Printable View
...Continued from another thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Is there proof that I'm not just some very articulate Artificial Intellegence created by Mossad?
Because you know of none does not mean that there are none. I suspect it would be very difficult to prove that there are neither any proofs of God's existence nor that there are any disproofs of God's existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Claim 1: I would like to see proof. Claim 2: I would like to see proof. If those two claims are granted, the conclusion is still erroneous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
It seems clear that a person may have heard of horses, but prior to their experience, they had never actually seen a horse, yet the horse exists. In such a case, the horse was quite independent of the individual and existed whether or not the person has seen them (if it is assumed that "seeing" amounts to some sort of proof). Further though, seeing is not in itself a proof that something exists. If seeing alone showed us the nature of things, then we would gather that the sun is only a yellow circle in the sky (sun1), yet, that is not how we understand the sun as it is (sun2). In such a case, our beleif of sun1 would be an erroneous representation of sun2, and sun1 which we perceive cannot be said to exist except in our minds as an idea.
A leprechaun is a little person that lives in Ireland, whereas my idea of God is of a being that is supremely powerful, intelligent, infinite in the number of qualities possessed, and is the definition of perfection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
The base of this claim? God most certainly must have "physical" properties if He can be said to be infinite in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Sorry problem with the post two steps above this one. This is the intended message (mods please delete the two posts above and let this one remain instead):
I used to argue over the existence or non-existence of God, but have realized that the debate actually isn't about existence or not, but about the consequences a proof of either existence or non-existence would have. It is further complicated by the fact that people define God differently. I think the debate is facilitated if it's split up into a few different parts:
- is there a being/force etc. that created everything? The answer is yes, no matter whether you're atheist or believe in God. The force is either God, Determinism or a controlled random process.
- will this force make sure good wins in the end, and punish bad? There exists a lot of scientifically shown causalities that often make sure the bad guys don't fare particularly well on earth, but there are exceptions where bad people could achieve much without getting punished (usually the ones people concentrate on rather than looking at the billions of examples where good is favored and bad punished).
- this good rewarded and bad punished thing, is it carried out by a system created by this great force, or is it continually a result of actions by this force? One can show many causalities in the very laws of nature which punishes bad guys and rewards good guys in most cases. However there are a few cases of "miracles" or unexpected events. Whether these are caused by a random process or by a God doesn't matter, it's too unusual to hope for and count on.
- does belief in the higher being increase your health, well-being and ability to defend yourself against threats on earth? Nothing implies so. But it can give comfort, but so can insight in the causalities and laws of nature.
- is science, research and philosophy good or evil things? They often result in bad things. Civilization has been a curse, but has also given us a few good technological advances.
- are humans superior to all other beings? this is a matter of definition - define being superior to another being.
- is it possible to change the very system of earth so that evilness pays off more, and death and destruction increases, without any force like a God having to interfere to give the punishment? Many causalities and laws of nature have shown that this is the case, and it has been confirmed after major disasters and similar. No lighting bolts are needed to destroy modern equivalents of Sodom and Gomorra, however there isn't full consistency in who gets punished by the wrath of nature/God.
- should humans accept poverty and oppression because there is a good God and he thinks this is the correct order of things? There is nothing that suggests any God would like poverty, and in this case the religion is used as a tool of oppression.
- are humans entitled to destroy nature or do whatever they like with it? Will they be punished if they do? Much suggests that it's in the very system of earth things that will strike back at us when we damage earth. Whether a God has created this system or not matters little. As miracles are statistically unlikely, they can be attributed either to the very system (created by God, Determinism or a controlled random process), or God or randomness interefering along the way. However, the interferences from our scientific models and common sense expectations are very few and nothing we can rely on largely. Destroying nature must, whether God exists or not, be considered a dangerous thing, probably also a sin which God could punish people for, but we can't know as nothing explicitly has been said about it (however killing humans is sinful, so the indirect deaths of humans caused by destruction of nature might indeed be a sin).
- if we screw up completely with earth, will a savior come and rescue us all? We can't know, and it's pretty foolish to try our luck at this. The bible messages about saviors are vague at best, and there are also insinuations about bad guys being punished when the savior comes. It's very likely that the destruction of earth could be considered a sin by this savior, so there's really nothing that suggests we should continue with it.
- is there a life after death? nobody has ever returned to tell us about it. There also seems to be conflicts about what sends you to paradise and what sends you to hell. Therefore, relying too much on the afterlife seems risky. If you want a good life it's best to try and make your life on earth good.
...and so on...
In any case if God's existence is to be proved or counter-proved, it's an essential first step to define God. If the definition is:
- allmighty
- can interfere with ANYTHING happening now
- good
then his definition in itself is a contradiction, which means he can't exist. But if it is:
- the creating force behind everything
- interferes little or nothing in the system once it has been created
- good
then he can exist. God could also be defined as:
- the truth itself
- the reality
- the very system and laws of nature and everything that is, and that carries out the punishing and rewarding
- prayers to God can comfort and make the praying person strength and insight to deal with the problem he prays for help against, without it actually affecting God's decision. God can still be a personal God and listen, and be attributed the response in the form of the insight the praying man/woman gets.
- God can be wisdom itself
...without the definition being a contradiction.
The bible definition of God is quite vague, but following the system of all other names in the bible, the very name of God might be a good description and definition of him as a character, just like Jakob = "he who pulls in the leg" or Israel = "he who fights with God" and so on. "I am" might suggest something along the lines mentioned above - he is "all that exists", "the truth", "the wisdom" and so on. And the truth of course exist, because that's the very definition of the truth - the truth is that that exists.
For the record, I'm an atheist, but reading the bible in an objective way I find it to be more of a praise of an atheistic-like, secularised wisdom and philosophy, than a dogmatic belief, and therefore I could title myself Christian as well, although I don't, as people might find it offensive.
Read the Bible again...
Regarding the subject: Quietus I think there's no point in trying to proove that God doesn't exists, you can't proove a negative, you can proove that he exists or what it's, but you can't proove a negative. That's because I've always tried to proove that "he" is no more than an idea.
not nessisaryly, there was proof for newtons laws but then Einstein came along and showed that despite this proof the theory had flaws. Proof can only be considered temporary until the whole universe is understood.
how would you feel if god stopped every bad thing from happening, including things that you yourselves may not consider bad because he knew the harm it would cause you, you would rebel, you would want freedom wouldn't you, but now you come along and complain about that freedom!
the same can happen with parents if they over shelter their child and control them to much it stresses them as they have no freedom, how many of you when you were younger wanted to rebel against your parents?
Surely the ideal parent should love you what ever you do, and provide you with the guideance you need, and that is what i believe god does.
if you don't want to believe in god you don't have to, thats another freedom, but by trying to disprove god are you not trying to control the beliefs of others? what gives you that right?
I believe in god because of experiences that i have seen both first hand and second hand and because of the good that i have seen at work in the christian comunitites that i have seen.
Also simply because the message makes sense, and explains everything in a way that science can't when you get to the fundememtal question of why the bilions upon billions of facts required for my existance occured, why should the universe have stars? who decided? if there was no god then surely there is no particular reason that life should be possible, no more so then that the universe should consist of a giant cloud of Hydrogen, or a grand piano.
If you take everything peole have taught you and trust only what you see as many athists also claim to do all your left with is the question why is everything as it is, to me god is the only satisfiying anser, any other anser would have to rely on our natural laws existing for no reason!
Maybe; as long as it cannot be disproved scientifically.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
They way they exist, if existant. But Leprechauns was invented, God might be.Quote:
Or better yet, what's the difference between a Leprechaun and God?
But it pointed out that lack of proof does not equal non-existant, wich is true in all cases, no matter probability.Quote:
But you have some proof. The moon is a rock. A black rock is only a rock that absorbs all the visible spectrum, hence dark according to your eyes.
Secondly, black stones do exist. It's only a matter of probability.
What's your proof in god? God doesn't even have a physical property. God is metaphysical or Supernatural.
Not as I know; thus you might very well be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
Correct, but logic tells me that such proofs simply cannot exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
I`m an agnostic, I am not willing to believe in something supernatural, nor believe in claims without proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
If you are an atheist, you are claiming that there is no God, thus you are not a Christian. :juggle2:
This is, as I've found out, a controversial subject, but certain parts of the bibel to me seem strange to interpret as holy, or commandements or examples of what to do, but rather has a function of being a chronicle. For example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:
5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:
5:5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.
5:6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:
5:7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:
5:8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.
5:9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:
5:10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:
5:11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.
and it continues like that for quite some time. The parts of the old testament outside Mos 1-5 aren't part of the Torah and not considered as holy as the rest of the old testament, but are more of a chronicle. Most cruelties and stuff the bible is infamous for is located in these books, for instance the book of Kings 1:
18:40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there.
But of course the Bible is probably one of the most dangerous books that exist, because most who read them are told beforehand that all of it is God's words and holy, and they therefore don't see it as a chronicle. Often they even come with arguments like: "we can do that because it's in the bible", but not all characters in the bible are illustrations of good conduct. An obvious example is the population of Sodom and Gomorra. Another thing to note is that according to Genesis the world stopped being a paradise after the expulsion of Eden, which means one can't expect the chronicles about periods following upon that event to illustrate good conduct, but rather contain a lot of examples of what not to do. So, it's probably the most dangerous book that exists even though some logic and historical knowledge applied to it yields a quite beautiful, and for it's time insightful (some insights in it are even forgotten by the majority even today) message.
There're actually many parts that are stated in the form of rules. But of course logic, though stimulated in other parts of social life, is absent in the religious life. So if logic tells you, the words of this man are the words of the eternal wisdom so it must be just, because either they're inspired by God or are the words of God (it must be just to be slave of God and follow his will in all circumstances it doesn't matter what your common sense might tell you), then logic will lead you to believe that you've to do such a thing no matter what it's, no matter the injustice. But logic, as said does not applies in this crazy world of religion, so what might seem just because of God's inspiration ends being the exact opposite because of personal agendas or simple common sense, and thanks God for that!Quote:
Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix
But in short that's the problem, rule-like statements that only have one way to be interpreted, and many of them were not corrected in the "second edition" of the Bible, the famous New Testament. So this people who take this mighty book in their hands and read it's cheap (though atractive) philosophy have two options, they take what appeals to them and has some sense, or they take every word, even the contradictory ones, because as we know God can contradict himself if he wants so.
We don't need moral rules, they're part of the common sense, of that empiristic phenomenum that happens everyday and that is infered from the social life. As a chronicle it might be that good, but as a philosophy book I prefer a thousand others before it.
Edit: Spelling and sintactical corrections.
Actually, I know of several convincing proofs of God's existence. They do not say much about the nature of God, i.e. which version of God it is according to scriptures though. In the end, they are only slightly comforting as they say very little.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
like i said earlyer there is loads of proof, imagine the universe as a computer without the rules and laws of software it cannot function, it does nothing. There needs to be some sort of set of scietific rules which means there must have been something to create such rules ergo there must have been a creator
false, infinity does not demand a creator. then it is not infinite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
Rules need a creator and our universe has many scientific rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sjakihata
the very reason that the rules of our universe demand a creator is that they are very specific, why should an ''accidental'' universe with no creator have scientific rules, how would they have been specified they cant just exist for no reason.
Yes, there is. The lack of clarity in your posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
~D
Sorry my friend, I couldn't resist. You can't serve up a tater like that and not expect some smart-arse like me to take it downtown...
If humanity hadn`t existed, no rules would exist either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
The rules are man-made. In the universe, things happen because they have to. It`s just the way it is.Quote:
the very reason that the rules of our universe demand a creator is that they are very specific, why should an ''accidental'' universe with no creator have scientific rules, how would they have been specified they cant just exist for no reason.
This is a very strong claim to have no evidence for...Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
I would tend to think that many of the rules here would exist even if we weren't here. Gravity would still effect the little critters and such; in fact we know of times before our existence, and the earth seemed to be relatively simalar or at least not as radically different as not having gravity or not having materiality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
My point was that there is no such "rules". Things happen because it is the way it is. 'Rules' are mans attempt to explain why things happen.
Just like Viking, your reference point can't be 1 but 0. Start from zero, nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
If you say God, that's 1.
If I say no God, that's back to 0.
Nobody has described a horse before its discovery or without any proof. Are you going to describe the dinosaurs accurately without fossils or any evidence?Quote:
It seems clear that a person may have heard of horses, but prior to their experience, they had never actually seen a horse, yet the horse exists. In such a case, the horse was quite independent of the individual and existed whether or not the person has seen them (if it is assumed that "seeing" amounts to some sort of proof).
Of course, "seeing" is proof, given the person isn't lying, hallucinating or just imagining things.
There's still a proof there's a "yellow circle in the sky".Quote:
Further though, seeing is not in itself a proof that something exists. If seeing alone showed us the nature of things, then we would gather that the sun is only a yellow circle in the sky (sun1), yet, that is not how we understand the sun as it is (sun2). In such a case, our beleif of sun1 would be an erroneous representation of sun2, and sun1 which we perceive cannot be said to exist except in our minds as an idea.
Ok. Do you believe both exist? Yes or No? Why, or why not?Quote:
A leprechaun is a little person that lives in Ireland, whereas my idea of God is of a being that is supremely powerful, intelligent, infinite in the number of qualities possessed, and is the definition of perfection.
1) God, if natural, will have "physical properties" (ie. follow the laws of physics).Quote:
The base of this claim? God most certainly must have "physical" properties if He can be said to be infinite in nature.
2) If God created the universe then God must be bigger than the universe. Given IIRC, from last I read, that our Galaxy approximately contain 200 (or 300?) billion stars and the universe have approximately with 500 billion galaxies, where is the bigger God? Matter, Anti-matter or Energy, where is God?
Yes. Are your parents Mossad?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser of Arabia
No proof is the proof, Soulforged. Think about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Ok. All mythical creatures to you are a 'maybe'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
If leprechauns were 'invented' then 'maybe' isn't the best answer to the last question.Quote:
They way they exist, if existant. But Leprechauns was invented, God might be.
How do you know God was not invented too?
If a cow doesn't not exist inside my head, that doesn't mean cows don't exist.Quote:
But it pointed out that lack of proof does not equal non-existant, wich is true in all cases, no matter probability.
You're confusing 'non-existent in the moon' to 'non-existence in the universe'. The point is 'black stones' exists. The Moon exists as well. It's only a matter of probability the two coexisting.
If there is a creator of the universe, who created the creator of the universe? Surely the creator cannot function without rules, as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
Is there any reason to believe in something that we have no physical proof of?
Does God perhaps exist as a physical entity in another dimension that, so far, is untraceable?
Why do humans need/want rules?
Why are humans aware of their own mortality?
Why are humans so tragically stupid?
Why do humans ask so many questions?
As an omnipotent and omniscient being: Yes, he/she would certainly be able to function outside of the rules which govern us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Mmmm.....tater....bacon....I mean!Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
It's not like English is my first programmed langauge, it was Hebrew!
You mean Windows and Linux? Maybe. Actually, they were both created to cause the American Goyims much distress. Muwahaha.Quote:
Yes. Are your parents Mossad?
What fails is the object of the proof, because it's negative, not the proof itself. Proof X prooves Y, wich might be an indication that Z (allegated entity) doesn't exist, ie belongs to reality. So the silogism is: Y -> Z, but saying no Y -> no Z is a logical fallacy, pretty simple, because if this prooves fails it doesn't mean that there cannot be another evidence that Z exists. That's what I'm trying to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Edit: Spelling and sintaxis.
Are you making God a math equation? :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
That's quite a muddy explanation. Why do you need three variables? Proof X proves Y. Proof X proves God (Y). Unfortunately, Y is only a guess at best. As well as X.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
About that logical fallacy, X is not just one proof, it is any SET of proofs. That means, any proof. But there's none or no any set ever.
Secondly, and more importantly, how did one arrive at God without any proof at all?
Stevie Wonder would never arrive at correctly saying the "Sky is Blue" without any proof. Because he doesn't know what Blue is.
as far as I can tell...there is still not enough proof to accept or deny the existance of god(s). In theory, the only thing mathematic equations have solved is that the process of using mathematics to show proof of the existance or non existance of god(s) is inheirantly flawed because of an unlimited number of variables.
I don't know if there is a god or gods, or not, I'd certainly like to think that there is something else in store for us after death, because it is mentally impossible for me to imagine non existance, and I also further believe that it is impossible for anyone to imagine non existance, because even imagining a blackness, or eternal sleep, or hanging out in a white limbo for eternity is indeed imagining something. We're talking about no thoughts, no feelings, absolutely nothing at all. That is an almost unnerving thought to me.
the laws of phisics would exist with or without humans and they are the rules that i am talking about.
By the way most of modern physics is un proveable, supersting theory, dark matter etc.
I tried to be a lurker in the Backroom for as long as I could. I suppose Soly is right, and to quote my favorite movie epic "Everytime I get out, they find a way to drag me back in". But, apologies in advance, this whole theory of Quietus' that he's been throwing around for months just offends my sense of reason.
First and foremost, Quietus, this isn't a Greek forum. Shouting the loudest and the most repetitiously, irrespective of the merits of your arguments, doesn't make you right.
Second, and much more importantly, lack of proof of existence is NOT proof of a lack of existence. You clearly have no idea how logical arguments work if you're going to continue to propagate this argument.
Until the 1920s, there was no proof of the existence of mountain gorillas. Does this mean they didn't exist prior to the 1920s? They suddenly winked into existence when the first corpse was brought to London? We still don't have irrefutable proof of planets in other solar systems, yet oddly enough nobody in the scientific community is taking that as proof positive that only 9 planets exist in all the cosmos.
Finally, let me conclude with the following: to the faithful and the faithless alike: the existence of God is an article of faith. It cannot be proven or disproven using empirical scientific methods. If it could, it would be knowledge, not faith. I don't 'believe' that hydrogen has one proton, and I don't 'know' that my father loves me. They are mutually exclusive spheres of human understanding. You guys really need to take a classical philosophy survey class before you come to play in this sandbox again.
Okay, back to obscurity and the frontroom (hopefully). Cheers, and thanks for the beer Ser Clegnane. ~:cheers:
Actually not; because before any claim is made, you`re at zero. But when a claim is made, both positive and negative exists. If you say that God doesn`t exist, that`s a claim, because you don`t have any evidence. If you want to stay at zero when a claim is made, you must remain neutral and not make any counter claim.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
If they are invented, then they doesn`t need to be scientificall disproved. But it`s always a chance that they could exist on a far away planet for whatever we know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
I don`t know.Quote:
How do you know God was not invented too?
Still, my point is valid.Quote:
You're confusing 'non-existent in the moon' to 'non-existence in the universe'. The point is 'black stones' exists. The Moon exists as well. It's only a matter of probability the two coexisting.
Nope.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartaq
Could be.Quote:
Does God perhaps exist as a physical entity in another dimension that, so far, is untraceable?
Because we have reached the stage where instincts barely controll us anymore; we think in creative ways.Quote:
Why do humans need/want rules?
Why are humans aware of their own mortality?
Why are humans so tragically stupid?
Why do humans ask so many questions?
No, those are proveable by experiment and/or observations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary
I think we all need to get a handle on the terms 'proof' and 'provable'. In scientific or mathematical terms, something is considered 'proven' if and only if all other possible explanations have been disproven. In other words, it is not enough for it to be shown to be a sufficient explanation, it needs to be shown to be a necessary explanation.
Almost all scientific theories, modern and classical, are not proven, they are accepted or held. They are accepted or held because the preponderence of the available evidence makes them the most likely explanation. This is why evolution, as a theory, cannot be proven, and yet, despite what creation scientists say, it is NOT disproven. Evolution is still the most likely explanation for how life we can observe has come to be the way that we observe it now. It is not the only theory, and it has not disproven all competing explanations, but the vast majority of reviewable evidence points to it as the most likely explanation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Yeah, and you can do just that with the string theory in a particle accelerartor. Dark matter can be proved by merely showing it`s existance.
Not exactly. The 'proof' of dark matter is "If dark matter exists, then this result will occur". When I see the result, I can then infer the existence of dark matter. But it would be almost impossible to design an experiment that would eliminate all other possible explanations for the result occurring.
I gave three because I was going to make a different explanation. I'm not saying that the existence of God as a material object or an object of reality at all is fullfilled, but the problem is that you cannot proove his non-existence, you can assume always or state probabilities but not proof a non-existence. If I say that Leprechauns don't exist is not a rule, or something sure, a Leprechaun might appear in some given time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
The possible existence has an infinite set of prooves.Quote:
About that logical fallacy, X is not just one proof, it is any SET of proofs. That means, any proof. But there's none or no any set ever.
Well that's why I say that "he" is an idea.Quote:
Secondly, and more importantly, how did one arrive at God without any proof at all?
I gave three because I was going to make a different explanation. I'm not saying that the existence of God as a material object or an object of reality at all is fullfilled, but the problem is that you cannot proove his non-existence, you can assume always or state probabilities but not proof a non-existence. If I say that Leprechauns don't exist is not a rule, or something sure, a Leprechaun might appear in some given time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
The possible existence has an infinite set of prooves.Quote:
About that logical fallacy, X is not just one proof, it is any SET of proofs. That means, any proof. But there's none or no any set ever.
Well that's why I say that "he" is an idea.Quote:
Secondly, and more importantly, how did one arrive at God without any proof at all?
I didn't knew there was "Creation scientists".Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Empirisicm is flawed when comes to finding true knowledge anyway. Faith is the beliefs of your religion.~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Descartes' Ontological argument is probably the shortest. Basically, in my mind the idea of God and the idea of His eternal existence go hand-in-hand just as the idea of a triangle and the idea that a triangle has three sides go hand-in-hand. Essentially, since existence, as a quality, is inherintly in the definition of God, and since I know of God, He must exist.
Perhaps I explained poorly and referening your stevie wonder example will be useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Since stevie wonder has never seen blue, he cannot say that something is blue and know what it means. He is just using the word and an association. Blue as it actually is, is not represented in his mind. If your example is to be followed, blue does not exist at all, simply because he cannot see it. Just as in the sun1 example you can say, "oh boy, there's the sun," you are incorrect in saying that. Your idea of the sun, as it is represented purely through sight, lacks reality. What you are perceiving, the idea of the yellow thing in the sky, does not necessarily exist in reality, and is purely poven as an idea in your mind. When you say that the object was still there, it was only out of association. What you call the sun, sun1, does not exist, yet it is what you saw.
Gravity is a rule. The are other rules which are the very basics of all of our statements and knowledge. Rules such as: "whatever is, is; and it is impossible for the same thing to be and not to be." They are rules and they exist whether or not we do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartaq
There is no physical proof that 1+1=2, and such a conclusion does not follow logically from anything physical, yet nobody w/ a mind will deny that 1+1=2.
Which is also why people who argue for the existence of God also argue that there are innate ideas in us, and that God is one of those ideas. I'm sure you know, but that is where one of Descartes' other proofs starts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Yes Descartes was an illusionist. What's that of "Cogito ergo sum"? Please the thing exits before thinking, that little nonsense held the common sense for too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
No X exists wheter you know that it exists or not, having an idea of something doesn't make that something true. If I think that the triangle has 4 sides the triangle will still have 3 sides.
God exists before you and without you, or "he" simply doesn't exists.
Yes, but making this analogy only prooves how much God's an idea, wich born in abstract form can be applied to reality in infinite ways, from the "Wrath tyran" to the "Benevolent father".Quote:
There is no physical proof that 1+1=2, and such a conclusion does not follow logically from anything physical, yet nobody w/ a mind will deny that 1+1=2.
Wich will be a problem, since the human wasn't always sapiens, unless of course that you say that this idea entered the mind sometime or it was sleeping until certain point and an stimulae awaked her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Ah well, at least He isn't disproven.:juggle2: :laugh4:
I do not understand your attack on the cogito. The reason he chose thinking as the mode of himself is because it is part of his essence, as opposed to saying I am walking, therefore I am.
Yes I know that. But it also means that you should give more importance to your ideas than to your existence or the conditions of your existence (the idea is first to the action, to living), that held the evolution of social science, retained in idealism, for centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
How can the first human have also been an ape?Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
That's a good question actually. But speaking technically as far as I know (and without entering on philosophy or axioms) the first man (biologically speaking) couldn't think, it was like an animal, instictive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
I never shouted....Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Then, by all means, tell me why you think that. :)Quote:
Second, and much more importantly, lack of proof of existence is NOT proof of a lack of existence. You clearly have no idea how logical arguments work if you're going to continue to propagate this argument.
If gorillas were known before 1920, then why not mountain gorillas?Quote:
Until the 1920s, there was no proof of the existence of mountain gorillas. Does this mean they didn't exist prior to the 1920s? They suddenly winked into existence when the first corpse was brought to London?
As I have mentioned, Stevie Wonder will never arrive at any colors because he has no proof of colors.
No. The point is, planets exists. If a God exist then, you can say there may be other Gods.Quote:
We still don't have irrefutable proof of planets in other solar systems, yet oddly enough nobody in the scientific community is taking that as proof positive that only 9 planets exist in all the cosmos.
Just because a diamond does not exist in my pocket doesn't mean diamonds does not exist.
Seems like you are limiting God to your faith. God is an assumption, hence the definition of God is also an assumption. Anyone believing in God can make their own definition of God.Quote:
Finally, let me conclude with the following: to the faithful and the faithless alike: the existence of God is an article of faith. It cannot be proven or disproven using empirical scientific methods. If it could, it would be knowledge, not faith. I don't 'believe' that hydrogen has one proton, and I don't 'know' that my father loves me. They are mutually exclusive spheres of human understanding. You guys really need to take a classical philosophy survey class before you come to play in this sandbox again.
If there is no God, then how did we get here? Of course, some people will say evolution, others Big Bang theory, but the point is look at the universe. The planet Earth is in precisely the correct spot for life. You can say it happened "by chance", but then again, anything could happen "by chance" This forum could have created itself by chance, your computer could have evolved from a piece of slime, for all we know. Even the Ancient civilizations, knew there had to be a Creator.
If you say there is no God, it is because you don't want to have anyone over your life, and you don't want to be accountable for all your actions.
If you believe in evolution, then basically you are saying that millions of years ago, out of a one celled organism, some other creatures evolved, but then, how did they learn to reproduce? Through trial and error? In which case, they would become extinct. Also, have a look at the world, mutations are always "Harmful". Also, have a look at the evolution evidence: all faked, even evolutionists have been forced to acknowledge that some of their "evidence" is just outright lies, and is fake.
There is no negative. If a glass is empty, is that a negative?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Stevie Wonder can never guess or know a color without any proof because he doesn't know what color is.Quote:
If they are invented, then they doesn`t need to be scientificall disproved. But it`s always a chance that they could exist on a far away planet for whatever we know.
I don`t know.
If a car does not exist inside a pyramid. That doesn't mean cars do not exist. We're arguing about the existence of God.Quote:
Still, my point is valid.
No way. As I have repeatedly said, a totally blind person does not have any concept of what color is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Also, I understand what you meant with the proof.
Candy causes tooth decay
No Candy, No tooth decay - is a fallacy. Right? Because there are other causes of tooth decay.
The problem here is:
1) Candy is specific and ; Proof of God is not specific nor real.
2) Tooth decay is specific and real; God is an assumption.
3) The relationship of Candy and Tooth Decay is known.
Nobody will guess correctly anything without proof. See my blind guy/color analogy.Quote:
The possible existence has an infinite set of prooves.
Well that's why I say that "he" is an idea.
Perhaps god doesen't want to be found. After all, the "creator of the universe" should have no trouble hiding from us if that is his wish.
If god is indeed hiding, then ofcourse we don't have any proof. And I'm not trying to prove god exists by this. This is just a "for instance"
Quietus - there was a time when Englishmen didn't know of coconuts. Did coconuts not exist until they were brought back to England? They had no concept of what a coconut was, and if you asked for a coconut at your local market, you would have gotten funny looks, and little else (except for shrubbery!).
Wait a second. Do not mention Blue to Stevie Wonder. Do not mention any color or the concept of seeing and color itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
Wait for Stevie Wonder to utter or imagine what 'color' is by himself. He'll never get it right ever without any proof. He'll never know yellow, green, red, or blue or even the very concept of color.
If Stevie Wonder can't surmise or describe "Blue" correctly on his own account without absolutely any help or proof from anyone,
then how can you do the same to "God" without any proof?
Stevie Wonder's imaginations (minus proof) will always be wrong, the same way everyone conception's of a "God" will always be wrong. Both due to the lack of proof.
Quietus,
You're right, you never shouted, and in re-reading my post, it comes off as a lot more harsh than I intended it. My point was simply that restating your thesis over and over, without offering supporting evidence or attempting to use axioms isn't gaining your thesis any ground.
I really wasn't trying to provoke a fight, and if it came off that way, I sincerely apologize. Believe it or not, I actually find 'believers' who claim scientific or logical proof for the existence of God even more frustrating.
Mountain gorillas were not known before the 1920's because their domain within Kenya, Rwanda and the Congo are mountainous and very difficult to traverse. For a long time, a 600 lb. gorilla was a figment of myth in European imagination. Europeans had seen lowland gorillas (about half the size), but until a specimen was actually brought to Europe, they were considered hunters's tall tales. That doesn't mean the mountain gorillas didn't exist. (Unless of course you are a dedicated relativist. Then in fact, in your reality, they didn't).
It's just one example. There are a host of phenomenon that existed prior to proof of their existence was acknowledged at large. That doesn't mean prior to the proof being made available they didn't exist.
It's a fundamental axiom of logic that a denial is an assertion in and of itself, you are asserting the opposite as a provable thesis. To do this, you have to prove the denial as opposed to proving the assertion. The opposite of a theist is not an atheist, they both have a belief structure. The opposite is the agnostic, who acknowledges that existence of God and the lack thereof are equally unprovable theories and therefore not worthy of further consideration.
Ok. Prior to the discovery of coconuts. Has anyone described what a "coconut" is, correctly and in detail (of course without any proof or evidence)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Then, can you describe something prior to its discovery without any proof or evidence of its existence?
In short: how can someone say "coconuts" exists or do not exist if a "coconut" is not even known yet and given there's no proof indicating that it exists!
But the people living in the Carribean know what a coconut is, at the time the Englishman knows naught of it!
(I'm not sure where I'm going with this, though :sweatdrop: )
Well, honestly, I think I see where we are going. The fundamental problem here is that when it comes to epistemology, Quietus is a true relativist: if something does not exist in his sphere of knowledge, it does not exist, period. You and I are taking a more universalist view: we can extrapolate and allow that just because it is not known to us does not mean that it cannot be known.
To be honest, I'm not certain where you go from here. From what I know, this is Yankee/Red Sox territory... you're one or the other and there's no middle ground.
And we steal your players.
:2thumbsup:
Sorry, I hate (?) to do this and interrupt the debate but...
We don't know. Is that tolerable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Theory. That's the key word. None of those plausible theories are proven, yet. These are attempts to explain where did we came from, based on factual evidence and abstract ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Yeah...anything could happen by chance. However, there are talks in this thread that some forces react in formulaic ways -- "rules" as some call it -- in the universe, and therefore chances might be limited and unlimited in the same time. Limited in some angles, unlimited in others, like a ray, which goes on indefinitely but only on one side. Indeed, if the theories of early Earth holds true, then Earth was not quite the precisely correct spot for life for some periods of its existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
But we built it. Lack of proof might not be the disproof in itself, but the proof, in both two cases, are there that this forum is programmed into being by human actions, and your computer assembled together from pre-existing mass by human hands into your computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Knew? I don't think so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Am I? Prove it. Cannot? Then your statement is not proven, and cannot be held true. Why would I believe? There is no natural force that force me to believe in God!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Then you are committing a logical fallacy and transform evolution into a religion, what it was never intended to be. It is a theory; not disproven, not proven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
How would they become extinct? And why must I believe in this idea they called God who supposedly create us so it could have its own Sim City, or some completely unreachable reason, if it is reason? Again, there is no proof in that. That doesn't mean it does not exist, but neither does that mean it is confirmed exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Sadly, no. Mutations saved countless bacteria, and might continue to save infinite number of bacteria as time goes on. And bacteria is just an easy-to-reach example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
Err...yeah...which website are you reading? Which newspaper? Which news channel? :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignoramus
superstring theory hasn't been proved, the very problem with it is that it makes no predictions it is just and explanitary theory
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
If humanity hadn`t existed, no one would make rules. Byzantine Mercenary said that a God should be needed for making the necessary rules that allows life to exist. But you don`t need a God or a strike of good luck for that; simply because the "rules" couldn`t be different. They have to be the way they are, and thus allowing life. It`s quite simple.
