9inches:


This is laughable. You just made a self-defeating (self-refuting) statement. Is the highlighted statement a mistake? You can honestly take it back no problem, because you are clearly making a truth claim while trying to say truth doesn't exist.

How?

I guess you didn't quite understand the statement.
What I mean is: the truth that most religion parades as truth is not one, it is in fact a lie.

Why would the truth religion A offer be totally different from the one another religion B offer but they both claim that they are saying the truth and the others are lairs?

Why would a single religion have numerous sects if it offers the truth and each sect within a certain religion still claim other sects are serving their diety the wrong way and could get punished for enternity in after life.

Reminder: I am not an athiest.

Karleb:
How?

I guess you didn't quite understand the statement.
What I mean is: the truth that most religion parades as truth is not one, it is in fact a lie.

I understood your statement. I asked if you believe truth exists. I didn't ask you about any particular truth claim by any sect.

So, let me ask again. Do you believe there is objective truth regardless people's understanding and interpretation of it?

Karleb:
Why would the truth religion A offer be totally different from the one another religion B offer but they both claim that they are saying the truth and the others are lairs?

Simply because ignorance, naiveté, errors, arrogance, close-mindedness, to mention but a few, are all part of our human experience. Close-mindedness I'd say is the biggest impediment to our ability to access truth.

Your answer/solution is already in your question. Religion A and religion B cannot both be right at the same time if both their truth claims contradict each other. That's the law of non contradiction. So it's actually easy to group/categorize similar belief systems and square them up against their direct opposition and create your shortlist via elimination method. I can expand on that later.

Karleb:
Why would a single religion have numerous sects if it offers the truth and each sect within a certain religion still claim other sects are serving their diety the wrong way and could get punished for enternity in after life.

Simply because people disagree with one another every darn time. That's human for you. However, you would agree with me that what different people argue about a truth has no effect on the truth they argue about. For example, if we are arguing about the federal capital of Nigeria and I say it's in Sokoto, you say Enugu, person C argues it's in Kaduna, and person D says it's in Edo state.... what we claim as the truth has no bearing or effect whatsoever on the objective truth or fact which is that the federal capital is in Abuja.

Therefore, different sects within a religion could all be wrong or one of them could be right IF they all have among them contradicting truth claims.

We as human beings know when we see truth. We recognize it. Again, we RE-cognize it.... the "Re" = "again" because we already have within us a transcendent standard of what is true, so that when we come across truth, take cognizance of it AGAIN (Re-cognize). An absence of this transcendental standard would mean logic and reason does not exist, because when we reason, we use logic to establish the truth beyond us but which we ascent to.

In fact, standard objective truth has to exist before two people can debate or argue over their differences. And that truth has to exist beyond the arguing parties, although they have within them what it takes to ascent to that truth.

9inches:
Christians follow Christ. How's that hard for you to understand?

I am dead sure you have problem comprehending simple sentence. So you wanna tell me the Bible (OT) is useless? Who doesn't know that you guys follow a speculated man turn god?

9inches:
Does a lack of evidence of something diminish that something? Have you thought deeply where the world that you know and barely understand emanated from?

Lack of evidence doesn't necessarily diminish the true value of a phenomenon, however there are some things that deserve extraordinary explanations which the god concept fall into such category.
While you are trying to be intellectually rational, you failed to understand that your presumption that the universe evolution as an evidence for your supreme being is logically flawed. Have you ever thought about other factors that might have led to such evolution rather than saying god did it and concluding that the god does exist?

Omooba224:

I am dead sure you have problem comprehending simple sentence. So you wanna tell me the Bible (OT) is useless? Who doesn't know that you guys follow a speculated man turn god?

I have no problem comprehending simple sentences. No, I never told you the Bible (OT) is useless - you are the one saying that. You, my friend don't know what we follow. You think you know, but you don't. I'll leave you to attack every straw man there is, but if you'd want to know/understand the difference between your notion of what serious Christians believe as God versus what they actually believe as God, I'll be your guest.

