Categories Of Belief In Deities

[atrib]

Remez is saying that magic and woo doesn't need a beginning. We can talk about that.

Well, he does offer reasoning, science and evidence to support his supernatural thinking. He doesn't actually present the evidence, or the reasoning, but I suppose we should just take his word for it, since he is a self-professed expert on the subject.

I’m looking at the same universe and REASONING the opposite. It began.
And
I’m prepared to offer reasoning, science and evidence to support that without the assistance of science fiction.

Free Thinking?

 

[steve_bank]

Another one bites the dust, another notch on my keyboard.

 

[Learner]

Remez is saying that magic and woo doesn't need a beginning. We can talk about that.

Remez is saying that magic and woo doesn't need a beginning. We can talk about that.

Well, he does offer reasoning, science and evidence to support his supernatural thinking. He doesn't actually present the evidence, or the reasoning, but I suppose we should just take his word for it, since he is a self-professed expert on the subject.

I’m looking at the same universe and REASONING the opposite. It began.
And
I’m prepared to offer reasoning, science and evidence to support that without the assistance of science fiction.

Free Thinking?

Another one bites the dust, another notch on my keyboard.

Remez seems to have added a few notches, to his own keyboard 'without him being here'. It looks like, none of you seemed to have noticed the error of the logic, or perhaps..... its not an error in your viewpoints.

The universe is not real or natural according to the line below :

"Remez is saying that magic and woo doesn't need a beginning. We can talk about that"


How can he compete against that, you must be wondering?

 

[steve_bank]

Well, he does offer reasoning, science and evidence to support his supernatural thinking. He doesn't actually present the evidence, or the reasoning, but I suppose we should just take his word for it, since he is a self-professed expert on the subject.

I’m looking at the same universe and REASONING the opposite. It began.
And
I’m prepared to offer reasoning, science and evidence to support that without the assistance of science fiction.

Free Thinking?

Another one bites the dust, another notch on my keyboard.

Remez seems to have added a few notches, to his own keyboard 'without him being here'. It looks like, none of you seemed to have noticed the error of the logic, or perhaps..... its not an error in your viewpoints.

The universe is not real or natural according to the line below :

"Remez is saying that magic and woo doesn't need a beginning. We can talk about that"


How can he compete against that, you must be wondering?

BigFoot does not need a beginning or an end either.
You and he are missing the point as usual. Witchcraft and the oter stuff we do not belive in. So when you say it can exist forever you have to realize we believe in none of it to begin with.

The Woo Woo Choo Choo is departing track 666...I never go on a 13th floor of a building, bad luck. I get chills when a black cat crosses my path, when it happens I take out my crucifix to ward off evil. Am I getting through to you?

I can see how conversion works. Engae someone who does not really understand what is going on in a long convoluted narrative and at some point is hopelessly lost in it.

Trying to engage us in a narrative on theism is pointless.

 

[Learner]

BigFoot does not need a beginning or an end either.
You and he are missing the point as usual. Witchcraft and the oter stuff we do not belive in. So when you say it can exist forever you have to realize we believe in none of it to begin with.

Why the need to bring up "magic and woo" if you (plural) really want a response?

The Woo Woo Choo Choo is departing track 666...I never go on a 13th floor of a building, bad luck. I get chills when a black cat crosses my path, when it happens I take out my crucifix to ward off evil. Am I getting through to you?

Are you (plural) capable to put the "woo" terminology aside (mocking for argument) to have any serious discussion?

I can see how conversion works. Engae someone who does not really understand what is going on in a long convoluted narrative and at some point is hopelessly lost in it.

Trying to engage us in a narrative on theism is pointless.

Pointless...hmmm I sort of agree. G'day/

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are you (plural) capable to put the "woo" terminology aside (mocking for argument) to have any serious discussion?

wait, you said a logic failure. Do you just mean 'not taking your side seriously?' That's not a failure of logic. We see no difference between appeals to gifts from Santa Claus and creating from god. If there is a difference, you are certainly invited to show it.
But if tge argument against an undirected universe is, say, insisting on an explanation for where the laws of gravity come from, then refusing to consider an origin for whatever you (guys) believe is the origin is avtacit admission it's no better tgan a Just So story, like where the elephant got his trunk, or why Raven's feathers are black.
So, why would we pretend to respect the argument if you (guys) are just gonna Special Case past any difficulties?

