Is God A "He"...?

[Chuckt]

The flaw is here:
If Paramhansa Yogananda writes an autobiography, he's a real person you can track down. He can be interviewed and speak on his experiences. Other people have interacted with him.

If I write an unauthorized biography of Joe Schwartz, and I can't prove Joe exists or produce him and neither can anyone else, then all I have is a fiction.

Or as your post aptly renders it, "There is a tale...".

Except that the average American lies 200 times a day on average. If you did track him down, you couldn't believe anything.

So basically if you are going to have a relationship with other human beings, you have to listen to everything or you have to listen to nothing. If you thought that everyone was going to lie to you and Americans do tell 200 lies a day, you couldn't listen to anybody with that approach.

Can you listen to anybody or have a relationship with anybody if you took the approach they were lying to you? In that case, I couldn't listen to anybody.

What point is there in talking to anybody?

Strange post.

Your "200 times" figure is wildly suspect, but it doesn't matter; nobody brought up the topic of lying. The point was circular reasoning, which means a claim using itself as a basis -- which means having no basis.

Lying, by contrast, is a deliberate misrepresentation. The two are in no way related.

The 200 times figure is from my sociology professor in college and people didn't believe me so I found supporting evidence on the web and saved it to my thumb drive and I have no idea if the support is still on the web.

What is the difference between listening to dead people through their autobiographies lie or living people lie? You trust them anymore than dead people?

If you take the attitude that people are going to lie to you, why listen to anybody?

 

[Montrovant]

But then that wouldn't make sense for any autobiographer.....if they say they are something, and they wrote their autobiography, then it can't be believed?

The flaw is here:
If Paramhansa Yogananda writes an autobiography, he's a real person you can track down. He can be interviewed and speak on his experiences. Other people have interacted with him.

If I write an unauthorized biography of Joe Schwartz, and I can't prove Joe exists or produce him and neither can anyone else, then all I have is a fiction.

Or as your post aptly renders it, "There is a tale...".

Except that the average American lies 200 times a day on average. If you did track him down, you couldn't believe anything.

So basically if you are going to have a relationship with other human beings, you have to listen to everything or you have to listen to nothing. If you thought that everyone was going to lie to you and Americans do tell 200 lies a day, you couldn't listen to anybody with that approach.

Can you listen to anybody or have a relationship with anybody if you took the approach they were lying to you? In that case, I couldn't listen to anybody.

What point is there in talking to anybody?

I am very curious where this 200 times a day claim comes from!

 

[Montrovant]

Except that the average American lies 200 times a day on average. If you did track him down, you couldn't believe anything.

So basically if you are going to have a relationship with other human beings, you have to listen to everything or you have to listen to nothing. If you thought that everyone was going to lie to you and Americans do tell 200 lies a day, you couldn't listen to anybody with that approach.

Can you listen to anybody or have a relationship with anybody if you took the approach they were lying to you? In that case, I couldn't listen to anybody.

What point is there in talking to anybody?

Strange post.

Your "200 times" figure is wildly suspect, but it doesn't matter; nobody brought up the topic of lying. The point was circular reasoning, which means a claim using itself as a basis -- which means having no basis.

Lying, by contrast, is a deliberate misrepresentation. The two are in no way related.

The 200 times figure is from my sociology professor in college and people didn't believe me so I found supporting evidence on the web and saved it to my thumb drive and I have no idea if the support is still on the web.

What is the difference between listening to dead people through their autobiographies lie or living people lie? You trust them anymore than dead people?

If you take the attitude that people are going to lie to you, why listen to anybody?

Wait....you say that people lie 200 times a day, then wonder why someone would have an attitude that people are going to lie to you? You just explained that people are, in fact, going to lie to you!

 

[Mertex]

I was just about to get to you. What you have here is circular reasoning. "God exists because the bible says so, and God wrote the bible". Doesn't work.

But then that wouldn't make sense for any autobiographer.....if they say they are something, and they wrote their autobiography, then it can't be believed?

The flaw is here:
If Paramhansa Yogananda writes an autobiography, he's a real person you can track down. He can be interviewed and speak on his experiences. Other people have interacted with him.

But you are presupposing that people have not interacted with God. You are confining God to a human box. He is open to anyone that wants to interact with Him and test Him. The fact that some have already made up their mind that He does not exist, precludes them from wanting to interact with Him or interacting with Him, but you can't say that others have not interacted with Him, you have no proof that they haven't. You are basing your assumptions on your own belief.

