Fine-tuning and Design vs. Omnipotence

[Nihilianth]

Just another GWIMW argument.

How no one can understand god and what he does then you attempt to do that very thing.

Huh? I haven't made any claims of knowing anything about God, except that I do believe quite strongly that He loves us, and that He must be making us suffer for our own good. I make no claims as to WHY he makes us suffer so. Except that He must do it for a damned good reason, and He loves us enough to allow it to happen.

 

[Nihilianth]

So now you know the mind of God?


I don't personally recall doing any mocking in this thread, but in general, I agree it is foolish and counterproductive to mock ignorance and stupidity. However, a reasonably held belief is hard to mock, and withstands mockery by reason of its rational foundation. This is rarely (if ever) the case with religious beliefs, which makes them tempting targets, and prone to mockery - and despite assertions of the unshakable strength of their beliefs, it's surprising how many behave as if their beliefs are threatened by it.

Just for the record: I am not at all threatened by anything. I just don;t care for a condescending tone. As you have said, it does nothing for the ignorant. I freely admit that I am quite ignorant when it comes to religion and science. But I do know what I know about both subjects. Which is not anything close to being expert knowledge.

Condescension kind of turns me off, and it becomes incredibly difficult to want to even think of understanding what the person is talking about. I don't take criticism very well sometimes.

But, I think I have already answered your first line in this quote in my previous post. (#160)

 

[Trent Wray]

Huh? I haven't made any claims of knowing anything about God, except that I do believe quite strongly that He loves us, and that He must be making us suffer for our own good. I make no claims as to WHY he makes us suffer so. Except that He must do it for a damned good reason, and He loves us enough to allow it to happen.

This wasn't my discussion to jump into ... but let me ask you a few questions (if you don't wanna answer them, no worries):

Are you content to think what you just claimed to believe, or if you had the opportunity ... would you find out the exact answers to your opinions?

In other words .... if God could tell you directly, to your face, word for word, whether or not your beliefs were true or false, would you want to hear the answers? There would be no ambiguity whatsoever ... no "special signs to interpret" or books to read. Just you and God, one and one, Q&A, period. No need to die, or get all dressed up ... "come as you are" as it were. No faith required ... just a plain, one on one conversation with no riddles or allegories.

Now, to contrast this ... suppose you had to do a few things first in order for this to happen ... this meeting between you and God.

What do you think about the idea that you should do something first before having that meeting? And .... what would it take for you to say, "no thanks. I'm not interested any longer," .... ?

 

[Nihilianth]

That's an incredibly deep double standard. You actually cannot see it is your own logic turned around. When the shoe is on the other foot, suddenly that sort of objection seems nonsensical.

So, I ask again: How do you know that there aren't mammals somewhere in existence that have mouths inside of their stomachs? --Nihilianth

So, I ask again: How do you know that you didn't make the argument and since then the universe has been rearranged to make everyone, including you, think otherwise?

I'm not making a philosophical claim. I'm asking 'how do you know?'

Well, actually, I've derailed a conversation by asking a question that can't possibly advance the discussion, no matter what answer is given. I suppose I shouldn't do that...but the other kids are doing it, so....

To hopefully put this to rest once and for all, Sceptic Tank was the one which initiated the question. I merely rephrased the question in such a way that a theist would ask the same thing. I did so in order to illustrate a point that his question was not valid, and had nothing to do with the conversation. Or at the very least, was a non-starter, because the argument he was making really would have no bearing on the larger conversation.


He never really answered the question after I had asked him several times. I don't blame him for avoiding the question, because it was useless. I was merely showing the flaw in his thinking that if something doesn't exist, that should mean that "God has no imagination." The reverse is also true: That just because something does exist, is not necessarily evidence that God does as well.

 

[Nihilianth]

This wasn't my discussion to jump into ... but let me ask you a few questions (if you don't wanna answer them, no worries):

Are you content to think what you just claimed to believe, or if you had the opportunity ... would you find out the exact answers to your opinions?

In other words .... if God could tell you directly, to your face, word for word, whether or not your beliefs were true or false, would you want to hear the answers? There would be no ambiguity whatsoever ... no "special signs to interpret" or books to read. Just you and God, one and one, Q&A, period. No need to die, or get all dressed up ... "come as you are" as it were. No faith required ... just a plain, one on one conversation with no riddles or allegories.

Now, to contrast this ... suppose you had to do a few things first in order for this to happen ... this meeting between you and God.

What do you think about the idea that you should do something first before having that meeting? And .... what would it take for you to say, "no thanks. I'm not interested any longer," .... ?

