How many ways to heaven?

[Genesis1315]

TO ALL:

Please remember, do not attack a person directly, only address the debate. I would also like to recommend stepping back from this thread for a day, calming down and regrouping on Monday or Tuesday.

(HINT: I am very close to disciplinary action on several members for violating the rules. Step back and consider if this is really the way you want to proceed)

Gen

 

[Dark Virtue]

Master, one again, I am not trying to tell you what experiences you've had or what knowledge you have gained during your life time. I am trying to get you to distinguish the differenced between KNOWING something and BELIEVING something. So far, you have failed to address this point. I'm asking you point blank to explain the difference between those two terms.

I didn't address your shooting start analogy for several reasons. I did however mention that extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Why would I question whether or not you saw something that occurs on a daily basis that can be backed up by proof and evidence? Does it really matter if what you saw was a meteorite or a piece of manmade space debris crashing through our atmosphere? It doesn't matter becuase it's all lumped under the generic term "shooting star". The hows and whys of shooting stars are easily explainable.

Now, if you had told me that you saw a UFO, well that would be different. Or if you had told me you saw Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Those are extraordinary claims and for me to believe you, I would need extraordinary evidence. A blurry photo of a dark splotch isn't going to cut it. I don't think that would be an unreasonable request.

You are making the most extraordinary of extraordinary claims, to have PROOF and EVIDENCE of the existence of God. Unfortunately, your proof doesn't extend past your personal experience, so it does no one, other than yourself, any good. If I agreed to take your personal experience as proof to God's existence, then I would have to take EVERYONE'S extraordinary claims as proof for all sorts of things, like leprechans, the boogeyman, Spring Heeled Jack, the chupacabra, Nessie, etc. You see the problem here?

I think that qualifies as a counterdiction

Let's take a look at this contradiction:

Again, please look at the posts I have made in this thread. Not once have I tried to "tell you what your faith is" as you claim.

You don't have evidence, you have FAITH, which is believing in something without evidence.

Note the difference here. I never claimed to explain to you what your belief system is. Faith in the first quote is defined as, belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion. Faith in the second quote is defined as, firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Same word, but two VERY different meanings, they were simply taken out of context.

 

[Master~Plan]

Master, one again, I am not trying to tell you what experiences you've had or what knowledge you have gained during your life time.

You don't have evidence, you have FAITH

I am trying to get you to distinguish the differenced between KNOWING something and BELIEVING something. So far, you have failed to address this point. I'm asking you point blank to explain the difference between those two terms.

I Know what know means

yes, I understand what know means. Yes God has been proven to me. Yes I know God exists.
I never said your definition of knowledge or belief was false. You telling me which of the the two I had was false. Does that answer your question?

Unfortunately, your proof doesn't extend past your personal experience, so it does no one, other than yourself, any good.

Why would you assume something that odd if you were bieng objective? Actually It affected the whole community around me that witnessed what I witnessed for the man who was healed of HIV. My dad walking after bieng paralyzed has affected my whole family, and people that know my family.

Now, if you had told me that you saw a UFO, well that would be different. Or if you had told me you saw Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Those are extraordinary claims and for me to believe you, I would need extraordinary evidence. A blurry photo of a dark splotch isn't going to cut it. I don't think that would be an unreasonable request.

I did however mention that extraodinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

to which I typed up a page of a book, that got ignored. If you read it you would understand that UFO, Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, leprechans, the boogeyman, Spring Heeled Jack, the chupacabra, Nessie are not in the same category of God
you have to wiegh the probability of the evidence bieng there without the event, against the probability of the event.(yes, I'm restating my book quote)
The evidence of eyewitnesses of monsters from handfulls of people in spite of no such event is much more probable than the event.
This is not the case for God.
The probability of the massive testimony, the written Bible, the immediate change of people (dieng for what they claim), the collective testimony of people's personal experiences (no I'm not the only one by far), the prophecy of the Bible, the empty tomb and blatant design of this whole world all bieng there without the existence of God outwieghs the the claim of God.

