I'm think I'm losing faith in God. - Page 2

People like those
dont rely on God
and have faith in GOD

there fake belivers who just fallow
what they think they must
for its right but they still dont belive

besides if someone where to kill themself

They would be a coward for not facing life the way it is
and not having to deal with it

because we all die but just in time when
weve done what we were sappose to do

Misconceptions are easy to form . . . it may be even written somewhere?
The nature of life is hard to understand thus the aspect of existence beyond this life (world) could easily be misconstrued.
To perceive the nature of that which is beyond, would be arrogant or ignorant?

quote:

---

The bible states that "there is life after death . . . therefore in heaven my husband, Al & I will live in eternal bliss".

---

Basically isn't that what it says? . . . Hmm, A man & woman marry but the new does mention something about the institution (civil ceremony) & in fact the traditional Christian ceremony included vows That there exist some sort of spiritual relationship being cast here? A Union being formed.
But then again . . . didn't some people purpose to confront Jesus with this very issue? The widow who passes from one son to another & they ask whose wife should she be? I think He responded . .

quote:

---

{personal note: proceeding cap used as habit formed by reading certain versions)

---

That the in heaven this type of relationship didn't exist between the angels? In fact, I think it is described as being in {commune} "union with God"? So life of this world is separation from God and "afterlife" as being in some form of union with the Creator . . . God?

To the author of this page:
You said that cause your family was Christian and so you believed in it, right? Well, obviously, your family isn't you. You decide what to believe in, yes maybe the God, Adam and Eve, stuff etc. are getting a bit unrealistic to you. If you feel very uncomfortable about Christianity, then switch. Pretty straight forward, although as a FIRM believer in Christ, I am, here's an hint: try finding the right religion for you. The right, and comfortable beliefs that help your trouble right now. Although, I strongly, Strongly, STRONGLY, encourage you not to............*mumble, mumble* But if you do feel like there may be a way out within Christianity, try asking a local pastor for help, read the Bible, pray to God, (and *cough*kill Satan aka Lucifer for me or torture him at the Lake of Fire *cough*)---umm ooops srry, my allergies to uhh...never mind. As I was saying,.......yeah, that's about it, I know I might not be a big help or anything.....but yeah...... Good Luck with your decision, I know you'd find a way outta this

Hey, I know how you feel. I went through something simmilar.

I'll tell you anything you want on the subject of Christianity. I will not try and convert you if you don't want to be. I will not try to tell you that your wrong and going to hell (even if I believe it).

I believe whole-heartedly in christianity and the bible, but can look at other religions and ideas from your point of view.

I'll even play devil's advocate for you if you want.

And, although I may disagree with you, I won't hate you or stop you from being my friend just because you believe differently than I do.

Please Email/PM me. I'd love to talk with you about it. (that goes for all of you. ED)

You're not losing faith in "God," you're discovering that your understanding of what others have told you "God" is doesn't work for you. There's nothing wrong with that. Most of us start out believing what we're taught to believe, but it's really not what we're taught, but our perception of what is being taught. Personally, I believe "agnostic" is the only logical position, since there are some things we simply can not know, or at least, can not understand.

Our understanding can grow, but only if we are willing to discard what we think we know, and diligently devote our efforts to questioning everything, rather than attempting to defend what we are convinced we "know."

quote:

---

Personally, I believe "agnostic" is the only logical position, since there are some things we simply can not know, or at least, can not understand.

---

This is a damnable doctrine. People like Kant and McGinn have argued that the human mind is systematically unable to perceive certain classes of phenomena, in the same way a tone deaf person cannot enjoy music. But wait. A tone deaf person can only know he is such because other people, not unsuscptible to its pleasures, have told him so. If EVERYBODY was tone deaf, such a concept would never be entertained. We have initmations of the divine, and just because we cannot answer the question of whether God exists come what may, this has not the slightest tendency to licence the view that NOTHING CAN BE SAID on the subject. This is, as always, a matter of probability and not certainty. Agnosticism is simply a refusal to answer the question.

quote:

---

If EVERYBODY was tone deaf, such a concept would never be entertained.

---

This is incorrect. Though it would apply for most, the definitive disallows the ever present exception to every rule.

New concepts, ideas, and even simple reinterpretations come from and lead to just such exceptions.

Just as such blatant definitives drive open minds to prove the limitations of such dismissive presupposed thinking.

quote:

---

We have initmations of the divine, and just because we cannot answer the question of whether God exists come what may, this has not the slightest tendency to licence the view that NOTHING CAN BE SAID on the subject.

---

Though I've seen debate on the term agnostic, its history seems clear to me, feel free to elaborate or correct.

The main debate being between not knowing and stating that one can't know, which the latter hypocritically belies the point of the term as it was intended when coined.

quote:

---

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnôsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things"; hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals-"ists," as he called them-who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

---

But the point of the term is not to disallow debate or theory on the matter, but to admit that one does not know, and is often extended through debate of others' defintive claims of "knowledge" and "facts".

There is a difference between nothing being able to be said and theorizing, and or making unsubstantiated claims based on chosen "beliefs".

The latter of which being the only damnable doctrine I see, and unfortunately a very predominant one at that.

quote:

---

Agnosticism is simply a refusal to answer the question.

---

Incorrect again, do you know why? Because saying "I don't know" is an answer, which is exactly what agnosticism is, the statement of admission of not knowing or unknowing.

Hence, a (anti/un/without/not)
gnostic (gnosis/knowledge).

I would add that it is the only honest answer I'm aware of.

It is saying that one cannot honestly and knowingly answer the question correctly (usually the point of answering), unless by accident through a guess which would still not be a known correct answer untill proven so.

It is saying that untill a provable and defineable answer arises, anything else is at best, theory, while the rest is just making shit up or guessing, which isn't an answer at all, and should be noted as such.

It is saying that answering just to answer instead of answering correctly is not answering at all.

"Does god exist"

My "answer"...Pink.

Disprove it, if you feel you can, and that it would be worth your time.

If EVERYBODY was tone deaf, such a concept would never be entertained.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

quote:

---

This is incorrect. Though it would apply for most, the definitive disallows the ever present exception to every rule

---

.
If you're going to express yourself so eliptically, we'll go nowhere. Do you mean... that we can't rule out the possibility that someone will be born, now or in the future, with the capacity to appreciate music? Because if you do, my argument remains unassailed. A deaf person (assuming he has been deaf all his life) only has knowledge of sounds because, in some positive and I suppose yet to be specified sense, other people have reported experieces of sounds to him, and this knowledge ties in with contingent beliefs about the world which form an ordered (and revisable?) whole. Knowledge of one's ignorance is still knowledge. So if I say that I know nothing about God, I am not simply witholding judgement but affirming, if only by implication, a whole array of secondary propositions like "God is of a different nature to man" (since he is beyond knowledge) or even (in some cases) "God exists". I think Hegel points out somewhere that positing the unknowable presupposes that one can know the unknowable. Whether you agree with this or not, my point is clear: agnosticism cannot simply be an absence of belief where there is an absence of evidence. Things aren't as simple as that. And this is really only another way of saying that just because a question is unsusceptible to proof or disproof, in the severe, crystalline manner of mathematics, this does not mean than that every answer is equally valid. Agnosticism assumes that the evidence for God's existence weighs in equally on either side. Is this true? Do you really think this is true?

quote:

---

Though I've seen debate on the term agnostic, its history seems clear to me, feel free to elaborate or correct.

---

What does the history matter? All that matters is that you know what I mean by the word. The only agnostic I've read is Huxley, and he seems to be bordering on the atheistic. Atheism was a term of abuse in Victorian England, so he made use of the term for political as much as intellectual purposes.

Agnosticism is simply a refusal to answer the question.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------

quote:

---

Incorrect again, do you know why? Because saying "I don't know" is an answer, which is exactly what agnosticism is, the statement of admission of not knowing or unknowing.

---

Isn't that like saying breathing on mars is still breathing? If the agnostic admission is to constitute an answer in any meaningful sense, it must say that THERE ARE NO COMPELLING REASONS FOR EITHER ASSERTING OR DENYING GOD'S EXISTENCE, SUCH THAT BOTH VIEWS ARE EQUALLY VALID. To which I ask: how do you know this?

quote:

---

saying "I don't know" is an answer

---

and then the man created the computer on his image...
i'm talking about "Binary numeral system". Our brain functions on this system. It's either you detect a signal either you don't. The system is presented by two numbers 1 and 0. 1=yes. 0=no. There's nothing in between which your statement seems to want so ( if you want to get more into this, google into cognitive neuroscience).
Agnosticism is as Wittygensteins said the most damnable position. Still, it is part of the journey (healthy skepticism), the important thing is to find an exit for it, otherwise life would be a very long panick attack.

quote:

---

If you're going to express yourself so eliptically, we'll go nowhere. Do you mean... that we can't rule out the possibility that someone will be born, now or in the future, with the capacity to appreciate music?