Hmmm... Good questions, all. For fear of being too hasty in such a deep question, I will leave out any comments to the last two paragraphs for the time-being.

As for the first three:

For the moment, I am rather content with my belief. Though it probably does border on blasphemy according to the Abrahamic God. ( I say this, with the understanding that I fully believe in just one God. I just want to make it clear to those reading just "which" God I am talking about.)

If I could talk to God face-to-face, I most definitely would want to hear whether or not my beliefs were true or false. I am a fan of frank criticism, so long as it isn't condescending. Just give me the Truth, plain and simple. No need to beat around any bushes. No need for any ambiguity. Just the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

Just wondering. You think you would have some sort of answer for how this can or may happen?

Although, to be perfectly honest, I don't think I will be terribly satisfied with my current belief in the very near future. You see, my wife is about to have twins. Honestly, this belief system was shaken a bit after I got married, and even more so after we found out she was pregnant. I may become even more discontent after the kids are born. I want to try to raise them up in the Truth. Or as close an approximation as I can possibly get them there on my own, leaving them a shorter road to travel than I had.

 

[tsig]

Huh? I haven't made any claims of knowing anything about God, except that I do believe quite strongly that He loves us, and that He must be making us suffer for our own good. I make no claims as to WHY he makes us suffer so. Except that He must do it for a damned good reason, and He loves us enough to allow it to happen.

You don't know anything about god yet you tell us about his emotions and his reasons for making us suffer.

If you don't know WHY god makes us suffer then how can you say it must be for a good reason?

 

[Nihilianth]

You don't know anything about god yet you tell us about his emotions and his reasons for making us suffer.

If you don't know WHY god makes us suffer then how can you say it must be for a good reason?

I'll post this again, and please note the bolded:

Huh? I haven't made any claims of knowing anything about God, except that I do believe quite strongly that He loves us, and that He must be making us suffer for our own good. I make no claims as to WHY he makes us suffer so. Except that He must do it for a damned good reason, and He loves us enough to allow it to happen.

There is a fundamental difference between knowing and believing in something. Knowing implies facts. Like, I know that 1+1 equals 2.

Belief implies faith. Like, I have faith in me and my wife's ability in being good parents. I will have faith in my children when they are born that they will eventually be able to make good decisions.

In other words: I have faith in God's love. Yet I don't know God's love.

 

[Trent Wray]

Hmmm... Good questions, all. For fear of being too hasty in such a deep question, I will leave out any comments to the last two paragraphs for the time-being.

As for the first three:

For the moment, I am rather content with my belief. Though it probably does border on blasphemy according to the Abrahamic God. ( I say this, with the understanding that I fully believe in just one God. I just want to make it clear to those reading just "which" God I am talking about.)

If I could talk to God face-to-face, I most definitely would want to hear whether or not my beliefs were true or false. I am a fan of frank criticism, so long as it isn't condescending. Just give me the Truth, plain and simple. No need to beat around any bushes. No need for any ambiguity. Just the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth.

Just wondering. You think you would have some sort of answer for how this can or may happen?

Although, to be perfectly honest, I don't think I will be terribly satisfied with my current belief in the very near future. You see, my wife is about to have twins. Honestly, this belief system was shaken a bit after I got married, and even more so after we found out she was pregnant. I may become even more discontent after the kids are born. I want to try to raise them up in the Truth. Or as close an approximation as I can possibly get them there on my own, leaving them a shorter road to travel than I had.

Thanx for answering

Basically, I like to know the "extremes" someone is willing to go in order to find out whether or not their version of truth can be verified, and how circumstantial their truth is.

On a practical level, it helps to define what a god is, and what a subject of that god is.

On an idealistic level .... I like to know what extremes someone has gone to, or are willing to go to, in order to find their "truth". What cost they are willing to pay, if any. I like to know, basically, what they discovered at those extremes.

And when adding it all up, I find there are two extreme ways of looking at things, which both make for good arguments, but don't necessarily represent what goes on in the day to day world. One such extreme, is that "truth" should be free. In other words, there should be no price tag associated with it. No effort required in order to obtain it. God, if he is omnitruth as it were .... should be clear and obvious. The other extreme is that in order to prove and verify "truth" ... one must search in every possible crack and crevice in order to rule out any opposing evidence which would contradict it. This would, and sometimes does, require great effort to achieve. Sometimes we have to wait until our intellect has had time to mature as a whole ... or until we have the tools capable of helping us ... or until someone makes extreme life choices and we can see the consequences. Arguably, this kind is not free ... it costs everything. A continual use of resources, effort, and focus.

