The Socratic Method takes on Atheism ...

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Once they make the CLAIM that "There is no God"...then they have made a positive statement...regardless of what statement they are responding to. And now it is on them to prove their claim.

Sorry, When someone says "There is NO God", that is a negative. The "NO" makes it a negative in this context. And it can't be proven unless we can completely search the realms and not find it.

It IS just an opinion, however, exactly the same as "There is a God". They're BOTH opinions. But one is claiming the existence of something. THAT is the positive. That is the one that requires proof.

However...
The only way a believer can prove that there is a God is to have the resources to "check". And we can't do that.
The only way an atheist can prove that there is no God is to have the resources to "check". And we can't do that, either.

So, there will be no proof either way.

You can prove that you don't have anything in your hand (proving a negative) because you have the resources to check. But the resources don't exist to prove that God does or doesn't exist. And since SOMEONE is claiming the existence of SOMETHING, the burden of proof is upon them.

Let's take evolution for example. From your point of view...the default view is nothing. Then Darwin made a claim that "Evolution exist and explains the diverse species we see today".

If a Creationist simply says "I don't believe that"...would you say that is fine for them to hold that opinion?

Of course it's fine for them to hold that opinion.

How about if a Creationist says "I don't believe that...Evolution does not exist."...would you then ask them to prove why they think Evolution does not exist?

Of course not. I would show them proof that it does.

Negative Proof

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

Hey BH I should know your history by now so I'm embarrassed to ask the following. Was there a time when you trusted in God? If there was what made you turn from him?

Originally posted by dominicus
So you are saying that these religions have made the claim that God is a man in the sky?

The details are sketchy, at best, as to where God lives or exists, so "in the sky" is as good as anywhere. Many people have taught their children that Heaven is "up there" and hell is "down there". So, I'm paraphrasing, I guess you could say. The bible says that God lives in the heavens.

Do you believe in anything? Have you ever used belief in any aspect in your life, outside of theological reasoning?

Of course. I have beliefs. But they are mine and I don't expect anyone to share them and I have no desire to convince people that my beliefs are right and should be accepted by them as well.

First for me personally, I don't see frumpledorf as that popular. What I do see popular is this God that all these billions of people seem to be discussing.

So, popularity means something?

I cannot possibly claim frumpledorf is real and I cannot possibly claim he is not real. However if more and more people start talking about having experienced frumpledorf then it would be further motivation for me to at least examine that claim.

Oh, I have examined the claim about God. I spent the first 30 years of my life examining that claim.

Also what I'm trying to find out is if Atheism is a stance you take inspired by something such as a bad childhood repressed memory, or it was the cool thing to be in high school, or I was raised by atheists, or they think God is some man in the sky, or so on. Is there an initial motivator?

No. there is no initial motivator for me. In fact, I was raised in a very religious home. My mother was one of the people I call a "true Christian". The reason I do not believe in God is that it doesn't make any sense at all to me. I just don't believe it. It's not a choice I made and there was no single 'event' that preceded my atheism. Nobody died, nothing happened. It just doesn't make logical sense and there's no evidence to support the existence of God, so I don't believe in it.

reply to post by kinglizard


There was a time when I considered myself a Christian and yes, I "trusted in God". I wrote and sang songs about God and Jesus. I'm embarrassed to say that I took my guitar to the play, "Jesus Christ Superstar" in Columbus Ohio and sat outside, singing my song, "Jesus Christ is More than a Superstar"...

The only thing that "made me turn from him" is the realization that "he" wasn't there. All the feelings I was having were my thoughts and my personality. I WANTED something to be there. I WANTED to believe. And so I did.

You KNOW (or should know) that I don't have any problem with people having and enjoying their religion. I respect the fact that you have your religious beliefs and I support your freedom to exercise your religion. I just don't share it.

