What if there was no god? [Archive] - Literature Network Forums

one_raven

11-29-2007, 09:20 PM

The Pragmatist's God

I have always felt that the best way to look at anything, my personal life, my political leaning –what have you– when attempting decide the best course I should take, is pragmatically.
I look at the situation and attempt to determine what the results of an action should be, and if those results align with my ideals or take me closer to my goals, that is the right choice to make.
Having this pragmatic outlook on life, whenever I was asked if I believed in God, I would always reply that I was agnostic, because, to me, it seemed the only pragmatic path.

I certainly didn’t believe in the Judeo-Christian version of the white-bearded, cognizant, intelligent, creator and master of the universe, father figure in the sky watching us and judging our actions. I stopped believing in Him at about the same time I stopped believing in Santa Claus. Abraham’s God, if not wholly allegorical, simply held nothing for me at all.
I didn’t see evidence of him in my everyday life.
I had never seen any evidence of him at all, for that matter.
The concept of Hell was ludicrous, at best, in my mind. What benevolent creator would create a world rife with difficulty and pain; give us no evidence for, or instinct to believe in, his existence; allow us to live here for barely a speck of time; then base our existence – for eternity – on how well we followed the rules he supposedly invented? We are supposed to follow rules that go against the grain of the very human nature he created us with. He didn’t even make these rules known to all mankind - he had only spoken to a select few in ancient history, and we were all supposed to take these fables on faith that they not only happened, but the stories of the occurrences were absolutely accurate and uncorrupted by retelling over and over again. Not to mention purposeful corruption due to corrupt human beings.
"There is a granite mountain so high that a raven can barely fly over it without touching it. In its beak, the raven has a scarf. Once every thousand years, it flies over the mountain, the very tips of the fringes rubbing against the granite. When the entire mountain has been ground into dust; that is one moment in eternity." – Hindu expression
I was not about to base, not only my life, but my future for all eternity on what basically amounts to a Chinese Whisper.

If this God existed, he was playing with a stacked deck and we were all doomed to Hell. If THIS was God, I wanted nothing to do with the sadistic bastard, anyway.

Aside from that, why would this perfect being even create a pre-world for us to live in before going on to either Heaven or Hell for eternity?
Did he give this all to us as a gift? Heaven is a perfect paradise, but earth is a gift? If someone told me that he built my dream house on a tropical paradise in the South Pacific and I could live there forever if I wanted, but first, I have the wonderful privilege of living in a roach and rat infested apartment building in Newark, New Jersey, what kind of gift would that apartment be? No, if Heaven exists, this is no gift.
Did he do it to test us? He, the perfect being, created us - what’s to test?

Besides, I had no reason to believe that this God was anything more than the fantasies of a people puzzling over the same unanswerable questions that people have been asking for all of humanity, and making up gods to answer.

None of it made any sense to me at all, and I simply have never had the capacity, nor did I want the ability, to have faith in something that doesn’t make any sense to me. If God created us, one thing I firmly believe is that the greatest gift he gave us is our intelligence and ability to reason. Not only should he expect us to use that intelligence, but to not use it would be a grave insult to him.

If this God ever existed at all, then, if anything, he would be the deist version of an absentee father who, upon creating everything and setting it into motion, either turned his back, disinterested, or sat back and watched the world.
One thing I was sure of is that if this God did still exist he certainly had a policy of non-interference.
Perhaps, at one time he was involved with human life, but I was convinced that he hadn’t shown his face around here in quite some time.
It doesn’t really matter why he wasn’t around, he simply wasn’t.

Whatever the truth may have been, the laws of nature were already in place whether they were “designed by God” or they were simply inherent in the system.
The rest of it all – morality, our future, our impact on nature, our impact on other living beings – was entirely up to us.
We are a self-determined animal. We have the capacity to determine for ourselves how we will treat others beings. We have the freedom to create our own ideals and morals, and the freedom to either act in accordance with those beliefs or in defiance of them. Whether or not God ever existed, or exists now really has no bearing on the situation. People chose to break “God’s rules” incessantly, and I have yet to see Him come down and smite anyone as a result. Some people choose to take some sort of sordid comfort in believing that the sinners will be punished in Hell. As I already pointed out, I do not believe in Hell. Furthermore, I do not see eternity in Hell as a just punishment for any sin, regardless how atrocious it may have been, so I would not wish that fate upon any human even if it did exist. I refused to follow in God’s sadistic footsteps.
Morality, it seems to me, has nothing to do with what God supposedly wants, rather what actions would produce the best results for the greatest number of people. Morality, simply stated, is what defines the right and proper treatment of others. That can quite easily be determined by anyone who is not a sociopath without the aid of any God. Again, I apply the pragmatic point of view. Only one simple question needs to be asked: Can I reasonably conceive that the results of this action will hurt others?
My definition of morality is roughly equivalent to my idea of how the ideal democratic government should function – the people should be the beneficiaries of their actions and efforts, and those whose efforts work against that intended goal are in the wrong –regardless of whether or not the action is sanctioned by the laws of man or God.
Given that I saw Abraham’s God as absent and unnecessary, it wouldn’t change my life, or how I live it, one bit if I found out tomorrow that He actually does exist. If that’s true, what’s the point of believing in him?

One day, I decided to take that pragmatic lens I relied upon to guide my life and morals and point it at God, or at least popular depictions of God.
There are quite a few different points of view regarding what God is out there, of course, but there are some traits and attributes that are fairly universal, and I focused on those.

Who or what is God?

He is the Alpha and the Omega.
He is Volition, Driven.
He is Desire, Realized.
He is Will, Rendered.
He is Word, Incarnate.
He is Intention, Revealed.
He is Karma, Manifest.

He cannot be seen by human eyes, but people can feel His presence.
He is omnipotent: He can force the hands of people and turn the tides of fate. He cannot be stopped or contained. The sum of all humankind’s power combined cannot compare to Him. No one person can control Him, but everyone can influence Him - He knows the fears, wishes, glories and prayers of every person, and responds accordingly. His power should be recognized, revered, feared and respected - to deny His existence is folly at best. His power reaches into the deepest recesses of every person’s subconscious mind and exercises influence on all, regardless of faith or belief.
He works in mysterious ways. There is none as subtle and graceful as Him. He can wholly control nearly every aspect of a person’s life, without that person even knowing He is present.
He is omniscient: He is greater than the sum of the knowledge, wisdom, experience and emotions of everyone, past and present. There is nothing that happens that He does not know. There is nothing that has happened that He does not remember. His knowledge of and influence over the future is unfathomable. No future, however, is inevitable.
He is omni benevolent: He is greater than the sum all the benevolent influences of all people combined.
He is omnipresent: There is no place anyone can go without being affected by Him.
He is eternal: He has existed since before the dawn of humankind's consciousness. Long after the last human has expired, He will still exist.
He has created, and continues to create, humankind in His own image.
Humankind has created, and continues to create, Him in its own image.

This general definition of what or who God represents was my starting point.

Does something with the traits and attributes of "God" exist?
I think so.
Does that thing affect my life on a regular, even constant basis?
I think so.
Does that thing react to my actions, therefore, in effect, acknowledge my existence?
I think so.
Does that thing have an immense power over people’s lives all around the globe, whether or not they acknowledge its existence?
I think so.
Does this thing deserve to be respected and even praised for its power?
I think so.
Do I benefit from acknowledging this thing as an integral part of my life?
Yes, I think I do.

I determined that there actually IS something that all those attributes could be ascribed to.
It has all the power that the “universal God” has, I could see its effects in my every day life, I can contribute to it, I can learn from it, I am affected by it every moment of every day and it deserves all the praise and worship that is lauded upon the God(s) of different religions.
If I respect the power of it, act with integrity and be mindful of all my actions and what I contribute to it, I could clearly see the results of those actions.
I could see the direct and indirect results of living a virtuous life, while recognizing, acknowledging and revering something bigger than myself that is not distinct and separate from myself.

This thing, for all intents and purposes, is equivalent to common depictions of the “Universal God”.

The Devil and God are indistinguishable.
Both reside in the collective intentions, actions and knowledge of man, and they are in a constant struggle with each other.

Every action you take affects the lives and decisions of countless people around you and each one of those actions that were affected by your action affects many more.
It is an endless collection of ripples interacting in an infinite pool of time.

Any decision you make, regardless of how insignificant it may seem on the surface, could ultimately end up affecting the lives of millions of people that you don’t even know, and many that you do know.
What is most important is being mindful of the contributions you make to it by virtue of simply existing and interacting with other life.
It is important to acknowledge the fact that we and our lives are so intrinsically intertwined and powerfully influenced by this, and that we would do well to keep that in mind when we make the choices we do.
We certainly are self-determined animals, but we are constantly inundated with influences in our lives, and while that is certainly no excuse to absolve yourself of your responsibility and accountability of your actions, not being mindful of such influences will cause you to fall prey to it. The immense power of this is something that should be revered, not blamed, because the source of the blame is placed squarely on individuals and their actions.

Although its existence cannot be seen, heard, measured or quantified, it certainly has very real effects.
It swept through the Deep South many years ago and convinced people that they were justified in lynching human beings based on the color of their skin.
It pulled people together at home to gather their efforts and cooperate while their sons and husbands were off fighting World War II.
It made Michael Jackson a star.
It made Michael Jackson a pitiful laughing stock.

Every attribute of God and the Devil, every bible story, every ideal and ideology can be ascribed to it.
It is Karma, Manifest.

All the major theistic religions have their own specific ideas about the truth of the nature of God.
I think they all have it right, but none of them have the whole picture.
The truth is an immense mirror, large enough to reflect all of humanity. Organized religion, wielded by human self-absorption and fear, is the hammer that humankind took to this mirror.
When the pieces fell, hordes of people ran up to it, stepping over one another, clamoring for a piece of the truth they can possess and call their very own.
Everyone now has a tiny piece of this huge shattered mirror, and they think they own God.
They look deep into their little, personal sliver of truth, searching for God and find him in a reflection of their own selves looking back at them.
This convinces them that their beliefs are correct, and everyone else's must be wrong.
If people were willing to just put all their pieces back together and reform the mirror, when they looked into it they would see the whole of humanity looking back at them.
However, people would rather own a piece of the truth, than give up their piece in search of the whole. They are scared that someone will run off with their precious piece. They would rather die than face the insecurity they fear will descend upon them if they would give up their piece. They would rather kill than give up their piece. Killing in the name of God – how utterly debased and disgusting humans have become in their quest to protect their measly, little piece that really doesn’t even make much of a difference to the whole.
I also suspect they fear what they will see looking back at them when they take a good look at themselves.

I often hear people say "I am God", or "God is within me" what they should be saying is "We are God" or "God is within us".
The further we get away from each other, the further we get from seeing, understanding and knowing the truth for what it is.

Redzeppelin

11-29-2007, 10:20 PM

The absence of God creates the reality that we have no coherent explanation for the structure of the universe, the existence of morality, the existence of evil, the character of human nature, or the existence of life in a universe clearly geared to be hostile to life.

Auriga

11-29-2007, 10:55 PM

That was a very well thought out and interesting post, however, I have a hard time following the continuity. You start out by asserting the fact that you're an agnostic, because you find no practical reason for believing the existence of a God or other such supernatural being. However, you begin to delve into the possibility that all religions may have some validity in their claims, but they're all missing the bigger picture, implying your belief that there very well may be a God or higher power, watching and, potentially, judging our actions based on our mis-understanding of his "teachings".

I'm just curious if through the act of writing that extremely interesting post, did you begin to question your own beliefs and were you, in a sense, creating (maybe subconsiously) a new philosophy for yourself?

In either case, I was very intrigued by your response, and it was certainly thought provoking, regardless of which stand point you decide to sway with.

I was particularly interested in your visual display of how all the religions of the world may only be potential shards of a larger truth that they are too stuborn to work towards. I, too, have always shared this view.

The only issue I'm having with most of the other responses to this question are that they are relying too much on the notion of what the world would be like if we came to the understanding that there existed no formalised version of God, for instance, our commonly refered to Abraham God, or Judeo-Christo God.

I suggest, for the moment, that people forget what they know about commonly accepted popular religions, and focus on the simple concept of a god (small "g") and try to fathom the implications that NOTHING created us. That we simply are, without pre-conception and no necessary teleological conclusion.

Personally, as an atheist of sorts (leaning towards agnosticism), I wouldn't find it particularly difficult to accept. However, living in a society where the majority of the population are devout religious followers of some sort, I think that even if we came up with some brilliant and un-disputable scientific explanation as to the creations of the Universe, leaving God out of the equation, many people would simply refuse to believe it. I do not think they would even refuse to believe it out of a blatant and conscious decision to disregard science, but they would honestly be un-able to accept the fact that nothing created them; the notion of creationism would be so deeply ingraned in their existence that it would be like taking the shell off of a snail. They would just look for another one and move on.

Let's be honest, without the concept of god, we automatically replace it with a notion of infinity. Modern notions of gods suggest that they have some form of an end, a final effect from a series of causes which have lasted for thousands of years. If we take away god, we get the notion that the universe existed for an x amount of years before us, but can continue to exist for an inndefinite amount of years to come. Infinity is a very tricky and confusing concept.

All of our lives, we are surrounded by states of finitism; where things, or occurances last only for a specific amount of time. Life, in and of itself, is a finite journey through space and time. People find comfort in this notion. They live this life for a pre-determined amount of time by some higher creation, either consciously or simply as a result of his first cause, and then they move onto another state of being which also lasts for a finite amount of time. Granted, this second stage may not, at first glance, be concidered to be finite. But it is. The way modern language interprets religion states that people go to heaven for "The rest of time", "Until the end of time", etc. These all suggest that time, eventually, will end.

I suspect that to introduce a concept of eternity for most of the world, would be a bit of a shock and difficult to accept. And I don't mean the religion version of eternity, where it will eventually end. I mean the half of a half of a half kind of eternity. There is no end, ever, not at all, no chance in hell.

Redzeppelin

11-29-2007, 11:02 PM

Auriga

11-29-2007, 11:04 PM

In fact, that's what I said. I said that the universe existed for an x amount of time before us, whcih sugests that x can be replaced by a specific number. We just don't know what the number is, so I leave it as a variable to be replaced at a later date if anybody can finally come to a decision as to how long ago the creation of the Universe was.

Redzeppelin

11-29-2007, 11:19 PM

Got it. Thanks.

Pendragon

11-30-2007, 11:08 AM

Would I change the way I live if I could be certain there is no God, Heaven, or Hell? That's a large question. I have always put it to people this way, however.
Your walk with God only consists of what you would do if you were certain that you would never get caught. To believe in God that way, that the walk you have with Him only is as good as taking away fear of punishment, and thought of reward and simply serving Him anyway, negates the question of whether or not He exists. You will believe He does, not out of fear of punishment, nor out of hope that you might have something to gain, but just because He is God. Then you have found something worth hanging onto that people cannot talk you out of or disproof in anyway you can except. God alone has become real for you. That's my stand.

God Bless

Pen

NickAdams

11-30-2007, 12:35 PM

I'm pretty certain of it now and I don't believe in an after-life. I was once more ambitious. Wanting to create a legacy, but I don't believe the earth will last forever, so it all seems futile. With one life, I want to enjoy it as much as I can. Not in the hedo sense, but I want to pursue my dreams. That's why in2008, I will paint, play music, direct film, write, write and write.

dzebra

11-30-2007, 01:33 PM

If God did not exist, I would be very greedy, because now would be the only time that I have and I would be the only thing that matters to me.

Auriga

11-30-2007, 02:46 PM

So that brings people back to the issue that God provides a sense of morality to people. Are humans only moral creatures because they fear the otherside?

I believe that humans are moral creatures because we have the ability to think about a situation in a rational and deliberate way. Taking God out of the equation shouldn't automatically equate to taking morality and good sense out as well.

Oniw17

11-30-2007, 03:39 PM

You cannot logically have an infinite amount of moments before a "now."
Why can't you?

Auriga

11-30-2007, 03:41 PM

Because now implies there was a finite amount of past to get you up to this point. You can count backwards and say this was the beginning, this is now. You can't, however, apply that same logic to the future, because it hasn't happened yet. There can be, theoretically, infinity to the future.

Oniw17

11-30-2007, 04:02 PM

So then if the big bang theory is correct, there almost has to be a creator-deity(since whether the big bang was the start or not, eventually something had to came from nothing).

Bakiryu

11-30-2007, 04:07 PM

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god? No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!) Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?

I'll probably laugh and say something like "In your face!" then I would get more done, and stop being annoyed by Jehovah Witnesses at 6 in the morning (no offense to any JW who happen to read this.)

one_raven

11-30-2007, 05:11 PM

Our universe had a beginning. Of the two "infinities" (potential and actual), only potential infinities can exist (those created by the continues adding on - like seconds on a clock). Actual infinites cannot exist in reality. As well, because we have a "now" we know that time had a beginnning. You cannot logically have an infinite amount of moments before a "now."

I don't buy it.
I've heard that before, and no one has ever been able to prove it to me.
I am not saying that the Universe did not have a beginning, I am saying that your explanation doesn't hold water.

If I had a string of infinite length, I could still place my finger on the string and pluck it.
It doesn't matter if it has ends.

Auriga

11-30-2007, 06:17 PM

So then if the big bang theory is correct, there almost has to be a creator-deity(since whether the big bang was the start or not, eventually something had to came from nothing).

I suppose that's the question of the thread, eh?

If we accept the fact that time must have a beginning, then how do we account for the creation of the universe without a god? Do we suggest that our Universe is just one Universe created at a specific point in time? I guess that brings about the issue of creating an infinite regression...

Which, I suppose, brings about another issue. If time needs to have a beginning, but not neccesarily an end, then how do we know how far along that one way infinite line we stand? Hm.. It's a tough concept, which brings me back to my earlier point on the other page about how this concept of infinity can lead people to be more comfortable in accepting the point of view of creationism, because it provides a sense of control and order. Without it, we're left contemplating infinite regressions on eternity's abstract string of time.

Dark Star

11-30-2007, 09:11 PM

So then if the big bang theory is correct, there almost has to be a creator-deity(since whether the big bang was the start or not, eventually something had to came from nothing).

The big bang is not an explosion of something from nothing. It's more like a balloon expanding from very small to very large.

blazeofglory

11-30-2007, 10:42 PM

my answer would seem awful, but I'd commit suicide...really, because I'd feel nihilistic towards everything I lived for, so far. I'm not trying to say that life sux or anything; I mean that everything would lose it's value, it's Real-ness.

That is untrue. Values are there not just there is God, and indeed of course without God values are there and will be there without God. If we read the history of the world more battles, and wars were fought in the name of religion and God, more than the two world wars put together.

Metanoia

12-01-2007, 12:43 AM

It is a little presumtious to assume that just becasue God and Heaven and Hell are proven not to exisist that there would be nothing as there are many other relgions out there. For example even if there was no God or Heaven and Hell, the Buddist path could still prove to be true, as there are many many forms of Buddism, the first and early Buddisim did not worship a god figure to begin with, it was later Buddisim forms that turned Budda into a deity.

Nor is there any heaven or hell in Buddisim

I wasnt presuming to make any statement about any right or wrong religion, I was just wondering what one might do if they found their God false, and of nothing existing after death. How one would live their life after learning this(how would this knowlege alter your everday life, your relationships, your morals ect. That was the point of this thread.

Metanoia

12-01-2007, 01:00 AM

Why does "no God" necessarily equate to "nothing after this life awaiting us"?

It doesn't necessarily equate to that, I was just posing a theoretical question. If you dicovered there was NOTHING after this life,no God, heaven, hell or any other religious or personal beliefs about any after-life. If you could remove yourself from your beliefs for a second....you die...you cease to exsist, and there is NO MORE after that. Would you change the way you live your life if this was true?

thirdeye

12-01-2007, 03:11 AM

I try do be a nice person and do good things for other people because it makes me feel good inside, and I get rewards for my actions in this life. It wouldn't matter if there was a god or heaven after this because it wouldn't change how I treat other people and choose to live my life. I do good and help because it makes me happy. But hey If I'm doing this life thing wrong and there really is a god and you have to be in a religion to go to heaven...then I guess I'll see you in hell. I'll bring the hot dogs and smores.

chasestalling

12-01-2007, 07:11 AM

I suppose that's the question of the thread, eh?

a sense of control and order. Without it, we're left contemplating infinite regressions on eternity's abstract string of time.

the comfort then derived is limited to the group which subscribe to it. the question is is that the best man can do? that is choose one group over another and remain loyal to that group to the end of his days for better or worse.

one_raven

12-01-2007, 11:20 AM

If you dicovered there was NOTHING after this life,no God, heaven, hell or any other religious or personal beliefs about any after-life. If you could remove yourself from your beliefs for a second....you die...you cease to exsist, and there is NO MORE after that. Would you change the way you live your life if this was true?

If I were able to remove myself from my beliefs, perhaps then I could start believing in the Judeo-Christian concept of what afterlife is.

Remarkable

12-01-2007, 11:37 AM

I already think there is no God so that wouldn't change anything for me.I'd keep going exactly the same with the exeption that there wouldn't be any theological debates with my friends.Anyway,the debate of Heaven and Hell and afterlife it is an ethical issue that is not neccesarily connected to God.

blazeofglory

12-01-2007, 11:53 AM

Redzeppelin

12-01-2007, 10:36 PM

I don't buy it.
I've heard that before, and no one has ever been able to prove it to me.
I am not saying that the Universe did not have a beginning, I am saying that your explanation doesn't hold water.

If I had a string of infinite length, I could still place my finger on the string and pluck it.
It doesn't matter if it has ends.

An actual infinity is infinite; because the future does not exist until it becomes the present, time cannot be an actual infinity, but rather a potential infinity - in that the second hand can continually add just one more second.

one_raven

12-02-2007, 12:39 PM

time cannot be an actual infinity, but rather a potential infinity

Why not?

liberal viewer

12-03-2007, 12:18 AM

Pendragon

12-03-2007, 10:12 AM

Reading some of the responsed gives me the dreadful impression that people haven't really read anything about philosophy and theological arguments about this subject.
News flash: the world is a dark and terrible place. Human beings have believed in a supernatural being to try and make sense of this place, but it doesn't make it real. Nietzche begins his argument with the famous qoute: God is dead.
I suggest you guys read what Russell, Sartre and Heideggar had to say on the subject. You might also want to check out the recent books by Hitchens, Dawkins and my favorite: "God: the failed hypothesis" by Victor Stenger.Not to be argumentative, but why does Nietzsche, who gets a lot of bad press, or any one else saying "God is dead." make that true? We are already given to believe that by these philosophers' writings, that they feel man has grown beyond the need for God, that we understand enough of how the world works to make excellent deductions at that which we do not know, and nothing exists that does not have a reasonable explanation. I.E., they see no reason to believe in God, so God doesn't exist.

Human beings are notorious for being wrong, even the brightest of minds. I say you cannot prove something doesn't exist. Infinity is a long time to deal with. So I see no reason to take the statement "God is dead." as fact. And read Nietzsche a bit more carefully and see if he wasn't more against the apparent hypocrisy in the churches than the Christians themselves. If they were going to call themselves Christians, he found their actions deplorably beneath any high calling.

God Bless

Pendragon

God Bless

Granny5

12-03-2007, 10:27 AM

liberal viewer

12-03-2007, 07:47 PM

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really care what Nietzsche, Russell, Sartre and Heideggar have to say about God. I just don't need their opinions. Either believe or don't believe. No one's opinion will change what I believe in my heart. But, I do believe that there are other things to be learned by reading them.
Also, I can't see where humans have evolved to the point where they don't need a god any longer. In this world, I think we probably need God even more. But, that is just my opinion.
:
:
On the other hand, I am betting you got your own concept of God taught to you by your family and your society. So actually what you believe in your heart comes from the opinions of others about there being a God. As for needing a God now even more, I'd say we need more solidarity and human understanding.

Not to be argumentative, but why does Nietzsche, who gets a lot of bad press, or any one else saying "God is dead." make that true? We are already given to believe that by these philosophers' writings, that they feel man has grown beyond the need for God, that we understand enough of how the world works to make excellent deductions at that which we do not know, and nothing exists that does not have a reasonable explanation. I.E., they see no reason to believe in God, so God doesn't exist.

Human beings are notorious for being wrong, even the brightest of minds. I say you cannot prove something doesn't exist. Infinity is a long time to deal with. So I see no reason to take the statement "God is dead." as fact. And read Nietzsche a bit more carefully and see if he wasn't more against the apparent hypocrisy in the churches than the Christians themselves. If they were going to call themselves Christians, he found their actions deplorably beneath any high calling.

God Bless

Pendragon

God Bless

I think you are making my argument. Religion is taught to us. We have this need for a higher being simply because we can't explain our universe and ourselves. As for reading Nietzche more carefully, I have. He thought that the notion of a higher being was an insult to human intelligence.

Etienne

12-03-2007, 11:09 PM

"What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god? No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!) Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?"

I'd drink to that.

But honestly I don't think any proof of any kind could convince those who really want to believe.

sreeja

12-04-2007, 02:40 AM

After the life i don't know about it.But in life i believe in god.About hell or heaven i think hell and heaven is in the life itself.

Pendragon

12-04-2007, 10:53 AM

:
I think you are making my argument. Religion is taught to us. We have this need for a higher being simply because we can't explain our universe and ourselves. As for reading Nietzsche more carefully, I have. He thought that the notion of a higher being was an insult to human intelligence.No, I am not making your argument for you. As I said, I still think Nietzsche gets plenty of bad press and quotations taken out of context. But it is certain that he said "God is dead."

Well, consider this: If you do not believe something even exists, to you it never lived anyway. To those of us who believe in God in all His Power, He cannot die.
However, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was born on October 15, 1844 and on August 25, 1900, God said "Nietzsche is dead." And so it has been. His statement of God being dead failed to destroy God. And I am well aware that with Nietzsche, whom by the way you have failed to spell right even once (I corrected your spelling here), people pick and choose what they put forward as his statements, and claim his illness (which finally claimed him) was against him if they disagree.

Let someone else suggest anything about that illness, and they have insulted a brilliant thinker. Know your opponent to play the game.

God Bless

Pen

mazHur

12-04-2007, 11:26 AM

If there wasn't a God there could be no Nietzsche or we discussing about Him or him !
Who, afterall, looks after this whole play if it isn't God?? Who makes our plans go wrong (or right) ?? If there was no god ,Science would have proved where man goes after death but it cant because God is there and holding them back to get at that mystery!

here is a link for Nietzsche ::

http://www.newstatesman.com/200711080054
Nietzsche and nihilism, by Keith Pearson: The whole idealism of humanity…is on the point of tipping into nihilism -- into the belief in absolute valuelessness, that is, meaninglessness… The annihilation of ideals, the new wasteland, the new arts of enduring it, we amphibians.

APEist

12-04-2007, 11:52 AM

Reading some of the responsed gives me the dreadful impression that people haven't really read anything about philosophy and theological arguments about this subject.
News flash: the world is a dark and terrible place. Human beings have believed in a supernatural being to try and make sense of this place, but it doesn't make it real. Nietzche begins his argument with the famous qoute: God is dead.
I suggest you guys read what Russell, Sartre and Heideggar had to say on the subject. You might also want to check out the recent books by Hitchens, Dawkins and my favorite: "God: the failed hypothesis" by Victor Stenger.

Ok, so what does it matter if the previous posters in this thread havn't read all that much (if at all) into the subject. Those authors, however genius, had no more leads then we have.

All I see is you inferring that the debaters here are uneducated on the subject, and then not offering up your own theories. Of course I'll be coming off as a little hypocritical here (and rightfully so), seeing as how I am not posting my own theory, but at least I'm not infering that the previous posts are uneducated when the topic at hand is so abstract that no human can possibly claim to know anything for certain about it. Thus EVERYONE is uneducated about it, and EVERYONE'S opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

Virgil

12-04-2007, 12:10 PM

Ok, so what does it matter if the previous posters in this thread havn't read all that much (if at all) into the subject. Those authors, however genius, had no more leads then we have.

All I see is you inferring that the debaters here are uneducated on the subject, and then not offering up your own theories. Of course I'll be coming off as a little hypocritical here (and rightfully so), seeing as how I am not posting my own theory, but at least I'm not infering that the previous posts are uneducated when the topic at hand is so abstract that no human can possibly claim to know anything for certain about it. Thus EVERYONE is uneducated about it, and EVERYONE'S opinion is just as valid as anyone else's.

Unlike somewhere else, I happen to agree with Ape here. ;) Very good response to someone who thinks that the writers he agrees with have the final say on the subject. Well, there are others who disagree.

mazHur

12-04-2007, 12:40 PM

The will of God [is] the sanctuary of ignorance.

Everyone judges of things according to the state of his brain, or rather mistakes for things the forms of his imagination.

Truth is its own standard. We must remember, besides, that our mind, insofar as it truly perceives things, is a part of the infinite intellect of God, and therefore it must be that the clear and distinct ideas of the mind are as true as those of God.

The more we understand individual objects, the more we understand God.

God and all the attributes of God are eternal.

Nature is but a name for an effect whose cause is God.

here are some quotes about God by Baruch Spinoza who is famed as the Modern Rational Philosopher.

God is the free cause of all things.

Dark Star

12-04-2007, 01:52 PM

If there wasn't a God there could be no Nietzsche or we discussing about Him or him !

You can't be serious. Nietzsche was discussing the belief in such a being. It does NOT have to be there for people to believe in it.

Or do you mean that we wouldn't be alive at all if God wasn't there? Either way its a superfluous assumption about life or beliefs.

Who, afterall, looks after this whole play if it isn't God?? Who makes our plans go wrong (or right) ??

It could be Odin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, the great gobblygook on the mountain; any number of deities could be inserted in the place of 'God' here. Furthermore, you seem to have made some claim that there is something that 'looks after this whole play' and 'makes our plans go wrong (or right)' without providing a reason why such a thing is necessary, or even any evidence that it happens.

If there was no god ,Science would have proved where man goes after death but it cant because God is there and holding them back to get at that mystery!

...What? The latter does not follow from the former and this is a very poor God of the Gaps argument (READ: logical fallacy). That we have not developed scientifically far enough to explain what happens to a person's consciousness when they died does not mean God is there holding us back from it (unless, of course you mean the centuries of forward progression in science the Church did their damnedest to hold us back by).

mazHur

12-04-2007, 02:24 PM

do you mean that we wouldn't be alive at all if God wasn't there? Either way its a superfluous assumption about life or beliefs.

Or do you believe you won't be DEAD if God wasn't there?? Doesn't your argument make it conversely superfluous and illogical?

I
t could be Odin, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, the great gobblygook on the mountain; any number of deities could be inserted in the place of 'God' here.

This is what is called conjecturing and surmising. Couldn't you provide some concrete evidence to refute existence of God??

The latter does not follow from the former and this is a very poor God of the Gaps argument

Well, let science 'make' a pinch of dust then I will believe science is not just digging in what God has made and which already exists there. Science is just like chroming a piece of iron, not iron in itself !!

Dark Star

12-04-2007, 07:01 PM

Or do you believe you won't be DEAD if God wasn't there?? Doesn't your argument make it conversely superfluous and illogical?

Until you give me evidence that God is necessary for life to exist, you are simply making a superfluous argument. Attempting to turn my argument around on me like that is a bad idea and doesn't work. God being necessary for life to exist is NOT the default, until evidence is given to support it. My conclusion is not superfluous or illogical and Occam's Razor supports it.

This is what is called conjecturing and surmising. Couldn't you provide some concrete evidence to refute existence of God??

How is listing other deities any more of a form of conjecture than your listing of God? And now, you're trying to shift the burden of proof. It is not my job to prove a negative (the non-existence of this being), your job is to provide some concrete evidence of the existence of God. At that time it would be necessary for me to refute it or to accept it as true. You have not yet done this.

Well, let science 'make' a pinch of dust then I will believe science is not just digging in what God has made and which already exists there. Science is just like chroming a piece of iron, not iron in itself !!

What? What exactly are you talking about when you say "'make' a pinch of dust"? Are you speaking of creating life? If so, its already been done: Miller-Urey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller-Urey_experiment).

APEist

12-05-2007, 01:05 PM

This response might not directly apply to the original question of this thread, but I'd like to address something that nags me.

I myself am not religious (I'm agnostic), but when non-religious folk make statements along the lines of "religion is just a crutch for people, a coping mechanism for those of us who can't handle reality," it bothers me greatly. For one, assessing your own beliefs on such a topic as indisputable is pure ignorance, and for obvious reasons.

Two, isn't everyone just trying to find comfort in their own beliefs? It's just that people find comfort in different things. For example, a Christian finds comfort "knowing" that someone is guiding them and that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and that if they accept him as their saviour they will be granted access to heaven, while at the same time an atheist finds comfort "knowing" that there is no over-arching being controlling and/or observing their life, ready to pass judgement on them at the end. As an agnostic I find comfort "knowing" that all this speculation is pointless since we are discussing the unknowable, and so I just relax and go with the flow.

We all find comfort in different beliefs, and in the end that is the belief we are going to lean towards.

Honestly the people who have it the hardest in this world (concerning this topic) are people who are unsure of their beliefs. For instance, imagine how hard it must be for someone struggling to be a Christian because that was the way they were raised, but they constantly question the existence of Jesus or even God, and their faith is unsteady at best. How hard must it be sometimes to believe in something you've never seen, never heard, never felt.

I was once in that situation, and I used my past as an example because I know how fear of the unknown can breed in the heart of someone unsure of their beliefs.

Anyways, before you accuse someone for using their beliefs as a crutch, look in the mirror. Because you do to.

mazHur

12-05-2007, 01:48 PM

How hard must it be sometimes to believe in something you've never seen, never heard, never felt.

This is not correct. You do see, hear and feel God in His manifestations, in your hearts. Just check it out!

APEist

12-05-2007, 02:17 PM

This is not correct. You do see, hear and feel God in His manifestations, in your hearts. Just check it out!

I'm guessing you're implying that if a person is truly saved they are open to various forms of communication with God and whatnot. That's cool if that's what you believe.

For a second, when I first read it, I thought you were trying to tell me what I felt in the past. If somehow my first assumption was correct, I'll advise you to stop now before you discredit yourself any further.

NikolaiI

12-05-2007, 02:59 PM

mazHur,
I guess we could say there's two opposing views here. Polar opposites. Extremes. A paradox. They cannot both be true. You agree with me, but you're about to stop.
Extremes meet. Paradoxes are solvable.
Two different sides or polar extremes come from a center. On a coin, on one side is heads and on the other is tails, and they are connected by the center.

It's like yin and yang.

Anyway, saying God is the cause of things is rather ridiculous.

Incipit me, into the world, a new observer. I learn about various things. I learn how to distinguish truth, and I learn the greatest metaphysical understandings of our day. Then I learn about language and ontology. Then you come and give me this arbitrary, non-intelligent statement that God is the cause of things, the un-moved mover, and furthermore, with all the arrogance of knowing you're right, when actually you're equally wrong as right.

I don't think there's a God.
Now, getting all angry with me for this, getting all contorted, isn't going to make me think there is anymore.
Can you even consider the other side? In Zen there is a saying "set it down and the truth will be before you," or something like that. In Buddhism it's taught to even let go of your own beliefs!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry. I don't mean to get all weird. Carry on.

mazHur

12-05-2007, 03:09 PM

Niko, you are caught and bold !

the following quote is by Spinoza and not ME as erroneously transposed but taken by you to be by me !

God is the free cause of all things.
Spinoza

Have a round with Spinoza to get your answer.
I rest my argument here ,,,,,,,,

NikolaiI

12-05-2007, 03:16 PM

Niko, you are caught and bold !

the following quote is by Spinoza and not ME as erroneously transposed but taken by you to be by me !

No, YOU said that, HERE. After the Spinoza quotes.

here are some quotes about God by Baruch Spinoza who is famed as the Modern Rational Philosopher.

God is the free cause of all things.

Have a round with Spinoza to get your answer.
I rest my argument here ,,,,,,,,[/QUOTE]

mazHur

12-05-2007, 03:27 PM

thescholar

12-05-2007, 04:06 PM

this largely depends on the individual's definition of God. For example, many people follow a set of virtues or beliefs that they themselves have formed. This type of belief set is much like a religion, it follows certain rules and practises, much like a religion, albeit without a defining name and/or subject. In this sense, no God would simply mean no directive for these virtues, though a person can still live with the beliefs and practises of religion. Besides, isn't religion formed largely on the basis that the existence of God can be neither proven nor disproven... this is a difficult concept for me to get my head around. Personally, even as an agnostic, I believe concrete proof of a lack of God would be potentially less ground-breaking than concrete proof of the existence of a God.

NikolaiI

12-05-2007, 04:20 PM

Niko, although the quote was a transpositional error, it confirms your wrong judgment, argument and knowledge in the subject. It's now no use arguing further as you havnt read Spinoza or other philosophers for that sake. Bye

Reproaching God
By Anon

An orphan girl wearing tattered and dirty clothes stood on a street
corner begging for food. Or money to enable her to buy some.
A man noticed her and passed without giving her a second look. On
returning to his expensive home, his happy and comfortable family and
generously laden dinner table, his thoughts returned to her. He became
angry with God for allowing such destitute children to exist without
helping them.
He reproached God, saying,
"How can you let this happen ? Why don't you do something to help the
girl ?"
In the depths of his being a voice spoke, saying,
"I have, I created you."

You are delusional, in that you think you have knowledge of things of which you have no information, made more pronounced by the fact that you are wrong. I have read Spinoza, as well as Descartes, Pascal, Leibnitz, Fichte, and others..

There is not a God. No God exists. We as humans on this ball of rock created religion, metaphysics, but we are here naturally, not at the cause of supernatural. I can see clearly that we are here naturally, and so I don't put stock in people's theories about God; of whom there is no evidence in this world at all.

We exist. Reality exists. God does not exist inside reality. We created him. Is it not telling that we say he created us in his image, in other words, that he is in our image?

The base of all metaphysics is friendship. If we can't discuss God in a way that brings us together, (c.f. how exclusionists resort to guerilla tactics and ad hominem) then it is counter productive, to say the least. You kill God when you insult someone, just like, in the words of great theologians, "every time you drop the bomb you kill the God your child has born." Don't presume to say what's in my heart, because you are infinitely far away from that.

You equate God with spirituality, and since I say there is no God you put me in the category of infidel. Yet we are all sinners and God chooses who goes to heaven.

Douglas Adams: isn't it enough to say the garden is beautiful without saying there are faeries at the bottom?

The garden is beautiful.

Pendragon

12-06-2007, 09:59 AM

Honestly the people who have it the hardest in this world (concerning this topic) are people who are unsure of their beliefs. For instance, imagine how hard it must be for someone struggling to be a Christian because that was the way they were raised, but they constantly question the existence of Jesus or even God, and their faith is unsteady at best. How hard must it be sometimes to believe in something you've never seen, never heard, never felt.

Ape, you are someone I'd love to shake hands with. Ignoring all the bells and whistles, you go straight to the core. The ones that usually have it hardest are the ones, unsure of what they themselves believe and yet unable to remain silent. Sooner or later they begin to throw stones, such as questioning the intelligence of other posters to outright insults, cementing the fact that they themselves find they are on shaky ground. If you can't be right, be loud!

One who knows where he stands does not back up when he takes a broadside. This is going to happen from time to time. Perhaps he will be prepared for this particular one. Perhaps he may have to regroup before answering. But he will answer and it will make sense if you choose to see it his way. If not, you may find it absolute nonsense. But you'll get an answer, not an "un-oh."

A person who knows where he stands isn't afraid to say he doesn't know everything. Those who claim to know everything often know nothing. I have always used a quote by a famous minister: "When you think you've got it all figured out, you're wrong." That is the way I see things.

God Bless

Pen

Sweets America

12-06-2007, 10:17 AM

You are delusional, in that you think you have knowledge of things of which you have no information, made more pronounced by the fact that you are wrong. I have read Spinoza, as well as Descartes, Pascal, Leibnitz, Fichte, and others..

There is not a God. No God exists. We as humans on this ball of rock created religion, metaphysics, but we are here naturally, not at the cause of supernatural. I can see clearly that we are here naturally, and so I don't put stock in people's theories about God; of whom there is no evidence in this world at all.

We exist. Reality exists. God does not exist inside reality. We created him. Is it not telling that we say he created us in his image, in other words, that he is in our image?

It has always surprised me a great deal that people could say with as much certainty that God does not exist. How could you know that? This sounds crazy to me.
Personally, I cannot affirm that God exists, or that he doesn't! How could I know? All I can say for sure is that I just ignore the truth. It is so strange that you blame someone who is acting in the exact same way as you, that is who claims to be SURE of something he cannot objectively know.

Is it really a problem to recognize that no one knows and that maybe no one will ever know? Then, everyone is free to have their own opinion, but you should accept that what you say is only one opinion among others. Then, there are chances that your opinion could be the truth, but you can never be sure of that. Maybe Mazhur's opinion is the truth, after all. No one knows. And perhaps the truth is something that no one has ever thought about yet. That's all. I don't see why it would be more intelligent to believe in science than to believe in the Bible. You can say that the Bible has been created by human beings, but science has been created by them as well. Human beings understand and interpret things according to some basis, but what if those bases were just one way of thinking among others?

Anyway, this is my way of seeing things. This is only my own way, though, now perhaps I'm totally wrong and one of you is right, but all that we can have is hypothesis.

mazHur

12-06-2007, 10:39 AM

It has always surprised me a great deal that people could say with as much certainty that God does not exist. How could you know that? This sounds crazy to me.
Personally, I cannot affirm that God exists, or that he doesn't! How could I know? All I can say for sure is that I just ignore the truth. It is so strange that you blame someone who is acting in the exact same way as you, that is who claims to be SURE of something he cannot objectively know.

Is it really a problem to recognize that no one knows and that maybe no one will ever know? Then, everyone is free to have their own opinion, but you should accept that what you say is only one opinion among others. Then, there are chances that your opinion could be the truth, but you can never be sure of that. Maybe Mazhur's opinion is the truth, after all. No one knows. And perhaps the truth is something that no one has ever thought about yet. That's all. I don't see why it would be more intelligent to believe in science than to believe in the Bible. You can say that the Bible has been created by human beings, but science has been created by them as well. Human beings understand and interpret things according to some basis, but what if those bases were just one way of thinking among others?

Anyway, this is my way of seeing things. This is only my own way, though, now perhaps I'm totally wrong and one of you is right, but all that we can have is hypothesis.

I totally agree with Sweet.
However, as a gnostic I may say that there is no reason for not believing in God or whatever you call Him,,,,,,,,for us being here and all the things around we owe the credit to our Creator who IS definitely there and running the 'show'.

Sweets America

12-06-2007, 10:45 AM

I totally agree with Sweet.
However, as a gnostic I may say that there is no reason for not believing in God or whatever you call Him,,,,,,,,for us being here and all the things around we owe the credit to our Creator who IS definitely there and running the 'show'.

Well, there certainly is no reason not to believe in God, but there is no reason to believe in him either. :) It's not necessarily a question of reason, more of a question of belief or faith. How can you be sure that the Creator is definitely there? This is my question. Maybe the creator is definitely there, of course, but how do you know it for a fact? I know it's a difficult question, and I am not asking for proof because this would be reducing things to what human beings CAN understand. And maybe this just cannot be proven, which is not a problem to me. But, I am interested in knowing how you are sure of yourself. Do you have this strong faith, this strong feeling that tells you that he is actually there?

mazHur

12-06-2007, 11:04 AM

Sweets America

12-06-2007, 01:22 PM

Sweet, can't you see we are 'talking' to each other at this moment is an ample proof that Bill Gates is sleeping at home and God is taking care of us?
Okay, tell me apart from this joke who the heck is ''transferring feelings from her to there and vice versa'' without us even knowing each other ?
Who controls the mind? who built our brains? who controls our hearts and all the abstract things such as love , hate, loyalty, friendship, pain, joy, etc about which science could yet give us no concrete answer?? Could someone say that matter came into existence on its own?? Why do you love your parents and friends as much as you dont do for others???
Doesnt this all prove that there is something, something superior, which controls us and that is God, Allah, Parmatama , Krishna, Raam, or whatever.But HE is there and watches you all the time!

Big Father is watching me? :D
I am not sure I really understand what you mean, though I understand some parts of it. So...you think it is God who controls the minds and built our brains? And that he controls our hearts? It is always a possibility, but does that mean you think human beings don't have any freedom? It is a sweet idea to think that God created the abstract concepts, I had never thought of that. But, it does not appeal to me. (which of course has nothing to do with the fact that the statement is true or not)
What is the problem with the fact that matter got created on its own? I mean, why not? If you believe that someone as mysterious as a God has created everything, it is not more unbelievable to think that everything could have been created on its own.
I am not sure I see what you mean about 'why do you love your parents...'. But anyway, I don't see how what you said constitutes any proof. Those are not proofs, only ideas. Of course these ideas might be right, but you cannot be sure of it. You just cannot. You have to remember that perhaps there are a lot of things we do not perceive or are not aware of. I mean, if you place yourself at a human being place or at the place of an ant, you won't see the world the same way.
Anyway, I hope you understand that I am not asking for any proof, I am not against you in any way, I am just in favor of open-mindedness. And, I am not sure I need to know the truth.

NikolaiI

12-06-2007, 01:25 PM

Sweet, I'm engaging Mazhur this way because he said some horrible things to someone who's very dear to me. In his fundamentalist rants about how you should obey God when he tells you to kill, all that comes to mind are terrorists who do this. So why not engage him on this?

It has always surprised me a great deal that people could say with as much certainty that God does not exist. How could you know that? This sounds crazy to me.
Personally, I cannot affirm that God exists, or that he doesn't! How could I know? All I can say for sure is that I just ignore the truth. It is so strange that you blame someone who is acting in the exact same way as you, that is who claims to be SURE of something he cannot objectively know.

Is it really a problem to recognize that no one knows and that maybe no one will ever know? Then, everyone is free to have their own opinion, but you should accept that what you say is only one opinion among others. Then, there are chances that your opinion could be the truth, but you can never be sure of that. Maybe Mazhur's opinion is the truth, after all. No one knows. And perhaps the truth is something that no one has ever thought about yet. That's all. I don't see why it would be more intelligent to believe in science than to believe in the Bible. You can say that the Bible has been created by human beings, but science has been created by them as well. Human beings understand and interpret things according to some basis, but what if those bases were just one way of thinking among others?

Anyway, this is my way of seeing things. This is only my own way, though, now perhaps I'm totally wrong and one of you is right, but all that we can have is hypothesis.

The other thing that bothered me was that he called me ignorant or basically mindless, and told me how I hadn't read Spinoza. How can you communicate with such a person? This and the reason mentioned above are why I posted this.

It gets so vulgar, and it gets so personal with people like Mazhur, that you can't discuss it.
My goal, the fundamental and most important thing, is for me and everyone else to be happy, to aleve their suffering. Sometimes I meet someone who is so special, that they actually change my outlook on life. Last night I realized this, and I realized that's what I want to do, is to dedicate my life to the eradication of suffering of everyone.

Communication is difficult. Yet, when I see someone who is so fundamental about things like God--- how can I describe the coldness I feel with such a person, whose mindset closes out everyone, chastises, excludes, excommunicates, anyone who doesn't believe in God, in their God- and furthermore, calls them ignorant--- I can't describe how cold this makes me feel.

This is a communication breakdown, and in all honesty that is what I was trying to bridge; although I don't know if what I said was correct or not. The issue is mundane, pointless; but there are underlying ideas that I cannot leave unchallenged. They're not stated explicitly but hostilities towards anyone I feel in a strange way.

I don't think such a person can really feel that they are right. If you believe in God, and you wish to share the love you feel; then one thing that's basic is that you think you have a certain view of life that is correct, and there are reasons for this view, and you want to share it. Well, isn't it supposed to be a good life? Or a bad one? There's something I'd like to bring into this called sense of life. Things that make us happy such as love, and the alleviation of suffering can make our sense of life change slightly. Of course, insults and people putting us down, being rude to us, or worse; when people trample on our feelings it brings our sense of life down. Long-term abusive relationships, for example, can destroy a person psychologically. Now, if you want to share the goodness of your God, you will not do it by insulting people. I have to speak up in this instance.

I loved Descartes. When I read him, actually, I was a believer. Reading Descartes is a great exercise of learning, and pouring over the words you can get a sense for metaphysics and philosophy. Descartes, Pascal and Leibniz were my introduction to philosophy. I learned a lot about God from them--- I guess, I'm just going back to the original reason why I got into this. That and the horrible things he said to my friend. That ever so slightly dampens my spirits. So I retaliate.

Understand, that while I don't equate a person's feelings with value of their life, I value a person's feelings very, very highly. I understand this is one definition of romantic. Mazhur, don't you think there was ever anyone who killed themselves after being insulted by a stranger? Be more careful with others' feelings.

mazHur

12-06-2007, 01:44 PM

Oh, my God, never seen a heart as grudgeful as that and yet bragging about his dedicating his

life to the eradication of suffering of everyone.

I never said
''my God..,,,,I say I believe in God, by whatever name you call him. Let you not twist things to gain undue favor of
''my' friends! And, let us talk about the topic, about our own thoughts rather than be obsessed by the idea of unreasonably advocating for others. If that goes on I am sure the thread will crash !

You surely have'nt read Spinoza properly other wise how could you defy his erroneously transposed fundamental thoughts???
It's like someone posing to be an authority on Bible or Shakespeare and unable to recognize their words or fundamentals.

don't you think there was ever anyone who killed themselves after being insulted by a stranger?

yes, it is a common feature of those who lose face and commit harakari. In modern psychology that could be termed as some mental disorder or least tolerance or endurance.
When I say we have to obey God, I mean it in the legal and divine sense only, presuming that God soes speak up and tell you personally to kill ,,,,,,,,,like a general personally ordering his soldier to kill. And to kill in self defense ,,,,,I think that's pretty fine rather than killing yourself and the one who can kill himself can hardly be thought to have good feelings toward other innocent people,,,,,,,,and that depression or frustration which is abominable goes in the making of a terrorist. A soldier is NOT a terrorist. I state from a soldiers perspective not that of a suicidal sadist.

Scheherazade

12-06-2007, 01:51 PM

W a r n i n g

Further personal comments and inflammatory posts will lead to thread closure.

NikolaiI

12-06-2007, 02:03 PM

Mazzo, I think you have overstepped the bounds of logic here.

mazHur

12-06-2007, 02:11 PM

share with me,,,,,,,,,

Mouseolatry,,,,

An intersting story by Idries Shah, a Master Story Teller of all times

A mouse one day found his way to the Fountain of Knowledge. Whoever
drinks from it may have his heart's desire--and one extra wish.
The mouse drank, and he wished that he could understand the
speech of men, if men had speech. When he spent some time listening
to what men said, he used his extra wish to banish the power.
The other mice said to him: "What was so horrible about the
speech of men?"
At first he could not bring himself even to think of it again,
but they pressed him so much that he said: "I do not think that you
will believe me, but what I have to say is true. Men actually
imagine that God is like them, with human, not mouselike, attributes!"
The mouse audience was shocked to the core. When some
intellectuals among them had recovered from their indignation, they
said: "But are there none who think otherwise?"
"There are some, but their theories are as abominable as the
rest."
"Tell us, just the same," clamoured the thinkers, "so that we
may have the fullest information on this amazing matter."
"Well, then; for instance there are those who imagine that
religious terms are in reality derived from states of mind."
"Enough!" cried some of the asembled mice, "such insanity could
cause an epidemic of madness. Even the Mouse-god might not be able
to protect us from it."
"Enough!" exclaimed the others, "for this might give
mouseolaters a chance to revive that nonsense called religion,
pretending that it has a functional origin."
"I told you all at the beginning that it was horrible," said the
mounse who had found his way to the Fountain of Knowledge.

by Idries Shah

NikolaiI

12-06-2007, 02:17 PM

I meant saying I surely haven't read Spinoza or I couldn't disagree with him--- or defy his wrongly transposed comments.

First, I didn't wrongly transpose any comments of his- I was replying to something you wrote after some of his quotes- that god is the free cause.

And second is the statement above- I could not have read him if I defy him..

-------
This isn't logical or fair- I can't retaliate with, "Well you haven't read Nietzsche properly, obviously, or you wouldn't or couldn't defy him!"

mazHur

12-06-2007, 02:24 PM

that god is the free cause.

I again repeat and reiterate that the above quote is by Spinoza and was inadvertently transposed outside the block. However, I believe those who have read Spinoza would have caught the error and responded accordingly

NikolaiI

12-06-2007, 02:27 PM

I again repeat and reiterate that the above quote is by Spinoza and was inadvertently transposed outside the block. However, I believe those who have read Spinoza would have caught the error and responded accordingly

You haven't explained that before now.

Just please refrain from telling me what I've read and what I haven't, alright?

mazHur

12-06-2007, 02:36 PM

Here is an interesting treatise on the philosophy of Sir M. Iqbal (the Poet Of the East) and Spinoza
Those interested may
click on this link:: http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/review/apr04/03.htm

Metanoia

12-07-2007, 04:00 PM

OK people, lets calm down. Everyone has different beliefs, why can't we just respect that? How many wars have been started over people with opposing opinions? Until we learn we are all equal, regardless of our differences, this problem will never be solved.

NikolaiI

12-07-2007, 05:22 PM

Laff, and in this case, what our opinions differ mainly about is whether or not I have read Spinoza:

(Mazhur: ) Niko, although the quote was a transpositional error, it confirms your wrong judgment, argument and knowledge in the subject. It's now no use arguing further as you havnt read Spinoza or other philosophers for that sake. Bye

just bringing that up although it will not be faced by mazhur probably.

or other philosophers for that sake.

goodness.

Pendragon

12-07-2007, 06:45 PM

May Scher indulge me a second please?

Nic you are a dear friend whom I have received again as one from the dead.

maZhur, you and I share poetry space quite often.

I am certain we three know the ways of monkeys and fruit.

Now Monkey N has decidied that he will eat his fruit in peace, and no longer argue with monkey M. But as he gets towards the rind of the fruit, feeling that to be worthless enough, he heaves it in Monkey M's dirrection. Monkey M growls, but Monkey N just shrugs and points to the uneaten fruit as if to say, "I did no wrong."

Monkey M also decides to stop the food fight, but he cannot abide the seeds. So using his mouth like a bean shooter, he fires the seeds at Monkey N's face. Monkey N protests, but Monkey M holds up both hands showing them clean. "I did nothing!"

Well, it doesn't take a genius to see that the two are going to look as bad as if they had had a knock-down, drag-out, smash-the-tray, food fight. It isn't how you word what you say, it's what you say. If you are sorry, apologize and mean it. No harm is done in being wrong, it's in staying wrong. Sometimes the bigger man is the one who can turn the other cheek, and refuse to be drawn into a pointless argument.

I care for both of you.

God Bless

Pendragon

weepingforloman

12-14-2007, 12:38 AM

Oniw17

12-14-2007, 01:34 AM

The big bang is not an explosion of something from nothing. It's more like a balloon expanding from very small to very large.

Of course, but if time and all matter only existed a few moments before the big bang, something had to come from nothing at the point where time started.

thechampion

12-14-2007, 01:49 AM

Scheherazade

12-14-2007, 05:58 AM

Please do not personalise your comments.

If you do not find any posts/threads interesting, please feel free to ignore them.

Pendragon

12-17-2007, 11:30 AM

And while you are at it, please do not make the mistake of confusing a creation, a man like myself, with the creator, Jesus. I am unworthy to be called by that name.

God Bless

Pen

weepingforloman

12-18-2007, 08:07 PM

jesus shut up. the ontological pickle can never be solved. thats why its a pickle idiots. the most fundamental idea of religion is that god has always existed; the most fundamental theory of physics is that niether matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. science says that matter always existed, religion says god did. both are the same answer, and that is no answer.

What about chaos? It is generally agreed that the universe is progressing from a fairly orderly structure to a uniform, simple one- like a tower crumbling. If we accept this, then we must also accept that the universe has an alpha and omega- a super-structured beginning and an ultra-chaotic ending. The universe cannot have always been as it is now- even the moon is escaping its orbit.

Etienne

12-18-2007, 08:15 PM

What about chaos? It is generally agreed that the universe is progressing from a fairly orderly structure to a uniform, simple one- like a tower crumbling.

Oh and maybe you can give some source why such a theory is "generally agreed", and by who it is "generally agreed"?

one_raven

12-19-2007, 01:33 AM

You start out by asserting the fact that you're an agnostic, because you find no practical reason for believing the existence of a God or other such supernatural being. However, you begin to delve into the possibility that all religions may have some validity in their claims, but they're all missing the bigger picture, implying your belief that there very well may be a God or higher power, watching and, potentially, judging our actions based on our mis-understanding of his "teachings".
You don’t seem to make a distinction between “God” and “higher power”.
That distinction was the point of this.
While “Karma manifest” (the manifest “force” of Chaos Theory or The Butterfly Effect) shares many of the attributes that are ascribed to “gods” of different religions, there certainly something it lacks – personhood.
My God is not an entity. It does not have cognizance, intention or consciousness.
I do not hold a belief that a cognizant God exists – that, however, does not necessarily make me an atheist.

I'm just curious if through the act of writing that extremely interesting post, did you begin to question your own beliefs and were you, in a sense, creating (maybe subconsiously) a new philosophy for yourself?
Actually, it started out as an attempt to flesh out the spiritual beliefs of a character from a book I’m working on, and the more I delved into it, the more I realized that I was talking about me and the beliefs I had been building over many years of searching.

In either case, I was very intrigued by your response, and it was certainly thought provoking, regardless of which stand point you decide to sway with.

I was particularly interested in your visual display of how all the religions of the world may only be potential shards of a larger truth that they are too stuborn to work towards. I, too, have always shared this view.

Thank you.

Metanoia

12-21-2007, 01:27 AM

Do you really believe that purely speculative, metaphysical debate over the internet will spark war? Of course an internet debate will not spark war. I was MAKING A POINT. Fighting over our different views and beliefs is not going to solve anything, whether its an internet debate or a real war. And why not start by respecting each others opinion on the lit-network? It's a step in the right direction. But I suppose you just wanted to start another fight.... It's o.k I forgive you, I'm not going to start a war over it. :-D

Adolescent09

12-22-2007, 10:31 AM

Excuse me if I am being a tad frank but I think the only post in this entire thread worth reading is the one made by one_raven on the first page. Considering one_raven follows a religion I chose not to adopt since my faith in God is blind (you may contend I'm brainwashed), I'd be the last person to acknowledge the logical nature of his post in addition to its shedding new light on a timeless controversy.

The rest of the posts here are either self-evident, too self opinionated to validify, or overtly wtritten to proselytize.

HunterBrown1968

12-22-2007, 02:46 PM

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god? No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!) Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?

If God does not in fact exist, it would not change my life one bit. Look at all the dead poets and authors we read today. I have bore a child and he is my sense of immortality in this world. I like to think that I have touched many peoples lives for the good and I hope to continue to share my opinions, experience and wisdom with others. It wouldn't bother me one bit.

liberal viewer

12-22-2007, 03:23 PM

one_raven

12-25-2007, 12:22 AM

Considering one_raven follows a religion I chose not to adopt since my faith in God is blind

Actually, I don't follow any religion at all - I guess you assumed I am Buddhist.

Thank you for the comment on my post.

weepingforloman

12-31-2007, 12:42 AM

For me the problem is that people still have a need to believe in something: God, the stars!, the tarot!, etc. I find it sad and truly an attack on our intellect. That's why the belief in a god or a superior being is completely repugnant for me.

I have heard this argument many times and I generally find that it is an example of intellectual laziness, rather than intellectual sense- though obviously I cannot know what energy you have put into this examination.

However, God is fundamentally different than the tarot and the stars. The belief in the tarot is a "magical" belief- belief that some human force can manipulate nature into supernature. The astrologists believed that nature is supernature on its own. But God is out of and beyond nature. Besides which, God, if you will allow yourself to adopt a theist mindset for a moment, is the source of intellect. If you believe that you have outthought God, or the conception of God, you are a stream flowing uphill, above its source- it cannot be done.

jon1jt

12-31-2007, 02:01 AM

But God is out of and beyond nature. Besides which, God, if you will allow yourself to adopt a theist mindset for a moment, is the source of intellect. If you believe that you have outthought God, or the conception of God, you are a stream flowing uphill, above its source- it cannot be done.

Yeah yeah that's Thomas Aquinas, I've heard this argument many times. ;)

Etienne

12-31-2007, 02:21 AM

But God is out of and beyond nature. Besides which, God, if you will allow yourself to adopt a theist mindset for a moment, is the source of intellect. If you believe that you have outthought God, or the conception of God, you are a stream flowing uphill, above its source- it cannot be done.

I have heard this argument many times and I generally find that it is an example of intellectual laziness, rather than intellectual sense- though obviously I cannot know what energy you have put into this examination.

-Yourself

one_raven

12-31-2007, 05:23 AM

What does it even mean to be "out of and beyond nature"?
That makes no sense to me - it never has the many times I have heard it.

weepingforloman

12-31-2007, 12:28 PM

Yeah yeah that's Thomas Aquinas, I've heard this argument many times. ;)
I've never read Aquinas. If it's the same, it's coincidental.

I have heard this argument many times and I generally find that it is an example of intellectual laziness, rather than intellectual sense- though obviously I cannot know what energy you have put into this examination.

-Yourself
That's not so much an argument as a further definition of the term "God." It would not be an argument to say that wood does not melt or that ice is frozen water, would it? It would only be a definition of terms.

What does it even mean to be "out of and beyond nature"?
That makes no sense to me - it never has the many times I have heard it.
Nature is creation. God is the Creator. Just like a painter cannot be on his canvas, God is not in nature- except when He was, in the Incarnation, which is very much like a self-portrait... or maybe making a painting alive.

Etienne

12-31-2007, 01:21 PM

That's not so much an argument as a further definition of the term "God." It would not be an argument to say that wood does not melt or that ice is frozen water, would it? It would only be a definition of terms.

A definition can be an argument. And you are suing it as an argument to try to destroy other's argument on their premises. But again, your definition has nothing more to back itself than wild guesses on what you would like it to be, unless it be blind faith. And EVEN if it is on blind faith, I could tell you, but look at all the others who said this and this based on blind faith, even other catholics, protestants, muslims, hashashashins, freelancer, whatever you are, and they will all have different visions. How can you claim then to be more right than other who pass judgment through faith as well? And how do you explain the evolution of the theology in time if truth was revealed through faith?

Basically, you're just pulling statements like that out of nowhere, if you're not going to back up your statement, then there is no use of discussing, as it only makes you a wall of blind faith, and I don't like talking to walls, personally.

one_raven

12-31-2007, 05:38 PM

Nature is creation. God is the Creator. Just like a painter cannot be on his canvas, God is not in nature- except when He was, in the Incarnation, which is very much like a self-portrait... or maybe making a painting alive.

Nope.
Still makes no sense.
Sounds like simple apology to me.
Sure, the analogy makes sense, but it falls apart when you consider that both the artist and the painting are both in the same reality.
The artist can touch and manipulate the canvas and the paint only because they are part of the same reality.
If something does not exist in nature, that is no different than saying it does not exist at all.
Sure, anything can exist in different realities, but since we are in THIS reality, not only will we never know, but it doesn't matter at all.
In order to interact with reality you must be part of reality.
If you are not part of reality, you are not real.

Analogies are great, when they are comparing like terms.
When they do not apply, they are misleading at best.

Try explaining your idea without the analogies, please.

mazHur

12-31-2007, 05:43 PM

Nature is creation(image). God is the Creator(MIRROR),,,,sounds okay now??

.

Dorian Gray

12-31-2007, 05:59 PM

What if there was no big foot? Oh wait....there isn't.

Whifflingpin

12-31-2007, 06:28 PM

Obviously you never met Charlemagne's wife

Etienne

12-31-2007, 08:37 PM

Obviously you never met Charlemagne's wife

I doubt anyone here has, but since you seem to have met her (which one?), maybe you can tell us what came out of this happy meeting?

weepingforloman

01-02-2008, 10:12 AM

Nope.
Still makes no sense.
Sounds like simple apology to me.
Sure, the analogy makes sense, but it falls apart when you consider that both the artist and the painting are both in the same reality.
The artist can touch and manipulate the canvas and the paint only because they are part of the same reality.
If something does not exist in nature, that is no different than saying it does not exist at all.
Sure, anything can exist in different realities, but since we are in THIS reality, not only will we never know, but it doesn't matter at all.
In order to interact with reality you must be part of reality.
If you are not part of reality, you are not real.

Analogies are great, when they are comparing like terms.
When they do not apply, they are misleading at best.

Try explaining your idea without the analogies, please.

Surely you will recognize that when dealing with the purely spiritual, analogies are essential? Even subatomic particles need to be described with imagery, because what human beings cannot experience physically, they cannot understand in a concrete way. If you want, I will try to explain the idea in the abstract: God created the world ex nihilo. Before God created, there was nothing but God. What God created was dependent on Him for its existence, it was not selfexistent, but God was. Therefore, the most fundamental dichotomy in the universe is God and not-God. God is REAL in the most complete way possible, because He is the only self-existent being/object/anything. We are real too, but we are real because we have been created by God. It is a different mode of existence: God, as C.S. Lewis said, "is full and overflows," we are "empty and would be filled up."

weepingforloman

01-02-2008, 10:23 AM

A definition can be an argument. And you are suing it as an argument to try to destroy other's argument on their premises. But again, your definition has nothing more to back itself than wild guesses on what you would like it to be, unless it be blind faith. And EVEN if it is on blind faith, I could tell you, but look at all the others who said this and this based on blind faith, even other catholics, protestants, muslims, hashashashins, freelancer, whatever you are, and they will all have different visions. How can you claim then to be more right than other who pass judgment through faith as well? And how do you explain the evolution of the theology in time if truth was revealed through faith?

Basically, you're just pulling statements like that out of nowhere, if you're not going to back up your statement, then there is no use of discussing, as it only makes you a wall of blind faith, and I don't like talking to walls, personally.
A.) This thread is not about apologetics. If it was, I might indulge you with some reasons- but most likely it wouldn't make a difference to you. Because it's true, you do still need faith. But don't you need faith to believe in anything? You believe (I would guess) in atomic structure because the scientists say it is accurate. You accept it on their authority. I believe in God on the authority of Scripture.

B.) "Wild guesses?" No, because, if God exists, He must fundamentally be either different from creation and separate, or else the pantheistic "All." I personally find the "All" to be untrue, and the separate from creation to be true.

C.) How do I explain the differences in religion? Well, considering that God chooses the Israelites (a tiny, politically insignificant kingdom at the time) to be His chosen people, it seems clear that He is not interested in imposing uniformity on a large group of people. He does not, apparently, need or want to make the vast majority of people believe in Him as He reveals Himself in the Bible. How do I explain the "evolution of theology?" Well, being a Calvinist, my theology is actually based on the work of a 4th and 5th century writer named Augustine- there's not really a whole lot of change for us. And, to address the existence of other faiths: C.S. Lewis talks about "good dreams," echoes of God throughout the world. That is to say, when the Greeks conceived of the notion that Dionysus dies and rises again, and, through his death and rebirth gives life to the grain again, they were perceiving Christ as through a funhouse mirror. A slight echo, reaching them through a vast chasm. When the ancient Babylonians thought that a god of theirs had a child with a virgin, and that that son would fulfill a salvific role, they perceived Christ, though distorted.

I believe I can anticipate your reaction: I'm being arrogant, culturally superior, closed-minded, intolerant, etc. But... whatever.

Etienne

01-02-2008, 04:26 PM

A.) This thread is not about apologetics. If it was, I might indulge you with some reasons- but most likely it wouldn't make a difference to you. Because it's true, you do still need faith. But don't you need faith to believe in anything? You believe (I would guess) in atomic structure because the scientists say it is accurate. You accept it on their authority. I believe in God on the authority of Scripture.

That's a bad comparison, as atomic structure brings concrete results and one can learn why and how and is an analytical knowledge, there is no (or should not be, at least) faith involved in analytic knowledge, which doesn't mean there is no mistake committed in this knowledge. The Holy Scriptures are synthetic "knowledge" but their "a priori" basis are themselves, which makes them completely irrational and completely dependent of faith. If I want to know "why the atomic structure", I can read and it will be explained, through "a priori" knowledge and I can observe what it has led as empirical results. If I want to know "why" referring to the Holy Scriptures, the reason will be: "Because", and nothing more.

B.) "Wild guesses?" No, because, if God exists, He must fundamentally be either different from creation and separate, or else the pantheistic "All." I personally find the "All" to be untrue, and the separate from creation to be true.

Well you tell me it's not wild guesses, but you end your rant with a wild guess... and saying God exist is itself a wild guess... and there's no reason why his ontology should be limited to these categories. Perhaps he has a physical place in the Universe? Why not? Because "you find it untrue?"

C.) How do I explain the differences in religion? Well, considering that God chooses the Israelites (a tiny, politically insignificant kingdom at the time) to be His chosen people, it seems clear that He is not interested in imposing uniformity on a large group of people. He does not, apparently, need or want to make the vast majority of people believe in Him as He reveals Himself in the Bible. How do I explain the "evolution of theology?" Well, being a Calvinist, my theology is actually based on the work of a 4th and 5th century writer named Augustine- there's not really a whole lot of change for us. And, to address the existence of other faiths: C.S. Lewis talks about "good dreams," echoes of God throughout the world. That is to say, when the Greeks conceived of the notion that Dionysus dies and rises again, and, through his death and rebirth gives life to the grain again, they were perceiving Christ as through a funhouse mirror. A slight echo, reaching them through a vast chasm. When the ancient Babylonians thought that a god of theirs had a child with a virgin, and that that son would fulfill a salvific role, they perceived Christ, though distorted.

Analogies between different religions are plentiful.There are analogies between Norse mythology and hinduism. What does that prove? Merely that some ideas might be recurring, but also that they are not independant creations and had common sources and often religions would mix between conquerors/conquered. Using your logic, I could use analogies to say that greek/roman pantheon was the real one as throughout Europe they had similar Gods, therefore those are the real Gods. Isn't it easy it prove anything this way? And of course, it never came to your mind that Christianity might have been inspired by different, older myths, right? That's a totally nonobjective theocentrist claim, and nothing more.

As for the Calvinist part, this closes this part of the discussion I guess, I have only read a few extracts of his Confessions so I cannot really speak about it, however my point is still valid for many others.

EDIT: Wow I checked Wikipedia for "Calvinists" and it's far from simply being based on St-Augustine! He is just one of the important figures, just like he is in pretty much every Christian system, and Calvinism itself was only created much later so my point STILL does stand and perhaps more, since you are Calvinist. As even if the doctrine is called augustinian, it is still subject to an evolution. And besides, 4th -5th century is still 350-400 years after the Bible - holy scripture that itself evolved from Old Testament to the New (not to mention the later books added).

I believe I can anticipate your reaction: I'm being arrogant, culturally superior, closed-minded, intolerant, etc. But... whatever.

What? I think you're just blinded by faith...

rosa

01-04-2008, 04:41 AM

If there were no God man would find something else, probably similar to keep hope going.
After all absolute certainty in religion does not exist.That is the beauty of religion you can carry on believing in it even when you are "almost" sure it does not exist.Religion is independent from reality is the essence of hope for a better life.The more hopeless life seems the more grip religion has on man.Is it important to decide if there is a god or not? Why do we need to decide.
It is the symbol that counts ,If anyone would tell me that God does not exist I would say" so what?" After all how would they convince me if I do not want to be convinced.That is the beauty of religion ,nobody can take it away from you.That is why it is important.It is the one thing that nobody can take away from you.You can be poor and miserable or slaved but that possession is yours forever.
And how convinceable would I be.What would it take to convince me? and who on earth could say the final word that decides on God existence?
You see nobody can prove anything.That is amazing. Nothing else but religion has such a powerful effect on man.
As a consequence my behaviour would not change just because some people would say that God does not exists. After all who are they to take away hope from me.
I can go on forever on this one!

RichardHresko

01-04-2008, 08:49 AM

That's a bad comparison, as atomic structure brings concrete results and one can learn why and how and is an analytical knowledge, there is no (or should not be, at least) faith involved in analytic knowledge, which doesn't mean there is no mistake committed in this knowledge. The Holy Scriptures are synthetic "knowledge" but their "a priori" basis are themselves, which makes them completely irrational and completely dependent of faith. If I want to know "why the atomic structure", I can read and it will be explained, through "a priori" knowledge and I can observe what it has led as empirical results. If I want to know "why" referring to the Holy Scriptures, the reason will be: "Because", and nothing more.

As for the Calvinist part, this closes this part of the discussion I guess, I have only read a few extracts of his Confessions so I cannot really speak about it, however my point is still valid for many others.

EDIT: Wow I checked Wikipedia for "Calvinists" and it's far from simply being based on St-Augustine! He is just one of the important figures, just like he is in pretty much every Christian system, and Calvinism itself was only created much later so my point STILL does stand and perhaps more, since you are Calvinist. As even if the doctrine is called augustinian, it is still subject to an evolution. And besides, 4th -5th century is still 350-400 years after the Bible - holy scripture that itself evolved from Old Testament to the New (not to mention the later books added).

...

The question of what is based on "concrete results" and what is "completely dependent on faith" is not as obvious as it may appear at first glance.

Skeptics from antiquity through Hume and beyond have pointed out that the evidence from both reason and the senses can be misleading.

Further, evidence for atomic structure does require faith that there is a connection between the interaction of the system and the instrumentation and between the instrumentation and our conceptualization bear a reasonable relation to what we think we are observing. This is beyond the interference due to observation (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- can not probe without interacting) and goes to the heart of how stuff "out there" relates to our conception "in our heads".

An attempt to deal with these problems is the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, created by Niels Bohr, who argued that any picture we develop is wrong, and that all we should do is look at the math and check predictions.

This has a strength and a weakness. The strength is that we do not create myths that are hindrances to our understanding.

The weakness is that what we allow ourselves to "understand" is narrowed.

The difficulty in the case of the current discussion is that the questions of interest here can not be answered by scientific experiment, since they are ontological in nature. Science can deal exceedingly well with questions of how nature works. It is not designed to answer questions of what the ultimate nature of reality is, nor what our relation to that reality should be. This is NOT a failure of science, any more than it is a failure of car to be unable to make a cup of coffee (though I should perhaps check to see the latest features on the new luxury models before making the claim).

I do not see the necessary connection between something being derived from human thought and "irrational" as presented in the post. Especially given what I have just written.

You are right that Calvin did more than merely re-hash Augustine. However what many consider the most important features of Calvinism, such as reliance on grace and faith, and the doctrine of predestination, are all Augustinian in origin. Some of this was still a reaction to Scholasticism. But that is somewhat of a simplification, since Aquinas himself quoted Augustine frequently (in fact, only the Bible is cited more frequently by Aquinas).

Pendragon

01-04-2008, 11:30 AM

With everyone understanding that I have not change my own stance on the existence of God, I consider it beyond any doubt, I find a law here:

If does not believe in God, meeting Him face to face before Judgment Day and having Him do what ever they asked for proof would still not convince them.

And for those like myself who believe in God, no amount of proof to the contrary is going to convince us that He does not exist.

I call this law the power of belief. One believes in the existence the other in the non-existence. This is an equal and opposite reaction. Newton's law.

It should surprise none of us that someone believes the opposite. For balance, they have to. Yin Yang.

God Bless

Pen

blazeofglory

01-04-2008, 11:58 AM

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god? No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!) Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?

This is something that puts my nerves on end! At least there will be no wars in the name of Gods!

Etienne

01-04-2008, 03:48 PM

The question of what is based on "concrete results" and what is "completely dependent on faith" is not as obvious as it may appear at first glance.

Skeptics from antiquity through Hume and beyond have pointed out that the evidence from both reason and the senses can be misleading.

Further, evidence for atomic structure does require faith that there is a connection between the interaction of the system and the instrumentation and between the instrumentation and our conceptualization bear a reasonable relation to what we think we are observing. This is beyond the interference due to observation (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle -- can not probe without interacting) and goes to the heart of how stuff "out there" relates to our conception "in our heads".

You do, however, realize that science is not a dogma? If we want to be minimalistic, we could say it is only accepting conditionally an explanation that seem to be the right one. Next, this argument that reason and senses can be misleading, is not an argument, it's merely the end of any discussion, as senses and reason are our only link to the exterior world (some might argue that there is some connection to God as well, but whatever... and even then it seems that it would be the most misleading!).

Saying "I believe because I can" like the person a few posts above or "I believe because I want" is very nice and romantic, but I'm sorry I can't force myself to believe.

The weakness is that what we allow ourselves to "understand" is narrowed.

I don't think so, absolutely not. You can "understand" anything, however you don't have to believe in it, or to take it as dogma, at least. And that is a big difference.

The difficulty in the case of the current discussion is that the questions of interest here can not be answered by scientific experiment, since they are ontological in nature. Science can deal exceedingly well with questions of how nature works. It is not designed to answer questions of what the ultimate nature of reality is, nor what our relation to that reality should be. This is NOT a failure of science, any more than it is a failure of car to be unable to make a cup of coffee (though I should perhaps check to see the latest features on the new luxury models before making the claim).

That these questions are outside the reach of science, now that's one leitmotiv of religion. Yes, yes, it's been told over and over, and science has proved a good part of it wrong over and over until the point of today. That some of these questions are outside the reach of science, if these questions mean anything on a logical level, yes, I agree. But do these questions mean anything? "The ontology of God"... is there an ontology outside the biological body, for example? Does God exist? For this question to make sense you first have to agree with both of these, and there is no way we can outside of extrapolation. I'm not saying we cannot extrapolate, but the answer cannot be taken as dogma, and that is the whole point.

I do not see the necessary connection between something being derived from human thought and "irrational" as presented in the post. Especially given what I have just written.

I'm not sure to exactly what part of my post you are referring to? I don't see in my post anywhere where I said that, at least not taken out of their precise context.

If does not believe in God, meeting Him face to face before Judgment Day and having Him do what ever they asked for proof would still not convince them.

I'm sorry but I would. My belief in God s not negative, it's just empty. It's not that I "don't" believe in him, it's that I have no reason to believe in him. Same result, but very important difference. I only wish you would stop putting words in my and other's mouth.

Lote-Tree

01-04-2008, 04:17 PM

I'm sorry but I would. My belief in God s not negative, it's just empty. It's not that I "don't" believe in him, it's that I have no reason to believe in him. Same result, but very important difference. I only wish you would stop putting words in my and other's mouth.

When God ceases to become a subjective experience - it no longer matters if he exists or not...

Etienne

01-04-2008, 05:43 PM

When God ceases to become a subjective experience - it no longer matters if he exists or not...

Yes it does, and for many reasons.

RichardHresko

01-05-2008, 12:56 AM

1) You do, however, realize that science is not a dogma? If we want to be minimalistic, we could say it is only accepting conditionally an explanation that seem to be the right one.

2) Next, this argument that reason and senses can be misleading, is not an argument, it's merely the end of any discussion, as senses and reason are our only link to the exterior world (some might argue that there is some connection to God as well, but whatever... and even then it seems that it would be the most misleading!).

3) I don't think so, absolutely not. You can "understand" anything, however you don't have to believe in it, or to take it as dogma, at least. And that is a big difference.

4) That these questions are outside the reach of science, now that's one leitmotiv of religion. Yes, yes, it's been told over and over, and science has proved a good part of it wrong over and over until the point of today. That some of these questions are outside the reach of science, if these questions mean anything on a logical level, yes, I agree. But do these questions mean anything? "The ontology of God"... is there an ontology outside the biological body, for example? Does God exist? For this question to make sense you first have to agree with both of these, and there is no way we can outside of extrapolation. I'm not saying we cannot extrapolate, but the answer cannot be taken as dogma, and that is the whole point.

5) I'm not sure to exactly what part of my post you are referring to? I don't see in my post anywhere where I said that, at least not taken out of their precise context.

6) I'm sorry but I would. My belief in God s not negative, it's just empty. It's not that I "don't" believe in him, it's that I have no reason to believe in him. Same result, but very important difference. I only wish you would stop putting words in my and other's mouth.

For ease of reference I have numbered the points in the post above that I have dealt with and numbered the corresponding response below.

1) On the portion about the nature of science: You are right that science is not dogma. But then, that was neither stated nor implied in my post. The point is that science is concerned with describing how things occur, not what things are in and of themselves. Consider for a moment the electron. Science can and does give a wave function that describes how such particles interact with their surroundings within the limits of the model. And does so extremely well. But what science is not designed to do is to tell us about the nature of electron-ness apart from its interactions.

One might argue that there is nothing else but the interactions, but that requires an assumption, or a leap of faith, that science describes everything that exists and is worth knowing. Now that may be true, but it is an act of faith exterior to the science itself.

2) No, it does not end the argument at all. It merely points out that we do have to make assumptions/take on faith certain things in order to have any possibility of knowing anything at all. This is true regardless of one's position. As you rightly point out, if we do not trust that we can make contact with the world "out there" then knowledge is not possible. But to allow for the possibility of knowledge does not require us to assume that all our observations can be trusted. Thus, an element of discernment and faith are required, even in a materialist point of view.

3) you are conflating belief/faith and dogma. One has to have certain beliefs/faith/axioms in order to build ANY understanding.

4) The question of ontology is one of philosophy, not religion. So the remarks on religion being wrong on science are off-point. We are concerned here with the nature of reality, which may or may not include God. Science is not designed to ask or answer these types of questions. That one can reason about the nature of something that is not known to exist is something that even science does on some levels. Consider the cases of eka-silicon, the neutrino, and Pluto. In all of these cases the particle was not known to exist when its properties were worked out. The difference in the question here is one of the ultimate nature of reality and not the interactions of physical bodies.

Also consider that the decision to exclude immaterial beings is every bit as much a matter of belief as to include them, since there is no evidence of a scientific nature that can decide the point.

5) The specific line in your post was, "The Holy Scriptures are synthetic "knowledge" but their "a priori" basis are themselves, which makes them completely irrational and completely dependent of faith." Please explain what irrational means in this context if it is not as I stated earlier.

6) Once again, there is a matter of implicit faith here. That implicit faith is that unless there is a physical basis for belief then there is nothing that should prompt belief. I do NOT believe that you are necessarily wrong for this stand, but it should be recognized that this stance comes extra-scientifically, and is neither more nor less rational than the opposite.

Etienne

01-05-2008, 03:35 PM

On the portion about the nature of science: You are right that science is not dogma. But then, that was neither stated nor implied in my post. The point is that science is concerned with describing how things occur, not what things are in and of themselves. Consider for a moment the electron. Science can and does give a wave function that describes how such particles interact with their surroundings within the limits of the model. And does so extremely well. But what science is not designed to do is to tell us about the nature of electron-ness apart from its interactions.

It depends, when talking about "nature" are you referring to an "essence", if you are familiar with philosophical terms...

One might argue that there is nothing else but the interactions, but that requires an assumption, or a leap of faith, that science describes everything that exists and is worth knowing. Now that may be true, but it is an act of faith exterior to the science itself.

Herein lies a mistake. The lack of belief into something "else" is not necessarily an act of faith, but a lack of data that would lead to think there is something. Which is the same as the lack of belief in God for example. You might say, but it's agnosticisms and it means that you merely "don't know". But I think agnosticism taken in that sense has an underlying belief in God that is not admitted, or at least a tendency to believe. As I could very well say that I'm "don't know" whether there are giant apes living on the dark side of the moon, but I have no reason to believe there is therefore I don't believe there is. If I find a clue, but something vague, then I might say that i just "don't know".

No, it does not end the argument at all. It merely points out that we do have to make assumptions/take on faith certain things in order to have any possibility of knowing anything at all. This is true regardless of one's position. As you rightly point out, if we do not trust that we can make contact with the world "out there" then knowledge is not possible. But to allow for the possibility of knowledge does not require us to assume that all our observations can be trusted. Thus, an element of discernment and faith are required, even in a materialist point of view.

Saying you cannot trust your senses or reason, means that you cannot trust anything because it's the only things that link us with the external world. So by admitting this, you admit that anything we say here is basically useless and might very well all be bunk and unrelated to reality. Every time such a topic is discussed this argument comes back, but drop it, it's the only things we can hold to, and they give practical result. If your point is that our senses and reason do not give us a good link to reality because we only hav access to the "mental images" of these things, or that you say that our senses and reason are cheating us (as in an optical illusion), or that our senses and reason are completely fooling us, are three different matters, but neither of them brings us anywhere. The only thing it might do is make one not take anything as dogma and leave that small proportion of doubt (that you don't consider but is still there in case), but which is already present in the scientific method under the form of perpetual doubt and that everyone should do with their own beliefs (not meaning that you have to consider those doubts all the time, but leave the possibility of a mistake). This basically only means not to take anything as dogma, which is also precisely my point.

you are conflating belief/faith and dogma. One has to have certain beliefs/faith/axioms in order to build ANY understanding.

No, not at all. I do understand Aristotle's Physic, although I do not believe in it. I do understand the ontological proof of God, even though I do not believe in God.

The question of ontology is one of philosophy, not religion. So the remarks on religion being wrong on science are off-point. We are concerned here with the nature of reality, which may or may not include God. Science is not designed to ask or answer these types of questions. That one can reason about the nature of something that is not known to exist is something that even science does on some levels. Consider the cases of eka-silicon, the neutrino, and Pluto. In all of these cases the particle was not known to exist when its properties were worked out. The difference in the question here is one of the ultimate nature of reality and not the interactions of physical bodies.

The question of ontology is a question only of philosophy? Not at all, friend, not at all. Now to debate this on the conventional side of the question, we would have to get into the maze of the history of the concept of philosophy. But let's not get into this. Philosophy and theology have both been very much confused and mixed together and the conceptions a very debated subject, but saying that theology doesn't work with the ontology of God is rather strange... especially in modern times where the separation between theology (science of God) and philosophy is becoming more distinct, compared to the Middles-Ages where it was pretty much a melting pot.

I'm not sure I understand the part where you say "the particle was not known to exist when it's properties were worked out." What do you mean by this?

I do understand the whole though, and yes, science offers conceptual views of reality by working on the interactions, but what is NOT known by it's interactions? Is there anything we do not know only by it's interactions? Do I known my hand otherwise than by it's interactions with my brain? You want to know the essence of things, but that there "is" (note the "") a particular essence. This was born from the ancients who thought with the view of an immortal soul, but to talk about synthetic ontology, is going into suppositions, mostly.

Also consider that the decision to exclude immaterial beings is every bit as much a matter of belief as to include them, since there is no evidence of a scientific nature that can decide the point.

Oh! That is bad logic! And it is bad scientific method by extension. Before using the negative proof (or lack of) you have to first build a solid empirical theory. Using the lack of negative proof to "prove" something which hasn't already been demonstrated empirically is sophism at best.

The specific line in your post was, "The Holy Scriptures are synthetic "knowledge" but their "a priori" basis are themselves, which makes them completely irrational and completely dependent of faith." Please explain what irrational means in this context if it is not as I stated earlier.

Synthetic knowledge, you understand, is "building" knowledge from a certain point, but if this this basic point, this premise is the same thing as the synthetic knowledge, it means that it's built from nothing, from no basis, let alone rational basis.

Once again, there is a matter of implicit faith here. That implicit faith is that unless there is a physical basis for belief then there is nothing that should prompt belief. I do NOT believe that you are necessarily wrong for this stand, but it should be recognized that this stance comes extra-scientifically, and is neither more nor less rational than the opposite.

There is a mistake in your understanding of my statement. I am not saying that "unless there is a physical basis for belief then there is nothing that should prompt belief", I am saying that "there is nothing that prompts my belief [in God]".

RichardHresko

01-06-2008, 10:41 AM

1) It depends, when talking about "nature" are you referring to an "essence", if you are familiar with philosophical terms...

2) Herein lies a mistake. The lack of belief into something "else" is not necessarily an act of faith, but a lack of data that would lead to think there is something. Which is the same as the lack of belief in God for example. You might say, but it's agnosticisms and it means that you merely "don't know". But I think agnosticism taken in that sense has an underlying belief in God that is not admitted, or at least a tendency to believe. As I could very well say that I'm "don't know" whether there are giant apes living on the dark side of the moon, but I have no reason to believe there is therefore I don't believe there is. If I find a clue, but something vague, then I might say that i just "don't know".

3) Saying you cannot trust your senses or reason, means that you cannot trust anything because it's the only things that link us with the external world. So by admitting this, you admit that anything we say here is basically useless and might very well all be bunk and unrelated to reality. Every time such a topic is discussed this argument comes back, but drop it, it's the only things we can hold to, and they give practical result. If your point is that our senses and reason do not give us a good link to reality because we only have access to the "mental images" of these things, or that you say that our senses and reason are cheating us (as in an optical illusion), or that our senses and reason are completely fooling us, are three different matters, but neither of them brings us anywhere. The only thing it might do is make one not take anything as dogma and leave that small proportion of doubt (that you don't consider but is still there in case), but which is already present in the scientific method under the form of perpetual doubt and that everyone should do with their own beliefs (not meaning that you have to consider those doubts all the time, but leave the possibility of a mistake). This basically only means not to take anything as dogma, which is also precisely my point.

4) No, not at all. I do understand Aristotle's Physic, although I do not believe in it. I do understand the ontological proof of God, even though I do not believe in God.

5) The question of ontology is a question only of philosophy? Not at all, friend, not at all. Now to debate this on the conventional side of the question, we would have to get into the maze of the history of the concept of philosophy. But let's not get into this. Philosophy and theology have both been very much confused and mixed together and the conceptions a very debated subject, but saying that theology doesn't work with the ontology of God is rather strange... especially in modern times where the separation between theology (science of God) and philosophy is becoming more distinct, compared to the Middles-Ages where it was pretty much a melting pot.

6) I'm not sure I understand the part where you say "the particle was not known to exist when it's properties were worked out." What do you mean by this?

7) I do understand the whole though, and yes, science offers conceptual views of reality by working on the interactions, but what is NOT known by it's interactions? Is there anything we do not know only by it's interactions? Do I known my hand otherwise than by it's interactions with my brain? You want to know the essence of things, but that there "is" (note the "") a particular essence. This was born from the ancients who thought with the view of an immortal soul, but to talk about synthetic ontology, is going into suppositions, mostly.

8) Oh! That is bad logic! And it is bad scientific method by extension. Before using the negative proof (or lack of) you have to first build a solid empirical theory. Using the lack of negative proof to "prove" something which hasn't already been demonstrated empirically is sophism at best.

Synthetic knowledge, you understand, is "building" knowledge from a certain point, but if this this basic point, this premise is the same thing as the synthetic knowledge, it means that it's built from nothing, from no basis, let alone rational basis.

There is a mistake in your understanding of my statement. I am not saying that "unless there is a physical basis for belief then there is nothing that should prompt belief", I am saying that "there is nothing that prompts my belief [in God]".

1) Yes, I am referring to what is referred to as essence or substance.

2) Then the difficulty here is merely one of semantics. Your position is truly one of agnosticism, a "non-knowledge." This would be one where you would neither affirm nor deny because you have not received information. Of course that opens the whole question of what constitutes valid information...

3) You misunderstood my position. I did NOT claim that ALL observations are to be doubted, but the reasonable position that not all observations are true. Therefore we must always take a position that all knowledge is provisional, since we are never precisely sure where error will creep in. I am no fan of dogmatic religion of any stripe, either. I firmly believe that much, if not all, of the trouble that religious belief has caused in the world is precisely because people act as though there is no doubt as to what the truth is. My position is we should always leave room for doubt in recognition of our inability to know anything perfectly. This does not deny that we can know things, merely that we know them as well as we think we do.

4) You are missing my point. You could not understand what Aristotelian physics is without having faith that what you were told Aristotelian physics constitutes really was the physics of Aristotle. You had to have faith people weren't pulling your leg and that there was really an Aristotelian physics to understand at all. In other words, this is the same position that you argued correctly above, that one must have faith in something in order to have any possibility of knowledge. Considering the limits of time, space and humans, we must inevitably come to understand some things through faith (not necessarily religious). For example, I have faith in my senses that New York City exists (I am in New York City) but I have to trust other people that Oakland, California exists (though Gertrude Stein famously remarked of the city, "There is no there, there.")

5) No, I said that SCIENCE is not equipped to answer ontological questions. Clearly theology is an attempt to deal with ontological issues.
Philosophy and theology were not so much confused as that philosophy grew out of religious beliefs.

6) Mendeleev predicted the existence of an element he labelled eka-silicon that was unknown to science. It subsequently was discovered and found to have the properties Mendeleev predicted. In a touch of historical irony, it was named Germanium. The neutrino was postulated to exist before it was actually detected. Pluto was predicted to exist based on perturbations of orbits of the planets. In all these cases there was good theoretical work even without direct observational proof that the particles existed.

7) The question here appears, at least on one level, of what we are to take as our axioms and which to exclude. Nothing at all wrong with that as the utility of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries shows. My point here is not to say that one set of axioms has any privileged position, in fact I hold the contrary position. What I am arguing for is merely a recognition that a scientific, or a materialistic, or a religious, or a (fill in the blank) conception involves a selection of axioms. This selection determines what kind of questions can be fruitfully asked within the conceptual model. The basis of judgment on the particular model should be how well it answers the questions that belong to the set of well-formed questions that can be posed within the model.

8) Spoken like an Aristotelian! Unfortunately it does not always work like that. As shown above for germanium and neutrinos, there was no empirical demonstration of the existence of the particles before they were postulated.

Pendragon

01-06-2008, 11:16 AM

I'm sorry but I would. My belief in God s not negative, it's just empty. It's not that I "don't" believe in him, it's that I have no reason to believe in him. Same result, but very important difference. I only wish you would stop putting words in my and other's mouth.I don't know why this would bother you as you have an excellent facility for doing it yourself. I have seen you take my statements many times and try to explain to me what you believed I meant. I can speak for myself, I've done it for 47 years.

mazHur

01-06-2008, 12:50 PM

I don't know why this would bother you as you have an excellent facility for doing it yourself. I have seen you take my statements many times and try to explain to me what you believed I meant. I can speak for myself, I've done it for 47 years.

I think one has to be 74 to be young !:) ;)

RichardHresko

01-06-2008, 12:57 PM

I think one has to be 74 to be young !:) ;)

The problem for me is that in dog years I'm already dead.

I just wanted to see what writing a short post would be like...

one_raven

01-06-2008, 01:12 PM

Wow. I didn't know any Calvinists existed anymore.

Etienne

01-06-2008, 04:27 PM

Yes, I am referring to what is referred to as essence or substance.

But is there such thing as an essence or substance in the metaphysical aspect of the term? The soul? But then again, there is no a priori basis for such knowledge, and so it's stays in the domain of speculation.

Then the difficulty here is merely one of semantics. Your position is truly one of agnosticism, a "non-knowledge." This would be one where you would neither affirm nor deny because you have not received information. Of course that opens the whole question of what constitutes valid information...

Yes, perhaps you could see it as a problem of semantics, although I don't think it's limited only to semantics. I wouldn't say my stance is only of "non-knowledge". I can say: "God doesn't exist (keeping in mind the eternal, but not used practically, doubt) because there is no bases for such a belief. I might as well believe in chimeras." It is not just an "I don't know" it is a "There is no reason to believe, therefore I don't believe." I don't think the difference is only semantic, but whatever this doesn't really matter after all.

You misunderstood my position. I did NOT claim that ALL observations are to be doubted, but the reasonable position that not all observations are true. Therefore we must always take a position that all knowledge is provisional, since we are never precisely sure where error will creep in. I am no fan of dogmatic religion of any stripe, either. I firmly believe that much, if not all, of the trouble that religious belief has caused in the world is precisely because people act as though there is no doubt as to what the truth is. My position is we should always leave room for doubt in recognition of our inability to know anything perfectly. This does not deny that we can know things, merely that we know them as well as we think we do.

Yes, yes, I believe we were then saying the same thing, and scientific method says the same as well. This is my main concern as well, I do not care whatever people might believe in, but it's the dogmatism that is my main concern.

You are missing my point. You could not understand what Aristotelian physics is without having faith that what you were told Aristotelian physics constitutes really was the physics of Aristotle. You had to have faith people weren't pulling your leg and that there was really an Aristotelian physics to understand at all.

Well whatever the name given to it, I can understand it. Tell me 2+2=5, and tell me it's Aristotelian physics, if I understand that 2+2=5 doesn't work, well I have understood what it is, after this it's simply a matter of name.

Oh and I think, concerning his metaphysics, that he was pulling our leg, he simply wanted to confuse people :p

In other words, this is the same position that you argued correctly above, that one must have faith in something in order to have any possibility of knowledge.

I don't use the term faith concerning axioms, a priori knowledge or empirical knowledge. There is a huge difference whether you simply use the term "faith" loosely or applied to different "categories" of knowledge.

Considering the limits of time, space and humans, we must inevitably come to understand some things through faith (not necessarily religious).

Yes, that is true, at least provisionally, at least, my main concern, however is that this knowledge understood through faith (such knowledge is inevitable to progress) should be taken as such and not scientifically or dogmatically, but as a theory.

For example, I have faith in my senses that New York City exists (I am in New York City) but I have to trust other people that Oakland, California exists (though Gertrude Stein famously remarked of the city, "There is no there, there.")

But here's another distinction: The existence of Oakland or Montreal (I'm in Montreal :p ) exist, is empirical data.

No, I said that SCIENCE is not equipped to answer ontological questions. Clearly theology is an attempt to deal with ontological issues.
Philosophy and theology were not so much confused as that philosophy grew out of religious beliefs.

Alright, only, for the second part, philosophy didn't grew out of religious beliefs, philosophy was adapted to religious beliefs and mostly developed in parallel while being interested in theological questions (intrusion almost always fought by theologians during the whole Middle-Age).

Mendeleev predicted the existence of an element he labelled eka-silicon that was unknown to science. It subsequently was discovered and found to have the properties Mendeleev predicted. In a touch of historical irony, it was named Germanium. The neutrino was postulated to exist before it was actually detected. Pluto was predicted to exist based on perturbations of orbits of the planets. In all these cases there was good theoretical work even without direct observational proof that the particles existed.[/QUOTE¸]

Yes, I don't think we're disagreeing here, only for these "predictions" there is empirical data leading to these conclusions. If a hunter sees a fresh deer track in the woods, he doesn't need to see the deer to know there is most probably one close.

[QUOTE]The question here appears, at least on one level, of what we are to take as our axioms and which to exclude. Nothing at all wrong with that as the utility of Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries shows. My point here is not to say that one set of axioms has any privileged position, in fact I hold the contrary position. What I am arguing for is merely a recognition that a scientific, or a materialistic, or a religious, or a (fill in the blank) conception involves a selection of axioms. This selection determines what kind of questions can be fruitfully asked within the conceptual model. The basis of judgment on the particular model should be how well it answers the questions that belong to the set of well-formed questions that can be posed within the model.

Yes, but I simply consider an axiom based on demonstrable or empirical knowledge applied to a scientifically conceptual world more worthy to be taken as scientific knowledge than what some book with shady origins might give me as purely metaphysical dogmatic knowledge, and that is without many other historical considerations that would reduce the dogmatic value of such knowledge.

Spoken like an Aristotelian! Unfortunately it does not always work like that. As shown above for germanium and neutrinos, there was no empirical demonstration of the existence of the particles before they were postulated.

Yes there was. That there was a perturbation on the orbit of planets which would coincide with the existence of a planet of x mass with x orbit, is empirical knowledge. If you see a puzzle with a piece missing in the middle, you can probably deduce: that there is a piece missing, the shape of the piece and even generally how the piece will look like - based on it's interaction with others. I do not need to see the piece itself.

EDIT: Wow this is getting to be big messages, there is a few parts however that are pretty much done, agreed and understood, or perhaps less relevant to the discussion, so let's cut them down :P

Etienne

01-06-2008, 04:31 PM

Pendragon

01-07-2008, 02:55 PM

Send me a private message with quotes of me doing this, we'll discuss it, if you want.I am nothing if not fair. I could find none. However, I should point out that many posts have been deleted.

I will, however, go with the evidence at hand and apologize. My deepest apologizes for an accusation that apparently is unfounded. Please forgive my error.

God Bless

Dale Harris

Etienne

01-07-2008, 06:11 PM

I am nothing if not fair. I could find none. However, I should point out that many posts have been deleted.

I will, however, go with the evidence at hand and apologize. My deepest apologizes for an accusation that apparently is unfounded. Please forgive my error.

God Bless

Dale Harris

Fair enough, if I ever did it was that I had misunderstood you, perhaps, and was not done on purpose.

greenburke

01-07-2008, 07:48 PM

"An 'inner process' stands in need of outward criteria."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein

We find that even subjective feelings and emotions, like pain, stand in need of objective definition for the person to think that they are, in fact feeling that way.

Moreover, not only do there need to be an agreement of objective criteria between humans, but humans need an objective criteria outside of themselves to validate their knowledge and beliefs (epistemology) and reality (metaphysics).

As discussed in Plato's, Theaetetus:

"Socrates: Then you were quite right in affirming that knowledge is only perception; and the meaning turns out to be the same, whether with Homer and Heracleitus, and all that company, you say that all is motion and flux, or with the great sage Protagoras, that man is the measure of all things...

"Socrates: I am charmed with his [Protagoras] doctrine, that what appears is to each one, but I wonder that he did not begin his book on Truth with a declaration that a pig or a dog-faced baboon, or some other yet stranger monster which has sensation, is the measure of all things; then he might have shown a magnificent contempt for our opinion of him by informing us at the outset that while we were reverencing him like a God for his wisdom he was no better than a tadpole, not to speak of his fellow-men-would not this have produced an over-powering effect?

For if truth is only sensation, and no man can discern another's feelings better than he, or has any superior right to determine whether his opinion is true or false, but each, as we have several times repeated, is to himself the sole judge, and everything that he judges is true and right, why, my friend, should Protagoras be preferred to the place of wisdom and instruction, and deserve to be well paid, and we poor ignoramuses have to go to him, if each one is the measure of his own wisdom?

Must he not be talking ad captandum [an unsound argument that is likely to gain popular acceptance] in all this?

I say nothing of the ridiculous predicament in which my own midwifery and the whole art of dialectic is placed; for the attempt to supervise or refute the notions or opinions of others would be a tedious and enormous piece of folly, if to each man his own are right; and this must be the case if Protagoras Truth is the real truth, and the philosopher is not merely amusing himself by giving oracles out of the shrine of his book."

If man cannot be the measure of all things, nor pigs, nor aliens, nor the host of other creatures that have been granted sensation... for they could not use transcendent methods of objective reliabilty to communicate truths between each other... they could know nothing for certain, even their own sensations would be void of objective certainty.

What is needed is God. A transcendent source of Truth, by which people's ability to deduce Truth would rely.

Else we would not know whether emprical, spritual, religious, or simple feelings were a path to truth. All of these would be left in the dark, because we would not know why they were the right ways to establish the validity of truth versus falsehood. As humans we would be left to observation and psychology... but these too would be mysticism, because we could not know if they were the right way and moreover empricism cannot be proved as the right philosophy/science by empirical methods. As Wittgenstein said, "The inner process stands in need of an outward criterion."

Also...
What people need more than pleasure is love. If pleasure alone gave people satisfaction then prostitutes, theives, killers, over-induldgers, and un-disciplined people, who act on impulse/instinct to fulfill their desire, should be not only the happiest, but most satisfied people.

But pleasure alone is not the key, pleasure needs a proper context, that context being love. Pleasures are fleeting but love never fails.

Love is exemplified in 1 Corinthians 13:1-8 (NIV),

"1If I speak in the tongues[a] of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8Love never fails."

Footnotes:

a. 1 Corinthians 13:1 Or languages
b. 1 Corinthians 13:3 Some early manuscripts body that I may boast

This need for love is leaves to lyrics, like Green Day's Boulevard of Broken Dreams,
"I walk alone/I walk alone/I walk alone...
My shadow's the only one that walks beside me
My shallow heart's the only thing that's beating
Sometimes I wish someone out there will find me
'Til then I walk alone"

This need for love is more than other people can provide, more than we can achieve. And that is what religions in general try to do, [B]acheive some higher state, enlightenment, freedom from suffering, god-status, even a achieve a ticket to heaven... following the lie told in the garden by the serpent,

"4And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
Genesis 3:4-5 (KJV)

But salvation and life is not acheived through our works; we are in need of a Savior... who took the burden off of us and bore our transgressions. That Savior being Jesus, God incarnate.

"13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[b] God made you[c] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross."

Colossians 2:13-14 (NIV)

Footnotes:

Colossians 2:13 Or your flesh
Colossians 2:13 Some manuscripts us

Paul talks about the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 (NIV)...

"3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed."

Footnotes:

1 Corinthians 15:3 Or you at the first
1 Corinthians 15:5 Greek Cephas

John 3:16-21,

"16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[f] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.[g] 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."[h]"

Footnotes:

f. John 3:16 Or his only begotten Son
g. John 3:18 Or God's only begotten Son
h. John 3:21 Some interpreters end the quotation after verse 15.

Ask forgiveness for your sins, believe that Jesus died on the cross for your transgressions and was raised to life for your justification and be saved.

2 Corinthians 1:20-22,

"20For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God. 21Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."

Etienne

01-07-2008, 08:57 PM

That Wittgenstein quote is very much taken out of context, and you make him say what he did not, I'm afraid. Also the premise of your argument is non sequitur with it's conclusion. You are only doing the same method as Descartes, for example, who wanted to find an a priori statement from which we could build a knowledge using reason. Your a priori knowledge here is the existence God, but the very point of this discussion is about the existence of God, if the conclusion is the same as the premise, then it is circular logic.

If you think there is no a priori knowledge or no axioms on which we can lay bases of philosophy, then God is a far less rational answer as a correct premise than many others have used.

Also I don't the point of your Bible thumping like this, as it is irrelevant to the discussion.

RichardHresko

01-10-2008, 03:38 PM

1) But is there such thing as an essence or substance in the metaphysical aspect of the term? The soul? But then again, there is no a priori basis for such knowledge, and so it's stays in the domain of speculation.

Yes, perhaps you could see it as a problem of semantics, although I don't think it's limited only to semantics. I wouldn't say my stance is only of "non-knowledge". I can say: "God doesn't exist (keeping in mind the eternal, but not used practically, doubt) because there is no bases for such a belief. I might as well believe in chimeras." It is not just an "I don't know" it is a "There is no reason to believe, therefore I don't believe." I don't think the difference is only semantic, but whatever this doesn't really matter after all.

Yes, yes, I believe we were then saying the same thing, and scientific method says the same as well. This is my main concern as well, I do not care whatever people might believe in, but it's the dogmatism that is my main concern.

Well whatever the name given to it, I can understand it. Tell me 2+2=5, and tell me it's Aristotelian physics, if I understand that 2+2=5 doesn't work, well I have understood what it is, after this it's simply a matter of name.

Oh and I think, concerning his metaphysics, that he was pulling our leg, he simply wanted to confuse people :p

2) I don't use the term faith concerning axioms, a priori knowledge or empirical knowledge. There is a huge difference whether you simply use the term "faith" loosely or applied to different "categories" of knowledge.

Yes, that is true, at least provisionally, at least, my main concern, however is that this knowledge understood through faith (such knowledge is inevitable to progress) should be taken as such and not scientifically or dogmatically, but as a theory.

But here's another distinction: The existence of Oakland or Montreal (I'm in Montreal :p ) exist, is empirical data.

Alright, only, for the second part, philosophy didn't grew out of religious beliefs, philosophy was adapted to religious beliefs and mostly developed in parallel while being interested in theological questions (intrusion almost always fought by theologians during the whole Middle-Age).

[QUOTE]Mendeleev predicted the existence of an element he labelled eka-silicon that was unknown to science. It subsequently was discovered and found to have the properties Mendeleev predicted. In a touch of historical irony, it was named Germanium. The neutrino was postulated to exist before it was actually detected. Pluto was predicted to exist based on perturbations of orbits of the planets. In all these cases there was good theoretical work even without direct observational proof that the particles existed.[/QUOTE¸]

Yes, I don't think we're disagreeing here, only for these "predictions" there is empirical data leading to these conclusions. If a hunter sees a fresh deer track in the woods, he doesn't need to see the deer to know there is most probably one close.

Yes, but I simply consider an axiom based on demonstrable or empirical knowledge applied to a scientifically conceptual world more worthy to be taken as scientific knowledge than what some book with shady origins might give me as purely metaphysical dogmatic knowledge, and that is without many other historical considerations that would reduce the dogmatic value of such knowledge.

4) Yes there was. That there was a perturbation on the orbit of planets which would coincide with the existence of a planet of x mass with x orbit, is empirical knowledge. If you see a puzzle with a piece missing in the middle, you can probably deduce: that there is a piece missing, the shape of the piece and even generally how the piece will look like - based on it's interaction with others. I do not need to see the piece itself.

EDIT: Wow this is getting to be big messages, there is a few parts however that are pretty much done, agreed and understood, or perhaps less relevant to the discussion, so let's cut them down :P

In your message quoted above I identified three main areas to discuss: 1) is concerned with whether or not an essence can be said to exist, and the evidence appertaining to it, 2) is on the nature of axioms and what role faith has to do with same, 3) is on the question of direct versus indirect empirical evidence. In order to keep the posts more wieldy I will post on each point in a separate post that will follow directly.

RichardHresko

01-10-2008, 03:47 PM

But is there such thing as an essence or substance in the metaphysical aspect of the term? The soul? But then again, there is no a priori basis for such knowledge, and so it's stays in the domain of speculation.

I am not sure how you are arguing this one, to be honest. What in this context would a basis (a priori or otherwise) be for deciding for or against the existence of an immaterial mode of being that would be satisfactory? If you rule out immaterial beings on the basis that they are not material then you are merely reasserting your premise, not concluding anything.

RichardHresko

01-10-2008, 04:03 PM

I don't use the term faith concerning axioms, a priori knowledge or empirical knowledge. There is a huge difference whether you simply use the term "faith" loosely or applied to different "categories" of knowledge.

Yes, that is true, at least provisionally, at least, my main concern, however is that this knowledge understood through faith (such knowledge is inevitable to progress) should be taken as such and not scientifically or dogmatically, but as a theory.

Yes, but I simply consider an axiom based on demonstrable or empirical knowledge applied to a scientifically conceptual world more worthy to be taken as scientific knowledge than what some book with shady origins might give me as purely metaphysical dogmatic knowledge, and that is without many other historical considerations that would reduce the dogmatic value of such knowledge.

The problem here is a bending of the idea of what an axiom is. An axiom is not based on demonstrable or empirical knowledge by its very definition. The classic examples are of course from Euclidean geometry: point, line, plane. There is no demonstrable or empirical evidence of them for the simple reason that they do not and can not physically exist.

Axioms are accepted without proof so that there is some possibility to build knowledge. That in itself neither makes it scientific, nor non-scientific.

A decision to accept something as true without proof is an act of faith.

Now I would agree with you that faith as such does not at all imply a deeply held belief or even certainty in the object of the faith. One can, and often does, have faith in things for the sake of the argument.

I think that what is important here is that one does two things: 1) recognize that there is no path to perfect knowledge, and 2) as a consequence distrust any system that claims that there is such a path.

In other words, I argue for a position of provisional knowledge somewhere between radical skepticism and dogmatism.

[QUOTE]Mendeleev predicted the existence of an element he labelled eka-silicon that was unknown to science. It subsequently was discovered and found to have the properties Mendeleev predicted. In a touch of historical irony, it was named Germanium. The neutrino was postulated to exist before it was actually detected. Pluto was predicted to exist based on perturbations of orbits of the planets. In all these cases there was good theoretical work even without direct observational proof that the particles existed.[/QUOTE¸]

Yes, I don't think we're disagreeing here, only for these "predictions" there is empirical data leading to these conclusions. If a hunter sees a fresh deer track in the woods, he doesn't need to see the deer to know there is most probably one close.

Yes there was. That there was a perturbation on the orbit of planets which would coincide with the existence of a planet of x mass with x orbit, is empirical knowledge. If you see a puzzle with a piece missing in the middle, you can probably deduce: that there is a piece missing, the shape of the piece and even generally how the piece will look like - based on it's interaction with others. I do not need to see the piece itself.

Now that sounds good, but there are two problems.
The first is that you are denying theimportance of the distinction between direct and indirect observation. If one is going to use empirical evidence this distinction should be borne in mind. Note for example you yourself slipped from the deer probably being close to your certainty that the puzzle piece was missing.

The danger of this is made clear by the separate problem. That is the problem of the planet Vulcan. This planet was predicted on the basis of perturbations of orbits of Mercury and Venus, and its mass and orbit (which was closer to the sun than Mercury) were predicted. The difficulty is that Vulcan does not exist. The perturbations however could be accounted for by relativistic effects, which was how the mystery was resolved (at least for now).

Etienne

01-10-2008, 10:16 PM

I am not sure how you are arguing this one, to be honest. What in this context would a basis (a priori or otherwise) be for deciding for or against the existence of an immaterial mode of being that would be satisfactory? If you rule out immaterial beings on the basis that they are not material then you are merely reasserting your premise, not concluding anything.

My point was in view of your post that discussed the limits of science by not being able to reach the essence. Your statement was not false, and I do not disagree, I was only saying that it is not necessarily a limit and there might be nothing out of science's reach. The term "essence" and many other metaphysical terms really do not mean anything. Even if an essence exist and the term "essence" refers to something, we have no idea beside speculation about what it is. We can speculate all day about ethereal squirrels living on Bételgeuse, but as long as it's wild speculation (the essence does stay wild speculation) I find using such a concept as the premise of an argument rather weak. It was perhaps more a precision, or a small digression, maybe.

The problem here is a bending of the idea of what an axiom is. An axiom is not based on demonstrable or empirical knowledge by its very definition. The classic examples are of course from Euclidean geometry: point, line, plane. There is no demonstrable or empirical evidence of them for the simple reason that they do not and can not physically exist.

I think this is really just a misunderstanding here. I wanted to represent axioms as something demonstrated in themselves, "a priori" knowledge. The term "empirical" is probably the source of the misunderstanding and an imprecision on my part, I used it for a reason, but I'll retract it (in a few words, I meant their... "translation" application to reality, easy example, 2+2=4 is a mathematical concept but if I add two coconuts to two coconuts, I will have four coconuts, thus 2+2=4 could be said to be demonstrated empirically).

A decision to accept something as true without proof is an act of faith.

Absolutely not, as it is "a priori" knowledge. That some unknown knowledge might relativise some of the axioms, that is possible, however in the systems and where they are used and applied they are true by their very nature and definition, no matter how you turn it around or take it apart.

In other words, I argue for a position of provisional knowledge somewhere between radical skepticism and dogmatism.

Well that's a rather imprecise position as there is a world and a half between the two poles. I myself argue for an acceptation of knowledge based on it's demonstrated value (this means to different degrees) but always keeping in mind that the process of falsification is never over, and therefore nothing is never completely validated. After this it is only a matter of the strength of the demonstration or induction.

The first is that you are denying theimportance of the distinction between direct and indirect observation. If one is going to use empirical evidence this distinction should be borne in mind. Note for example you yourself slipped from the deer probably being close to your certainty that the puzzle piece was missing.

I am not denying the importance of the distinction, I am only saying that indirect observation is part of the induction process. After this, not all demonstration or induction holds the same value but both ways DO have some value. In the same way, it was not a slip, as there is no homogeneity in the conclusions that can be held from different observations, direct or indirect.

The danger of this is made clear by the separate problem. That is the problem of the planet Vulcan. This planet was predicted on the basis of perturbations of orbits of Mercury and Venus, and its mass and orbit (which was closer to the sun than Mercury) were predicted. The difficulty is that Vulcan does not exist. The perturbations however could be accounted for by relativistic effects, which was how the mystery was resolved (at least for now).

But this is exactly why I am not saying that any conclusion on indirect observations (or even on direct observations) is necessarily true, but that it grants a "level of truth" (in the provisional, intelligible sense of the term). So it's value can be only enough to justify further investigation on the probability, but that is still something. Looking for gold in my backyard is not justified unless there is a reason to think there might be gold in my backyard. And with this, we are coming back to the topic at hand and the belief (but more the doctrinal belief) in God, religions, metaphysical "truths", etc.

RichardHresko

01-12-2008, 01:04 AM

My point was in view of your post that discussed the limits of science by not being able to reach the essence. Your statement was not false, and I do not disagree, I was only saying that it is not necessarily a limit and there might be nothing out of science's reach. The term "essence" and many other metaphysical terms really do not mean anything. Even if an essence exist and the term "essence" refers to something, we have no idea beside speculation about what it is. We can speculate all day about ethereal squirrels living on Bételgeuse, but as long as it's wild speculation (the essence does stay wild speculation) I find using such a concept as the premise of an argument rather weak. It was perhaps more a precision, or a small digression, maybe.

I think this is really just a misunderstanding here. I wanted to represent axioms as something demonstrated in themselves, "a priori" knowledge. The term "empirical" is probably the source of the misunderstanding and an imprecision on my part, I used it for a reason, but I'll retract it (in a few words, I meant their... "translation" application to reality, easy example, 2+2=4 is a mathematical concept but if I add two coconuts to two coconuts, I will have four coconuts, thus 2+2=4 could be said to be demonstrated empirically).

Absolutely not, as it is "a priori" knowledge. That some unknown knowledge might relativise some of the axioms, that is possible, however in the systems and where they are used and applied they are true by their very nature and definition, no matter how you turn it around or take it apart.

Well that's a rather imprecise position as there is a world and a half between the two poles. I myself argue for an acceptation of knowledge based on it's demonstrated value (this means to different degrees) but always keeping in mind that the process of falsification is never over, and therefore nothing is never completely validated. After this it is only a matter of the strength of the demonstration or induction.

I am not denying the importance of the distinction, I am only saying that indirect observation is part of the induction process. After this, not all demonstration or induction holds the same value but both ways DO have some value. In the same way, it was not a slip, as there is no homogeneity in the conclusions that can be held from different observations, direct or indirect.

But this is exactly why I am not saying that any conclusion on indirect observations (or even on direct observations) is necessarily true, but that it grants a "level of truth" (in the provisional, intelligible sense of the term). So it's value can be only enough to justify further investigation on the probability, but that is still something. Looking for gold in my backyard is not justified unless there is a reason to think there might be gold in my backyard. And with this, we are coming back to the topic at hand and the belief (but more the doctrinal belief) in God, religions, metaphysical "truths", etc.

I think we are in agreement on the provisional nature of knowledge. I will argue that my imprecision is appropriate since different matters of knowledge are well-established to varying degrees.

There seem actually to be only two areas of active disagreement. The first is the nature of axioms. The second is on metaphysics.

On axioms I think we essentially agree except that since "a priori knowledge" is not empirical and is accepted therefore without proof, it really does constitute a matter of faith, as uncomfortable as the term may be. That approximations can be made in the physical world is not empirical proof of an axiom. Mathematical points, lines, and planes have no existence in the physical world.

The second point is very interesting. You allow for knowledge that is not based on empirical information (the axioms) and in fact has no physical existence at all, and relegate all of metaphysics as speculation. There seems to be a conflict, if not an outright contradiction here.

Once again, the main stumbling block here is the issue of whether scientific or empirical knowledge is the only form of knowledge possible. Unless one is willing to consider metaphysical truth as a possibility outside of science (which is not designed to find any such thing and is an inappropriate tool for that purpose) then one has ended the inquiry before it has started.

Etienne

01-12-2008, 01:36 AM

The second point is very interesting. You allow for knowledge that is not based on empirical information (the axioms) and in fact has no physical existence at all, and relegate all of metaphysics as speculation. There seems to be a conflict, if not an outright contradiction here.

I don't think there is any contradiction here. Let's take the axiom a+b=b+a, it is self-evident it does not require demonstration. The existence of God or the observation that you have purple monkey answering to the name of Socrates on your head, do require demonstration and is not self-evident at all.

RichardHresko

01-13-2008, 07:31 AM

I don't think there is any contradiction here. Let's take the axiom a+b=b+a, it is self-evident it does not require demonstration. The existence of God or the observation that you have purple monkey answering to the name of Socrates on your head, do require demonstration and is not self-evident at all.

What does it mean to be self-evident, though?

It appears as though you are failing to distinguish between something that does not require demonstration (whatever that might be) and something that is accepted that can not be demonstrated (such as a mathematical point). The distinction is crucial.

Further a+b = b+a is only valid in certain circumstances, and therefore not necessarily as self-evident as one might think. Let a = "putting on socks" and b = "putting on shoes." Clearly the commutative law does not work in this case.

If however we restrict ourselves to purely abstract mathematical operations of algebra the statement is true. But we now slip out of the empirical yet again.

This is why I think there is a problem here.

brightfame

01-13-2008, 10:43 AM

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god? No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!) Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?

Of course it would.

:
:
On the other hand, I am betting you got your own concept of God taught to you by your family and your society. So actually what you believe in your heart comes from the opinions of others about there being a God. As for needing a God now even more, I'd say we need more solidarity and human understanding.

I think you are making my argument. Religion is taught to us. We have this need for a higher being simply because we can't explain our universe and ourselves. As for reading Nietzche more carefully, I have. He thought that the notion of a higher being was an insult to human intelligence.

"...As for reading Nietzche more carefully, I have. He thought that the notion of a higher being was an insult to human intelligence..."

Yes...but...........he was also a lunatic.

...I think this is important!?

It is interesting how in his 1882 work The Gay Science, Nietzsche has the character "madman" say the phrase that later made Nietzsche famous: "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him!", ...then Nietzsche, the world renown atheist phylosopher, made famous by that very quote of the "madman", goes insane in 1888, and dies a raving lunatic in 1900.

God has a sense of humour.

bright

rosa

01-13-2008, 12:12 PM

Hi I am Rosa
Do you mean that we only behave in a certain manner because religion dectates principles we must follow?
After 2000 years of Christianity of couse becomes difficult to separate man and religion because they have become very much one thing.Of course we are talking here of a tradition that goes back to the cave man who recognised the existence of a superior beeing and very much was afraid of it. Can we really ever achieve the certanty that the whole thing is fantasy even if prouves are given to us?
I do not believe so.Man need a superior beeing even the one that says he doesnt,that it why religion is so powerful and unbreakable.
The influence of religion is eternal.It is a great thing.
Would I change my attitude if I were sure God did not exist?
I do not think so? I could I ? I was born in a christian contest and learnt to live with it one way or another.Refused it as a young person like most of people, not so much now.It is part of me.
Somebody up there is greater than I am and that put me in my place, I could be at times ribellius but I have common sense. Never mind God,religion teaches good principles that are valid and sensible,why would I want to change ways if they are good and positive?
The question here is different.
Would somebody behaving well unwillingly modify his behaviour if discovered God was a fantasy?
But how many people nowdays modify their behaviour for religion?

Etienne

01-13-2008, 02:24 PM

Further a+b = b+a is only valid in certain circumstances, and therefore not necessarily as self-evident as one might think. Let a = "putting on socks" and b = "putting on shoes." Clearly the commutative law does not work in this case.

Yes but this is a mathematical axiom too. Do you really consider this axiom not self-evident? If I say x=x, don't you find such statement not self-evident?

If however we restrict ourselves to purely abstract mathematical operations of algebra the statement is true. But we now slip out of the empirical yet again.

But mathematics are translatable to reality.

Man need a superior beeing even the one that says he doesnt

The fact that you need one doesn't mean that everyone does, you know. Your post is merely about what you think religion is based on your own emotion and has no value as a universal statement. If religion was as strong as you said, it wouldn't have been used through history as a tool for power and violence.

rosa

01-13-2008, 04:11 PM

Hi Etienne
I agree. indeed religion has been used as a tool for power and violence. Ignorance as well as poverty,misery and hope for a better life have made it even more powerful.I am aware of the historical background to which you are refferring.Still religion has exercised its power well before powerful men in the Church institution have used it for their advantage. Perhaps it did not introduce itself as religion but it did have impact on everyday life.
I would say that the institution has taken advantage at some stages of a natural reverence to some unknown powers that somehow was already there that is intrinsec in man life. Well before than powerful men have influenced others. Man had feared the thunther and similar as a part of an unknown misterious power.Without talking about mithology,Greek,Latin,Egiptian etc,etc, The mistery of the unknown! Isn't what we are talking today after all? The Church institution has merely spotted a vacuum realising that there was scope for using this fear and mistery mith for introducing order in a form or another.
May be as you say that I only express my own feelings and not a universal idea, but I would go steady in calling them feelings.Feeling in this case is negative.
There is nothing in the way I see religion that is dicteted by feelings.
It is a matter of order and common civil relationship.
I behave in a good manner,you do the same. The moment in which I behave badly you can do it too.Of corse you can do it anyway it is your choice.
There is no reason why because the institution has been using religion as a tool for power and violence we must penalise the idea and the good things about it.
I am not desperatly pro or against the idea of God, but the Bible is incredibly
alive today as when it was written ,like every really good book. It contains a lot of good messages ( and some ambiguous ones too) but I am optimistic
the ten commandaments are good in principal,some may be a bit stale but I can live with that ,They were not written yesterday I can always adapt them the best I can to every days life.
Ok it is nice to be unruly who isn't in a form or another, but religion has given us a set of principles we can work upon,they are sensible and good for society.We decide how we use them.
I have nothing against people who do not want to conform,I do not want to do that either if I can help it,on the other hand life in society means to follow some general principal that make everybodys life easier.
As for NOT EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BELIEVE,I agree
As for what I am concerned some days I could not care less,but some days my God if I need to believe ! Coward ? I do not think so!
So I am humble on this one.
For the above reasons I would not modify the way I live if somebody turn up and can prove me that God does not exist.
I Hope I have not offended anybody as that is not my intention.

Etienne

01-13-2008, 04:16 PM

It is a matter of order and common civil relationship.
I behave in a good manner,you do the same. The moment in which I behave badly you can do it too.

But this has nothing to do with religions... Beside this I was only disagreeing with the quoted statement, which you corrected in that new post. No more objections, your honor! :P

rosa

01-14-2008, 02:59 AM

It has a lot to do with religion.In fact it depends what do you think religion is.
We can split the idea of religion in two phases: the original which refers to the intrinsic idea of fear and reverence for which you almost obey because you are afraid of the unknown and you do not want to bear the consequences of your disobedience simply you do not know what you are dealing with in its entirity. In this phase man had little idea of what he could do to please the unknown power and to avoid punishment, so he resorted to the usual offering beeing that a sacrifice of some sort.
The other phase is the intervention of the Church establishment in forcing hands to obey and materialising mans fear in hell or heaven,still unknown power but more tangible in the sense that now man can visualise his punishment or reward.
In whichever way you look at it religion has to do with one obeying the other.The other one power beeing the unknown,lets say his knowledge superior to yours.
the institutionalised Church has only set some civil rules down on paper.
These rules happens to be beneficial to order and to avoid chaos.
So May be I better leave my neighbours property alone. Etc,etc.
You are now going to tell me that Law regulates certain things and has nothing to do with religion.
The principal is the same. Sort of set rules, one set the rules the other obeys or punishment.
Actually religion fits better mans original intrinsic fear because you really do not know the extent of severity of punishment. In some ways religion can be more powerful than law.
So the whole idea of behaving well is based on rules which give us a model of how to behave.Religion actually is more complete than Law because has to do with self consciousness, it is not just matter of convincing another person which is more or less at your level but dealing directly with the unknown power.Can you get away with it?
If religion intended as institutionalised Church would have never been there would man everbeen able set limits to his behaviour?

PoeticPassions

01-14-2008, 03:13 AM

I am already certain that there is no Heaven or Hell, or an afterlife. I am certain that God is our own creation, and as such can be anything we want it to be. Satan (and Hell) is just the manifestation of human suffering. Jesus the manifestation of human compassion.

I do not consider myself to be nihilistic, or faithless... Above all I believe in LOVE... and in humanity... and the interconnectedness of the universe. I live for these things and I wouldn't want it any other way.

I feel peace knowing that "post mortem nihil est"... For then there is no fear in death. However, I envy those that believe in Heaven, to a degree, because if a loved one of mine dies, I know I shall never see that person again. I do not have the solace of Heaven...

rosa

01-14-2008, 08:22 AM

You are lucky if the idea of nothing after life feels you with peace,instead the idea unsettles me because it opens a chain of questions first of all " What is the sense of my life? What am I here for etc.etc.
On top of that also I would feel that I have to accomplish something in my life before leaving in order to give a reason to my existence.The worst part of it would be to accept existence without soul. I know,probably somebody out there will come and explain me in chemistry term what my feelings and emotions are. Still to me soul is connected to a higher existence and is the one thing that,if there is a chance of afterlife,I really want to hold on to.

Soul is what makes me different from a leaf or an animal I suppose.
Are you by any chance saying that there is no God,no Heaven or Hell but there is a soul?

Pendragon

01-14-2008, 10:50 AM

The fact that you need one doesn't mean that everyone does, you know. Your post is merely about what you think religion is based on your own emotion and has no value as a universal statement. If religion was as strong as you said, it wouldn't have been used through history as a tool for power and violence.And what excuse shall we give the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the science which blew them to atoms and then killed many slowly through radiation that due to poor scientific research we did not realize was even there to kill with? In the name of what God was this horrible decision made and carried out? I submit it wasn't a religious decision but one of war itself, we knew we couldn't island hop to the mainland without extreme lost of our soldiers. They were too fortified and dug in. We had to hit them where they couldn't stop us, and rushed the new technology. That was a scientific decision, thought out logically, and killing tens of thousands. Don't always blame religion, my friend. As Sherman said: "War is hell."

dzebra

01-14-2008, 01:04 PM

Above all I believe in LOVE...

I find this difficult for me to understand, because the way I see things, God and love are intertwined, with love not being able to exist without God. How would you describe the love you believe in with no God?

PrinceMyshkin

01-14-2008, 01:38 PM

Etienne

01-14-2008, 07:25 PM

And what excuse shall we give the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for the science which blew them to atoms and then killed many slowly through radiation that due to poor scientific research we did not realize was even there to kill with? In the name of what God was this horrible decision made and carried out? I submit it wasn't a religious decision but one of war itself, we knew we couldn't island hop to the mainland without extreme lost of our soldiers. They were too fortified and dug in. We had to hit them where they couldn't stop us, and rushed the new technology. That was a scientific decision, thought out logically, and killing tens of thousands. Don't always blame religion, my friend. As Sherman said: "War is hell."

You completely misunderstood my point. I never said that all violence came from religion, I was only saying that religion had been a tool for other means all the time and therefore, it is rather absurd, like the quoted post was saying to believe that religion is so strong and absolute and universal, etc, etc.

But, taking your argument, last time I checked, science in solely in the hands of humans, while religion is God on Earth... so if I want to see things from an atheist perspective, you are right, but if we want to assume certain things only for the sake of arguments (certain religious dogmas), then it becomes more problematic for you, and the comparison doesn't stand, as from that point of view, by their very nature, the two wouldn't be comparable at all.

In this way the only way I could have used such an argument as you thought I had used, wouldn't be to say that religion is "evil" but that, in fact is no more inspired by God and no better than any lay institution, movement, school of thought, sect,... it is solely humans playing the great comedy of life, in the end. No scenario, no author, only actors.

rosa: Well you started saying religion was the strongest thing, it is absolute and irreducible, and now you are, to prove your point, merely tracing a parallel between lay laws and religious laws, and assuming that everyone's conduct is only guided by these laws and the fear of punishment, which is completely wrong.

PoeticPassions

01-14-2008, 10:12 PM

.

Soul is what makes me different from a leaf or an animal I suppose.
Are you by any chance saying that there is no God,no Heaven or Hell but there is a soul?

If mind and imagination are considered as some sort of "soul," then sure... Human emotions, imagination, and complexity of thought (language, etc) are what sets us apart from animals... The soul is just love, I believe. And perhaps that is something that is cyclical and eternal, thus gives us immortality.

As for some of the other comments by people (with regard to my first post): Love can be God. God might be inside us. It depends on your interpretation. I do not judge anyone else's beliefs or faith, I only respect it.
And I do not think my life is meaningless just because there is no afterlife. Without an afterlife, I find myself even more ambitious... I hope to help the world, to sacrifice many things for the greater good... the purpose is the advancement of humanity and love of mankind. I will not leave this earth without having left a trace... And hopefully when death comes I will be happy with the way things have gone and with my accomplishments.

:)

Etienne

01-14-2008, 10:36 PM

And I do not think my life is meaningless just because there is no afterlife. Without an afterlife, I find myself even more ambitious... I hope to help the world, to sacrifice many things for the greater good... the purpose is the advancement of humanity and love of mankind. I will not leave this earth without having left a trace... And hopefully when death comes I will be happy with the way things have gone and with my accomplishments.

I like that, constructive and optimistic, a step up the usually pessimistic and very negative Christian -and others- philosophy.

rosa

01-15-2008, 03:22 AM

Hi
No Etienne, I think that there are parts you did not understand becuse you attribute an absolute approach to my posts that is not there and I am not sure where you get it from.
I was merely detaching myself and analysing the point in respect of order and civil relationship as you asked.
Once more Religion has through history directed mans behaviour for fears of different kind( as you said).
That is the part that is intrinsec in man because is the original natural mans perspective of somebody who deals with the unknown.This istinctive approach is still very much with us or ,if you prefer, with some of us in one form or another and that is why we are discussing behaviour in correlation with the existence of Hell and Heaven. I never said that fear is the only aspect to be considered.I could discuss for months if we want to analyse other aspects.What I am sayng is that even fear is not negative here.
You attribute to my words a much too strong perspective using superlative and absolute words which I did not use.Because I am moderate.
Religion has a strong hold on man may not on everybody,as you say,not the strongest hold ! Strong.
I said that I would not change my behaviour if God etc.etc were a fantasy.
Why?
Because I am grown up and I have to admit that Religion has given us a new perspective that was not natural to us.If it were natural to man to be good all the time and to give all the time,we would have no need of Hell and Heaven, we would not need to be regulated by religion or law . We are not, we need regulation.
In my opinion,You are doing the mistake of assuming that because I discuss reasons for existence of religion and some form of mans dependence from it I should throw in the air some " I believe I do not why! " forgetting practicality.
I very well know why!
society needs an order that takes into account the whole of a man,body and soul and religion does just that.And of course there is salt and pepper: Hell and Heaven
No, I am not assuming that we do things only for fear but there is an intrinsic element of that in humane nature.
That is why this debate about hell and heaven is popular.
After all we are discussing carrot and stick.
If it works jolly well have it.

Anonymous Angel

01-15-2008, 04:39 AM

God is so much more than just a deity...God crosses cultures and becomes the point, the line, and the plane on which we were built. God is a being so large, so small, so beautiful, that scientific phenomena like The Mandelbrot Set (They call it The Thumbprint of God) or the Golden Ratio (1.618) seems to point us to the truth of God. That the beauty of the structure of the Universe is God, and were we to paint God's eye view, we would find it love in infintesimal ways. I look to what we can do, and realize I can put one hand next to my other and kiss them, thanking God for walking beside me as an equal, as one who loves me, as one I love and care about, as I would any of my family. God is the one who loves by giving back, the one who reflects back to you the best that you are. Beyond Religions boundaries, and beyond scientific explanation, there is a being of sucn beauty and understanding....just listen to the heartbeat of the Universe one night, and his voice will come soft and whispering next to your shoulder, just to say "you are love...you are love...the universe is love...beautiy is love...show your love by noticing what love lays before you"...and a lift of a chin, a soft kiss, and God says "I am here, always, beside you. I am your best friend. And I love as you do." I cannot imagine a world or universe without love, and a universe without love is a universe without God. In your eyes, in your love, True God, True Beauty, True Love.

rosa

01-15-2008, 06:49 AM

I am amased that you both from pretty different sides are so contempt! Lucky you both that have achieved that if that is what you like.
Sorry though I cannot quite share your ideas.not that that means they are not valid in their own rights.Everybody has their own opinion.
I quite prefere a middle ground where things are a bit more flexible.Where ideas are put in such way that do not exclude the opposite or leave space for it.You both do not leave room for doubts and that is what scares me out of your approach.Certainty?mmh.
I wish it were as easy as that?
By the way if what you say is right with the sorte of certainty you both have, one of you is wrong. The problem is which one or both who knows.

Lote-Tree

01-15-2008, 06:51 AM

By the way if what you say is right with the sorte of certainty you both have, one of you is wrong. The problem is which one or both who knows.

Certainty is a psychological state and not necessarily based on facts.

rosa

01-15-2008, 07:18 AM

Hi Lote Tree
Ya,I suppose you are right considering that certainty in way or the other in this case is extremely difficult to achieve as we are talking of immaterial things,not tangible.
How do you achieve certainty of something you cannot see or touch ?
You can try and give explanations one way or the other to bring light to the darkness of doubts,,still if there is no proof you can only reason and try to make sense of things.
I prefere this approach

Lote-Tree

01-15-2008, 07:44 AM

How do you achieve certainty of something you cannot see or touch ?

You can as long as it can be measured. Atoms for example can't be seen or the forces can't be touched but both can be measured. And that makes the whole difference.

Best approach is the Scientific Method which is based on objectively verifiable evidence.

rosa

01-15-2008, 09:06 AM

hi
It is one method if you prefere that one.Having said that even within the Scientific Method you have to choose between the qualitative and quantitative approach. My impression is that in this specific case as for task is concerned a qualitative method would be desirable as it would be difficult to quantify people ideas.Which brings us back to what we are doing more or less.In a humble way.
On the one hand the Scientific Approach is sensible because removes all the baggage that we tend to drug along wirth us and has little to do with reaching sensible proven conclusion.
On the other hand though without that useless buggage we only look at the mechanic of things without taking into consideration factors that might in reality have a great impact on risults.
I am not a great scientist I must say.I am a classicist with a hint of science developed late in life.so my scientific approach to things is not reliable I am afraid.

Anonymous Angel

01-17-2008, 12:30 PM

Rosa...

I was a bit taken aback at your message...in all reality, I believe I'm very flexible. I think all traditions have their way of looking at God, and not only do I respect them, but I believe in them. I include many traditions in my life...singing bowls and Gongs from Tibet, a beautiful little broom outside my front door to sweep off my porch, beautiful pieces of Jade to continue the positive energy and lovely Feng Shui in my home, I have books on Zen, on Taoism, on Catholocisim, I have a sourcebook of the world's religions (which I have yet to really intake, but will.) I think all people should be aware of and respect the traditions of others...but the true Faith, the Faith of all Faiths, is that of Love. And love does respect others traditions (or their choice to not have one, which I also think is lovely. It is a tradition that respects their own being and right to their Free Choice and personal path.) I do hope you understand that my view of God includes every one of these traditions I've just mentioned. I'm sorry it looks as if I offended you, I am pretty open-minded, and love to hear about other people's views, always. As I said, my first and foremost thought is Love. And that, in true essense, is the True Beauty that matters Universally in all of us. Love Loves, Love Fights, Love Wins. Always. (A Quote from me!) I would love for you to post to my site, Un Philosophia Des Anges with your view on God or Spirituality...take a look if you have a chance...http://philosophiadesanges.blogspot.com/. We are all Angels, in all traditions, because we love.--Rebecca Tacosa Gray

rosa

01-17-2008, 04:52 PM

Hi Anonymous Angel
You did not offend me at all.I was comparing two different approaches yours and Poetic Passion.One who does not believe in God and the other that does.You both seem to be certain of your position.
Read again my post and you will see that I just said that I do not share your point of view or PoeticPassion. I do not think certainty in this subject is something achievable. I did not say even that you were not opennminded.I would I know? I am only saying that I prefere a more flexible position where things are expressed in a way that allow a dialog and seen the topic,try and achieve the conclusion through reasoning and discussing rather than expressing a state of mind.

RichardHresko

01-18-2008, 04:04 PM

Yes but this is a mathematical axiom too. Do you really consider this axiom not self-evident? If I say x=x, don't you find such statement not self-evident?

But mathematics are translatable to reality.

The fact that you need one doesn't mean that everyone does, you know. Your post is merely about what you think religion is based on your own emotion and has no value as a universal statement. If religion was as strong as you said, it wouldn't have been used through history as a tool for power and violence.

That mathematics can be translatable (sometimes) to the sensible world is not a measure of its validity, and tells us nothing about the nature of an axiom.

Also, you are mistaken when you define an axiom as being something that is "self-evident." While many axioms are self-evident, that is not what makes an axiom an axiom. An axiom is something that is accepted without proof, not something that does not require proof.

Further, "x = x" may not be as self-evident as you may think. Consider the following: Place some water in a container and seal the container. Freeze the water into ice. Melt it within the container. Then refreeze it in the same closed container. Are the two ice cubes the same?

Once again, what exactly is meant by the term "self-evident"? And how exactly do you propose to divorce what is self-evident from what is "merely" an act of faith?

It is interesting to consider your comments to me about self-evidence in conjunction to your remarks to Rosa in the same post, also quoted above. In one case you appear to take as a universal something that you believe, while in another you critique someone for doing quite the same thing. The only difference appears to be what is taken as self-evident.

Ironic, no?

rosa

01-20-2008, 02:48 AM

Hi
Interesting!
What is really self evidence?
Do you think is different for every one of us?
It is. isn't it? Of course if there are tangible proves may be we all see things the same way helped by these proves.mmh.Not sure really.
May be self evidence is not real either. I suppose we all see things slightly differently even analysing same evidence.
I already said I am not good at all in entering the scientific field,I do not have the knowledge or the approach for it.
What would anyway classify as self evident if not really tangible things,Even there who knows. Because if they were really self evident we all would be able to see them in the same way.Even in scientific field. I suppose you need to have the right knowledge and approach to identify something as "self evident" whatever is the field you are dealing with.But if we look at religion which I believe and hope to be right is not tangible,what is it really self evidence.
Sorry to be messy in this reasoning but do we all see religion as non tangible?
because if we have some difference of opinion there from the beginning is hardly going to be possible to follow the same line of reasoning and impossible to rich the same conclusion.May be similar.Somebody out there help me to reason on this one,please.Are we here merely listing our opinions?
How far do we have to explain the backgound of our reasoning to be understood exactly in the way we mean things.Is that at all possible?

Etienne

01-20-2008, 03:13 AM

That mathematics can be translatable (sometimes) to the sensible world is not a measure of its validity, and tells us nothing about the nature of an axiom.

Also, you are mistaken when you define an axiom as being something that is "self-evident." While many axioms are self-evident, that is not what makes an axiom an axiom. An axiom is something that is accepted without proof, not something that does not require proof.

An axiom is by definition self-evident. If it's not self-evident, it's not an axiom. Your problematic would then turn to be "what is an axiom".

Further, "x = x" may not be as self-evident as you may think. Consider the following: Place some water in a container and seal the container. Freeze the water into ice. Melt it within the container. Then refreeze it in the same closed container. Are the two ice cubes the same?

Your example might lead to think that your last sentence "Are the two ice cubes the same?" mean "does x = x?", but it does not, unless you explicitly imply that, for the sake of your reasoning, the two ice cubes are indeed the same. If you imply that they are not the same, then asking does "does x = x?" does not apply. x can only mean a single variable. Your reasoning is sophistic and implies that x would mean two different things.

Once again, what exactly is meant by the term "self-evident"? And how exactly do you propose to divorce what is self-evident from what is "merely" an act of faith?

It is pointless to discuss about this when the point above has non been elucidated, this is: the meaning of x = x. The statement x = x is a mathematical statement, and this means that you cannot apply it as you did. Your example, if you imply that the two ice cubes are not the same, is only based on your definition of what the ice cube "is". So if you say that the two ice cubes are not the same, then you would only be saying x =/= y, and wouldn't be saying that x =/= x.

It is interesting to consider your comments to me about self-evidence in conjunction to your remarks to Rosa in the same post, also quoted above. In one case you appear to take as a universal something that you believe, while in another you critique someone for doing quite the same thing. The only difference appears to be what is taken as self-evident.

Ironic, no?

Hmm explain it better, as, as it is, or as I understand it, I find this nonsequitur...

bazarov

01-20-2008, 04:36 AM

If there is no God, then everything else is permitted.

RichardHresko

01-20-2008, 11:32 AM

An axiom is by definition self-evident. If it's not self-evident, it's not an axiom. Your problematic would then turn to be "what is an axiom".

Your example might lead to think that your last sentence "Are the two ice cubes the same?" mean "does x = x?", but it does not, unless you explicitly imply that, for the sake of your reasoning, the two ice cubes are indeed the same. If you imply that they are not the same, then asking does "does x = x?" does not apply. x can only mean a single variable. Your reasoning is sophistic and implies that x would mean two different things.

It is pointless to discuss about this when the point above has non been elucidated, this is: the meaning of x = x. The statement x = x is a mathematical statement, and this means that you cannot apply it as you did. Your example, if you imply that the two ice cubes are not the same, is only based on your definition of what the ice cube "is". So if you say that the two ice cubes are not the same, then you would only be saying x =/= y, and wouldn't be saying that x =/= x.

Hmm explain it better, as, as it is, or as I understand it, I find this nonsequitur...

The problem still revolves around what makes an axiom an axiom. The salient feature is that an axiom is a postulate that is taken to be true without proof. It is NOT something derived from empirical observation (there has never been, and never could be, an observation of a mathematical point, line, or plane) and it relies for its acceptance on something vague such as "self-evidence" which by the very term itself implies a degree of subjectivity.

Once you argue that one has to take into account the circumstances there is no longer the pure self-evidence that you imply. Your argument (and your argument is correct) is that a statement such as "x = x" can be accepted without proof only within certain types of arguments. Which is precisely my position on axioms. These are not merely self-evident statements, but are statements that are taken to be "worthy" (which is the original meaning of the word) of acceptance for the sake of particular types of arguments.

Now the point of all this is that your system of gaining knowledge involves basing certain types of thoughts on statements that are accepted not because they are universally true, and not because they are demonstrable (they are not) but because they allow us to move forward. They are a starting point. We are of course allowed to jettison axioms and postulates (same thing) when they are no longer useful. A classic example is the abandonment of the postulate that parallel lines never meet, since that is not necessarily true in some interesting cases.

Given your concessions here, the irony of rejecting someone else's set of axioms out of hand should be evident.

The true questions to ask are to what purpose we are choosing our axioms, and to what degree they allow us to pursue that purpose profitably. I would argue that religious axioms are, or can be, as valid for their purpose as mathematical ones, in their proper spheres.

Etienne

01-20-2008, 02:09 PM

Once you argue that one has to take into account the circumstances there is no longer the pure self-evidence that you imply. Your argument (and your argument is correct) is that a statement such as "x = x" can be accepted without proof only within certain types of arguments. Which is precisely my position on axioms. These are not merely self-evident statements, but are statements that are taken to be "worthy" (which is the original meaning of the word) of acceptance for the sake of particular types of arguments.

No, no, to say "it can only be accepted in certain types of argument" is false, it can be accepted all the time. x = x is a mathematical axiom, the mathematical axiom will then only illustrate your reasoning applied to the ice cubes in a mathematical form. If your premise is that x = any ice cube, then necessarily all ice cubes are the same, at least for the sake of your argument, and therefore x = x will necessary be true for the sake of your argument. As soon as you are tempted to say x =/= x, then your statement becomes wrong, and it should be x =/= y, because one variable cannot mean two different things, x =/= x is a complete absurdity, like saying 1 =/= 1. So as soon as you postulate that the two ice cubes are NOT the same then x = any ice cube contradicts this very statement. I mean I don't know how I can explain this further...

Given your concessions here, the irony of rejecting someone else's set of axioms out of hand should be evident.

This is following a very sophistic reasoning I'm afraid. Putting "x = x" and "God exist" on a same foot of logical equality is stretching it quite far...

I would argue that religious axioms are, or can be, as valid for their purpose as mathematical ones, in their proper spheres.

Axioms are universally true.

It is quite useless to continue this until you have understood correctly why it is an axiom and why it is self-evident.

Tuninks

01-20-2008, 02:12 PM

I wouldn't be surprised really. I'd move on to better things such as learning.

Redzeppelin

01-24-2008, 12:33 AM

If there is no God, then everything else is permitted.

Let me second bazarov's apt paraphrase from Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov. Once God - the source of objective morality - is banished, then we really have no reason to prohibit any behavior whatsoever except on basis of personal preference or "might makes right." How scary is that?

Igetanotion

01-24-2008, 01:02 AM

This would change nothing for me, and for many others I am sure. I do not believe in a conventional sense of God, but of a power greater then myself. More specifically: I have faith in life, in being good and kind towards others simply for the satisfaction of not causing others pain, and I enjoy my life for the pure sake of the gift that it is to be living. People who are saying that they would die if there were no God, well, I'm sure your God would be horrified to hear that. If you do believe in God then he surly did not create you to have you feel that your life is so trivial.

and more specifically, the "Power Greater then Myself" that I believe in is more a way of saying, that I only believe that I am not God, or more specifically that I am such an important person, as I have found some people to immediately assume this is my opinion of myself :lol: . The Ocean is a power greater then myself, so are Elephants and Hurricanes. If there was no heaven or hell, I don't know if there is or not, it would make no difference to me, nor should it to anyone. The absence of an "After" should not mean that there is nothing to look forward to. Who knows what comes "After"? Faith should be something that you feel in your heart, and how you talk to "God" or whatever power it is you believe is more powerful then yourself, well that should be a personal thing within each individual that is unbiased against any concrete knowledge of a presence of or absence of a Deity.

I'd also like to say, that I don't care what anyone practices. Honestly, and I don't mean this in a rude way. I think that religions are great things, I think everyone is right, and everyone is wrong all at the same time. If there is a "God" then there is only one. And my concept, and yours, and everyone else's on the planet are simply individual ways to find that same point. No one should tell anyone how to have faith or to worship whoever it is they feel the need to worship.

This is a terrifically touchy topic to many people though it seems.

And also, I would truly hate to believe that if there was no God then anything would be permissible. It is a shame to have such a low view of humans, though we surly haven't done very much to prove that point otherwise. There is no God for me, and "Anything" is certainly not permissible for me in my life. Morals, though they have a strong tie to religion and the concept of a "God" and the great fear of his wrath, do not solely rely on religion. There is such a thing as simply being a "Good" person.
But again, to each his own and I value every-ones difference of opinion, so long as respect is involved of course.

Etienne

01-24-2008, 01:14 AM

Let me second bazarov's apt paraphrase from Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov. Once God - the source of objective morality - is banished, then we really have no reason to prohibit any behavior whatsoever except on basis of personal preference or "might makes right." How scary is that?

Oh, this rhetoric... million of people had/have no God, that doesn't mean that they care about nothing or have no morality... Such a judgment would also imply that everyone acts "morally" only by fear of punishment, which might be Doestoevsky's, Bavarov's and your case, but isn't the case for everyone else.

In fact, that people believed in God hasn't stopped many of them to act contrary to the moral either.

Redzeppelin

01-24-2008, 01:47 AM

Oh, this rhetoric... million of people had/have no God, that doesn't mean that they care about nothing or have no morality... Such a judgment would also imply that everyone acts "morally" only by fear of punishment, which might be Doestoevsky's, Bavarov's and your case, but isn't the case for everyone else.

In fact, that people believed in God hasn't stopped many of them to act contrary to the moral either.

But these "millions" were born and raised inside a culture that may carry - if even only latent within it - a belief in God. (As well, the Bible makes it clear that all humanity carries within it an inherent knowledge of God - they may not necessarily know that its Him - God - but they do understand that something far greater than themselves created them and the universe that they are in - and, as a result, carry within them an inherent knowledge of right and wrong - the standard to which all people appeal when making moral judgments - including moral relativists, by the way).

That many ("millions") choose not to believe is different than God truly not existing at all. Dostoyevsky's propostion simply states a philosophic truth (which you've tried to refute using a world that - for the most part - still believes in some form of God). As such, you can't use the world as it is necessarily to argue that the philosophic point is wrong.

Dostoyevsky's proposition suggests the reality of morality's force if God (the source of objective morality) doesn't exist. Without God, all morality becomes subject to (fallible and self-interested) human whim, desire, preference. Pretty scary when you look at what we're capable of justifying.

Secondly, the overcrowding of prisons worldwide is proof that threats of punishment are insufficient to convince people to do the right thing. Nobody can long serve God out of fear - he will simply come to resent God and then finally reject Him. You cannot believe in God as He is described in the Bible and then pretend that He is a God of coercion and force. Trying to hold two such ideas (if one has truly read the Bible) creates a contradiction that cannot be logical.

Il Penseroso

01-24-2008, 02:12 AM

Igetanotion

01-24-2008, 02:18 AM

ballb

01-24-2008, 02:59 AM

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god? No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!) Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?
Some of us having been living with that reality for most of our adult lives. And no, it doesn`t change the way I live. In fact the realization that life is not a dress rehearsal for anything ensures that I try to make the most of the single chance that I get at it.

rosa

01-24-2008, 09:06 AM

Hi
I cannot see how it would be a dress rehearsal anyway,Hopefully we would not have to go through it all again. If we had to, I would rather leave out the first 30 years of my life as non consequential.
If there were a God do you expect to have another chance? In which way?
The way I see heaven if ever there is one, is as a troubble free place, where I can relax if I want to and take my well earned place for having been considerate towards others.
In reality I do not really expect heaven to be available.deep inside I know that Heaven is an unrealistic idea.It is a good one though.

mazHur

01-24-2008, 09:48 AM

B-Mental

01-24-2008, 10:27 AM

Yeah, I like FICTION too.... thats what I read, but I also read the BIBLE! So believe or don't, B/.

Redzeppelin

01-24-2008, 10:39 AM

Ok, so you can't use a world without religion spontaneously created (in our heads) to demonstrate that belief in the absence of gods does not entail the lack of morality, but you can envision evolutionary development toward a society that does not need illogical, unprovable (untestable, without a smidgin of evidence) contstructions that, in my opinion, take the easy (and unkindly) road out.

I merely suggest that you can't dismiss the philosophic truth in Dostoyevsky's statement simply because there is a significant number of people who disbelieve in God and still behave. I am not claiming that a lack of belief in God leads to certain moral anarchy; I am suggesting that Dostoyevsky's statment is true: without an objective morality, why should anything be forbidden?

As far as your hyperbolic attack against religion: please. Much of what even atheists "believe" about life is "untestable, without a smidgin of evidence." There's "evidence" around, but perhaps it isn't in the form you prefer. Life is not about what can be defined, examined, conclusively proved. Life cannot be understood in its complexity and mystery by camping out inside a test tube - sorry.

What exactly are the "easy" and "unkind roads" religion takes, by the way?

Religion can be seen as an evolutionary stage of development requiring a human-created supernatural system (think crutches, or a small child unsteadily learning to walk), whereas a more permanent structure of moral relations between people and others (including the environment) should focus on respect for life for what it is, as represented through observation and what can be known.

To say that the idea of God is an "evolutionary stage" is absurd. There is no reason for the blind forces of nature to engender or create within the human mind the concept of an eternal God and an objective moral law.

As far as your "more permanent structure of moral relations" - what is "more permanent" about it? Tell me, to what standard do you appeal to tell me that I should have "respect for life"? Why? A Darwinistic view would suggest that respecting the lives of others may well endanger mine (survival of the fittest and all that); an evolutionistic view would suggest that morality would be a hamper more than a help to my existence.

"Life for what it is, as represented through observation and what can be known" (my italics).

The greatest literature of the world (including most religious texts but not confined to them) points again and again to the sobering truth that reality may not be exactly what it seems. Check out Buddhism's fundamental ideas about the nature of reality, Shakespeare's Hamlet, the Gospel of Matthew, Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath, Melville's Moby Dick, Conrad's Heart of Darkness and Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for a quick overview of this truth.

Dark Star

01-24-2008, 10:50 AM

the more you try to learn about God the more mysterious He becomes. If he isn't there then who's there who is controlling this universe from disintegrating?? If there was no God this Universe had been just a non- sensical assemblage of matter!

...What are you talking about?

Jesus, man, read a physics (astronomy, preferably) text-book. It explains all of this stuff.

That said, I'm willing to make an an attempt here....why does the universe need God to control it to keep it from disintegrating? What would cause it do so if some divine force wasn't there stopping it...?

And for that matter, how do you know its God doing this work and not some other divine force from a different religion?

B-Mental

01-24-2008, 10:51 AM

Tolstoi...and Does(I've seen it so many ways can't spell it) are true genius.. and I spell War and Peace, Peace & War

Redzeppelin

01-24-2008, 11:00 AM

...What are you talking about?

Jesus, man, read a physics (astronomy, preferably) text-book. It explains all of this stuff.

That said, I'm willing to make an an attempt here....why does the universe need God to control it to keep it from disintegrating? What would cause it do so if some divine force wasn't there stopping it...?

And for that matter, how do you know its God doing this work and not some other divine force from a different religion?

The contention is that the laws of physics exist because God created them. The textbooks you refered simply describe the existence of laws that God created. Physics cannot explain why these laws exist at all - it can only say "here is why the universe seems to operate as it does." Knowing why something operates as it does is not the same as understanding how the way it operates came to be in the first place.

No other religion can properly account for the existence of the universe as it exists.

B-Mental

01-24-2008, 11:45 AM

I'm sorry RZ..Physics is a book written by God! I'm sorry you are ill...illiterate! RZ, you know everything, but I am infinite. sorry if this insulted you ...Biaatch! B

mazHur

01-24-2008, 12:29 PM

...What are you talking about?

Jesus, man, read a physics (astronomy, preferably) text-book. It explains all of this stuff.

That said, I'm willing to make an an attempt here....why does the universe need God to control it to keep it from disintegrating? What would cause it do so if some divine force wasn't there stopping it...?

And for that matter, how do you know its God doing this work and not some other divine force from a different religion?

have read enough of physics and all that,,,,time for me forget most of it!

First of all let me say God has no religion. If every religion had its own god this world would have been hell much earlier!

The Universe is expanding or contracting, the question is who's making her do that?? Where did a pinch of dust come from?? If we can't create then it is fair enough to admit that there is someone, someone whom we are unable to comprehend, who is infact ''creating'' and looking after his 'creation' as well.
Nothing is automatic or spontaneous.......nothing is even accidental ,,,,you only think so !

rosa

01-24-2008, 01:13 PM

Hi
It sound good and surely from a certain point of view possible,the problem is that it is possible the other way round too,it really depend which interpretation you want to give to it all.I think it is possible to esplain what you describe with fisics,but you are quite welcome to feel differently.
As for myself I think Fisics would do a better job in esplaining your questions but I do not have any problem in hoping that there is a bit more than fisics in everything around us.One can only hope!

mazHur

01-24-2008, 01:17 PM

Rosa

why only physics and not chemistry?? No single science is capable of explaining complete sciences so how can it explain God !

B-Mental

01-24-2008, 01:35 PM

Well, it was the topic brought up, wasn't a boolkwritten about Eve? or Evolution? Or Mass Spectrometry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ..I'm sorry thats Geo Chemistry talk for every single combintation in the mix. B

Dark Star

01-24-2008, 02:23 PM

No other religion can properly account for the existence of the universe as it exists.

How is THIS true? Do you really believe that Christianity is the only religion with an omnipotent, omniscient deity at the head of it? The fact of the matter is, ANY religion that claims to have that sort of deity heading it can 'properly account' for the existence of the universe as it exists. Not to mention, even within those standards, you still have Islam and Judaism to deal with since they employ the same God with the same powers.

Dark Star

01-24-2008, 02:25 PM

The Universe is expanding or contracting, the question is who's making her do that??

A combination of gravity and left over energy from the big bang.
Where did a pinch of dust come from??

Again, the Big Bang.

If we can't create then it is fair enough to admit that there is someone, someone whom we are unable to comprehend, who is infact ''creating'' and looking after his 'creation' as well.

No, it is not fair enough to admit to such a thing. This is known as the God of the Gaps fallacy. "If I don't know how it works, then God must have done it".

mazHur

01-24-2008, 04:16 PM

A combination of gravity and left over energy from the big bang.

wow, what a logic! human brain is just stuck at the questions of gravity and Big Bang,,,,it can't see any further for lack of knowledge ! Big Bang did not happen on its own,,,some one made it happen. Gravity? arnt there voids in space? Why does a flame point upwards whereas an apple falls towards the earth( i know it is earth's pull you call gravity which makes apple behave that way but what abt the flame)?

Again, the Big Bang.

No. the big bang did not create matter,,,,

this is known as the God of the Gaps fallacy. "If I don't know how it works, then God must have done it".

you are only discovering what is already there, what already exists.....you don't know anything for sure in anticipation-only God does!

Dark Star

01-24-2008, 07:31 PM

wow, what a logic! human brain is just stuck at the questions of gravity and Big Bang,,,,it can't see any further for lack of knowledge !

And some of us are willing to admit to this and not place a deity in there simply because we don't know the answer yet.

Big Bang did not happen on its own,,,some one made it happen.

I'd like some proof of this.

Gravity? arnt there voids in space?

What sort of 'voids' are you speaking of? Are you thinking of Dark Matter? There are 'voids' of that sort but nothing that displays a complete lack of gravity.

Why does a flame point upwards whereas an apple falls towards the earth( i know it is earth's pull you call gravity which makes apple behave that way but what abt the flame)?

This is an interesting question! The short answer is that a flame is in a different state of manner than an apple (think of gas vs liquid vs solid). I'll do some research later and give a more extended answer to this question since I really do find this to be something interesting. :)

No. the big bang did not create matter,,,,

You asked about a speck of dust, not matter as a whole. ;) You're correct, though, the big bang is an expansion of a very tiny piece of matter that was there. Why? I don't know, but I don't think you can simply posit a super-being behind it all (in particular since this begs the question of where that super-being came from) as an explanation.

mazHur

01-24-2008, 08:19 PM

B-Mental

01-24-2008, 08:50 PM

well the others were the hard ones actuallly, the gods of today are the astronauts, argonauts, and olympians...the ones who dare go where no man has gone before....with a smile on their face, Cheers B

Etienne

01-24-2008, 11:55 PM

wow, what a logic! human brain is just stuck at the questions of gravity and Big Bang,,,,it can't see any further for lack of knowledge ! Big Bang did not happen on its own,,,some one made it happen. Gravity? arnt there voids in space? Why does a flame point upwards whereas an apple falls towards the earth( i know it is earth's pull you call gravity which makes apple behave that way but what abt the flame)?

wow, what a logic! Is it dark at night because someone shuts the lights? Nothing happens on it's own, isn't it? Everything that happens has to have "someone" that makes it happens... This really reminds me early levels of Piaget's child psychology... You talk about not being able to see further than gravity (that gravity and leftover kinetic energy are the cause of the general movement of the universe is quite well demonstrated as a theory) and then you come and tell us that it cannot be that "someone" has to do it... come on, is this really looking "further"?

No. the big bang did not create matter,,,,

Energy created matter, the Big Bang would then be the cause of the transformation of some of the energy to matter.

But I'm not sure what people are trying to achieve in arguing against scientific, well documented theories that they don't really know anything about. Really you can argue about the existence of God, but I would suggest not to go in the waters you are going into, as really, if you ever intend to disprove the Big Bang or any other well-respected scientific theory, you will never have credibility (and in act you will only look like a fool) if you do not do it in an academic, well-documented and serious way. Not by undocumented and quite naive judgments on an obscure forum (Virgil, if you read this, don't take offense please).

NikolaiI

01-25-2008, 12:57 AM

Well, even if God didn't exist, then he would exist through the actions of believers. But since reality is something that all of us make up, he does exist, then, in all of us. He exists as a source, and I truly believe anything is possible. I've felt his presence, for the first time, and many times after that, though I can't necessarily always feel it.

RZ, if you said that quote I saw Dark Star quote, that is badly mistaken. A better creation story if for no other reason than it is more imaginative, and more elaborate, is the idea that the material creation was created by Visnu in his Visnu expansions. He called all the souls into being, etc. and everything is part of His mind...if I have this badly understood, my apologies.

To go back to my first point. God exists as infinity. It's quite as simple as that. We can't comprehend infinity, but we should realize it exists. To comprehend infinity is impossible, yet it makes sense, it is reasonable, it exists. And in this infinity, impossible things are possible. If there is finite good, there is infinite good. If there is finite being, there is infinte being.

B-Mental

01-25-2008, 01:16 AM

well said, Nik. Cowbell to you... B

NikolaiI

01-25-2008, 01:20 AM

Thanks. Did you ever look back over my article? I also put a link there to where I posted it on Deviantart...and on there I put a whole bunch of commentary on it, too. Very interestingly I dreamt about it! I think it's a good idea for anyone to write out in words as complete an article they can on what they think is most true, and what their reasons for it are. If it's complete, then they can read over it, and that way they won't forget, and it'll be in their minds more, so they can mull it over more.

jon1jt

01-25-2008, 02:39 AM

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god? No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!) Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?

The only absolute certainty is that another baby was just born, I don't know where, but it was.

Anyway, it would change the way I live---because if there's no god then I'm going to be very upset with that bible. :p

iorix

01-25-2008, 12:00 PM

But I'm not sure what people are trying to achieve in arguing against scientific, well documented theories that they don't really know anything about. Really you can argue about the existence of God, but I would suggest not to go in the waters you are going into, as really, if you ever intend to disprove the Big Bang or any other well-respected scientific theory, you will never have credibility (and in act you will only look like a fool) if you do not do it in an academic, well-documented and serious way. Not by undocumented and quite naive judgments on an obscure forum (Virgil, if you read this, don't take offense please).

well documented theories are oft repeated propositions, not facts. just because a lot of people turn a proposition into a fact without credible justification does not mean it is true.

a theory is a proposition that can be tested scientificaly, in a laboratory or someplace. the big bang theory is a proposition and not a fact. big bangism is a mythology which has no scientifiic credibility because it can not be tested in the lab and then reproduced.

i can propose that water boils at 100C then i can test this theory and prove it repeatedly and then it becomes a fact.

that the universe originated from a big explosion is pure speculation which cannot be tested or reproduced.

that God created the universe is a fact. everything we know was created or else it wouldnt exist. if something is not created it does not exist in this universe. if something is not created how can it exist. i exist because i was created. so who created me? the creator created me and this creator is God.

God is not a created being. God is exalted above that which He created. God is not limited by time and space which He created.

God is non corporeal and extratemporal - this is why He is God.

God Rules

kilted exile

01-25-2008, 01:14 PM

well documented theories are oft repeated propositions, not facts. just because a lot of people turn a proposition into a fact without credible justification does not mean it is true.

a theory is a proposition that can be tested scientificaly, in a laboratory or someplace. the big bang theory is a proposition and not a fact. big bangism is a mythology which has no scientifiic credibility because it can not be tested in the lab and then reproduced.

i can propose that water boils at 100C then i can test this theory and prove it repeatedly and then it becomes a fact.

that the universe originated from a big explosion is pure speculation which cannot be tested or reproduced.

that God created the universe is a fact. everything we know was created or else it wouldnt exist. if something is not created it does not exist in this universe. if something is not created how can it exist. i exist because i was created. so who created me? the creator created me and this creator is God.

God is not a created being. God is exalted above that which He created. God is not limited by time and space which He created.

God is non corporeal and extratemporal - this is why He is God.

God Rules

Ah, gotta love contradictions. Yep you are correct the Big Bang theory is a theory - the one that makes the most sense scientifically. Not fact because it can not be definitively proved. BUT, you do manage to get into a horrible tangle when you claim God as fact, despite it not meeting the criteria you state in your earlier post for being fact i.e

"the big bang theory is a proposition and not a fact. big bangism is a mythology which has no scientifiic credibility because it can not be tested in the lab and then reproduced."

Replace Big Bang with God, still reads the same. The issue of scientific viability is a very slippery slope for believers to go down, it generally doesnt go well.

iorix

01-25-2008, 01:32 PM

the fact that God exist is proven by common sense. what exists was created. nothing can exist without being created. to be created requires a sujbect of the verb "to create" this creator is God.

everyday people create things. proof that what exists was created.

it is a fact that what exists was created. Time and space were created by Mind.

Etienne

01-25-2008, 01:42 PM

well documented theories are oft repeated propositions, not facts. just because a lot of people turn a proposition into a fact without credible justification does not mean it is true.

You're talking through your hat here.

a theory is a proposition that can be tested scientificaly, in a laboratory or someplace.

Absolutely not.

the big bang theory is a proposition and not a fact. big bangism is a mythology which has no scientifiic credibility because it can not be tested in the lab and then reproduced.

... "I exist" is a proposition. "The sky is blue" is a proposition". "God exist" is a proposition". Anything can be a proposition, it only depends on the context. And Big Bang is not considered a fact, but a theory, just like I named it in my posts above, therefore I don't know what you are arguing against here.

i can propose that water boils at 100C then i can test this theory and prove it repeatedly and then it becomes a fact.

And Big bang is a theory. Your point is?

that the universe originated from a big explosion is pure speculation which cannot be tested or reproduced.

No it's not "pure speculation" read again my post you quoted, I'm not going to explain you the Big Bang, I'll let you do the research (one searching clue: residual light, for example)

that God created the universe is a fact.

Oh! You've tested it in laboratory? Ok, I stop here, I see I'm really wasting my time...

EDIT: I just read you last post too, what do you mean by "everyday people create things"

kilted exile

01-25-2008, 01:42 PM

No, the fact that things exist in no way proves God exists. The fact is that things do exist. That is the only definable fact.

Everything else is supposition as to how it was created, some believe it was created by god; others that it was the Big Bang; others that we are a experiment by aliens. None of these are facts, but some of them have far better basis in science for their acceptance.

iorix

01-25-2008, 01:55 PM

people shouldnt teach big bangism as though it is a scientific fact, neither is evolution a scientific fact.

the claim that the earth is old is also just a claim, but evidence proves otherwise.

God created the world for a specific purpose. God has sent prophets into the world and a lot of people are rebellious against God's authority

B-Mental

01-25-2008, 02:02 PM

iorix

01-25-2008, 02:05 PM

"...as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all... My experiences with science led me to God.
They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?" Dr. Wernher von Braun.

Etienne

01-25-2008, 02:10 PM

Iorix, do you consider this an argument?

kilted exile

01-25-2008, 02:22 PM

I know I said it previously, but it is worth repeating. Believers attempting to use science to argue the existence of god is a dangerous slope for building a foundation.

As an example, you bring up about the earth not being as old as scientists claim:
Common scientific acceptance ages the world at something like 4.6 billion years. I am going to use the christian derivative age from the bible for comparison ( I am assuming you are christian) which ages the world at approximately 6,000 years. That is an error of some 99.999869565%!!!!!Now if this dating had taken place only once by someone who had never done it before I might accept that the scientist carrying out the experiment was a complete idiot that didnt know anything - but the fact that it has been redone time and again, peer reviewed by experts and still gives the same approx age means that it must be a lot more accurate than that. Exponents of creationism claim the odds of abiogenesis happening spontaneously make it too mindboggling to consider - well the odds of each experiment being off by this much are far more unbelievable.

NikolaiI

01-25-2008, 03:42 PM

Okay, I don't know if Iorix is saying that as well that God exists, also the Earth is only some 6,000 years old, or what. Most Christians, at least, today, in America, I believe, believe both in God and evolution, so let's at least not look at this from either side with a gaping mouth. In fact, let's not gape our mouths at anyone.

But I've been scanning this a little and briefly, and I'll go ahead and jump in here.

-Yes, with arguments for the existence of God, although I was an atheist the majority of my life. Reading the God Delusion taught me a lot. Most of what Dawkins was saying about the different proofs of God seemed to be true, but I saw weaknesses in what he was saying as well. I'd already studied philosophy a lot up to that point, and rather valued my own insights. Dawkins didn't make me an atheist, but rather made me a pantheist by the end of reading what he wrote. And, I decided I wasn't pantheist, then, but rather atheist. Although-- I thought like this: I am not a pantheist, because I don't believe pantheism is true. For all best considerations, I am an atheist, because what I believe in is not anything else. I do not believe in the God that ANYONE else has thought of, or believe in, if for no other reason than that I would not accept their opinions completely for my own. My own discrimination made me realize I did not believe in their God, at all.

Anyway, let me apologize for this, and attempt to start freshly.

Many people do believe in God. The numbers are so many-- and of course there are every type of believer. And distrust is in order, naturally, and it is correctly placed. There is nothing special, different, or better about believing in God. Judging people in this way only shows that you are willing to make a decision about things when you have no possible chance of being right. Understanding people takes years, and we never know them completely.

As Aquinas says, "my arrogance would be equalled only by my delusion," or something like that.

So having said all that, I'll give what my opinion is. Remember, it is from someone who didn't believe, for pretty much all of the same reasons anyone doesn't believe, for most of my life. As time goes on and you learn about it, though, you always see the problems from new perspectives, all the time, and so the objects we're viewing always changes too. In fact, if God exists and if it's true, and someone accurately knows Him, who lives on this Earth, then the God they know is not the same as the one we know-- if it is true then there's something about it we do not know correctly. Etc., etc., etc.

I used to think it was unreasonable to believe in God, but what I know as God and what I know as reason now, are not the same things as I knew before. Now, I haven't written down in step-by-step proof what is reason, and actually reading a discourse on what reason is seems to be rather boring, but I think what I know as reason is more true now, than then. And, what comes before that is the difference in what I see God as, since the way I see Him I see reason as something that comes from Him.

My original goal in this post was to describe, if I may, and briefly, in words, my view of God, why I think it is reasonable to believe in Him. To do this, we must set aside for good such grossly erroneous ideas like that the Earth is 6,000 years old, etc. This is about the existence of God, not any kind of conflict like that. Anyway, I do apologize for so much ado.

To believe in God the way I do now, I could not also believe in my previous understanding of Him. So, what is God? This is a question that is important, and it's almost too important to answer. No one should take it lightly, or then they will take seriously weak intellects which over-state the importance of their opinions. I have seen God in several forms. One is as a pervading, unifying principle of Goodness in my life, that manifests itself through the intellect, of myself and my peers, through the hearts and minds and joy and souls of those around me and myself. This I believe that other people understand Him as too. This is when people say that they give thanks to God. It's because they see Him as an active principle in their life. The second way I've "seen" Him, or known Him through reason, is as described by Pascal. God is a single point, which goes through all points in space at an infinite velocity, and so is everywhere at once. Such a God is described like this, as a single point going at infinite velocity, but He is not known as a point-- He is known as God in every way that we know Him-- as Love, as the active unifying princple of Goodness, etc. This infinite God, exists as an infinite to our finiteness. We cannot know Him, since by the definitions, we are the known, and he is the unknowable. The infinte God is the hidden, concealed God. He exists in an infinite capacity, rendering all else insubstantial, He exists on another dimension, etc., etc., and He is the source of all things that are impossible, that require this infinite to break through barriers. I also know God as the Source, as described in Plato, of Being, and of the source of the intellect, and as the source of all things transcendental. When we meditate on This God, we are generally looking to Comprehend the Source, and be at peace, perhaps, or to share the love we found in this contemplation. All these forms of God I believe to be true, they are all one or another perspective of God, they are the best we know Him, as described in words. I am not saying these things to be a snark, I am telling what I've found to be the ways we know Him best, after years of searching and deciphering, and I think they are valuable hopefully as I've presented them to you, but for various reasons also because they're my opinion. Though I believe in God now, I tell you the truth in that I never felt as an atheist I was missing something in my life! :) That is, when I was an atheist I did not have some kind of soul-sickness due to my lack of belief. Nor did or do I ever subscribe to the intellect-defeating thing that says God MUST exist because of this or this or this; I don't think God MUST exist I simply believe in Him as I do and understand Him to the best of my abilities. If I hadn't come to a belief in God by reason, I never would believe in Him, nor would I be upset as to the understood outcome of my searches. That would represent dishonesty.

Redzeppelin

01-25-2008, 04:05 PM

I'm sorry RZ..Physics is a book written by God! I'm sorry you are ill...illiterate! RZ, you know everything, but I am infinite. sorry if this insulted you ...Biaatch! B

Did you have a real response, or just ad hominems?

How is THIS true? Do you really believe that Christianity is the only religion with an omnipotent, omniscient deity at the head of it? The fact of the matter is, ANY religion that claims to have that sort of deity heading it can 'properly account' for the existence of the universe as it exists. Not to mention, even within those standards, you still have Islam and Judaism to deal with since they employ the same God with the same powers.

I did not claim that Christianity was the only religion with "an omnipotent, omniscient deity at the head of it." I said that only Christianity provides a coherent theology that does not require an acceptance of contradictions or "gaps" that many other religions do in terms of morality, the origin of the universe, the problem of sin, the redemption of humanity, etc.

You'll forgive me if I'm not a relativist when it comes to my faith; since faiths are mutually exclusive (since all claim THE TRUTH and that cannot be true since they contradict each other) I'm not required to see other faiths/theologies as equally as valid as mine. That is not to diminish their value, but simply to state a clear preference. If I were a Jew steadfastly defending my faith and questioning the validity of Islam and Christianity, would I be challenged in the same way? It seems like - in our politically correct world - that it's fine for any faith - except Christianity - to say that "my way is the correct way." Or on the flip side, how many Jews or Moslems admit that other religions are as valid as theirs?

Why is that, I wonder?

NikolaiI

01-25-2008, 04:10 PM

Redzeppelin

01-25-2008, 04:14 PM

Well, Red Zeppelin, you know I respect you, your ideas, but I would like to give you my opinion that the Hindu idea of creation is flawless. There are not any gaps in it. Hinduism is actually a very, very high religion! But, don't worry about it, just wanted to share my opinion.

I do not recall enough from memory to comment on Hindu creationism, but the reincarnation part creates significant issues: which body/life is yours in the end? What was the original soul "paying for" when it was first born? What kind of religion consigns me - perhaps - to the life of a cockroach because of my bad decisions? That's justice? That is love? That is "God"?

NikolaiI

01-25-2008, 05:25 PM

Only Krishna remembers all of his past lives. This is said in the Gita as a warning against someone saying they are God. Someone would say they are God, but this is inaccurate, for one, because they are only human, and also, they don't have knowledge of all their past lives.

Souls weren't paying for anything to be born. God created the universe, called into existence all the material forms and worlds and planets and stars and oceans, and then he called into existence all the souls, to live in the material world. The spiritual world and heavens are above and beyond the material world. In this life the highest thing we can do is devotional service to God, to Krishna. This means we serve everything in creation, even the low, the poor, and the homeless. That is my understanding of the Visnu expansion creation of the universe. If a cockroach has a soul, then it plays some part in creation-- do you think it plays no part? Yes, a cockroach is a lowly creature in our understanding, but it plays a part.

Dark Star

01-25-2008, 07:07 PM

Did you have a real response, or just ad hominems?

That poster tends to post a lot of rather vague, steam-of-consciousness type posts. I don't think you'll have much luck with him/her.

I did not claim that Christianity was the only religion with "an omnipotent, omniscient deity at the head of it." I said that only Christianity provides a coherent theology that does not require an acceptance of contradictions or "gaps" that many other religions do in terms of morality, the origin of the universe, the problem of sin, the redemption of humanity, etc.

Can you demonstrate these gaps in Islam and Judaism, just to start, that do not exist in Christianity? For a start. Of course, if I dig up any other monotheistic religions with an omniscient, omnipotent deity you'll have to go about showing the inconsistencies in those, too, due to your claim.

You'll forgive me if I'm not a relativist when it comes to my faith; since faiths are mutually exclusive (since all claim THE TRUTH and that cannot be true since they contradict each other) I'm not required to see other faiths/theologies as equally as valid as mine. That is not to diminish their value, but simply to state a clear preference.

Fair enough.

If I were a Jew steadfastly defending my faith and questioning the validity of Islam and Christianity, would I be challenged in the same way? It seems like - in our politically correct world - that it's fine for any faith - except Christianity - to say that "my way is the correct way." Or on the flip side, how many Jews or Moslems admit that other religions are as valid as theirs?

Yes, yes you would be challenged in the same way. By myself, at least. I don't play favorites in that matter and I really don't think you're heading down the right track by trying to play the 'PC oppression' card here. I just used those religions as an example that came quickly off the top of my head.

Why is that, I wonder?

I could take some cracks at why people would behave in such a manner (to challenge a Christian but not a Jew or Muslim making the same claims) and I think we would probably find some common ground in our beliefs on why this occurs, however, it would no doubt offend enough people to drag the thread pretty far off topic. If you care about my opinion on that particular issue, feel free to PM me.

the fact that God exist is proven by common sense. what exists was created. nothing can exist without being created. to be created requires a sujbect of the verb "to create" this creator is God.

In this case, you either admit that God must have had a creator or that not everything requires a creator. Your own logic backs you into a corner when examined more carefully.

people shouldnt teach big bangism as though it is a scientific fact, neither is evolution a scientific fact.

They are close enough to scientific fact to be taught as such. Nothing is 100% proven fact in science, but both of those theories have enough supporting evidence to be considered as having a 99.9999999999999999999999% chance of being true. You also seem to misunderstand what a scientific theory is: It is not a random guess, it is an over-arching framework that explains a group of facts and how they tie together.

the claim that the earth is old is also just a claim, but evidence proves otherwise.

I would like to see the evidence that points to the Earth being young.

Redzeppelin

01-25-2008, 09:34 PM

Can you demonstrate these gaps in Islam and Judaism, just to start, that do not exist in Christianity? For a start. Of course, if I dig up any other monotheistic religions with an omniscient, omnipotent deity you'll have to go about showing the inconsistencies in those, too, due to your claim.

"Gaps" may not be accurate - non-monotheistic religions have big ones, however.

My primary problem with Judiaism and Islam is a simple one: neither one acknowledges Jesus Christ as God, as the savior of the world. That said, both Judiaism and Islam are "works" oriented religions - both have behaviorism as the road to heaven. The problem with that is that human beings can't "earn" heaven because humans are inherently selfish, evil and depraved. Only Jesus Christ provides the solution to the inescapable trap that sin has put humanity in; His atoning sacrifice allows the gift of eternal life to be freely offered to all who accept it - ALL. All three religions acknowledge that sin is a problem, but neither Judiaism nor Islam offers a solution except "keep the law." Christianity says "the law is not the point - Jesus' sacrifice is the point." The believer is not bound to the law - but when he accepts God's offer of salvation by grace, the believer (because he desires a relationship with the being who has given him so great a gift) will start becoming (via God working inside him) the kind of person who will want to keep the law - not out of fear, but out of love. So, in a nutshell, neither religion effectively deals with the issue of sin and salvation.

Note: for those of you out there who may know Judiaism and Islam better than I, play nice if I have oversimplified: I don't mind being "informed" or corrected, but I less than half enjoy being patronized. Thanks.

Yes, yes you would be challenged in the same way. By myself, at least. I don't play favorites in that matter and I really don't think you're heading down the right track by trying to play the 'PC oppression' card here. I just used those religions as an example that came quickly off the top of my head.

Perhaps - but in my observations of culture, it seems that - because of collective desire to be [appear] "tolerant" - that people are much quicker to nod their heads at strong affirmations of personal faith from just about any religion except Christianity. Maybe that's just me - but I've see many instances in print and media.

Dark Star

01-26-2008, 11:25 AM

there are certain things that cannot be proved by reason. For example no one can explain why people think and act differently. However, it at times be required that we tried to understand a certain thing such as God without rejecting its existence. Inductive and deductive logic may perhaps give us some answer in case of God;s existence. Sometimes mere guess also tends to work as it did with Einstein who, as said, had just squared the speed of light by dint of his imagination and which ultimately proved true for itself.

I think you may have to employ inductive as well as deductive logic to assess the impact of God's existence rather than just denying it without reason.

The problem is that you're trying to have it both ways. You expect me to prove to you various physical phenomenon and how they happen without divine interference, but actively refuse to give me any reason to believe that divine interference is necessary or argue for any sort of proof of God. You sit back on a position that God exists and that is the default position and people must prove otherwise. That is not how the burden of proof works. You say I must not deny it without reason -- you are incorrect. You must not believe it without reason and give others a reason to believe in it if you expect them to. I do not deny it 'without reason'. I deny it precisely because there is no reason to believe it.

I've played your game for long enough: Burden of proof is on you to give some real evidence rather than pointing to various (perceived) idiosyncrasies within the universe as evidence that God is there holding it all together. People should know better than to play the God of the Gaps Game by now. It becomes increasingly embarrassing for them every time a new gap is closed up by information uncovered by science. I wonder what's going to happen when there are little to no gaps left to hide in.

mazHur

01-26-2008, 11:37 AM

I get your point in that you want me to prove or show who came first, the hen or the egg? Well, this situation is vice versa. Your denial of a Supreme one is backed by material facts only whereas this universe consists of more than that,,,the non-material as well. Can you tell me where do thoughts go after death?? If thoughts can exist now why cant they in the hereafter? If we can have past, present and future why not something farther than future? something faster than light, something devoid of gravity??

Let me explain: whatever science has done or is doing is nothing new ---it's just trying to unfold the already existing things. If that is so, what justification yo have for saying that there is no ''existence'' or what exists is not the property of someone ,,,whom you are unable to comprehend or accept?
First there has to be something then science will work on it not earlier or in the void

aabbcc

01-26-2008, 02:27 PM

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god?
Nothing. Life would go on. (And even if it did not, it would still be alright as I would not be around to be bothered by it.)

No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!)
(I am really thinking about it.) So what? Great.

Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?
Absolutely not.
All these years, for me, religion has been merely an intellectual hobby, or a heritage-ethnological curiosity, and at times school subject, not that anything would change if it proved not to be true. I would be indifferent.
I would go out to the gallery, the temple of my religion - art, and have a drink. :D

Whifflingpin

01-26-2008, 04:15 PM

"I would go out to the gallery, the temple of my religion - art, and have a drink."

I hope you would at least shed a tear for all those artists, round the globe and down the years, who had produced sublime but futile testimonies to a Void.

iorix

01-26-2008, 04:26 PM

God Rules

God is the Manifest Truth

God has sent many prophets and messengers in to the world

God created this world with clear purpose, to determine who follows His guidance and who takes side with the rebel.

Those who take side with the rebel will be consigned to infernal agony in festering swamps of putrefying sewage.

Those who follow guidance will have endless love in scented gardens of eternity.

NikolaiI

01-26-2008, 04:45 PM

The thing is, if you think God exists, and you understand Him better than, for example, atheists who don't believe in Him, and you think it's an asset to you that you have this understanding, that it is one of your good qualities, and you think it's important-- not necessarily that you view yourself as superior to the atheists, but just that you really do feel that you've gotten this one thing right, then you should also join in mutual celebration of everything else that is good, and in expression of eloquence and reason-- since, as you say, you believe in God according to reason, and you have reasons for it-- then, in this situation, you should want to present your conception of God in a clear, and rational light, and present your ideas as they are supported by reason, so that you can share this, which you claim to be important. So that's what I tried to do, to present my view as it is supported by reason, in a few posts back, though it's been ignored.

iorix

01-26-2008, 05:23 PM

Etienne

01-26-2008, 06:34 PM

Lote-Tree

01-26-2008, 06:43 PM

some people are ANTI-theists.

Yes off course! as there are Anti-atheists etc :D

the existence of God is obvious but there are some people who strive to DETHRONE God and take over his authority on earth.

Why is it so obvious?

or they just like to provoke God and take stabs at Him.

I am sure God can take it. After all is omnipotent? :D

a lot of people are like this and this is why you cant seem to reason with them.

That is the problem here. Reason and faith or two different things aren't they? Reason and hence logic makes God very illogical and unreasonable.

Truth of God is thus: There is no objective or logical proof God. Hence it boils down to beliefs. As soon as you say I believe...that's the end of the debate.

NikolaiI

01-26-2008, 06:57 PM

some people are ANTI-theists. the existence of God is obvious but there are some people who strive to DETHRONE God and take over his authority on earth. or they just like to provoke God and take stabs at Him.

a lot of people are like this and this is why you cant seem to reason with them. they understand your argument but they are in opposition, they are not A-theists they are ANTI-theist and they know the truth about God very well.

Yes, Iorix, that's true, but perfect communication IS possible. You must understand that as soon as you speak disrespectfully, you begin to break the rules of the forum, and either the consequence is just that communication is lost, or at worst the thread is closed. It is never necessary to raise anyone's hackles to get them to see the point of what you're saying. And this is directed at everyone else equally as I'm saying it to you, Iorix, because I defend your right to debate and present your views as much as anyone else.

And yes you are right that people are like that, but they are not like it absolutely, you will agree this is true. People change always so they are never anything absolutely, and moreover you cannot dismiss people if you ever want them to respect you. Besides this, even someone who usually would not speak disrespectfully could do so out of irritation or other factors, and this would not speak against as who they are most of the time, or who they are at their best. If you want to convice someone they have hurt you, you have to leave out any feeling about them, or other things you couldn't know.

About God, yes, I wish people would make more of an effort to communicate and understand each other. A lot of people on this form are not natural born English speakers, so communication with them is difficult. And if they were someone you were interested in, or if you were RESPECTED them and were interested in what they had to say about something you were interested in, then you would make a much better effort to understand them.

Although I will note that I don't notice people bashing God so much. They don't argue with me about Him, I wish they would but no one has engaged me yet. I am more than happy to present my views to any atheist-- actually I do, but I'm always ignored. And I can state it very simply, and elaborate functionally as is needed for clarification. But as I have already presented my views on this thread, I will not degrade myself to put them in this post as well. I've given several different ways that I've seen in many places as ways to understand God, all of which I think are correct in relation to our understanding-- if none of them is complete or accurate, at least none of them says that "He is vengeful," what I mean is, none of them assume things like that. Nor do I say that God's existence means the Earth is 6000 years old, nor do I make any assumptions about countless things that are always abused in a very bad way-- I mean countless things about the state of mind of atheists, and the need for the knowledge of God. This is because I lived my life as an atheist; I searched, learned, lived, all of that. Now I believe I understand God in these new ways and I believe He's real; and I also believe I can explain this better than anyone on earth; which now this lofty order that I've put I am fortunate to have saved my simplest understanding of Him, that He is an infinite. I can give reasons as to why I think the existence of the infinite is real, and I would enjoy doing this actually, if anyone asked me or responded to my post where I've already given some. I use the word Him and capitalized, and the language, because it's the English language and that's how I speak. I do not think God is a Him, or anything other than an Infinite. No Him is an Infinte, and God is no Him.

I am sure God can take it. After all is omnipotent? :D

Well, yes, unless he doesn't exist, etc.....that is what we are talking about, the existence or non-existence of the infinite.

That is the problem here. Reason and faith or two different things aren't they? Reason and hence logic makes God very illogical and unreasonable.

Truth of God is thus: There is no objective or logical proof God. Hence it boils down to beliefs. As soon as you say I believe...that's the end of the debate.

[edit:] To Lote, listen closely, now, two things being different does not mean they are opposite, nor necessarily that they contrast. Reason and faith are not the same thing, but my poor soul do you not see how illogical it is to say that because they are not the same thing, logic makes God unreasonable? That's wrong. We don't know if God is reasonable or not, we are debating this; what is unreasonable is to say something without having a reason for it.

"I believe" is not the end of the debate. There is no reason for this, and you have not proved it!! Hehe, you do not see my meaning, I have no doubt. What???? How on Earth???? You say it is the end of all communication that someone believes-- you say it is impossible for them to communicate this?? What the heck are we supposed to communicate if we don't believe anything?

Ends of the debate are: "Blah blah blah you are a sorry stinking so-and-so, lower than a dog, rah rah rah" or..."I've hidden a bomb on this bus!!"--but "I believe", my little Lote, is not the end of the debate.

NikolaiI

01-26-2008, 07:03 PM

(mistake)

Lote-Tree

01-26-2008, 07:08 PM

[edit:] To Lote, listen closely, now, two things being different does not mean they are opposite, nor necessarily that they contrast. Reason and faith are not the same thing, but my poor soul do you not see how illogical it is to say that because they are not the same thing, logic makes God unreasonable? That's wrong. We don't know if God is reasonable or not, we are debating this; what is unreasonable is to say something without having a reason for it.

"I believe" is not the end of the debate. There is no reason for this, and you have not proved it!! Hehe, you do not see my meaning, I have no doubt. What???? How on Earth???? You say it is the end of all communication that someone believes-- you say it is impossible for them to communicate this?? What the heck are we supposed to communicate if we don't believe anything?

Ends of the debate are: "Blah blah blah you are a sorry stinking so-and-so, lower than a dog, rah rah rah" or..."I've hidden a bomb on this bus!!"--but "I believe", my little Lote, is not the end of the debate.
[/quote]

I think you did not get my point. If you use logic then you need to stick to logic. As soon as you say "I believe" that's the end of logical discussion.

NikolaiI

01-26-2008, 07:09 PM

I think you did not get my point. If you use logic then you need to stick to logic. As soon as you say "I believe" that's the end of logical discussion.[/QUOTE]

No you are still missing mine, just as badly. Nevermind then. No use going further.

Lote-Tree

01-26-2008, 07:13 PM

No you are still missing mine, just as badly. Nevermind then. No use going further.

Let me clarify:

Logic:

2+2=4

It is never =5.

But if you say you "believe" that 2+2=5 then end of discussion.

NikolaiI

01-26-2008, 07:31 PM

Let me clarify:

Logic:

2+2=4

It is never =5.

But if you say you "believe" that 2+2=5 then end of discussion.

You are not speaking logically.

The mode, the word, belief, is not equivalient to saying "I believe that 2+2=5"

Are you following me? I am not saying anything about a debate between two persons whether one reality or another reality is true, the two of which realities are contrasted or opposite. You brought that up in this post. I am pointing out due to what you said before, that it was completely illogical, and I will have to make a great effort it seems, to bring you back to this point.

You said faith and reason are not the same. This is true. But you seem to extrapolate from this that they are opposites, or that they are in conflict. This is not true at all. Now we are talking about the two specific virtues, Faith and Reason. We are not talking about people arguing about opposites or contrasts....do you follow at all??????

aabbcc

01-26-2008, 07:51 PM

I would not shed a tear; my half-joking last line of the previous post aside, really, nothing would change in my life if somebody proved to me G-d did not exist. I am not even sure if I could declare myself as atheist, probably not - that would imply I solved the question for myself, saying G-d did not exist. But I did not solve that question for myself, sometime in my life I simply decided it was not in the sphere of my interests, so I left it open, and moved on. Perhaps I shall return to that question sometime later in life, who knows, and perhaps not, I cannot tell.

There is time for everything, and as I am still in the spring of my life, I certainly do not think it is weird that I approach life differently and deal with the "Big Secret of Life" by some other means at this age, nor that I emphasise living rather than reflecting on life in this stage of my life. Maybe once I will desire to adopt religion as an explanatory system from which to view the world - and maybe not. Now I just want to sense it rather than have it explained and rather than defining it for myself.

In my opinion, I am way too young to adopt any definite views or to define my world - and as my world is still unshaped and undefined, it cannot crush down upon hearing G-d did not exist. One cannot miss something one never had. I would go on with my life.
It would still not have sense. And that would be even good, because any potential sense would come from within, not from the outside source, i.e. G-d. (Call me an existentialist, you probably shall not be far from truth in this aspect, even though I do not like to define myself neither in terms of philosophy nor any schools of thought.)

... For some reason, I still think that, if G-d exists, he appreciates my need to grow up first before deciding He was my path, which I will decide eventually if in some stage of my life I come to conclusion there is G-d, as it will be unbearable to have strong belief in Him and not to follow Him at the same time. :D
And if I do not come to that conclusion, then well, for me there is no G-d, so what? Does it mean I shall quit my life or cease to enjoy it? Hell not.

The question resembles the one our philosophy professor asked us once, what would we do had we been certain that we were Putnam's brains in a vat (http://cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/PH29A/putnam.html). Honestly, we would do nothing. Let us assume we are brains in a vat. Does the fact that we are change anything? No. Can we stop the game? No, since even if we believe ourselves dead, it would still be the result of the computer controlling us. Can we anyhow do anything in that case? Well... no. You can go desperate and overdose yourself at home, or you can go out with your lover and enjoy that "unexistant" life. I don't know about you, but I am too much of a hedonist not to prefer the latter option.

Same with this.
Only, with this, people go emotional and attack each other and that is tollerated because, hey, we are speaking of religion, as in, organised (more or less) and institutionalised (more or less) belief in something. But the base remains the same - your life from the point of view in relation to a Sense-Root, or lack thereof. You can approach your life from the explanatory system that bases itself in relation to it, or not; you can choose to adopt some sense, or you can give your own sense to life, or you can choose to live in a senseless world.

For some reason, though, people are often having trouble accepting if somebody chooses the latter. Let us not forget what it leads to - putting people on the trial for not having cried on their mothers' funerals, in spite of them having killed somebody. But that is not what upsets you nearly as much as that he refused the idea of G-d, and that he did not cry on his mother's funeral.
But I am off-topic, losing my train of thought, too much under the influence of certain substances (I swear they are legal :D), and should go to bed before the bed comes to me, so good night to you all. I shall dream my music, and you can dream your G-d. After all, they are both essentially the same thing, different packing.

Etienne

01-26-2008, 08:00 PM

You are not speaking logically.

The mode, the word, belief, is not equivalient to saying "I believe that 2+2=5"

The whole point in logic is a mathematization of the language. 2+2=5 becomes simply an analogy to the more complex forms logic statements can take.

A better analogy to a belief would perhaps be, x+y=5 with x and y (or one of them at least) being undefined.

NikolaiI

01-26-2008, 08:22 PM

The whole point in logic is a mathematization of the language. 2+2=5 becomes simply an analogy to the more complex forms logic statements can take.

A better analogy to a belief would perhaps be, x+y=5 with x and y (or one of them at least) being undefined.

Yes, we're in agreement. Nothing however in my belief of God is not logical, nor is not mathematical. Reason and faith are not the same thing. This does not mean they are contrasts or opposites. Do you understand me? The mind-boggling logic of saying they are contrasts is almost disturbing to me-- what is your take on this issue, which it takes so much effort to bring Lote to face?

blazeofglory

01-26-2008, 08:38 PM

What if you found out with absolute certainty, that there was no god? No god, and no heaven or hell. (really think about this!) Would the knowledge that there was nothing after this life awaiting us, change the way you lived your life?

In fact what is important is not the belief but the way one should live with. Whether or God exists cannot be realized through worldly perspectives and cannot be worded herein sentences.

blazeofglory

01-26-2008, 08:47 PM

my answer would seem awful, but I'd commit suicide...really, because I'd feel nihilistic towards everything I lived for, so far. I'm not trying to say that life sux or anything; I mean that everything would lose it's value, it's Real-ness.

How can you be sure that God exists and we have another life that makes you so much optimistic?

blazeofglory

01-26-2008, 08:51 PM

It is a little presumtious to assume that just becasue God and Heaven and Hell are proven not to exisist that there would be nothing as there are many other relgions out there. For example even if there was no God or Heaven and Hell, the Buddist path could still prove to be true, as there are many many forms of Buddism, the first and early Buddisim did not worship a god figure to begin with, it was later Buddisim forms that turned Budda into a deity.

Nor is there any heaven or hell in Buddisim

You are right. The Buddha did not say about God, heaven and hell at all. It is indeed his followers made deviations from the original path.

iorix

01-26-2008, 08:53 PM

faith is trust and it is logical to put your trust in God

Allah! There is no deity save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. Unto Him belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth. Who is he that intercedes with Him save by His leave? He knows that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge save what He will. His throne includes the heavens and the earth, and He is never weary of preserving them. He is the Sublime, the Tremendous.

blazeofglory

01-26-2008, 08:55 PM

The pop-culture view of Buddhism states this, but Siddhartha's words state otherwise.

There is no physical place like Heaven and Hell. It is sheer a state of mind and we can make heaven out of hell and hell out of heaven.

blazeofglory

01-26-2008, 08:57 PM

if there was no God it would be a very dark place

Why has it to do with the existence of God that we feel secured? Has he helped us? If in what ways?

blazeofglory

01-26-2008, 09:00 PM

if there was no God it would be a very dark place

If He really exists we cannot define or confine him in our linguistic terms at all. We can not see Him with our external eyes or understand him through sensory perceptions for he is immaterial or formless if He exists at all.

blazeofglory

01-26-2008, 09:12 PM

Etienne

01-26-2008, 09:16 PM

Yes, we're in agreement. Nothing however in my belief of God is not logical, nor is not mathematical. Reason and faith are not the same thing. This does not mean they are contrasts or opposites. Do you understand me? The mind-boggling logic of saying they are contrasts is almost disturbing to me-- what is your take on this issue, which it takes so much effort to bring Lote to face?

It can be logic and mathematical, but it all depends on what you take as premise. In the case of a belief in God, you have to take it's existence as a premise and follow logical development. However, the main point is that one (including myself) say that "The existence of God" is not self-evident, nor it is empirical, and will at best be doubtful and very debatable induction, but is usually bad logic, or complete lack of logic, like in the following example:

faith is trust and it is logical to put your trust in God

Premise 1: Faith is trust
Premise 2: [Existence of God???]
Conclusion: It is logical to put your trust in God...

The conclusion, as you can see is absolutely non sequitur - it does not follow. Also Iorix, I'm not sure why you are preaching, perhaps you can make a topic about Islam preaching and Allah w... and leave this one alone?

Therefore it is indeed possible to say that belief can and does exist without logic. Belief would be attributable to a conclusion while logic is the method, however the main point of distention here is that belief refers to an irrational belief, as in "faith" (there might be many semantic imprecision in the discussion) which Lote says does not use logic, or uses it incorrectly, which from history and experience is quite right, in my opinion.

This is partly why I prefer a Tertullian in it's raw honesty to a Anselm of Canterbury or Descartes and their twisted logic and sophisms, which I don't believe they were not apt to see and realize themselves, but were perhaps "blinded by faith"? :p Even though I don't contest their respective value as philosophers and still enjoy reading them.

iorix

01-26-2008, 09:24 PM

i dont doubt the existence of God, it is not an issue for me. i put my trust in God simply to guide me through this life and in the hereafter

NikolaiI

01-26-2008, 09:38 PM

Well, I do not necessarily say that their versions of God are correct. I agree that it's wrong to take God as a premise, and I don't-- nor do you have to take its existence as a premise. I did not follow the scientific method in my entire search for God, nor can I describe all of the progression of thoughts scientifically, etc., yet I am aware of the importance of correct thinking.

It's pure garbage to say that belief is necessarily irrational. I believe in the meta-network of numbers, and then of algebra, and geometry, and is this irrational? Let's not say that every thing anyone thinks, ever, is irrational, although that's not any different from saying belief is necessarily irrational. If belief is confined to the irrational, then there is nothing in existence which is not irrational...etc...

Anyway if you look to my opinions about God, written further up on this page, you will see that they are not the intellectually dishonest tripings about saying it's empirical, or saying that God exists outside the dentist office because otherwise there'd be no point. :D I've read many philosophers and I have an exceptional mind, and I value very highly my opinion-- don't think I think about this all the time, I am just saying. :) And I do enjoy Descartes, too, he turned me on to philosophy.

In my post a few ones back, I described God in several different ways. Pascal's definition of God as infinity is a good one to discuss, so if you wish to discuss it with someone who will give you reasonable arguments, then let's have an honest discussion about it. Pascal's description of God is that it is a point, a single point, traveling through the universe at infinite velocity, which connects all points virtually simultaneously. I believe Pascal came to this definition through an attempt to explain mathematically and physically the god of his scriptures. This is the problem, and I will be honest in that I don't know how to proceed from here, in examining the problem. I guess I'll leave it to the next poster to build on this. Let me assure you, I am not presuming this to exist, this infinity. I am merely describing it. This was not the premise I ever started out with, I was a little atheist kid who didn't believe my mom when she told me about God-- but it's what I believe is true now, at 19 years, after a whole life of honest searching. Of course, we come to the problem of believing the person who is telling you to trust them, but you will hopefully see at least that I wish to discuss this rationally and calmly, philosophically, nor am I here to get emotional about anything.

That was one of Pascal's ideas. I will also say that if infinity exists, then it is connected to being. If infinity is real, then it is more real than finite being. Of course these are merely words and do not capture the essence of the objects which we discuss, but I do believe we can discuss rationally these ideas. I did not arrive at my ideas by accepting the irrational instead of the rational. I think that blindness is metaphorically or symbolically connected with darkness, I mean, and this attracts itself. We're all interconnected, and this is why I think there's darkness in us all.