Let's talk about religion. More precisely, let's talk about religion in an objective, rational, and respectful manner - as we should being people of the 21st century. 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:
We will be discussing the different subtopics on religion in phases or segments in order to focus the discussion. Each topic phase will be posted in the OP and will have a definite amount of time for discussion, or until all the points have been sufficiently brought up.
Provide empirical evidence for your arguments. No exceptions, no conditions. 3. cite legitimate and authoritative sources.
Be respectful to others. No name calling (stupid, retard, lol, idiot, etc.) Say that they are "wrong" or what they say is "false" and provide your counter-proof.
Let's all have a pleasant and enlightening exchange of ideas.
In my discussion with KwarK regarding this thread, I argued that I believe the inherent controversial nature of the topic, as well as all the previous unfortunate derailed and violent turn out of religion threads in TL should not be a reason to discourage us from discussing such an important and enlightening subject. I also argued that in my experience, there are a lot of people in real life and in the internet, especially here in TL, who enjoy and contribute to the discussions objectively and respectfully, that we only need to submit ourselves to a few reasonable rules and to weed out out those who consciously violate them (although I hope this does not happen) so we can all have an enlightening discussion, despite our differences.
FOR DISCUSSION (PHASE 1): PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? [March 24 2013 19:50 KST - March 25 2013 20:00 KST] Is there any empirical proof that God exists?
Atheists all point to the absence of any empirical proof of the existence of God as the main hindrance to any religious argumentation, while theists and believers all use either philosophical, spiritual and emotional arguments as the basis for the existence of God.
For this discussion, however, we are concerned with empirical evidence. The nature of this question seems to naturally put the theists on the spot - let this though be a challenge and an opportunity for rational discussion. On the other hand, for the atheists, anti-theists, non-theists, and agnostics, you may contribute to the discussion by providing empirical proof to the contrary, why God does not exist, for the sake of balance.
Important:
This is just phase 1 of the discussion, to clarify, and one directed towards theists mainly. This will be used to build up on later discussions. If you already don't believe in god, or don't think he exists, then you way just contribute your reason for believing so. Please, for now, avoid the temptation of jumping to other topics. They will soon be discussed, in time. Let us exercise a little restraint and stick to the proposed topic so that we avoid a cluttered discussion.
As per rule #1, focus on this specific topic only. No discussion on any other issues about religion.
As per rule #2, any arguments like "I believe in God because it is my personal belief, and you can also believe whatever you want to believe." or "God is in my heart." or "God is the kindness in people" will not be honored in the discussion and may merit moderator action. Only empirical logical evidence please.
Observe all the other rules and the basic rules of communication, decency, and social decorum.
SUMMARY/HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DISCUSSIONS Phase 1: Proof of the existence of God? + Show Spoiler +
On March 24 2013 22:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I simply lack a belief in deities because I've found no empirical reasons to believe in them. The onus is on the theist to present evidence for his belief if he so wishes to make religion and theism sound like anything more than just a defense mechanism or a belief in a guardian angel. And I'm fine with having a dialogue that's evidence-based rather than faith-based. I'm not going to say for certain that no deities can exist (I see no point in having such a strong position when a weaker one is just as effective- if not moreso- from a practical and proof-based standpoint), but the lack of evidence, poor arguments, and countless discounted mythologies that we've seen over the years surely points more towards god being created by man, rather than man being created by god.
I'm looking forward to reading any new arguments for the existence of a deity
On March 24 2013 21:05 Twinkle Toes wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't KadaverBB close this thread? OP must be some special snowflake to have this back from the graveyard. Also, where is the KadaverBB post?
Anyway, isn't Aquinas argument of the Proof of God basically the most logical argument, being:
Motion. What is in motion must be put in motion by another and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be at the head of the series of movers, a being that is itself unmoved and that is the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.
The premise that the sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum is baseless. One can imagine such a thing (heck, you can even imagine some sort of space-time Moebius strip, that doesn't extend into infinity, but rather is looped). Also why is the premise that everything has to be "moved" by something suddenly lifted for the proposed first mover? Another baseless claim. Not to mention the fact that as a Christian, Aquinas adds a whole set of characteristics to that "first mover", including a personality, while in reality it could be just some natural event like the Big Bang. Not to mention the fact that he mixes up simple mechanics and ontological claims just like that. E.g. what is "a being that is itself unmoved" supposed to mean?
Causation. This proof depends on the self-evident principles that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence and that every effect must have a cause. It is impossible for a thing to be the efficient cause of itself for, if it were, it would be prior to itself which is impossible. Since every effect must have a cause, that cause in turn must be the effect of another cause, and so on. But the process cannot go on to infinity. There must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.
Casimir effect - apparently certain events do not need a cause. Not to mention the fact that instead of admitting he doesn't know what was at the beginning or if there was any at all, he arbitrarily lifts his rule and says God did not have to have a cause.
There's also a time paradox of a man being his mother, father, son and daughter (or however it went...) at the same time. Dunno what's the current consensus on that, but it's something to consider.
Necessity or contingency. This proof, too, depends on the self-evident principle of sufficient reason, that is, that whatever exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. To explain the existence of beings that are unnecessary, that at one time did not exist, there must have always existed a necessary being, from whom beings that began to be received their existence. The existence of all other beings is contingent on the existence of this necessary being. This necessary being is God.
This is, again, contradicted by science (e.g. the Casimir effect). It also does not follow that nothing would exist if there was no "first event".
There's also this assumption that the only explanation why there exists something is that back in the days there was this necessary being. Alternative explanation would be that there simply was no time when nothing existed, so introducing a necessary being is not necessary...
Not to mention the fact that Aquinas uses the word "exist" very loosely. How did he define "beginning to be"? Everything that surrounds us is a collection of energy-matter. It's been here since Big Bang. So does anything come into existence these days or do we have to go back to Big Bang or whatever the origin of energy-matter was?
Perfection. When we perceive objects or people, we judge that they are more or less good, beautiful, kind, just, etc. But this presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. This absolute standard of perfection is God.
This one went more like this:
"There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. "
This one is stupid beyond belief. This guy must've had no grasp of mathematics whatsoever.
What he's saying is essentially that we describe things by referring to the "uttermost" case, which e.g. in case of temperature would be equal to saying that today's temperature is 0,15% of infinity. This is beyond stupid, sorry.
Design. Whatever exhibits marks of design must be the work of an intelligent being. Nobody could possibly believe that his wrist watch just "fell together." On the contrary, it was obviously designed by an intelligent designer. How much more so with the human body, the world and the universe. They all give evidence of an intelligent designer. The order of the universe, the workings of the human eye, etc., cannot be the product of chance or of some blind necessity in the nature of things. Their intelligent designer is God.
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.
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.
I believe that the human faculty of knowledge necessitates in the quest for truth. As for religious truth, this is a basic and fundamental question. For me personally, I have oscillated in the different modes of belief, albeit not necessarily religion. Eventually, I think I am a man of enlightenment. I believe that the quest for truth is the quest for evidence.
So far, there is nothing to prove that gods, or God exists in the physical empirical realm. I am however, under the same assumption, open to the idea that as long as there is matter, there is possibility of God (as even Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins, and Christopher Hitchens admit), and I would like to hear the other side prove it. As it stands now though, the odds astronomically favor the non-existence of God.
don't really see much material here. god is a concept that's obviously human specific. seeking a proof of god is less productive than finding out the source of the god concept as a human function. it's entirely unfounded.
proofs of god are sourced in problems with the logic/language context in the proof.
No, there is no evidence what so ever. And the better educated people become, fewer and fewer are also religious. This is a sane and healthy outcome. If no one taught religion, in a few generations, no one would be religious. I think it's important that people should try and learn as much as possible about the world around us instead of trying to adhere to a higher meaning, especially when there probably isn't one. If Islam would not be the law in so many countries, they would have been far more developed, and they would be less likely to be at war and they would have no reason to stone people to death on the street for being the victim of rape. I find it completely horrendous that in 2013, it's by law, perfectly OK to do that in those countries.
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.
Me too.
But the thing is the there is nothing to discuss about the concept of god because there is nothing you can really talk about it. You may talk the effects of religion on people and stuff maybe but i don't see this thread going too far.
But if you are really interested QualiaSoup on youtube has some quality content about this kind of stuff:
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.
Me too.
But the thing is the there is nothing to discuss about the concept of god because there is nothing you can really talk about it. You may talk the effects of religion on people and stuff maybe but i don't see this thread going too far.
But if you are really interested QualiaSoup on youtube has some quality content about this kind of stuff:
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWo3kTYb8W0
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wV_REEdvxo
_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk
Thanks, those are some interesting videos that bring up a lot of important points. I think one of the most important points was in the first video about the flaw of binary thinking. That really underlies most of it I believe.
Typically ignosticism is kind of lumped together with atheism as some of those videos kind of show. However, for me it is very different.
I'm actually a gnostic ignostic which I view as two aspects of the same thing. Basically, theism, atheism, ignosticism, etc, are all intellectual positions. However, an intellectual position isn't the the whole thing.
Gnostics believe one is saved through special spiritual knowledge known as gnosis. The material world is considered an illusion, and there is a true spiritual world beyond it. This gnosis is not intellectual knowledge but rather spiritual knowledge. You gain this knowledge not through reading books or with debates, but rather transcendental experiences. Life, death, love, etc.
Intellectually I take the ignostic position because it is an admission that it is pointless for the intellect to try to define and debate the concept of god. As the superstition video pointed out, the most reasonable conclusion may well be the indeterminate conclusion.
But just because one has this intellectual position doesn't mean one cannot have belief or faith. Faith just means that you feel or believe that there is something beyond what you currently experience. Is there a way, need, or desire to prove it? No, that would be foolish. By definition, if you could prove it then it wouldn't be beyond the current reality you are in.
So I don't concern myself with these debates on existence or non-existence, or try to use specific conceptions to extrapolate what I don't know. I admit not only my ignorance, but the necessity of it.
Instead I work on sharpening my senses physically, intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. It's all about perception of truth, self-observation, and the ability to learn. Conception then returns to it's proper place as an effect, rather than a cause.
On March 24 2013 20:00 fight_or_flight wrote: Until you can define what the word "god" means, discussion about his existence is pointless.
Additionally to defining the god, any one presenting a hypothesis for the existence of a god must also be willing to define what they mean by "existence" so that it can be determined if they are using the term in a way which is distinguishable from "nonexistence".
pointless for the intellect to try to define and debate the concept of god. As the superstition video pointed out, the most reasonable conclusion may well be the indeterminate conclusion.
I disagree completely.
There's different ways to form the debate, and I think this way makes sense: Most likely we are talking about the Abrahamic God. Either these ancient people made up this concept, taken from other religions during and prior to that time, or the "one and only" God does exist and did in fact approach these specific people (and communicated with people residing in this area of the world many times until the past 1000-2000 years give or take).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't KadaverBB close this thread? OP must be some special snowflake to have this back from the graveyard. Also, where is the KadaverBB post?
Anyway, isn't Aquinas argument of the Proof of God basically the most logical argument, being:
Motion. What is in motion must be put in motion by another and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be at the head of the series of movers, a being that is itself unmoved and that is the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.
Causation. This proof depends on the self-evident principles that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence and that every effect must have a cause. It is impossible for a thing to be the efficient cause of itself for, if it were, it would be prior to itself which is impossible. Since every effect must have a cause, that cause in turn must be the effect of another cause, and so on. But the process cannot go on to infinity. There must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.
Necessity or contingency. This proof, too, depends on the self-evident principle of sufficient reason, that is, that whatever exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. To explain the existence of beings that are unnecessary, that at one time did not exist, there must have always existed a necessary being, from whom beings that began to be received their existence. The existence of all other beings is contingent on the existence of this necessary being. This necessary being is God.
Perfection. When we perceive objects or people, we judge that they are more or less good, beautiful, kind, just, etc. But this presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. This absolute standard of perfection is God.
Design. Whatever exhibits marks of design must be the work of an intelligent being. Nobody could possibly believe that his wrist watch just "fell together." On the contrary, it was obviously designed by an intelligent designer. How much more so with the human body, the world and the universe. They all give evidence of an intelligent designer. The order of the universe, the workings of the human eye, etc., cannot be the product of chance or of some blind necessity in the nature of things. Their intelligent designer is God.
pointless for the intellect to try to define and debate the concept of god. As the superstition video pointed out, the most reasonable conclusion may well be the indeterminate conclusion.
I disagree completely.
There's different ways to form the debate, and I think this way makes sense: Most likely we are talking about the Abrahamic God. Either these ancient people made up this concept, taken from other religions during and prior to that time, or the "one and only" God does exist and did in fact approach these specific people (and communicated with people residing in this area of the world many times until the past 1000-2000 years give or take).
Ok, I agree with what you are saying. What I was saying above was that it's pointless to debate as a method to determining the truth.
However it's fine to debate and discuss all the different possibilities and what they may or may not be, what could be right or wrong, etc. Sometimes it's useful to choose a specific version to believe in for a period of time (suspending disbelief) and just see where those experiences take you. I was talking from more of a hardcore philosophical perspective rather than a practical perspective.
From an abductive reasoning perspective, which I've blogged about, it is actually useful to believe everything. Then you form parallel possibilities about what is true or not true each having certain probabilities, when change dynamically as you learn more.
- We would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
- The study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
- All religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.
But these are all not true. Well, then I would like to add that there is no need for discussion in this field as it's virtually impossible to compare science and religion. Both ideas have their own merits for humanity, once you bring religion into science or science into religion things go from bad to worse in a very short time.
My contrasting question would be: what is your intrinsic motive for debating empirical evidence from faith in god?
On March 24 2013 21:14 peacenl wrote: If we had empirical proof of God's existence:
- We would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
- The study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
- All religious people would be aligning on the God that had been scientifically proven to exist. Instead there are thousands of gods and religions.
But these are all not true. Well, then I would like to add that there is no need for discussion in this field as it's virtually impossible to compare science and religion. Both ideas have their own merits for humanity, once you bring religion into science or science into religion things go from bad to worse in a very short time.
How do you feel about esoteric science? Where the student is the object of his own study?
On March 24 2013 21:05 Twinkle Toes wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't KadaverBB close this thread? OP must be some special snowflake to have this back from the graveyard. Also, where is the KadaverBB post?
Anyway, isn't Aquinas argument of the Proof of God basically the most logical argument, being:
Motion. What is in motion must be put in motion by another and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be at the head of the series of movers, a being that is itself unmoved and that is the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.
Causation. This proof depends on the self-evident principles that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence and that every effect must have a cause. It is impossible for a thing to be the efficient cause of itself for, if it were, it would be prior to itself which is impossible. Since every effect must have a cause, that cause in turn must be the effect of another cause, and so on. But the process cannot go on to infinity. There must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.
Necessity or contingency. This proof, too, depends on the self-evident principle of sufficient reason, that is, that whatever exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. To explain the existence of beings that are unnecessary, that at one time did not exist, there must have always existed a necessary being, from whom beings that began to be received their existence. The existence of all other beings is contingent on the existence of this necessary being. This necessary being is God.
Perfection. When we perceive objects or people, we judge that they are more or less good, beautiful, kind, just, etc. But this presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. This absolute standard of perfection is God.
Design. Whatever exhibits marks of design must be the work of an intelligent being. Nobody could possibly believe that his wrist watch just "fell together." On the contrary, it was obviously designed by an intelligent designer. How much more so with the human body, the world and the universe. They all give evidence of an intelligent designer. The order of the universe, the workings of the human eye, etc., cannot be the product of chance or of some blind necessity in the nature of things. Their intelligent designer is God.
Meh. The first one is false. It rests on the assumption that there has to be a first ''term'' cause, because series can't go on infinitely. Math says: FALSE. I basically disagree with all his assumptions, mainly because his assumptions seem to be in strife with the knowledge we have about the universe. But his reasoning is sound if you accept his assumptions obviously.
Some proposed challenges to first cause arguments for consideration:
1) Causality breaks down at T = 0. Our current models for the beginning of the universe allow for both time and space to come into existence, meaning there is no time prior to the beginning of the universe for a necessarily temporal "cause" to take place. The question "what caused the universe to come into existence?" becomes a nonsensical question because there doesn't seem to be such a thing as T = -1.
2) Meaningful definitions of "nothing" seem to challenge the common sense notion that "nothing begets nothing". We have empirical evidence that empty space is unstable, and results in the spontaneous creation of particles. And we have no examples of more philosophical definitions of "nothing" to experiment on to verify the claim that only nothing can come from it. In fact, since existence is necessarily temporal, and philosophical nothing would have include the absence of time and space; it seems by definition such versions of "nothing" cannot actually "exist" in any sense of the word that we understand.
On March 24 2013 21:14 peacenl wrote: If we had empirical proof of God's existence:
- We would talk about the "science of God" rather than "faith in God".
- The study of God would be a scientific endeavor rather than a theological one.
These 2 lines pretty much sum up everything regarding this topic. There is no use trying to find definitive proof for something which requires faith. If there was any direct proof everyone would be unanimous in his choice and there would be no need for religious text, prophets to come to earth or for us to even have this discussion.
On March 24 2013 21:05 Twinkle Toes wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't KadaverBB close this thread? OP must be some special snowflake to have this back from the graveyard. Also, where is the KadaverBB post?
Anyway, isn't Aquinas argument of the Proof of God basically the most logical argument, being:
I find his argument rather weak, to be honest.
Motion. What is in motion must be put in motion by another and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be at the head of the series of movers, a being that is itself unmoved and that is the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.
The premise that the sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum is baseless. One can imagine such a thing (heck, you can even imagine some sort of space-time Moebius strip, that doesn't extend into infinity, but rather is looped). Also why is the premise that everything has to be "moved" by something suddenly lifted for the proposed first mover? Another baseless claim. Not to mention the fact that as a Christian, Aquinas adds a whole set of characteristics to that "first mover", including a personality, while in reality it could be just some natural event like the Big Bang. Not to mention the fact that he mixes up simple mechanics and ontological claims just like that. E.g. what is "a being that is itself unmoved" supposed to mean?
Causation. This proof depends on the self-evident principles that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence and that every effect must have a cause. It is impossible for a thing to be the efficient cause of itself for, if it were, it would be prior to itself which is impossible. Since every effect must have a cause, that cause in turn must be the effect of another cause, and so on. But the process cannot go on to infinity. There must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.
Casimir effect - apparently certain events do not need a cause. Not to mention the fact that instead of admitting he doesn't know what was at the beginning or if there was any at all, he arbitrarily lifts his rule and says God did not have to have a cause.
There's also a time paradox of a man being his mother, father, son and daughter (or however it went...) at the same time. Dunno what's the current consensus on that, but it's something to consider.
Necessity or contingency. This proof, too, depends on the self-evident principle of sufficient reason, that is, that whatever exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. To explain the existence of beings that are unnecessary, that at one time did not exist, there must have always existed a necessary being, from whom beings that began to be received their existence. The existence of all other beings is contingent on the existence of this necessary being. This necessary being is God.
This is, again, contradicted by science (e.g. the Casimir effect). It also does not follow that nothing would exist if there was no "first event".
There's also this assumption that the only explanation why there exists something is that back in the days there was this necessary being. Alternative explanation would be that there simply was no time when nothing existed, so introducing a necessary being is not necessary...
Not to mention the fact that Aquinas uses the word "exist" very loosely. How did he define "beginning to be"? Everything that surrounds us is a collection of energy-matter. It's been here since Big Bang. So does anything come into existence these days or do we have to go back to Big Bang or whatever the origin of energy-matter was?
Perfection. When we perceive objects or people, we judge that they are more or less good, beautiful, kind, just, etc. But this presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. This absolute standard of perfection is God.
This one went more like this:
"There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. "
This one is stupid beyond belief. This guy must've had no grasp of mathematics whatsoever.
What he's saying is essentially that we describe things by referring to the "uttermost" case, which e.g. in case of temperature would be equal to saying that today's temperature is 0,15% of infinity. This is beyond stupid, sorry.
Design. Whatever exhibits marks of design must be the work of an intelligent being. Nobody could possibly believe that his wrist watch just "fell together." On the contrary, it was obviously designed by an intelligent designer. How much more so with the human body, the world and the universe. They all give evidence of an intelligent designer. The order of the universe, the workings of the human eye, etc., cannot be the product of chance or of some blind necessity in the nature of things. Their intelligent designer is God.
On March 24 2013 21:44 zbedlam wrote: You can't prove or disprove anything based around faith.
I dunno, Aelfric's second video link "Putting faith in it's place" makes a pretty compelling argument that you can in fact disprove logically inconsistent faith based claims. Or did you mean to say that we can't convince some one who attempts to justify their belief with faith of this? If that's the case I would agree that it can be a difficult task, but certainly not an impossible one.
I simply lack a belief in deities because I've found no empirical reasons to believe in them. The onus is on the theist to present evidence for his belief if he so wishes to make religion and theism sound like anything more than just a defense mechanism or a belief in a guardian angel. And I'm fine with having a dialogue that's evidence-based rather than faith-based. I'm not going to say for certain that no deities can exist (I see no point in having such a strong position when a weaker one is just as effective- if not moreso- from a practical and proof-based standpoint), but the lack of evidence, poor arguments, and countless discounted mythologies that we've seen over the years surely points more towards god being created by man, rather than man being created by god.
I'm looking forward to reading any new arguments for the existence of a deity
I also like that the op structured it this way. Since I am in the "No God" side, I will just wait for others to present their proof and see how it is. I am eager that we move to phase 2. By the way, what would be the topic then? And how many phases will there be?
Being a supporter of an existing religion and being a theist should be two separate subjects of discussion. When I think of religion, I think of being a Christian, Muslim, etc. This is not the same as believing there is something more than our current realm of existence. While I think you need to give up rational thinking to support any of these archaic religions, that does not mean I rule out the existence of godlike/godly being(s).
To clarify the discussion, what are we talking about when we talk about god? Is this thing omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient? Is it immortal? Does it need to be any or all of these things?
On March 24 2013 20:03 Proxan wrote: No, there is no evidence what so ever. And the better educated people become, fewer and fewer are also religious. This is a sane and healthy outcome. If no one taught religion, in a few generations, no one would be religious. I think it's important that people should try and learn as much as possible about the world around us instead of trying to adhere to a higher meaning, especially when there probably isn't one. If Islam would not be the law in so many countries, they would have been far more developed, and they would be less likely to be at war and they would have no reason to stone people to death on the street for being the victim of rape. I find it completely horrendous that in 2013, it's by law, perfectly OK to do that in those countries.
I find it quite hard to believe this discussion is going to end in anything constructive with posts like this. Proxan's post if far more civil than 95% of all posts about religion, but still amount to rhetoric about religion not being rational or sane, with no examples or evidence or explanation of this point. And then just a good old generic the world would be better without it. As for the Islamic part, I'm not Islamic so i wont defend it beyond perhaps putting the notion in your head that 1.6 billion people follow islam and yet your idea of rape and stoning is not commonplace, which perhaps implies it only exists in the most extreme situations which conveniently suit your example, and furthermore people who do rape and stone people to death probably would most likely be horrible people in western society following no religion too.
As for the education = less religious, this is a claim made by many but with no scientific facts behind it. A) give me a definition of someone well educated and b) Show me a study that is unbiased by culture and western zeitgeist which actually shows conclusively that this is true, you wont, because it doesn't exist. Whats actually interesting is that one of the best studies preformed on this subject actually reveal that in America the rise of lack of faith is happening in the deep south, the bible belts, the northern states are not changing much if at all. What this shows perhaps is that with all the factors of the modern media and culture, that education does make people less religious at first, but then it reaches a steady state. But if you are to refute this or discuss this further we both need to cite proper studies with ample analysis and sample sizes.
The author of this video seems to get himself quite confused when it comes to prayer. First of all he cites coincidence, says this can be the case with prayer, so when do you know the difference. Well for a start why do people need to know the difference? Secondly as someone who believes in an omnipotent omnipresent God, they would surely say there was no coincidence, only a grand sort of micromanagement in the manifestation of a sort of chaos theory, leading to seemly random outcomes, after all how could a human mind possibly comprehend even the most simplest plan of such a powerful and knowledgeable deity.
Secondly he cites the confirmation bias idea. He seems to be very confused here as to what the confirmation bias actually is. The example of a rain-dance or a lucky hat is fair enough. You ignore the outcomes you dont want and selective dont remember them, and when an outcome you do want happens your brain adds extra weight to it within your memories, thus making you believe it works more than it doesn't. Well prayer clearly doesn't work like that, if a parents child they have been praying for relentlessly to survive say leukemia dies, the brain doesn't toss that aside, far from it. Religious people believe that prayers do have the answer no or are answered in a different way, so the confirmation bias idea has no application to this concept. The author is confused.
He then talks about responsibility for good bad things that happen ect. This is were it just become preposterous, there is no right or wrong in a secular society, everything is subjective. He starts talking about problems and wrong, as if these words have meaning without an objective definition, sigh.
This video is pretty bad, doesn't actually address any of the arguments, gives some vague philosophy on only what i assume is supposed to be some set theory paradox of some sort badly explained. The quality of the content of this video is just plain awful, why do people even watch them? You'd get more water tight argument from a George Carlin stand-up DVD.
Starts off with some basic logic and philosophy, then goes into the definition of atheism blah blah. Some rubbish about god needed worship when he doesn't, then making a huge amount of assumptions about some arbitrary definition of perfect. He then talks with a vocabulary of fancy words and says nothing for a while, ranting about the word atheism. And then makes another silly claim, apparently the default view is no God when your born, not only does he dismantle his own argument in the next sentence, he also fails to correct himself, clearly the default view is superstition as a whole, since a tribe in the amazon left to its own devices comes to the conclusion of some sort of deity usually, while us westerners who are told what to think through education don't. He then rants about the word atheists, and then talks about the persecution of atheists in the western world, haha, good one. Then again he talks about some subjective concepts, at least should be from his perspective, and then quotes spiderman.
On March 24 2013 21:42 eSen1a wrote: Religion is only a means for weak people that can't or don't want to accept their inevitable non-existence
Like James Clerk Maxwell?
And lastly on faith. Faith is not some word that anti-theists can throw around meaning "stupid thought" or "magic did it". One has faith that their wife will not cheat on them, one had faith that they would sit on a chair and it would not collapse. A girl has faith in the law system that when she brings her rapist up to trail he be given correct trail and sentence. Faith is not some "magic did it" excuse, it far more complicated than that, can "rational beings" start treating it as such and stop pretending that faith means something completely different when talking about deities to suit their needs than it does when these same "rational" beings use it in every day language with its proper meaning.
On March 24 2013 21:05 Twinkle Toes wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't KadaverBB close this thread? OP must be some special snowflake to have this back from the graveyard. Also, where is the KadaverBB post?
Anyway, isn't Aquinas argument of the Proof of God basically the most logical argument, being:
Motion. What is in motion must be put in motion by another and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be at the head of the series of movers, a being that is itself unmoved and that is the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.
The premise that the sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum is baseless. One can imagine such a thing (heck, you can even imagine some sort of space-time Moebius strip, that doesn't extend into infinity, but rather is looped). Also why is the premise that everything has to be "moved" by something suddenly lifted for the proposed first mover? Another baseless claim. Not to mention the fact that as a Christian, Aquinas adds a whole set of characteristics to that "first mover", including a personality, while in reality it could be just some natural event like the Big Bang. Not to mention the fact that he mixes up simple mechanics and ontological claims just like that. E.g. what is "a being that is itself unmoved" supposed to mean?
Causation. This proof depends on the self-evident principles that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence and that every effect must have a cause. It is impossible for a thing to be the efficient cause of itself for, if it were, it would be prior to itself which is impossible. Since every effect must have a cause, that cause in turn must be the effect of another cause, and so on. But the process cannot go on to infinity. There must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.
Casimir effect - apparently certain events do not need a cause. Not to mention the fact that instead of admitting he doesn't know what was at the beginning or if there was any at all, he arbitrarily lifts his rule and says God did not have to have a cause.
There's also a time paradox of a man being his mother, father, son and daughter (or however it went...) at the same time. Dunno what's the current consensus on that, but it's something to consider.
Necessity or contingency. This proof, too, depends on the self-evident principle of sufficient reason, that is, that whatever exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. To explain the existence of beings that are unnecessary, that at one time did not exist, there must have always existed a necessary being, from whom beings that began to be received their existence. The existence of all other beings is contingent on the existence of this necessary being. This necessary being is God.
This is, again, contradicted by science (e.g. the Casimir effect). It also does not follow that nothing would exist if there was no "first event".
There's also this assumption that the only explanation why there exists something is that back in the days there was this necessary being. Alternative explanation would be that there simply was no time when nothing existed, so introducing a necessary being is not necessary...
Not to mention the fact that Aquinas uses the word "exist" very loosely. How did he define "beginning to be"? Everything that surrounds us is a collection of energy-matter. It's been here since Big Bang. So does anything come into existence these days or do we have to go back to Big Bang or whatever the origin of energy-matter was?
Perfection. When we perceive objects or people, we judge that they are more or less good, beautiful, kind, just, etc. But this presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. This absolute standard of perfection is God.
This one went more like this:
"There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. "
This one is stupid beyond belief. This guy must've had no grasp of mathematics whatsoever.
What he's saying is essentially that we describe things by referring to the "uttermost" case, which e.g. in case of temperature would be equal to saying that today's temperature is 0,15% of infinity. This is beyond stupid, sorry.
Design. Whatever exhibits marks of design must be the work of an intelligent being. Nobody could possibly believe that his wrist watch just "fell together." On the contrary, it was obviously designed by an intelligent designer. How much more so with the human body, the world and the universe. They all give evidence of an intelligent designer. The order of the universe, the workings of the human eye, etc., cannot be the product of chance or of some blind necessity in the nature of things. Their intelligent designer is God.
The theory of evolution disagrees...
Forget Casimir effect. Read Krauss "The Universe from Nothing". Gravity is a real crazy entity. To summarize, Krauss claims that elements appear and disappear out of nothing once you add gravity, and it happens all the time.
Why is proving or disproving the existence of God the only thing people want to talk about? There's so much else to discuss.
To anyone who's tired of these stale debates why don't you read Karen Armstrong's "A History of God," "The Battle for God," and "The Case for God." She's a skeptic ex-nun who has a great take on religious history. Among other things, she does a great job of showing how what we're talking about today is really just a product of our time, and that this whole "Does God exist" question for most of history has not been particularly important. And it's not because people have been ignorant and superstitious. People have been quite sophisticated throughout history.
Even our modern notion of what "faith" is has very little to do with people meant by the word 1000 years ago.
So, if you're curious about religious experience and thought and understanding the world the way someone else might have centuries ago, Karen Armstrong is for you. Most of it is still relevant today.
Edit: Armstrong's jumping off point is not the existence of God but the existence of numinous experience. She accepts this as a fact, that people have had experiences that point to something beyond normal, everyday thought and sensory perception. (I've had these experiences myself from time to time.) She goes from those experiences to people's attempts to explain them, codify them, and bring them about consistently. Some people have only had one such experience once, and have spent their whole lives writing about them.
She shows how most attempts to explain these experiences fall flat on their face as far as rational language is concerned, but she also discusses how the point of religious language is not to be a logical, rational explanation of numinous experience, but more like a creative attempt to bring about the thing itself, or help you understand it when you get there. It's more like making art. Some people have a knack for it. Some people don't.
There are exercises and modes of thinking to help get into the state of mind where real creativity is possible, but explaining creativity is not a way to bring about creativity. Numinous experience is inherently paradoxical and illogical when described in rational language. That's reason for the centrality of myth, ritual, and contemplation in religious life, to bring about those experiences, that closeness to numinous experience, that sense of wonder, of that sense of God. But attempts to actually explain what God is, or is not, always fail.
It's like that Zen saying, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him." If you think you know what you're talking about, you're wrong.
This is why I get frustrated when the first topic about religion is whether or not God exists. It's too theoretical. Let's think like engineers. If something works, it doesn't really matter why so much as how. The question should be, in my humble opinion, "what ways of accessing numinous experience have worked for you?"
the funny thing is even if there was empirical evidence of God people won't believe. That has been a prevailing theme in the bible. so these are in the end all just excuses. believing doesnt just mean "God exists" but it means so much more, at least in the Christian sense. It honestly takes much much more to believe in God :p
Once you try to boil faith down to a logic though -- the religious person already lost. That's why threads like this don't really get anywhere for the most part. Just think about truth and go walk towards it, religious or not. If christians are right then people will find God, if not, then people will not. what's important is the "seeking" aspect and never getting complacent.
It clearly states that this is just the first part. why are you still talking about faith and history of bible etc. This part is just about the empirical proof of god. if you have nothing to say about it, dont shit on the thread and wait for the later parts.
On March 24 2013 22:16 UdderChaos wrote: And lastly on faith. Faith is not some word that anti-theists can throw around meaning "stupid thought" or "magic did it". One has faith that their wife will not cheat on them, one had faith that they would sit on a chair and it would not collapse. A girl has faith in the law system that when she brings her rapist up to trail he be given correct trail and sentence. Faith is not some "magic did it" excuse, it far more complicated than that, can "rational beings" start treating it as such and stop pretending that faith means something completely different when talking about deities to suit their needs than it does when these same "rational" beings use it in every day language with its proper meaning.
You're equivocating two very different definitions of "faith".
To have faith in your girlfriend as she goes off to college, or to have faith that your chair will hold you, implies a logical conclusion based off countless experiences and evidence (e.g., you trust your girlfriend because you've been dating for seven years, the chair has always supported your weight in the past and isn't creaking or broken, etc.).
On the other hand, there is also blind faith that some people throw around as a conversation-ender and as a reason to believe something instead of evidence (i.e., "Why do you believe this?" -> "I don't know; just have faith that it's true [so respect my belief].") You need to have (blind) faith that unicorns exist, for example, or anything else that doesn't have direct evidence to support it. And this type of faith is not worthy of respect (in my opinion).
While the first one is fine to use (as you can cite reasons why you believe something), dealing with arguments of blind faith are looked down upon because they don't necessarily provide a logical backing for a belief. And while some religious people or theists may attempt to argue from an empirical and evidence-based standpoint (definition one), many others think that blind faith suffices (definition two). The latter doesn't suffice when a dialogue is trying to emerge.
It's important to distinguish between the two, and that differentiation emerges when someone cares to (or doesn't care to) back up their claim.
On March 24 2013 22:31 S:klogW wrote: poeple read the OP lol.
It clearly states that this is just the first part. why are you still talking about faith and history of bible etc. This part is just about the empirical proof of god. if you have nothing to say about it, dont shit on the thread and wait for the later parts.
We first need a definition of "god(s)" before there can be any attempt to prove its (non)-existence.
Of course we have no empirical evidence. Look up Hume's no miracles argument. Humans will look for and thus find an explanation for everything. Thus there can't be any miracles and no way to verify God through empirical evidence.
Does that mean no evidence exists? No. Can we find it? According to this argument, no. So we're in a bad spot.
On March 24 2013 22:21 Milkis wrote: the funny thing is even if there was empirical evidence of God people won't believe. That has been a prevailing theme in the bible. so these are in the end all just excuses. believing doesnt just mean "God exists" but it means so much more, at least in the Christian sense. It honestly takes much much more to believe in God :p
Once you try to boil faith down to a logic though -- the religious person already lost. That's why threads like this don't really get anywhere for the most part. Just think about truth and go walk towards it, religious or not. If christians are right then people will find God, if not, then people will not. what's important is the "seeking" aspect and never getting complacent.
I don't really understand your points; can you elaborate?
1. "even if there was empirical evidence of God people won't believe" and so therefore providing evidence for your belief is worthless? Who says that people aren't open-minded about the existence of a deity? After all, the onus is on the theist to present evidence for his claim, if he so wishes to defend his belief. To just end the conversation with "You wouldn't believe me anyway" is a cop-out.
2. "It honestly takes much much more to believe in God :p" More than what? And what else does it take?
3. "Once you try to boil faith down to a logic though -- the religious person already lost." So if blind faith is illogical, what reason (other than a defense mechanism) should we have for actually employing a belief based on no evidence? People do it all the time, especially regarding the supernatural.
4. If any religion in particular is right, then that's a big deal. It's not as easily dismissible as "people will all end up believing what is right". Clearly that's not the case, since countless religions have existed and the majority of people haven't believed in any one particular religion. Most people who die every day clearly haven't found *the correct god or belief*, because so many people disagree on so many things.
On March 24 2013 21:05 Twinkle Toes wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't KadaverBB close this thread? OP must be some special snowflake to have this back from the graveyard. Also, where is the KadaverBB post?
Anyway, isn't Aquinas argument of the Proof of God basically the most logical argument, being:
Motion. What is in motion must be put in motion by another and that by another again. This cannot go on to infinity. Therefore, there must be at the head of the series of movers, a being that is itself unmoved and that is the source of all movement. This prime mover is God.
Causation. This proof depends on the self-evident principles that nothing can exist without a sufficient reason for its existence and that every effect must have a cause. It is impossible for a thing to be the efficient cause of itself for, if it were, it would be prior to itself which is impossible. Since every effect must have a cause, that cause in turn must be the effect of another cause, and so on. But the process cannot go on to infinity. There must be a first cause that is not caused by anything else and that contains in itself the sufficient reason for its existence. That first cause is God.
Necessity or contingency. This proof, too, depends on the self-evident principle of sufficient reason, that is, that whatever exists must have a sufficient reason for its existence.
If there was ever a time when there was nothing, there could never be anything. From nothing, nothing can come. To explain the existence of beings that are unnecessary, that at one time did not exist, there must have always existed a necessary being, from whom beings that began to be received their existence. The existence of all other beings is contingent on the existence of this necessary being. This necessary being is God.
Perfection. When we perceive objects or people, we judge that they are more or less good, beautiful, kind, just, etc. But this presupposes an absolute standard of perfection with which the less perfect are compared. This absolute standard of perfection is God.
Design. Whatever exhibits marks of design must be the work of an intelligent being. Nobody could possibly believe that his wrist watch just "fell together." On the contrary, it was obviously designed by an intelligent designer. How much more so with the human body, the world and the universe. They all give evidence of an intelligent designer. The order of the universe, the workings of the human eye, etc., cannot be the product of chance or of some blind necessity in the nature of things. Their intelligent designer is God.
First three are based on assumptions that are not necessarily true. Plus of course if everything requires a cause so does god.
On March 24 2013 21:44 zbedlam wrote: You can't prove or disprove anything based around faith.
I dunno, Aelfric's second video link "Putting faith in it's place" makes a pretty compelling argument that you can in fact disprove logically inconsistent faith based claims. Or did you mean to say that we can't convince some one who attempts to justify their belief with faith of this? If that's the case I would agree that it can be a difficult task, but certainly not an impossible one.
The latter.
You can point out flaws with religious belief all you want, they will adapt as needed if they have enough faith.
Taking the most common example - quite a bit of the bible has been proven to be factually incorrect, but luckily for Christians it isn't technically the word of god unlike some other notable religion so they just turn all the incorrect parts into metaphors. Or in some really backward places around the world they still take it literally.
On March 24 2013 22:31 S:klogW wrote: poeple read the OP lol.
It clearly states that this is just the first part. why are you still talking about faith and history of bible etc. This part is just about the empirical proof of god. if you have nothing to say about it, dont shit on the thread and wait for the later parts.
We first need a definition of "god(s)" before there can be any attempt to prove its (non)-existence.
What about the common sense definition of god as in god of religion, God the father among christians, Allah, Yahweh, and whoever else there is. This philosophical linguistic bullshit is really irritating.
On March 24 2013 22:31 S:klogW wrote: poeple read the OP lol.
It clearly states that this is just the first part. why are you still talking about faith and history of bible etc. This part is just about the empirical proof of god. if you have nothing to say about it, dont shit on the thread and wait for the later parts.
We first need a definition of "god(s)" before there can be any attempt to prove its (non)-existence.
What about the common sense definition of god as in god of religion, God the father among christians, Allah, Yahweh, and whoever else there is. This philosophical linguistic bullshit is really irritating.
Common sense definition? The Greeks have a far different understanding of their god(s) than the Christians. Monotheistic deities may be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc., while polytheism often presents different niches and vulnerabilities for different gods, so that they complement, interact, and interfere with one another. And this doesn't even include all the non-religious definitions of god (e.g., deistic).
It's an important thing to define, since you don't want an equivocation of the definition between two sides. If your arguing for apples and I'm arguing against oranges, the conversation just won't be constructive.
If you wish to argue for the monotheistic, almighty God, then it's important you make that clear (and then by all means, argue away!)
Although seemingly rational, there is nothing rational about wanting a rational discussion with fundamentalists who are deprived of any form of rationality (often related to their intelligence ceiling). Therefore I feel this thread has little hope.
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion greatly explains it and represents most of my views on this matter.
On March 24 2013 22:31 S:klogW wrote: poeple read the OP lol.
It clearly states that this is just the first part. why are you still talking about faith and history of bible etc. This part is just about the empirical proof of god. if you have nothing to say about it, dont shit on the thread and wait for the later parts.
We first need a definition of "god(s)" before there can be any attempt to prove its (non)-existence.
Why go down the semantics route? I think everyone that you ask now would agree on a basic definition of God, regardless, and specifically due to his religion. This just muddles up the discussion.
I think at this point it is safe to say that no sane person would go out, at least here in TL, and provide an empirical proof on the existence of God. So that practically resolves this part of the discussion.
Although seemingly rational, there is nothing rational about wanting a rational discussion with fundamentalists who are deprived of any form of rationality (often related to their intelligence ceiling). Therefore I feel this thread has little hope.
Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion greatly explains it and represents most of my views on this matter.
There is no God.
While I also enjoyed reading The God Delusion and agree with many of Dawkins's points, I can only agree that this thread has little hope when people write things like "there is nothing rational about wanting a rational discussion with fundamentalists who are deprived of any form of rationality (often related to their intelligence ceiling)", instead of a more constructive approach, in an attempt to possibly persuade fundamentalists to become moderates, moderates to become uncertain, and those who are uncertain to become more explicit non-believers.
To have a *proof* of God's existence, you can't rely on any empirical evidence. These proofs have to be done a priori (before experience). Thus it has to be similar to a mathematical proof, based on a priori cognitions. The problem is, the things we can know a priori are solely those things which allow us to experience things. We have pre-existing notions of space and time that allow us to perceive space and time, or at least some enabling faculty.
How those could possibly used as a proof of God's existence is beyond me. All of these supposed metaphysical truths "every event is preceded by an antecedent event", have no necessary validity in objective reality, especially when you're talking about a "time" before the universe began (and as our current physics research shows, such a concept is meaningless as time only came to exist as the universe began, not before).
Edit: Also I just re-read the section in the book, the definition of a priori truth is something which is not inherently contradictory or logically impossible. God's non-existence is distinctly perceivable, thus logically possible. Thus there is no a priori argument that his non-existence is impossible.
Therefore "proofs" must be thought of in probablistic terms, and thus be entirely empirical like the sciences. The argument from design (watchmaker) fails for an incredible variety of reasons, although its not immediately obvious why.
One only needs to read David Hume's book "Dialogues concerning natural religion" to see how flawed this argument is. + Show Spoiler +
To list some basic reasons: There could be a multitude of Gods (more likely, as a number of people come together to make a house, or join their knowledge together over generations in the creation of a watch), there could be one senile, old God who passed away after he created the world, and we continue hurtling through his universe unaware.
We could also easily be the result of some universal seed, that birthed a universe. If you say a watch is a sign of a creator, look around you: All of nature is incredibly complex, but we see it arise from seeds or eggs in their hosts' bodies. So if anything it is far more likely (by the argument from design) that the universe is the result of some universal seed or egg, and that it is part of a larger force of nature, rather than the intelligent design of a God.
In general there is a problem that the argument from design postulates that only thought could generate things. Why should this be so? We already have an example of nature doing this, apparently without much thought involved in the generation of a seed. Just because we have created things with our minds, does not mean that we can extend this reasoning to the whole universe. On what grounds can anyone claim, that the shipbuilder is analogous to the creation of the universe? The universe is extraordinarily diverse and unknown - we don't know anything about the possible modes of creation, particularly at its birth when things are most uncertain and the universe was very different from what it is now.
Also as David Hume points out, one of the major problems with religions is that the major ones argue against the other's existence. Its like have a room of people, and each one discounts the testimony of everyone else. How credible is any individual person's story (religion)? Combined with the likelihood that people can lie and fabricate ideas (which happens regularly) compared to the chance of breaking natural laws that have observed to be constant for millenia...there is an overwhelming likelihood that those who experience miracles are delusional or lying. Not trying to be insulting, but that's just how David Hume approaches it.
In the end he concludes, the real miracle is that people actually believe in religion .
The only remaining thing I am interested in are the spiritual experiences and "miracles" that people supposedly experience every day. Things like people describing a surgical procedure when they were in a coma, baffling doctors, or miraculous healings. Its a shame, as it seems that they just can't be verified.
Anyway I am always hopeful that there is something non-material in this world, and that I may experience it someday. I have certainly had a lot of strange experiences that I can't rationally explain, including one where I heard some spirit read the numbers off cards in a shuffled deck, face down. And he got them all right (he read like eight of them). It was pretty amazing...but of course, I expect no one in this thread to believe me. I could easily be delusional, or have mistaken my dreams for reality. But for me, I personally believe there is something more from that experience. What it is I cannot say.
On March 24 2013 23:17 oneofthem wrote: it's not about semantics. it's about how you would be able to tell you've found god once you see it. what god correspond to etc.
that this verification seems to be different for god as opposed to say, a tree, shows something about the concept
thats exactly the point isnt it. is there any physical evidence to prove something that religious people would consider god. it seems straight forward to me, I dont know why you people would insist on this "define" god bullshit. This is one reason why philosophy and linguistics achieve nothing, unlike science.
It's hard to discuss religion when people just jump to conclusions before reading the Bibble in an unbiased way, it's fashion to bash it, especially in these types of forum where people have a sort of punk-cyberspace philosophy, but really is it so hard to just do that? Some of the things in the bibble seemed pretty shocking to me when I started reading it in an unbiased way, hell check my old posts I was a hardcore atheists since I was like 16 years old and before that I didn't think something like 'god' was possible, I was never a believer, my family is full of communists-atheists in case you wondered about my family background, but really am I now? I don't know, maybe I am, the bibble is quite interesting, even after the million books and articles I've read through the years I still had so many questions about so many different things yet every time I pick the Bibble answers come, it's so strange that modern society behaviours can be explained by an over 2000 years old book, maybe we haven't changed in all these years, yes I know, maybe the Bibble was wrote by very smart people or maybe it is the word of god? I still have my doubts but one thing is certain my life has improved quite a lot, not that it was bad but I seem to have a clear picture now of many many things, if you're going to read it start from the beginning and like I said with a clear mind and no bias, remenber it's metaphoric, the meaning has to be though in order for it to make 'full sense', and you may want to ask god to reveal it's knowledge.
I need to blow my mind from time to time, it's like an addiction, it used to be Solaris, Ghost in the Shell, Childhood's end (now that one was good), Aeon Flux, Brave New World, 1984, Project MK Ultra, CIA and KGB operations and experiments, The Twilight Zone, Sigmund Freud ... You get the point... wow all that shit was good, if you feel like me and do just that, then just try reading the Apocalypse, now that's a scary mind blowing book like I've never seen before... actually all the other ones before don't come even close. It's really though provoking and quite scary.
On March 24 2013 23:28 Nevermind86 wrote: It's hard to discuss religion when people just jump to conclusions before reading the Bibble in an unbiased way, it's fashion to bash it, especially in these types of forum where people have a sort of punk-cyberspace philosophy, but really is it so hard to just do that? Some of the things in the bibble seemed pretty shocking to me when I started reading it in an unbiased way, hell check my old posts I was a hardcore atheists since I was like 16 years old and before that I didn't think something like 'god' was possible, I was never a believer, my family is full of communists-atheists in case you wondered about my family background, but really am I now? I don't know, maybe I am, the bibble is quite interesting, even after the million books and articles I've read through the years I still had so many questions about so many different things yet every time I pick the Bibble answers come, it's so strange that modern society behaviours can be explained by an over 2000 years old book, maybe we haven't changed in all these years, yes I know, maybe the Bibble was wrote by very smart people or maybe it is the word of god? I still have my doubts but one thing is certain my life has improved quite a lot, not that it was bad but I seem to have a clear picture now of many many things, if you're going to read it start from the beginning and like I said with a clear mind and no bias, remenber it's metaphoric, the meaning has to be though in order for it to make 'full sense', and you may want to ask god to reveal it's knowledge.
I need to blow my mind from time to time, it's like an addiction, it used to be Solaris, Ghost in the Shell, Childhood's end (now that one was good), Aeon Flux, Brave New World, 1984, Project MK Ultra, CIA and KGB operations and experiments, The Twilight Zone, Sigmund Freud ... You get the point... wow all that shit was good, if you feel like me and do just that, then just try reading the Apocalypse, now that's a scary mind blowing book like I've never seen before... actually all the other ones before don't come even close. It's really though provoking and quite scary.
Why do you spell bible with 2 b's "bibble"? And why did you become a believer? Do you have proof that god exists?
On March 24 2013 23:17 oneofthem wrote: it's not about semantics. it's about how you would be able to tell you've found god once you see it. what god correspond to etc.
that this verification seems to be different for god as opposed to say, a tree, shows something about the concept
thats exactly the point isnt it. is there any physical evidence to prove something that religious people would consider god. it seems straight forward to me, I dont know why you people would insist on this "define" god bullshit. This is one reason why philosophy and linguistics achieve nothing, unlike science.
it is not straightforward when you can't establish that any given piece of evidence is evidence for god.
also, the analytic solution to the god question is simple and very clear. it doesn't involve much searching for god with telescopes once you realize the search is futile. your understanding of philosophy is pretty piss poor i'm afraid.
On March 24 2013 23:17 oneofthem wrote: it's not about semantics. it's about how you would be able to tell you've found god once you see it. what god correspond to etc.
that this verification seems to be different for god as opposed to say, a tree, shows something about the concept
thats exactly the point isnt it. is there any physical evidence to prove something that religious people would consider god. it seems straight forward to me, I dont know why you people would insist on this "define" god bullshit. This is one reason why philosophy and linguistics achieve nothing, unlike science.
it is not straightforward when you can't establish that any given piece of evidence is evidence for god.
Why the f*** do you insist on this philosophical nonesense. Lets substitute it this way. Prove to me that a unicorn exists? You know, white horse with horn on its forehead, wings, flies on rainbows, etc.
God = all knowing, all present, all powerful being who created the universe.
What is there that needs to be defined?!!??? You people are disgustingly impossible.
On March 24 2013 23:17 oneofthem wrote: it's not about semantics. it's about how you would be able to tell you've found god once you see it. what god correspond to etc.
that this verification seems to be different for god as opposed to say, a tree, shows something about the concept
thats exactly the point isnt it. is there any physical evidence to prove something that religious people would consider god. it seems straight forward to me, I dont know why you people would insist on this "define" god bullshit. This is one reason why philosophy and linguistics achieve nothing, unlike science.
it is not straightforward when you can't establish that any given piece of evidence is evidence for god.
Why the f*** do you insist on this philosophical nonesense. Lets substitute it this way. Prove to me that a unicorn exists? You know, white horse with horn on its forehead, wings, flies on rainbows, etc.
God = all knowing, all present, all powerful being who created the universe.
What is there that needs to be defined?!!??? You people are disgustingly impossible.
you are only exasperated because you've given a definition. but let's say that's god, then religion is pretty pointless even if something like that exists.
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.
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.
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.
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 a lot of arguments to the existence of god which can be debunked given sufficient education on the themes that the argument touches upon. Just by looking at argument from intelligent design specifically it is as basic of a need from religious people to meet science halfway because their written arguments (the bible) does not measure up. They resort to cherrypicking segments, and make claims that their written word actually is cleverly worded metaphors for this or that discovery.
One universally appointed proof of god across religion is the fact that you cannot disprove the notion of a prime mover. Humanity is like that. We love cause and effect, and sometimes we misdirect that love. The fact that the argument still exists today means it has and never will be sufficiently debunked on a personal level despite the fact that most religious people have only invested their time on one such thing.
The need to socialize and engage with others of the same belief seamlessly trumps logic for these gamblers. They keep insisting for an ultimate answer as to why when the question itself is irrelevant, and in that search they turn to people who profess to know the answer through ancient texts and prophets when the fact that these are ancient texts should be enough of a signal to tell any reasonable individual that its not relevant anymore.
I think Neil has something to contribute on the existence of god. Primarily because he has a very fine presentation about it.
Newton and scholars / philosophers like him have throughout history invoked intelligent design at the limits of his knowledge (no mention of god before he reached that limit).
15% of top scientists today (20th century) hold the belief in a personal god (religious belief when highly educated does not equal zero). The public is secondary to finding out why 15% still cling to the belief of a personal god that answers their prayers (very spesific question that was asked in that particular survey).
Islamic scholar at 1100 AD influenced islam negatively by calling math the work of the devil. Never recovered since.
However egregious the big bang theory (origin of universe )is perceived. The notion of monkeys and humans having common ancestry is bigger.
Human eye is blind (We are sitting ducks to ionizing radiation). Unable to smell a majority of lethal gasses. A majority of birth defects are unaccounted for in medical science, and the problem is when you look for something that is designed intelligently is that the majority of discoveries are not intelligent. The universe is not here for us. Okay?
When science / atheism / agnosticism can offer a placebo for today monotheistic religions then we might see humanity progress. We've started to see that with the notion of oneness with the universe. The fact that we can trace ourselves to elements crafted within the stars. The discovery of methane in the air of mars halfway proving the existence of bacteria hiding under the ice.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'm not entirely sure I agree with your claim that someone can believe in anything at all. I think people have certain standards for belief or disbelief, and it's very hard to overcome certain absurd ideas (what is "absurd" is relative to each person's need and wants and experiences). 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. But of course, that doesn't mean that guardian angels or afterlives or anything else is necessarily true. Believing something doesn't make it actually real (I don't think you're actually saying it does, but it's a point worth mentioning), and I think that many people have trouble understanding others' perspectives when unfamiliar defense mechanisms or faith-based beliefs are employed. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is not really about science and faith though. Even many mainstream theologians now believe in evolution and the big bang. Whatever the scientists believe is out of the question.
This is about empirical proof of gods existence.
Let me also comment on the faith and science thing. The thing is, even if science does not and may not know anything, it does so with care to factual verifiable methods and deals with physical reality. For example, human knowledge, through science, has leapt so much in terms of particle physics that we can predict the life of a star, in quantum mechanics that we practically know the foundations of the universe, and can even retromap the unknowns in the universe based on scientific assumptions (see Higgs boson). All these knowledge are based on reality. What is faith in god based on? Feelings?
I would normally say there is no widely available empirical evidence for the existence of God, much less proof; as the evidence would depend upon sensory input. Fatima can qualify, I suppose, as could other miracles; but those definitely don't qualify as proof, being that they don't absolutely prove that a miracle did occur. And it makes sense in a way, from the Christian point of view, that such miracles would be limited to smaller groups or individually. One really shouldn't believe only because of miracles, nor should one disbelieve because one does not experience miracles. Faith should be a personal decision.
I love the internet though, where any random person can call Aquinas an idiot... lol.
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.
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.
An ignostic would reject this defintion as empty sophistry. "God is God, God is everything, etc." isn't satisfying because it doesn't have any explanatory power. If you made the common claim, for example, that God is infinite and exists beyond time and space, you would need to offer a precise explanation of what exactly that means in order for an ignostic to be satisfied.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Finally someone brave enough to admit his faith.
Ok, and this is not an attack, but an attempt to discuss with you. If there is no basis for your belief other than personal experience, is this not the same as, say imagination? What is the point of considering as truth something that cannot even be proved to exist.
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!
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.
So your belief is basically:
-Self-centered (I want people to mean something, so I'll believe in something which puts humanity at the centre of the universe when really we are but a drop in the ocean) -Some things seem to work as if they have been planned -It's nice and comforting for you.
Doesn't seem like enough for religious belief in my eyes.
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.
Posts like this are the ones who deserve an instant 90 day ban. Did you even make an attempt to read the OP and the discussion. Seems like you just came here to stir shit up. If only I had a report button.
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.
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.
On March 24 2013 23:17 oneofthem wrote: it's not about semantics. it's about how you would be able to tell you've found god once you see it. what god correspond to etc.
that this verification seems to be different for god as opposed to say, a tree, shows something about the concept
thats exactly the point isnt it. is there any physical evidence to prove something that religious people would consider god. it seems straight forward to me, I dont know why you people would insist on this "define" god bullshit. This is one reason why philosophy and linguistics achieve nothing, unlike science.
it is not straightforward when you can't establish that any given piece of evidence is evidence for god.
Why the f*** do you insist on this philosophical nonesense. Lets substitute it this way. Prove to me that a unicorn exists? You know, white horse with horn on its forehead, wings, flies on rainbows, etc.
God = all knowing, all present, all powerful being who created the universe.
What is there that needs to be defined?!!??? You people are disgustingly impossible.
You're pretty dense, aren't you? You just defined the word "God". Otherwise you wouldn't be able to discuss the concept. There are many, many versions of deities, they don't all have the same characteristics. E.g. the Christian/Aristotelean God is atemporal and has always existed, He's a male, is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, while ancient Greek deities came into existence, were not omnipotent (but had various supernatural powers), definitely not omnipresent, usually not omniscient, and were temporal, but immortal. Then you have your average deistic God that doesn't meddle into our business and usually has no human-like personality. Or Yahweh, a vengeful sadist from the Old Testament.
Frankly, I think it would be awesome if a God did exist.
I am a moral, caring and respectful person. I do not believe God exists. Some people would say I am doomed for eternal pain and suffering because of my lack of belief. I would hope that if God does and is the way so many of you describe him, an "ignorant" lack of belief would not wipe away my obviously Heaven worthy traits.
On another note; I just find so many inconsistencies in "God."
For example: Can God create a rock he cannot lift? He is all powerful after all...
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 01:28 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.
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.
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 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?
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 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.
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
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 01:28 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.
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.
1. Organized religion is acceptable because it teaches good ethics & morals. Once the organized religion attempts to convert non-believers it has become obsolete.
2. There is a fine line between brainwashing young children into religion & teaching good ethics/morals. In my eyes, nobody under the age of 18-20 should be able to fully commit themselves to a single belief/view (quite frankly, they haven't lived enough yet).
3. People should look beyond the two extremes, the religion-hating atheists & the preaching extremists. There is much more in the middle. For example: There are many more atheists that coexist in a loving manner with very religious people than there are religion-hating atheists. There are also many more religious people that coexist in a loving manner with extreme atheists than there are preaching extremists. Life is about happiness, not hate!
4. Good ethics & morals can be taught with the complete absence of religion.
5. Nobody should be told what to believe. I am speaking to both sides of the spectrum. Non-believers should never tell those in question or those who believe, what to believe. Believers should never tell those in question or those who do not believe, what to believe. Discovering one's religion & spirituality is 100% personal.
6. Questioning everything around you is a dangerous road. While I do believe that it is good to question many things around you, too many questions will lead to unhappiness and anxiety. The life we live on this earth is short and sweet, but too many questions will lead to a life that is sweet and sorrowful.
7. The goal of any religion, spiritual decision, or non-belief should always be to strive for personal happiness, helping others, and self-fulfillment.
My personal religious views:
1. There is something greater than us and our reality here on earth. I am not referring to any Christian God, Allah, etc. There are too many conflicting religions on our planet to allow me to believe in a single entity. Therefore, I believe there is an infinite (like our universe) number of possible God(s), spirit entities, greater beings. But, I do believe there is something out there greater.
2. Life/lives is/are a combination of nirvana, reincarnation, and heaven. I believe there is potential for looping lives (reliving lives until bliss/happiness/nirvana is achieved). But, I also believe there is potential for reincarnation (live one life until you move on to the next, once again repeating this process until bliss/happiness/nirvana is achieved). Once this eternal bliss/happiness/nirvana is achieved, the "next level" of reality is presented. This higher level of reality consists of complete understanding of everything and infinity. Only at this point do we realize that complete understanding of everything and infinity isn't true bliss. The higher being(s) allows us to restart at the "bottom level" of reality. I believe that "true bliss" is the state of being ignorant and striving for the ability to be all-knowing, but once it is achieved, it is no longer true bliss. This is why I believe we are all truly blessed to be living this current life, because we are in this exact situation.
3. The main point of my life is 100% not guided by my spiritual beliefs. I want to live a happy life with a family and always strive to be the best possible person I can be. I want to be friendly and coexist with everyone, regardless of personal belief, orientation, race, and sex.
This is the end of my rant. I hope you enjoyed it
PS: More important than everything I have written above: Love your friends and family. They will not be here with you forever, so enjoy your time with them.
On March 25 2013 01:51 S:klogW wrote: 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
Well, you see, this definition often leads to problems. Mainly because you first need to get rid of the idea of god as a puppet master that is pulling strings, that it is a single conscience, and also that it really cares what you are up to.
But ok, let's say we have a god that is all-know, all-present, all-powerful, and created the universe. Now what if I would add two extra properties that people often don't like added to their God because they want to personally feel special, like their Daddy God loves them:
I would like to add to that that this God does not consciously give a shit about us. The same way that most humans don't give a shit about the bug they squash under their feet. Or the cell in their body that has run its course, hell we are even smaller than that. We are a moldy small speck on a small speck in a maybe also small speck that is the universe. We are by no means significant to anything.
The second thing I would like to add is let's view this God as a programmer. He build the world like a coder builds a simulation. He adds all the parameters, even knows what it will all do and then let the thing run its course for his own amusement, although he might get bored of it and move on to other things pretty soon.
Do you believe it is good to teach morality based on faith? (i.e. Doubting Thomas etc..) And related to that, how can one learn from faith-based teaching without the dogma attached to it? Aren't you sort of assuming that the person is right in telling you these things because it's faith-based?
Lastly, why do you believe in some kind of god, instead of just no god? (I'm reminded of Freud's friend who was describing the vast ocean of feelings in religious sentiments).
I have seen evidence in God in many different ways, experiences, situations, nature, "coincidences". I think it is wasted effort that we try to come up with some scientific formula for God, when there probably isn't. I believe in God because I've experienced him in my life, that is the evidence I have for his existence. Yes, I doubt sometimes, but I am able to work through it, and come out the other side.
I think Religion is a real problem. In biblical times, this would correlate to the pharisees and saducees (sp?) of the day, and Jesus was not a fan of those guys. Christianity is about a relationship with a God who loves us, and was willing to make a sacrifice to save us from our messed up ways. When you throw religion into the mix, you get hurt people, rules and laws that may or may not have a place in today's society. Religion (I'm talking about Christianity here) is generally unhealthy. We are supposed to have a relationship with Jesus, and show/do what he did for us to others, so that they may also be saved by him.
This doesn't mean we should go about it trying to force people to listen and convert. I try to live my life to honor and glorify him - and hopefully people see that difference in me. It's hard, but very worthwhile.
I don't see very many, if any, people express this view of Christianity/God debates, and I just wanted to let you guys know, that there are a lot of us out there who don't want to ram anything down your throats. I would like to apologize to anyone who has been hurt be religion, christians, or myself, who may have caused pain, annoyance, or trouble.
tl; dr: Religion is the problem. Christianity should/is a relationship with God, rather than just following a set of rules. My views are constantly changing as I work through important issues, and hope you can do the same with an open mind.
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.
Well i don't think its that offtopic actually, because what im trying to say is, the discussion might ask the wrong questions
I think science isnt better off without religion, i think both can improve each other, the reason i say this doesnt mean i want science to stop looking at truth or observe etc but ideas create opportunities. When you accept the fact there might be more then just science and religion accepts science you get a broader and wider perspective, the more open minded we think the better we can come to solutions, also solutions based on truth and empirical data etc. Atleast thats my oppinion.
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?
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.
Definitely should be added in the HIGHLIGHTS OF THE DISCUSSION in the OP. Thank you very much for this post.
On March 25 2013 02:05 WoolySheep wrote: I have seen evidence in God in many different ways, experiences, situations, nature, "coincidences". I think it is wasted effort that we try to come up with some scientific formula for God, when there probably isn't. I believe in God because I've experienced him in my life, that is the evidence I have for his existence. Yes, I doubt sometimes, but I am able to work through it, and come out the other side.
I think Religion is a real problem. In biblical times, this would correlate to the pharisees and saducees (sp?) of the day, and Jesus was not a fan of those guys. Christianity is about a relationship with a God who loves us, and was willing to make a sacrifice to save us from our messed up ways. When you throw religion into the mix, you get hurt people, rules and laws that may or may not have a place in today's society. Religion (I'm talking about Christianity here) is generally unhealthy. We are supposed to have a relationship with Jesus, and show/do what he did for us to others, so that they may also be saved by him.
This doesn't mean we should go about it trying to force people to listen and convert. I try to live my life to honor and glorify him - and hopefully people see that difference in me. It's hard, but very worthwhile.
I don't see very many, if any, people express this view of Christianity/God debates, and I just wanted to let you guys know, that there are a lot of us out there who don't want to ram anything down your throats. I would like to apologize to anyone who has been hurt be religion, christians, or myself, who may have caused pain, annoyance, or trouble.
tl; dr: Religion is the problem. Christianity should/is a relationship with God, rather than just following a set of rules. My views are constantly changing as I work through important issues, and hope you can do the same with an open mind.
Thanks for reading this
Edit: first sentence had spelling mistakes
Thanks for posting this i feel the exact same way, so many christians give other christians a bad name like every christian wants to force others to think, act and behave like they do
On March 25 2013 01:51 S:klogW wrote: 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
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.
Well i don't think its that offtopic actually, because what im trying to say is, the discussion might ask the wrong questions
I think science isnt better off without religion, i think both can improve each other, the reason i say this doesnt mean i want science to stop looking at truth or observe etc but ideas create opportunities. When you accept the fact there might be more then just science and religion accepts science you get a broader and wider perspective, the more open minded we think the better we can come to solutions, also solutions based on truth and empirical data etc. Atleast thats my oppinion.
I respect your post and I even agree with it. But if you read the op, he wants to limit the discussion to this.
Its like saying, lets talk about America, but lets talk only about the history of Irish settlement in America. Now, given that limitation, would you still talk about Native Americans? Or the history of slavery? Or gun control in Kentucky? Obviously not. Like I said, they are very valid and in fact even correct at points, but this discussion has a different set of rules. Let us follow it.
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.
Freud said religion is a collective neurosis. If you ever had obsessive compulsive disorders in your life i think you can understand what he actually meant by saying this. "Faith" is like this little voice in your head that keep saying : "if you don't trust me, bad things will happen", just like when you have OCD. Once you're into it, it's really hard to convince yourself to stop it.
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.
Well i don't think its that offtopic actually, because what im trying to say is, the discussion might ask the wrong questions
I think science isnt better off without religion, i think both can improve each other, the reason i say this doesnt mean i want science to stop looking at truth or observe etc but ideas create opportunities. When you accept the fact there might be more then just science and religion accepts science you get a broader and wider perspective, the more open minded we think the better we can come to solutions, also solutions based on truth and empirical data etc. Atleast thats my oppinion.
I respect your post and I even agree with it. But if you read the op, he wants to limit the discussion to this.
Its like saying, lets talk about America, but lets talk only about the history of Irish settlement in America. Now, given that limitation, would you still talk about Native Americans? Or the history of slavery? Or gun control in Kentucky? Obviously not. Like I said, they are very valid and in fact even correct at points, but this discussion has a different set of rules. Let us follow it.
Yeah you are probably right, ill exclude myself from this topic then^^
Do you believe it is good to teach morality based on faith? (i.e. Doubting Thomas etc..) And related to that, how can one learn from faith-based teaching without the dogma attached to it? Aren't you sort of assuming that the person is right in telling you these things because it's faith-based?
Lastly, why do you believe in some kind of god, instead of just no god? (I'm reminded of Freud's friend who was describing the vast ocean of feelings in religious sentiments).
I have no answer for the first part because I have zero experience or understanding of teaching morality based on faith. I was raised in a household where there was a complete absence of religion.
For the second part: personally, it comes down to a very simple viewpoint of mine. Life is completely unbelievable, yet I am here. I am in fact here living this completely unbelievable life. This is why I choose to believe in some kind of higher being, rather than the absence of a higher being. However, I so understand why some people choose the opposite.
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.
I stopped believing in god when I learned about the holocaust and numerous other events in which humans have caused utter misery for one another. If religion makes someones life better then who am I to critisise, but there are 100 billion stars in our galaxy alone, even if there was a god, why should he concentrate on us when the universe is so massive.
TL:DR - Religion is not for me, but im not gonna stop someone believing if it makes their life worth living
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: 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.
So when the increase in solar luminosity scours the world of all life, when the entropic heat death of the universe brings about a final end to sentience and an eternity of oblivion, that is part of a design? Some design. Some designer.
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 "burden of proof" (evidence in this case) is on one side and not the other. That it why the topic is about empirical evidence of god and not empirical evidence of non-existence of god.
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.
I understand how that might be possible, but it all depends on the degree of angosticism. If the person literally has no idea, then you can't force them to say whether they are atheist or theist. It would be silly to force a person to fall into one camp or the other when the whole point of being agnostic is that you can't make any claims that would land you in either camp.
Its like saying I don't know what number will be rolled on a die, and then asking that person do you believe it will be greater than three or less than or equal to three?
But if a person is weakly agnostic, and doesn't know for absolute certain, then atheism or theism can be claimed simultaneously (i.e. atheist agnostic, theist agnostic). I am personally strongly agnostic on the question of some type of omnipotent creator of the universe. Since I have no way of knowing, I am neither a theist or an atheist. Comparatively, I am very weakly agnostic with regard to the Christian God (particularly with reference to the old testament). Overall I am an atheist in that regard; i.e. I don't believe, but I am not absolutely certain.
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 "burden of proof" (evidence in this case) is on one side and not the other. That it why the topic is about empirical evidence of god and not empirical evidence of non-existence of god.
I think all he's saying is that the burden of proof doesn't mean you have some default belief that God does not exist. Just because we have no evidence of wormholes doesn't mean my default belief is that wormholes don't exist. Thus it is kind of nonsensical to automatically rule out any possibility of the existence of a higher being (which we may define vaguely as some powerful creator of the universe)
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.
I haven't read the proof, but I will when I have time. Anyhow. Your reasoning is probably sound. However, you can reason anything based on whatever assumptions you make. We can't dispute your reasoning, but we can dispute your assumptions.
On March 25 2013 02:36 mcc wrote: 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.
I'm not participating in the religion debate, but for the sake of being the devil's advocate I'm going to nitpick at your point and say it's not true.
The proof that a sphere can be decomposed into two spheres is dependent on the axiom of choice. In Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, which I guess falls under "standard mathematics", it is impossible to prove or disprove the axiom of choice. (See Godel's incompleteness theorems) Therefore, under the standard math formal system that you claim exists, it is impossible to prove that you can split a sphere into two spheres. Mathematics proceeded by making this statement an axiom, something that is accepted to be true without proof. The post you quoted began with the axiom "It is possibly the case that there is a God", or equivalently, "There are no logical contradictions in this logical system if there is a God, and there are no logical contradictions if there is not a God." This statement is hugely nontrivial. However, like the sphere splitting proof, if you take this axiom (and the other axiom presented) to be true, then the proof is correct. Your point doesn't really mean anything.
On March 25 2013 02:36 mcc wrote: 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.
I'm not participating in the religion debate, but for the sake of being the devil's advocate I'm going to nitpick at your point and say it's not true.
The proof that a sphere can be decomposed into two spheres is dependent on the axiom of choice. In Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, which I guess falls under "standard mathematics", it is impossible to prove or disprove the axiom of choice. (See Godel's incompleteness theorems) Therefore, under the standard math formal system that you claim exists, it is impossible to prove that you can split a sphere into two spheres. Mathematics proceeded by making this statement an axiom, something that is accepted to be true without proof. The post you quoted began with the axiom "It is possibly the case that there is a God", or equivalently, "There are no logical contradictions in this logical system if there is a God, and there are no logical contradictions if there is not a God." This statement is hugely nontrivial. However, like the sphere splitting proof, if you take this axiom (and the other axiom presented) to be true, then the proof is correct. Your point doesn't really mean anything.
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.
I understand how that might be possible, but it all depends on the degree of angosticism. If the person literally has no idea, then you can't force them to say whether they are atheist or theist. It would be silly to force a person to fall into one camp or the other when the whole point of being agnostic is that you can't make any claims that would land you in either camp.
Its like saying I don't know what number will be rolled on a die, and then asking that person do you believe it will be greater than three or less than or equal to three?
But if a person is weakly agnostic, and doesn't know for absolute certain, then atheism or theism can be claimed simultaneously. I am personally strongly agnostic on the question of some type of omnipotent creator of the universe. Since I have no way of knowing, I am neither a theist or an atheist. Comparatively, I am very weakly agnostic with regard to the Christian God (particularly with reference to the old testament). Overall I am an atheist in that regard; i.e. I don't believe, but I am not absolutely certain.
Here comes a huge and pointless debate about the meaning of the word atheism. I have never understood why anyone actually cares about which of two very similar words they're being described by. I mean, you can call me a God-sympathizer instead of a theist, if you want, but it doesn't make a difference to anything because the name accorded to my beliefs is irrelevant to what my beliefs actually are. Atheism is apparently (according to New Atheists) not a belief, ergo all people who aren't theists of some kind are atheists. This definition of atheism basically means "doesn't have believe in God." It is completely fucking irrelevant to anything, but for some reason atheists in recent years have made this a big issue. Perhaps it's to bolster their numbers or something.
On March 25 2013 02:36 mcc wrote: 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.
I'm not participating in the religion debate, but for the sake of being the devil's advocate I'm going to nitpick at your point and say it's not true.
The proof that a sphere can be decomposed into two spheres is dependent on the axiom of choice. In Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, which I guess falls under "standard mathematics", it is impossible to prove or disprove the axiom of choice. (See Godel's incompleteness theorems) Therefore, under the standard math formal system that you claim exists, it is impossible to prove that you can split a sphere into two spheres. Mathematics proceeded by making this statement an axiom, something that is accepted to be true without proof. The post you quoted began with the axiom "It is possibly the case that there is a God", or equivalently, "There are no logical contradictions in this logical system if there is a God, and there are no logical contradictions if there is not a God." This statement is hugely nontrivial. However, like the sphere splitting proof, if you take this axiom (and the other axiom presented) to be true, then the proof is correct. Your point doesn't really mean anything.
This man is correct. Interestingly, this means that the job of the anti-theist is now to prove that God's existence is logically impossible since all things are possible until proven otherwise.
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.
Explain to me how this is the case.
The fossil records, ontogeny, phylogeny, etc. etc. From molecular biology, we can compare our DNA to that of gorillas and chimpanzees to calculate with good precision when homo sapiens came about. Most of the evidence suggests ~250,000 years, which only strengthens the argument.
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: 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.
So when the increase in solar luminosity scours the world of all life, when the entropic heat death of the universe brings about a final end to sentience and an eternity of oblivion, that is part of a design? Some design. Some designer.
What's your point? That our 80 year life span is now suddenly pointless because the universe will end one day. That if an eternal being designed something that his designs would have to be eternal as well? If God exists and he has a purpose for life. What's to say that the purpose he seeks from his creation can't be found without his creation being eternal. When scientist are in a lab do they need an endless experiment to get the results they seek? Anyway, heat death of the universe is just one theory. Scientists don't understand the nature of dark matter and even though current observations show the universe speeding up as it spreads they don't know if dark matter will suddenly reverse and cause the universe to collapse upon itself and cause another big bang.
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: 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.
The things you presented are not coincidence and science can easily explain them without invoking any design whatsoever. There are some "coincidences" that need to be explained, but you did not name one of them, so I suspect they were not what convinced you. And they are not explained as "coincidences". The answer is actually much more nuanced and is called anthropic principle. To use your example, if stars did not form, we would not be here wondering how come, so since the existence of starts is prerequisite to our existence, wondering why they are there is kind of pointless. There are issues with the principle and if you want to make non-strawman point you should concentrate on them.
There is empirical evidence of black holes, there is none for god.
But people's personal stories how they came to believe are irrelevant. Considering that believing in whatever religion/other similar stuff is heavily biologically predetermined they are just rationalizations for why they do believe, but they have absolutely no choice in the matter (as far as adults go).
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.
Explain to me how this is the case.
The fossil records, ontogeny, phylogeny, etc. etc. From molecular biology, we can compare our DNA to that of gorillas and chimpanzees to calculate with good precision when homo sapiens came about. Most of the evidence suggests ~250,000 years, which only strengthens the argument.
Oh, I thought we were talking about something else lmao
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.
I understand how that might be possible, but it all depends on the degree of angosticism. If the person literally has no idea, then you can't force them to say whether they are atheist or theist. It would be silly to force a person to fall into one camp or the other when the whole point of being agnostic is that you can't make any claims that would land you in either camp.
Its like saying I don't know what number will be rolled on a die, and then asking that person do you believe it will be greater than three or less than or equal to three?
But if a person is weakly agnostic, and doesn't know for absolute certain, then atheism or theism can be claimed simultaneously (i.e. atheist agnostic, theist agnostic). I am personally strongly agnostic on the question of some type of omnipotent creator of the universe. Since I have no way of knowing, I am neither a theist or an atheist. Comparatively, I am very weakly agnostic with regard to the Christian God (particularly with reference to the old testament). Overall I am an atheist in that regard; i.e. I don't believe, but I am not absolutely certain.
You can have beliefs regarding a deity without knowing for sure (or at all) whether or not the deity can be proven. Heck, you could think a deity can never be proven, but still choose to believe in it anyway (defense mechanism for comfort and guidance, blind faith, etc.). Even if some positions (e.g., agnostic theism) don't make sense to some people, that doesn't mean they're impossible to have.
As far as your dice analogy goes, that's simple probability and creating an association with previous experiences. I don't know what number will be rolled, but as far my familiarity with dice go (I may assume the integers 1-6 are the only answers, with each side having a 1/6 probability, etc.), I would still predict that the chance is 50/50 between 1-3 and 4-6. Even if my assumptions are wrong (and even if I know nothing about dice), I can still guess based on other reasons (e.g., expected value if I'm offered more money to guess a certain way and win).
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.
This is a much better way to describe how I feel than what I said earlier on in the thread.
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.
I understand how that might be possible, but it all depends on the degree of angosticism. If the person literally has no idea, then you can't force them to say whether they are atheist or theist. It would be silly to force a person to fall into one camp or the other when the whole point of being agnostic is that you can't make any claims that would land you in either camp.
Its like saying I don't know what number will be rolled on a die, and then asking that person do you believe it will be greater than three or less than or equal to three?
But if a person is weakly agnostic, and doesn't know for absolute certain, then atheism or theism can be claimed simultaneously. I am personally strongly agnostic on the question of some type of omnipotent creator of the universe. Since I have no way of knowing, I am neither a theist or an atheist. Comparatively, I am very weakly agnostic with regard to the Christian God (particularly with reference to the old testament). Overall I am an atheist in that regard; i.e. I don't believe, but I am not absolutely certain.
Here comes a huge and pointless debate about the meaning of the word atheism. I have never understood why anyone actually cares about which of two very similar words they're being described by. I mean, you can call me a God-sympathizer instead of a theist, if you want, but it doesn't make a difference to anything because the name accorded to my beliefs is irrelevant to what my beliefs actually are. Atheism is apparently (according to New Atheists) not a belief, ergo all people who aren't theists of some kind are atheists. This definition of atheism basically means "doesn't have believe in God." It is completely fucking irrelevant to anything, but for some reason atheists in recent years have made this a big issue. Perhaps it's to bolster their numbers or something.
With all due respect it may be meaningless to you but other people may enjoy understanding the precise meaning of the words that they use and where they stand. Its nice to clarify what is logically defensible vs what isn't - and although you may see it as the same thing, I think I made a good case that it isn't depending on context. Besides I don't even think its a big complicated debate, I feel like that paragraph pretty much sums up everything!
I think the reason why its important is that atheists are often charged as being the same as theists, but just on the other side in terms of strongly rebuking God's existence (whether its any God or just the Christian God I'm not sure). So its important to clarify who believes what and why, which requires definitions. When you look into it there actually is an irrational form of atheism, and a more rational, moderate atheist agnosticism (in my opinion). It varies based on what type of God you're talking about of course, which is probably why a lot of people default to ignostic in these matters until a specific God is introduced.
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.
I understand how that might be possible, but it all depends on the degree of angosticism. If the person literally has no idea, then you can't force them to say whether they are atheist or theist. It would be silly to force a person to fall into one camp or the other when the whole point of being agnostic is that you can't make any claims that would land you in either camp.
Its like saying I don't know what number will be rolled on a die, and then asking that person do you believe it will be greater than three or less than or equal to three?
But if a person is weakly agnostic, and doesn't know for absolute certain, then atheism or theism can be claimed simultaneously (i.e. atheist agnostic, theist agnostic). I am personally strongly agnostic on the question of some type of omnipotent creator of the universe. Since I have no way of knowing, I am neither a theist or an atheist. Comparatively, I am very weakly agnostic with regard to the Christian God (particularly with reference to the old testament). Overall I am an atheist in that regard; i.e. I don't believe, but I am not absolutely certain.
You can have beliefs regarding a deity without knowing for sure (or at all) whether or not the deity can be proven. Heck, you could think a deity can never be proven, but still choose to believe in it anyway (defense mechanism for comfort and guidance, blind faith, etc.). Even if some positions (e.g., agnostic theism) don't make sense to some people, that doesn't mean they're impossible to have.
