Does God exist? (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

i reckon u guys are just going around in circles.Its easy if u accept that the sandwhich u r eating was made by u then y dont u accept that somone created u if u dont thats up to u but if u do then i guess thats stilll up to u .
so y r we having this thread if no one wants to accept other people thoughts

Try to be more coherant please, you'll find people bother to respond to your musings much more often if they see you've taken the time to spell correctly, use proper grammar etc.

 

[dagwoman]

And if you've taken time to construct a legitimate argument...

 

[ichigo.bankai]

Try to be more coherant please, you'll find people bother to respond to your musings much more often if they see you've taken the time to spell correctly, use proper grammar etc.

one thing its not skool so doesnt hurt to talk watever english and so dnt care

 

[dagwoman]

But we do. Just because it's not school doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to speak proper english.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

one thing its not skool so doesnt hurt to talk watever english and so dnt care

I explained the reason you should try to write more coherantly, it's so that other people may be more inclined to listen to you.

 

[_dhj_]

one thing its not skool so doesnt hurt to talk watever english and so dnt care

It directly reduces the perceived validity of anything you have to say.

 

[lengy]

I always thought that being a theist already destroys any credibility a person has.

 

[_dhj_]

I always thought that being a theist already destroys any credibility a person has.

That's actually not true. It's the other way around cos there are more theists in the world than atheists. As a consequence atheists are basically ineligible for the upper levels of politics.

 

[lengy]

Ah, the mass delusion arguement.

 

[dbmoodb]

Arh yes I see it now, "religion is the opium of the masses." Wells thats that then- argument solved. GG.

 

[ihavenothing]

That's actually not true. It's the other way around cos there are more theists in the world than atheists. As a consequence atheists are basically ineligible for the upper levels of politics.

Bob Hawke was an atheist. But back then it wasn't a big deal, sadly today it is just garbage that people believe that if someone doesnt have blind faith they cannot lead the people in their own interest.

 

[dbmoodb]

Oh i think it is trash that people think that people with blind faith in a divine individual can lead are silly. Religion shouldn't be mixed with the state.

 

[_dhj_]

Bob Hawke was an atheist. But back then it wasn't a big deal, sadly today it is just garbage that people believe that if someone doesnt have blind faith they cannot lead the people in their own interest.

It's probably not as bad in fairly secular countries like Australia, but in more religious countries such as the US atheists are generally regarded as the most untrustworthy of all minorities (worse than homosexuals and muslims).

 

[dagwoman]

I'm American and I TOTALLY disagree. I think they're viewed only marignally worse than in Australia. I think their racism and homophobia is a heaps bigger issue than their dislike for atheists.

 

[dagwoman]

That's really interesting. I'm from the mid-west (the bible belt), but maybe the reason I haven't witnessed such disdain for atheists, while I'm aware it's there, is because of the people I'm around when I'm there.

 

[phatic]

"... we see all religions at their highest point end in mysticism and mysteries, that is to say, in darkness and veiled obscurity. These really indicate merely a blank spot for knowledge, the point where all knowledge necessarily ceases. Hence for thought this can be expressed only by negations, but for sense-perception it is indicated by symbolical signs, in temples by dim light and silence, in Brahmanism even by the required suspension of all thought and perception for the purpose of entering into the deepest communion with one's own self, by mentally uttering the mysterious Om. In the widest sense, mysticism is every guidance to the immediate awareness of that which is not reached by either perception or conception, or generally by any knowledge. The mystic is opposed to the philosopher by the fact that he begins from within, whereas the philosopher begins from without. The mystic starts from his inner, positive, individual experience, in which he finds himself as the eternal and only being, and so on. But nothing of this is communicable except the assertions that we have to accept on his word; consequently he is unable to convince."

—Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation

In summary, this argument over God's existence goes beyond what can be proven or disproven. But I'm sure some will disagree with Schopenhauer, of course...

 

[KFunk]

"I know there is no God, but why the fucking hell not believe in him anyways"

1. An individual may have a desire to seek the truth (whatever that might be) instead of flippantly accepting any odd proposition which is thrown his/her way.