If I write an unauthorized biography of Joe Schwartz, and I can't prove Joe exists or produce him and neither can anyone else, then all I have is a fiction.

But there is the fallacy....you are saying that no one else can prove that God exists, but people that know God, have interacted with Him and for them He does exist, they have their proof, it is just not accepted by some. Just because you can't see him with the human eye doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. I can't see the wind, but I know it exists....I can see the effects of wind, and I can see the effects of God.

Or as your post aptly renders it, "There is a tale...".

Well, yes, what I related was a tale....but I didn't say that God or the Bible were a tale. Sometimes you need "tales" to get across a difficult concept, Jesus told many tales, they are called parables, and he used them to get across a concept to the people and to his disciples that they otherwise couldn't understand.

 

[Chuckt]

Strange post.

Your "200 times" figure is wildly suspect, but it doesn't matter; nobody brought up the topic of lying. The point was circular reasoning, which means a claim using itself as a basis -- which means having no basis.

Lying, by contrast, is a deliberate misrepresentation. The two are in no way related.

The 200 times figure is from my sociology professor in college and people didn't believe me so I found supporting evidence on the web and saved it to my thumb drive and I have no idea if the support is still on the web.

What is the difference between listening to dead people through their autobiographies lie or living people lie? You trust them anymore than dead people?

If you take the attitude that people are going to lie to you, why listen to anybody?

Wait....you say that people lie 200 times a day, then wonder why someone would have an attitude that people are going to lie to you? You just explained that people are, in fact, going to lie to you!

And we have people questioning whether Sandy Hook was a conspiracy:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-tapes-scrutinized-more-questions-raised.html

The problem is not the Bible. The problem is you.

 

[Pogo]

Except that the average American lies 200 times a day on average. If you did track him down, you couldn't believe anything.

So basically if you are going to have a relationship with other human beings, you have to listen to everything or you have to listen to nothing. If you thought that everyone was going to lie to you and Americans do tell 200 lies a day, you couldn't listen to anybody with that approach.

Can you listen to anybody or have a relationship with anybody if you took the approach they were lying to you? In that case, I couldn't listen to anybody.

What point is there in talking to anybody?

Strange post.

Your "200 times" figure is wildly suspect, but it doesn't matter; nobody brought up the topic of lying. The point was circular reasoning, which means a claim using itself as a basis -- which means having no basis.

Lying, by contrast, is a deliberate misrepresentation. The two are in no way related.

The 200 times figure is from my sociology professor in college and people didn't believe me so I found supporting evidence on the web and saved it to my thumb drive and I have no idea if the support is still on the web.

What is the difference between listening to dead people through their autobiographies lie or living people lie? You trust them anymore than dead people?

If you take the attitude that people are going to lie to you, why listen to anybody?

I don't get why you're hung up on "lying". Nobody brought up "lying". A rhetorical fallacy is not a "lie"; it's a fallacy. Living or dead doesn't enter into it either; a person who's dead in the present was alive in the past, therefore he or she existed.

Meanwhile I'll be glad to look into your thumb drive to find this 200 daily lie thing. Unless this thumb drive is itself one of today's 200.

 

[Pogo]

But then that wouldn't make sense for any autobiographer.....if they say they are something, and they wrote their autobiography, then it can't be believed?

The flaw is here:
If Paramhansa Yogananda writes an autobiography, he's a real person you can track down. He can be interviewed and speak on his experiences. Other people have interacted with him.

But you are presupposing that people have not interacted with God. You are confining God to a human box. He is open to anyone that wants to interact with Him and test Him. The fact that some have already made up their mind that He does not exist, precludes them from wanting to interact with Him or interacting with Him, but you can't say that others have not interacted with Him, you have no proof that they haven't. You are basing your assumptions on your own belief.

If I write an unauthorized biography of Joe Schwartz, and I can't prove Joe exists or produce him and neither can anyone else, then all I have is a fiction.

But there is the fallacy....you are saying that no one else can prove that God exists, but people that know God, have interacted with Him and for them He does exist, they have their proof, it is just not accepted by some. Just because you can't see him with the human eye doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. I can't see the wind, but I know it exists....I can see the effects of wind, and I can see the effects of God.

Or as your post aptly renders it, "There is a tale...".

Well, yes, what I related was a tale....but I didn't say that God or the Bible were a tale. Sometimes you need "tales" to get across a difficult concept, Jesus told many tales, they are called parables, and he used them to get across a concept to the people and to his disciples that they otherwise couldn't understand.

