thrones) such that you cannot really do anything to over-ride their decisions (besides becoming a "god" yourself perhaps through Guy Fawkes' Anonymous-style activity). The "phenomenon" of which we cannot control could be attributed to or being called god, but in more accurate modern-day vocabulary, such a thing would probably simply be better-called a Law (e.g.: Murphy's Law, Poe's Law, The Law of Cause & Effect, For Every Action There is an Equal & Opposite RE-Action, etc).

I only believe in ONE "god/law" and that god/law is the idea that for every action there IS an equal & opposite RE-action, but as nobody can control when all or any of these RE-actions actually occur, then it is "as a god/law" that is far-beyond our ability to control irregardless of the amount of "science" that goes behind how much I try to control when my own actions or that of my "servants" will return upon my own head (such as if I punched somebody at random then I have no way in which to control when I may be myself punched at random in the future).


_________________
Pay me for my signature. 私の署名ですか❓お前の買うなければなりません。Mon autographe nécessite un paiement. Которые хочет мою автографу, у тебя нужно есть деньги сюда. Bezahlst du mich, wenn du meine Unterschrift wollen.


cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,045
Location: northeast US

11 Jun 2015, 10:38 pm

most would agree that these are extraordinary claims:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uY1jSWy4Eck



AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

12 Jun 2015, 12:21 am

Wolfram87 wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
Wolfram87 wrote:
"Stalemate" is a generous term to apply to those who stubbornly cling to an unfalsifiable claim. An unfalsifiable claim is the weakest sort of claim there is. And by what metric do "philosophers and theologians" have any more insight to such a question than do you, me, or the entire scientific community?
Logic is science. The Queen of all vassal, empirical or physical science. Divorce physical science from logic and you have no science at all.

Falsifiability is not limited to test tubes and rulers. A logically absurd assumption does not become a "fact" because a clever salesman sells it.


And florid prose is a poor substitute for substance.

What "logically absurd assumption"? That god does not exist? that's not even an assumption; it's the rejection of a unsubstantiated assertion of the opposite. You speak so highly of logic, surely you know that a negative claim cannot be proven, but a positive claim can be disproven. So presenting an unfalsifiable positive claim and accusing those who reject it of arrogance is projection.

And neither of you have answered my question.


But given the existence of the Universe (an assumption rather necessary to science and at least a number of forms of religion, including Abrahamic ones including most orthodox forms of Christianity, with exceptions like Berkeley and some Christian Gnostics) surely an alternative hypothesis is required if you wish to hold to atheism as the more logically coherent system. With regard to an earlier remark, faith and belief are sometimes used interchangeably, though as with many words they would have particular associations in particular minds. I will concede that "atheism is a religion" type of remarks can be irritating. Atheism is simply the disbelief in any God, goddesses or god whatsoever, however understood. Within that broad definition there are a wide range of philosophical and in a few cases arguably religious positions - forms of Buddhism, materialist atheism - including but not confined to a particular form of philosophy with an allegiance to the scientific method (not exclusively atheist or agnostic), Epicurean philosophy, orthodox Marxism, etc. In practice disbelief in God does not necessarily make many humans arch-sceptics like Hume or Dawkins - to believe in some things is implicitly to disbelieve in others so for example most Christians today (not Mediaeval times so much perhaps) would be allies of Dawkins in opposing astrology, where some might reject at least a Christian or Abrahamic concept of God but embrace astrology readily, in the absence of either Biblical prohibitions on divination or scientific (not necessarily atheist or theist, plenty of scientists do believe in God) grounds for regarding astrology as logically and empirically incoherent, however persuasive some might find anecdotal evidence or coincidence. Many people are neither as intelligent nor as learned as philosophical and scientific atheists, so will often turn their faith or credulity elsewhere. Furthermore, alternative centers or authorities are frequently sought, in order to find meaning (if the beauty of the Universe and the noble pursuit of truth do not satisfy our hypothetical atheists).