I believe that animals are able to think, and have opinions about things, and perhaps questions. The higher intelligence a specie has, the more it is aware of it`s existance. That means that the earliest 'thinkers' probably only had brief flashes we`re they were able to think creative or were aware of their existance. What defines intelligence, is the ability to think creative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
If claiming leads to positive(1), then counter claiming must lead to negative(-1). Believing, or not believing in the first claim allows you to remain at neutral(0). Same for the counter claim. Believing is something else than claiming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
Not a valid analogy. Glasses can only be full or empty; towards religion you can have either a positive, neutral or negative stance. Same for theories.Quote:
If a glass is empty, is that a negative?
Correct, but still no proof doesn`t equall non-existant. C`mon. If you say that it is/isn`t a God\other dimensions\souls etc., you`re speeking beyond your knowledge.Quote:
If a car does not exist inside a pyramid. That doesn't mean cars do not exist. We're arguing about the existence of God.
Right, since they didn't have any concept of coconuts, it would be silly to have a name for them, assume they were edible, and that they would be for sale at the market, regardless of whether they actually existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Why couldn't they be different? what im talking about are not written the laws of science as much as the mechanics of the universe, everything fitting together in a way that perfectly allows us to exist by saying that that everything has to be the way it is your are closeing your mind to the possibility that everthing does not have to be the way that it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
Without a creator the random universe that you would end up with would surely be simple, a cloud of gas or a giant mass of matter what is to say that the rules governing the mechanics of our universe did not need to be created?
This is why i used the example of a computer, a computer needs rules to work properlly, it needs software to tell it what to do. Why couldn't the mechanics of the universe work in the same way?
The idea that by some amazing luck the universe just happened to be very complex with a perfectly placed planet for intelligent life. This planet then producing a species that unlike any other living species on the planet creates an abstract idea that there is a creater almost as if religion is implanted in its very genome because lets face it, whenever you find humans you find religion.
So what you're saying is the same as I, God is just an assumption created from the nothing, from phenomena that is in fact related to natural science. I agree then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
There comes the problem, people consider God to be real, and for instance they usually use the same proove that scientist use to proove that God exists, so they use real proove. How can you desmitify that? Well you can't because you should proove that God doesn't exist and that can be done, however I agree with you that there is several proof that tends to the confirmation of God being an idea, a fiction created by man, no more than any rule certainly.Quote:
The problem here is:
1) Candy is specific and ; Proof of God is not specific nor real.
And I agree with you at that, but the problem is that that assumption might be real. The blind does not see things, but if he recovered the vision he might see things, while he's blind he makes assumptions on the form, much as the "Cave" allegory.Quote:
2) Tooth decay is specific and real; God is an assumption.
Well a lot of people, like creationist "scientist" will state the same about the relationship of God and the opera of this Earth. Some of their allegations include stating that the Great Cannon in Colorado (right?) is so perfect that it cannot be made just by a random process of nature, God must be behind it. But of course this ridicolous assumptions are refuted by the works of "The Spaghetti Monster" followers.Quote:
3) The relationship of Candy and Tooth Decay is known.
Of course not, but wheter you guess correctly or not, it doesn't change reality.Quote:
Nobody will guess correctly anything without proof. See my blind guy/color analogy.
That's contradictory to common sense and terminology.Quote:
It's a fundamental axiom of logic that a denial is an assertion in and of itself, you are asserting the opposite as a provable thesis. To do this, you have to prove the denial as opposed to proving the assertion. The opposite of a theist is not an atheist, they both have a belief structure. The opposite is the agnostic, who acknowledges that existence of God and the lack thereof are equally unprovable theories and therefore not worthy of further consideration.
But they are all gorillas. Much like they are all planets. If a gorilla exists, it's only a matter of probability a mountain gorilla exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
How can you discuss it if you don't know the object in the first place.Quote:
It's just one example. There are a host of phenomenon that existed prior to proof of their existence was acknowledged at large. That doesn't mean prior to the proof being made available they didn't exist.
Meaning if nobody knows what a "gorilla" is, then how can someone claim it exists or not exist?
God is provable even if supernatural? The ball is really on the believer's court because the point of reference is zero (nothing).Quote:
It's a fundamental axiom of logic that a denial is an assertion in and of itself, you are asserting the opposite as a provable thesis. To do this, you have to prove the denial as opposed to proving the assertion. The opposite of a theist is not an atheist, they both have a belief structure. The opposite is the agnostic, who acknowledges that existence of God and the lack thereof are equally unprovable theories and therefore not worthy of further consideration.
So if someone says: Earth exists, there's earth (fine). But if it is not there then it doesn't exist because human knowledge is based on proof and evidence anyway. I've already mentioned it on my blind/color example.
Lastly if your point of reference is 1 (god exists) then, to move it back to zero (god doesn't exist), I have to prove my "negative" claim.
But the lack of proof itself is the proof because the point of reference must be 0 not 1. If anybody wants to move it to 1 then they have to prove the "positive" claim.
Ok, so what would the Englishman say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
Englishman: Lads, nobody has uttered the word "coconut" yet, we don't know what it is either. However, let's define what a "coconut" is and say it exist or does not exist.
1) A "coconut" is uh, we absolutely have no clue! :oops: :dizzy2:
The Englishman will always get the "coconut" wrong because there's no proof whatsover of a so-called "coconut" (whatever it is).
:laugh4:Quote:
(I'm not sure where I'm going with this, though :sweatdrop: )
The problem here is your point of reference is 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
One is your reference because you want me to prove a "negative". Well, 0 is negative if your reference point is 1 (-1 to the left of 1 = 0).
If zero is your reference point, and you want to prove a "positive", then 1 is positive to reference point 0 (1 to the right of 0).
The question here is: which reference point do you want? Zero!
What's your best analogy then for a 0 reference point? See above.Quote:
Not a valid analogy. Glasses can only be full or empty; towards religion you can have either a positive, neutral or negative stance. Same for theories.
Non-existence where? The universe?Quote:
Correct, but still no proof doesn`t equall non-existant. C`mon. If you say that it is/isn`t a God\other dimensions\souls etc., you`re speeking beyond your knowledge.
Black Stones exists and the Moon exists. Your question involved the probability of the two being close together. But they both exist. The use of 'existence' here is an equivocation: a logical fallacy because it has two meanings. The meaning of existence we are discussing involves existence in the universe.
I have already mentioned my blind guy analogy. I'll expand on it even further.
Two blind guys: Stevie Wonder and the late Ray Charles. Suppose if nobody said anything about "colors" to them, they would have no idea what it is.
Stevie and Ray can talk to each other as long as they live, but they will never ever describe any color or even the concept itself. They can imagine all sorts of things but they will never ever debate whether "color" exist or do not exist (as we seeing-people know it) because they are both blind.
They will never arrive at the concept of colors on their own because they have no proof. Much like we can never arrive at the true nature of the universe without any proof.
Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
No proof is the proof. Because people will never arrive at the truth just by pure guess. See my Stevie Wonder/ Ray Charles analogy.Quote:
There comes the problem, people consider God to be real, and for instance they usually use the same proove that scientist use to proove that God exists, so they use real proove. How can you desmitify that? Well you can't because you should proove that God doesn't exist and that can be done, however I agree with you that there is several proof that tends to the confirmation of God being an idea, a fiction created by man, no more than any rule certainly.
But NOT color! :yes: A blind person will never guess the concept of color without any proof or other help from other 'seeing' people.Quote:
And I agree with you at that, but the problem is that that assumption might be real. The blind does not see things, but if he recovered the vision he might see things, while he's blind he makes assumptions on the form, much as the "Cave" allegory
A blind person will never guess the reality of colors nonetheless without any evidence.Quote:
Well a lot of people, like creationist "scientist" will state the same about the relationship of God and the opera of this Earth. Some of their allegations include stating that the Great Cannon in Colorado (right?) is so perfect that it cannot be made just by a random process of nature, God must be behind it. But of course this ridicolous assumptions are refuted by the works of "The Spaghetti Monster" followers.
Of course not, but wheter you guess correctly or not, it doesn't change reality.
Prove intelligent life is in the universe on a planet outside of the Earth's Solar System.
Quietus - even though the English didn't know of coconuts, they existed, even before they graced the shores of England.
Yes, coconuts existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good
But which Englisman claimed "coconuts" existed prior to discovery? (w/o proof).
Which Englishman claimed "coconuts" does not exist prior to discovery? (w/o proof).
The answer to both is noone. How can anyone debate the existence of "coconuts" if it wasn't even discovered yet? :)
First prove that intelligent life is on Earth... and then try and explain the internet. :inquisitive: :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
I wonder how many others will understand the point.... :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Intelligent Life exists here on Earth. It's only a matter of probability, Intelligent Life exists outside the solar system. We are made of dead stars, so it's only a matter of probability.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
So you take it on belief that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
If we are possible, it is possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
To use your arguement then.
I say there's earth and there's proof of earth.
I say there's the moon and there's proof of the moon.
I say there's intelligent life outside of the earth's solar system, where's the proof? None. It doesn't exist.
If you say there is intelligence life, thats 1.
If you say there is no intelligence life, that's back to 0,
Where is the proof that intelligent life exists outside of the earth's solar system?
None currently exists that I am aware of, so without proof of the existance of intelligent life beyond the Earth's Solar System, I must conclude using the above samples provide under your logical arguement against God's existance, that intelligent life outside of the Earth's Solar System does not exist.
Your arguement against God seems to have a flaw in my opinon.
He only said it was possible.
Then he should be saying that God is possible as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Read what was stated by both Quietus and then myself. And then see what my conclusion concerning his logic and arguement against the existance of God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Your arguement against God seems to have a flaw in my opinon.
I am not shooting his arguement down, but there is an inconsistency in the arguement against existance when you remove God from the equation.
No. The the lack of proof doesn't mean a denial of existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietus
He'll never guess while he's blind.Quote:
But NOT color! :yes: A blind person will never guess the concept of color without any proof or other help from other 'seeing' people.
Yes, but what if he recovers the vission? What I mean is that the evidence cannot be seen now, but it can appear later. But remember always that I'm on your side, don't believe that by saying this I believe that God exists.Quote:
A blind person will never guess the reality of colors nonetheless without any evidence.