Psychologist

Ah, the classic argument against Theism is a classic example of a type of flawed attempt at critical reasoning.

In the first place, God is God. He is omnipotent. If he is not omnipotent, then he is not God.

To be discredit the argument “God created the world and no one/thing created God because he is the starting point” properly means you HAVE to understand one thing first- that God is omnipotent.

If you counter that argument by asking who created God, that shows you do not understand the implications of “omnipotence”, which makes your counter argument as null as a red herring.

It’s like saying,

If John kissed Jane, does Jane exist?

No balls are caught! If you want to discredit an argument, you have to understand the source of the argument (i.e. its implied meaning/premise) and attack that.

This means attacking the concept of omnipotence, not throwing a question that is not applicable back to a question!

What kind of logic is that?

So anyway, if you want to logically think about it, you CANNOT counter that argument that God exists precisely because of the existence of the very-hard-to-disprove point of God’s omnipotence.

How are you going to disprove omnipotence? Asking me to prove omnipotence? I can’t do that.

If you are going to use the argument:

“If God created an unmovable rock, and if God is omnipotent, can he move that rock?”

Then I will say that it is a paradox and an impossibility because you have limited God’s omnipotence (by questioning his capability of doing everything including the impossible).

The reasoning goes this way:

1) If God is omnipotent, he can do anything.
2) If he can do anything, he can create a rock which he cannot lift
3) If he cannot lift that rock which he created, then he cannot do anything and he is not omnipotent
4) If he can lift that rock which he created, then he has not created a rock that he cannot lift
5) If he cannot create a rock that he cannot lift, then he is not omnipotent

The catch in this reasoning is at point #2. This sort of reasoning is aimed to show impossibility by providing impossibility in the existence of rock-which-cannot-be-lifted-by-him itself.

If he is omnipotent, he can do anything, but how can he make something he cannot do?

But essentially, this is a very vague argument because it blurs the line between the real premise that needs to be clarified against the pseudo arguments.

If we have arrived at a logical paradox, we are only left to analyse its soundness.

Consider premise 1: If God is omnipotent, he can do anything.

What is “anything”?

Is this “anything” simply –anything- that consists of everything and nothing or is this “anything” something that can be done or has a slight chance of being done?

If we were to argue from a logical, wordly point of view, then it would be the latter, because if we want to argue the merits of the plausibility of a situation, we have to work with something that can be used, that means to say, something that is a possibility instead of an impossibility.

Agree?

So how can one say that something cannot be omnipotent when that something cannot create that which is not creatable?

I’ll leave you to ponder about that.

BUT ANYWAY, it all boils down to godamned belief (pun unintended)!

The basis of acceptance of God (or, as some would put it- The concept of A God) is the acceptance of the concept of omnipotence.

Which IMO, is beyond the comprehension of us mere mortals BECAUSE our ability of reasoning is only limited by what we can experience and draw conclusion from in this EARTH (our A priori and A posteriori knowledge).

In short, God is beyond our comprehension.

Another argument point from a Theist’s POV:

How can you argue, or, seek to disprove, or, question against something that is beyond your comprehension?

A famous philosophy maxim that comes to mind is this:

We have the known knowns, the unknown knowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.

God/His power/HIM/Pink apples lies in the lattermost category.

So why bother disproving? It’s really up to you whether you want to believe or not.

For those who WANT to believe, the signs are there, the words are there. If you feel they are not satisfactory, then so be it. Not my problem. It’s *your* prerogative.

So why is it people enjoy arguing about subjective issues?

Plan9

What is... Chuck Norris?

...

Turns out TFP is about as religious as Britney Spear's panty-wearing habit.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

levite

Um...yay?

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Plan9

Yeah, I was confused as to what to respond to in this thread as well.

Perhaps a mod can drop that useful thread template / advice in here.

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Willravel

Let me ask you this, Psychologist: if you're trying to scientifically and/or logically verify your own faith, is it still faith?

I think the primary issue is that god or gods aren't about logic, he/she/they are about faith. It's an entirely different set of rules than science and logic. And that's okay. I happen to be an atheist, but I wouldn't begrudge someone his or her faith. For some people, levite for example, it is a wonderful experience and it enriches his life. I'm happy for him.

Plan9

"Are we talking life after death or anthropomorphic deity?"

__________________
Whatever you can carry.

"You should not drink... and bake."

Psychologist

Hi Crompsin: I wrote this because I do not understand WHY Atheists and Theists enjoy engaging in the battle to prove/disprove each other wrong. It all boils down to FAITH and WHICH path you want to choose. What’s there to argue when it comes to subjectivity?

It’s like saying Chuck Norris owns mudkip. Like hell I care if Norris owns Mudkip. That is your opinion because well, maybe you like muscular blonde men more than blue pokemon. Fine, but that doesn’t make it a fact (or is it useful to argue) that blue pokemon are infinitely, definitely, without a doubt less or more important than muscular blonde men!

Hi Willravel: I am not trying to “scientifically or logically” verify my faith. Or God. Or pink spatulas orbiting Earth. Haha.

Why yes, that’s the point I was trying to make: The primary issue isn’t about logic but FAITH.

I will respect an Atheist the same way I respect a fellow Muslim or a Christian or a Jew or a Pastafarian because I believe everyone deserves a standard amount of respect regardless of their beliefs.

This respect changes the moment they express their views, i.e. are they disrespectful, illogical, or if they can argue appropriately within the boundaries of reasonable reason.

Halanna

I think it's because both sides passionately believe they are right, making the other side wrong.

From an athiest point of view, they feel theist are "fooling" themselves into believing in God, an afterlife and everything that goes along with believing. Sometimes they feel more superior or that they are more "enlightened" than a theist.

From a theist point of view, they feel athiest are immoral, without salvation and are dooming their souls to an eternity of a hell like place. They also find the notion that a God doesn't exist simply ridiculous and just can't grasp how someone can't believe.

I don't know why these two groups argue, debate and try and prove their point. The point of an argument or debate is to sway the opposing side to see things your way.

While I'm sure there are exceptions, it's unlikely one on either side will suddenly concede and say, "You know, you're right. I'm going to abandon the belief system I've had since a child/the last 10 years/the last 20 years and start believing the way you do."

roachboy

try to open up the discussion more, psychologist--frame some question or questions that you want to pursue.
the op is a bit of a rune--closed in on itself.


my position:

the ontological proof is explicitly a tautology.
you can't say it without using the word: that god is is a tautology. the idea was that if god is understood as containing within himself/his mind all categories including being, then the claim that god is, which involves the last category, is strictly tautological (premise is contained in the conclusion).

so the circularity of thinking isn't exactly a new revelation.

what makes you think that faith is a matter of logic?
much theology is about the idea that faith *can* be grounded logically, but that starts from faith and works to logic, not the other way around.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Cynthetiq

why do people climb mountains? why do people dive depths of the sea? why do people like to debate politics? because it's there.

it's not much different, no one is really right, no one is really wrong.

maybe it's not much different than watching TV. It's a matter of passing time in a manner that has some meaning for some.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Willravel

Hola.
You are using logic to try and disprove a common argument made by internet atheists and anti-creationists against creationism. Just so we're clear, the argument they make, the argument you cite, is that most creationists argue that everything is so complex that it requires a creator. In order to point out the flaw in this logic, the same axiom is applied to god (the "who created god?" argument). Certainly no one can claim the god individual in the Bible isn't complex, therefore following the same logic, god must have had a creator.

The argument isn't actually intended to disprove god. You can't disprove a negative. The argument is intending to poke a hole in a popular creationist argument. While I absolutely, positively don't have a problem with any religious people, I do have a problem with creationists because their confusion about the nature of faith is leading them to create and spread lies about science.

Still, judging by your post, I'm fairly sure you're not a creationist, simply a believer. That being the case, live long and prosper.

Zenturian

Walter Bishop and William Bell created god.

Zeraph

Dude...I did. (Sorry)

But seriously, my understanding (not that I'm a theist)...

God was, is, and always will be. God is infinite. Creation is a word we use to describe the existence of things in our world. God is far beyond our world's paradigm. He is everything and alltime. The word creation doesn't apply to his existence. He is a constant, the *only* constant. When he created the universe it was like dividing infinity...something impossible to our understanding and beyond us.

telekinetic

How much wood would a wood chuck chuck, if a would chuck could chuck wood?

Actual answer: Men created gods to explain what they did not otherwise yet understand. As science explains more things, filling in the gaps with gods becomes less necessary.

And yes, the 'who created god'? question exists because saying 'god did it' to explain away the complexity of the universe just moves the question.

It always struck me as funny that the same people who are adamant that the universe needed a creator also insist that their omniscient, infinitely complex deity didn't?

__________________
twisted no more

levite

OK, on a second reading, I believe I more or less agree with where the OP is going.

It is singularly unprofitable for all to attempt to "prove" or "disprove" God using logic. Theistic faith is arational, and it is certainly true that when it comes to such faith, one either has it, and accepts the parameters of the theistic paradigm, or does not, and will rather confine themselves to the skeptical or "scientific" paradigm (I use the quotation marks because I think it's unfair to say that science and religion cannot co-exist. They can, so long as the scientist is open-minded and the religion is not fundamentalist).

A great portion of the Middle Ages were dedicated to people attempting to use complex arguments of logic and reason to prove religious claims to one another. All failed spectacularly.

There's nothing wrong, IMO, with discussing the subject in a respectful, curious, "I am interested in understanding why you believe what you believe" way. Trouble comes when anyone, with either opinion, begins to say, "You should believe what I believe, otherwise you are wrong, and therefore, bad."

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

Shell

The answer is, there is no answer. It's one of those unexplainable things like "eternity" and "infinity"...there is no beginning and there is no end. There was no time before creation and in the end we will return to no time. Try wrapping your head around THAT one. Our minds are too finite to comprehend infinity...........

__________________
..."Say what you think. Those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" ~ Dr. Seuss

telekinetic

I do not think open minded means what you want it to in this context--all scientists are BY DEFINITION open minded--if they weren't, no sicentific progress would ever be made!

If you went to any good scientist and said "I can prove that prayers to the Christian God have an effect on the physical world, via repeatedly observable criteria A, B, and C", he would be overjoyed, as, regardless of how small the effect you were able to produce, you would have just won him the Nobel prize, and radically altered our understanding of the physical universe in a more significant way than relativity, quantum mechanics, and string theory combined.

More on this:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/found-n...-examined.html

Do you mean tolerant? I could see that being the case if it's two people (a religious person and a scientist). I am tolerant of religious beliefs the same way I am tolerant about people talking about being a Vampire (pyre?), or telling me about the attributes of their Pokemon collection or star wars. I try to understand their position, even so far as being able to provide questions about and input into the internal logically consistent structure they've created, but I don't just yell at them "YOU ARE NOT A VAMPIRE/POKEMON MASTER/JEDI. IT IS JUST A FANTASY/VIDEO GAME/ALTERNATE FUTURE HISTORY"--just because I don't believe in them doesn't mean they can't have interesting things to say about their fantasies.

If you are talking about a scientist with religious beliefs, in my case, I could not internally make my understand of science and the physical world jive with my religion--for a long time I just treated them like they were separate things, setting up a mental barrier around religion to exempt it from logical thinking and arguments, but eventually I realized I couldn't honestly believe that they were compatible, and chose rationality over faith in the supernatural.

__________________
twisted no more

filtherton

I think that there are fundamental distinctions between how different people conceive of god and that if a theist finds him/herself on the appropriate side of this distinction, certain common criticisms of theism become irrelevant. It's not just they don't appeal to the faithful, it's that they cease to mean anything. Which isn't to say that these common criticisms can't be useful and thought provoking...

The question of whether god created everything is irrelevant if god is everything.

levite

No, I kind of mean open-minded, in the sense that a lot of scientists react just as you're describing: I will believe in your paradigm as soon as it is proven within my paradigm by the parameters of my paradigm. The trouble (if I may be forgiven for using the word) with a lot of scientists is that they maintain that there is only one paradigm in which to interact with the universe: the scientific, rational, logical paradigm. They are open-minded to anything expressible or provable within that paradigm.

What I mean is that a scientist has to be open-minded to the notion that there are potentially other paradigms in which to interact with the universe, that work differently, and offer different answers. The questions asked to those paradigms may overlap with those posed in the scientific, but they are not entirely the identical set, and they bring their answers by slightly different rules.

I have known a number of scientists who work that way. They simply understand that they are not trying to do quite the same things in the lab as they are in the synagogue, nor is their Torah a science textbook, or their science textbook a Torah.

But ultimately, with all due respect, to say that science would be delighted if anyone offered laboratory proof of God is just as fundamentalist as the televangelist saying that he will "believe in" evolution as soon as Jesus Christ tells him to.

It is, ultimately, apples and oranges. Science and religion can coexist, they can even overlap from time to time. But they cannot occupy the same paradigmatic space, not any more than we can demand that painting and music operate by each other's rules, or expect to critique cooking for its literary faults, or poetry for its lack of nutrition.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

thespian86

God is simply an answer to the question "but, what about before (or after - depending on the situation) that?". Our minds are inferior and at no point will we be able to understand everything. We're animals. Animals of language mostly, and our need to articulate discovery and thought created a need for answers (as soon as we discovered we could do such a thing; see: logic). Most things in life are unexplainable but that is illogical in itself (as we realize, hypothetically, that all things have a "reason" or a "cause" as everything is an effect of said cause). As we are unable to accept the void we fill it with guesses, assumptions, indifference, and faith.

I choose not to do any of the four (or as little as possible) as I feel it restricts how I view things.

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.

Willravel

Even saying "god is beyond our comprehension" is putting religion in a logical/scientific context, which is a mistake. It assumes that there is eventually a point where god might be comprehended. A better statement would be "god doesn't require comprehension" or "comprehension doesn't enter the equation".

roachboy

generally, these discussion end up being fights about which rules are going to obtain for the discussion--whose framework gets to be the evaluative one, which gets to set the questions and determine what is and is not a legitimate response.

i think levite gives a good description of open-mindedness on the relation between the different modes of activity, each with it's own premises and rules, each aimed a different outcomes.

at the same time, the separations are not as strictly maintained as folk would sometimes think--string theory is a pretty good example of a space in which quantum theory and religious speculation got hopelessly tangled up. no mode of activity is entirely separate from all others---the traditional theory of evolution is as it is because the notion of species was assimilated to that of category and by extension to that of object, which required stretching the timeline out very considerably--more recent work in dynamical systems has maybe opened a way to think evolution as continual and the separations between types more fluid than had been thought...

just to say this, i have no particular use for religion in general.
but i also don't think that most forms of logic, particularly not traditional western forms, give anything like access to the complexity of the world.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

I think there should be a steel reinforced brick wall with a security guard and a rottweiler at the wall between religion and science simply because of the abomination known as creationism. Creationism is the perfect argument for ensuring that the camps don't cross paths. I'm fine with there being a religious camp so long as there aren't any museums where there are dinosaurs with saddles on them.

KnifeMissile

This thread is so painfully depressing. I don't know if I can address all the ridiculous "issues" brought up here but hopefully I'll cover the major ones, starting with the opening post...

Do you understand the implications of omnipotence? There's nothing about it that precludes the notion of origins or even the necessity of one. It looks like you're assuming implications that suit your preconceptions where no such implications exist. Exemplify your point!

That's a question you should be asking yourself!

I'm not sure why it is you bring up the subject of omnipotence. The argument you describe is the Cosmological argument and it's based on the notion of causality. The idea is that all things need a cause and you can't have an endless chain of causes so there must have been an initial cause and that cause is God. There are many objections to this argument and omnipotence is not a defense to any of them. "Who created God" questions why it is you think that God is the "uncaused cause." If you're convinced that there had to be an uncaused cause then why couldn't it be the Big Bang? At least we can show evidence that that exists!

Is your argument that you can't prove omnipotence and therefore you shouldn't be expected to? Well, I agree with that but I'd also add that no one should be convinced by your lack of argument as well...

It is not our position to have to disprove every crazy idea that comes our way. If you have a claim then support it!

The problem is the simplistic notion of omnipotence. That word is typically used in a specific context so that such contradictions don't happen. For instance, when we say that Kim Jong-Il is omnipotent, we mean that he can do anything politically in South Korea. There is no contradiction to be constructed there. However, when theists say that God is omnipotent, they literally mean that he can do anything. When you apply this idea to things that are logically impossible then, not surprisingly, thing make no sense...

Now, it looks like you're willing to limit the powers of God to be something that is very powerful but not so simplistically so that contradictions are trivially created. I think that your insistence on calling it omnipotence is poor semantics but whatever... The problem now is determining what powers God has. This is why theists have always stuck with their simplistic notions of God's omnipotence. Can God see all things at once? Can God predict the future? Can God know my thoughts? Can God even time travel?

A literal reading of the Old Testament would suggest that God's powers are very limited indeed. For instance, He had to question Adam and Eve about what they've done. Doesn't he already know? Was it a rhetorical question? The story made no sense and the book doesn't get any better from there...

The problem with saying that some theory, like the existence or nature of God, is "beyond our comprehension" is that it's identical to an idea that is nonsensical and is thus beyond not just our comprehension but all comprehension. Instead of putting a great deal of effort into practicing something that hurts people and saying that it's beyond our comprehension but you're following it anyway, why not just save yourself and other people the trouble and admit that it's all nonsense and just live your life the best you can...

Why do people like chocolate?

I don't think there's a single answer out there. People's motives are also subjective. Personally, I have many reasons for debating the subject, one of which is that I enjoy the sport of debate. I find the dissection of argument and the composition of cogent sentences fun. There are other reasons too, including the desire to convince you or someone, anyone really, of my point of view and alleviating some of the problems that religion causes on society...

---------- Post added at 02:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 AM ----------

Why does it have to be sudden? Is debate only worth doing if the other person is suddenly convinced? Also, perhaps the few times that it does happen make it worth it? Is it really so hard to imagine why people would debate such topics?

KnifeMissile

It depends on what you mean by "paradigm." Can you please exemplify this? As far as I can tell, what you are saying is that scientists are only open to ideas that are real. Surely you don't mean this or, at least, can clarify this claim some more?

The paradigm of science is that you can make claims with efficacy. That is to say, you make claims that allow you to do things. The belief is that being able to do things is indicative of reality. The reason behind this is that if everyone can do things with scientific theories then that is something we all share: a definition of reality. This last point is surprisingly incidental since it doesn't really matter if scientific ideas are real or not if they still allow you do to the things you want to do. That's why science is more than just a generic search for "the truth..."

I don't think this is a good comparison. We know that the televangelist believes things that weren't allegedly told to him by Jesus. Thus his denial of evolution is unjustified by the lack of endorsement by his deity of choice.

On the other hand, scientists use the same reasoning and logic that the televangelists accept except when the results of those things contradict their fundamentalist beliefs.

There is no symmetry here...

Most people claim that their religion makes accurate claims on reality and thus their religion and science are not so apples and oranges since they are used to describe the same thing. Every time this has happened, science has always proven to be more accurate...

Your analogies aren't apt. Again, perhaps you can clarify what you mean by "paradigms?" Which paradigms are these, specifically?

biznatch

Religious people are always telling atheists to be open-minded, but never consider the possibility of, for example, a supergod, who, creates gods, universes, and entire realities, each with their own laws, dimensions, properties, and matches each god to a universe. Maybe "God" isn't even aware of said "superGod" and rules this entire universe, Himself being an "atheist" in his own sphere of existence, in that he doesn't believe a superior being exists.
The bible and faith really worships God, who is to the best of his knowledge "all mighty", but still was "created."

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

Willravel

Who created superGod?

levite

That would seem to depend: you are using the term "real" in a way which seems to make it synonymous with "provable in a laboratory," which is the scientific way. I am suggesting that there are other ways to interact with the universe, which present different criteria for the realness of phenomena.

Let me first of all clarify that when I use the term paradigm in this context, I mean "a framework for understanding and interacting with the universe." The scientific paradigm is that which establishes parameters requiring that nothing is real save that it be proven by certain rules, and nothing is acceptable for use in one's system of reasoning save that it be rational. The alternative paradigm that I am referring to has different parameters for gauging realia, and is founded to one degree or another in systems that combine the rational and the arational.

In other words, science interacts with the universe by gauging all truth in reproducible effects that can be measured and recorded in ways deemed reliable by current technologies. Religion permits truths that are not always reproducible, nor are always measurable by technology, but are able to be experienced nonetheless through spiritual awareness and faith.

I am in no way suggesting that science ought to change or be different, or that it ought to be in any way subservient to religion, or that public schools should teach religion alongside science, or any kind of crap like that. I am only saying that it might benefit scientists to realize that there are other ways out there to approach asking questions of the universe, and some of those ways can lead to truths.

What is important-- and I would never say otherwise-- is for all concerned to be clear that for the most part, science and religion are useful for answering different questions, and they tend not to do well when their areas of inquiry are made to overlap. So for example, if you want to know how to calculate centrifugal force or know what happens when you mix certain chemicals, religion will prove singularly unhelpful, and science will give you answers with no trouble at all. But if you want to know what spiritual or moral meaning there can be in experiences of joy or suffering, science will prove just as unhelpful, and religion will offer you answers (though a wider range of answers than those to chemistry or physics problems).

I have always said, and will say again, religion is not supposed to be science. The bible is not a textbook, and the people who attempt to use it as a textbook-- be it of geology, physics, biology, sociology, or what have you-- are simply misusing it. Religion is supposed to be a spiritual guide to help you deal with living in the universe, and to bring you closer to God. For religion to be successful presumes other education, because the Bible is really mostly concerned with a comparative narrow range of interests: ethics, morals, law, and ritual practice. Not even the last two, if one is a Christian.

But that said, presuming that one is not equating religion with fundamentalism, I do think that there is value in religion, and in systems founded in the arational in general, and the truths that they can help us perceive are, if different than those we come to through science, in many ways no less valuable.

OK, maybe it wasn't the ideal analogy. But let me put it this way: the kind of scientist I was referring to in that analogy would, if he had a sudden experience of spiritual awareness and connectedness, dismiss said experience as a momentary hallucination, or the effects of transient hypoxia, or, in the words of Scrooge disdaining Marley's ghost, "a bit of undigested beef," the ill-effects of a bad lunch. Such a scientist, if he heard a silent voice urging him to a more moral life, would instantly diagnose himself as a latent schizophrenic, and submit himself to a psychopharmacologist for a prescription for anti-psychotics. In other words, these individuals are so enmeshed in the idea that their paradigm is the only way to interact with the universe that, faced with phenomena that are clearly not duplicable nor are they rational, they will dismiss them as illusion or illness rather than confront the possibility that, as Hamlet chides, "there are more things...in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of your philosophies."

This is entirely dependent upon what "claims on reality" people are making in the name of their religion. For example, if they are saying that because they choose to read the Bible literally, that must mean the Earth is precisely 5759 years old, then they are wrong. If, however, they are saying (for example) that their religion has taught them greater spiritual awareness, and they have been able to experience God, then perhaps they are right.

Religion is not supposed to be science, and more than science should be religion. God is not a chemical experiment or an electron field effect: the experience of God is not something one can have and duplicate in a laboratory, nor will His existence be proved by a handy set of equations. Not because God is not real or because we don't have adequate technology, but because that is using the wrong paradigm: it is like trying to do algebra by baking brownies, or paint a still life using a microscope instead of a paintbrush. By the same token, those who use the Bible as a geology or physics textbook are behaving just as sensibly as anyone trying to get orange juice by milking a cow, or seeking out a mathematics professor for pastoral counseling about one's bioethics quandary.

What I am saying is that for 90% or more of the time, religion and science are either asking different questions, or they are seeking different answers, and it is not fair to try to make them overlap. The different questions are best addressed in their different paradigms.

A religious person can believe whatever they like, but when they step into a geology classroom and say that the universe is 6000 years old, they are grossly in error, and should expect to be told so. And the religious person should be content with that, since it is not right for them to tell others to believe otherwise, based only on their understanding of their own sacred scriptures.

But by the same token, a skeptical person can believe whatever they like about the existence of God, but when it comes to the beliefs of others, IMO the most one ought to be prepared to say is, "I have not yet experienced anything to make me believe similarly."

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

biznatch

Dude, we all know that if you're a superGod, then you effectively don't need to be created. He has super-Omnipotence. Right? (kidding).
I'm just saying that the "God" many people worship could have been created; why stop at God? Why not carry it further than the known universe? If you're going with the idea that there is/are supernatural being(s) with unlimited powers, why not theorize further in the same(but expanded) idea.
How does God "know" he's the most powerful? Maybe nobody ever told him anything different.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

Polar

Funny thing about God.



If He is God (and I believe He is) then any discussion we have about what he would or wouldn't do, could or couldn't do, should or shouldn't do is like a couple of first graders trying to discuss quantum physics.


Who are we to think we know all the boxes that God should fit into?

Willravel

That's an intellectual cop-out, Polar. Something being incomprehended by you doesn't make it incomprehensible. I'll give you an example: I can't even begin to comprehend the tax law, but I know for a fact some people can comprehend it, therefore it's comprehensible.

Poppinjay

I'ma come over there and hit you.

I can't begin to say how many times I've higlighted certain parts of this discussion only to discard it for other parts.

First off, let me state I'm one of those dirty believers. Shame on me.

I'm also educated enough to talk about flagellants and the history of faith with the same acumen as an Ivy league scholar. I don't mean to brag, but this was something important enough to me to study it in-depth. And I have.

That is not to say I have better knowledge than any other internet genius, but I'm pretty comfortable with what I've learned, from kudzu league scholars, at a decent university.

Essentially, my understanding has waved to this, I don't care what you think about what I think and shut up about what you think. Every juvenile concept has been argued on this board and it takes the patience of Bruce Jenner to withstand it. All for some stupid ass Kardashian booty.

I attribute it to the Schrödinger wave. Some say it's because of Disney. I don't give a fuck. Shut up.

Please don't take this a s a close minded response to a genuine inquiry. No question of the existence of God is a genuine inquiry. Everybody comes with superior knowledge. I know best. You know best. He knows best. My bagwan knows best. The flower guy at the airport knows best.

We will always be what we are. Unconviced atheists. Sheeple. When the bridge is gapped, I'll bring the potato salad.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Willravel

There's nothing wrong with believing in god or gods so long as you're not hurting others or yourself. You're not a "dirty believer", poppin, you're just a believer, and that's just fine with me and the majority of other atheists out there.

Poppinjay

Can I still hit you, you know, just to work out the free radicals in my muscles?

Hitting back is not allowed under my religion.

Turn the other cheek.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet

Willravel

Oh of course. If you really want a workout, I could author a book called "The superGod Delusion" and give lectures.

Skitto

Why do people argue the vague objective|subjective ideas of the wide theologies of early scholars/ salesmen? Well, you can strike any words you don't agree with in that sentence, subjective and/or objective, either one, salesman is a loose term too.

So the simple answer directly from my Carlin encyclopedia: It's a dick waving fest, no simpler than a war of words, the one with the bigger and more intimidating argument wins!

My take on this, which is coincidentally a PG expansion of it:
People argue to prove who are more influential, notice that you never see a real good argument for this kind of stuff on TV/radio? It's because the people who are really comfortable with the reality of the answer, don't give a care about the argument and are therefore above or below it, depending on whether their leftover opinions can be categorized as left-over or non-existent.

On the conspiracy side of it, I think it's what the world's governing group has watered down the Indian drinking games into this, a way to retain psychic brawling amongst the "lower people" because if they stopped it, they would have a lot more leftover aggressions than they could deal with. It also, at the same time it strengthens (psychic ability?) hardening opinions and striking aggression, it doesn't really improve true individualism simply because of what could easily be described as a brain chemistry paradox. Strong minds, weak thoughts, easily swayed.

I'm trying to blend mainstream and Carlinesque logic here, so bear with me.

One more thing, my experience in arguing religion. I've got two parents, Mom is from what was a strictly religious family (think Cleaver-Brady's), Dad was from a naturally spiritual family (solid rednecks, another strange point, Jed Clampett meets Morticia Adams... sorta)
So, there I am, between autonomic religion and brainstem spirituality, with a frontal lobe full of both.

Naturally I've become adept at this sort of junk.

I've found that for everyone, you can influence exactly how much their religion effects them just by putting God in unlikely places (or say unorthodox situations if it suits you) and they seem to either respect everything or simply hate me after that. Point is that it all depends on an often dispicable mess of factors. Again, I have two extemes to compare against, Mom usually dislikes me talking about it, and Dad is a good source of inspiration, but he isn't usually conducive to that sort of talking (it's just not his bag).

My residual opinions on this are that everything happens as it does in space (direction and intensity are the simplest laws of existence) and in space, the bigger the thing, the more it asserts its existence, the smaller the thing, the more it is ignored in daily life, and the deciding gradient here is sentient thought. Things are the size we percieve. In the mind, things are interconnected, and to the highly spiritual/religious, God is assumedly interleaved with all of everything (via omnipotence)

Whether God is omnipotent or not is a stipulation that can be left to those in the debate. Away from the debate you can see a little more clearly, you see.

I join in about half the time, just to refresh myself, and in between I am far more in touch with the higher order of things than my subconscience lets me be conscious of.


?
but the POINT IS! ... I keep getting destracted into these little holes as I'm getting to the REAL point!

See how it is? Getting caught in this train of meanings on belief is annoying because in getting to my very simple point I had to go through a lot of spiritually simpler stuff.

The point: As you may have noticed, I referred to things being as big or as small as the human mind percieves them to be. A person should not be deluded into thinking that God is something so simple that it can be explained in terms of existence or omnipotence. The closest that the English language comes to the blindingly easy depth and width of God him/itself is this. Man made God and God made Man.

So believe it if you want to, ignore it if you like, either way, you WILL be right! Within your own terms, you are always correct. Others' opinions should be a study, a muse at best, but the only real factor is your WILL in believing whatever it is.

God said "let there be light" and there was light over the Earth
Man said "let there be napalm" and soon there were brown people on fire.

God made Man, Man made God
Man made God to make Woman
God made Man to show off his creation

you are always wrong, we are always right
we are always wrong, you are always wrong
you are always right, we are always wrong
we are always right you are always right

Remember too that right and fight alliterate, so pick good words.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------



Oooh, so right!

They're too young!



Young and wrong rhyme, so it's an inconstant, whether the two are mutually exclusive.

__________________
Yeah, well, you're just that awesome, I guess. It's not like I guessed so anyways.

biznatch

I thought Philosophy was like a hip cafe where people sipped espressos and tossed ideas around in a friendly discussion.
Now it feels more like a boxing ring. Who's winning? God.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

Skitto

My point exactly. ^L^

__________________
Yeah, well, you're just that awesome, I guess. It's not like I guessed so anyways.

KnifeMissile

In an attempt to reduce the explosion of paragraph responses, I've chosen to not break my response up into multiple paragraph responses, even though I will be responding to each paragraph, nonetheless. I hope this won't be confusing...