G.K. Chesterton had Father Brown make a similar point in the short story "The oracle of the dog." (concerning the credulity of some forms of atheism. As a rather irritatingly trite yet apposite expression goes, "If you do not believe in something, you'll fall for anything." Dawkins of course does believe in a number of things, in Reason, the reality and beauty of the Universe, and in the essential falsity of all theistic religions, for example.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

12 Jun 2015, 12:40 am

Ban-Dodger wrote:
ALL arguments & debates™ about "God" are actually futile unless the definition of said "god" is specifically defined.

Typically, the role of a "god" decides & dictates something about your life, such to the point that YOU have no control over that "god's" decision. One example, suppose somebody wanted me killed, and was after my life, you could say that they are "playing god" if no amount of effort on mine or anybody's part could change their mind or efforts from actually terminating my physical-existence.

The "history" of the "role of God" also needs to be addressed. A time existed when the "rulers" over a society or civilisation, whether they be known in human-history books as kings or queens or monarchs or presidents or prime-ministers or other such "appointed" or "official" positions, were once referred to as "gods" themselves. A time later on came where people started questioning the idea & becoming more skeptical of these "leaders" being actual gods, considering that other "gods" also rose into "competition" with these other gods, and were found to be able to bleed & even die rather than the idea that said "god" simply left or disappeared or abandoned their people.

When it became laughable that anybody would call themselves a god, the manipulative-trick was to later on claim that these "kings/chiefs/mandarins/presidents/etc" were "appointed" by god, and then humanity got tricked again into believing that all of these "government-regulations" were "god-ordained" (and some of these regulations were encoded into "bibles" & "qu'rans" & other such books which are equivalent to today's "legal-system" encodures called a law-book). Whilst remnants of that still exist to this very day, nothing has really changed, not in regards to the SAME "class-system" of leaders/kings/chiefs/mandarins/presidents/prime-minsters/etc., and their subjects/peons/followers/peasants/tax-payers/citizens/etc.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED, and whilst they may no longer be referred to as "God" in this current era, they most-certainly have taken on the "role" of "playing one" (pretenders to their thrones) such that you cannot really do anything to over-ride their decisions (besides becoming a "god" yourself perhaps through Guy Fawkes' Anonymous-style activity). The "phenomenon" of which we cannot control could be attributed to or being called god, but in more accurate modern-day vocabulary, such a thing would probably simply be better-called a Law (e.g.: Murphy's Law, Poe's Law, The Law of Cause & Effect, For Every Action There is an Equal & Opposite RE-Action, etc).

I only believe in ONE "god/law" and that god/law is the idea that for every action there IS an equal & opposite RE-action, but as nobody can control when all or any of these RE-actions actually occur, then it is "as a god/law" that is far-beyond our ability to control irregardless of the amount of "science" that goes behind how much I try to control when my own actions or that of my "servants" will return upon my own head (such as if I punched somebody at random then I have no way in which to control when I may be myself punched at random in the future).


I would have to agree about the need for clearer definitions. The English word "God" and its rough equivalents in other languages, has very specific but different meanings in a number of human minds, and we need to be clear as to what manner of deity's existence is being asserted and denied. Belief in God or goddeses, gods, spirits, etc. is usually not in isolation, but part of one of a number of particular faith-traditions.This ties in with a flaw in the "unsubstantiated" claim. The evidence of history and other disciplines is read by adherents of different positions, whether theist or atheist (and either in any of their diverse range of variations) in a manner consistent with each individual human's world view, generally based upon a tradition shared with a number of fellow-humans, and the various kinds of atheist are not immune to this factor. Frequently the decision to wholeheartedly embrace such a worldview stems more, or at least as much, from emotional and experiential motives as from reason. Nor are these necessarily in tension; humans possess both emotions and reason among their many faculties, and both need to be taken into account.

The Scientific Revolution was not a historical accident in my view; not only were specific individuals drivers of progress, but there were very specific philosophical and religious events that made the development of something as elegant as the scientific method and many of its applications more likely (for the moment, given God's existence, however understood, is the subject of contention, the role of God or the Enemy is put aside for the time being). Science might have been said to have existed in some sense for millennia before hand alongside various philosophical and religious views in many civilizations (certainly particular sciences such as astronomy did) but what might be characterised as the beginnings of a scientific worldview arguably did not.

Incidentally, the likes of Newton were capable of interest in a range of disciplines, not just those associated with natural philosophy (what today we would call science, though that is just a Latinate word meaning knowledge, while individual names for sciences/disciplines are usually Greek or occasionally Arabic, though the sciences named are usually either older (frequently Mesopotamian or Egyptian, for example) or younger neologisms from putting Greek words together (modern sub-disciplines of the older sciences).

Nor are all assumptions typical of a particular mindset immune to questioning; the "plausibility" or not of Divine reality is a human construct, at least as much as any notion of necessary meaning.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

12 Jun 2015, 12:42 am

Lintar wrote:
This

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum ... ism?page=2

does not look promising. Many of the responses here are, I have to say, rather infantile. Ex. 'Theology without evidence is worth no more than a bucket of spit'. Alternatively, there is this gem, 'And their arguments aren't sound to begin with, but your point is valid. There is no physical evidence. Just their feels and some BS prophecies'.

Okay, I'll persist with it, if only because amongst all the non sequiturs, childish logic, and philosophical naivete there may actually be a valid point or two. At least, I hope so.


Because the subject is an emotional one for many humans on both sides of the argument, our reason does tend to cave into our emotional side. I think a decent training in philosophy, theology and history would be helpful regardless of one's position, as well as at least a grounding in all the natural and social sciences.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

12 Jun 2015, 12:52 am

Ban-Dodger wrote:
ALL arguments & debates™ about "God" are actually futile unless the definition of said "god" is specifically defined.

Typically, the role of a "god" decides & dictates something about your life, such to the point that YOU have no control over that "god's" decision. One example, suppose somebody wanted me killed, and was after my life, you could say that they are "playing god" if no amount of effort on mine or anybody's part could change their mind or efforts from actually terminating my physical-existence.

The "history" of the "role of God" also needs to be addressed. A time existed when the "rulers" over a society or civilisation, whether they be known in human-history books as kings or queens or monarchs or presidents or prime-ministers or other such "appointed" or "official" positions, were once referred to as "gods" themselves. A time later on came where people started questioning the idea & becoming more skeptical of these "leaders" being actual gods, considering that other "gods" also rose into "competition" with these other gods, and were found to be able to bleed & even die rather than the idea that said "god" simply left or disappeared or abandoned their people.

When it became laughable that anybody would call themselves a god, the manipulative-trick was to later on claim that these "kings/chiefs/mandarins/presidents/etc" were "appointed" by god, and then humanity got tricked again into believing that all of these "government-regulations" were "god-ordained" (and some of these regulations were encoded into "bibles" & "qu'rans" & other such books which are equivalent to today's "legal-system" encodures called a law-book). Whilst remnants of that still exist to this very day, nothing has really changed, not in regards to the SAME "class-system" of leaders/kings/chiefs/mandarins/presidents/prime-minsters/etc., and their subjects/peons/followers/peasants/tax-payers/citizens/etc.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED, and whilst they may no longer be referred to as "God" in this current era, they most-certainly have taken on the "role" of "playing one" (pretenders to their thrones) such that you cannot really do anything to over-ride their decisions (besides becoming a "god" yourself perhaps through Guy Fawkes' Anonymous-style activity). The "phenomenon" of which we cannot control could be attributed to or being called god, but in more accurate modern-day vocabulary, such a thing would probably simply be better-called a Law (e.g.: Murphy's Law, Poe's Law, The Law of Cause & Effect, For Every Action There is an Equal & Opposite RE-Action, etc).

I only believe in ONE "god/law" and that god/law is the idea that for every action there IS an equal & opposite RE-action, but as nobody can control when all or any of these RE-actions actually occur, then it is "as a god/law" that is far-beyond our ability to control irregardless of the amount of "science" that goes behind how much I try to control when my own actions or that of my "servants" will return upon my own head (such as if I punched somebody at random then I have no way in which to control when I may be myself punched at random in the future).


Interesting points on the history of divine, or at least divinely ordained monarchy. Not all ancient people went so far as to regard their sovereigns as actually divine, but the notion that they were at least ordained by and representatives of the gods or of God survived into comparatively recent times.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

12 Jun 2015, 12:58 am

Lintar wrote:
pcuser wrote:
Lintar wrote:
It's become very quiet here. Where have all of the cocky, self-righteous atheists gone? If it is, as so many of them claim, easy to show that the concept of God is itself incoherent, illogical and invalid (and that therefore God obviously doesn't exist), then why have they not thus far succeeded in demonstrating this?

