| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Wordsmith
United Kingdom93 Posts
On March 24 2013 22:34 Domus wrote: We first need a definition of "god(s)" before there can be any attempt to prove its (non)-existence. Why go down the semantics route? I think everyone that you ask now would agree on a basic definition of God, regardless, and specifically due to his religion. This just muddles up the discussion. | ||
|
Wordsmith
United Kingdom93 Posts
Can the OP now proceed with part 2? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44992 Posts
On March 24 2013 23:02 Callynn wrote: Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion Although seemingly rational, there is nothing rational about wanting a rational discussion with fundamentalists who are deprived of any form of rationality (often related to their intelligence ceiling). Therefore I feel this thread has little hope. Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion greatly explains it and represents most of my views on this matter. There is no God. While I also enjoyed reading The God Delusion and agree with many of Dawkins's points, I can only agree that this thread has little hope when people write things like "there is nothing rational about wanting a rational discussion with fundamentalists who are deprived of any form of rationality (often related to their intelligence ceiling)", instead of a more constructive approach, in an attempt to possibly persuade fundamentalists to become moderates, moderates to become uncertain, and those who are uncertain to become more explicit non-believers. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that this verification seems to be different for god as opposed to say, a tree, shows something about the concept | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
How those could possibly used as a proof of God's existence is beyond me. All of these supposed metaphysical truths "every event is preceded by an antecedent event", have no necessary validity in objective reality, especially when you're talking about a "time" before the universe began (and as our current physics research shows, such a concept is meaningless as time only came to exist as the universe began, not before). Edit: Also I just re-read the section in the book, the definition of a priori truth is something which is not inherently contradictory or logically impossible. God's non-existence is distinctly perceivable, thus logically possible. Thus there is no a priori argument that his non-existence is impossible. Therefore "proofs" must be thought of in probablistic terms, and thus be entirely empirical like the sciences. The argument from design (watchmaker) fails for an incredible variety of reasons, although its not immediately obvious why. One only needs to read David Hume's book "Dialogues concerning natural religion" to see how flawed this argument is. + Show Spoiler + To list some basic reasons: There could be a multitude of Gods (more likely, as a number of people come together to make a house, or join their knowledge together over generations in the creation of a watch), there could be one senile, old God who passed away after he created the world, and we continue hurtling through his universe unaware. We could also easily be the result of some universal seed, that birthed a universe. If you say a watch is a sign of a creator, look around you: All of nature is incredibly complex, but we see it arise from seeds or eggs in their hosts' bodies. So if anything it is far more likely (by the argument from design) that the universe is the result of some universal seed or egg, and that it is part of a larger force of nature, rather than the intelligent design of a God. In general there is a problem that the argument from design postulates that only thought could generate things. Why should this be so? We already have an example of nature doing this, apparently without much thought involved in the generation of a seed. Just because we have created things with our minds, does not mean that we can extend this reasoning to the whole universe. On what grounds can anyone claim, that the shipbuilder is analogous to the creation of the universe? The universe is extraordinarily diverse and unknown - we don't know anything about the possible modes of creation, particularly at its birth when things are most uncertain and the universe was very different from what it is now. Also as David Hume points out, one of the major problems with religions is that the major ones argue against the other's existence. Its like have a room of people, and each one discounts the testimony of everyone else. How credible is any individual person's story (religion)? Combined with the likelihood that people can lie and fabricate ideas (which happens regularly) compared to the chance of breaking natural laws that have observed to be constant for millenia...there is an overwhelming likelihood that those who experience miracles are delusional or lying. Not trying to be insulting, but that's just how David Hume approaches it. In the end he concludes, the real miracle is that people actually believe in religion  . The only remaining thing I am interested in are the spiritual experiences and "miracles" that people supposedly experience every day. Things like people describing a surgical procedure when they were in a coma, baffling doctors, or miraculous healings. Its a shame, as it seems that they just can't be verified. Anyway I am always hopeful that there is something non-material in this world, and that I may experience it someday. I have certainly had a lot of strange experiences that I can't rationally explain, including one where I heard some spirit read the numbers off cards in a shuffled deck, face down. And he got them all right (he read like eight of them). It was pretty amazing...but of course, I expect no one in this thread to believe me. I could easily be delusional, or have mistaken my dreams for reality. But for me, I personally believe there is something more from that experience. What it is I cannot say. | ||