---

I didn't elaborate because the point was bunk to begin with.

quote:

---

A deaf person (assuming he has been deaf all his life) only has knowledge of sounds because, in some positive and I suppose yet to be specified sense, other people have reported experieces of sounds to him

---

And to repeat myself, my point was no get into your falacious out of context hypothetical argument to begin with, as it is untenable, my point was to tell you that you are quite wrong in your assumptive definitive models, as well as incorrect in your attempted use of them.

As you still are as you have proven again through thuroughly unecessary repitition.

Perhaps you don't understand the concept I am presenting.

quote:

---

A deaf person (assuming he has been deaf all his life) only has knowledge of sounds because, in some positive and I suppose yet to be specified sense, other people have reported experieces of sounds to him

---

All people could be tone deaf, acutally deaf, or a person could be the only thing alive ever, and it would still be possible, regardless of improbability, my very simple and basic point.

Understanding the mechanics of how it would be possible is never necessary in my point, understanding that the possibility always exists, however, is.

quote:

---

Knowledge of one's ignorance is still knowledge. So if I say that I know nothing about God, I am not simply witholding judgement but affirming, if only by implication, a whole array of secondary propositions like "God is of a different nature to man" (since he is beyond knowledge) or even (in some cases) "God exists".

---

We can all experience difficulty articulating our points, myself included, but I am going to have to ask you to try to use your words a tad more correctly.

Affirming secondary proposistions by implication through acknowledgement of ignorance?

There is so much missing and mixing of context that this is barely coherent.

If, by some small miracle, of which I doubt, you mean to say that claiming ignorance still allows for possibilities, then you would be correct.

If you mean just about anything else, then you would likely be incorrect, but I reserve judgement due to lacking clarity.

Firstly, knowledge of ignorance is indeed knowledge, here's your happy face sticker.

Oops, oh well.

Past that point you go into a convoluted out of context non argument again.

If you do indeed say you know nothing of god, then not only are you contradicting yourself, but you may have downs.

So you can have that argument by yourself and anyone stupid enough to hold such a posistion.

And since you hinder the possibility of your gaining understanding of this dispute further by using the term judgement, which is inherently a matter of opinion over factual knowledge, I will judge you as silly and lacking understanding of what the arguement is even about.

quote:

---

I think Hegel points out somewhere that positing the unknowable presupposes that one can know the unknowable.

---

I would have suggested to try using your own points, but that doesn't seem to be working out for you either.

quote:

---

agnosticism cannot simply be an absence of belief where there is an absence of evidence.

---

Again, anyone who is bringing "belief" into an arguement of facts and knowledge would be stupid to begin with, unfortunately form some in this debate, so would arguing against it.

quote:

---

Things aren't as simple as that. And this is really only another way of saying that just because a question is unsusceptible to proof or disproof, in the severe, crystalline manner of mathematics, this does not mean than that every answer is equally valid.

---

I'd check your hamster wheel, he may be choking on the fumes of your whatever logic and thought processes you are using to form such incomprehensible sentences.

But to bypass this irrelevant point of structure, an answer that is unprovable is a theory, not an answer.

A concept I would like you to concentrate on to avoid having to repeat myself, yet again.

quote:

---

Agnosticism assumes that the evidence for God's existence weighs in equally on either side. Is this true? Do you really think this is true?

---

No, the whole point of agnosticism is to avoid making an ass out of you and one's self by making assumptions and especially not furthering such general asshattery by debating such assinine assumptions, even if someone is mentally deficient enough to do so.

But some seem to just love the fit of such headware it would seem.

quote:

---

What does the history matter?

---

The answer to this question is one of common sense.

But I fear you had little concept of the context in which the point was made when forming your question.

The matter of the history is to help people like yourself from misconstruing the meaning of the word, leading to such rediculously and frustratingly repetitive nonsensicle drivel as this continual non debate.

quote:

---

All that matters is that you know what I mean by the word.

---

In terms of debating your interpretation of the word, yes, however irrelevant that may be.

In terms of debating and clarifying what agnostic actually means, I'm afraid not.

quote:

---

Agnosticism is simply a refusal to answer the question.

---

No, it is a refusal to give an answer one does not have.

But where you are close to correct, is that it is the refusal to answer a question that is too stupid and undefined to answer.

Of course god exists, don't you see it typed on your screen, its the most horribly abused stringing together of three letters I've ever encountered.

This is why I'm not agnostic, regardless of thinking I may have been at one time, by the way.

I realised some time ago that silly labels have limitations that I do not.

Because what it comes down to when asking, does god exist, is asking, does my understood interpretation of god exist(which is usually laughably vague and undefined anyway as to negate a viable answer to begin with), in which case you have to come to say, physically?, I have no idea, maybe, if I run into it, I'll let you know.

Or, if your simply thinking of it existing creates its existance, than sure.

See, I think agnosticism, and I could be wrong for it is my personal interpretation, is not so much admitting ignorance to the existance of god, except in factual evidenciary terms based on a solid and testable theoretical definition, hence all the above clarification of the term, but instead admitting to not knowing what god is.

Which is where the confusion, and pointless non debate bickering, between a refusal to answer a question and having a question to answer comes to play.

quote:

---

and then the man created the computer on his image...
i'm talking about "Binary numeral system". Our brain functions on this system. It's either you detect a signal either you don't.

---

And then woman confused the computer with a radio, context people, get some.

Ask a computer to give an answer to a question in which it has no pre programmed data, bubkiss, does not compute, aka, "I don't know", because, "I don't even know what you are asking."

And if you wish to rely on a "current" model of understanding presented by an evolving medium such as man made science in which to make a definitive statement, I'll mourn your loss of your own mental faculties for you.

If i follow your logic i would come to the same statement ; "the statement of admission of not knowing or unknowing." this logic implies a transcendental God. Where if you take the logic of the "monade". God would become something you can experience, something that is in your database.
Here you would say that i am already presupposing God's existence...but not really if you get out of the nomination system. It cannot be named, you can call it anything you want just for the framing sake. You can even think of her as a woman listening to the radio

quote:

---

If i follow your logic i would come to the same statement ; "the statement of admission of not knowing or unknowing." this logic implies a transcendental God

---

Really?

Do you people not know what the fuck I don't know means?

Ahem, lets just say you don't follow my logic, or perhaps logic in general.

Not that I'm trying to belittle, I'll just assume your still on your described journey, as am I.

I'm sure it's just me, I'm retarded and can't understand you and can't explain myself properly.

Ironwood: The best thing that can be said about you is that your posts are simple. The worst thing that can be said about you is that they are also without meaning. Take your use of the phrase "assumptive definitive models". I have only the vaguest idea what this means. Is this ignorance on my part? If it isn't, then you are saying nothing in particular; if it is, and it's actually of a technical derivation, then you're doing exactly what you accused me of doing.

The rest of the argument, if it is worthy of the name, is so diffuse, so meandering, so hedged around with qualifications, that it is barely worth reading, let alone commenting on. Take this sentence:

quote:

---

All people could be tone deaf, acutally deaf, or a person could be the only thing alive ever, and it would still be possible, regardless of improbability, my very simple and basic point

---

Note that no reasons are offered to back this up. He simply thinks that restating the point will suffice. Further down, you correctly refer to my example as "hypothetical", thereby rendering the above otiose. For what I am saying is that if, by some quirk of evolution, man had been wired-up in such a way that he was unable to perceive sounds, then, correct me if I am wrong, he would be entirely without the capacity to form a conception of it. As Aquinas said, nothing comes into the mind that does not first pass through the senses. And this is analagous to the situation with God: for if He were utterly and unutterably beyond the comprehension of man, the word, or should I say the notion, would never come into use. This is not to say that there aren't a whole host of things that we can never know. What I mean is that the divine is not systematically beyond the mind's ken, that, like the Universe, God is always knowable in principle, even if there is much that is thrown in darkness. But these lacunae are of an empirical rather a logic import. (ie one cannot lift the Eiffel tower, as a matter of empirical necessity; one cannot go back in time, because logic does not permit it. Because God is infinite, it would take an infinite amount of propositions to fully lay bare His nature. Therefore, His deepest depths will never be plumbed, even though there is much that can be said about Him.)

