Kylie's Pool Challenge, Mark II

[Speedwell]

BobRyan said: ↑
humanism - rejects the POV that God can or would communicate anything to humans at all - if God exists. Having no communication at all from God then ... what would be the basis for not being atheist??

There are any number of proofs for the existence of God which don't require that he communicate anything to us. Deists take that position.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are any number of proofs for the existence of God which don't require that he communicate anything to us.

Yup.

I have eleven categories of proof [sic].

Merry Christmas!

 

[BobRyan]

There are any number of proofs for the existence of God which don't require that he communicate anything to us. Deists take that position.

Rom 1 is God communicating
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse

It appears that the atheist claim is like a fish claiming that it is not wet. In fact - that nothing at all is "wet".

 

[SelfSim]

Because what they believed existed before they were alive.

That's the meaning your (and their) mind gave the belief (ie: 'it existed before they were alive'). In your case, that's because you believed someone else's belief .. yet their belief died along with them .. so it no longer existed after they were dead.

E was emcee squared long before Einstein came along.

But virtually no-one ever conceived that law before he did .. then, it somehow existed long before he conceived it.
Why?

 

[SelfSim]

I'm talking about ones who wrote something, told to retract what they wrote because it was a lie, and refused to do so.

I'm not talking about those who read what someone else wrote and believed it to the death.

See how beliefs divide and conquer?

'What a troubled web we weave when we set out to believe!'
... (or somethin' like that, anyway ..).

I'm talking about those who wrote it in the first place.

I believe even psychologists say that a person will not allow himself to die for something he knows he fabricated, if he can help it.

That would be a lie though .. we're talking about beliefs here.

 

[SelfSim]

BobRyan said: ↑
humanism - rejects the POV that God can or would communicate anything to humans at all - if God exists. Having no communication at all from God then ... what would be the basis for not being atheist?

I don't know .. I'm not fixated on someone else's definition of what a Humanist 'is', or 'isn't'.

Nice to hear. One of us has it on his profile the other one of us almost never talks about it.

Atheists reject the notion that a Deity exists because there is no objective test evidence for that.
However, the possibility of what we mean by 'existence of Deities' remains, because minds 'create reality' whenever we use the word 'existence' .. for which there is abundant objective evidence .. (Eg: we do it virtually every minute of the day in conversations when we say something 'is' .. because that's what 'is' means).

If Atheists do rule out the possibility, then their reason invariably turns out to be because that's what they themselves believe .. (which is inconsistent, unless they accept and 'own' what I refer to above (along with its implications) .. which would then restore consistency).

The board software doesn't allow me to convey this during registration .. and why should my 'reveal' make any difference to what I've said? Mostly what I say, can be supported with abundant objective evidence .. but one has to objectively test that, in order to see it .. and I try to never forget that my mind's fingerprints are all over all of it .. but you actually have to look at what I write to see that also.

My 'Humanist' tag represents that all conceptions, (scientific and believed), and their accompanying descriptions, require a human mind .. and so, in the same way, it takes a human mind to assign meaning to the word: 'reality' (and 'existence', 'is'). There is no objective test, thus far, which can distinguish a reality existing independently from any normal, healthy, actively thinking, human mind .. and so there isn't a way of completely ruling out the possibility of a mind independent 'something'.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's the meaning your (and their) mind gave the belief (ie: 'it existed before they were alive'). In your case, that's because you believed someone else's belief .. yet their belief died along with them .. so it no longer existed after they were dead.

I don't think any two Christians have the exact same set of beliefs, down to the most minute detail.

But what we [fundamentalists] all agree on is a core set of beliefs that are ... well ... fundamental.

Among them are: the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, and Christ's resurrection.

These truths are eternal, and don't just die out when their holder dies.

But virtually no-one ever conceived that law before he did .. then, it somehow existed long before he conceived it.
Why?

Because it was a law waiting to be discovered when the time was right.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

God has embedded "Easter eggs" into His creation, then empowered men and women to find them when the time was right.

