How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

First topic message reminder :

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Please ignore that I do not believe in any invisible entity. I would like this thread to be about you.
I also have rejected the notion of anything being able to breach the limits of nature and physics.
No miracles allowed in my theology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY

If you do not follow your religion because of culture and tradition, when did you begin to be a believer?

Can you describe how you were made to believe in fantasy or imaginary creatures?

Were you an adult at that time or a child?

If a child, could this real phenomena be what caused you to believe?

http://academia.edu/503195/_Princess_Alice_is_watching_you_Childrens_belief_in_an_invisible_person_inhibits_cheating

Regards
DL

DR, Sheldon,
The two references you enlarged in blue letters are not answered by your last post.

As usual you come up with some stupid reply.

An omnipotent can do anything, agree to an agreement and abide by it, by choice and nothing else.

You will have to learn to understand the implications involved and not try to seperate that which is involved.

It will take time as all your previous posts prove but I live in hope rather than expectation.

polyglide wrote:The two references you enlarged in blue letters are not answered by your last post.

They're your claims not mine, I highlighted your claims because they quite clearly contradict each other, and that was my answer a child could see this, and they're next to each other in your post above. You really need to stop your arrogance and petulance and try reading it all again as it's you who clearly doesn't understand either what I've said or what you have said.

polyglide wrote: An omnipotent being is not bound by anything  

In the same post you then said....and again I'm quoting you...

Polyglide wrote: He just cannot grasp the significance of the dispute between Satan and God. Even a child could understand that if an agreement is made and rules apply, those concerned have to abide by the rules. Satan challenged God,

How can someone or something not be bound by anything, then in the very next sentence be bound by an agreement? Either it is choosing to be bound and so choosing to allow evil and suffering, and therefore is not benevolent, or it isn't able to avoid being bound by it, hence not omnipotent. I explained the concept of theodicy to you pages ago and yet you still haven't the vaguest grasp of what the logical paradoxes involved are. Now if you have finished your puerile insults then perhaps you can tell us all which of your claims is true, as they cannot both be true.

NB...my patience with your childish ad hominem is wearing very thing, so if all I get is another round of abuse I shall start to return it in kind, you have been warned.

An omnipotent can do anything, agree to an agreement and abide by it,

Then it is choosing to be bound by it, hence it is choosing to allow evil and suffering that it could stop by choosing not to be bound by the agreement, or not even entering into it in the first place, or not creating evil, or Satan etc etc. You claimed everything that is exists was created by your deity, so that's self evident to anyone with even the most tenuous grasp of English. Bound by choice then not benevolent, bound without choice then not omnipotent. All you've done is go around and around and arrived right back at the Epicurus quote I used right at the start to show you the best and simplest explanation of theodicy there is, and it's thousands of years old.

Hi Sheldon.
Just switched back on again,and hey presto help has arrived, he has sent private messages also to me again,but this time I just deleted them.
Telling me I was wrong this time,blah blah blah.

stuart torr wrote:Hi Sheldon.
Just switched back on again,and hey presto help has arrived, he has sent private messages also to me again,but this time I just deleted them.
Telling me I was wrong this time,blah blah blah.

He's relentless, and I can't tell whether he is wilfully misunderstanding the argument, or is just doesn't grasp theodicy at all. His comments on science and evolution in particular just speak for themselves. I mean if someone think a civil engineer is as qualified to make judgements about evolution as the very best scientific minds in that field it's hard to know what to say. I suppose he'd happily board a plane built and designed by biologists then? Terrifying stuff, funny in places but truly terrifying....

Well Sheldon, I would not want the civil engineer inventing my cancer treatment would I now? keep a look out as T.G. is on board here now, wonder what he will say about our resident la la science man?

stuart torr wrote:Well Sheldon, I would not want the civil engineer inventing my cancer treatment would I now? keep a look out as T.G. is on board here now, wonder what he will say about our resident la la science man?

I had a brief chat with T over on the Amazon.com forum. I hope he does start posting here, and one or two of the others. I hope you are well stu, circumstances notwithstanding of course. If you need anything PM me, I'll do what I can.

Thank-you Sheldon mate,very kind of you.

DR, Sheldon,
I know younthjink you are clever but realy you are stupid, [look it up].

You cannot understand that a being not bound by anything is able to able to do anything, make an agreement, not make an agreement etc;

There is a vast difference between all options being available and able to decide which when and how and having limited options etc, get some two year old to explain.

You do not understand what Christians believe regarding God and Satan, just as you are unable to know the difference between can and can't, as your spelling indicates very crearly.

