The plans of God

Status
Not open for further replies.
dafydd said:
I like word games. Carry on. For what it's worth, I do not believe that there are no gods, rather, I have never seen any proof of these beings. Thousands of years and no proof. I conclude that there are no gods but show me incontrovertible proof a a supreme god's existence and I will be on my knees worshiping away with the best of them.
Click to expand...

Well Some would call you an Agnostic others would prefer to blur the line between Agnostic and Athiest and try to say you are a "weak athiest"

Myself, I think your position is perfectly valid,and personally I would not say that your position is "weak" , I would simply call you an Agnostic, and as I have repetitively stated, however you may define it, or whatever term you want to use, your stated position is the only truly scientific position on the existence or non-existence of God.
 
Last edited:
devnull said:
Wow. My irony meter just exploded, killing 3 innocent passers by.

Josh - you dont get to blatantly equivocate with "reason" and "reasoning".

You are correct - "all this cannot be an accident" may in fact be your reason, but it is not reasoned. It is a bare assertion.

If youd like to step up and provide evidence for this, and we found that it stands up to scrutiny, then perhaps you could claim it is reasoned.

Josh, please, stop shooting from the hip and changing the definition of words to suit your mood.


ETA: I should also add that there seems to be equivocation surrounding "a god" (in its most nebulous form) and "the abrahamic god of the bible" or similar. Define terms!
Click to expand...


Last time I checked Reasoning was a synonym with Reason, although they are not identical it is common use of english to equivocate one with the other, look it up if you don't believe me.

I think you kids need to start using that dictionary that you despise so much a little bit more.

Faulty or illogical reasoning is very common, tell me that my reasoning is illogical, tell me you disagree with it, but don't try to tell me that it is not reasoning at all, that is just plain ridiculous...

An interesting ploy though, if a bit underhanded and dishonest.



I believe that Something Designed or Created the Universe, for lack of a better term, I call that something: God or the Creator.

I don't make any other presumptions about it, I don't know, as far as "Abrahamic God" is concerned. Please define it for me, and I will tell you if it fits my Idea of what "God" is.

I just don't know. Why does that piss you off so much?
That you have to try and say that my reasons aren't really reasons?

Come on now, you aren't really that dense are you?


I like chocolate, my reasoning : It tastes good.

You can tell me it is bad all day long, that it will harden my arteries, it will give me high blood pressure, but at the end of the day, my reasoning behind my love of chocolate will not change, I like it because it tastes good. End of story.

Same thing with my belief of God, I believe in God because I study the Natural world all day long and at the end of the day I conclude, "All of this cannot be an accident" End of Story.
 
Last edited:
Does this mean that I ascribe to "The Theory of Intelligent Design"?
No it doesn't. I think that group is a bunch of Charlatans, and I have already stated that my opinion is not scientific, any more than my love of chocolate is scientific. I love driving fast cars, is that scientific? I cherish Beauty in all its forms, is that scientific?

I love to eat great food, is that scientific? I enjoy reading a good mystery novel. I love Crab legs.


I have all kinds of opinions and beliefs that I cannot prove with science, that does not make them invalid.

Maybe you hate crablegs and chocolate...

So What?
 
AdMan said:
Break out of your "I'm so superior to everyone here" shell. It's blatantly untrue and increasingly annoying.
Click to expand...

I am not superior to everyone here, however I am being attacked on all sides, and many of those attacks are underhanded and don't make sense...

Like trying to say that my reasoning is not reasoning for example...

trying to tell me that I don't get to equivocate reasoning with reason, when the two words are synonyms...

I was not strictly equivocating the two words anyway...

Why are you telling me that I am acting superior to everyone here?

I am the new guy remember? I just got here...

Occasionally I might make a fopah or say something inapropriate, because I don't understand the "Netiquette" , when that happens I apologize, and attempt to correct myself.

But why do you keep saying I am having an "I am so superior to everyone here" attitude, that simply is not true.

I disagree with most everyone on here, but that does not mean I think I am superior.

You obviously disagree with me, do you think you are superior to me?

If somebody attacks me in a way that does not make sense, and then tries to redefine words and then accuse me of redefining them, I will call him on it.


Plain and Simple
 
Last edited:
josh3623 said:
Last time I checked Reasoning was a synonym with Reason, although they are not identical it is common use of english to equivocate one with the other, look it up if you don't believe me.

I think you kids need to start using that dictionary that you despise so much a little bit more.
Click to expand...