As far as your dice analogy goes, that's simple probability and creating an association with previous experiences. I don't know what number will be rolled, but as far my familiarity with dice go (I may assume the integers 1-6 are the only answers, with each side having a 1/6 probability, etc.), I would still predict that the chance is 50/50 between 1-3 and 4-6. Even if my assumptions are wrong (and even if I know nothing about dice), I can still guess based on other reasons (e.g., expected value if I'm offered more money to guess a certain way and win).
That's a good point, people definitely could believe something even if they don't know. I just was responding to the claim made that calling yourself an agnostic, and denying that you are an atheist, is a claim made with ignorance with regard to what those terms mean. I wanted to show that it is perfectly defensible to call yourself an agnostic and not an atheist, as it depends on the degree of agnosticism.
Also you certainly would bet 50/50 as any sane person would . I just wanted to point out that based on that equal chance, there are no grounds for forming any "belief" about the die rolling a *specific* number. Of course you can believe in 50/50 odds, my question was meant to show the silliness of forcing someone to ascribe a higher probability to one side vs the other, as I see rational belief as the consequence of probability.
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: 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.
So when the increase in solar luminosity scours the world of all life, when the entropic heat death of the universe brings about a final end to sentience and an eternity of oblivion, that is part of a design? Some design. Some designer.
What's your point? That our 80 year life span is now suddenly pointless because the universe will end one day. That if an eternal being designed something that his designs would have to be eternal as well? If God exists and he has a purpose for life. What's to say that the purpose he seeks from his creation can't be found without his creation being eternal. When scientist are in a lab do they need an endless experiment to get the results they seek? Anyway, heat death of the universe is just one theory. Scientists don't understand the nature of dark matter and even though current observations show the universe speeding up as it spreads they don't know if dark matter will suddenly reverse and cause the universe to collapse upon itself and cause another big bang.
The point is the designer is either incredibly inept and incompetent, or incredibly callous and uncaring. Either way it would be unworthy of worship. Something that is greatly at odds with most people's idea of god.
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.
"all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ?
Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world.
So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning.
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.
That's a fair argument, but in specific cases. Can you point to a specific part of the argument that fails because of the fallacy you mentioned. I don't think there are any self-referencing statements/prepositions here.
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.
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.
You can't just lump all ontological arguments into one group; each one has to be shown to be incoherent individually. Can you show me the issue with this one?
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.
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
Well, kinda- this argument is a little more rigorous than those. But it really isn't terribly complicated. If you are willing to devote some time to figuring it out, it should be figure-out-able. Also, if you have a specific question about a step, I should (hopefully) be able to help (eventually- midterms )
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.
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.
On March 25 2013 02:36 mcc wrote: 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.
I'm not participating in the religion debate, but for the sake of being the devil's advocate I'm going to nitpick at your point and say it's not true.
The proof that a sphere can be decomposed into two spheres is dependent on the axiom of choice. In Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, which I guess falls under "standard mathematics", it is impossible to prove or disprove the axiom of choice. (See Godel's incompleteness theorems) Therefore, under the standard math formal system that you claim exists, it is impossible to prove that you can split a sphere into two spheres. Mathematics proceeded by making this statement an axiom, something that is accepted to be true without proof. The post you quoted began with the axiom "It is possibly the case that there is a God", or equivalently, "There are no logical contradictions in this logical system if there is a God, and there are no logical contradictions if there is not a God." This statement is hugely nontrivial. However, like the sphere splitting proof, if you take this axiom (and the other axiom presented) to be true, then the proof is correct. Your point doesn't really mean anything.
Anyway, all the responses are appreciated. Keep 'em coming :D.
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.
"all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ?
Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world.
So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning.
S5 seems to be a self-consistent and logical system. But if you don't like it, that's fine. You still have to show what step of the process doesn't make sense. I didn't just say "It says so in S5 so it's true". If I didn't use notation, and just said everything in words, it would still be the same argument.
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.
I understand how that might be possible, but it all depends on the degree of angosticism. If the person literally has no idea, then you can't force them to say whether they are atheist or theist. It would be silly to force a person to fall into one camp or the other when the whole point of being agnostic is that you can't make any claims that would land you in either camp.
Its like saying I don't know what number will be rolled on a die, and then asking that person do you believe it will be greater than three or less than or equal to three?
But if a person is weakly agnostic, and doesn't know for absolute certain, then atheism or theism can be claimed simultaneously. I am personally strongly agnostic on the question of some type of omnipotent creator of the universe. Since I have no way of knowing, I am neither a theist or an atheist. Comparatively, I am very weakly agnostic with regard to the Christian God (particularly with reference to the old testament). Overall I am an atheist in that regard; i.e. I don't believe, but I am not absolutely certain.
Here comes a huge and pointless debate about the meaning of the word atheism. I have never understood why anyone actually cares about which of two very similar words they're being described by. I mean, you can call me a God-sympathizer instead of a theist, if you want, but it doesn't make a difference to anything because the name accorded to my beliefs is irrelevant to what my beliefs actually are. Atheism is apparently (according to New Atheists) not a belief, ergo all people who aren't theists of some kind are atheists. This definition of atheism basically means "doesn't have believe in God." It is completely fucking irrelevant to anything, but for some reason atheists in recent years have made this a big issue. Perhaps it's to bolster their numbers or something.
I've stumbled across a justification for being specific regarding a "lack" of a belief in gods, rather than the affirmative claim that gods cannot exist:
Simply lacking belief means that the onus is not on you to provide affirmative proof. You're simply the skeptic, waiting for the theist to prove his god to you. In this case, atheism is the null hypothesis, the default position. It's similar to saying that you're not going out of your way to try and disprove unicorns, but you simply (and somewhat open-mindedly) choose not to believe in them until there is evidence or a good argument made for their existence. This is also the perspective of most atheists. It's like saying bald is a hair color, or "not playing tennis" is a hobby of yours... (weaker) atheism is lacking an affirmative claim and belief.
Many theists argue that atheism and theism are on par with each other as far as requiring "proof" is concerned, and this truly applies to only the atheists who choose to make the claim that gods cannot exist, rather than might exist (but lack evidence and therefore are not believed to exist). It's a matter of the burden of proof, and it tends not to be the atheists' problem.
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.
I understand how that might be possible, but it all depends on the degree of angosticism. If the person literally has no idea, then you can't force them to say whether they are atheist or theist. It would be silly to force a person to fall into one camp or the other when the whole point of being agnostic is that you can't make any claims that would land you in either camp.
Its like saying I don't know what number will be rolled on a die, and then asking that person do you believe it will be greater than three or less than or equal to three?
But if a person is weakly agnostic, and doesn't know for absolute certain, then atheism or theism can be claimed simultaneously (i.e. atheist agnostic, theist agnostic). I am personally strongly agnostic on the question of some type of omnipotent creator of the universe. Since I have no way of knowing, I am neither a theist or an atheist. Comparatively, I am very weakly agnostic with regard to the Christian God (particularly with reference to the old testament). Overall I am an atheist in that regard; i.e. I don't believe, but I am not absolutely certain.
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 "burden of proof" (evidence in this case) is on one side and not the other. That it why the topic is about empirical evidence of god and not empirical evidence of non-existence of god.
I think all he's saying is that the burden of proof doesn't mean you have some default belief that God does not exist. Just because we have no evidence of wormholes doesn't mean my default belief is that wormholes don't exist. Thus it is kind of nonsensical to automatically rule out any possibility of the existence of a higher being (which we may define vaguely as some powerful creator of the universe)
Knowledge is not an on/off switch. It is weighted based on evidence (and some other properties). It is perfectly safe to say god does not exist as the weight on the proposition that he does is close to 0. That is because there is no evidence, the proposition itself does not bring anything to the table in terms of explanatory power and also considering the history of the whole idea of god. In normal life when propositions have such a low weight we say they are false. For some reason in philosophy/theology people use different words just so they can sound smart. When I am saying something does not exist, it is always shortcut to saying that the proposition that it exists has low weight based on .... and that it is safe to assume it does not in fact exist .
Also note that word existence is heavily tied to having empirical evidence (be it sometimes subjective) and it is quite possible the word has no actual meaning outside empirical context.
On March 25 2013 02:43 Morufi1 wrote: 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.
(Saying this all as an atheist)
I disagree with the suggestion that "he does not want to" is an appropriate response for these kinds of questions (as the question is confirming capability, rather than desire), but I also think that these questions aren't very good ones either for proving a point.
Saying things like "Can god create a rock so heavy that even he can't lift it" or "Can god create a 4-sided triangle" are poor arguments because they're based on doing things that, by definition, can't occur. It has nothing to do with being omnipotent, and all to do with loopholes and mutually exclusive ideas. The best that can come from them is confirming that omnipotence technically doesn't exist in the most literal sense of "anything goes no matter what", because there is still a domain of things that can't happen by definition. So it really doesn't make much of a difference whether the claim is "all-powerful" or clarified to be "all-powerful within its definition and ignoring contradictions (so an incredibly strong and almighty conjurer)". And I don't think theists who agree to the omnipotent adjective have a problem with submitting to the latter definition either. It doesn't really detract from their position (there are far better arguments), and it's essentially a semantics game.
Anti-theist is more a person who despises the notion of a god, who actively wishes it's not true and takes comfort in the lack of evidence for it, however not necessarily convinced that no god exists. Hitchens was one such person, I suppose I'd count myself as one too.
On March 25 2013 03:22 Roe wrote: The name anti-theist works well for those who say gods cannot exist (rather than calling them "strong" atheists or something).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "antitheist" already refers to people who believe that a belief in god (or even religion) is harmful to society.
On March 25 2013 02:36 mcc wrote: 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.
I'm not participating in the religion debate, but for the sake of being the devil's advocate I'm going to nitpick at your point and say it's not true.
The proof that a sphere can be decomposed into two spheres is dependent on the axiom of choice. In Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory, which I guess falls under "standard mathematics", it is impossible to prove or disprove the axiom of choice. (See Godel's incompleteness theorems) Therefore, under the standard math formal system that you claim exists, it is impossible to prove that you can split a sphere into two spheres. Mathematics proceeded by making this statement an axiom, something that is accepted to be true without proof. The post you quoted began with the axiom "It is possibly the case that there is a God", or equivalently, "There are no logical contradictions in this logical system if there is a God, and there are no logical contradictions if there is not a God." This statement is hugely nontrivial. However, like the sphere splitting proof, if you take this axiom (and the other axiom presented) to be true, then the proof is correct. Your point doesn't really mean anything.
I consider axiom of choice part of standard math at this point. Yes, there are a lot of people who do not consider ZFC standard math, but you have to throw away a lot of math results if you reject axiom of choice. So , yes, it is possible to prove that using standard math (ZFC). But frankly my example was analogy and I could have used infinity of other examples if need be.
My point is that inferences in formal systems do not have necessarily any relevance to the real world. Even if we assume their axioms are true. Which in case of this issue is far from clear.
The fact is that there is lots of evidence against the existence of God once you start using Bayesian Reasoning (a mathematical measure of belief). Because absence of evidence is evidence of absence, this forces you to recognize how much evidence we have, and yet none of it points to anything supernatural. And yet, we're supposed to still believe that supernatural things exist. How silly.
For particular religions in general, you can quickly realize how little people actually believe in God by taking the Outsider Test of Faith. Using Bayes' Theorem with that, you will realize that a fundamentalist can't really justify a belief in God much greater than 50%. An agnostic can't really justify a belief in God greater than 0.5%, and a serious atheist puts the probability into negligible amounts. Even that is using rather generous assumptions.
God as a subject is moot. If you talk about "proving" the existence of God in the same realm as the theory of gravity you have a complete lack of understanding empirical evidence and the scientific theory. In science there is no proof: scientific theories are based on repeatable hypotheses.
Faith, however, is the anti-thesis because it denies the need for evidence. So drop the Ayn Rand, objectivity basis from the get go because it lacks any meaningful discussion.
Now, getting past the "proof" and scientific theory, there is theoritical evidence for a "creator," though very minimal and not enough for me to "believe" in one. We create AI that functions on its own. There is the possibility our functions were "created" by a mortal being but it's merely a philisophical theory based on a modern understanding of intelligence; good conversation for the realm of critical thinking but no of science.
So as I stand (I guess I have to state this) I'm agnostic: merely because I do not care about what happens after death and partially because of that .00001% idea of there being a mortal creator (Prometheus style.)
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: 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.
The things you presented are not coincidence and science can easily explain them without invoking any design whatsoever. There are some "coincidences" that need to be explained, but you did not name one of them, so I suspect they were not what convinced you. And they are not explained as "coincidences". The answer is actually much more nuanced and is called anthropic principle. To use your example, if stars did not form, we would not be here wondering how come, so since the existence of starts is prerequisite to our existence, wondering why they are there is kind of pointless. There are issues with the principle and if you want to make non-strawman point you should concentrate on them.
There is empirical evidence of black holes, there is none for god.
But people's personal stories how they came to believe are irrelevant. Considering that believing in whatever religion/other similar stuff is heavily biologically predetermined they are just rationalizations for why they do believe, but they have absolutely no choice in the matter (as far as adults go).
There is no empirical evidence that black holes as infinitely dense singularities exist. Loop quantum gravity states that they can't exist. We have observations of gravitational lensing, hawkings radiation, etc but that is not the same as evidence of a black hole. Black holes are still just a theory.
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.
"all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ?
Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world.
So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning.
S5 seems to be a self-consistent and logical system. But if you don't like it, that's fine. You still have to show what step of the process doesn't make sense. I didn't just say "It says so in S5 so it's true". If I didn't use notation, and just said everything in words, it would still be the same argument.
Self consistency means absolutely nothing in relation to the world. Does not mean that using scientific facts and that system you will arrive at scientific facts. There is no reason for me to show what step does not make sense as the whole inference is NOT empirical evidence. Which is what this topic is about. If this topic was about how can we prove God using formal systems I would not touch it with a stick except to say that it is meaningless.
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.
Science looks to explain what is and only in this capacity asks after the role of things (e.g. what role does cholosterole play in causing cardiac arrest). The role you' seem to be refering to is the role in "cosmic plan", a reason for something outside of it's immediate application and the believe that things have/need a reason as opposed to existing and playing a "role" (in the sene of funcioning) in existence. Which in turn imlies said "cosmic plan" or "higher agency" or whatever you want to call it. And this clearly is magical thinking.
'Transcendental scheme' implies there is a scheme in place to trancend something (presumably humans) to something (presumably a higher level of existence). Religion in a nutshell in other words.
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: 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.
The things you presented are not coincidence and science can easily explain them without invoking any design whatsoever. There are some "coincidences" that need to be explained, but you did not name one of them, so I suspect they were not what convinced you. And they are not explained as "coincidences". The answer is actually much more nuanced and is called anthropic principle. To use your example, if stars did not form, we would not be here wondering how come, so since the existence of starts is prerequisite to our existence, wondering why they are there is kind of pointless. There are issues with the principle and if you want to make non-strawman point you should concentrate on them.
There is empirical evidence of black holes, there is none for god.
But people's personal stories how they came to believe are irrelevant. Considering that believing in whatever religion/other similar stuff is heavily biologically predetermined they are just rationalizations for why they do believe, but they have absolutely no choice in the matter (as far as adults go).
There is no empirical evidence that black holes as infinitely dense singularities exist. Loop quantum gravity states that they can't exist. We have observations of gravitational lensing, hawkings radiation, etc but that is not the same as evidence of a black hole. Black holes are still just a theory.
I thought a black hole just referred to a gravitational body where light can't escape. I don't think you need infinitely dense singularities for that... so aren't you just talking about specific properties of black holes that we don't know yet?
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: 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.
The things you presented are not coincidence and science can easily explain them without invoking any design whatsoever. There are some "coincidences" that need to be explained, but you did not name one of them, so I suspect they were not what convinced you. And they are not explained as "coincidences". The answer is actually much more nuanced and is called anthropic principle. To use your example, if stars did not form, we would not be here wondering how come, so since the existence of starts is prerequisite to our existence, wondering why they are there is kind of pointless. There are issues with the principle and if you want to make non-strawman point you should concentrate on them.
There is empirical evidence of black holes, there is none for god.
But people's personal stories how they came to believe are irrelevant. Considering that believing in whatever religion/other similar stuff is heavily biologically predetermined they are just rationalizations for why they do believe, but they have absolutely no choice in the matter (as far as adults go).
There is no empirical evidence that black holes as infinitely dense singularities exist. Loop quantum gravity states that they can't exist. We have observations of gravitational lensing, hawkings radiation, etc but that is not the same as evidence of a black hole. Black holes are still just a theory.
We have evidence of black holes, you just mentioned some of it. We have no conclusive evidence about every aspect of them. We have absolutely no evidence of god whatsoever. Plus black holes do not necessarily equal "infinitely dense singularities". It is enough they have gravity strong enough not to allow light to escape.
On March 25 2013 02:48 Attica wrote: 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.
The things you presented are not coincidence and science can easily explain them without invoking any design whatsoever. There are some "coincidences" that need to be explained, but you did not name one of them, so I suspect they were not what convinced you. And they are not explained as "coincidences". The answer is actually much more nuanced and is called anthropic principle. To use your example, if stars did not form, we would not be here wondering how come, so since the existence of starts is prerequisite to our existence, wondering why they are there is kind of pointless. There are issues with the principle and if you want to make non-strawman point you should concentrate on them.
There is empirical evidence of black holes, there is none for god.
But people's personal stories how they came to believe are irrelevant. Considering that believing in whatever religion/other similar stuff is heavily biologically predetermined they are just rationalizations for why they do believe, but they have absolutely no choice in the matter (as far as adults go).
There is no empirical evidence that black holes as infinitely dense singularities exist. Loop quantum gravity states that they can't exist. We have observations of gravitational lensing, hawkings radiation, etc but that is not the same as evidence of a black hole. Black holes are still just a theory.
Not true; Just because you can not go to a black hole (that's "a black hole", not "the black hole") or put it in a lab does not mean it lacks evidence for it's existence.
On March 25 2013 03:22 Roe wrote: The name anti-theist works well for those who say gods cannot exist (rather than calling them "strong" atheists or something).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "antitheist" already refers to people who believe that a belief in god (or even religion) is harmful to society.
I'm just saying it'd be useful to distinguish them based on positive or null claims.
But from wikipedia:
An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a god." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular.
The Chambers Dictionary defines antitheism in three different ways: "doctrine antagonistic to theism; 'denial' of the existence of a God; opposition to God." To be clear, "opposition to God" is not in most meanings a statement that an anti-theist believes in a deity but opposes the being in the manner of maltheism, but for various reasons the position that it would be bad/immoral for such a being to exist. All three match Hitchens' usage, not only a generally anti-religious belief and disbelief in a deity, but also opposition to a god's existence.[2] The second is synonymous with strong atheism. The third and first, on the other hand, need not be atheistic at all.
Phase 1 of this thread was pretty much ended on the first page. This is a completely pointless and impossible exercise as we all already know that you cannot empirically prove the existence of any god. At best Phase 1 of this thread is going to turn into a likeminded circle-jerk of people patting each other on the back and condemning those who feel differently. I attempted to report the original post specifically for that reason but it appears that someone beat me to it. There is absolutely nothing constructive that can come of this thread.
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.
"all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ?
Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world.
So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning.
S5 seems to be a self-consistent and logical system. But if you don't like it, that's fine. You still have to show what step of the process doesn't make sense. I didn't just say "It says so in S5 so it's true". If I didn't use notation, and just said everything in words, it would still be the same argument.
At the root of this and any other ontological argument lies the commitment that possibility and necessity are meaningful concepts when employed in a formal system. Consider the following counter:
i) It is possible that god does not exist
ii) By i) god does not exist in some possible world
iii) A necessary being exists in every possible world
iv) god is a necessary being
v) By ii), iii) and iv) god does not exist
TL;DR: If you try to simply define god into existence, the argument will simply be shifted to whether it is even possible that such a god exists. Ontological arguments fail.
On March 25 2013 04:05 MVega wrote: Phase 1 of this thread was pretty much ended on the first page. This is a completely pointless and impossible exercise as we all already know that you cannot empirically prove the existence of any god. At best Phase 1 of this thread is going to turn into a likeminded circle-jerk of people patting each other on the back and condemning those who feel differently. I attempted to report the original post specifically for that reason but it appears that someone beat me to it. There is absolutely nothing constructive that can come of this thread.
How do you figure that you can't empirically prove the existence of any god?
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?
No I don't believe in any of those. They come as part of myth which is known to be myth. It is not backed by a history of people who wrote books and swore that those things are real and were willing to and in many unfortunate cases died without changing their stance.
