Design your own hell

[Elok]

Asceticism is more attitude than action, you idjit. Try "Way of the Ascetics" by Tito Colliander. Barely mentions fasting at all. It's almost entirely mental.

And if you make one more stupid Savaesque implication that I'm part of a conspiracy to hide from science...ngh. Have you ever tried to argue reasonably instead of making wild-ass, speculative accusations against the people who disagree with you? Have you tried all those religious convictions you're making fun of, or do you just say something scornful about elves and call it an argument? I'm not going to make God perform miracles for your benefit.

And the idea that fighting convention is intrinsically valuable IS adolescent. Women's Suffrage et al had some sort of message of their own. Your secular humanist crap says nothing to call its own but "there is no god." It's proud to fight religion-which is the name of every human attempt to search for or understand god, by the way; if you're going to ignore him, and he you, God doesn't matter-even though it offers nothing new of its own. Facile.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
Natural: the predictable and unaware, that which acts as part of the mechanism of the physical universe. God, being ostensibly self-aware and free to act as he pleases, is inherently unpredictable as a concept. You might say, "why would God deliberately hide himself?" but who's to say he does what he does for the purpose of hiding from you?

What do you mean by a "physical universe"? A contiguous region of spacetime? By "predictable", are you asserting that this "physical universe" is deterministic and God is not?

[Elok]

Originally posted by skywalker
My point is that every religion offers equally convincing evidence for its truth, so there is no reason to presume one is correct, instead of the other.

My point is that what you call "evidence" is not the whole story. But fair enough. As long as you're not babbling recycled cynicism like this chick here, I can respect that. Sorry for sounding grumpy, I'm a little tipsy, like I said, and my waning tolerence for trollguments is bleeding onto innocent bystanders.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
Asceticism is more attitude than action, you idjit. Try "Way of the Ascetics" by Tito Colliander. Barely mentions fasting at all. It's almost entirely mental.

And if you make one more stupid Savaesque implication that I'm part of a conspiracy to hide from science...ngh. Have you ever tried to argue reasonably instead of making wild-ass, speculative accusations against the people who disagree with you? Have you tried all those religious convictions you're making fun of, or do you just say something scornful about elves and call it an argument? I'm not going to make God perform miracles for your benefit.

I've done nothing of the sort... I'm pointing out the fact that you haven't given me any better reason to believe you than anyone else, thus why would I believe you? Because you say so? The other people say so too.

And the idea that fighting convention is intrinsically valuable IS adolescent. Women's Suffrage et al had some sort of message of their own. Your secular humanist crap says nothing to call its own but "there is no god." It's proud to fight religion-which is the name of every human attempt to search for or understand god, by the way; if you're going to ignore him, and he you, God doesn't matter-even though it offers nothing new of its own. Facile.

When have I even said fighting convention is intrinsically valuable? Being "conventional" confers no value at all on an idea, nor does being "unconventional".

[Elok]

God is not deterministic, no, being capable of independent actions. Whether the physical universe is entirely deterministic depends on what you think about quantum mechanics. But even if you do believe in a certain erratic aspect of the universe, you are still positing a predictably unpredictable element. How would you calculate a formula allowing for the existence of an all-powerful, omnipresent being who transcends time? There's no way to guarantee what God would or would not do in any given circumstances, so there's no accurate means of testing him. A "negative" could mean an actual negative, or that the nature of God goes against the test in some way. Since we're way too limited in context to go second-guessing an all-powerful deity, well, we're stuck on square one.

To sum up, anything that happens predictably in response to certain stimuli can be safely said to be NOT God, so how would you have me prove God via a system of reasoning that insists on evidence that occurs predictably in response to certain set stimuli?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
My point is that what you call "evidence" is not the whole story. But fair enough. As long as you're not babbling recycled cynicism like this chick here, I can respect that. Sorry for sounding grumpy, I'm a little tipsy, like I said, and my waning tolerence for trollguments is bleeding onto innocent bystanders.

Forgiven

I'm going to have to disagree with your statement about "evidence" though

1. The existence of God is a truth about the world, and thus cannot be proven or disproven without knowledge of the world.

There is no reason God "must" exist, a priori. This is in contrast to the fact that, for example, 2 + 2 must equal 4, or P must imply P.

2. Knowledge about the world can only be achieved through empirical evidence

Obviously, one can only know anything about the world through the senses (the senses being defined as the means by which one acquires knowledge about the world ), and empirical evidence is sensory information that is consistantly verifiable. A "truth" that is not consistantly verifiable is not true.

3. The existance of God can only be achieved through empirical evidence

Follows from 1 and 2

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
God is not deterministic, no, being capable of independent actions. Whether the physical universe is entirely deterministic depends on what you think about quantum mechanics. But even if you do believe in a certain erratic aspect of the universe, you are still positing a predictably unpredictable element. How would you calculate a formula allowing for the existence of an all-powerful, omnipresent being who transcends time? There's no way to guarantee what God would or would not do in any given circumstances, so there's no accurate means of testing him. A "negative" could mean an actual negative, or that the nature of God goes against the test in some way. Since we're way too limited in context to go second-guessing an all-powerful deity, well, we're stuck on square one.

