401. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124249 by Kardashovel on February 8, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Corylus,

What did that wall ever do to you? Careful you don't bring down the building. :P

Let me guess, this information was about you, your relationships and your immediate environment.

It was about relationships with people that I did not even know existed, which have subsequently become manifest.

Fugues are interactive that was the point I was making. They are dialogue set to music. Humans are verbal creatures, when there is no-one about we talk to ourselves (hint, hint).

Since I often talk to myself (in my head), I am a particularly credible witness when I say that this voice was not me.

Fugues are perhaps abstract conversations. This was specific and didactic about my circumstances.


I work all day with academics, some are smart, some are everyday, others still have the reasoning ability of a mouldy marshmallow. This means nothing because the issue is not the intellect of those people you talk to: it is your reasoning abilities that count.

If you are unable to question them I am afraid there is nothing more I can do for you.

I'm afraid you lost me there, Corylus. Are you suggesting that I haven't questioned what happened? I questioned whether I was simply nuts during the second conversation, which provoked an answer something like this: "If so, that will quickly become apparent." I questions as soon as the conversation was over, and repeatedly thereafter. And subsequently I watched it unfold. And because I have the heart of a skeptic, it was only then that I really began wrestling with the consequences of what I experienced.


Induction. Is. Not. Good. Enough.

It kills enquiry. That way lies stagnation.

Corylus, you seem to be losing your patience, my friend.

Do you think I'm incapable of deduction? The very question puts the lie to that hypothesis. For a moment, suspend your disbelief and imagine that you witnessed something that shook all of your prior understanding. Do you think that you would dismiss cautious induction, and just go back to saying: "Well, since I can't prove to my friends at RD.net that it actually happened, it must not have happened... I was just misinterpreting the experience.

In my case, in this instance, induction is good enough for theism.
~~~

All that demonstrates is confidence in statistics not confidence in the theories behind flight.

Theories behind flight? Are you serious?
Do you imagine that it's Bernoulli's law that is what keeps you alive when you land at Heathrow? That's rich. Do tell me which of your deductively illuminated scientific theories you bet your life on? Let me guess... you deduce that your car's brakes will function because of your confidence in the Second law of thermodynamics, and the efficiency with which your disk brakes can convert mechanical energy to heat. Or did I simply misunderstand you?

Induction. Is. Good. Enough. To. Bet. Your. Life. On. Every. Day.

402. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124248 by Kardashovel on February 8, 2008 at 11:14 pm

1892. Comment #123723 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 2:51 pm

If this is true, then it should be easily demonstrated.

Perhaps you could say (or give a hint) about what the information was, and on what subject the voice was sounding intelligent?

There were several verifiable facts that I could not otherwise have known, primarily concerning my work and my family. An example would be that the voice explained the relationship between several people, of which I knew only three, and all of whom have become significant to my business. The method in which this was revealed to me (no images, just the voice) was pretty spectacular in it's concise delivery and the ability to anticipate my questions and answer in a way that almost immediately brought understanding... like he could read my mind. The voice spoke with absolute authority; there was no hint of doubt and no processing delay.


Sometimes one can have the feeling one is having intelligent thoughts, but they are nothing special. This is a known effect of some drugs - amphetamines, and alcohol for example (not that I am implying anything, just showing how the brain can delude itself).

This was not the effect of any drug.
~~~

1945. Comment #123971 by Steve Zara on February 8, 2008 at 3:37 am

No way! Godel was amazing. He shocked Einstein with his solutions of General Relativity that showed that in some universes, time travel was possible. I have seen Godel mentioned more in this area in popular science programs than in matters of logic and incompleteness.

Quite right, Steve. Godel moved mountains in several fields. Are you aware of the circumstances of his death?

403. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124247 by Kardashovel on February 8, 2008 at 11:13 pm

BAEOZ: Kardashovel is a humourous chap. Dog's have fleas. Vox is a flea, therefore Dawkins is a dog, apparently a female dog. Thus Dawkins is Vox's bitch. So clever.
Anyhow. Kardashovel, what is to distinguish your privileged conversations from hallucinations? You seem to have no knowledge of the human brain.

Credit Vox for the humor, I'm merely explaining the punch line. Way to connect the dots!

As for my knowledge of the human brain, I feel qualified to declare that these were not hallucinations. Having previously witnessed hallucinations under certain controlled circumstances (and once during illness), I can say that this was nothing like a hallucination.

Tell me more, Baeoz, about what you know of hallucinations... since you are evidently an expert on the subject.
~~~


Although I am tempted to ridicule your dysfunctional argument against the trinity in post #1893, I would note the MPhil already dismissed it in between commas.

Let's move on:
It may be easy for theologians to avoid the bullet, but that's not what they say when they recite the Nicean creed. What do we have, intellectual dishonesty or plain dishonesty?

Oh dear. Read the creed again, Baeoz. They are naming the natures of God, which are each an aspect of the Almighty. Mind, body, and spirit. Mind which directs, body which executes, spirit that connects. One being.

404. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124246 by Kardashovel on February 8, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Epeeist,

I apologize. I see now that you were lampooning strict-interpretation creationists, and not simply theists. So you meant that you presented evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection. Carry on... no need to disprove God then.

~~~
You said: As for your evidence. You claim a being that interferes in the world, but all we ever get is personal revelation. Personal revelation is subjective, what we want is some objective way to your god.

As I have said, I have a working hypothesis that says there are no personal gods. I am willing, as are most people here, to be convinced otherwise. But if all you can bring to the table is a voice in your head then you aren't going to convince many people.


Believe it or not, I am not trying to convince any of you. That is not within my power (notwithstanding my boast to LorienRyan about post 666). Your beliefs are your own power. I'll keep saying it as long as people keep protesting my intentions: I am not here to convert anyone.

405. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #124245 by Kardashovel on February 8, 2008 at 11:10 pm

1885. Comment #123712 by MPhil on February 7, 2008 at 2:38 pm

I am very much willing to state the inconsistencies in the descriptions of the bible. But if the future is going to be anything like the past, that is not going to do much good - because when I point these out, the response has always been pseudo-deconstructivist far-fetched 'interpretations' of scripture to twist its meaning to something contrary to what ordinary language and common sense would make of the descriptions.

You've skillfully forced me to reveal my cards right away. I'll come right out and say that while I have great respect for the bible, I think it is a fools errand to lean too heavily on an ancient tome rather than on the living God, or even one's own wits. After all, reading the bible without focused wit, and faith in God, is mostly a waste of time. Jesus didn't dictate a holy book. He started a church, and focused his attention on the people.

Certainly the Bible has enormous historical and cultural value, and I do believe that there is great truth in the words within the bible. But these are just human words. Even assuming that there is a perfect omnipotent God who inspired every word of the bible, those words would still be in Hebrew, Aramaic or Koine Greek. I don't think that any of those languages had words expressing concepts such as "evolution" or "general relativity". Should God have begun by dictating a modern science primer to Moses instead of Genesis?

I certainly don't think that the bible is God's literal truth, all the way down to eating ox dung. My eyes twinkle on hearing someone hold fast to the idea that there was a literal Noah and his ark full of animals, from which all land creatures descend. What can I say?

On the other hand, I do believe that the world’s oceans were over 100m lower during the last ice age, which would have revealed a very different coastline and river structure... the places where our prehistoric city states and cultures formed. But subsequently, the sea level rose quite rapidly, flooding the coasts and causing much turmoil, as reflected in the flood myths of cultures throughout the world.

This illustrates the degree to which I rely on the bible as a source of wisdom about creation: it would be like relying on a young child's explanation of how things work in Busy Town.

The main exception to my criticism, are the parts of the bible concerning the works and words of Jesus. I greatly admire his sense of compassionate justice, and his willingness to sacrifice himself so that he could deliver his message non-violently, but forcefully and consistently. When read with a sympathetic eye, his is certainly a compelling story, you must admit.

Anyway, I felt that I should disclose that I am not your typical Evangelist Christian.

~~~


There is nothing in scripture to suggest that the 'holy trinity' ... is physical in any way

What? How about the burning bush? Or simply the incarnation of God as Jesus? These are physical, in some way, no?
~~~

I think it was you who proposed god as a super-advanced alien traveling back in time and making the development of life on earth possible (and - I suppose - somehow starting a causality-trajectory that led to the bible being written), no?

Let's just say that if the Bible was damaging to His plan, then God would arrange for the necessary changes. You seem to think that I believe that God would stop after simply tuning the structure constants to promote the formation of stars, elements, and habitable planets. I think that the process is ongoing, based on my own religious experience. Moreover, I don't assume that God is the only one acting to affect the outcome of our history and our future.
~~~

…these entities would therefore be subject to natural laws. Of course we have no (nor could we have) complete knowledge of physics... but epistemologically, all we have justification to assume, and to use as premises in arguments is the current state of science. Assuming specific possibilities incoherent with current science would be idle, unsubstantiated speculation and therefore inadmissible.

MPhil, would you agree that a part of our current knowledge of physical theory is in knowing what we don't know? For example no one knows how a linear theory such as quantum mechanics is ontologically compatible with a macro world which is decidedly non-linear, at times. Bohm took a shot at it with his "Quantum Force", and there has been a great deal of interdisciplinary research in so-called quantum chaos. On a philosophical level the issue has bearing on whether or not the universe is fundamentally deterministic.

Anyway, you've merely managed to show what I already disclosed when I mentioned the idea... that I am simply speculating about the time-traveler God model.
~~~

As I said, I am willing to list the inconsistencies, but I'm almost sure that this will end with you arguing that the 'true' interpretation is one that avoids these obvious inconsistencies, whereas I will argue that this is just baseless ex post facto interpretation contrary to the meaning of the words as determined by their use in ordinary language and the connections they refer to as determined by common sense and logical analysis.

I am not a bible apologist. I do however subscribe to the Nicene Creed, and I think that each aspect of the trinity has a physical explanation. God the Father is this super-advanced time-traveling being. God the Son is the emissary who sets the world on the path of creation, by imploring us to love each other, and to love Him. God the Holy Spirit is the as yet poorly understood intersection of consciousness with physical reality.

406. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123715 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 2:43 pm

I've repeatedly made it clear that I don't believe that God is omnipotent; at least not in the sense that you are using.

Although the voice did not identify Himself as "Lord Thuunderin' Jaysus", the entity was down to earth and very well understood my emotions. I'm not saying that a generic God could not have done this, but I am saying that this entity knew what it was like to be human.


Sane people hear voices and see visions. These are not to do with God (or rather, there is not the slightest need to invoke God). If you are using that as evidence for a deity, you are not on firm ground.

The voice was responsive, predictive, and gave me specific verifiable information I could not have known otherwise. And it was staggeringly intelligent. Corylus mentioned that some savants can invent an entire fugue in their mind, and that's great but that it is playback and in my case it was interactive. Besides, although I test quite a bit smarter than the average human, this was off my chart and I have taken discussion courses with Nobel Laureates.

407. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123689 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 2:04 pm

MPhil,

I'm honored to hear from you. What is logically inconsistent about the description of the Christian God?

Is it the same objection that you have against "interventionist, non-physical 'gods' in general"? Because Jesus, the father and the holy spirit are very much physical.

408. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123688 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Steve:
But how does that justify theism in any way?

By the way, what do you research?

I researched Atomic and Optical Physics. I'm on extended haiatus from the practice of science... do you think that might mean that I'm not a scientist?

Al Rawandi seems to think so, but I'm not sure he thinks through all of his beliefs to their evidence based conclusions. He's more about action! Like beating Vox with his own hard-cover book.

You know, I'm guilty to admit that I would probably pay money to see Al Rawandi try to beat up on Vox in a cage match. Talk about theater of the absurd. That would be awesome. I nominate you as referee, Steve. But since there are no rules, you'd just be another person in the cage.

Anyway, having studied, researched, and applied my understanding of physics for many years, I am adept at seeing abstract structure, solving problems, and developing systems. But never, at any point, have I not felt like the entire structure of physics is nothing other than a facade for a much deeper understanding. That in and of itself is not enough to justify theism, but it does make me humble about what understanding I do have of physics, and science in general.



They take things on "faith" contingently. They provide mechanisms for disproving what they believe.

Where the equivalent falsifiability in your God Theory?

If I have another conversation like the ones that I reported, and the entity says, "Actually this is the NSA. We're just screwing with your implants." Then I might believe otherwise...


Everyone claims that believers twist things, but never provide an reason why their take on things is the right one.

I have been careful to qualify what I have said as beleifs. The only thing that I know for sure is that there is a God, and He actively participates in the world, and that He loves me and needs me. I take Jesus as my savior on faith. I would be happy to debate a Muslim on why I think that Christianity is more credible... but I am pretty sure that there is no such thing as a correct religion. These are human institutions we're talking about. They aren't even close to perfect. Neither are the roads that you use to get to work, but you still drive them.

409. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123686 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Epeeist, here is a quote of you misrepresenting what theists say:

"If there is evidence contrary to [insert your personal belief here] then the evidence is wrong"


In other words, you think that theists, upon being presented with evidence that contradicts their belief, will declare that the evidence is invalid.

Now what would you base such a conclusion upon, I wonder? Have you ever presented someone with evidence against God's existence, and had them tell you that you were wrong?

If so, then as I already asked you, please provide your evidence.

If not, then you are simply thinking with your appendix.

As for your formal re-frame of the endlessly bleated challenge around here, I have already told you some of the evidence that convinced me, and lamented that it would not likely convince any of you, because you hadn't witnessed it.

410. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123536 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 10:18 am

Now for that Kahuna...

411. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123535 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 10:17 am

And again, we must ask where is your evidence that God exists? You have asserted his existence, so it is up to you to provide the evidence. If there is none, other than your faith and some old books, then we could conclude that it is untrue.

I already did, but you didn't like it. Anyway, it was Epeeist that indicated that theists say evidence is wrong if it contradicts our view... was that just hoof-in-mouth disease, or did he have an example in mind?

You don't need to answer SRWB... you didn't claim that I ignore or discount evidence against my faith... Epeeist did. Unless you are claiming that your evidence is that I don't have any. Then I would just say that you need to rethink your statement.

412. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123531 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 10:13 am

Gotta go on a sales call... this could be the Big Kahuna! Wish me luck, or whatever y'all do to express your moral support to a fellow tax payer.

413. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123530 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 10:12 am

I missed you to, Diacanu. Did you get the joke?

414. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123528 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 10:09 am

I hope I have a reasonable reputation now for not mocking people.

I dunno... I think you may have called Vox a flea. Hey, did you get the joke after I explained it to you?

So why don't you have faith in scientists who claim that an understanding of the origin of the universe is within our grasp, and that miracles can't happen?

Anybody who has ever worked food-service will swear off eating at that establishment. I am a scientist, Steve. I know what we put in the pudding.

As for what we know about the early state of the universe, it is substantially smaller in quality than the imagination within the belief set that individual cosmologists use to develop their public theories... whether they believe in God or not, they take quite a bit on faith, as everyone has at least one working model.

There is nothing reliable or consistent about religion, is there?

On the contrary, religion has consistently been twisted by the believers and infidels alike. But in all seriousness, I think that God has been quite reliable, all factors considered.

415. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123518 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 9:49 am

Epeeist says: Theist arguments seem to follow the pattern:

1. If there is contrary evidence to evolution then the theory of evolution is wrong

2. If there is evidence contrary to [insert your personal belief here] then the evidence is wrong



Actually, I bet the majority of believers in evolution are Christian... at least in America. And I think that most theists recognize that science works by adapting to new evidence.

And Epeeist, I would love to hear your evidence that God does not exist. Do you know any? Or were you talking about another belief of mine besides my God-belief?

416. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123514 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 9:40 am

Most people who believe in Santa Claus are happier with fellow believers than those who would deny the existence of the Red Fat Man.

No doubt. And they'll happily argue about the riding whip, the Elvin unions, and what Santa does with the rest of his time... but they will exclude the punk who said Santa wasn't real. But that has zero to do with whether or not there is a God.

Would you accept the word of a Witch Doctor, or would you prefer evidence-based medicine? Would you accept the word of someone who wanted you to leap off a building if they sprinkled you with "flying dust", or would you prefer to use commercial airlines, based on sound engineering and science?

While I have studied fluid dynamics in some detail, I don't get on a plane because I understand, roughly, how it works... I get on the plane because I have confidence in the statistical evidence that flying is relatively safe, because I have faith that the pilot and crew will do their jobs well, and because, should I die, I believe I have lived a pretty good life and that no great harm will come to me in the afterlife, whether it is just a deep sleep, or a new garden. I didn't choose my doctor because of what school he went to or what his grades were. I didn't choose him because of my confidence in western medicine vs. voodoo. I chose him because of the testimonial of a friend. So far it's worked out ok.

On the contrary Steve, it is far more common to take matters on faith and go with the program than it is to demand evidence of every claim. Now, I'm not saying you're wrong to withhold belief in the absence of evidence that you find satisfying. By all means, go for it, keep asking again and again, and mocking those that have a different standard of evidence or a different experience. It's absolutely riveting. No wonder everyone wants to talk religion with atheists!

417. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123479 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 8:45 am

I would pay Vox day to say "Bitch" to my face. He is a pathetic coward.

How much are we talking? I'm pretty sure it could be arranged.

418. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123476 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 8:42 am

I'm not threatening you. I'm making an observation.

Believe me when I say that I have a clear understanding of the prevalence of atheism in certain circles.

And Steve, while I am perfectly comfortable among atheists, I would assert without proof that other theists of most stripes would probably be a lot more comfortable with my presence and my beliefs than with yours.

I can dialog with other faiths about our beliefs, but a discussion with Atheists inevitably becomes another episode of "show me some evidence", and "I'll accept only scientific evidence, repeated here on this tabletop! Of course...then you'll need to repeat if for my friends too, so they won't think I'm loony!"

419. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #123460 by Kardashovel on February 7, 2008 at 8:07 am

BwaHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa!

No, I'm not Vox. And I don't entirely see eye to eye with him.

Nor do I know him that well, but I can tell you why he calls Dawkins (and you guys) "his bitch".

It's simple really. First you called him your flea. Don't you get the joke?

If you are going to publicly disrespect all challengers, don't be surprised when a few of them escalate the stakes.

BTW, I'm not any of those other folks either. Lest y'all atheists forget, you are not only surrounded but massively outnumbered.

420. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122180 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Oh yes. And I'll probably post my review of The Irrational Atheist here too!

Arrivaderci!

421. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122178 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 9:11 pm

Oh. And Corylus, thanks for the concern. I'll be fine as long as I've got good scotch around. Cheers.

422. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122177 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 9:10 pm

Ah well. I can see that I won't be able to catch any fish in this pool. I thought Frankus got a glimmer, but now I see he just wanted to study my pathology.

I've enjoyed the time here, on the whole. Y'all are alright. Good by.

Oh, but before I go... righton, I apologize for what I said to you. I did it out of anger, and it was wrong. Please forgive me.

423. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122172 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 9:02 pm

I'm sorry Daicanu. Could you identify where that shirikun was aimed? I didn't feel anything.

424. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122169 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Yes righton. It's dumb around here.

425. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122168 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 8:56 pm

So you are attempting to explain the existence of God through an understanding (human) of physics, physical law, and mathematics. These are all derived from OUR understandings of the world around us. How is that a viable proof for understanding the divine? If he is not subject to physical laws as we understand them, how are your conceptions of time travel etc... even valid?

You are unnecessarily complicating matters. God is subject to physical law, yes.

Our future understanding of physical law is likely to take some surprising twists and turns; but the correspondence principle, as well as good old science, ensure that we are complete dip shits when it comes to understanding physical law. Nevertheless, any sufficiently advanced form of technology is like magic to us. Time travel is actually permissible in bizarre circumstances, according to the currently understood laws of physics.

426. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122163 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 8:46 pm

Nah. My religion would not make any money and adhering to what I preached would require most people to give their time, money, and energy to the world in a more productive fashion. Like bloggin with you folks.

Has anyone seen AnnaBanana? I'm afraid I pissed her off somehow. She stomped off in a tirade hundreds of posts ago.

427. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122161 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

None has presented itself.

On the contrary, Diacanu! Here we sit on the third stone from the sun. We're do not yet have proof that humans will visit stars within a fifty light-year radius...

But tell me Daicanu, what odds would you put on us traveling to the nearest stars in one thousand years? What about the odds that our descendants travel to stars fifty light years away say, a million years from now. Faster than light travel is not necessary. Would you bet against it? Would you concede that this situation is even odds?

OK. Within fifty light years there are over 1000 m-class stars, at least one of which has intelligent life that just might visit the other some day. What are the odds that another one of the thousand has intelligent life on it, and their dinosaur-destroying meteor struck a million years earlier. Ding Dong!

So, in fact it is not an extraordinary claim, and you are living evidence.

428. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122156 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 8:27 pm

I think God is not only subject to the laws, but sovereign over them; the physical ones any way... math just is.

But by that I do not mean the physical laws as we understand them.

429. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122149 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 8:21 pm

I suppose, Diacanu that you are also skeptical of the idea that intelligent alien life has visited our planet. Hmmmm?

Do you know how many m-class stars are in a 50 light year radius?

430. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122145 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Time to start a cult!

Are you in?

431. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122144 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 8:17 pm

The very premise of god is that he must exist outside the "time" and "space" in which we exist, he has created these things, and he apparently lives in some sort of etheral state in an unknown region of meta-existence.

I could never believe that. It is straight insane. That's my professional amateur diagnosis.

432. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122143 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 8:13 pm

Frankus is living the book, because he can see my model.

He is complaining that, like Camelot, it is only a model. Ah well. All I can say is that I speak my opinion, based on what I know, and what I can surmise.

I generally hold to the Nicene Creed, so I would say that I am strongly influenced by the New Testiment. But I have read some of the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Torah, of course, and some of the Talmud. I am still trying to make sense of the ideas and to choose a Church in which I can explore these ideas and get feedback or correction. That is a difficult problem for someone like me.

433. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122136 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 7:53 pm

I'm not sure that God is omnipotent. I think that, given the time, He can achieve any goal He decides is important.

When I say that God needs time, I mean for us. You cannot accelerate from screeching primate to Jupiter-bound astronaut in just one touch of the monolith, my friend.

Moreover, I think that any time traveler is going to need to be extremely judicious about using their talent. The smallest changes could mean that your next appearance will be five billion years late. On the other hand, complete inaction could cost billions of years too. Occasionally a catalyst is needed...

So, considering the measured approach that is necessary, you do not see God recklessly materializing into your bedroom to scold you for picking your nose. More importantly, God must be careful with time. Especially when there is an adversary.

434. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122118 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 7:19 pm

God is like a good song or a good book. Only way more complicated. But just as real.

Indeed. You are living the book, Frankus.

Death needs time for what it kills to grow in, for Ah Pook's sweet sake. God needs time for what He grows to live in.

435. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122023 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Here you are, Steve:

Comment #120972 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 8:26 pm

Finally Steve, about your post number #120565... I do stand against sexism and homophobia. But that isn't really relevant to my comment, since I am not the one displaying a discriminatory attitude towards schizophrenics. I feel very bad for those people, not in small part because of the childish antics about mental illness that have been on display around here. Not that you were involved in any of that.

But I was quite surprised that you think I am faking schizophrenia. How well does that square with me denying that I am schizophrenic, and denying that I suffer from any mental illness?

That idea anyone could attempt to imagine such voices and claim that they speak truth is ignorant and shameful.

That's quite a leap there Steve. I think you neglected to articulate a necessary logical step wherein you conclude that I am a liar. Don't worry though, because I've brought that out in the open now. But you see, whether you call me schizophrenic, or simply a liar, the same effect is achieved: Multiple parties on this thread, including yourself, have called for evidence. I provide first hand evidence of my own experience with God. Not only do you avoid any close examination of that evidence, but you leap from an e-diagnosis of my sanity, to calling me a liar. Congratulations! You sir, are the most professional amateur that I've met in this forum. You're desperado, Steve.

436. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122013 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 1:41 pm

I discussed the issue in my post to you numbered 120972.

437. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #122005 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Ripping off John Wyndham's wonderful book?

I preferred Chocky. ;)

438. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121992 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Frankus:
I would suggest that the god-believers do the same thing. Step outside your bubble and see what it is like from our point of view.

I have seen it from your point of view. I was raised that way by my parents and grandparents. I was trained that way in school. But ultimately my experiences led me to question strong-atheism, and become agnostic. I had seen enough to know that physical theory in its current form certainly does not govern every outcome in the world. I expect that someday it will, as we develop the science and methods to understand consciousness and its impact on physics.
~~~

We believe in the stuff that is around us. If there are aspects of how the world works we don't understand we strive to figure them out. But we require evidence.

Me too. And I am still like that, which is why while I know that God exists, I have a shaky understanding of theology. It doesn't help that religion is in such a sorry state.

Kardashovel, you said god doesn't make it easier for us because he wants us to trust him. Why? I tend to trust people who haven't lied to me in the past. I trust people that do not send out contradictory messages. This does not describe god. Why can't he be more clear about himself? Why all the mystery Big Guy? You spoke to Kardashovel, why not talk to me?

God has a plan. Throughout time and space, he is trying to become capable of creating Himself (and everything else). As MPhil pointed out, a God that creates and maintains a simulation (with perfect knowledge) must be greater than the simulation, and outside of it*. But I don’t think that God has perfect knowledge... just enough to get the job done.

Evolution did the heavy lifting to get us here. Evolution is about to turn on its head now that we've moved from animal husbandry to genetic engineering. Change is in the air.

We are here because we present a path to a solution for God. He takes what He can use. I don't entirely understand what the path is, but from what I can tell God will find it necessary to intervene directly in our affairs again at some point in the future, so as not to see this field go fallow. During that time of intervention, he will need people to help Him move the world to the next step. He will select people that he trusts.

Did God ever lie to you? You've never spoken with him. You've heard the babble of various religious talking heads... and heard many lies. As for messages, he may have sent you, consider the path that they may have taken to get to you. I would encourage you to read Acts carefully. I'm sure you've read the gospels; and although I think you should read them again and focus on the words of Jesus, I think that the next step is to consider what happened after Jesus died. The Life of Brian was quite amusing, but they did not cover the progression of the faith after the wonderful musical finale.

If your question is: In the mean time, why be coy? Because He needs us to grow up and accept responsibility (and develop some understanding of science and technology). If you constantly hold your child's hand, she'll never learn to walk on her own. God needs us to be capable in our own right; not constantly looking to Him for solutions. God does not have the time or inclination to tend to situations that do not either advance or harm the plan. Apparently that does not include your state of belief in Him, but I could certainly be wrong. Perhaps you are ignoring obvious signs, and you simply haven't asked nicely to speak with Him. What do I know?

* As for a simulation-creating-god being outside of the universe, it is sufficient to note that I have proposed that God "collapsed his own wave function" to create Himself and this universe. That suggests a context for this universe to exist. I am willing to speculate about that context, but I would summarize by saying that God must answer to logic and internal-consistency at a physical level.
~~~

Why do you insist on playing games God? Why should I trust you?

God is not toying with you. God doesn't have time for such games. When you approach God seriously, He will pay attention to you, and you will notice changes; they start from the inside, and eventually affect the world around you. If you feel as though you are being toyed with, then it is not God, and you are right to withhold any trust.

Your comment highlights a certain insecurity I have noticed on the part of many atheists, myself included. You wonder why anyone could believe in a God that is playing games; yet you yourselves are demanding a parlor trick, performed for your friends on command, so they'll be able to confirm that you're not lying or insane. This is simple cowardice, as well as hypocrisy.

Talk to God with respect. Believe for the moment, even if you do not believe in your inner mind or after the conversation. Put your heart into it, the way you would when you first read a classic novel, such as Brave New World, and you temporarily ceded godhood to the author for the purposes of imagining the story. Approach Him with sincerity and dignity. Ask Him to help you understand Him. Ask Him to provide you with patience. Ask Him to provide you with evidence of His presence in your life. Talk to him about your concerns. Don’t expect an answer in a voice in your head.

Prayer. It has some superficial similarities to meditation, but is quite different in its intention. You are not looking to summon a sense, an understanding, or a sensation from within yourself, although any of those may happen. You are appealing to God to affect you. He will do so if you are going to help His plan. And this is nothing new. He has probably intervened in your life already, without your request.

God wants to know who His friends are. There will be plenty of time later for shock and awe. Right now the question is who will defend God's honor, with love? Who will show love toward their fellow humans, animals, and to all of the creation (adopting the broadest possible neighborhood)? Will it be, maybe, scientists? Uhhh... perhaps; but not because of science, and certainly not because of some falsifiable parlor trick.

439. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121989 by Kardashovel on February 4, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Well, the_assayer. It did not take very long for them to uncover your lie upon cross-examination. Bravo to MPhill for the one target - one bullet sniper show.

But I notice that in your subsequent discussion about metaphysics, no one ever pointed out that you actually suggested physical evidence in your initial testimony to right_on. You said, "I was hearing a voice unlike mine and unlike anyone's i've heard on TV."

That sounds like an auditory hallucination, and if you weren't lying, you would have done well to examine Corylus' posts earlier in this thread. But, in fact you were lying. It's ok; it was all in good fun.
~~~

A number of people have cross-examined me here, and no one but Steve has opined that I am lying. That is, except for some dizzy fellow who felt absolutely certain that I might be lying, without even beginning to consider what I had said; not that it mattered because he insisted that I should accept only scientific evidence as I form my own opinion.

I would reiterate that I was answering questions about why I converted to theism, from agnosticism, and ultimately from atheism, to which I subscribed through my late twenties. So, if you are among the chorus of people here stating that I have failed to provide you with falsifiable evidence, all I can say is what I have maintained from the beginning. I am not trying to prove to you that God exists. I'm trying to tell you why I know he exists, and why I have faith in the limited understanding that I have of God and His plan. As long as there are people that will discuss that with me, I will remain here to answer for my beliefs. Not that I am here to give a lecture, mind you; I've learned quite a bit in this discussion.

The conversations that I had with God were not auditory hallucinations. My internal voice does not sound like anything I've ever heard through my ears. I like my internal voice much better than the one I hear when I've been recorded. It sounds more like Al Green. My internal voice is the voice of my consciousness; so God used a method which required no senses to apprehend… Except for the right frame of mind to take part in the discussion, I don't see any reason why any of you could not achieve the same experience, in principle. But that does not necessarily make it repeatable or falsifiable.

I have had other experiences, before and since, that did involve physical evidence. And I have witnesses to that effect. It's all b-grade Reader's Digest stuff, but since I actually witnessed these events directly, they affected my thinking about the universe.

440. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121065 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Maybe tomorrow, the_assayer. I'm sleepy. Besides, I'm sure that the crowd around here will get you to spill your guts.

441. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121062 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Frankus,

Everyone is important to God and he just happened to talk to you about your business. Why?

He needed to micromanage my part of His plan. I can only infer the big picture, from my vantage point. I’m not really interested in discussing the details of my business or personal life in this forum.
~~~

He loves us so much, then why doesn't He give us more of a nudge - like he did with you Kardshovel?

First of all, I said that the conversations were the most important event, which totally convinced me. But there were other events that lay the ground work for this conversion. In and of themselves, they were not convincing evidence, to my satisfaction… but cumulatively, they made me a lot more open minded to the idea of God than any of you are currently exhibiting. I would ask you if you have ever personally experienced any event that presented a shred of credibility to the supernatural?
~~~

He must know that there are many who don't believe in him. We think that the brains we have provide us with the tools to discover how the universe works. But god is outside the universe or at least he doesn't play by the rules we play by so how can we know him?

Through His Son, Jesus. God is definitely inside the universe, whether He is also outside of it, or not.
~~~

Does he expect us to give up rational thought and take the leap of faith? Why?

He needs to know who He can trust... those that trust Him. It's emotional, not rational. I believe that there will come a time where it will be quite clear, with physical evidence, that there is a God.
~~~

Why doesn't god make it easier? This is a logical nightmare.

It's really not a logical nightmare. God is not constantly watching every atom in the universe like Santa on steroids. God needs to work with the tools available, which mostly means: us. But since we have free will, we are not slaves to God (even though we are encouraged to be servants). What do you suggest that God do? Stop the Tsunami? Cure Tuberculosis? What is the point of giving us free will if he intends to buy us another car whenever we get in an accident? He is there if you need Him; just ask (nicely).

But if you're killed in an earthquake, then it's exit stage left. Now if you think as I do that the lake of fire is reserved only for the most vicious haters of neighbors and God, then it's hard to find fault with God for not intervening when you would probably end up in the same place in the future.


God isn't real.
It has all been made up. There is plenty of evidence for that. Certainly all the other religions have been made up.
Yours has been made up too.

God is real. Religion is "made up" of the collected stories and wisdom of the ancients, and you would throw it away because it is imperfect? And replace that culture with what? Science? Give me a break.

442. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121040 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Make up your mind.

I have. Bye now.

443. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121035 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:55 pm

It's not about me, Diacanu... I'm worried about Radesq.

I explained myself a short while ago in my post to Corylus. It was just a page ago, but I guess some people like to jump right in and talk.

My apologies Radesq. It was my internal voice, but it was not my mind driving it...

And LorienRyan, I haven't spoken to a single person in this forum that I think that Jesus would cast into some fiery pit. I believe that we will meet again in the afterlife.

444. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121027 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Or does he sound like you...in which case if it sounds like a duck (you know the rest).

Yeah I'm pretty sure you guys don't read what I post. Why bother talking to me if you're not going to pay attention to what I am saying?

445. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121026 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:43 pm

We've already established that your claims about your own experiences don't constitute evidence for god's existence.

No, scooter. I would accept that I have no scientific evidence, but what we established is that you don't know what evidence means and that you only play as the home team.

So what else you got?

Lack of respect for your ability to reason.

446. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121023 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:39 pm

No, because the religious paradigm you allow your mind to be subjected to wants you to believe you are a piece of worthless dirt - and only god can save you from the mire.

Can't you see the one-two punch?


It's comments like this that convince me that you don't really read my posts, LorienRyan.

God loves you very much. You are already saved. You told me so in our first exchange.

447. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121018 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Here I am! Here I am!

By all means let's continue this pedantic conversation. What more do you need to get off your chest now that you have decided that I am lying?

448. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121015 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:31 pm

I didn't call you a liar, I said it was most likely that you were lying.

I don't want to call you an asshole, but you are certainly acting like one.

I'll tell you what. It sounds like you should ignore what I write, and I should ignore you.

449. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121014 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:29 pm

Even the childern that get cancer and die, they must feel realy special.

Spoken like you believe in God and you are angry at Him...

Those unfortunate children are at rest now, and someday they will arise and be with their families again.

450. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #121009 by Kardashovel on February 2, 2008 at 9:21 pm

It absolutely HAS to be that the creator of the universe spoke to you, and you alone.

No. I believe that many people have spoken with God. I would not say that it is a common occurrence, but it is hardly unique.


The creator of the universe HAS to think you're special for you to feel good about yourself?

Can you see the ego there?

I know it's cliche, Diacanu... but everyone is that special to God. Now I realize that not everyone claims to get a response, when they talk to God... but truth be told the conversations were not particularly ego-boosters for me.