Ask God for Me

[Oncedeceived]

That would be only one of the epistemic things I think he has a problem with. He also seems to have a problem with the epistemic processes by which God will (or will not) dispense any kind of, or any level of, knowledge we might gain about God. He seems to think, as do many people these days, that people get to call the shots on 'how' God should provide to them any kind or level of awareness of God's presence or truth(s) which we might encounter and engage in the world in which we live.

I totally agree. They feel, in my humble opinion, that God owes them 'evidence' or they are not guilty of not knowing He exists.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I totally agree. They feel, in my humble opinion, that God owes them 'evidence' or they are not guilty of not knowing He exists.

I appreciate your viewpoint about it, sister. However, as the existentially leaning person that I am (but more in line with Pascal than I am with Kierkegaard), I might be tempted to at least grant them (atheists) some 'degree' of pardon in their not knowing or seeing directly 'evidence' of God.

However, and needless to say, I'm not going to get into this epistemological difference I may have with you since I remain fully open to being presented with 'lessons' that deal with the philosophy of Intelligent Design.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Nah, this is just semantics. If you "lack a belief in the existence of God" then you believe God does not exist.

This is untrue. Lack of belief does not equal the opposite is true. Say someone has a 5 gallon bucket of skittles and you and I don't know the number of skittles in the bucket. If I then tell you that there are an even number of skittles in the bucket would you believe me? Probably not, but does that then mean you believe there are an odd number of skittles in the jar? No. So a lack of belief in something does not mean the opposite is true.

If what you mean to say is that you're not sure, then you'd be agnostic.

Wrong again. An agnostic is a person that believes we cannot know anything about a god or gods even if they exist. I don't believe that. I believe if a god exists we should be able to know about that god.

This is yet another aspect of the same, bottom-line problem I've been addressing with you from the start; you're playing around with these words and concepts to the point that everything becomes a muddied morass of confusion in which you hide.

No, you are confused because you don't know what these words actually mean. The word does not mean much anyway, I have a lack of belief in a god and have explained what that means to you.

I gave you a common dictionary definition. Dictionaries reflect common usage, you don't get to just say it is wrong when that is how most atheists define themselves. The word does not matter but the concept behind it does. It is an honest position to have.

Nah, I don't think the video will address why Atheists refer to DNA as genetic code, but then say there is no coder. Based on the way you've praised the video, it's almost certain that it will demonstrate the same, muddled confusion that you've defended here.

This is why you believe things without good evidence. You have never watched the video but made an assessment of the content. Even 2PhiloVoid I think would agree with me here.

Atheists (well, a large majority of them) have become experts at making confusion sound appealing, usually through two methods; 1) Intimidation. If someone disagrees with the theory of evolution, that person will likely be ridiculed, much like you and eight foot manchild did with me.

I never ridiculed you I called you dishonest because you were being dishonest. See below.

And 2) An appeal to science as though doing so de-facto proves you right, as you did with all that bluster you made about all the evidence for evolutionary theory etc. The idea is to so overwhelm your opponent with bravado about the evidence that to disagree would equate to disagreeing with science itself.

How would you know? You won't look at any evidence. The evidence for evolution is sufficient for belief but you need to put in the time to understand all the aspects of it from different scientific fields of study. Until you commit to that you won't be able to understand the evidence. It is not an appeal to science it is an appeal to sufficient evidence.

But, I look at the foundation; if it is solid then I'll be open to exploring the specifics of the evidence. However, if the foundation is not solid, then everything else built on it will will be pointless. When examining your foundation, I see a lot of confusion. You say that random can be guided and guided can be random as though there really is no difference between the two concepts.

I never said this.

You say you are an Atheist but that you leave room for the possibility of God when the whole point of having those two concepts is to define a distinction between them.

You don't understand what atheism is, I explained it above.

You say there can be code without any need for a coder.

I never really said this either, you won't let me explain it to you so how am I the one causing confusion?