To sum up, anything that happens predictably in response to certain stimuli can be safely said to be NOT God, so how would you have me prove God via a system of reasoning that insists on evidence that occurs predictably in response to certain set stimuli?

If god is not deterministic, he is probabilistic. You are apparently rejecting applying the probabilism suggested by quantum physics to god, so you must be referring tot he probabilism in which all events are equally likely. How can you distinguish such a "God" from chance?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Elok
Asceticism is more attitude than action, you idjit. .....

...to argue reasonably instead of making wild-ass, speculative accusations against the people who disagree with you?

I'm not going to make God perform miracles for your benefit.

And the idea that fighting convention is intrinsically valuable IS adolescent. Women's Suffrage et al had some sort of message of their own. Your secular humanist crap says nothing to call its own but "there is no god." It's proud to fight religion-which is the name of every human attempt to search for or understand god, by the way;

Wrong in fact. Asceticism is amongst other things, severe abstinence (from stimuli, food, water, et cetera) as well as severe self-discipline. From the greek askeo- exercise. Very kenobiist of you to attempt to ring fence terms.

To argue reasonably- against unreason? What would be the point, I wonder? Wild ass speculations? Such as there is a god, or a pantheon of gods, or the Flaming Carrot constructed the universe before lunch?

You can't make your deity perform tricks- well of course you can't. I can't make Shakespeare's Cleopatra do tricks either. Not sure what your point is there.

Secular humanism will withstand your attempts to limit its meaning to 'there is no god'.

By the way, I'm not a 'chick' and even if I were, I don't think I'd like being described as one, little boy.

[Elok]

Heh, my conversation with you is getting mixed up with my conversation with Molly. I should have quoted, sorry. I think I sort of answered your last post in *my* last post.

If it doesn't, well, the moon can be verified by empirical evidence, insofar as it reliably comes up in the sky and goes through certain phases, like a luminous teenager in orbit or something. But the very fact that it can be reliably measured shows that the moon is probably not a god, because it never does a frigging thing but spin around the world in circles. The very fact that it can be measured more readily than the workings of your digestive system makes it hard to accept as a God. Self-aware beings tend to act in unusual ways, provided they are not on the Off-Topic section of Apolyton, in which case they will predictably drag the conversation to match their particular subject of interest. Moon doesn't do that either, if it comes to that.

Jeez, only two glasses and I'm typing like the stoner from Fast Times at Ridgemont High. My tolerance sucks.

[Kuciwalker]

People can act predictably as well. So? The weather isn't very predictable at all. So? "Predictability" is merely a function of complexity.

[Elok]

Okay, the aussie's on the ignore list. Conversation sucked anyway, did nothing but raise my blood pressure. Anyway, humans don't behave in a deterministic way we can define, do they? Can any science factor in human behavior without knowing anything about the origins or thought processes of the human in question?

[Kuciwalker]

Assuming you had a powerful enough computer, and assuming the universe actually is deterministic, then yes, you could predict the actions of a human being.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by skywalker

Atheism is quite literally a lack of beliefs. Every time anybody on this board tries to refer to it as a religious belief, he or she gets (rightly)shouted down, as atheism is just the belief that there is no god. There's not much intrinsic to that message.

False. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.

You are referring to Strong (or Positive) Atheism. Weak (or Negative) Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god (or gods).

Originally posted by skywalker
Being a belief, it would be no more logical than the belief that the Smurfs are actually omnipotent beings that created the universe, if it weren't for Occam's razor.

Not sure if that is necessarily. There are two position you can take:

1. Accept any and all metaphysical beliefs until they are proven false, or
2. Reject any and all metaphysical beliefs until they are proven true

You can always accept some and reject others, but that will be arbitrary and inconsistent.

In the case of Judeo-Christianity, you can actually establish a refutation based on the orthodox doctrines.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
Now, having slogged through all your self-important quotes, I must insist that you read some real Orthodox Christian theology, C.S. Lewis, some sort of Kabbalistic thought, or other thoughtful belief, and THEN, and only then, attack religion.

C.S. Lewis? He's a puff, at least when it comes to theology. I suggest stronger stuff, say, Aquinas, Taylor, Plantinga, and Swinburne, for example.

However, I don't see why you limit others to philosophical attacks against Judeo-Christianity. You would have a point if it has been limiting itself to philosophical discussions. Since that's not the case, however, I don't see why anybody can't launch attacks grounding in secular humanism, say.

[Elok]

Sorry, I noticed my mood was becoming dangerously erratic (I think I was about to say, "skywalker, you're awesome, man" ), so I decided to sleep it off.

C.S. Lewis is an apologist. Aquinas is "heavier stuff," yes, but when I made that suggestion I was under the impression that Molly could be convinced by reason, and wanted something light and easy to understand, as in Mere Christianity. Anything more mystical than that, I figured she'd mock first and ask questions later. Moot point now.

The thing is, how would you go about factoring in the possible actions of God when trying to determine his existence, skywalker? To be able to predict how he would act implies knowledge of how he thinks, which in turn requires you to know he exists in the first place. You can't really judge what a "reasonable person" would do, because the average person is not omniscient, omnipresent, and extratemporal. We have no experience that could prepare us to place ourselves in that context. That's what I'm getting at.

Whoops, running short on time. I'll be back after class.