"Why won't God heal amputees?"

[stu]

Quote from jefferis:
I've read some of your other posts, Stu and know BS when I see it. You seek to promote the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion: instead of arguing the fact in dispute, the arguer seeks to gain his point by diverting attention to some extraneous fact. The fallacies are common in platform oratory, in which the speaker obscures the real issue by appealing to his audience on the grounds of popular sentiment, that since no one believes the Easter Bunny is real [except children], therefore God also must not be real, and therefore, belief in God is as ridiculous as belief in the Easter Bunny. Therefore any argument in favor of agnosticism regarding God must also result in agnosticism about the reality of the Easter Bunny

jefferies, read again what you have written above here in your quote. You are doing what you are accusing me of - the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion: the extraneous fact there is the Easter Bunny.

To avoid any ambiguity, I explicitly made reference to God Allah and God Vishnu. Not the Easter Bunny ( although I realize you personally consider Fairies to be of a similar category) .

I particularly emphasized following your own advice about agnosticism finding it must equally apply to God Allah and God Vishnu. I ask you again to confirm whether or not your advice is applicable.

I distinctly requested quite separately why you would diminish other things (like Fairies) under the fallacy of Special Pleading.

Quote from jefferis:
The argument for faith as an avenue for accurate perception of the ultimate truths of the universe requires the concept of revelation. Revelation is outside the realm of empirical verification. The argument is tautological [a statement true by virtue of its logical formnd self-rerferential. It is logical, but cannot amount to a proof. Emmanuel Kant wrote of the unconditioned ground of being. The idea that something is infinite means by its very nature that you cannot subject it to the laws of cause and effect, because what is caused is finite, by definition, and not infinite. It is conditioned, or conditional: dependent upon something else for its existence.

The instances of your argument are not provable, you declare as much, therefore the statement you say is true, is not demonstrated true , by its content, provability, or its logical form.

Quote from jefferis:
In morality, he wrote that you cannot provide an ulterior motive to make someone value the good. It must be valued for its own sake. In other words, if you say, you should be good because you will get a reward: money, power, fame, eternal life, etc. then the reason the person does what is good is not because it is good in itself, but because of self interest. The selfish motivation taints the purity of the reason for the good. So, the idea of the good is axiomatic to morality, and a person ought to want to do the good because it is good in itself and for no other reason.

A separate discussion altogether and happy to go there, but please would you return to the substance of our current argument?

Quote from jefferis:
In the same way, the idea of God is axiomatic. What cause can cause the existence of God? If there is a cause, then by definition, God is not God, but would be created by some other agent. But God, by common definition, is uncreated and infinite. Since the empirical method can ONLY measure things by using the law of cause and effect [things that are created by causes], the very tools by which it attempts to measure, are incapable of measuring God and incapable of proving or disproving the truth of God's existence. They cannot measure the uncaused Cause of all things. The very means of empiricism would try to subject the infinite to the finite. It would be trying to prove an axiom, which by definition cannot be proved but must be accepted. If one accepts the axiom that God exists, then all else can follow. If one does not, then nothing one says, would prove the case, for the case relies upon the first premise: that God is the uncreated Creator of all things.

Common definitions are not necessarily truths. Because you cannot devise a test to test your first premise, your advice was, a more rational approach would be agnosticism. Are you saying you do not follow that advice?

Quote from jefferis:
If you accept the idea of God as possible, then God, as the Creator, would have the power to make himself known to the people he created, IF he so wills or chooses to do so. He could also choose to make himself known to some and not to others, based upon his decision as regards to their moral character, inmost desires, or any other criterion he might choose. If he chose to reveal himself, his nature, and truths about himself, it could be direct and unmediated knowledge, or revelation using the nature of the material world, including the particularities of time, culture, language, geography, and circumstance. And he could reveal things that are necessary to morality, salvation, and himself.

At least the same attributes apply to God Allah and God Vishnu. For your information and although you care to trivialize their existence, Fairies can do more.

Quote from jefferis:
However, once you enter into competing claims of revelation, whether that be Muslim, Hindu, Christian, or otherwise, you are no longer in the realm of empirical verification and you must evaluate the claims by other means.

