|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi Stile,
Terrific insight. You may find this interesting:Summary of Thomas Nagel’s, “The Absurd” | Reason and Meaning Life is ironic and if we embrace this simple fact we can avoid lots of angst."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: Sure, but there is no mention of any other explanation either. Without an intelligent root cause, there only remains the acceptance of a virtually infinite number of mindless and extremely fortuitous processes that have resulted in life as we know it.Take your pick; an intelligent root cause or a mindless one. Personally I can't pump up enough faith to accept the latter choice. However, you seem to be claiming that you have proven that to be the case. Stile writes: But you missed the point. To know that God does not exist then you have to also know that the only other option can be proven to be correct and you haven't done that at all. I am only claiming that I Know That God Does Not Exist. So far - no one has been able to come up with an argument that shows the opening post to be in error.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dredge writes:
Call it "nonsense" if you like but Jesus said it, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:22)
ringo writes:
Nonsense. At every Mass, Catholics recite the Apostles' or Nicene Creed, which begin with "I believe ...". It's about what you do, not what you believe or what you profess Dredge writes:
Which is why much of Christianity is a false religion.
Faith and beliefs are absolutely central to Christianity. Dredge writes:
It is doing the will of the Father in heaven, not mouthing "I believe..." at mass. It is the "will of my Father which is in heaven" that humans believe in Him and obey His commandents.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
GDR writes: To know that God does not exist then you have to also know that the only other option can be proven to be correct and you haven't done that at all. I don't think there's "only one other option." I just know that this option of God existing has been attempting to go on for thousands of years.After all that searching - we still only find nothing whenever we look at where God should be. Therefore - I Know That God Does Not Exist. This doesn't have to involve other options at all. If there is only 1 other option, then you're correct.But I'm not claiming there's only 1 other option - that's you saying such a thing. That's for your to prove, if you care to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Thanks for that - I did find it interesting. I'm not sure if I agree completely with Thomas Nagel, or if I have small subtle differences.Mostly because I am unable to easily grasp all the small subtleties that are attempted to be described in the article. Therefore i can't tell if I agree with them or not. I have a lot of questions that would lead to my clarification.
Thomas Nagel writes: In “The Absurd,” (1971) Nagel asks why people sometimes feel that life is absurd... A good question (in the sense that "people sometimes.." feel that way.)To me, I think that "feeling life is absurd" is a subjective feeling. That is, if you recognize that this is subjective and therefore "not necessarily a requirement" you may end up like me - that you don't get such a feeling. And, if you don't feel that life is absurd - then there's no problem to "overcome" or explain. There are phrases like this that cause me to raise my eyebrows, though:
Similarly, when we step back from life, we do not find what is really significant. But "really significant" isn't defined anywhere in the article.It's assumed that it's known, objective and relevant. I decline all 3 of those descriptions. I think that significance is, again, an inherently subjective idea. Therefore there's no such thing as "really significant" in an overall objective sense. Just in a sense of greater significance to an individual for any specific idea. I can't tell if Nagel is incorporating this concept, or if he's accepting the concept of an objective "really significant" idea and arguing against that. Such, again, are the subtleties I'm unable to identify from the article. Near the conclusion of the article:
And by recognizing our true situation we no longer have reason to resent or escape our fate. I would agree completely with this line.As long as we end it with "...if you think of things similarly enough to how Stile and/or Nagel think of things." Because, again, "recognizing our true situation" needs to be defined... it can't just be left out there for anyone to define or else the "no longer have reason..." part may no longer follow. He thus counsels that we regard our lives as ironic. I would again agree, if we add an ending like "...if you're having such problems regarding an 'absurd' life."Because, if you don't think life is absurd... you obviously don't have to think life is ironic in order to "deal with" that issue. Why can't life just be life?I don't think life is either absurd or ironic. I think it simply is... like a rock simply is a rock. Life simply is life. It's here, it exists... it's properties are as we find/discover/learn them. Granted, the properties of "life" are much more complex than the properties of "a rock." But... they are still both simply "things that exist" and exist as their properties allow them to. Such things cannot be absurd or ironic... they simply "are."
It is simply ironic that we take our lives so seriously when nothing is serious at all; this is the incongruity between what we expect and reality. I have no issues with incongruity between my expectations and reality.My expectations are often extremely wrong about reality - I'm quite used to it. But, again, the Nagel seems to claim that "nothing is serious at all."I disagree - I think lots of things are serious. Because "serious," again, is a subjective term. Nagel doesn't get to tell me what's serious or not for me as much as users on this forum don't get to do so. I'll decide for myself what is serious and not serious to me. And, if anyone wants to claim that there is such a thing as "objectively serious" - I'm open to listening, but I think they have an impossible task ahead of them in order to show such a thing.
Still, in the end, it does not matter that nothing matters from the objective view, so we should simply chuckle at the absurdity of our lives. This idea that "a [single] objective view" actually exists and its obvious conclusion is that "nothing matters" again is something I don't agree with at all."Things matter-ing" is again, subjective. I reject that any "objective view" exists for such an idea. If someone's going to claim that an objective view actually does exist - and that it's specifically that "nothing matters" - I doubly reject it until they can show that this is actually valid. And, again, I believe that showing such a thing is an impossible task. Mostly because "things matter-ing" is not an objective idea, it is subjective. ...I understand it seems like I don't agree with the article.But, really, I think my points of dissension are minor and subtle. Nagel's rebuttal to my points may be as simple as "I can't write a nice, flowing article while also explaining all those subtleties. In order to be concise and get my point across it's mandatory that I accept a certain amount of leeway in definitions so that the audience can understand the sort of average-social-issues I'm talking about." If that's the intention - then I'm pretty sure I agree with the article completely.If not - well, I hope I've described my issues well enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Dredge writes: Can you prove objectively that a human life is more valuable or meaningful that the life of a flea? Well, humans produce more fertilizer, but more importantly, can you prove objectively that a human life is more valuable or meaningful that the life of a flea?What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Stile writes: What is another option.?
I don't think there's "only one other option." Stile writes: Just where have we looked? Where do you think God should be? I just know that this option of God existing has been attempting to go on for thousands of years.After all that searching - we still only find nothing whenever we look at where God should be. Maybe God is somewhere in the 95.5% of the universe we don't perceive. The search by various religions is not to figure out so much as to where God might be, but to try out sort out what the nature of God is and what that should mean to our lives. Most religions have agreed that something along the liine of the "Golden Ruleat least plays a part of that, and in the case of Christianity it is fundamental. Even if I accept your argument about finding God where we think He should be, (which I don't), it doesn't mean that we won't in the future. There are numerous question in the field of physics which we don't have answers to yet, but hopefully will in the future. You are treating this like you would a question of science so why should a search for God be any different. All you can say is that we haven't found God yet, but you can't "know" that we won't in the future. You have shown no actual basis that supports your premise.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
GDR writes: Just where have we looked? Where do you think God should be? Well if we're talking about your Christian god, he lives in heaven with his angels and saints which is a real place just above the earth. Every Christian until a few hundred years ago believed that to be true because it's written in their book and their shaman told them. But of course it wasn't true. So now believers have to invent something else which just happens - as always - to be just outside science's knowledge. I doubt you'll find many sane people now saying that heaven is physically real - but there will be plenty of others that do, you have to be raptured to somewhere. So now this god entity is apparently beyond time and space so conveniently undetectable. And yet he is supposed to routinely intervene in human life, speaking directly to individuals in revelations, performing miracles, guiding the development of life on our planet. And yet everywhere we look for evidence of these interactions with our world we find nothing. Miracles are fiction, prayers aren't answered, our planet's development uses unguided natural forces and processes and there's no objective evidence of any personal conversations with any god. After all this time and all this effort, nothing. This god of yours is being pushed further and further away in search of 'places' to hide from us. You've now got a virtual god. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Not a great argument. For starters, if not for the Crusades, Europe would probably have been overrun by Islam. Then there is the fact that atheist (read: Communist) regimes killed far, far more people in just one century that all the Christian wars in history put together. Oh Dear Muslima, do you really think the horrors of a few here and there excuses the blood, pain, and suffering perpetrated by your creed for more then a millennium? You make excuses for a philosophy of hate. How sick can you religionists get?Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The h a t e here is yours, and it's been escalating lately. You seem to be utterly consumed by it.
I personally don't defend the Crusades but then I haven't spent a lot of time reading up on them either, and dredge may be right. By the time of Luther the Turkish Empire had encroached deeply into Europe. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Then there is the fact that atheist (read: Communist) regimes killed far, far more people in just one century that all the Christian wars in history put together.
Any chance you will provide data to support this assertion? You might want to take a quick look at the genocide of Native Americans while you try to come up and fudge some data that won't support you.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
I personally don't defend the Crusades but then I haven't spent a lot of time reading up on them either, and dredge may be right. By the time of Luther the Turkish Empire had encroached deeply into Europe.
The complete lack of historical knowledge and context is stunning. The last crusade was in 1291. The Ottoman Empire was founded in 1299. The crusades had nothing to do with the Turkish incursions into Europe in the 1600's.The original islamic moves into Europe in the 700's mirrored the earlier encroachment of Europe by christians. Christianity was not even spread throughout Europe by the time the Ummayad's conquered the Iberian peninsula. I am in no way condoning the invasion of Iberia, but merely pointing out that you have a distorted view of right and wrong depending on whether it is the group you support that committed the atrocities. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9199 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
For starters, if not for the Crusades, Europe would probably have been overrun by Islam.
I would like to see some sort of scholarly support for this assertion.The crusades did not do anything to remove Islam from Europe and did nothing to stop further inroads into Europe. I do not think there was even much of a concept of Europe at that time. The Caliphate was firmly entrenched in Iberia The crusades did not try to push them out of Iberia. The crusades had many reasons and results. None of them was keeping islam from overrunning Europe. I think the people of Europe would have had something to say about that. They had stopped Islam before and would again.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined:
|
I wasn't attributing the Ottoman invasion to the Crusades, just mentioning it as an Islamic invasion of Europe. I admit I don't know much about those historical events, it's pretty sketchy in my mind but I wasn't making the connection you said I was.
I don't defend the Crusades so you can stop with the accusations. But it's an interesting fact to my mind that the Roman Catholic Church is considered to have been officially founded in the 7th century, 606 AD to be precise, when the Emperor Phocas declared the Bishop of Rome to be Universal Bishop, making him Pope, which even one Bishop of Rome, Pope Gregory I think, said was the same thing as calling the Pope the Antichrist. It is considered to be the beginning of the papacy in any case, and this occurred in the same time period when Islam was created too, and soon out for conquest. Some Christian historians, regarded the RCC as the Apostate Church headed by the Antichrist, considering it to be the last expression of the Roman Empire, one of the legs of the statue illustrated in the book of Daniel, and the other to be Islam, both together to be the conquering Roman Empire of the last days. A long way of saying that I'm certainly not defending the RCC and although I'm not really up on the history of the Crusades, it was the RCC, a political entity, that brought it about. A Christian church should not also be a political entity as the Vatican is. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Nice precision. I was born in the 2000s, 1952 to be precise. ... founded in the 700s, 606 AD to be precise....All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024