Oh well, tearing apart their arguments (if I can actually call them that) was fun while it lasted :mrgreen:

It's not our need or desire to disprove something that doesn't exist. You're the ones making extraordinary claims. Hence you have to provide extraordinary evidence...

Also, if you want a debate, you could go to this link and debate atheists to your hearts content. Be warned though, they'll tear you up.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum ... ism?page=2


Actually, it's not this simple. First of all you cannot seriously contend that God doesn't exist. You don't know this. Secondly, what exactly is 'an extraordinary claim'? I've made this point before, but I will do so again, and that is that what may be extraordinary for one person will not necessarily be so for someone else; it's a purely subjective assessment. A third issue is that atheists seem to believe they are not making any claims, and so therefore don't have to justify their stance, but this is simply not true, as can be seen in your claim above that God doesn't exist. Whether the claim is positive or negative (ex. 'God does exist', or 'God doesn't exist') the one making such a claim needs to justify it and therefore has the burden of evidence placed upon him/her. The only ones who don't need to do this are agnostics, because they simply don't know one way or the other and are willing to admit this.

Thanks for the link, I will go there now, and we will find out who will do the tearing.


Good point. A positive or negative claim of this magnitude is certainly a claim, and to treat atheism as the default or neutral position and alternatives as the only position that needs to be defended, appears to me to be intellectually dishonest. Even if it were so logically self evident, there are serious consequences that need to be taken into account - what philosophical basis or justification for one's ethical decisions shall each individual atheist elect to follow, or shall they merely submit to the custom or law of a particular historical setting, however unjust or unmerciful that becomes? What replaces God? In practice most humans seek alternatives upon rejecting God. How do you intend to deal with those who reject atheism's rejection of all other faith traditions, and how in disagreement are humans to get along, and work as allies against the many threats facing humanity?


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

12 Jun 2015, 1:06 am

AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
A positive or negative claim of this magnitude is certainly a claim, and to treat atheism as the default or neutral position and alternatives as the only position that needs to be defended, appears to me to be intellectually dishonest. Even if it were so logically self evident, there are serious consequences that need to be taken into account - what philosophical basis or justification for one's ethical decisions shall each individual atheist elect to follow, or shall they merely submit to the custom or law of a particular historical setting, however unjust or unmerciful that becomes? What replaces God?


Yes, the consequences of one's rejection of the notion of God are rarely, if ever, explored by those who take it as an article of faith that God doesn't exist. Perhaps they are just too afraid to go there.



AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

12 Jun 2015, 1:30 am

Lintar wrote:
AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
A positive or negative claim of this magnitude is certainly a claim, and to treat atheism as the default or neutral position and alternatives as the only position that needs to be defended, appears to me to be intellectually dishonest. Even if it were so logically self evident, there are serious consequences that need to be taken into account - what philosophical basis or justification for one's ethical decisions shall each individual atheist elect to follow, or shall they merely submit to the custom or law of a particular historical setting, however unjust or unmerciful that becomes? What replaces God?


Yes, the consequences of one's rejection of the notion of God are rarely, if ever, explored by those who take it as an article of faith that God doesn't exist. Perhaps they are just too afraid to go there.


Some atheist philosophers have touched upon it, but by and large people tend to act as if some principles at least had enduring moral force, not just changing law and custom. People draw the moral boundaries in different places, but mercifully few are actual consistent moral relativists (I say mercifully because of the human consequence of such an extreme stance). To be fair, a few professing Christians can also act as though God did not exist, which is quite troubling.

Philosophical systems provide different rationalisations and motives for doing good and refraining from evil, but content-wise these systems tend to be similar to the wider morality, differing on a few specific areas where they (individual ethicists or philosopheres more broadly) personally regard these ethics to be faulty. To my mind this area is surely of importance to us all, as living in the same world the ethics that govern our relations with one another are vital. Our world may be broken, but it is not yet devoid of principle or compassion, so there is hope.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

12 Jun 2015, 1:34 am

AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
Ban-Dodger wrote:
ALL arguments & debates™ about "God" are actually futile unless the definition of said "god" is specifically defined.