You have already said God cannot be empirically verifified, but it appears you are suggesting God can be in that realm but no longer when what you call revelations compete. Bit of an apparent contradiction nevertheless however -...Special Pleading again jeffries. God and or God the Creator is no more than a claim, an assertion. Allah is claimed to be the only God - asserted as Supreme Creator of all.

Please address the fact in dispute keepng to the substance of what you gave out as your own advice. You give advice how agnostic is the more rational approach. Shoulkd you not be agnostic about God Allah and God Vishnu?

 

[jefferis]

Quote from archimedes:

All logical declarations of fact or opinion in regards to the structure of reality are subject to this same observation. This is true whether God does or does not exist. Therefore, if you rely on this line of reasoning to discredit an opponent, you once again shoot yourself in the head. A reliance on logic and evidence is axiomatic if one wishes to make logical progress of any kind. Assertions that do not rely on logic and evidence are mystical, and not subject to rational discourse in the first place.

p.s. Gotta take a break here and get some work done. Might check back in later.

Yeah, I should get back to work also. However, your point I agree with, and it underscores mine. The problem with 'evidence' is that how one interprets evidence also can be predetermined by major premises. So we have the problem of the biased sample and the biased filter. How one sees the 'evidence' of universe, as either caused with intent or accidental, will indeed determine how one interprets the evidence. The logic is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

You cannot make a claim that it is universally true and obvious that it is all existence is accidental because we see injustice, or because it is illogical that the vast universe could care about puny individuals, or that it is so self-evident that it all happened by chance, because that begs the question. It assumes the conclusion by the way the argument is presented.

What one sees as accidental another sees as part of intent.

The only way one could know for sure of a universal truth or meaning to reality is if that universal truth was self conscious, self-defining, and able to reveal its own intrinsic nature and truth to the individual. Otherwise, a person, left to reason and speculation and observation, could never KNOW for sure. As lkh agreed: it is impossible to prove a negative. All he could do is assume that what he believes about reality is true. And then argue his case with passion and conviction, yes and with logic, but without proof. Just with the faith that his view of the universe is right.

If however, God, then God is theoretically able to communicate to human beings and reveal himself in truth. If God is not, then nothing can be affirmed as true because there is no way to validate it. It is impossible to prove that there is no Creator, no reason or purpose to life.

This predicament is made more difficult by the frame of reference: the self interpreting data according to assumptions, prejudices, and desired results. The filter becomes the interpretive fulcrum; but because it is limited to the finite experience and perspectives of the self, it is inherently flawed at estimating the nature of the universe, which requires omniscience. To say there is no God is an act either of faith or of hubris, but not of knowledge.

In the same way, it could be said that the religious person could be deceived by the same sort of prejudices, learning, and assumptions. Many claim revelation, but their deeds do not correspond to the hope we might have for a benevolent Creator. But many other private and unassuming people, go about their daily lives convinced that they have had a personal encounter with a loving God.

The only escape from this predicament of the limited frame of reference is if there is a God who is self-defining and chooses to reveal himself in his intrinsic nature and being, and by that revelation we get a window into the ultimate nature of the universe. If God, then there are things that are universally true. Barring that, all we are left to do is wonder...

 

[jefferis]

Quote from stu:
At least the same attributes apply to God Allah and God Vishnu. For your information and although you care to trivialize their existence, Fairies can do more.
[/B]

Please Stu, how do you know there are Fairies and why do you believe in them?

 

[stu]

Quote from jefferis:

Please Stu, how do you know there are Fairies and why do you believe in them?

Really jeffries, it should not be a matter of whether I do or do not believe in fairies should it?.

Your advice, if it is good advice, should apply irrespective of my or anyone else’s beliefs or non beliefs.
You advised hcour as to what is a more reasonable approach for what you say is "believing there is no God". It is agnosticism.

By that very same advice, I am simply asking , should it not apply for the things you "don't believe in" ?

Your answer appears to be non answer. To trivialize everything but God for no other reason than a special pleading fallacy.
Surely you would stand the advice given to others by following it yourself ?

 

[jefferis]

Quote from stu:

Really jeffries, it should not be a matter of whether I do or do not believe in fairies should it?.

Sure it does Stu. It tells me right off if you are interested in serious discussion, or just using rhetorical devices. It is apparent that it is the latter.

I'll get around to the answer to your question, but I am in no hurry.

 

[archimedes]

Quote from jefferis:


The only escape from this predicament of the limited frame of reference is if there is a God who is self-defining and chooses to reveal himself in his intrinsic nature and being, and by that revelation we get a window into the ultimate nature of the universe. If God, then there are things that are universally true. Barring that, all we are left to do is wonder...

I (basically) agree with you here, but with a caveat.

It's possible that a higher intelligence could reveal itself via general revelation, leaving us to match up the puzzle pieces over time. But if this hypothetical intelligence chose to avoid direct means of communication, there would be no way of getting direct answers. (Worse still, if this being chose to deceive us, there'd be no way we could know. Not even manifest proof of God's existence can assure absolute truth.)

All metaphysical doors of inquiry could be closed off until we cross some unknown future threshold. Maybe there's a big answer waiting for us on Alpha Centauri, or the other side of the nearest wormhole. Or maybe not. Point being, we should at least consider the possibility that metaphysical speculation is moot. It may well be that we are not to know the big answers today, tomorrow, or ever. Plenty of kids never see Disneyland.

It could be that the journey is the destination -- that the meaning of the universe was concealed from us so that we learn a thing or two as we figure it out. Maybe suffering is the path to human enlightenment on a multi-millennial scale.

Or, maybe our existence is just the result of a quantum fart, as Stu so eloquently put it earlier this in thread. We may never get the big answers, and never have definitive confirmation of whether a higher intelligence exists or not.

But none of this need cause despair, because meaning is an emergent property.

It doesn't matter where humanity came from so much as where we're going. It doesn't matter where we derived our capacity for conscious thought so much as what we do with that capacity here and now. The beauty of a sunset is not destroyed by scientific explanation of how the sun works and how light interacts with the atmosphere. The incredible feeling of being in love is not lessened by clinical knowledge of why love exists.

For the sufficiently creative and awake, reality bears an indelible stamp of wonder with no cosmic boost required.

In fact, this might be one of the big lessons we are supposed to 'get.' If God exists, maybe he's pissed that we're so anxious to discount reality, like spoiled brats who always want toys they don't have.

Maybe the path to enlightenment requires embracing reality exactly as it is, letting go of the questions we were not meant to have answers for. Maybe once we do that, the need for a big supernatural thrill falls away -- and it thus ceases to matter whether we ever see God's face.

Wondering does not have to be a bad thing.

 

[jefferis]

Quote from archimedes:



Wondering does not have to be a bad thing.

Wonder is like creativity. The joy of expression and the never before heard melodic riff...

"I despise a world which does not feel that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." -- Ludwig van Beethoven

Some call it inspiration

I find it interesting that in Genesis 2, God's first surprise is to call Adam into a creative relationship; to be creative. "Here Adam, name the animals..."

If the image of God is true, then humanity was both created to be creative and free.

Have a good weekend.

 

[archimedes]

Quote from jefferis:


"I despise a world which does not feel that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy." -- Ludwig van Beethoven

Sweet quote, that's a keeper.

You have a good weekend also.

 

[jefferis]

Quote from archimedes:

Sweet quote, that's a keeper.

You have a good weekend also.

Just found another, I was searching from memory but got a more complete one of the first as well:

Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend.
-- Ludwig van Beethoven, quoted by Bettina von Arnin, letter to Goethe, 1810

When I open my eyes I must sigh, for what I see is contrary to my religion, and I must despise the world which does not know that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy.
-- Ludwig van Beethoven, quoted by Bettina von Arnin, letter to Goethe, 1810

 

[ParisJOM]

I can not believe that such a satanic post exists on the Holly Elite Trader site. I am upauled and in tears as I read that even traders now are questioning the irrefutable veracity of th Bible and even God's existance !

You heathen athiests have just bough an express one-way ticket to hell! What will you lost souls tell me next ? ... are you going to also try to tell the world that St Nicholas and the toothferry are ficticious too ?? ...oh, and while you are at it, why don't you just throw in that new fad lie according to which the universe is more than 6000 years old.