It's all confusion which makes no rational sense and you're dearly clinging to it because you've found comfort in that confusion. You can turn your brain off and just pretend that it all makes sense. If anyone challenges you, you can put on your best hurt-feelings pout and complain that they're not addressing your points well enough, or that they've not watched a particular video, or that they've somehow insulted you.

This is ridiculous. I am the one that looked at the evidence in which you refuse to look at so who is turning off their brain? It is not that my points are not being addressed well enough it is that they are being ignored outright. I get frustrated when you tell me what I believe in contrary to what I have said I believe, you take a couple words out of context and then make an argument against something I never said, you ask me a question and then when I give you a resource to help explain it you refuse to watch it and tell me what it actually said. I think you live in a different reality than me if you think I am the problem here.

Come out of that confusion, Clizby. Deal with the issues rationally. Start with the code issue. Logically speaking, how can there be code without a coder? Don't deflect. Just address this issue honestly.

My answer is to watch the video so the we can talk about it and then I can explain it to you. I dare you to watch it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Usually, when one sees UFO's they are connected to the thought that they are alien life forms within them. In that vein, I was inquiring if you felt it was bad evidence for alien life forms, sorry I didn't make myself clear.

Yes I do, if that is the only evidence. It is insufficient evidence to believe they are aliens. How can you rule out other more plausible explanations like military aircraft or such. What would be the basis for a belief in aliens with this video?

 

[John Helpher]

If I then tell you that there are an even number of skittles in the bucket would you believe me? Probably not, but does that then mean you believe there are an odd number of skittles in the jar?

In this case, I'd be an agnostic, as I'd be willing to believe either way, whether the number is even or odd (presuming there is no circumstantial evidence to push me in either direction).

So a lack of belief in something does not mean the opposite is true.

But, in your skittles example, you do not lack a belief that the skittles exist, but only a belief in whether the number of skittles is even or odd, thus the analogy does not address your lack of belief in a God, as doing so would translate to you lacking a belief that the bucket does actually contain skittles.

If you were to tell the skittles guy that you lack a belief that there are any number of skittles in the bucket (whether even or odd) then that person would rightly conclude that you do not believe the bucket contains skittles.

An agnostic is a person that believes we cannot know anything about a god or gods even if they exist.

Nope. An agnostic is someone who has not concluded either way. It may be that some poeple believe we cannot ever know, but not all agnostics would believe that. Some would believe that, in this moment, they do not know, but perhaps at some future date new information will come to light which will more thoroughly inform their understanding.

This is why you believe things without good evidence. You have never watched the video but made an assessment of the content.

But, why should I need to watch a video when it is you I am addressing? Are you saying you cannot explain your position and therefore you're relying on the video? No, I do not that that is the case. I think it is more likely that you are using the video as a shield. Even if I did bother to watch it, you'd find some other excuse to avoid the contradiction of believing there can be code with no coder.

you won't let me explain it to you

I won't explain it to you

This is you running around in circles, all to avoid dealing with the issue in a rational, genuine manner. This is exactly the kind of confusion I've been referring to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I appreciate your viewpoint about it, sister. However, as the existentially leaning person that I am (but more in line with Pascal than I am with Kierkegaard), I might be tempted to at least grant them (atheists) some 'degree' of pardon in their not knowing or seeing directly 'evidence' of God.

However, and needless to say, I'm not going to get into this epistemological difference I may have with you since I remain fully open to being presented with 'lessons' that deal with the philosophy of Intelligent Design.

You are more into the mind and I lean more towards the Science. We can learn from each other, that is when I know what in the world you are talking about.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You are more into the mind and I lean more towards the Science. We can learn from each other, that is when I know what in the world you are talking about.

Yes, I'd say that is a very accurate depiction of the [minor] difference between us, Sis!

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes I do, if that is the only evidence. It is insufficient evidence to believe they are aliens. How can you rule out other more plausible explanations like military aircraft or such. What would be the basis for a belief in aliens with this video?

