Message boards :
Politics :
An argument for the existence of God: First formulation…
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 27 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
Sufficient yes. Valid no. Of course its valid. That you don't agree doesn't make it invalid. I assume you would not make this mistake for groups you consider real, if we have an expert on humans and another on chimpanzees you are not going to tell them that "yea that is all nice but they are all just apes". i.e. that there are really no differences. But we're not debating whether the Christian God is to apes as the Jewish God is to humans. We are debating the particulars of a single being, started by Abraham. Hence, my analogy is far more apt of debating whether Silver Age Superman or Golden Age Superman is the real Superman. Yes, to the Superman aficionado, the debate holds much importance, but none of them will try to argue that Superman is really Batman. To say that the Christian God isn't the same being as the Jewish God is tantamount to my point. If you wish to highlight the differences of the Christian interpretation of God vs. the Jewish interpretation of God, that is fine. The important thing to remember is that they are one and the same; simply different interpretations of the same being. I can understand why you might believe that differences in fictions are distinctions without a difference and do not matter. That is your prerogative. But to the theist and trekker alike these distinctions are important and valid statements can be made about them that may not correspond to reality. They are still valid, however unreal they may be. ... And this follows for the whole of mathematics, where imaginary objects, of all types have all sorts of properties that distinguish sets and particulars one from the other. That depends on how much weight we're putting on the phrase "level of importance". Certainly I agree that to theists and trekkies the level of importance on the particulars is high, though somehow I think the theists would put the particulars of their debate far higher than that of a trekky's debate. Of course "valid" arguments can be made in any debate, but what is the importance of the outcome? [Rhetorical question, as the answer is only defined by the parties involved in that particular discussion.] As for the importance of the differences in fictional characters, I respect everyone's right to argue at great lengths if they wish. I, myself, enjoy a great discussion of some of the off-topic subject matter brought up. But when all is said and done, I know that it was a generous waste of time that meant nothing at all. Also, even through particulars of the subject matter, no one arguing over which particular Superman was better would say that Superman was Batman. The same goes for the God of Abraham. The Jews, Christians and Muslims can all argue over the particulars, but it is still the same God; they are not arguing over one interpretation of God being Zeus. By the way: Batman > Superman > Thor. Picard > Kirk. :-) That said you still have a pretty large problem. It appears you are surrounded by billions of deluded people. As inferred on the outset of this thread, this being the case one could only observe that there is some evolutionary advantage given to those believing in delusions. As they appear to be the ones being selected... But not just any delusions. In the cases of other types of delusions where they are deluded about their surroundings or even their own identity, we call this psychotic and would consider them at a disadvantage for selection. But the delusion concerning the objects of religion, this is rampant throughout history into the present day. It would seem a very successful set of delusions. If you wish to diagnose believers as delusional, that is certainly one turn we can take in this thread. I would simply refer to them as unable to let go, because to them religion means hope, immortality, meaning, and purpose. There are many who, despite showing all the data they require to not believe in a Higher Power would still believe because they believe it gives them purpose and meaning. However, this number is shrinking as we become more sophisticated as a species. As stated elsewhere and in this thread, the non-believers are growing, because people are starting to realize that which the religious doesn't want people to realize: we have one life and it has as much meaning as you give it. |
MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes Send message Joined: 16 Jun 02 Posts: 6895 Credit: 6,588,977 RAC: 0 |
People have been psychotic since the dawn of man. If its such a disadvantage then why do we still have psychotics still in exsistance? Exactly. hehehe. And they are Highly Educated, with Great "Public" Understanding and Knowledge. Let's say-Highly Versed in the Sciences. hehehe. And 99.99% of the time, No One knows they are Psychotic. hehehe See the new PBS series where A Famed Hollywood Director in the first episode repeated an experiment from '61? After 50+ years of Education; Sensitivity Training; Moralistic Diatribes; Enviromentalism; and all The Other Rot, We The Highly Educated/Understanding/Knowledgeable, still pressed The Higher Voltage Switch and "Zapped" the "Test" subjects-up to the point where The Fake Test Administors "Stopped" it. hehehe Exactly NO CHANGE from 50+ years ago. It gave Me Much Joy. And I am sure MOST of the Participants, "Zapping" the "Subject"(with the fake Heart Condition) are Dem/Libs. OUCH! hehehe HighVoltageDullnanDo May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!! |
CMPO Send message Joined: 26 Apr 12 Posts: 57 Credit: 344,990 RAC: 0 |
Set of Abrahamic Gods = YHWA, Christian Trinity (CT), Allah Set of Trinitarian Gods = Hindu Triverti, Tripple Goddess, CT In these sets, only CT can be a member of both. YHWA and Allah cannot be contained in the second set in orthodox interpretation. Although you are right, CT belongs to the "same" set as the other Abrahamic Gods, it does not make them identical as it violates Leibniz Law or the Identity of Indiscernibles. This is where I would be coming from, and why it would appear to me to be invalid to say they were strictly the same. I am not being deliberately incorrigible, I literally think this way. As per religiosity and non-belief it has also been stated that the percentage of dis-believers may be constant over time but are more and more able to live that doubt out in the open. So that population may not be growing, just more visible. My personal opinion here, is that in some of these subcultures, it may appear that there are less believes then there are as some people of faith are not willing to come out in the open due to open belittlement of their backward tendencies. It looks like we agree that there are other aspects to religion beyond personal belief which is what always seems to be a primary point of focus. I tend to focus on the cognitive drive towards the connection of things, the principal of organization it can contribute to a population, and the need for ritual and rites of passage. It appears that we sould agree, that even if the notion of God is a secondary delusion, all of these things provide value to individuals and populations and have provided much advantage to us as a species. As a person, I find the secular versions lacking of substance and cohesion. And as a believer I look to the Kingdom of God in this life, as it is at hand… tomorrow has troubles of its own… I would even go further... and state that the cognitive functions tied to the success of our evolution that may have led to religiosity, those pointed to by Dennett, Dawkins and Shermer, primarily pattern detection, function much as they present their basic cases. I just deny that this proves the non-existence of God. Some people’s brains are more wired to see patterns that others do not, and have very strong reinforcement habits. So when it comes to the intensity or focus of our faith or lack thereof, we may be more subject to our genetics, environments and developed neural networks then we would like to believe…. All puns intended… Shermer on the Believing Brain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqAwfv3HYGo |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
Set of Abrahamic Gods = YHWA, Christian Trinity (CT), Allah Understood. But understand that I identify by origins. Christianity was born of Judaism, which is traced back to the God of Abraham. Therefore they are one and the same, even if they don't share the same interpretations. As per religiosity and non-belief it has also been stated that the percentage of dis-believers may be constant over time but are more and more able to live that doubt out in the open. So that population may not be growing, just more visible. My personal opinion here, is that in some of these subcultures, it may appear that there are less believes then there are as some people of faith are not willing to come out in the open due to open belittlement of their backward tendencies. This has been asserted before, which suggests that the "growing" population of non-believers is nothing more than people "coming out of the closet" as it were. I argue that it doesn't matter, as the end result is more non-believers. More people admitting to non-belief is less people proclaiming belief. Not to mention that I, myself, am one such converter, having formerly been Roman Catholic. I have heard many personal stories of others losing their faith as well, so while that may be anecdotal, I doubt that the growing population of non-believers is nothing more than people who were always non-believers. This is nothing more than hand-waiving by the believers to deny they've lost any significant numbers, so they don't have to come to the reality that people aren't buying into the lie anymore. Waive it off and call it a non-issue so we don't have to talk about it and maybe it will go away. Religion has a history of using this stance, e.g. like the improper handling of young boys by certain ordained officials. It looks like we agree that there are other aspects to religion beyond personal belief which is what always seems to be a primary point of focus. I tend to focus on the cognitive drive towards the connection of things, the principal of organization it can contribute to a population, and the need for ritual and rites of passage. It appears that we sould agree, that even if the notion of God is a secondary delusion, all of these things provide value to individuals and populations and have provided much advantage to us as a species. No, I don't agree that it provides value. I believe it provides a lie. Not delusion, but a facade. A lie can never provide value; I'll take the harsh truth over a lie any day, as I believe it makes me stronger. As a person, I find the secular versions lacking of substance and cohesion. And as a believer I look to the Kingdom of God in this life, as it is at hand… tomorrow has troubles of its own… As a person, I find theist or deist belief a great, unnecessary burden that lacks true objectivity, while dictating morality at the cost of self. Shedding my belief has provided me with renewed vigor for my own life, and science has provided more substance and cohesion than faith ever tried to. I would even go further... and state that the cognitive functions tied to the success of our evolution that may have led to religiosity, those pointed to by Dennett, Dawkins and Shermer, primarily pattern detection, function much as they present their basic cases. I just deny that this proves the non-existence of God. Some people’s brains are more wired to see patterns that others do not, and have very strong reinforcement habits. So when it comes to the intensity or focus of our faith or lack thereof, we may be more subject to our genetics, environments and developed neural networks then we would like to believe…. All puns intended… Some people's brains are too wired to recognize what they perceive to be patterns. The greatest conspiracy theories are born from intelligent people that add patterns together to form a cohesion that wouldn't otherwise be associated with each other to form a world around them that only makes sense to them. Then they take advantage of other people's ignorance and gullibility to sell the idea to the masses. As stated [paraphrased], a million people believing in a lie doesn't make it truth. Shermer on the Believing Brain I was going to find a witty link to counter, but just take any Penn and Teller Bullshit episode, especially the ones on the Bible, Creationism, and Near Death Experiences as great starting points. |
SciManStev Send message Joined: 20 Jun 99 Posts: 6653 Credit: 121,090,076 RAC: 0 |
As a person, I find theist or deist belief a great, unnecessary burden that lakes true objectivity, while dictating morality at the cost of self. Shedding my belief has provided me with renewed vigor for my own life, and science has provided more substance and cohesion than faith ever tried to. Well put. All we need to do is look out our own windows, and see what we see. The real answers are there if we just look. There is this young, beautiful woman on TV, that fell in a zip line accident that lost one leg, the other foot, and both hands to a flesh eating bacteria. People are thanking God she is alive. Shouldn't they be hauling Him to jail for permitting that in the first place???? Steve Warning, addicted to SETI crunching! Crunching as a member of GPU Users Group. GPUUG Website |
MOMMY: He is MAKING ME Read His Posts Thoughts and Prayers. GOoD Thoughts and GOoD Prayers. HATERWORLD Vs THOUGHTs and PRAYERs World. It Is a BATTLE ROYALE. Nobody LOVEs Me. Everybody HATEs Me. Why Don't I Go Eat Worms. Tasty Treats are Wormy Meat. Yes Send message Joined: 16 Jun 02 Posts: 6895 Credit: 6,588,977 RAC: 0 |
as the end result is more non-believers ROTFLMAO. Why? Scene: Our Future World. Everyone is a Non-Believer, or Everyone is a Believer. Except One Person. One Person. And this One Person, A Believer or Non-take your pick-Destroys The World. One can do it. It (was) a Happy World of Believers('cause there is only one Non). Or, It (was) a Happy World of Non-Believers('cause there is only one of The Other Kind). Matter Not. Same Result. Who made it through The Destruction? One of One Kind and One of Another. Male and Female. What kind of World will they CREATE(LOL, get it? Create) from The Ashes, or Piles of Pus Filled Bags of Water? So, Believers in Your Way(GOD or No GOD), keep on keepin' on with Getting Everyone On Your Side. Whether through Rationale of Science or The Faith of An Invisible Being, it Can Still End with The One. It will continue to be A Long, Hard, Bloody Grind to your Happy World. Which like All Worlds, Ends. OneWayDullNanDO May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!! |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
As a person, I find theist or deist belief a great, unnecessary burden that lakes true objectivity, while dictating morality at the cost of self. Shedding my belief has provided me with renewed vigor for my own life, and science has provided more substance and cohesion than faith ever tried to. Being the person of science that you say you are--why do you have such a hard time with Entropy? Some burn out, others fade away. I normally don't tell people about books, but you're in need of one. C.S. Lewis, The Problem with Pain “A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word 'darkness' on the walls of his cell.†― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain “The mold in which a key is made would be a strange thing, if you had never seen a key: and the key itself a strange thing if you had never seen a lock. Your soul has a curious shape because it is a hollow made to fit a particular swelling in the infinite contours of the divine substance, or a key to unlock one of the doors in the house with many mansions. Your place in heaven will seem to be made for you and you alone, because you were made for it -- made for it stitch by stitch as a glove is made for a hand.†― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain “The human spirit will not even begin to try to surrender self-will as long as all seems to be well with it. Now error and sin both have this property, that the deeper they are the less their victim suspects their existence; they are masked evil. Pain is unmasked, unmistakable evil; every man knows that something is wrong when he is being hurt.†― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain “His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power. If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prifex to them the two other words, 'God can.' It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.†― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain “The problem of reconciling human suffering with the existence of a God who loves, is only insoluble so long as we attach a trivial meaning to the word "love", and look on things as if man were the centre of them. Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake. "Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." We were made not primarily that we may love God (though we were made for that too) but that God may love us, that we may become objects in which the divine love may rest "well pleased".†― C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
As a person, I find theist or deist belief a great, unnecessary burden that lakes true objectivity, while dictating morality at the cost of self. Shedding my belief has provided me with renewed vigor for my own life, and science has provided more substance and cohesion than faith ever tried to. Unrelated to your specific post, but related to the topic at hand and from that same site: 3. The Existence of God |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
What makes you think I didn't read the site first? [smile] What makes you think there is no proof for God? What makes you ignor the odds of a chance happening of the universe, with just the right laws for life to develope? I have given you proof in the form of science called Mathematical Statistics. Mathematical Statistics is just as much of a science as the science you quote for the proof you need for there not being a God. The point of what God can and cannot do is moot. What He has done is clear. And what He has done is made everything you see and dont see. The article, as well as yourself, are not looking at things as they are. It's called perspective. Are you on the inside looking out? Or are you on the outside looking in? You have the same linear perspective as I do as far as how things happened to be as they are now. A event happened and the universe was born. In our corner of the universe life has happened. In a nutshell I see things like you do. But you don't see me eye to eye on the why things happened. In your minds eye [I reckon?] you don't need the why. However, I have an enquiring mind. And the answer of chance that is only offered by what you believe is not good enough. And the article lied about Neo-Darwinism not being a faith. It is a faith in nothingness. That is what chance is when we talk about the odds of a chance universe and life springing from that chance universe. If you believe in such a chance then you believe in nothingness. No room for God in this belief system. Mr. C.S. Lewis and myself have a belief in Objective Reality, and Truth in something, not nothing. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
What makes you think I didn't read the site first? [smile] What makes you think I didn't believe you read the site? [grin] What makes you think there is no proof for God? Because I, and many other Atheists, are still waiting for this objective "proof". Instead you regurgitate the same unproven assertions time and time again, as if the more you say them, the truer they are. I have given you proof in the form of science called Mathematical Statistics. Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. While math is used in science, I wouldn't use statistical math to prove the existence of a God. The point of what God can and cannot do is moot. What He has done is clear. And what He has done is made everything you see and dont see. Why? Because you sez so? What God has and hasn't done is precisely the point. That the challenges laid out before you and your inability to answer the call sufficiently shows a great weakness in your logic and your faith. The article, as well as yourself, are not looking at things as they are. It's called perspective. Are you on the inside looking out? Or are you on the outside looking in? You have the same linear perspective as I do as far as how things happened to be as they are now. A event happened and the universe was born. In our corner of the universe life has happened. In a nutshell I see things like you do. Until you understand that Atheism isn't faith, or a faith of nothing, then you and I do not see things the same way. But you don't see me eye to eye on the why things happened. In your minds eye [I reckon?] you don't need the why. However, I have an enquiring mind. And the answer of chance that is only offered by what you believe is not good enough. It seems we don't see eye to eye because you can't let go of your faith to understand that the assumptions you've made are just that: assumptions without objective backing. And the article lied about Neo-Darwinism not being a faith. It is a faith in nothingness. That is what chance is when we talk about the odds of a chance universe and life springing from that chance universe. If you believe in such a chance then you believe in nothingness. No room for God in this belief system. How can you have a faith in nothingness? Isn't that stretching the argument just to assert that Atheism has faith? What about the very definition of the word that I provided? By your assertion, nothing and no one is truly Atheist because they have faith, and Atheism is a lack of faith. Are you or are you not open minded enough to listen to concepts you don't quite understand? I get that you don't understand Atheism in the least, but true Atheists lack faith. Mr. C.S. Lewis and myself have a belief in Objective Reality, and Truth in something, not nothing. Mr. Dawkins, Penn Jillette, Teller, and myself all believe in an Objective Reality based upon observation and falsifiable evidence. What you have is faith, and you assert your truth from the assumption that there is something out there guiding the Universe without anything beyond "statistical math". Or do we need to go over the definition of objective now? |
DesO Send message Joined: 2 Feb 12 Posts: 144 Credit: 2,624,617 RAC: 0 |
I.D. I want to ask you a question. I promise not to challenge your answer if you choose to post one. What would life be like or existence be like if by some mechanism of realisation earths population accepted your ideas of creation and reality ? |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
"Blankman" wrote: Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. While math is used in science, I wouldn't use statistical math to prove the existence of a God. You imply you have correct math that relates correct reality? [smile] Do tell.......... I'll come back to the rest of your post later. This question must be answered separately before I can answer anything else you have in your last post. |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
I.D. I want to ask you a question. Im not ignoring you. I'll come back to your question and answer more fully. I fully understand that what you have asked will never happen. There will always be evil, more so do to the Fallin Nature of man. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
"Blankman" wrote:Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. While math is used in science, I wouldn't use statistical math to prove the existence of a God. There was no implication there. Whatever you read into it was not put there by the author of the statement. [grin] |
Intelligent Design Send message Joined: 9 Apr 12 Posts: 3626 Credit: 37,520 RAC: 0 |
"Blankman" wrote:Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. While math is used in science, I wouldn't use statistical math to prove the existence of a God. Then there is nothing to gain from more questions. You have--nothing. |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
"Blankman" wrote:Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. While math is used in science, I wouldn't use statistical math to prove the existence of a God. No, "nothing" is the amount of proof you have for the existence of God. [grin] |
William Rothamel Send message Joined: 25 Oct 06 Posts: 3756 Credit: 1,999,735 RAC: 4 |
Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. I take issue with the above statement. Probability underlies all of statistics and set theory underlies all of probability. These issues are not abstact. Flip a coin 5000 times and the percentage of heads of heads will be very close to 50% and well within the Margin of error predicted by statistics. Axiomatic set theory is accepted as a valid proof of all mathematical theorems and mathematics stangely enough describes our world at least to the point of useful control of the things in our world such as the atom, electricity and the fact that our buildings and bridges tend not to fall down when proper math is employed. All of man's progress and functioning involves abstraction, modeling and thought. That is in fact how we perceive "reality". |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. What good is math if the numbers are man-made, only agreed upon by those that are aware of the rules? It is in this sense that I refer to the maths as "abstract". |
CMPO Send message Joined: 26 Apr 12 Posts: 57 Credit: 344,990 RAC: 0 |
Are both of you (Volunteer tester and Rothamel) implying that there are mathematical objects? That the symbols we use for mathematics, refer to actual things, not dependent upon human minds for their existence? Or, are one or both of you stating that they are completely abstracts and mind dependent with no anchor as it were in objective reality? |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19073 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
Statistical math, like all of math, deals with abstract concepts and theories that aren't necessarily directly related to objective reality. Are they, surely Pi is Pi no matter who or what works in out. the ratio between the circumference of a circle and it's diameter is 3.14159...:1 I do not see what is abstract about that. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.