Please do not lecture us on the use of English, while using 'equivocate' when you mean 'equate'.
Look it up if you are unsure
 
josh3623 said:
I am not superior to everyone here, however I am being attacked on all sides, and many of those attacks are underhanded and don't make sense...

Like trying to say that my reasoning is not reasoning for example...

trying to tell me that I don't get to equivocate reasoning with reason, when the two words are synonyms...

I was not strictly equivocating the two words anyway...

Why are you telling me that I am acting superior to everyone here?

I am the new guy remember? I just got here...

Occasionally I might make a fopah or say something inapropriate, because I don't understand the "Netiquette" , when that happens I apologize, and attempt to correct myself.

But why do you keep saying I am having an "I am so superior to everyone here" attitude, that simply is not true.

I disagree with most everyone on here, but that does not mean I think I am superior.

You obviously disagree with me, do you think you are superior to me?

If somebody attacks me in a way that does not make sense, and then tries to redefine words and then accuse me of redefining them, I will call him on it.


Plain and Simple
Click to expand...


I never said I was superior to you.

I meant that you were coming across as pretending you were superior to others when you were quite incorrect in what you were talking about.

You don't know what the word atheist means, beyond the first one or two definitions you found in a little dictionary. Yet you pretend to tell atheists in this forum what they believe. Isn't that feeling superior to them?

By the way, read the posts in this forum, or look the word up in a proper dictionary. Atheist does not mean what you think it means to the other members here. This undermines your whole argument.

How old are you? I'm betting you're in your teens.

OP means original post or original poster.

Oh, and "fopah" is not a word.
 
Last edited:
josh3623 said:
Seems to me you must be the one who is acting superior since you are speaking for everyone
Click to expand...


That was just an observation.

Who does care about your nonsense? I'll be glad to read what they think.
 
josh3623 said:
I don't make any other presumptions about it, I don't know, as far as "Abrahamic God" is concerned.
Click to expand...

Excellent! Remember that when making decisions.

josh3623 said:
Please define it for me, and I will tell you if it fits my Idea of what "God" is.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's not up to me to define other people's fictional characters. I'll let them do it.

josh3623 said:
I just don't know. Why does that piss you off so much?
Click to expand...

It doesnt! Not one bit. It irritates me whenever people use faulty logic, or equivocate, or construct a strawman and tell other people it's what they believe...... but you believing in some nebulous "god" entity for bad reasons doesnt bother me at all.

josh3623 said:
That you have to try and say that my reasons aren't really reasons?
Click to expand...

No no, they are indeed your reasons, but I can't see that they are *reasoned*.

example:

You: Let's go into that abandoned house!
Me: No
You: Why not?
Me: Because I think it's haunted by the ghost of a dead orangutan.

vs

You: Let's go into that abandoned house!
Me: No
You: Why not?
Me: I can see rotting wood, so I have doubts as to the structural integrity of the flooring.

Both are reasons - only 1 is reasoned.

josh3623 said:
Come on now, you aren't really that dense are you?
Click to expand...

Im dense because you equivocate? That's a new one.

josh3623 said:
I like chocolate, my reasoning : It tastes good.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's a good reason.


josh3623 said:
You can tell me it is bad all day long, that it will harden my arteries, it will give me high blood pressure, but at the end of the day, my reasoning behind my love of chocolate will not change, I like it because it tastes good. End of story.

Same thing with my belief of God, I believe in God because I study the Natural world all day long and at the end of the day I conclude, "All of this cannot be an accident" End of Story.
Click to expand...

This is so full of wrong I dont even know where to start.

Let's just say this: if you indeed study the natural world all day long, and have arrived at that conclusion, you should be able to show your working. If you cant, it isnt a *reasoned* position, it is a faith-based position, and about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

If you then claim "Im not trying to change anyone's mind, my reasons are my own blah blah blah" then that is fine too, but your position still isnt *reasoned* and will be open to obvious ridicule.

I wont even mention that "all of this is an accident" is a strawman, and that many atheists believe that multi-cellular life is an inevitable outcome of the involved chemistry. Nope, won't even mention that.

Fair enough?
 
Excuse me, I meant " faux pas"

I am in my early forties.

Thanks for explaining OP to me

Speaking of OP? why is this thread primarily populated by Athiests?
 
josh3623 said:
I am not superior to everyone here, however I am being attacked on all sides, and many of those attacks are underhanded and don't make sense...

