MyJoe:

Yes, you have consistently spoken of your belief in God being anchored on intuition and empiricism. “Appeal to intuition”, then, wasn’t the best way for me to put it.

I disagree with much of what plaetton has written – however, some quick points.

If the question “Is there EVIDENCE for God?” is asked, a Yes or a No would both be good answers, in my view. Here’s why.

1. God is not tangible – no one has ever seen him.

2. God is not to be seen in this dimension so the tools of science and research are useless in finding him.

3. Extra-sense perceptions of God, dreams, near death experiences, soul travel, etc, are subjective experiences – I mean, they always present a portal only the experiencer can log on to. (That explains why materialists like Martian and logicboy would hastily, and probably in ignorance, dismiss them as either lies, reading too much into ordinary things, or pure hallucinations.)

4. “Intuition” is tendentious, spectacularly subjective, and cannot be relied upon for the apprehension of objective truth. Logicboy did a sound critique of it above. I put a very similar argument to you in the past – where logicboy used the illustration of tribal folks believing the world is flat, I used that of Hindus venerating cows.

5. Outside an individual’s head, extra-sense perceptions cannot be equated with sense perceptions – that will make nonsense of the word “objectivity”.

6. The First Cause argument is good. But so is the counterargument.

I recall a cousin telling me he believes in God simply because he is comfortable with that position. At the end of the day that is what it often comes down to for the majority of thinking people – the position you prefer, since, according to Kierkegaard, you have to take a position.

Personally, I believe in the creator God because I am convinced that while a stone can have landed on the roadside without someone deliberately putting it there, the house I live in can’t have come about that way (“the improbable protrusion in reality”). But some atheists (like plaetton), on other hand, have reviewed the science available which tells them that the Big Bang came out of nothing without an apparent need for intelligent intervention. Some other atheists (like mazaje) insist that we don’t really know how it all started and since we can’t see any God or lightenings of him (and can't know even if we do since we don't know what God looks or sounds like) we can’t just conclude that God must be responsible. No lack of depth or thought there.

Besides, if we accept your argument we would have to accept the reverse argument that believers are necessarily the ones with depth and thought.

plaetton:

Garble babble rabble!

Lies + Sophistry + Anonyism + lawyerly tenacity = Truth?

Maybe in your new galaxy.

Playing for the jury of uninformed plaebians again? huh?

Sorry, the well-informed jury has already spoken .
I am satisfied that Mr. Troll, Logicdude, Uyi, as well as myjoe have all made the same simple points that I did.

I cannot go on an endless cycle of repeating myself over and over again as if I was talking to a retard.
It makes me begin to feel like a retard.

End of discussion.

Deep Sight:

Really ol chap?

Did you really just say this?

Oya, show me the scientific explanation for reality.

Give me the scientific answer to the simple conundrum of reality and existence: why something instead of nothing.

Oya, show me.

Uyi Iredia:

Why suggests a purpose to reality which is unevidenced

Deep Sight:

The improbable protrusion of the world into reality.

MyJoe:
I'm doing good. I trust you are too.




Yes, you have consistently spoken of your belief in God being anchored on intuition and empiricism. “Appeal to intuition”, then, wasn’t the best way for me to put it.

I disagree with much of what plaetton has written – however, some quick points.

If the question “Is there EVIDENCE for God?” is asked, a Yes or a No would both be good answers, in my view. Here’s why.

1. God is not tangible – no one has ever seen him.

2. God is not to be seen in this dimension so the tools of science and research are useless in finding him.

3. Extra-sense perceptions of God, dreams, near death experiences, soul travel, etc, are subjective experiences – I mean, they always present a porter only the experiencer can log on to. (That explains why materialists like Martian and logicboy would hastily, and probably in ignorance, dismiss them as either lies, reading too much into ordinary things, or pure hallucinations.)

4. “Intuition” is tendentious, spectacularly subjective, and cannot be relied upon for the apprehension of objective truth. Logicboy did a sound critique of it above. I put a very similar argument to you in the past – where logicboy used the illustration of tribal folks believing the world is flat, I used that of Hindus venerating cows.

5. Outside an individual’s head, extra-sense perceptions cannot be equated with sense perceptions – that will make nonsense of the word “objectivity”.

6. The First Cause argument is good. But so is the counterargument.

I recall a cousin telling me he believes in God simply because he is comfortable with that position. At the end of the day that is what it often comes down to for the majority of thinking people – the position you prefer, since, according to Kierkegaard, you have to take a position.

Personally, I believe in the creator God because I am convinced that while a stone can have landed on the roadside without someone deliberately putting it there, the house I live in can’t have come about that way (“the improbable protrusion in reality”). But some atheists (like plaetton), on other hand, have reviewed the science available which tells them that the Big Bang came out of nothing without an apparent need for intelligent intervention. Some other atheists (like mazaje) insist that we don’t really know how it all started and since we can’t see any God or lightenings of him (and can't know even if we do since we don't know what God looks or sounds like) we can’t just conclude that God must be responsible. No lack of depth or thought there.

Besides, if we accept your argument we would have to accept the reverse argument that believers are necessarily the ones with depth and thought.

plaetton:

Not again!

This is getting serious.

Calling Deepsight, Calling Deepsight.
Come in Deepsight.
Anyone there?
Can you hear me?

Man,
That Alpha Omega Galaxy system is too distant from Earth.
Come back home to Terra firma.
Your words and statements are constantly being garbled.
We don't know what they mean.

lol.

MyJoe:

Personally, I believe in the creator God because I am convinced that while a stone can have landed on the roadside without someone deliberately putting it there, the house I live in can’t have come about that way (“the improbable protrusion in reality”).

MyJoe:

Besides, if we accept your argument we would have to accept the reverse argument that believers are necessarily the ones with depth and thought.

Deep Sight:

Hahahahahahaha!

Well, I admit I am not quite on earth, lol.

However, to get a hang on what I mean by "improbable protrusion into reality", see myjoe's comment -



I hope you get the drift now.

plaetton:

I get it.
But that house needing a builder phrase is too childish.

Deep Sight:

The point is the improbability of the existence of something such as a house - absent a builder.

You think that it is impossible for mindless matter to combine and coalesce over time to form a house. And yet you believe that mindless matter combined and coalesced over time to form the awe-inspiring house that houses you: your body: a fearsome mystery: a system more powerful, coordinated and intelligent than the most advanced computers can ever be. . . .

Joshthefirst: he is truly a man of faith

Deep Sight:

The point is the improbability of the existence of something such as a house - absent a builder.

You think that it is impossible for mindless matter to combine and coalesce over time to form a house. And yet you believe that mindless matter combined and coalesced over time to form the awe-inspiring house that houses you: your body: a fearsome mystery: a system more powerful, coordinated and intelligent than the most advanced computers can ever be. . . .

Deep Sight:

The point is the improbability of the existence of something such as a house - absent a builder.

You think that it is impossible for mindless matter to combine and coalesce over time to form a house. And yet you believe that mindless matter combined and coalesced over time to form the awe-inspiring house that houses you: your body: a fearsome mystery: a system more powerful, coordinated and intelligent than the most advanced computers can ever be. . . .

Deep Sight:

The point is the improbability of the existence of something such as a house - absent a builder.

You think that it is impossible for mindless matter to combine and coalesce over time to form a house. And yet you believe that mindless matter combined and coalesced over time to form the awe-inspiring house that houses you: your body: a fearsome mystery: a system more powerful, coordinated and intelligent than the most advanced computers can ever be. . . .

Deep Sight:

The point is the improbability of the existence of something such as a house - absent a builder.

You think that it is impossible for mindless matter to combine and coalesce over time to form a house. And yet you believe that mindless matter combined and coalesced over time to form the awe-inspiring house that houses you: your body: a fearsome mystery: a system more powerful, coordinated and intelligent than the most advanced computers can ever be. . . .

plaetton:

Well , houses are not built with proteins.
If they were , you would have found billions of of unoccupied houses.
So, the analogy is incorrect.

Deepsight,
You have to know something thoroughly before you can argue against it.
Your knowledge of evolution is very very rudimentary.
It is grossly insufficient, and I might add, arrogant, to criticize, let alone repudiate any aspect of the theory of evolution when you hardly understand it.

All that I am hearing you say is improbable this and impossible that.

Presently, there is absolutely no dispute among scientists about the validity of the main gist of the theory.
It is a very very complex subject.
The change of RNA to simple DNA took hundreds if not thousands of intermediary micro-steps to achieve.
We know how it happened. There was no magic or fairy god-daddy involved.

To be fair, I really do not expect anyone not deeply immersed in cellular biology to understand, let alone accept the very complex processes that took billions of years, in place of the very simple acceptance of a magical creator.

I have to admit to you that what I have found very fascinating is that when the first proto-life emerged, it became driven to live and succeed.
A rudimentary intelligence? Your guess is as good as mine. But for me, that would be the most plausible answer.

So, if DNA is intelligent, then for me, the need and the drive to survive at all cost makes perfect sense.

Deep Sight:

The point is the improbability of the existence of something such as a house - absent a builder.

You think that it is impossible for mindless matter to combine and coalesce over time to form a house. And yet you believe that mindless matter combined and coalesced over time to form the awe-inspiring house that houses you: your body: a fearsome mystery: a system more powerful, coordinated and intelligent than the most advanced computers can ever be. . . .

Blacklight:

I just can't seem to comprehend, probably for some fault of mine, how the appearance of a house is analogous to that of life and man. There are some utterly majestic caves, that have served as homes and fortresses to wild beasts and man. Do we stand aside and wonder if "mindless matter combined and coalesced over time to form the awe-inspiring (cave)"?

Logicboy03:


There are natural forming caves that need no builder. Peope live in caves too.
There are mansions that need builders. They cant just form on their own.


The point here is that you theists mix the natural with the artificial
Just because we build things doesnt extrapolate to nature or some God building things.

Some big rocks you see around are a result of sand, wind and heat and moisture.....which builder did that

Deep Sight:

Well to be fair, the analogy is used with reference to houses built for purpose - houses that disclose hallmarks of the needs and requirements that you and I have.

You would not see such a house and reach a conclusion that it had no builder.

The human brain and body alone, is something worth pondering on - if you think it was formed by mindless matter over great stretches of time, then that's up to you.

Logicboy03:


The earth was formed by mindless matter.....stardust....no mystery there

Deep Sight:

Oh i see. You were there to know that it was mindless. Ho k.

Logicboy03:

Why the snark?

Deep Sight:

Because una dey tire pesin o

plaetton:

Not again!

This is getting serious.

Calling Deepsight, Calling Deepsight.
Come in Deepsight.
Anyone there?
Can you hear me?

Man,
That Alpha Omega Galaxy system is too distant from Earth.
Come back home to Terra firma.
Your words and statements are constantly being garbled.
We don't know what they mean.

lol.

Logicboy03:

Dont worry, the feeling is mutual

Deep Sight:

Question for you: which is more complex and intricate - A space Ship, or the human brain?

Deep Sight:

And I am guessing that this -

Question for you: which is more complex and intricate - A space Ship, or the human brain?

Is not a question you will care to ever give a straight up one time answer to.

Logicboy03:
The brain of course is more complex.

Logicboy03:



The human brain created the space ship. The brain of course is more complex.

But try to imagine the brain of your God......either his head is as massive as ten suns or he doesnt exist because such a brain would ironically need so much nourishment that the God would consume the universe