Logicboy03:


6.9/7 does not equal 100%

At some point, I hope you'll be embarrassed enough of your stupidity to shut up.

Ihedinobi:

At some point, I hope you'll be embarrassed enough of your stupidity to shut up.

6.9/7 does not equal 100%


If that statement is st.upid to you then, you are actually st.upid

Logicboy03:


6.9/7 does not equal 100%

---

Zexten:

Alas! There is nothing we know 100% Is this a dream? It's unnecessary to request a 100% knowledge of sth. It's probably impossible. 6.9 out of 7 is enough to call KNOW. If you can say the probability of God's existence is like an hurricane building up a Boeing 747, then that's KNOWING. My point: atheism - at least conventional, popular atheism - claims to know that God does not exist. Now if you want to define your idea of atheism in a different way, then feel free to bring it to the table and let's know what to tackle. But know at least, it's not the Russell, Hitchens, Dawkins kind of atheism.

foolish.


Atheism is the disbelief in god because of lack of evidence. Every atheist is an agnostic because you cant 100% prove that something doesnt exist.


You cant prove that an invisible unicorn doesnt exist.


Even Dawkins says that he is agnostic at a certain level. Yo are misinformed

[quote author=Logicboy03]


---

Zexten:


LOL! Everyone is an agnostic in all respects. We never know anything. Not at all. Now, we assume some things to keep us sane and alive. Ever heard of the Munchaussen Trilemma? Check it, the axiomatic argument is what's best for us. In which case, thinking that there is almost definitely no god is enough to say there is no god.

Regardless, follow my train of thought, please. And let me know where I get you wrong. I suppose a quintessential atheist would say: "I am not sure there if there is a god. The evidence makes me think there isn't. However, there is a slight (significant - which is why I'm agnostic) chance that there is one." Awesome. Has he ever heard of Pascal's Wager then?

There is no evidence for a god.


Pascal's wager fails on so many levels

Logicboy03:


There is no evidence for a god.


Pascal's wager fails on so many levels

---

Zexten:

Educate me on this please. How and when does it fail?

What if the hell is the muslim hell? Or the pagan hell? Or the Jewish hell?


Belief in God doesnt save you from hell because there are many gods. I just believe in one less god than you.

Logicboy03:




What if the hell is the muslim hell? Or the pagan hell? Or the Jewish hell?


Belief in God doesnt save you from hell because there are many gods. I just believe in one less god than you.

Nonsense

Ihedinobi:

Nonsense

You have nothing. Gerrout

Logicboy03:

You have nothing. Gerrout

Lol

Zexten:


LOL! Everyone is an agnostic in all respects. We never know anything. Not at all. Now, we assume some things to keep us sane and alive. Ever heard of the Munchaussen Trilemma? Check it, the axiomatic argument is what's best for us. In which case, thinking that there is almost definitely no god is enough to say there is no god.

Regardless, follow my train of thought, please. And let me know where I get you wrong. I suppose a quintessential atheist would say: "I am not sure there if there is a god. The evidence makes me think there isn't. However, there is a slight (significant - which is why I'm agnostic) chance that there is one." Awesome. Has he ever heard of Pascal's Wager then?

How does, there is almost no god mean there is no god??

I think it should be a quadilemma, because of the untenable position of a skeptic. However, let's talk about absolutes, like reality, like non existence of contradictions and the nonexistence of god. God is a badly drawn concept of contradiction and irrational, hence can't exist.

Logicboy03:




What if the hell is the muslim hell? Or the pagan hell? Or the Jewish hell?


Belief in God doesnt save you from hell because there are many gods. I just believe in one less god than you.

---

[quote author=Kay 17]

---

Zexten:

You just believe in one less god than me? That's like a hobo saying: "we're all homeless, you just have one house more than me" You see the big difference?

Perhaps, you don't fully understand what Mr. Pascal was saying with his wager. It doesn't matter which religion wins at the end, as long as I have a form of religion, I stand a better chance of being correct than you do. I have (no matter how insignificant or tiny), a chance of being correct. It's better than 0, like waaaaayyyyy better. If u believe in a god, and there is no god, u lose nothing (same as the atheist), if there is a god and it's yours, u gain a lot (worse off for the atheist).

Now, to the chance of a god existing or not. What are your reasons for thinking he doesn't exist? Why does the evidence (or lack thereof) tilt you towards that side? And please, let it not be that you've suffered in the hands of the church. I personally find it illogical and extremely ludicrous to think God does not exist, because some men (or women) who claim to speak for him, have been short of perfect.

1) The homeless argument is not an appropriate analogy. You know what it is like not to believe in another god or religion just like the atheist. however, you have nothing in common with the homeless person. You are atheist towards other gods. You cant be homeless towards other homes- makes no sense.


2) Not all religions or gods have a hell. Even many forms of christianity do not consider hell to be real or literal. Belief in a god is not consistent with escaping hell. Belief in many gods can still leave you with the same 0 percent as an atheist.

3) Pascal's wager still doesnt prove hell or heaven or god in itself. It promotes a false belief- following a religion as an insurance policy. In mainstream christianity or islam, that would ironically guarantee you a place in hell for being insincere

Kay 17:

How does, there is almost no god mean there is no god??

I think it should be a quadilemma, because of the untenable position of a skeptic. However, let's talk about absolutes, like reality, like non existence of contradictions and the nonexistence of god. God is a badly drawn concept of contradiction and irrational, hence can't exist.

Interesting, would you mind defining God as you know Him to be and what exactly makes God a logically incoherent concept

@ Zexten

Its a general epistemological problem.

@mranony

Supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, incomprehensible, all good, perfect.

Kay 17: @ Zexten

Its a general epistemological problem.

@mranony

Supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent, incomprehensible, all good, perfect.

Now which of the above makes Him logically incoherent?

All the attributes taken together make him incoherent. For example, for an incomprehensible being has all those attributes?!

Kay 17: All the attributes taken together make him incoherent. For example, for an incomprehensible being has all those attributes?!

Incomprehensible simply means He cannot be completely known because our human senses are ill-equipped to comprehend Him fully. There is nothing logically incoherent with that.

Mr_Anony: Incomprehensible simply means He cannot be completely known because our human senses are ill-equipped to comprehend Him fully. There is nothing logically incoherent with that.

Incomprehensible means he is unKNowable.

not able to be understood

Kay 17:

Incomprehensible means he is unKNowable.

To be more precise, it means that He is so great that we as humans can't fully grasp Him with our limited knowledge.

Mr_Anony:
To be more precise, it means that He is so great that we as humans can't fully grasp Him with our limited knowledge.

If we can't fully grasp him, then we are all blind.. Therefore we can never know.

Rather than inability fully grasp, its inability to sufficiently grasp his nature.

So it is settled then.

God is not knowable and therefore all claiming to be of god or doing his will are liars/deluded

Kay 17: Rather than inability fully grasp, its inability to sufficiently grasp his nature.

I don't see the difference

musKeeto:
If we can't fully grasp him, then we are all blind.. Therefore we can never know.

Not really, it is more like how a 1-year-old baby can't solve calculus. It doesn't mean that the baby knows nothing, it's just that the baby's knowledge is not enough.
The time will come when all will be revealed and we will know as we are known.

"......But when perfection comes, the things that are not complete will end.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, and I made plans like a child. When I became a man, I stopped those childish ways.
It is the same with us. Now we see God as if we are looking at a reflection in a mirror. But then, in the future, we will see him right before our eyes. Now I know only a part, but at that time I will know fully, as God has known me." 1Corinthians 13:10-12

Mr_Anony:
I don't see the difference


Not really, it is more like how a 1-year-old baby can't solve calculus. It doesn't mean that the baby knows nothing, it's just that the baby's knowledge is not enough.
The time will come when all will be revealed and we will know as we are known.

