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!
With some indifference as well, right?
Not just 50/50 on whether he exists, but 50/50 on whether the he's necessary ie. the world could conceivably exist without him.
There's so much wrong with that statement that I'm not going to bother explaining what it is.
Atheism is more than the lack of theism? Pretty sure theists are people who assert the existence of a deity, and an atheist is one who denies it. What conditions are necessary (or sufficient for that matter) for being an atheist?
good, because i've talked with plenty of atheists like you who like to pretend that they don't believe anything, and you'd probably get demolished by me if you tried to defend your belief that you don't have beliefs.
you believe there is no god, which is just as much a positive claim as "there is a god" is
O_O He isn't saying he feels that way, in fact... you are the one who said it, and he is the one that criticized it. Am I missing something here?
How so? What evidence could you provide that something does not exist?
Oh boy. *waits for Dre to comment on this*
He's not entirely wrong, except that what he's saying only applies to empirical statements, not metaphysical ones.
Understandable, but how could one prove a metaphysical statement?He's not entirely wrong, except that what he's saying only applies to empirical statements, not metaphysical ones.
Also, you can show that certain things don't exist if their properties are internally contradictory eg. a married bachelor. Some people would say that the idea of a good God is contradictory given the existence of evil.
By having it metaphysically necessary for a proposition to be true (proving that is couldn't be any other way).
But that's irrelevant to what an atheist is. I only go so far as to deny the theistic claim. Anything else is irrelevant.Well metaphysically you do believe x y and z if you're an atheist.
But how would you prove it was no other way? You see, it could be anything other than god. He doesn't have to be omnipotent, or immaterial, or any of the other notions of god. It could be god, the same way it could be anything else. We have no reason to suggest that it is god, or even that we were created. That would be an invalid conclusion given our very small amount of evidence. There would be no way to prove it couldn't be any other way, what evidence would there be to show it has to be god?
You're assuming a lot here.
Not if it has sufficient reasoning, it isn't.
What are you thinking, that metaphysical thinking are actually just meaningless thoughts? Are you kidding me? O_O
I went over a lot of this some pages ago. The metaphysical, by virtue of being metaphysical, is something whose properties we can't comprehend. We can know that a metaphysical things "exists" but we cannot know in what way it exists. We can't know whether or not it is good or evil, one or two, big or small, omnipotent, immaterial, or any other adjective that we typically use to describe physical, observable things. As entities of the natural world, we can only understand things by relating them to natural concepts, but a metaphysical thing may not, and likely is not, subject to any of the natural concepts that we can understand. Therefore the question of the qualities of the metaphysical "god" is invalid, in fact, the entire notion of their being "qualities" to a "god" at all is invalid because we have no way of knowing whether we can understand that metaphysical entity in this way. We can only know what we can conclude from necessity: that it exists and that it created (at least) the most basic entity of our natural existence (energy, the big bang, or whatever).
I agree, calling it a god is misleading, but "god" is pretty much the only term we have that relates to the entire concept. I mean, this kind of thought isn't exactly popular, so it would be hard to coin and force another term on people at the time being.
Philosophy provides a logical basis for deduction in the absence of proof. We philosophize on the premise that we understand how reality works, and that given a set of circumstances something will logically be concluded. Of course philosophy doesn't prove anything, but it gives us a hint of what and how things will or can be proven. It's a guide that helps us to know the unknown without having to wait until science does it for us. Theoretically, as long as the logic of a philosophical argument is sound, that argument should be considered true. It's a very useful utility, given that if we didn't philosophize, we'd often be stuck in ignorance, waiting for science or someone else to tell us what's true and false with empirical fact. We'd never have any basis for understanding or questioning anything.
I am using it as most people mean it. A entity that is omnipotent, omniscience, omnibeneveleant, immaterial, and the creator of the universe.
Dre, I am disappointed. This is such a cop-out. "I have plenty of evidence, but I can't tell you any because you won't understand." I expected a better argument from someone who seems well versed in philosophy.
I agree completely, but it still does not address my question. How can we show that he was anymore necessary than anything else? How did you conclude that it exists and it created anything?
so the universe "just" happened?
Well, according to science it came from nothing.