Like trying to say that my reasoning is not reasoning for example...

trying to tell me that I don't get to equivocate reasoning with reason, when the two words are synonyms...

I was not strictly equivocating the two words anyway...

Why are you telling me that I am acting superior to everyone here?

I am the new guy remember? I just got here...

Occasionally I might make a fopah or say something inapropriate, because I don't understand the "Netiquette" , when that happens I apologize, and attempt to correct myself.

But why do you keep saying I am having an "I am so superior to everyone here" attitude, that simply is not true.

I disagree with most everyone on here, but that does not mean I think I am superior.

You obviously disagree with me, do you think you are superior to me?

If somebody attacks me in a way that does not make sense, and then tries to redefine words and then accuse me of redefining them, I will call him on it.


Plain and Simple
Click to expand...
You are being criticized for making up your own definition of the word atheism, for tarring all atheists with the same brush and for calling atheism a belief.
 
devnull said:
Excellent! Remember that when making decisions.



Nah, it's not up to me to define other people's fictional characters. I'll let them do it.



It doesnt! Not one bit. It irritates me whenever people use faulty logic, or equivocate, or construct a strawman and tell other people it's what they believe...... but you believing in some nebulous "god" entity for bad reasons doesnt bother me at all.
Click to expand...


Well you are the one who brought it up...





devnull said:
No no, they are indeed your reasons, but I can't see that they are *reasoned*.

example:

You: Let's go into that abandoned house!
Me: No
You: Why not?
Me: Because I think it's haunted by the ghost of a dead orangutan.

vs

You: Let's go into that abandoned house!
Me: No
You: Why not?
Me: I can see rotting wood, so I have doubts as to the structural integrity of the flooring.

Both are reasons - only 1 is reasoned.
Click to expand...



Both are reasoned, but you think one of the answers is unreasonable, that is your opinion.
And you may be right, just because you can invalidate a reason, does not mean that it is not a reason, it merely becomes a wrong reason.






devnull said:
Im dense because you equivocate? That's a new one.



Yep, that's a good reason.
Click to expand...

You are acting dense because you are trying to say a reason is not a reason, just because you think its wrong or you don't agree with it.





devnull said:
This is so full of wrong I dont even know where to start.

Let's just say this: if you indeed study the natural world all day long, and have arrived at that conclusion, you should be able to show your working. If you cant, it isnt a *reasoned* position, it is a faith-based position, and about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

If you then claim "Im not trying to change anyone's mind, my reasons are my own blah blah blah" then that is fine too, but your position still isnt *reasoned* and will be open to obvious ridicule.

I wont even mention that "all of this is an accident" is a strawman, and that many atheists believe that multi-cellular life is an inevitable outcome of the involved chemistry. Nope, won't even mention that.

Fair enough?
Click to expand...

You see this is what I mean when I say "Dense".. You are completely ignoring the fact that I repetitively stated that my position is faith based,
and then you are erroneously stating that a faith based position cannot be "Reasoned" this is simply not true.

Reasoning can be from a position of faith. It would be called faith based reasoning, you may not agree with it, but your position is not really an honest one because you believe that God does not exist, and that position, whether you want to admit it or not, is also a faith based position.

You don't believe me...?

OK then..

Prove to me that God Does Not Exist.

You cannot do it.

Instead you will spout some rhetoric that misstates the Null Hypothesis, or distract everyone with some criticism of grammer, or trying to redefime the english language
 
josh3623 said:
Prove to me that God Does Not Exist.

You cannot do it.
Click to expand...

Which one of the many gods that mankind has invented are you referring to? You know that we cannot prove that gods do not exist, but all the evidence points that way. Do you believe that Odin and Zeus exist? Can you prove that Santa Claus and the Tooth fairy do not exist? There, I didn't redefine the English language, I will leave that to you.
 
Last edited:
josh3623 said:
You see I have found that the majority of Atheists, are generally disenfranchised Christians, so they are using the argument that there is no god as a way of lashing out at Christianity, which as former members, mostly by way of birth, they are rebelling against the very institution which has caused them some form of grief.
Click to expand...

That may be your experience but is a huge, sweeping generalistion that simply isn't true for most atheists. I only know two people who would identify themselves as christian. Personally I have been an atheist for as long as I can remember. I am not lashing out at christianity, or angry at god as he/she/it doesn't exist.

josh3623 said:
Take Paulhoff for example, you see how he is always railing against christianity, and the majority of the times that he discusses his belief that God cannot exist, he also tries to throw in some taunt against christians?

