IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 1st December 2012, 05:16 AM   #521
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Only one problem there. Not a shred of proof for the existence of any god.


(We really need that smiley.)
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 05:58 AM   #522
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
It only makes sense to discuss morality in terms of human beings - human decision-making, human values, and human relationships.
Quote:
False dichotomy. Human relationships include our relationship with God; recognizing that morality is a phenomenon independent of God doesn't imply that God is irrelevant to morality.
Do you mean that morality doesn't apply to God's own decisions or actions, only to our relationship with him? In other words, that's how one explains God doing immoral things: morality only applies to human interactions.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 10:45 AM   #523
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
Do you mean that morality doesn't apply to God's own decisions or actions, only to our relationship with him? In other words, that's how one explains God doing immoral things: morality only applies to human interactions.
No no no, you've got it all backwards. Morality does apply to God's own actions, in that "whatever God does is moral" is encoded into morality. He's not above the rules, he just has a hardcoded exemption written into them.

God therefore can't do immoral things at all, because "whatever God does is moral."
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 11:04 AM   #524
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post

God therefore can't do immoral things at all, because "whatever God does is moral."
Even when it's immoral.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 11:27 AM   #525
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
Do you mean that morality doesn't apply to God's own decisions or actions, only to our relationship with him? In other words, that's how one explains God doing immoral things: morality only applies to human interactions.
That's an interesting idea; I'll have to think about that.

My current understanding is that, no, morality applies to God as well. For instance, were God to lie or to express malice or dehumanize, it would still be just as wrong even though it's God doing it. The rules are the rules.

Of course, what throws people off are the things God has the right to do because He's God but we as human individuals don't have the right to do, like determine the circumstances of peoples' deaths (including bringing about those deaths). As He explains in Job, He did put the world in motion and He does run it, and just as He had the right and ability to bring us into the world, He also has the right and ability to take us out of it -- a right which he does not generally give humans with respect to each other, except in particular cases (government, war).

Last edited by AvalonXQ; 1st December 2012 at 11:28 AM.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 12:10 PM   #526
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
That's an interesting idea; I'll have to think about that.

My current understanding is that, no, morality applies to God as well. For instance, were God to lie or to express malice or dehumanize, it would still be just as wrong even though it's God doing it. The rules are the rules.

Of course, what throws people off are the things God has the right to do because He's God but we as human individuals don't have the right to do, like determine the circumstances of peoples' deaths (including bringing about those deaths). As He explains in Job, He did put the world in motion and He does run it, and just as He had the right and ability to bring us into the world, He also has the right and ability to take us out of it -- a right which he does not generally give humans with respect to each other, except in particular cases (government, war).
Does creating something give you the right to destroy it? If not, then how do you ascertain God's right to choose to end my, your, or anyone's life? If it does, then why does that right not extend to humans creating things - e.g. babies.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 12:13 PM   #527
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
That's an interesting idea; I'll have to think about that.

So having to think about an issue of whether or not something is moral means you were wrong, and there is no objective morality after all.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 12:43 PM   #528
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
Does creating something give you the right to destroy it? If not, then how do you ascertain God's right to choose to end my, your, or anyone's life? If it does, then why does that right not extend to humans creating things - e.g. babies.
Human beings generally live under the principle that what I create, be it a computer or a sculpture or a house, I have control over and the right to destroy. But human beings do not (at least not yet) create life in the same way that I build a house.

The Bible is very clear that it is God, not man, that originates the ability to make babies. We allow babies to grow inside of us, but we no more "create" a human life by fertilizing an ovum than we "create" a plant by burying a seed. The creative force is God's, and He reserves the right to decide under what conditions it is appropriate for life to end.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 06:13 PM   #529
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Wait a second. You assert this:



Yet also this:


Which is it to be? Morality is entirely human, or objectively derived from [insert god of choice]?

Which?
Can you explain which of those posts you quoted means "objectively derived from God"? Because I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I've been arguing against in this thread.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 06:34 PM   #530
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Can you explain which of those posts you quoted means "objectively derived from God"? Because I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I've been arguing against in this thread.
Really? Let's have a look.



Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
My apologies if you've answered this in the pages I didn't read of this thread, but... do you also hold that your God created the objective morality that you are a proponent of?
To the extent that God created the universe itself and the humans in it, yes. But I want to stress that objective morality is deducible from our natures and not arbitrary.
Godunnit therefore all morality is objective.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
It only makes sense to discuss morality in terms of human beings - human decision-making, human values, and human relationships.
But morality is all human and subjective.