Typically, the role of a "god" decides & dictates something about your life, such to the point that YOU have no control over that "god's" decision. One example, suppose somebody wanted me killed, and was after my life, you could say that they are "playing god" if no amount of effort on mine or anybody's part could change their mind or efforts from actually terminating my physical-existence.

The "history" of the "role of God" also needs to be addressed. A time existed when the "rulers" over a society or civilisation, whether they be known in human-history books as kings or queens or monarchs or presidents or prime-ministers or other such "appointed" or "official" positions, were once referred to as "gods" themselves. A time later on came where people started questioning the idea & becoming more skeptical of these "leaders" being actual gods, considering that other "gods" also rose into "competition" with these other gods, and were found to be able to bleed & even die rather than the idea that said "god" simply left or disappeared or abandoned their people.

When it became laughable that anybody would call themselves a god, the manipulative-trick was to later on claim that these "kings/chiefs/mandarins/presidents/etc" were "appointed" by god, and then humanity got tricked again into believing that all of these "government-regulations" were "god-ordained" (and some of these regulations were encoded into "bibles" & "qu'rans" & other such books which are equivalent to today's "legal-system" encodures called a law-book). Whilst remnants of that still exist to this very day, nothing has really changed, not in regards to the SAME "class-system" of leaders/kings/chiefs/mandarins/presidents/prime-minsters/etc., and their subjects/peons/followers/peasants/tax-payers/citizens/etc.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED, and whilst they may no longer be referred to as "God" in this current era, they most-certainly have taken on the "role" of "playing one" (pretenders to their thrones) such that you cannot really do anything to over-ride their decisions (besides becoming a "god" yourself perhaps through Guy Fawkes' Anonymous-style activity). The "phenomenon" of which we cannot control could be attributed to or being called god, but in more accurate modern-day vocabulary, such a thing would probably simply be better-called a Law (e.g.: Murphy's Law, Poe's Law, The Law of Cause & Effect, For Every Action There is an Equal & Opposite RE-Action, etc).

I only believe in ONE "god/law" and that god/law is the idea that for every action there IS an equal & opposite RE-action, but as nobody can control when all or any of these RE-actions actually occur, then it is "as a god/law" that is far-beyond our ability to control irregardless of the amount of "science" that goes behind how much I try to control when my own actions or that of my "servants" will return upon my own head (such as if I punched somebody at random then I have no way in which to control when I may be myself punched at random in the future).


Interesting points on the history of divine, or at least divinely ordained monarchy. Not all ancient people went so far as to regard their sovereigns as actually divine, but the notion that they were at least ordained by and representatives of the gods or of God survived into comparatively recent times.


What do you mean by your deification of Newton's Law of equal and opposite reaction? That there are two sides to the Ultimate, and these operate like a pendulum in history (sounds slightly Hegelian, though there is a sense in which history at least is like that, with things in various spectra moving between poles.


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."


AlexandertheSolitary
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Dec 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: Melbourne

12 Jun 2015, 1:40 am

Lintar wrote:
AlexandertheSolitary wrote:
A positive or negative claim of this magnitude is certainly a claim, and to treat atheism as the default or neutral position and alternatives as the only position that needs to be defended, appears to me to be intellectually dishonest. Even if it were so logically self evident, there are serious consequences that need to be taken into account - what philosophical basis or justification for one's ethical decisions shall each individual atheist elect to follow, or shall they merely submit to the custom or law of a particular historical setting, however unjust or unmerciful that becomes? What replaces God?


Yes, the consequences of one's rejection of the notion of God are rarely, if ever, explored by those who take it as an article of faith that God doesn't exist. Perhaps they are just too afraid to go there.


Is there not a C.S. Lewis quote to the aspect of terror upon realising that God might actually be real? (I think that is more about people flirting with abstract philosophical constructs of God as opposed to a living, active and personal God, as "Hunter, husband and Lord").


_________________
You are like children playing in the market-place saying, "We piped for you and you would not dance, we wailed a dirge for you and you would not weep."