On March 25 2013 02:08 Ettick wrote: If god is all powerful then can he make a pizza large enough that even he cannot finish it?
If he can, he is not all powerful because he cannot finish the pizza. If he cannot, then he is not all powerful because he cannot make a pizza large enough for him to not be able to finish it.
Do humans need a greater purpose behind their existence and why is it not acceptable if they don't?
Hehe i discussed this question sooooo many times, i think you could say:
God can make a pizza so big he cannot finish it, but at the same time because he is almighty he could overrule himself and eat it all up anyway.
Can he do something that he cannot overrule though?
I don't think this is a thread about architecture. Feel free to offer whatever input you have on the topic though. Don't really get the circle jerk analogy, are you surprised that people are challenging religion in a thread about religion?
On March 25 2013 02:24 Shiragaku wrote: Hee hee, I always enjoyed fashionable nonsense about the existence of God. If you want to wow people while they are drunk, tell them that dog is god spelled backwards.
Id have to be more than drunk to be wow'd by that haha.
Hmmm...let's try this then. Dogma I am God
Language conspiracy.
However, to get back on topic, I consider myself to be a Christian even though I do not believe in God. My views are more in line with Robert Jensen. I consider God's existence to be unwanted and 99.9 percent certain he does not exist. God is 10 times worst than any dictator on this Earth, Pol Pot included. And when reading the Bible, rather than taking every word of it as dogma, I pick and choose. I treat the Bible more as library collection and as a philosophy rather than the traditional view.
If you guys are interested in Christian radicalism/Christian atheism, check this out
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 is not empirical evidence. This is playing with formal systems. I can also prove in standard math that I can split sphere into pieces and then assemble it into two spheres of the same volume as the original one. Apparently this is not an empirical fact, yet I can prove it in some formal systems. Playing with formal systems has nearly no relevance to real world. Only very restricted and specific formal inference can be applied to real world (see theoretical physics) and even then it needs empirical evidence to confirm.
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.
Because believers in these proposed beings wish to have their faith taken into consideration when making decisions based in and affecting the palpable world, and we then expect them to play by the same rules as any other hypothesis. The message, in short form, would be something like; Back up your claims or keep them to yourself.
Religion has always sought temporal power because it is for some reason granted the luxury of an exemption from the standard burden of proof. This makes it eminently simple for utterly unqualified people to attain positions of immense power and influence. See creationism in school, religious education, opposition to contraceptives, abortion, homosexuality etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of religion, but it cannot, must not, under any circumstances, be given equal consideration compared that which is empirically and scientifically supported.
I am perfectly happy to let people have their toys. Do not bring the toys to my house. Do not try to make my children or anyone else's children play with the toys. Do not try to insinuate the toys into legislation and government. Keep the toys to yourself, and do not pester others with them.
That's all fine and dandy but it has nothing to do with what the OP wants us to discuss. I agree about the societal standards for religion are a bit disconcerting(completely different topic), but that guy is right. This discussion is completely invalid because both sides cannot present any proof. It's like asking a bacteria in our gut to justify an existence beyond its fundamental understanding/capacity. Not believing in god/creator is ignorant for forming an opinion without any substantial proof and this goes for believers as well. Both sides just have no information about the philosophical questions that have existed for thousands of years. Science might one day be able to come close, but that is not today. Basically just believe whatever makes you personally happy/satisfied and leave it at that.
The whole premise of this thread is absurd. Religion *always* surrenders falsifiability and therefore cannot provide any proof, much less empirical, of its validity. This is not news, and you won't convince religious people of their deception if you set out on this course. Much worse, the stupidest of them will ask you 'can you prove that god doesn't exist?' at which point you want to stab yourself in the leg with a dull knife, knowing you'll have to explain the concept of falsifiability if you want to get anywhere. A better argument, in my opinion, is Christopher Hitchens' 'I only need 100,000 years':
Summary: For 98,000 years, heavens watches with indifference while war, disease, rape, and malnutrition kill off the people that didn't die in child birth, and only THEN says 'we have to intervene'. This is something you have to believe if you're a monotheist.
So, is it possible to measure something without measure...
I thought this was a thread about religion. Why start with a passe concept like God???
Religion is only a means for weak people that can't or don't want to accept their inevitable non-existence
I agree everyone should have religion as well, but so few recognize their own weakness.
Religion was the law before there was law. A means of keeping people from survival-of-the-fittesting each other as society was first coming together. Now that we have actual law, it might not be as needed.
I think the "can he do something he can not do" question is silly. A satisfying answer for me is: He does not want to. You can see the human rationality as a result of gods will, so the question "Can he make P and not P true?" is not leading to something.
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
I'm basing this on what he says himself. Not on what he labels himself as, though. He's clearly an atheist (lacks a belief in a deity/deities). If someone says "I'm not an atheist, I'm an agnostic" it clearly means he does not understand what those words convey. Being an agnostic does not exclude being an atheist and vice versa. They answer different questions. Agnosticism is a view that it's not possible to know X, while atheism is a lack of belief in deities, regardless of one's reasons.
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.
There are already plenty quite interesting ideas and that is at a point where we know so little about the brain. We already know consciousness is at the least heavily dependent on physical substrate. Really see no issue with consciousness and materialism.
On March 25 2013 02:41 Tachyon wrote: Summary: For 98,000 years, heavens watches with indifference while war, disease, rape, and malnutrition kill off the people that didn't die in child birth, and only THEN says 'we have to intervene'. This is something you have to believe if you're a monotheist.
Absolutely not. Have fun conversing with others while you dictate to them the substance of their beliefs though. I'm sure that'll open the dialogue right on up.
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".
Presumably when you use the word 'evidence' what you're actually referring to is empirical evidence viz. that which can be collected from a field, brought back to a laboratory and tested upon. I imagine most Christians would criticise you for claiming their belief is without evidence for, according to them, the Bible does provide evidence for the existence of God. The alleged beauty of the world has provided Christians with evidence of the existence of God. Presumably what you're asking for is not merely evidence, but proof of the existence of God. These are quite different concepts: a proof necessitates p, evidence suggests p. Empiricism generally doesn't actually prove anything. One might witness the physical occasion of q following p everyday of their life but this does not entail the logical truth that p → q. It merely suggests (probabilistically) that, given an an instance of p, there will be q. So what you're asking for, namely empirical proof of God, is inherently problematic because empiricism does not generally provide proof; empiricism provides evidence for a particular state of affairs.
With regards to forming normative judgements, it's probably true that a belief in God typically has greater relevance than a piece of literature or leisure activities. However this was not the point I was making. My point was that science has a limited scope of interest: it deals with scientific truth or knowledge. A belief in God, works of fiction and leisure activities do not deal with science's limited scope of interest but scientists seem determined to wipe belief in God off the face of the planet because it is 'unscientific' and, consequently, other non-scientific disciplines should follow as well. This is absurd because non-scientific disciplines add a significant amount of value and depth to people's lives.
Regarding your explicit issue with a belief in God, your issue seems to be its factoring into normative judgements: a Christian's belief that abortion is wrong is not justified in virtue of a belief in God. This seems to be quite obviously wrong. If I read The Colour Purple and form the belief that 'racism is bad', is that belief unjustified? Quite obviously not: it is justified in virtue of my reading The Colour Purple and hence forming that belief. I have not merely conjured up that belief ex nihilo. Similarly, a Christian's belief that abortion is wrong can be justified in virtue of their reading of the Bible, or in their interpretation of God's will. The issue is not whether a belief is justified, but whether we find the justification of a particular belief satisfactory. Obviously the scientist will oppose the Christian's view that abortion is wrong on a theistic basis because it is unscientific. As I have stated, however, this is a non-issue for the theist because their belief is not scientific in nature.
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 is sick. I wish I had half the intelligence to understand things like this.
It is actually just simple playing with symbols based on relatively simple rules. And it has no bearing on the discussion.
On March 25 2013 02:35 McBengt wrote: I don't think this is a thread about architecture. Feel free to offer whatever input you have on the topic though. Don't really get the circle jerk analogy, are you surprised that people are challenging religion in a thread about religion?
Well I do like to see both sides of the coin, I only see here is one.
But then again this is Teamliquid which is basically /r/atheism 2.0 so i think having a decent discussion of both sides is impossible.
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.
Because believers in these proposed beings wish to have their faith taken into consideration when making decisions based in and affecting the palpable world, and we then expect them to play by the same rules as any other hypothesis. The message, in short form, would be something like; Back up your claims or keep them to yourself.
Religion has always sought temporal power because it is for some reason granted the luxury of an exemption from the standard burden of proof. This makes it eminently simple for utterly unqualified people to attain positions of immense power and influence. See creationism in school, religious education, opposition to contraceptives, abortion, homosexuality etc. There is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of religion, but it cannot, must not, under any circumstances, be given equal consideration compared that which is empirically and scientifically supported.
I am perfectly happy to let people have their toys. Do not bring the toys to my house. Do not try to make my children or anyone else's children play with the toys. Do not try to insinuate the toys into legislation and government. Keep the toys to yourself, and do not pester others with them.
That's all fine and dandy but it has nothing to do with what the OP wants us to discuss. I agree about the societal standards for religion are a bit disconcerting(completely different topic), but that guy is right. This discussion is completely invalid because both sides cannot present any proof. It's like asking a bacteria in our gut to justify an existence beyond its fundamental understanding/capacity. Not believing in god/creator is ignorant for forming an opinion without any substantial proof and this goes for believers as well. Both sides just have no information about the philosophical questions that have existed for thousands of years. Science might one day be able to come close, but that is not today. Basically just believe whatever makes you personally happy/satisfied and leave it at that.
Which would be a valid argument if people discriminated others based on their non-belief in a <insert deity here>. Only this does not really occur with any regularity.
The standard scientific postition is disbelief until sufficient evidence has been presented, so I don't think it's off topic. This is not a middle ground, this is not a case where both sides have a point. There is no rational reason to believe that something exists without anything to support it. I maintain that mine is the default position, a willingness to accept anything that is proven beyond reasonable doubt, without having any preconceived notions before studying the available data. I do not accept that my lack of faith is equal to faith when I have been consistent with the standards of evidence I expect from a claim through my adult life. I have never dismissed religious claims out of hand, I have weighed and considered them by the same measuring stick as everything else. I claim the scientific high ground here, and I do it with a fair amount of confidence.
I used to not believe in God. Then I started thinking it over and I came to the realization that the universe has too much design in place for there not to be one. The laws of the universe all coincide too perfectly. An athiest's usual answer to many questions about the universe is that "its all just coincidence", "it just is", "there is no reason", etc. That's a poor answer. If someone asked someone else why the grass was green replying with "it just is" is a poor answer. There's a reason for everything that happens in the universe and there's always a cause and effect.
Look at the elements. So much synergy. When two hydrogen fuse together and make helium that isn't chance or luck or randomness. That has to happen. There's a rule that makes it happen. They don't combine and make sulfur, or iron, or hydrogen, they make helium. That fusion then produces energy that is also called light. That light is the fuel for all life as we know it. Now if hydrogen couldn't fuse together there would be no light but there is a rule to the universe that makes it so. If that fusion didn't release light then life wouldn't exist but the rule of universe makes it so. If gravity didn't exist then stars couldn't be formed and again fusion would never take place but the rules of the universe make it so. So much design I see but everyone just thinks it's one big coincidence.
When I see the element table I see the recipe and ingredients to life. It's like looking at a cook book. If the universe is infinite then life is everywhere. Little strands of nucleic acids are being formed or have been formed all over the universe. It's not just a coincidence, it has to happen. If life can be formed from a combination of the correct elements then it's supposed to happen, it's not just chance. Empirical evidence is something that I feel isn't even needed when it comes to God. It's like asking for empirical evidence of black holes. You can't see it but you know it's there.
Empirical evidence is something that I feel isn't even needed when it comes to God. It's like asking for empirical evidence of black holes. You can't see it but you know it's there
I was about to go into a serious discussion but after such an analogy I don't think I can. I don't think You don't understand what empirical means.
On March 25 2013 02:41 Tachyon wrote: Summary: For 98,000 years, heavens watches with indifference while war, disease, rape, and malnutrition kill off the people that didn't die in child birth, and only THEN says 'we have to intervene'. This is something you have to believe if you're a monotheist.
Absolutely not. Have fun conversing with others while you dictate to them the substance of their beliefs though. I'm sure that'll open the dialogue right on up.
Explain to me how this is not the case. There is evidence for all these events occuring in that period of time.
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 is sick. I wish I had half the intelligence to understand things like this.
It is actually just simple playing with symbols based on relatively simple rules. And it has no bearing on the discussion.
Do you reject logic as possessing explanatory power? If so, then empiricism doesn't make any sense because it is founded on simple logical rules. If you accept logic as possessing explanatory power, then if the ontological argument is sound, it's true. What you need to show is that there is a flaw in the argument. You can't just say "it's playing with symbols" because all logical arguments are just playing with symbols, including the argument that, say, gravity exists because we observe objects being affected by a force which varies proportionately with mass. You can't get from p and q to if p then q without logic (even with logic it's debatable whether you can). In fact, p and q don't even make sense without logic.
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! 