Look at your spelling also Polyglide,if you look back at your posts, you will see that you said that god did not make agreements,then in the following post you said that he did with satan? which is the truth for this omnipotent being of yours?

polyglide wrote:DR, Sheldon, I know younthjink you are clever but realy you are stupid, [look it up].

Ah the lesser known spelling of really, I'll not credit the rest with a response, but since it seems my friendly warning about your constant use of childish ad hominem has gone unheeded I've reported this and the other instances.

Polyglide wrote:You cannot understand that a being not bound by anything is able to able to do anything, make an agreement, not make an agreement etc;

On the contrary I have been at pains to point this out, as it was you who claimed this being was bound by an agreement that allowed evil and suffering.

Polygllide wrote:There is a vast difference between all options being available and able to decide which when and how and having limited options etc, get some two year old to explain.

As I have been at great pains to explain to you. So you're now saying your deity chooses to allow suffering and evil then? So it's not benevolent then.

Polyglide wrote:You do not understand what Christians believe regarding God and Satan, just as you are unable to know the difference between can and can't, as your spelling indicates very crearly.

"crearly"? Irony overload again...

I understand what you have claimed, though it's absurdly fantastical and completely unevidenced, but I don't understand why people believe it as as well as being a fantasy that is not supported by any proper evidence, it is irrational and contradictory to claim a being that is benevolent allows evil and suffering.

                 
   

polyglide wrote: You cannot understand that a being not bound by anything is able to able to do anything

Polyglide wrote:Even a child could understand that if an agreement is made and rules apply, those concerned have to abide by the rules.

Well perhaps a child could understand this, but apparently you made this claim yet absolutely don't understand what it means. Now either your deity is bound by this agreement, or it chooses to be bound by it. The former negates omnipotence, the latter negates benevolence. Take your time.....

The previous post Sheldon,Polyglides spelling of you think is slightly awry also is it not?

stuart torr wrote:The previous post Sheldon,Polyglides spelling of you think is slightly awry also is it not?

Execrable as always, though that's not the point really, the point which I have been making and which he isn't grasping at all, is that his constant use of ad hominem make his execrable spelling and grammar an obvious target. Especially when he constantly tries to tell everyone they don't understand the definition of words when the dictionary shows it is he not them who is wrongly defining the words in question, which he clearly can't even spell.

Dr, Sheldon;
My spelling is slightly awry but I have an excuse, what's yours?.

Please give me the date of the post where I said God did not make agreements.

He has many times Polyglide,all of which you have denied.

Stu,
Then please give me the date, as I have not read it.

Just look up Sheldons replies to you Polyglide,as I am not doing your work for you.

Stu,
At no time have I said God is limited in any way.

Well why make an agreement with satan? instead of just beating him outright and getting rid of all the evils in the world caused by satan.

Stu,
I do not have the answer.

I can only go by what the Bible says, we are not able to understand much of the human mind never mind how God and those in his realm minds work.

Even we are very limited regarding most of what we are aware of, we know it is there but not why or how, so what chance have we of understanding a far more complex society?.

polyglide wrote: Please give me the date of the post where I said God did not make agreements.

I never claimed this, I pointed out that such an agreement would involve the choice to allow evil and suffering and therefore negate such a deity being benevolent. You said that god had to abide by this agreement, that indicated it had no choice, so it's your poor wording to blame. I'll re quote your claims.  

You said:

polyglide wrote:
You cannot understand that a being not bound by anything is able to able to do anything

Polyglide wrote:Even a child could understand that if an agreement is made and rules apply, those concerned have to abide by the rules.

I responded with

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:
either your deity is bound by this agreement, or it chooses to be bound by it. The former negates omnipotence, the latter negates benevolence. Take your time.....

From your claims it comes down to two choices, so which of these two mutually exclusive claims are you now claiming is true? You still haven't answered....

polyglide wrote:Stu,
     At no time have I said God is limited in any way.

Post by polyglide on Sat May 30, 2015 11:50 am
Of course if God is approached in a particular situation that does not go against the agreement with Satan God can and will perform miracles.

by polyglide on Mon Jun 01, 2015 3:30 pm
Satan challenged God, God could have just killed him off but took up the challenge and the Bible explains the terms involved...... if an agreement is made and rules apply, those concerned have to abide by the rules.

There are two posts in the last two pages of this thread where you have stated plainly circumstances which you consider would limit your god's choice.

polyglide wrote:Stu, I do not have the answer.

Finally. Theodicy represents a paradox within core Christian beliefs that can't be rationally solved, this is why you don't have an answer.

