How can god not exist?

Discussion in 'Agnosticism and Atheism' started by nephthys, Jun 25, 2004.

  1. Razorofoccam

    Razorofoccam Banned

    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    1
    Blackguard

    Yes...The crash..Is a distinct possibillity....
    Dislocation..collapse. Partially or globally.

    There are reasons occam does not think it will happen...
    The first is to do with optimism :)

    Occam
     
  2. BlackGuardXIII

    BlackGuardXIII fera festiva

    Messages:
    5,101
    Likes Received:
    3
    I believe that an optimist can accomplish what others consider impossible, so that is a hopeful point. But other than that, all I have learned about us, and our actions, lead me to feel that we are in an inevitable collision course with the law of the jungle. Our ever accelerating devouring of the biomass is soon going to bear fruit, or should I say, come to an end.
    I have felt this since about 1980, at which time our pace of consumption was well beyond sustainability, and it has increased every year since.
    I am optimistic that after the nastiness, when the dust clears, the planet will be better for it, and hopefully, the people will not forget their history.
    In my view, this will not be our first time to go through this, and I suspect it has happened many times in the last 250 000 years.
     
  3. TheHammerSpeaks

    TheHammerSpeaks Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    His first response entirely missed my point, but I'm starting to warm up to the guy now.

    Do you really need my permission?

    I already explained that: the virgin birth, ressurection from the dead, God dying for the sake of man. These are things that science, reason, and even common sense say are impossible, but not religion.

    Every body of ideas is a dogma, even reason because reason fails to critique its own value. Reason is especially dogmatic because it demands that things be understood in accordance with a set of rules; that's limitting. The bible is so full of contradictions that it cannot possibly be used to devise a system of ethical absolutes. It demands that we accept some things as mysteries, things which we cannot understand. It is designed to be open to virtually endless interpretations, which is why there are so many denominations of Christianity. Do you still think the bible is dogmatic? If you do, then whose dogma is it? The Catholics, the Lutherans, the Seventh Day Adventists? If something is dogmatic, then it is designed to resist interpretation, meaning it should lack as much allegory, metaphor, and synecdoche as possible. So why is the bible so rich in these literary devices?

    That's right, you can't. But so what? What's the have to do with it?

    No, reason makes people weak. People use reason to justify moral claims in order to convince everyone else, through pure sophistry, that their moral claims are the only right ones. Why do they do this? Because they are not strong enough to stand by their moral claims when others think something different or when they do not correspond to what most people think of as "reality." How many people would be martyred for the sake of science? Copernicus gave up on his helio-centric universe when the Church threatened him. Understanding doesn't make you strong, conviction does.

    So what would you do if your method was undeniably disproven? Would you abandon it? Would you reform it?

    But it reveals the strength of my constitution.

    No I don't. If I did, I wouldn't be here. I'm looking for new challenges to my faith so that I can strengthen it. Self-overcoming.

    I believe it because I've chosen to. And I've chosen to because it makes me a better person.
     
  4. WhisperingWoods

    WhisperingWoods too far gone

    Messages:
    2,524
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here it comes, back to the whole "better person" deal. Purely psychological. If you truly believe that taking "love pills" will make you a more caring individual, they will. I have faith that the boogie-man exists. You are all wrong by stating that he does not. My faith makes me stronger.

    *I didn't ask why you believed in a "god", I asked why you're a CHRISTIAN. Why not any other religion out there? Most religions require faith which, to some people, means self-betterment (see above).

    I know what you mean when you say these things though. I'm not an atheist/agnostic, or christian--I'm on neither side, really. I have faith; but I have faith in experimentation with beliefs and psychology.
     
  5. TheHammerSpeaks

    TheHammerSpeaks Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then how, exactly, does one go about becoming a better person? I don't even really understand your critique. Do you think that psychology is worthless, at least when compared to material reality?

