"God's total quality management questionnaire"

[Max560]

Yes, I understand that this wholly a matter of what you believe. So, would you go so far as to say you believe that intrinsically? Yet obviously we can't have two folks believing in something intrinsically at opposite ends of the spectrum in what is clearly a yes or no propostion ... or, can we? Now, do you have anyway of backing up what you say or, is it clearly a matter of what you believe?

You hold the position that God exists. You have admitted that you do not think it is possible that God does not exist.

You seem to hold this position because you believe it intrinsically. In other words, you feel that God exists deep down where it counts .

You are perfectly entitled to believe anything you want. You are entitled to believe deep down where it counts .

I simply reject the notion that something must be true simply because you feel strongly about it. Why would I reject someone's strong feelings as proof of a proposition?

"... it's entirely possible that someone could be mistaken"

Is it possible to have different people " believing in something intrinsically at opposite ends of the spectrum in what is clearly a yes or no propostion"?

Yes.

Does " believing in something intrinsically" ever constitute proof that a proposition is true?

No.

So in the end, you choose to believe intrinsically that God exists.

I choose to believe that up til now, no one has been able to prove to me that God exists. Until I am offered something other than non sequiturs or mumbo jumbo, I will continue to feel somewhat strongly (but not intrinsically) that God does not exist. Just show me the evidence, and I will change my position.

You on the other hand, will stick with your "intrinsic belief", use it as your proof, and never change your position. You are unable to describe what it would take to change your position.

I can change my position, and can identify what it would take for me to do so.

This is why you lack crediblility when you beak off about others "showing their bias".

 

[Iacchus]

If God exists, it is a fact ... provable or otherwise.

If the 100’ invisible pink bunny, Santa, Big Foot etc.

What makes your belief more valid then these others or any other such belief?

I have asked you several times and will do so again hoping for an honest response.

You say believing in God will “save us”

You have an illness, a man walks up to you and offers you a small glass vial containing a liquid. He tells you he is a DR and he has this liquid that will “save “ you.

The liquid has no science behind it, never been seen to work on anyone do you just blindly take it or do you question him, ask for test results research etc?

And am I claiming God exists by the statement above? No, of course not. Did you happen to notice the big "if" in front of the whole thing? All I'm saying is that "if" God exists, whether we are capable of realizing it or not, does not change "the fact" that God exists. So just because it's not a proven fact, does not mean it can be construed as evidence to the contrary. For that would be like saying there were no atoms and their electro-magnetic fields prior to their discovery. And "if" that were the case, we wouldn't be here.

 

[Pahansiri]

And am I claiming God exists by the statement above? No, of course not. Did you happen to notice the big "if" in front of the whole thing? All I'm saying is that "if" God exists, whether we are capable of realizing it or not, does not change "the fact" that God exists. So just because it's not a proven fact, does not mean it can be construed as evidence to the contrary. For that would be like saying there were no atoms and their electro-magnetic fields prior to their discovery. And "if" that were the case, we wouldn't be here.

Hello Iacchus

And am I claiming God exists by the statement above? No, of course not. Did you happen to notice the big "if" in front of the whole thing?

Why yes I did knowing your use of “if” there did not mean you believe there is an “if” but rather you preaching to me that it does not matter if I do or do not believe in God.

The reality is you have said there is no “if” that there only “is” so this statement is just dancing on your part.

All I'm saying is that "if" God exists, whether we are capable of realizing it or not, does not change "the fact" that God exists.

And will you admit that “if” God does not exist , whether we are capable of realizing it or not, does not change "the fact" that God does NOT exist?

So just because it's not a proven fact, does not mean it can be construed as evidence to the contrary.

As you know I never said it did.

Also just because the 100’ invisible bunny in not a proven fact, does not mean it can be construed as evidence to the contrary.

For that would be like saying there were no atoms and their electro-magnetic fields prior to their discovery. And "if" that were the case, we wouldn't be here.

Men have been looking to prove God much longer then they were looking to prove atoms and their electro-magnetic fields.

 

[Iacchus]

You hold the position that God exists. You have admitted that you do not think it is possible that God does not exist.

Yes, and will you admit that the existence of God is a yes or no proposition?

You seem to hold this position because you believe it intrinsically. In other words, you feel that God exists deep down where it counts .

You are perfectly entitled to believe anything you want. You are entitled to believe deep down where it counts .

The thing is I have proof of God. It's just that I can't prove it to you. Why? Because you're not standing in my shoes.

I simply reject the notion that something must be true simply because you feel strongly about it. Why would I reject someone's strong feelings as proof of a proposition?

Obviously this is not the case, and is clearly evidence of what you happen to believe to the contrary. So, if you expect to get anywhere by "forcing" the superiority of your views upon me, you're mistaken.

Does " believing in something intrinsically" ever constitute proof that a proposition is true?

No.

So in the end, you choose to believe intrinsically that God exists.

I choose to believe that up til now, no one has been able to prove to me that God exists. Until I am offered something other than non sequiturs or mumbo jumbo, I will continue to feel somewhat strongly (but not intrinsically) that God does not exist. Just show me the evidence, and I will change my position.

You on the other hand, will stick with your "intrinsic belief", use it as your proof, and never change your position. You are unable to describe what it would take to change your position.

I can change my position, and can identify what it would take for me to do so.

This is why you lack crediblility when you beak off about others "showing their bias".

The acknowledgment of truth is an internal process, even those truths which Science reveals to us, meaning it's wholly a matter of belief.

 

[Pahansiri]

Max560 please excuse me for also responding to this post.

Originally posted by Iacchus..Yes, and will you admit that the existence of God is a yes or no proposition?

Nothing worse then when your own words come back to bite you as we see here

And am I claiming God exists by the statement above? No, of course not. Did you happen to notice the big "if" in front of the whole thing? All I'm saying is that "if" God exists, whether we are capable of realizing it or not, does not change "the fact" that God exists. So just because it's not a proven fact, does not mean it can be construed as evidence to the contrary. For that would be like saying there were no atoms and their electro-magnetic fields prior to their discovery. And "if" that were the case, we wouldn't be here.

So it an “if” or a yes or no?

The fact is no it not a yes or know proposition until all the evidence is gathered and presented and analyzed.

Right not it more so appears to be leaning towards a no but it is illogical to demand a NO or YES as a fact.

The thing is I have proof of God. It's just that I can't prove it to you. Why? Because you're not standing in my shoes.

Illogical. If you have proof show it, tells us about it. What you have is a belief.

Obviously this is not the case, and is clearly evidence of what you happen to believe to the contrary. So, if you expect to get anywhere by "forcing" the superiority of your views upon me, you're mistaken.

This weeks award for the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Iacchus]

Hello Iacchus

Why yes I did knowing your use of “if” there did not mean you believe there is an “if” but rather you preaching to me that it does not matter if I do or do not believe in God.

The reality is you have said there is no “if” that there only “is” so this statement is just dancing on your part.

In other words you would rather attack me directly, rather than trying to establish a basis for what I have to say. It's your loss.

 

[Iacchus]

The fact is no it not a yes or know proposition until all the evidence is gathered and presented and analyzed.

God either exists or He doesn't exist, regardless.

 

[Pahansiri]

In other words you would rather attack me directly, rather than trying to establish a basis for what I have to say. It's your loss.

You can be so dishonest, that is sad as it diminishes you as a person and your belief and credibility.

I know you wish everyone to just believe what you say without any facts because you say it, and now wish everyone to believe I have attacked you personally just because you say it in spite of the fact all here can read my words an see clearly I have never attacked you.

That is your loss.

 

[Pahansiri]

God either exists or He doesn't exist, regardless.

And so does the 100' Invisible pink bunny, santa, Big Foot and so on.

 

[Pahansiri]

My friend you "forgot" to answer these.

will you admit that “if” God does not exist , whether we are capable of realizing it or not, does not change "the fact" that God does NOT exist?

 

[KelvinG]

The thing is I have proof of God. It's just that I can't prove it to you. Why? Because you're not standing in my shoes.

A pretty bold statement. How about sharing with us whatever experiences or evidence you are privy to that made you come to this conclusion. I realize you say you can't prove it to others, but I'm not asking for you to provide evidence that convinces me one way or the other. Just share with us your own personal experience that has made you convinced that you have proof of God's existence. And if you can't articulate that in a meaningful way one has to wonder just how valid it could actually be. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

Obviously this is not the case, and is clearly evidence of what you happen to believe to the contrary. So, if you expect to get anywhere by "forcing" the superiority of your views upon me, you're mistaken.

Interesting, because I've always felt it's you who are forcing the superiority of your views onto others. I mean, most people here are willing to concede they don't have such unknowable questions such as "is there a God?" figured out, yet you proudly tell us you have personal proof of his existence. That reeks of arrogance to me, Iacchus. Of course, this is dependent on the proof you actually provide, based on my previous question above.