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticThere was a time when I considered myself a Christian and yes, I "trusted in God". I wrote and sang songs about God and Jesus. I'm embarrassed to say that I took my guitar to the play, "Jesus Christ Superstar" in Columbus Ohio and sat outside, singing my song, "Jesus Christ is More than a Superstar"...

Not sure how old you are but that strikes a corde with me. I, on a field trip, had to see Jesus Christ Superstsr in Roman Catholic Parochial School. lol Maybe I heard your strumming...

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticThe only thing that "made me turn from him" is the realization that "he" wasn't there

Was threr a situation you thought he should resolve or was it just a feeling that all was sham?

Originally posted by Benevolent HereticYou KNOW (or should know) that I don't have any problem with people having and enjoying their religion. I respect the fact that you have your religious beliefs and I support your freedom to exercise your religion. I just don't share it.

For sure I do. I have so much respect for your inteligence and thoughtfulness I couldn't express it in words. You are someone I consider to be a powerful force that God would love to have represent him. Far more tham me....

Originally posted by kinglizard
Was threr a situation you thought he should resolve or was it just a feeling that all was sham?

There was no situation I thought he should solve. And my departure from religion was a slow one, so there wasn't an overall feeling of it being a sham, either. Just through the years (since I turned about 25 or so) I became more honest with myself and realized that what I thought I believed was the structure that my parents instilled in me. I was holding THEIR beliefs, not my own. I had never explored my own. When I started examining what I thought about it all, I found out what I really believed. And as my parents both passed away, I felt more and more free to express my beliefs as I discovered what they were. I still searched, my search just took me to a very different place than I had been in the past. I gained a more clear and true perspective. True to me.

It wasn't until a few years ago (here on ATS) that I took the label of atheist. I still don't like labels, but it's the fastest way to let people know where I stand on the issue.

Thank you for your kind words. I think you're a real sweetheart.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Sorry, When someone says "There is NO God", that is a negative. The "NO" makes it a negative in this context. And it can't be proven unless we can completely search the realms and not find it.

I'm sorry BH...but this just is not the case. You can included a negative word in a statement that is still making a positive claim. It is true that in most cases you can't prove a negative (in most cases)...but that doesn't mean it gives people the freedom to be able to make claims that they can not back up. There is the little fact that people leave out...just because a negative can't be proven...doesn't mean it is logical to state negatives...in fact it is 100% illogical to make a statement you know you can't prove.

If atheists have no claim..then they should stick to no claim...and stick to the "I don't believe god exist". Once they venture into the "God does not exist" territory, they are making a claim...and like it or not...now have the burden of proving their claim.

It is simple logic...you can make all the statements you want...and if they are negative statements or not...you are required to prove your claim. This is why I say atheists that say "God does not exist" are not logical...because they are making a statement they can not prove.

It IS just an opinion, however, exactly the same as "There is a God". They're BOTH opinions. But one is claiming the existence of something. THAT is the positive. That is the one that requires proof.

I disagree...these are both CLAIMS...and thus are both required to be proven by the person stating that claim. Theists are just as guilty of this as atheists are...my issue with atheists is that they falsely think they are "logical" in making that claim without proving it.

Now saying "I don't believe in God" or "I do believe in God" are both opinions. There is a distinct difference...and atheists that claim (not assuming you are one of them) they are masters of logic should easily see the difference.

You will never see me state "God does exist"...you will see me state that "I have faith in my belief in God". No more or no less.

However...
The only way a believer can prove that there is a God is to have the resources to "check". And we can't do that.
The only way an atheist can prove that there is no God is to have the resources to "check". And we can't do that, either.

So, there will be no proof either way.

Agreed...that is why I believe both groups making those statements are illogical. The reason I address it with atheists is because they claim they use LOGIC to form their opinions. So it is ironic that they willingly make illogical statements.

You can prove that you don't have anything in your hand (proving a negative) because you have the resources to check. But the resources don't exist to prove that God does or doesn't exist. And since SOMEONE is claiming the existence of SOMETHING, the burden of proof is upon them.

