Results 1 to 30 of 106

Thread: The Definition and Existence of God

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Involuntary Gaesatae Member The Celtic Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the heart of Hyperborea
    Posts
    2,962

    Default Re: Theological Debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reenk Roink View Post
    You run into a huge problem when you try and smuggle in empirical evidence in any definition of rational. The assumptions that are necessary to posit any kind of mind-independent external world are probably less easy to posit than those required to prove a god (the principle of sufficient reason vs. the reliability of sensory perception).

    It's merely a psychological habit that we even consider our sensory perceptions to be accurately representing reality. There is no empirical proof of it. By your own definition, such a meta-belief is irrational.
    Not really. It is true that, beyond my own existence as something, I need to make some assumptions. We all do. The fewer assumptions the better though, and the assumptions that science makes are enough, because it works. We know it does, because it yields all these results. If my senses are simply tricking me, then I could never know about it anyway, except through new sensory data, which I couldn't trust to be true.

    Assuming magic is simply superfluous and unnecessary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reenk Roink View Post
    As for contingent and non contingent/necessary, these are philosophical/theological terms used to contrast God from other things. I would explain it that a contingent being is one that is possibly existent (if nonexistent) and possibly nonexistent (if existent). The reason for God to be labeled a necessary non-contingent being is because it is held (by supporters of that definition) that every being cannot be a contingent being (these deal with the [alleged] impossibility of an actual infinite as well as the purporting of the principle of sufficient reason).
    Hmm. Keep in mind that, growing up in a community practically devoid of religion, and not caring about it until about 13-14 (when I wanted and tried to become a theist, and even then I wasn't interested organized religion), and then returning to not caring about it again until a few years ago (when I became an anti-theist* ), there are a lot of religious ideas that I have never heard of, and I'm not used to discussing it. Coupled with the fact that English is not my native language, it might be good to keep that in mind.

    Anyway, let me see if I understood you correctly: does being non-contingent mean that it is not possible that it exists if it doesn't exist, and that it isn't possible that it doesn't exist if it does?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    * It might be important to note that when I say I'm an anti-theist, I mean that I want religion to end, but I want religious people to stop being religious on their own accord. I do not want to force people to deconvert, and I respect your right to believe as long as you respect my right not to.

    To put it simply, I am not against the theists, the people, but the theism, the belief.


    [/U]Again, this definition does not suffer from any logical inconsistency. I would deem it rational with my respective view of what that word means. If you require empirical evidence to be part of a definition of rational then any kind of metaphysical belief becomes irrational (including the metaphysical belief that beliefs are rational if they are based on empirical evidence ).
    Now comes "metaphysical" again. Believing in anything without sufficient evidence is irrational. If there is no evidence for something metaphysical, then it is irrational to believe that something metaphysical exist.

    See, there has never been an epistemic reason to favor Occam's razor than not to. Occam's Razor might have some pragmatic appeal (and that is debatable), but it does not at all grant any epistemic merit to the simpler theory.
    The less assumptions you make, the closer to the mark you are likely to come. It doesn't guarantee that it is right, but it is preferable because of probability. We can't deal with absolutes; only probability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reenk Roink View Post
    No need to apologize, but yes, I am. Do you really believe in dissociative identity disorder as explicated in the DSM-IV?
    I accept science because that is the only reliable way to find out about the universe around us.

    If you want me to take you seriously when you talk about demonic possessions or whatever, you must provide me with some evidence that devils exist, that they can possess humans, and that they in fact do it.
    Last edited by The Celtic Viking; 09-08-2009 at 23:13.

  2. #2
    Involuntary Gaesatae Member The Celtic Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the heart of Hyperborea
    Posts
    2,962

    Default Re: Theological Debate.

    It's fully logical, yes, but we can't claim to know that, because there's no evidence either way. It's just that it's more probable that the universe always existed than that the universe was created by something that always existed, because the former makes fewer assumptions.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Senior Member Reenk Roink's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,353

    Default Re: Theological Debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post
    Not really. It is true that, beyond my own existence as something, I need to make some assumptions. We all do. The fewer assumptions the better though, and the assumptions that science makes are enough, because it works. We know it does, because it yields all these results. If my senses are simply tricking me, then I could never know about it anyway, except through new sensory data, which I couldn't trust to be true.