One major Easter egg is oil, which sat underneath the surface of the earth until it was discovered.

 

[AV1611VET]

See how beliefs divide and conquer?

As they should, lest we be ...

Ephesians 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

I'm not a [accept everything] Buddhist; we are separatists.

 

[Allandavid]

I'm talking about ones who wrote something, told to retract what they wrote because it was a lie, and refused to do so.

They obviously believed what they wrote to be true. Their belief, however, doesn’t make it true.

I'm not talking about those who read what someone else wrote and believed it to the death.

I'm talking about those who wrote it in the first place.

It’s irrelevant who wrote ‘it’. Those who were prepared to die believed it.

I believe even psychologists say that a person will not allow himself to die for something he knows he fabricated, if he can help it.

Again, they obviously didn’t think it had been fabricated. So what?

 

[AV1611VET]

They obviously believed what they wrote to be true.

Okay if I believe it too?

Their belief, however, doesn’t make it true.

That's right. It was true before they wrote about it.

 

[SelfSim]

... Because it was a law waiting to be discovered when the time was right.

Nope .. the mass-energy equivalence is a principle which arose from special relativity as a paradox described by Poincare. Einstein resolved it. Both Poincare and Einstein displayed evidence of using their minds when they did that. (Ie: try describing and resolving something like that without using any human mind! Good luck!)

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

How does one 'do': 'mass, energy; or 'the speed of light'?

God has embedded "Easter eggs" into His creation, then empowered men and women to find them when the time was right.

That's your belief .. the evidence shown by the example of the mass energy equivalence principle, clearly demonstrates it was all 'done' by human minds .. No evidence of stone tablets scribed by God's finger being miraculously revealed to us this time 'round (in your history record), I'm afraid.

One major Easter egg is oil, which sat underneath the surface of the earth until it was discovered.

That's one of the things we mean by that word (crude) 'oil' (a dictionary definition is here: 'petroleum as it comes from the ground 'before refining') .. ie: it is found underground ... Its our meaning .. no evidence or mention of God anywhere in it!

 

[Kylie]

It’s not an assumption.


In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
— Genesis 1:1

It is an assumption as far as I am concerned because the scientific accuracy of the creation account in the Bible has not been demonstrated. You may really strongly believe it to be so, but that doesn't make it a fact.

 

[Kylie]

Actually, the Bible says it so it must be true. Your belief in it (not mine) doesn’t make it so.

People say that about lots of different religious texts. Without evidence to back up the Bible (such evidence being something other than the Bible itself), the claim doesn't carry any weight, except among believers. Since I am not a believer, it will carry no weight with me.

 

[Kylie]

Is it possible that the documentation is correct?

From an examination of the documentation, it is impossible to tell.

 

[Hammster]

From an examination of the documentation, it is impossible to tell.

That’s not what I asked. I asked, is it possible that the documentation is correct?

 

[Hammster]

It is an assumption as far as I am concerned because the scientific accuracy of the creation account in the Bible has not been demonstrated. You may really strongly believe it to be so, but that doesn't make it a fact.

I’ve never said that my belief makes it a fact.

 

[Hammster]

People say that about lots of different religious texts. Without evidence to back up the Bible (such evidence being something other than the Bible itself), the claim doesn't carry any weight, except among believers. Since I am not a believer, it will carry no weight with me.

And just as my belief doesn’t make it true, your disbelief doesn’t make it false.

 

[Speedwell]

And just as my belief doesn’t make it true, your disbelief doesn’t make it false.

But there are two issues in play: One, is the document correct and two, do I understand it correctly. In this example, we haven't got the original document to examine for ourselves, only the opinion of others about what it intends to communicate.

 

[Hammster]

But there are two issues in play: One, is the document correct and two, do I understand it correctly. In this example, we haven't got the original document to examine for ourselves, only the opinion of others about what it intends to communicate.

That’s one way to skew it.

 

[Speedwell]

That’s one way to skew it.

It makes a better analogy.