That is fine...except that the religious that claim that god does in fact 100% exist prove it by their own personal experience...they don't claim to use logic for it. How can I fault them for that? How can I say they are not making a logical argument when they never state that they are?

On the other hand...when atheists CLAIM SOMETHING (God does not exist)...then they too are required to prove it. When they fall back on "you can't prove a negative"...it just shows they are knowingly making illogical statements.

Use the "you can't prove a negative" all you want when a theists asks you to disprove god...that is 100% acceptable response. But you can't make a CLAIM that "God does not exist" and fall back on that argument...it is illogical.

Oh gosh, I'm so sorry may your parents rest in peace, I don't know if I could handle the passing of my Mother.. I understand your position as it was once my own. Please forgive me though, I will still continue to challenge you as you are too important to the Lord.

Originally posted by kinglizard
Oh gosh, I'm so sorry may your parents rest in peace, I don't know if I could handle the passing of my Mother..

Ne need for apology. I didn't think I could handle it either, but I did. On my own.

Please forgive me though, I will still continue to challenge you as you are too important to the Lord.

You go right on.

Honestly, my mother is everything to me. That wasn't just a passing thought, I'm not sure if I could survive as you have with ought her. She means that much to me. You show the strength we will all need one day.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by dominicus So you are saying that these religions have made the claim that God is a man in the sky?

The details are sketchy, at best, as to where God lives or exists, so "in the sky" is as good as anywhere. Many people have taught their children that Heaven is "up there" and hell is "down there". So, I'm paraphrasing, I guess you could say. The bible says that God lives in the heavens.

But in the Bible there is one section where Jesus says that the kingdom of Heaven is within you yourself. Were you ever aware of that part? Since you say you used to be a Christian I think that's a fairly important question as to whether you went within yourself to find this inner kingdom of heaven that Jesus said.

Do you believe in anything? Have you ever used belief in any aspect in your life, outside of theological reasoning?

Of course. I have beliefs. But they are mine and I don't expect anyone to share them and I have no desire to convince people that my beliefs are right and should be accepted by them as well.

Ok I'll skip beliefs being right or wrong as it seems you are implying that beliefs themselves are relative to a number of things. Would you say that all beliefs are made up of thoughts, in example you have to think up a belief in order for the belief itself to exist? What exactly makes up a belief ?

First for me personally, I don't see frumpledorf as that popular. What I do see popular is this God that all these billions of people seem to be discussing.

So, popularity means something?

Well personally it seems to be that way in science. For example the idea of an Unobservable Aether that exists everywhere was taken up by a few scientists in its day, but because it wasn't popular and was unobservable was left in the dust. A few people, Einstein being one of them, wrote up papers to refute it and because the popular consensus did refute Aether, it is not considered factual. Yet a few minority scientists say that we just don't have instruments sensitive enough to measure the substance.

Some hard to crack theories in mathematics are sometimes not as popular as others and are left in the dust. I do think popularity means something, but I don't think what a majority group of people agrees upon is always true; case in point flat earth theory.

Popularity certainly means something to me. The Flying Spaghetti monster theory become popular and so I looked it up, but then found it tries to basically copy the idea of God to a certain extent in a mockery/parody fashion, and so its difficult to take serious However a difference I did find is that I have yet to find somebody who makes the claim to have experienced the Monster directly, whereas I find peoples claims and explanations of some sort of experience with this God character.

Also I don't see any branch of science that studies direct experience besides neurology of brain activity during certain experiences. Also science doesn't seem to know what consciousness is yet, at least not satisfactory answers especially when we look into the history of science and find that the study of consciousness was banned until recently.

I cannot possibly claim frumpledorf is real and I cannot possibly claim he is not real. However if more and more people start talking about having experienced frumpledorf then it would be further motivation for me to at least examine that claim.

Oh, I have examined the claim about God. I spent the first 30 years of my life examining that claim.

So you have spent 30 years examining claims about God but not God him/her/itself?

It just doesn't make logical sense and there's no evidence to support the existence of God, so I don't believe in it.

But is logic itself complete? Are we adding to it and are there areas of study within science, math, etc that are illogical areas? I mean in mathematics we use the concept of Infinity represented as a symbol in equations as ∞ .

This symbol ∞ is a representation of something that is theoretical because in the sense that it exists in reality it would be completely unfathomable. The Human mind is incapable of comprehending Infinity if it is real and so we use a symbol and call it theoretical.

This seems to blur lines of what is logical illogical in that at least in science and mathematics we create symbols and theories for possibilities that we are not sure of as yet.

We also seem to have experiences in life, that we come to represent them at a later time as memories. Now what is more real, the event that happened itself, or the memory of it?

Originally posted by Mike_A
If you need a dictionary definition to accept that atheism is not necessarily a claim that god does not exist then please look at both the definition of atheist and of disbelief.

Atheist - One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Disbelief - Refusal or reluctance to believe

www.thefreedictionary.com...
www.thefreedictionary.com...

Therefore atheism can simply be a refusal to believe and not a belief in itself.

Well lest you become a hypocrite I should expect not to see you ever actually deny the existence of a God as if it's a fact then, huh.

Originally posted by dominicus
But in the Bible there is one section where Jesus says that the kingdom of Heaven is within you yourself. Were you ever aware of that part?

Yes, I am aware of that. There are many contradictory statements in the bible. That's only one small reason that it all doesn't make sense.

Since you say you used to be a Christian I think that's a fairly important question as to whether you went within yourself to find this inner kingdom of heaven that Jesus said.

I would have to say that since I DID start searching within myself for answers, I have found my "inner heaven". I wouldn't call it that, of course, but Jesus did make a lot of sense in some of the things he said.

Would you say that all beliefs are made up of thoughts, in example you have to think up a belief in order for the belief itself to exist? What exactly makes up a belief ?

I don't "think up a belief". Like I said before, it's not something I decide. The thought I put into a belief is to DISCOVER the belief, not to think it up. The sun has come up every day for as long as we know. I BELIEVE it will come up tomorrow. It is my experiences and my education that "make up" my beliefs.

I don't think what a majority group of people agrees upon is always true; case in point flat earth theory.

I was going to bring that up if you hadn't. And not only flat earth, but EVERYTHING we've ever "known" we were sure of until something else came along to prove us wrong. And that is still the case. That's why proof is so important.

So you have spent 30 years examining claims about God but not God him/her/itself?

That's semantics. I lived the life of a girl whose parents were devoted to religion as the focal point of their lives and teach their children accordingly.

But is logic itself complete? Are we adding to it and are there areas of study within science, math, etc that are illogical areas?

Sure. And who knows? Someday, there may be logical proof of this thing you call God. I've said, I believe in possibilities. But right now, there isn't. And that's fine. Faith is belief without proof. If you have proof of God, there would be no need for "Faith". I don't think there will ever be proof of God, but I can't know that.

This symbol ∞ is a representation of something that is theoretical because in the sense that it exists in reality it would be completely unfathomable. The Human mind is incapable of comprehending Infinity if it is real and so we use a symbol and call it theoretical.

It's a concept a thought A place-marker that represents an idea. A solid idea. And we know what the symbol means and we can express it in words, if not demonstrate it directly. I am capable of comprehending infinity if I use numbers. You can always add one more. Forever. I think I comprehend it. We can't experience it, but I understand it and I think most people do.

This seems to blur lines of what is logical illogical in that at least in science and mathematics we create symbols and theories for possibilities that we are not sure of as yet.

I disagree that it blurs any lines of logic. We both know exactly what it means. No one is claiming that it's "real" or can be experienced. That's the difference.

We also seem to have experiences in life, that we come to represent them at a later time as memories. Now what is more real, the event that happened itself, or the memory of it?

They are both real. One is an experience and the other is a thought.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm sorry BH...but this just is not the case. You can included a negative word in a statement that is still making a positive claim.