On the one hand, there is "free". On the other hand, there is "priceless". Both extremes represent a truth that has no pricetag .... because the abscence of a pricetag means the thing is free, or it's priceless.

And, arguably, what most people claim to know about "truth" is the middle man version of that. It is why we are always debating and arguing and contemplating various stances. Most slap a pricetag on it, and claim to have purchased it. Some might have claimed to have stolen it ... whilst others claim to be renting it out as necessary, or that it was given to them with the pricetag on it. A good deal at a garage sale.

For some of us who have this need to see the truth as being at the extremes, that's simply not good enough. This used to be me, perhaps. Wanting to see it as an either/or. But that's just simply not the reality I know. And this is disappointing. It's a relief to me, but disappointing at the same time. Sometimes the "truth" is more than I could have hoped for, and other times it's something I wouldn't even wish upon my worst enemy. How to respond to it, daily, is more or less my question now. But .... the extremes are good to know

 

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying ...

Maybe I missed pithy and hit inscrutable.

Maybe a scenario: George is having dinner at a restaurant, when someone whom he assumes is a waiter comes up behind him. His friend at the table, Ashley, whispers that there is a man behind George with a gun pointed at his head. She sounds serious and George doesn't doubt she thinks it's true; but he has never had that sort of trouble and doesn't think of himself as someone who would need to be murdered publicly in a restaurant. He smiles cockily and say's 'Don't worry, Ashley, I'm sure it's not what you think.' Perhaps a little condescendingly. With a smile, he turns around only to find himself facing the business end of a 10mm in the hands of an Asian man with lots of tattoos. The smile quickly leaves George's face.

In the above scenario, George represents the atheist you've described as being only a hair's breadth different from a theist. Joe the theist would have believed Ashley right off, but George was skeptical, he wouldn't believe it until he had sufficient evidence, but once he had it, he became a believer.

Basically, your issue is with how some atheists claim they would act if they became believers. Of course, once they become believers, they aren't atheists anymore. How they would act in the face of overwhelming danger isn't relevant to the difference between atheists and theists. The difference is merely whether they think the danger (a tyrannical God as this particular analogy goes) is real.

 

[Nihilianth]

Thanx for answering

Basically, I like to know the "extremes" someone is willing to go in order to find out whether or not their version of truth can be verified, and how circumstantial their truth is.

On a practical level, it helps to define what a god is, and what a subject of that god is.

On an idealistic level .... I like to know what extremes someone has gone to, or are willing to go to, in order to find their "truth". What cost they are willing to pay, if any. I like to know, basically, what they discovered at those extremes.

And when adding it all up, I find there are two extreme ways of looking at things, which both make for good arguments, but don't necessarily represent what goes on in the day to day world. One such extreme, is that "truth" should be free. In other words, there should be no price tag associated with it. No effort required in order to obtain it. God, if he is omnitruth as it were .... should be clear and obvious. The other extreme is that in order to prove and verify "truth" ... one must search in every possible crack and crevice in order to rule out any opposing evidence which would contradict it. This would, and sometimes does, require great effort to achieve. Sometimes we have to wait until our intellect has had time to mature as a whole ... or until we have the tools capable of helping us ... or until someone makes extreme life choices and we can see the consequences. Arguably, this kind is not free ... it costs everything. A continual use of resources, effort, and focus.

On the one hand, there is "free". On the other hand, there is "priceless". Both extremes represent a truth that has no pricetag .... because the abscence of a pricetag means the thing is free, or it's priceless.

And, arguably, what most people claim to know about "truth" is the middle man version of that. It is why we are always debating and arguing and contemplating various stances. Most slap a pricetag on it, and claim to have purchased it. Some might have claimed to have stolen it ... whilst others claim to be renting it out as necessary, or that it was given to them with the pricetag on it. A good deal at a garage sale.

For some of us who have this need to see the truth as being at the extremes, that's simply not good enough. This used to be me, perhaps. Wanting to see it as an either/or. But that's just simply not the reality I know. And this is disappointing. It's a relief to me, but disappointing at the same time. Sometimes the "truth" is more than I could have hoped for, and other times it's something I wouldn't even wish upon my worst enemy. How to respond to it, daily, is more or less my question now. But .... the extremes are good to know

No problem.

I am not sure I can answer this. Will say though, that I don't think that truth....any truth...is ever free. As you have said, truth costs time, possibly money, and effort in order to obtain. It may also cost you your very life, and possibly your soul, as in the case of Adam and Eve. I guess you could say they certainly went to the extreme in order to obtain whatever "truth" they were seeking after the snake in the garden persuaded them to eat the apple in order to gain knowledge.

So, is that the point you were making? To be careful of what you wish for? That the truth may not really "set you free" after all? That there could be some kind of price to pay, one that could literally damn your soul?

I suppose that is why we are incapable of communing with God....why God refuses to reveal his plans. Because He loves us enough to keep them hidden from us, for we "can't handle the truth."

(Sorry about the one-liners! )

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Back in the days when the OT was first being written, assuming it is a direct revelation from God Himself, how in the world could God possibly explain all the inner-workings of how the Earth was created and the animals, and eventually humans came about? Explain all of this to a people that was barely out of the Stone Age? He couldn't. He would have them so thoroughly confused, much like a second grader would become thoroughly confused if you tried to explain String Theory to him.

I agree with your conclusion 100%. Of course He would have to explain it in terms that the people could understand. And if this was case then any apparent gaffs or contradictions might simply be caused by our present-day lack of understanding of what the words meant.

But what if the bible is not direct revelation from God? What if it is merely a collection of fictional stories made up by people who knew practically nothing, but needed some kind of explanation (true or not) anyway? Would it be any different?

We have access to vastly more scientific knowledge than the peoples of those times, but we are no more intelligent, no more able to be taught than they were. They may have been ignorant, but they weren't idiots. Surely it wouldn't have been that difficult to explain (in simple terms) things like gravity, the motion of stars and planets, and evolution.

I see no reason why The Bible could not have given at least a Second Grade level explanation of God's works. But what do we actually get? A Creation myth with no scientific knowledge, nothing more than what those ignorant people could have dreamed up for themselves. What does that suggest to you?

So maybe God instead decided to use the allegory of seven days to possibly show the order of which things came about. "In the beginning, there was light. (the Big Bang,") on Day one....

A good attempt to match up biblical myth with our current scientific understanding, until...

And at the start of day seven, Christ died on the cross for our sins. At which point, God took a rest to bless his creation and make it holy.

Oops. Now the wheels have fallen off!

 

[Trent Wray]

No problem.

I am not sure I can answer this. Will say though, that I don't think that truth....any truth...is ever free. As you have said, truth costs time, possibly money, and effort in order to obtain. It may also cost you your very life, and possibly your soul, as in the case of Adam and Eve. I guess you could say they certainly went to the extreme in order to obtain whatever "truth" they were seeking after the snake in the garden persuaded them to eat the apple in order to gain knowledge.

So, is that the point you were making? To be careful of what you wish for? That the truth may not really "set you free" after all? That there could be some kind of price to pay, one that could literally damn your soul?

I suppose that is why we are incapable of communing with God....why God refuses to reveal his plans. Because He loves us enough to keep them hidden from us, for we "can't handle the truth."

(Sorry about the one-liners! )

No ... I wasn't making the point of "be careful what you wish for." I actually wasn't trying to make a point at all ... I was asking those questions to see what your responses were, because I was honestly just trying to see what you know and don't know, to see how you came by your knowledge, to see if you'd gone to any extremes yet and what you found (and if you hadn't, why you hadn't), to see if you have communed with God and what he/she/it told you, etc and so forth. I was asking because I wanted to see what information could be useful to me in a practical way .

 

[Nihilianth]

I agree with your conclusion 100%. Of course He would have to explain it in terms that the people could understand. And if this was case then any apparent gaffs or contradictions might simply be caused by our present-day lack of understanding of what the words meant.

But what if the bible is not direct revelation from God? What if it is merely a collection of fictional stories made up by people who knew practically nothing, but needed some kind of explanation (true or not) anyway? Would it be any different?

We have access to vastly more scientific knowledge than the peoples of those times, but we are no more intelligent, no more able to be taught than they were. They may have been ignorant, but they weren't idiots. Surely it wouldn't have been that difficult to explain (in simple terms) things like gravity, the motion of stars and planets, and evolution.

I see no reason why The Bible could not have given at least a Second Grade level explanation of God's works. But what do we actually get? A Creation myth with no scientific knowledge, nothing more than what those ignorant people could have dreamed up for themselves. What does that suggest to you?

I don't think the point of the OT was to explain in scientific terms the inner workings of the universe. That doesn't seem to be the purpose of the Bible, the creation story notwithstanding.

A good attempt to match up biblical myth with our current scientific understanding, until...


Oops. Now the wheels have fallen off!

Well, to be fair, I just wrote up a way to explain how the creation story could of allegorical, if it is a direct revelation from God. I wasn't trying to be terribly accurate or thoughtful in the details. Just proving a point, is all.

A bit off topic, but purely for fun, why can't the death of Jesus represent the seventh day? If the OT were true and God had his hands all over humanity back then, wouldn't it make sense that after Jesus died, rose, and went back to heaven, that now God is resting from getting involved in human affairs?

 

[Nihilianth]

No ... I wasn't making the point of "be careful what you wish for." I actually wasn't trying to make a point at all ... I was asking those questions to see what your responses were, because I was honestly just trying to see what you know and don't know, to see how you came by your knowledge, to see if you'd gone to any extremes yet and what you found (and if you hadn't, why you hadn't), to see if you have communed with God and what he/she/it told you, etc and so forth. I was asking because I wanted to see what information could be useful to me in a practical way .

Oh, I see.


To answer your questions then:

I have not gone to any extremes at all. I have neither communed with God, prayed, or anything of that sort. I just simply had trouble with some of the strange answers I was hearing from religious folks. I have problem with scientific facts vs a literal Bible, and so forth. I also have trouble abandoning the idea of God or an afterlife. Too many things don't make sense in that regard. I was merely trying to reconcile science with religion. I honestly see no reason why the two have to be mutually exclusive.

 

[dlorde]

But, I think I have already answered your first line in this quote in my previous post. (#160)

Yes; you're right, you didn't claim to know the mind of God. Sorry - I really meant it more in the broader metaphorical sense of knowing about God - you said:

...you and I are just "dogs" compared to God, but even lower. So much lower. We are lower than the lowest little atom compared to the whole human mind. Far lower.

This suggested to me that you believe you know what God is like (otherwise how can you make a meaningful comparison?). Your suggestion that we are lower than God in the same way as dogs are lower than us (but much more so), also raised flags as to what you meant by 'lower'. My first thought was that you meant mental capacity, which probably prompted my use of 'knowing the mind of God'.

As you apparently weren't using 'lower' in respect of mental capacity, perhaps you could clarify your meaning of 'lower' in this context, and how you know this to be true.

 

[Nihilianth]

Yes; you're right, you didn't claim to know the mind of God. Sorry - I really meant it more in the broader metaphorical sense of knowing about God - you said:This suggested to me that you believe you know what God is like (otherwise how can you make a meaningful comparison?). Your suggestion that we are lower than God in the same way as dogs are lower than us (but much more so), also raised flags as to what you meant by 'lower'. My first thought was that you meant mental capacity, which probably prompted my use of 'knowing the mind of God'.

Perhaps you could clarify your meaning of 'lower' in this context, and how you know this to be true.

First of all, I think it is important to establish there is a fundamental difference, if only in my own mind, between believing in something, and claiming something as true. I strongly believe in the Christian God. I can;t come out and say that "it is absolutely true that He exists." This would imply a hard and fast scientific fact, even though in my own mind God is as real as the sun in the sky, and the air we breath. Others make the claim that God does not exist. Now, whether they claim this to be scientifically factual or not, I dunno. But they seem pretty adamant that there is no omnipotent God, to the point that it is scientifically true that God is not real. Just as it is scientifically true that humans do not exist on the surface of the sun. I just think that is the wrong way to go about it.

Now, to get to your post about what I mean by "low," I mean it in every aspect for the reason why dogs are "lower" than humans. while dogs have all the same emotions as humans,, they lack certain aspects that humans have that makes us "higher" beings. For one, they are far less intelligent. They lack opposable thumbs, and therefore, cannot physically manipulate the matter around them to suit their needs. They lack artistic aesthetics, and creativity.

Except, of course, dogs are closer to us in similarity in those areas, than we are to God. We cannot work outside the realm of physics. And even so, we cannot create stars, or control the alignment of planets. We do not have nearly the same level of creativity as God, as we probably would not have been able to imagine such a beautiful and wondrous universe if our planet were as perpetually cloudy as Venus. The last is something that I assume. I believe one of our biggest inspirations for creativity, stems from our ancestors looking up at the stars and allowing their imaginations to run wild for 100,000 years, making up stories and passing them down through the generations. And of course, those stories inspire other stories. And stories inspire artwork, as humans begin to try to depict what they see in their heads. And art work inspires more artwork. And so on to the present.

 

[Trent Wray]

Maybe I missed pithy and hit inscrutable.

Maybe a scenario: George is having dinner at a restaurant, when someone whom he assumes is a waiter comes up behind him. His friend at the table, Ashley, whispers that there is a man behind George with a gun pointed at his head. She sounds serious and George doesn't doubt she thinks it's true; but he has never had that sort of trouble and doesn't think of himself as someone who would need to be murdered publicly in a restaurant. He smiles cockily and say's 'Don't worry, Ashley, I'm sure it's not what you think.' Perhaps a little condescendingly. With a smile, he turns around only to find himself facing the business end of a 10mm in the hands of an Asian man with lots of tattoos. The smile quickly leaves George's face.

In the above scenario, George represents the atheist you've described as being only a hair's breadth different from a theist. Joe the theist would have believed Ashley right off, but George was skeptical, he wouldn't believe it until he had sufficient evidence, but once he had it, he became a believer.

Basically, your issue is with how some atheists claim they would act if they became believers. Of course, once they become believers, they aren't atheists anymore. How they would act in the face of overwhelming danger isn't relevant to the difference between atheists and theists. The difference is merely whether they think the danger (a tyrannical God as this particular analogy goes) is real.

Yes good analogy .... I would only add one change to it, though, to show why I'm saying the difference is a hair's breadth, and perhaps this one change makes all the difference in the world.

If you'll bear with my long windedness, perhaps you'll see my point in a different light (and perhaps not lol) -----

I would use the same analogy, except that Ashley has her back turned to the man with the gun/waiter as well. So neither of them know whether or not he is a waiter, or has a gun. Hence ... both of them decide how to respond in each scenario. If it's a man with a gun, then they will respond one way. If it's a waiter there to take an order, they will respond another.

Now, suppose Ashley is convinced it is only one possibility .... a man with a gun. She has nothing to base that off of. Perhaps her experience in life, or her fears, or her "faith". But if it's just a waiter, then she's gotten all worked up for nothing. If she believes it's a possibility yet handles it without much regard, merely planning to react accordingly should she be correct ... then she's technically not much different than anyone with or without faith. At any moment, it could be a man with a gun, etc and so forth. She's merely "trained herself" to respond to that bridge when she comes to it.

Now, if she is freaking out and trying to convince you that it's a man with a gun, and admits that she may be wrong but she's so convinced that her actions are indiscernable from someone who is biased and emotionally attached to the point she starts saying things like: "Well you're going to get it George ... you're going to see that you're stupid, and your idea it's a waiter is stupid," etc and so forth .... then she arguably is causing an unnecessary scene and has lost all objectivity.

Now lets look at George. He is arguably playing it rational if he assumes it's a waiter, and his demeanor only changes when confronted by the actual gun. Why live in paranoid fear? Is there evidence that paranoia yields a lot of benefit? So George is doing what is logical. He's never had a gun pointed at him before in this situation, he's in a public restaurant, Ashley hasn't looked at the man she's claiming has a gun .... so he's going to "cross that bridge when he gets to it".

Now, if he insists 100% that it's a waiter, when he hasn't seen the man yet either, then he could be in error. It's not a "sure bet" he can make. What will answer the question, is when he turns to see the man for himself.

But this isn't even the point I'm making. The point I'm trying to make, involves this:

Suppose George starts to get irate at Ashley. "You are an idiot if you think it's a man with a gun. Why? Your experiences previous to this don't count for anything! You've been in error every single time you've thought it was a man with a gun. You are a girl crying wolf, when I've never seen a wolf and neither have you. And you know what? Suppose it is a man with a gun. So what? He's an idiot. He's evil. He's cruel to continually let you think there is a man with a gun when it's always someone else. He's also a coward, and lazy, and stupid, and if you continue to believe he exists, following you around, you're an idiot and a loon as well .... "etc and so forth.

Now, you turn around to face the gun, and all that "talk" gets silenced, because now your tone changes.

This doesn't mean her paranoia was justified. At all. But it's not about her now. It's about YOU. It's irrelevant whether she was correct or incorrect. It can't be proven that her paranoia paid off, or her faith was based on fact. What you were previously saying about what you thought of the man with the gun, doesn't add up to how you are now behaving towards the man with the gun, and was never evidence as to whether there was actually a man with a gun there or not.

If she wants to view your opinions as "evidence", then she can and use them as evidence that she was correct. Which again, is irrelevant ... because neither one of your subjective opinions about each other or the man with the gun/waiter amounted to anything other than the two of you arguing about "tastes great/less filling". And who was correct is now irrelevant as well ... what is relevant is whether or not there was a man with a gun. That's it. There is either evidence for it or against it. So why doesn't the skeptic just stick with that?

If you want to keep comparing your actions to hers .... hers now add up. But again, it's not relevant to the POINT ... and the point of the argument was whether or not the man with the gun was going to be there or not.

BUT ... before either of you ever turned to face the man to see whether or not he had a gun or was merely a waiter, your actions/demeanor/behavior towards each other were two sides of the same coin. Both were emotionally charged, irrational, losing objectivity, etc and so forth.

See? THAT is what I'm talking about. It's not whether either is justified in their faith, fear, evidence based rationale, etc. It's how they let it effect them, where they lose their objectivity and their own subjectivity becomes untrustworthy even. One of my points, is that if a skeptic is going to continually base a foundation of their argument upon objective evidence, then the strongest thing they can do is not waiver from that. To start arguing about how you feel about the man with the gun, or the waiter, or each other .... is running in the circle that goes nowhere. There is either a man with a gun or there isn't. It's either a waiter or it isn't. But when both start yelling at each other, calling each other names, "talking smack" about the invisible man lol ..... objectivity starts to slide downward.

And when/if a skeptic uses their subjective POV as the basis for "truth" .... they are chasing after the same delusional strawman that the believer is. And if this is allowed as "evidence" .... then the believers flights of fancy, shifting opinions, fears, etc and whatever should be allowed as evidence as well.

What you posited as an analogy was excellent .... but I think the one change makes it remarkedly different as to what it "means".

 

[dlorde]

First of all, I think it is important to establish there is a fundamental difference, if only in my own mind, between believing in something, and claiming something as true. I strongly believe in the Christian God. I can;t come out and say that "it is absolutely true that He exists."

You strongly believe in some entity that you acknowledge may not exist?

Now, to get to your post about what I mean by "low," I mean it in every aspect for the reason why dogs are "lower" than humans. while dogs have all the same emotions as humans,, they lack certain aspects that humans have that makes us "higher" beings. For one, they are far less intelligent. They lack opposable thumbs, and therefore, cannot physically manipulate the matter around them to suit their needs. They lack artistic aesthetics, and creativity.

So by 'higher' or 'lower' you do mean mental capacity/capability - which means that when you say we are lower than God, you're claiming to know something about the mind of God - so why deny it?

Except, of course, dogs are closer to us in similarity in those areas, than we are to God.

Why 'of course'? How can you know this if you're not even certain God exists?

We cannot work outside the realm of physics. And even so, we cannot create stars, or control the alignment of planets. We do not have nearly the same level of creativity as God, as we probably would not have been able to imagine such a beautiful and wondrous universe if our planet were as perpetually cloudy as Venus. The last is something that I assume.

You don't think you are also assuming all this knowledge of God and his/her/its capabilities too? If you think not, what is the evidence you base your knowledge on?

 

[Trent Wray]

Oh, I see.


To answer your questions then:

I have not gone to any extremes at all. I have neither communed with God, prayed, or anything of that sort. I just simply had trouble with some of the strange answers I was hearing from religious folks. I have problem with scientific facts vs a literal Bible, and so forth. I also have trouble abandoning the idea of God or an afterlife. Too many things don't make sense in that regard. I was merely trying to reconcile science with religion. I honestly see no reason why the two have to be mutually exclusive.

No worries ... I was just asking .

Like I said, I like to examine things for practical purposes. And generally, I look for information that's based on eye witness types of experiences/data as well as fact based information ... more than someone whose only seen pictures and postcards of what they are describing. And even then ... when there are "eye witness" accounts, I like to know what separates the tourist from the citizen.

But in general, accounts from "I've only seen the postcards and heard the stories but never been anywhere myself," aren't very practical. Unless you are content with that ... which I'm not lol

 

[Nihilianth]

No worries ... I was just asking .

Like I said, I like to examine things for practical purposes. And generally, I look for information that's based on eye witness types of experiences/data as well as fact based information ... more than someone whose only seen pictures and postcards of what they are describing. And even then ... when there are "eye witness" accounts, I like to know what separates the tourist from the citizen.

I perfectly understand, and cannot fault you any for wanting to hear eyewitness accounts.

But in general, accounts from "I've only seen the postcards and heard the stories but never been anywhere myself," aren't very practical. Unless you are content with that ... which I'm not lol

HAH! I forgot to relate to you something which did happen to my twin brother just before Christmas of 2008.

From between the years 2005 and June of 2009, my brother had signed on with Washington Mutual up in NYC as an IT guy. So he was living in New York for a while before this particular incident.

Some backstory:

Neither my brother nor myself had attended church since at least high school (graduated in 2002.) In fact, neither of us really much much thought to God whatsoever. Basically, we were both agnostic.

But one Thursday....the second Thursday of the month of December, he was coming home from a late night at the office. He didn't get off work until about 11 PM that night. But for some reason, he didn't feel like going directly home, but also didn't feel like going out either. So he decided to stop at this one church, because he knew it was going to be a nice quiet, and peaceful place to sit down, and rest a bit to sort some things out in his mind. After a while, he got up and left to go home, after feeling more at peace.