Omooba224:
Lack of evidence doesn't necessarily diminish the true value of a phenomenon, however there are some things that deserve extraordinary explanations which the god concept fall into such category.
While you are trying to be intellectually rational, you failed to understand that your presumption that the universe evolution as an evidence for your supreme being is logically flawed. Have you ever thought about other factors that might have led to such evolution rather than saying god did it and concluding that the god does exist?

May I ask how you arrived at your conclusion that my argument for a God is flawed? Is it because you know for sure that evolution or any other physical sciences can disprove the possibility of an infinite being (an uncaused cause)?

To answer your question, yes I have considered other factors and realized the God question is not a scientific question, but rather a philosophical question. Believing in science to address non physical non natural questions is a dumbing down of reason. Reason is not limited by science.

9inches:

May I ask how you arrived at your conclusion that my argument for a God is flawed? Is it because you know for sure that evolution or any other physical sciences can disprove the possibility of an infinite being (an uncaused cause)?

To answer your question, yes I have considered other factors and realized the God question is not a scientific question, but rather a philosophical question. Believing in science to address non physical non natural questions is a dumbing down of reason. Reason is not limited by science.

But then you tell me this god affects and makes changes in the physical world so why can't we measure the effects of the god's workings?

9inches:

May I ask how you arrived at your conclusion that my argument for a God is flawed? Is it because you know for sure that evolution or any other physical sciences can disprove the possibility of an infinite being (an uncaused cause)?

To answer your question, yes I have considered other factors and realized the God question is not a scientific question, but rather a philosophical question. Believing in science to address non physical non natural questions is a dumbing down of reason. Reason is not limited by science.

As far as I'm concerned philosophy and science can be used interchangeably. My problem with you theists is that y'all have concluded that some things are non-physical and unnatural. How do you determine what is physical and not? No one is saying science has the answer to every question, I see science as a skeptic movement for discovery and explanation of inexplicable things and to create an avenue to aid humanity.

The fact that some things are inexplicable doesn't make it non-physical or unnatural; such has been proven times without number (so many supposedly unnatural phenomenon have been proven natural by natural means). In fact, open-mindedness, Logic, empiricism and inquiry are the bedrock of human cognition. The only way to know is to inquire, not to conclude that it's beyond physical.

9inches:

I understood your statement. I asked if you believe truth exists. I didn't ask you about any particular truth claim by any sect.

So, let me ask again. Do you believe there is objective truth regardless people's understanding and interpretation of it?


Simply because ignorance, naiveté, errors, arrogance, close-mindedness, to mention but a few, are all part of our human experience. Close-mindedness I'd say is the biggest impediment to our ability to access truth.

Your answer/solution is already in your question. Religion A and religion B cannot both be right at the same time if both their truth claims contradict each other. That's the law of non contradiction. So it's actually easy to group/categorize similar belief systems and square them up against their direct opposition and create your shortlist via elimination method. I can expand on that later.


[b]Simply because people disagree with one another every darn time. [b]That's human for you. However, you would agree with me that what different people argue about a truth has no effect on the truth they argue about. For example, if we are arguing about the federal capital of Nigeria and I say it's in Sokoto, you say Enugu, person C argues it's in Kaduna, and person D says it's in Edo state.... what we claim as the truth has no bearing or effect whatsoever on the objective truth or fact which is that the federal capital is in Abuja.

Therefore, different sects within a religion could all be wrong or one of them could be right IF they all have among them contradicting truth claims.

We as human beings know when we see truth. We recognize it. Again, we RE-cognize it.... the "Re" = "again" because we already have within us a transcendent standard of what is true, so that when we come across truth, take cognizance of it AGAIN (Re-cognize). An absence of this transcendental standard would mean logic and reason does not exist, because when we reason, we use logic to establish the truth beyond us but which we ascent to.

In fact, standard objective truth has to exist before two people can debate or argue over their differences. And that truth has to exist beyond the arguing parties, although they have within them what it takes to ascent to that truth.