Same word, but two VERY different meanings, they were simply taken out of context.

ah, thankyou for clarifying.

 

[Eon]

Master Plan - you just dressed a personal conclusion up as a justified reasoning. The things you list do not 'a priori' amount to proof of a godhead, neither do they specifically amount to proof of YOUR God. To you the circumstantial evidence outweighs the probability of no God. To me it doesn't.

 

[Dark Virtue]

To expand on what Eon is saying Master Plan, you are using scientific terms in a very unscientific way.

If you have PROOF of God, why can't you share it with me and convince me of His existence?

If you can't share it with anyone other than yourself, can it be correctly defined as PROOF?

This definition of Anecdotal Evidence may help:

Anecdotal evidence

One of the simplest fallacies is to rely on anecdotal evidence. For example:

"There's abundant proof that God exists and is still performing miracles today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured."

It's quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such anecdotes don't actually prove anything to anyone. Your friend may say he met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven't had the same experience will require more than your friend's anecdotal evidence to convince them.

Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience wants to believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends; stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes for years.

And from wikipedia:

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal observations and experiences (often recounted by way of anecdote) that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing.

For example, a politician might publicly demand better teacher training facilities because their own son or daughter happens to have a spectacularly incompetent teacher, or conversely, might insist that schools are in fine shape because their own son or daughter happens to have a singularly wonderful teacher.

Anecdotal evidence is not fallacious per se; its characterization as unreliable must be understood to mean unreliable with respect to the scientific method. Many (perhaps most) true phenomena are first observed in the form of anecdotal evidence. For example eating limes to prevent scurvy was supported by anecdotal evidence for close to three centuries, beginning with the observations of James Lind. The causative elements involved were only identified after the structure of Vitamin C was discovered, and the link between Vitamin C and scurvy was only proven scientifically in 1932 by Szent-Gyorgyi.

 

[Azzie]

If Christianity was proven, there would be no need for faith.

If Christianity couldn't be proven, nobody would have faith.

Christiany isn't be proven, yet some people have faith. Perhaps what we're looking for doesn't lie in proof, but perhaps faith?

 

[Gandhi]

People throw the word faith around when they don't have a answer.

 

[Master~Plan]

Master Plan - you just dressed a personal conclusion up as a justified reasoning. The things you list do not 'a priori' amount to proof of a godhead, neither do they specifically amount to proof of YOUR God. To you the circumstantial evidence outweighs the probability of no God. To me it doesn't.

if thats what it looks like to you, then thats the call you make. I guess your right in saying its a personal conclusion as all I have been given is personal evidence. Theres more, but Ive found historical evidence has to be studied first hand before it is understood by anyone.

To expand on what Eon is saying Master Plan, you are using scientific terms in a very unscientific way

thanx for the constructive criticism...

If you have PROOF of God, why can't you share it with me and convince me of His existence?

Because your unwilling to answer any of my questions. I could confidently say Ive answered 90% of your questions, but when I ask something as simple as "wouldn't you agree there is design in this world?" you seem to miss it. If you go through the conversation, most all of my questions I ask are unanswered. <violin music>

If you can't share it with anyone other than yourself, can it be correctly defined as PROOF?

Again you assume my witness of incredible events goes unshared. Of course it has no affect to someone I"m talking to over the internet. I wasn't trying to convice you of God through anecdotal evidence. To me the evidence is First hand. You don't have to believe my made up stores. They were never geared as arguments to sway your belief. I was telling you why I am justified in saying I know God exists. Your free to make up your mind however you choose, but I'm sure you already figured that out.

 

[Dark Virtue]

If Christianity was proven, there would be no need for faith.

If Christianity couldn't be proven, nobody would have faith.

Christiany isn't be proven, yet some people have faith. Perhaps what we're looking for doesn't lie in proof, but perhaps faith?