Please give me an example.

Here's how I see it.

Person A makes a claim: There are wild flying unicorns in Peru.
Person B says, "Prove it"
Person A cannot prove it.
Person B says: "I don't believe you. I'm going to take the position that there are no wild flying unicorns in Peru.

Now, the statement "There are wild flying unicorns in Peru" is either true or false. With everything you have experienced and everything you know (your experiences and your knowledge) is the chance of wild flying unicorns in Peru 50/50? No. Because you know that unicorns are a myth and don't really exist. And if there were such a thing, there would most likely be proof.

Person A above made an extraordinary claim and it requires extraordinary evidence. Person B does not have the burden of proof.

The existence of God is an extraordinary claim. It's outside the realm of what we know and can objectively demonstrate. It's like making the claim that we can flap our wings and fly. The person who says that we cannot fly is stating a negative and the burden of proof in on the one that states the positive. (That we CAN fly)

I had a bunch of other stuff typed out, but I really don't want to debate this issue. I just want to share my thoughts and read other peoples'.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by dominicus
But in the Bible there is one section where Jesus says that the kingdom of Heaven is within you yourself. Were you ever aware of that part?

Yes, I am aware of that. There are many contradictory statements in the bible. That's only one small reason that it all doesn't make sense.

So because you found what were to you, contradictions in some statements, this prevented you from investigating whether or not certain statements were true?

I mean in the case of Science, which I myself find just as fascinating as Philosophy and religion, there is a quantum state where scientists are able to take atoms very close to absolute zero in a Bose-Einstein condensate and eventually these atoms turn to strings. AFter they turn to strings they end up in a state where they dont know where they are, or seem to be everywhere at once. Now this is a contradiction to me cause how can a bunch of strings be everywhere at once?

So it is a contradiction for me but I continue to study it
_____
Since you say you used to be a Christian I think that's a fairly important question as to whether you went within yourself to find this inner kingdom of heaven that Jesus said.

I would have to say that since I DID start searching within myself for answers, I have found my "inner heaven". I wouldn't call it that, of course, but Jesus did make a lot of sense in some of the things he said.

Can you tell me a few of the things that Jesus did make sense of? Also this searching within that you say might perhaps be compatible, though you wouldn't call it that, with the inner Heaven that Jesus spoke of, can you give me some characteristics of it?
____
I don't "think up a belief". Like I said before, it's not something I decide. The thought I put into a belief is to DISCOVER the belief, not to think it up. The sun has come up every day for as long as we know. I BELIEVE it will come up tomorrow. It is my experiences and my education that "make up" my beliefs.

But what exactly makes up a belief? What is your definition of one? Also I seem to be confused here as you are implying above that beliefs are not something you decide so you have no decision over which beliefs you have?

The thoughts you put into beliefs, to discover the belief ..........can you clearify this as it seems to be an implication that you have beliefs in order to discover that they are beliefs?
_______________

I don't think what a majority group of people agrees upon is always true; case in point flat earth theory.

I was going to bring that up if you hadn't. And not only flat earth, but EVERYTHING we've ever "known" we were sure of until something else came along to prove us wrong. And that is still the case. That's why proof is so important.

You say "EVERYTHING" we've ever known we were sure of until something else came along to prove us wrong", if thats the case does this "everything" include knowledge in the fields of science, philosophy, mathematics, and so forth?

Is all the knowledge we currently have on this day in all of the known world, is it Immune to any new information being discovered to prove any of it wrong?
______
So you have spent 30 years examining claims about God but not God him/her/itself?


That's semantics. I lived the life of a girl whose parents were devoted to religion as the focal point of their lives and teach their children accordingly.

So you are saying you were brought up being taught about religion. Would you agree that a person can be taught about Mount Everest, what it takes to climb it, every single aspect that has to do with Mount Everest and yet never ever lay foot on Mount Everest?
____
But is logic itself complete? Are we adding to it and are there areas of study within science, math, etc that are illogical areas?


