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.
EPT