I've never understood this.

Why can't you have faith AND have evidence?

In other words, why can't you have Faith in God's abilities, yet have incontrovertible proof that he exists?

Didn't Moses have incontrovertible proof that God existed? He also had Faith in God and followed His commands. The Israelites had proof that God existed, but they lacked Faith in His abilities.

So why do you claim it's impossible to have both?

 

[Master~Plan]

If Christianity was proven, there would be no need for faith.

If Christianity couldn't be proven, nobody would have faith.

Christiany isn't be proven, yet some people have faith. Perhaps what we're looking for doesn't lie in proof, but perhaps faith?

I don't understand what are you looking for and who else is looking?

People throw the word faith around when they don't have a answer.

hah

 

[Dark Virtue]

Because your unwilling to answer any of my questions. I could confidently say Ive answered 90% of your questions, but when I ask something as simple as "wouldn't you agree there is design in this world?" you seem to miss it. If you go through the conversation, most all of my questions I ask are unanswered. <violin music>

I addressed that question several times, since you brought it up more than once. I can't answer it any more specifically until you are more specific with what you are trying to ask. What kind of design are you talking about? Are you referring to Paley's argument or do you have something else in mind? It most definately is NOT a simple question.

Again you assume my witness of incredible events goes unshared. Of course it has no affect to someone I"m talking to over the internet. I wasn't trying to convice you of God through anecdotal evidence. To me the evidence is First hand. You don't have to believe my made up stores. They were never geared as arguments to sway your belief. I was telling you why I am justified in saying I know God exists. Your free to make up your mind however you choose, but I'm sure you already figured that out.

I HAVE to make assumptions because you are making vague statements with no evidence to back them up.

Let me put it this way. My experiences have proven to me that Leprechauns exist. I have nothing with which to prove that to you other than my anecdotal evidence. Since I believe that Leprechauns exist, is that alone, enough for you to agree that they exist? Wouldn't you need some concrete evidence to believe in something so outrageous?

Moreover, how do you contend with the anecdotal evidence of followers of other faiths? What about MY anecdotal evidence that "proves" that God doesn't exist?

 

[Azzie]

...looking back at my post, i now slap my forehead and laugh at myself. My apologies, everyone...that was kinda dumb of me...=D

You're right, DV. You DO need some proof to justify faith, and you CAN have both proof and faith. I'd think the issue is that some proof that acts as a foundation for faith isn't in logic...but in multiple eyewitness accounts. In the latter parts of the Gospels, even the disciples of Jesus could not initially believe that Jesus resurrected until they saw him for themselves (even though they listened to him talk about the resurrection in front of their faces!) If they did not SEE Jesus with their own eyes, Christianity probably would have died out and Jesus would have died for nothing (and these are people who personally saw and touched Jesus in person and experienced his miracles!). The point is, MULTIPLE eyewitness accounts r a bit more powerful than individual eyewitness accounts. If MULTIPLE people started seeing Leprechauns running around, some people would start believing! The problem (and the reason some people don't believe in Jesus, or Leprechauns, for that matter) is that not ALL people SEE Leprechauns in person, and would have to have believe what others say, thus putting..."trust" in the words of others. In our case, we believe what the Bible says...since we believe that some people DID see the resurrected Jesus.

That, I would think, is another form of proof...indirect proof...just that it's passed down for 2000 years, so it seems a bit goopy...

 

[Master~Plan]

I addressed that question several times, since you brought it up more than once.

addressed? maybe, answered? no

I can't answer it any more specifically until you are more specific with what you are trying to ask. What kind of design are you talking about? Are you referring to Paley's argument or do you have something else in mind? It most definately is NOT a simple question.

Its really only as hard as you make it. no I'm not referring to Paley. If you feel inclined to look up the words 'design' and 'agree' on "wikopedia"(is that right?, never been there) feel free to do so...
I'll even start out: "Yes, I believe this world has design. Just as a marble has been designed by man, so has a perl been designed by a clam." No scholorly answer, or long googled internet sources needed...

