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.
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.
let's say you think jesus is god. then i found jesus the guy and got him before you. is that empirical proof of the claim that 'jesus is god'?
god at best it's a fictitious object that is conjured up before any empirical investigation. cosmic origin questions of the religious sort are teleological (give meaning to existing events) and not causal scientific.
i dont think i understand this explanation at all.
let me clarify, and hope you can walk down this path with me. The empirical proof would be if you find someone or something that is omnipotent and omnipresent who/that created the universe. That would be it. Why is finding something like this invalidate religion?
On March 25 2013 00:51 Absentia wrote: Why is it so important to provide empirical proof for the existence of God? The dogmatic approach to 'truth' that science frequently spouts is rather uninteresting when it's applied to every facet of human existence. One cannot simply believe that God exists; God's existence must be proven via rigorous empirical research otherwise it must be cast aside as worthless! While we're at it, let us burn our works of fiction, cast aside our leisure activities, cease our philosophising and instead dedicate our lives to the pursuit of scientific empiricism!
Science makes a category mistake by telling the theist their belief ought to be grounded by empirical research. Theists will generally not operate under providing proof for the existence of God. Belief in God is a matter of faith, not of evidence. Now belief in God can be justified to greater or lesser extents, with weaker or stronger argumentation. But why should it be a necessary feature of that belief that it be proven in accordance with scientific standards? There seems to be a bizarre normative prescription from scientists that people now ought to hold only beliefs which are rooted in empiricism. Of course, this approach is crucial in terms of scientific knowledge, but many theists quite clearly do not hold that their belief in God is a form of scientific knowledge. They might believe that God exists, but this does not belief does not constitute a knowledge of science because it is not justified in accordance with scientific standards.
Burn our works of fiction? Would someone pass me a Bible and some matches?
Belief in God without evidence is far more substantial than leisure activities or fiction because it has a tremendous impact on the world and the people in it, unless the belief is entirely personal - which it hardly ever is. If religions are going to exist and force things like bans on abortion or contraception or gay marriage on people, there has to be a justification beyond "because I believe it".
On March 24 2013 23:59 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Faith is faith. Empirical evidence is outside of it's realm. So long as science doesn't discover everything (It probably won't), there will be room for faith. Many great scientists actually used faith as a motive for their practice, so the two can exists simultaneously. I personally don't see science as a reason to denounce faith, or faith as a reason to denounce science.
Well, seeing how the question we're supposed to discuss is not if faith exists or there is room for it, but rather
On March 24 2013 19:50 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
FOR DISCUSSION (PHASE 1): PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? Is there any empirical proof that God exists?
I fail to grasp you point. The question is not one of science disproving god, bur rather wether science can prove god.
Well I think I answered that, but let me elaborate. Science is likely to never be able to prove any existence in God because science will probably always have unanswered questions. And even in they do find everything, faith cannot be disproved. The religious scientists use faith as a motive to discover more about "God's universe", but I don't think it's likely, nor do they expect, they will every discover God. This is because, God is above the physical realm, in a realm of faith, where one can choose to believe or not.
Then what you are saying has nothing to do with this thread. From the OP:
This might be a religion thread, but this is not the usual free-for-all religion thread that we usually have here in TL. Hence, some rules:
Provide empirical evidence for your arguments. No exceptions, no conditions. 3. cite legitimate and authoritative sources.
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?
There are somethings in the universe that we can't explain yet, we say that science can explain everything, but there is a lot that we don't know yet. That is an answer given to me by a lot of people, but that isn't my reason. I believe because there is beauty in the world that doesn't submit to the randomness that a lot of atheists attribute to it. Being atheist to me is self-defeating in the same way belief in god is (according to some atheists), they chalk things up to randomness of the universe and how no one actually matters (like a neo-existentialist kind of thing), I chalk it up to people do matter and that some things happen in a way that just pan out, like someone was watching over. It can be a defense mechanism, though I try to not make it be, but sometimes when I'm in need and there is no where else to turn, it is comforting that I can look up and plead from the bottom of my heart.
That's a really interesting perspective.
First, I'd like to note that just because science hasn't explained *everything* (nor may it ever), that doesn't mean that there exists positive evidence for a supernatural explanation. This is the stereotypical "god of the gaps" argument, where it's (illogically) assumed that evidence for a deity is implied whenever a natural explanation doesn't exist yet. And then as science and mathematics eventually come up with the actual reasons for phenomena (natural disasters, evolutionary theory, the big bang theory, etc.), then the "god" excuse is no longer relevant for that specific question (but still exists to answer all other unexplained questions). It's an ever-receding argument that never actually provides a reason why god exists, besides "we don't know x yet, so let's assume god did it".
As an atheist, I fully recognize that importance and value that each person in this world has... and not believing in an afterlife makes this life all the more important for me Also, listening to some of the things that Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous atheists say about our appreciation of ourselves, biological evolution, and the universe makes it all the more motivating!
neil degrasse tyson isnt an atheist. he said he looked up his own wikipedia page and saw it said atheist, so he changed it to agnostic, checked again later and someone edited it back to atheist. LOL!
Guess he's confused, because agnostic is not some middle ground between theist and atheist. You can be an agnostic atheist, which I believe he is.
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.
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.
let's say you think jesus is god. then i found jesus the guy and got him before you. is that empirical proof of the claim that 'jesus is god'?
god at best it's a fictitious object that is conjured up before any empirical investigation. cosmic origin questions of the religious sort are teleological (give meaning to existing events) and not causal scientific.
i dont think i understand this explanation at all.
let me clarify, and hope you can walk down this path with me. The empirical proof would be if you find someone or something that is omnipotent and omnipresent who/that created the universe. That would be it. Why is finding something like this invalidate religion?
you can say 'find something omnipotent/creator' and make it sound easy. but how can you recognize anything you find as such without having a prior religious confirmation already eager to make a claim?
can you write a methodology defense for a project that wants to find god?
as for it making religion pointless. if we do find ourselves landing in the world of the old testament, then religion would not be religion. it would be the same as life. your life would literally be described by religion and there would be no separation.
religious icons etc are used to activate a worshipful acid trip of sort. it's by nature a departure from the real world. that's why buddha statues are buddha statues rather than pieces of rock that birds can shit on.
On March 24 2013 20:00 fight_or_flight wrote: I'm an ignostic. Until you can define what the word "god" means, discussion about his existence is pointless.
I am a theist.
The definition of God is existence. A better understanding is that God is essentially everything. Nothing is separate from God, you're God, experiencing God, living in God, worshiping and denying him.
Existence does not measureably rely on or necessitates god. So defining god as existince means nothing and defining him as a fuction of of worship/denial essentially defines him as a cognitive function.
On March 25 2013 00:22 KingAce wrote: It's simple to say that God is the source of the universe. But in theology God is explained as something that has no beginning or end. In otherwords negative infinite to positive infinite. Something that is unchanging, as it was, as it is, as it will be...because it isn't limited to time or space. Technically speaking you're experiencing God at this very moment.
How are we experiencing god? How does experiencing god differ from not experiencing god?
On March 25 2013 00:22 KingAce wrote:However, as a theist...I can tell you that there is no empirical evidence of God. You cannot scientifically study God objectively and prove it's existence. And no where in any religion I am aware of is it stated that you can do this. Spirituality is subjective. It's something you personally experience or fail to experience. It's first person and can not truly be shared with others for validation.
Again, the purpose of this dicussion is to assertain wether or not the existence of god can be rationally validated.
On March 25 2013 00:22 KingAce wrote:The human body is the temple of God. Meaning that God cannot be experience externally, he can only be found within one self. And until one experiences this enlightenment. One's belief is simply hope.
Religions....most popular Religions are the same. Because they can only be one path to God, meaning that all religions are talking about the same exact thing. Contradictions are caused by the failure of doctrine to survive the test of time. But religions are built on the experiences of those that have traversed to the highest levels of personal enlightenment, and through them we have come to understand spiritual concepts.
So how do we go about proving God's existence? The simple answer is we don't. As a theist I see no need to do this. Because my belief in God has to do with my personal experiences, and how He has factored in each critical time in my life. I can't share that.
Rationally speaking I am perfectly fine with atheist taking the standard they do. Again there is no empirical evidence of God. And as far as I know in theology, that is intended. Spirituality afterall is built on faith.
So in short: God can not be proven, because faith/spirituality is desirable to him?
On March 24 2013 23:59 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Faith is faith. Empirical evidence is outside of it's realm. So long as science doesn't discover everything (It probably won't), there will be room for faith. Many great scientists actually used faith as a motive for their practice, so the two can exists simultaneously. I personally don't see science as a reason to denounce faith, or faith as a reason to denounce science.
Well, seeing how the question we're supposed to discuss is not if faith exists or there is room for it, but rather
On March 24 2013 19:50 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
FOR DISCUSSION (PHASE 1): PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? Is there any empirical proof that God exists?
I fail to grasp you point. The question is not one of science disproving god, bur rather wether science can prove god.
Well I think I answered that, but let me elaborate. Science is likely to never be able to prove any existence in God because science will probably always have unanswered questions. And even in they do find everything, faith cannot be disproved. The religious scientists use faith as a motive to discover more about "God's universe", but I don't think it's likely, nor do they expect, they will every discover God. This is because, God is above the physical realm, in a realm of faith, where one can choose to believe or not.
Is this not an unfalsifiable claim though? It seems like a bit of a cop-out to say that you know God exists (in some sort of awkwardly-defined "realm of faith" that's "above the physical realm"), and you choose to believe in him, but it's okay if other people don't. That doesn't justify your theistic statement; it merely moves it into a place where the believers aren't pressed for defending their beliefs, and the non-believers still think that your premise is faulty (and therefore reject your entire view).
Perhaps that's the point of making that statement, but I wonder how many other absurdities we could start believing in if we just use that loophole of "I don't need to defend my idea because it exists in another realm or because I'm using faith".
If there were no consequences for such blind faith and inarticulate reasoning, I would submit that it doesn't affect me or others and so you'd be more than welcome to believe in whatever you can conjure up. However, religion and god play a huge role in our world. Government laws, voting preferences, and even everyday interactions; there are practical, tangible repercussions for using blind faith. That's why I value openness and logic-based dialogue, especially regarding religion... because religion always seemed to epitomize the "This is my belief and you can't touch or question it, and that's that" argument. That shouldn't be how we operate if we want to be intellectually honest and interested in furthering humanity.
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?
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.
I do think that, in times of crisis, people will be more willing to believe in something fake or use blind faith just because it provides comfort
First of all, I am definitely not a religious person. I do believe, however, that 'how we see' is significantly more important than 'what we see'. If in a 'time of crisis' you are able to achieve comfort and clear mindedness in order to act according to your best interests, I feel it's unimportant in the end what allowed you to reach that state. In the same vein, what I and others are trying to say is that it is not relevant whether things are real or not, that Belief is somehow above it.
I think that many people have trouble understanding others' perspectives when unfamiliar defense mechanisms or faith-based beliefs are employed
We all have trouble understanding emotions and reactions we ourselves have not yet been through. Things that made no sense to me 5 years ago were suddenly made clear after short ("earthly", not metaphysical) experiences. And after some time, I will probably understand more things.
And, indeed, lack of understanding always was one of our key problems.
Some beliefs may provide comfort in the short term, but unless you have a "good" reason to believe in something fake (again, subjective), I would think that most of the time it's more important to know and recognize the truth about something, so that we can properly design our lives and missions around real goals that are helpful to ourselves and others, rather than living a lie.
If your faith is preventing you from living your life, or, even worse - it's pushing you towards taking innocent lives in the name of your God - that's clearly not where you want to be. But I feel it's a different discussion. Is there more value in Buddhism than Islamism? What about tantric meditation?
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?
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.
The same can be said of people with hallucination, or in love, or people who get their high from other sources. God then is just another source of comfort or pleasure. This feeling however is not proof of his existence.
You cannot talk about God and proof of existence in the same paragraph once you're past a certain age. This is coming from someone who, again, is not religious. Your, as you say, "feelings" or "spirituality" have nothing to do with proof. I don't understand why so many people ask for a physical proof of something that doesn't have anything to do with the palpable world.
On March 24 2013 23:59 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Faith is faith. Empirical evidence is outside of it's realm. So long as science doesn't discover everything (It probably won't), there will be room for faith. Many great scientists actually used faith as a motive for their practice, so the two can exists simultaneously. I personally don't see science as a reason to denounce faith, or faith as a reason to denounce science.
Well, seeing how the question we're supposed to discuss is not if faith exists or there is room for it, but rather
On March 24 2013 19:50 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
FOR DISCUSSION (PHASE 1): PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? Is there any empirical proof that God exists?
I fail to grasp you point. The question is not one of science disproving god, bur rather wether science can prove god.
Well I think I answered that, but let me elaborate. Science is likely to never be able to prove any existence in God because science will probably always have unanswered questions. And even in they do find everything, faith cannot be disproved. The religious scientists use faith as a motive to discover more about "God's universe", but I don't think it's likely, nor do they expect, they will every discover God. This is because, God is above the physical realm, in a realm of faith, where one can choose to believe or not.
I complety understand why you think science can never disprove god. I merly try to point out that attempting to prove something and attempting to disprove something are quite different. Essentially the chellange here is: Theists, show us your best shot at proving god exists rationaly. Instead we get a bunch of people pointing out that science never can disprove god, as if that somehow constitutes prove of god. It does not.
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?
There are somethings in the universe that we can't explain yet, we say that science can explain everything, but there is a lot that we don't know yet. That is an answer given to me by a lot of people, but that isn't my reason. I believe because there is beauty in the world that doesn't submit to the randomness that a lot of atheists attribute to it. Being atheist to me is self-defeating in the same way belief in god is (according to some atheists), they chalk things up to randomness of the universe and how no one actually matters (like a neo-existentialist kind of thing), I chalk it up to people do matter and that some things happen in a way that just pan out, like someone was watching over. It can be a defense mechanism, though I try to not make it be, but sometimes when I'm in need and there is no where else to turn, it is comforting that I can look up and plead from the bottom of my heart.
That's a really interesting perspective.
First, I'd like to note that just because science hasn't explained *everything* (nor may it ever), that doesn't mean that there exists positive evidence for a supernatural explanation. This is the stereotypical "god of the gaps" argument, where it's (illogically) assumed that evidence for a deity is implied whenever a natural explanation doesn't exist yet. And then as science and mathematics eventually come up with the actual reasons for phenomena (natural disasters, evolutionary theory, the big bang theory, etc.), then the "god" excuse is no longer relevant for that specific question (but still exists to answer all other unexplained questions). It's an ever-receding argument that never actually provides a reason why god exists, besides "we don't know x yet, so let's assume god did it".
As an atheist, I fully recognize that importance and value that each person in this world has... and not believing in an afterlife makes this life all the more important for me Also, listening to some of the things that Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous atheists say about our appreciation of ourselves, biological evolution, and the universe makes it all the more motivating!
neil degrasse tyson isnt an atheist. he said he looked up his own wikipedia page and saw it said atheist, so he changed it to agnostic, checked again later and someone edited it back to atheist. LOL!
Guess he's confused, because agnostic is not some middle ground between theist and atheist. You can be an agnostic atheist, which I believe he is.
nice, more people putting words in the mouth of an established astrophysicist, thinking they know him better than he does himself. <3
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.
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.
let's say you think jesus is god. then i found jesus the guy and got him before you. is that empirical proof of the claim that 'jesus is god'?
god at best it's a fictitious object that is conjured up before any empirical investigation. cosmic origin questions of the religious sort are teleological (give meaning to existing events) and not causal scientific.
i dont think i understand this explanation at all.
let me clarify, and hope you can walk down this path with me. The empirical proof would be if you find someone or something that is omnipotent and omnipresent who/that created the universe. That would be it. Why is finding something like this invalidate religion?
you can say 'find something omnipotent/creator' and make it sound easy. but how can you recognize anything you find as such without having a prior religious confirmation already eager to make a claim?
I am really lost with your philosophical linguistic jargon that wraps around itself.
lets say you find an omnipotent/omnipresent/creator being? you dont need a "prior religious confirmation already eager to make a claim?" (whatever this shit means)... you just simply ask him/her/it to prove he/she/it is omnipotent (he can do anything:fly, walk on water, make a stone impossible to carry, etc), omnipresent (tell you second-per-second account of events in Paris, Jamaica, under the pacific ocean, inside your house, in Ganymede, etc.) and recreate the universe. This is as straighforward as it can be. now If you find this being, then it is proof of god. Then you can say "I believe". What is difficult to understand about this?
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?
There are somethings in the universe that we can't explain yet, we say that science can explain everything, but there is a lot that we don't know yet. That is an answer given to me by a lot of people, but that isn't my reason. I believe because there is beauty in the world that doesn't submit to the randomness that a lot of atheists attribute to it. Being atheist to me is self-defeating in the same way belief in god is (according to some atheists), they chalk things up to randomness of the universe and how no one actually matters (like a neo-existentialist kind of thing), I chalk it up to people do matter and that some things happen in a way that just pan out, like someone was watching over. It can be a defense mechanism, though I try to not make it be, but sometimes when I'm in need and there is no where else to turn, it is comforting that I can look up and plead from the bottom of my heart.
That's a really interesting perspective.
First, I'd like to note that just because science hasn't explained *everything* (nor may it ever), that doesn't mean that there exists positive evidence for a supernatural explanation. This is the stereotypical "god of the gaps" argument, where it's (illogically) assumed that evidence for a deity is implied whenever a natural explanation doesn't exist yet. And then as science and mathematics eventually come up with the actual reasons for phenomena (natural disasters, evolutionary theory, the big bang theory, etc.), then the "god" excuse is no longer relevant for that specific question (but still exists to answer all other unexplained questions). It's an ever-receding argument that never actually provides a reason why god exists, besides "we don't know x yet, so let's assume god did it".
As an atheist, I fully recognize that importance and value that each person in this world has... and not believing in an afterlife makes this life all the more important for me Also, listening to some of the things that Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous atheists say about our appreciation of ourselves, biological evolution, and the universe makes it all the more motivating!
neil degrasse tyson isnt an atheist. he said he looked up his own wikipedia page and saw it said atheist, so he changed it to agnostic, checked again later and someone edited it back to atheist. LOL!
Guess he's confused, because agnostic is not some middle ground between theist and atheist. You can be an agnostic atheist, which I believe he is.
I think this as well, although regardless, he's clearly a non-theist. He does tend to articulate being agnostic, and he acts and argues against the hardcore theistic perspectives.
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?
There are somethings in the universe that we can't explain yet, we say that science can explain everything, but there is a lot that we don't know yet. That is an answer given to me by a lot of people, but that isn't my reason. I believe because there is beauty in the world that doesn't submit to the randomness that a lot of atheists attribute to it. Being atheist to me is self-defeating in the same way belief in god is (according to some atheists), they chalk things up to randomness of the universe and how no one actually matters (like a neo-existentialist kind of thing), I chalk it up to people do matter and that some things happen in a way that just pan out, like someone was watching over. It can be a defense mechanism, though I try to not make it be, but sometimes when I'm in need and there is no where else to turn, it is comforting that I can look up and plead from the bottom of my heart.
That's a really interesting perspective.
First, I'd like to note that just because science hasn't explained *everything* (nor may it ever), that doesn't mean that there exists positive evidence for a supernatural explanation. This is the stereotypical "god of the gaps" argument, where it's (illogically) assumed that evidence for a deity is implied whenever a natural explanation doesn't exist yet. And then as science and mathematics eventually come up with the actual reasons for phenomena (natural disasters, evolutionary theory, the big bang theory, etc.), then the "god" excuse is no longer relevant for that specific question (but still exists to answer all other unexplained questions). It's an ever-receding argument that never actually provides a reason why god exists, besides "we don't know x yet, so let's assume god did it".
As an atheist, I fully recognize that importance and value that each person in this world has... and not believing in an afterlife makes this life all the more important for me Also, listening to some of the things that Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous atheists say about our appreciation of ourselves, biological evolution, and the universe makes it all the more motivating!
neil degrasse tyson isnt an atheist. he said he looked up his own wikipedia page and saw it said atheist, so he changed it to agnostic, checked again later and someone edited it back to atheist. LOL!
Guess he's confused, because agnostic is not some middle ground between theist and atheist. You can be an agnostic atheist, which I believe he is.
nice, more people putting words in the mouth of an established astrophysicist, thinking they know him better than he does himself. <3
This proof is from David Johnson's "Truth Without Paradox". It is not perfectly straightforward, so I'm interested in the opinion of others on it. It is based off of Godel's Ontological Argument.
First, some definitions:
1) A being is a God if and only if it has all the properties of the regularly understood Judea-Christian Deity; that is, it is immortal, morally perfect, omnipotent, etc...For now, let's not assume that this being necessarily would have to have the property of necessary existence (as in, a being can be God even without necessary existence).
2) A being is an "Anselmian God" if and only if it necessarily exists, and it could only exist as a God.
3) The notation L(p) is read as "It is necessarily the case that p". "Necessarily" is commonly defined as having to hold true in any possible world; that is, L(2+2=4), but ~L(I had cereal for breakfast).
The proof: (I) L(If there is an Anselmian God, then L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +
Based off the definition of an Anselmian God
(II) M(There is a God)
If (I) and (II), then (III) M(L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +
From Modal Logic. It's in the form of L(PϽQ), M(p), therefore, M(q). It's true because the first statement says in every world, PϽQ, and the second means in some there is p, so in that one, there's also q. That then means that in every world, M(q)
(IV) If M(L(There is a God)), then L(There is a God) + Show Spoiler +
This one gets a little complicated. It is part of the modal logic systems of S5 and S3.5, but can also be defended logically. Let's start with (i) If M(p), then L(M(p)). That's true because M(p) means that in some world, p, and since every possible world is aware of that world, then in every world, M(p). That means L(M(p)) (ii) If M(~p), then L(M(~p))- From replacing p with ~p (iii) ~(L(M(~p)), then ~M(~p) (iv) ~~M~(M(~p)), then L(p)- From replacing ~L~ with M, and ~M~ with L, by definition (v) M~(M(~p), then L(p)- From ~~M being M, by definition (vi) M(L(p)), then L(p)
If (III) and (IV), then (V) L(There is a God) which leads to (VI) There is a God
Complicated, but I appreciate anyone's response. Also I have to study for midterms, so I may not be around to respond for a bit- I'm not just dodging question .
On March 24 2013 23:59 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Faith is faith. Empirical evidence is outside of it's realm. So long as science doesn't discover everything (It probably won't), there will be room for faith. Many great scientists actually used faith as a motive for their practice, so the two can exists simultaneously. I personally don't see science as a reason to denounce faith, or faith as a reason to denounce science.
Well, seeing how the question we're supposed to discuss is not if faith exists or there is room for it, but rather
On March 24 2013 19:50 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
FOR DISCUSSION (PHASE 1): PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? Is there any empirical proof that God exists?
I fail to grasp you point. The question is not one of science disproving god, bur rather wether science can prove god.
Well I think I answered that, but let me elaborate. Science is likely to never be able to prove any existence in God because science will probably always have unanswered questions. And even in they do find everything, faith cannot be disproved. The religious scientists use faith as a motive to discover more about "God's universe", but I don't think it's likely, nor do they expect, they will every discover God. This is because, God is above the physical realm, in a realm of faith, where one can choose to believe or not.
If there were no consequences for such blind faith and inarticulate reasoning, I would submit that it doesn't affect me or others and so you'd be more than welcome to believe in whatever you can conjure up. However, religion and god play a huge role in our world. Government laws, voting preferences, and even everyday interactions; there are practical, tangible repercussions for using blind faith. That's why I value openness and logic-based dialogue, especially regarding religion... because religion always seemed to epitomize the "This is my belief and you can't touch or question it, and that's that" argument. That shouldn't be how we operate if we want to be intellectually honest and interested in furthering humanity.
...
The Church is a socio-political institution that has nothing to do with the actual belief of a person, outside that it's origins were built on faith. The Church has, no offense to anyone, been fucking around for thousands of years, so it's really no surprise to anyone that it has and always had an agenda of it's own, which, incidentally, has nothing to do with actually promoting the basic values of faith.
For me Belief and Church are two completely different things, and I definitely agree with you that arguments around laws shouldn't ever revolve around "well, the Church said that".
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.
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.
let's say you think jesus is god. then i found jesus the guy and got him before you. is that empirical proof of the claim that 'jesus is god'?
god at best it's a fictitious object that is conjured up before any empirical investigation. cosmic origin questions of the religious sort are teleological (give meaning to existing events) and not causal scientific.
i dont think i understand this explanation at all.
let me clarify, and hope you can walk down this path with me. The empirical proof would be if you find someone or something that is omnipotent and omnipresent who/that created the universe. That would be it. Why is finding something like this invalidate religion?
you can say 'find something omnipotent/creator' and make it sound easy. but how can you recognize anything you find as such without having a prior religious confirmation already eager to make a claim?
I am really lost with your philosophical linguistic jargon that wraps around itself.
lets say you find an omnipotent/omnipresent/creator being? you dont need a "prior religious confirmation already eager to make a claim?" (whatever this shit means)... you just simply ask him/her/it to prove he/she/it is omnipotent (he can do anything:fly, walk on water, make a stone impossible to carry, etc), omnipresent (tell you second-per-second account of events in Paris, Jamaica, under the pacific ocean, inside your house, in Ganymede, etc.) and recreate the universe. This is as straighforward as it can be. now If you find this being, then it is proof of god. Then you can say "I believe". What is difficult to understand about this?
i'm not using any words outside of their everyday sense.
anyway, for your scenario, it's retardedly impossible to find a deity that can actually answer questions. that kind of position is not worth addressing.
if we are talking about empirical discovery, then every scientific concept is defined with a confirmational effect in mind, namely their purported impact on specified observable events. to define god for the purpose of empirical evidence is to say, what kind of observation can show you that there is god(what constitutes evidence), short of the obvious sky dad scenario.
I won't claim anything I'm about to write is evidence for God's existence, but I do believe certain parts of a monist explanation of existence are unsatisfying and sometimes even illogical. Evidence against something (and by no means incontrovertible evidence at that) is not the same thing as evidence for something else, but nonetheless I'll present you with some thoughts which seem relevant to the topic at hand.
The physical universe is either finite or infinite. An infinite universe is difficult to conceptualize and discuss, though it certainly isn't impossible. A finite universe, however, presents us with a problem. If the universe is finite and expanding, it must be expanding into something. If it is finite and contracting, it is contracting away from something. That something is far beyond our ability to observe, but if we suppose a monist explanation of existence (that matter is all there is), then that “something” must also be material, or else that “something” does not exist and the universe is delimited by nonexistence. If option A, then beyond the limits of our universe is simply a continuation of the material. It follows that if this is true, we might again ask if this continuation if finite or infinite. If infinite, the task is done. If finite, we again may wonder what lies beyond its limits, and again we'll be confronted by the same fork in the road; a continuation of the material, or nonexistence. It's easy to see that if option A were hypothetically true again and again, that this is no different from saying that the material universe is infinite. Therefore if the material universe is both finite and all that exists, it is delimited by nonexistence.
Of course, nonexistence's only trait is that it does not exist, and so the idea of existence being contained within it is as difficult to conceptualize as an infinite universe. But these are the only two options that a monist can consider, as the alternative is the existence of an immaterial universe whose properties somehow correlate with the properties of the material. Again, this is not evidence of the divine by any strict definition of evidence, but it demonstrates that a model of the universe using only matter has some problems that aren't easily explained. I won't go any farther than that, as too many people use any form of uncertainty as an argument in theism's favour, which leads to people not taking uncertainty (or theism) very seriously. But no system or worldview is so complete as to preclude scepticism, and we should be humble about our own ignorance when it comes to discussing these seemingly eternal questions.
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?
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.
I do think that, in times of crisis, people will be more willing to believe in something fake or use blind faith just because it provides comfort
First of all, I am definitely not a religious person. I do believe, however, that 'how we see' is significantly more important than 'what we see'. If in a 'time of crisis' you are able to achieve comfort and clear mindedness in order to act according to your best interests, I feel it's unimportant in the end what allowed you to reach that state. In the same vein, what I and others are trying to say is that it is not relevant whether things are real or not, that Belief is somehow above it.
I think that many people have trouble understanding others' perspectives when unfamiliar defense mechanisms or faith-based beliefs are employed
We all have trouble understanding emotions and reactions we ourselves have not yet been through. Things that made no sense to me 5 years ago were suddenly made clear after short ("earthly", not metaphysical) experiences. And after some time, I will probably understand more things.
And, indeed, lack of understanding always was one of our key problems.
Some beliefs may provide comfort in the short term, but unless you have a "good" reason to believe in something fake (again, subjective), I would think that most of the time it's more important to know and recognize the truth about something, so that we can properly design our lives and missions around real goals that are helpful to ourselves and others, rather than living a lie.
If your faith is preventing you from living your life, or, even worse - it's pushing you towards taking innocent lives in the name of your God - that's clearly not where you want to be. But I feel it's a different discussion. Is there more value in Buddhism than Islamism? What about tantric meditation?
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?
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.
The same can be said of people with hallucination, or in love, or people who get their high from other sources. God then is just another source of comfort or pleasure. This feeling however is not proof of his existence.
You cannot talk about God and proof of existence in the same paragraph once you're past a certain age. This is coming from someone who, again, is not religious. Your, as you say, "feelings" or "spirituality" have nothing to do with proof. I don't understand why so many people ask for a physical proof of something that doesn't have anything to do with the palpable world.
The purpose of this thread is to have a scientific discussion on God, or rather empirical proof of the existence of God. This limitation is intentional. If you do not want to discuss with this limitation, and would rather argue on faith as a personal experience, then this thread serves no purpose to you. You are free to start a discussion on a different thread though.
I just want to reiterate this point because it will be the basis of later points of discussion. For now, let us please limit the discussion on the empirical proof for god's existence.
This proof is from David Johnson's "Truth Without Paradox". It is not perfectly straightforward, so I'm interested in the opinion of others on it. It is based off of Godel's Ontological Argument.
First, some definitions:
1) A being is a God if and only if it has all the properties of the regularly understood Judea-Christian Deity; that is, it is immortal, morally perfect, omnipotent, etc...For now, let's not assume that this being necessarily would have to have the property of necessary existence (as in, a being can be God even without necessary existence).
2) A being is an "Anselmian God" if and only if it necessarily exists, and it could only exist as a God.
3) The notation L(p) is read as "It is necessarily the case that p". "Necessarily" is commonly defined as having to hold true in any possible world; that is, L(2+2=4), but ~L(I had cereal for breakfast).
The proof: (I) L(If there is an Anselmian God, then L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +
Based off the definition of an Anselmian God
(II) M(There is a God)
If (I) and (II), then (III) M(L(There is a God)) + Show Spoiler +
From Modal Logic. It's in the form of L(PϽQ), M(p), therefore, M(q). It's true because the first statement says in every world, PϽQ, and the second means in some there is p, so in that one, there's also q. That then means that in every world, M(q)
(IV) If M(L(There is a God)), then L(There is a God) + Show Spoiler +
This one gets a little complicated. It is part of the modal logic systems of S5 and S3.5, but can also be defended logically. Let's start with (i) If M(p), then L(M(p)). That's true because M(p) means that in some world, p, and since every possible world is aware of that world, then in every world, M(p). That means L(M(p)) (ii) If M(~p), then L(M(~p))- From replacing p with ~p (iii) ~(L(M(~p)), then ~M(~p) (iv) ~~M~(M(~p)), then L(p)- From replacing ~L~ with M, and ~M~ with L, by definition (v) M~(M(~p), then L(p)- From ~~M being M, by definition (vi) M(L(p)), then L(p)
If (III) and (IV), then (V) L(There is a God) which leads to (VI) There is a God
Complicated, but I appreciate anyone's response. Also I have to study for midterms, so I may not be around to respond for a bit- I'm not just dodging question .
this kind of stuff relies on a difficulty with interpreting nested statements(curry paradox). all ontological arguments have within the definition/property etc of god that it exists, such that an assertion of a statement is equated to its existence. that's just a clue that the logic is problematic.
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.
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.
let's say you think jesus is god. then i found jesus the guy and got him before you. is that empirical proof of the claim that 'jesus is god'?
god at best it's a fictitious object that is conjured up before any empirical investigation. cosmic origin questions of the religious sort are teleological (give meaning to existing events) and not causal scientific.
i dont think i understand this explanation at all.
let me clarify, and hope you can walk down this path with me. The empirical proof would be if you find someone or something that is omnipotent and omnipresent who/that created the universe. That would be it. Why is finding something like this invalidate religion?
you can say 'find something omnipotent/creator' and make it sound easy. but how can you recognize anything you find as such without having a prior religious confirmation already eager to make a claim?
I am really lost with your philosophical linguistic jargon that wraps around itself.
lets say you find an omnipotent/omnipresent/creator being? you dont need a "prior religious confirmation already eager to make a claim?" (whatever this shit means)... you just simply ask him/her/it to prove he/she/it is omnipotent (he can do anything:fly, walk on water, make a stone impossible to carry, etc), omnipresent (tell you second-per-second account of events in Paris, Jamaica, under the pacific ocean, inside your house, in Ganymede, etc.) and recreate the universe. This is as straighforward as it can be. now If you find this being, then it is proof of god. Then you can say "I believe". What is difficult to understand about this?
i'm not using any words outside of their everyday sense.
anyway, for your scenario, it's retardedly impossible to find a deity that can actually answer questions. that kind of position is not worth addressing.
if we are talking about empirical discovery, then every scientific concept is defined with a confirmational effect in mind, namely their purported impact on specified observable events. to define god is to say, what kind of observation can show you that there is god, short of the obvious sky dad scenario.
Omg, what do these mean, and what do they have to do with what we are discussing: - find a deity that can actually answer questions. - that kind of position is not worth addressing.
EPT
Also, listening to some of the things that Neil deGrasse Tyson and other famous atheists say about our appreciation of ourselves, biological evolution, and the universe makes it all the more motivating! 
. 