Dr, Sheldon,
None of your replies make any real sense but the above goes beyond belief.

Not one of them indicate anything other than God can make an agreement and being honest and truthful will abide by the terms of the agreement, the terms may well result in matters abhorent to God but the terms of the agreement have to run their course and God will eventually deal with the result.

Omnipotence has nothing to do with it, the meaning being, strong, compelling including power and divine attrubute, having great and unlimited power, divine attribute, Omnicient, knowing, foreseeing, the meaning of which is, all wise, all knowing etc.
foreseeing means, look ahead, be wise and expect and intend.

Finally, God can make any decision he wants and at no time have I indicated otherwise.

Either god chooses to be bound by this agreement you claim exists, and is therefore not benevolent. Or he does not choose as you earlier implied and as you have done here again. In the latter claim he would not be omnipotent which is still defined as possessing unlimited power, and for whom nothing is impossible in the context of a deity. Despite your execrable and laughable attempt to redefine it here.

Why isn't the Oxford English Dictionary definition good enough for you?

Polyglide wrote: Finally, God can make any decision he wants and at no time have I indicated otherwise.

You said he had to abide by an agreement that allowed evil and suffering. Either he has to, or he has a choice not to, but those are mutually exclusive claims that you have made.


However if you now claim he is not bound by this agreement, but chooses to abide by it, then that obviously means he's choosing to allow evil and suffering. So your claim proves your deity would not be benevolent if it existed as described.

Dr, Sheldon,
Have you heard of a sledge hammer?.

God had the choice of making the agreement, once made he was obliged to see it through, please get someone with common sense to explain the implications.

Your hilariously arrogant claim to be able to solve the paradox of theodicy when it has foiled the best theological minds for millennia was always going to end in embarrassment for you. I have little sympathy given your appalling attitude.

Now back to it......If he chooses to be bound then he's not benevolent. If anything at all compels him to be bound he's not omnipotent.  This is the very paradox that theodicy tries to tackle. Get a real Christian who knows the basics of the Christian religion to explain that to you. As you are embarrassing yourself with each new wriggle as you jump repeatedly between two mutually exclusive claims, ridiculously pretending there is no paradox.

Hilarious.....

Polyglide can you not understand what you are actually saying?
Either God can choose or is all powerful, now which is it please and try and stick by one definition of this supposed being. If he is all powerful he does not need to make agreements with anybody or anything and that includes satan,as he would have destroyed the devil immediately.
Obviously he is not all powerful to make agreements with the devil,and allow the suffering in the world to continue.
If you wish to have a none biased view apart from myself and Sheldons as we are the only two you pick on,why not ask Ivan the leader of the forum, who I am sure will give you his unbiased view.

stuart torr wrote:Polyglide can you not understand what you are actually saying?
Either God can choose or is all powerful, now which is it please and try and stick by one definition of this supposed being. If he is all powerful he does not need to make agreements with anybody or anything and that includes satan,as he would have destroyed the devil immediately.
Obviously he is not all powerful to make agreements with the devil,and allow the suffering in the world to continue.
If you wish to have a none biased view apart from myself and Sheldons as we are the only two you pick on,why not ask Ivan the leader of the forum, who I am sure will give you his unbiased view.

He doesn't understand theodicy at all  stu, or grasp that thousands of years and the best theological minds have been unable to solve it. It's quite funny to see him ricochet between two mutually exclusive claims screaming abuse at me as if I'm the village idiot for thinking they are contradictory, when his own religion has acknowledged this for thousands of years. That's the kind of risible idiocy that strident blinkered religious fundamentalism produces. Now we've seen this before, Polyglide despises the established churches, but not because they are intolerant or breed prejudice and bigotry, but because he thinks they've sold out by modernising and become too tolerant, remind you of anyone stu? C W Bradbury perhaps, or Fred Phelps maybe? So much anger and intolerance, it's an effulgent commendation of  religious  fundamentalism all right, with the emphasis on the mental in fundamental.

Reminds me of cwb all the time actually Sheldon,but surely he could not be worse than cwb COULD HE?

Interesting article here ( LINK ) about statistics and how humans so often misunderstand or misinterpret the evidence, the lottery winner fallacy seems quite popular amongst religious apologetics. It also covers the human propensity for seeing design where the evidence does not support this.

Here's a taste anyway...as it might go some way to offering an answer to the thread OP.

The religious and superstitious impulses thrive in conditions where we encounter something we can’t fathom – something so improbable it seemingly defies reason. This is where statistical fallacies begin. There are two flavours: fallacies arising from improbable events taking place; and statistics of small numbers.

