Religion Tactics

[gamesfanatic04]

Even if we are the result of all that has come before, that's the how, not the why. Watch the South Park with my favorite Atheist Richard Dawkins, it pretty much shuts down most of your arguments. Also, calm, you seem defensive and in a rhetorical debate structure that makes you look like you know you are wrong, now we all know you really are wrong but if you hold it together and rebuke people with a little less vehemence you won't look like you are desperately scrambling for verbal cover.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Not my reasoning, but I have heard this and it may work for ya:

Playing the odds...

1. if you don't believe and God exists - not only does your life have no meaning, but you really goofed up the afterlife - REALLY BAD
2. if you don't believe and God doesn't exist - you get nothing in the afterlife, your life has no point - BAD
3. if you believe, but God doesn't exist - you get nothing in the afterlife, but at least your life has meaning - OKAY
4. if you believe and God exists - you get a chance for an eternal reward in the afterlife and you have a life with meaning - AWESOME

So why not play the odds? If you believe, at least you lose nothing either way, and you have a chance at the big payout at the end.




I believe because everything in this world points to the existence of God. There is too much hard evidence of Him around me and throughout the cosmos to deny His existence.

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='naralas' post='1310872' date='Jul 3 2007, 11:12 AM']God is an exceptionally unlikely possibility for the origin of the Universe, and were he to exist it would be even more unlikely still that he is anything like what modern religion thinks.[/quote]


However unlikely it is that an omnipotent and omniscient Creator created the universe, it is infinitely more unlikely that it all came about by accident. If nothing else, explain how the first 2 dust particles bumping together came into being, please.

I must invoke Occam's Razor here: when two explanations are presented, even when both are highly unlikely, the least complex must be the correct one. Ergo God exists. QED.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I consider myself to be the master in understanding this debate. that's arrogant but i believe it's true.

to say you have to disprove God is disproving a negative which cannot be done easily anyway. it shouldn't be the burden on you, as anyone can say a spaghetti monster is God and now you have to disprove it. Not that that analogy is perfect...
i suggest you read this link...

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=67709&hl=spaghetti"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...mp;hl=spaghetti[/url]
[quote]Dawkins talks about how we don't believe in Zeus etc. That is true but, as far as Jesus, as OReilly was saying, Jesus is a personal God. In terms of God as a notion, an intelligence at the minimum, Zeus or the flying spaghetti monsters are not analogous. The analogy does make a point, that we can't be sure of the intelligence exists, but it's not an analogy that is full proof. (no analogy is) That an intelligence made is is reasonable, that something specific like spaghetti did is random.

That's not to say belief is warranted though. It does make sense say something caused us. If you see a bike rolling, that something pushed it makes sense. Ultimately this analogy does not fly either though, because a bike is specific, whereas the world is something that could have always been. (if god can alway have been, the world could always have been) THe CC teaches taht even if it were a series of infinite things, God would still be the cause a fortieori. Something caused teh infinite chain. But, that's not warranted, necessarily. And again teh bike analogy here doesn't work as well other than to make the genearl point.
So we have the spaghetti monster on the one side and the bike on the other, ha.

Looking at the world itself, belief or disbelief is unjustified. If the world is complex, does it make sense to say that something even more complex made it? Where'd that complexity come from?? If God can just be, the world can just be. In fact, Ockam's razor might say the simplest solution is the most probable.

But More philosophically, we have every second of every day not being probable. That tomarrow is going to happen is more justified by God than by chance, I would think. And evolution just boom out of nowhere for humans. The evidence is there for evolution I think, but that it happened so fast etc isn't very probable that I can see. But of course, I fall back into my original argument that if God can just be, the unprobable tomarrow can just be too, and God may not be the best answer bc not simple. but this is a notable argument.

But Ultimately, belief is more rational than unbelief given certain signals from life. Miracles primarily. We have people who are healed etc with no proof. An atheist would say probability means that people will be healed, and sometimes that will align with a healing service etc and be just a coincidence. I say, if that's true, isn't the burden of proof on the atheist to show an atheist or something that's had a miracle, unexplainable phenonmen? It could be they don't say anything about it so we don't know, but I've yet to see it.
I do suppose I could fall back on that it's something that we simply don't know about, a power we have, without God. The probability that that'd be the case is low, but God is perhaps lower.

