Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is there any reason why a non-physical cause could NOT be the god that you are thinking off?Something of a nature not bound by space time. Obviously something that isn't physical.
Sure, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. It would be interesting to see how your resurrected King of Pop compares with that of the King of Kings. Of course, we might want to have someone join us who believes in the resurrection of the King of Rock'n'Roll, just for good measure of comparison.The resurected Michael Jackson appeared in my living room last night and sang the chorus of Billy Jean. Then he said in his trademark high pitched voice "a-hi-hiiiiiiii" and then disappeared again.
Do you believe me?
Do you give me the benefit of the doubt?
OK, that's a question of interpretation; I'll only admit responsibility for what I actually said - I'm pedantic that way.I'm paraphrasing, you called it ridiculous about five differn't ways.
I agree that something definite (not necessarily an object) would simplify things, but the claims are what they are. I try to use the interaction problem to point out that the claims are incoherent as stated, and try to prompt some thought about that.Dualism suffers from all the same problems as the issues we are speaking of and, again, we can't know what we don't know until we have a definite entity to study with real characteristics that we can grasp. So, there can't be a problem of interaction without some sort of definite object to interact with.
I agree, and it's fine to leave it at that if all you want to do is dismiss an incoherent claim. I prefer to clarify why the claim is incoherent, e.g. that physical claims have physical implications that can't just be hand-waved away. I think that has more chance of influencing someone (perhaps a lurker) than some non-physical 'boojum'I'm saying the issue isn't all that complicated.
Sure, I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. It would be interesting to see how your resurrected King of Pop compares with that of the King of Kings. Of course, we might want to have someone join us who believes in the resurrection of the King of Rock'n'Roll, just for good measure of comparison.
No, it may be possible that I'll actually give you the benefit of the doubt, however slight or moderate it might be, as I explain below.So, you're going to go ahead and tell me that you'ld actually honestly consider this claim?
Come on, now.
...that would depend on various philosophical factors.We both know that you would consider me crazy or simply lying - and bad at it.
But surely, my good man, you don't think that I have taken you seriously. You offer a proposition for me to consider, and I say, "If so, then ..." Yet, we both know as of this moment--right now--that you indeed DO NOT hold such a view, and this is all according to your own contextual admissions.The real question here though, is why you felt like you couldn't simply say that... Why must you go ahead and pretend as if you'ld actually take it seriously?
You're the second or third person this week to imply that. It gets tiresome, but yet, I suppose I should somehow feel affirmed, even if ironically, by all of the psycho-analytic attention I'm being given by some of you atheists. I know you'd all just love to get into my mind and explain 'me' away ... to me.Could it be that you just didn't like where it was going?
...that would depend on various philosophical factors.
But surely, my good man, you don't think that I have taken you seriously. You offer a proposition for me to consider, and I say, "If so, then ..." Yet, we both know as of this moment--right now--that you indeed DO NOT hold such a view, and this is all according to your own contextual admissions.
Keywords here: when you thoughtHowever, if you, DogmaHunter, and the same DogmaHunter that has been on this website, let's say, for the past few years suddenly DID come to me and say that, then I would consider listening to you and contemplating what it was that you saw when you thought Michael appeared to you and snapped his crotch with a white glove.
I mean, if someone as intelligence as you suddenly came to me and seemed to sincerely hold a view and perception that is otherwise an about-face from what you 'usually,' and sanely give, as contentions with all things phenomenal and/or super-natural, then the fact that you were being this way would also be recognizably inconsistent with your usual self, and it would give me pause to think.
You're the second or third person this week to imply that.
It gets tiresome, but yet, I suppose I should somehow feel affirmed, even if ironically, by all of the psycho-analytic attention I'm being given by some of you atheists. I know you'd all just love to get into my mind and explain 'me' away ... to me.
It certainly has the most emotional and ethical force; GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) is a commonly used escape clause, in various guises.The argument for non-theism which has the most force and which has been advanced more so than any other is the argument from evil and suffering.
I submit that it would not. You would look at me funny and either laugh or walk away.
You wouldn't give it one micro second of thought or serious consideration.
More then likely, you'll just go "...uhu...." and move on while thinking "what a loon...."
Which doesn't matter to the point being made.
Have you ever heared of a "hypothetical"?
Keywords here: when you thought
As in, you wouldn't consider for a second that I actually saw the ghost of Michael Jackson.
If I were really serious (ie: you feel like you can reasonable exclude that I'm lying as an option), you'ld assume that I experienced something which I happened to interpret that way.
But you would not consider that it actually was Michael Jackson. Because he's dead and you understand what "dead" means.
About my sanity. Or drug/alcohol abuse. Or general health.
But not really about me actually meeting the ghost of Michael Jackson. Right?
The real question, and the point of the hypothetical, is, why?
That's certainly interesting, is it not?
Suddenly a proverb comes to mind. It's about a horse and making it drink.
I would argue that it is impossible for something to cause/create something that is fundamentally different. Like "something that isn't bound by the laws of cause and effect cannot 'cause' something."Can any atheist provide a logical argument that supports your belief that there is no God?
Not that the religious ideas of God. But that there is no God that designed the universe and created life purposefully.
I've seen that most atheist generally attack religion and ask for empirical evidence that shows God exists.. but I have never heard a logical argument against the existence of God ( not religion).
Thoughts and thanks
...it seems that you've mistaken me for someone who gives a David Hume about your assumptions as to what I would or would not think. Or, maybe you just want to offer your services to me as my shrink?
No. I just think it would be seriously insulting to your intelligence to assume that you would actually take my claim seriously, when that claim is that I met the ghost of Michael Jackson.
If you wish to go ahead and go on record by saying that you would take a claim seriously, then be my guest though. But I don't think it would make you look good.
Just as the OP demonstrated no research whatsoever, this post attempts to dodge the freewil defense by Plantinga et. al., devoted in the early 1970s, that has utterly wrecked the deductive argument from the problem of evil. In fact even atheists philosophers of religion only use the probabilistic formulation for the last couple decades.It certainly has the most emotional and ethical force; GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways) is a commonly used escape clause, in various guises.
based on a false analogy ghosts are univocal to Theistic claims.No. I just think it would be seriously insulting to your intelligence to assume that you would actually take my claim seriously, when that claim is that I met the ghost of Michael Jackson.
If you wish to go ahead and go on record by saying that you would take a claim seriously, then be my guest though. But I don't think it would make you look good.
Meanwhile, it seems you succeeded in playing this out in such a way that the actual point I was making, is completely lost in the pages. So I guess you got that going for ya.
I would argue that it is impossible for something to cause/create something that is fundamentally different. Like "something that isn't bound by the laws of cause and effect cannot 'cause' something."
If you're referring to my post, I'm not attempting to dodge anything, just pointing out that GWIMW is a commonly used means of evading the problem - widely used on these forums - presumably by those unaware of Platinga, et al., or who perhaps aren't prepared to argue for Platinga's ill-defined concept of freedom, or his constraints on omnipotence (e.g. inability to create a world where free choices [however defined] happen always to be good). One has the impression that he would ensure his terms were defined so as to enable his argument...Just as the OP demonstrated no research whatsoever, this post attempts to dodge the freewil defense by Plantinga et. al., devoted in the early 1970s, that has utterly wrecked the deductive argument from the problem of evil. In fact even atheists philosophers of religion only use the probabilistic formulation for the last couple decades.
Fair enough but how little effort it would have taking to say common responses to the problem of evil by experts is the free will defense, but out here is the mystery defense.If you're referring to my post, I'm not attempting to dodge anything, just pointing out that GWIMW is a commonly used means of evading the problem - widely used on these forums - presumably by those unaware of Platinga, et al., or who perhaps aren't prepared to argue for Platinga's ill-defined concept of freedom, or his constraints on omnipotence (e.g. inability to create a world where free choices [however defined] happen always to be good).
based on a false analogy ghosts are univocal to Theistic claims.
Childish new atheism claim. Not a serious engagement of the topic.
These types of oft-repeated comments by new atheists have earned the ire of Michael Ruse, and other professional atheist philosophers who describe new atheist arguments as intellectual disgraceful.
Do better.
Problem is that theists define God as spaceless, timeless (eternal), uncreated, immaterial being.
You are providing us with the physical limits to a non-physical being?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?