"......But when perfection comes, the things that are not complete will end.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, and I made plans like a child. When I became a man, I stopped those childish ways.
It is the same with us. Now we see God as if we are looking at a reflection in a mirror. But then, in the future, we will see him right before our eyes. Now I know only a part, but at that time I will know fully, as God has known me." 1Corinthians 13:10-12

Game over.


We have all agreed that we dont know God or cant grasp him. You then dubiously bypass that by using bible quotes to say that we will grow up and understand him.


This runs afoul of logic.

Mr_Anony:
I don't see the difference


Not really, it is more like how a 1-year-old baby can't solve calculus. It doesn't mean that the baby knows nothing, it's just that the baby's knowledge is not enough.
The time will come when all will be revealed and we will know as we are known.

"......But when perfection comes, the things that are not complete will end.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, and I made plans like a child. When I became a man, I stopped those childish ways.
It is the same with us. Now we see God as if we are looking at a reflection in a mirror. But then, in the future, we will see him right before our eyes. Now I know only a part, but at that time I will know fully, as God has known me." 1Corinthians 13:10-12

which translation is that ^^^

"But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:10-13)

this scripture is a reference to knowledge according to verse 8,9:

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part." (1 Corinthians 13:8-9).

I just wanted to be clear with the bible portion.

Logicboy03:
Game over.


We have all agreed that we dont know God or cant grasp him. You then dubiously bypass that by using bible quotes to say that we will grow up and understand him.


This runs afoul of logic.

Really?

There is a difference between knowing fully and not knowing at all. Apart from God, there are also a large number of things we don't know fully. This doesn't mean we can't know His will or that we won't grow in knowledge of the other things we don't yet fully know.

In fact you yourself actually hold the position that you can't know anything at all except what your human perception tells you. For instance you hold that you don't even know if the earth is actually spherical. To quote you:

Logicboy03:
What I am saying is that as 3 dimensional beings, we will see the earth as spherical. Who is to say that a 4 dimensional being wont see the earth as flat either due to size or perception?

Imagine growing to such a size that the earth becomes an atom. Would the earth be flat or spherical to you?

I really don't see how not knowing something completely makes it "run foul of logic"

truthislight:

which translation is that ^^^

"But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Corinthians 13:10-13)

this scripture is a reference to knowledge according to verse 8,9:

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part." (1 Corinthians 13:8-9).

I just wanted to be clear with the bible portion.

The translation is ERV. What's your point?

Mr_Anony:
Really?

There is a difference between knowing fully and not knowing at all. Apart from God, there are also a large number of things we don't know fully. This doesn't mean we can't know His will or that we won't grow in knowledge of the other things we don't yet fully know.

In fact you yourself actually hold the position that you can't know anything at all except what your human perception tells you. For instance you hold that you don't even know if the earth is actually spherical. To quote you:


I really don't see how not knowing something completely makes it "run foul of logic"

You are not making any sense. Is this desperation? We know that the earth is spherical from our perception. Simple. From another being's perceptio, it could be different. Is tat hard to grasp.

My stance is in your bold. We cant know beyond our senses and perception. That is a fact. Simple and clear. Logical.





You, on the other hand are illogical.


God is beyond our perception from your own argument and yet, you are claiming that we will grow up and understand him. Are we going to evolve some new perception? A second brain?

Mr_Anony:
I don't see the difference


Not really, it is more like how a 1-year-old baby can't solve calculus. It doesn't mean that the baby knows nothing, it's just that the baby's knowledge is not enough.
The time will come when all will be revealed and we will know as we are known.

"......But when perfection comes, the things that are not complete will end.
When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, and I made plans like a child. When I became a man, I stopped those childish ways.
It is the same with us. Now we see God as if we are looking at a reflection in a mirror. But then, in the future, we will see him right before our eyes. Now I know only a part, but at that time I will know fully, as God has known me." 1Corinthians 13:10-12

Lol, the fact a kid doesn't know calculus doesn't make calculus incomprehensible, does it?

Anyways, so you agree that as a theist, you argue with incomplete knowledge? Your arguments are simply based on a part?