Most likely he has suffered some kind of trauma around the christian institution, ie he suffered at a catholic high school, they fed him lies and hit his knuckles with a ruler. or perhaps he just got sick of all the lies, and wretched talk of eating someones flesh or drinking someones blood. Whatever it was, he is obviously disgusted with christianity and has swung across to the other extreme... Or else he is from a group that is persecuted by the bigotry that prevails, ie perhaps he was a homosexual who was repetitively told that he would burn in hell and was subsequently disowned by his Christian Family. I actually knew someone who this happened to, and not surprisingly he was an Atheist.

In fact I find Paulhoff's despise of the bible and Christianity to be endemic of most of the Athiests I have come across.
In other words, most of them seem to have an axe to grind...
Nothing Scientific about it.
Click to expand...

Many people rail against the bible because of the disgusting morals that it represents, and because the god of the bible is a small-minded, bigoted, egotistical and petulant child.
 
Multivac said:
. I am not lashing out at christianity, or angry at god as he/she/it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

It is awfully difficult to take umbrage against an imaginary being. Why do believers find that so hard to understand? I don't hate Krishna or Zeus so why should I hate the imaginary Christian god?
 
Last edited:
josh3623 said:
It appears that you are simply trying to confuse the issue.
Click to expand...
By showing your simplistic definitions to be in error?

Definition of Athiest from the dictionary:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
Click to expand...
Good, you admit that this is the definition of atheist. Lacking belief in god(s).
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Click to expand...
And yet you cling to a more restrictive definition which atheists here have said doesnt' apply to them.

It is just as impossible to prove that God does Not exist as it is to prove that God Does exist, therefore both views are unscientific.
Click to expand...
As a scientist, you must surely be aware of the impossibility of proving a universal negative. I'm sure I mentioned it before. How did you go about proving the non-existence of Thor? If you didn't, is Thor one of the gods you belive in? You must believe in every god ever imagined.

You folks sure seem to have a major problem with this simple fact.
Click to expand...
No, your posts show that you have a problem with reading comprehension.
 
josh3623 said:
OK it appears you have hit the nail on the head.

Gnosticism of any type is unscientific, and necessarily based on Faith, and as you yourself stated: " Agnostics don't know whether god exists or not."

Atheism is in fact a form of Gnosticism, and therefore by definition based on faith, not science.
Click to expand...
No, you've stopped comprehending again. I'll try to explain for you.

Atheism/Theism is a measure of belief. Theists believe in one or more gods. You are a polytheist because you can't disprove that any gods don't exist. You believe in every god ever imagined.

Gnostic/Agnostic is a measure of knowledge. The axis measuring it is 90 degrees to the axis measuring Atheism/Theism so here are the combinations:

Agnostic atheist
Gnostic atheist
Agnostic theist
Gnostic theist

Because you are an Agnostic theist, you are forced to believe in everything that is unprovable, including every god ever imagined.

Theists by definition are Gnostic, which is in fact the opposite of Agnostic.
Click to expand...
No, you have claimed that you don't know and are therefore agnostic and yet you claim to be a theist because you believe without any evidence that there is a designer of the universe. Why did you say that if you are now claiming that theists are gnostic? Which statement of yours is incorrect?

Gnostic literally means "Know" whereas Agnostic means "not to know" or Does not Know

The only way to "know" either that God does or does not exist is by a leap of faith, because science simply does not support either viewpoint.
Click to expand...
As a scientist, can you explain the difference between a positive claim and a negative claim?
 
josh3623 said:
Instead you will spout some rhetoric that misstates the Null Hypothesis, or distract everyone with some criticism of grammer, or trying to redefime the english language
Click to expand...

As a scientist, can you explain the null hypothesis and how it applies to god beliefs?

You do know that there are actual scientists on this forum, right?
 
RoboTimbo said:
You do know that there are actual scientists on this forum, right?
Click to expand...

I get the impression that some visitors here think that that they are conversing with the ignorant yahoos on the David Icke site.
 
Last edited:
5th Foundational Falsehood of Creationism

One video in a series done by AronRa.





Paul


:) :) :)
 
dafydd said:
It is awfully difficult to take umbrage against an imaginary being. Why do believers find that so hard to understand? I don't hate Krishna or Zeus so why should I hate the imaginary Christian god?
Click to expand...

I agree and have no idea why this concept is so hard for some people to understand, but it does seem to be quite common on JREF and elsewhere.
 
Multivac said:
I agree and have no idea why this concept is so hard for some people to understand, but it does seem to be quite common on JREF and elsewhere.
Click to expand...


This goes over the words used by the religious.






Paul


:) :) :)
 
josh3623 said:
...Both are reasoned, but you think one of the answers is unreasonable, that is your opinion.
And you may be right, just because you can invalidate a reason, does not mean that it is not a reason, it merely becomes a wrong reason.
Click to expand...

This exchange reminds me of a great scene from my favourite television series:
 
Multivac said:
I agree and have no idea why this concept is so hard for some people to understand, but it does seem to be quite common on JREF and elsewhere.
Click to expand...

True. I don't have anything against the Jolly Green Giant and the Michelin man so why should I be angry at non-existent gods?
 
Paulhoff said:
Where did I say that I was a determinants.
Click to expand...
Determinist, not determinants (as you wrote).

Since you wrote
Paulhoff said:
You can not do anything you want, no Free-will.
Click to expand...

1. You are determinist.

2. Since you are determinist, you do not understand freewill (where one of its devastating results is to conclude that there is no freewill, and then hold something like Sam Harris' down-stream pre-unconscious point of view, which actually put your freewill under bars, but it is still there even if you put it under bars).

I do not agree with Sam Harris' down-stream pre-unconscious theory as the must have basis of any possible conscious state of mind simply because the calm source of any possible expression in the universe (whether it is abstract or physical) is presented right now as the core of any possible action and reaction, so there are always new streams in your brain that are not the results of previous streams.

Furthermore, the scientists that conclude that our actions and re-actions are no more than down-stream pre-unconscious states are themselves closed under their own theory and can't use their down-stream pre-unconscious in order to conclude that there are other possibilities accept down-stream pre-unconscious states. Moreover, there is no necessary identity between the in-vitro laboratorys' conditions and in-vivo real life conditions.

Paulhoff said:
Freewill has nothing to do with a so-called god.
Click to expand...
Freewill is exactly the ability to create an original expression right from the calm source of any possible expression. You can give infinitely many (gods') names to this calm source, but names are nothing but particular expressions that can't fully capture the calm source in itself (exactly as silence in itself can't really be described by a given sound).
 
Last edited:
josh3623 said:
Last time I checked Reasoning was a synonym with Reason, although they are not identical it is common use of english to equivocate one with the other, look it up if you don't believe me.

I think you kids need to start using that dictionary that you despise so much a little bit more.

Faulty or illogical reasoning is very common, tell me that my reasoning is illogical, tell me you disagree with it, but don't try to tell me that it is not reasoning at all, that is just plain ridiculous...

An interesting ploy though, if a bit underhanded and dishonest.



I believe that Something Designed or Created the Universe, for lack of a better term, I call that something: God or the Creator.

I don't make any other presumptions about it, I don't know, as far as "Abrahamic God" is concerned. Please define it for me, and I will tell you if it fits my Idea of what "God" is.

I just don't know. Why does that piss you off so much?
That you have to try and say that my reasons aren't really reasons?

Come on now, you aren't really that dense are you?


I like chocolate, my reasoning : It tastes good.

You can tell me it is bad all day long, that it will harden my arteries, it will give me high blood pressure, but at the end of the day, my reasoning behind my love of chocolate will not change, I like it because it tastes good. End of story.

Same thing with my belief of God, I believe in God because I study the Natural world all day long and at the end of the day I conclude, "All of this cannot be an accident" End of Story.
Click to expand...


I study the Natural world all day long and at the end of the day I conclude, "All of this can be an accident".


My assertion is just as good as your assertion.
 
AdMan said:
LOL

Do you even know what this forum is all about?
Click to expand...

LOL!!!!

A place to discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly in Lively way?


And that is all I know, I have never heard of James Randi, but if he could think up a great tagline like that he must be cool...


I will tell you how I stumibled onto this site a few weeks ago on my birthday .

Ok I must have signed on here like a long time ago trying to get acess to information, and I was perusing and the folks here at the forum wished me a happy birthday.

I was touched, so I clicked the link, barely remembering why I had signed up, somehow I wound up on this page. about "Plans for God" something stated caught my interest so I left a post, and the rest is history...

The title was a little general, but it sounded nice to me...

Am I missing something???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom