You miss out on a bit and suddenly you have a text wall, and if I spoiler it nobody will read it.
Well, you have been warned...
@masam: Absorbing as much of it while skimming over semantics. I know I cannot disprove a god, but I still have a right to find it implausible enough to not believe in one.
I find myself unable to disprove all possible gods, but almost entirely because 'god' is not defined. It is possible for something to exist that will never have any interaction with our world, but it is impossible for people to worship it because by being aware of it it would be interacting with those people, so if it exists it is definitely not god, because people refer to god at all, even if they don't define it.
I can however prove that specific gods, or specific types of god cannot exist. using logic and reason if not science, yet...
The arguments against beings that are all-knowing, all-powerful, and actually value human interests are well represented(and if you think 'life is a test' or 'we wouldn't appreciate it otherwise' are valid replies then you are completely missing the 'all-powerful creator' bit.) so I don't need to go into them, but if someone is willing to accept a more limited god then I am willing to entertain that notion...
A god that refuses to provide proof of itself, and damns those who refuse to accept it purely out of faith is bad, very very bad, I will go into it at length if you want me to but it is safe to say that I will never accept it as anything but a mortal enemy and those that praise it as extremely suspect...(yes, I can be a fervent Atheist, maltheist, pantheist and polytheist all at once, I am funny that way((or not, society does seem to have a certain knack for contradiction)))
A god that changes people to fit with heaven, rather than making a heaven that fits with everyone doesn't work for me, Until I can come up with a heaven that works for everyone I am not interested...(Oh, and that pretty much kills and variation on the 'if you bet against god and lose you are in trouble' arguments, I lose on any scenario in which god exists, no matter what I believe. Unless being damned is tolerable...)
But I mean, can you put a picture of an infinite universe in your head? Like, imagine what it looks like?
Look up, it is right there. As for the whole thing? Well, no, vision is directional, at least in humans, so you cannot look at it all at once, because there is no point along any visible plane that provides a view of the whole thing. As for an omnidirectional infinitely perceptive view? well, over there are some planets, over there is a star, our in that direction is mostly empty space. looking at the whole thing at once doesn't really tell you anything, there is no frame of reference. It would be like looking at a map of the world and a stack of encyclopaedias. You can talk about going on holidays to exotic locations, or discuss the political situation in various bureaucracies but just knowing the whole thing at once isn't really relevant to anything.
Well, you draw a line, well, actually you imagine that line, and then you cut the end off of it, and now it is a shorter line, or two shorter lines, well, you didn't cut it you caused the end to cease to exist, much as god ignores people who aren't kosher enough to go into the journal and they cease to exist, except they are still paying attention to themselves so maybe they can perpetuate themselves and truly escape god once and for all...
Erm, oh, right, but what if instead of causing the end of the line to cease to exist you actually cause the fact that it ends at all to cease to exist, kind of like redefining it so that it only has one end, although you were only paying attention to one end so the other one may have become infinite because you weren't looking at it, wow, very zen.
but, umm, anyway, you took your line and suddenly it didn't stop anymore, and you realise that it is so big that it doesn't matter how big it is, and then you realise that it isn't big at all, big just doesn't apply anymore. So, there is this line, and it just doesn't end, and so there you have infinity, infinity is how long the line is, and the line is too long to have a length, sort of, it is, umm, sort of not really a number, but it behaves like one in many ways...
Actually having stuff in that infinity is kind of painful, but it sort of works, you go some-place and there is stuff there, and then you realise that it doesn't matter where you are, it just matters what you are looking at(it does take a little work to stop thinking about everything in terms of radiating from a centre), but that is dealing with an infinite x and y axis and a finite z axis, going off into a dozen different infinite axes would... require effort...
First, your perception of the world is not necessarily true...
But it is practically true, and if you ignore it you will eventually encounter suffering, and that suffering will change you, so you need to accept it as a working assumption, even if you don't believe it, in order to maintain your self and to avoid perceived negatives. And even if you do abandon your perception of the world then what will you replace it with? something chosen at random? Something introduced to you via book or community that can clearly be explained by mundane processes and are themselves parts of that world that you are choosing to ignore?
