BF2S Forums God shaped hole

topal63 wrote:

O' really how tired an utterly ignorant of you to say so.

I also find it fascinating that you've been able to discern my: age, knowledge-base, understanding, every reason and reasoning ability, books I've read, etc.. all from a mere few sentences.

What are you on about, no one has mentioned any of those things.

Define what is transcending your mind please. Also, agnosticism is an insoluble philosophical point related to formal logic. It has its' basic applicability in formal axiomatic systems and legal uses. It is not a case of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," that applies to definable knowable reality. And, not undefinable transcendent realities, assumed transcendent realities, psychological experiences, pure fabrications of mind, or the natural assumption of entity ascribed to external phenomenon in nature.

Define what a syntactically correct sentence is, because your first question there doesn't make sense in English, unless it's philosophy speak for something that could just as easily be explained with correct syntax and regularly language.

Actually agnosticism is exactly that, it is the philosophical view that god is inherently impossible to prove or disprove; "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is pretty much key to that. The fact that there is no known evidence to prove gods existence doesn't disprove gods existence.

Is your last point saying agnosticism is invalid because it deals in reality and not in philosophical unprovable points? I would counter that with the point that anything but agnosticism is invalid because it doesn't deal with reality.

And when did this turn into whatever point your trying to make? Because im pretty certain it has nothing to do with point I made before.

I like the fact that I'm right, and religions are wrong.

Personally, I think atheists are dumb.
They claim to know the unknowable.
Agnosticism is the only logical position.

topal63 wrote:

First off, if the post is under another then it applies to the one it is under (therefore it applies to: h4hagen's post).

Second, I didn't address your previous untenable point--that we're all agnostics.

Here is some O' dat regularly language for you:

Define what is transcending your mind? This is what the label "g"+"o"+"d" refers to. It inherently is meaningless until one defines it. And, defining it (so far) seems to be an impossible task--since it is transcending your mind, my mind, anyone's mind. Or, are you having trouble understanding this?

"Where (or of what) one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence." (Ludwig Wittgenstein)

He didn't mention it either.

How is it illogical? Ok, saying everyone is agnostic isn't quite true because you have to belief that gods existence can't be proved or disproved to be agnostic. My point was that no one knows.

That's exactly what I stated, that it is impossible to know god. Accept I said it without looking like a pompous twat. What's odd as well is that your "Define what is transcending your mind" point doesn't come up on the internet once. Might be something to do with the fact that it makes zero sense as a sentence.

The onus is on the religious to prove the existence of their God and so far they have no evidence to back up their claims. I'm not going to change the way I assess facts and make judgements just because some people feel religion should get a free pass when it comes to evidence. You have no credible evidence to date... come back to me when that situation changes and I'll certainly look at what you have to offer, I'd be ignorant not to, until then I'll continue happily with my Godless worldview.

topal63 wrote:

You clearly do not understand the problems of metaphysics.

Good god, you're trying hard.

Braddock wrote:

The onus is on the religious to prove the existence of their God and so far they have no evidence to back up their claims. I'm not going to change the way I assess facts and make judgements just because some people feel religion should get a free pass when it comes to evidence. You have no credible evidence to date... come back to me when that situation changes and I'll certainly look at what you have to offer, I'd be ignorant not to, until then I'll continue happily with my Godless worldview.

I honestly don't see how someone can take a biology course and not believe in a higher being. And don't tell me I'm just not smart enough to understand.

@ Bell, absolutely, If I believe I will one day be judged for my actions then I should be trying the hardest to do things right - Sin is often defined as knowing something is wrong and doing it anyways. (There is no sarcasm in this response, and this is not sarcasm either just to be clear). I think one of the biggest problems Christianity faces is the tremendous amount of judging and hypocrisy that we put out.

Last edited by h4hagen (2009-04-03 12:12:02)

ATG wrote:

h4hagen wrote:

ATG: If you are searching for answers concerning god and/or religion an online gaming forum probably isn't the best place to start. Go to a church and/or pick up a couple of books (if you want suggestions you can PM me). Its not like you will be stricken with religion by walking into a church, might as well give it a try.

This is not where it started.
I bet i've read more books about religion than most.

I use this forum to help me flesh out and understand my own views as well as open myself up for scrutiny.

Good deal, and it is definitely a great way to discuss ideas and so forth with out it dissolving into conflict (a decent percentage of the time, lol).

topal63 wrote:

mikkel wrote:

topal63 wrote:

You clearly do not understand the problems of metaphysics.

Good god, you're trying hard.

No, I am struggling to talk about things/philosophical ideas people probably haven't explored. The easiest way out is to give up.

PS: But honestly, I don't really care.

Looks to me like you have an opinion just like everyone else, and that the ego behind yours is just bigger than the ego behind those of the people you argue with. I bet they're struggling to argue opinion with someone as condescending and obviously closed to suggestion as you seem to be.