An example of the first one often trotted out by religious apologists is that conditions are too perfect to have been created by chance. Therefore there must have been an intelligent force that created these conditions for us.

There are several fallacies in reasoning at work here. The major flaw being made is that if you look at some property of the universe in isolation, it can appear more miraculous than it actually is. What are the odds that the perfect conditions for life would arise on Earth? The probability is, of course, very small.

This however, is ignoring the fact that Earth is but one place in a universe filled with trillions of stars, many with which would have planets revolving around them. When you ask the correct question – What are the odds of conditions being perfect for life arising somewhere in the universe? The answer is of course very probable (we know this is a 100% probability because we are here!)

It's worth remeasuring that when religious apologists invoke this argument they seem oblviious that the same odds would apply to creationism but with the added improbability of a deity existing that could create it all by supernatural means, and of course that that deity is the one they have chosen to divest belief in from the many thousands of versions of deities humans have crafted.

Dr, Sheldon,
I have explained fully why God at the present time cannot deal with the ills of the world.

You fail to understand that an omnipotent is not restricted in the manner you claim.

Had there been no Satan then matters would have been different, for Stu and yourself to go on about a benevolent this and that, is pure nonsense, God is suffering more than anyone at the stupidity of mankind and I am afraid you are both prime examples.

An omnipotent can be bonevelent and also make any arrangement.

You are attempting to limit omnipoptence to suit your own intepretation which is far off the mark, even taking every dictionary explanation.

Your main downfall is that you do not believe in God or Satan or you would fully understand.

The misunderstanding is entirely yours I'm afraid.

Must you resort to petty childish insults again?

I have explained theodicy to you. If a being can stop suffering but CHOOSES not to then REGARDLESS of the reason it cannot be described as benevolent.

You also seem unable to grasp that a being with limitless power would be able to stop evil and suffering and be bound by this deal you claim it's made with Satan.

To claim it could not do this would limit it's power. Hence it would not be omnipotent as there can't be anything that such a being can't do.

This is the very paradox of claiming such a being exists. It's logically impossible.

Can your god use its limitless power to limit its own power?

The old adage is could god create a rock so heavy it cannot lift it.

It's a riddle where there are only two answers and both show that such a being can't logically exist.

Dr, Sheldon,
Sorry for the insults, not intended just a result of frustration at the inability of you to understand the obvious.

An omnipotent can do anything or nothing according to it's will, NOTHING is beyond an omnipotent.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                Sorry for the insults, not intended just a result of frustration at the inability of you to understand the obvious.

                An omnipotent can do anything or nothing according to it's will, NOTHING is beyond an omnipotent.

That's not really an apology, just another veiled insult implying I don't understand this when I do. Your frustration is not because I don't understand the innate paradox that theodicy was created to tackle. I have proved I do again and again, linking theological explanations of the same. Your frustration is because YOU don't understand it, and so cannot reasonably discuss it. I told you at the start that the paradox had only one unequivocal solution and that was that an omnipotent, benevolent deity doesn't exist.  

That's not say that this means theists abandon belief in such a deity as a result, far from it, they try to rationalise it and have done for millennia, but usually with a basic grasp of what's being discussed. You don't seem to realise you're contradicting yourself, alternately. So let me show a few quotes:

Polyglide wrote:An omnipotent can do anything

True, in theory anyway.

Polyglide wrote:by polyglide Today at 3:09 pm
I have explained fully why God at the present time cannot deal with the ills of the world.

Now how can you claim it cannot do something? Do you perhaps mean it chooses not to? If so then such a choice to allow evil is not benevolent, and around and around we go.

Please stop making the ridiculous claim I don;t know what Omnipotence means, as I have quoted the OED definition for clarity more than once, if you disagree with them then take it up with them, or at least do me the courtesy of acknowledging I do understand it and you just disagree with the OED definition,  which I will now quote again.

Omnipotent
adjective

1(Of a deity) having unlimited power:

So there is nothing it can't do if it exists, and since we see ubiquitous suffering then it must be allowing this through choice, such a being by definition is not benevolent. Again I can't say it better than Epicurus:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Your introduction of Satan doesn't help solve this at all, as an omnipotent deity could avoid this, or could allow it and still stop evil, could do anything it wanted, as you yourself have said.

Dr, Sheldon,
I do not know if you are being purposely obtuse or are just unable to understand a proposition put to you.

Satan is actually the be all and end all of Christianity so far as sin is concerned, I have explained the situation in the manner a child could understand and feel you are never going to be able to understand the part that Satan has played in Christianity, perhaps a reading of the principles involved would help.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 I do not know if you are being purposely obtuse or are just unable to understand a proposition put to you.
 

Neither, and must you resort to petty insults when the argument is too much for you?

Polyglide wrote:  Satan is actually the be all and end all of Christianity so far as sin is concerned, I have explained the situation in the manner a child could understand and feel you are never going to be able to understand the part that Satan has played in Christianity, perhaps a reading of the principles involved would help.

Your "explanation" is not hard to understand at all, quite the opposite as it became clear a long time ago that it is you who doesn't appear to have any grasp of theodicy at all. Here's a clue, I don't need to believe in Satan or God to see the innate paradox that theodicy tries to solve. Perhaps instead of petty insults aimed at me it might be a good start if you had the integrity to acknowledge that the term "theodicy" is a branch of Christian theology, and showed that my quote and link were a good representation of how theologians view the arguments involved? Then I might be inclined to think you at least understood the basics of what we're talking about? AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT, introducing Satanic fantasies doesn't in any way solve the paradox of theodicy. So, one more time....

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

It's hard to see how you can't grasp how your introduction of Satan doesn't help solve this at all?? As I suggested earlier perhaps if you spoke to a qualified theologian or read one on this topic and got a grasp of theodicy? As your frustration is not because I don't understand it, anyone reading these exchanges can see how risible that claim is, but because you are so entrenched you can't see the paradox even exists.

Dr, Sheldon,
The only problem is that you do not believe in Satan and I do.

It is no good you quoting the silly people who feel everything came about by chance, ie, amino acids in a pool and then lightening etc; etc; and now the same scientist say it is farcical and that life started at the bottom of the sea etc; etc;

I am as aware as you are of how different deluded people approach matters and feel very sorry for their inability, to for once, consider mankind to be less important than they think he is.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                 The only problem is that you do not believe in Satan and I do.

I don't believe in things that are not properly evidenced, and I don't view this as a problem but a de facto position of rational objectivity.

Polyglide wrote:It is no good you quoting the silly people who feel everything came about by chance,

I've not done so, nor have I ever claimed everything came about entirely by chance, though for some inexplicable reason you continue to make this false claim about me? I have repeatedly tried to make you understand that you are making a logically fallacious argument by limiting this to two mutually exclusive choices, for some reason you can't grasp that you're doing it or why to is logically spurious. The only quote I gave was by Epicurus:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

He makes no claims like the one you've assigned to him, or me? Is this just obfuscation to avoid acknowledging his careful explanation of the paradox involved in this discussion?

One last time, people are not silly just because they disagree with you, quite the opposite when you're advocating Satanic fantasies that have no basis in fact. So do try and keep those comments to yourself, and instead comment on what people say rather than on the people.

I'm afraid I have non interest in pulling apart these absurd claims you keep labelling as scientific, as you never evidence the claims, and then move on without comment when I have wasted my time exposing them as nonsense. Suffice to say that science can learn from mistakes precisely because it is prepared to accept properly scrutinised evidence, this is a vastly stronger position than the Christian church trying Galileo for heresy when published his evidence to confirm the theories of Copernicus and refute your religion's belief in a geocentric universe. It seems you don't see any irony in your claims and your religion's position then.

Polyglide wrote:I am as aware as you are of how different deluded people approach matters and feel very sorry for their inability, to for once, consider mankind to be less important than they think he is.

I have no idea who you're referring to sorry? It seems to me that it's impossible to portray mankind as more important than claiming the entire universe was created by an omnipotent being just for us, and even more egotistical IMHO that they know what that being thinks and wants.

I'm not sure what this has to do with theodicy though, as you seem to have ignored my post entirely?

I pointed out that introducing Satanic scenarios doesn't help solve the paradox as if a deity exists with limitless power it can stop suffering and evil, and do it in any way it chooses, that's axiomatic. To blame a being that doesn't have omnipotence isn't at all logical, nor would such a being by definition be bound by preserving human will, or an agreement with Satan, as it could obviously preserve both and still remove evil and suffering, to suggest otherwise limits its choice and therefore its power, thus negating it being omnipotent. Perhaps if you read my post as I explained it quite carefully.

You still haven't acknowledged that theodicy is a part of theology either, why is that?

First topic message reminder :

How are adults talked into believing in fantasy creatures, miracles and magic?

Fairly easily by the look of it, in some cases anyway.

by polyglide Yesterday at 4:38 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
The only problem is that you do not believe in Satan and I do.