|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 07/31/2001 : 13:19:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Greg
Jim, What is the difference between your above statement and God not existing at all?
Both Jim and Valiant Dancer give answers, which include the unknowability of god(dess). Yet they both claim that they themselves KNOW. This puts them in a superior position to the rest of us who are unable to have a relationship with the god(dess) , in their own minds. It's mysterious and ooky and absolutely kooky --but only they get it.
An unkind soul might mention delusions of grandeur, but not I.
Again, Slater, you misquote me. I never once said I know. I said I believe. This does not put me in any sort of superior position. Belief is different than knowing.
Somehow, I think that all of this debate has merely fueled preconceptions you have against people who have a god belief. You believe I feel superior to you. Prove it. If my belief in a supreme being is the only evidence you have, it is woefully inadequate. I have been trying to debate the inherent problems in scientifically proving religion. (I.E. It can't be done because religion is irrational and illogical.) The insult used is inappropriate to a polite exchange of ideas.
|
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 14:46:07 [Permalink]
|
I never once said I know. I said I believe. This does not put me in any sort of superior position. Belief is different than knowing.
You've lost me. Are you saying that you don't know yet you believe anyway? I'm not following the logic. Why believe something that you do not Know to be true?
Somehow, I think that all of this debate has merely fueled preconceptions you have against people who have a god belief.
To phrase it as "preconceptions" is call it prejudice. What it is fueled by is experience.
You have supplied some of that experience yourself.
You believe I feel superior to you.
You place youself in the company, and in support, of a supposed super human being(s).
I have been trying to debate the inherent problems in scientifically proving religion. (I.E. It can't be done because religion is irrational and illogical.) The insult used is inappropriate to a polite exchange of ideas. To expect supportive responces to a stand that you yourself call "irrational and illogical" is asking a lot.
I find that I am unable to see any difference between you assertion of the existence of a god and a goddess and a fantasy. Do you yourself believe that you are talking about reality? And if you do, how can you demonstrate it as being such?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 15:31:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I never once said I know. I said I believe. This does not put me in any sort of superior position. Belief is different than knowing.
You've lost me. Are you saying that you don't know yet you believe anyway? I'm not following the logic. Why believe something that you do not Know to be true?
Belief is a subset of knowledge, we believe all that which we know, but not vice-versa. This comes from the conventional (Platonic) definition of knowledge as justified and true belief.
Belief is what you think is true. If you've good reasons to think it is true, and it is true, then that belief is knowledge.
Of course, you can knowledge and belief by different names, but I think this was VD's intended dichotomy.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 15:37:20 [Permalink]
|
I never once said I know. I said I believe. This does not put me in any sort of superior position. Belief is different than knowing.
You've lost me. Are you saying that you don't know yet you believe anyway? I'm not following the logic. Why believe something that you do not Know to be true?
Correct. I don't know, still, I believe anyway. It is competely illogical and unscientific. I believe it because I choose to believe it anyway. Since I give power to the idea of a supreme being(s), I use the concept to put some sense of meaning to my own life. I've felt the need to do this. It's not the way for all people.
You believe I feel superior to you.
You place youself in the company, and in support, of a supposed super human being(s).
By this definition, all followers of religion, no matter how accepting of others, must feel superior. This is a gross generalization. My support of a supreme being gives me no special powers or edge on those who do not have a god belief.
I have been trying to debate the inherent problems in scientifically proving religion. (I.E. It can't be done because religion is irrational and illogical.) The insult used is inappropriate to a polite exchange of ideas.
To expect supportive responces to a stand that you yourself call "irrational and illogical" is asking a lot.
I find that I am unable to see any difference between you assertion of the existence of a god and a goddess and a fantasy. Do you yourself believe that you are talking about reality? And if you do, how can you demonstrate it as being such?
I am not talking about a physical reality. Spirituality is not reality. If you wish to see it as fantasy, it could be termed that. My point is that faith in any religion is not a realistic mindset. Humans are not nessessarily rational beings. (Look at the tax code.) If you prefer, you could look on religion as a harmless mental illness. There is no logical or rational basis for it. It is one of the little insanities I allow myself.
|
|
|
|
Bradley
Skeptic Friend
USA
147 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 17:13:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
What about the big rock argument? I'd love to hear a religionist give a satisfactory refutation of that one.