2. There is always the danger of false belief (see my post).

4) I kind of have a soft spot for the concept of eternal resurrence and God being a product of infinity (Cantor loves that). So, God kinda wants us to interact with him through nature. However, this debate is rendered fleeting as our own interpretation, experiences, feelings, and interpretation of mathematical and scientific limits rule in our theories.

What does it mean for 'god to be a product of infinity'. Does it mean that god is born out of infinity, or that one can view god through the infinite? On the other hand, if you're suggesting that we become 'god' by going down an ubermensch-esque path then I would suggest that what you're saying sounds nice but that it boils down to rhetoric and equivocation.

5) Finally, axiom s5 infers: If some alpha is true then it is necessary that alpha is possibly true at all worlds. This is the only logical arguement that stands, (erm....clutching at straws may I say). S5 is a good system if you think that necessity is simply analyticity. I don't think it is. Nor does Willard Van Orman Quine. So, again the God debate is rendered pointless. A likely vague does not equal truth!

Why did you introduce axiom S5 into all of this? It only makes sense to make use of such an axiom if you have a good reason to accept it. While I'm sure there are arguments for S5 I'm not sure if it is appropriate for our world when you take into account certain physical laws. S5 only holds if you're using a modal logic which is symmetrical (i.e. that wRw' implies w'RW, in other words that if w' is R accessible from w then vice versa). If you're looking at, for example, worlds that are accessible from one another via a causal chain through time then the asymmetry of entropy would suggest that S5 probably isn't suitable. Of course, I've only recently started reading about modal logic so feel free to argue otherwise.

 

[KFunk]

Hey man, thanks for the long reply. I thought I should make a few more comments on truth, false belief and rhetoric.

Truth and false belief:
I suppose you didn't read the short parable about the shipowner that I gave you a link to so I'll illustrate the danger of false belief in another way. If you look at a number of threads around this politics forum you will find countless views that are directly influenced by people's views on god. In the homosexuality thread, for example, you have multiple individuals who are against homosexuality (in marriage and in practice) solely because their 'god' tells them that homosexuality is wrong. Religion can alter an individual's stance on abortion, foreign aid, war, prosecution and social policy (etc). I don't think that it is as simple as 'believe what you want' - our beliefs hold a great deal of power over us and they can greatly influence the way we interact with the world. For this reason I think our beliefs deserve scrutiny.

Suppose that a man is required to execute another on the basis of his, the executor's, religious beliefs. If he truly believes in god, and that god's will is that he execute the man who kneels before him then there is a great deal of motivation pushing him towards executing that man. If instead he analyses his beliefs regarding god and realises that he can't demonstrate that god exists (or doesn't exist) and that he can't be sure that his chosen religious belief system represents god's will... and so on, then I suspect he will have to think a great deal more about his decision to execute the man. Blind acceptance of anything which parades as truth can harm others (though it won't necessarily be the case) and as such I think we have something of a responsibility to screen our beliefs and try and seek the truth where possible, or at least an approximation of the truth. I could keep on ranting but I'm sure you see my point.

Yeah, all of the above. Especially, the ubermensch. And so what if it "boils down to rhetoric and equivocation". Well, embrace rhetoric, become eccentric! I don't get how people can possibly look at this debate and not encompass rhetoric as the driving force behind reason and logic itself. I'm disturbed by this.

Rhetoric:
I'm not sure I'm entirely clear on what you mean by 'rhetoric being the driving force beind logic'. On one reading you might be saying that logic eventually boils to rhetoric, which I would say is somewhat true and somewhat false. At some point, when trying to justify logic, one comes to a point where they say 'accept it because I compel you to do so' (e.g. trying to make an argument for accepting modus ponens). On the other hand, logic (in it's classical form at least) works in the real world. We can use it to predict - to come to logical conclusions - and find that it works whenever our orignal propositions/assumptions are true (another case for seeking the truth). The empirical uses of logic provide us with a different kind of compelling argument.