I HAVE to make assumptions because you are making vague statements with no evidence to back them up.

"I HAVE to make assumptions because you are making vauge statements such as:<insert vague statement> with no evidence to back them up"

Let me put it this way. My experiences have proven to me that Leprechauns exist. I have nothing with which to prove that to you other than my anecdotal evidence. Since I believe that Leprechauns exist, is that alone, enough for you to agree that they exist? Wouldn't you need some concrete evidence to believe in something so outrageous?

I wasn't trying to convice you of God through anecdotal evidence.To me the evidence is First hand. You don't have to believe my made up stores. They were never geared as arguments to sway your belief. I was telling you why I am justified in saying I know God exists.

Moreover, how do you contend with the anecdotal evidence of followers of other faiths? What about MY anecdotal evidence that "proves" that God doesn't exist?

oh, please share!

 

[Dark Virtue]

You're right, DV. You DO need some proof to justify faith, and you CAN have both proof and faith.

Thank you

Unfortunately, the majority of Christians believe you can only have one or the other.

 

[Dark Virtue]

addressed? maybe, answered? no

I believe I have explained why. Would you like me to repeat myself?

Its really only as hard as you make it. no I'm not referring to Paley. If you feel inclined to look up the words 'design' and 'agree' on "wikopedia"(is that right?, never been there) feel free to do so...

Personally, for simple definitions I prefer Merriam Webster Online.

Design: v. to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan
Agree: v. to concur in (as an opinion)

Note that there are other definitions, but I feel these best fit our topic.

I'll even start out: "Yes, I believe this world has design. Just as a marble has been designed by man, so has a perl been designed by a clam." No scholorly answer, or long googled internet sources needed...

You haven't explained the phrase, "this world has design"? In what way do you mean? I work in the Architectural Design field. So I suppose I could say, yes, this world is full of architecturally designed items. But somehow, I don't believe that is what you meant.

A pearl is not DESIGNED by a clam because the clam has no plan to create from. The pearl is a byproduct created by the pearl mollusk's self defense mechanism in dealing with an internal irritant such as sand, pebble, parasite or food particle. In fact, only 1 in 10,000 mollusks create pearls in the wild. Your assertion that pearls are designed (to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan) by clams is false. Therefore, I can not agree (to concur) with you.

"I HAVE to make assumptions because you are making vauge statements such as:<insert vague statement> with no evidence to back them up"

Such as?

oh, please share!

How about a simple, anecdotal one to counter yours? I have never experienced God on any level that would lead me to believe in his existence.

 

[Master~Plan]

I believe I have explained why. Would you like me to repeat myself?

I guess I was looking for a direct answer.

You haven't explained the phrase, "this world has design"? In what way do you mean? I work in the Architectural Design field. So I suppose I could say, yes, this world is full of architecturally designed items. But somehow, I don't believe that is what you meant.

hey were getting somewhere, an answer. That wasn't so hard, was it? You don't have to play ignorant, because no one is really forcing you to talk to me incase you haven't noticed. No I'm not talking about human formed objects. What I am referring to is the natural world. Design(see definition) in this world(natural world).

A pearl is not DESIGNED by a clam because the clam has no plan to create from. The pearl is a byproduct created by the pearl mollusk's self defense mechanism in dealing with an internal irritant such as sand, pebble, parasite or food particle. In fact, only 1 in 10,000 mollusks create pearls in the wild. Your assertion that pearls are designed (to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan) by clams is false. Therefore, I can not agree (to concur) with you.

haha, what a funny tangent. No I"m not going to get on a debate on whether a clam consciously spits on a piece of sand. Now that you've disagreed with my answer feel free to answer the question yourself. go on, all the cool kids are doing it...

Such as?

exactly I was suggesting a more constructive format for next time you call me vague.

