Doubting your disbelief?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Sure it is. But that's OK. Carry on with your quest to rise above the Subject/Object distinction and glimpse the meta-reality of the "big picture". The red pill awaits.

Tell me how "Subject/Object distinction" is relevant to my discussion.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I've seen your posts and your form of reasoning (if one can even call it that). You're the equivalent to some drunken deaf, blind man stumbling through the forest unaware that a forest even exists.

Ironically, you seem to be the only one that sees good logic in your arguments. You've yet to provide a logically sound argument in support of any gods where the premises are factual.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Tell me how "Subject/Object distinction" is relevant to my discussion.

Why don't you tell us what exactly is relevant to the discussion other than what you write?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Sure it is. But that's OK. Carry on with your quest to rise above the Subject/Object distinction and glimpse the meta-reality of the "big picture". The red pill awaits.

You're posting at a guy who thinks morality is objective. I doubt you'll get anywhere with Dustin as far as a rational discussion goes.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Why don't you tell us what exactly is relevant to the discussion other than what you write?

Whatever I post is relevant because this is my thread.

 

[D'rok]

Whatever I post is relevant because this is my thread.

[Keanu Reeves accent] Whoahhhh [/Keanu reeves accent]

 

[nescafe]

Whatever I post is relevant because this is my thread.

<nitpick>
Your thread? I don't think so. Yours is the original post, it is true, but the thread as a whole is a different matter -- you have no power to enforce any type of ownership over it, therefore it is not yours.
</nitpick>

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Gidday Dustin,

Mate, just post some of these new arguments you've discovered from seeing the whole forest. Then we can discuss their merits and come to the conclusion on whether or not you've discovered something ground-breaking, or if this pathway has been traveled before.

I personally don't think you're going to get anywhere just insisting that everyone else is looking at individual trees and you can see the whole forest without actually presenting some idea of what the whole forest looks like.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Gidday Dustin,

Mate, just post some of these new arguments you've discovered from seeing the whole forest. Then we can discuss their merits and come to the conclusion on whether or not you've discovered something ground-breaking, or if this pathway has been traveled before.

I personally don't think you're going to get anywhere just insisting that everyone else is looking at individual trees and you can see the whole forest without actually presenting some idea of what the whole forest looks like.

Cheers,
TGHO

I might post a thread later about that. But for now I'm more concerned with whether people or not are now starting to doubt atheism and consider that God actually exist.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

I might post a thread later about that. But for now I'm more concerned with whether people or not are now starting to doubt atheism and consider that God actually exist.

For me to doubt my atheism there would have to be some really, really solid evidence that a god of some form actually existed. And if you're talking the christian god-concept, then there is no possible evidence which can be supplied.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

For me to doubt my atheism there would have to be some really, really solid evidence that a god of some form actually existed. And if you're talking the christian god-concept, then there is no possible evidence which can be supplied.

Cheers,
TGHO

What evidence would you accept for the existence of a "God"?

 

[The Great Hairy One]

What evidence would you accept for the existence of a "God"?

Depends greatly on which particular god-concept you are talking about here. Probably the best evidence would be magic actually working universally.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Depends greatly on which particular god-concept you are talking about here. Probably the best evidence would be magic actually working universally.

Cheers,
TGHO

Let's just say a basic theistic God for example. Not any God from any specific religion. How would "magic actually working universally" prove a God?

 

[Solus]

Please share some of these convincing arguments.

I can't believe you are looking at global theistic arguments for gods - and settling on the God of Abraham! He was a colossal twit! You can do better!

Yes, please share Dustin...

 

[Apathia]

I might post a thread later about that. But for now I'm more concerned with whether people or not are now starting to doubt atheism and consider that God actually exist.

OK, I take it that this is the subject of the thread that we shold maintain.

I, myself, am not now beginning to doubt that Yahweh is just a character of myth, and entertianing the belief that the Creator ID God exists. I do continue to entertain some notions of the experience of divinity that don't involve an individual entity supream being. But none of that is confused in my mind with the Judeo-Christain God or his essence.

What evidence would you accept for the existence of a "God"?

Are you not now drifting from your own topic? Ought the question to be, "What has caused or contributed to your doubt?"

But asking now for evidence of belief when evidence of disbelief was called as irrelevant, leads me to think that the purpose of the thread is to nudge the reader toward belief in God.

It's a rather good technique. You offer no arguments yourself, but seek to draw the reader's own possible arguments for God. Those, of course would have the desired impact.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Let's just say a basic theistic God for example. Not any God from any specific religion. How would "magic actually working universally" prove a God?

Magic, being a corruption of natural laws, would need some form of driving force or mystical source. Whilst this wouldn't prove that a god of some sort existed, it certainly would be a large contributor to the possibility of a god existing.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Dunstan]

OK, I take it that this is the subject of the thread that we shold maintain.

I, myself, am not now beginning to doubt that Yahweh is just a character of myth, and entertianing the belief that the Creator ID God exists.

Me neither.

My, what a fascinating discussion. I do hope it stays on topic.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Magic, being a corruption of natural laws, would need some form of driving force or mystical source. Whilst this wouldn't prove that a god of some sort existed, it certainly would be a large contributor to the possibility of a god existing.

Cheers,
TGHO

Well I asked what you would accept as evidence for a God. If Magic wouldn't be direct evidence for a God then what would you accept as evidence for a God? If you can't even decide what evidence you would accept for a God how can you possibly know what wouldn't be evidence for a God?

Moreover, How does one define "Corruption of natural laws"? Do you mean corruption of natural laws as they are currently defined? How do we discern advanced technology from magic? Ever heard of Clarke's three laws?

 

[SoBitter]

I have never doubted my agnosticism. I have thought that perhaps there could be a "god", and even hoped that one existed, in order to alleviate my fears and helplessness relating to the common problems of existence. I have never, though, thought that "god" actually existed (since realizing that I am agnostic).

If I attempt to see the forest, which could in fact just be a part of a forest inside a planet and universe full of forests, will it improve my quality of life? If I realize that I have in fact been missing out on the "truth", that a god exists, or that life is not at all what is appears to be, will I achieve more in life? Will this added knowledge allow me true peace in my life? Knowing my own personality, I would most likely become more enraged at every human who doesn't know the "truth" and loathe humanity even more than I already do. I would rather keep looking at my tree, or small forest.

Oh, and this:
Clarke's third "law".
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Sufficiently is a very vague word. Sufficient seems to include in its definition that it is indistinguishable from magic. If it's distinguishable it's simply not sufficient. His "laws" sound like tripe. Of course if you took today's technology and showed it to someone 200 years ago, they would think it to be magic. However, if you explained the preceeding technology and the mechanisms involved, they could understand that it is not magic.

 

[Taffer]

It's up to you.

Ok.

That's extremely vague. Define "Logically".

Using logic, Dustin. Surely you know what this means.

Explain how you evaluate evidence "Scientifically" as well. Do you form hypothesis then theories and then do experiments on it only to have the experiments repeated independently by others and the results peer reviewed and continually tested?

If the evidence is in that form, then I will evaluate the results of others. If it is not, I will employ the philosophies of science in my quest for my acceptance of the evidence.