User Tag List

First 27353637383947 Last

Results 361 to 370 of 505

Thread: NTs and God

  1. #361
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headstrong View Post
    My version of evidence is based on supernatural experiences of both those around me and myself. See my previous posts, if you wish.
    I saw them. For something to be considered as evidence, it must meet two criteria:

    1.) It must be falsifiable.
    2.) It must be repeatable.

    Your personal experiences meet neither of these requirements.

    Paranoid schizophrenics experience all sorts of things. Are any of their experiences a basis for belief in anything?

    To be perfectly frank, Headstrong, and I want you to understand that I say this in a tone of objectivity and with no ill-will:

    I genuinely think you should consider the possibility that you may be mentally ill.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  2. #362
    Member Headstrong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    I saw them. For something to be considered as evidence, it must meet two criteria:

    1.) It must be falsifiable.
    2.) It must be repeatable.

    Your personal experiences meet neither of these requirements.
    As I said earlier, I was not going to discuss my "evidence" of God. The above criteria is the same for those attempting to disprove God. It cannot be done either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    Paranoid schizophrenics experience all sorts of things. Are any of their experiences a basis for belief in anything?
    God and a mental disorder cannot be compared. Paranoid Schizophrenia is a documented mental illness. I am aware that the cause(s) are still under investigation. This isn't worth discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    To be perfectly frank, Headstrong, and I want you to understand that I say this in a tone of objectivity and with no ill-will:

    I genuinely think you should consider the possibility that you may be mentally ill.
    Looking from the outside in, I would probably think so, too. I don't expect you to understand since I'm assuming you've never experienced the things I have. It is human nature to pass judgement. We also tend to place labels on things that we don't understand, or have no "logical/reasonable" explanation for.
    There are two types of people in this world, sheep and sharks. Be a shark. Sharks are winners and they don't look back 'cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep.

    Headstrong: You're learning the ways of...me!
    INTP Friend: Yay!
    INTP Friend: Wait....NOOOOO

    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who do not have it.
    -George Bernard Shaw

    Wise men talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
    -Plato

  3. #363
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headstrong View Post
    As I said earlier, I was not going to discuss my "evidence" of God. The above criteria is the same for those attempting to disprove God. It cannot be done either way.
    Sigh.

    God and a mental disorder cannot be compared. Paranoid Schizophrenia is a documented mental illness. I am aware that the cause(s) are still under investigation. This isn't worth discussing.
    I would certainly concur that comparing a deity and a mental disorder is apples-and-oranges.

    The point is that personal experience is not a basis for belief in anything. If someone claims to have "experienced God", one possible explanation is that he is correct and a deity is communicating with him telepathically. Another explanation is that the person is mistaken and simply imagined it. (This may or may not be on account of a mental illness like paranoid schizophrenia.) Of these two explanations, one has the notable advantage of being rational.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  4. #364
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Headstrong View Post
    The above criteria is the same for those attempting to disprove God. It cannot be done either way.
    Good thing no one (no one rational that is) is actually trying to disprove god. Instead, we simply do not find the evidence for god compelling (all none of it).

  5. #365
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    This has gone on for 37 pages.

    People who believe in God:

    Provide evidence.

    Thank you.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  6. #366
    Aspiring Troens Ridder KLessard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2
    Posts
    595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post

    I genuinely think you should consider the possibility that you may be mentally ill.
    I suppose this could be no possibility to your rational mind, but have you considered that you could be spiritually dead ? That would well explain why you rationalize spiritual experience away with such arrogance.

    Jesus explained how we should love God, that is, know God, for God is love:

    -With all our heart
    -With all our soul
    -With all our strength
    -With all our mind
    (your approach)

    The Rational's worst problem (and obstination) is to get to understand God solely with their mind while knowing God requires all of our being to be at work.

    How prideful to believe that a limited human mind can understand and choose to discard the intelligence of the Universe's ultimate engineer.

  7. #367
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KLessard View Post
    How prideful to believe that a limited human mind can understand and choose to discard the intelligence of the Universe's ultimate engineer.
    Quite to the contrary my irrational friend. It is precisely in awe of the universe that I cannot tolerate people who labor under the pretense that the figments of their imagination could ever surpass a reverent effort to approach the universe on its terms in an effort to understand its workings.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  8. #368
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Okay, since this has turned into a does God exist debate, it's time to strap on my T helmet and dive in.


    Someone might have trotted out the old warhorse of theism before, but, just in case:

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument (slightly modified by me)

    1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
    2. According to The Big Bang Theory, the universe began to exist
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

    Furthermore, since it's established that time and space began at the Big Bang, whatever caused the universe had to be immaterial and atemporal. Sounds like God to me, but whatever.

    And please, don't try to shoot down the argument with "Then what caused God," because obviously, unless one wants to accept the irrationality, to borrow one of mycroft's favorite terms, of infinite regress, obviously something has to be eternal/atemporal. The Big Bang theory proves that it's not the universe, and throughout history the options have been God is eternal and has no cause or the Universe is eternal and has no cause, so unless someone's found a third option and just didn't mention it to me... Also, yes, premise 1 is not falsifiable, but neither is any absolute statement whatsoever (unless I'm misunderstanding falsifiability, which is very possible)

    Furthermore, both Plato and Aristotle's schemes of existence required a being analogous in some ways to God: Plato's Form of the Good (for my more intuition-and-maybe-some-feeling types) and Aristotle's Unmoved Mover (for my more thinking-alone types). Look 'em up, assuming that since this is Plato and Aristotle, they probably have pretty darn good reasons for what they say.

    But, of course, to be fair, one of Christendom's own best thinkers, David Bentley Hart, would argue right alongside the postmoderist that the project of the Enlightenment (establishing truths through reason alone) has utterly failed, and so no, you cannot prove God's existence through argument. But then he basically goes on to defend God anyway in the awesome book The Beauty of the Infinite (which I must confess I've read about but not actually read yet.

    And, just for fun, because it sort of breaks your brain (although I hate, hate, hate the argument personally):

    Assume that God is that of which no greater being can be conceived. If this is God, then consequently, God must be able to be conceived of, yes? Well then:

    (1) Suppose that God exists in the understanding alone.

    (2) Given our definition, this means that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone.

    (3) But this being can be conceived to exist in reality. That is, we can conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true, even if we do not believe that it actually obtains (that is, that it is actual, rather than merely potential).

    (4) But it is greater for a thing to exist in reality than for it to exist in the understanding alone.

    (5) Hence we seem forced to conclude that a being than which none greater can be conceived can be conceived to be greater than it is.

    (6) But that is absurd.

    (7) So (1) must be false. God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding.


    Not necessarily anything that's going to convince anyone that God exists, but a fun brain-twister.

  9. #369
    rawr Costrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    LII
    Posts
    2,320

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    Okay, since this has turned into a does God exist debate, it's time to strap on my T helmet and dive in.


    Someone might have trotted out the old warhorse of theism before, but, just in case:

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument (slightly modified by me)

    1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause
    2. According to The Big Bang Theory, the universe began to exist
    3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

    Furthermore, since it's established that time and space began at the Big Bang, whatever caused the universe had to be immaterial and atemporal. Sounds like God to me, but whatever.

    And please, don't try to shoot down the argument with "Then what caused God," because obviously, unless one wants to accept the irrationality, to borrow one of mycroft's favorite terms, of infinite regress, obviously something has to be eternal/atemporal. The Big Bang theory proves that it's not the universe, and throughout history the options have been God is eternal and has no cause or the Universe is eternal and has no cause, so unless someone's found a third option and just didn't mention it to me... Also, yes, premise 1 is not falsifiable, but neither is any absolute statement whatsoever (unless I'm misunderstanding falsifiability, which is very possible)
    Two points.

    Occams Razor. So yes, I'm going to say "what caused God?". There is an equal amount of evidence for Big Bang theory, and Big Bang theory + God, so you take the simpler theory, which doesn't include God.

    Second, it doesn't matter whether the Big Bang or any other explanation for the universe is supported by the evidence or irrational. What matters is, is God supported by the evidence. I have yet to see any evidence in favor of God, so therefore, I don't believe in it. It's irrelevant whether any other explanation fails. In the case of no explanation being good enough, then the logical choice is to say "I don't know."

    Furthermore, both Plato and Aristotle's schemes of existence required a being analogous in some ways to God: Plato's Form of the Good (for my more intuition-and-maybe-some-feeling types) and Aristotle's Unmoved Mover (for my more thinking-alone types). Look 'em up, assuming that since this is Plato and Aristotle, they probably have pretty darn good reasons for what they say.

    But, of course, to be fair, one of Christendom's own best thinkers, David Bentley Hart, would argue right alongside the postmoderist that the project of the Enlightenment (establishing truths through reason alone) has utterly failed, and so no, you cannot prove God's existence through argument. But then he basically goes on to defend God anyway in the awesome book The Beauty of the Infinite (which I must confess I've read about but not actually read yet.
    Argument from authority. Many highly intelligent and respected people throughout history have supported the concept of God, but that doesn't mean anything. Only the quality of the arguments does, and the quality is not up to par.

    And, just for fun, because it sort of breaks your brain (although I hate, hate, hate the argument personally):

    Assume that God is that of which no greater being can be conceived. If this is God, then consequently, God must be able to be conceived of, yes? Well then:

    (1) Suppose that God exists in the understanding alone.

    (2) Given our definition, this means that a being than which none greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone.

    (3) But this being can be conceived to exist in reality. That is, we can conceive of a circumstance in which theism is true, even if we do not believe that it actually obtains (that is, that it is actual, rather than merely potential).

    (4) But it is greater for a thing to exist in reality than for it to exist in the understanding alone.

    (5) Hence we seem forced to conclude that a being than which none greater can be conceived can be conceived to be greater than it is.

    (6) But that is absurd.

    (7) So (1) must be false. God must exist in reality as well as in the understanding.


    Not necessarily anything that's going to convince anyone that God exists, but a fun brain-twister.
    Or perhaps,

    (7) A being that of which no greater being can be conceived, does not exist.

    I can conceive of God being omni*insert stuff here* (even if not the mechanisms). I can also conceive of God existing. If in step one, you conceived of an omni*insert stuff here* being, yet failed to include the existant part, then the argument "works", but only because you were incomplete in step one.

  10. #370
    I'm a star. Kangirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    1,470

    Default

    ...and so no, you cannot prove God's existence through argument. But then he basically goes on to defend God anyway in the awesome book The Beauty of the Infinite (which I must confess I've read about but not actually read yet.
    This book sounds interesting, I might try and get my hands on it.
    "Only an irrational dumbass, would burn Jews." - Jaguar

    "please give concise answers in plain English" - request from Provoker

Similar Threads

  1. [NT] NTs and time
    By Natrushka in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 02:56 PM
  2. [NT] NTs and controlling thoughts
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 02:10 PM
  3. [NT] Berens' comments on NTs and conflict
    By rivercrow in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 07-13-2007, 05:05 PM
  4. [NT] NTs and Concentration
    By Varelse in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-23-2007, 01:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO