-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature
- Thread starter Bazooka Lucca
- Start date
- Status
Zeeky H Bomb
Smash Ace
And if we were able to prove this then the world would be a much worse place. Same for a world without religion, mass hysteria, people not abiding to law, it would be chaos
Because I am adhering to my religion.
No, there is no logical concrete 100% proof, thus you don't believe. I had a personal experience earlier in my life (my family should ALL [immediate and most of the extended] be dead), ergo i believe.
Yes because I am exactly like you...
Nic64
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,725
Once again, this is absolute bull ****. Religious people still comit crimes, the fear has failed to stop bad people from doing bad things. People do the right or wrong things for other reasons, not because of their religion. And the law already has its own threats in place so the fear doesn't dissappear, who wants to go to prison and get ***** every day?
D
Deleted member
Guest
sadly, I'm forced to agree with snex. Religion has incured more hindrances towards human development than anything I can think of at the current moment. Always abused or extreme in nature of course, but still associated with religious bounds.
Probably the most annoying things I've seen with religion is that the majority of followers are too stupid to believe anything else. I'm not saying that that's anyone on these boards (in particular), but I know that in my church, the majority of people are mind-nummingly stupid. That's why I don't go to church anymore, because it puts me off my religion.
I agree completely. Now, I'll be happy if no one says that religion has caused wars etc, as the people probably would have made war anyway, due to their nature. Got it? Good
Nic64
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,725
I'd have to disagree with you there however. Yes people are often prone to senseless violence even without religion, but there are instances where it does seem as though conflict would have been less likely without it. In the end you're partly right and many people who use religion to cover their real reasons for doing things probably would have done it anyway...but not all of them and it has caused various problems that might not exist otherwise.
Mike da King
Smash Apprentice
Why do you suppose that the religious leaders are those that lead militants vs. the US? Religion and stupidity tend to go hand-in-hand. If you believe without reason, fail to exercise critical thinking, employ blind faith, and then ****ing explode yourself so that others may die fiery deaths, then you WILL be sanctified by some religious sect whose enemies just got blown up.
Is there anyone alive who is NOT the sworn enemy of some religious group? I don't mean by name; many religion's holy texts contain a "wipe out all nonbelievers" clause somewhere. Two different ones would prove my point. Oooh ooh I'll try to find some. BRB
the Koran:
"fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness" (9.123)
"kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out....Such is the recompense of the unbelievers" (2.191)
I'm not pointing to Muslims in general, but only those who literally interpret the Koran.
talkabout network
There you have it, somebody named Steve wants people to kill Muslims; therefore every single person in existence is the sworn enemy of some religious group (if Steve counts)
Is there anyone alive who is NOT the sworn enemy of some religious group? I don't mean by name; many religion's holy texts contain a "wipe out all nonbelievers" clause somewhere. Two different ones would prove my point. Oooh ooh I'll try to find some. BRB
the Koran:
"fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness" (9.123)
"kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out....Such is the recompense of the unbelievers" (2.191)
I'm not pointing to Muslims in general, but only those who literally interpret the Koran.
talkabout network
There you have it, somebody named Steve wants people to kill Muslims; therefore every single person in existence is the sworn enemy of some religious group (if Steve counts)
pikamon
Smash Ace
The bible does not say that we should kill the nonbelievers. It says to let God deal with those who would seek to cause destruction. "Vengeance is mine, saying the Lord."
It does not say that we should go out and kill those of us who are different or believe differently then we do. In fact, it says quite the oposite. It says that we should treat our neighbors as we would like to be treated. Rather than kill our enemies, we should love them and pray for them.
It does not say that we should go out and kill those of us who are different or believe differently then we do. In fact, it says quite the oposite. It says that we should treat our neighbors as we would like to be treated. Rather than kill our enemies, we should love them and pray for them.
snex
Smash Master
and yet in the book of genesis god specifically encourages the hebrews to drive the pagans out of the promised land (by killing them). seems to me like he doesnt follow his own advice, or he just changes his mind a whole lot.
Is Deuteronomy in the Bible?
Deu 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Deu 13:7 [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;
Deu 13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
Deu 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
Deu 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
'Nuff said, I think.