 

[Learner]

Are you (plural) capable to put the "woo" terminology aside (mocking for argument) to have any serious discussion?

wait, you said a logic failure. Do you just mean 'not taking your side seriously?' That's not a failure of logic. We see no difference between appeals to gifts from Santa Claus and creating from god. If there is a difference, you are certainly invited to show it.

I mean interjecting every now and then the "woo for an argument" excuse, willy nilly, which then invites or turns a response into a theism response, as steve keeps complaining about.

But if tge argument against an undirected universe is, say, insisting on an explanation for where the laws of gravity come from, then refusing to consider an origin for whatever you (guys) believe is the origin is avtacit admission it's no better tgan a Just So story, like where the elephant got his trunk, or why Raven's feathers are black.
So, why would we pretend to respect the argument if you (guys) are just gonna Special Case past any difficulties?

It has already been established or agreed upon by posters, believers and non-believers alike, mutally agreeing that no-one can test the origins of the universe. So what makes you think we can't discuss a plausible idea, (which doesn't at all suggest its true) without " special pleading" or the bible ? Remez has said this quite a few times. Also equally in-line, for example, discuss the plausibility idea of multi-universes etc.. by how each poster portrays his or her hypothesis etc.. by the merits of their reasoning. I think thats an interesting discussion, putting aside the "religion and woo" rhetoric

 

[steve_bank]

Why the need to bring up "magic and woo" if you (plural) really want a response?



Are you (plural) capable to put the "woo" terminology aside (mocking for argument) to have any serious discussion?

I can see how conversion works. Engae someone who does not really understand what is going on in a long convoluted narrative and at some point is hopelessly lost in it.

Trying to engage us in a narrative on theism is pointless.

Pointless...hmmm I sort of agree. G'day/

No we are not. At least personally. Out in the world I respect faih. Earlier tonight I fell into a conversation with a thest who says she is a minister and a guy who says he is almost atheist. No acrimony or hostility by anyone.

Here we are challenged by theists and we challenge back. Keep in mind the forum is Talkfreethought which has a specific meaning. Not necessarily hostile to religion, but certainly aggressive critique.

Christianity to me is just another form of mystic and magic. In the RCC the priest through ordination is empowered to transform bread and wine into flesh and blood of a dead god. Anything outside of the RCC like that would be called magic and evil from Satan. A priest casting out demons, alleged demons. Witchcraft by any other name.

Granted woo is not a flattering compliment, but then to many Evangelicals us atheists are the evil spawn of Satan. I have heard it personally.

Did you pick up on the 666 reference in track 666?

 

[remez]

You still have not said exactly what your believe and what you identify as. To do so one has to think through actively and critically your thinking. Daunting to the typical theists.

Moast Christians are unable to articulate oter tha belief in gid and Jesus.

You appear to be avoiding the question with more handwaving.

A concise paragraph will suffice.

I told you I was clearly Christian. So I’m not sure what you want. So I’m guessing that what you are looking for is more what kind of Christian. Like OEC or YEC? Well OEC. I believe Christians should be able to defend their faith and that most cannot. My case for Christianity is a cumulative case. I lean more towards Molinism. I believe God gave us two revelations, general and specific. Explained earlier. I do not believe that science and Christianity are in obvious conflict. I belief science and philosophy better supports theism than atheism. I believe naturalism is insufficient to explain nature itself. I take the Bible seriously, meaning in short, I take it literally where it was meant to be literally. I believe the universe began to exist. I’m undecided as to eschatology. I do not believe that worldwide means global. Etc. etc. etc.

Science does not require philosophy.

Science is overtly built upon philosophy. It existence depends upon logic, causality, forensics, metaphysical law of uniformity, realism, ethics, uniformitarianism, etc. Science cannot account for the math it relies upon. The scientific method is a system of steps that we philosophical devised. Science is philosophically limited to nature. Scientism is self-defeating and your philosophical reasoning to conclude science doesn’t require philosophy smacks of blind scientism.

Naturalism, to repeat, says all that exists is by definition is natural. If I see a ghost and it is real there is a natural causal connection between the ghost and my brain, even if I can't figure out the causality.

Notice “naturalism says”….. is a philosophy. No way around that.
Naturalism is a philosophical epistemology. So I ask you……if nature began to exist….. Could it have a natural cause?

The god hypothesis is not provable.

Neither is naturalism.

Again I did not say it was provable. I addressed this earlier with you. Sufficient reason stands as judge in all belief aside from math and logic. Including your philosophical naturalism.

You can make a subjective passement but there is no possible evidence for an actual proof. Attempted proofs all have logical flaws. Bootstrapping.

Like the one you just made right there to support naturalism. We’re both in the same boat here, neither is certain. Thus the real issue here is …..which of our worldviews has the more evidence and sufficient reasoning. In a courtroom the standard is …..”Beyond reasonable doubt” not certainty/proof.

I took a psych class Alternate Sates Of Awareness. As an experiment he held up a series of envelopes with symbols inside and we had to deduce them. The class was at the statistical average, random chance. At that point science ends. Unless a phenomena can be demonstrated science can not be applied.

Analogy fails.

Any creation can be investigated for evidences of its creator. Even in your experiment I can reasonably conclude that your professor created the event, even though I don’t know his particular method. I don’t know how God did everything. But I do see an overwhelming amount of evidence to sufficiently conclude that this creation/universe was his doing. Guilty as charged. He left to many evidences to be ignored.

God and proofs of god are not for science. Science does not apply.

Your honor… that assertion is the faulty conclusion of his unsupported philosophically flawed naturalism. It assumes that I claim science can prove God. I have not and do not. I fully stipulate that science is philosophically limited to natural explanations. I only reasonably assert that science can support premises in a cumulative case that can be made for God’s existence.

One can make the complexity argument. The unversed looks like it was designed, therefore it was designed. Another logical fallacy. Non sequitur.

Before one attempts to counter the arguments from design or to design. One should know them well enough as not to construct straw man ARGUMENTS. Right there you’re presenting an OLD argument that has been defeated so many times. It is sickening to witness that so many still in belief that the argument from design has been defeated. You present straw man counters and simply believe they did their job.

Science can refute specific religious claims, like YEC. Claimed miracles are hit or miss. Some people pray and think get answered others do not.

More shot gunning. Well……
I concur with your YEC assessment, but that changes nothing for the natural theologian. Miracles are by definition, events that cannot be explained naturally. So in your limited worldview….non-existent, but that in no way infers naturalism is true. The only miracle I have presented is the creation of this universe. A natural theologian would not present prayer as evidence of God’s existence.

Modern science reduces religious experience to biology and brain chemistry.

That is your unproven subjective philosophy that you blindly believe. Care to provide any evidence as to how chemistry and physics determines truth?

 

[remez]

An epistemology based on naturalism works just fine. The computer you use to post on the internet, the roads you drive on, the electrical grids that power our homes, and everything else that allows human civilization to exist and thrive are the product of naturalistic thinking. Can you name some process or technology based on supernatural thinking that has a similar impact on our lives? No, you can't. Supernatural thinking doesn't work, naturalism does.

You use the resources available to you as a member of a technologically advanced species, but all you do is curse the hard work and the methodology that makes this life possible.

Cute.
I embrace science and technology. What I don’t embrace is your incompetent conflation of naturalism and science. You do this every time. Naturalism is the philosophy that nature is all there is. Science is a philosophically structured pursuit of knowledge methodologically limited to natural explanations. That does not conflate the two. A reasonable person can reject naturalism and embrace science and technology.

Atheism is a rejection of supernatural claims. And that is all it is. It is not a worldview or an ideology,

….and with that kind of reasoning I could logically assert that anarchy is not really a political position. Too afraid to defend anything? Your new definition is lacking.

What are we to call the brave individual that asserts there is no God?

Let us examine your hypothesis and see where it leads. For the theistic creator hypothesis to be true, something necessarily existed before the Big Bang event; at a minimum, a supernatural entity

ok

The theistic hypothesis also tells us that this entity does things, like create universes and meddle in their workings. Change requires time, and therefore this entity experiences time,

Since creation….yes.

and is subject to the arrow of time.

What do you mean by subject?

Did this entity begin to exist at some point? …..
…..
If the answer is no, then this creator entity must have existed forever. But that cannot be true because entropy would have reduced this entity to nothing within a finite period of time.

Entropy is a condition of our universe. Theism asserts a transcendent creator that created a universe that is governed with entropy. Why and how did entropy have to exist before there was a universe?

Your theistic hypothesis essentially boils down to special pleading:

Nothing existed before the Big Bang. But God existed before the Big Bang.

That is one so simple you should have looked it up before suggesting it as a counter. It would be like me using the salinity of the oceans to infer a young earth. Your flaw lacks understanding of the problem. Consider…..Why is there something rather than nothing?

Perpetual motion machines cannot exist. But God is a perpetual motion machine.

God is an eternal transcendent personal efficient cause not a perpetual motion machine. God is not governed by the natural physical laws of this universe.
So……
How is God a perpetual motion machine?

Even a superficial examination of the problem should have led you to conclude that the theistic hypothesis is fatally flawed. Yet you keep telling us that you have educated yourself in this matter and pondered deeply on this problem. How is it possible that you missed these obvious flaws in your reasoning?

Even a superficial examination of your presented flaws one can see that your flaws are flawed and need a defense in order to be considered successful counters.

 

[remez]

Remez is saying that magic and woo doesn't need a beginning. We can talk about that.

I'm asserting that an eternal God does not have a beginning.
How can that which is eternal have a beginning?

 

[Keith&Co.]

It has already been established or agreed upon by posters, believers and non-believers alike, mutally agreeing that no-one can test the origins of the universe. So what makes you think we can't discuss a plausible idea, (which doesn't at all suggest its true) without " special pleading" or the bible ?

Well, if it's all just hypothetical why do you care if it's called woo, magic, god, Spiffy Space Psychics, or whatever?

On the other hand, this 'discussion of a plausible idea' seems like you get to preach your beliefs, but you don't have to actually defend them if there's a difficulty. Which looks like cheating.

 

[remez]

Remez is saying that magic and woo doesn't need a beginning. We can talk about that.

Well, he does offer reasoning, science and evidence to support his supernatural thinking. He doesn't actually present the evidence, or the reasoning, but I suppose we should just take his word for it, since he is a self-professed expert on the subject.

I’m looking at the same universe and REASONING the opposite. It began.
And
I’m prepared to offer reasoning, science and evidence to support that without the assistance of science fiction.

Free Thinking?

You, joedad and I have discussed the evidence for years. So I’m not asking you to take my word for it. This thread was simply asking for a categorization of deities juxtaposed with his emotions against theism. To address that issue I opened it up to a categorization of worldviews…..

View attachment 25850

….thus to include his atheism. Steve doesn’t get to simply counter theism without having defend his poor counters and his own worldview.

Then you cherry picked this from me...…..

I’m looking at the same universe and REASONING the opposite. It began.
And
I’m prepared to offer reasoning, science and evidence to support that without the assistance of science fiction.

Free Thinking?

That was in response to this……….

Not provable of course, I believe the universe always was and always will be with form in constant change. No god or creator required. A science based myth if you want. I look at the natural world and conclude no need for a creator.

….. and the context of defending the natural theologians are free thinkers. Looking at the same evidence we reach different conclusions. Mine based upon free thinking, his admittedly depends upon science fiction. He wishes for a steady state cosmology but cites Sagan’s mythology. Sagan’s worldview regarding cosmology reflecting the tenants of pantheism. Note Karl’s preferred cosmological model was one of oscillation….also reflecting reincarnation.

So judge for yourself.

 

[remez]

It has already been established or agreed upon by posters, believers and non-believers alike, mutally agreeing that no-one can test the origins of the universe. So what makes you think we can't discuss a plausible idea, (which doesn't at all suggest its true) without " special pleading" or the bible ?

Well, if it's all just hypothetical why do you care if it's called woo, magic, god, Spiffy Space Psychics, or whatever?

On the other hand, this 'discussion of a plausible idea' seems like you get to preach your beliefs, but you don't have to actually defend them if there's a difficulty. Which looks like cheating.

The critical issue is what we mean by TEST. Does test assume it has to be tested scientifically? If it means that….and….the universe did begin then operational science will not be able to test it because that is where we know that the operational science breaks down…
Because in that reality….. it is where our tools of operational scientific investigation began.

So does that further infer that since operational science can’t address the beginning that we have no way to test it? And all is thus fantasy? Or can we still investigate/test a beginning with reasoning, to include the reach of forensics? The reach of metaphysics?
So………….

Well, if it's all just hypothetical why do you care if it's called woo, magic, god, Spiffy Space Psychics, or whatever?

It matters…..Because your mocking straw man does not reflect the proper scope of our reasoning. Just because your reasoning is limited to operational science and childish mocking does not mean you get to invent straw men to support your limited scope of reasoning/mocking. We will challenge you to support your reasoning to present your straw men. You can’t follow the science to where it leads, because in this case because it leads into metaphysics. You can’t go there so all you have left is to mock that which lies outside your realm of knowledge. Thus I would address your mocking this way…..I don’t believe in the straw god you’re mocking either because your straw man does not reflect the God we are reasoning to.

On the other hand, this 'discussion of a plausible idea' seems like you get to preach your beliefs, but you don't have to actually defend them if there's a difficulty. Which looks like cheating.

We’re not trying to defend the difficulty your straw magic man has with reasoning. We are trying to reason to the plausible cause of the universe which is not your straw man. Offer some serious counter to the actual God we are reasoning to and we would be glad to address it. We are not trying to “preach” without defense. We are trying to reason to a plausible cause.
So…
Why should we have to defend your straw man? We don’t believe in that god either.

 

[aupmanyav]

I'm asserting that an eternal God does not have a beginning. How can that which is eternal have a beginning?

Quite possible, if he/she is the off-spring of eternals or a mix. Ganesha and Murugan (Kartikeya) in Hinduism are the off-spring of Shiva and Parvati. Hanuman was granted eternality by Lord Rama.

I’m looking at the same universe and REASONING the opposite. It began.

What universe? Who is seeing? It is a mirage (Maya).

 

[steve_bank]

I told you I was clearly Christian. So I’m not sure what you want. So I’m guessing that what you are looking for is more what kind of Christian. Like OEC or YEC? Well OEC. I believe Christians should be able to defend their faith and that most cannot. My case for Christianity is a cumulative case. I lean more towards Molinism. I believe God gave us two revelations, general and specific. Explained earlier. I do not believe that science and Christianity are in obvious conflict. I belief science and philosophy better supports theism than atheism. I believe naturalism is insufficient to explain nature itself. I take the Bible seriously, meaning in short, I take it literally where it was meant to be literally. I believe the universe began to exist. I’m undecided as to eschatology. I do not believe that worldwide means global. Etc. etc. etc.

Science is overtly built upon philosophy. It existence depends upon logic, causality, forensics, metaphysical law of uniformity, realism, ethics, uniformitarianism, etc. Science cannot account for the math it relies upon. The scientific method is a system of steps that we philosophical devised. Science is philosophically limited to nature. Scientism is self-defeating and your philosophical reasoning to conclude science doesn’t require philosophy smacks of blind scientism.

Naturalism, to repeat, says all that exists is by definition is natural. If I see a ghost and it is real there is a natural causal connection between the ghost and my brain, even if I can't figure out the causality.

Notice “naturalism says”….. is a philosophy. No way around that.
Naturalism is a philosophical epistemology. So I ask you……if nature began to exist….. Could it have a natural cause?

The god hypothesis is not provable.

Neither is naturalism.

Again I did not say it was provable. I addressed this earlier with you. Sufficient reason stands as judge in all belief aside from math and logic. Including your philosophical naturalism.

You can make a subjective passement but there is no possible evidence for an actual proof. Attempted proofs all have logical flaws. Bootstrapping.

Like the one you just made right there to support naturalism. We’re both in the same boat here, neither is certain. Thus the real issue here is …..which of our worldviews has the more evidence and sufficient reasoning. In a courtroom the standard is …..”Beyond reasonable doubt” not certainty/proof.

I took a psych class Alternate Sates Of Awareness. As an experiment he held up a series of envelopes with symbols inside and we had to deduce them. The class was at the statistical average, random chance. At that point science ends. Unless a phenomena can be demonstrated science can not be applied.

Analogy fails.

Any creation can be investigated for evidences of its creator. Even in your experiment I can reasonably conclude that your professor created the event, even though I don’t know his particular method. I don’t know how God did everything. But I do see an overwhelming amount of evidence to sufficiently conclude that this creation/universe was his doing. Guilty as charged. He left to many evidences to be ignored.

God and proofs of god are not for science. Science does not apply.

Your honor… that assertion is the faulty conclusion of his unsupported philosophically flawed naturalism. It assumes that I claim science can prove God. I have not and do not. I fully stipulate that science is philosophically limited to natural explanations. I only reasonably assert that science can support premises in a cumulative case that can be made for God’s existence.

One can make the complexity argument. The unversed looks like it was designed, therefore it was designed. Another logical fallacy. Non sequitur.

Before one attempts to counter the arguments from design or to design. One should know them well enough as not to construct straw man ARGUMENTS. Right there you’re presenting an OLD argument that has been defeated so many times. It is sickening to witness that so many still in belief that the argument from design has been defeated. You present straw man counters and simply believe they did their job.

Science can refute specific religious claims, like YEC. Claimed miracles are hit or miss. Some people pray and think get answered others do not.

More shot gunning. Well……
I concur with your YEC assessment, but that changes nothing for the natural theologian. Miracles are by definition, events that cannot be explained naturally. So in your limited worldview….non-existent, but that in no way infers naturalism is true. The only miracle I have presented is the creation of this universe. A natural theologian would not present prayer as evidence of God’s existence.

Modern science reduces religious experience to biology and brain chemistry.

That is your unproven subjective philosophy that you blindly believe. Care to provide any evidence as to how chemistry and physics determines truth?

Did ancient Zog who controlled fire have articulate speech, writing, and philosophy? Nope. It is a function of the brain.

We all do 'science'. Observe, hypothesis, test hypothesis, accept-reject-modify hypothesis. 'The Method'.

There are videos of squirrels figuring out how to defeat squirrel proof bird feeders. They observe the problem, try a solution, and modify until success. Science is often trial and error. Chimps quarry stones, fusion into tools to crack nuts, and the tool making is passed on by observation and mimic. A long list. Humans do it better because of our articulate speech, writing, and math. Which is a function of our brains.

As to being clearly Christian, as evidenced on the forum that can mean anything. You have to articulate.

Philosophy meaning non science intellectuals add meaning to science and attempt to explant why. When confronted with a problem never met anyone who referred to a work of philosophy. We use our brains, so to speak.

Philosophy comments on what is. In the 19th century Natural Philosophy gave way to modern empirical mathematical model based science. The old metaphysical approaches were inadequate and became obsolete.

Other than Descartes who articulated The Method as it is called, there ins no manual on how science is done. It is a long history of trial and error. We have no a priori knowledge . Philosophers have value. I found Popper very useful in understand the dynamics of society and science and how truth is derived culturally. That and a few others.


An individual may have a working philosophy but it is not a necessity. We learn by doing with others who came before us.

While more complicated than being a carpenter science is an occupation and a job. You need to learn basic facts and lab skills, then get experience on the job. Demystify science. I knew a physicist who worked at MIT Lincoln Labs. As he put it people came in, did their work, and went home. He was into amature sports car racing.

Let us see this scientific proof o yours of a creator.

 

[Tammuz]

I think this thread is a testimony to the strong influence of religion historically. People never bother to categorize belief or disbelief in elves or giants or krakens.

 

[steve_bank]

I think this thread is a testimony to the strong influence of religion historically. People never bother to categorize belief or disbelief in elves or giants or krakens.

Academic anthropologists and psychologists probably do.

James in his Varieties Of Religious Experience does create categories, and that was quite a ways back.

 

[remez]

I think this thread is a testimony to the strong influence of religion historically. People never bother to categorize belief or disbelief in elves or giants or krakens.

Amen

 

[Politesse]

You mean cryptozoology? It's... a thing. An esoteric thing, but a thing.