Why do you believe in God?

Author: TheAtheist

Posts

Total: 393
#271
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@disgusted
My questions still stand for you.  Before I answer, I want to clarify.  I don't want to presume to know what you are asking.  Your sentence fragments were unclear.

What claim specifically about "Adam and Eve" were you wanting me to answer?

What claim specifically about "400 years of Hebrew slavery in Egypt" do you want me to answer?

What claim specifically about "4million people and livestock wandering in a wilderness for 40yrs." do you want me to answer?

Incidentally, I'm not sure where you got the  number "4million", but I can play your game.


#272
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@zedvictor4
You might think that you're going somewhere. You might think that you are already somewhere. But they are only your thoughts. LOL.

LOL, not even close dude but nice try. You're not even your mind lol, your thoughts are just conditioned processes that you observe through the mind, you exist independent of both, this is true of course as it can be observed. Your consciousness is what illuminates both mind and thought. 

Without that observation point you couldn't observe either one. 
#273
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
Without that observation point you couldn't observe either one. 
Like when you are dead, well said.


#274
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@EtrnlVw
LOL.

Mind is data processing, consciousness enables thoughtful data processing, and though really just an elaborating descriptive, illumination could be regarded as enhanced data processing, whereby previous information is clarified or expounded. Nonetheless all is internal brain function, as are spiritual assumptions. 
And if the brain does not function, then the mass will not function. One exists for as long as systems function. It's down right stupid to suggest the opposite.
Yes, we can observe sub-conscious or unconscious management, but this state is still wholly reliant on a level of brain function.
And observation is sensory function, which is also wholly reliant on the brain, to instigate function and manage data.

Get a grip dude. LOL
#275
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
All thought processes are internal data processing or "deciding for yourself". 

Even if you are responding to a narrative input such as biblical text or preaching, you either choose to believe or disbelieve.

There is nothing that can actually command you to make a decision, other than yourself. 

Though formative data input might have a strong influence on how we formulate ideas later on in life.

Formative programming has a tendency to behave like an operating or controlling system.  The older you get, the more difficult it becomes to assimilate new data. That's why conditioned, older theists and atheists are unlikely to want to change their point of view.



#276
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you believe there is an important distinction between deciding for yourself what is right and true (Gnostic) (AND) following some pre-existing set of commands (Theism)?

I'm going to guess your answer is NO.
#277
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
What claim specifically about "Adam and Eve" were you wanting me to answer?
This is a red-herring.  Even with highly credible archaeological evidence for "Adam and Eve", this still does absolutely nothing to support the supernatural claims made in the holy scriptures.

What claim specifically about "400 years of Hebrew slavery in Egypt" do you want me to answer?
This is a red-herring.  Even with highly credible archaeological evidence for "Hebrew slavery in Egypt", this still does absolutely nothing to support the supernatural claims made in the holy scriptures.

What claim specifically about "4million people and livestock wandering in a wilderness for 40yrs." do you want me to answer?
This is a red-herring.  Even with highly credible archaeological evidence for "40 years in the desert", this still does absolutely nothing to support the supernatural claims made in the holy scriptures.

For example, simply because The Amazing Spider-man comic prominently features the Empire State Building and may contain some historically accurate events, DOES NOT in any way validate the other events described by the authors.
#278
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Great.  Thanks for answering for him ;-)  lol.  He made a specific request of me, so I was wanting him to provide clarification on his request so I can address and answer it carefully.  

I agree-- it doesn't necessarily support.  Conversely, you can't use the same stories then to debunk it, can you?
#279
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
No.

As I see it data processing is data processing. Therefore Gnosticism, Theism, commands and distinction are all part of the same internal process.

Things are almost certainly out there, but the actual information is all contained within. So we can only be certain of our knowledge, but not 100% certain of the external reality.
#280
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
As I see it data processing is data processing. Therefore Gnosticism, Theism, commands and distinction are all part of the same internal process.

Things are almost certainly out there, but the actual information is all contained within. So we can only be certain of our knowledge, but not 100% certain of the external reality.
What is the difference between "data processing" and "data creation"? If our knowledge can be, at best, self-contained, then why would you posit an "external reality" with "near certainty"? Does near certainty ("almost certainly") have any meaning?
#281
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Of course I can, the stories are fiction. Or you can prove them truthful as I requested, instead of running away with your tail between your legs.
#282
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
What is the difference between "data processing" and "data creation"? If our knowledge can be, at best, self-contained, then why would you posit an "external reality" with "near certainty"? Does near certainty ("almost certainly") have any meaning? 
Here you go, [LINK]
#283
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
Here you go, [LINK]
I don't know what you believed that link was supposed to substantiate, but our discussion on the topic has already ended. I would like zedvictor4 to answer the questions I posed.

#284
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Athias
I don't know what you believed that link was supposed to substantiate, but our discussion on the topic has already ended. I would like zedvictor4 to answer the questions I posed. 
I'm not sure you understand how a public forum works.

If you'd like to have a private conversation, perhaps you should send a private message.
#285
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Conversely, you can't use the same stories then to debunk it, can you?
The fact that the comic book describes Spider-man doing technically unbelievable things is pretty good evidence that it's NOT TRUE.
#286
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm not sure you understand how a public forum works.
I'm confident you've already figured it out.

