The 2nd Great Christian Argument

[Pristinegirl]

Isn't this a contradiction though? How can you perceive something that doesn't exist? How can you not perceive something that does exist if it is within your perception range?

Powerful, I'm an agnostic and I think in these terms as well. You have a point because god is not percieved though, it is intuition. If it is a 'religious experience' through the senses, then it is perception. Hence, many factors are involved in why these are percieved. Therefore there is not observational perception and is a paradox as 'god' cannot be percieved in the first place. It is said that a deity of such magnitude, would break our senses.

 

[VH]

Isn't this a contradiction though? How can you perceive something that doesn't exist? How can you not perceive something that does exist if it is within your perception range?

Can you see a germ? No. Can you feel the effects of a germ when it is in your body? Yes. And just like with the divine, many of the descriptions of these effects are qualitative and subjective, immeasurable by any other method. Does this make the germ not exist? Clearly not. Otherwise, germs would not have existed before they were discovered. Can you perceive an emotion with the five senses? No. Can you perceive the essence of life that distinguishes a mass of organic matter from a living creature? No. Does that mean emotions or life do not exist? Of course not. Can you perceive these things with other means than the five senses? Absolutely. If God exists, then his presence can clearly be perceived through non-empirical means. If God does not exist, then it doesn't matter.

No perception or logical necessity of God seems to conclude in a nontheism. Depending on the definition of God it could land into atheism or agnosticism (and I guess theism, but any reasonable definition of God is going to include a supernatural force...and since the supernatural is not perceivable nor does it logically follow from known premises, this line of thinking can not honestly land in theism).

You can't define infinity. If God exists, then God is infinite, and therefore cannot be defined. If God does not exist, then you cannot define something that does not exist. Trying to do so in either case is an exercise in futility.

 

[Satya]

Can you see a germ

Sorry Von, I couldn't resist.

 

[Duty]

And just like with the divine, many of the descriptions of these effects are qualitative and subjective, immeasurable by any other method.

I think death is pretty measurable, as is a fever.

Does this make the germ not exist? Clearly not. Otherwise, germs would not have existed before they were discovered. Can you perceive an emotion with the five senses? No. Can you perceive the essence of life that distinguishes a mass of organic matter from a living creature? No. Does that mean emotions or life do not exist? Of course not. Can you perceive these things with other means than the five senses? Absolutely.

I can't directly perceive these things in others, no, but I can certainly measure the effect of them, as well as reasonably theorize that since the explanation for these behaviors in me is emotion and consciousness, then another human being's behaviors can be explained much the same way.

If God exists, then his presence can clearly be perceived through non-empirical means. If God does not exist, then it doesn't matter.

There is no such thing as justified non-empirical perception. There is intuition, which can be a great guide, but it can't justify our beliefs. We can't believe the murderer was you based on our intuition, it takes the perception of witnesses, the perception of evidence, the logical inferences from those perceptions...etc. The same goes for justifying any belief of ours. Intuition can help us reach a conclusion faster, it can help us put the pieces together, but alone it can't justify a belief.

You can't define infinity.

Infinity is a sequence without a definite end.

If God exists, then God is infinite, and therefore cannot be defined.

Infinite =/= incapable of being defined.

If God does not exist, then you cannot define something that does not exist. Trying to do so in either case is an exercise in futility.

A unicorn does not exist, but it is defined as a horse with a single horn on its head.

 

[Satya]

Wow, Ni Fe versus Ti Ne! This is like my first days on INTPCentral!

 

[VH]

Sorry Von, I couldn't resist.

*cacklenuke* Nice.

Maybe someday we'll invent a macroscope that can see God. Until then, clearly God can't exist, just like germs didn't until the 19th Century when we managed to create microscopes.

I think death is pretty measurable, as is a fever.

So is lifespan, and income, but these things are only side effects of that which we cannot measure, which is the life force itself. Yet, people can subjectively perceive the quality of it in others.

I can't directly perceive these things in others, no, but I can certainly measure the effect of them, as well as reasonably theorize that since the explanation for these behaviors in me is emotion and consciousness, then another human being's behaviors can be explained much the same way.

How do you propose to measure them in an objective way? It's not possible to measure feelings in any manner than subjectively. Faith and the presence of God are measured in the same way. Some people claim to not feel emotions. Is that a proof that no one else feels them, or even that emotions do not actually exist? Clearly not.

There is no such thing as justified non-empirical perception. There is intuition, which can be a great guide, but it can't justify our beliefs. We can't believe the murderer was you based on our intuition, it takes the perception of witnesses, the perception of evidence, the logical inferences from those perceptions...etc. The same goes for justifying any belief of ours. Intuition can help us reach a conclusion faster, it can help us put the pieces together, but alone it can't justify a belief.

You're making a logical fallacy here. We can't apply intuition alone to a murder trial because of the severity of the consequences, just like we can't apply pure empirical logic to finding a child lost in large forest in freezing conditions. Both of these functions have to go hand in hand. However, when the consequences are not so grave, we can certainly apply intuition to whatever we like, just as we can apply reason to whatever we like. Reasoning that there is no God is just as much proof as intuition can prove that blue is the best color to go with those curtains. In the end neither reason nor intuition can prove or disprove the existence of God. As human beings, we're just not qualified to deal in absolutes, unless we simply accept that they are absolutes.

Infinity is a sequence without a definite end.
Infinite =/= incapable of being defined.

You just made my point, twice. If there is a God then there is no definition for God than God. Any other attempt to define God fails.

A unicorn does not exist, but it is defined as a horse with a single horn on its head.

Are you certain that a unicorn does not exist?

Here is a pair of real life goats that have a single horn growing out of their heads. The argument that something can't happen because it hasn't happened is also failed logic.

Although some people choose to live in a world where they feel that science has everything currently figured out, I do not. My empirical understanding of history and my intuitive understanding of pattern recognition refuse to allow me to rule out the possibility of the existence of the undiscovered, seeing as we discover new things every day.

And that is the point to my post. To presume to rule out the existence of God based on no other evidence than there is no evidence is foolish, even if God doesn't exist.

Keep an open mind to all possibilities until proven impossible, or else you're going to find yourself blindsided frequently in life. And when dealing with a subject of infinite absolutes, there is no way to prove it impossible. That doesn't make God exist, only possible to exist. From there, it is a question of belief. Choose to believe that God does or does not, but acknowledge that it is your belief and not a fact in either case.

Two statements that cannot be proven:

God does not exist.
God exists.

Two statements that can be proven:

I believe God does not exist.
I believe God does exist.

Feel free to try to convince people to change what they believe, but to base your arguments on the assumption that it can be proven that there is or is not a God is basing your argument on belief, and therefore feelings, not reason, no matter how much you feel that you are correct.

(As an INTP, you're ill equipped to change the beliefs of an F type. Good luck with that.)

 

[VH]

Wow, Ni Fe versus Ti Ne! This is like my first days on INTPCentral!

INTPs have a perpensity for turning discourse into debate, which makes little sense here, as INTPs are easy opponents for INFJs in such regards. Their Ti is the same as our own, giving us the ability to speak their language. Their Ne makes them grasp at straws, and therefore make mistakes. Their Si is too self focused to stay on task and provides more falacious arguments to back up their failed arguments. Their Fe is their weakest function, which keeps them in the debates well after they've lost with the tenacity that can only be mustered by toddlers and Fe inferiors.

I suppose since they're so used to winning debates, especially with themselves, they think they can win them here, and therefore attempt to start them at any given opportunity. The fact that they look at discourse as a competition is proof of their lack of wisdom.

INFJs have enough sense not to attempt to out do an ISTJ in a contest of monotonous labor. INTPs should have enough sense not to debate INFJs. Alas. Not all of the types are gifted with insight.

*chuckle*

 

[TheLastMohican]

^ That sounds pretty condescending towards INTPs, and ignorantly so.

 

[Satya]

^ That sounds pretty condescending towards INTPs, and ignorantly so.

It sounds like how I used to talk about INTJs!

Sigh...us INFJs and our hubris.


But yeah, I agree. It's pretty condescending. Both sides have valid points, no sense talking down to people just because they disagree with you.

 

[TK*]

It sounds like how I used to talk about INTJs!

Sigh...us INFJs and our hubris.

*grins and keeps evil thought to self*

Heh heh heh

 

[TheLastMohican]

It sounds like how I used to talk about INTJs!

True, except you simply complained about the patterns you observed, and those patterns were indeed present in immature INTJs with whom you debated. Von Hase is making sweeping statements about the functions and the reasons for the patterns he thinks he sees, and in the process has displayed ignorance of how Jungian functions work.

It's generally a bad sign if you find that your analysis renders one type better overall than another. It means that either your understanding of the theory is wrong, or you have a narcissistic approach to your own functions as opposed to those of others, even if you understand well enough what they are.

 

[VH]

^ That sounds pretty condescending towards INTPs, and ignorantly so.

It was. I was being sarcastically playful. It is a classic INFJ trait. That, and our a fore mentioned hubris. ;-) This debate has become rather pointless, so I thought I would point it out in an even more pointless way.

 

[TheLastMohican]

It was. I was being sarcastically playful. It is a classic INFJ trait. That, and our a fore mentioned hubris. ;-) This debate has become rather pointless, so I thought I would point it out in an even more pointless way.

Are we to take your analysis as entirely sarcastic, then? It didn't sound that way at all, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Satya]

It was. I was being sarcastically playful. It is a classic INFJ trait. That, and our a fore mentioned hubris. ;-) This debate has become rather pointless, so I thought I would point it out in an even more pointless way.

I kinda figured that you were just venting your frustration because you ideas weren't being understood the way you wanted them to be. It seems like something I would do even if it isn't in the best taste.

 

[just me]

I seem to have found there is really no "versus" here. I do have some verses I would like to quote, but that may be intolerable by some and unbeneficial to others. It almost seems as if we are questioning our minds' abilities for some reason. This forum seems more about minds than most anything else, and I feel an audience of scholarly people out there watching in the background to see what will happen next; is it not true? Surely they exist as they are drawn to the words and their meanings in amazement and in great respect of the human mind. Countless and endless things can be talked about, and we argue the brain's abilities to understand something unless it can be sensed by our known senses. I can sense emotions with my eyes as a portal to my brain. People study reading others as a science, do they not? Yet, in the very definitions of the infj personalities, there lies a postulated theory of sorts ( I guess it would have to be ) that this type of combination of different traits of the mind can actually be prone to visions and extra sensory perception of sorts that we now want to say is not possible without fact. In my way of reasoning, should this perception be but some other way of understanding that most others cannot understand, then it is valid. If a vision of sorts were to be seen by an individual, does that mean the individual saw something or could it mean the individual was shown something? Where is the proof or the evidence it even happened? Are we not questioning the very concept of thinking, feeling, judging, sensing, intuition, and the likes? What amazes me is the proverbial differences in people and their inability to see through the others' eyes. Would it not be easier to understand than to disprove? Is this not possible when dealing with other types of people, or must we grow into this type of understanding? I felt like being a pin cushion tonight; anybody notice? It is my take on the whole purpose of knowing the different personality traits to use the information to better understand each other, and it has helped me more than anyone could possibly imagine over the last couple of years. I have but one verse and I will slip away to supper and maybe retire early this evening. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." I had a fellow forum member tell me something personal about himself on here the other night that blew my socks off. It opened the door for anything one might possibly imagine. Having opportunity to unravel a great debate and lay it at my feet, I chose to look beyond that.
By doing so, did it not affect at least one person on this forum? Are we not affected by each other? I must say that God Almighty would be affected by even one person here, or I should not look at the small statue given to me many years ago by a dear friend of a young man carrying a lamb over his shoulders with such admiration as I do. To the believer, God can be affected and is affected by each of us; to the non-believer, maybe not. Understanding God takes faith, and we can mark faith all around us should we so desire. Apply faith to God and some wish to argue faith. Apply faith to your best friend's making it through a dangerous surgery and it seems alright. It does matter that others know to the believer, lest he does not have love and concern in his heart for his fellow man. I felt maybe like teaching, I guess, so forgive me and I will step down. The hardest thing I have ever had to learn was to listen; now I feel I can almost listen to the breeze moving on the waters and the reflections of sunlight as the wind moves over the earth. There has never been for me an outlet to share such things before this forum, where I feel the words would be better understood than in other places. I pray you kind folk here accept this as my way of saying thanks to you for listening.

 

[VH]

I kinda figured that you were just venting your frustration because you ideas weren't being understood the way you wanted them to be. It seems like something I would do even if it isn't in the best taste.

Tomayto tomahto. ;-)

 

[just me]

Man, the conversation changed a lot while I was typing...

 

[Quinlan]

Comes across as rude and unnessesary to me.

Although some people choose to live in a world where they feel that science has everything currently figured out, I do not. My empirical understanding of history and my intuitive understanding of pattern recognition refuse to allow me to rule out the possibility of the existence of the undiscovered, seeing as we discover new things every day.

And that is the point to my post. To presume to rule out the existence of God based on no other evidence than there is no evidence is foolish, even if God doesn't exist.

To rule something out because of a lack of evidence is entirely unscientific. It is religion that proclaims to have everything figured out, science claims to know nothing and then takes small logical steps into the unknown, religion claims to know all and then works back from there.

It is equally foolish to accept god as truth without evidence as it is to rule out all possibilty of god without evidence.

 

[Duty]

So is lifespan, and income, but these things are only side effects of that which we cannot measure, which is the life force itself. Yet, people can subjectively perceive the quality of it in others.

