Is it?

[Bri]

Well, if I believe that a uf-nc-immaterial told me that all the world has to wear green, and I have to enforce it on the world, what then?

Again, you can't know you are right, because you cannot disprove me.

WRONG!

By definition, an inconsequential being CANNOT tell you anything. Therefore, your belief that you were told something by an inconsequential being IS falsifiable and is absolutely FALSE.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

My belief is not that an nc-being told me something.

My belief is that an nc-being wants something from me, not that he told me what it is.

 

[Phlebas]

I think it is assumed that not all sins will result in eternal damnation, and that any sins that do result in eternal damnation are avoidable given that we have free will.

Hmmmm. I'm not entirely ignorant of Christian theology. It sounds like you're talking about some very specific branch of Christianity. The ones I have the most experience with (mainly the fire&brimstone protestant types) all believe that any sin that you have not apologize for will get you a one-way ticket downstairs.

But this might be drifting too far from this topic. (Not that that's a bad thing -- the main thread in this topic has drifted pretty far from reality...)

 

[Bri]

How did you come about this belief, given that you have no way of knowing whether the being even exists or not?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Hmmmm. I'm not entirely ignorant of Christian theology. It sounds like you're talking about some very specific branch of Christianity. The ones I have the most experience with (mainly the fire&brimstone protestant types) all believe that any sin that you have not apologize for will get you a one-way ticket downstairs.

I'm not aware of any religion that believes that you will spend an eternity in hell for not apologizing for any sin, but I could certainly be mistaken about that. My point was that not committing the sin to begin with, or apologizing afterwards, are both choices you can make to avoid eternal damnation.

But this might be drifting too far from this topic. (Not that that's a bad thing -- the main thread in this topic has drifted pretty far from reality...)

Heh, I have to agree with you there!

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

Originally Posted by JetLeg
I am not trying to pursue, just trying to show that you cannot know you are right, because you cannot prove me wrong. If you cannot prove me wrong, there is no way you can know which one of us is right, it would be just arrogant.


And "not being able to be proved wrong" is not the same thing as "right." By your own admission, there is no difference between your god and a non-existent being.

But you can't prove that you are right as well, agree? The only way to know you are right, when you argue with someone is if you can prove him wrong. You cannot, ergo you cannot know that you are right. Ergo relativism with regards to uf-immaterial beings.

 

[jond]

My belief is not that an nc-being told me something.

My belief is that an nc-being wants something from me, not that he told me what it is.

How, then did you reach this conclusion? If you believe the nc-being wants something from you, it must have in some way communicated that to you. If it can communicate to you, it is no longer an nc-being. Sorry.

 

[JetLeg]

How did you come about this belief, given that you have no way of knowing whether the being even exists or not?

-Bri

I don't know. Just do.

 

[Bri]

I am saying that I have an intellectual right to believe this. You cannot know if you are right, or I am right, since you cannot prove me wrong.

I agree that you have a right to believe it. You do NOT have a right to act on your belief, given that there is no way your belief could be based on anything other than your own imagination.

It's true, I cannot know if there is an inconsequential being that wants us to wear green socks, but I CAN know that you also can't know if there is an inconsequential being that wants us to wear green socks. Therefore, your belief must originate entirely within your imagination, and even if true would just be coincidence.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

How, then did you reach this conclusion? If you believe the nc-being wants something from you, it must have in some way communicated that to you. If it can communicate to you, it is no longer an nc-being. Sorry.

Just as I don't need evidence that nc-being exists, I don't need evidence that nc-being wants something from me. I didn't say it actually communicated to me.

 

[uruk]

Like I said, possessing free will does not mean that you're in control of everything. Even a person who suffers has free will and can make choices. They can't choose to fly, and in some cases can't choose not to suffer, but they can make other choices.

I understand. But I was refering to what happens to our free will when it comes against any plan that god has.

What I meant was that if we have no free will, we are essentially following a program (like a robot) or acting out a play that was written long before we were born rather than actually making choices.

I'm sorry I didn't realize what you had meant when you used the term "robot". My mistake.
Of course if we were lead to believe that we had free will in that situation, we wouldn't know the difference.

But if god has an ultimate plan that he wished to be achieved reguardless of what our choices would be. That would mean god taking back our free will for his purposes. What kind of gift would that be?

Take for instance Christ's passion. God sent Jesus down to earth to be sacrificed so the act could absolve us of our sins. In order for that plan to happen. All the things that lead up to Jesus's capture and torture and crucifixion had to take place otherwise the sacrifice could not take place.
Everybody had to play thier part regaurdless of thier free will. Judas could have chosen not to betray jesus, But if he did not Jesus would not have been captured.
Pontious Pilot could have chosen to let Jesus go, But if he did had not the order of crucifixtion would not have been issued.

You could argue that other events could have taken place with other people, but the end result would have been the same. So that means god had to take away free will so that his plan could happen. What kind of a gift is that if you take it away whenever you felt like it?

Have you ever heard of the epithet "indian giver"? (yea I know it's racists, But please look up what it means)

The evidence seems to point to us not having free will at this point. Although I acknowledge that, I also hope that we do have free will.

I hope so also. But as long as we believe we have it what's the difference. A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

We're talking about the Christian view of God, and Christians do believe in an afterlife as far as I know.

-Bri

It's a nice luxury to have if you have the faith. But as an agnostic I don't have that luxury.
I "feel" there is something after this life. I just don't know what it is. But that could just be something that is a consequence of having a conciousness. The feeling that it once it started it won't have an ending. But then I have no memory of conciousness before I was concieved or born. Would it be the same after I die? Non-existance? There would be no "me" to worry about.

 

[JetLeg]

I agree that you have a right to believe it. You do NOT have a right to act on your belief, given that there is no way your belief could be based on anything other than your own imagination.

It's true, I cannot know if there is an inconsequential being that wants us to wear green socks, but I CAN know that you also can't know if there is an inconsequential being that wants us to wear green socks. Therefore, your belief must originate entirely within your imagination, and even if true would just be coincidence.

-Bri

First, I think that the idea that people shouldn't act on their beliefs a bit impossible from a psychological point of view. If you believe something, how can you not act on it? Imagine a person who believes that if the all the world does not wear green socks, everyone will go to hell after they die. How can he not act on it? If we add for example, that if everyone do wear green socks, they will go to heaven. If he cares about people, he will act on his beliefes. (Note - I don't actually believe that).

Second, how can you know that I CANNOT know. You can't prove me wrong, so how can you know that? It's arrogant of you.

 

[Phlebas]

But you can't prove that you are right as well, agree? The only way to know you are right, when you argue with someone is if you can prove him wrong. You cannot, ergo you cannot know that you are right. Ergo relativism with regards to uf-immaterial beings.

The only thing I've said is that your immaterial being is indistinguishable from a non-existent being, which you have already conceded. Given how all these words are defined, I can be confident I am correct.

You are wrong, because what you are claiming is self-contradictory. I don't have to be making a claim at all when you do that.

 

[Phlebas]

Second, how can you know that I CANNOT know. You can't prove me wrong, so how can you know that? It's arrogant of you.

As an aside, can we retire this particular "argument"? It's untrue, insulting, and juvenile.

If you have some reason to think that your god is anything other than a figment of your imagination, let's have it. Until you do, then why should we think it's anything but a figment?

 

[slingblade]

I am not trying to pursue, just trying to show that you cannot know you are right, because you cannot prove me wrong. If you cannot prove me wrong, there is no way you can know which one of us is right, it would be just arrogant.

I see, now.

I don't need to be right. I really don't. I don't care if I'm right.

Believing in God is a waste of time to me, and has resulted in my inviting abuse upon myself, to the point where I literally have no life to live any more.
It hurts me to continue to believe in a god. So I've stopped.

It doesn't even matter if gods are real or not. They make no difference to my life.

The people who believe in gods have, however, made only negative differences to my life. They've abused me to the point that I can no longer function in the world. I have no life. I will never have a life again.

I'm spending a few months watching my mother slowly die. After she's gone, I have no idea what I will do with myself.

Your god that makes no difference and can neither be proven or unproven is no more of consequence to me than the talking tomato you can neither prove or disprove. It isn't even an exercise in mental masturbation. If it were, I could at least expect a mental orgasm at some point, but that's not going to happen, either.

A difference which makes no difference is no difference.

You don't get that. Fine. Have fun. At least you still can.

 

[jond]

Just as I don't need evidence that nc-being exists, I don't need evidence that nc-being wants something from me. I didn't say it actually communicated to me.

If you believe it wants something from you, you MUST have had it communicate to you somehow. You might not be aware of the mechanism by which it communicated, but in order for you to have the information (in this case, that we should all wear green socks) it must have been communicated to you. And therefore, it's not a nc-being. If not, it's only in your head, and you should seek help rather than trying to put green socks on people.

 

[JetLeg]

As an aside, can we retire this particular "argument"? It's untrue, insulting, and juvenile.

If you have some reason to think that your god is anything other than a figment of your imagination, let's have it. Until you do, then why should we think it's anything but a figment?

I'm sorry about the 'arrogant'.

But I am serious about the argument.

Again -

You cannot be sure that you are right, unless you have a way to prove me wrong.
Agreed?
Then, you cannot be sure that you are right and I am wrong with regards to nc-immaterials.

 

[Bri]

First, I think that the idea that people shouldn't act on their beliefs a bit impossible from a psychological point of view. If you believe something, how can you not act on it? Imagine a person who believes that if the all the world does not wear green socks, everyone will go to hell after they die. How can he not act on it? If we add for example, that if everyone do wear green socks, they will go to heaven. If he cares about people, he will act on his beliefes. (Note - I don't actually believe that).

You admit that any belief you would have about an inconsequential being cannot possibly originate from anywhere other than their own mind, right?

In other words, this belief MUST come from your imagination or else the being is not inconsequential.

It would not be rational for you to act on a belief that you know originates entirely in your own mind.

Second, how can you know that I CANNOT know. You can't prove me wrong, so how can you know that? It's arrogant of you.

It's not arrogant, it's simple logic. You cannot possibly know what an inconsequential being wants by definition. You might believe that an inconsequential being wants you to do something, but it is utterly impossible for you to know that an inconsequential being wants you to do something.

-Bri

 

[JetLeg]

If you believe it wants something from you, you MUST have had it communicate to you somehow.

If you believe it wants something from you, you MUST have had it communicate to you somehow.

No. Again, I did not say I have evidence it wants something from me. Just that I can believe that it wants something from me.

 

[jond]

If you believe it wants something from you, you MUST have had it communicate to you somehow.

No. Again, I did not say I have evidence it wants something from me. Just that I can believe that it wants something from me.

Then you have no reason to believe it, and no right to inflict those beliefs on others.