I have never experienced God on any level that would lead me to believe in his existence.

Ive never been to Antarctica. Are you really going to make me call you on universal negatives?

 

[Dark Virtue]

I guess I was looking for a direct answer.

As I said, it's not possible to give a direct answer to a vague question.

hey were getting somewhere, an answer. That wasn't so hard, was it? You don't have to play ignorant, because no one is really forcing you to talk to me incase you haven't noticed. No I'm not talking about human formed objects. What I am referring to is the natural world. Design(see definition) in this world(natural world).

As I have stated, I wasn't playing ignorant, I was waiting for you to specify your question. I'd prefer not to guess or to give shotgun answers to vague questions. Do I see design in the natural world? No. I say no because, according to my definition, I see no construction as part of a plan. Order exists in the world, but is not synonymous with design.

haha, what a funny tangent. No I"m not going to get on a debate on whether a clam consciously spits on a piece of sand. Now that you've disagreed with my answer feel free to answer the question yourself. go on, all the cool kids are doing it...

Wise choice not to continue on your clam discussion...because it was erroneous.

What question are you asking here? According to your post, there was no question asked.

Its really only as hard as you make it. no I'm not referring to Paley. If you feel inclined to look up the words 'design' and 'agree' on "wikopedia"(is that right?, never been there) feel free to do so...
I'll even start out: "Yes, I believe this world has design. Just as a marble has been designed by man, so has a perl been designed by a clam." No scholorly answer, or long googled internet sources needed...

I did exactly what you requested. I defined the terms you put forth. AND I proved your analogy was false. What more would you like me to do?

In case you're missing the point, let me underline it. I had accused you of using terms inappropriately. By pointing out your misuse of the term "design" in your clam analogy, I backed up my accusation, thus proving my point. There fore, it wasn't a "funny tangent", but a cogent demonstration of the problems I had with your posts.

exactly I was suggesting a more constructive format for next time you call me vague.

Hopefully I have met your suggestion.

Ive never been to Antarctica. Are you really going to make me call you on universal negatives?

Universal negatives have NOTHING to do with discussion. I was countering your anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence of my own. I was then hoping you'd see why anecdotal evidence was worthless.

 

[Master~Plan]

As I said, it's not possible to give a direct answer to a vague question.

As I have stated, I wasn't playing ignorant, I was waiting for you to specify your question. I'd prefer not to guess or to give shotgun answers to vague questions. Do I see design in the natural world? No. I say no because, according to my definition, I see no construction as part of a plan. Order exists in the world, but is not synonymous with design.

Isn't it odd how trees are dependant on water? But the problem is that trees don't move, and water only goes to the lowest spot. Oh wait, I forgot inanimate water picks itself up and drops itself down on all life. Good thing... And its also a good thing that water is the only substance that expands when it freezes. Because maybe if it sunk after freezing lakes would fill up with ice over winter, and all life in the lakes would die.
How about the solar system? Were not to close to the sun, not too far. Delicatly balanced at the perfect distance. We are spinning of course so that the heat is distributed, and the moon dispersing partial sunlight at night is a good thing so its not pitch black half the day.

Wise choice not to continue on your clam discussion...because it was erroneous.

I did exactly what you requested. I defined the terms you put forth. AND I proved your analogy was false. What more would you like me to do?

the rancid scent of arrogance is rich...

the clam has no plan to create from

Bivalves have galangia that form the layer around the sand. Yes it is planned as in opposite of random. Galangia don't make it up as they go along...

Universal negatives have NOTHING to do with discussion. I was countering your anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence of my own. I was then hoping you'd see why anecdotal evidence was worthless.

We come into this world by default knowing nothing. "God never bieng proved to you" is not "evidence". Its not even worthy of bieng called anecdotal. You can't prove there is no God by what you haven't seen. Absence of experience is not evidence, its nothing. what are you trying to pull?

 

[Dark Virtue]

Isn't it odd how trees are dependant on water? But the problem is that trees don't move, and water only goes to the lowest spot. Oh wait, I forgot inanimate water picks itself up and drops itself down on all life. Good thing... And its also a good thing that water is the only substance that expands when it freezes. Because maybe if it sunk after freezing lakes would fill up with ice over winter, and all life in the lakes would die.

Why can't this be defined as evolution? You have yet to do two things: 1. prove that everything in the universe was designed, and 2. prove that the designer was your God.

How about the solar system? Were not to close to the sun, not too far. Delicatly balanced at the perfect distance. We are spinning of course so that the heat is distributed, and the moon dispersing partial sunlight at night is a good thing so its not pitch black half the day.

You have yet to do two things: 1. prove that everything in the universe was designed, and 2. prove that the designer was your God.

the rancid scent of arrogance is rich...

Is the smell of arrogance or truth?

Bivalves have galangia that form the layer around the sand. Yes it is planned as in opposite of random. Galangia don't make it up as they go along...

This has nothing to do with PLANNING. Why does a mollusk PLAN to create a pearl instead of eschewing the debris from its body? There is a difference between a plan and biological instinct, or natural process. Why do conchologoists claim that natural pearls, not hemispherical mabes, are created by accident? If they are designed, why are they so rare? THIS IS NOT DESIGN. What plan is being followed? This isn't about the HOW, it's about the WHY.

We come into this world by default knowing nothing.

Ah, so you admit that the Atheist view is our default belief system? Thanks for saving me the trouble

"God never bieng proved to you" is not "evidence". Its not even worthy of bieng called anecdotal. You can't prove there is no God by what you haven't seen. Absence of experience is not evidence, its nothing. what are you trying to pull?

EXACTLY! I have never claimed to be able to disprove the existence of God, hence my stance as a Weak Atheist. I don't have evidence, proof or reason to either believe in or believe against not only your god, but ANY god.

Atheism is a LACK OF THEISM. As you stated, it is our default stance from birth. Give me evidence, proof and reason to believe in your god and I will. I have no evidence, I have no proof and I have no reason. Thus, I can't, with a sound mind and honest conscience, believe in something that can't be proven.

 

[Master~Plan]

Why can't this be defined as evolution? You have yet to do two things: 1. prove that everything in the universe was designed, and 2. prove that the designer was your God.

water doesn't evolve, I'm not sure how it could be defined as evolution. If the world was just stationary bodies of water with plantlife around the parimeter, and the rest of the world unused desert, I would not see design.

1. prove that everything in the universe was designed, and 2. prove that the designer was your God.

You have yet to do two things: 1. prove that everything in the universe was designed, and 2. prove that the designer was your God.

If you don't see design, we don't have a common ground to talk on. Its much like when Kant debated ethics.

This has nothing to do with PLANNING. Why does a mollusk PLAN to create a pearl instead of eschewing the debris from its body? There is a difference between a plan and biological instinct, or natural process. Why do conchologoists claim that natural pearls, not hemispherical mabes, are created by accident? If they are designed, why are they so rare? THIS IS NOT DESIGN. What plan is being followed? This isn't about the HOW, it's about the WHY.

*sigh* here we go, this really looks like a waste of time for me, but if its important to you, I"ll humor you...
You focus only on one part of "plan". No, there is no cognitive plan, but there are physically coded plans. (directions on a map vs cognitive recall) The clams dna from day 1 says that if sand or any irritating substance for that matter enters the mouth, it is covered with a nacre substance. DNA has it all planned out.

Ah, so you admit that the Atheist view is our default belief system?

I'm sorry, I missed where knowing nothing translates into a belief system

EXACTLY! I have never claimed to be able to disprove the existence of God

really? cuz earlier I was kind of excited to hear:

What about MY anecdotal evidence that "proves" that God doesn't exist?

believe in something that can't be proven.

can't be proven, or hasn't been proven to you?