But that is not the point of my question. As you mentioned in another post, this topic should be about logical and empirical discussions on what proves or disproves the existance of God. My question was simply how do you empirically use the existance of laws and principles which define how things work in our universe, disproves the existance of God. I just asked for someone who can make the clear logical conneciton between those things. A counter question asking if I believe in certain objects from fairy tales is not really in the spirit of the thread is it?
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?
No I don't believe in any of those. They come as part of myth which is known to be myth. It is not backed by a history of people who wrote books and swore that those things are real and were willing to and in many unfortunate cases died without changing their stance.
But that is not the point of my question. As you mentioned in another post, this topic should be about logical and empirical discussions on what proves or disproves the existance of God. My question was simply how do you empirically use the existance of laws and principles which define how things work in our universe, disproves the existance of God. I just asked for someone who can make the clear logical conneciton between those things. A counter question asking if I believe in certain objects from fairy tales is not really in the spirit of the thread is it?
But suppose people wrote books and swore in the reality of unicorns, would that mean it were true?
The question of what divides fairy tales from religion is a very important one.
First of all having no empirical proof of god doesnt mean God don't exist. a few years ago we had so little knowledge about the universe and galaxies and such, yet they existed even though we couldn't speak for their existance.
Someone said it was pointless to argue on god's existence if we didn't clarify what God meant. Good point, and if we're trying to be objective we can barely even describe god outside "the primary force of the universe", the first cause. calling god god or allah or yaveh is already subjective and refers to culture more than to god.
On the other hand God as seen in many religion is not Tangible. Based on that criteria, I doubt it is even possible to find any empirical proof of God.
If we look at religion instead, Levis-strauss, famous anthropologist, have said many times religion was more than often related to culture, he meant in there, that almost every god appears to be lookalike of its worshipers. meaning that religion is a very subjective manner to think the world. It is not an absolute truth, but generally if you beleive in allah, there's a good chance it's because your culturally related to islam.
Durkheim, reknown sociologist, studied the elementary bases of religous thoughts. he studied the simpliest form of religious which is totemism. his functionalist approach led to conlusions that described religious thought as a mean to justify the means of production of individuals, and strongly related to their direct environnement.
After the Shoa and Holocaust, Jews also questionned their beleif in God. How could God let such an irrational thing happen. it was pure nonsense, there's no possible and logical explanation to what happend. Thoughts were brought saying if there was a god, he was not what we believed he was.
There is emprical proof that human brain also has propention to religious thinking, it is true that we learn via causality. Ultimately religion is a human thing.
I think this debate needs an even larger philosophical question : what is existance. to some extand we exist only through others (our relations), in subjectivity. not only do we need to physically exist we need to be recognized by others in order to give meaning to simple existence. I'm not religious myself, nor do I "believe" in god, I wouldn't call my self atheist tho, I just don't care. God doesnt give meaning in my life, humans do. friends, love, family.
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.
"all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ?
Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world.
So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning.
S5 seems to be a self-consistent and logical system. But if you don't like it, that's fine. You still have to show what step of the process doesn't make sense. I didn't just say "It says so in S5 so it's true". If I didn't use notation, and just said everything in words, it would still be the same argument.
At the root of this and any other ontological argument lies the commitment that possibility and necessity are meaningful concepts when employed in a formal system. Consider the following counter:
i) It is possible that god does not exist
ii) By i) god does not exist in some possible world
iii) A necessary being exists in every possible world
iv) god is a necessary being
v) By ii), iii) and iv) god does not exist
TL;DR: If you try to simply define god into existence, the argument will simply be shifted to whether it is even possible that such a god exists. Ontological arguments fail.
Premises 1/2 and Premise 4 contradict each other directly. It is not possible for them to both be true at the same time, ergo the argument is unsound. Consider:
1)Blue is green 2)Blue is not green
C1) Therefore Red is the prettiest colour.
This is actually a valid argument, but it's still false.
Your argument appears to be constructed in reverse, or something. It should be:
1) Being is necessary iff it exists in every possible world 2) God is not a necessary being C1) Therefore God does not exist in every possible world
You can't say "God could possibly not exist" and "God is necessary" as two premises. That's the same as saying "P" and "not P" and then deducing "the moon is made of cheese." It might work better if you had said "If God exists, then God is necessary."
I'm not sure about the goal of the post, the very thing about god is that it is not possible to prove if he exists or not.
Even if he existed and presented himself to humans or sent some other Jesus on earth people would not believe him and call him a madman or an extraterestrial trying to abuse us.
The only thing out there is what people think, spiritual guys or science guys, whatever will be brought here will be subjective opinions. If there was some rational scientific way to "test" God(s) existence it would have been done, and if there was some kind of proof of any sort there wouldn't even be a debate.
Gods are not meant to be "proven" for a believer, even more for a scientist ( which isn't uncompatible with the first):
Believers just want something to believe, they don't want to meet/proove what/who they believe in, the only thing which matters is to have that unmovable anchor in their mind that protect them from whatever could threaten them Constant; that's what religion is made to be, something that doesn't change. If some bad luck made God(s) decide to take obvious actions again, it would completely nullify what's in the holy books because their new words would be what matters, and I don't think humans would like to be told what to do.
For scientists, if God existence is proven, god becomes an "Object" of the universe; another thing which existence must have an origin/reason. You should not be able to "measure" god. And even if we someday discover that there is an intelligent design in the structure of the universe or particles, it could have been done by some technologically advanced beings, not necessarily gods. Like if in the future humans manage to create totally new lifeforms with their own will; that would be a big hint that some other dudes might have done the same with us ( or DNA ), And wouldn't that be a proof that an absolute god doesn't exist? or would religious people claim that the souls of our creations would have been put there by God as an approval of it?
A thing I don't understand is all the pseudo arguments or "spiritual theorems" people put on the table to argue for the existence of god like the "motion chain" and all those foggy sentences that attempt to sound like some scienrific demonstration. For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
In short I think there can't be any proof that God exists or doesn't exist; because it's inherent to the concept of deities to remain unanswered. It's just a choice ( or an indoctrination most of the time unfortunately ).
As to my personal belief, I think I am amongst the agnostics. But if God(s) exists, I couldn't care less, just like a son with a father he never met. Why should we adore or be devoted to whoever created us?
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?
No I don't believe in any of those. They come as part of myth which is known to be myth. It is not backed by a history of people who wrote books and swore that those things are real and were willing to and in many unfortunate cases died without changing their stance.
But that is not the point of my question. As you mentioned in another post, this topic should be about logical and empirical discussions on what proves or disproves the existance of God. My question was simply how do you empirically use the existance of laws and principles which define how things work in our universe, disproves the existance of God. I just asked for someone who can make the clear logical conneciton between those things. A counter question asking if I believe in certain objects from fairy tales is not really in the spirit of the thread is it?
But suppose people wrote books and swore in the reality of unicorns, would that mean it were true?
The question of what divides fairy tales from religion is a very important one.
Supposing there were successive people in different eras of history who claimed that unicorns are real based their lives on propagating this belief, and were willing to die for this cause, I'd at least be inquisitive about what makes them say this. Since that didn't happen and this is a what-if lets leave unicorns, fairies, flying rugs and such out of this discussion.
The OP clearly mentions that at this stage people of faith are to put forward their empirical arguments on why they are so certain that God exists. Now in order to present any such arguments or evidence, it should at least be clear that: Is someone claiming that scientific principles prove that God doesn't exist? And if so what is the basis for this deduction. And that also would help with laying down what constitutes proof of existence and arguments for the opposite
On March 25 2013 04:41 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: I'm not sure about the goal of the post, the very thing about god is that it is not possible to prove if he exists or not.
Even if he existed and presented himself to humans or sent some other Jesus on earth people would not believe him and call him a madman or an extraterestrial trying to abuse us.
The only thing out there is what people think, spiritual guys or science guys, whatever will be brought here will be subjective opinions. If there was some rational scientific way to "test" God(s) existence it would have been done, and if there was some kind of proof of any sort there wouldn't even be a debate.
Gods are not meant to be "proven" for a believer, even more for a scientist ( which isn't uncompatible with the first):
Believers just want something to believe, they don't want to meet/proove what/who they believe in, the only thing which matters is to have that unmovable anchor in their mind that protect them from whatever could threaten them Constant; that's what religion is made to be, something that doesn't change. If some bad luck made God(s) decide to take obvious actions again, it would completely nullify what's in the holy books because their new words would be what matters, and I don't think humans would like to be told what to do.
For scientists, if God existence is proven, god becomes an "Object" of the universe; another thing which existence must have an origin/reason. You should not be able to "measure" god. And even if we someday discover that there is an intelligent design in the structure of the universe or particles, it could have been done by some technologically advanced beings, not necessarily gods. Like if in the future humans manage to create totally new lifeforms with their own will; that would be a big hint that some other dudes might have done the same with us ( or DNA ), And wouldn't that be a proof that an absolute god doesn't exist? or would religious people claim that the souls of our creations would have been put there by God as an approval of it?
A thing I don't understand is all the pseudo arguments or "spiritual theorems" people put on the table to argue for the existence of god like the "motion chain" and all those foggy sentences that attempt to sound like some scienrific demonstration. For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
In short I think there can't be any proof that God exists or doesn't exist; because it's inherent to the concept of deities to remain unanswered. It's just a choice ( or an indoctrination most of the time unfortunately ).
You are saying that if a god is measurable, it is per definition not a god?
So if a God answers prayers, it cannot be a God? Many religions believe that their God(s) answer(s) prayers of believers. This is actually a claim that can be tested emprically. If you were to measure the mortality rates of religious patients with a certain condition, and compare them with the mortality rates of non-religious patients with the same condition, and you found that they differ significantly, and that the results are extremely robust against all sorts of statistical shenanigans, then you would have some empirical evidence of a being that answers prayers. We would have measured the effect this being has on our universe, so by your definition, this thing cannot be a God. Is this correct?
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
On March 25 2013 04:49 Crushinator wrote:
You are saying that if a god is measurable, it is per definition not a god?
So if a God answers prayers, it cannot be a God? Many religions believe that their God(s) answer(s) prayers of believers. This is actually a claim that can be tested emprically. If you were to measure the mortality rates of religious patients with a certain condition, and compare them with the mortality rates of non-religious patients with the same condition, and you found that they differ significantly, and that the results are extremely robust against all sorts of statistical shenanigans, then you would have some empirical evidence of a being that answers prayers. We would have measured the effect this being has on our universe, so by your definition, this thing cannot be a God. Is this correct?
What if some advanced beings could design a device enabling them to "answer prayers" ? What i'm telling you is, how could you distinguish between very highly advanced beings (that remain hidden but nonetheless use technology and not "magic") from God? It's a bit of a paranoid point of view I admit; but still, how would you distinguish? Because you would feel like it?
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc.
I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
You are saying that if a god is measurable, it is per definition not a god?
So if a God answers prayers, it cannot be a God? Many religions believe that their God(s) answer(s) prayers of believers. This is actually a claim that can be tested emprically. If you were to measure the mortality rates of religious patients with a certain condition, and compare them with the mortality rates of non-religious patients with the same condition, and you found that they differ significantly, and that the results are extremely robust against all sorts of statistical shenanigans, then you would have some empirical evidence of a being that answers prayers. We would have measured the effect this being has on our universe, so by your definition, this thing cannot be a God. Is this correct?
What if some advanced beings could design a device enabling them to "answer prayers" ? What i'm telling you is, how could you distinguish between very highly advanced beings (that remain hidden but nonetheless use technology and not "magic") from God? It's a bit of a paranoid point of view I admit; but still, how would you distinguish? Because you would feel like it?
This is not specific to God. It can apply to any empirical observation. Any empirical evidence could just be some aliens fucking with our minds. Maybe there is no gravity, and some alien, perhaps a spaghetti-based lifeform, is using its superior technology to push us all down to the earth.
I just realised you distracted me from my question. If prayers get answered, can it be a God?
You are saying that if a god is measurable, it is per definition not a god?
So if a God answers prayers, it cannot be a God? Many religions believe that their God(s) answer(s) prayers of believers. This is actually a claim that can be tested emprically. If you were to measure the mortality rates of religious patients with a certain condition, and compare them with the mortality rates of non-religious patients with the same condition, and you found that they differ significantly, and that the results are extremely robust against all sorts of statistical shenanigans, then you would have some empirical evidence of a being that answers prayers. We would have measured the effect this being has on our universe, so by your definition, this thing cannot be a God. Is this correct?
What if some advanced beings could design a device enabling them to "answer prayers" ? What i'm telling you is, how could you distinguish between very highly advanced beings (that remain hidden but nonetheless use technology and not "magic") from God? It's a bit of a paranoid point of view I admit; but still, how would you distinguish? Because you would feel like it?
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."
At least when you can acknowledge that perceived events have an understandable cause you can eventually work towards understanding. Eventually then we could realize that in fact it was some unknown beings tampering with earth. However the problem comes with how much religion loves ignorance, if you simply believe that God did it and don't look any further you will never know the truth.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
On March 25 2013 04:59 Crushinator wrote: This is not specific to God. It can apply to any empirical observation. Any empirical evidence could just be some aliens fucking with our minds. Maybe there is no gravity, and some alien, perhaps a spaghetti-based lifeform, is using its superior technology to push us all down to the earth.
I just realised you distracted me from my question. If prayers get answered, can it be a God?
yep sorry I didn't mean to distract you :p If prayer get answered, it can be God just as much as it can be someone else. So it's still not a proof, it's still subject to belief.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Atheists reject the existence of gods for a reason. An infinite number of gods are imaginable. Do you reject none of them, based on that you can't prove their inexistence?
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
On March 25 2013 04:59 Crushinator wrote: This is not specific to God. It can apply to any empirical observation. Any empirical evidence could just be some aliens fucking with our minds. Maybe there is no gravity, and some alien, perhaps a spaghetti-based lifeform, is using its superior technology to push us all down to the earth.
I just realised you distracted me from my question. If prayers get answered, can it be a God?
yep sorry I didn't mean to distract you :p If prayer get answered, it can be God just as much as it can be someone else. So it's still not a proof, it's still subject to belief.
Proof is something that is limited to mathematics.
I don't mind at all telling people that I am a religious person. I do believe in God.
To turn the great question around: Are there any empirical proofs that there is no God?
Why is there such a notion that knowledge based only on personal experience should only be handled as imagination and is not true? Why do people think that faith and belief is something that only regards religion and has nothing to do with science?
The principle of faith - to hope that something exists that is not seen nor experienced - is well embedded within all human beings. You have done a great deal of things in your life without knowing the outcome, but only hoping for it. Would a farmer sow without hoping it would grow? Would you ever turn on the light switch if you did not think it would be light? At some early point in your life you did this by means of faith, without knowing it would happen. In fact, you still do this by faith (back up by a lot of past experience) since the bulb may be out, or the power may be down.
Let's talk about other aspects of your life you take for granted only backed up by faith and personal experience without empirical evidence. I'm sure there is someone in your life you love. You believe they love you too. You may be experiencing their love, and this knowledge is way more important to you than Fermat's last theorem, but there is no empirical evidence of their love. Is this all an imagination?
Even in science we see a lot of this. I am from Norway and in Norway feminism stands really strong, so the theory of evolution may for some feel political incorrect since it gives clear roles to males and females. Gender research actually base all their work here on the assumption that there are no mental and psychological differences between males and females, only physical. (They ignore biology completely). This has resulted in some pretty hilarious results that the rest of the world just can't accept. This because of a belief. These are professors and not just graduate students. It is the same in the real subjects (except for math). The hypothesis is the belief that something intuitive, but neither seen nor experienced, may be true and the scientific method is used to check whether this is actually the case.
I am under the firm belief that 99% of all human actions are based on feelings and not rational thinking. (This fact in itself has nothing to do with religion). We use our rational thinking to justify our acts of feelings. Just use the example of why you bought that delicious candy, or why you chose to be together with your girl/boyfriend. Did you try to calculate all possible outcomes of your actions and follow the one which was most logical or did you "follow your heart"?
I can only speak for myself, but I feel that my personal conviction of there being a God is somewhat similar to the hypothesis --> theory ---> law method, but on a personal level. You hope that there is a God. You do something to check your hope (pray, try to follow what you think a God would want you to do etc.) Then I experienced an answer from God. (I do not want to go into details on that in this forum), that for me, was a sufficient proof. My faith, however, is not based on that one experience (as gravity has not only been experienced once) but I feel I receive constant confirmations of my belief.
We cannot say that all things we just feel are right and have no empirical proof of are just out imagination fooling us. For most of us, our most precious convictions, atheist, agnostic or religious are actually not based on any empirical proof. Rather our faith and feelings.
I understand many of you disagree with me and that's OK, but please don't call me a blinded fundamentalist with little understanding of science. I have studied many religions and have a masters degree in mathematics. I am, in fact, often more mad with fundamentalists than most atheists are
On March 25 2013 05:08 Crushinator wrote: Atheists reject the existence of gods for a reason. An infinite number of gods are imaginable. Do you reject none of them, based on that you can't prove their inexistence?
I don't reject or believe in gods; i just say that if i saw one, it could as well be some very advanced being. Hence, even with god under my eyes it couldn't possibly be an absolute proof because of the doubt. In the end it's still just a choice between believing or not. My position is "I don't know, and if I knew I'd doubt what I know" Oo
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
No, this is incorrect. Please do not spread misinformation. You are ignorant about what constitutes atheism, it has a clear definition and there is no real debate as to the meaning of the word.
When you ask me not to be picky you are asking me to simply accept your erronous assertion about atheism. Sorry, no can do. Again, the abscence of proof argument is void, since atheism doesn't say what you think it says.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
For anyone that has heard of the Navigators (a Christian discipleship program), i went on a Colorado retreat to a lake of theirs where they serve children in the summer. It got burned up in the wildfires so we went to help aid, and it was the most breaktaking experience with God i've had in a long time. :D
On March 25 2013 05:13 Xiphias wrote: The principle of faith - to hope that something exists that is not seen nor experienced - is well embedded within all human beings. You have done a great deal of things in your life without knowing the outcome, but only hoping for it. Would a farmer sow without hoping it would grow? Would you ever turn on the light switch if you did not think it would be light? At some early point in your life you did this by means of faith, without knowing it would happen. In fact, you still do this by faith (back up by a lot of past experience) since the bulb may be out, or the power may be down.
I'm sorry but this makes no sense at all. The child flipping the switch, saw that when his parents flipped it a light came on, the farmer is sowing seeds because he saw other people do it, and he also has some understanding of the fact that plants come from seeds. They are doing these actions for a reason and are not based on faith at all. The hypotheses of the switch producing light and the seeds producing crops are also testable
In the bible at the beggining says that the problem with knowledge without god or that denies god, is that usually leads to arrogange, smart people can turn into arrogants because they think they know more than anybody else, they end up thinking that there is no need to listen to what others have to say, that in itself is self-defeating, they become their own barriers in their search of knowledge. Their inability to listen to someone else's ideas leads to enlightened ignorance, the sum of their ideas even if it's a large sum could be based in a central idea that was wrong all along but they never noticed, even though everybody told them they were wrong at the core. They could die just like Christopher Columbus did, until the very last moment he though he arrived at the other side of India, even when everybody told him he was in a new land all along... This does not only apply to the so called 'debate' in this thread, but to every aspect of life, I see so many economists on the news or other types of people that for not having an open mind keep repeating their same wrong ideas over and over, it seems incredible that some people don't catch up with the world, just go to any thread about for example the Iraq war and you will see smart persons who still believe that somehow the war was to bring the iraqui's 'democracy' (I don't want to start a controvery it's just the example that comes to my mind) when anybody else can see that that was not the point... Putting arrogance away is a great thing in the search of knowledge, remenber how many scientists died thinking they were right about a particular idea and how they weren't able to admit it even though everybody told them and you will see that the greatest mind can still be fooled by the most simple thing.
Somtimes I think about this when I see a thread like this, no offense, where smart people keep 'debating' such a thing as the proof of god's existence, if he does indeed exist and you believe then you don't need proof, if you think the contrary then no proof will convince you because that is how faith works, and in the bible says that god works with the law of nature, more or less, so you can't expect a miracle that goes against that like some dude growing an arm back, because meat means nothing. What if a being after billions of years of evolution could create life with a simple though? Impossible? How would you know? The universe has been going on forever, our knowledge of it means nothing, so dismissing something because it's not making wounded people grow limbs back is, having a closed mind to say the least.
This thread is a waste of time. See the posts beneath this for further proof of mindless arguments.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
Fair point, one should make sure to differentiate between proof and evidence. Suffice to say then, that the evidence is poor and unsatisfactory at best.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
Fair point, one should make sure to differentiate between proof and evidence. Suffice to say then, that the evidence is poor and unsatisfactory at best.
For most discussions, the evidence provided would be considered astoundingly complete. Not to argue that there shouldn't be a higher standard in the God debate than any other, but the eye-witness testimony of thousands, if not millions, throughout history. The experience of miracles by thousands, if not millions. The rapid growth of the early Christian church (unparallelled by any other religion). I mean, if thirty thousand separate people all told you with absolute certainty that they had seen Person A shoot Person B, you would probably convict based on that alone. If not you, than most. It's interesting to think about though. At what point does the fact of disbelief begin tainting the evidence, just as desire to believe can taint it the other way?
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
No, this is incorrect. Please do not spread misinformation. You are ignorant about what constitutes atheism, it has a clear definition and there is no real debate as to the meaning of the word.
When you ask me not to be picky you are asking me to simply accept your erronous assertion about atheism. Sorry, no can do. Again, the abscence of proof argument is void, since atheism doesn't say what you think it says.
i wasn't trying to start an argument on atheism, so let's say you are right. Please do not call people ignorants unless you have some severe credibility proof of your own expertise (so unless you are some university teacher or got a phd in letters, don't call anyone an ignorant please, and even then don't, just because it's rude). I must admit I picked up the definition from dictionnary and after a fast lookup on internet. In my dictio. it says "one who doesn't believe in or denies the existence of an absolute being" so i made my sentence based on that, if i didn't go deep enough in my understanding of what atheism means i apologise.
When i ask you not to be picky, i just want not to start a debate on atheism because i didn't use it with a profound thinking on it.
So to correct myself i'll reformulate: i don't understand people that just choose to believe god doesn't exist, without proof of his inexistence, just as much as i don't understand believers for the same reason
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.
Because laws around the world are created based on religion. People are killed on a daily basis because of religion. Wars are fought because of religion. All without proof. We either need to find proof of God to justify all this ridiculousness, or people need to stop believing that nonsense
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
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.
Because laws around the world are created based on religion. People are killed on a daily basis because of religion. Wars are fought because of religion. All without proof. We either need to find proof of God to justify all this ridiculousness, or people need to stop believing that nonsense
Now that's just ridiculous. So because of the actions of some outsider, who is in no way personally connected with myself, and in many cases doesn't even share the same belief as me, nor worship the same God, I have to either provide proof immediately or disbelieve? As if my belief somehow makes me complicit in the murders. Fucking outrageous if you ask me.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
Fair point, one should make sure to differentiate between proof and evidence. Suffice to say then, that the evidence is poor and unsatisfactory at best.
For most discussions, the evidence provided would be considered astoundingly complete. Not to argue that there shouldn't be a higher standard in the God debate than any other, but the eye-witness testimony of thousands, if not millions, throughout history. The experience of miracles by thousands, if not millions. The rapid growth of the early Christian church (unparallelled by any other religion). I mean, if thirty thousand separate people all told you with absolute certainty that they had seen Person A shoot Person B, you would probably convict based on that alone. If not you, than most. It's interesting to think about though. At what point does the fact of disbelief begin tainting the evidence, just as desire to believe can taint it the other way?
What if 1.2 billion people said person A shot person B. 1 billion people said person C shot person B. 800 million said person B was shot by an gang of people that did not include person A or C, a couple hundred million said that there is no such thing as shooting, a couple hundred million dont know what to believe exactly, but are pretty sure SOMETHING happened, and a couple hundred million more dont think there is enough evidence to convict anyone of a shooting, or indeed that anyone got shot
On March 25 2013 05:08 Crushinator wrote: Atheists reject the existence of gods for a reason. An infinite number of gods are imaginable. Do you reject none of them, based on that you can't prove their inexistence?
I don't reject or believe in gods; i just say that if i saw one, it could as well be some very advanced being. Hence, even with god under my eyes it couldn't possibly be an absolute proof because of the doubt. In the end it's still just a choice between believing or not. My position is "I don't know, and if I knew I'd doubt what I know" Oo
I find this to be a dishonest position. I don't think it's what you actually believe.
If I asked you what color the Statue of Liberty was, you would say "green." I would follow up with "Do you KNOW it is green?" and you would say "Yes, I have seen pictures" or "I have seen it myself."
However, can you be absolutely certain that you aren't hallucinating? Perhaps it has been painted in the meantime and no one has reported on it? It is possible, from your perspective, that the Statue of Liberty is not green, however unlikely.
The idea of absolute certainty is not just impossible to meet (for any claim ever, positive or negative), but it is also completely and utterly pointless. When somebody says they know something, they are not referring to absolute certainty, because nobody is EVER referring to absolute certainty. The only time people ever refer to absolute certainty is discussion of religion, for painfully obvious reasons.
So I will certainly assert that I know god does not exist (based on Bayesian Probability). And I think if you talked honestly you would say the same thing.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
So there's "evidence" for every deity and mythical being ever existing? Because of course, there are eyewitness accounts of everything, from Zeus to UFOs. You're saying that god is as well-defended as the Loch Ness Monster and ghosts? You realize that someone claiming they saw something magical doesn't mean it wasn't a hallucination or a dream or wishful thinking, right?
This is not a matter of good evidence vs. bad evidence. One needs to assess the claim first, to see if it's even evidence to begin with. It's not a good argument, and so it's not evidence at all.
Straight from wikipedia (don't bash me for this, but it is pretty straight-forward)
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]
So Atheism does indeed include the view that GOD does NOT exist. Unless you want to label that as something other than atheism.
Now as to the question of why a person should act or not act based on something which can't be proven, I agree that religion is comparable to superstitions (a line of argument taken by many atheists). A black cat crossing your path may or may not result in misfortune. But in case of superstitions there is empirical proof of something being real or not real. You will find people verifying that a black cat crosses their path all the time but nothing bad really happened to them. But in case of religion, one of the primary factors which drives people to practice it is that there is no one who can come back from the dead and re-assure them that there is no afterlife and all this stuff about God is just a myth.
I know that just goes back to the lack of empirical proof problem. We very well may never have empirical proof that God does or doesn't exist or what happens after we die. But one rational thing about being religious is that at least you are safe in case God does exist, the chances of which are 50% based on the established "lack of proof". Now since there is at least some presented evidence (albeit weak) ie. the existence of people claiming to be prophets and claiming the existence of God and a notion of punishment/reward in the afterlife, I don't see why one shouldn't err on the side of caution.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
Fair point, one should make sure to differentiate between proof and evidence. Suffice to say then, that the evidence is poor and unsatisfactory at best.
For most discussions, the evidence provided would be considered astoundingly complete. Not to argue that there shouldn't be a higher standard in the God debate than any other, but the eye-witness testimony of thousands, if not millions, throughout history. The experience of miracles by thousands, if not millions. The rapid growth of the early Christian church (unparallelled by any other religion). I mean, if thirty thousand separate people all told you with absolute certainty that they had seen Person A shoot Person B, you would probably convict based on that alone. If not you, than most. It's interesting to think about though. At what point does the fact of disbelief begin tainting the evidence, just as desire to believe can taint it the other way?
I don't mean to come off as obtuse here, but in your example of the murder, I would hold off the verdict until the forensics team had filed their report. That, to me, would hold far more weight than any amount of witnesses. People lie, chemistry and DNA, as a general rule, do not. If there was no technical evidence to bind the person to crime, I would acquit him.
Also, there is one thing about your example which does not quite resonate with me. In the god debate, people have a vested interest in believing, in trying to convince others or themselves that what they say is true. A random witness in a trial will usually try to be as truthful as possible, to avoid charges of perjury, not caring much either way whether the accused is convicted or not. A religious assertion is more often than not backed also by the wish for it to be true, which distorts perception and clouds judgement. I would say that a witness in a trial is typically more objective than a person who says that they had a religious experience or communed with the divine.
On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
No, this is incorrect. Please do not spread misinformation. You are ignorant about what constitutes atheism, it has a clear definition and there is no real debate as to the meaning of the word.
When you ask me not to be picky you are asking me to simply accept your erronous assertion about atheism. Sorry, no can do. Again, the abscence of proof argument is void, since atheism doesn't say what you think it says.
i wasn't trying to start an argument on atheism, so let's say you are right. Please do not call people ignorants unless you have some severe credibility proof of your own expertise (so unless you are some university teacher or got a phd in letters, don't call anyone an ignorant please, and even then don't, just because it's rude). I must admit I picked up the definition from dictionnary and after a fast lookup on internet. In my dictio. it says "one who doesn't believe in or denies the existence of an absolute being" so i made my sentence based on that, if i didn't go deep enough in my understanding of what atheism means i apologise.
When i ask you not to be picky, i just want not to start a debate on atheism because i didn't use it with a profound thinking on it.
So to correct myself i'll reformulate: i don't understand people that just choose to believe god doesn't exist, without proof of his inexistence, just as much as i don't understand believers for the same reason
Well, people typically believe God exists because they are Christian, people are typically Christian because their family is Christian. Christianity is based around the teachings of an ancient people in a tribal society, and the teachings of a divine individual of which we only have second hand accounts hundreds of years after the fact. I'm not trying to be condescending, I merely want to demonstrate that not choosing to believe in this is not that absurd.
For Atheists I never understood them either. "the absence of proof is not a proof of absence", never understood the counterarguments to this sentence.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Everything exists by that standard.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Everything exists by that standard.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil?
And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious???
On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
No, this is incorrect. Please do not spread misinformation. You are ignorant about what constitutes atheism, it has a clear definition and there is no real debate as to the meaning of the word.
When you ask me not to be picky you are asking me to simply accept your erronous assertion about atheism. Sorry, no can do. Again, the abscence of proof argument is void, since atheism doesn't say what you think it says.
i wasn't trying to start an argument on atheism, so let's say you are right. Please do not call people ignorants unless you have some severe credibility proof of your own expertise (so unless you are some university teacher or got a phd in letters, don't call anyone an ignorant please, and even then don't, just because it's rude). I must admit I picked up the definition from dictionnary and after a fast lookup on internet. In my dictio. it says "one who doesn't believe in or denies the existence of an absolute being" so i made my sentence based on that, if i didn't go deep enough in my understanding of what atheism means i apologise.
When i ask you not to be picky, i just want not to start a debate on atheism because i didn't use it with a profound thinking on it.
So to correct myself i'll reformulate: i don't understand people that just choose to believe god doesn't exist, without proof of his inexistence, just as much as i don't understand believers for the same reason
Ignorance is not an insult. It simply means lack of knowledge. I am ignorant about many things, it does not mean I am stupid. I am not really sure what credentials I could offer, I don't think a position like "professional atheist" exists.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
A large majority of people who live today, and who have lived in the past, have not believed in the christian god. It seems the witness evidence, would lead us to believe the christian god does not exist.
On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: [quote]
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
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.
"all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ?
Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world.
So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning.
S5 seems to be a self-consistent and logical system. But if you don't like it, that's fine. You still have to show what step of the process doesn't make sense. I didn't just say "It says so in S5 so it's true". If I didn't use notation, and just said everything in words, it would still be the same argument.
At the root of this and any other ontological argument lies the commitment that possibility and necessity are meaningful concepts when employed in a formal system. Consider the following counter:
i) It is possible that god does not exist
ii) By i) god does not exist in some possible world
iii) A necessary being exists in every possible world
iv) god is a necessary being
v) By ii), iii) and iv) god does not exist
TL;DR: If you try to simply define god into existence, the argument will simply be shifted to whether it is even possible that such a god exists. Ontological arguments fail.
Premises 1/2 and Premise 4 contradict each other directly. It is not possible for them to both be true at the same time, ergo the argument is unsound. Consider:
1)Blue is green 2)Blue is not green
C1) Therefore Red is the prettiest colour.
This is actually a valid argument, but it's still false.
Your argument appears to be constructed in reverse, or something. It should be:
1) Being is necessary iff it exists in every possible world 2) God is not a necessary being C1) Therefore God does not exist in every possible world
You can't say "God could possibly not exist" and "God is necessary" as two premises. That's the same as saying "P" and "not P" and then deducing "the moon is made of cheese." It might work better if you had said "If God exists, then God is necessary."
While you are right that my argument is written sloppily, your objection is besides the point. You could simply change iv) to god is defined as a necessary being and conclude that a god defined in such a way is internally inconsistent and thus a logical impossibility. But notice that ontological arguments exactly use this relationship in order to bring god into existence. Sure if it is only possible that god necessarily exists then given some ontological commitment to modal realism or possible world semantics it follows that god necessarily exists. But if it were possible that god did not exist then be argument can be turned on its head.
So the interlocutor needs to assume that while it is possible that god exists it is not possible that god does not exist, which reveals the whole silliness of the endeavor.
On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: [quote]
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Everything exists by that standard.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil?
And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious???
I would argue that the failure of nature (science) to produce anything supernatural has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God. I would further argue that the Problem of Evil is only a problem if one believes that God has a responsibility to stop all evil immediately.
And yes, Christianity has more reliable witnesses. This isn't hard to argue. Have you ever met a person who believes they've been abducted or have seen Big Foot? They are not usually the most rational people. Plenty of Christian witnesses have been extremely rational, logical people. Plenty of disbelievers have been converted by a miracle; another rarity in the big foot, alien abduction cases. Most witnesses of those things started off by believing. In fact, I can't think of almost any that were disbelievers until it happened to them.
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
On March 25 2013 04:51 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: [quote]
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
A large majority of people who live today, and who have lived in the past, have not believed in the christian god. It seems the witness evidence, would lead us to believe the christian god does not exist.
With over 2 billion believers, I wouldn't say a large majority. Sure, a majority, but not exactly vast.
In the case of a murder that occurred in Georgia, one should not say that because no person in Alaska witnessed the murder occur that this constitutes evidence that it didn't. The lack of testimony from parties not present or not involved doesn't really come into the equation.
Last time I checked, true atheism is the absolute rejection of a deity. The "in between" stance that states: maybe there is a god, maybe there isn't, I cannot decide without proof is called agnosticism.
Then there is a myriad of many other stances in the spectrum. But I think those 2 are the common terms used to distinguish between someone that says "maybe" and someone that says a definitive "no".
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Everything exists by that standard.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil?
And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious???
I would argue that the failure of nature (science) to produce anything supernatural has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God. I would further argue that the Problem of Evil is only a problem if one believes that God has a responsibility to stop all evil immediately.
And yes, Christianity has more reliable witnesses. This isn't hard to argue. Have you ever met a person who believes they've been abducted or have seen Big Foot? They are not usually the most rational people. Plenty of Christian witnesses have been extremely rational, logical people. Plenty of disbelievers have been converted by a miracle; another rarity in the big foot, alien abduction cases. Most witnesses of those things started off by believing. In fact, I can't think of almost any that were disbelievers until it happened to them.
How much of the New Testament is written way after the death of supposed Jesus of Nazareth???
It doesn't matter if you were argue about the failure of science to produce results. It still is evidence against you. Any restriction and detail is evidence against you, because every restriction and detail lowers the probability of it being true. As is the Problem of Evil, which is far more incredible evidence against than you are giving it credit, when considering the lack of medicine in the bible and other abnormalities. If you are going to talk about the evidence for God's existence, then obviously you cannot throw out the evidence against God's existence. Otherwise it is blatant confirmation bias.
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Everything exists by that standard.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil?
And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious???
I would argue that the failure of nature (science) to produce anything supernatural has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God. I would further argue that the Problem of Evil is only a problem if one believes that God has a responsibility to stop all evil immediately.
And yes, Christianity has more reliable witnesses. This isn't hard to argue. Have you ever met a person who believes they've been abducted or have seen Big Foot? They are not usually the most rational people. Plenty of Christian witnesses have been extremely rational, logical people. Plenty of disbelievers have been converted by a miracle; another rarity in the big foot, alien abduction cases. Most witnesses of those things started off by believing. In fact, I can't think of almost any that were disbelievers until it happened to them.
When I hear someone talk about relationships with jesus and miracles I judge their testimony to be exactly as rational as testimony of alien abductions
On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: [quote]
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific?
And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific?
And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
Why not just abandon your ad populum arguments? They aren't valid.
You seem to have misunderstood a fundamental tenet of atheism.
thank you so much your post helpt me to isolate my fundamental misunderstanding in a very clear and unequivocal way ^^
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Everything exists by that standard.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
You're correct.
If I start talking about how I'm seeing giant cockroaches walking in and out of my apartment on a daily basis that is clear evidence and eye-witness testimony that they exist. Now, if someone asks "Has anyone else seen them?" to find out if they really exist people might even find more eye-witnesses testimonies aka more evidence. No one on this planet can 100% disprove that giant cockroaches walk in and out of my apartment on a daily basis. It is impossible to disproof something like that.
However, if they indeed do exist it should be possible to find reliable, trustworthy proof for them. Videos, photos or even experiments giving proof of their existance.
So, yes, you are right. It is impossible to disprove the existence of anything that someone claims that exists. It doesn't matter if it's about giant cockroaches, UFOs or, to come back to the topic: God.
As soon as someone says that what he believes in exists but he can't provide proof for it it's pretty damn hard to take it seriously, no matter if it's something that's around for a week or thousands of years. Millions of people believing in something without any proof for its existence doesn't make them more right.
-"God exists." -"Show me proof." -"If you don't believe in him you will never see any proof of his existance." -"???"
The only way to win that argument is to not engage in it because there isn't a common logical ground in it.
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific?
And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
I would love for you to find those numbers. I am almost certain you will not be able to find numbers on either, and I would be truly amazed if anyone has taken the time to count all the reported miracles in the records.
On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: [quote]
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Everything exists by that standard.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil?
And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious???
I would argue that the failure of nature (science) to produce anything supernatural has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God. I would further argue that the Problem of Evil is only a problem if one believes that God has a responsibility to stop all evil immediately.
And yes, Christianity has more reliable witnesses. This isn't hard to argue. Have you ever met a person who believes they've been abducted or have seen Big Foot? They are not usually the most rational people. Plenty of Christian witnesses have been extremely rational, logical people. Plenty of disbelievers have been converted by a miracle; another rarity in the big foot, alien abduction cases. Most witnesses of those things started off by believing. In fact, I can't think of almost any that were disbelievers until it happened to them.
How much of the New Testament is written way after the death of supposed Jesus of Nazareth???
It doesn't matter if you were argue about the failure of science to produce results. It still is evidence against you. As is the Problem of Evil, which is far more incredible evidence against than you are giving it credit, when considering the lack of medicine in the bible and other abnormalities. If you are going to talk about the evidence for God's existence, then obviously you cannot throw out the evidence against God's existence. Otherwise it is blatant confirmation bias.
All of the New Testament was written after the death of Jesus. Much of it not "long" after, but definitely after, usually by a couple of decades.
I don't see how the failure of science equals a failure on the part of believers... enlighten me as to why this is so. And the Problem of Evil isn't evidence, it's an argument against a specific definition of God. In my opinion, this specific definition of God and of evil used in the argument is inaccurate, and therefore it's like saying that evidence against the existence of unicorns is evidence against the existence of black holes. To me, the Problem of Evil is a strawman.
It has been stated, hundreds, if not thousands of times in various threads on this very site. But I shall go over it again. Atheism does not assert that there is no god. It makes the claim that there is not enough evidence to support the belief in a god, that those who claim one or more exist have not met their burden of proof. It claims that until sufficient evidence is presented, there is no reason to believe that a god exists, any more than bigfoot, trolls, dragons, etc. I don't bring a gun and a suit of flame-retardant material every time I leave my house, because living my life as if dragons existed makes no sense when there is no proof to suggest that they do. Living my life as if a god existed makes no more or less sense than dragons.
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
A large majority of people who live today, and who have lived in the past, have not believed in the christian god. It seems the witness evidence, would lead us to believe the christian god does not exist.
With over 2 billion believers, I wouldn't say a large majority. Sure, a majority, but not exactly vast.
Now you're just being dishonest with statistics. There are over 7 billion people on Earth, meaning right now about 2/7 of the world believes in some form of Christianity. That's less than 30%, which means over 70% of the world are not Christian. That's a pretty vast majority (the differential being ~40%).
And even if it wasn't, by your own standards (eyewitness testimony, largely considered the least accurate level of evidence), there is still over twice as much "evidence" that the Christian god doesn't exist (as what non-Christians see every day defends their lack of a belief in Christianity, and so that eyewitness testimony is just as relevant as Christians').
On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific?
And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
I would love for you to find those numbers. I am almost certain you will not be able to find numbers on either, and I would be truly amazed if anyone has taken the time to count all the reported miracles in the records.
