posted
"I want someone to comment on something I've said so I can edit this post and say that I never said that."
Excellent plan Can I do that to?
Great link on fallacies, but I was way too lazy to read all of your second one.
As for this: "The simple fact is there is no LOGICAL reason to believe in god." DUH. Their is absolutely no logical reason to believe in anything! That, in fact, would be a fallacy(begging the question, I believe). Logic is useless without some sort of accepted premise such as x=x. To believe something is to assume- to accept without logical proof.
"it is IMPOSSIBLE AND THEREFORE A LOGICAL FALLACY to try and get someone to prove a negative."
posted
"The simple fact is that there is no ACTUAL evidence to prove the existance of god."
Now that I don't think is technically true at all. Even if I were to say you had a point on that I'd still say that you're leaving out the Deists.
"To the same end there is no ACTUAL evidence that god doesn't exist"
I don't think that's right either. I think that before I could agree with that, you'd have to give me a thorough definition of evidence as yours does not seem to match with mine.
"but that is irrelevent to inductive reasoning."
I disagree. I think that it is irrelevant to inductive reasoning Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This isn't the normal conversation a like to get into so I'll stay brief and hope I don't cause any waves. Suns. the reason it is impossible to prove that there is no god is a rather simpe idea. How can you disprove something when the other side can always come back with that is how god works. Hidden behind this or that, or god has a reason for everything whether every bit of logic anyone could ever come up with would point out otherwise. Besides how can you say there is no god, when they only evidence you can produce is because "I couldn't find him." The other area of how there is no evidence to prove that there is a god is also feasible, because there is none. Not anything I have ever seen has proved beyond a doubt that there is a god. You have the bible, you have artifacts, you have a whole bunch of different religions that theory of probability ould suggest that one would be right, and all other types of things. However those are all circumstancial. In refering to the deism I assume you are talking about how if there is a creation then there must have been a creater. That is just one more theory. Whether orn not it is true is anyone's guess. For all we know could have always existed, how are we to know. I know many would argue that there has to be a beggining; however, that idea is flawed. Isn't it conceivable that since time may never end that it never begun. If a line has no end does it have to have a beggining? ~Treaty~ sign below x__ LockeTreaty __
Posts: 129 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A 6 year old named Jessica has an invisible friend. Let's call him Dave. Jessica explains that Dave is all powerful and all knowing. Jessica's parents, trying to wean her from her need for this friend that they assume is imaginary, ask Jessica why they can't see or hear Dave. Jessica explains that you can only see or hear Dave if you really believe in him. When Jessica's parents ask her if she can get Dave to do anything to help them believe in Dave, she replies that he doesn't feel like it right now, but maybe later. A power outage occurs later that day, and she exclaims, "See?! Dave did that! Do you believe me now?"
My question is this: if it's reasonable or even probable that Dave doesn't exist for this six year old, why isn't reasonable or even probable that God (as an omnipotent, omniscient invisible friend) doesn't exist for adults?
quote:I just can’t comprehend complex systems coming about thru random means. The plainness of the nose on my face screams, “This was made.”
Ellen M (2nd page 1/3 way down)
This seems to be a common theme when talking about belief in God. Because we don't understand something, there must be a higher being behind it. The Native Americans, Norsemen, Greeks (a relatively advanced society) and Romans (another relatively advanced society) all created mythologies that explained weather patterns and earthquakes and Nature. Why are their beliefs mythologies but belief in God is not a mythology? By the way, Ellen M., not only is the solar system relatively flat, but the Universe (from all that we know of it) is essentially flat as well and getting flatter as it expands. There have been a lot of theories put forward to explain it. God may as well be one of them.
quote:3. God has strong motivation not to reveal Himself unambiguously under arbitrary circumstances for the good of the individual - the person must be at a point in testing and instruction that the information will do good rather than harm to the individual's progress.
-Stradling (2nd page, 1/3 way down)
I totally agree with Tom Davidson's brainwashinging points about this. I think it also lends itself to the six year old's argument that "he doesn't feel like it right now". You could possibly point to the Bible's stories (I believe in the Old Testament) of prophets who came into towns and proved to people and rulers that God existed through tests. That contradicts the "arbitrary circumstances" theory. Unless you use the obvious out that the people in those towns must have been at the proper point in testing and instruction otherwise God would not have revealed himself to them.
quote:If you go to church, you will no doubt hear the preacher say "We KNOW that God...." such and such. He doesn't qualify his statements with wishy washy terms like "believe."
-Glenn Arnold (4th page, 1/8th way down)
I can only speak to Catholicism, being an ex-Catholic myself, but the Nicene Creed which is said every Sunday by everyone attending church (including the priest) begins, "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth..."
quote:Let's say your in love with someone. You know your in love because of how you've acted around them and how you feel when your with them. This person your in love with becomes very important in your life. You make various sacrifices for them and in return, they do things for you (not in a barter situation but just generally you help each other out). If someone else asks if your in love with them you know for sure that you are, but how can you convince them? All you have is emotional and anecdotal evidence.
- Hobbes (4th page, almost at the bottom)
But that love exists only in yourself, and how it coordinates your actions. You created it. If God exists only through your belief(and other believer's beliefs) and you're not claiming an Entity that can exist without you or other people who believe in him, then your argument makes sense. But I think the God most of us are discussing here is believed to have created everything and so must be an independent entity.
quote:Along those lines a lot of people do not beilive in God because they cannot rationalize why God does what he does. Namely that He can (and will if you ask) Forgive your sins. no matter what sin it is. People just dont like to accept this because it is not in our nature to do this.
