GOD!

[Indigo Child]

[Craig Browning]

[caniswalensis]

[Indigo Child]

Canis,

As polite and as well mannered as you are, you are pretty much telling me
you are a critical and scientific thinker that out of respect for my beliefs
does not want to "debunk me" I am on the other hand a believer, all my
views are subjective judgements that console me. The irony here, this
judgement of yours is a belief itself.

The biggest assumption a skeptic makes is that they do not have beliefs,
but that is false. I will refer to Winston's treatise on this web site:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page12.htm

In your case there are many beliefs I can surmise from just two posts:

1) You are a critical and scientific thinker.
2) Relativism - "We see things differently"
3) Evolution is blind
4) There is no metaphysical reality

1. I do not see evidence of you being critical and scientific virtue by
the sheer fact that you have not evaluated your own beliefs. These
are not your beliefs either, you have borrowed them from secularism
and materialisam.

If you really are a critical thinker than how you deny that really are higher
states of being and life. Is it not true that some people are joyful, loving and
compassionate and some people are not. Does that not itself establish my point
that there are higher states of being and life?

2. If everything is relative, how can you know for a fact that there is no evidence
for the 4 statements I made? This relativism is not consistent, because in making
this statement you've set-up a position that your position is objective, valid.
Relativism is just sophisty, it never works in principle. The biggest refutation
was by Plato and Aristotle of this position, which showed that everything is subject
to logic and all claims can be tested. Just as I have tested your claim of being relative
and shown it to be false.

3. How can evolution be blind when you have said yourself that an apriori condition of
evolution is the survival instinct. It is not blind then, but determined by a priori teleology
- to preserve life. Your views rely on centuries old theories, new views in evolution such
as epigenetics do not support the blind evolution thesis. Moreover, you did not answer my
question on how a complex intricate system could arise by chance, where every part is
dependent on everything else to function. It is already clear if you think critically, that
evolution is not random, because it is driven by a predisposition for life. There are already
certain a priori structures in evolution which work better than others. Moreover, we know
for a fact that evolution is governed by actual laws, for example atoms will only combine
under certain conditions and at the sub-atomic level all conditions must be absolutely fine
-tuned to the nth degree for any complexity to arise. Once again here is revealed that evolution
has an priori organization without which the universe with its multitude of complexieties could
not arise.

4. Then what is mind, consciousness and experience? They are certainly not physical because
they cannot be measured and have no locality. Then by definition they are metaphysical. Are
you denying they do not exist?

One of the defining characteristics of critical and scientific thinker is the ability to differentiate
between the various nuances of something and examine it more precisely. I am doing that, and you
are not. I think you should not worry about "debunking" my "beliefs" As a critical thinker, I only go
where the evidence is pointing. If it so happens something I held to be true is in fact demonstrably false
I will not bat an eye lid in dropping that notion. However, you must be able to demonstrate it, and this
means engaging my statements. Your reluctance to do that reveals an insecurity in your own beliefs, than it
does care for mine. Moroever, you have already entered this discussion, and made many claims, so you
have the burden of proof now to back up your claims.

[caniswalensis]

IC,
I came into this thread, commented on a cartoon and told an anecdote about myself that I thought people might find amusing. That’s it. I didn’t make any grandiose claims, and I certainly do not have any burden on me to post more.

You came in and tried to tell me I am not really an atheist or that atheism does not exist or something like that, and started trying to get me involved in a big metaphysical discussion that I really did not want to be a part of. I played along for awhile, but I am done with it now.

You are stating some of my views incorrectly and have mischaracterized my positions. For one, I am objective enough to know that I have beliefs. See this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1201
Another case of you misinterpreting my posts is your assertion that I believe evolution to be random. I said no such thing. I merely disagreed with you that it is guided by an intelligence. That is completely different. I also did not reference any form of relativism, and my statement that “we see things differently” was simply a factual statement. It carried no weight beyond that. Don’t read too much into it.

Now you are baiting me saying I am insecure & I am not a real critical thinker or whatever, and I don’t really have any use for that kind of discussion at all. The bottom line is, I did not want to be a part of for such a discussion when it was nice & friendly and we were both sticking to the issues. What makes you think I would when you try to make it about me personally?

But I will say this, and I say it with complete sincerity; if you were insulted because you felt like I was talking down to you, I didn’t mean it that way. I was trying to be nice & friendly to you.

Regards, Canis

[Indigo Child]

Dear Canis,

I read the subtext in the cartoon by an atheist web site, and was responding
to that, missing the humour. The subtext was that there is no such thing as
god, because different religions mean something different when they say god,
which was presented as a satire. So my aim was not to just seek entertainment
from what really is an atheist propoganda cartoon(lol) but to actually get to the
depths of it. There really is no issue in fact that is not bordered by metaphysics
on both sides, especially on god!

Now we did not really have to get in this discussion had you not made many statements,
which recently was saying that god was my belief, a subjective judgement that consoles me,
whereas you base your judgements on objective and scientific evidence. You cannot honestly
expect me not to challenge such an arrogant statement, no matter how politely it was said. Moreover,
you ignored quite a lot of reasons I was giving you for how I arrive at my judgements, which was presented
on plenty of rational arguments. This is tantamount to the skeptic saying, "there is no evidence" over and
over again despite being presented with some. You just do it more politely, but the fallacy is the same.

I am always going to ask whoever I am talking to back up a statement. As each statement contains
a truth-claim.

As for your admittance now that evolution is not blind. Where do you draw the line between a determined
evolution with a priori dispositions and an intelligent evolution? Is this line drawn for rational reason or it
subjective?

[caniswalensis]

[babymathew]

God is faith,
God is true,
God is everywhere,
God is everything.

I believe in God and prayer is the best way to communicate with god. But you must have a faith in god then and only then your prayer will be answered.

[Craig Browning]

[NinjaPuppy]

[Craig Browning]

sorry... I was misreading some things (and getting more and more confused by the whole Intelligent Design drama)

[ProfWag]

[NinjaPuppy]

This is a great subject and I would love to see it have it's own topic.

[Craig Browning]

Go Here>>