Come now, lets not be obstinate, of course the reports of god in some form far outnumber those of bigfoot. The question is not quantity, but quality. I do not consider these testimonies to be worth very all that much, as I see it they are irrevocably tainted by wishful thinking and selective interpretation.
On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific?
And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
Why not just abandon your ad populum arguments? They aren't valid.
Let us pretend for a moment that you suspect a friend of stealing something from you. You ask the other two people who were present at the time of the disappearance. One hates your friend with a passion and is a known liar. The other is extremely trustworthy, and knows absolutely nothing about your friend, and to your knowledge, has never lied once. The liar says he did it, and the trustworthy one says he didn't. Are the testimonies equal? Does one not carry more weight than another? Or let us say that fifty people all say they saw him steal it, and only one says he didn't. Does the number not come into play?
The argument is solid, it's just a matter of how much you trust eye-witness testimony.
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific?
And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
I see no reason to limit the discussion, however science is essentially a process of determining validity of a statement, so if you want to be convincing you should use the standards set by the scientific method, as they are probably the highest standards for judging evidence. By accusing me of trying to limit the discussion you are essentially admitting that the evidence for God isn't of high enough quality to be subject to scientific scrutiny. Of course, you aren't obligated to provide evidence subject to scientific scrutiny, but your argument becomes weaker when you basically have to say your evidence wouldn't be taken seriously in a profession that is dedicated to finding the truth in things.
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific?
And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
1. Do you think more people have heard about a god, or heard about Big Foot? Do you think more people care about finding god, or care about finding Big Foot?
2. Either way, a bunch of people believing something isn't intrinsic evidence for that belief ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum ). What matters is the actual arguments and evidence they bring to the table.
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Everything exists by that standard.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil?
And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious???
I would argue that the failure of nature (science) to produce anything supernatural has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God. I would further argue that the Problem of Evil is only a problem if one believes that God has a responsibility to stop all evil immediately.
And yes, Christianity has more reliable witnesses. This isn't hard to argue. Have you ever met a person who believes they've been abducted or have seen Big Foot? They are not usually the most rational people. Plenty of Christian witnesses have been extremely rational, logical people. Plenty of disbelievers have been converted by a miracle; another rarity in the big foot, alien abduction cases. Most witnesses of those things started off by believing. In fact, I can't think of almost any that were disbelievers until it happened to them.
How much of the New Testament is written way after the death of supposed Jesus of Nazareth???
It doesn't matter if you were argue about the failure of science to produce results. It still is evidence against you. As is the Problem of Evil, which is far more incredible evidence against than you are giving it credit, when considering the lack of medicine in the bible and other abnormalities. If you are going to talk about the evidence for God's existence, then obviously you cannot throw out the evidence against God's existence. Otherwise it is blatant confirmation bias.
All of the New Testament was written after the death of Jesus. Much of it not "long" after, but definitely after, usually by a couple of decades.
I don't see how the failure of science equals a failure on the part of believers... enlighten me as to why this is so. And the Problem of Evil isn't evidence, it's an argument against a specific definition of God. In my opinion, this specific definition of God and of evil used in the argument is inaccurate, and therefore it's like saying that evidence against the existence of unicorns is evidence against the existence of black holes. To me, the Problem of Evil is a strawman.
Decades isn't "long after"??? Humans don't live that long, man...
It doesn't matter if you define your way out for either question. That still lowers the probability of it being true.
Consider the two statements: "An all-powerful, all-seeing, creator of the universe exists." "An all-powerful, all-seeing, all-benevolent, creator of the universe exists."
It is necessarily true that the probability of the first statement is higher than the probability of the second statement. Getting rid of specific definitions of God lowers the probability by definition. Adding more details always lowers the probability by definition.
On March 25 2013 05:05 The_Masked_Shrimp wrote: [quote]
Atheists blindly reject all existence of gods just like believer blindly believe ( I don't mean it harshly, didn't find another way to formulate it ). I think people are still debating on the exact signification of atheists, so let's not be picky on the term and just focus on the "absence of proof" thing ^^
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
A large majority of people who live today, and who have lived in the past, have not believed in the christian god. It seems the witness evidence, would lead us to believe the christian god does not exist.
With over 2 billion believers, I wouldn't say a large majority. Sure, a majority, but not exactly vast.
Now you're just being dishonest with statistics. There are over 7 billion people on Earth, meaning right now about 2/7 of the world believes in some form of Christianity. That's less than 30%, which means over 70% of the world are not Christian. That's a pretty vast majority (the differential being ~40%).
And even if it wasn't, by your own standards (eyewitness testimony, largely considered the least accurate level of evidence), there is still over twice as much "evidence" that the Christian god doesn't exist (as what non-Christians see every day defends their lack of a belief in Christianity, and so that eyewitness testimony is just as relevant as Christians').
As I said earlier though, the lack of testimony from someone doesn't equal testimony of the lack of something. You don't use testimony from people who weren't there as evidence against the people who were there.
(And I wouldn't call 5/7 a "vast majority" in the context of the God debate, but that's pretty much just semantics. It's not really important to the argument at hand.)
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific?
And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
On March 24 2013 19:50 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
[*]Provide empirical evidence for your arguments. No exceptions, no conditions. 3. cite legitimate and authoritative sources.
Basically, yes, we are.
Not to mention that your sources of your argument are all based on rehashings of second hand accounts from thousands of years ago.
Let me approach as such: if I were to report a "miracle" to you, and I had never been taught anything about Christianity, would I report it as a Christian miracle? Most likely not. Considering this, a large majority of your "evidence" is subject to bias; therefore, it is not admissible to be considered empirical or scientific.
Whether or not there is a god, religion and faith-based beliefs cause people to do a lot of horrible things in this world. I'm better off without religion, and I think everyone will be someday (long after we're all dead). I understand many people are still religious and that might sound inflammatory, and I'm sorry.
One thing I do support is the open, honest discussion of religions, and I would hate to see this thread closed. You guys are doing an amazing job of keeping this discussion civil and I think that shows how far we've come as a community in the past 5 years.
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
A large majority of people who live today, and who have lived in the past, have not believed in the christian god. It seems the witness evidence, would lead us to believe the christian god does not exist.
With over 2 billion believers, I wouldn't say a large majority. Sure, a majority, but not exactly vast.
Now you're just being dishonest with statistics. There are over 7 billion people on Earth, meaning right now about 2/7 of the world believes in some form of Christianity. That's less than 30%, which means over 70% of the world are not Christian. That's a pretty vast majority (the differential being ~40%).
And even if it wasn't, by your own standards (eyewitness testimony, largely considered the least accurate level of evidence), there is still over twice as much "evidence" that the Christian god doesn't exist (as what non-Christians see every day defends their lack of a belief in Christianity, and so that eyewitness testimony is just as relevant as Christians').
As I said earlier though, the lack of testimony from someone doesn't equal testimony of the lack of something. You don't use testimony from people who weren't there as evidence against the people who were there.
(And I wouldn't call 5/7 a "vast majority" in the context of the God debate, but that's pretty much just semantics. It's not really important to the argument at hand.)
What miracle, for which there is eyewitness testimony, do you think is the most convincing evidence that, specifically, the Christian god exists?
On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Everything exists by that standard.
You're getting ahead of yourself. I never said proof, I said evidence. And yes, there is evidence for a lot of nonsensical things. We don't have to believe that evidence automatically equals truth though. That is a common mistake in these arguments, the idea that no evidence for a false position can exist.
What about arguments against the existence of God, like the absolute failure of science to produce anything supernatural or the Problem of Evil?
And lol, "Christianity has more reliable witnesses" are you serious???
I would argue that the failure of nature (science) to produce anything supernatural has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of God. I would further argue that the Problem of Evil is only a problem if one believes that God has a responsibility to stop all evil immediately.
And yes, Christianity has more reliable witnesses. This isn't hard to argue. Have you ever met a person who believes they've been abducted or have seen Big Foot? They are not usually the most rational people. Plenty of Christian witnesses have been extremely rational, logical people. Plenty of disbelievers have been converted by a miracle; another rarity in the big foot, alien abduction cases. Most witnesses of those things started off by believing. In fact, I can't think of almost any that were disbelievers until it happened to them.
How much of the New Testament is written way after the death of supposed Jesus of Nazareth???
It doesn't matter if you were argue about the failure of science to produce results. It still is evidence against you. As is the Problem of Evil, which is far more incredible evidence against than you are giving it credit, when considering the lack of medicine in the bible and other abnormalities. If you are going to talk about the evidence for God's existence, then obviously you cannot throw out the evidence against God's existence. Otherwise it is blatant confirmation bias.
All of the New Testament was written after the death of Jesus. Much of it not "long" after, but definitely after, usually by a couple of decades.
I don't see how the failure of science equals a failure on the part of believers... enlighten me as to why this is so. And the Problem of Evil isn't evidence, it's an argument against a specific definition of God. In my opinion, this specific definition of God and of evil used in the argument is inaccurate, and therefore it's like saying that evidence against the existence of unicorns is evidence against the existence of black holes. To me, the Problem of Evil is a strawman.
Decades isn't "long after"??? Humans don't live that long, man...
It doesn't matter if you define your way out for either question. That still lowers the probability of it being true.
Consider the two statements: "An all-powerful, all-seeing, creator of the universe exists." "An all-powerful, all-seeing, all-benevolent, creator of the universe exists."
It is necessarily true that the probability of the first statement is higher than the probability of the second statement. Getting rid of specific definitions of God lowers the probability by definition. Adding more details always lowers the probability by definition.
On March 25 2013 05:08 Crushinator wrote: Atheists reject the existence of gods for a reason. An infinite number of gods are imaginable. Do you reject none of them, based on that you can't prove their inexistence?
I don't reject or believe in gods; i just say that if i saw one, it could as well be some very advanced being. Hence, even with god under my eyes it couldn't possibly be an absolute proof because of the doubt. In the end it's still just a choice between believing or not. My position is "I don't know, and if I knew I'd doubt what I know" Oo
I find this to be a dishonest position. I don't think it's what you actually believe.
If I asked you what color the Statue of Liberty was, you would say "green." I would follow up with "Do you KNOW it is green?" and you would say "Yes, I have seen pictures" or "I have seen it myself."
However, can you be absolutely certain that you aren't hallucinating? Perhaps it has been painted in the meantime and no one has reported on it? It is possible, from your perspective, that the Statue of Liberty is not green, however unlikely.
The idea of absolute certainty is not just impossible to meet (for any claim ever, positive or negative), but it is also completely and utterly pointless. When somebody says they know something, they are not referring to absolute certainty, because nobody is EVER referring to absolute certainty. The only time people ever refer to absolute certainty is discussion of religion, for painfully obvious reasons.
So I will certainly assert that I know god does not exist (based on Bayesian Probability). And I think if you talked honestly you would say the same thing.
Well i was being quite honest about how I see things; but maybe i didn't convey what i wanted to say properly. Your exemple with the statue of liberty seems confusing to me. What i meant is about entities you can't possibly recognize. Like if someone never knew anything about the look of lions and tigers except that they are big cats; if that guy was presented to a lion, he wouldn't be able to say if it's a lion or a tiger. Same goes for God and advanced beings, if you had someone with godlike abilities under your eyes, you couldn't tell if he is a god or an incredibly advanced being. It's just that "magic" can't be dissociated from super advanced technology.
Thats just incorrect. Atheists actually look for proof, see that there is none and therefore do not act as if there is any.
Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
A large majority of people who live today, and who have lived in the past, have not believed in the christian god. It seems the witness evidence, would lead us to believe the christian god does not exist.
With over 2 billion believers, I wouldn't say a large majority. Sure, a majority, but not exactly vast.
Now you're just being dishonest with statistics. There are over 7 billion people on Earth, meaning right now about 2/7 of the world believes in some form of Christianity. That's less than 30%, which means over 70% of the world are not Christian. That's a pretty vast majority (the differential being ~40%).
And even if it wasn't, by your own standards (eyewitness testimony, largely considered the least accurate level of evidence), there is still over twice as much "evidence" that the Christian god doesn't exist (as what non-Christians see every day defends their lack of a belief in Christianity, and so that eyewitness testimony is just as relevant as Christians').
As I said earlier though, the lack of testimony from someone doesn't equal testimony of the lack of something. You don't use testimony from people who weren't there as evidence against the people who were there.
What does this have to do with the number of non-Christians vs. the number of Christians? Either you witness Christianity at hand, or you don't. People convert from one religion to another (or no religion), all the time. Do you really think it's appropriate to discount the 5 billion lives that don't agree with one worldview and have the lifelong experiences to argue against it, when you're focusing only on the lives that do agree with you? Christianity's reach is everywhere, and God's reach is everywhere as well. Every person on Earth counts in this testimony for or against the religion.
On March 25 2013 06:11 Meta wrote: Whether or not there is a god, religion and faith-based beliefs cause people to do a lot of horrible things in this world. I'm better off without religion, and I think everyone will be someday (long after we're all dead). I understand many people are still religious and that might sound inflammatory, and I'm sorry.
One thing I do support is the open, honest discussion of religions, and I would hate to see this thread closed. You guys are doing an amazing job of keeping this discussion civil and I think that shows how far we've come as a community in the past 5 years.
Even if I agree with some of what you say and I'm a non-believer, there are some merits to spirituality. Let's not shove it all up down the drain due to extremists and intolerance.
On March 25 2013 05:23 sc2superfan101 wrote: [quote] Looking for proof? Why? Evidence should suffice to justify belief, and there is evidence of God's existence. Whether you personally accept it as "good" evidence or enough evidence is another argument entirely. But asking for absolute proof before you believe sounds like you're putting higher standards on the belief in God than most people put into anything. 99% of what you believe is without proof (you personally do not possess the proof) but that doesn't bother you in the slightest (I would assume).
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific?
And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
[*]Provide empirical evidence for your arguments. No exceptions, no conditions. 3. cite legitimate and authoritative sources.
Basically, yes, we are.
Not to mention that your sources of your argument are all based on rehashings of second hand accounts from thousands of years ago.
Let me approach as such: if I were to report a "miracle" to you, and I had never been taught anything about Christianity, would I report it as a Christian miracle? Most likely not. Considering this, a large majority of your "evidence" is subject to bias; therefore, it is not admissible to be considered empirical or scientific.
And the Problem of Evil is scientific how?
Not all miracles are said to have occurred thousands of years ago. Fatima, for instance, occurred less than a century ago.
If a person gives testimony of a miracle, but not as a Christian miracle specifically, that isn't necessarily evidence against Christianity. It could be that they misunderstood the nature of the miracle they witnessed. Or it could be that they understood it perfectly and it is evidence against Christianity. It could be either.
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.
"all logical arguments are just playing with symbols" is absolutely false. I specifically said formal systems if you did not notice. All formal logical systems are attempts to describe logic, which is correct way of inferring things. But there is no one true logical formal system (as far as we can tell at this point). They quite often arrive at conclusions that are contradicting each other. So what is the one true formal logical system according to you ?
Logical systems are actually product of empirical observation. Not always, sometimes someone creates one just for the fun of it, but mostly new systems are motivated by something that the old systems do badly in relation to real world.
So long story short formal logical systems are themselves part of broader empirical procedure, not basis for it. Do not conflate formal logic with reasoning.
S5 seems to be a self-consistent and logical system. But if you don't like it, that's fine. You still have to show what step of the process doesn't make sense. I didn't just say "It says so in S5 so it's true". If I didn't use notation, and just said everything in words, it would still be the same argument.
At the root of this and any other ontological argument lies the commitment that possibility and necessity are meaningful concepts when employed in a formal system. Consider the following counter:
i) It is possible that god does not exist
ii) By i) god does not exist in some possible world
iii) A necessary being exists in every possible world
iv) god is a necessary being
v) By ii), iii) and iv) god does not exist
TL;DR: If you try to simply define god into existence, the argument will simply be shifted to whether it is even possible that such a god exists. Ontological arguments fail.
Premises 1/2 and Premise 4 contradict each other directly. It is not possible for them to both be true at the same time, ergo the argument is unsound. Consider:
1)Blue is green 2)Blue is not green
C1) Therefore Red is the prettiest colour.
This is actually a valid argument, but it's still false.
Your argument appears to be constructed in reverse, or something. It should be:
1) Being is necessary iff it exists in every possible world 2) God is not a necessary being C1) Therefore God does not exist in every possible world
You can't say "God could possibly not exist" and "God is necessary" as two premises. That's the same as saying "P" and "not P" and then deducing "the moon is made of cheese." It might work better if you had said "If God exists, then God is necessary."
While you are right that my argument is written sloppily, your objection is besides the point. You could simply change iv) to god is defined as a necessary being and conclude that a god defined in such a way is internally inconsistent and thus a logical impossibility. But notice that ontological arguments exactly use this relationship in order to bring god into existence. Sure if it is only possible that god necessarily exists then given some ontological commitment to modal realism or possible world semantics it follows that god necessarily exists. But if it were possible that god did not exist then be argument can be turned on its head.
So the interlocutor needs to assume that while it is possible that god exists it is not possible that god does not exist, which reveals the whole silliness of the endeavor.
Still doesn't work, I think (not guarunteed, I'm definitely not an expert in this). Once you define God as a necessary being, then it is not possible that God doesn't exist (premise i). Similarly, if I define "2+2=4" as a necessary truth, it is not possible that that 2+2 isn't 4. Notice in the argument presented, the necessity of the existence of God was left out; I think its omission is meant to simplify things. Also, if you change "iv" to "If God exists, then He must exist", I will just disagree with that.
On March 25 2013 05:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
What evidence is there for God's existence?
Eye witness testimony is evidence, you know. Now, whether you personally consider such evidence to be "good" is beside the point. It is, in fact, evidence.
Fair enough, but I would like to point out there is also eye witness testimony for alien abductions, big foot, the lochness monster, and deities outside of Christianity.
Indeed there is. And thus we have to question the reliability of the people giving the testimonies, the wealth of testimony available, and the historical existence (if any) of coinciding testimonies.
Christianity has more reliable witnesses, more testimonies, and more witnesses throughout history than any of those things. While that in of itself proves nothing, it does provide us with good reason to consider the existence of eye-witness testimony in the case of Christianity to be more valid than in those other instances.
I feel like that's a pretty generic statement that could just as equally be applied to eye witness accounts of big foot, or any other such nonsense for that matter.
Not really. The vast majority of the testimony about big foot comes from recent times, from specific people (with little diversity involved), and has almost no historical existence. There is also far less people testifying in the defense of big-foot as there is for God. Basically, we haven't hit the point of proof, not by a long shot; but we have begun to find that the testimony of God is worth more by any reasonable standard than the testimony of all those other things. How much more worth is up to debate though.
All you're doing here is making sweeping statements and offering no proof for your statements. You say eye witness accounts involving God are more reliable, more numerous, and more prevelant throughout history, while saying eye witness accounts of things that are most likely non sense are not as wide spread or far reaching. This statement is, as far as I know, something you're asserting based on nothing but intuition and personal feelings. I'd also like to point out that in terms of scientific evidence eye witness accounts are not considered, so this angle is largely futile.
Are we limiting the discussion to the purely scientific?
And do you think there are more people who have testified witnessing Big Foot, or have testified witnessing God or a miracle from God? I guess I could go find the numbers we both know exist and both know will say that I am right here, or we could just dispense with the posturing and get down to brass tacks.
On March 24 2013 19:50 AUFKLARUNG wrote:
[*]Provide empirical evidence for your arguments. No exceptions, no conditions. 3. cite legitimate and authoritative sources.
Basically, yes, we are.
Not to mention that your sources of your argument are all based on rehashings of second hand accounts from thousands of years ago.
Let me approach as such: if I were to report a "miracle" to you, and I had never been taught anything about Christianity, would I report it as a Christian miracle? Most likely not. Considering this, a large majority of your "evidence" is subject to bias; therefore, it is not admissible to be considered empirical or scientific.
And the Problem of Evil is scientific how?
Not all miracles are said to have occurred thousands of years ago. Fatima, for instance, occurred less than a century ago.
If a person gives testimony of a miracle, but not as a Christian miracle specifically, that isn't necessarily evidence against Christianity. It could be that they misunderstood the nature of the miracle they witnessed. Or it could be that they understood it perfectly and it is evidence against Christianity. It could be either.
According to christian doctrine, there would be no such thing as a christian miracle. Their god is the god of all the universe and everyone on this planet, whether they believe in it or not. It would simply be a miracle that occured in a place were there few or no christians.
EPT
. ![[image loading]](http://spydersden.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/epicurus_religion_atheism_desktop_1595x895_wallpaper-3172.jpg?w=640&h=359)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1rdilaF.jpg)
)