Sure. And who knows? Someday, there may be logical proof of this thing you call God. I've said, I believe in possibilities. But right now, there isn't. And that's fine. Faith is belief without proof. If you have proof of God, there would be no need for "Faith". I don't think there will ever be proof of God, but I can't know that.

Can you prove to me what you are experiencing right now this very second?
____
This symbol ∞ is a representation of something that is theoretical because in the sense that it exists in reality it would be completely unfathomable. The Human mind is incapable of comprehending Infinity if it is real and so we use a symbol and call it theoretical.


It's a concept a thought A place-marker that represents an idea. A solid idea. And we know what the symbol means and we can express it in words, if not demonstrate it directly. I am capable of comprehending infinity if I use numbers. You can always add one more. Forever. I think I comprehend it. We can't experience it, but I understand it and I think most people do.

But using numbers to express infinity isn't that the same as using representations to express something? I mean is the number 1 just an idea and not a solid entity? Can you really comprehend forever when it comes to numbers past the trillion zillion mark?

I mean take for example number 1 ...how should I express this number 1? Would it be 1 person, living in 1 state, in 1 country, in 1 planet, in 1 galaxy, in 1 Universe ...I mean isn't the number 1 relative to each person?

Also can we prove the number zero in reality and negative numbers?
_____
This seems to blur lines of what is logical illogical in that at least in science and mathematics we create symbols and theories for possibilities that we are not sure of as yet.

I disagree that it blurs any lines of logic. We both know exactly what it means. No one is claiming that it's "real" or can be experienced. That's the difference.

But I don't know what infinity means and yet it is used by math and science in formulas. I just can't myself fathom or comprehend it let alone even begin to understand why its used in Math. So does this mean that only those who can understand what this Infinity symbol means use it?

This infinity symbol being used in math to me is illogical, or the antithesis of logic to me. Does this mean that my logic is not at the same level as others?
_____
We also seem to have experiences in life, that we come to represent them at a later time as memories. Now what is more real, the event that happened itself, or the memory of it?

They are both real. One is an experience and the other is a thought.

Would you yourself rather have the thought of ice cream for dessert or the actual experience of having the ice cream for dessert?

You are saying thoughts are real, can you harness this thought and show it to me so that I can know for sure that thoughts are as real as you say they are?

Originally posted by dominicus
But in the Bible there is one section where Jesus says that the kingdom of Heaven is within you yourself. Were you ever aware of that part?

I have never understood why people use the bible to debate an Atheist.

reply to post by dominicus

Is it possible God is comminicating to us but we just don't understand this form of communication?

Do you mean to say that God, the all-powerful, all-knowing Ultimate Power, can't figure out how to communicate with us so that we can understand Him?

But evil when it is committed is committed by people themselves is it not? And wouldn't you agree that each and every one of us has the freedom to do evil or good?

So what? God is still all-knowing and all-powerful. If He is not also cruel and evil, why does He stand idly by while His creatures suffer in pain and misery? Why did He give his creatures the power to do evil? Is free will worth the price in pain and misery we pay for it? Why can't we be free to do whatever we like except evil? Why couldn't God have given us that, when we have so many limits on our so-called free will already? What difference would one more limitation on the scope of our freedom make?

So what you are saying is that if there is evidence for something then we should worry?

Perhaps. Depends on the evidence.

Can you tell me some things you do worry about?

Old age, disease, failure, loneliness. The future of my country, which is presently in grave doubt. I'm not much of a worrier, though. On the whole, I embrace life as it flows through me.

When you are told something (do) you more often assume they are telling the truth?

I try not to make such assumptions. I look to people's actions, not their words, to determine whether or not they can be trusted.

If a child is crying and I go over there to cheer the child up for their sake, it is for my benefit?

I said 'for the benefit of the sender'. The crying child is the sender. And yes, she is crying for her own benefit.