A person in a coma seems to have no "life force" by "subjective" means, but we can measure the heartbeat, brainwaves, etc and conclude they are alive...

How do you propose to measure them in an objective way? It's not possible to measure feelings in any manner than subjectively. Faith and the presence of God are measured in the same way. Some people claim to not feel emotions. Is that a proof that no one else feels them, or even that emotions do not actually exist? Clearly not.

You can measure physiological responses triggered by emotions. It's not hard to observe tears...

God, however, is not observable, measurable, or in any way provable.

You're making a logical fallacy here. We can't apply intuition alone to a murder trial because of the severity of the consequences, just like we can't apply pure empirical logic to finding a child lost in large forest in freezing conditions.

Sorry, YOU'RE making a logical fallacy, and I even know which one:
Appeal to consequences

Truth and justification don't rely on consequences. It doesn't matter if belief in God has consequences or not (and it has ENORMOUS consequences anyways). Truth is an ideal to strive for even if the consequences are not major...and you can't determine truth by just an intuition (as you're trying to say it's ok to do with God).

And yes, you can apply logic to finding a child. You can search in a pattern that covers the most ground in the least amount of time, you can ask the question, "Where would a child go?" and "Where do most children go in this situation?"

You just made my point, twice. If there is a God then there is no definition for God than God. Any other attempt to define God fails.

No, my point is that the answer of "agnostic," "atheist," and the like is going to be dependent on the definition, not that a definition doesn't exist.

Are you certain that a unicorn does not exist?

Here is a pair of real life goats that have a single horn growing out of their heads.

Goats aren't horses...

The argument that something can't happen because it hasn't happened is also failed logic.

I never made that argument.

Although some people choose to live in a world where they feel that science has everything currently figured out, I do not. My empirical understanding of history and my intuitive understanding of pattern recognition refuse to allow me to rule out the possibility of the existence of the undiscovered, seeing as we discover new things every day.

If a philosopher published a paper about how he FELT that science had everything figured out, he'd be laughed at. It's not about feelings. Science is about observation and logical conclusions

And that is the point to my post. To presume to rule out the existence of God based on no other evidence than there is no evidence is foolish, even if God doesn't exist.

Exactly...but intuition is not proper justification. God's existence leads mostly to agnostic conclusions, and atheistic conclusions depending on how you define "God."

Keep an open mind to all possibilities until proven impossible, or else you're going to find yourself blindsided frequently in life.

So you still are "agnostic" about the loch ness monster and that there are green men on Mars? I think it's appropriate to close our mind on things that are not necessarily logically impossible. After a sustained period of attempted to prove them, and coming up with no evidence, it can very well be justified to say it doesn't exist.

God is different because we may just not have the MEANS to try and prove him. So I don't advocate closing minds on this, but I certainly think it's a wild and unjustified leap to say he exists.

And when dealing with a subject of infinite absolutes, there is no way to prove it impossible. That doesn't make God exist, only possible to exist. From there, it is a question of belief.

No, it's then a matter of saying "I don't know," and not jumping to believing he does exist.

Two statements that cannot be proven:

God does not exist.
God exists.

Two statements that can be proven:

I believe God does not exist.
I believe God does exist.

One statement that is justified:

I don't know if God exists.

Four statements that are not justified:

I believe God exists.
I know God exists.
I believe God does not exist.
I know God does not exist.

(As an INTP, you're ill equipped to change the beliefs of an F type. Good luck with that.)

Type doesn't matter, truth is truth. If you choose to reject truth after it's presented, then you either know something that the other person doesn't, you're being dishonest, or you're not understanding it properly.

 

[AntoniaDodge]

INTPs have a perpensity for turning discourse into debate, which makes little sense here, as INTPs are easy opponents for INFJs in such regards. Their Ti is the same as our own, giving us the ability to speak their language. Their Ne makes them grasp at straws, and therefore make mistakes. Their Si is too self focused to stay on task and provides more falacious arguments to back up their failed arguments. Their Fe is their weakest function, which keeps them in the debates well after they've lost with the tenacity that can only be mustered by toddlers and Fe inferiors.

I suppose since they're so used to winning debates, especially with themselves, they think they can win them here, and therefore attempt to start them at any given opportunity. The fact that they look at discourse as a competition is proof of their lack of wisdom.

INFJs have enough sense not to attempt to out do an ISTJ in a contest of monotonous labor. INTPs should have enough sense not to debate INFJs. Alas. Not all of the types are gifted with insight.

*chuckle*

I liked the part when he said "their Ti is the same as our own."