Author Topic: Quest for Truth  (Read 11428 times)

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • Jacuzzi Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5557
  • Total likes: 2266
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Sargon Lore
Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #30 on: June 17, 2019, 03:51:51 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Incorrect, and this is an invalid argument:

"You use a lot of flowery language in your post. That alone is a red flag indicating you came here with the intent to proselytize, not engage in honest discussion."

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
I wasn’t making an argument. This is my position. At the rate you’re going, it’s unlikely to change.
"Existence is beautiful, if you let it be. Life is not a question. There does not need to be an answer."
- No Man's Sky

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #31 on: June 17, 2019, 04:02:08 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Nearly everything you said about Islam is based on a superficial caricature of the religion, courtesy of the anti-Muslim propaganda rampant in the media.  If I can convey an accurate sense of the meaning and purpose of this religion, then I will have afforded you the freedom to have a more informed opinion about it than otherwise possible.  However if your goal is simply to use my religion as a bashing board for your prejudices then have at it.  My mind is mine to use as I wish.  If I choose to adopt the principles of Islam then I have not abdicated my free will or intelligence any more than a soldier abdicates his right to freedom by enlisting himself in the army--despite the fact that certain actions will thereupon become punishable by death for him that previously were not-- for example, disobeying a direct order from an officer in time of battle.

Your right to believe is not the thing we're disagreeing on. You can believe whatever you want, but if you make falsifiable claims, I'm going to show you how false they are. Of course, Christians have a habit of cherrypicking which parts of the Bible to pay attention to, and ignoring whatever parts are inconvenient to them. Muslims, however, have the convenient system where texts have varying levels of "authenticity." So Muslims basically have an all-you-can-eat hadith buffet, only partaking in the ones that suit them. So if I'm not "taking it out of context," I'm simply referencing a text you choose to dismiss. I'm not playing this game. Fact is, many Muslims believe that leaving the religion is punishable by death, and that the cutting off of hands and feet is a suitable punishment ordained by God. I have seen the texts where those things come from. If you disagree with those things, it is because you are a better person than your religion tells you to be.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville

Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #32 on: June 17, 2019, 04:04:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I wasn’t making an argument. This is my position. At the rate you’re going, it’s unlikely to change.
I'm glad to know you have no argument against my position then.  In that case there is no need to change your mind since you adopt positions without arguments, which does not require the exercise of critical thinking. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #33 on: June 17, 2019, 04:11:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your right to believe is not the thing we're disagreeing on. You can believe whatever you want, but if you make falsifiable claims, I'm going to show you how false they are. Of course, Christians have a habit of cherrypicking which parts of the Bible to pay attention to, and ignoring whatever parts are inconvenient to them. Muslims, however, have the convenient system where texts have varying levels of "authenticity." So Muslims basically have an all-you-can-eat hadith buffet, only partaking in the ones that suit them. So if I'm not "taking it out of context," I'm simply referencing a text you choose to dismiss. I'm not playing this game. Fact is, many Muslims believe that leaving the religion is punishable by death, and that the cutting off of hands and feet is a suitable punishment ordained by God. I have seen the texts where those things come from. If you disagree with those things, it is because you are a better person than your religion tells you to be.
You have made a variety of inaccurate assertions about Islam without demonstrating that my assertion was false.  However one can not demonstrate the inaccuracy of the claims of someone if they are unwilling to examine the evidence one offers.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 04:15:42 PM by Absolute_Agent »

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • Jacuzzi Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5557
  • Total likes: 2266
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Sargon Lore
Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #34 on: June 17, 2019, 04:33:19 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm glad to know you have no argument against my position then.  In that case there is no need to change your mind since you adopt positions without arguments, which does not require the exercise of critical thinking. 

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


You believe my disdain for you is born of a lack of critical thinking skills. You are mistaken.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:


An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 07:28:05 PM by Hijiri Byakuren »
"Existence is beautiful, if you let it be. Life is not a question. There does not need to be an answer."
- No Man's Sky

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Mr.Obvious

  • Atheist Mantis
  • Jacuzzi Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3438
  • Total likes: 1970
  • The rules are made up, and the points don't matter
Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #35 on: June 17, 2019, 06:02:00 PM »
Old faithful.

