Re: God Possibilities a Fiction of Theistic Minds

On 13 May 2008 20:47:19 GMT, nocTifer <yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>dh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>nocTifer <yronwode.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>>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 *****s this? 
>>
>>    By hoping that humans develop much more than
>>they already have.
>
>that is not a means of *****sing anything. hoping is a 
>kind of fabrication which lacks standards of measure.
>
>>>how did you arrive at any *****sment of human development? 
>>
>>    If you don't believe humans will develop much 
>>more than we have, try explaining why you don't.
>
>you have evaded the question yet again.

    Unless you give some good reason why you think humans
will never develop the ability to survive independant of our
solar system, I will continue to believe they may very well do so.

>>>do you believe that
>>>humans were created by gods or a God 4000 years ago?
>>
>>    No. I believe modern man came into being about
>>100,000 years ago.
>
>upon what do you base this belief? what brought you
>to this conclusion about humans ("modern man")?

    Things like this:

http://www.diycalculator.com/imgs/cvision-timeline-01.gif

>>>what standards of evidence and knowledge regarding
>>>time's passage and human development do you accept?
>>
>>    What is most accepted by people who study it.
>
>you don't accept empiricism in general, so you haven't
>explained what you mean by this. please elaborate.

    If you don't understand, it's because you can't.

>>>>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?
>>
>>    Because if he does exist he's obviously not going
>>to provide strong evidence or proof of it for reasons
>>of his own.
>
>how do you arrive at this conclusion? 

    Maybe he will at some point, but it's very obvious that 
he hasn't done it yet, and no amount of begging is likely
to make him do it.

>upon what kind of
>evidence do you base this assertion? you seem to have
>this as a kind of axiom of belief without basis.
>
>>>>>>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?
>>
>>    I certainly have more than someone who believes
>>God does not exist, since they can only consider the
>>one possibility. 
>
>that isn't demonstrated. ability to consider isn't the
>same as selection of consideration. 

    Try explaining how someone can consider something
they have selected not to consider.

>I might specialize
>based on observation and evidence in considering only
>rational or sustainable hypotheses, for example. these
>are the standards to which i might point you. you're
>not explaining what your standards are, and i think
>that is because they are merely imaginary (conditioned).

    As are everyone else's.

>>>if you do, explain it please.
>>
>>    Since I can consider more possibilities, I can consider
>>more possibilities. It seems like anyone should be able to 
>>understand that much.
>
>ability to consider is only evidence of that. you have not
>demonstrated an ability to derive or construct *knowledge*.

    Neither have you, so go ahead and be a good example. 
Provide some knowledge regarding the existence of God.
Go:

>>>>    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.
>>
>>    Strong atheists limit their consideration to what they
>>are comfortable thinking about.
>
>that generalization is untenable. some may do that, but a 
>good number base their limitations on empiricism and what
>they call evidence. you don't seem able to recognize this.

    I can even relate to it. I can also consider more things
to be evidence than strong atheists can.

>>>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 
>>
>>    At one point you overcame your shame and admitted
>>your faith:
>>
>>"I have confidence in the hypothesis that there was
>>no "creation" (cosmic origination) and no agent 
>>responsible for it. you call that my faith, and i
>>am happy to affirm that this is my position, yes."
>> -- nocTifer
>
>>>to
>>>admit that you have such a confusion and aren't 
>>>capable of letting a term mean more than 1 thing?
>>
>>    If you have since become ashamed of your faith,
>>then say so. 
>
>I have not. I have reiterated my confidence in that
>hypothesis based on empiricism. you are avoiding my
>query to you about whether you are ashamed of your
>misunderstanding of faith such that you are now
>ignoring your theistic standards 

    What do you think they are?

>of supposition
>absent reason.
>
>> If you think you now disagree with youself
>>somehow, try explaining how. 
>
>not in the slightest. I am quite clear that two types
>of faith are being discussed, and that, generally,
>the 'confidence in a hypothesis based on observation'
>is not considered faith by atheists or many theists.

    It is by the honest ones.

>contrariwise, you appear to be ashamed of your own
>faith 

    In what?

>and its basis in arationalism. you pretend
>that you care about observation, but your assertions
>are here strewn with all manner of hidden axiom (such
>as that whatever you mean by "God" intends certain
>things to be apparent or not, though you never have
>demonstrated the existence of said "God" and 
>apparently never will, since you have no knowledge).

    Nor do you. I would be a fool to accept your
guesses as knowledge, and especially to hold
your guesses above any of my own.