If you'd like to have a private conversation, perhaps you should send a private message.
No, I would like zedvictor4 to answer the questions I posed as I've already stated. I don't know what you're reading into that, nor am I invested in finding out. It doesn't concern me. I can't dictate the participation of anyone else. But I can dictate my own. Our discussion on the topic has ended. If you want to offer your input on my statements, then you're well aware that I can't stop you. But I will not respond with or initiate any arguments with you on the topic.

#287
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Data creation is data processing.

Does anything actually have meaning? We can only assume that it does. Therefore a level of certainty as a state of mind, is the best that we have.

When my brain inputs visual data I assume with a level of certainty that what I see is what there is. Similarly, if I transcribe information to an external medium, the process is wholly reliant on internal data processing, so I can still only assume with a level of certainty that what I am doing is actually having an external influence.
I can never be 100% certain of the existence or nature of an external environment.
Where, between 1 and 100 my level of certainty sits, I cannot say.
What do you think?





#288
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
God is to be known, God is to be experienced, God is not to be argued over; the fools will never know!
#289
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
With what level of certainty do you think that the above statement actually has an external meaning?
#290
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@zedvictor4

#291
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
This is neither, relevant to nor does not answer my question. 

A chunk of personal data output is no more than just that.
#292
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@zedvictor4
Then stop outputting your personal data to me, I couldn't care less. xoxo rekt.
#293
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
Sure thing.

But why bother to debate, if you not prepared to fully commit to a free flow of data ?

Where does your she-god come from?
#294
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@zedvictor4

#295
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Data creation is data processing.
And vice versa? That is, data processing is data creation? 

Does anything actually have meaning? We can only assume that it does. Therefore a level of certainty as a state of mind, is the best that we have.
Yes. The meaning of which isn't necessarily independent of our perception. In fact, I'd argue it's dependent. But the meaning of which I speak is relevance. Near certainty communicates nothing more than assumption, right?

When my brain inputs visual data I assume with a level of certainty that what I see is what there is. Similarly, if I transcribe information to an external medium, the process is wholly reliant on internal data processing, so I can still only assume with a level of certainty that what I am doing is actually having an external influence.
I can never be 100% certain of the existence or nature of an external environment.
Where, between 1 and 100 my level of certainty sits, I cannot say.
What do you think?
Remember, a percentage is a ratio. In order for you to relate levels of certainty, you'd have to be able to perceive each part of your scale (from one to 100.) If you don't know what 100 percent is, then how can you characterize anything you presume to know as a level of certainty? And this is quite analogous to my argument. If "actual existence" as it's been argued is something independent of perception, then why would one relate what one does perceive to that which they can't perceive? It's not really on a scale from one to 100; it's a scale from one to x, where x is unknowable.


#296
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@3RU7AL
** The fact that the comic book describes Spider-man doing technically unbelievable things is pretty good evidence that it's NOT TRUE.**

Really?  That's your argument-- the fact a made up book (comic book) has a character (Spiderman) doing things automatically means that this other book (the Bible) is false?  So in other words, the formula of your argument is this:

Action A is performed in book X
Action B is also performed in book Y
Y is a made up book
Therefore, X must be made up too (false)

Doesn't sound like very sound reasoning to me lol.  


#297
GuitarSlinger
GuitarSlinger's avatar
Debates: 15
Posts: 56
0
2
7
GuitarSlinger's avatar
GuitarSlinger
0
2
7
-->
@disgusted
** Of course I can, the stories are fiction. Or you can prove them truthful as I requested, instead of running away with your tail between your legs.**

Ok.  I'll take the bait ;-)

How do you know they are fiction?  In fact, let's just make this easy and focus on one story at a time-- the story of Adam and Eve.

From your perspective or understanding, what is the intent or purpose of that story?  

#298
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@GuitarSlinger
what is the intent or purpose of that story?  
To instruct readers what they should believe.   The main elements are that yhwh is the creator and paradise was lost because of disobedience, as described in the text.


#299
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@GuitarSlinger
** The fact that the comic book describes Spider-man doing technically unbelievable things is pretty good evidence that it's NOT TRUE.**
Really?  That's your argument-- the fact a made up book (comic book) has a character (Spiderman) doing things automatically means... 
The question is about Standards Of Evidence. 

How do you determine if the events described in "The Amazing Adventures of Spider-man" are REAL?

...that this other book (the Bible) is false?  So in other words, the formula of your argument is this:
Action A (a miracle) is performed in book X
Action B (another miracle) is also performed in book Y
Y is a made up book
Therefore, X must be made up too (not-false, inconclusive)

Doesn't sound like very sound reasoning to me lol.  
Please diagram your own thought process.

Action A (a miracle) is performed in book X
Book X is really really old
Lots of people believe book X is truly truly true
Therefore, miracles are REAL?
#300
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@GuitarSlinger
Evolution, which is supported by evidence debunks the A&E story which has no evidence as support.
BTW it's you who is supposed to be supporting the lies in the bible that I have asked you about.
Next?