God Part N....

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Viking]

Just like Viking, your reference point can't be 1 but 0. Start from zero, nothing.

If you say God, that's 1.
If I say no God, that's back to 0.

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.

Ok. All mythical creatures to you are a 'maybe'.

If leprechauns were 'invented' then 'maybe' isn't the best answer to the last question.

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.

How do you know God was not invented too?

I don`t know.

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.

Still, my point is valid.

Is there any reason to believe in something that we have no physical proof of?

Nope.

Does God perhaps exist as a physical entity in another dimension that, so far, is untraceable?

Could be.

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?

Because we have reached the stage where instincts barely controll us anymore; we think in creative ways.

[Viking]

By the way most of modern physics is un proveable, supersting theory, dark matter etc.

No, those are proveable by experiment and/or observations.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Viking]

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.

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[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.

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.

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.

The possible existence has an infinite set of prooves.

Secondly, and more importantly, how did one arrive at God without any proof at all?

Well that's why I say that "he" is an idea.

[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.

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.

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.

The possible existence has an infinite set of prooves.

Secondly, and more importantly, how did one arrive at God without any proof at all?

Well that's why I say that "he" is an idea.

[Soulforged]

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.

I didn't knew there was "Creation scientists".

[Kanamori]

It cannot be proven or disproven using empirical scientific methods. If it could, it would be knowledge, not faith.

Empirisicm is flawed when comes to finding true knowledge anyway. Faith is the beliefs of your religion.


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.

Of course, "seeing" is proof, given the person isn't lying, hallucinating or just imagining things.

Perhaps I explained poorly and referening your stevie wonder example will be useful.

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.

Things happen because it is the way it is. 'Rules' are mans attempt to explain why things happen.

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.

Is there any reason to believe in something that we have no physical proof of?

Yes.

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.

Is there any reason to believe in something that we have no physical proof of?

Well that's why I say that "he" is an idea.

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.

[Soulforged]

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.

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.
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.

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.

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".

Which 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.

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.

[Kanamori]

Ah well, at least He isn't disproven.

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.

[Soulforged]

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.

[Kanamori]

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.

How can the first human have also been an ape?

[Soulforged]

How can the first human have also been an ape?

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.

[Quietus]

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.

I never shouted....

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.

Then, by all means, tell me why you think that. :)

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?

If gorillas were known before 1920, then why not mountain gorillas?

As I have mentioned, Stevie Wonder will never arrive at any colors because he has no proof of colors.

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.

No. The point is, planets exists. If a God exist then, you can say there may be other Gods.

Just because a diamond does not exist in my pocket doesn't mean diamonds does not exist.

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.

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.

[Ignoramus]

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.

[Quietus]

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.

There is no negative. If a glass is empty, is that a negative?

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.

Stevie Wonder can never guess or know a color without any proof because he doesn't know what color is.

Still, my point is valid.

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.

[Quietus]

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.

No way. As I have repeatedly said, a totally blind person does not have any concept of what color is.

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.

The possible existence has an infinite set of prooves.
Well that's why I say that "he" is an idea.

Nobody will guess correctly anything without proof. See my blind guy/color analogy.

[Sartaq]

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"

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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!).

[Quietus]

Perhaps I explained poorly and referening your stevie wonder example will be useful.

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.

Wait a second. Do not mention Blue to Stevie Wonder. Do not mention any color or the concept of seeing and color itself.

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Quietus]

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!).

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)?

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!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

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 )

[Don Corleone]

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.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And we steal your players.

[AntiochusIII]

Sorry, I hate (?) to do this and interrupt the debate but...

If there is no God, then how did we get here?

We don't know. Is that tolerable?

Of course, some people will say evolution, others Big Bang theory,

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.

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"

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.

This forum could have created itself by chance, your computer could have evolved from a piece of slime, for all we know.

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.

Even the Ancient civilizations, knew there had to be a Creator.

Knew? I don't think so.

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.

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!

If you believe in evolution

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.

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.

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.

Also, have a look at the world, mutations are always "Harmful".

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.

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.

Err...yeah...which website are you reading? Which newspaper? Which news channel?

[Byzantine Mercenary]

superstring theory hasn't been proved, the very problem with it is that it makes no predictions it is just and explanitary theory

[Viking]

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.

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.

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.

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.

There is no negative.

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.

If a glass is empty, is that a negative?

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.

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.

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.