 |
| |
|
|
loinburger
|
 |
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
No - it is silly and offensive to people who believe in God. This is its intention I believe. |
The intention is to show that I have just as much evidence for my invisible pink unicorn as you have for God.
quote:
Did you not read my post? Questions like 'what was there before time?' are not well defined questions. It is not a case of us just not knowing the answer, or not being clever enough to understand the answer - there is no answer because the question doesn't make sense. |
So why invent God at all? Why not say "Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, therefore we cannot say what happened before the Big Bang"? I'm still seeing an unnecessary layer here.
quote:
I do admit, the cases are somewhat different - we will never be able to prove that God exists, |
More than that, we will never be able to even have evidence that God exists. That's the entire purpose of the "invisible pink unicorn" argument: to show that you have just as much evidence for the existence of God as I have for my invisible pink unicorn.
To use your example of quarks, would you say that the invention of the "Wutang" particle, which I claim is the building block of all matter and energy (but which I have absolutely no evidence in support of), has helped us further our understanding of science? Or has it simply added an unnecessary layer, by virtue of the fact that the Wutang particle's existence has no evidence in favor of it?
quote:
But this is just the difference between science and philosophy - should we stop all philosophical thought too? |
Of course we shouldn't stop philosophical thought, but all that belief in God accomplishes is that it removes us from this avenue of inquiry as well. "What is the nature of the mind" is a valid philosophical question, since we have plenty of minds around to observe and theorize over. Asking "What is the nature of Good and Evil" is a valid philosophical question, since there are plenty of instances of Good and Evil for philosophers to argue over. Asking "What is the nature of God" simply begs the question, since we haven't any gods around except for the completely arbitrary set that we've come up with over the years.
Besides, more often than not, God's answers to our "why's" are so unenlightening as to be useless: "Because I'm God and because I'm ineffable." God doesn't answer the question, he just beats us with a stick until we stop asking it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
 |
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
well that is interesting, well then how can can you believe that an inactive God exists, well when there is no proof now, apart from some ancient testimony, that might have been made by the people who did not understand scientific ways of today, to whom the idea of God was the best explanation of everything unexplainable, and who could have been making up the stories (like other tribes, Germans, Bablonyans, Indians, etc..). |
Well my friend, that requires a reasonable amount of study in history! 
And, contrary to many other religions, this God spoke to humanity, and gave them His law so that humanity could live a happier life! If you study each one of them you will clearly see that only this God (Javeh, Jehovah, YHVH, JHVH, whatever) shows to want the hapiness of His people! This is why there's the Bible! It's humanity's manual of instructions! 
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Therefore an idea about the inactive God does not appeal to the modern people since there is no need for him, we can have other ways of explaining how the universe works, without relying on 2000 year old possible myths. Because that idea seems more reasonable than the idea of an inactive God. |
Sure they could be myths! That's why you need to study a lot, so that you can realise what a prophecy means. 
And Amen to the war against that Saddam who wants to control too much oil! Modern people will get all they need to be happy if they are stronger and smarter than others! 
What I meant with this is that both theists and atheists have the same problems in life. One big difference between them is that atheists believe that politics, philosophy and science will one day fulfill humanity needs. The theists believe that God will provide a happy life by eliminating the cause of problems, which are all those people who want war, money, power, and don't care about their fellow men!
Looking back to human governments, I really have little hopes for the future!
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
(off topic)
Still so everyone can is equal at birth, which is how it should be, but the word still has to go out to make the plan available to all - there is still an inconsistency related to TIME. - under the premise that all the people are born equal no matter when. How could one be accused of ignorance if their grandchildrend did not consciously find out who the God was? Therefore there is no point in spread of the gospel if all of those who will die before it gets to them will get a second chance. (nevermind off-topic). |
I'm sorry, but I can't understand this one.
You're saying that the gospel isn't worth spreading because your grandchildren won't get to know God's personality, or is it you, if you don't study the Bible?
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Obviously we cannot answer the question why by science, but the answer in the shape of Christian god is not fulfilling either. I personally am not satisfied with the idea - He is not acting now. He gave us the instructions, and we have to follow them, if not - sod it. |
It is you who has anything against Him, not Him against you. But if you don't behave accordingly to His purposes for humanity, then He will have a reason to consider you unworthy of a reward, since you don't live by His morality. Because He gave you the instructions for you to read them. Maybe your parents neglected them, and now you're sceptic about them, but they exist for milleniums, and you're able to inform youself about them now!
Humans have free will. So you can choose your behaviour. Just bear in mind that His purpose it to give Earth to who ever lives by His will, not those against it!
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
I mean What if the stories about Odin the German god are true? How can I judge which one is correct? Maybe he is inactive for last 1000 years? - Who is the correct answer to "why?" becaue there is many choices, mainly differing by cultures. Therefore making the 'myth' solution a more probable choice. ... God is a myth and therefore God does not exist. |
Study. Research. Is there any good purpose for humanity from Odin? Or Jupiter? Is there any message? Are there any signs of their power? Use the grey mass in your head! 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by loinburger
The intention is to show that I have just as much evidence for my invisible pink unicorn as you have for God.
|
Well, if you want to believe in invisible pink unicorns then that is your choice I suppose....
quote:
So why invent God at all? Why not say "Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, therefore we cannot say what happened before the Big Bang"? I'm still seeing an unnecessary layer here.
|
The layer may be unnecessary for you, but there are lots of other metaphysical question which the presence of God provides possible answers for, which are not answered by your assumption of no creater. Where does the standard of human morality come from for example? What defines me as an individual thinking being, with independent action, rather than merely some collection of particles which have had their actions defined by the initial conditions 14 billion years ago?
It is somewhat subjective, but I do not feel the existence of God is a harder thing to grasp than no God at all, and I personally find it more aesthetically pleasing. What you are asking is that I believe your point of view which has no more supporting evidence than mine (indeed less if one considers the idea of personal revelation) and is less aesthetically pleasing to me.
quote:
To use your example of quarks, would you say that the invention of the "Wutang" particle, which I claim is the building block of all matter and energy (but which I have absolutely no evidence in support of), has helped us further our understanding of science? Or has it simply added an unnecessary layer, by virtue of the fact that the Wutang particle's existence has no evidence in favor of it?
|
If your Wutang particle did not contradict any experimental measurements made so far, but provide a more pleasing description of the physics of these experiments then of course I would accept them as a possibility, and would eagerly look forward to seeing if they can be confirmed or denied by a future experiment. This is what particle physicists do all the time. Just have a look here for example, at see the wonderful multitude of wacky ideas each day: xxx.lanl.gov I am sure you can come up with a better name though... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
To quote Loinburger...
and to add how did you manage to find God trough study?
Bsically you are saying that you can give us the proof and evidence for God trough study, and at the same time you say that God stopped acting in this world 2.5 thousand years ago.
How can you be so conclusive to Gods existance studying evidence that is so old? |
How can you question Roman court laws? Because less 500 years is enough to be considered legitimate, but more than 2000 years old documents aren't? 
Don't forget that as the Roman legislators legitimacy wasn't questioned, so were the Israelite prophets! A way to better understand the legitimacy of a document, you need to know how well accepted was the document at the time of the writting. And in both examples I presented, no one had any doubts of its origin.
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Killing Loinburgers argument you are telling us that there is evidence for God that is more constructive than for the pink unicorn.
On the good deeds that Christianity proposes, I agree with this part, and no problem, but wouldn't one be able to come to the same conclusion without the need for God? |
Oh yes, you can! Exactly because of some of the arguments you exposed, such as God's inactivity! One can think: "I'm alive. I can make others happy. Others can make me happy. Where's God, BTW?". OTOH, those who are afected by famine all their lives can think: "God doesn't exist. All I see around me is poverty, corruption and pain!"
So, taking this to a humanitarian side, there are several reasons one can neglect a need for a God. But if you look back in history, every nation is associated with a God! Doesn't that make us wonder why has there been a Deity associated with mankind since the beginning of human history?
Now look at atheist countries or ruled by atheists (current or former). What's the list like? Soviet Union, Cuba, Albania, North Korea, China, Vietnam, and some I might forget. My point? I'm not saying atheists are evil or any crap like that; I'm saying that humanitarian ideology is not contributing to humanity's hapiness! So how long will it take you to notice that the world living conditions aren't getting better, and that those who are theists aren't to blame, just because they're theists?
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
And for Odin or Zeus, I don't really know the message, but can you say that someone exists simply because they have a good message. |
What I'm saying is that God has a purpose, not a good message. The message is to comfort us, and give hope!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Well, if you want to believe in invisible pink unicorns then that is your choice I suppose.... |
Similarly, if you want to believe in gods then that is your choice I suppose... 
Be wary about disdaining the arbitrary beliefs of others, when you yourself have similar arbitrary beliefs.
quote:
The layer may be unnecessary for you, but there are lots of other metaphysical question which the presence of God provides possible answers for, which are not answered by your assumption of no creater. |
The questions you refer to are still possible to answer with an assumption of no creator (or rather, the lack of any assumptions whatsoever regarding the (non)existence of creator(s)). The assumption of a creator is more often than not a copout: "This question is difficult to answer without being arbitrary, so let's be arbitrary. Voila, we've answered the question of Life, the Universe, and Everything, now hand me a beer."
quote:
Where does the standard of human morality come from for example? |
Argumentation theory gives a (consistent and non-arbitrary) answer to this question.
quote:
What defines me as an individual thinking being, with independent action, rather than merely some collection of particles which have had their actions defined by the initial conditions 14 billion years ago? |
Philosophy of the mind attempts to answer this question without employing a metaphysical copout like God. It also avoids begging the question as you have done, since it leaves "Nothing" as a possible answer.
quote:
What you are asking is that I believe your point of view which has no more supporting evidence than mine (indeed less if one considers the idea of personal revelation) and is less aesthetically pleasing to me. |
My point of view is not that of the atheist, but of the agnostic. Thus far, all supporting evidence (or rather the lack of supporting evidence) supports my view.
quote:
I am sure you can come up with a better name though... |
I'm not so sure... Wutang is for the children, after all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
On the evidence - there is written evidence about Roman gods as well, and you cannot refute their truth apart from the claim that they made it up to explain the unexplainable. The same could be applied to the reason why everyone needed God before. Now we have scientific reasoning to do so. To explain the phenomena.
God might have a purpose, but reasonable thinking can bring him into question. Does he exist, what is the evidence that he exisits?
As you say there is no involvment now, as there was before, and all is left to people to spread the message.
You might as well say that people are spreading the myth about a God for whom they have no evidence apart from the written ancient book. As well another question beggs answering and that is: how does it cope (the book) with other religions and excludes them as being correct? While other religions claim the same right as Christianity - they claim that it was the way their ancestors told them, and have other sets of moral rules, and have been in existance for last thousand or more years. This is what you can find from study I am sure. Why would one and the same god - with Christian properties -create them all?
And one more on Roman laws and Israelite prophets - Roman lawyers writing can be understood and applied even today with reasonable effects, or at least understood why was it written, on the other hand there is no first hand writings of the Prophets, and second of all their God does not Apper today unlike the Roman laws that can still be applied and understood. I think that a better argument is to compare Israeli prophets with lets say Zoroasterism, - whioch would be excluded from the Israelis as pagan, even though it is similar, and of same age (or even older) as the former. - that is the evidence why God is a myth.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
On the evidence - there is written evidence about Roman gods as well, and you cannot refute their truth apart from the claim that they made it up to explain the unexplainable. The same could be applied to the reason why everyone needed God before. Now we have scientific reasoning to do so. To explain the phenomena. |
Of course I can refute them! They are hand-made statues, with no interaction with humanity in all of their history, no contact whatsoever! That's why they didn't survive! That's why there were some people wich were, for example, Greek and Jew, without being Israelite! You are right when you say many made them up to explain phenomenons, but everybody they based it in God(s) that are not on this Realm! Don't you think it's far too much coincidence?
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
God might have a purpose, but reasonable thinking can bring him into question. Does he exist, what is the evidence that he exisits?
As you say there is no involvment now, as there was before, and all is left to people to spread the message.
You might as well say that people are spreading the myth about a God for whom they have no evidence apart from the written ancient book. As well another question beggs answering and that is: how does it cope (the book) with other religions and excludes them as being correct? While other religions claim the same right as Christianity - they claim that it was the way their ancestors told them, and have other sets of moral rules, and have been in existance for last thousand or more years. This is what you can find from study I am sure. Why would one and the same god - with Christian properties -create them all? |
I don't think it would be ethical to say my religion is better than others. Neither do I think the Internet could be a proper place for such debate. What I can say is that if you started doing some research among those who want to teach?
Then make a stand whether it's a myth or not!
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
And one more on Roman laws and Israelite prophets - Roman lawyers writing can be understood and applied even today with reasonable effects, or at least understood why was it written, on the other hand there is no first hand writings of the Prophets, and second of all their God does not Apper today unlike the Roman laws that can still be applied and understood. |
Come again?
Are you telling me that what was written by the prophets, wich, BTW, you don't know them, is not understandable?
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
I think that a better argument is to compare Israeli prophets with lets say Zoroasterism, - whioch would be excluded from the Israelis as pagan, even though it is similar, and of same age (or even older) as the former. - that is the evidence why God is a myth. |
I understand your skepticism around religion, I understand that there are a lot of religions around the world, and many are some crap that a loony wrote some centuries ago. But that's why I have been insisting you do some reseach. Don't search at some site why the Bible has fallacies in point A, B, or C! You'll never find the proper explanation in there! What I'm talking about is for you to start a project that might involve years to get all the answers you want!
Yet, you will never have the argument to question God's authority because He was inactive longer than you would see reasonable. In the worst case, you would need to know every Divine law.
Thankfully, you don't need to.  Just start with the right one.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Rephrase the question "Why did time come into existence from non-existence? Or if it has always existed why does it exist?". You should now see a necessary layer/answer. |
There is a question, I'm not denying that. I'm saying that belief in God does not answer the question in a more satisfactory manner than non-belief in God.
If we say "God created the Universe," and then say "We cannot say who created God because God is timeless," then this is equivalent to saying "The Universe arose from a singularity," and then saying "We cannot say what created the singularity because singularities are timeless" for purposes of answering the question "What came before the Big Bang?"
Yet when God creates the universe we get side-effects ("God created morality," "God created an afterlife," "God gave us free will," "God is dead," etc.) which are completely unrelated to the question being answered. When the universe comes out of a singularity then we get no side-effects.
quote:
Besides, ignoring questions for which you cannot answer to avoid "extra layers" is not what is meant by Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor presupposes that you have a plausible explanations to begin with. |
If the Big Bang arose from a singularity, and singularities are timeless, then we have added another layer when we say that God created the singularity. Worse yet, we have added a layer that produces unrelated side-effects.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
loinburger
|
|
Sweet Sauce Jones
Jul 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Not surprisingly, but we also get no answers. God theory provides "unbased" speculation, singularity reasoning is just "it is". |
This is because the statements "X created the universe" and "X did Y," where Y might be "gave us consciousness," or perhaps "created morality," are not causally related. You can't expect to know the answer to life, the universe, and everything just from speculations on who or what created the universe; it is just one piece of the puzzle.
quote:
If you observe a phenomena would you speculate as to its cause and rick being completely wrong, or just say "I will never understand" and give up. |
I would speculate. One such phenomenon/question/speculation is "Why is there Good and Evil"? I could say "There is Good and Evil because God has decreed it so, and this is within his power because He created the Universe," or I could say "God might have created Good and Evil, but it is dangerous to assume that this is the case because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that God created the Universe. However, argumentation theory gives an argument for why there is Good and Evil that does not rely on such arbitrary assumptions, therefore argumentation theory gives a more plausible argument than God-theory." By eliminating God's side-effects, or at the very least by calling them into question, one is able to avoid dangerous and unenlightening assumptions in other philosophical matters.
quote:
INMHO philosophical thought about the subject is better than no thought. |
I agree. However, reasoned philosophical thought is better than philosophical thought that allows for arbitrary side-effects.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Of course I can refute them! They are hand-made statues, with no interaction with humanity in all of their history, no contact whatsoever! That's why they didn't survive! That's why there were some people wich were, for example, Greek and Jew, without being Israelite! You are right when you say many made them up to explain phenomenons, but everybody they based it in God(s) that are not on this Realm! Don't you think it's far too much coincidence? |
I wouldn't think so, Hinduism survived, and it is similar, many Gods and godesses.
quote:
I don't think it would be ethical to say my religion is better than others. Neither do I think the Internet could be a proper place for such debate. What I can say is that if you started doing some research among those who want to teach?
Then make a stand whether it's a myth or not! |
I was just drawing conclusions from the fact that your God does not act anymore and he did before. Other religions, or pagan gods could make the same claim. Therefore since you think one is a myth why shouldn't the other one be a myth too. - you say no contact with humanity? Well how about hinduism again, it doesn't have much in common with Christianity and it is still here, and definitly is in touch with people there.
quote:
Come again?
Are you telling me that what was written by the prophets, wich, BTW, you don't know them, is not understandable? |
no their moral messages are great, but their claims that this was made in the name of God, are not necessarily correct. Roman lawyers could have been making the same claims and you don't believe them. That could be just a choice to seek for the higher authority to protect them in the eyes of the nation.
quote:
I understand your skepticism around religion, I understand that there are a lot of religions around the world, and many are some crap that a loony wrote some centuries ago. But that's why I have been insisting you do some reseach. Don't search at some site why the Bible has fallacies in point A, B, or C! You'll never find the proper explanation in there! What I'm talking about is for you to start a project that might involve years to get all the answers you want! |
you see with the science you can make a cause and effect relationship , with religion you cannot. Does that make religion obsolete?
And research to what point will it lead me? If you could show that there is a God trough study, wouldn't that be an accepted fact now? How can you conduct a study with the lack of evidence. On which facts do you base your conclusions?
[q]
Yet, you will never have the argument to question God's authority because He was inactive longer than you would see reasonable. In the worst case, you would need to know every Divine law.
Thankfully, you don't need to. Just start with the right one. [q/]
If God created us as reasonable beings, why doesn't he leave enough reasons for us to let us know that he is here? Or you migh say that there is the book. But there are other books that claim the same. So at the end which one should be the authority and on which basis can you refute the others and keep your own?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999
time: 23:18
|
|
--"I just can't believe in the theory of evolution, because in the real world"
Well, I honestly don't see any reason to doubt it. Looking for macro level changes is a bit of a strawman, however. I'd suggest that the most immediate examples to look at are things like pesticide resistance and antibiotic resistance. Both are clear examples of how organisms change over time to better survive in their environment.
--"This is its intention I believe."
That is part of the fun, yes. But, as has been mentioned, there is a point to all of it.
--"there is no answer because the question doesn't make sense."
Well, we don't know yet that the question doesn't make sense. What if one of the Big Crunch theories is eventually validated, and it turns out that the universe has probably undergone a series of expansions and collapses? As of yet, we can't say that the question is meaningless.
--"therefore there will at best be one law (or principle) which we cannot explain. Where did it come from?"
That's the problem. There will always be at least one assumption at the root of any argument. And no assumption can be proven within the system it is an assumption for. So we can't know for sure where it came from. Saying that it was created by god is no more valid than any other argument.
--"Of course they are there. That was my whole point"
But you can't claim the same about god. If you're going to claim that he exists outside of reality and does not interact with it in any measurable way, then the question of god's existence becomes meaningless. Either way, it doesn't matter to us on that basis. (Note again, agnostic here, not atheist.)
If you assume that god exists outside of reality, but does interact with it, then you should be able to provide evidence. That's all I'm asking for. (Note to Zealot: The Bible does not count as evidence without other sources to support it. I also have to ask why you consider the Bible to be any more valid than any other religious text.)
--"For your information, a Grand Unified Theory"
Hm. I wasn't aware of that difference. And I thought that at least some of the forces had been strongly tied (the "electro-weak" force).
--"Looking back to human governments, I really have little hopes for the future!"
Looking back on religions, I have even less...
--"Where does the standard of human morality come from for example?"
I feel Rand answered this one pretty well, actually. The point being that there is no need to assume a god to be able to answer these questions.
Wraith
Hail to the Sun God! He is the Fun God! Ra! Ra! Ra!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zealot
|
|
Lisboa, Portugal
Jun 2000
time: 05:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
quote:
Originally posted by Zealot
Of course I can refute them! They are hand-made statues, with no interaction with humanity in all of their history, no contact whatsoever! That's why they didn't survive! That's why there were some people wich were, for example, Greek and Jew, without being Israelite! You are right when you say many made them up to explain phenomenons, but everybody they based it in God(s) that are not on this Realm! Don't you think it's far too much coincidence? |
I wouldn't think so, Hinduism survived, and it is similar, many Gods and godesses. |
I'm sorry, I don't know Hinduism very well. Are you saying that the Hindus claim to have received an inspired message from their Gods, so that they could have a better life, ie, to prosper?
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
quote:
I don't think it would be ethical to say my religion is better than others. Neither do I think the Internet could be a proper place for such debate. What I can say is that if you started doing some research among those who want to teach?
Then make a stand whether it's a myth or not! |
I was just drawing conclusions from the fact that your God does not act anymore and he did before. Other religions, or pagan gods could make the same claim. Therefore since you think one is a myth why shouldn't the other one be a myth too. - you say no contact with humanity? Well how about hinduism again, it doesn't have much in common with Christianity and it is still here, and definitly is in touch with people there. |
I don't think you would read the bible to figure that out, would you? Even if someone offered his time to help you understanding why is the Bible reliable, would you still read it?
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
quote:
Come again?
Are you telling me that what was written by the prophets, wich, BTW, you don't know them, is not understandable? |
no their moral messages are great, but their claims that this was made in the name of God, are not necessarily correct. Roman lawyers could have been making the same claims and you don't believe them. That could be just a choice to seek for the higher authority to protect them in the eyes of the nation. |
I'm talking about the Judean-Christian religion, the first monotheistic religion to have historical record. You want to say that others could make the same claims? Sure! Would the rest of the known world accept their "religion"? I honestly don't think so.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2002 21:24
|