As to embracing rhetoric, I love rhetoric for it's beauty and elegance but I find, at times, that it can obscure the truth. Indeed, rhetoric allows one to make an 'argument' which is at once totally convincing and totally vacuous. This debate makes me think of Plato's dialogue Gorgias in which Socrates has a debate with the finest rhetoricians in Athens. While Socrates pisses me off a bit, as he often does, I still it is reasonable for him to claim that rhetoric acts to pervert the truth and create false belief in others through artful language (I think it's Polus who talks about using rhetoric to manipulate others). What interests me most is the unity between these topics of rhetoric and truth. The fact that you don't seem to value truth as highly as I do goes a long way to explain why you are relatively unbothered by rhetoric. Nonetheless, I maintain that rhetoric is a powerful tool for perverting the truth - a good example of this is the lobyist in the film Thank you for smoking... alternatively you could just listen to a poitician.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

3) Indeed, the existence of god is beyond the realms of philosophical enquiry.

As is everything if we're going to allow for the possibility of such supernatural things.

Hence, at the very least God exists through our own interaction with him (or there lack off) - namely, the rentless thirst of the unknown, knowledge, truth, which in turn bleeds into power relations.

Can't we replace God with any other mythical figure and come up with a statement with the same level of merit?

Therefore, just to turn Wittgensteinian on you, there's no point of having this forum - it might as well be deleted - we want eternity and well we can't have it - so we cleave to God, who at the very LEAST is a text

Well taking that argument further there's basically no point to having any discussion about anything ever and that might ultimately be true. However, we don't live in the world of the ultimate truth, we live in our little realities which we have created from what we understand and in my own (and I'm sure in yours as well) such discussion does have merit.

Yes, this means seeing is believing (positivism for life was really the real message of the bible people, come on!)

No this doesn't mean seeing is believing at all, from what I understand you've alluded to successful (imo) efforts by wittgenstein to show that language is ultimately flawed. However this flaw does not make seeing any better, as I'm sure you've acknowledged, for various reasons, in the past.

I know there is no God, but why the fucking hell not believe in him anyways

If you know there is no god, you cannot believe in him.

In summary, this argument over God's existence goes beyond what can be proven or disproven.

Why only apply such arguments to God's existence? Why do people that crave to believe in God so much only ever reference God when they make such arguments? To me it is because they don't want to acknowledge that what their arguments do (as a side effect) is place them in a world devoid of the logic & reasoning which most of us in this world enjoy. They don't want to do this because when it DOES suit their desires to exist in a world with rules they need the logic which they so readily denounce.

BUT I think we should conclude that there's no way in which we will know if there's a god and even if there is whose god it is.

But there's no way if we use the arguments you use to know almost anything.

Also, note that logic doesn't always equate into reality.

Example of this please? Remembering that it's obvious that logical errors will not equate into reality.

simply because we cannot rationally deduce what is beyond our experience

And you can 'rationally deduce' what is within your experience?

 

[KFunk]

Would it be fair to conclude we cannot prove nor disprove his existence, but we can at least work together to make a world a better place by utilising values that transcend religion and 'God'?

I agree wholeheartedly with your final sentiment (it being one close to my heart) but at the same time I cannot arrive at the conclusion that "we cannot prove nor disprove his, [god's], existence". To claim that no (dis)proof exists for a proposition, let's call it G in this case, is a pretty huge claim. Can you really claim to have exhaustive knowledge of the possible avenues of (dis)proof of god? I suppose an alternative is that one might claim that 'it is impossible to have knowledge about god' and thus that it is impossible to come to conclusions about god's existence. Such a claim contradicts itself (since it consists of knowledge about god) so one would also have to demonstrate why the claim is an exception of itself. At any rate, I can't accept your conclusion as being any more than a conjecture. Of course, if you feel you have a good 'proof' of sorts (your own or someone elses) feel free to throw it at me.

Also, one has to consider the definition of 'god' - something you have pointed out previously when you said that 'we need to come to a consensus about what 'god' is'. It would seem to me that certain conceptions of god yield contradictions (the problem of evil, for example) and that these gods can perhaps be rejected on these grounds. The inherent problems with many of these conceptions of god are what lead me to conclude that a disproof may well be possible for some of them. More to the point, I could construct an impossible 'god' (e.g. with several, or even infinite contradictory properties) which goes to show a few things: (1) that there exist gods for whom there is a disproof, (2) that we need to define god and (3) that general statements like 'we cannot prove nor disprove G' are near meaningless without such a definition, for without one we fall prey to equivocation and all the pains associated with such 'double meanings'.