Ask not "Does God exist?" Ask "Why is God not different than He is?"

[Gottservant]

Probability is not cumulative. If you toss a coin, the probability of each toss is 50/50. There is no law that says, "Well, Gott just tossed a million heads in a row, so the next one must be tails." Each toss is completely independent of everything that came before it.

To my understanding the only thing that is completely set in law, is that you can't expect the result to be immediate. It is nevertheless completely cumulative. Don't ask me, ask my housemate who routinely makes money on the poker machines by exactly this principle.

So the idea is nothing more than a motivational force. But my point is that the idea is completely internal to me, and has no influence on the outside world. Anything that does have an influence is an action performed by me.

You say, "the idea is nothing more than a motivational force" but a "motivational force" is everything. You want influence but you deny God influence over you, yet to you God is nothing. Well, if God is nothing and you are fighting Him having influence over you, then I'm afraid you will end up fighting your own desire for influence. What is the point of fighting something that doesn't exist? You need a motivational force, so much so I don't even need to argue for it, you will eventually convince yourself.

No it isn't.

I can quite easily make observations that help God's cause, thankyou.

Huh?

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that if you want me to accept that God has certain attributes, you must first show em that God exists. Non-existent things have no attributes, after all.

In other words, your original question - "Why is God the way he is" - assumes that he exists in the first place. Starting with an assumption is not the best way to start.

It is not the best way to start if you want to possess the thing you are discussing. If you want to argue against me, then by all means argue that everything should be possessed, but that is not my point. My point is that if there is a God, then naturally you would want Him to be free, if you want someone to be free then you give them the benefit of the doubt, the benefit of the doubt in this case is to say "alright, I have doubts about God existing, but the thing that is most likely to yield a fruitful answer, given what I know about God, is why doesn't He change from time to time?"

I mean, if you are not giving an imaginary intangible ethereal the benefit of the doubt, who else are you not giving the benefit of the doubt to?

 

[Gottservant]

At this point, I want to steer away from the back and forth for a moment, as it is so easy to get locked in to that way of thinking.

I understand that you have arguments, positions of strength, I am not trying to invade those. It's just me having conversation with someone who doesn't believe is a challenge, an exercise in pointing out what a few simple steps made clear to me.

The whole thread has basically revolved around a simple twist of perspective, from immature, to mature. I won't even repeat it here, I'll just say that I am not trying to do anything hard. I do not have a back up assault plan, or an ambush waiting, I'm just talking about a change of direction, a slight twist.

So thankyou for participating and making clear that you have logical and thoroughly supported views on this subject. If you wish to continue discussing it, you may!

 

[muichimotsu]

Your perspective is your own and I can understand it to a point as a religious studies major. Though I will also admit intellectual assent and study of beliefs does not equal the significant understanding an experience itself has, but you may have to concede this: some people, no matter their attempts, either do not have a disposition to spiritual experiences at all or their spiritual experiences are markedly different from yours. If your God is even remotely deterministic in some way, this is a necessary conclusion: some people are not swayed, either by emotional or intellectual argumentation, they are simply not meant to believe in God, etc.

 

[Gottservant]

So you want me to stop posting in the Philosophy forum? I suppose my commitments here can stop?

 

[muichimotsu]

No, it just means that there will be a difference between an intellectual/hypothetical assent to your God hypothesis and an emotional/psychological/spiritual acceptance of God as reality in discussions. In this case, it may be better to utilize the hypothesis method, or in terms of philosophy, perhaps thesis might be the better term, since God wouldn't be strictly empirically testable or the like.

 

[Gottservant]

No, it just means that there will be a difference between an intellectual/hypothetical assent to your God hypothesis and an emotional/psychological/spiritual acceptance of God as reality in discussions. In this case, it may be better to utilize the hypothesis method, or in terms of philosophy, perhaps thesis might be the better term, since God wouldn't be strictly empirically testable or the like.

You're sure then, I don't have to stop posting philosophical assertions here? It's quite clear that we all have a reason to post philosophically here?

I read what you've said about differences of opinion, some people being prepared for certain conclusions and others not, the question of method, I just want to be certain you are not asking me to stop, because what I said was too complicated, or some such thing

 

[Tiberius]

Gott, we're just trying to say that if you are asking, "Why is God the way he is?" then you are starting off with the assumption that he exists. Starting with an assumption isn't always the best thing to do. If you start by asking, "Does God exist?" then you are not starting with the assumption that God exists, which is better.

 

[muichimotsu]

You're sure then, I don't have to stop posting philosophical assertions here? It's quite clear that we all have a reason to post philosophically here?

I read what you've said about differences of opinion, some people being prepared for certain conclusions and others not, the question of method, I just want to be certain you are not asking me to stop, because what I said was too complicated, or some such thing

Posting a philosophical assertion is best done with some argumentation and not merely a conviction that it is so.

Prepared for conclusions is putting it a bit too simply. I just may come to a different conclusion often because of a particular mental disposition that resists superstition

 

[quatona]

My question would be "Why do you feel God is the way you feel God is?"

 

[Gottservant]

Gott, we're just trying to say that if you are asking, "Why is God the way he is?" then you are starting off with the assumption that he exists. Starting with an assumption isn't always the best thing to do. If you start by asking, "Does God exist?" then you are not starting with the assumption that God exists, which is better.

What I am saying is that the assumption that it assumes He exists is only primary to the possessive "paradigm".

As in, if you did not desire to possess anything of God, the fact that it is possible to conclude that it is being "assumed" He exists, is not the most relevant assumption you could make (under other paradigms, in fact any or all paradigms, except that one).

So if all you desire is to possess God, then why don't you start collecting His stuff? Otherwise, move on and start asking why He doesn't change...

...you might as well, because in the instance that you can't possess God, which is highly likely given your degree of doubt, starting with a different frame of reference might actually make it clear what you really don't like about God, instead of what you merely think you don't like about Him.

 

[Gottservant]

Posting a philosophical assertion is best done with some argumentation and not merely a conviction that it is so.

Prepared for conclusions is putting it a bit too simply. I just may come to a different conclusion often because of a particular mental disposition that resists superstition

I am willing to learn, but so far you have not confirmed that I have permission to post here

I understand that you are learned and have great perspective, and I must admit I am simply practicing turning the other cheek here, since you said to me, that I should just accept that people have different opinions

 

[Tiberius]

What I am saying is that the assumption that it assumes He exists is only primary to the possessive "paradigm".

Can you please repeat this in actual English, and not buzzwords?

As in, if you did not desire to possess anything of God, the fact that it is possible to conclude that it is being "assumed" He exists, is not the most relevant assumption you could make (under other paradigms, in fact any or all paradigms, except that one).

Yes, I agree. About the only conclusion I can reach is that some people assume God exists.

So if all you desire is to possess God, then why don't you start collecting His stuff? Otherwise, move on and start asking why He doesn't change...

In other words, you are just asking me to, like you, just assume that God exists.

...you might as well, because in the instance that you can't possess God, which is highly likely given your degree of doubt, starting with a different frame of reference might actually make it clear what you really don't like about God, instead of what you merely think you don't like about Him.

Huh? You think I've got the wrong point of view because I want to be sure that God exists before I start wondering why he is the way he is?

 

[muichimotsu]

I am willing to learn, but so far you have not confirmed that I have permission to post here

I understand that you are learned and have great perspective, and I must admit I am simply practicing turning the other cheek here, since you said to me, that I should just accept that people have different opinions

You shouldn't insist that your perspective is absolutely true. That stifles discussion. Any good philosopher is willing to admit they could be wrong.

Pretty sure turning the other cheek didn't mean being a submissive slave to everyone. Jesus was pacifist to an extent, as we see.

 

[MattiMuck]

You shouldn't insist that your perspective is absolutely true. That stifles discussion. Any good philosopher is willing to admit they could be wrong.

Pretty sure turning the other cheek didn't mean being a submissive slave to everyone. Jesus was pacifist to an extent, as we see.

On the contrary, insisting my perspective is absolutely true usually causes an explosion of discussion. Although i can see how it could diminish ideological credibility in a philosophical debate.

 

[muichimotsu]

It stifles real discussion is what I meant. It makes you seem like you're not willing to discuss anything, but merely assert things without proof or engaging in argumentation

 

[MattiMuck]

I understand your point. I was just being glib...my apologies. However, I do believe I can still state my opinion on various issues as absolute even with no proof, for example, basing my claims on Biblical truth despite much of it being unprovable. My views are based on faith that the Bible is absolutely true, though it is historically accurate, issues such as the trinity and terms such as rapture are difficult if not impossible to prove outside of scripture.

 

[muichimotsu]

All that amounts to is your belief, which isn't substantiated by anything beyond your experience. Historical accuracy tells nothing of the truth in terms of metaphysical claims that are supernatural in nature.

 

[MattiMuck]

If my belief is substantiated by my experience and my experience is substantiated by documented evidence such as the Bible as a basis for my experience being real, not to mention the similar experiences of others on the same basis lending credibility to my own, then we're creeping toward a valid argument. Biblical history is also substantiated by many other historical documents. If the historical aspects of the Bible are accurate, that also lends some credibility to the supernatural claims as well. Although I'm not yet where you require me to be with my argument to allow me to claim absolute truth, I believe I've established that my view would be beyond mere experiential substantiation.

 

[muichimotsu]

The bible is not a document that has any validity in that its claims do not necessarily lead to the christian conclusion. Only half of the book is decidedly Christian anyway. The other half is Jewish, mind you.

Similar experiences do not lead credence to yours unless there is more than simple coincidence and even a shared belief among many people doesn't validate its truth.

The historical truth of the Bible's chronology does not say anything about whether the supernatural events or influences it describes actually happened or had those influences.

You're making a hasty generalization here from historical validity to metaphysical validity. The Bible happening to be true about Jesus' existence doesn't mean Jesus was God, for example.

Even if you've made arguments besides your experience, they are sufficient. That is the major issue at hand.

 

[Gottservant]

Can you please repeat this in actual English, and not buzzwords?

It means what it says: you are operating under a paradigm that if there was a God, you could possess Him therefore the most relevant assumption is whether He exists or not. But that is patently not the most relevant paradigm, and therefore not the most relevant assumption. Therefore, it makes completely coherent and logical sense, to verify the changeableness of God, before you apply logic as to the scale of God.

In other words, you are just asking me to, like you, just assume that God exists.

No, I am saying put aside the assumption that God exists or He doesn't for a minute and consider a more relevant assumption.

Huh? You think I've got the wrong point of view because I want to be sure that God exists before I start wondering why he is the way he is?

I didn't use the word wrong, something must have gotten mixed up in the translation. I am talking about using experience rather than deductive reasoning to refute God. What makes more sense, to refute a God based on collective experience, or to attempt to refute a God based upon personal truth? Because if all you're going to do is argue that He doesn't exist, that's all you've got, personal truth.