quote: Duragon: I completely agree that unless there is evidence for something there is little point in considering it. But you have falsely asserted that lack of evidence for God logically means he doesn't exist. Rather, lack of evidence for God logically means absolutely nothing. Logic requires a set of data to operate on, and unless data is there, it makes no pronouncements at all (speaking metaphorically, of course).
Well, this isn't exactly true: there are some logical statements that make pronouncements whether there exist data or not, e.g., tautologies ("Either God exists or God does not exist").
quote: Jeffrey, it is a twisted web. Believe you me, I have considered it for some time. I am, however, absolutely certain that there being a large number of people who say they have had divine revelations is in no way evidence for divine revelations. Based on your post, I think you may think something similar, and may merely have misread my post.
No, I didn't misread it. I was amplifying it. And yes, I agree with your conclusions.
I was introducing a point for the theists to consider: even if we assume the possibility of a divine revelation, how does one determine if such a revelation has occurred?
quote:Well, this isn't exactly true: there are some logical statements that make pronouncements whether there exist data or not, e.g., tautologies ("Either God exists or God does not exist").
No, Fugu's right, no statment can be based on logic unless there is data upon which to base that logic. Your example is a postulate, not a logical concluesion.
posted
I wasn't clear, but by pronouncement I meant conclusion. A (pure) tautology is (luckily!) not a conclusion.
However, even the statement that logic can make no operations without a set of data to operate on is completely true. The set of logical rules is an available data set: that is, (pure) tautologies are logical conclusions about logic! I love logic .
Gotcha on the divine revelation thing, I misread the tone of your post; sorry 'bout that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Jerry exactly, logic is proactive. Until something is sufficiently proven to exist, disproof is not required.
When I said what I said, I guess I should have clarified that simply becuase there is no evidence to support the idea of God, that does not necessarily mean he does not exist. I agree with Fugu when he says that simply because we cant prove he exists doesnt mean that he does not. We can say however, from an epistemological view, that it is incorrect and in fact folly to believe in the concept of God without sufficient proof. I would guess that you guys are argueing the difference between inductive and deductive arguments. In that sense then, one does not have to disprove the idea of God, he has to prove it for me to believe it. There may in fact be a God but I cannot find belief in him/her unless the facts support it.
quote: No, Fugu's right, no statment can be based on logic unless there is data upon which to base that logic. Your example is a postulate, not a logical concluesion.
Hobbes,
A postulate is a subset (not sure off-hand if it's a proper subset) of a logical statement. A logical statement is any syntactically-correct series of operators and identifiers that evaluates to a truth value.
Note that I didn't say that you can come to a logical conclusion without axioms: only that logic can exist without axioms; it's just not very useful as such.
quote:I believe eventually humanity will outgrow the need for religious belief once it feels secure enough that they understand nature to the point where they don't need mystic explanations and emotional safeguards anymore.
Duragon, this is something you said on page three, but its been bugging me. Humanity outgrowing religion?? Honestly...that's like saying humanity will outgrow intollerance, hate, and lying. It sounds like you're talking about some kind of impossible Star Trek universe.
Religion is here to stay, in whatever form it takes.
I have a question referring to the topic title. When you ask, "Does a Universe Really Need a God?", are you asking if the universe needs a God to work at all? Or are you asking if humanity needs a God??
Or I guess you could have meant something else. Anyways, could you explain, pretty please.
Posts: 149 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
The original intent of the thread was to pose the question: Does the Universe Really Need a God? It was pretty straightforward. I meant it quite literally.
For instance: The Universe, to me, does not require a God. This does not mean that there is none. That was not my question.
But lots of fun was had, and though it threatened to get serious for a while, cool heads prevailed, and, though derailed onto a question of the actual existance of God rather than the hypothetical question I posed, I thought it had some great moments. It took on a life of it's own.
In some ways, I really like that. Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The original intent of the thread was to pose the question: Does the Universe Really Need a God? It was pretty straightforward. I meant it quite literally.
For instance: The Universe, to me, does not require a God. This does not mean that there is none. That was not my question.
Some of the replies did respond to your origninal question, eslaine. *But* it seems that most are interested in trying to "prove" that God does or does not exist, or, as in my case, saying that there is no way to prove the existance of God and that is why one must either believe or not. Also, I think the debate as to whether there is or is not a God or Gods is more open ended than the question of whether the universe requires a god to be. Regardless, we'll respond to the topic as we thought it was posited.
Posts: 168 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But indeed, the question "Does a Universe Really Need a God?" begs the other question, "Is there such a thing as a god in the first place?" If the answer to the latter question is "no", then the first question's answer is either meaningless, or at best, obvious.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
