@moonbus saidWhen we look at anything we always apply or filter everything through our worldviews, and when we do that we apply an ethnicity, we lift one piece of data above another, or we could group these things with those, or set others apart. When you asked me why I believed Yahweh was not like the other gods and I tell you, you ignored the distinction instead you lumped all gods into a pool rendering them no different from one another ignoring the question that was asked of me and my answer.
What distinction? Transcendence? Saying Yahweh transcends the universe adds nothing whatever to the probability that he exists. I could say there is a transcendent pineapple, too; that doesn’t mean it really exists.
There will always be a complaint if all you want to do is complain.
3 edits
-Removed-Spot on! As we discussed in a previous thread, truth is not causative of belief; other factors are involved. The operative psychological factors whereby one comes to believe in supernatural things have all subsided by the time a belief becomes conscious enough to be formulated in words and doctrines, and these are far and away the most interesting aspects of religious belief. The rationalizations and ‘evidence’ one cites to ‘justify’ belief in the supernatural are one and all retrospective attempts to squelch doubts and objections, and bolster weak faith.
PS TU is from me.
@moonbus saidTruth is more than an opinion, reality alone is involved. Worldviews set up what we think is reality as we try to put all of the pieces together to explain the reality we are in. We can add things that are not real or deny things that are, we can miss pieces here and there and put them in the right or wrong place. If reality were like a zigsaw puzzle we are trying to get the picture in our head to match what past, present, and future are.
Spot on! As we discussed in a previous thread, truth is not causative of belief; other factors are involved. The operative psychological factors whereby one comes to believe in supernatural things have all subsided by the time a belief becomes conscious enough to be formulated in words and doctrines, and these are far and away the most interesting aspects of religious belief. ...[text shortened]... trospective attempts to squelch doubts and objections, and bolster weak faith.
PS TU is from me.
If you automatically reject any first cause for all things, then you purposely leave out a major part of the truth that everything else is built on. If you choose as a driving force for the past chance out of chaos, to give order, precision, and longevity through ever-increasing complexity in system functionality. You are denying all of the truth we see in reality today to promote an imaginary one not based on evidence, but a desire to see things only as you want to to be not as they are.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidWe can add things that are not real
Truth is more than an opinion, reality alone is involved. Worldviews set up what we think is reality as we try to put all of the pieces together to explain the reality we are in. We can add things that are not real or deny things that are, we can miss pieces here and there and put them in the right or wrong place.
or deny things that are,
we can miss pieces here and there
and put them in the right or wrong place.
Indeed, and some of us can ignore the fact that there are some things we just do not know and then insist on filling this gap with their favoured theology... and keep referring to it as "truth" and "reality" and "the only narrative that makes sense" over and over and over again.
1 edit
@kellyjay saidWhether there was a first cause or not is speculation, not fact. We do not need to know how the first salt crystal formed in order to know how salt crystals form now. The same applies to any other formation of matter and energy, including the particular formation we happen to call "life."
Truth is more than an opinion, reality alone is involved. Worldviews set up what we think is reality as we try to put all of the pieces together to explain the reality we are in. We can add things that are not real or deny things that are, we can miss pieces here and there and put them in the right or wrong place. If reality were like a zigsaw puzzle we are trying to get t ...[text shortened]... ary one not based on evidence, but a desire to see things only as you want to to be not as they are.
@moonbus saidIt is a binary choice, yes, or no, the correct answer would be a fact if we agreed with it or not. We know a thing cannot create itself out of nothing, because there is nothing in nothing to create itself. So whatever created/started the universe cannot be the universe or something that has its full being beginning and ending in the universe. You are dodging something that does not leave much wiggle room to dodge, only ignore.
Whether there was a first cause or not is speculation, not fact. We do not need to know how the first salt crystal formed in order to know how salt crystals form now. The same applies to any other formation of matter and energy, including the particular formation we happen to call "life."
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI selected this at random. " Why wouldn't such a God want people to come to him because they are convinced intellectually, based on evidence?"
Why does an omniscient God want people to believe without evidence and reward them for doing so? Why wouldn't such a God want people to come to him because they are convinced intellectually, based on evidence?
Possibly because this God put a governor on man's intellectualism, and this governor is preventing the mind's motor from reaching the necessary revolutions that will provide the necessary speed for escaping earthly physical materialism and get to him, spiritually.
Seriously, you have made a very good point, but it's not a new point, because some in the past did indeed find God, aided by their intellectualism. I believe that God made it possible to be reached intellectually. However, God is like Rome, and as they say, all roads lead to Rome. It was no accident that Rome and the Roman empire became the vehicle chosen for the spread of Christianity. The city itself, Rome, also became the location for the seat and headquarters of Christianity.
God, I'm told, can also be reached by coincidences.....a string of them, of course.
@kellyjay saidThis is a logical fallacy called a false dilemma.
It is a binary choice, yes, or no, the correct answer would be a fact if we agreed with it or not.
The choice we have concerning the " first cause" is [1] "Yes, I reckon there was one" or [2] "No, I reckon there wasn't one" or [3] "To be honest, nobody knows". We can only speculate about "the correct answer" which means that answer [3] is the correct one.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
In my opinion, the best comment in this thread, so far, goes to the Ghostly Duke. Indeed, politics and religion are best not brought to the dinner table. Because politics and religion are dirty businesses, and man is responsible for making them dirty. They both need a good scrubbing before coming to the table of discussion.
1 edit
@pettytalk saidIn other words, some things happen and then believers can superimpose the notion that some divine intervention in those events has occurred. It is a variant of confirmation bias,
God, I'm told, can also be reached by coincidences.....a string of them, of course.
But where was the divine intervention all the other times will all the other events?
There is a similar problem with people who believe in the efficacy of prayer ~ and I mean efficacy in terms of praying for certain events and not efficacy in terms of the psychological effects of prayer on those who pray ~ where umpteen billion prayers have no effect and then people superimpose the notion that some divine intervention has occurred when an event that was hoped for happens.
@fmf saidYou're like the reporter who films the self-immolation of a Tibetan monk and writes his story criticizing him while standing there doing nothing to save the man's life.
In other words, some things happen and then believers can superimpose the notion that some divine intervention in those events has occurred. It is a variant of confirmation bias,
But where was the divine intervention all the other times will all the other events?
There is a similar problem with people who believe in the efficacy of prayer ~ and I mean efficacy in terms of ...[text shortened]... pose the notion that some divine intervention has occurred when an event that was hoped for happens.
When was the last time you prayed?