Again, you're changing my point -- I'm not "presupposing that people have not interacted with God". I'm saying there's no proof that they have done so.

If I have an actual, real, interaction with God, and I say so but can't prove it, there is literally no way to distinguish that from my making it all up.

Surely this has been beaten to death elsewhere, and we're off topic.

 

[Mertex]

The point was circular reasoning, which means a claim using itself as a basis -- which means having no basis.

Those that believe in God don't infer that the Bible is God's word....they accept that it is as an ultimate standard. We will never be able to prove that the Bible is God's word anymore than you can prove that it's not, and your own argument is circular reasoning, too. It starts with the assumption that God has not revealed Himself in the Bible, and ends up with the conclusion that God has not revealed Himself in the Bible. Any ultimate standard involves some degree of circularity.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Chuckt]

Strange post.

Your "200 times" figure is wildly suspect, but it doesn't matter; nobody brought up the topic of lying. The point was circular reasoning, which means a claim using itself as a basis -- which means having no basis.

Lying, by contrast, is a deliberate misrepresentation. The two are in no way related.

The 200 times figure is from my sociology professor in college and people didn't believe me so I found supporting evidence on the web and saved it to my thumb drive and I have no idea if the support is still on the web.

What is the difference between listening to dead people through their autobiographies lie or living people lie? You trust them anymore than dead people?

If you take the attitude that people are going to lie to you, why listen to anybody?

I don't get why you're hung up on "lying". Nobody brought up "lying". A rhetorical fallacy is not a "lie"; it's a fallacy. Living or dead doesn't enter into it either; a person who's dead in the present was alive in the past, therefore he or she existed.

Meanwhile I'll be glad to look into your thumb drive to find this 200 daily lie thing. Unless this thumb drive is itself one of today's 200.

This is what I wrote on my thumbdrive. I may have to find the actual article in my sociology textbook and bring it out.

it would be interesting to see where the study was conducted. Statistics can be made to say whatever you want them to say. I find it very hard to believe that an average of all the people in the UK tell 200 lies a day. I certainly don't and neither do a lot of the people I know.

I took the course from the sociology professor who wrote the book of my sociology textbook. I can break out his book one of these days but he was a very intelligent man and he actually had his own book memorized.

I'm from the USA and my relatives are habitual liars. Having said that, my employers are unethical and lie. They've asked me to lie about stuff.

People who want to be socially acceptable want to fit in so they listen and pretend to go with the crowd. Their identity is what the group wants and they adopt the social mores of the group instead of what is right or wrong. There is no right or wrong but everything is grey "how do I fit in?" I found a great quote about this:

200 lies per day just to cope with reality

Researchers at the University of Vienna, Austria, have found out that men lie more than women.

Up to 200 lies per day are required to cope with reality. Men lie for example about car matters, women mainly about shopping.

Lying helps surviving in a tough society with a lot of competition. It is "as essential to life as air and water" (according to the researcher Prof P Stiegnitz). If you are interested in the topic: He's written a book about lying.

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=2738[/QUOTE]

Time magazine once reported on a study by a psychologist that stated, "The average person lies 200 times a day". Little ones, big ones, white ones and whoppers (how about those fast food commercials with the "stunt-doubles" ... the food rarely looks like that when you actually buy it).

http://adducent.tv/articles-news/110-200-lies-a-day[/QUOTE]

I found the actual Time article:

The average American prevaricates some 200 times daily

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919526,00.html#ixzz0cqBuAREp

According to World Net Daily news:

According to the survey, "There's nothing wrong with me ... I'm fine" comes in first, with 28 per cent of those surveyed admitting to using it habitually.

A new survey shows the average person tells four lies a day, or 1,460 a year for a total of 88,000 by the age of 60, and the most common is: "I'm fine."
Others on the list include:
"Nice to see you"
"Sorry I missed your call"
"I'm stuck in traffic"
"Our server was down"
"The train was delayed"
"The check's in the mail"
"I'll call you back in a minute"
"This tastes delicious"
and sadly "Of course I love you"

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59793[/QUOTE]

 

[Mertex]

The flaw is here:
If Paramhansa Yogananda writes an autobiography, he's a real person you can track down. He can be interviewed and speak on his experiences. Other people have interacted with him.

But you are presupposing that people have not interacted with God. You are confining God to a human box. He is open to anyone that wants to interact with Him and test Him. The fact that some have already made up their mind that He does not exist, precludes them from wanting to interact with Him or interacting with Him, but you can't say that others have not interacted with Him, you have no proof that they haven't. You are basing your assumptions on your own belief.