Braddock wrote:

h4hagen wrote:

Braddock wrote:

The onus is on the religious to prove the existence of their God and so far they have no evidence to back up their claims. I'm not going to change the way I assess facts and make judgements just because some people feel religion should get a free pass when it comes to evidence. You have no credible evidence to date... come back to me when that situation changes and I'll certainly look at what you have to offer, I'd be ignorant not to, until then I'll continue happily with my Godless worldview.

I honestly don't see how someone can take a biology course and not believe in a higher being. And don't tell me I'm just not smart enough to understand.

Why should there have to be a God? It's a symptom of the human mind to always try and impose structure on things where there is often no rhyme or reason at all. This is seen in almost every aspect of human perception and cognition, from how we always try to find patterns in what we see and hear (as outlined by the Gestalt theorists) to the way in which we formulate high-level concepts and world-views (as illustrated brilliantly once by Derren Brown in an experiment involving people in a controlled "game" environment where points were gained on a completely random basis - the participants formed highly complex theories regarding how they were gaining points, all of which were rubbish).

And Atheism is just another way of trying to impose structure on it. I would argue that another point of human nature is to believe ourselves to be dominant, and yet somewhere along the way someone came up with the idea of god. I know where your coming from, but why shouldn't there be a god? There's a verse in the bible that says something along the lines of "My ways are beyond your understanding" (And I hate to go and grab stuff from the bible to support my points) but why couldn't there be things beyond our understanding?

Braddock wrote:

The onus is on the religious to prove the existence of their God and so far they have no evidence to back up their claims. I'm not going to change the way I assess facts and make judgements just because some people feel religion should get a free pass when it comes to evidence. You have no credible evidence to date... come back to me when that situation changes and I'll certainly look at what you have to offer, I'd be ignorant not to, until then I'll continue happily with my Godless worldview.

Better yet, everyone should shut up because no one has proof for or against the existence. Hence, if any person claims that there is or is not, they should be the ones to back it up.

Braddock wrote:

h4hagen wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Why should there have to be a God? It's a symptom of the human mind to always try and impose structure on things where there is often no rhyme or reason at all. This is seen in almost every aspect of human perception and cognition, from how we always try to find patterns in what we see and hear (as outlined by the Gestalt theorists) to the way in which we formulate high-level concepts and world-views (as illustrated brilliantly once by Derren Brown in an experiment involving people in a controlled "game" environment where points were gained on a completely random basis - the participants formed highly complex theories regarding how they were gaining points, all of which were rubbish).

And Atheism is just another way of trying to impose structure on it. I would argue that another point of human nature is to believe ourselves to be dominant, and yet somewhere along the way someone came up with the idea of god. I know where your coming from, but why shouldn't there be a god? There's a verse in the bible that says something along the lines of "My ways are beyond your understanding" (And I hate to go and grab stuff from the bible to support my points) but why couldn't there be things beyond our understanding?

Atheism is not a presence of something h4hagen, it is an absence of something. It is a weak argument to argue why shouldn't there be a God because the burden of proof should be on the person putting forward the argument. Atheists (or to be more accurate Agnostics) are not putting forward an argument, they are simply saying that we have no conclusive proof of the existence of a higher being and they simply live their lives in terms of what they can empirically and logically deduce. If I were to take your approach I could ask why shouldn't there be a Santa Claus or why shouldn't there be a tooth fairy.

I don't mean to sound insulting but when it comes to religion people are inexplicably given a free pass when it comes to evidence and are often allowed to put forward arguments and theories that follow the same logic as that seen in conspiracy theories. If I were in a court of law I'd make judgments based on the evidence put before me, if I were in a scientific laboratory I'd make judgments based on the data before me... I'm not going to make an exception for religion. I demand proof, until then I will continue to live my life happily, as I am now.

Nah, don't worry about being insulting, hard not to be in this type of an argument. I understand Atheism, and I think that lack of belief is still a belief system. I'm not going to say "It comes down to believing" or anything of the sort because that is a weak argument. I would say that there absolutely is proof that god exists and that it is evident everywhere around us. In our families, in our lives, and in nature. If you need physical validation (i.e. jesus coming to your house and being all like "Yo dog, Im jesus, sup") proving the existence of an invisible God using physical measurement will be difficult—if not impossible. If your willing to look at it openly though, maybe you'll get something out of it. I would, again, strongly encourage all of yall to visit a church or pick up a bible. If your right (I guess this is the wrong way to phrase this "if your right" but yall get what Im saying") Your views will only be strengthened and you will have lost maybe an hour or two of your kind. Again, I'm definitely one of the less qualified people to be trying to convince anyone of the existence of a god. (I'm not going anywhere though, I'll be back tomorrow trying to convince everyone anyways - if I wasn't, Id just be hypocritical.)

EDIT: Dang, this is getting to be along quote. @ Topal, I am an old world creationist, I believe in evolution, but I believe there is a mind behind it.
EDIT 2: Sorry if my terminology atheist vs agnostic or whatever is mixed up.

Last edited by h4hagen (2009-04-03 12:53:35)