The Futile Arguments Thread

[AnimatedDirt]

GOD argument = Fail. Too complex to exist without cause!

All this insight...maybe too complex today.  Just give it time...afterall, you're here contemplating such deep philosophical ideas far too complex just a few years back.

[AnimatedDirt]

I am pretty keen to look into this, but have very limited disposable time in my life at the moment. My 1 hour free last weekend was spent watching the WestBro documentary

Your priority is noted.

I don't think you know the goal, you believe in a goal which is different from knowing.

If the Bible is true, and I believe it is, then I do know the goal.

Again, difference between belief and knowing. I think your goal is unattainable because I don't think there is a god and I don't think each individual person's life can be unending.

You don't think?  I think so...time will tell.

But you don't know. There is no way to affirm these beliefs, and no way to know that the path is successful. Your are getting no feedback or data to suggest anything to substantiate or even disprove, just empty silence.

You disqualify my experience...I suppose rightly so.  It is MY experience.

I don't have faith in evidence. I am a weak atheist not strong. I am on the "wait until there is proof" stance. Although my base stance for any theory is to assume that the theory is incorrect until proof is provided.

We each have our own mind to make up.  One requires more or less than another.  Whatever the case, time and the progressive nature of knowledge is usually the definer of belief and unbelief.

[Stevil]

I am pretty keen to look into this, but have very limited disposable time in my life at the moment. My 1 hour free last weekend was spent watching the WestBro documentary

Your priority is noted.

I prioritise on reality first, conceptual later

I don't think you know the goal, you believe in a goal which is different from knowing.

If the Bible is true, and I believe it is, then I do know the goal.

I'm pretty sure that is termed dishonest discourse, when one intentionally misleads.
Any understanding derived from a belief is a belief and not knowldge.

[TheJackel]

All this insight...maybe too complex today. Just give it time...afterall, you're here contemplating such deep philosophical ideas far too complex just a few years back.

I'll take this as a "I can't answer", and as a "I really don't know" followed by both arguments being assumed by you as evidence of GOD.  

[AnimatedDirt]

All this insight...maybe too complex today. Just give it time...afterall, you're here contemplating such deep philosophical ideas far too complex just a few years back.

I'll take this as a "I can't answer", and as a "I really don't know" followed by both arguments being assumed by you as evidence of GOD.  

Which part of "I don't know what God is." did you not understand?  Does this last post estabish a "WIN" for you here?

[Stevil]

OK, that was quite surpising. I read Daniel chapter 7.

Seems like the author may have had malaria or dementia or was simply a twisted 5 year old maybe.

These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth.
But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.
Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet;
and of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.
I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them

I really am struggling to see the "Proof" that you have offered that the Bible is the truth and that the Christian god exists. Instead you point me to a story in the same book that makes no sense and shows no proof. Are you taking the piss here?

[iSok]

Do atheists consider the reality they perceive to be the absolute reality?

[DirtyLeo]

Do atheists consider the reality they perceive to be the absolute reality?

What reality? Haven't you received the memo stating that we're all plugged to ginormous computers and this universe, or this simulation if you will, is created just a few minutes ago with made-up memories carefully placed in our virtual brains?

[iSok]

Do atheists consider the reality they perceive to be the absolute reality?

What reality? Haven't you received the memo stating that we're all plugged to ginormous computers and this universe, or this simulation if you will, is created just a few minutes ago with made-up memories carefully placed in our virtual brains?

I appreciate the Matrix as well, but rather answer my question.

Do atheists consider the reality they perceive to be the absolute reality?

[Davin]

Do atheists consider the reality they perceive to be the absolute reality?

I think you'll find a very diverse set of answers on this question from atheists.

I consider my perceptions are based off of reality, I have many reasons for this and no reasons against it. That is as close to solipsicsm as I'm willing to discuss. Do not try to sneak god in with the ignorance, there must be a reason to suppose that a thing is real before supposing that it is real.

[iSok]

Do atheists consider the reality they perceive to be the absolute reality?

I think you'll find a very diverse set of answers on this question from atheists.

I consider my perceptions are based off of reality, I have many reasons for this and no reasons against it. That is as close to solipsicsm as I'm willing to discuss. Do not try to sneak god in with the ignorance, there must be a reason to suppose that a thing is real before supposing that it is real.

I've never heard of solipsicsm before.
A few days ago I was watching a nature documentary on sharks, on how they perceive reality.
It seems they can detect weak electromagnetic fields given off by al living things.
(according to the theory of evolution we had these types of senses too, but it evolved into our facial structure)

The bat for example uses other senses to perceive reality, the pidgeon navigates his way by using the earth's magnetic field.
So we have to conclude that all of us (living things) perceive reality in a different way.
If there's an absolute reality, we only see the human interpretation of the absolute, made possible thanks to our five senses and our limited intellect.

The question is; if our senses are not objective  and our intellect is limited, are we allowed and is it reasonable to reject everything that is beyond our perception?

Is it reasonable for the blind to reject light if it's beyond his understanding?
This is what atheism does.
Is it a view of life based on logic and reason?

[Davin]

The question is; if our senses are not objective  and our intellect is limited, are we allowed and is it reasonable to reject everything that is beyond our perception?

Yes, it is unreasonable to accept something when there is no rational reason to accept it.

Is it reasonable for the blind to reject light if it's beyond his understanding?

If it is beyond his understanding? Yes, because that would suppose that the blind person would never be able to understand light, so there will never be a reason for the blind man to accept it.

This is what atheism does.

This is not what atheism does. Atheism initself does not suppose that there are no gods, just that there is no reason to accept that there is a god or gods.

Is it a view of life based on logic and reason?

Not atheism in itself.

[iSok]

Yes, it is unreasonable to accept something when there is no rational reason to accept it.

Is human reason infallible?
Atheism: rejection of God based on the interpretation of the absolute reality. (self-centered view of the human).
Agnosticism: Don't know.

I think Agnosticism is a more reasonable view of life in our reality, because the agnost admits that he cannot understand.
The atheists reasons from his point of reality, which is not based on reason (objectivity), the human reality is not absolute (an interpretation of the absolute).
So you extract something from a reality based on interpretation and present as an objective look at the absolute reality?

If it is beyond his understanding? Yes, because that would suppose that the blind person would never be able to understand light, so there will never be a reason for the blind man to accept it.

What if the blind is in line for surgery without knowing it?
And what if he has rejected it for so long and he suffers from the sudden light?

[DirtyLeo]

Is it reasonable for the blind to reject light if it's beyond his understanding?

Even though we cannot see the infrared waves we know that they are there. Ultraviolet would be the same. Our ears work within an audible range. There are many things that we cannot perceive using our own senses but that can be scientifically observed. There are certainly things that we are not aware of yet and that science will prove soon. So can we be 100% certain that God doesn't exist? No. Just like we cannot be 100% certain about the non-existence of anything you can imagine, like leprechauns, Minotaur, pegasus, elves, trolls (not the Internet-type) or Medusa. Why should God be privileged over anything else that I can imagine?

[Davin]

Yes, it is unreasonable to accept something when there is no rational reason to accept it.

Is human reason infallible?
Atheism: rejection of God based on the interpretation of the absolute reality. (self-centered view of the human).

No. Atheism is the lack of belief in god or gods. I don't know what you're trying to define here, but a bit of advice: trying to define for a person what and how they think, will not work.

I think Agnosticism is a more reasonable view of life in our reality, because the agnost admits that he cannot understand.
The atheists reasons from his point of reality, which is not based on reason (objectivity), the human reality is not absolute (an interpretation of the absolute).
So you extract something from a reality based on interpretation and present as an objective look at the absolute reality?

I'll just repeat what I've already said: there must be a reason to suppose that a thing is real before supposing that it is real. To me this applies to all things including god.

If it is beyond his understanding? Yes, because that would suppose that the blind person would never be able to understand light, so there will never be a reason for the blind man to accept it.

What if the blind is in line for surgery without knowing it?
And what if he has rejected it for so long and he suffers from the sudden light?

Will he now have the ability to understand it? Before you had stated that he will never understand it, however if he can understand it, then yes he should accept it so long as it's backed up by evidence.

But this isn't an accurate analogy to religion or faith in god: a good analogy using senses is like this: suppose a man came up to you and said that he has a special sensing organ that lets him talk to a person a billion miles away, but that you can't see or hear the person or see the organ that allows him this amazing ability. Is it reasonable to believe the person and his amazing invisible organ that allows him to hear and speak to a person a billion miles away?