|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 25 2013 01:22 S:klogW wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:12 oneofthem wrote:On March 25 2013 01:06 S:klogW wrote:On March 25 2013 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On March 25 2013 00:54 S:klogW wrote:On March 25 2013 00:40 oneofthem wrote:On March 24 2013 23:55 S:klogW wrote:On March 24 2013 23:51 oneofthem wrote: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.
okay. if we find that sky dad guy, sure, that's evidence for a god. does that settle this conversation? maybe the religious guy would want to say that, hold on, god is nonintervening, but we can still find evidence for her existence by observing natural phenomenon.
the only scenario you've raised is also one that makes all the interesting questions moot. so it's not a very interesting scenario
|
The day that consciousness is explained to me, namely it's role in a material universe, is the day I will stop believing that there is any sort of transcendental scheme.
|
On March 25 2013 00:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:
this thread is gonna turn to shit so quick, no matter how hard we try to be civil about this.
User was temp banned for this post.
lollol did i cause this? hahaha
On March 25 2013 01:09 soon.Cloak wrote:Okay, on to Ontological Arguments! + Show Spoiler +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). 4) The notation M(p) is read as "It is possibly the case that p". Note that I am referring to a Subjunctive Possibility, not a Epistemic Possibility. 5) (PϽQ) is read as "If P, then Q" 6) ~p is read as "Not p" 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 is sick. I wish I had half the intelligence to understand things like this.
|
On March 25 2013 01:14 AUFKLARUNG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:02 n0ise wrote:On March 25 2013 00:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 00:07 n0ise wrote:On March 24 2013 23:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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 25 2013 00:17 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On March 25 2013 00:07 n0ise wrote:On March 24 2013 23:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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.
Regardless of what you or I argue, faith and God have nothing to do with science and are actually personal experience. Which (even though obvious) is the basis for empirism and a posteriori derived ideas.
Somewhere, somehow, you lost me - but if you'll PM me, we can continue the tea party there and I'm sure we'll end up hugging anyway.
|
That reddit timing. Cross posting for relevance.
PS: I wanted to write it, but posting it seems the more logical thing to do.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1rdilaF.jpg)
|
On March 25 2013 01:28 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 00:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:
this thread is gonna turn to shit so quick, no matter how hard we try to be civil about this.
User was temp banned for this post. lollol did i cause this? hahaha Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:09 soon.Cloak wrote:Okay, on to Ontological Arguments! + Show Spoiler +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). 4) The notation M(p) is read as "It is possibly the case that p". Note that I am referring to a Subjunctive Possibility, not a Epistemic Possibility. 5) (PϽQ) is read as "If P, then Q" 6) ~p is read as "Not p" 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 is sick. I wish I had half the intelligence to understand things like this.
Ontological Arguments aren't hard to understand, this has just been phrased in a more scientific manner.
- We have a concept of God
- Therefore God must exist
Or
-We have a concept of perfection
-Nothing in the world is perfect
-Something must be perfect for us to have this concept
-This thing is God
Or
-God is perfect
-To be perfect, something must exist, as without existence it doesn't contain all necessary perfections
-Therefore God exists
etc.
Most Ontological Arguments are dismissed nowadays. They're a bit old fashioned. People like Kant and Hume destroyed them.
|
On March 25 2013 01:33 n0ise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:14 AUFKLARUNG wrote:On March 25 2013 01:02 n0ise wrote:On March 25 2013 00:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2013 00:07 n0ise wrote:On March 24 2013 23:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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 25 2013 00:17 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On March 25 2013 00:07 n0ise wrote:On March 24 2013 23:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. Regardless of what you or I argue, faith and God have nothing to do with science and are actually personal experience. Which (even though obvious) is the basis for empirism and a posteriori derived ideas. Somewhere, somehow, you lost me - but if you'll PM me, we can continue the tea party there and I'm sure we'll end up hugging anyway.
lol dude why will he pm you. he started this thread, and if you read the op, it seemed he discussed this with a mod, KwarK no less, about the limitations of the discussion. Start your apostleriori empireism somewhere else.
|
On March 25 2013 01:28 travis wrote:
The day that consciousness is explained to me, namely it's role in a material universe, is the day I will stop believing that there is any sort of transcendental scheme.
The fallacy here is that things need to have a role. Consciousness exiting doesn't necessitate a purpouse for it other then maybe an evolutionary utility.
Essentially you're saying "The day that consciousness is explained to me, namely it's "concept thats does not apply except for magical thinking" in a material universe, is the day I will stop "magical thinking".
|
On March 25 2013 01:24 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:22 S:klogW wrote:On March 25 2013 01:12 oneofthem wrote:On March 25 2013 01:06 S:klogW wrote:On March 25 2013 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On March 25 2013 00:54 S:klogW wrote:On March 25 2013 00:40 oneofthem wrote:On March 24 2013 23:55 S:klogW wrote:On March 24 2013 23:51 oneofthem wrote: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. okay. if we find that sky dad guy, sure, that's evidence for a god. does that settle this conversation? maybe the religious guy would want to say that, hold on, god is nonintervening, but we can still find evidence for her existence by observing natural phenomenon. the only scenario you've raised is also one that makes all the interesting questions moot. so it's not a very interesting scenario
no one cares about interesting. all we are talking about is the condition of proving the existence or not,
|
On March 25 2013 01:41 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:28 travis wrote:
The day that consciousness is explained to me, namely it's role in a material universe, is the day I will stop believing that there is any sort of transcendental scheme. The fallacy here is that things need to have a role. Consciousness exiting doesn't necessitate a purpouse for it other then maybe an evolutionary utility. Essentially you're saying "The day that consciousness is explained to me, namely it's "concept thats does not apply except for magical thinking" in a material universe, is the day I will stop "magical thinking".
precisely, especially now that evolutionary biologist are closing in on this "morality" and "consciousness" issue. the gap is indeed getting smaller and smaller for god to have a reason to exist.
|
On March 25 2013 01:35 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:28 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On March 25 2013 00:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:
this thread is gonna turn to shit so quick, no matter how hard we try to be civil about this.
User was temp banned for this post. lollol did i cause this? hahaha On March 25 2013 01:09 soon.Cloak wrote:Okay, on to Ontological Arguments! + Show Spoiler +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). 4) The notation M(p) is read as "It is possibly the case that p". Note that I am referring to a Subjunctive Possibility, not a Epistemic Possibility. 5) (PϽQ) is read as "If P, then Q" 6) ~p is read as "Not p" 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 is sick. I wish I had half the intelligence to understand things like this. Ontological Arguments aren't hard to understand, this has just been phrased in a more scientific manner. - We have a concept of God - Therefore God must exist Or -We have a concept of perfection -Nothing in the world is perfect -Something must be perfect for us to have this concept -This thing is God Or -God is perfect -To be perfect, something must exist, as without existence it doesn't contain all necessary perfections -Therefore God exists etc. Most Ontological Arguments are dismissed nowadays. They're a bit old fashioned. People like Kant and Hume destroyed them.
ahhh... still too far out for me lol
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 25 2013 01:41 S:klogW wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:24 oneofthem wrote:On March 25 2013 01:22 S:klogW wrote:On March 25 2013 01:12 oneofthem wrote:On March 25 2013 01:06 S:klogW wrote:On March 25 2013 00:58 oneofthem wrote:On March 25 2013 00:54 S:klogW wrote:On March 25 2013 00:40 oneofthem wrote:On March 24 2013 23:55 S:klogW wrote:On March 24 2013 23:51 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
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. okay. if we find that sky dad guy, sure, that's evidence for a god. does that settle this conversation? maybe the religious guy would want to say that, hold on, god is nonintervening, but we can still find evidence for her existence by observing natural phenomenon. the only scenario you've raised is also one that makes all the interesting questions moot. so it's not a very interesting scenario no one cares about interesting. all we are talking about is the condition of proving the existence or not,
the different scenarios are raised by different kinds of theists. so interesting here separates different kinds of god. unless you are going to say, only traditional judeo christians are good theists, only that kind of god is our concern, then you have to consider these other gods.
for the judeo christian god itself, different positions exist as to its behavior and relationship with the world. some people believe that god is outside of the world and won't ever visit.
grant that your definition takes care of a small tribe of literal god-ists. does this satisfy the question in general? probably not. that's what 'interesting' means.
|
It is quite interesting that most of atheist rebuttals on the existance of God hinge on the assumption that if something can be explained by the well known principles of science, then God has nothing to do with it. I don't understand how the existance of certain rules proves or disproves the existance of God. Can someone comment on why having a scientific explanation for most phenomenon proves that those immutable rules weren't put in placed on our universe by a higher being?
|
On March 24 2013 23:46 n0ise wrote:
If you're starting a discussion on such a beautiful subject with "Empirical proof" and "God/Spirituality" in the same paragraph, I'm afraid we're already going down on a less than ideal road, or, with the risk (and pleasure) of being a dick, we're limiting ourselves to a high-school level discussion.
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.
This is exactly why I asked for a definition of god. You can't give any proof for or against something if you don't know what you are talking about. Any scientific approach is fruitless then. That leaves a philosophical discussion that is inherently subjective and "believe what you want". Science currently has nothing in it that is theist or a-theist. It might only disprove some existing religions, but that says nothing about the existence of "a" deity or a being/existence with the properties of a deity.
Also, people say let's take the god of Christianity, Jews, Muslims. Well, even they don't agree on the definition of their own god. Even within Christianity they don't believe in the same god. Even if you would probably ask two priests to give their version of god based on what they read in the bible they would give a different story. So you get a whole lot of people that think they are talking about the same thing, but aren't.
|
On March 25 2013 01:46 iDope wrote:
It is quite interesting that most of atheist rebuttals on the existance of God hinge on the assumption that if something can be explained by the well known principles of science, then God has nothing to do with it. I don't understand how the existance of certain rules proves or disproves the existance of God. Can someone comment on why having a scientific explanation for most phenomenon proves that those immutable rules weren't put in placed on our universe by a higher being?
Because we are modern, rational men of the 21st century?
Answer this: do you believe in unicorns? flying carpets? genies?
|
Let's assume God in what I consider it's commonsense definition which cuts across many of the different major religions.
A being that is:
- all knowing
- all present
- all powerful
- created the universe
I doubt there should still be confusion about this
|
In advance, im very sorry for my poor english, this also might cause me to sound pretty chaotic :D
I am not entirely sure yet after reading most of the posts what drives you to prove a God exists or doesnt exist.
In my oppinion the drive people have to explain things they don't understand, from human behaviour to the development of the universe and our planet, is one of the most important aspects of being human and improving as humanity.
But
Why is there such a need for proving or disproving a God? I suppose you could take up different perspectives.
If there is a God like the Christian God for example, you could say this God wants humanity to believe in him without having proof. So this almighty God would make sure it isn't possible to prove his existence.
In this case it would be pretty useless to try to prove this God right?
Or
You could try to prove there is a God by for example looking at miracles. As for myself i have seen quite some stuff which could be called miracles, which cannot (yet) be explained by science. Yet personally i do not automaticly link those miracles to a God NOR to science. But if you would, you would have to somehow 'force' situations to get miracles right? but then again when you would 'force' it, it could be 'controlled' meaning it isn't a miracle anymore, so id say, if miracles exist they will stay miracles because for it to be a miracle, science should fail to explain.
It is sad you guys don't master Dutch because there is a very interesting discussion going on in our country right now. There is this scientist in astronomy i think, who has received various prizes, and such. During a lecture he gave, he said he believed in miracles and saw them himself. Some guy from a newspaper wrote an article about this scientist that he shouldnt be a scientist anymore and that christians can't be true scientists because they believe in a God and such, alot of drama started and this scientist said, alright i will drop out of my position at the university etc and continue researching individually. This raised even more drama because many other scientist of whom most are christian got angry because this is one of the most accomplished scientist in his working field (in the netherlands). After reading most of all the articles of both sides i have the strong feeling you shouldn't mix up religion with science.
Not because science proves religion to be false or because religion proves science to be false. I actually think they even make each other stronger when mixed BUT somehow many atheists want to use science to prove religion wrong, creating emotional discussion just as many religious people try to prove science wrong.
The thing that strucks me the most when i see religious vs science discussions, you see atheists saying religious people are ignorant stupid crazy and such, while stating atheists and scientists are developed people with knowledge. YET the exact thing those atheists hate about how for example christians behave is EXACTLY what they do themselves in such a discussion they just have a different perspective on the world. The christians in this case want to prove science wrong and do the exact thing they think is stupid about what atheists do in such discussions. There is atheists using facts that prove being a christian is the most stupid thing on the world while the guy who came up with these facts is a christian. Then there is christians using theological reasoning and 'facts' that prove science wrong while their source for this reasoning many times comes from scientists who also work on for example the evolution theory.
The thing is, people who dislike religion pick up science, and people who dislike science pick up religion to prove each other wrong. And by doing this both are wrong. Atleast this is my oppinion. Then there is a small amount of both religious and atheist people who actually manage to talk about each others believes (yes i just called facts and science a belief aswell) without inmidiate judging and dirt throwing.
When people stop to be afraid and scared of everything they can and cannot explain they might be able to not take the bible as the absolute answer to everything and maybe atheists can accept that there are many things that happen which cannot be explained (some will be explained). So if we stop wasting our time to research the existence of a God or the nonexistence of science but just do research for things we do not understand without putting stamps on it like : Science is bullshit, Religion is bullshit. We might even understand things faster and more easy, i truly believe open minded people who see religion for what it could be and combine it with science will upgrade us as humanity faster and more effectively then when there is constant battle between religion and science.
Because lets get this clear, religion does not deny science, religion does not dissaprove aborting childs or the use of condoms. People who are scared of developments and such and who cannot deal with them USE religion as some kind of truth to forbid those things and to create chaos.
So after this long incoherent story id say, Stop discussing the existence of god and science and start asking how to combine those.
|
On March 25 2013 01:35 Larkin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:28 xwoGworwaTsx wrote:On March 25 2013 00:33 evilfatsh1t wrote:
this thread is gonna turn to shit so quick, no matter how hard we try to be civil about this.
User was temp banned for this post. lollol did i cause this? hahaha On March 25 2013 01:09 soon.Cloak wrote:Okay, on to Ontological Arguments! + Show Spoiler +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). 4) The notation M(p) is read as "It is possibly the case that p". Note that I am referring to a Subjunctive Possibility, not a Epistemic Possibility. 5) (PϽQ) is read as "If P, then Q" 6) ~p is read as "Not p" 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 is sick. I wish I had half the intelligence to understand things like this. Ontological Arguments aren't hard to understand, this has just been phrased in a more scientific manner. - We have a concept of God - Therefore God must exist Or -We have a concept of perfection -Nothing in the world is perfect -Something must be perfect for us to have this concept -This thing is God Or -God is perfect -To be perfect, something must exist, as without existence it doesn't contain all necessary perfections -Therefore God exists etc. Most Ontological Arguments are dismissed nowadays. They're a bit old fashioned. People like Kant and Hume destroyed them.
Thanks for the explaination, I was trying to find the point in soon.Cloak's argument but I was confused and gave me the befinifit of the doubt. Looks like that flasily phrased "argument" was actually really really really bad.
- We have a concept of Aliens/Dragons/Zombies
- Therefore Aliens/Dragons/Zombies must exist
or
-We have a concept of perfection
-Nothing in the world is perfect
-Something must be perfect for us to have this concept
-This thing is Aliens/Dragons/Zombies
Or
- Aliens/Dragons/Zombies are perfect
- To be perfect, something must exist, as without existence it doesn't contain all necessary perfections
- Therefore Aliens/Dragons/Zombies exists
Am I just missing a point or what
|
On March 25 2013 01:51 Carving wrote:
In advance, im very sorry for my poor english, this also might cause me to sound pretty chaotic :D
I am not entirely sure yet after reading most of the posts what drives you to prove a God exists or doesnt exist.
In my oppinion the drive people have to explain things they don't understand, from human behaviour to the development of the universe and our planet, is one of the most important aspects of being human and improving as humanity.
But
Why is there such a need for proving or disproving a God? I suppose you could take up different perspectives.
If there is a God like the Christian God for example, you could say this God wants humanity to believe in him without having proof. So this almighty God would make sure it isn't possible to prove his existence.
In this case it would be pretty useless to try to prove this God right?
Or
You could try to prove there is a God by for example looking at miracles. As for myself i have seen quite some stuff which could be called miracles, which cannot (yet) be explained by science. Yet personally i do not automaticly link those miracles to a God NOR to science. But if you would, you would have to somehow 'force' situations to get miracles right? but then again when you would 'force' it, it could be 'controlled' meaning it isn't a miracle anymore, so id say, if miracles exist they will stay miracles because for it to be a miracle, science should fail to explain.
It is sad you guys don't master Dutch because there is a very interesting discussion going on in our country right now. There is this scientist in astronomy i think, who has received various prizes, and such. During a lecture he gave, he said he believed in miracles and saw them himself. Some guy from a newspaper wrote an article about this scientist that he shouldnt be a scientist anymore and that christians can't be true scientists because they believe in a God and such, alot of drama started and this scientist said, alright i will drop out of my position at the university etc and continue researching individually. This raised even more drama because many other scientist of whom most are christian got angry because this is one of the most accomplished scientist in his working field (in the netherlands). After reading most of all the articles of both sides i have the strong feeling you shouldn't mix up religion with science.
Not because science proves religion to be false or because religion proves science to be false. I actually think they even make each other stronger when mixed BUT somehow many atheists want to use science to prove religion wrong, creating emotional discussion just as many religious people try to prove science wrong.
The thing that strucks me the most when i see religious vs science discussions, you see atheists saying religious people are ignorant stupid crazy and such, while stating atheists and scientists are developed people with knowledge. YET the exact thing those atheists hate about how for example christians behave is EXACTLY what they do themselves in such a discussion they just have a different perspective on the world. The christians in this case want to prove science wrong and do the exact thing they think is stupid about what atheists do in such discussions. There is atheists using facts that prove being a christian is the most stupid thing on the world while the guy who came up with these facts is a christian. Then there is christians using theological reasoning and 'facts' that prove science wrong while their source for this reasoning many times comes from scientists who also work on for example the evolution theory.
The thing is, people who dislike religion pick up science, and people who dislike science pick up religion to prove each other wrong. And by doing this both are wrong. Atleast this is my oppinion. Then there is a small amount of both religious and atheist people who actually manage to talk about each others believes (yes i just called facts and science a belief aswell) without inmidiate judging and dirt throwing.
When people stop to be afraid and scared of everything they can and cannot explain they might be able to not take the bible as the absolute answer to everything and maybe atheists can accept that there are many things that happen which cannot be explained (some will be explained). So if we stop wasting our time to research the existence of a God or the nonexistence of science but just do research for things we do not understand without putting stamps on it like : Science is bullshit, Religion is bullshit. We might even understand things faster and more easy, i truly believe open minded people who see religion for what it could be and combine it with science will upgrade us as humanity faster and more effectively then when there is constant battle between religion and science.
Because lets get this clear, religion does not deny science, religion does not dissaprove aborting childs or the use of condoms. People who are scared of developments and such and who cannot deal with them USE religion as some kind of truth to forbid those things and to create chaos.
So after this long incoherent story id say, Stop discussing the existence of god and science and start asking how to combine those.
This is a good post if it were not off topic. From what I understand, we want to limit the discussion to a scientific or empirical understanding of religion. Anything outside that is not part of this thread.
To answer your point, science and religion does not have to mix. In fact, science is better off without religion. Science deals with truth, observable, verifiable, significant truth. Religion deals with feelings and effects.
|
On March 25 2013 01:41 msl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2013 01:28 travis wrote:
The day that consciousness is explained to me, namely it's role in a material universe, is the day I will stop believing that there is any sort of transcendental scheme. The fallacy here is that things need to have a role. Consciousness exiting doesn't necessitate a purpouse for it other then maybe an evolutionary utility. Essentially you're saying "The day that consciousness is explained to me, namely it's "concept thats does not apply except for magical thinking" in a material universe, is the day I will stop "magical thinking".
It's interesting to call that type of thinking a fallacy when the entire basis of scientific reason is that things have a role, and then the thread is about using scientific reason to show evidence of god/religion.
I don't actually disagree with what you are saying, however. But you aren't being fair.
'Transcendental scheme' should not be equated with 'magical thinking'. Also it's just a position I take I am always open to have my views changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
