The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments

[Absolute_Agent]

Very perceptive questions.  I value critical thinking as you do.

How do you know this?

As far as I can tell, it is a completely unsupported assertion.

Any information I give about God is based on the scripture.  I have spent my life contemplating scriptures, since before I could read--approximately 37 years.  This includes the Bible, some Hindu scriptures, Buddhist Sutras, Kabbalah, the Qur'an, and many others.  I consider the Qur'an to be the final and authoritative revealed scripture.

So, for those of us that find the entire story lacking evidence and logic, god didn't do such a good job appearing to Paul. Again, your god seems to value gullibility and credulity much more than critical thinking, evidence and logic.

The vision was intended for Paul and him alone.  Obviously it was profoundly successful in convincing him since it instantly changed him from a Christian--exterminator to the greatest missionary in history.

So, your god plays favorites. He makes his existence obvious for some, and makes others work for it.

First of all, it seems like an entirely unfair system, which to me is immoral.

No doubt God has a detailed ranking system which carries on into the afterlife.  However it has nothing to do with favoritism.  God is "no respector of persons.". Rather, it is strictly performance-based.  Paul earned it, and anyone else can too if they work hard enough.  When I suggested Paul was extraordinary I meant it in the sense that he was extraordinary in his devotion, which had earned him an important mission.

I also find it interesting, that god had no problem making hi existence known, in obvious ways in the past, when people were ignorant, illiterate, barbaric, and superstitious, but as these things have improved, god makes his existence known through giving people feelings and impressions.

The type of revelation is suited to humanity's level of development and evolution, and culture.  For neo-stone age cultures you need something really dramatic.  In modern times, more refined means are appropriate.  Many people are still having visions and revelations to this day--not just feelings and emotions.  But since most of us are highly attuned to feelings and such, this is the most common medium of revelation.  Did you know memory is linked to emotion?




Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

Wikipedia disagrees with you on that last part.  Do you care?

Link?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[Absolute_Agent]

It's almost like it's all in the mind.

Almost, but that's a simplistic explanation.  God has a detectable, independent reality which is at the same time intimately interwoven into the fabric of the self.  We religious types struggle to put it into words, as the experience of it transcends thought and material existence.  The presence of God is everywhere, it's only a matter of attuning the heart to perceive it.  Reality is interactive. However you can't detect God unless He wills it.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

[josephpalazzo]

... However you can't detect God unless He wills it.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

And so you know exactly how God thinks. Wow.............

[Blackleaf]

Almost, but that's a simplistic explanation.  God has a detectable, independent reality which is at the same time intimately interwoven into the fabric of the self.  We religious types struggle to put it into words, as the experience of it transcends thought and material existence.  The presence of God is everywhere, it's only a matter of attuning the heart to perceive it.  Reality is interactive. However you can't detect God unless He wills it.

I know what you're talking about, because I've been there. Problem is, it's all psychological; it's in your head. If God were really detectable, we would see signs of his presence in an objective, laboratory setting. But the only way you "detect" God is through your feelings and primed imagination.

People tend to attribute personhood to things that don't have it, like the traffic light that changes just in time to stop you, as if it's just trying to make you mad. Early man gave personhood to animals and aspects of nature, like the sun and the sea. But as those things became less mysterious, the gods retreated into the more abstract, metaphysical realm, where they could remain unknowable. Now, some of us continue to cling to the illogical notion of God because, like Linus van Pelt's blanket, it gives them comfort to think that some cosmic being has their back. Even though this supposedly benevolent god doesn't ever step in to stop man made or natural tragedies... What good is your god, really?

[Blackleaf]

@Baruch and I would agree that the universes are made of letters and words.

You think we live in the Matrix?

[Baruch]

You think we live in the Matrix?

Humans don't know the "qualia".  We only know the models of the "qualia".  And many of the models are quite functional within range.  But the model isn't the reality.  The reality is ineffable.  Then, speaking of the models, if they aren't verbal to begin with, we are dealing with words.  Naive realism says, what I see is reality.  A cat is a cat, but there isn't anything underlying "catness" (no analysis of evidence).

[Baruch]

I know what you're talking about, because I've been there. Problem is, it's all psychological; it's in your head. If God were really detectable, we would see signs of his presence in an objective, laboratory setting. But the only way you "detect" God is through your feelings and primed imagination.

People tend to attribute personhood to things that don't have it, like the traffic light that changes just in time to stop you, as if it's just trying to make you mad. Early man gave personhood to animals and aspects of nature, like the sun and the sea. But as those things became less mysterious, the gods retreated into the more abstract, metaphysical realm, where they could remain unknowable. Now, some of us continue to cling to the illogical notion of God because, like Linus van Pelt's blanket, it gives them comfort to think that some cosmic being has their back. Even though this supposedly benevolent god doesn't ever step in to stop man made or natural tragedies... What good is your god, really?

Everything is psychological.  Are you able to function, outside your own mind?

[Mr.Obvious]

You think we live in the Matrix?

Absolute_Agent_Smith

[josephpalazzo]

You think we live in the Matrix?

You've opened up a can of worms. Now you've got to explain the difference between the blue and the red pills.

[Unbeliever]

@Baruch and I would agree that the universes are made of letters and words.

I personally think the universe is made from numbers, but that's just my bias.

[josephpalazzo]

I personally think the universe is made from numbers, but that's just my bias.

Numbers were created by the human mind. Are you saying then that our minds created the universe?!??

[Unbeliever]

You've opened up a can of worms. Now you've got to explain the difference between the blue and the red pills.

Baruch might say that the red and green are qualia, which can't be explained.  :-P

[Unbeliever]

Numbers were created by the human mind. Are you saying then that our minds created the universe?!??

No, I just agree with Tegmark's view on the primacy of number as the most fundamental reality. I'm not so sure numbers only reside in the human brain, or if the human brain is perceiving something abstract. It's an interesting quandary.

[SGOS]

Much of it sure seems to be made of things that can be expressed in numbers.  And I'm amazed that physicists can reduce things to such simple mathematical expressions.  For example the relationship between matter and energy  E = mc2.  It's almost like some person must have decided that was going to be the relationship, rather than discovered it.  It seems like if it was discovered, it could have never been so conveniently shown.  For all the chaos there appears to be going on in the universe, most of which is directly related to conversions of matter and energy, it's strange that its most fundamental property can be that simple.