I think it's important to find some common ground on what constitutes "truth."

I wouldn't characterize my notion of "real" with "provable in a laboratory," since much of science isn't literally done in one, unless you mean it as a metaphor for something that is demonstrable. Have you thought about why science has such a requirement? It's an attempt to distinguish things that are real from shit people make up. How do other "paradigms" distinguish the two aside from arbitrary choice?

Your use of the term "arational" is a curious attempt to avoid using the term "irrational" in fear of it weakening your argument. This should be an obvious sign to you because it indicates the weakness of your position. If something is not rational it is, by definition, irrational and if you mix the irrational with the rational you still get something that's irrational...

I don't know what you mean by "spiritual awareness" but faith is not indicative of truth. By definition, faith is independent of truth so I'm curious to hear how you think the truth can be constructed with it... How would you even know if someone is spiritually aware? How would you distinguish someone's spiritual awareness with shit someone made up?

It sounds like you're setting up a system of belief that disallows anything to be false. If nothing else, this is not a useful approach to truth...

I think it's important to distinguish "truth" with something that one sees value in. Something can be valuable or even useful and not be true. I don't think it's a shortcoming to understand this...

I didn't really think you'd think science should be done differently. Very few people on the TFP would think this although there are many people in the US who do. I wonder why they don't hang around here?

I contend that religion isn't really for answering questions. Science doesn't answer questions of morality because that's a question of desire. How do you want people to behave? Science doesn't dictate to you what you want. It describes what is. Religion makes ludicrous claims and pretends they're true. There's always a deity and He wants things from you, including acts to do and desires to have. I suppose these are answers to some questions but they're not answers to specific questions. When the pious experience joy or suffering, they usually have to shoehorn some bizarre interpretation of their religion to fit some specific scenario to give it "meaning" for themselves. I think this has more to do with them than their religion. That is to say, they could have done this without their religion...

I'm pretty sure Christians follow ritual practice...

Religion is useful for many people. That doesn't make it true...

This is not true. While the first line of investigation will be rooted in what is already established, they will (or should) always allow for the possibility that what they experienced was somehow real. Indeed, illusions and illnesses are real and are thus real possibilities but who knows? Maybe there is some "spiritual awareness" and "connectedness?" (whatever you meant by those terms) It's true that they wouldn't immediately jump to this conclusion but is that closed minded? Some would call it skeptical or cautious or even contemplative. Can't one be open minded without being gullible?

I think you might need !

I'm assuming you're referring to a passive believer in this last paragraph. After all, many people say all sorts of demonstrably false things in the name of religion and you agree that they should be told how wrong they are.

However, even if we're talking about someone whose belief is based upon personal experience. You don't think a skeptic can have experiences that allows them to say "I think there's no God?"

Sadly, believers are rarely so passive. Their religious beliefs come with all sorts of bizarre emotional baggage. It's one thing to believe in a vague deity, like Einstein did, but to believe in one that has specific demands on us? For example, even moderate Christians believe that God cares about their sex life... and mine! If you're going to care what I do then I think it's fair for me to question why you care. It's called "discourse" and I think it's valuable, much more so than "I have not yet experienced anything to make me believe similarly..."

---------- Post added at 05:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:31 AM ----------

Who are you to think there's anything to fit into boxes?

Your claim is a rationalization. Your concept of God doesn't make any sense so you say "well of course we can't make sense of it. Who can make sense of God?" If you could make sense of God, you'd be using that sense to claim that God existed. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario. Whatever happens, you can't lose! You're ignoring the obvious (and very likely) possibility that the reason the concept doesn't make any sense is because it's false. You're rationalizing your desire to continue believing something that's ridiculous...

---------- Post added at 05:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:42 AM ----------

If all this talk bothers you so much then... why are you here? Why did you read this thread? Why are you complaining?

Seriously, if you want us to "shut up" you can do that by simply not reading the thread...

Your complaint appears to be based on a false premise. We will not always be what we are. People change...

Poppinjay

Having been here for 5 years and having seen every argument under the sun for the existence/non-existence of a deity that controls our universe, I am weighing in on the side of belief.

I wish there was a lexicon to help people understand that belief does not equal ignorance and faith doesn't equal stupidity.

Tell me what threads you would have me participate in. I can start one that says "God is Yay!" and it would soon be populated with folks posting that faith is stupid.

Read my post again, you appear to have missed the point.

__________________
I think the Apocalypse is happening all around us. We go on eating desserts and watching TV. I know I do. I wish we were more capable of sustained passion and sustained resistance. We should be screaming and what we do is gossip. -Lydia Millet