None of this is very clear, but at least I am trying. Ironwood would prefer to trade insults. They'd seem lame if they were spontaneous, and so seem positively stupid in writing.

quote:

---

"assumptive definitive models". I have only the vaguest idea what this means.

---

You make assumptions that are definitive, both of these qualities are what destroy your arguements.

Do you understand this?

quote:

---

Note that no reasons are offered to back this up.

---

Note that this was covered, because none are needed.

quote:

---

He simply thinks that restating the point will suffice.

---

Actually I think saying it the first time sufficed.

quote:

---

For what I am saying is that if, by some quirk of evolution, man had been wired-up in such a way that he was unable to perceive sounds, then, correct me if I am wrong, he would be entirely without the capacity to form a conception of it.

---

I will elaborate, and indeed correct you since you are wrong, due to your struggle to grasp this concept which I could understand to be difficult and in need of a particularly open minded point of view, or dare I say more intelligent, though I'll lean towards the probability that it could just use some more detail.

The reason why your assertive hypothetical, which is definitive in its wording, is incorrect, is in part because of the wording, but also because concepts such as sound or an unknown force, medium, or otherwise existing entity, can indeed be discovered and comprehended or otherwise concieved of, in some fashion, because upon inspection and further education and experimentation, an already known or theorised idea, force, or meduim is tested in relation to all others.

What this does is show how it either does or could affect other things and how other things could be affecting it.

It is this latter part where suddenly we discover previously unknown forces or objects due to their evidenced presence.

This is the basic idea of the scientific theoretical model that has given us our basic, albiet often wrong or extremely limited, understanding of all things we can't percieve with our five senses to begin with, like atoms, galaxies, the g spot.

It is how we came to harness electricity and make use of radio waves etc. etc.

Hopefully this adds clarity to my point which indeed was not previously spelled out.

quote:

---

As Aquinas said, nothing comes into the mind that does not first pass through the senses

---

.

Which is absolute bunk, unless you include the sixth sense. Revelations by dreams, divine intervention, etc.

quote:

---

What I mean is that the divine is not systematically beyond the mind's ken, that, like the Universe, God is always knowable in principle, even if there is much that is thrown in darkness. But these lacunae are of an empirical rather a logic import.

---

Exactly, and the point of the agnostic and the previous argument of the clarifiction of the term was simply to make the point that agnosticism is an empirically based statement of not knowing. A statement of insufficient data to make a definitive declaration. At least in my use of the term.

quote:

---

Because God is infinite, it would take an infinite amount of propositions to fully lay bare His nature. Therefore, His deepest depths will never be plumbed, even though there is much that can be said about Him.)

---

quote:

---

None of this is very clear, but at least I am trying.

---

Its not clear because, for one, we are likely dealing with concepts of infinite proportions well beyond our physical faculties.

I would implore that you be mindful of your definitives, once you correct this tendency, much more becomes available and apparent.

And you may end up discovering that we have more access to the infinite then we generally know or understand.

quote:

---

Ironwood would prefer to trade insults

---

I will correct you by saying that I was exercising my "lacking" sense of humor in a particular fashion in direct response to your previous display.

And as you can see the results were exactly what I had hoped for, a genuine attempt at communication, not self agrandizing verbal vomit used to insult and belittle.

Good day sir.

quote:

---

Exactly, and the point of the agnostic and the previous argument of the clarifiction of the term was simply to make the point that agnosticism is an empirically based statement of not knowing. A statement of insufficient data to make a definitive declaration. At least in my use of the term

---

You've missed the point. NO non-trivial knowledge is definitively established. What I am saying is that the impossibility of deciding the issue FOR ALL TIME does not mean we need stay utterly silent on the matter.

Also, much of the last post borders on incoherence. You seem to have no capacity for self-criticism whatsoever. This will be the last time I post on this subject, since you seem dead-set on plugging your thinly veiled sophisms to infinity, being, as you are, impervious to all reason, and alien to intellectual propriety.