Deu 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
Deu 13:7 [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth;
Deu 13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
Deu 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
Deu 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
'Nuff said, I think.
Nic64
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,725
Why do you suppose that the religious leaders are those that lead militants vs. the US? Religion and stupidity tend to go hand-in-hand. If you believe without reason, fail to exercise critical thinking, employ blind faith, and then ****ing explode yourself so that others may die fiery deaths, then you WILL be sanctified by some religious sect whose enemies just got blown up.
I try not to attack religion too often, just to leave people alone and do their own thing...but I must agree that the lack of critical thinking it causes is very harmful. Not just in the obvious ways, if you look around the world sometime it's obvious people don't think enough...and while religion isn't to blame for it alone, it is part of the problem.
I try not to attack religion too often, just to leave people alone and do their own thing...but I must agree that the lack of critical thinking it causes is very harmful. Not just in the obvious ways, if you look around the world sometime it's obvious people don't think enough...and while religion isn't to blame for it alone, it is part of the problem.
expletivedeleted
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Messages
- 158
[note: I read the first fifteen pages and then skipped to 55, reading a few random pages in between. From what I saw, the entirety of this topic can basically be summed up in a single, random page; however, I do apologize if I am only reiterating points made before.]
Religion is by definition faith. If it were empirical and not faith, then it would be science, not religion. Thus, it is logically flawed to use logic to argue faith, because faith is by definition illogical. The very existance of an omnipotent God can explain anything and everything, and trumps logic in the eyes of a believer. Any argument against religion can be answered simply with "but He is omnipotent." Religion is a secure intitution because it is so open to logical flaws, being that it has above catch-all answer.
On religion in society: I would disagree strongly with whoever said religion is the most dysfunctional thing to our society. Religion is, in fact, very functional. Think of things like psychotherapy, Alcoholics Anonymous, and even politics. All are functionally equivilant to religion. Ironically, even communism is a functional equivilant of religion, and almost a religion itself. All answer questions, create security, create community, etc.
However, as we can so blatantly see now, religion does have its dysfunctions as well. Because any religion can answer any question, two different religions can give the same answer. This creates problems. Ultimately, it creates religious persecution. Citing Christinity in particular (not to single it out but because it is the only example i can think of), the word of God can be used to support/qualify any statement. Look at ministers during America's long history of institutionalized social discrimination. Southern Baptism (correct me if I'm wrong) was a splinter group formed for the purpose of using the bible to validate the institution of slavery. Martin Luther King Jr., a well known civil rights hero and minister, frequently used the bible to dispute discrimination. One book, one religion, two completely opposite messages.
Marx is known for two statements about religion. The first is that religion is the "opium of the people." He says that religions functions - happiness despite oppression, hope for an afterlife - give the oppressed proletariate less reason to rebel against the upper class. What's more relavent, however, is his statement that religion mirrors and legitimates social inequalities. The above is a perfect example of this. When society accepted a racial hierarchy, religion did as well. Society now comdemns racism (American society anyway), and I don't see many religions lynching blacks anymore [note: religious organizations are very racially segregated, accounting for the saying that 10-11 am Sunday is the most segregated hour in the country. However, this is due to two things: tradition, which is whites still attending their own churches and blacks attending organizations like the AME, formed specifically for blacks; and ethnic groups immigrating and bringing their own religion and church with them]. Likewise, the church condoned the Inquisition and the witch hunts, yet I challange you to find a Christian minister today who would.
The difference between religion and science is that religion has all the answers and science doesn't. What this means is that when a new concept is discovered in science, it is accepted and the scientific community at large will adapt to its new discovery (yes, I know scientists can be amazingly stubborn, but this is the general idea). But because religion has all the answers, it is resistant to change. Yet we see that religion does change, although, with some exceptions, it is resistant to it. This supports Marx's view of religion causing the stagnation of society - we can see through history that religion does legitimize socity. Saying that it legitimates social inequalities alone is a bit cynical, but it does put weight behind society's morals.
The statements above are generalizations. Please don't point point out specific examples (Weber's theories about Calvinism's focus on the afterlife causing the rise of industrialism, the Isrealites escaping the Pharoah) to discredit this, because, obviously, they exist. Exceptions exist to everything.
*phew* - That was lengthy. I hope I didn't bore anyone.
Check out my new sig
Religion is by definition faith. If it were empirical and not faith, then it would be science, not religion. Thus, it is logically flawed to use logic to argue faith, because faith is by definition illogical. The very existance of an omnipotent God can explain anything and everything, and trumps logic in the eyes of a believer. Any argument against religion can be answered simply with "but He is omnipotent." Religion is a secure intitution because it is so open to logical flaws, being that it has above catch-all answer.
On religion in society: I would disagree strongly with whoever said religion is the most dysfunctional thing to our society. Religion is, in fact, very functional. Think of things like psychotherapy, Alcoholics Anonymous, and even politics. All are functionally equivilant to religion. Ironically, even communism is a functional equivilant of religion, and almost a religion itself. All answer questions, create security, create community, etc.
However, as we can so blatantly see now, religion does have its dysfunctions as well. Because any religion can answer any question, two different religions can give the same answer. This creates problems. Ultimately, it creates religious persecution. Citing Christinity in particular (not to single it out but because it is the only example i can think of), the word of God can be used to support/qualify any statement. Look at ministers during America's long history of institutionalized social discrimination. Southern Baptism (correct me if I'm wrong) was a splinter group formed for the purpose of using the bible to validate the institution of slavery. Martin Luther King Jr., a well known civil rights hero and minister, frequently used the bible to dispute discrimination. One book, one religion, two completely opposite messages.
Marx is known for two statements about religion. The first is that religion is the "opium of the people." He says that religions functions - happiness despite oppression, hope for an afterlife - give the oppressed proletariate less reason to rebel against the upper class. What's more relavent, however, is his statement that religion mirrors and legitimates social inequalities. The above is a perfect example of this. When society accepted a racial hierarchy, religion did as well. Society now comdemns racism (American society anyway), and I don't see many religions lynching blacks anymore [note: religious organizations are very racially segregated, accounting for the saying that 10-11 am Sunday is the most segregated hour in the country. However, this is due to two things: tradition, which is whites still attending their own churches and blacks attending organizations like the AME, formed specifically for blacks; and ethnic groups immigrating and bringing their own religion and church with them]. Likewise, the church condoned the Inquisition and the witch hunts, yet I challange you to find a Christian minister today who would.
The difference between religion and science is that religion has all the answers and science doesn't. What this means is that when a new concept is discovered in science, it is accepted and the scientific community at large will adapt to its new discovery (yes, I know scientists can be amazingly stubborn, but this is the general idea). But because religion has all the answers, it is resistant to change. Yet we see that religion does change, although, with some exceptions, it is resistant to it. This supports Marx's view of religion causing the stagnation of society - we can see through history that religion does legitimize socity. Saying that it legitimates social inequalities alone is a bit cynical, but it does put weight behind society's morals.
The statements above are generalizations. Please don't point point out specific examples (Weber's theories about Calvinism's focus on the afterlife causing the rise of industrialism, the Isrealites escaping the Pharoah) to discredit this, because, obviously, they exist. Exceptions exist to everything.
*phew* - That was lengthy. I hope I didn't bore anyone.
Check out my new sig
snex
Smash Master
such a good post and then you went and ruined it with this. billions of believers is no argument at all, especially considering the reasons for belief. there is absolutely no reason to assume that god exists, in any form. just because billions of people like to make silly assumptions does not make it a strong argument.
expletivedeleted
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Messages
- 158
God exists as a concept, doofus. I was trying to be subtle.
*sigh*
Oh well. I probably wouldn't have understood that if someone else had written it. My mistake. I'll just edit that out, and no one will know it ever existed.
...I know where you live.
*sigh*
Oh well. I probably wouldn't have understood that if someone else had written it. My mistake. I'll just edit that out, and no one will know it ever existed.
...I know where you live.
expletivedeleted
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Messages
- 158
Stop yelling at me! *cries*
I already said that I shouldn't have included that, and I even deleted it from the post.
If someone's going to comment on something I said, could it please be on the actual content of the post?
I already said that I shouldn't have included that, and I even deleted it from the post.
If someone's going to comment on something I said, could it please be on the actual content of the post?
Mike da King
Smash Apprentice
These generalizations seem accurate, but can be clarified:
Time after time, religion's irrational yet unquestionably, divinely correct worldviews have been contradicted by reality, and thus by science.
The primary differences between religion and science: the religious is necessarily unverifiable, irreproducible, unjustifiable, and incomprehensible, while the scientific is necessarily verifiable, reproducible, justifiable, and comprehensible. From these differences arise the others, such as that religion can put forth answers when science cannot. Science draws its conclusions from reality via logic, while religion needs not justify, since religion and (blind/unjustified/irrational) faith are practically synonymous.
Time after time, religion's irrational yet unquestionably, divinely correct worldviews have been contradicted by reality, and thus by science.
I think you're confusing Karl Marx with Mark Twain, though I'm not sure, and I believe the quote is opiate, not opium, just to nitpick.
I disagree. I would change these to "most religions claim to have all the answers." It seems awfully silly to try to say that religion can answer questions when the answers are meaningless. I can answer any question too...the implied thing in the statement is that it can answer all questions with validity, which it can not do. This has always bothered me about "God of the Gaps" style theology. People will say "science can't answer everything, and that's where religion comes in". But how is it helpful to answer a question when you're just making up the answer? How is science's "I don't know" any different from religion's "(I don't know, but I'll pretend I know and say anyway) God did it"? In essence, they're both I don't knows, one of them just pretends to know.
If I say I "have all the answers" to your SAT test you're taking, but it turns out the cheat sheet I give you is just one where I randomly filled in the bubbles willy-nilly, do I really have all the answers?
-B
expletivedeleted
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Messages
- 158
Of course. This is why you don't question me. I'm always right.
What I meant was that within the religion's faithful, the answer is there, and, to them, it is correct. Within the scientific community, many answers are still unknown. One could say that science "claims" have the answers. We've disproved some scientific "truths" from a few thousand years ago; maybe in a few thousand years, some things we accept as truth will be found false. Science is based on a series of postulates that are only theories; a single irregularity could topple centuries of scientific advancement. Postulate, by definition, are assumed true. If scientists had to start from the beginning each time, nothing would ever be accomplished; therefor scientists base their research on what has been researched before, and that was based on research before that. I don't have to prove the Briot-Savant law, or Newton's universal law of gravity--I assume they are true and work from there. Isn't that a form of faith? (Being a bit of a devil's advocate here, as I probably agree with your views in general).
This argument is flawed. Those people who say that "God did it" actually do believe that God did it; it's not a coverup for a recognized lapse of knowledge, as you make it appear to be.
@Mike da King: I agree completely. Thank you for the addendum.
Only using fallacious equivocation. What I mean is, yes, it's faith, but it's not the same "faith" as religious faith. In the dictionary, this scientific faith might fall under definition 2b, whereas religious faith might fall under 1a. The fact that the same word is used to represent scientific "faith" and religious "faith" does not make them the same thing. The fallacy of getting someone to agree with you while you use one definition, then using a different definition and claiming your opponent now agrees with you is known as the fallacy of equivocation.
Yes, they believe that God did it. But they don't know it. At least not in any useful sense of the word. If I know something via science, it is based on some form of reasoning. It can still be wrong, but there is a large degree reason to believe it is right, hence we "know" it. For "know" to have any meaning, it must mean "To find probable to a very high degree" or something of the like. I hold that while a thiest may SAY they know the answer, they do not in any meaningful sense. And I believe it IS a coverup for a recognized lack of knowledge. Even using the biblical definition of faith, faith is meant to jump the gap from I don't know to I'll act like I know. Theists can recognize that they don't actually know that God exists, but through faith they believe it. If I were a little better with the Bible I could cite the definition of faith from John or whatever but hopefully I don't need to.
BTW, you are right on the quote, though through Google I found why I thought you were wrong- many, many sources have the wording as opiate for the masses instead of opium for the people. I must say, I believe this is because opiate/masses sounds better, and somebody happened to spice up Marx's writings. How I got Twain out of it, though, no clue.
-B
expletivedeleted
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Messages
- 158
Hooray for semantics!
Again, semantics, I say.
But I see what you're saying, and I'm not quite sure if I agree. I would like to see that Bible verse, if you can dig it up, I think it would help.
It seems that we're both looking from a non-religious perspective. Are there any religious nuts (no offense intended) here who could respond to this?
No. "opium of the people" is so much sexier than "opiate of the masses."
Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
It's acknowledged, right there in the Bible, that Faith is believing things that you don't have evidence for- faith is the evidence in itself (which, by the way, makes a mockery of the word "evidence"). Substance of things hoped for? Yeah, you don't know it's true, but you hope it is, and you're going to believe it anyway.
Of course, since your quote was Marx, we deserve a Twain quote:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
As for dismissing my arguments as semantics...No fair, I'm dismissing YOUR arguments a semantics first! Nyah! No, seriously, that was my whole point- it's only semantic trickery that could allow you to say that religion let's you know the answers.
More on equivocation
This isn't equivocation per se, but I must say it's related.
-B
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"
It's acknowledged, right there in the Bible, that Faith is believing things that you don't have evidence for- faith is the evidence in itself (which, by the way, makes a mockery of the word "evidence"). Substance of things hoped for? Yeah, you don't know it's true, but you hope it is, and you're going to believe it anyway.
Of course, since your quote was Marx, we deserve a Twain quote:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
As for dismissing my arguments as semantics...No fair, I'm dismissing YOUR arguments a semantics first! Nyah! No, seriously, that was my whole point- it's only semantic trickery that could allow you to say that religion let's you know the answers.
More on equivocation
This isn't equivocation per se, but I must say it's related.
-B
expletivedeleted
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Messages
- 158
You have caught on to my evil plan to rule the world...now I must destroy you. Mufufufufu.
So I'm using equivocation (or a statement which, whether intended to be or not, is) to make a point. Oops. I was trying to stress the similarities between the lack of the definitive in religion and the ability to question even the reality in which we live, or think we live. Like the Matrix. Hehe. What this leads back to is Descartes' famous statement "I think therefore I am," perhaps not using it as he intended, but the general idea that I can assume I exist, and use extensions of myself to assume the existance of what's around me. Or something. Blah.
There's a difference between having faith and having blind faith. I mean, believing that Santa Clause doesn't exist takes some degree of faith, because it's impossible to prove that he doesn't exist. Infact it's impossible to prove that I exist right now. BUT, the chances of both me existing and Santa not existing are so great, that the faith is just in this case. In my opinion I would treat religion the same as Santa Clause, sure I can't prove that it's wrong, but going with what evidence i HAVE I'd place my faith to say religion doesn't exist. (Meaning it's not true, I don't mean to claim that religion doesn't exist in the literal sense)
Nic64
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Messages
- 1,725
sure I can't prove that it's wrong, but going with what evidence i HAVE I'd place my faith to say religion doesn't exist.
True for many people probably, but then they have that fear "what if I'm wrong and I go to ****?". This is perhaps the one reason why I dislike Christianity more than any other religion, if people want to believe what you believe then fine...but scaring them into it is wrong.
True for many people probably, but then they have that fear "what if I'm wrong and I go to ****?". This is perhaps the one reason why I dislike Christianity more than any other religion, if people want to believe what you believe then fine...but scaring them into it is wrong.
expletivedeleted
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Messages
- 158
If someone is religious for that reason, they deserve to go to ****.
expletivedeleted
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- May 29, 2004
- Messages
- 158
Yeah, that sounds about right.
---
What I meant is that you should be religious because you believe it (or whatever it is religious people do), not do the ceremonies emptilly (if that's even a word) just for fear of going to ****.
Mike da King
Smash Apprentice
Is luring people into it (using notions of nirvana/lots of virgins) any less wrong?
I made my own thread for this proof, but it was closed down because someone thought it was the same as this thread for some reason. Whatever, it doesn't matter, I'm just going to post my proof here.
Here is my proof for the existence of God:
-Everything that physically exists has a cause that is independent of its own effects (i.e. something cannot be the cause of itself).
-The physical universe exists, therefore the physical universe must have a cause.
-Since the physical universe comprises matter and space (time is dependent on matter) it must have a cause which is independent of matter and space.
-Matter and space are the essence of all physical things, so the cause of physical existence cannot be something physical, since that would imply that the physical universe can be simultaneously the cause and the effect of itself.
-The only conceivable, and the simplest probable cause which is independent of space, matter (and consequently time) is God.
This is a kind of eclectic proof which is a mixture of other peoples' ideas, such as the scholar Thomas Aquinas, and a few of my own ideas.
. . . Discussion?
Here is my proof for the existence of God:
-Everything that physically exists has a cause that is independent of its own effects (i.e. something cannot be the cause of itself).
-The physical universe exists, therefore the physical universe must have a cause.
-Since the physical universe comprises matter and space (time is dependent on matter) it must have a cause which is independent of matter and space.
-Matter and space are the essence of all physical things, so the cause of physical existence cannot be something physical, since that would imply that the physical universe can be simultaneously the cause and the effect of itself.
-The only conceivable, and the simplest probable cause which is independent of space, matter (and consequently time) is God.
This is a kind of eclectic proof which is a mixture of other peoples' ideas, such as the scholar Thomas Aquinas, and a few of my own ideas.
. . . Discussion?
snex
Smash Master
prove this.
prove this.
prove this.
prove this.
prove this.
your "proof" is nothing more than speculations.
It's funny...I warned you not to send me any more god **** emails. Multiple times. And you still do it. Well, now you're banned. Have fun!
In formal logic, certain conditions are assumed to be givens. I assume a few simple conepts in this argument, such as the law of cause and effect. Whether you choose to ignore the obvious characteristics of the world you live in isn't my responsibility. I'm not here to prove to you that the physical universe comprises space, matter, and energy, just as I'm not trying to prove to you that 2+2=4. The givens in my argument are what most people would call common sense.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2001
- Messages
- 10,074
By definition, CONVENTIONAL physics and science, and therefore logic, do not apply to the SUPERNATURAL
Read and re-read that last statement until you understand it so completely, that you feel you have reached some sort of enlightenment. *wink*
Also, in the Bible, God supposedly allowed Satan all the power he wanted to confuse and anger this man, Job, except for killing him, in order to tempt him away from God....
... I know this is an out-there possibility, but if Satan really does have that power, then could he not alter our environment to make it appear the Bible is false. Or alter our logic. Consiousness IS an illusion of the mind, you know.
I would suggest reading Jack Cohens' "The Collapse of Chaos"
Read and re-read that last statement until you understand it so completely, that you feel you have reached some sort of enlightenment. *wink*
Also, in the Bible, God supposedly allowed Satan all the power he wanted to confuse and anger this man, Job, except for killing him, in order to tempt him away from God....
... I know this is an out-there possibility, but if Satan really does have that power, then could he not alter our environment to make it appear the Bible is false. Or alter our logic. Consiousness IS an illusion of the mind, you know.
I would suggest reading Jack Cohens' "The Collapse of Chaos"
game & kirby
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 87
back again!
After a year and a half of sojourn from the august pages of this site, I come back to see the debate about atheism is still going strong. Wonderful!
However, I also see that there are new people with new arguments in favour of God's existence. Let's see... Ross 15, when you say that in 'formal logic' certain conditions are assumed to be givens, this does not give you, or anyone else, free reign to invent any fantastical dream world, and assume it's veracity, simply by the law that 'some conditions must be assumed to be givens'.
What you are referring to is the presence of postulates and axioms in fields such as mathematics and science. These simple statements are conditions which must be assumed to be given, since it is a logical progression of thought that is common to all that produces such an axiom. In essence, proving a postulate wrong would mean creating a paradox.
Let's take a simple geometric example. A postulate of triangles reads that no one side of any triangle can be greater in length than the sum of the lengths of the remaining two sides. Now picture it. In your mind's eye, this is obviously true. If two sides added up to less than the third side, they couldn't actually connect to make a triangle. Proving this postulate wrong would mean that the definition of the triangle would be fallacious, and since that is previously established as a statement (what is a triangle?) this cannot be.
Now let's look at your so called 'assumed conditions' :
Your logical progression is outstanding, Ross, in that you have managed to keep the thread of logic throughout your argument. Each statement follows from, and builds on the last. But let's look at your first statement.
'Everything that physically exists has a cause that is independent of its own effects (i.e. something cannot be the cause of itself).'
snex was very apt to have caught this, and indeed he exposed it for all the world to see. Although all your logical progressions are fine, the statement on which they are built is not. This statement is completely fictitious, I'm sorry to say. When you say that something cannot be the cause of itself, you are absolutely right. I cannot create myself. The universe cannot have created itself out of nothing. However, in your following logical progression, you say that this means that not only can we not create ourselves, but that which DOES create use must be completely different in nature from us. In essence, it must be SUPERnatural, simply because something natural cannot create something else which is natural.
May I enlighten you as to the function of sexual intercourse?
Seeing that this 'assumed condition' is clearly NOT irrefutable, one might say that the rest of the argument you put forth is completely fallatious. However, another flaw exists in your final reasoning. Even given that all the above is true, and that all that you said is true, why is God the 'simplest and most probable solution'?
What is so simple and probable about an unearthly, supernatural and omnipotent being, fully sentient, indeed much more sentient than we are, omniscient, and putatively benevolent? It seems to me that rather than being probable and simple as a solution, it is more whimsical and optimistic.
However, I'm sure most people already caught the gist of your 'logic' about 3 lines into it, so I won't go on.
lol, nothing personal, honestly :D
-game & kirby
After a year and a half of sojourn from the august pages of this site, I come back to see the debate about atheism is still going strong. Wonderful!
However, I also see that there are new people with new arguments in favour of God's existence. Let's see... Ross 15, when you say that in 'formal logic' certain conditions are assumed to be givens, this does not give you, or anyone else, free reign to invent any fantastical dream world, and assume it's veracity, simply by the law that 'some conditions must be assumed to be givens'.
What you are referring to is the presence of postulates and axioms in fields such as mathematics and science. These simple statements are conditions which must be assumed to be given, since it is a logical progression of thought that is common to all that produces such an axiom. In essence, proving a postulate wrong would mean creating a paradox.
Let's take a simple geometric example. A postulate of triangles reads that no one side of any triangle can be greater in length than the sum of the lengths of the remaining two sides. Now picture it. In your mind's eye, this is obviously true. If two sides added up to less than the third side, they couldn't actually connect to make a triangle. Proving this postulate wrong would mean that the definition of the triangle would be fallacious, and since that is previously established as a statement (what is a triangle?) this cannot be.
Now let's look at your so called 'assumed conditions' :
Your logical progression is outstanding, Ross, in that you have managed to keep the thread of logic throughout your argument. Each statement follows from, and builds on the last. But let's look at your first statement.
'Everything that physically exists has a cause that is independent of its own effects (i.e. something cannot be the cause of itself).'
snex was very apt to have caught this, and indeed he exposed it for all the world to see. Although all your logical progressions are fine, the statement on which they are built is not. This statement is completely fictitious, I'm sorry to say. When you say that something cannot be the cause of itself, you are absolutely right. I cannot create myself. The universe cannot have created itself out of nothing. However, in your following logical progression, you say that this means that not only can we not create ourselves, but that which DOES create use must be completely different in nature from us. In essence, it must be SUPERnatural, simply because something natural cannot create something else which is natural.
May I enlighten you as to the function of sexual intercourse?
Seeing that this 'assumed condition' is clearly NOT irrefutable, one might say that the rest of the argument you put forth is completely fallatious. However, another flaw exists in your final reasoning. Even given that all the above is true, and that all that you said is true, why is God the 'simplest and most probable solution'?
What is so simple and probable about an unearthly, supernatural and omnipotent being, fully sentient, indeed much more sentient than we are, omniscient, and putatively benevolent? It seems to me that rather than being probable and simple as a solution, it is more whimsical and optimistic.
However, I'm sure most people already caught the gist of your 'logic' about 3 lines into it, so I won't go on.
lol, nothing personal, honestly :D
-game & kirby
- Status