Originally posted by Nephthys
So wait, he gave me logic so I could work out that I shouldn't use it. Thats seems smart.
No, he gave you logic to understand things applicable to mankind, and the ability to use faith to apply it to God. If you "understood" God, there would be no need to believe in him or have faith in him.
By removing God from the realm of reason, the theist (in this case I'm defining this as a theist with the belief in a personal god that may or may not influence physical phenomenon, not a deist) effectively removes his beliefs from scrutiny. Evidence becomes irrelevant because they have removed God from the very realm of evidence. God's actions are beyond understanding and thus are not subject to our judgment.
Basically bullshit designed to excuse the need to back up extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence.
Originally posted by Lucius
By removing God from the realm of reason, the theist (in this case I'm defining this as a theist with the belief in a personal god that may or may not influence physical phenomenon, not a deist) effectively removes his beliefs from scrutiny. Evidence becomes irrelevant because they have removed God from the very realm of evidence. God's actions are beyond understanding and thus are not subject to our judgment.Basically bullshit designed to excuse the need to back up extraordinary claims with extraordinary evidence.
Theist or deist, this reasoning is stupid and pretty much an excuse to reject any God in general. The idea of theism or deism is that one "believes", and as a "belief", one is not required to back up his claims. If one says that he knows God exists, that may be a different story. But once again, it becomes laughable when one says God doesn't exist but if he did, that person would be able to logically and accurately describe him.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I don't mind believing in a higher power, or believing that one doesn't exist--just so long as they can admit that it is a belief and not an absolute truth or fact.
Only a religious would claim that. But you have the religious nuts on one side, and the philosophy morons on the other, both are annoying.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
The problem with that theory, and one that the morons in Intro to Philosophy all the time, is that if God is following something because it's intrinsically right, it wouldn't make him "God". The concept of God is that he is omniscient and omnipotent and as such, what he does and creates is "right " and "wrong". If he's following some universal moral path, then he's no longer God.
If: [Morals determined at one's discretion are inherently empty]
and: [God's morals are determined at His own discretion]
Then: [God's morals are inherently empty]
Thanks Lucien, for alerting me to the reference; I would have thought this the original creation of some jerk online if not for you.
___________________
TJ: this is not situational. The question is whether or not you would kill babies if killing babies were universally moral and good. For our intents, you might say that [killing babies] has the same utility of [attaining salvation + 1]. Killing babies here is an objective good.
If: [Morals determined at one's discretion are inherently empty]
and: [God's morals are determined at His own discretion]
Then: [God's morals are inherently empty]
Originally posted by Zampanó
TJ: this is not situational. The question is whether or not you would kill babies if killing babies were universally moral and good. For our intents, you might say that [killing babies] has the same utility of [attaining salvation + 1]. Killing babies here is an objective good.
I wasn't sure if that was what you meant or not. I was hung up on inherent vs intrinsic.
If: [Morals determined at one's discretion are inherently empty]
and: [God's morals are determined at His own discretion]
Then: [God's morals are inherently empty]
Nevermind, I think I understand.. The only way to even attempt to make this conditional statement valid is by trying to discern God's motives through human reasoning. And once again, that huge fallacy renders the entire statement moot.
uLZTACMuMBU&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLZTACMuMBU&feature=player_embedded
....... cries.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Theist or deist, this reasoning is stupid and pretty much an excuse to reject any God in general. The idea of theism or deism is that one "believes", and as a "belief", one is not required to back up his claims. If one says that he [b]knows God exists, that may be a different story. But once again, it becomes laughable when one says God doesn't exist but if he did, that person would be able to logically
and accurately describe him. [/B]
Your beliefs (or the probably fictional subject of your beliefs) cannot stand up to rational inquiry, therefore, you make excuses and claim they are beyond rational inquiry. Essentially, this is nothing more than attempt to justify the belief in something on bad evidence. A belief which results in your various bigoted beliefs and social values, whatever your protests to the contrary.
Even when one attempts to criticize the texts on which you base your beliefs, you simply make an excuse and accuse the person of “misunderstanding” and not knowing what the texts really mean.
You could have used TAG, First Cause, Teleological or any of the other various arguments for the existence of God. Except, you didn't, because instead you simply remove the concept from the realm of reason so you simply... hand wave it away.
You do nothing but make excuses, which means that you are full of nothing but shit.
Originally posted by Lucius
Your beliefs (or the probably fictional subject of your beliefs) cannot stand up to rational inquiry, therefore, you make excuses and claim they are beyond rational inquiry. Essentially, this is nothing more than attempt to justify the belief in something on bad evidence. A belief which results in your various bigoted beliefs and social values, whatever your protests to the contrary.
Even when one attempts to criticize the texts on which you base your beliefs, you simply make an excuse and accuse the person of “misunderstanding” and not knowing what the texts really mean.
You could have used TAG, First Cause, Teleological or any of the other various arguments for the existence of God. Except, you didn't, because instead you simply remove the concept from the realm of reason so you simply... hand wave it away.
You do nothing but make excuses, which means that you are full of nothing but shit. [/B]
The lack of self awareness and the amount of hypocrisy you actually spew are inversely proportional.
It always strikes me as humorous when someone desperately tries to disprove a faith based system..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3Cim90qmsk
gotta be the theme song of every artist i think. freaking powerful.