- Ryuujin (5th page, 7/8ths way down)
Why God does what he does is assuming an awful lot. First, you assume he's responsible for everything going on. Second, you assume he can do something about it. It would be to God's advantage not to let us know what his limitations are. Third, we like to have someone to blame and hey God is convenient and never seems to get angry when we blame him. As always, God works in mysterious ways and probably has some big plans for us and who are we to question him. Thus, everything is sufficiently confusing and vague to the point that we have no hope of rationalizing why God does what he does.
Actually, if you look at the people in our prison system, most if not all of them want to be forgiven for their "sins" (the breaking of laws). How many children expect to be forgiven when they do something wrong? That saying "I'm sorry" makes it all better? I would expect from the children I've encountered that a majority do. I think it is absolutely in our nature to accept forgiveness of sins. It's the victims, who are outraged by the crimes and who demand vengeance, that sometimes do not forgive and train us that victims do not readily forgive. We then might anthropomorphize this putative "God" (making him perhaps in our own image because of our arrogance) and ascribe the victim characteristics to him. Our nature upon being born, however, is (IMHO) to accept automatic forgiveness. I personally think that if there is a God, he would be absolutely willing to forgive our sins, because as our Creator he would know our flaws and the likelihood of those flaws that he must have intentionally built in. He would accept sins as a given and just say "ah fuhgeddaboutit". That is not why I don't believe in God, though.
quote:The simple fact is there is no LOGICAL reason to believe in god.
- Svidrigailov (5th page, almost at the bottom)
I disagree with this. Religion (and therefeore belief in God(s) which is a prerequisite) plays an important role in society. It gives us security, because we're in the hands of a higher power. We are less afraid of death. We have a stronger sense of community (humans are a gregarious species - it's likely that it's hard-wired into us). We gain a moral superiority because of the mutual exclusion of religion (who doesn't like to be "right"?). There are many benefits to believing in God, and therefore there are logical reasons for believing in him, though it may not be logical to say he exists.
But I still don't believe in God. I would guess that the main reason for it is that I have never had a personal experience with God, and I think the real believers in him have. If belief in God was based on so much fact, as people have said it is, then it seems like people would believe in him more as they become more educated, but instead they believe in him less. I know I have become far less likely to believe in him as I become more educated about religion, science and psychology.
quote:My major gripe is that religion of every kind is man made.
-Proteus (1st page, bit more than half way down)
I totally agree. And because of the benefits of religion (some of which are listed above) we are more likely to believe in it.
quote:I am trying to point out that Science and Religion will and are coming together to create something new.
-j0ntar (1st page, half way down)
I thought they already did that. Isn't there Christian Science for one and Scientology for another?
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You are correct. There are logical reasons TO believe in god. But no logical reasons to BELIEVE in god.
I was imprecise. You are correct that there are many reasons to believe in a supernatural being. But as an abstract idea independent of the ramifications of the idea itself, there are no solid logical reasons to believe in god.
As for you Suntranafs.
1. I'm not leaving out the deists. There is still no logical reason to believe in the existance of god. Especially in light of the fact that newtonian physics has been supplanted by a much more messy brand that doesn't lend itself well to great watchmaker theory.
The fact of the matter is, as far as we know god does play dice with the universe. Thus the pre-eminant deist that the world is divine by the nature of its ordered structure is inherently flawed.
2. If you are going to critisize my spelling I would appreciate it if you kept silent. If you have some ACTUAL point of discussion or if my spelling and grammer are so imprecise that they cloud the issue then I am open to comment. If spelling is such an important subject to you, I will be PROUD to be the subject of your scrutany. AFTER you go through the ENTIRE FORUM and correct EVERY SINGLE SPELLING error. Until such time, I find minor spelling corrections increadibly annoying I would ask that you not bother me with them.
quote: The simple fact is there is no LOGICAL reason to believe in god.
"I disagree with this. Religion (and therefeore belief in God(s) which is a prerequisite) plays an important role in society. It gives us security, because we're in the hands of a higher power. We are less afraid of death. We have a stronger sense of community (humans are a gregarious species - it's likely that it's hard-wired into us). We gain a moral superiority because of the mutual exclusion of religion (who doesn't like to be "right"?). There are many benefits to believing in God, and therefore there are logical reasons for believing in him, though it may not be logical to say he exists."
Those are not Logical reasons- They are practical ones. There is a serious difference.
Svidrigailov stated: "...newtonian physics has been supplanted by a much more messy brand that doesn't lend itself well to great watchmaker theory." Excuse me, but think I 1. Am well aware of which parts of Classical physics are archaic-I've studied physics a fair bit.- 2. do not know the meaning of this "watchmaker theory", and 3. Do not know what it could possibly have to do with the case, as 'watchmaker' seems to imply creator-and that concept does not neccessarily have anything to with the concept of 'God'.
"The fact of the matter is, as far as we know god does play dice with the universe. Thus the pre-eminant deist that the world is divine by the nature of its ordered structure is inherently flawed."
Your definition of deist is far too narrow. A deist doesn't neccessarily believe in any God having to do with an 'ordered structure. Furthermore, there's nothing in the philosophy that says God can't play dice- just that he is the dice.
"If you are going to critisize my spelling I would appreciate it if you kept silent...."
Well Sorrrry! It was a joke, for crying out loud! Everybody makes spelling errors. Heck, I had to check the spelling with M. Word just to be sure! If I'd realized that would annoy you so much then I can assure you I never would of said anything.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those are not Logical reasons- They are practical ones. There is a serious difference.
Practical and logical are different adjectives but are not exclusive of each other. There's overlap. To illustrate, I'll use a ridiculously popular example from Star Trek. In Star Trek II Mr. Spock says, "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one." I think we can all agree that this is a logical statement (would Mr. Spock say anything less? ). It is also a practical one. By the same logic, if a decision to believe in God benefits you more than it harms you, then it is both practical and logical as well. Practicality is very often logical. The actual logic? Premise: Actions that benefit me more than they harm me will improve my life. Premise: I want to improve my life. Premise: belief in God(an action) benefits me more than it harms me. Conclusion: I should believe in God. If you accept the premises, then the conclusion follows.
It is perhaps illogical that I personally disbelieve in God. I believe all three premises. The actual doing part of it though is hampered by my pursuit of absolute truth, of understanding how things actually work. The probability that God actually exists seems to me to be very low, and gets lower as my education about religion, science and psychology continues. The people who started and propagated the various religions may have done a lot of people a lot of good, but it doesn't mean that what they started or believed is true.
Edit:
quote:Well Sorrrry! It was a joke, for crying out loud! Everybody makes spelling errors. Heck, I had to check the spelling with M. Word just to be sure! If I'd realized that would annoy you so much then I can assure you I never would of said anything.
Actually, that should be "...I never would have said anything." Hee hee!
posted
If a man I hate has money and I can kill him without being caught then it is not only practical but logical that I kill him.
You've stepped over the bounds so now I can pull out the fallicies. If you said there are logical reasons WHY people believe then I could say nothing. That you say it is logical to believe is not correct.
You are stating prudential reasons for belief NOT rational reasons. Thus, you are being illogical.
As for your spock example it is NOT LOGICAL. It is only logical if you accept that the needs of the one do outweigh the needs of the many. This follows under utilitarianism by J.S. Mills. But, if you examine a philosophy like nietzche's you would see that the needs of the one outweight the needs of the many so long as the one is better than the many.
FURTHERMORE,if the needs of the many do harm to the one it is only logical to do harm to the one if you accept both utilitarianism and cost-benefit. That is, the cost to the one exceeds the benefit to the many. Thus you could argue one person dying so many would live would be logical because it meets the axiomatic requirements of both utilitarianism and cost benefit.
You could only say that one person dying so that many could have chocolate milk (or a soy equivilant) would only follow under utilitarianism, and even then assuming that the one couldn't do better good for the many alive.
If you use Perreto(sp?) Optimality as your analization tool then no matter HOW MUCH GOOD the harm to one would be for the many, it is still immoral and illogical under that moral system. Perreto (sp?)Optimality states that a moral action is one that benifits the most agents while doing no harm to any other agents.
As for you suntranafts... You are correct, my definition of diest is far to specific. My definition is derived from the classical (1700s) incarnation. Primarly European.
None the less. There is no reason to assume that there is a god/spirit/force intrinsic to the universe any more then there is reason to assume that there is a god/spirit/force idependent of the universe (i.e. christianity)
Posts: 28 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hello friends! What an interesting conversation we're having in here. I thought that I'd throw in my "two cents" and see what happens.
First, let me state the obvious: it is foolish, vain and unreasonable for anyone to claim that anything is impossible. To do so would be to claim omniscience, considering the vast amount of space and time that exist in this and all other universes combined. It simply does not follow "logic" to imply impossibility.
Which brings me to my second topic: logic itself. To me, logic is but man's feeble attempt at omniscience. Truth is not relative. If something exists, it exists and no matter how many people disagree, it still exists, whatever that thing is. For example, man's logic once stated that to break the sound barrier was impossible; that to do such would cause an effect much like many modern scientists believe would occur if the speed of light were breached. Even that theory itself is beginning to be questioned by rather unpopular scientists. Man's logic is flawed because of our lack of omniscience. A blind man can scientifically and logicaly prove (in his own mind) that clouds do not exist over and over again, but that will not change the fact that those who have seen and dealt with them know that they exist.
Our inability to "see past our noses," as it were, brings up another rather interesting point. As we focus on our relatively brief time on this earth, our vision is incredibly clouded. Even when it comes to social economics and other "trivial" things our failure of foresight is a crippling stumbling block. We, as a human race, use our logic to try to explain our reasons for being, almost as if we were the only beings in existance.
To even presume that they who claim to know God exists are incorrect is like a blind man boastfully claiming there are no clouds. Boast all you want, because there are people who see those same clouds every day, there are people who fly through them, there are people who study them. The same is true with God. I dare anyone who would like a challange to prove to me that there is no God....
I'm affraid that, just like the airline pilot laughs when someone insists that there are no clouds, I'll be laughing at this claim, because I know, through countless experiences, from the supernatural to the mundane, that there truly is a God.
So, next time you look up into the sky and see billowing white, remember that the human mind is limited and often times flawed beyond folly.
Eternity and existance are rather large things, after all, it would be a shame to have to search them all just to prove me wrong.... Posts: 24 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ryan, the problem with your claim is that you could, quite simply, be completely and totally delusional.
In fact, given that I know several people who claim to have directly experienced God (as I said before on this thread), and several of them completely disagree with you on the nature of that God, at least SOME of you are either lying or hallucinating.
So why not try to prove to me that there IS a God, or else prove that you are NOT lying or deluded? In general, the ball's in the court of the person making the outrageous claim in the first place, not the one asking for evidence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If a man I hate has money and I can kill him without being caught then it is not only practical but logical that I kill him.