Is that the one that asks if God can make a rock too big and heavy for He himself to move?
So what if He cannot?
Cannot what? Make the rock or move the rock once he's made it? In either case, it is demonstrated there is something that is beyond the power of a supposedly omnipotent entity.
Religionists don't like this argument. They usually pooh-pooh it as facile and sophmoric, or they label the person who uses it as a big juvenile delinquent. One thing they never do, or at least I have never heard one do, is refute it successfully.
"Too much doubt is better than too much credulity."
-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833 - 1899) |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 17:25:23 [Permalink]
|
It is impossible to prove a negative; therefore, it cannot be proven that God does not exist. Where I'm from, seeing is believing.
Show me the deity.
Wendy Jones |
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 18:28:39 [Permalink]
|
I believe that I most probably do not believe. However, I do believe that whatever exists exists. I then leave it at that and go on about the business of living and leave the problems of existence to people who have more time to waste than I do. I simply refuse to waste time on meaningless questions.
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth... |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 19:34:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nope, I have no test for god. We would need a definition for god before one could be made up, and we don't have that. We can look at logical arguments for specific attributes applied to god and examin them. Such as the usual attribute of being all merciful. This attribute would seem to be disproven by the lack of any intervention to reduce suffering, and the existance of many type of diseases and suffering in the first place.
First, let's deal with some attributes of God, by the way, merciful is not manditory. I do believe it to be an attribute of the God of the Bible, but I can't say for sure it is manditory. Many good people may disagree. There are some fundamental attributes of God that must be in place.
1. Omnipotence - If God can't do anything, than he is not in control of the universe, and thus someone/something else is.
2. Omniscience - If God does not have all knowledge, than he is not God. God cannot learn, that would make him subject to the teacher.
3. Omnipresence - If God is not in all places at once, than things could happen without his knowledge. If God exists outside dimensional space, than he would be everywhere at once.
4. Immutability - God must not change. He has no reason to change.
5. Infinite - If God is not infinite, than whatever existed before/after has happened without his knowledge.
6. Loving - God has to be loving, or else he could not create free willed beings. God has no needs, thus the need for us is non-existent. Our existence must be for something other than a need God has.
I'm sure there are others, but these are the major ones. Does anyone have a problem with these attributes?
Even if you eliminted all but one, it would still be impossible to scientifically prove even one of these, without faith, that is.
Now, let's look at your last statement:
[b]This attribute [loving] would seem to be disproven by the lack of any intervention to reduce suffering, and the existance of many type of diseases and suffering in the first place.[b/]
This is a very tough question, I'll attempt to give an answer.
Don't expect a neat, packaged answer for this. The answer is not quite that simple. Dealing with the "sum" of suffering on the earth is not an easy task.
I will also assume that you mean the suffering of the innocent, since that is where most people have a problem. Self-inflicted suffering really doesn't stir too many emotions about the "fairness" of God. So I won't deal with that. First, let's deal with man's sovereignty. We, no doubt, have control over our choices and beliefs. This is self-evident. We could say that God (or someone else) is changing and erasing data from our minds constantly to make it appear we have free will, but we have no reason to assume that. Now let's deal with God's rights to creation. If God created us, then he has the rights to us. If you create something, you have the rights to it. God can take a life or create a life as he sees fit. It is his right. Reguardless of how we feel about this, it must be. Now, let's deal with disease. Some, though not all, diseases are a product of unhealthy lifestyles. Even though they may effect innocent people, their origins are unhealthy lifestyles. A choice was made, and a consequence served. What about the rest? Innocent people suffer greatly for what seems like no reason. Can we discount the sometimes life changing good that comes from an event like this? What about the friends and family whose lives are changed for the better because of a temporary suffering or even death? I can say this is true in my life, and I know in the lives of others. Does it seem logical for God to allow a temporary suffering or even death to enact a greater long term good in the lives of others or even the victim? One way to look at it.
Now let's deal with the other stuff. This is where it get's hard. I, too, wonder why some things happen for what seems like no reason. One of my problems is dealing with retarded or special people, especially children. And no argument will remove my feelings about this. I cannot understand why this type of suffering needs to exist. Not all for the sake of the child or adult who is retarded. But also the people who will inevitably care for, sometimes at the expense of their own lives, this helpless person. Only to watch them die, usually very early. This does not seem right, by any means. Or is it? I personally know a faimily with a child that has spinabiffita(sp?) She is 11 years old and expected to not live past 25. She is very immobile, she can only crawl. To top it off, she is allergic to latex, which complicates the many surguries she has to endure on a regular basis, just to live. Ask her parents one time about suffering. They'll quickly tell you that child has made their lives fuller than they ever thought possible. Despite the tiring efforts they put in, they do not feel like they have been treated unfairly. Ask her, she'll tell you that she would like to walk someday, but she is very happy with her life. Waking up is good enough for her, she says. They don't feel the suffering that we would assume they would. The same can be said in many other cases. This is not an attempt to pull on heart strings, even though it may have. This is real, and we have all suffered or witnessed suffering that seemed to be "unfair."
I guess the question is how do we feel about it? The bigger question is how do we react to it? Is the suffering always bad? Can it be a positive event? Even for the victim?
I believe the answer to all of these is yes. There are exceptions, I'm sure we could come up with thousands, but we do not know every case, and every circumstance. Therefore, for us to stand in judgement of an event, without all of the facts, is illogical.
This is probably not a complete answer, but I beleieve insightful. Sorry for the length.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 19:47:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Jim,
What is the difference between your above statement and God not existing at all? If god exists, and cares about humans, and has interacted in the past with them, and controls processes in the four dimensions in which we live, then he must necessarily exist in them. One of the statements made by theologians with respect to the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god is that He is a God of "history". The God with which western peoples can relate (so to speak), is a personal deity. That is a deity who knows and cares about his people. The God that you describe cannot have this attribute. One cannot argue the existence of a being by postulating the existence of dimensionality that also has not been proved.
BTW, I do not totally reject the possibility of existence of God. I have simply found no evidence of him or reason to believe any of the standard arguments. At different times in my life, I have postulated similar attributes of God as the ones that you are.
Greg.
If you have no proof of a God, yet have not rejected the possibilty, according to Slater, you are irrational.
Proof of God's existence and his actual existence are two seperate things. The evidence is not God. God does not have to leave physical evidence in order to exist, unless it is supernatural evidence, which cannot be proven naturally. Sorry for going in circles, but you see the problem? We are making way too many assumptions about God. One is that God can be scientifically proven in the first place.
God must be able to transcend into our dimensions. He cannot be limited. And as you say, many religions claim that God did indeed show up on the earth, physically or otherwise. God could in fact be here right now, and we would be unable to recognize him unless he 'took form.' To illustrate this, show me a 4 dimensional sphere? We have no concept of dimensions outside our own, much less being outside all dimensions entirely, which God must be.
Sorry for the confusion. If there are any mathameticians who could help here, please do.
Jim
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 21:08:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If God exists outside dimensional space, than he would be everywhere at once.
If God exists outside of dimensional space, then He would not exist at all. Since you are postulating how something that "exists" outside of our physical reality can make itself known to us who exist in four dimensional space-time, you must provide at least some argument as to how this is possible.
quote:
If you have no proof of a God, yet have not rejected the possibilty, according to Slater, you are irrational.
I am open to many possibilities but I have few beliefs.
quote:
God could in fact be here right now, and we would be unable to recognize him unless he 'took form.' To illustrate this, show me a 4 dimensional sphere? We have no concept of dimensions outside our own, much less being outside all dimensions entirely, which God must be.
Excuse me if I'm wrong here but this is the way that I'm interpreting this. You are suggesting (in a classic Neo-Platonist manner) that what exists in reality is mathematics. Then you are using a mathematical idea to postulate something that cannot be postulated mathematically. Four dimensional spheres cannot be observed because they do not exist outside of the world of mathematics. They are not real. In the tensor anaysis of fluid dynamics, the mathematics may require many "dimensions". The fluid however exists in only three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 21:22:26 [Permalink]
|
Jim, I believe that is the most insightful response I have ever "heard" to these questions.
quote:
If you have no proof of a God, yet have not rejected the possibilty, according to Slater, you are irrational.
LOL! Nice.
quote:
If there are any mathameticians who could help here, please do.
I think you have summed up this concept quite well. On the subject of extra dimensions, note that a Mobius strip is a 2-D object that can only exist in 3 dimensions, it has only one side. A Klein bottle (check the picture in my profile) is a 3-D object that can only exist in 4 dimensions, it has only one side (inside/outside), thus it has zero volume. The point is, the true shape of a Klein bottle is inconcievable, we can only imagine a 3-D "shadow" of what it might be. For further discussion of this nature, I reccomend Flatland, by Edwin A. Abbott. This book can be found at http://www.geom.umn.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/.
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh? |
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 21:28:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There can be no proof. It is an answerable question, just not in these 4 dimensions. God is supernatural, and therefore cannot be proven with natural science.
So is this an admission that you have no valid reason to believe in god?
Your belief says that proof is the only way to know something. Prove it. Sorry, I'm just curious. My belief is valid, that is if a belief can be valid. If I new God existed, then it would cease to be a belief.
quote:
Before you can make claims that anything is "supernatural" you are going to have to verify the existence of a "supernatural". So far ever claim of the supernatural that has been investigated by science has been shown to be either a misinterpretation of a natural event or an out and out fraud. The evidence strongly indicates that there is no such thing as "super" natural.
Supernatural is a concept. There are things that happen that cannot be attributed to a cause. We sometimes wrongfully say they are supernatural. Supernatural would be anything that eludes a natural explanation. You believe everything "supernatural" has been explained away by science, I'll leave that alone. That's alot of research, and you must really trust this guy science.
quote:
If God created us with our own will, which he obviously did, then his appearance in our reality would be a violation of that free will, thus forcing us to believe in him. If God wanted to get you a message without violating your free will, how would he do so?
You do realize that this pan dimensional, non-interfering, non-experiential god is not the standard Christian god. This is Gnosticism plain and simple. It's Okay by me, but it is heresy.
The Christian god pokes his nose into human affairs in every story about him.
Frogs in the bathroom (Moses), fire balls burning the crops and employees while a building is caused to crush innocent children (Job) mates turning into spices (Lot and the "Spice girl") and the worst of all threats of INFINITE punishment for FINITE offences (Jesus) unless you do exactly as he says.
I did not say God did not interfere, I said he exists outside our 4 dimensions, there is a difference.
quote:
Not only that, is he doing it know? My faith says yes, but I can't prove it to anyone else.
But that is the very question of this thread. What is your faith based on
Saying that you have no proof to share with anyone else directly implies that you have no proof at all. If you have none at all what can be your logic for believing these bizarre stories?
I have no proof.
quote:
If God was to show up right now in human history to tell us something, and we knew without a doubt that it was God, how would we pass the event on to the people who are not born yet? How would we prove to them that it was God?
Huh? What? The exact same ways we pass on all our information. Why would god be any different?
Hey, if I say the words "T. Rex" an image pops into your mind. But the last T Rex was long dead 64 million years before the first human. We have no trouble passing information along.
Provide me something that couldn't be rationalized away. Something that could be tranmitted throughout history, with man corrupting it. I can't think of any, other than God, Himself.
quote:
To me God's existence is an issue of faith not proof.
What else in your life do you apply these same criteria to?
None. No other choice I make in life will be even close to the magnitude of this one. It's not about being safe, either. My Mother is an atheist, my Father an agnostic. I had no formal indoctrination into religion. Something has told me all of my life that God exists. I cannot deny this. It may seem illogical, but to me it is not. Yet I can find millions who will agree with me, not that that's proof.
By the way, you are the one who said God could be proven. Saying "No proof of God exists, therefore there can be no God" is essentially the same as saying proof of God can exist. You are implying that 'proof' is possible. You prove it. I don't want to appear antagonistic, but your belief system should be able to withstand the test.
Jim
Edited by - jim on 07/31/2001 21:34:05 |
|
|
|
King X
New Member
3 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 22:18:14 [Permalink]
|
I think if a credible person had actually gone to Heaven and Hell and met these spiritual beings and came back to tell about it, that would be proof enough for me.
It just so happens that there was such a man.
His name was Emanuel Swedenborg.
You can find his biography on the net for all who are interested.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/31/2001 : 22:28:32 [Permalink]
|
hey, I did that too!
BTW, Hitler says "hello" to everyone 
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