The only thing that you can trust is that your perception exists, because without that then the proof couldn't be perceived, so if you know about the proof then your perception exists, and if your perception doesn't exist then the proof doesn't exist relative to the non-existence you. so if the proof exists the perception exists and if, well, it is co-recursively evident at least...
So your mistakes relative to perceived reality will be perceived, and that is worth considering...
Andir: The glitches are non-reproducible. The only proof of glitches that we can possibly have is through personal experience, or from stories of others. That makes them kinda useless to science, but does not mean they do not exist...
Then they're useless to everyone. Science isn't like some really big person who can't see things unless they happen a lot, whereas a person can. If you can't get any meaning out of them with science, you're just guessing.
Individual glitches would not be reproducible, but the existence of glitches would be ongoing and a large-scale experiment would be plausible, if expensive. But feel free to cover The Bermuda Triangle with passive sensors and have them monitored constantly for a couple of centuries...
Then they're useless to everyone. Science isn't like some really big person who can't see things unless they happen a lot, whereas a person can. If you can't get any meaning out of them with science, you're just guessing.
Wait, what? If I understand you correctly (because I don't), science can't see certain things that exist, but trying to give meaning to those things without science is guessing?
I'll give you a small recap from the last 200 pages:
1. Science gives no meaning. It doesn't tell you right from wrong, good from bad. Only people can do that.
2. Science only concerns itself with reproducible events. Even evolution is reproducible, theoretically. Matrix-glitches and Acts Of God are not, so science does not concern itself with them. They are statistical outliers.
3. Science is not a method. The scientific method is a method. Applying that method to things it can't be applied to, is called Scientism and is frowned upon by people who actually practice science.
1. The belief that the assumptions, methods of research, etc. of the physical and biological sciences are equally appropriate and essential in all other disciplines including the humanities and the social sciences.
Science produces reliable results, religion is chaotic and arbitrary. If science can deduce a reason for living which reliably produces a perpetual and satisfied society then why shouldn't it be used? I am not saying that science is the only source of knowledge, I prefer wild logical abandon myself, I don't claim that it cannot be improved or that something better cannot be determined, but for now it would seem to be the most reliable source of information we have, and if we actually want something to work, we should try to apply science to it. Maybe we don't currently have the means to do so, and if we can't do it properly then obviously its results will be suspect, but to just discard it from entire fields of knowledge based upon the misgivings of those who stand to lose from its application is obvious folly.
Besides, this discussion is not about science, it is about religion, religion tries to prove itself, but fails because science proves that religion is misguided in its proofs, but that is all irrelevant, because religion's tend to demand faith, if you expect people to rely on faith(which is practically the definition of folly) then science is irrelevant. If not, then what has religion done for us that would make it more trustworthy than science?
I pose a thought experiment to the sophilists on this forum:
We have no way of discerning the nature of the "real" world (if indeed there is one more real than the one we now perceive), nor do we have any way to reach it without assistance. We know not how that assistance might be gotten nor the motivations of those who are watching us from "reality" (if, indeed, they even exist), so any action seems as good as the next for that purpose. Should we simply be apathic and wait for the illusion to end itself? Should we, instead, kill ourselves right here and now, in hopes that doing so is the act that need be done? Swear loudly at who-so-ever runs this simulation untill they (hopefully) let us out?
I vote for swearing loudly, so long as it doesn't pose a significant hindrance to your life...
But Greatoliver; what makes you so sure that that either the limits of our mental capacity are fixed, or that the Universe is greater than our ability to understand it?
Our understanding may not be fixed, I agree, but this does not change the fact that there may be things we cannot understand: if there are limits to our understanding, it raises the question about what is beyond the limits. Whether there is something outside of the box, I could not say, and so we may be able to understand everything but we will never know for certain, as the very fact it is outside of the limits of our minds means we can never reach it.
But why should anything be beyond our understanding, and why would it be beyond all of our understandings? Certainly it is possible, but even if we could not understand it there would still be evidence of it, just because a child does not understand economics doesn't mean they don't trade money for icecream. And if they chose to enquire about it they could find where the money and icescream come from and discover a host of unanswered questions that they could study. There seems to be a distinct lack of loose threads to hint at god, and those that exist are being explored. Extradimensional physics may be a little alien, but it is far from impossible...
...it's 'cheating'...
I agree. The Veil of Ignorance is hideous to argue against, just because it sweeps aside anything you are arguing about, but it is a valid move:
The problem with a non-transcendental God is that it cannot exist. The theistic God, who is all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing, is a mess of fallacies and self-contradictions, which you can probably guess at. Anyone trying to defend this God ends up resorting to the Veil of Ignorance as it is the only way to for God to exist.
It is a fair move however. By describing God, we have put Him into our own capacities, which is not valid, as by doing so, some meaning has been lost, which is a bit like integrating and forgetting the constant. If He is transcendental, we cannot understand Him and so arguing is not possible, using God as a premise.
This does mean that we can only speculate and arguing is pointless, as each speculation has the same value as any other, unless they are absurd.
It really saddens me that people would give up so easily.
For starters, ignorance cuts both way, if you claim it is unknowable then nobody knows it. How old is this food? Are there any crocodiles in that river? Can anyone else fly the plane if I jump out for some impromptu skydiving? Will I be shot if I run naked through the white house as a political protest? Will everyone get the joke if I turn up to a war memorial and impersonate Hitler? If the answer is "I don't know" then you should probably assume the worst-case scenario and accept the possibility of the best...
In short, it doesn't work.
But honestly, what is 'unknowable'? It doesn't reason? Well that is simple, it is random. Is it omnitemporal? Pfft, it is still subject to causality, just because you fix one dimension doesn't mean the others lose all cohesion, and if they do then we are back to random, and being a persistent entity under the control of a random entity is not a good thing... Maybe it sees time in reverse, and thinks people get happier with age and are becoming more religious... Perhaps it is looking at a host of different dimensions and is making sacrifices with ours for the betterment of others? Then it is neither powerful(in its own perspective) nor obsessed with us...
But regardless, what we know is this world, and we know that there isn't a space for god in it...
Any meaning lost by defining god does not exist from a human perspective, and therefore has no bearing on humans, and therefore no meaning has been lost by defining god.
But if all speculations have the same value, why choose god, why choose a god, why choose belief? To reach a working
religion religious belief you need to leave the assumption of ignorance far far behind you. Religion does, at its core, assume that people fundamentally know, if you assume that the universe cannot be known, then science is the only competitor that assumes ignorance and can survive in it...
If God does not follow reason, there's no point in paying any attention to him, because there's no way for you to ever know if you're doing the right thing or the wrong thing.
Basically we're back to 'irrelevant' again.
He may follow a reason of His own, but as long as it is higher than ours, it can be converted down into our own, providing some kind of reason that we can accept, even if we cannot understand.
Really, when it comes to following God, it is a bit odd anyway. Why do people take it to be the correct way of living? I'm not a believer myself and so from looking in from the outside, I find the idea of a "leap of faith" something I could never see myself doing, even if they are irrational.
So concerning right or wrong, I don't really know why people think God is morally true, but if there was a God, it is certainly relevant.
Hmmm....
But some people will not accept without understanding, is this their fault? If we cannot understand god, then we cannot choose for ourselves how to worship it, and there is no absolute guide dictating how to worship it. If every single human on this planet instinctively knew which religion was true, or even if there was only one, then perhaps people could just follow the instructions and be holy. But in this world, true service to an undefined god is impossible.
If you can truly imagine infinite, you are exceptional. What I mean by understand is to actually realise what it is in a positive manner. People can concieve of infinity, but this is by saying what it is not, i.e. without limits. But to actually imagine a number that is infinitely large is something I cannot do, without refering to things it is not.
The positive word for it is perpetual, but negative and positive concepts are too often used interchangeably for it to have any significance. Without limits is exactly what it is, but without limits is misleading, it is not that it is missing its limits, it is that there is nowhere for limits to go.
But honestly, what do you expect? Humans can't even conceive of the entirety of the visible surface of an apple without effort. Sure, you can look at it, but do you remember all the patterns? Are you aware of all the defects in its shape? Humans live their lives focusing on things, I spend alot of time looking at things through my peripheral vision, which may help, but perhaps the best way for you to think of it would be to just imagine being able to be, and observe, and part of an infinite space, and understand that there are no sides to worry about...
I don't think there is anything outside of our understanding. The universe is a very real place. ... ...It just happens to fill in your blank spots with benevolent gods, invisible unicorns and happy trees because you don't seem to be able to cope in a world that's honest and truthful.
The problem here is that you are thinking merely inside your own capacities... How can you deny the possibility that there may be things you cannot imagine? Are there things you cannot think? There is no way to answer this as you cannot imagine an unimaginable thing...
Now, when it comes to a "honest and truthful" world, once again, this is speculation on your behalf. First, your perception of the world is not necessarily true, for example, look at the Matrix. This was roughly based upon what Descartes was going on about, which is a world where only deductive reasoning is true, i.e. our senses are deceiving. You can claim the Universe is real, but this is based upon a flawed perception. Only when you break free of your senses, can you see what the Universe is actually like.
The Matrix was about a world in which only belief was real, it was like that so that they could have fight scenes where people were capable of superhuman feats because they believed in them. But they still believed in pain, and injury, and death, and these things happened to them. If one looks at the story then you see that they had a myth about someone who could believe, and therefore achieve, anything, and that the world mattered to everyone who didn't know it was a lie, people who died there were gone from the 'real' world too...
But trying to twist The Matrix into a useful example for a moment, If you cannot escape the matrix, what does it matter if it is a lie, and what use is there in knowing about a world beyond if you cannot do anything about it. And if you don't know anything about the world beyond, why believe it to be machineworld? Why not interstellar passenger ship, or vacation time from ultra-confusing future world, or maybe you are on life-support, or maybe you are in the real world already, and there is nothing else... To choose any specific god, and believe that you have chosen correctly... Priceless.
Also, believin... ......rd and that "preacher" should be tried and convicted if they are lying to you.
I agree... But, people believe in God, so there must be a reason, even if it is irrational in the end...
[/quote]
There are reasons, they can be easily hypothesised and are mundane. Basically people don't like to think that they are ignorant, so they make stuff up to be certain of it...
That's fine and all, but it's based on imagination and storytelling and it holds no more truth or evidence than Star Wars Light Sabers and The Force. It's simply for entertainment purposes and should be used for nothing more. Unless of course you can prove it.
In defense of religious followers, most of the time, it does no harm and often, it does lead people along lives that are pleasant. I mean, the idea of having a Theistic God above you must be amazing reassurance to believe, as if you are a Christian, everything is great as you can just go to Heaven. In the end, it's every person to their own, as it is a personal choice... I cannot see it myself and I am content with that.
Ignorance is bliss, at the moment religion is the, immediate, better of two Evils, but if we don't get over religion(amongst other things) we will never have anything good. Religion is particularly bad because it strongly encourages fanaticism(not all fanatics are militant) and portrays itself as moral. There is nothing with as much potential for Evil than something used as a source of morality.
My question to you, do you only believe things you can prove? If so, what do you actually believe? The only thing that is able to be proved are deductive truths, such as 2+2=4. Gravity is not provable, nor is anything based upon perception, so it would lead you on a rather unbelieving life 
Truly provable beyond all possible doubt? That would be pretty much nothing. But I like to keep my assumptions to a single consistent scenario. God is completely unnecessary and basically a random guess with no support from the rest of existence, it goes in the fiction pile.
Reason is not the end-all-catch-all of the human mind. Thank God for that, or the world would be a boring place.
If you take "days" to the amount of time that the universe took to form according to science, he's still resting now 
Days are pretty clearly defined, not having light(and the sun is pretty important too) isn't very convincing, I find it hard to believe that the original text would have looked much like this. I guess even back then people were saying that god can have days without days because god is just that good...
And reason is the only human trait that is willing to give you a decent conversation. Instinct isn't good for much beyond physical activity and fantasy, while it offers some useful inspiration, is basically there for entertainment. Reason really is the best friend in your head, it is the only voice that will tell you the truths that you don't want to hear.
Author
Topic: Atheists (Read 392172 times)