I guess you're comparing this to the Spock quote, but I don't think it's quite the same thing. Who cares if the man has money? If you can kill him without being caught, then there's one less person around that you hate. This is assuming of course that you don't like feeling hate and that killing this man doesn't have other negative consequences like guilt or harming his family/friends. Kind of an ends justifies the means thing there in your statement, though. Hmmmmm, this does compare to the God argument. Thanks for pointing it out.
quote:You've stepped over the bounds so now I can pull out the fallicies. If you said there are logical reasons WHY people believe then I could say nothing. That you say it is logical to believe is not correct.
You are stating prudential reasons for belief NOT rational reasons. Thus, you are being illogical.
As for your spock example it is NOT LOGICAL. It is only logical if you accept that the needs of the one do outweigh the needs of the many.
Damn! If Spock isn't logical, then how can I trust anything in Science Fiction? Thank you for the post Svidrigailov! I must learn to be more careful about what I'm saying.
It definitely is PRB(Prudential Reason to Believe). I bow to your superior knowledge of logic. My argument wasn't about a search for truth. My conclusion was that I should believe that God exists, not that God actually exists. I'm confused about the semantics here, specifically the difference between reason and logic. Is logic, according to your definition, always about finding actual truth, and that you can trace each premise in a logical argument back to what actually exists? Why can't subjective truth, if you accept it as a premise, lead to a logical conclusion? (I have problems with the "actual truth" thing because it always leads back to cogito ergo sum for me and there really doesn't seem to be anything you can prove after that because everything is filtered by the senses).
Would my argument have been better if my conclusion was, "One way to improve my life would be to believe in God?" instead of "I should believe in God"?
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm afraid that, just like the Engineer laughs when someone insists that when you spin a ball around your head on a string, and then let go of the string the ball shoots off in a lateral arc, I'll be laughing at your claim of the existence of God, because I know, through countless experiences, from the awe-inspiring to the mundane, that there truly is no God.
So, next time you look up into the sky and see billowing white, remember that the human mind is limited and often times flawed beyond folly.
quote:It is foolish, vain and unreasonable for anyone to claim that anything is impossible.
So it’s not impossible that god doesn’t exist right? Any time you make an absolute you make both a positive and negative assertion. First is that what you are asserting is true. This is the positive aspect. It follows, though, that anything that is against this specific “truth” is inherently untrue. The more specific the claim, the large the negative is. “God exists.” Thus the belief that he world began from coincidental causes is false. “God exists and he gave his only begotten son for us, and any who will accept him as their redeemer will be saved.” Thus all religions other than Christianity are wrong. Furthermore any who do not believe in god are wrong.
Do you notice how the scope of the negative increases? Good. I’m glad you do.
I make no claims. Thus all the negatives still exist. If I don’t claim “god exists” then “God does not exist” still remains. So if I make no assertion then I am left with only negatives.
quote: To me, logic is but man's feeble attempt at omniscience. Truth is not relative. If something exists, it exists and no matter how many people disagree, it still exists, whatever that thing is. For example, man's logic once stated that to break the sound barrier was impossible
This is a true statement. “To me, logic is but man’s feeble attempt at omniscience”. Fine to you it is thus, but to the rest of us logic is as stated by Merriam-Webster:
quote:a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration: the science of the formal principles of reasoning
Logic is not “man’s feeble attempt at omniscience.” Furthermore no one claimed “truth is relative”.
quote: If something exists it exists no matter how many people disagree.
This is also a true statement. Equally true is “If something does not exist it does not exist no matter how many people disagree.” Take it how you will.
quote:A blind man can scientifically and logically prove (in his own mind) that clouds do not exist over and over again
A man can NEVER scientifically and logically prove (in his own mind OR to the rest of the world) that clouds do not exist). It is a logical fallacy to try and prove a negative. Your statement holds no water.
quote:We, as a human race, use our logic to try to explain our reasons for being, almost as if we were the only beings in existence.
Would you prefer we use superstition and mythology?
quote:I'm affraid that, just like the airline pilot laughs when someone insists that there are no clouds, I'll be laughing at this claim, because I know, through countless experiences, from the supernatural to the mundane, that there truly is a God.
Let us apply another analogy shall we? An airline pilot KNOWS an invisible hand holds his plane up. So he flies to a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet and turns of his engine. He KNOWS there is an invisible hand holding him up so he has nothing to worry about, right? Now, either one of two possibilities (generally speaking [must avoid false dilemmas] can occur here. 1) he is a fool and is about to dash himself upon the face of the earth. 2) There really is a hand holding him up.
I’m not saying there is a hand or isn’t a hand, but I’d rather not be flying if these are the kind of people making the decisions.
quote:My conclusion was that I should believe that God exists, not that God actually exists. I'm confused about the semantics here, specifically the difference between reason and logic. Is logic, according to your definition, always about finding actual truth, and that you can trace each premise in a logical argument back to what actually exists? Why can't subjective truth, if you accept it as a premise, lead to a logical conclusion?
Actually you can form a logical conclusion if your premise is flawed. However, it is very likely your conclusion will be flawed. It would, however, be logically sound even if it was completely wrong. In regards to your questions of reason and logic, in this context I’m using reason to mean a support for an argument. I’m not using it as a definition of the 1700s like reason is man’s capacity to think. It could be use in that capacity but for now, I’m merely using to mean a support.
quote:Would my argument have been better if my conclusion was, "One way to improve my life would be to believe in God?" instead of "I should believe in God"?
Actually both of these are inherently different from your first statement. Either would work. You didn’t say “I should believe in god” you said “It is logical to believe in god”. So, reiterating either of these two new states would be perfectly a-ok… super-duper… fine… good… alright… correct…
For the rest of you… let this be definitive. LOGIC IS A TOOL. It supposes nothing and so it can’t be inherently flawed within itself. It is like a mental hammer. You can use it to build a house, you can use it to club someone to death, and you can use it as a paper weight. Logic doesn’t even suppose that logic is correct. It all depends how you use it. So stop complaining about logic being flawed because it can’t prove god. Thomas Aquanius used logic in the pursuit of god and it worked. Not everyone would accept his axiomatic statements, but within the framework of his underlying principles it was used correctly.
quote: First, you assume he's responsible for everything going on.
He is not responsible for everything. Because he gave us free will to choose. but he does know everything that goes on.
quote: Second, you assume he can do something about it. It would be to God's advantage not to let us know what his limitations are.
First he can do something about it. secondly he has no limits.
quote: Third, we like to have someone to blame and hey God is convenient and never seems to get angry when we blame him.
Yeah we like to blame things for our problems. But If you take a look in the Book of Job do you know what happens? A mans Faith is put to the Ultimate test and it is not just to prove to satan that God know Who his people are but it is to show us that someone like Job can lose everything and still have faith and not even Curse God for it.
quote: God Does allow things to happen to us. God Created us to love and be loved. To truly love, we must be free to choose not to love. if God intervened every time we chose not to love, we would not be truely free. He will not violate our freedom, or freedom of another, to protect us to protect us. Of course God is not powerless. He sent Jesus to enter our world and break the cycle of sin and death. Forgiveness is available for those who sin, Sustaining power is available for those who suffer. God is able to turn all Problems, even those brought on by evil choices, to work toward the accomplishment of his purpose. -Study bible foot note
quote:The actual logic? Premise: Actions that benefit me more than they harm me will improve my life. Premise: I want to improve my life. Premise: belief in God(an action) benefits me more than it harms me. Conclusion: I should believe in God. If you accept the premises, then the conclusion follows.
Here's what Svidrigailov said:
quote:Actually both of these are inherently different from your first statement. Either would work. You didn’t say “I should believe in god” you said “It is logical to believe in god”. So, reiterating either of these two new states would be perfectly a-ok… super-duper… fine… good… alright… correct…
Svidrigailov- 2 points. 1) Obviously you can see that I did say "I should believe in God". 2) I never said "It is logical to believe in god”. You will not find it any of my posts, which is puzzling considering how much attention you paid to the way I worded things in previous posts. Just because I said you were right in a previous post doesn't mean I'm not going to be checking the facts in all your subsequent posts! (I'm just teasing you a bit -sadly, it makes me feel better that I can point out that you were wrong) It was a really long post, though, and thank you for taking all that time to respond!
Ryuujin - it is hard to respond to your post because you did not really provide any logic or evidence that refutes my points. All I can say is that I'm glad you have such strong faith in what you believe in - it's admirable.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I still don't believe in God. I would guess that the main reason for it is that I have never had a personal experience with God, and I think the real believers in him have.
Just a question for you. You said you were an ex catholic have you tried another type of christian church? such as the Christian Missionary Alliance? because it seems to me that you do belive in god and if the main reason you don't belive in god is because you haven't had a personal experience with God. Then the only thing i can say really is Seek and you will find. but when you look and you think you havent found God look agian he is there. and its somthing you have to do like you are looking for somthing that you lost. the only evidence i can provide is the bible. And to those who want to say the bible is not any evidence i have to say. go Read the whole thing and come back and tell me that agian.
Posts: 22 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
My friends, I should have saved you all the trouble and written in my original posts all that I knew you'd say. You see, I was a "Mormon" missionary for two years, and each of your arguments have been used countless times by countless people. I don't know why I even posted to this thread... I knew what people would say before they even said it.
As has been noted, Steve, one cannot prove that something does not exist. Don't flatter yourself so much as to try to use my words against me. Its a sign of desperation and, I'm sure it doesn't truly reflect your intellect. Using original words usuallly shows a bit more sincerity.
I would like you to look through my original post and point out the spot where I said it was "impossible" for there not to be a God. Of course its "possible" for there not to be God, or else all of the "logical" people out in the world who claim he doesn't exsist would be singled out as the most stupid people on the planet. Its the very fact that it is possible that God doesn't exist that gives us our agency. But, just because something is possible doesn't mean that its true. Truth has to be found individually. Just because one claims that something exists, does not mean he claims it impossible that its opposite does not exist. I'm afraid your logic was flawed in that argument.
I'm also afraid that I never made the statement "knowledge is man's feeble attempt at omniscience." I deliberately did not make that statement. I said "logic is man's feeble attempt at omniscience." Please do not imply that I said something that I did not. No matter what the dictionary has to say about a word, its the people who create its meaning. You say that logic doesn't even suppose logic is correct... then why use it? How can a principle that does not agree with itself even stand? I'm just a little confused by that.
quote: Would you prefer we use superstition and mythology?
I would prefer that we find out truth for ourselves, not by jumping to conlcusions because people have "proved" a theory... kind of like that its "impossible" to break the sound barrier, or, if you sail too far into the ocean you'll fall off the earth. Logic, in itself is not inherantly bad, just like money is not inherantly bad... its what one does with it. In fact, if a person were to have all of the facts placed before him, logic would be a great help to him. After all, I'm sure God uses logic... it probably takes a lot of it to organize a planet. I should have made myself more clear... its man's logic that is flawed, not logic itself, and that is because we cannot see the whole picture. Sorry for the confusion about that. I completely agree that logic is but a tool.
What exactly is "knowledge?" Can someone truely "know" something flase exists? I don't think so. That would be called "false knowledge." I realize that we both think that our "knowledge" is the "true knowledge," so its pointless to try to persuade each other whether or not to believe in a God. I never even asked you to. I'm just saying you'd better make very well sure you're right, or you're going to have quite the shock at the white light at the end of the tunnel. My argument is that one must find out for himself. Just remember, I wouldn't suggest basing your life on a negative such as "God doesn't exist," or the antagonistic view of "maybe" because they are virtually the same thing. One is just more lazy than the other.... A fence-sitter has to fall off eventually, and the landing usually hurts.
So, what I'd recommend is asking the Big Man himself... pray. Its funny how many people are affraid to do that. Do it when you're alone if you think you're just talking to yourself. Honestly... how will it hurt?
posted
Ryan, please read the rest of this thread. I think you'll find that several of us have TRIED to reach the "Big Man" himself, and got no response.
BTW, weren't you the Calvinist? Since when are Mormons Calvinists?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My friends, I should have saved you all the trouble and written in my original posts all that I knew you'd say. You see, I was a "Mormon" missionary for two years, and each of your arguments have been used countless times by countless people. I don't know why I even posted to this thread... I knew what people would say before they even said it.
Just wondering, did you answer them as poorly as you’ve been answering us?
quote:As has been noted, Steve, one cannot prove that something does not exist. Don't flatter yourself so much as to try to use my words against me. Its a sign of desperation and, I'm sure it doesn't truly reflect your intellect. Using original words usuallly shows a bit more sincerity.
He was merely showing you how ridiculous and arrogant your statement sounds to us. By the way Steve, I hope you don’t mind me defending you.
quote:Of course its "possible" for there not to be God, or else all of the "logical" people out in the world who claim he doesn't exsist would be singled out as the most stupid people on the planet. Its the very fact that it is possible that God doesn't exist that gives us our agency.
Actually, no. The reason why it would seem that god allows agency is because he created the material world after the consciousness, i.e. soul. Thus the consciousness exists before the material world so it has volition within it.
quote:But, just because something is possible doesn't mean that its true.
Correct. Something that is possible is not necessarily true, but something impossible necessarily is. I never said it was impossible. So this statement simply reiterates a well established fact. Something possible may or may not be true.
quote:Truth has to be found individually.
That’s absolutely correct. All books trying to give truth are false because truth must be found out individually. Glad that we agree.
quote:Just because one claims that something exists, does not mean he claims it impossible that its opposite does not exist. I'm afraid your logic was flawed in that argument.
My logic is not flawed. Explain to me how you can claim “X exists! But it is still possible X doesn’t exist.” When you claim “It is true X exists.” You also claim “It is untrue X does not exist.” Learn more about logic before you go about criticizing other people’s logic.
quote:I'm also afraid that I never made the statement "knowledge is man's feeble attempt at omniscience." I deliberately did not make that statement. I said "logic is man's feeble attempt at omniscience."
The statement was meant to read “logic is not man’s attempt at knowledge.” I have corrected it.
quote:No matter what the dictionary has to say about a word, its the people who create its meaning.
That’s correct. But when people have an established language words have inherent meaning within the context of the language. If we were walking and you were to say “Did you see that large construction site?” It is implied that construction site is a construction site. Whether or not you’ve change the meaning of construction site to mean dog is irrelevant. If you say “look at the construction site” I’m going to look at the construction site not the dog. When you say logic is man’s feeble attempt at omniscience. I’m going to think you’re utterly ridiculous because within the context of the English language it is not. If you did, however, mean it as a philosophical statement… then you are wrong.
quote:I would prefer that we find out truth for ourselves, not by jumping to conclusions because people have "proved" a theory... kind of like that its "impossible" to break the sound barrier, or, if you sail too far into the ocean you'll fall off the earth.
You still haven’t presented an alternate form of epistemology and I’m beginning to question if you even know what you’re talking about.
quote:After all, I'm sure God uses logic
Why are you sure? If you keep making unfounded statements you should expect people to challenge you on them.
quote:What exactly is "knowledge??” Can someone truely "know" something flase exists?
Someone can not know something false exists. Which is why we are so puzzled by your vehement position that god exists.
quote:I'm just saying you'd better make very well sure you're right, or you're going to have quite the shock at the white light at the end of the tunnel.
That white light is caused by a lack of blood the occipital lobe. If I’m ever at this situation I will have a shock. It’s called defibrillation. Oh, wait you’re making some veiled threat that god will be displeased. Well if he/she/it is, it’s his own fault anyway for writing such garbage as he/she/it does. If god wanted me to believe he/she/it should have sent better messengers.
quote:Just remember, I wouldn't suggest basing your life on a negative such as "God doesn't exist," or the antagonistic view of "maybe" because they are virtually the same thing. One is just more lazy than the other....
How utterly patronizing and stupid. There is a GREAT DEAL OF DIFFRENCE BETWEEN AGNOSTICISM AND ATHEISM. One is not more lazy on the other. One is based on a deeper sense of skepticism and empiricism then the other. Agnostics say you can’t know if god exists or not are pushing a world view of strict scientific method. Atheists generally use the proof that theists arguments/documents are so ridiculous that if this is the best god could do then he/she/it probably doesn’t exist. It isn’t very scientific to be atheist, but I feel it’s much more gratifying.
quote:So, what I'd recommend is asking the Big Man himself... pray. Its funny how many people are affraid to do that. Do it when you're alone if you think you're just talking to yourself. Honestly... how will it hurt?
I always think it’s funny when Christians say this. I’ve prayed to Christ, the Buddha, Kali, Shiva, Vishnu, Quetzalcoatl, my ancestors, the cosmic Tao, and Allah. I’m terrified to pray any more because the only one whoever seems to answer is Allah, and I’m not disciplined enough to follow Islamic law so I stopped praying to Allah because I was afraid if I got any more proof of his existence I’d have to convert.
Ryuujin:
quote:He is not responsible for everything. Because he gave us free will to choose. but he does know everything that goes on.
First he can do something about it. secondly he has no limits.
Prove it. He is listing hypothetical possibilities on why god does what he does. You’re responding with metaphysical “facts”. It is intresting that you say he has no limits. This statement is illogical. If he has no limits then he is bound to himself. He can not exceed himself, thus he is his own limit. The old Zen koan applies. “Could god ever create a rock so big that he could not move it?” If he can’t, then he is bound by himself. If he can then he is bound by his actions. What if god made a system so complex or so simple that he could not control it? What if this was the universe. Who can say?
quote:Yeah we like to blame things for our problems. But If you take a look in the Book of Job do you know what happens? A mans Faith is put to the Ultimate test and it is not just to prove to satan that God know Who his people are but it is to show us that someone like Job can lose everything and still have faith and not even Curse God for it.
It’s funny that you use the book of Job because it was obviously written by a gentile and it was obviously written as fiction. It is well written, don’t get me wrong. But it hardly proves one should believe in god.
quote:on a side note Do you work in Mathmatics?
I don’t. Why do you ask?
I wish to bring up three more things.
The first, does anyone else find it slightly disconcerting that once you post it says “Sit tight we’re taking you back to: god”?
The second, I would encourage everyone to join me on Parachat to discuss this further. I should be on tell about 6. It’s currently empty so if you talk to me and I don’t answer, just sit tight I’ll be there in a second. I’m probably getting a sandwich or something.
The last thing, I’ve discovered a genius thought and I’m writing a parable. I’ll post it shortly. Wait with bated breath.
Posts: 28 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's especially sad is that we're rehashing arguments that came EARLIER on this thread, which none of the newbies here have apparently bothered to read. And the saddest thing about that is that, in the early pages of this thread, I pointed out that this was just a rehash of dozens of other conversations we've had on this topic. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I'm writing my parable, to do something new.
I actually read through the rest of the post and yes these are the same things over and over. Did I not, in my first post, say atheists and theists could find no common ground? That they were doomed to repeat the same things over and over again?
The saddest thing is that this is a rehash of previous conversations that rehash previous threads... and yet you're still here. Theological debates are like a sweet posion aren't they? Although you know you should walk away, you just drink more and more.
Posts: 28 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering why threads aren't grouped together by topic. After they're dormant for a certain period, they should just be filed under a topic like "religion/God". Obviously there's some separation already (Discussions about OSC, and Books, Films, Food and American Culture) and we could group things together even better. The sorting doesn't have to be done by just one person - there could be a commission or committee formed to do it. Then we could have arguments like "See post 3960" and "But 3697 proves 3690 wrong, yet 4015 and 4023 prove my position." Posts would get a lot shorter! And a few people would turn into Hatrack forum lawyers...Tom Davidson would have to be a Hatrack forum judge because he's seen all the threads and posted in half of them. He'd be too liberal for some, though and then you'd have to appoint a religious conservative to the bench to balance things...I'm getting too creative so I better go write something...
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Prove it. He is listing hypothetical possibilities on why god does what he does. You’re responding with metaphysical “facts”. It is intresting that you say he has no limits. This statement is illogical. If he has no limits then he is bound to himself. He can not exceed himself, thus he is his own limit. The old Zen koan applies. “Could god ever create a rock so big that he could not move it?” If he can’t, then he is bound by himself. If he can then he is bound by his actions. What if god made a system so complex or so simple that he could not control it? What if this was the universe. Who can say?
One thing that you are not realizing is that god is beyond our understanding. and in answer to your "Old Zen Koan" i cannot exsplain the Nature of god to you because i do not know it. the only proof i can give is my faith and if you do not accept that as proof then i cannot offer any more then love and Prayer.
quote: It’s funny that you use the book of Job because it was obviously written by a gentile and it was obviously written as fiction. It is well written, don’t get me wrong. But it hardly proves one should believe in god.
Whats wrong with it being written by a gentile? I am a gentile my self. Jesus is the saviour to the gentiles.so i see nothing wrong with the fact of him being a gentile. as to the fact that the book is fiction that i dont see anything saying in the bible that it is fiction if it says so anywere please let me know.
quote:What's especially sad is that we're rehashing arguments that came EARLIER on this thread, which none of the newbies here have apparently bothered to read. And the saddest thing about that is that, in the early pages of this thread, I pointed out that this was just a rehash of dozens of other conversations we've had on this topic.
On the other hand, the dozens of threads we have had on the subject are themselves merely rehashes of the same arguments that have been given for thousands of years.
I'm not sure that is sad, though. It seems like you can't really come to good conclusions regarding hard philosophical questions like these without revisiting them time and time again. After all, even after all the rehashing of these thoughts, I'd be willing to bet the majority of this forum still misunderstand the reasoning in some way or another (if not everone on the forum!)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"On the other hand, the dozens of threads we have had on the subject are themselves merely rehashes of the same arguments that have been given for thousands of years."
True. On the other hand, you don't see Augustine showing up to put his two cents in anymore, either. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I won't get into the religion thing, but: Logic is inherently fallible because we can only base our logic and reason from what we know. (This might have already been said and I apologize) And even our knowledge is fallible to a certain degree.
Ok, fine, religion. Yes I do believe it is a "sweet poison." Belief in God and other supernatural beings, I believe, is a decision that is made by people just like choosing a political point of view. We dont choose our beliefs based on logic or reason, we choose our beliefs based on a mixture of popular beliefs, our parents, peers, and generally speaking, our state of mind.
This topic has beaten to death the relationship between logic and religion.
Most believe in God because they feel the need for a being such as God. They WANT to believe it. Redemption and the after life and pretty persuasive elements.
Personally, if i can digress, I believe religion causes more bad than good, spurs debates such as these which accomplish nothing, and causes many to kill in large numbers in the name of their God. Religion is just another thing which seperates us and makes us different. I'd like to believe in God, but organized religion is just too laughable for me.
Posts: 107 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
Oh well, I'm not going to continue on this thread. You're correct. I haven't read through everything on it. I'm a rather busy person and I don't have hours to sit in front of the computer. I never meant to insult anyone, and I appologize if I did.
Gotta run to work. Hope everyone is having a marvelous day.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
You're right. All this stuff has been gone over thousands of times before. But it's so much fun! It's like reading EG for the 27th time, or watching Star Wars. Plus, it's participatory!
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Personally, if i can digress, I believe religion causes more bad than good
I agree, Adeimantus. I have a Buddhist friend and a Christian friend. Whenever my friend who was Buddhist would (past tense because she moved away) leave the room or whenever she wasn't with us, my Christian friend would speak horribly about her. This disgusted me and when I eventually confronted my Christian friend about how angry her ignorant remarks made me, she took offense! I told her (as calmly as I could... ) that I thought Christians were supposed to be kind and accepting of others' beliefs, but she said it only counted for Christians. She angers me terribly. My friend who moved away was a kind and loving person - this is how my other friend should have judged her. Posts: 667 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, thanx to JonnyNotsoBravo. Very rarely will anyone quote me without the words "look what some fool wrote..." preceeding.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont really understand how anyone can deny the existence of God, we are here, there is something instead of nothing. Even if you do subscribe to the big bang theory, how did that extremely small concentrated piece of mass come to existence in the first place?
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I dont really understand how anyone can deny the existence of God, we are here, there is something instead of nothing."
It depends, of course, on how you define "God." If you define God the way most people do -- a sentient, extremely powerful being who cares about the people inhabiting the universe He created -- then the "something instead of nothing" argument is really silly, as it doesn't imply in the least the existence of a sentient creator.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Hobbes--I don't think I've ever been e-hugged before...
Tom, et. al.
What if the universe was created when a time traveller from the 37th century accidentally went back to just before the beginning of the universe, and...
Can you prove that it didn't happen?
(sorry--just being silly)
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really don't have time to read this whole post, and I never will. I see that that it is the same old arguments that no one ever wins. You aren't going to convince either side that you are right. I'm not going to say which side I'm on either, but I do have something..."American Gods" by Neil Gaiman puts a neat little spin on it. His idea is that gods were created, not just the idea of gods, but actual beings, by the faith of their followers. The ceremonies and sacrifices of thier believers gave them power and now it's dying. It's a good story line. And if I were you, I would give up on the unpleasant bickering, it's getting nowhere.
Posts: 15 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
When will you people learn? You can't prove a negative.
quote: Even if you do subscribe to the big bang theory, how did that extremely small concentrated piece of mass come to existence in the first place?
You make the assumption that it HAD to come into existance. There is no reason to think that mass-energy has not existed for an infinate amount of time and will continue to exist for an infinate amount of time.
Posts: 28 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh... see him make a good point. Pretty smart guy, svid, even if he can't spell!
...hem hem... inside joke, anyhoo... There is no logical reason that says that there has to have been a begining of time, so there's no particular reason that I know of to accept it as scripture or be all end all theory. I liken this logic, for example, to the logic of Tom Davidson's idea:
quote: It depends, of course, on how you define "God." If you define God the way most people do -- a sentient, extremely powerful being who cares about the people inhabiting the universe He created -- then the "something instead of nothing" argument is really silly, as it doesn't imply in the least the existence of a sentient creator.
Pelbar said: "...if I were you, I would give up on the unpleasant bickering, it's getting nowhere."
Who's bein' unpleasant(sp, svid?)??? This is what some of us do for fun
Edit: FYI, Tom's original post contained no bold type.
posted
No I don't beleive in God, Heaven, The Devil, or Hell. I've never seen him I've never got the Heavenly feel even after 10 years of going to church. I use to be an all out Penecostal Christian went to church every Sunday and Wednesday...Even went to church camp every summer...NOTHING...Never felt anything...So I gave up I don't go to church anymore and quite frankly the Theory of Evolution is looking pretty good right about now...
Posts: 12 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
Can I do that to? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). It is also a practical one. By the same logic, if a decision to believe in God benefits you more than it harms you, then it is both practical and logical as well. Practicality is very often logical. The actual logic? Premise: Actions that benefit me more than they harm me will improve my life. Premise: I want to improve my life. Premise: belief in God(an action) benefits me more than it harms me. Conclusion: I should believe in God. If you accept the premises, then the conclusion follows.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
or the antagonistic view of "maybe" ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
because they are virtually the same thing. One is just more lazy than the other.... A fence-sitter has to fall off eventually, and the landing usually hurts.![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
(((((Tom))))) ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
) that I thought Christians were supposed to be kind and accepting of others' beliefs, but she said it only counted for Christians. She angers me terribly. My friend who moved away was a kind and loving person - this is how my other friend should have judged her. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
