northstar1 Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Have some coffee and get back with us... Haha, yes, perhaps I will make that caffeine aided leap of faith Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 as long as there's no poots accompanying it, knock yourself out! Link to post Share on other sites
quankanne Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Now, as far as being Christian/Catholic is concerned: that took an illumined experience and faith. one of our priests in town always says that it's much easier believing that little wafer becomes the Body of Christ than it is to believe that it's bread! Christianity takes a huge leap of faith, Catholicism even more so. But it's all good, baby Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I thought it would be interesting to have a discussion purly relating to why you hold there is/isn't a God. The definition of god isn't very clearly defined. There may be godlike beings out there somewhere that we cannot discount, but the objects of our worship and devotion here on Earth almost certainly do not exist. Why? Experiences are subjective, evidence is non-existent, and the Middle-Eastern omnimax gods are logically incoherent and their existence and creative powers raise more questions than they solve. Science has achieved far more in the last 50-100 years in improving quality of life and expanding our knowledge than religion has in the last few thousand. Like philosophy and other secular pursuits, knowledge is allowed to be questioned, and needs to be questioned. The result is a form of natural selection of ideas: the silly ones do not survive. I will throw my lot in with progress over superstition. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
I Love You Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I've always kind of lumped god and believing there's a meaning to life together. For the longest time I sat there watching people talk about what the meaning of life is, until one person suggested why does there HAVE to be a meaning to life? It just seems like a big waste of time to argue something that will never matter in the larger scope of things. Maybe I just have a bleak outlook on life but once the sun goes poof, and the entire earth is frozen over and no one is left to remember you, is it going to matter? I mean we could start a long rant about colonizing the solar system now I suppose but Also favorite quote from Donnie Darko I've just never seen any proof so I... I just don't debate it anymore, you know? It's like I could spend my whole life debating it over and over again, weighing the pros and cons and in the end I still wouldn't have any proof so I just... I just don't debate it anymore. It's absurd. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Meaning is subjective, so it's ambivalent to the existence of gods. I sometimes wonder if freedom of will is a requirement for meaning, but I'm not even sure of that. I think computer programs can be quite meaningful in their own right, and they are entirely deterministic. Perhaps it is the other way around; meaning is a result of self awareness. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 No ****? That's what science is supposed to do. Religion is a belief system. How is a belief system supposed to somehow expand knowledge or improve the quality of life? Never mind that, what is it supposed to do at all? Make people feel better about their mortality? It doesn't do a very good job of that. Make people more moral? Doesn't do that either. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Zoff Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 To my mind, the only rational conclusion is agnosticism. I disagree, it's not rational at all. Just because there is no evidence to conclusively disprove something, doesn't mean there is a 50/50 chance for it to exist. The only reason most agnostics entertain the idea of a deity is because we're culturally brought up with the idea being acceptable. If I said everyone had an undetectable gnome sitting on their left shoulder people would laugh at me, and rightfully so. Yet it would be just as plausible as the idea of a deity. Link to post Share on other sites
knaveman Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 The only rational conclusion any of us could come to, is the one we come to on our own. We believe or don't believe for our own reasons. Why do people always need to find a way to justify threir beliefs to someone or even to themselves? A belief can never be wrong, so why try to make it right in someone elses eyes? Link to post Share on other sites
marlena Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Just because there is no evidence to conclusively disprove something, doesn't mean there is a 50/50 chance for it to exist. Yes, but it is only chance, a random possibility, not based on rational thinking, i.e. logic. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 We believe or don't believe for our own reasons. Why do people always need to find a way to justify threir beliefs to someone or even to themselves? It helps us find out which beliefs are reasonable and which aren't because not all beliefs are equal. Some are downright silly; some can be extremely dangerous. It is folly to pretend they're all on the same level. Some beliefs need to be attacked and weeded out. A belief can never be wrong, so why try to make it right in someone elses eyes? Of course they can. A belief in something that is demonstratably untrue is the very definition of wrong. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Trojan John Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 Dammit, Disgracian! Stop making logical sense. Link to post Share on other sites
Author always_searching Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 IOf course they can. A belief in something that is demonstratably untrue is the very definition of wrong. Well, then I guess it's good that belief in God is not demonstratably untrue. Link to post Share on other sites
Author always_searching Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 Dammit, Disgracian! Stop making logical sense. Trojan John, come on. The only people you claim make any kind of "logical sense" are those people whose conclusions are the same as yours. There are plenty of logical proofs for the existence of God--you're just unwilling to see them. It seems pretty illogical to me to assume that logic revolves around your brand of truth. Logic is neutral and non-bias--there are logical proofs for and against the existence of God. All of them logically sound. The validity of the argument isn't the problem, it's whether or not the premises that make the argument valid are true. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 There are plenty of logical proofs for the existence of God Okay, I'll bite. Let's hear some. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
FleshNBones Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 It helps us find out which beliefs are reasonable and which aren't because not all beliefs are equal. Some are downright silly; some can be extremely dangerous. It is folly to pretend they're all on the same level. Some beliefs need to be attacked and weeded out.Sounds like persecution to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Author always_searching Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 Okay, I'll bite. Let's hear some. Cheers, D. I'm not going to regurgitate them for you. Look back through this thread. I articulate a number of arguments: Aquinas, Anselm/Descartes, etc. I know there are a number of pages, but take a look through some of them. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Sounds like persecution to me. Beliefs cannot be persecuted. Another swing and a miss for FNB. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 My apologies, always searching, I looked but couldn't find anything that qualified as a logical proof. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Author always_searching Posted October 24, 2009 Author Share Posted October 24, 2009 My apologies, always searching, I looked but couldn't find anything that qualified as a logical proof. Cheers, D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae Just an example. And yes: they are logical. Whether you agree with the premises is another issue entirely. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Just an example. And yes: they are logical. Whether you agree with the premises is another issue entirely. If a premise relies on an assumption that is at least as great as the conclusion, it is a fallacious argument as far as I'm concerned. It may be logical in the narrowest sense of the term, but the arguments are basically unsound. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
Trojan John Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Trojan John, come on. The only people you claim make any kind of "logical sense" are those people whose conclusions are the same as yours. There are plenty of logical proofs for the existence of God--you're just unwilling to see them. It seems pretty illogical to me to assume that logic revolves around your brand of truth. Logic is neutral and non-bias--there are logical proofs for and against the existence of God. All of them logically sound. The validity of the argument isn't the problem, it's whether or not the premises that make the argument valid are true. No, the people who make "logical sense" are the ones who are not relying on conjectural evidence to back up their claims. Nobody, save for yourself, has produced any logical proof for the existence of a god. The problem is that, as I reread this and other threads, most of the arguments for its existence have been thrashed repeatedly. The proofs do not stand up under scrutiny and provide no empirical evidence. always_searching Quote: Originally Posted by disgracian My apologies, always searching, I looked but couldn't find anything that qualified as a logical proof. Cheers, D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinquae_viae Just an example. And yes: they are logical. Whether you agree with the premises is another issue entirely. Apparently you didn't read the part under "Criticism" in that article. You may wish to go back. All the Quinquae viae do is give an easy answer to the currently unexplained circumstances in the universe by making leaps in logic. The god conclusion offered by each proof in the CV can be easily attributed to ANYTHING else, whether you want to call it God, Zeus, randomness, chaos or the FSM. Link to post Share on other sites
disgracian Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Not to mention the way these vacuously true logical statements are held up as logical proof for god's existence, when they fall well short. It is, afterall, very easy to construct a meaningless and/or ridiculous statement that is logically true. If you shoot for proof, you need to aim a little higher. Each premise can be broken down into a logical statement of its own, and each of those premises can be broken down likewise to form compount statements. It wouldn't take very much effort to dismantle most of the supporting premises that make up the Quinquae viae. Cheers, D. Link to post Share on other sites
northstar1 Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Not to mention the way these vacuously true logical statements are held up as logical proof for god's existence, when they fall well short. It is, afterall, very easy to construct a meaningless and/or ridiculous statement that is logically true. If you shoot for proof, you need to aim a little higher. Each premise can be broken down into a logical statement of its own, and each of those premises can be broken down likewise to form compount statements. It wouldn't take very much effort to dismantle most of the supporting premises that make up the Quinquae viae. Cheers, D. Pretty much what I was going to say. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts