[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[Chriliman]

Yes, but you said "key word" below what he wrote, which means that the phrase "key word" would be in reference to what he...

Oh, never mind. This is pointless.

Lol, only pointless if you can't see the deeper meaning behind all of this and I hope in time you will.

 

[Davian]

I have some names. No addresses though.

<snip>
Can I demonstrate this to you. No.
<snip>

Never-mind then.

 

[Chriliman]

Your reasoning is faulty. For one to believe there is no "God", one would first need to define what one means by "God" and then believe that that particular god does not exist. As that puts the impossible burden of defining each and every god concept there is not to believe in onto the atheist, you have set up an impossible straw-man, a misrepresentation of what others - particularly myself - think.

If you care, of course.

I agree actually, I understand the reason you don't believe is because you've never received personal evidence and I'm just saying in time you will. I just hope it comes before you die so that you can believe with confidence as I do and as many other Christians do.

 

[anonymous person]

Never-mind then.

Ok.

 

[Davian]

I agree actually, I understand the reason you don't believe is because you've never received personal evidence and I'm just saying in time you will. I just hope it comes before you die so that you can believe with confidence as I do and as many other Christians do.

By "personal experience", you mean "self-deception". No thanks.

 

[Davian]

I just do not see how that follows.

If you were to summarize all the historical evidence for the resurrection that you have presented here in this thread, it may become more clear.

 

[nomadictheist]

Your reasoning is faulty. For one to believe there is no "God", one would first need to define what one means by "God" and then believe that that particular god does not exist. As that puts the impossible burden of defining each and every god concept there is not to believe in onto the atheist, you have set up an impossible straw-man, a misrepresentation of what others - particularly myself - think.

If you care, of course.

An atheist is by definition a person who does not believe that God - or any god - exists. Anyone else would be either an agnostic, a deist, a theist, or a member of a particular religion (such as Christianity, Paganism, Islam, etc.). If your belief is different than that then you are by definition not an atheist.

 

[Davian]

An atheist is by definition a person who does not believe that God - or any god - exists.

That definition is better, but still lacks accuracy.

Anyone else would be either an agnostic,

The terms agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Myself, I would lean towards ignosticism.

a deist, a theist,

Are Buddhists theists? or atheists?

or a member of a particular religion (such as Christianity, Paganism, Islam, etc.). If your belief is different than that then you are by definition not an atheist.

I believe that gods exist - all of the ones presented to me so far - as characters in books. There were a few exceptions, such as Julius Caesar, but I think his claim of divinity was highly overrated. Kim Jong-il was just a megalomaniac.

Back to your declaration of "That premise does not allow any line of reasoning that leads to the existence of God."

Define "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner, so we can see if what you assert is true.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here you assume that the existence of the multiverse must be more reasonable and that I'm calling it God.

No; I'm making no assumptions. I'm saying that if you accept the cosmological physics that tells us that the universe is expanding from a hot dense state beyond which we can only speculate, then there are many speculative priors based on that physics, some of which involve a multiverse. The explanation you said you prefer (a infinite timeless force that is separate from the universe) is consistent with a non-technical description of a multiverse.

Suggesting you could call it God was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but having said that, it does seem less reasonable to accept the physics of cosmology as valid until you reach a point where feel you can insert your preferred non-physical speculation, particularly when you express it in terms consistent with one based on the very physics you want to reject. But hey, who expects religious ideas of God to be coherent or consistent?

Whereas its actually more reasonable that God exists and you are calling Him a multiverse.

Tomarto - tomayto, I have no objection to the multiverse being called God, as a kind of meta-Spinozism; although anthropomorphising the concept is unjustified; the model is no more purposeful or intentional in generating universes than carbonated water is in generating bubbles.

But I get the sense that whatever the model, you'll crowbar your prearranged conclusion into it, which makes me wonder why you bother with any of the cosmology - whatever the evidence, God is the conclusion - am I right?

The reason I say this is because the Bible has already told us that God is infinite and timeless before science told us that the multiverse could be infinite and timeless, do you see why I would believe the Bible over science because it explained infinite timelessness before science did?

Your logic leaves me breathless - and I'm sure you'll find some reason why texts that predate the bible and also 'explain' the infinite and timeless, don't take precedence for believability.

 

[anonymous person]

No; I'm making no assumptions. I'm saying that if you accept the cosmological physics that tells us that the universe is expanding from a hot dense state beyond which we can only speculate, then there are many speculative priors based on that physics, some of which involve a multiverse. The explanation you said you prefer (a infinite timeless force that is separate from the universe) is consistent with a non-technical description of a multiverse.

Suggesting you could call it God was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but having said that, it does seem less reasonable to accept the physics of cosmology as valid until you reach a point where feel you can insert your preferred non-physical speculation, particularly when you express it in terms consistent with one based on the very physics you want to reject. But hey, who expects religious ideas of God to be coherent or consistent?

Tomarto - tomayto, I have no objection to the multiverse being called God, as a kind of meta-Spinozism; although anthropomorphising the concept is unjustified; the model is no more purposeful or intentional in generating universes than carbonated water is in generating bubbles.

But I get the sense that whatever the model, you'll crowbar your prearranged conclusion into it, which makes me wonder why you bother with any of the cosmology - whatever the evidence, God is the conclusion - am I right?

Your logic leaves me breathless - and I'm sure you'll find some reason why texts that predate the bible and also 'explain' the infinite and timeless, don't take precedence for believability.

Why do you think that our universe is but part of a multiverse existing eternally and uncaused?

 

[dms1972]

Without going through the thread. I think there is a difference between reasoning and beliefs. Not sure if the question implies the two are synomymous. I think that needs cleared up.

I came across this quote in a book which may be helpful.

"When belief is conflated with truth, and there is no standard of truth independent of belief, there can be no rational reason to change one's set of beliefs, because all beliefs are merely self-refering. The beliefs are not really about any reality outside of themselves." Doug Groothius (Truth Decay)

 

[nomadictheist]

That definition is better, but still lacks accuracy.

The terms agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive. Myself, I would lean towards ignosticism.

Are Buddhists theists? or atheists?

I believe that gods exist - all of the ones presented to me so far - as characters in books. There were a few exceptions, such as Julius Caesar, but I think his claim of divinity was highly overrated. Kim Jong-il was just a megalomaniac.

Back to your declaration of "That premise does not allow any line of reasoning that leads to the existence of God."

Define "God" in a testable, falsifiable manner, so we can see if what you assert is true.

Actually atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive. By definition, an atheist is, as I have stated, somebody who believes that no God or gods exist. You can argue with the definition all you want, but if that's not what you believe then you're not an atheist, by definition.

Agnostics believe that we don't know if God or gods exist. Maybe God or gods exist. Maybe He/they don't. That's an agnostic. You can't believe both that God/gods doesn't/don't exist and that they might exist at the same time. You either believe one or the other. You can believe that God/gods probably doesn't/don't exist, but this would still make you an agnostic since there is room for doubt in "probably."

Most Buddhists that I've known are atheists, and to the best of my knowledge the Buddhist doctrine is that there is no God, which would technically make Buddhism an atheist religion. However, it still is a religion, and therefore falls under the possibility of belonging to a specific religion or religious group.

And the problem with your last statement is that you can't define God in a falsifiable manner. God is. God is the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Entity Who created the universe.

You can argue why you think that this is false, but your reasoning will be from the initial premise that it is indeed false. And you will reject (with your own reasoning) any line of reasoning to the contrary.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you can say I haven't explained anything then I can say you haven't convinced me that my reasoning is wrong because you refuse to even try, all you can seem to do is say that I haven't explained anything.

Dude, your dodging is obvious.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive. By definition, an atheist is, as I have stated, somebody who believes that no God or gods exist. You can argue with the definition all you want, but if that's not what you believe then you're not an atheist, by definition.

 

[Davian]

Actually atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive.

Or, they are not.

By definition, an atheist is, as I have stated,

Feel free to state whatever you want. Words are defined by how we use them, not how you say they are to be used.

somebody who believes that no God or gods exist. You can argue with the definition all you want, but if that's not what you believe then you're not an atheist, by definition.

Agnostics believe that we don't know if God or gods exist. Maybe God or gods exist. Maybe He/they don't. That's an agnostic. You can't believe both that God/gods doesn't/don't exist and that they might exist at the same time. You either believe one or the other. You can believe that God/gods probably doesn't/don't exist, but this would still make you an agnostic since there is room for doubt in "probably."

I would count myself as an ignostic.

Most Buddhists that I've known are atheists, and to the best of my knowledge the Buddhist doctrine is that there is no God, which would technically make Buddhism an atheist religion. However, it still is a religion, and therefore falls under the possibility of belonging to a specific religion or religious group.

And the problem with your last statement is that you can't define God in a falsifiable manner.

How then can we know that this "God" is of any significance, if is cannot even be defined? Can you not define this thing that you claim to believe in?

God is. God is the omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Entity Who created the universe.

Allegedly. How do you know this?

You can argue why you think that this is false,

True or false, it doesn't seem to be of any significance. What is the point of truth statement that cannot be verified?

but your reasoning will be from the initial premise that it is indeed false.

Your mind-readin' hat needs fresh batteries. That is not my position.

And you will reject (with your own reasoning) any line of reasoning to the contrary.

I have yet to see you proffer any reasoning to go with your assertions. Let me know when you get there.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Guys this is not hard.

Then why are you making it hard?

Chriliman and myself are saying that Jesus of Nazareth is the proof that you all have been asking for of God's existence.

That's like saying that Mohammed is the proof of Allah's existence.
Or Hercules being the proof of Zeus' existence.

Jesus is just part of the claims of christianity. Repeating claims of the bible is not evidence for the claims of the bible...

You guys are saying that he is not proof.

Indeed we do.

We have reasons for saying what we do.

Bad reasons. We have good reasons

We can't all be right.

Exactly. And given the trackrecord of the accuracy of claims of religions in general and christianity in particular, and the total lack of any objective positive evidence, it's immensly more likely that you aren't the ones who are right...

This means that either Chriliman and I are right and you guys are wrong, or vice versa.

Can we agree on this much?

Yes.... when 2 parties stand on opposite sides of the fence in a yes/no argument, then one of both is wrong and the other is right.... yes....

Now, for the interesting question: how to find out who is correct?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Everything you said is mostly reasonable except this. Here you assume that the existence of the multiverse must be more reasonable and that I'm calling it God. Whereas its actually more reasonable that God exists and you are calling Him a multiverse. The reason I say this is because the Bible has already told us that God is infinite and timeless before science told us that the multiverse could be infinite and timeless, do you see why I would believe the Bible over science because it explained infinite timelessness before science did?

Bare assertions are not explanations.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Several hundred people saw Jesus alive after He died on the cross.

Or so it is claimed.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why do you think that our universe is but part of a multiverse existing eternally and uncaused?

I'm open-minded about multiverses. They are a class of speculative solutions to the formulae underlying the Standard Model of physics. There is no way to tell how it/they would have come about, and the physics doesn't require a beginning for them, so there is nothing to say about that - as the models stand at present.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Several hundred people saw Jesus alive after He died on the cross. I have no good reason to think that this was simply a result of their imagination.

If he really died, then that alone is good reason to think that those reports were false. If he didn't really die, then it is possible - although, given the reported extent of his injuries, it would be very unlikely that he'd be up and about within days.

If we consider the number of famous people that are said to have been seen alive after their deaths (e.g. Elvis, Princess Diana, Jim Morrison, Hitler, Tupac Shakur, Amelia Earhart, etc.), it is clear that, for whatever reasons, reports of a dead person being seen alive are not a good reason for believing they really are alive.