So if I conceal my existence from a psycho ex-girl friend and all her friends who take her side, then I am a fugitive? If I live in communism and conceal my existence from them because they are looking to destroy all paintings of flowers and nice colors and I paint said paintings then I am a fugitive?

Yes in both cases, obviously. And God, the all-knowing, all-powerful, need fear no psychotic ex-girlfriends or Communist killjoys. What is He hiding for, if not out of shame for the crimes He has committed?

If you have children or family members and they have committed crimes, yet you had the power to prevent them from happening by either bringing your children up morally, or being involved more in your family ...but the crimes of this person was committed, so that means you are also a criminal for failing to prevent the crime is this correct?

A parent is not all-powerful and all-knowing. They don't know everything about raising kids and they can't control every detail of a kid's life. Thus they cannot be held directly responsible if their children turn out bad. But God is all-powerful and all-knowing. He knows every detail and He controls everything, so He has to carry the can for everything, too. Ultimately, it's all His fault.

Look, dominicus: philosophically speaking, this is kindergarten stuff. Why didn't you read up on the Problem of Evil before you came back to me? You're wasting my time and everybody else's. Raise your game or forget it.

How can logic be the same for everyone if a 5 year old doesn't yet understand logic? Or are you saying all 5 year olds understand logic?

Logic is the same for everybody because logic is always the same. There are no higher and lower forms of logic. Any five-year-old who can speak has an intuitive understanding of logic; language is impossible without it. Knowledge of formal logic comes later, if at all, but that just codifies what is already intuited.

Do you interact and make decisions in every situation you come across or do you sometimes just allow things to be? Or perhaps both?

I am not the boss. I am not responsible for everything. God is the Boss. He is responsible for everything.

The more power someone has, the more responsibility they have, too. Ultimate power implies infinite responsibility. Either that or we live in an amoral universe ruled by an amoral God.

Is there anything you yourself are ignorant in?

Plenty of things, but grammar isn't one of them. You mean 'ignorant of', not 'ignorant in'.

Have you been ignorant in the past and then through the act of knowledge, experience, and time eventually rid yourself of ignorance in any particular subject?

I believe the word for this process is 'learning'.

So you do admit that you believe in certain types of moral behaviors and try to follow them in the best possible way?

To be perfectly honest with you, I pretty much do what I like. It just so happens that I like being a good boy--most of the time, anyway.

Do you make use of consciousness? Does science know what consciousness is factually?

Yes. No. Irrelevant. All I meant is that we consciously devise moral codes and ethical systems.

You also mention "instinctive behavioral impulses". Are these dependent on logic/reason, the 5 senses, and/or science?

They are dependent on instinct. :shk:

Is there such a thing, reality, or your own personal definition as an absolute truth?

Kindly rephrase your question in plain English. Thank you.

For example in this last line of answers of yours that I responded to it seems I need further clearification on certain matter such as criminal, fugitive, logic, and absolute truth amongst others.

You need more than 'clearification'. Please read up on the Problem of Evil before you try arguing with me any farther. It's not my job to answer ignorant, foolish questions, and it's not my job to educate you, either. Kindly get with the programme.

reply to post by dominicus


Do you still intend on replying to others? You started the thread talking to OnceReturned but you’ve ignored him since page 3. I also replied to you at the end of page 3.

Originally posted by dominicus
So because you found what were to you, contradictions in some statements, this prevented you from investigating whether or not certain statements were true?

No. For someone who's claiming to use the Socratic Method, you are making a lot of assumptions. And going in circles.

]You are saying thoughts are real, can you harness this thought and show it to me so that I can know for sure that thoughts are as real as you say they are?

I cannot harness the wind, either, but I can show you the scientific effects of it. I can show objective and repeatable results. Can you do the same for what you are claiming?

Look, I don't know what you're trying to prove - or maybe I do - but I think you might need to study the Socratic method some more. Or else move onto someone else because we don't seem to be getting anywhere with this. Thanks, anyway.