Topic: A personal relationship with God is pure delusion

[Sleeper]

Your post feels a bit like a troll, but I'll take the bait anyhow.

First, your assumption regarding 'all believers' is a logical fallacy, since you can't give evidence for 'all believers.'

Second, 'subjective evidence' can indeed be evidence if it is accurate.  For example, if you walk into a room and it feels cold, then you check the thermostat and discover that it is 20°, then the subjective observation was accurate and could be used as evidence.  Our legal system runs on such evidence, in which we ask 'experts' to present their subjective observations, then execute and imprison men based on such evidence.  One term for this is 'circumstantial evidence.'  Christians and 'believers' are not alone in using subjective evidence.

Third, if the human brian can so easily make things up, then we are also at a loss for determining what evidence is not subjective, since the frail brain you are pointing to much first determine what evidence is accurate or even 'objective.'  As we all know from the recent 'global warming controversy,' objective evidence is not all that clear even in the scientific community.  I even recall reading a book in college called 'How to Lie with Statistics' which explained how to take objective evidence and skew it without harming its objective reality.

Therefore, all evidence gathered through a faulty mind is suspect.

Fourth, since  you began with 'all believers' (a logical fallacy I would argue), you must then explain how you can disprove all 'specific gods' using logic.

Fifth, the problem of logic rests with the human mind.  Therefore, I must ask: do you think the human mind can understand the entire universe?  If it cannot, then it cannot explain everything with logic, since the mind simply cannot grasp all of the facts and arrive at the conclusions you have using the process you have described, since a great deal of the objective evidence is either incomprehensible due to its magnitude or tampered with due to the subjectivity of human perception.

This is the argument that all believers resort to when they know they've lost. "I know he exists; I have a personal relationship with him; you can't disprove him".

1. Subjective evidence isn't evidence
2. It's been proven how easy the human brain can make up things
3. Actually, your specific God can be disproven using logic

A fine post, Father!  Unfortunately, TryingtoConvert is only going to say something about an "axiom" and leave it at that.  He's not quite convinced yet just how troubling the trustworthiness of the brain is for materialists.

[FatherGiryus]

We'll have to wait and see.

I rather do appreciate people who take being rational as a serious pursuit, because I think we are too often ruled by our passions and emotions, neither of which do we spend much time trying to examine.

However, the search for truth requires a certain amount of practicality: a logical argument does not always account for reality.  Lots of things happen that are illogical, which is why we still have problems with our computers! 

A fine post, Father!  Unfortunately, TryingtoConvert is only going to say something about an "axiom" and leave it at that.  He's not quite convinced yet just how troubling the trustworthiness of the brain is for materialists.

[stavros_388]

Sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

Ugly... giant... bags of mostly water!

Haha! Brilliant.

[FatherGiryus]

If you have such utter contempt for what is spiritual, why are you 'trying to convert?'

As I reread your posts, I'm beginning to wonder if you are not a 'reincyberization' of "Stick Man"...

Sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

[minasoliman]

For the benefit of the doubt, I think he is trying to convert, but unable to understand our point of view, and so challenges it to see what answer we can give him.

[Asteriktos]

For the benefit of the doubt, I think he is trying to convert, but unable to understand our point of view, and so challenges it to see what answer we can give him.

Fwiw, I remember spending a couple months when I first found out about Orthodoxy being very combative (wait, have I changed?  ). My attitude at the time was: if they are who they say they are, they should be able to handle the heat. I eventually came to believe that this was a misguided approach, but I can totally understanding wanting to see how people respond to strong opposition.

[FatherGiryus]

I suppose, Asteriktos, that I'm not as optimistic when I see people behave badly in the beginning.  The measure is whether he can take the heat when it is turned back on him.  Most folks who shovel out have difficulties receiving the same treatment in return.  If he can then you may be right.  If he can't, then he's just another, well, I'm sure you know what I mean...

Years ago, I dealt with a lady who was rather famous for screaming at priests.  They were all patient men, and she went through them like a bowling ball through the pins.  I took her abuse the first time, but the second time I matched her tone for tone (without the ad hominems).  She blew through the roof, but afterwards she became one of the most polite people I had to deal with at the time.

So, I can see your point.  Let's wait and see.

[Ortho_cat]

For the benefit of the doubt, I think he is trying to convert, but unable to understand our point of view, and so challenges it to see what answer we can give him.

Fwiw, I remember spending a couple months when I first found out about Orthodoxy being very combative (wait, have I changed?  ). My attitude at the time was: if they are who they say they are, they should be able to handle the heat. I eventually came to believe that this was a misguided approach, but I can totally understanding wanting to see how people respond to strong opposition.

Ya, I took the same approach. When I first met with my priest I came to him with a battery of critical questions. Same thing when I first came to these forums.

[Father H]

Sorry to say, but we're all just bags of meat. Even if you feel it necessary to add a soul to that bag of meat, that still makes you a bag of meat, just with an unnecessary piece of supernatural fluff attached.

Mmmm, meat.   I am a bag of meat wrapped in cabbage today (I am what I eat).  There's nothing like being a bag of meat with a supernatural appendage.   

[Father H]

I suppose, Asteriktos, that I'm not as optimistic when I see people behave badly in the beginning.  The measure is whether he can take the heat when it is turned back on him.  Most folks who shovel out have difficulties receiving the same treatment in return.  If he can then you may be right.  If he can't, then he's just another, well, I'm sure you know what I mean... ;)Years ago, I dealt with a lady who was rather famous for screaming at priests.  They were all patient men, and she went through them like a bowling ball through the pins.  I took her abuse the first time, but the second time I matched her tone for tone (without the ad hominems).  She blew through the roof, but afterwards she became one of the most polite people I had to deal with at the time.So, I can see your point.  Let's wait and see.

Good thoughts.  We human beings are sick, deluded people by their own reasonings.  What a wonderful prayer in the prayers after communion that we be delivered from the captivity of our own reasonings.   

[TryingtoConvert]

Since nothing with extension in spacetime can have always existed, anything with extension in spacetime has to have been caused to exist, energy included.

You've gussied up Anselm with scientific language, yet you've committed his fallacy of special pleading.

Actually, his syllogisms are Thomistic.

I first read it inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Anselm.27s_argument , Anselm.

You may wish to call it "Thomistic", or what-have-you.  I call it bs, because it's an example of special pleading.

It'd be nice if you addressed that aspect, but I'm sure you have some meeting of world-famous theologians to attend, or something.