You seem to simply mould your position with no other reason but to "win the argument".
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 06:43 PM   #531
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Godunnit therefore all morality is objective.
No, that's not what that means.

I would ask you, again, to review my first posts in this thread where I explain how "God established the universe and morality" is not the same as "morality is dependent from God." Morality is objective independent from God.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 06:48 PM   #532
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
No, that's not what that means.

I would ask you, again, to review my first posts in this thread where I explain how "God established the universe and morality" is not the same as "morality is dependent from God." Morality is objective independent from God.
That is just speculation until you prove that your god exists.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 06:50 PM   #533
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
No, that's not what that means.

I would ask you, again, to review my first posts in this thread where I explain how "God established the universe and morality" is not the same as "morality is dependent from God." Morality is objective independent from God.
So what use is god then? Does not know everything, is not all powerful, and is incapable of establishing objective morality. Somewhat of a useless entity then.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 06:54 PM   #534
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
So what use is god then? Does not know everything, is not all powerful, and is incapable of establishing objective morality. Somewhat of a useless entity then.
I didn't say any of those three things, did I?

You seem to be skimming my posts and then replying to something entirely different from what I said. Have you gone back and read my early posts yet?
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 06:54 PM   #535
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post

God objectively exists.
Proof? Otherwise gods only subjectively exist as delusions. Do you actually know the definitions of the words ''subjective'' and ''objective''? You seem to be confused. If your god objectively exists then you would have no trouble with providing proof.

Last edited by dafydd; 1st December 2012 at 06:58 PM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:00 PM   #536
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I didn't say any of those three things, did I?
Oh, no. Not at all. You did not say those things directly. You simply tried to dance around them.

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
You seem to be skimming my posts and then replying to something entirely different from what I said. Have you gone back and read my early posts yet?
Nope. Read the entire thread. Ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light? I see you dancing, avoiding, dodging.

Revelations 9:11. Reveal me.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:00 PM   #537
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
It's an assertion with an unestablished premise, yes. But if the only criticism you have of my position is that it's wrong because God doesn't actually exist, and nothing else, then there's not anything else for us to discuss on the issue. I'll choose not to waste my time on you and instead engage with people who have more interesting objections.
Do you mean believers who interpret your god differently to you?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:02 PM   #538
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
It's an assertion with an unestablished premise, yes. But if the only criticism you have of my position is that it's wrong because God doesn't actually exist, and nothing else, then there's not anything else for us to discuss on the issue. I'll choose not to waste my time on you and instead engage with people who have more interesting objections.
No. There is no evidence of any god existing. None.

Do you have any?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:04 PM   #539
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Ok, how many of you are pretending that Avalon's god exists just to try and get a straight answer for once?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:05 PM   #540
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
I believe that The Tooth Fairy is an immoral character who promotes avarice amongst the young. Shall we pretend that The Tooth Fairy exists so we can have a discussion?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:06 PM   #541
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Ok, how many of you are pretending that Avalon's god exists just to try and get a straight answer for once?
I await him at the gates of the Abyss.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:09 PM   #542
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I await him at the gates of the Abyss.
Is that a night club?

Last edited by dafydd; 1st December 2012 at 07:15 PM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:12 PM   #543
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Is that a night club?
Night? I suppose one might call it that. Yess, I may use that one as Pat Robertson enters. Thanks. I will keep you a good seat, if you are really, really bad.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:21 PM   #544
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
It's an assertion with an unestablished premise, yes. But if the only criticism you have of my position is that it's wrong because God doesn't actually exist, and nothing else, then there's not anything else for us to discuss on the issue. I'll choose not to waste my time on you and instead engage with people who have more interesting objections.

So we agree with your delusion or you will take your ball and go home.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:25 PM   #545
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Let's try a different tack. I agree that god exists but he can't be moral because he gives children cancer. And that's not the only evil thing that he does.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:28 PM   #546
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Revelations 9:11. Reveal me.
Confused by the reference.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:30 PM   #547
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Confused by the reference.
You don't read the bible?

ETA: here you go:
Quote:
9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 1st December 2012 at 07:32 PM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:35 PM   #548
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You don't read the bible?
Most Christians haven't read the bible. It's ironic that atheists are more conversant with that book of fairy stories.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:42 PM   #549
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
You don't read the bible?
I didn't say I don't recognize the reference. I said I was confused by it. It's at the end of the description of the locust army, it mentions the angel Abaddon, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this thread or what we were talking about.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:45 PM   #550
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I didn't say I don't recognize the reference. I said I was confused by it. It's at the end of the description of the locust army, it mentions the angel Abaddon, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this thread or what we were talking about.
Yes it does. It illustrates the fictional nature of the bible.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:45 PM   #551
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Most Christians haven't read the bible. It's ironic that atheists are more conversant with that book of fairy stories.
I find it to co-relate with CT malarkey quite well. Don't read the source material, just blindly believe what someone else tells you is in there.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:47 PM   #552
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Anybody who accuses me of not knowing the Bible clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 6
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:49 PM   #553
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I didn't say I don't recognize the reference. I said I was confused by it. It's at the end of the description of the locust army, it mentions the angel Abaddon, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this thread or what we were talking about.
I am the Angel of the Abyss. The bible mentions me so it must be true.

Believe me? Or not? Why not? Why believe anything else in that confabulation called the holey babble? Why not Vishnu, or Zeus? Or the FSM, bless his noodly appendage.

It's all malarkey.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 07:56 PM   #554
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Anybody who accuses me of not knowing the Bible clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.

Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 6
I think you are obviously intelligent enough to realise that all religion is bunk.

It intrigues me why you resist what your own intelligence tells you.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 08:03 PM   #555
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I am the Angel of the Abyss. The bible mentions me so it must be true.
You claim to be a figurative entity in a prophetic vision - particularly the angel of the Fifth Seal?

Sorry, but believing the Bible doesn't mean that I believe all ancillary claims about the Bible, particularly when it comes to prophetic visions and entities that probably aren't real.

But what does that have to do about morality and a higher power?

Hamlet Act 4, Scene 7
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 08:08 PM   #556
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
I think you are obviously intelligent enough to realise that all religion is bunk.

It intrigues me why you resist what your own intelligence tells you.
I have both direct and indirect reasons to believe in the Existor that have nothing to do with theology, ontology, or history and everything to do with personal experience.

Also, thank you for the complement. I appreciate it.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 08:46 PM   #557
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Taken on its face…the OP is indisputable. There cannot but exist a higher authority. David Fincher put it best:

“ You’re in charge…you’re not in control. Anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts. “

Nobody here with an atom of intelligence can accurately conclude that they created themselves …or whatever it is that enables them to come to any conclusion at all. There does not exist anything remotely resembling an explanation for our abilities…or who we are, what we are, or this place we all inhabit. Calling it ‘God’ is as reasonable as anything…considering the dimensions of ‘it’ all…not to mention the unavoidable fact that ‘it’ creates us (and is us). Quite obviously, ‘it’ exists. ‘It’ is, by default, a ‘higher authority’ (since we are created by ‘it’, not the other way around). Again…nobody with an atom of intelligence would insist that right and wrong do not exist (anyone disagree????...raise your paw)…and since we cannot take credit for creating anything (except, perhaps, stupidity)…they (right and wrong) must, by default, be a function of this ‘higher authority’.

Always amusing to hear so many complaining that there is no evidence that God exists. Provide evidence that you have the ability to accurately adjudicate such evidence. What would be required to accurately adjudicate the existence of a God? Successful completion of elementary school? Twenty twenty vision? An IQ of 120? Being a vegetarian? A PhD in physics? Emotional maturity? A really really really really really really really really big telescope?

…and while we’re on the subject…what would actually constitute evidence of a God?

And there is lots of evidence that God exists, but that’s a derail and God knows I wouldn’t want to be guilty of a derail.

So…to summarize…there is a higher authority (by default)…there is right and wrong (unless you’re stupid)…we didn’t create right and wrong…so dear old Occam would have that it’s a function of the higher authority. The venerable Sam Harris would prefer to assign its origins to bubbling bits of brain but seeing as how no-one has a clue how bubbling bits of brain produce us we must, by default, defer to the ‘higher authority’ conclusion…cause that’s exactly what it (what creates us) is.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 09:25 PM   #558
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
Taken on its face... the OP is indisputable. There cannot but exist a higher authority. David Fincher put it best:

" You’re in charge... you’re not in control. Anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts. "

Nobody here with an atom of intelligence can accurately conclude that they created themselves ... or whatever it is that enables them to come to any conclusion at all. There does not exist anything remotely resembling an explanation for our abilities... or who we are, what we are, or this place we all inhabit. Calling it ‘God’ is as reasonable as anything... considering the dimensions of ‘it’ all... not to mention the unavoidable fact that ‘it’ creates us (and is us). Quite obviously, ‘it’ exists. ‘It’ is, by default, a ‘higher authority’ (since we are created by ‘it’, not the other way around). Again... nobody with an atom of intelligence would insist that right and wrong do not exist (anyone disagree????...raise your paw)... and since we cannot take credit for creating anything (except, perhaps, stupidity)... they (right and wrong) must, by default, be a function of this ‘higher authority’.

Always amusing to hear so many complaining that there is no evidence that God exists. Provide evidence that you have the ability to accurately adjudicate such evidence. What would be required to accurately adjudicate the existence of a God? Successful completion of elementary school? Twenty twenty vision? An IQ of 120? Being a vegetarian? A PhD in physics? Emotional maturity? A really really really really really really really really big telescope?

... and while we’re on the subject... what would actually constitute evidence of a God?

And there is lots of evidence that God exists, but that’s a derail and God knows I wouldn’t want to be guilty of a derail.

So... to summarize... there is a higher authority (by default)... there is right and wrong (unless you’re stupid)... we didn’t create right and wrong... so dear old Occam would have that it’s a function of the higher authority. The venerable Sam Harris would prefer to assign its origins to bubbling bits of brain but seeing as how no-one has a clue how bubbling bits of brain produce us we must, by default, defer to the ‘higher authority’ conclusion... cause that’s exactly what it (what creates us) is.

That's an awful lot of words just to say you believe some higher authority exists and is the source of morality. But nowhere in there have you offered more than a declaration of faith, a misunderstanding of Occam's razor, a rather severe misunderstanding of the null hypothesis, a heaping helping of gibberish, several unsupported assertions, a couple of childish insults, and some arguments from incredulity and ignorance. The result? Complete failure.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 10:05 PM   #559
annnnoid
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
That's an awful lot of words just to say you believe some higher authority exists and is the source of morality. But nowhere in there have you offered more than a declaration of faith, a misunderstanding of Occam's razor, a rather severe misunderstanding of the null hypothesis, a heaping helping of gibberish, several unsupported assertions, a couple of childish insults, and some arguments from incredulity and ignorance. The result? Complete failure.

Not even wrong.

It’s got less than nothing to do with belief. You didn’t create you…and you don’t create you. Beginning, middle, and end of story. Nobody on this planet knows what did or does… including you. What you (and every one of us) has been described as is ‘the most complex object in the known universe’ (Scott Heutel…director of cognitive science…Duke University). And that’s just the human brain…that doesn’t even begin to estimate the all-but incomprehensible mystery and complexity of the psychology / being / consciousness that this brain somehow supports (described [by Dennet] as 'the last remaining mystery').

That is you. It’s a fact. Deny it all you like…changes nothing. You can’t claim to even begin to begin to remotely understand it all….let alone create such a thing. That is what is in ‘control’. You are the result of all that. It’s a ‘higher power’ by any understanding those words could possibly have. (there are those...such as my pet gerbil...that do not possess the capacity to appreciate the inevitability of this conclusion). The only real (and unanswerable) question is...how much higher?

When you can accurately claim to understand and create you…you can accurately dismiss the existence of a higher power. Until then…read what Fincher said.

Last edited by annnnoid; 1st December 2012 at 10:15 PM.
annnnoid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st December 2012, 10:23 PM   #560
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by annnnoid View Post
Not even wrong.

It’s got less than nothing to do with belief. You didn’t create you... and you don’t create you. Beginning, middle, and end of story. Nobody on this planet knows what did or does... including you. What you (and every one of us) has been described as is ‘the most complex object in the known universe’ (Scott Heutel... director of cognitive science... Duke University). And that’s just the human brain... that doesn’t even begin to estimate the all-but incomprehensible mystery and complexity of the psychology / being / consciousness that this brain somehow supports (described [by Dennet] as 'the last remaining mystery').

That is you. It’s a fact. Deny it all you like... changes nothing. You can’t claim to even begin to begin to remotely understand it all... .let alone create such a thing. That is what is in ‘control’. You are the result of all that. It’s a ‘higher power’ by any understanding those words could possibly have. (there are those...such as my pet gerbil...that do not possess the capacity to appreciate the inevitability of this conclusion). The only real (and unanswerable) question is...how much higher?

When you can accurately claim to understand and create you... you can accurately dismiss the existence of a higher power. Until then... read what Fincher said.

That's another argument from incredulity and ignorance. Of course it isn't any more compelling than your previous screed. Just a bit of helpful advice, you be doing yourself a favor if you become familiar with those particular logical fallacies and avoid using them. And if you're having other problems picking up on this critical thinking stuff, just ask.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.