The very next night was another late night at the office. Coming through the same intersection almost exactly 24 hours later, his car was struck by a semi. An 18-wheel semi. His car just absolutely vanished into nothing but steel and glass. (It was later determined the driver of the truck was doing about 50 MPH, and ran the red light just as my brother was coming through the intersection. How the hell you can get such a large vehicle up to such a speed in the middle of the friggin city, I have no idea!) Any way, my brothers car was struck on the rear passenger side door. (The rear right-hand side, in case your not in the US.)

Pretty much the car was completely demolished, as you can well imagine. Not just demolished, but totally obliterated. Looked exactly like the rubble from the Twin Towers. At least, the rear and right-hand side of the car. 3/4 of the car. It basically sawed the car in half, taking out the entire rear, plus making the front passenger seat area was ripped out and behind the driver seat. The only thing left, was the driver's side, and most of the engine block, and the driver's door. Even the center console between passenger and driver was gone!

After the truck literally smashed it's way through the car, much as if it has smashed it's way through the side of a barn or something, the rest of the vehicle, including my brother (the seat, steering column, driver's door, half the engine block, gas and break pedals) went sailing across the intersection, and slammed into a light post or something. Some kind of pole, which proceeded to bend in half, and smash down on what was left of the vehicle, annihilating the rest of the engine block in front of my brother, and his door finally came loose and dropped off completely.

Meanwhile, the truck continued on it's head-long course, before finally coming to a complete stop nearly a block later, miraculously missing any other property. A nice-sized chunk of steel from my brother's car (it was an axle) went streaming through another vehicle's windshield like a javelin, mostly going clean through the passenger seat. That car, too, had a lone driver. (Apparently, the driver had just dropped off his girlfriend literally 10 minutes before hand!)

Upon coming to the scene, the first cops thought they were going to have a mess on their hands with body parts all over the road. They came up to whatever the hell was left of Ant's car. (My brother;s name is Anthony.) They saw a completely intact person in the passenger seat, but the cops insisted that they knew in their minds he was dead. No way anyone survived this thing. One of the cops reached out to check the pulse, but didn't find one, and reported one dead at the scene.

Paramedics and an ambulance arrived with a body bag. Of course, they checked for a pulse, and found one. They were able to get him out very rapidly, for the steering column and whatever was left of the dashboard was bubbled outward like, and the door was laying on the ground. In fact, where the passenger seat was SUPPOSED to be, a paramedic was able to go from that side equally as easily! There just simply was nothing there. So they were able to get him out of the...uuhh..."car"....properly without moving his body which may place him in greater danger. (One of the reasons why untrained people are not supposed to touch someone in a car accident. You can injure them even further, all too easily!)

Anyway, got him in the ambulance, and did all the standard procedures on him, with using the oxygen mask, and checking his vitals and whatever else they do. By the time they got to the hospital, they were sure there had to be some broken ones, or internal injury somewhere. But once in the hospital, there was nothing. No internal bleeding. No broken bones. Not even a scratch or a bruise anywhere! He was just simply passed out.

When he finally woke up and was coherent enough to hold a conversation, he does not remember the accident much at all. Only thing he remembers was being in a dream-like state, looking out the passenger side of his car, seeing this big light coming towards him all in slow-motion. At which point, he kept asking people "what happened to the other person? Was he Ok?" Everyone was wondering what he was talking about. Yes, the truck driver was Ok. Yes, everyone in the intersection was fine. But he swears that if his dream were the accident, then someone must have been squashed by the truck. He insists still to this day, he saw clearly a person standing between him and the bright light, with his right arm raised towards the light. ...

I dunno, but that story really brings chills to me. It has really made me think that maybe there is something to this whole God thing after all. I mean, I know Ant. I know Ant more than any human being can possibly know any other human being. It is impossible for him to make up a story and lie to me. And there is nothing but sincere honesty, fringed with a touch of fear and wide-eyed wonderment anytime he relates the story back to me. And he is frightfully consistent, even from the very first time when he told what he saw while he was barely coherent in the hospital.

In any case, it turns out the driver of that truck was above the legal limit of blood-alcohol, and was driving a semi trailer more than 25 mph above the speed limit on a surface street, blowing through a red light. It was his own truck, too. Basically, he lost his CDL and regular license permanently, went to prison, and all his assets were seized to pay off fines, hospital bills, and damages from the lawsuit Ant obtained.