    I grew up in a Catholic family. The imagry has a deep effect on me, and is rich in context. If man is the sum total of his past experiences, then I am a Catholic. But mostly its a leap of faith and a decision to lead an authentic life. And I feel that the Christian, and Catholic in particular, suffer from the most crises of faith than the followers of any other religion. Christianity is a religion riddled with paradoxes, such as the ones I listed before. The more paradoxes faith encounters and overtakes, the stronger faith becomes. And, as I explained before, it makes you a stronger person because of it.

    So what, am I the subject in an experiment with beliefs and psychology? Cool!
     
  6. Razorofoccam

    Razorofoccam Banned

    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    1
    TheHammerSpeaks
    His first response entirely missed my point, but I'm starting to warm up to the guy now.

    But how do you justify the 'idiot' comment?
    Was it required? no..it;s a put down..an emotional ploy..
    You consider yourself a good man?


    Do you really need my permission?

    No

    I already explained that: the virgin birth, ressurection from the dead, God dying for the sake of man. These are things that science, reason, and even common sense say are impossible, but not religion.

    Neither the scientific method of occams method consider such to be impossible.
    Your preconceptions of others thought...is just that.
    A defencive preconception.
    If you wish to believe such..occam defends your right to do so
    as your inherent right...
    If the religious were one day draged into the streets to be killed.
    A turn arround of what religion did to the non-religious.
    Occam would be the first to step to the front and demand of all to
    explain the actions of supposedly peacefull and rational beings.


    Every body of ideas is a dogma, even reason because reason fails to critique its own value. Reason is especially dogmatic because it demands that things be understood in accordance with a set of rules; that's limitting. The bible is so full of contradictions that it cannot possibly be used to devise a system of ethical absolutes. It demands that we accept some things as mysteries, things which we cannot understand. It is designed to be open to virtually endless interpretations, which is why there are so many denominations of Christianity. Do you still think the bible is dogmatic? If you do, then whose dogma is it? The Catholics, the Lutherans, the Seventh Day Adventists? If something is dogmatic, then it is designed to resist interpretation, meaning it should lack as much allegory, metaphor, and synecdoche as possible. So why is the bible so rich in these literary devices?

    Well said...But in no way justifies any religious book the claim to be he word of god.
    A book cannot be the word of god...No mater how many people say it is...
    GOD,,has to say it...in reality..not in a book.


    No, reason makes people weak. People use reason to justify moral claims in order to convince everyone else, through pure sophistry, that their moral claims are the only right ones. Why do they do this? Because they are not strong enough to stand by their moral claims when others think something different or when they do not correspond to what most people think of as "reality." How many people would be martyred for the sake of science? Copernicus gave up on his helio-centric universe when the Church threatened him. Understanding doesn't make you strong, conviction does.

    No religion uses its books to justify moral claims in order to convince everyone else.
    Through pure dogmatic sophistry, that their moral claims are the only right ones. Why do thay do this, because they have no moral claims of their own.
    How many people have been killed BY religion..For not believing it,
    MILLIONS
    How many people have been killed by science..for not believing it.?
    Only those silly enought to walk off cliffs.


    So what would you do if your method was undeniably disproven? Would you abandon it? Would you reform it?

    Yes..in a second.
    Can you show it to be so.?
    Occam is a happy person..who does his best to be a good man.
    That is a result of his method...A method collated from human understanding as a whole.
    Not one book.
    Thus if you wish to show occams method to be totally false..
    You must first show rational/scientificl method..to be false..
    You will have to show that that method CANNOT MAKE
    jets, computers or replace a human hearts.

    But it reveals the strength of my constitution.

    Against what? Reality?

    No I don't. If I did, I wouldn't be here. I'm looking for new challenges to my faith so that I can strengthen it. Self-overcoming.

    OK.. here is a challenge.
    Justify the concept of hell.


    I believe it because I've chosen to. And I've chosen to because it makes me a better person.

    Occam believes what he does because his method allows it.
    And 'that' makes him a better person.
    He simply replaced ego, with method...
    Thus his understanding is free of hate, greed and fear.

    Occam
     
  7. Razorofoccam

    Razorofoccam Banned

    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    1
    TheHammerSpeaks

    The more paradoxes faith encounters and overtakes, the stronger faith becomes.


    Hammer

    Or..
    The more contradictions faith encounters, and overcomes by ignoring them.
    The stronger faith becomes...

    You call them paradoxes..occam calls them contradictions. And yes..
    Religion is riddled with contradictions. :)

    Occam
     
  8. TheHammerSpeaks

    TheHammerSpeaks Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0

    But faith doesn't ignore them, it deals with them. If you ignore these paradoxes, then faith can't grow stronger. In fact, it grows weaker.

    Yes it is.
     
  9. TheHammerSpeaks

    TheHammerSpeaks Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0

    Dude, calling someone an idiot doesn't make you a bad person.




    So then don't ask for it.

    I already explained that: the virgin birth, ressurection from the dead, God dying for the sake of man. These are things that science, reason, and even common sense say are impossible, but not religion.



    Well, I can't speak for your method, but science definately says that a virgin birth is impossible. I don't know how you can deny this.

    Every body of ideas is a dogma, even reason because reason fails to critique its own value. Reason is especially dogmatic because it demands that things be understood in accordance with a set of rules; that's limitting. The bible is so full of contradictions that it cannot possibly be used to devise a system of ethical absolutes. It demands that we accept some things as mysteries, things which we cannot understand. It is designed to be open to virtually endless interpretations, which is why there are so many denominations of Christianity. Do you still think the bible is dogmatic? If you do, then whose dogma is it? The Catholics, the Lutherans, the Seventh Day Adventists? If something is dogmatic, then it is designed to resist interpretation, meaning it should lack as much allegory, metaphor, and synecdoche as possible. So why is the bible so rich in these literary devices?

    I never said it was the truth. I only said that its meaningful and is more capable of giving life meaning since it resists dogmatism. It doesn't even matter if it's the "truth" or the word of God.


    How can people with no moral claims try to convince people that their morality is the only right one? If they don't have a morality, then there's no morality to convince others of.

    Science doesn't have to kill people, their physical bodies anyway. Science kills contexts. It uses logic as a weapon and has convinced most people today that their own outlook on the world is false, and that their own subjective experiences don't matter. Don't get me wrong, science has done a lot of good, but it's too controlling, and in that way oppressive.


    No, it's just a hypothetical question. But if you would give up your method if it were disproven, then you clearly have little faith in that which you have devoted your life to. Why? Because you value the objective, wherever that is, over the subjective.




    Against people who think that they can tell me what my reality is. You are one of these people because you believe that you somehow can claim to have an objective, and, unjustifiably, better outlook on reality than me.

    That's an easy one. If I am to commit myself to God, then I must submit to His will. I have to deal with the consequence of my faith that a lot of people I know and love will go to hell. Even if God sends my friends to hell for completely trivial reasons, it doesn't matter. It's staying true to my commitment that matters, not the final destination of my friends' souls.



    Is it really? You replaced your own subjective experience with a method which claims to yield objective results. Why? Because you value objectivity over subjectivity. Why? Well, I don't think you've ever thought about it before. So you tell me.
     
  10. Kharakov

    Kharakov ShadowSpawn

    Messages:
    3,784
    Likes Received:
    1
    Huh?

    Bubbles rule.

    Cause.

    You are sorta right. There are times that people attribute one of God's acts to sorcery, aliens, or nature (since all of these are created and done by God).

    God did it. :p
     
  11. mati

    mati Member

    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Do not confuse "science", with the scientific method. Nor should we deplore the scientific method for the technological atrocities that have been brought forth in the name of science by those motivated by greed, hate, and power. What is needed is a science of human nature, as David Hume so rightly saw back in the middle of the 18th century. The scientific method can be just as rightly applied to moral subjects. Love and the pleasure that comes with it are easily observable as is the pain and oddity that hate brings. Experience is the basis of the scientific method. Philosophers would do well to study what is in front of their nose, their passions, likes and dislikes, rather than what is outside of the scope of experience.
    Words are used to express ideas and confused with ideas, but they are not the same and caution should be exercised in relation to them.
     
