|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Case Against the Existence of God | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
During Australia's history, people have also believed in Atlantis - but not "rightly". That is correct. We agree here you see. Believing in Australia is right, believing in Atlantis is not. We need a criterion for the difference and it isn't that you can go there, because the majority of those who believe in Australia have not gone there and never will.
When a belief happens to conform to reality, it is pure coincidence. This is a puzzling statement. Are you saying that since belief in the existence of Australia happens to conform to the reality that Australia in fact exists is "pure coincidence?" What does that mean?
It is not a confirmation that all beliefs reflect reality. Obviously not, nor was I suggesting this.
I could say that I "went there" when I believed, and found it to be quite real.
And I could say that I "went" to Middle Earth or Treasure Island or Oz, and found them to be quite real - but there is a difference between one person's perception of what is real and what really is real. Possibly, but I too "went" to Middle Earth, Treasure Island and Oz and did NOT find them to be quite real -- and neither did you. You are using the term in a different sense than I was using it.
Going to Australia to confirm its reality includes being able to take anybody else along and show them the reality. If you can't do that, your belief is still not fact. Well, it is though (at least the destination is if not my belief -- just to be a stickler for grammar). We are simply going to have to come up with some other set of criteria. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 03:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Is there a difference between this and agnosticism? Seems the same to me. I don't really see much of a difference but the Watheists say there's a difference. Maybe one will chime in and explain it to us.
There is no evidence against the existance of god There might be. I'm not sure yet.
Nor will you ever be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
God then would be a personification of the entire environment that humans relate to. So God is this invented Being that we make up to correspond to parents and other figures who protect us. And this reliance on "faith" is something we are used to doing anyway, since we need faith to fulfill our day-to-day life. Faith builds our self-esteem. That may be, but we don't know that for sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Nor will you ever be. What makes you so certain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4703 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
One of the things that Wittgenstein or was it the logical positivist observed was that discussions of the BIG topics in philosophy tended to lose sight of the logic of arguments because the topic was so beguiling.
So instead of using the example of God, which is a major concept, why not look at other things that may or may not exist and see if we can prove their non existence. Some suggestions might be Atlantis, or Little People, or telepathy, or Centaurs, Pink Unicorns, etc. How would one prove the non existence of one of these? Or disprove the claims that they exist. Are there any proofs that they exist? On thing to consider is if a claim is falsifiable or not. If it's not falsifiable can it be disproven? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The ideas that Faith claims as facts can not be tested in any way, by anybody, regardless of expertise or time to study. That is the fundamental difference. All you have to do to "test" my facts is believe the witnesses, or the authorities as Robin puts it. Instead of raising a zillion objections to what they are saying, just make like a little child and believe that they are telling you the truth. It's that simple, as jar is so fond of saying about other stuff. As many of the greatest in Christendom have written, faith is the beginning of understanding, even the "substance" of things unseen says the scripture. I was just reading a new discovery for me, one Henry Scougal, who said faith functions as a sense, it teaches us about the things of the unseen world the same way that our senses teach us about the seen world. It starts with treating the witnesses as truthful. That means the Bible writers and the Bible believers and the Bible preachers. Just BELIEVE them for a change. That's ALL you are asked to do. REPENT AND BELIEVE THE GOSPEL. Those were Jesus' first words. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 03:46 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4703 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
That may be, but we don't know that for sure. Well, yeah! okay, ummm, what do we know "for sure"? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What makes you so certain? Because you can't logically conclude that something does not exist(except in math).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
So instead of using the example of God, which is a major concept, why not look at other things that may or may not exist and see if we can prove their non existence. Some suggestions might be Atlantis, or Little People, or telepathy, or Centaurs, Pink Unicorns, etc. How would one prove the non existence of one of these? Or disprove the claims that they exist. Are there any proofs that they exist? Ifen, I've been through this idea before with other posters on this thread. There was Dan with Green Lantern and somebody else with Pixies. It will not do. Such entities are not the same type of entity as the God I mentioned in the OP. Such entities are extraneous--very different from the concept of God. There's a 50/50 chance that an eternal Being created the universe. Or at least there is if we take into account only the fact of creation itself. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 02:48 PM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 02:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4703 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
believe the witnesses, or the authorities as Robin puts it. Instead of raising a zillion objections to what they are saying, just make like a little child and believe that they are telling you the truth. This is a discription of enculturation and hynonsis not proof. If you enter any rationalized closed system such as Islam, Mormonism, Catholism etc. then many but not all people can get the results claimed. We can see this in the Hari Krishna's, the UFO believers etc. It's an ancient phenomena but it's not about facts or proofs it's about how the human brain works as it creates its experience of reality. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Because you can't logically conclude that something does not exist(except in math). You might if they have certain definite qualities which contradict existent things. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-07-2006 02:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Faith writes: All you have to do to "test" my facts is believe the witnesses, or the authorities as Robin puts it. Instead of raising a zillion objections to what they are saying, just make like a little child and believe that they are telling you the truth. It's that simple, as jar is so fond of saying about a bunch of other stuff. But Faith, don't you see that this means that I can claim as fact that gnomes exist, and the only thing you have to do to test my fact is believe the witnesses. There are a lot of "witnesses" of gnomes, you know. Now, my argument may sound a bit silly because it involves gnomes. But it is the exact same argument as yours, which is about God. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes: We need a criterion for the difference and it isn't that you can go there, because the majority of those who believe in Australia have not gone there and never will. But it is possible to go to Australia, whereas it is not possible to go to Atlantis. The reasons for not going to Australia are completely different from the reasons for not going to Atlantis. There is no need for a different criterion.
Are you saying that since belief in the existence of Australia happens to conform to the reality that Australia in fact exists is "pure coincidence?" I'm saying it's pure coincidence that the belief is confirmed. Many (most?) beliefs have no basis in reality. If one belief coincides with reality, that's no vote of confidence for belief in general.
... but I too "went" to Middle Earth, Treasure Island and Oz and did NOT find them to be quite real -- and neither did you. You are using the term in a different sense than I was using it. Then explain how you are using it differently - and remember that we are talking about the context of "going" to Australia as compared to "going" to those other places.
Well, it is though (at least the destination is if not my belief -- just to be a stickler for grammar). Sorry, do you have an English translation for that sentence?
We are simply going to have to come up with some other set of criteria. I think it would be simpler if you would just use words like "fact" the same way that everybody else does. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You might if they have certain definite qualities which contradict existent things. for example? And how will you be sure these qualities are definite?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
I think another difference between believing in God on the one hand, and in the existence of Australia on the other, is that, even if you don't want to believe in either of them, you are forced to believe in the existence of Australia when someone drags you there and shows it to you, whereas you can never be forced to "see" God.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024