 

[Iacchus]

A pretty bold statement. How about sharing with us whatever experiences or evidence you are privy to that made you come to this conclusion. I realize you say you can't prove it to others, but I'm not asking for you to provide evidence that convinces me one way or the other. Just share with us your own personal experience that has made you convinced that you have proof of God's existence. And if you can't articulate that in a meaningful way one has to wonder just how valid it could actually be. But, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now.

And why do I detect a bit of condescension on your part? Hmm ... I have said any number of things which allude to this by the way, most of which has fallen on deaf ears.

Interesting, because I've always felt it's you who are forcing the superiority of your views onto others. I mean, most people here are willing to concede they don't have such unknowable questions such as "is there a God?" figured out, yet you proudly tell us you have personal proof of his existence. That reeks of arrogance to me, Iacchus. Of course, this is dependent on the proof you actually provide, based on my previous question above.

The only thing that makes one thing superior over the other is whether it's "true" or not.

 

[KelvinG]

And why do I detect a bit of condescension on your part? Hmm ... I have said any number of things which allude to this by the way, most of which has fallen on deaf ears.

Well, you know what would be good. Why don't you start a thread that summarizes your "proof" of God's existence. Again, I'm not asking to be convinced. You've made it clear that any proof you have is personal and not meant to convince others. Fine. But I'm very curious what exactly made you totally convinced of God's existence.
And you say you have alluded to this in other places, but let's face it Iacchus. Most of your posts are incredibly vague and evasive. Here's your chance to make it all crystal clear for us in a thread that spells out in a detailed manner your "proof."
And I'm sorry if you felt I was being condescending. That was not my intent.

The only thing that makes one thing superior over the other is whether it's "true" or not.

Well, yes, I suppose. One of us is right. The only thing is, neither of us can prove it. (pending your "proof" which I'm awaiting). Thus my belief system could very well be superior to yours.
The only unfortunate part is that I won't have a chance to say "I told you so" if I'm correct. I'll be too damn dead.

 

[Max560]

Yes, and will you admit that the existence of God is a yes or no proposition?

Sure. Let's go with that.


The thing is I have proof of God. It's just that I can't prove it to you. Why? Because you're not standing in my shoes.

Oh please. This is weak.

Statement X

Unlike you heathens, I am endowed with special powers which allow me to see Statement X in a special way.

Therefore Statement X is true.

Me:
"I simply reject the notion that something must be true simply because you feel strongly about it. Why would I reject someone's strong feelings as proof of a proposition?"

Iacchus:

Obviously this is not the case, and is clearly evidence of what you happen to believe to the contrary.

?

So, if you expect to get anywhere by "forcing" the superiority of your views upon me, you're mistaken.

???

You are refusing to grasp the flaw in your reasoning.

Your reasoning:

I believe Statement X intrinsically. Therefore Statement X is true. Therefore Statement X is self evident, and I am completely immune from reason and logic, and am not required to provide further reasons to prove that Statement X is true.

My Reasoning:

I have not been presented with any evidence that Statement X must be true. I require evidence that Statement X is true before I will accept that it is true. In the absence of evidence in favor of Statement X, I have no reason to accept that Statement X is true. If I am provided with evidence that proves Statement X is true, Then I will accept that X is true.

I have the ability to change my position if provided with sufficient reason to do so.

You do not.

In the face of incontrovertible evidence against my position, I will change my position.

In the face of incontrovertible evidence against your position, you will turn away from it, and say something trite and nonconsequential, such as "do you have anyway of backing up what you say or, is it clearly a matter of what you believe?"

Do I think that my stance is superior to yours? Yes. Do I think I will get anywhere by "forcing" the superiority of my views on you?

1. Well, I don't think you have the ability to change your line of reasoning, so I suspect that I won't get too far with you.

2. I do think I have done a reasonable job of pointing out how feeble your ability to defend your position is.

Whether or not you admit this simply isn't required. In fact, unless you revise your tactics, you can only reinforce points 1 and 2.


The acknowledgment of truth is an internal process, even those truths which Science reveals to us, meaning it's wholly a matter of belief.

Totally irrelevant to establishing whether a proposition is true or not. The acknowledgement of anything may be an internal process,. Whether that "anything " is a truth or not simply doesn't hang on whether or not you internalized it.