  12. Razorofoccam

    Razorofoccam Banned

    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hammer

    You are still calling them paradox

    How can jesus...the god of love and forgivness...Condone hell.
    Contradictiction.

    How can the god of love on earth..be the son of it who slaughters
    [old testament god]
    Contradiction...

    Christianity is sounding more like internecine conflict..with each of your posts.

    Occam
     
  13. Razorofoccam

    Razorofoccam Banned

    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    1
    Hammer


    You say

    "You submit to his will"

    Fine...
    But dont come to this forum and post as a free thinking being...
    You are not...you are a "tool of the will of your god"...
    You are a mouthpiece for words not of your creation.

    Occam
     
  14. Razorofoccam

    Razorofoccam Banned

    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    1
    Mati

    Yes, it can.

    Occam
     
  15. TheHammerSpeaks

    TheHammerSpeaks Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  16. mati

    mati Member

    Messages:
    385
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hammer,

    By "self",Hume would say that we are nothing but "a bundle or collection of diffferent perceptions" which rapidly succeed each other. We falsely attribute to "self" a continued and distinct existence, separate from perception, and that is a fiction contrived by us to justify to ourselves our imagined identity. If by "psychology" you mean the observation of human life and the behavior of people, careful and exact experiments...of particular effects, which result from different circumstances and situations, then nothing more is needed than experience. A proof of some sort of concept of "self", not based on an impression is not necessary. What impression is the idea of "self" based on?
     
  17. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    whatever god or gods may or may not see fit to exist is up to them and not us.

    what i find highly questionable is the degree of signifigance accorded to the question of their doing so in the context of our own day to day existence and our own interactive influence with the 'world' that surrounds us.

    as for how they 'can' exist or not exist; neither collectively nor individualy do we KNOW how it is possible for ANYTHING, our selves and our immediate surroundings included, to exist. which is not to deny our collective knowledge of the endless intimate details of the mechanics of our doing so.

    we DO NOT know what HAS to exist. we likely never will.

    but we do know that our describing of the nature and origen
    of what is beyone our powers of objective observation
    begins and ends in our own speculation about it.

    we know that some things happen more often then others
    and that some things happen more often when particular other things happen first

    that is what we KNOW.

    we also can and many of us do, experience that all of being
    does not begin and end entirely with what we can tangibly
    observe.

    i believe there are deffinite limits though, as to how concrete we can be about the NONconcrete before we find ourselves circularly chaising our own tails.

    and that the assumptions and speculations of organized beliefs, to a very great extent far exceed them

    =^^=
    .../\...
     
  18. TheHammerSpeaks

    TheHammerSpeaks Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    I haven't read "An Enquiry" in a long time but that sounds more like the natural conclusion that can be drawn from Hume rather than Hume's actual words. But this seems to me to be a more accurate and useful description of the self than Descartes' version. Descartes even said that while his cogito proved the existence of the self, the more important question is what the self is.

    That's not what I mean by psychology but I should have been more specific. Behaviourism is dead. I am talking about psychology as in the study of what constitutes particular selves.

    None.
     
  19. Razorofoccam

    Razorofoccam Banned

    Messages:
    1,965
    Likes Received:
    1
    Mati

    And what is it that allows us to contrive this fiction.
    Existant reality.

    As for the self...
    'What' contrives.?

    Occam
     
  20. _CT

    _CT Member

    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    1
    Well i guess its entirely subjective, but I really dont see anything that justifies the presence of a god...
    There are perfectly reasonable explanations for just about anything and for what we cant explain yet there are perfectly plausible theories... Which are ofcourse not proven yet, but seem alot more rational then the equally un-proven theist explanations.

    But ofcourse, I guess even THOSE require a bit of 'faith', as does believing in a God.
    I'm really opposed to all the 'mysticism' bullshit that surrounds most religions, I mean really its like a fricking fairy tale that is supposed to be real... come up with a more plausible story and then maybe I'll be able to see some more sense in it.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice