|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
You would be wrong. I would suggest that rocket powered grenades are irrational. They exist, so they fit even Stile's definition.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
At the time, perhaps, Greeks didn't know any better, so maybe, at the time, it might have been considered a rational explanation.
But two and a half millennia later?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Rationality is not about what you prefer. I think that ringos idea of eternally existing chemicals that become what we are today is more irrational...but some people prefer that hypothetical line of thought for one reason only---we can do the maths that support it.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
I asked and you didn't answer: What specifically is irrational about the idea? Where is the lack of logic? At the time, perhaps, Greeks didn't know any better, so maybe, at the time, it might have been considered a rational explanation.But two and a half millennia later? All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Do you agree that the idea that God exists in reality has no evidence to support it? Not everything in life, philosophy, or experience can be evidenced. This in and of itself shouldn't limit rationality.
If you do not agree - please provide the evidence. If you do agree - then the idea that God exists in reality is irrational.Stile, to ringo writes: Given this corollary, every single believer is irrational and you are essentially dismissing any consideration of the concept of God based solely on physical evidence. Which you are allowed to do...yet I can dismiss such a conclusion as irrational to me based on my personal experience. You of course may be rational to many. But the logic isn't internally consistent... unless you'd like to explain how believing something actually exists without any evidence to suggest that it exists in the first place is actually "rational?"Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Rationality is not about what you prefer. It also is not a means of eliminating belief from social consciousness and reality.
Wiki writes: I wish you eggheaded atheists would stop trying to frame a world view which we all must adapt that eliminates modern religion. I guess I cant blame you little pests for fighting back, however. Rationality is the quality or state of being rational — that is, being based on or agreeable to reason.[1][2] Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, and of one's actions with one's reasons for action. "Rationality" has different specialized meanings in philosophy,[3] economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology, game theory and political science. To determine what behavior is the most rational, one needs to make several key assumptions, and also needs a logical formulation of the problem. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in all information that is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Rationality is relative: if one accepts a model in which benefiting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.~Stile
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
I think it’s the naked guy part.
Now if it were a naked Aphrodite or a naked Rihanna that would be a whole lot more rational.Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
What's irrational about the notion of a man holding a bit of plasma with an enormous electrical current running through it? Well, for starters, it would fry him pretty good, wouldn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Nobody's forcing you to accept a sensible worldview. I wish you eggheaded atheists would stop trying to frame a world view which we all must adapt that eliminates modern religion.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Not if he's a god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
But then, Zeus or Thor belong to the past, when it may (though, who knows) have been rational then, but certainly isn't now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
If you're going to ignore what I say, this could take a long time. What's irrational about the notion of a man holding a bit of plasma with an enormous electrical current running through it? I did point out that that is your description of God. We don't have to accept the Gospel According to Sarah Bellum literally, do we? I did point out that the Greeks might possibly have construed some technology more advanced than theirs - some technology even such as ours - as literal lightning. But it doesn't have to literally be lightning for the idea to be rational. So let's try again: Do you have any rational reason for thinking the idea of God is irrational?All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
You want to stretch things so painfully that the ancients and their notions of gods throwing thunderbolts from mountaintops, inhabiting trees or rivers, firing their furnaces in volcanoes you might be able to call rational by the standards of the ancients?
Perhaps. But I started out saying that might be the case. Are you insisting that we judge the rationality of the idea of gods by those same standards today? If so, sure, it's "rational" by those standards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Sarah Bellum writes:
Does rationality have an expiry date? I would think that rational is rational, regardless of the time frame. Are you insisting that we judge the rationality of the idea of gods by those same standards today? You and Stile both seem to be making the mistake of confusing rational with right. I say that an idea can be rational whether it has any basis in reality or not. You and Stile are calling all fiction irrational. I say that the logic/reason/rationality are separate from the truth value of the premises.All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sarah Bellum Member (Idle past 596 days) Posts: 826 Joined: |
quote:Back in the Middle Ages people made a rational deduction. Coming to that same conclusion now would not be considered rational.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024