Been a while Hijiri. :)
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #36 on: June 17, 2019, 06:22:02 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You believe my disdain for you is born of a pack of critical thinking skills. You are mistaken.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:


An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login, while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.
That's a very well thought-out counter argument to the existence of the God, and the argument for God is likewise simple and logical:

Premise 1: God created humans primarily to be free will creatures.

Premise 2: God, being all-powerful, understood that direct perception of His reality annihilates the possibility of free will since it would be impossible to choose not to believe and obey Him

Premise 3: God therefore created a veil of illusion (the material world) to disguise His all-encompassing presence from humans.

Premise 4: In order to preserve free will it was likewise necessary to provide a means for humans to choose to believe in His existence freely if they should desire it, through convincing yet not overwhelming evidence, and signs or tokens.  The primary evidence being scriptures revealed by chosen volunteers as messengers, a k.a. prophets, and subtle clues in the natural creation. The messages of the prophets were then by and large written down to be spread far and wide.

Premise 5: God has never directly and fully manifested Himself to humanity at large, the exception being certain prophets and other holy individuals, by design.

Conclusion 1: Evidence for God exists in the scriptures sufficient to convince those already predisposed to believe in God, and thus earn His favor, but not compelling enough to prove it to skeptics, those predisposed to disbelieve.  Consequently, those who choose to may believe and experience the reality of God, while those who do not wish, may live in ignorance of His reality.  This concept exists in the Qur'an in Surah Khaf (18).

Conclusion 2: The belief in God is thus a voluntary act of will that does not negate individual freedom, nor short circuit rational thought.

Conclusion 3: I am not required to change your mind or anyone else's, only to make the evidence available in a clear logical fashion to the best of my ability, to provide all with the freedom of an informed choice.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 07:01:27 PM by Absolute_Agent »

Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #37 on: June 17, 2019, 06:31:03 PM »
I have a hard time believing that scriptures provide any evidence at all, for God or anything else. If God revealed himself to someone, then that someone has had a revelation, not me. I still must be convinced by that someone to believe, without myself having a revelation. Therefore persuasion is the means for that someone to alter my belief or disbelief in God, and scripture provides no persuasive argument or evidence that the person even truly had any such revelation from God.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
“Let others pride themselves about how many pages they have written; I'd rather boast about the ones I've read.”
― Jorge Luis Borges

Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #38 on: June 17, 2019, 07:00:21 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have a hard time believing that scriptures provide any evidence at all, for God or anything else. If God revealed himself to someone, then that someone has had a revelation, not me. I still must be convinced by that someone to believe, without myself having a revelation. Therefore persuasion is the means for that someone to alter my belief or disbelief in God, and scripture provides no persuasive argument or evidence that the person even truly had any such revelation from God.
I assume you have read the scriptures-- because surely it would be illogical to reject evidence without first examining it, would it not?

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #39 on: June 17, 2019, 07:05:08 PM »
I've read the Bible 3 times, and studied it, but not the Quran, since it can only be truly read in the original language, and I don't speak or read it.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
“Let others pride themselves about how many pages they have written; I'd rather boast about the ones I've read.”
― Jorge Luis Borges

Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #40 on: June 17, 2019, 07:15:31 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've read the Bible 3 times, and studied it, but not the Quran, since it can only be truly read in the original language, and I don't speak or read it.
The Bible cannot be read in the original original language either.  I experienced the Qur'an in English translation providing much stronger evidence than the Bible, and since you've already read the Bible, you might as well try reading the Qur'an. If you wish you can do so here:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Or here:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #41 on: June 17, 2019, 07:22:26 PM »
OK, but that doesn't answer my point about whether a revelation to a person other than me counts as a revelation to me. The scriptures are merely things people have written, and do not constitute any kind of evidence that they indeed had any sort of revelation from God.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
“Let others pride themselves about how many pages they have written; I'd rather boast about the ones I've read.”
― Jorge Luis Borges

Offline Hijiri Byakuren

  • ULC Minister, Honorary Doctor of Divinity
  • Jacuzzi Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5557
  • Total likes: 2266
  • That's DOCTOR Hijiri, to you!
    • Sargon Lore
Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #42 on: June 17, 2019, 07:47:06 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Old faithful.

Been a while Hijiri. :)
Well of course I'm going to use that essay whenever this subject comes up. I've yet to encounter anyone who could actually debunk it. Observe.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
That's a very well thought-out counter argument to the existence of the God, and the argument for God is likewise simple and logical:

Premise 1: God created humans primarily to be free will creatures.

Premise 2: God, being all-powerful, understood that direct perception of His reality annihilates the possibility of free will since it would be impossible to choose not to believe and obey Him

Premise 3: God therefore created a veil of illusion (the material world) to disguise His all-encompassing presence from humans.

Premise 4: In order to preserve free will it was likewise necessary to provide a means for humans to choose to believe in His existence freely if they should desire it, through convincing yet not overwhelming evidence, and signs or tokens.  The primary evidence being scriptures revealed by chosen volunteers as messengers, a k.a. prophets, and subtle clues in the natural creation. The messages of the prophets were then by and large written down to be spread far and wide.

Premise 5: God has never directly and fully manifested Himself to humanity at large, the exception being certain prophets and other holy individuals, by design.

Conclusion 1: Evidence for God exists in the scriptures sufficient to convince those already predisposed to believe in God, and thus earn His favor, but not compelling enough to prove it to skeptics, those predisposed to disbelieve.  Consequently, those who choose to may believe and experience the reality of God, while those who do not wish, may live in ignorance of His reality.  This concept exists in the Qur'an in Surah Khaf (18).

Conclusion 2: The belief in God is thus a voluntary act of will that does not negate individual freedom, nor short circuit rational thought.

Conclusion 3: I am not required to change your mind or anyone else's, only to make the evidence available in a clear logical fashion to the best of my ability, to provide all with the freedom of an informed choice.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Your premises are flawed. They assert God's existence without attempting to prove he exists. You mention scripture, but these are texts written by human authors, and God's existence would still need to be independently proven in order to say that these authors were writing on his behalf. Your conclusions are invalid since they follow from flawed premises, and your argument needs a complete rework.

On the subject of scripture, I have only this to say:

Any text written or inspired by a supreme being would contain knowledge and wisdom so valuable that no right-minded individual would be able to deny the correctness of its statements. These texts would not be open to interpretation, as any interpretation would only serve to detract from the meaning of the original material. There is no text on Earth that meets this description, and therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that no scripture claiming to be the word of a supreme being is indeed such.
"Existence is beautiful, if you let it be. Life is not a question. There does not need to be an answer."
- No Man's Sky

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Baruch

Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #43 on: June 17, 2019, 09:38:18 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've read the Bible 3 times, and studied it, but not the Quran, since it can only be truly read in the original language, and I don't speak or read it.

Lazy bum.  I do read the Quran, a little, in the original language.  Get to work, or you get to muck out the camel stall.

I also read the Bible in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  The Chinese scriptures in ... wait for it ... Chinese.  Hinduism in Sanskrit.  I am studying Pali now (language in same family as Sanskrit and Hindi) ... can we "pali" around later?  Early Buddhist writings are in Pali.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2019, 10:05:21 PM by Baruch »
Zampa xiquihto.  Amo nimitzcuamachilia.
Say it again.  I don't understand you.

Offline Baruch

Re: Quest for Truth
« Reply #44 on: June 17, 2019, 09:39:32 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Claiming yourself to be more unique than other is actually quite average and mundane. ;)

Yes, we are all mundanes.  Or are you from Planet X (Duck Dodgers cartoon)?

And I am alluding to Animal Farm.  Animal Farm is true, in that we can't all be pigs.
Zampa xiquihto.  Amo nimitzcuamachilia.
Say it again.  I don't understand you.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk