I'm thinking of going into the religion business....

[Big RR]

The better question is how can you rationally conclude that the existence of god is a fact when god, who is not bound by the physical laws of this universe, and may well exist apart from/outside of it? What proof is there of that factual existence? Facts can be proven by observation and testing, god is not directly amenable to either--especially the latter. That your belief is so strong as to make you certain god does exist is not factual proof. And, again, is that belief not the essence of faith?

[RayThom]

I like how Meade keeps swinging even when he's on the ropes. Of course, that's why they call it 'faith.' He knows what he knows and sticks unwaveringly with the script(ures).

I often envision MGM as a catholic priest when approached for marital advice and guidance. What is being said will sound great but, in practice, not worth a shit. With nothing but lip service, it will always be wrong, and on so many levels.

[Lord Jim]

I often envision MGM as a catholic priest

That's funny; I've always pictured him as an Orthodox Rabbi...

[Crackpot]

I've always pictured him as a dominatrix.

[Lord Jim]

Maybe a rodeo clown...










no wait, that's rube...

[RayThom]

Maybe a rodeo clown...

They're mimes. That would kill Meade's pedantic nature for sure.

But it is a great mental image.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I've always pictured him as a dominatrix.

You and Guin! (or was it TPFKA?). You've all got cameras in my bathroom!!!

[Rick]

Romans 1:16-22

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...

[MajGenl.Meade]

The better question is how can you rationally conclude that the existence of god is a fact when god, who is not bound by the physical laws of this universe, and may well exist apart from/outside of it? What proof is there of that factual existence? Facts can be proven by observation and testing, god is not directly amenable to either--especially the latter. That your belief is so strong as to make you certain god does exist is not factual proof. And, again, is that belief not the essence of faith?

Is it a "better question" because it enables you to avoid the one I asked? That 'God exists' is a fact He has made abundantly clear in the universe that IS available for observation and testing. You see the same evidence that I see. However, you (apparently) have decided that God may or may not exist, yet choose to believe that God "may" exist rather than that He may not? Is that a correct understanding on my part?

We agree that God is not bound by the physical laws of this universe per se. His existence apart from/outside of it is expressed rather more fully (IMO) in the statement that He is both immanent and transcendent.

My belief is proof of nothing other than that I believe something - and I would never claim that my believing a thing makes it a fact. It is the exact opposite - the factuality of God leads to belief and faith. Just as 2+2=4 whether I believe it or not. Just as history (which by its nature is not subject to observation and testing) is fact - whether or not one believes it; whether or not one knows all aspects of it (which we don't); whether or not one understands it......

No?

Meade

PS as to Ray I shall simply wear better ankle protection.

[Guinevere]

I've always pictured him as a dominatrix.

You and Guin! (or was it TPFKA?). You've all got cameras in my bathroom!!!

Not me! And I have cameras in no one's bathrooms.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Who is this person no one's and why do you have a camera in their bath rooms?

[Big RR]

Meade--I guess we'll just have to disagree; to me, precisely because god is not bound by the physical laws of our universe, and because he can exist apart from it, he is not subject to any testing we may devise. So, at best, all one can do is to fervently believe based on the information available. You can dispute and say it's a fact, but if alternative explanations are available, and there is no way to test which one is true, then all we have is a belief.

As for history, you correctly point out that it is not subject to such testing either; and even Orwell in 1984 showed us how it can be manipulated. So yes, absent that sort of testing, we have to decide what we believe based on the evidence available to it. That's why documentary evidence is so important.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That's why documentary evidence is so important.

Exactly! And that's why the Bible, the Word of God, says that He is - as Jesus did also. Testify bro'!

Meade

[Econoline]

A good Christian does not merely "believe" there is God - he or she knows there is God.
Likewise, a good atheist does not merely "believe" in the non-existence of God - he or she knows there is no God.

So...a good agnostic does not merely "believe" that neither the atheist nor the Christian* can know whether or not there is a God - he or she KNOWS that neither the atheist nor the Christian* can know whether or not there is a God...?

Do you simply mean that if someone "believes" something strongly enough there is no real difference between "believing" and "knowing"? Now I'm getting really confused...I believe I'll have another beer and go back to bed; I have to work later tonight.





*(nor the Muslim nor the Jew nor the Mormon nor the Rastafarian nor the Pastafarian...)

P.S. I would guess that by your definition I'm a "bad atheist" rather than a "good atheist"??? (Does a good Christian like good atheists better than bad atheists, or vice versa?)

P.P.S. Make that two beers.

[MajGenl.Meade]

(1) So...a good agnostic does not merely "believe" that neither the atheist nor the Christian* can know whether or not there is a God - he or she KNOWS that neither the atheist nor the Christian can know whether or not there is a God...?

(2) Do you simply mean that if someone "believes" something strongly enough there is no real difference between "believing" and "knowing"? Now I'm getting really confused...I believe I'll have another beer and go back to bed; I have to work later tonight.

(3) P.S. I would guess that by your definition I'm a "bad atheist" rather than a "good atheist"??? (Does a good Christian like good atheists better than bad atheists, or vice versa?)

Sorry - I added the numbers for clarity in reply

(1) I wonder actually if a "good" agnostic would actually say that they cannot know if the atheist and the Christian can know whether or not there is a God Of course, that doesn't seem to be the case - strong (perhaps better than "good") agnostics seem pretty certain that such knowledge is impossible. But I'm a bit worried that either of those definitions sound remarkably like BigRR who (I think) would not want to qualify as agnostic

(2) Beer before bedtime doesn't work for me - have to get up too many times in the wee hours (p.i.). No I don't think belief approaches any degree of certainty that reaches the status of knowledge (other than of the details of the belief itself of course). I think that it is facts that lead to belief in those facts. This argument has not really been about whether there is God or not but goes back to Ray's assertion that "a well thought out nonbeliever is every bit as knowledgeable and factual as one who believes". I agree that is the case if BOTH are wrong (which may have been Ray's point). But if one is right, then the other one is wrong so therefore is self-evidently NOT as factual as the other and the knowledge must be errant. That's all.

(3) I tend to prefer informed, thoughtful atheists (or anyone else of other opinions) than the thoughtless (including Christians). But I have no certain idea what you have in mind by "good" or "bad" in relation to yourself. By "good", I intended "rational, consistent , uncowardly and non-self-contradictory". I think then you'd be in the "good" atheist camp?

Thanks for the discussion
Meade

PS "uncowardly" is in there because some people do like to make bald and arguable false assertions and when asked a direct question prefer instead to descend to invective or silence

[Econoline]

(3) But I have no certain idea what you have in mind by "good" or "bad" in relation to yourself. By "good", I intended "rational, consistent , uncowardly and non-self-contradictory". I think then you'd be in the "good" atheist camp?

I was referring to your statement that "a good atheist does not merely "believe" in the non-existence of God - he or she knows there is no God." I would never claim to know something which is beyond the human ability to know; I thought that was what faith was for? It seems odd of you to give faith (which is, after all, a major part of what makes a Christian a Christian) a lower status than knowledge.

(2) Beer before bedtime doesn't work for me - have to get up too many times in the wee hours (p.i.).

Ah, but if I have to get up in a few hours anyway, that makes it perfect for me; I drink little enough alcohol that a couple of beers can make me sleepy...and then wake me up right on time.

This argument has not really been about whether there is God or not but goes back to Ray's assertion that "a well thought out nonbeliever is every bit as knowledgeable and factual as one who believes". I agree that is the case if BOTH are wrong (which may have been Ray's point). But if one is right, then the other one is wrong so therefore is self-evidently NOT as factual as the other and the knowledge must be errant. That's all.

I could be wrong (I really hadn't been following this thread all that closely) but I took Ray's comment to refer to the previous argument about the history of Joseph Smith and the religion he founded and the fact that Andrew, a non-believer in Mormonism, seemed to be every bit as knowledgeable and factual on that subject as a Mormon believer. I guess it does depend on the subject under discussion, so I would amend Ray's assertion to read "a well thought out nonbeliever is can be every bit as knowledgeable and factual as one who believes".

(1) I wonder actually if a "good" agnostic would actually say that they cannot know if the atheist and the Christian can know whether or not there is a God

Again, I was merely following your formula of "good"="knowing"≠"believing".

You're welcome.

[RayThom]

... can god itself create a rock so big that it cannot lift?

By the by, I like your new avatar. It's definitely you. I was expecting, however, a broader, more horizontal smile. But it does capture your essence in a serene, pious way.

Carry on.

[Rick]

... can god itself create a rock so big that it cannot lift?

By the by, I like your new avatar. It's definitely you. I was expecting, however, a broader, more horizontal smile. But it does capture your essence in a serene, pious way.

Carry on.

Blah blah blah, the conjuring of a finite mind that is held in place by gravity.

BTW there is no such thing as gravity the Earth sucks...

[MajGenl.Meade]

... can god itself create a rock so big that it cannot lift?

By the by, I like your new avatar. It's definitely you. I was expecting, however, a broader, more horizontal smile. But it does capture your essence in a serene, pious way.

Carry on.

And on the first - it's a meaningless question relying as it does upon trying to assert two contradictory ideas as having equivalent value. I see econoline's point about your statement and maybe that's what you were referring to and I didn't understand? It happens

meade

[Joe Guy]

Meade,

Is that a photo of young Leonard Cohen mooning? .....