God Possibilities a Fiction of Theistic Minds

dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>nocTifer <yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>panamfloyd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>>jesucris...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (marques de sade) wrote:
>>>>>dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>>>>>>jesucris...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (marques de sade) wrote:

>>>Are you saying you would reject a rational conclusion 
>>>because it conflicted with the teachings of your mythology? 
>>
>>no, dh is saying that rationalism only takes one so far 
>>and the God in which he wants to believe (by endlessly 
>>"considering" with atheists) might make the universe 
>>appear to us in any way imaginable. 
>
>    We all develop our own interpretation of it. 

so you suppose. some accept the interpretation of others.

>>a bit of Evil Genius combined with Santa Claus.
>
>    Whether or not God exists we are (hopefully) still 
>in the very early stages of human development, 

how can you assess this? how did you arrive at any
assessment of human development? do you believe that
humans were created by gods or a God 4000 years ago?
what standards of evidence and knowledge regarding
time's passage and human development do you accept?

>so we will never be in a position to know if God does 
>exist in our lifetime, 

how did you arrive at this conclusion? I don't follow
your logic at all.

>and quite possibly humans will never be able to find 
>out even if they exist for millions of years into 
>the future.

that does seem to be your method of knowledge-making:
"finding out". you never say much more than this. if
you have confidence in observation, why do you leave
off of observation to ignore the fact that there is
no agreed evidence of any god?

>>>Doing so would be the very antithesis of the 
>>>rational approach.
>>
>>dh isn't a rationalist. dh is a consideralist theist.
>
>    How does considering all the possibilities prevent
>one from being rational? 

if one never does more than this? it needn't involve 
reason at all. the whole notion of "possibility" is a
farce where you are concerned. you don't have any way
to determine what is possible and what is not, do you?
if you do, explain it please.

>>dh doesn't seem to consider indoctrination and its impact
>>as anything of value to reflect upon. his interests (at 
>>least in this forum) are to endlessly "consider" deities
>>and make fun of atheists by misunderstanding "faith".
>_________________________________________________________
>http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=27698&dict=CALD
>faith (TRUST)   Show phonetics noun [U]
>great trust or confidence in something or someone
>¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>    Try presenting a definition of faith which does not
>include having a strong belief.

you've forgotten our previous conversation completely? 
we have 2 main definitions of 'faith' being used here:

	theistic: confidence that a hypothesis is accurate (yours)

	atheistic: arational belief in a given hypothesis
	           despite observation and reason 

you like the former. the atheists like the latter.
the one that you offer is offensive or insulting to 
your dogmatic battle-partners. it's all some kind 
of great big shell game, centered on "evidence".

>If you can't, then we have only reason to believe that 
>strong atheists have faith in their own belief 

of course they do (theistic/yours). all people who take
a stand on a hypothesis have confidence in its accuracy.

>which of course I must so I do.

atheists don't ignore reason and observation in the
persistence of believing some dogma given to them.
that's a theistic position. your confusion about
faith appears to be continuing. are you ashamed to
admit that you have such a confusion and aren't 
capable of letting a term mean more than 1 thing?

>>>> >but for that day, you gotta admit they were pretty advanced...
>>>>
>>>> In some ways, but they were still a long way from the
>>>> printing press. The fact that the Bible managed to survive
>>>> even though people tried to eradicate it is evidence (not
>>>> proof) to me of God's possible existence.
>>
>>explain this, please, insofar as you understand how 
>>it can be a reason to think of deity-possibility.
>
>    Since I believe that humans managed to destroy all
>copies of many different books over the years, I have
>reason to believe that the Bible could very well have
>been another of them if God did not exist and help it
>to survive. What's hard about that?

and why do you believe this? what logic led you to a
*conclusion* of any type regarding possibilities? 
why do you think possibilities enlarge or shrink? 
what is it that you find convincing and why?

nocTifer
--------------------------------------------
yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ---------------------- 
-- http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html
--
-- http://www.yronwode.com/sivaworld.html
--
--------------------------------------------