My answer is yes, but such truth(s) can only be found outside the confine of religion.



Why should that be when there is supposed to be a diety that inspires a particular religious adherents.

Are you insinuating that such diety inspires different people with different truths?

joseph1013:
GOD'S FAILED STRATEGY

Some say that God not only exists but longs to have a meaningful relationship with each one of us. However, in his infinite wisdom, God decided to hide from us--forcing us to rely on faith to believe he exists.

One problem with this strategy is that once we resort to faith, we can believe ANY god exists or many gods exist and, with only faith to go on, it's hard for anyone to prove us wrong. This is rather like giving us a special dice with not six faces, but a few thousand faces--with a different god inscribed on each face.

So God allows chance to decide who will engage in a meaningful relationship with him and who won't. It's pretty obvious this doesn't work very well. After 3,000 or more years, people still worship many different gods. And even those who believe in God have widely varying beliefs about what he is like, what he wants of us and his plans for us.

Furthermore, in some parts of the world, people are increasingly moving from faith to rationality and deciding there are no good reasons to believe God exists.

Hiding from the people you dearly love is a ridiculous strategy and you don't need to be omniscient to figure that out.

A long distance relationship in which you never see, hear or speak to the other person and everything you know about them was written by people long dead. What a truly loving relationship LMAO!

LordReed:


But then you tell me this god affects and makes changes in the physical world so why can't we measure the effects of the god's workings?

We surely can measure the effects of God's workings. All we see and feel, material or immaterial, consciously or unconsciously... are all have a beginning. And if they have a beginning, there must be a CAUSE to their beginning. This is not so hard to process. It only requires pure consistent line of logic - a continuous chain of logical conclusions that follow one another gets you to the reality of an Uncaused Cause, a Source from which reality and the universe (which we know and struggle to understand) came into being.

topdee:


As far as I'm concerned philosophy and science can be used interchangeably. My problem with you theists is that y'all have concluded that some things are non-physical and unnatural. How do you determine what is physical and not? No one is saying science has the answer to every question, I see science as a skeptic movement for discovery and explanation of inexplicable things and to create an avenue to aid humanity.

The fact that some things are inexplicable doesn't make it non-physical or unnatural; such has been proven times without number (so many supposedly unnatural phenomenon have been proven natural by natural means). In fact, open-mindedness, Logic, empiricism and inquiry are the bedrock of human cognition. The only way to know is to inquire, not to conclude that it's beyond physical.

Philosophy and science are not on the same lane. Philosophy deals with the non physical realities - Existence, Knowledge, Values, Reason, Mind, Language... These aren't field the sciences operate in.

Much of what you said above are correct though. When people (of faith) fill every answer to the inexplicables with a supernatural being, such argument is called the 'god of the gaps' argument or as Douglas Murray would say, "Jesus smuggling". On the flip side of the argument, you are guilty of what's called a Category Error.

That being said, I'm going to call you out on your straw man because I never used "inexplicable" in my argument. However, I would not go far with that because I know a lot of Christians, especially the fundamentalists, are guilty of using such type of obviously intellectually flawed argument.

9inches:


We surely can measure the effects of God's workings. All we see and feel, material or immaterial, consciously or unconsciously... are all have a beginning. And if they have a beginning, there must be a CAUSE to their beginning. This is not so hard to process. It only requires pure consistent line of logic - a continuous chain of logical conclusions that follow one another gets you to the reality of an Uncaused Cause, a Source from which reality and the universe (which we know and struggle to understand) came into being.

And how do we know the cause is the Christian God?

9inches:


We surely can measure the effects of God's workings. All we see and feel, material or immaterial, consciously or unconsciously... are all have a beginning. And if they have a beginning, there must be a CAUSE to their beginning. This is not so hard to process. It only requires pure consistent line of logic - a continuous chain of logical conclusions that follow one another gets you to the reality of an Uncaused Cause, a Source from which reality and the universe (which we know and struggle to understand) came into being.

So your god does nothing in the present only in the past?

Karleb:
My answer is yes, but such truth(s) can only be found outside the confine of religion.

Let's test this claim, shall we?
1. Do you believe in individual human rights?
2. Is the idea of such human rights necessary?
3. WHY?

Karleb:

Why should that be when there is supposed to be a diety that inspires a particular religious adherents.

Are you insinuating that such diety inspires different people with different truths?

I don't quite get it. Could you explain what you mean here?

joseph1013:
GOD'S FAILED STRATEGY

Some say that God not only exists but longs to have a meaningful relationship with each one of us. However, in his infinite wisdom, God decided to hide from us--forcing us to rely on faith to believe he exists.

God does not hide from us, we hide from God. When you seek him, you will "see" him, and when you "come" to him, you will know him. I think I've used this argument in our earlier conversation, (maybe not):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP2rLgrBtTI

joseph1013:
One problem with this strategy is that once we resort to faith, we can believe ANY god exists or many gods exist and, with only faith to go on, it's hard for anyone to prove us wrong. This is rather like giving us a special dice with not six faces, but a few thousand faces--with a different god inscribed on each face.

@highlighted, that's 100% right. I can't disagree with that at all. Serious religious people combine faith and reason because they don't contradict each other, but rather, complement each other. They both arm us with the capability to understand and explain the realities that surround us, both the materia and non material.

I totally understand how perplexing it could be to hear people argue faith blindly and without reason. It's human tendency to tend to simplify things and move on with life. But when you really dig deeper, you will find out that an inability to articulate one's belief has nothing to do with whether the object of such belief is true or false.

joseph1013:
So God allows chance to decide who will engage in a meaningful relationship with him and who won't. It's pretty obvious this doesn't work very well. After 3,000 or more years, people still worship many different gods. And even those who believe in God have widely varying beliefs about what he is like, what he wants of us and his plans for us.

Not everybody possesses knowledge of a particular thing; that's human reality. It could be attributable to like ignorance, naiveté, arrogance, pride, selfishness, etc.

joseph1013:
Furthermore, in some parts of the world, people are increasingly moving from faith to rationality and deciding there are no good reasons to believe God exists.

That's not true. You are confusing secularism with rationality. Every rational person would understand faith and reason have no daylight between them. Faith, I would argue is a higher lever of rationality. What do we mean by faith?
See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_4PSgFjtvI

joseph1013:
Hiding from the people you dearly love is a ridiculous strategy and you don't need to be omniscient to figure that out.[/color]

I'm totally with you on that, and I'm sure God knows that, hence him revealing himself to us to know him. I know him. You also will certainly know him IF YOU TRULY WANT TO.

Note: you don't necessarily need religion or anything like that to tackle and determine the [possibility for the] existence of God; you can't get there by purely rational thinking alone. Getting to know him - having an intimate knowledge (personal relationship) is what requires faith backed by reason... not a blind faith. "Trust" is actually what we term "Faith" in religious language.

9inches:

Let's test this claim, shall we?
1. Do you believe in individual human rights?
2. Is the idea of such human rights necessary?
3. WHY?


I don't quite get it. Could you explain what you mean here?

What has human rights got to do with this?
If you wish to discuss human rights, talk to the government. I mean no offence.


If you do not understand that, there is nothing I can do.

LordReed:


A long distance relationship in which you never see, hear or speak to the other person and everything you know about them was written by people long dead. What a truly loving relationship LMAO!

I'd say you're the only person here believing such thing. 1. My relationship with God is not a long distance one.
2. You can speak to God actually. However, if an experience of a relationship is dependent on ability to see or hear, kindly explain to me how blind and deaf people have relationships.
3. Not everything I know about God is written and not everything that is written about God is by dead people. There's something called history which we use to research past events.

It's mind-boggling how basic your arguments are. You are seriously, seriously constricted in your thinking. Makes me sad for you really. I honestly don't mean to offend.

RuthlessLeader:

And how do we know the cause is the Christian God?

There's really no Christian, muslim or buddist God. There's God, and there are various understandings of him. Various sects have different degree of understanding of who/what God is... even the secular "religions" understand God as some Force [of nature]. In that sense, you could conclude that each belief system has some degree of truth and could be valuable to some degree in terms of dealing with the man's reality and his soul/spirit.

But the understanding that we as human beings are hardwired to seek what is true, just and good, we are always going to be unsatisfied. There's no amount of goodness or justice or truth the world can offer that can ever be enough to satisfy our innate desires... we know this from our living experience. If this is true - that the universe can't offer us enough, we could logically deduce that there is a standard within us, set so high, by which we [subconsciously] measure whatever good, justice, truth or beauty the world could afford us. Then we could say that standard in us could only be met by the ultimate or the absolute of whatever we desire or seek. That's who God is - ultimate truth itself, ultimate good itself, ultimate justice itself, ultimate beauty itself...and so on.

You see how it's pure delusion, ignorant, albeit pitiful to regard the "God question" as open for any kind of scientific exploration?

LordReed:


So your god does nothing in the present only in the past?

No, that's a deist's view of God. God never ceases to interact with his creation.

Karleb:

What has human rights got to do with this?
If you wish to discuss human rights, talk to the government. I mean no offence.

If you do not understand that, there is nothing I can do.

You think I introduced a topic that has nothing to do with the topic at hand? Well, as you suggested, let's find out from the government, shall we?

Guess which government declared thus: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

What do you think, brother?

9inches:

No, that's a deist's view of God. God never ceases to interact with his creation.

So does can this interaction be observed or not?

LordReed:


So does can this interaction be observed or not?

Observed in which way?

9inches:

Observed in which way?

Can it be measured? Seen? Recorded? By a neutral party/observer?

LordReed:


Can it be measured? Seen? Recorded? By a neutral party/observer?

I'm sure, same way the effects of truth, justice, good, beauty, trust, love, empathy, honesty, grace.... could be measured, seen or recorded.

9inches:

I'm sure, same way the effects of truth, justice, good, beauty, trust, love, empathy, honesty, grace.... could be measured, seen or recorded.

These do not require a god to be had so how are you are you going to figure out if a god is involved in what is being measured.

LordReed:


These do not require a god to be had so how are you are you going to figure out if a god is involved in what is being measured.

You're totally wrong. Without God, there would be no objective standard by which these things are measured. Without such objective standard, you LordReed would not even have the moral temerity to call out evil. If such happens to be the case, good and evil would be a matter of our individual opinions... truth would not exist but our opinions. It might sound feasible in text but it can't be lived out practically.

Karleb:


How?

I guess you didn't quite understand the statement.
What I mean is: the truth that most religion parades as truth is not one, it is in fact a lie.

Why would the truth religion A offer be totally different from the one another religion B offer but they both claim that they are saying the truth and the others are lairs?

Why would a single religion have numerous sects if it offers the truth and each sect within a certain religion still claim other sects are serving their diety the wrong way and could get punished for enternity in after life.

Reminder: I am not an athiest.

Because only one is a true religion “Islam”any other religion contradicting it is false.

Amalladan:
Because only one is a true religion “Islam”any other religion contradicting it is false.

How do you objectively determine which religious belief is true and which one is false?

PS: I agree with you, there's only one true religion.

Amalladan:




Because only one is a true religion “Islam”any other religion contradicting it is false.

This is one thing I don't like about you people. You all keep saying this.

But have you ever asked yourself the what if question?

I mean, what if you die and still go to hell anyway because Odin is the one true God?

9inches:

You're totally wrong. Without God, there would be no objective standard by which these things are measured. Without such objective standard, you LordReed would not even have the moral temerity to call out evil. If such happens to be the case, good and evil would be a matter of our individual opinions... truth would not exist but our opinions. It might sound feasible in text but it can't be lived out practically.

You are the one who is wrong as there is no absolute standard by which any of those things are measured. Not even your god claim holds up to its own purported standard.

BTW this a side step from the issue at hand which is how do we measure your god's actions.