God's Recall Notice

Post Reply New Topic

"... discovered the principles by which the individual alcoholic could live (as opposed to dying drunk) ..."

"... discovered a common solution ... a way out on which we can absolutely agree, and upon which we can join in brotherly and harmonious action."

"... discover[ed] how and why, in the face of expert opinion to the contrary, we have recovered from a hopeless condition of mind and body."

"... discovered God."

"... discover[ed] spiritual principles would solve all my problems."

"... discovered we did not need to consider another's conception of God."

"... discovered faith had been involved all the time [even while abjectly faithful to the God of Reason]!"

"... discovered we could face life successfully ..."

"... rediscover[ed] life."

"... discovered the joy of helping others to face life again ..."


Most of what we see here in PPR is about just trying to make theists look like idiots ... and that often seems to be little more than bullying either to convert or to at least drive away. So yes, I suppose we might agree there.

Oops.

Last edited by leejosepho on 05 Jun 2011, 4:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

EDIT: Removal due to Mutual Agreement.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 05 Jun 2011, 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I have edited out my response, so you can do the same if you would rather have none of it showing anywhere.


If you are talking about Pat Robertson there, I doubt he would even give me the time of day!


Sure, and I apologize if I have caused you any trouble there.

Crap, I feel like I missed out on something now.

Ahh, the most effective argument for the existence of God - personal revelation. It's impossible to disprove, but it's also useless as a means to persuade anyone else unless they go through their own. Now if you'd gone with the teleological or ontological arguments, we could have had some fun, but there's really nothing to argue here - unless I experience the same thing, we have no common ground, and if I did, we'd have nothing to discuss.

I've "enjoyed" the experience of living with an alcoholic. He's an atheist, like myself, so the whole God thing was entirely wasted on him. He's also a student of philosophy, which tends to lead away from God (in some cases completely, in others in the traditional sense of God). He went to meetings, got himself back together - but they were completely useless at first. It wasn't until he found his "higher power" in the form of a clinic and medical assistance than he got away from the drink. He never found God.

I went along to the first meeting. I wasn't allowed to sit in on it - I spent two hours sat downstairs in a cafe/bookshop (which was closed) trying not to think about it. The meeting leader was very much a Christian - he'd found God and found his cure, but I confess he creeped me out. He'd done what earlier posts have said - swapped one addiction for another. My friend went from alcohol to cigarettes - this guy went from alcohol to God, and he looked like he was overdosing!

I can tell you that, for much of your list, God is not required.



Yes, there's a fair amount of name calling at times - in both directions. Sometimes a theist deserves a little humiliation, generally because they ARE being an idiot. Sometimes the idiots aren't theists either!

But if someone is using their religion to justify some gross stupidity, I'd say a little humiliation is justified. Doesn't God have something to say about pride...?

I cannot decide which is the best argument for God, though the teleological argument does not actually argue for God, it makes a design inference and can not argue much more (though in the next few years someone will beef it up like the Kalam). The Ontological Argument is good, but you have to accept that God is possible and logically coherent for it to work. Most people who take issue with the ontological argument, do not understand it.



Not really, especially not in the last few decades. There has been a renaissance of Christian philosophy since Plantinga published 'god and other minds' in 1967. (even commonsenseatheism acknowledges this, http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=538)

Friend Fuleri [shame on me, too much experience with penult stressing languages], amidst your almost Philological verbiage I spotted and used my secateurs on this:

[Ahh, the most effective argument for the existence of God - personal revelation. It's impossible to disprove, but it's also useless as a means to persuade anyone else unless they go through their own. Now if you'd gone with the teleological or ontological arguments, we could have had some fun, but there's really nothing to argue here - unless I experience the same thing, we have no common ground, and if I did, we'd have nothing to discuss.]

Which is perhaps intended as a put down. But while I will not answer or leejosepho, I will mention and in rare cases describe my personal experience, but by me it is not argument. I [to the infinite discuss of some of our associates here] have no interest in persuading anybody of anything, with the occasional exception of the value of common courtesy and the right use of English.

To the eared I may distribute data, and if the data do not persuade I am certainly not going to try.

Indeed, I am not persuaded that even were it possible it is desirable to persuade anyonde of anything of importance.

But it is not true we would have nothing to discuss. leejosepho and I have on occasion compared notes, and the differences and similarities in our paths are intriguing.

You could be right there, but I see it more as a short-lived self-assurance masking as some kind of sophistication easily capitalized upon.

No putdown intended. It's an entirely honest comment - I'm not sure anyone has ever been entirely convinced of God's existence by logical proof. Many have "sensed" God in some sense and come to believe that way, and that's personal revelation. It's not an argument per se - if I were to ask you to explain what God looks/sounds/smells/feels like, you probably wouldn't be able to, at least not in any satisfactory way (for either of us).

The upshot of this is you have a foundation for your belief. Whether it's a true foundation or not is an entirely different discussion. The downside is that you can't share it - I can't feel what you're feeling. I'd struggle to identify a painting you'd seen if you described it to me, and if I tried to draw it I'd probably be miles out. Now imagine you had no words for the shapes or colours. "It had a sort of a... swirly, bright... and there was a darker thing in the other corner, and... it made me think of ice creams and traffic cones..." The only thing I can get from such a description is that the painting had a strong emotional effect on you, but without seeing the painting myself I have no means to discuss that with you.

Goodness, no. The Ontological Argument is terrible! Accepting God as logically coherent in the first instance rather defeats the point of the argument! One of the first problems is that the argument doesn't say anything useful. Even if it did suggest God existed, it says nothing about what God is, or whether God is sentient or benevolent or anything at all about any particular religion. It can be used to prove any God.

It also commits a huge logical fallacy by confusing existence with the concept of existence. Ne c'est pas un pipe, as it were. Sure, if God is the greatest imaginable being, he'd be greater if he existed than if he didn't - but that merely means you're imagining God exists. It doesn't bring God into existence by default.

My favourite refutation is to replace God with something silly:
1. Jellybean Island is the greatest place in the universe.
2. Jellybean Island would be even greater if it existed.
3. Therefore, Jellybean Island exists.

First, this says nothing about Jellybean Island. It might not be an island and might have nothing to do with jellybeans (which would be disappointing). Similarly, God might as well be a supermassive black hole. We have no definitions here beyond existence.

Second, a Jellybean Island that exists would be better than one which doesn't. So clearly the Jellybean Island I'm imagining exists... in my imagination. Imagining that things don't exist is pretty rubbish.

A lot of people debate over this despite it's simplicity. Don't be too surprised - there was a fierce debate amongst many senior mathematicians over the Monty Hall Problem, and some people STILL don't accept the answer! We don't think rationally most of the time, and we struggle with logic because our brains aren't wired that way.

Are you being serious with respect to mathematicians arguing over the correct answer to the Mony Hall Problem? I find that hard to believe.

I would want to find out more before swallowing it, but from what I gleaned from my sister's sojourn in the Math Department I would not just rule it out.

everyone and everything starts somehwere, i got the impression from reading he meant they were arguing this in the past.

a mathematician who understands conditional probability would not argue the matter, but the solution is very counter-intuitive.

ruveyn

The monty hall problem is stupid... seems to be pretty clearly misusing maths.

Extend the example out to the 1,000,000-door version makes the point more clearly. The one-in-a-million chance that you picked the right door to start with, vs. the 999,999,998-to-one chance that the other remaining door, left by process of elimination, is correct.