But there is the fallacy....you are saying that no one else can prove that God exists, but people that know God, have interacted with Him and for them He does exist, they have their proof, it is just not accepted by some. Just because you can't see him with the human eye doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. I can't see the wind, but I know it exists....I can see the effects of wind, and I can see the effects of God.

Or as your post aptly renders it, "There is a tale...".

Well, yes, what I related was a tale....but I didn't say that God or the Bible were a tale. Sometimes you need "tales" to get across a difficult concept, Jesus told many tales, they are called parables, and he used them to get across a concept to the people and to his disciples that they otherwise couldn't understand.

Again, you're changing my point -- I'm not "presupposing that people have not interacted with God". I'm saying there's no proof that they have done so.

Yes, and there is no proof that they haven't. So we are back at square one.

If I have an actual, real, interaction with God, and I say so but can't prove it, there is literally no way to distinguish that from my making it all up.

And if I say that you have not had an actual interaction with God but I can't prove that you haven't, there is literally no way to distinguish that from me having just assumed it. There are many things that can't be proven, we just accept. I accept that humans have souls, but I can't prove it.

Surely this has been beaten to death elsewhere, and we're off topic.

I agree. Belief in God is personal, that's probably why I hate to get into these discussions, because basically, there is no proof, either way, and some will get angry and resort to insults. I'm glad that we are able to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

 

[Pogo]

The point was circular reasoning, which means a claim using itself as a basis -- which means having no basis.

Those that believe in God don't infer that the Bible is God's word....they accept that it is as an ultimate standard. We will never be able to prove that the Bible is God's word anymore than you can prove that it's not, and your own argument is circular reasoning, too. It starts with the assumption that God has not revealed Himself in the Bible, and ends up with the conclusion that God has not revealed Himself in the Bible. Any ultimate standard involves some degree of circularity.

We can agree to disagree.

Well - no, it isn't. Once again you're misstating my position, which is the only way you can get the square peg in the round hole. You have to acknowledge that declaring "God didn't write this" is NOT the same thing as saying "there's no evidence that God wrote this".

That's just a fact.

 

[Vox]

quick summary of the discussion between Mertex and Pogo:

John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

peace

 

[Pogo]

The 200 times figure is from my sociology professor in college and people didn't believe me so I found supporting evidence on the web and saved it to my thumb drive and I have no idea if the support is still on the web.

What is the difference between listening to dead people through their autobiographies lie or living people lie? You trust them anymore than dead people?

If you take the attitude that people are going to lie to you, why listen to anybody?

I don't get why you're hung up on "lying". Nobody brought up "lying". A rhetorical fallacy is not a "lie"; it's a fallacy. Living or dead doesn't enter into it either; a person who's dead in the present was alive in the past, therefore he or she existed.

Meanwhile I'll be glad to look into your thumb drive to find this 200 daily lie thing. Unless this thumb drive is itself one of today's 200.

This is what I wrote on my thumbdrive. I may have to find the actual article in my sociology textbook and bring it out.



I took the course from the sociology professor who wrote the book of my sociology textbook. I can break out his book one of these days but he was a very intelligent man and he actually had his own book memorized.

I'm from the USA and my relatives are habitual liars. Having said that, my employers are unethical and lie. They've asked me to lie about stuff.

People who want to be socially acceptable want to fit in so they listen and pretend to go with the crowd. Their identity is what the group wants and they adopt the social mores of the group instead of what is right or wrong. There is no right or wrong but everything is grey "how do I fit in?" I found a great quote about this:

200 lies per day just to cope with reality

Researchers at the University of Vienna, Austria, have found out that men lie more than women.

Up to 200 lies per day are required to cope with reality. Men lie for example about car matters, women mainly about shopping.

Lying helps surviving in a tough society with a lot of competition. It is "as essential to life as air and water" (according to the researcher Prof P Stiegnitz). If you are interested in the topic: He's written a book about lying.

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=2738[/QUOTE]

Time magazine once reported on a study by a psychologist that stated, "The average person lies 200 times a day". Little ones, big ones, white ones and whoppers (how about those fast food commercials with the "stunt-doubles" ... the food rarely looks like that when you actually buy it).

http://adducent.tv/articles-news/110-200-lies-a-day[/QUOTE]

I found the actual Time article:

The average American prevaricates some 200 times daily

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919526,00.html#ixzz0cqBuAREp

According to the survey, "There's nothing wrong with me ... I'm fine" comes in first, with 28 per cent of those surveyed admitting to using it habitually.

