Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Micro102]

A lot of what you said is going to be reflected back upon you. I and many others have made rational statements of our beliefs but reading 200 pages is just too troublesome for anyone.

As for asking for a definition, the one I clearly remember was on belief regarding if atheism fit the defenition of a religion, in which one was stated, shot down, restated, then people gave different varieties of their own. Considering that the entire world is having trouble with this means there is no set defenition....So what is your defenition of belief? I'm listening 

[Neruz]

Ah, but now you assume that if something happens 1000 times, that it will also happen the 1001th time... 


Which is a totally reasonable assumption, but it's still an assumption, something a scientist should always be aware of.

Not really, i can poke the desk 1000 times, thus proving that poking the desk is consistant. I can then work from there.

There's no assumption being made; i'm just classifying it as consistant and repeatable, and it remains consistant and repeatable until somone can prove it is not.


So you can stop trying to twist words and make yourself look clever, because you're not.

[Vester]

Don't be a douche.

Ah, but now you assume that if something happens 1000 times, that it will also happen the 1001th time... 


Which is a totally reasonable assumption, but it's still an assumption, something a scientist should always be aware of.

Science can't work without one basic assumption: the premise that the universe can be understood. That's the only real, basic, assumption in scientific study. Everything that proceeds from there is just nifty.

[Urist McOverlord]

For experimental science, that is all true, but if you deal with that which cannot be easily observed (ie God/religion), you almost have to rely on logic. It's a similar problem to that encountered in reeeally high-concept science; namely that experiments have not yet been devised that can provide a simple answer. What science does provide in these situations is varying interpretations of data. This, unfortunately (or is it fortunately?) becomes subjective.

[Andir]

For experimental science, that is all true, but if you deal with that which cannot be easily observed (ie God/religion), you almost have to rely on logic. It's a similar problem to that encountered in reeeally high-concept science; namely that experiments have not yet been devised that can provide a simple answer. What science does provide in these situations is varying interpretations of data. This, unfortunately (or is it fortunately?) becomes subjective.

Except you can't rely on logic either, as I've attempted to point out in the omni-etc. discussions.  Logically, this God figure would either have to not be a God like being, or be incredible ignorant/dumb/shortsighted/evil/etc.  Any being with Godlike powers would have no need for us and would not create a universe of this scale and complexity for our entertainment, or it's own (assuming it can already see what has occurred in the future...)

So, If logic is a bad way to define God... what next?

[Durin]

A lot of what you said is going to be reflected back upon you. I and many others have made rational statements of our beliefs but reading 200 pages is just too troublesome for anyone.

As for asking for a definition, the one I clearly remember was on belief regarding if atheism fit the defenition of a religion, in which one was stated, shot down, restated, then people gave different varieties of their own. Considering that the entire world is having trouble with this means there is no set defenition....So what is your defenition of belief? I'm listening 

The entire world?  No one outside a handful of atheists seems to have a problem understanding that "belief" is not the same as "knowledge".  No rational individual claims knowledge of what cannot be fully demonstrated.  Belief comes in shades.  I believe I will live one more day much more firmly than that I will live 20 more years.  I actively lack any belief that I will live 80 more years, although I suppose there is a narrow chance.

But no... no the whole world is not having an issue here.  It is definitely a very narrow set of people who seem to confuse these concepts and refuse to settle on the already accepted distinctions between knowledge and belief.

[Durin]

Logically, this God figure would either have to not be a God like being, or be incredible ignorant/dumb/shortsighted/evil/etc.  Any being with Godlike powers would have no need for us and would not create a universe of this scale and complexity for our entertainment, or it's own (assuming it can already see what has occurred in the future...)

So, If logic is a bad way to define God... what next?

Your line of thinking here is entirely a subjective assertion.  How do you ascribe logic to it?

[Andir]

Logically, this God figure would either have to not be a God like being, or be incredible ignorant/dumb/shortsighted/evil/etc.  Any being with Godlike powers would have no need for us and would not create a universe of this scale and complexity for our entertainment, or it's own (assuming it can already see what has occurred in the future...)

So, If logic is a bad way to define God... what next?

Your line of thinking here is entirely a subjective assertion.  How do you ascribe logic to it?

I'm not going to go over all of it again, but there's no logical reason for a a god to exist given the attributes we give to gods.  If you really feel like reading it, it's back about 30 pages by now.

[Ampersand]

I'm sure even that was just a rehash of something that was posted several pages earlier, which was a rehash of something from an even older thread, which was a rehash of something from another website, which was just a rehash of something some Greek Philosopher wrote 3000 years ago or something.

Really, instead of carrying on this argument, why don't we just point people actually do a little independent research? Is that really so difficult? The idea that you should have to know what you're talking about before you talk about so peculiar?

[Durin]

Logically, this God figure would either have to not be a God like being, or be incredible ignorant/dumb/shortsighted/evil/etc.  Any being with Godlike powers would have no need for us and would not create a universe of this scale and complexity for our entertainment, or it's own (assuming it can already see what has occurred in the future...)

So, If logic is a bad way to define God... what next?

Your line of thinking here is entirely a subjective assertion.  How do you ascribe logic to it?

I'm not going to go over all of it again, but there's no logical reason for a a god to exist given the attributes we give to gods.  If you really feel like reading it, it's back about 30 pages by now.

I think it's safe to say there is no need to go over it again since it cannot be anything except a subjective assertion.  Your opinion of what God might like to do is precisely that -- your opinion.  I honestly have no idea how anyone would even begin to assume they can define what a god or gods might reasonable be expected to want or to do.  If there is no God that created us in His own image, then most assuredly we created gods in our own image.  What we choose to do is not dictated by strict logic.  Any god or gods would simply not be constrained by your definitions of what is good, or logical, or useful, or sensible.

Morality may indeed be utterly subjective, but if you happen to be God, your opinion is the one that counts.

[Andir]

Are you arguing against me, or with me?  Because you pretty much defined why logic cannot be used to define God and took it one step further and explained why nothing can be used to explain it... so there's no point trying to explain it and no sense living by such an unknown.

Edit: For clarification...

If these gods live outside logic, reason, et al... then how can you know that you are doing what they wish.  Maybe atheists are the only one's actually fulfilling the requirements they set forth for us and religious folks are the defiant ones by constantly preaching and drilling it into kids brains.  Maybe Scientologists are, maybe dogs are the only ones complying.  Nobody will be able to define that, so religions are fairly pointless constructs of human society to enforce "group think" ideals and control the masses.  There's no other real reason for them...

[Durin]

Are you arguing against me, or with me?  Because you pretty much defined why logic cannot be used to define God and took it one step further and explained why nothing can be used to explain it... so there's no point trying to explain it and no sense living by such an unknown.

Life is full of unknowns.  We all live our lives by unknowns.  We all make our assumptions. Being an atheist does not mean you know everything.  You do not have a choice in this. The question of whether God exists is the question of the nature of our own selves.  We know we are conscious decision makers, or at the very least that we are aware and perceive some sense of being conscious decision makers.  All of religion evolves from there.  I don't think I overstate the case in saying all of philosophy and ethics also starts from there. 

One of the most fundamental things about being human is utterly invisible, and yet irrefutably exists -- our own conscious 'mind'.  Whether it is a product of the physical world, or the physical world is the product of a mind, or some bizarre as yet unrecognized combination of the two, no one can say.  But you can't just say that you don't believe in anything that cannot be fully explained, because you really have no choice.  There are things in life that are, yet are not fully explained.

By the time you start combining Goedel's proof with chaos and fractals, you get to a point where it seems very likely that there is a theoretical limit to knowledge.  We are closer to proving that it is impossible to know everything than we are to explaining everything.

This is a world where faith must always play its role.

[Andir]

But you shouldn't live your life on faith that someone is controlling things.  That's basically just giving up and saying, "Oh well!"  "God did it!"

And I never claimed to know everything.  Don't put that on me.

I just know that it's highly illogical to believe in that which is not proven to exist.  That believe and faith only leads you to make bold assumptions and wild claims.

Edit:  I'm going to bed.  You can continue to believe that faith is important all you like, but it's simply a synonym for "ignorant acceptance."

[Durin]

But you shouldn't live your life on faith that someone is controlling things.  That's basically just giving up and saying, "Oh well!"  "God did it!"

And I never claimed to know everything.  Don't put that on me.

I just know that it's highly illogical to believe in that which is not proven to exist.  That believe and faith only leads you to make bold assumptions and wild claims.

It's the same either way.  It's, "God did it," or, "that's just the way it is."  I don't believe in God to explain how or why.  I was looking for the truth concerning the nature of myself and, to the best of my ability to ascertain, Christ is the Lord.  It's not something I believe because I can't figure out how the universe began.  It's something I believe because it fits the evidence I have at hand concerning myself, humanity, history, and yes, in many ways even science and mathematics.

[Neruz]

Except that "That's just the way it is" is an unacceptable response, why is it that way?