|
S:klogW
Austria657 Posts
On March 24 2013 23:17 oneofthem wrote: it's not about semantics. it's about how you would be able to tell you've found god once you see it. what god correspond to etc. that this verification seems to be different for god as opposed to say, a tree, shows something about the concept thats exactly the point isnt it. is there any physical evidence to prove something that religious people would consider god. it seems straight forward to me, I dont know why you people would insist on this "define" god bullshit. This is one reason why philosophy and linguistics achieve nothing, unlike science. | ||
|
Nevermind86
Somalia429 Posts
I need to blow my mind from time to time, it's like an addiction, it used to be Solaris, Ghost in the Shell, Childhood's end (now that one was good), Aeon Flux, Brave New World, 1984, Project MK Ultra, CIA and KGB operations and experiments, The Twilight Zone, Sigmund Freud ... You get the point... wow all that shit was good, if you feel like me and do just that, then just try reading the Apocalypse, now that's a scary mind blowing book like I've never seen before... actually all the other ones before don't come even close. It's really though provoking and quite scary. | ||
|
xwoGworwaTsx
United States984 Posts
On March 24 2013 23:28 Nevermind86 wrote: It's hard to discuss religion when people just jump to conclusions before reading the Bibble in an unbiased way, it's fashion to bash it, especially in these types of forum where people have a sort of punk-cyberspace philosophy, but really is it so hard to just do that? Some of the things in the bibble seemed pretty shocking to me when I started reading it in an unbiased way, hell check my old posts I was a hardcore atheists since I was like 16 years old and before that I didn't think something like 'god' was possible, I was never a believer, my family is full of communists-atheists in case you wondered about my family background, but really am I now? I don't know, maybe I am, the bibble is quite interesting, even after the million books and articles I've read through the years I still had so many questions about so many different things yet every time I pick the Bibble answers come, it's so strange that modern society behaviours can be explained by an over 2000 years old book, maybe we haven't changed in all these years, yes I know, maybe the Bibble was wrote by very smart people or maybe it is the word of god? I still have my doubts but one thing is certain my life has improved quite a lot, not that it was bad but I seem to have a clear picture now of many many things, if you're going to read it start from the beginning and like I said with a clear mind and no bias, remenber it's metaphoric, the meaning has to be though in order for it to make 'full sense', and you may want to ask god to reveal it's knowledge. I need to blow my mind from time to time, it's like an addiction, it used to be Solaris, Ghost in the Shell, Childhood's end (now that one was good), Aeon Flux, Brave New World, 1984, Project MK Ultra, CIA and KGB operations and experiments, The Twilight Zone, Sigmund Freud ... You get the point... wow all that shit was good, if you feel like me and do just that, then just try reading the Apocalypse, now that's a scary mind blowing book like I've never seen before... actually all the other ones before don't come even close. It's really though provoking and quite scary. Why do you spell bible with 2 b's "bibble"? And why did you become a believer? Do you have proof that god exists? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2013 23:26 S:klogW wrote: thats exactly the point isnt it. is there any physical evidence to prove something that religious people would consider god. it seems straight forward to me, I dont know why you people would insist on this "define" god bullshit. This is one reason why philosophy and linguistics achieve nothing, unlike science. it is not straightforward when you can't establish that any given piece of evidence is evidence for god. also, the analytic solution to the god question is simple and very clear. it doesn't involve much searching for god with telescopes once you realize the search is futile. your understanding of philosophy is pretty piss poor i'm afraid. | ||
|
S:klogW
Austria657 Posts
On March 24 2013 23:37 oneofthem wrote: it is not straightforward when you can't establish that any given piece of evidence is evidence for god. Why the f*** do you insist on this philosophical nonesense. Lets substitute it this way. Prove to me that a unicorn exists? You know, white horse with horn on its forehead, wings, flies on rainbows, etc. God = all knowing, all present, all powerful being who created the universe. What is there that needs to be defined?!!??? You people are disgustingly impossible. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2013 23:42 S:klogW wrote: Why the f*** do you insist on this philosophical nonesense. Lets substitute it this way. Prove to me that a unicorn exists? You know, white horse with horn on its forehead, wings, flies on rainbows, etc. God = all knowing, all present, all powerful being who created the universe. What is there that needs to be defined?!!??? You people are disgustingly impossible. you are only exasperated because you've given a definition. but let's say that's god, then religion is pretty pointless even if something like that exists. | ||
|
n0ise
3452 Posts
In hundreds of thousands of years with religion being a core part of Humanity, belief never was and never will be about science or proofs. | ||
|
S:klogW
Austria657 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 24 2013 23:49 S:klogW wrote: why pointless? i dont follow that leap... if there's an old dude who created the world etc actually in the world, then worshipping this thing is dumb. you'd want to study it and poke its nose. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
| ||
|
S:klogW
Austria657 Posts
On March 24 2013 23:51 oneofthem wrote: if there's an old dude who created the world etc actually in the world, then worshipping this thing is dumb. you'd want to study it and poke its nose. I want to understand what you are saying but I cant. Language barrier maybe since im not american. Make it simpler please. I dont follow how having a physical god makes religion pointless. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44992 Posts
On March 24 2013 23:54 docvoc wrote: I find it ironic that the people in here who say that not only is there no god, but also that no rational person would ever rationally believe there could ever possibly believe there is a god, and how could someone ever be so stupid to do such a thing, sound just like door to door evangelists. Kind of funny. I don't believe in god based on evidence, I don't KNOW of him, I believe of him. Some people say this is stupid, but I don't think so. It isn't about empirical proof, there is none. This is a thread about god from an atheistic perspective that can only yield atheistic results. Fair enough... so why do you believe in a god if you readily admit that there's no proof of his/ her/ its existence? Is it because the idea is comforting? Do you consider this to be more of a defense mechanism? | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
One universally appointed proof of god across religion is the fact that you cannot disprove the notion of a prime mover. Humanity is like that. We love cause and effect, and sometimes we misdirect that love. The fact that the argument still exists today means it has and never will be sufficiently debunked on a personal level despite the fact that most religious people have only invested their time on one such thing. The need to socialize and engage with others of the same belief seamlessly trumps logic for these gamblers. They keep insisting for an ultimate answer as to why when the question itself is irrelevant, and in that search they turn to people who profess to know the answer through ancient texts and prophets when the fact that these are ancient texts should be enough of a signal to tell any reasonable individual that its not relevant anymore. I think Neil has something to contribute on the existence of god. Primarily because he has a very fine presentation about it. To sum it up: + Show Spoiler + Newton and scholars / philosophers like him have throughout history invoked intelligent design at the limits of his knowledge (no mention of god before he reached that limit). 15% of top scientists today (20th century) hold the belief in a personal god (religious belief when highly educated does not equal zero). The public is secondary to finding out why 15% still cling to the belief of a personal god that answers their prayers (very spesific question that was asked in that particular survey). Islamic scholar at 1100 AD influenced islam negatively by calling math the work of the devil. Never recovered since. However egregious the big bang theory (origin of universe )is perceived. The notion of monkeys and humans having common ancestry is bigger. Human eye is blind (We are sitting ducks to ionizing radiation). Unable to smell a majority of lethal gasses. A majority of birth defects are unaccounted for in medical science, and the problem is when you look for something that is designed intelligently is that the majority of discoveries are not intelligent. The universe is not here for us. Okay? When science / atheism / agnosticism can offer a placebo for today monotheistic religions then we might see humanity progress. We've started to see that with the notion of oneness with the universe. The fact that we can trace ourselves to elements crafted within the stars. The discovery of methane in the air of mars halfway proving the existence of bacteria hiding under the ice. | ||
|
FeUerFlieGe
United States1193 Posts
| ||
|
n0ise
3452 Posts
On March 24 2013 23:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Fair enough... so why do you believe in a god if you readily admit that there's no proof of his/ her/ its existence? Is it because the idea is comforting? Do you consider this to be more of a defense mechanism? Those might be some of the elementary values behind belief. Worth nothing that the beauty of it is that you can, in the end, believe in whatever you want and however you want it. Also on this point, I remember reading (think it was Jung) something in the lines of: The author was visiting a ward for terminally ill patients, where he noticed a clear distinction between the state of mind of two patients. One was calm and serene, knowing that his afterlife was about to begin, while the other was absorbed in a sense of fear and desperation. Outside of any other implications, he underlines clear positives in that moment alone. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
BSL Team A[vengers]
Cross vs Sobenz
Sziky vs IcaruS
SC4ALL
SC4ALL
BSL 21
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