1. The military were the ones that didn't know what they were, as they were the ones that presented the videos.
2. I am not claiming anything about them.
3. The only basis is for the inclination of some to believe aliens are a possible answer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I'd say that is a very accurate depiction of the [minor] difference between us, Sis!

Different mindsets which compliment the many facets of God's wonderous character.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Different mindsets which compliment the many facets of God's wonderous character.

... Yes, I most definitely agree.

Still.... I do wish that Paul had written something about the Philosophy of Science, even if only through the paradigm of his own day. It would not only have been quite interesting to me to study, it would have been helpful, too.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

In this case, I'd be an agnostic, as I'd be willing to believe either way, whether the number is even or odd (presuming there is no circumstantial evidence to push me in either direction).

No, if you were agnostic you would not believe there was any way to know if they were odd or even.

But, in your skittles example, you do not lack a belief that the skittles exist, but only a belief in whether the number of skittles is even or odd, thus the analogy does not address your lack of belief in a God, as doing so would translate to you lacking a belief that the bucket does actually contain skittles.

No. The even skittles claim is the claim is that god exists, the person that does not believe the skittles are an odd number is a person saying they don't believe God exists which is not saying that god does not exist or that there is an odd number of skittles in the bucket. Don't change the analogy.

If you were to tell the skittles guy that you lack a belief that there are any number of skittles in the bucket (whether even or odd) then that person would rightly conclude that you do not believe the bucket contains skittles.

But that is not my analogy, is it.

Nope. An agnostic is someone who has not concluded either way. It may be that some poeple believe we cannot ever know, but not all agnostics would believe that. Some would believe that, in this moment, they do not know, but perhaps at some future date new information will come to light which will more thoroughly inform their understanding.

Sure, a lot of people identify as agnostic that say they don't really believe either way. I am in the I don't know camp until there is good evidence either way. So why not just deal with what I believe rather than how I identify myself? You know what I believe and what I call myself now can we get past this?

But, why should I need to watch a video when it is you I am addressing? Are you saying you cannot explain your position and therefore you're relying on the video? No, I do not that that is the case. I think it is more likely that you are using the video as a shield. Even if I did bother to watch it, you'd find some other excuse to avoid the contradiction of believing there can be code with no coder.

Because it explains the point much better than I could. I actually said once you watch it and respond we can then start to have the conversation. I also actually said that they way you use the word code is not how I see it.

This is you running around in circles, all to avoid dealing with the issue in a rational, genuine manner. This is exactly the kind of confusion I've been referring to.

So ripping those two comments out of context and saying I said things I never said is what you have been doing the entire time. Why not quote my entire quotes rather than a few words from them? This is why you are being so dishonest in this conversation.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

1. The military were the ones that didn't know what they were, as they were the ones that presented the videos.
2. I am not claiming anything about them.
3. The only basis is for the inclination of some to believe aliens are a possible answer.

I agree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agree.

Good, so you agree that it is evidence that could support alien existence but you personally don't buy it. What then if there were other evidences that would support that possibility? Say for instance that at one of the sighting of the UFO something dropped from one of them and it was of unknown material? At another siting, it landed and someone got a video of an alien coming out of said UFO. Then at another sighting, 500 people witnessed an alien and heard a strange language being spoken. What would be your determination?

 

[Oncedeceived]

... Yes, I most definitely agree.

Still.... I do wish that Paul had written something about the Philosophy of Science, even if only through the paradigm of his own day. It would not only have been quite interesting to me to study, it would have been helpful, too.

Indeed it would.

 

[Kylie]

If the goal was to get evidence of Jesus being real, why would you disregard what Jesus said to do in order to get that evidence?

Once again, you need to actually listen to what was actually being discussed.

I was told to do a thing and I'd get evidence for God.

I did the thing.

I didn't get the evidence.

The fact that you think it was the wrong thing doesn't matter. We aren't talking about what you think the right thing to do is. We are talking about what I was told to do. You need to understand that.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Good, so you agree that it is evidence that could support alien existence but you personally don't buy it.

I am not convinced by this evidence.

What then if there were other evidences that would support that possibility? Say for instance that at one of the sighting of the UFO something dropped from one of them and it was of unknown material? At another siting, it landed and someone got a video of an alien coming out of said UFO. Then at another sighting, 500 people witnessed an alien and heard a strange language being spoken. What would be your determination?

If it is just a story, that is not convincing. If a video was produced that had an alien coming out of the UFO then I would look at it and make a determination. Videos today are not trustworthy especially with extraordinary claims but I would be willing to listen to experts about the video being altered or not. When you see a video of big foot it is more likely it is a fake, just like videos of aliens. More evidence is required.

 

[John Helpher]

The fact that you think it was the wrong thing doesn't matter. We aren't talking about what you think the right thing to do is. We are talking about what I was told to do. You need to understand that.

Let's say you believe you cannot bake a cake. When someone asks why you think that way, you explain that you were given instructions and the result was a failure. When the person asks what you did, you further explain that you were told to mix flour, sugar, salt, water, and frosting in a bowl and the outcome tasted nothing like a cake. It was cold, pasty and definitely not tasty.

Then, the person explains that is not the right way to bake a cake saying, "Yeah, those are the correct ingredients, but you need to measure each ingredient precisely, bake it in an oven at a specific temperature for a fixed amount of time, and then apply the frosting at the end after it has cooled".

Do you think it would be rational to then get upset with that person by exclaiming that you were only doing what you were told to do and as a result decided that you cannot bake a cake? Do you think it would be rational to say that the actual instructions for baking the cake are not really the issue?

The goal was to find out if you can bake a cake. The fact that someone gave you wrong instructions should not matter in this case. If what you're really interested in is knowing how to bake a cake, then you would welcome correct, accurate instructions instead of stubbornly insisting that only the incorrect instructions really matter.

 

[Kylie]

Let's say you believe you cannot bake a cake. When someone asks why you think that way, you explain that you were given instructions and the result was a failure. When the person asks what you did, you further explain that you were told to mix flour, sugar, salt, water, and frosting in a bowl and the outcome tasted nothing like a cake. It was cold, pasty and definitely not tasty.

Then, the person explains that is not the right way to bake a cake saying, "Yeah, those are the correct ingredients, but you need to measure each ingredient precisely, bake it in an oven at a specific temperature for a fixed amount of time, and then apply the frosting at the end after it has cooled".

Do you think it would be rational to then get upset with that person by exclaiming that you were only doing what you were told to do and as a result decided that you cannot bake a cake? Do you think it would be rational to say that the actual instructions for baking the cake are not really the issue?

The goal was to find out if you can bake a cake. The fact that someone gave you wrong instructions should not matter in this case. If what you're really interested in is knowing how to bake a cake, then you would welcome correct, accurate instructions instead of stubbornly insisting that only the incorrect instructions really matter.

None of which changes the fact that when I followed the recipe, which I was assured would result in a cake, the result was very much NOT a cake.

I don't give a rats if you think you have a better recipe. We aren't talking about your recipe, we are talking about how the recipe I was given did NOT produce a cake.

And I am not getting upset with you because you think you have a better recipe. I'm getting upset with you because I'm trying to tell you that I was once given a recipe that I was told would guarantee a cake, and it didn't work, and you are trying to make it about your recipe.

If you want to discuss your recipe with me, fine, but this conversation probably isn't the place to do it, since I was discussing the original recipe with the person who gave me the original recipe and who kept bugging me if I had continued to try it after it gave me bad results.

 

[John Helpher]

Hi Kylie. You know, back when I first saw you posting here, I noticed that little blurb under your screenname, "defeater of illogic". I often feel a sense of intimidation when speaking with atheists as they tend to be quite intelligent. It's their intelligence which usually leads them to become atheist. It can be easy to become proud of such intelligence and come to believe you are your own God, smoothed over with ideas that subservience to some greater intelligence would, in turn, be akin to abandoning your sense. I doubt there is any atheist who would agree with this assessment (at least, not outwardly), but I feel there is at least some truth to it.

I feel something like this may be happening here. Tough you are a defeater of illogic (and probably in many cases you really can be quite perceptive), in this case I do not see that happening. I see illogic, an illogic which I think should be fairly simple to see. Yet it is not, so I must ask myself, why is this person, who is almost certainly quite intelligent in many areas of life, somehow not getting in in this particular area.

I believe the answer is that this is more so a test of wills rather than a rational examination of the logic behind the argument. You have never heard of the teachings of Jesus before (I mean, specifically what he taught, like the examples I presented to you), despite being married to a Christian. I don't say that to impugn you or your husband, but rather as context. It's rare to find any Christian these days who knows what Jesus taught. For example, did you know Jesus said we should not make promises for any reason? That's a real command from Jesus. He said we should just say what we mean without any need to swear on it.

Instead, what you've heard is something which is similar to what Jesus taught; ask Jesus into your heart. It's close, but not quite. Jesus did talk about He and the Father coming into a person and making Their home there, but that was premised on the understanding that the person would initiate the relationship via obedience to Jesus' teachings. It is obedience which would cause Them to come into a person's heart.

This idea that one need only ask Jesus into their heart along with a good feeling and then boom, you're done, is much simpler. It's become popular precisely because it does not require any change or commitment to anything more than a vague list of precepts, all of which are fairly optional, like going to church, reading the Bible, paying tithes, baptism, and a few prayers here and there. You're pretty much free to continue living how ever you like, but you also get all the salvation and good feelings that comes with the knowledge that you are saved.

That same ease-of-performance is what appealed to you. A simple, unobtrusive test you can perform without any need to change, struggle, or suffer; very appealing. The fact that so many Christians today promote it as the ultimate test for knowing God just reinforces that sense of ease and so you tried it.

And, as you've said, nothing happened. Now you have proof; the Christians themselves swear by this test and yet it failed. You were genuine. You were sincere and still the test failed. Now you have confirmation which even the Christians must acknowledge. You have a shield.

But, here I come, saying the test was flawed, that it was wrong and not consistent with what Jesus taught despite whatever these other professing Christians told you. Of course you will get a negative result if you perform an improper test, much like you would not expect water to boil by setting a kettle on a drawing of a hotplate. This "ask Jesus into your heart" thing is like the drawing of the hotplate; it has the appearance of the real thing, but it is only a cheap imitation.

You have already decided in your heart that the test failed. Now I'm taking that victory away from you. I'm removing the convenient shield. I'm invalidating what you've believed to be a genuine effort on your part.

That is why you so stubbornly insist on referring back to the previous instructions you were given. Acknowledging that the test itself was a failure before you ever even tried it would put you right back in the position of being accountable for trying the correct test; the one that actually requires some commitment in order to perform properly.

Defeater of illogic, let go of that false test.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

None of which changes the fact that when I followed the recipe, which I was assured would result in a cake, the result was very much NOT a cake.

I don't give a rats if you think you have a better recipe. We aren't talking about your recipe, we are talking about how the recipe I was given did NOT produce a cake.

And I am not getting upset with you because you think you have a better recipe. I'm getting upset with you because I'm trying to tell you that I was once given a recipe that I was told would guarantee a cake, and it didn't work, and you are trying to make it about your recipe.

If you want to discuss your recipe with me, fine, but this conversation probably isn't the place to do it, since I was discussing the original recipe with the person who gave me the original recipe and who kept bugging me if I had continued to try it after it gave me bad results.

You talk as if 'doing Christianity' should be expected to work like walking into a Kentucky Fried Chicken and placing an order for some 'Original Recipe' ..........................................................