But Ultimately ultimately. Then we also have experiences of people. apparitions. near death expereiences. these could be of the mind, but taht's starting to get grasping at straws.... given the scientific evidence of near death experiences and people who are often in apparitions etc.
To fall back on God is not the simplest answer does not fly here because they are pointing at God, or something bigger at any rate.



plus if ya got down to the specifics of Jesus, there's actually good evidence for him. whereas there's not for zeus.

if dawkins beleives in the idea of something bigger and not necessarily "god" as we call, then maybe i shouldn't diss him exactly. depends on what he means by God.


as a caution though, if we start saying existance, or being too vague, we start getting into territory that's not really very meaningful. if our only perceptions of god is an essense, or existance, that thing that caused time to be etc, then it's not of much help, i would think. not that it's not worthwhile to speculate. we have to start getting into things like intelligence etc.[/quote]

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='naralas' post='1310872' date='Jul 3 2007, 12:12 PM']What's to say we are not the error? What do you mean too much room for error? Without God, without human beings being planned, we are simply the result of all that has come before us. We were never some distant ideal that fell perfectly into place. We happened. If not having purpose scares you, then your psychological state is exactly what makes me doubt your belief system.

I'm not trying madly to be rude. It seems that how I phrase things are the only ways I can truly express what I think. I find all religion to be born from limitations of man. I can't put that nicely.

Who said I came here to prove God does not exist? I said I don't believe, and wanted to know why you all do.

I will state this:

God is an exceptionally unlikely possibility for the origin of the Universe, and were he to exist it would be even more unlikely still that he is anything like what modern religion thinks. If you created the universe, do you really think YOU would have time to waste hating gays? or blacks? (Not saying that's all religion is, or even that all religion is that, but those are specific, and utterly stupid instances of it)

Oh and to whoever asked the question about code, I was going to write out a cute little C struct that would demonstrate the traits that lead people to fall for God, but then others might feel left out. So what I'll say is this: yes I am a programmer, and I've seen people fall ass-backwards into brilliance on a regular basis. I see the potential for what they write and all they want it to do is ... do something different?[/quote]

[quote]Oh and to whoever asked the question about code, I was going to write out a cute little C struct that would demonstrate the traits that lead people to fall for God, but then others might feel left out. So what I'll say is this: yes I am a programmer, and I've seen people fall ass-backwards into brilliance on a regular basis. I see the potential for what they write and all they want it to do is ... do something different?[/quote]

um...no. it's not that easy. fellow Katholikos this is a classic example of someone trying to explain God with finite, materialistic understanding.

[quote]I will state this:

God is an exceptionally unlikely possibility for the origin of the Universe, and were he to exist it would be even more unlikely still that he is anything like what modern religion thinks. If you created the universe, do you really think YOU would have time to waste hating gays? or blacks? (Not saying that's all religion is, or even that all religion is that, but those are specific, and utterly stupid instances of it)[/quote]

this person has brought God into his own personal logic and has deemed God not likely using his limited knowledge. you cannot explain God using human logic or rationality, but you can definitely begin to understand him once you transcend your own finiteness. You can commune with God with your finite knowledge, but you will not be able to explain him. As finite beings, we can merely touch the surface of God. But this is not done through any scientific methods. Science is for explaining and understanding God's creation. God does not need or warrant a scientific explanation. Likewise, religion cannot suffice to explain science. But an amicable relationship can exist between the two. It is obvious that this person here with this thread is stuck in his own limited perception of the world. One must transcend to find God.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='naralas' post='1310413' date='Jul 3 2007, 12:46 AM']Blah! I can’t think of anything to write without putting volumes and volumes down! I’m sick of filling pages and pages then having to go back to the previous pages and elaborating on them... can I just ask:

Why do you believe in God? Keep in mind that I will strike at everything you say unless you have what I deem to be a valid reason. If you “don’t care what I think” feel free to express that, but I will reply by expressing what you don’t care to hear.

If you hope that any of the following:
Pascals Wager
Intelligent Design
Origin of the Universe
Faith

or any other things like that are sufficient, feel free to bring them up, but be warned, to name a few, those are what can most be easily crushed.

And please, if you think I’m a beaver dam fool, I [b]beg[/b] of you to post here. I hate people who tell me I am wrong and then run and hide.[/quote]

[quote]If you hope that any of the following:
Pascals Wager
Intelligent Design
Origin of the Universe
Faith

or any other things like that are sufficient, feel free to bring them up, but be warned, to name a few, those are what can most be easily crushed.[/quote]

How about Moral Law?
[quote]those are what can most be easily crushed.[/quote]

this is OBVIOUSLY opinion.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i find it ironic that groo cites okham's razor for God when i cite it for an argument against God.
if the world is complex, does it make sense to say something even more complex made it? if God can just be, then the world can just be. it seems God is the unneeded extra addition. So I do not follow his argument that okham's razor should apply when arguing for God.

[dairygirl4u2c]

a postieri, it makes sense to say that God's existance can be proven. the CC says that it can be proven. using the causation theory. It's rational to argue something caused the bike to move. it's less reasonable to say a specific thing like a speghetti monster caused us. But, a priori, we cannot say for sure that God exists. All the arguments against it add up, ultimately. Even a postiori, it's only circumstantial evidence, but I think it's enough to warrant saying they "proved" it. if you disagree, i don't think it's unreasonable.
as far as I know, the CC is not perfect in its teaching anyway.

[jckinsman]

[quote name='naralas' post='1310745' date='Jul 3 2007, 06:02 AM']Alright, the attempted suicide story:
I hope you don't fancy yourself a Christian and carry a firearm still? Jeez, you could shoot someone! Nothing food comes from that >_<

And to the reply following that, I may have made a tiny mistake: "I hate WHEN people" not "I hate people".

Now, you can stand there and tell me you feel God, or you feel some presence. Now I'm not saying your insane, but you can see and hear anything in the right (unfortunately, a better word might be "wrong") emotional state so that kind of foundation for belief really does not jive with me. People can be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt in a lot of really stupid things. Now it's easy to say "well what proof do YOU have" to me. But as much as Christians seem to dislike this point, the burden of proof lies 100% on you. You claim there is something that we cannot see or taste or touch or smell, and when people desperately turn to it, they will feel it. Sounds like Psych 101 to me.

Now also, I'm not sure your familiar with intelligent design theory, but you mentioned it in your post, about how your body is proof of God. Just FYI, that is what I meant when I said intelligent design. Our world, and the complexities of our being make it seem like we are purposeful. However I like to start with rain as a simple idea.

Rain sustains life. Without the rain we would die. The rains purpose seems to be to keep us here. However, without an environment with water and rain we would not be here to think about it. Our world is expiring, and self destructive, and human beings themselves are flawed and weak. We are not here because of some intelligent design scheme, we think up some design scheme because we are HERE to be thinking.

But then theres still the valid point: how are we here then? Well look around the universe. Not a whole lot of life is there? Why us? Why here? Simple. It's pretty frickin unlikely that life could evolve and sustain itself for millions of years and reach the point that humanity has! It's not that we are genetic lottery winners who happened to be on the right planet, as I said before, we are here thinking about it BECAUSE it just happened to work. We are on a funny little planet that grew weird little people, and they developed societies, and all sorts of silly explanations for what they could not understand.

Now we are here thinking everything has a purpose because it works. When in reality, it firstly does not have a purpose, we are assuming that BECAUSE it seems to be working

And secondly, it is not working very well. Our planet is dying... good work God.[/quote]
...........................And funny little people that have big, big minds and think they can out wit- out scheme, and out last their Creator, is nothing new. I 'am pretty sure HE is used to it, and HE laughs! Its has happened from the dawn of creation.
You are funny if you really think that these silly comments have much to do with GOD! Your brain is nowhere near the capacity of GOD. You can think that it is,brains do work that way.Yet I choose with my small brain to believe in God. You on the other hand would like to render your soul to your own intellect. A feat I have learned, to be quite daring and willful.
To whom will we say is your moral compass? You seem to have this finite about the enviorment and guns and such,yet under your NO GOD rule,a certain sense of what is right and what is gone is lost. Don't you think????
Though shalt not Kill FOR INSTANCE,why hold that as any sort of standard if there is none. Where do you think the start of all these"things that are good for us" come from????(commandments??? )You said human nature pretty much "smells of elderberries" an we are killing ourselves and the earth,so how on this earth do we come up with anything good if it wasn't for GOD ?????
You are just seeing the fruits of a GODLESS society. NO GOOD<NO GOD ............KNOW GOOD< KNOW GOD.

[prose]

[quote]those are what can most be easily crushed.[/quote]

That is interesting seeing as the most brilliant minds in the world have struggled with these exact arguments for centuries....

[Groo the Wanderer]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1311294' date='Jul 3 2007, 03:39 PM']i find it ironic that groo cites okham's razor for God when i cite it for an argument against God.
if the world is complex, does it make sense to say something even more complex made it? if God can just be, then the world can just be. it seems God is the unneeded extra addition. So I do not follow his argument that okham's razor should apply when arguing for God.[/quote]


No it does not. Consider matter. Matter itself is incredibly complex, especially when you take into account life. But when you get down it it, it is all made up of atoms. Atomes themselves are simply 8 or 12 (depends on whom you ask) subatomic particles. At it's core, everything is quite simple.

God Himself is simple. He simply IS. His act of will created everything, His act of will sustains everything. Very simple indeed. It is our limited human mentality that tries to make God so complex. We try to put labels on Him, we try to put Him into a box of our own design...in short we try to make Him in our image. You have to let God be God.

So..Occams's Razor applies perfectly.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if God can just be, doesn't it make sense to say that we could just be? why do you need the addition of God?
Adding God does add an extra layer of something unneeded.

unless. it seems like you might be equating God with existance. you're talking about atoms and such and saying "therefore it's simple therefore God exists". You're not explaining the leap from simple to God.
As i said in my initial post, that adds nothing meaningful to the definition of God. If you are defining God as order, or intelligence in the sense that there's order and progress, that's still not too meaningful because you could simply say those things are existance. You have to show more than just that something caused something else because the initial something could be an infinite series of causes. You have to distinguish that meaningfully from God.

Ockham's razor does not mean that the simplest solution is the right solution, just that it usually is. It'd make sense by this principle that the planet probably goes in a perfect circular orbit, but given other things, it goes eliptically. it's still ockhams razor from some standpoints but not all. point being, you don't have to become an atheist to believe that ackham's razor does not apply here and you should acknowledge that.

Edited July 4, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

an interestng thing worth thinking about though, is what exactly do you have to show to show that an intelligence created us? what are the factors of intelligence?
our disagreement might lie in ansering that question. otherwise, i don't know how you're making the leap from saying things are simple to saying therefore God exits.

i'd suppose you'd have ot show that a conscious thought was required. which is kinda what you said "act of will". how does existance prove an act of will? if we could deduce that nothing was keeping things going other than an act of will, then we'd have proof. but we don't have that deduction as things could be kept together by material forces. and those forces came from an eternal line of forces. so, by your definition of God, atoms and existance does not prove God, ie act of will, conscious thought etc.
just circumstnatial evidence with all the stipulations i made in my first post.

Edited July 4, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

If there were no Creator, I seriously do not understand how there could be anything at all. We can talk of evolution, big bang, and any number of theories that, for the sake of this topic, do not need a God to come about. However, without a Creator, there is no material for big bang, evolution - or whatever other theories we have - to work with. If the universe were a house, the most important thing is not how it was built but where the materials came from. A house without the material necessary to construct it cannot be built. The same holds for the universe.

Basically, I pose the the famous question: Why is there anything at all? If our origin really is in some big ball of gas that blew up billions of years ago, how did it get here? It did not [i]just exist[/i].

God bless!

[dairygirl4u2c]

it seems like maybe you're saying that the cause of us is something, and whatever that is, you're gonna call that God. that's teh only way you could be addressing my concerns, but that doesn't define God as anything meaningful.
just asking the question of what made us isn't proving God.

you stated the party line but didn't state how God can just exist.
if god can just be, why can't the world can just be?
if the world is complex, does it make sense that a more complex being would exist to create it?

answer/address those questions instead of just pointing out how odd it is that we could just be. (and not thinking to think about how odd it is that God can just be)