Mind-reading...

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
No argument with the premises based on faith can ever be won by either side. As a result, with no persuasive conclusion being forthcoming, the argument will always devolve into a meaningless and subjective debate.

For some reason the striking image of a hamster running in a wheel comes to mind. To make matters worse, the many 'players' in this Sp lot of thought, so live life to its fullest and enjoy the time you have.

There is truth in what you say. It reminds me of an arguement I got into with someone over the abortion issue. I was in rare form that day! I was making statements and backing up those statements with cold hard data as well as continually bombarding my opponent with moral statements that further weighted my position in my favor. I did not even know where some of my comments came from. It was as if I had a direct line from God or something telling me what to say and when to say it. Then at the very end I could see that they had had enough. Eager to then go in for the kill, so to speak, I then asked them if they had changed their position. They began by congradulating me with my debating skills and said perhaps I should study law or something. They more or less conceeded that I had won the debate. However, they then looked at me and said that I may be right in what I say, but that they still did not care. They still thought a woman had a right to choose and nothing was going to dissuade them from their position. It was as though someone stuck a needle in my overinflated ego and I could actually audibly hear a loud POP!!!

It taught me a valuable lesson that day. Belief has little to do with the "facts", so to speak. There are hidden obstacles to the soul that impede one from accepting what has been shown to them to be the truth. My reasoning abilities were no match for such obstacles. Therefore, trying to reach them soley based upon on my own power and my own reasoning abilities was an act in futility to say the least.

Having said that, you may wonder why I post. I post to spread seed, so to speak. Perhaps one seed will land in a spot that brings forth good fruit. I do so with the attitude that it is not by my own might nor by my own power that someone may come to Christ, rather, it is by the spirit of God that one is convicted and comes to repentance. I also post to learn more about myself and challenge my own reasoning abilities. Perhaps I can be shown some truth as well. After all, I do not claim to have a patent on truth, rather, I only seek it.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Finally, I'd like to think that there is a 'God' out there, but, given the size of the universe and the realtively small part of it we occupy, He/She/It probably doesn't give us a whole lot of thought, so live life to its fullest and enjoy the time you have.[/b]

So what does size have to do with anything? 😛

God forbid that the Almighty has a sense of humor.

Originally posted by josephw
b]"Anyway, doctorscribbles scares the beejeebers out of me. I hope I can get into a debate with him sometime, just to see what happens.

Cribs is a big Teddy Bear. His biggest weakness ,and strength, is that he will never admit to being wrong about anything. He simply evades the issue and attacks another part of your argument. Quite effective really, but, not particularly subtle. Sort of like clubbing bably harp seals with 10lb sledge hammers. Persistently keeping him on a focussed topic is your best hope to debating him. Otherwise, you're screwed.


With regards to your comment "I think I have to agree with you on this, but do you think that an argument based on reason can be won?" Yes a reasoned argument with valid premises leading to a valid conclusion can be 'won'. Clearly stated and well supported premises are the building blocks of an argument. This is the primary frustration I have with religious debates, the premises are almost always 'faith' based and unsupportable. Not to mention the fact that using the conclusion to prove the conclusion is ridiculous. One can not prove that God exists by assuming that He does. Circular reasoning gives me a rash.

Originally posted by whodey
So what does size have to do with anything? 😛

God forbid that the Almighty has a sense of humor.

Perhaps you're right. In my opinion, infinity and God are best contemplated when tucked in warm bed after eating too many brownies and a big glass of milk. There are no good answers and nobody can claim to know the truth, much less prove it.

For the time being, I'm content to come to terms with my own spirituality in my own way and, while doing so, shake people out of the comfortable mold's they've put themselves in. I like challenging people's beliefs. I do this not just because I'm an @hole, but, because I want to understand how they came to believe what they believe. Perhaps one of these people can give me some insight that will help me in my own quest.

Originally posted by kirksey957
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pPlFrmkXlE

You mean like this guy?

I always wondered what you look like. You going to enter that in the sermon contest?🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t know that I’ve never been guilty of this in the heat of debate (I have been guilty of some bad behavior); I hope not, but—

Over the past few years, I’ve seen an awful lot of putative mind-readers practice their wares on here in derogation of their opponents. I don’t just mean misunderstanding, or the perennial “so what you’re really saying ...[text shortened]... -reading is claimed). And I really wish those who succumb to the pretense would try to refrain.

It's a very , very good point you have raised here. I think we all project ideas and values and intentions on to each other. At the end of the day we are all just letters and symbols to each other and any personality we give to each other must surely be just a reflection of our own expereinces and fantasies. I get tired of trying to convince others that the God I believe in is not the god they don't believe in , but I guess I must do the same in reverse. I sometimes wonder what the people behind the posts are really like and what they look like. I bet I'm much more likeable than most here would realise.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Cribs is a big Teddy Bear. His biggest weakness ,and strength, is that he will never admit to being wrong about anything. He simply evades the issue and attacks another part of your argument. Quite effective really, but, not particularly subtle. Sort of like clubbing bably harp seals with 10lb sledge hammers. Persistently keeping him on a focusse ...[text shortened]... not prove that God exists by assuming that He does. Circular reasoning gives me a rash.

And I agree with you. And now that I know what to look out for when I make assertions, I'll try to be careful to make my arguments from sound reasoning. At least as best I can.

I'll find a way, if there is a way, to prove the existence of God.

I'd like to start with this thought. Does it not seem reasonable, that if there is a God, that there should be evidence for His existence?

Originally posted by josephw
And I agree with you. And now that I know what to look out for when I make assertions, I'll try to be careful to make my arguments from sound reasoning. At least as best I can.

I'll find a way, if there is a way, to prove the existence of God.

I'd like to start with this thought. Does it not seem reasonable, that if there is a God, that there should be evidence for His existence?

I'm not sure that is reasonable.
Why should there be any evidence of a god's existence?
If you make the claim that god would want to be discovered, then you're making claims as the nature of this being's state of mind - assuming that it has a state of mind.
To make a claim about its state of mind you would need to already have some sort of evidence of this state and of the god that has it.
Which seems sort of circular to me.

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t know that I’ve never been guilty of this in the heat of debate (I have been guilty of some bad behavior); I hope not, but—

Over the past few years, I’ve seen an awful lot of putative mind-readers practice their wares on here in derogation of their opponents. I don’t just mean misunderstanding, or the perennial “so what you’re really saying ...[text shortened]... -reading is claimed). And I really wish those who succumb to the pretense would try to refrain.

I hate it when someone wants me to defend a point I have not made,
but they act like I did.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I hate it when someone wants me to defend a point I have not made,
but they act like I did.
Kelly

Why then do you insist on saying that you are not going to pay me that $50 you said you owe me? 😛

Originally posted by whodey
Why then do you insist on saying that you are not going to pay me that $50 you said you owe me? 😛

🙂
KJ

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Cribs is a big Teddy Bear. His biggest weakness ,and strength, is that he will never admit to being wrong about anything. He simply evades the issue and attacks another part of your argument. Quite effective really, but, not particularly subtle. Sort of like clubbing bably harp seals with 10lb sledge hammers. Persistently keeping him on a focussed topic is your best hope to debating him. Otherwise, you're screwed.

Personally, I find Cribs one of the easier ones to debate with. I don't see "never [admitting] to being wrong about anything" as a strength -- it's one of the things that makes him look like a total git. IMO his biggest strength is an ability to reason in an almost mathematically logical fashion. He is capable of picking up subtle contradictions in your position. He often will ask you a series of questions, get you to make a series of concessions/admissions until he can put them together syllogistically to show a logical contradiction / undesirable conclusion which leaves you scratching your head and fuming because you know that somewhere there is something you didn't quite mean that way.

His logical positivism is, however, also a weakness. Words do have multiple meanings in language (a fact that seems to surprise him!) and the laws of propositional logic aren't readily applicable to all language statements. Pick up where he's ignoring (or trying to ignore) shades of meaning in words or equivocating and your job's half done. Be reasonably careful with your own words and you should do alright.

As HoH says, he does evade the issue and try to divert attention elsewhere (with me it's usually some random reference to pedophile priests -- regardless of the actual argument in progress). That's a good sign, a "tell" -- it means you're "winning".

Originally posted by josephw
And I agree with you. And now that I know what to look out for when I make assertions, I'll try to be careful to make my arguments from sound reasoning. At least as best I can.

I'll find a way, if there is a way, to prove the existence of God.

I'd like to start with this thought. Does it not seem reasonable, that if there is a God, that there should be evidence for His existence?

You're a man of faith. You don't need to prove the existence of God. Look, you either believe God exists, or you don't, or you're not sure, or you're still looking, or maybe you don't care. What makes you think tht your search to prove the existence of God will be anymore fruitful than all the history of people before you.

Go to a soup kitchen today. You'll have more luck finding Jesus there than in your head.