well, I am a believer that god probably doesnt' exist, but its most certainly a belief, and not a fact. As is your belief in god, although most believers tell me its not a belief.
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 7:38 PM Subject: RE: Battleground God > Yes, one tangent of my thought went in that direction, and I would like to > explore that further, especially since you raise good points that I would > like to grapple with. > > However, I still am looking for an answer to this conclusion: "It is > irrational to make a statement, as if fact, that God does not exist." Or > can such a statement only be made as a matter of belief, not fact? > > H. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Benjamin Falloon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 6:21 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Battleground God > > > I never challenged the existence of a god... > > I was challenging the suggestion that god was 'outside the universe'... > My argument hinged on the fact that your argument based itself around the > notion that god was 'outside the universe' hence free of our laws of > rational thought. This suggests you have some kind of special knowledge > concerning a) god's location (empirical?) and b) that our laws dont apply > outside the universe. From a certain point of view, describing god's > location as outside the universe and stating that beings existing outside > the universe are not 'bound' by our physical and rational laws would be an > argument sprung precisely from our laws and hence impossible to validate. > > For example I could say that our laws of rational thought extend beyond the > universe and the any gods who have taken up residence outside our universe > are still bound by the same rules. > > Now, as there is no way for you to refute this, any arguments that > disqualify rational thought when explaining the existence of god are hence > irrational. > > Benjamin > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 11:32 AM > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > > You're proposing a circular argument. I say God is outside the universe, > for > > the purpose of discussing faith, and you say prove it. First, I would have > > to prove that God exists, which is beyond the scope of the current > > discussion. > > > > The fallacy of the game, and what I'm discussing, is that to say "God > > doesn't exist" is a matter of faith or an irrational statement. > > > > To go down the tangent of the proofs for God and his place in the universe > > is really outside the scope of the question. The question is, as proposed > > by the game, that if you say God doesn't exist, you must be rational. I'm > > saying that either the rational statement is "I don't believe God exists" > > or the irrational statement is "God doesn't exist." One is a statement of > > faith, the other is a statement of (supposed) fact. Since you can't prove > > God doesn't exist (can you?) than the statement "God doesn't exist" (as a > > statement of fact, not of faith) is irrational. > > > > Now, if you want to stipulate that God exists, I'll be happy to debate > with > > you his place in and/or out of the universe. > > > > H. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Benjamin Falloon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 4:03 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Battleground God > > > > > > > Yes, God and monsters have some important differences. Monsters, in > > theory, > > > are part of the physical world, so monsters can, to a great degree, be > > > empirically argued against. God is --------------> [in theory] outside > the > > universe, so our laws of > > > rationality and empiricism are ultimately absurd when trying to prove or > > > disprove God. > > > > A rational argument to your proposition begins first with your assumption > > that god is outside our universe. Wouldn't this knowledge first require > some > > kind of empirical evidence to establish this fact or is this this > knowledge > > a matter of faith as well. If so, wouldn't accepting your argument also > > require faith? You say that our 'laws' of rationality and empiricism are > > 'ultimately absurb' by you start your argument with a proposition grounded > > in the physical world. > > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 10:10 AM > > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > > > > > Faith is believing something without empirical evidence to support the > > > belief. > > > > > > If you believe in monsters, you are exercising faith. > > > > > > If you believe in God, you are exercising faith. > > > > > > Yes, God and monsters have some important differences. Monsters, in > > theory, > > > are part of the physical world, so monsters can, to a great degree, be > > > empirically argued against. God is outside the universe, so our laws of > > > rationality and empiricism are ultimately absurd when trying to prove or > > > disprove God. > > > > > > It is not the faith's that are different, but the objects of faith that > > are > > > different. Faith still has a denotative meaning that does not rely on > the > > > object of faith. > > > > > > But I will concede that in a deeper examination, the comparison does > break > > > down. If in playing this game, you applied the connotative meanings, > > which > > > are more subjective, you would get into trouble. > > > > > > One of the problems with the game (among its many) is that you must be > > > predisposed to accept the writer's definitions of "rational," "faith," > and > > > what constitutes a valid comparison. > > > > > > For example, you must be willing to accept as valid an argument from the > > > extreme (the guy who said faith drove him to murder), in order to answer > > the > > > question in a manner that does not raise a hit. But in this extreme, as > in > > > others, there are unknown factors that would not mean his expression of > > > faith was really a valid expression of faith. > > > > > > So the rules are really stacked against you in this game in arriving at > > the > > > "proper" conclusions. > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 2:47 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > > > > > > > *mumbles blissfully from his stupor* > > > > > > Faith in god and religion different context from faith in monsters' > > > existence/non existence. > > > Different kind of faith. > > > > > > *turns on his side* > > > Mmm..Muffins... > > > > > > -Gel > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 6:30 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > > > > > > > At what point are you confused. I'll try to break it down further, if > > > you like. But it's just a set of logical propositions reaching a > > > conclusion: > > > > > > To deny one has faith in the existence or non-existence of God is > > > irrational. > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 2:21 PM > > > To: CF-Community > > > Subject: RE: Battleground God > > > > > > > > > *falls over in confused stupor* > > > > > > -Gel > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > > > I think it's a valid comparison. > > > > > > The Loch Ness monster seems to be a creature of myth. Perfectly rational > > > people believe they have seen Nessy, but there is little if any > > > empirical evidence to support the existence of the Nessy. It is equally > > > hard to prove that God does not exist as it is to prove that Nessy does > > > not exist. > > > > > > As I suggested earlier, the flaw of the game is that it presupposes that > > > faith is not rational. Pure faith can be a rational response to ones > > > environment. You need not be crazy or stupid to have faith. And since > > > all things that cannot be proven one way another (such as the existence > > > or lack of existence of God or Nessy) are matters of faith, to say that > > > faith is irrational is to say that all people are irrational, because > > > all people, at the end of the day, base their ultimate beliefs about God > > > on faith. If all people are irrational, than the statements of none can > > > be trusted. But since we can observe that some people are rational, and > > > since all people have faith, and since in rational people, their faith > > > is founded on some sort of reasonable response to experience, then we > > > must conclude that faith is rational. > > > > > > It is the proclamation of a lack of faith that is irrational because the > > > person who proclaims a lack of faith is denying all evidence to the > > > contrary that he cannot disprove the existence of God. > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ Macromedia ColdFusion 5 Training from the Source Step by Step ColdFusion http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201758474/houseoffusion Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
