This is vfwh's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following vfwh's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
vfwh
Recent Activity
Importantly though, and i know you'll bring this up, there is no documented evidence of such interference, it has only happened 'off the record' as it were. Oh well. The only rubbish bin you're likely to find any evidence of God in is your own internal experience. This is really the crux of the argument, and I guess we now understand each other. The thing is, you take the view, if I understand correctly, that this god's only actions in the universe are to interact with individuals on an individual basis. Of course, you say that since you've experienced it in your own mind, you're convinced that it exists, and I say that there are other far more plausible explanations for experiencing such events that do not require the intervention of supernatural forces. It took a change to the evidence of my senses to provoke a change in my worldview, and my original point, to all of this, is that such a change is 1) available to all, 2) the only real way to settle the dispute, in my mind. Your conclusion above indeed puts this whole question on the level of personal life choices. The problem is, most theists, and certainly the most vocal, do not stop there. They want to universalise rules applicable to all, based on their own personal life choices and, nowadays, even want to impose their own personal beliefs in schools and in lawmaking. We touch here another element, which is that whatever philosophical position we take in these matters, how do they inform our actions in society? But that's something else entirely, of course.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2005 on Agnostic Rave... at j a c k *
Me again up there. There seems to be somekind of problem with ID retention at the time of posting when doing multiple previews and edits.
Toggle Commented Sep 5, 2005 on Agnostic Rave... at j a c k *
For the sake of traceability: The previous comment is mine, for some reason my id got lost in the editing process.
Toggle Commented Sep 5, 2005 on Agnostic Rave... at j a c k *
Hi darms. It doesn't seem to me right now in the world that atheists are doing the blathering-on-and-on, and are imposing upon others their beliefs. A lot of the reasons for atheists' verve is annoyment at crazy mystical bullshit serving as justification for the perpetration of injustice and the reining-in of freedoms. Even more annoying, is how well this same mystical crap plays in winning over the mass of people to the agenda of opportunistic adventurers (political or otherwise) involved in nothing but the pursuit of private ambitions and interests. At the end of the day, the problem is about gullibility and deferrence to undefined forces as the model way of life: it's not good for a healthy and free society.
Toggle Commented Sep 2, 2005 on Agnostic Rave... at j a c k *
Hi there, Stirling, when you say what you say above, what exactly do you mean by 'God'? As far as the three major brands of monotheism are concerned, 'God' is the thing that did all the stuff they tell in the Bible. So, as far as the monotheistic religions are concerned, you're an atheist. If your definition of God is not that particular thing, then can you please explain exactly what entity we have insufficient data to know whether it exists or not, and what effect it is supposed to have, or have had, on the universe as we know it? I suppose I'm asking you to define a little better the 'particular versions of the god hypothesis' that we are unable to disprove. In order to avoid going back and forth in these comments, let me tell you where I'm going here: 1- either this god actually has an impact on our universe and on our lives, in which case it should make it within reach to prove or disprove, and we should have a least a couple of verified observations that should have formed the basis for a scientific practice to look for a god in the universe. We don't. 2- either it is a totally abstract entity that cannot have any discernable effect on our lives or anything we are in a position to observe or be affected by, in which case: a) what's the point? b) it's one drop in an infinite ocean of similar unprovable hypotheses, so why bother? As a final point for now: science is only concerned with things that can be observed, replicated, demonstrated, proven or disproven. This is not the case here, so talking about a 'scientific' approach to the question of god is unassailably 'hors-sujet'. I'll welcome your views on the above.
Toggle Commented Sep 1, 2005 on Agnostic Rave... at j a c k *