INGO Argument Match ...Alpha: In The Big Inning

[ATM]

Here’s your gift, Paul: a cup of living water

Don’t try to understand or dissect it, just have a taste and see. Those who poured it don’t know if you will even choose to drink it, but they poured it for you anyway.

I didn’t ask anyone to encourage you, only to pray for you and make their selfless act known in public. So many of their selfless acts are hidden, though, that they would receive no glory, that their own ego would be starved and subdued in their loving service. Some of them just couldn’t seem to help themselves, though, encouraging you, a stranger, personally as well. It's almost like they’re overflowing and don’t care if some of it splashes around.

Other interactions naturally sprung from this senseless, pointless act and long-lost friends are being reconnected, old fellowships are being restored, new ideas to bless others are emerging spontaneously. This water, with prayer and guidance, produces life more abundantly than any of the comforting lies or deceptions we’re accustomed to.

It’s like Brawndo …only real.

This was not intended to be an appeal to you on any basis of reason. It is but a glimpse, a taste.


I do pray that this is a CHRISTmas like no other for you, and I’m absolutely ready, whenever you are, to proceed.

Take all the time you need.

 

[KJQ6945]

Merry Christmas Paul and ATM.

 

[ATM]

Merry Christmas Paul and ATM.

Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a good night.

[video=youtube;sghwe4TYY18]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sghwe4TYY18[/video]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think that was very nice. Kinda like Jesus not being the messiah many of the Jews thought they were going to get, this wasn't the gift I thought you were going to give.

Merry Christmas to all and I my wishes for a blessed day and new year.

Here’s your gift, Paul: a cup of living water

Don’t try to understand or dissect it, just have a taste and see. Those who poured it don’t know if you will even choose to drink it, but they poured it for you anyway.

I didn’t ask anyone to encourage you, only to pray for you and make their selfless act known in public. So many of their selfless acts are hidden, though, that they would receive no glory, that their own ego would be starved and subdued in their loving service. Some of them just couldn’t seem to help themselves, though, encouraging you, a stranger, personally as well. It's almost like they’re overflowing and don’t care if some of it splashes around.

Other interactions naturally sprung from this senseless, pointless act and long-lost friends are being reconnected, old fellowships are being restored, new ideas to bless others are emerging spontaneously. This water, with prayer and guidance, produces life more abundantly than any of the comforting lies or deceptions we’re accustomed to.

It’s like Brawndo …only real.

This was not intended to be an appeal to you on any basis of reason. It is but a glimpse, a taste.


I do pray that this is a CHRISTmas like no other for you, and I’m absolutely ready, whenever you are, to proceed.

Take all the time you need.

 

[MikeBrennan]

What an excellent thread!

 

[PaulF]

Sorry, FB friends, I know I'm rarely on here, but I have an idea that might bless a friend. My friend, Paul, has no idea just how real Jesus is or how much "my invisible friend" (and those who trust in Him as their Savior) value and love him.
If you are willing to take a moment to pray for Paul, that he could just catch a glimpse of the face of Christ as expressed through the body of believers, please do so and type a word or two here to let him know.
Show Paul what Christmas means. Bless him, Lord, and bless each of you.

I appreciate the kind thoughts, Alan.

Thank you, and Merry Christmas.

 

[PaulF]

Back on topic:

You and I disagree on the application of the word "atheist". You seem to hold a very rigid and narrow view of the word, where I see more ambiguity in the term.

I think the "Dawkins Scale" accurately describes theism/agnosticism/atheism nicely:

1) Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2) De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3) Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4) Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5) Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6) De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7) Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.

I place myself at "6", not a 7 (or even a 6.9, as Dawkins himself has).

I would now like to comment (gently) on your "Living glass of Water" gesture.

Your belief in gods is not evidence of the existence gods. The widespread belief in the existence of gods is not evidence for the existence of gods.

Your ability to get others to pray for me is powerful evidence of your ability to persuade others, and of your shared beliefs...but not of the existence of gods.

I point this out on a day where millions of Christians Join together with one another to celebrate an appropriated pagan holiday that has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus the Nazarene, who was born in the spring...according to the bible.

People's belief's are not necessarily congruent with reality. I am open to the idea that mine are wrong, I only require satisfactory evidence. You are not open to the idea that you are wrong, regardless of evidence.

You either do not have or will not provide the evidence I require to change my position, nor will you consider any argument or evidence against your own position.

What more is there to say?

This thread is nothing more than a big game of pigeon chess.

Once we kick all the pieces off the board it can just become a pigeon dance party. That's what I'm holding out for, anyway.

 

[foszoe]

Paul,

I am "mostly" staying out of this one BUT

Have you ever heard of the friendly theist position? This was a position taken by my professor in my "Existence of God" philosophy class at university. His name was William L Rowe.

I thought highly of Professor Rowe back then. Much as I like Bart Ehrman in todays world

It was an interesting approach and at times you seem to hint in that direction.

Here is a link to his seminal paper

https://www.kul.pl/files/57/nauka/Rowe_The_Problem_of_Evil.pdf

If you have the time, I would like to hear your thoughts about "friendly athiesm.

The fawn imagery in that paper still haunts me!


Also, as an aside, as in I don't intend to discuss your answers, just curious.

Do you believe in UFOs, aliens, ghosts or any other paranormal activity?

 

[ATM]

I appreciate the kind thoughts, Alan.

Thank you, and Merry Christmas.

You're quite welcome, and merry Christmas to you.

This life, every life, YOUR life, is a pretty big deal to my family (I have billions of brothers and sisters). What we do here echoes in eternity.

Many of us remember what it once felt like to be nothing more than an impossible living accident, alone in the universe, without significant purpose, trying to just be a decent mess of electrons until we cease to be and our moment in eternity draws to a close.

Many of us hope more for you than we remember ever hoping for ourselves, more than you believe is possible.
'Tis a season of hope ...and good cheer. So, cheers, my friend.

 

[BugI02]

PaulF, I think faith will always exist at the boundary between known and unknowable.

Ray Bradbury said faith is jumping off of the cliff and building your wings on the way down. Difficult to conceive for the cautious or the faint of heart

 

[ATM]

Back on topic:

You and I disagree on the application of the word "atheist". You seem to hold a very rigid and narrow view of the word, where I see more ambiguity in the term.

Obviously.

I think the "Dawkins Scale" accurately describes theism/agnosticism/atheism nicely:

I don't care for it.

I place myself at "6", not a 7 (or even a 6.9, as Dawkins himself has).

OK, I place you at "agnostic but dipping your pinky toe in atheism".

I would now like to comment (gently) on your "Living glass of Water" gesture.

Your belief in gods is not evidence of the existence gods. The widespread belief in the existence of gods is not evidence for the existence of gods.

Incorrect. You may reject them, but personal testimonies are one form of evidence which often contain other forms of evidences by which their beliefs were formed, evidences you may never have pursued, considered or experienced yourself.

Your ability to get others to pray for me is powerful evidence of your ability to persuade others, and of your shared beliefs...but not of the existence of gods.

I can be very persuasive, but it's also possible that I simply offered them a specific chance to apply something they already love to do, something which fills them with joy to do, something which refreshes and invigorates their senses, makes them feel more connected with their Creator and His creation. Maybe I just gave them a name and they pretty much knew what they wanted to do, needed to do. Maybe you don't get that, yet, so you reject it, but there it is, begging to be explained.

I point this out on a day where millions of Christians Join together with one another to celebrate an appropriated pagan holiday that has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus the Nazarene, who was born in the spring...according to the bible.

If there's one thing I love, it's appropriating pagan holidays.

You see, my God made every day, every night, everything. It's all His. I've not found the significance of knowing the day of my Savior's birth, so I care little which day I join with others to celebrate and remember that unto us a child was born. Non-believers borrow and pervert, they do not own or create.

People's belief's are not necessarily congruent with reality.

I'm with you there, most are deceived about nearly everything. Have you seen my 9/11 deception thread? Oh yeah, I remember now, you have. I NEVER FORGET. People are much more easily duped and distracted these days, it seems.

But, what was your point? Are you saying that none of these people pursued reality? None of them pursued Truth beyond the point at which it seems you stopped? Does it seem reasonable to you to even form a belief regarding a subject you have invested so little of yourself in pursuing? Blind faith pro or con is weak. Don't just adopt a position, FORM ONE. How did yours form?

I am open to the idea that mine are wrong, I only require satisfactory evidence. You are not open to the idea that you are wrong, regardless of evidence.

You require satisfactory evidence? From whom? I am not as open to the idea that I'm wrong because my faith began with skepticism. I didn't stop. I wanted to know, one way or the other, it actually became important to me. This doesn't seem very important to you, so, of course, your faith is weakly held. I'm only trying to make this more important to you.

You either do not have or will not provide the evidence I require to change my position,

My humiliation cannot be evidence for you, only your own. My failure to disprove a god, left me, not you, proclaiming Him my Savior. My faith cannot be your faith, you are not yet strong enough to wield my faith - it is strengthened and tempered in the fire of pursuit and testing. You must seek this out - or lose.

nor will you consider any argument or evidence against your own position.

I will likely consider it weak, but I will consider it. Bring me something besides the mere fact that you are unconvinced. What would I do with that? You don't really seem to consider anything evidence, so I still have no idea what swayed you from the default position of not knowing. I refuted the finite god you believe in enough to dismiss, which is nonsense.

It sounds like you talk to yourself also, but the voice in your head never challenges you ...and you'd never accept if it did. Your voice most likely is just your own ego, playing it safe.

What more is there to say?

Plenty, I've walked this road. Let's keep going, together, shall we?

Once we kick all the pieces off the board it can just become a pigeon dance party. That's what I'm holding out for, anyway.

How about I flick all the man-made kings off the board for another exercise and we narrow our focus a bit to the unique One that challenged (and still challenges) me?

I plan to address these particular statements of yours next, but it might not be until later tonight or tomorrow:

...There are only two possibilities: gods exist or they do not. History is full of man-made gods...like yours.

...It is not possible for all the gods that man has created to exist...but it is possible that none of them do.

...I don't believe in anyone's gods, because I don't find anyone's gods believable.

Enjoy your evening, friend.

 

[PaulF]

Paul,

I am "mostly" staying out of this one BUT

Have you ever heard of the friendly theist position? This was a position taken by my professor in my "Existence of God" philosophy class at university. His name was William L Rowe.

I thought highly of Professor Rowe back then. Much as I like Bart Ehrman in todays world

It was an interesting approach and at times you seem to hint in that direction.

Here is a link to his seminal paper

https://www.kul.pl/files/57/nauka/Rowe_The_Problem_of_Evil.pdf

If you have the time, I would like to hear your thoughts about "friendly athiesm.

The fawn imagery in that paper still haunts me!


Also, as an aside, as in I don't intend to discuss your answers, just curious.

Do you believe in UFOs, aliens, ghosts or any other paranormal activity?

Thank you for posting that.

The problem with the "Problem with evil" argument is that it presumes that if God exists evil cannot...God, being ever-present and all-knowing, would see every attempt at evil even before it is consummated. Being all-loving and all-powerful God would have both the ability and motivation to intervene.

BUT...this argument leaves no room for free will, and most modern theists insist that God does exist, and man does have free will.

Most atheists will argue that Evil exists even in the absence gods. Evil must, therefore, be (by definition) a product of man (or of nature, in a larger view). If people can choose to be evil in the absence of gods, I see no reason why people could not create evil in the presence of gods...if they truly have free will.

I do not subscribe to that view. I am one of those infuriating relativists...I view "Virtue" and "Evil" as human social constructs...necessary and useful descriptions of shared experiences that serve as the foundation of communication. "Good" and "Evil" are not objective, in my view. Rather, they are necessarily dependent on the perspective of the participants. I tend to view the world in the more fluid terms of "Better" and "Worse" rather than the more static "Good" and "Evil".

As to supernatural phenomena...I am skeptical to the point of ridicule.

It is my philosophical view that "life" is not unique to Earth. I think the universe is probably full of "life". I think that intelligent life is probably much more rare (just think of how rare it is here on Earth, a planet FULL of life) in the universe , but is almost certain to exist. With that said, I don't think there are intelligent creatures visiting our planet in crew-serviced spacecraft. I could speak for hours on the reasoning behind that...please don't let me.

As for ghosts, the "spiritual realm", and the afterlife...I think those things are hogwash. The "spiritual realm" is the realm of the mind. The mind is a product of the brain. When the brain dies, the mind dies with it. No spirit. No Ghosts. No afterlife.

 

[ATM]

^ Just a comment on this, though I will wait to advance our argument until you are ready, Paul.

Your assumptions and positions appear rather shallow, like this still isn't very important to you and you aren't carefully weighing anything presented.
You skim past the profound and dissmiss it with something else entirely, something you only hope others have thought profoundly about.

That's not deep, it's cheap. And weak. You need to challenge yourself more than this, that you may become a challenge for others.

...As for ghosts, the "spiritual realm", and the afterlife...I think those things are hogwash. The "spiritual realm" is the realm of the mind. The mind is a product of the brain. When the brain dies, the mind dies with it. No spirit. No Ghosts. No afterlife.

You don't actually think those things are hogwash, you believe they are hogwash. You haven't thought your way to any of this ...you seem to have stopped thinking about it seriously at some point along the way, if you ever did..

You are an infinite soul with a finite body, despite your adopted belief, despite your unwillingness to pursue it beyond your limited ability to grasp such a truth in your present state.

 

[BugI02]

ATM, I have not seen more sweeping conclusions drawn from less actual data in quite some time

I think PaulF is the most credible source of information on what PaulF believes

 

[ATM]

ATM, I have not seen more sweeping conclusions drawn from less actual data in quite some time

I think PaulF is the most credible source of information on what PaulF believes

Forgive me if I missed a compliment in there, but PaulF knows I'm right, and that's all that really matters in this argument.

 

[foszoe]

Thank you for posting that.

The problem with the "Problem with evil" argument is that it presumes that if God exists evil cannot...God, being ever-present and all-knowing, would see every attempt at evil even before it is consummated. Being all-loving and all-powerful God would have both the ability and motivation to intervene.

Ok so as far as this argument is concerned, you would not use it to support an atheistic viewpoint. However, would you care to comment on the author’s main thrust concerning friendly atheism which holds that there can exist rational reasons for some theists to believe in God?

BUT...this argument leaves no room for free will, and most modern theists insist that God does exist, and man does have free will.

This is not as clear cut as stated here. There are a large portion of Christian theists that would not support free will, Calvinism comes to mind, but it depends on how it is defined. Islam argues about it, Hindus are divided. If any one group is mostly free will, I would believe, without knowing, that it is atheists. However, there are arguments for atheist determinism also.

I do not subscribe to that view. I am one of those infuriating relativists...I view "Virtue" and "Evil" as human social constructs...necessary and useful descriptions of shared experiences that serve as the foundation of communication. "Good" and "Evil" are not objective, in my view. Rather, they are necessarily dependent on the perspective of the participants. I tend to view the world in the more fluid terms of "Better" and "Worse" rather than the more static "Good" and "Evil".

Based on this viewpoint, I would presume that you are not one to object to God based on violence such as in the OT either, provided that the competing societal views at the time would make it necessary? For example, preservation of one’s own society would be a virtue as far as most social constructs would be concerned.

Virtue and Evil as human social constructs is an understandable paradigm because it relies upon a definition outside of the individuals having the conversation or communicating. This is also encapsulated in the “shared experiences” language. I would question though, are they necessarily dependent on the perspective of the participants? What if there are only two participants in the conversation? Would you agree that there would be an appeal to some shared experience or some social construct to define what virtue and evil are?

To move further into your preferred language, would you say there exists only “better” and “worse” or that there is a possibility of “best” and “worst”? Can we define “worse” without “better”? I would ask how “better and worse” become fluid? Since virtue and evil are social constructs or shared experiences, then for most, perhaps not all, we should be able to reach consensus that in a given situation we can define better and worse rather concretely.

So to return to the friendly atheist theme, based on the above. Would you agree that there exists a group of people who through shared experiences have a rational basis for the existence of God? If not, why not?

How does their epistemology differ from yours?

Finally, believing in better and worse does not make you an infuriating relativist. It means you believe things can get infinitely better or things can get infinitely worse. I think i would agree with that and I am far from a relativist.

I would slightly enhance that statement to be that anything less than infinitely better is worse, and I think you would agree to that statement.

I would also say that anything greater than infinitely worse is better.

 

[ATM]

PaulF has retreated from this argument and our discussion, as if he's going to find something more important in this world.

He's going to find despair.

I continue to pray, Lord, have mercy.