A new survey shows the average person tells four lies a day, or 1,460 a year for a total of 88,000 by the age of 60, and the most common is: "I'm fine."
Others on the list include:
"Nice to see you"
"Sorry I missed your call"
"I'm stuck in traffic"
"Our server was down"
"The train was delayed"
"The check's in the mail"
"I'll call you back in a minute"
"This tastes delicious"
and sadly "Of course I love you"

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59793[/QUOTE]

All very interesting Chuck, but we were never talking about lying. We're still off topic.

 

[Pogo]

quick summary of the discussion between Mertex and Pogo:

John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

peace

Still off topic but let's admit the word "blessèd" is synonymous with "gullible".

 

[Desperado]

God being God can be anything God wants to be. Simple as That, since God is all powerful.

 

[Vox]

quick summary of the discussion between Mertex and Pogo:

John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

peace

Still off topic but let's admit the word "blessèd" is synonymous with "gullible".

nope, not necessarily.

the discussion is a depiction of the base agnosticism lies on - you can not prove either way.

And nobody claims the Bible was written by God Himself. It was inspired by God Himself.
There is the difference.
Plus there is a difference in interpretation - some go with a literal one and some are on the symbolical side, much like Jesus with His parables.

 

[Mertex]

The point was circular reasoning, which means a claim using itself as a basis -- which means having no basis.

Those that believe in God don't infer that the Bible is God's word....they accept that it is as an ultimate standard. We will never be able to prove that the Bible is God's word anymore than you can prove that it's not, and your own argument is circular reasoning, too. It starts with the assumption that God has not revealed Himself in the Bible, and ends up with the conclusion that God has not revealed Himself in the Bible. Any ultimate standard involves some degree of circularity.

We can agree to disagree.

Well - no, it isn't. Once again you're misstating my position, which is the only way you can get the square peg in the round hole. You have to acknowledge that declaring "God didn't write this" is NOT the same thing as saying "there's no evidence that God wrote this".

That's just a fact.

I've agreed that there is no evidence that God wrote the Bible, but you have to agree also, that there is also no evidence that God didn't inspire the men that wrote it. That's why it's called "faith".

 

[Pogo]

Those that believe in God don't infer that the Bible is God's word....they accept that it is as an ultimate standard. We will never be able to prove that the Bible is God's word anymore than you can prove that it's not, and your own argument is circular reasoning, too. It starts with the assumption that God has not revealed Himself in the Bible, and ends up with the conclusion that God has not revealed Himself in the Bible. Any ultimate standard involves some degree of circularity.

We can agree to disagree.

Well - no, it isn't. Once again you're misstating my position, which is the only way you can get the square peg in the round hole. You have to acknowledge that declaring "God didn't write this" is NOT the same thing as saying "there's no evidence that God wrote this".

That's just a fact.

I've agreed that there is no evidence that God wrote the Bible, but you have to agree also, that there is also no evidence that God didn't inspire the men that wrote it. That's why it's called "faith".

I don't attempt to prove a negative. I just note that proof of the positive is absent.

 

[Pogo]

quick summary of the discussion between Mertex and Pogo:

John 20:29
Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

peace

Still off topic but let's admit the word "blessèd" is synonymous with "gullible".

nope, not necessarily.

the discussion is a depiction of the base agnosticism lies on - you can not prove either way.

And nobody claims the Bible was written by God Himself. It was inspired by God Himself.
There is the difference.
Plus there is a difference in interpretation - some go with a literal one and some are on the symbolical side, much like Jesus with His parables.

That's the same circular argument we started with.

Do we not understand what this means?

"God exists"
How do we know?
"It's in the bible"
Who wrote the bible?
"Men who claim to be inspired by God"
Who?
"God -- the guy in the bible"

 

[Mertex]

Well - no, it isn't. Once again you're misstating my position, which is the only way you can get the square peg in the round hole. You have to acknowledge that declaring "God didn't write this" is NOT the same thing as saying "there's no evidence that God wrote this".

That's just a fact.

I've agreed that there is no evidence that God wrote the Bible, but you have to agree also, that there is also no evidence that God didn't inspire the men that wrote it. That's why it's called "faith".

I don't attempt to prove a negative. I just note that proof of the positive is absent.

Touche! "There is a God" is a positive - "there is no God" is a negative....I'll go with that.