    Assuming magic is simply superfluous and unnecessary.
    I guess our paradigms are simply irreconcilable here. I for one cannot accept just a pragmatic explanation ("let's go with it cause it works") for things like science which I am just not endeared to. Religion, on the other hand, I find fascinating and am very endeared to (especially the Abrahamic tradition). Getting me to assume things about the former is hard. I'll point out the problems with inductive reasoning and definitely argue against any kind of scientific realism (I'm a good old fashioned instrumentalist )

    Now comes "metaphysical" again. Believing in anything without sufficient evidence is irrational. If there is no evidence for something metaphysical, then it is irrational to believe that something metaphysical exist.
    I think we are talking past each other here (probably my fault for not making it very clear). What I am trying to say is that the belief that "beliefs should be supported by empirical evidence" is itself a metaphysical belief that cannot be supported by empirical evidence. This is why I took issue with your definition of rationality.

    I accept science because that is the only reliable way to find out about the universe around us.

    If you want me to take you seriously when you talk about demonic possessions or whatever, you must provide me with some evidence that devils exist, that they can possess humans, and that they in fact do it.
    I brought up demon possession and dissasociative identity disorder as a side remark to the little analogy about religious belief being some sort of mental illness; I'm not actually really too concerned with either. Of course, due to the nearly universal existence of religious experience it seems that religious beliefs will continue to be respected (labeled as neurosis perhaps, but not generally as delusion).

    After all, what exactly distinguishes a delusion from what we call reality? Logically, both are very similar. The only difference being the majority of people experience what they think is reality, and a small group of people experience something else.

    Simply put however, ignoring demon possesion for a moment, DID itself is a very controversial diagnosis in the psychology community (I learned this the hard way by doing a report and not mentioning the doubts about it's validity ).
    Last edited by Reenk Roink; 09-09-2009 at 16:21.

  4. #4
    Voluntary Suspension Voluntary Suspension Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    13,477

    Default Re: The Definition and Existence of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian II View Post
    Psychiatry has allowed itself to be guided for too long by religion. Homosexuality is a good case in point. Religion abhorred it, so psychiatry regarded it as a mental disorder. These days many forms of religous mania are regarded as mental disorders, whereas homosexuality is not.Voila. Now extend this principle and you will come to understand my position.

    I find it very hard to accept that adult, well educated people would subscribe to some of the fairytales and confused reasoning in the above posts, starting with, but not confined to, the Holy Trinity. It´s quite scary to think that milions of people believe that they have discovered a god and that they know all sorts of arcane things about it, and that their god is the real one as opposed to the myriad of other gods that other believers believe in.

    Imagine that you live in a world where millions and millions of people believe that they are Napoleon Bonaparte, that they are the one and only real Bonaparte, and that this time round they are going to win at Waterloo.
    I think possessions are unlikely because, within a Christian context, they are uncommon, as are Divine Visions. I still believe in both, I'm just not overly credulous.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Celtic Viking View Post


    I just did. I said out loud "god, if you exist, what are you?". I got no response. I can do it again. There. I agree that to expect an answer from something you don't believe exist would be insane, but then I do not expect an answer. This does, however, not make it impossible for me to ask, which I have done twice now just for you.

    If he's not responding because I haven't acknowledged his existence, don't you think that's a little childish of him? I mean, if he answered, then I would acknowledge it. Why should I have to delude myself to believe he exist before he deems me worthy a response? Why should I have to believe before I can believe? That would be insane.

    I still think it's way more likely that "he" doesn't answer because "he" doesn't exist, but if he really is so petty and insecure that he needs my validation, why don't you ask him for a definition?
    Again, you don't get it. You are, to paraphrase a favourite spiritual director of mine, "confusing what is meant spiritually as bodily.

    This brings me back to what I said before, you don't get it. You see nothing beyond the physical, hear nothing beyond the physical. How then, can you possibly see or hear an incorporeal God?

    As for yours and PVC's discussion about demon possessions and exorcism, I apologize, but I must call a Poe on this. Are you being serious?
    Yes, but I do believe DID is also real. Not withstanding, there is no reason to avoid exorcism and doing so is as arrogant as avoiding cancer treatment.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    [IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]

  5. #5
    White Panther (Legalize Weed!) Member AlexanderSextus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    THIS! IS! JERSEY!
    Posts
    613

    Default Re: Theological Debate.

    god is a thing that exists outside of this dimension which i have theorized to be the catalyst behind the big bang, i.e. it caused two membrane universes to collide producing a third membrane which is our universe.

    other than that, i dont think it does much. maybe it caused that first single celled organism to form on earth, maybe it threw that big rock that killed the dinosaurs, but thats about it. Basically it's like a kid with an ant farm.

    "Cool! Look What they did today!" That basically sums it up.
    Do you hate Drug Cartels? Do You believe that the Drug War is basically a failure? Do you think that if we Legalized the Cannabis market, that use rates would drop, we could put age limits on cannabis, tax it, and other wise regulate it? Join The ORG Marijuana Policy Project!

    In American politics, similar to British politics, we have a choice between being shot in our left testicle or the right testicle. Both parties advocate pissing on the little guys, only in different ways and to a different little guy.

  6. #6
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Exclamation Re: The Definition and Existence of God

    After all the time I talked to TCV in the EB Tavern, I had learned not to touch the topic of religion. Backroomers would do well to learn the same. It is the very definitive of pointless to debate with TCV on religion. No offense or personal attack here, just an observation. We all have things we are not good at debating about, and religion is TCV's. No matter what you say, TCV will always disagree with you on religion, and he will never admit to sharing anything with your arguments. TCV is not looking for a debate, but simply to refute every point thrown at him, no matter the validity of that point.

  7. #7
    A very, very Senior Member Adrian II's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    9,748

    Default Re: The Definition and Existence of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus View Post
    No matter what you say, TCV will always disagree with you on religion, and he will never admit to sharing anything with your arguments. TCV is not looking for a debate, but simply to refute every point thrown at him, no matter the validity of that point.
    That is not my impression at all. I have found Philipvs to be a good prize-fighter who gave me a run for my money every time. I enjoy this sort of thing and so does he.

    It's just that once in a while I have to draw a line in the sand.

    One can not, I repeat can not, profess in one thread to know nothing about God's substance, yet in another thread discuss Gods triple substance and even pretend to know where he sits, i.e. on God's right hand side.

    Or was that Christ's left hand side? And where's the Holy Ghost in all this - is it doing the driving? For crying out loud. And to think that millions believe this blatant nonsense.

    Enough for today. I need a drink.
    The bloody trouble is we are only alive when we’re half dead trying to get a paragraph right. - Paul Scott

  8. #8
    Member Member Hax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,352

    Default Re: The Definition and Existence of God

    God is a name given to the unexplainable, both inward and outward.

    "God" represents nothing more than our conscience and power of will. That there is an omniscient creature watching/controlling all our moves is incorrect.

    All above statements are my opinion and might very well not be the truth. After all, there is no such thing as "The" truth. Truth is a relative concept which differs between people.
    This space intentionally left blank.

  9. #9
    Vindicative son of a gun Member Jolt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Chuck Norris' hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
    Posts
    3,740

    Default Re: The Definition and Existence of God

    But what is God in the true sense of the word for people? What defines it?

    IMO, God is a State of Mind. An opinion, a preference, an option. A moral code.
    BLARGH!

  10. #10
    Guest Aemilius Paulus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Russia/Europe in the summer, Florida rest of the time
    Posts
    3,473

    Red face Re: The Definition and Existence of God

    Quote Originally Posted by Adrian II View Post
    That is not my impression at all. I have found Philipvs to be a good prize-fighter who gave me a run for my money every time. I enjoy this sort of thing and so does he.
    Whoah, whoa! I never said PVC was lacking. No, he and Sarmatian are my role-models and idols here. No, I was speaking of TCV. I never said anything bad about Phillipvs. Read my post more carefully one more time .

    Or, it may be that I misunderstood you, as for some reason, your post was not very clear to me.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO