Can you prove that God exists?

Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by MeAgain, May 29, 2004.

  1. Dizzy Man

    Dizzy Man Member

    Messages:
    831
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ooh, don't call Gecko an atheist. He doesn't like that! :)
     
  2. POPthree13

    POPthree13 Member

    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dizzy - Your phobia case is a good example because phobias are rarely transferred via genetics or environment. A phobia is a personal psychological state which is usually based on an event in a persons life. It is rarely passed on (at least in the true sense of a phobia - maybe more of a reservation). Instinct seems to be real 'knowledge' that is passed down through generations without any need for communication in the common sense of the word. Although DNA can contain lots and lots of information can we really suggest that is hold enough information to 'hard-wire' an organism with the vast array and quantity of instincts with which they are born?

    Gecko - I disagree. Evolution is anything but random. Sure, life tries everything, goes in all directions, is wrought with failures, but the fact that some things succeed while other do not is evidence in itself of the un-chaotic nature of the process. If global temperatures continue to rise we can project how creatures may adapt, what creatures may go extinct, and what creature may thrive and spread. Although the picture is very large, this indicates an intelligent system. If it were completely random then there would be no progression. Chaos does not build complexity. Systems build complexity out of chaos. Gravity builds galaxies, stars, planets and solar systems out of what would otherwise be random distributions of atoms. Likewise, I think, the Other force builds complex life out of what would otherwise be a bunch of amino acids.

    In short their has to be some advantage to evolving the traits we do or otherwise we wouldn't evolve them. If there is advantage, then it isn't random. It isn't chaos... it's weighted and directional.
    Gecko - you do live your life based on leaps of faith. You just take them so much for granted (as we all do) that it seems like reality. In reality we KNOW nothing and NOTHING is really able to be labeled as truth. Everyhting we know is based on our experience and the experience on the monkeys that have lived since the time we were able to start recording our thoughts. As a species we are like infants who have defined and categorize a bunch of crap into a bunch of buckets that gives us some basis upon which to talk, think and live. Is any of it truth? Not really... but we can come up with some good representations. Math, logic, physical laws... they are all good guidelines but they are all still OUR systems of understanding. They may be true to us, but that doesn't make them truth. Is that car red? Depends on who you ask... Can 'red' be truly defined seperately from human experience? Not really... otherwise it's just a frequency which means little... and even then the boundaries of the color are up for debate.
     
  3. geckopelli

    geckopelli Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hammer,

    All your arguments depend on presupption and assumption.

    Eliminate them and what is left?

    All the historical-phiolsophical clap-trap in the last 4000 years has failed to accomplish anything at all.

    Your arguments allow for no progrees: they are usless. The Universe is not stagnate.

    Can we test your pre-suppositoins? They are subject to neither failure nor verifacation. They are rationalization; nothing more.

    You argue that human subjectivity is equivalent to objective reality. You say something can be real and have no effect on other elements of reality. This is self-serving fanatical nonesense. By this reasoning, everything anyone says is real, IS real.

    Your arguments are homocentric and cannot be addressed by a student of all creation. According to you, that would be God's Creation.

    I would be happy to discuss any Philosophy you wish to expound on- in another thread.

    But I warn you, Pragmatism is my philosophy and I can debate insubstatial ideas from any point you desire.

    Dizzyman,
    I've prayed sincerly like any man who has faced death and violence. Each of those incidences convinced me I was on the right track.

    I've disscussed vision with you.

    "If I am to accept this god", I used to ask, "why dosen't he simply present proof of his existence. They say he wants my attention. Well, then, let him speak up."

    And then I'd laugh and make cracks about all the homocentric idiots with ther magic books.

    Then I made a quatum leap of my own and understood that, indeed, atheist are theist (as recently pointed out so eloquently by JJ), and they too, were blind to the reality all around them.

    I dropped all presupposition and took a look.

    Maybe this god IS speaking up. But not through the homocentric nonsense of prophets, messiah's, and magic books. But through Reality itself. So I began to re-double my studies of reality.

    I don't deny the possible existence of the "God Concept".
    But if you're going to give me details of God, then I'll continue too pick them apart if they don't come wrapped in a more comprehensive explanation.

    Without being sure of any result, I seek god through understanding, not Faith and whorship.
    -----
    When I was in the 8th grade we stole the key to our algebra final. It was multiple choice. A,C,D...

    It was a set-up. Every answer was wrong. We got in big trouble.

    So you'll have to forgive me, and others like me, who like to work out the answers for ourselves.

    And know, I'm not an atheist- I'm an Equist.
     
  4. geckopelli

    geckopelli Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    [Your confusing the subjective for the objective. That's a Homocentrici no-no.]
     
  5. POPthree13

    POPthree13 Member

    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Maybe this god IS speaking up. But not through the homocentric nonsense of prophets, messiah's, and magic books. But through Reality itself. So I began to re-double my studies of reality."

    I agree with this... I see religions as nothing more than practices which help to: see beyond our reality, come to terms with our own psychological issues, and find peace in system greater than ourselves. Using religion for anything else, is in my opinion, misguided, and many an intelligent person should find practices which work to these ends on their own instead of having them handed to them.
    If someone find a religion which meets these needs without the need to compromise their search and understanding then by all means, practice it. If you don't find a religion which can do this, find the answers for yourself and don't for one second think that an organized religion is any more spiritual just because it has a book, a history, a savior and a bunch of followers.

    The only true goal of a religion should be (IMO) to foster a personal relationship and understanding of the Other force which works for the individual. Obviously you do not NEED a religion to do this... many of us seek this out without any religious pressure.
     
  6. geckopelli

    geckopelli Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    You know, my problem is that I think organized religion has come to be an anti-progress (and I mean Understanding, not technology) obstacle.

    The Bible and it's ilk had many uses. But Had is the operative word.

    The world of Lavosier and Madame Curie is not the stagnat wolrld of the past.

    Time for something new.
     
  7. POPthree13

    POPthree13 Member

    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gecko -
    Reagrdless of our ability to predict or measure the path of evolution it follows a specific path. It has direction. We can not predict with any amount of accuracy where raindrops will fall and how they will make it to the ocean, again it would appear as mathmatical chaos, but again we see repetition and direction which we can attribute to the basic rules of gravity and evaporation. It isn't true chaos because a raindrop that falls on a particular soil type with a particual saturation level with a particular slope will direct that drop of rain in a (somewhat) predictable manner. Yes, chaos plays a part, but since there are tendencies it is not chaos.

    I don't think saying that the systems of evolution include an 'intelligent component' is pure unqualified opinion. Why did the fish climb from the sea? Did they just randomly plop out there? No. They consciously tried to take advantage of an untapped food source and slowly but surely evolved into creatures which could stay out of the water longer and longer. I am not saying these fish were rocket scientists, but they were able to pick up on the advantages of pursuing this terrestrial food and force adaptation to these conditions. Evolution fills niches. How can something fill a niche without any understanding that the opportunity exists? Therefore I propose that intelligence must be used (in it's most basic form) to pursue new food sources, new environments and new practices which force evolution into a path that will provide adaptation.
    As in my example... if the globe continues to warm birds will migrate further and further north. They use (basic) intelligence to decide how far to go. Evolution will follow their lead and the species will adapt to these new conditions. Evolution based on conscious decisions.


    Gecko... leaps of faith...
    We do not have one shred of evidence that the earth will be here tomorrow. History suggest that it might, but going to bed with the assumption that the earth will be here is blind faith. You take a step with faith that the earth's gravity will hold you to it, but do we even REALLY know what gravity is? You go to the ATM and assume you know how much money your going to have, but that too is just faith.
    I don't know.. is your computer working? I work in computers and I can tell you they don't always work, and often I can't tell you why they aren't. What is a computer? What do you mean by saying it 'works'? My computer is different from your computer... Computer is a very broad category and every single thing we can classify as a computer is different - even ones from the same company from the same assembly line. Sameness is an illusion. Your computer's contents are changing all the time. So is your term for computer just an instant snapshot of your machine at this indvisible moment? Then it's not very appl;icable to my computer. Therefore anything you say about a computer applies only to that computer at that indivisible moment in time. There are tendencires for computers to work, but that doesn't make a statement like 'computers work' true. What makes a computer a computer? Where does the computer stop and the desk start - subatomically? Why is that material that makes up this computer stable on this planet... couldn't that change in a fraction of a second provided the physical laws governing this planet changed? A statement like 'the comuter is working' is not truth unless you can COMPETELY define what a computer is, and COMPETELY define what working is. I suggest that you can not, and therefore it is just an abstract representation of an idea upon which we can agree. Not truth.

    I am not confusing subjective and objective at all. I simply don't beleive there is a such thing as objective reality.
     
  8. POPthree13

    POPthree13 Member

    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree religion has often held back discovery and understanding... but that is because the institutions from which we receive religion are often focused on control and greed. Any attempt to control, cut-off, and complete the religious picture is pure nonsense. If there is a God, it is a living God, that probably mirrors the life we see. It changes all the time, it grows, it moves... Anythign that can't grow and move with it is obsolete the second it is written.
    Jesus didn't write much did he? I think he was pretty clever. If only those who followed him were as wise...
     
  9. TheHammerSpeaks

    TheHammerSpeaks Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    "All your arguments depend on presupption and assumption."

    No, I am arguing that all of your arguments depend upon the presupposition that science is superior to art, object to subject, epistemology to metaphysics.

    "[What is left is a]ll the historical-phiolsophical clap-trap in the last 4000 years has failed to accomplish anything at all.

    Your arguments allow for no progrees: they are usless. The Universe is not stagnate."

    My philosophy is certainly based upon an understanding of the history of philosophy. That I will not deny; I am rather proud of this, actually. I feel that all great philosophers built upon the work of their predesessors, and why not do so? These men go down in the annals of philosophy precisely because they were great, so why not build upon their insights? But to suggest that a historically-minded philosophy can be stagnant seems to me a contradiction in terms.

    When did I ever suggest that the universe is stagnant? On the contrary, I see your philosophy as stagnant with your faith in grammar, in your essential 'I', in your clear-cut division between subject and object. It does not make room for multiplicity in the world. A philosophy which does not pay proper attention to will and idea cannot account for change.

    My aruments, useless? How can something that uncovers the nature of God, the self, and knowledge be considered useless? This is the philosophy and religion forum; these are the kinds of questions philosophers and theologians answer. You write things that make me think you feel more at home in the science and technology forum.

    "Can we test your pre-suppositoins? They are subject to neither failure nor verifacation. They are rationalization; nothing more."

    I make no presuppositions. I ask you if we can test yours. The most ironic thing about induction is that it cannot be verified by process of induction.

    "You argue that human subjectivity is equivalent to objective reality."

    Not exactly, more that the relationship between the two can never be known.

    "You say something can be real and have no effect on other elements of reality."

    No, I say that the interaction between God and the physical world can never be understood.

    "This is self-serving fanatical nonesense. By this reasoning, everything anyone says is real, IS real."

    No, since thought is limitted by language, knowledge cannot transcend those same limits. To summarize, there are some problems which one cannot think through; one must feel it; one must live it.

    "Your arguments are homocentric and cannot be addressed by a student of all creation. According to you, that would be God's Creation."

    Quite the contrary, I am no humanist. I do not believe that man is the measure of all things (e.g. morality. This belief is an unavoidable consequence of atheism, that or nihilism). I do not believe that all the secrets of the universe can be unlocked by reason, a man-made device.

    "I would be happy to discuss any Philosophy you wish to expound on- in another thread."

    I do not feel that we are off topic. This thread is titled, "Can you prove that God exists." Since no sufficient argument, in your eyes, has been presented, it seems natural to inquire as to why such an argument is not forthcoming, and whether the conclusion of this inquiry supports or depreciates the case for the existence of God.

    "But I warn you, Pragmatism is my philosophy and I can debate insubstatial ideas from any point you desire."

    What luck! One of my old professors was a pragmatist! But if we were to discuss Pragmatism at this stage in the debate, that would be grounds to create a new thread.
     
  10. geckopelli

    geckopelli Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    Message too short? what the hell?
     
  11. FreakyJoeMan

    FreakyJoeMan 100% Batshit Insane

    Messages:
    3,433
    Likes Received:
    0
    We can neither prove, or disprove the existance of god. So, just formulat yer own damn opinion, and stop relyin on other people to do it for ya. And just think, could evidence of a creator be surmized by humans? What if, on the inside of quarks, it was written, in red ball point pen, "Dave was Here"?
     
  12. geckopelli

    geckopelli Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    Don't misunderstand me- I don't mean I follow anothers philosophy.

    I mean I AM a completely pragmatic individual. It's the nature of the life I've led. I don't make unqualified assumptions.
     
  13. geckopelli

    geckopelli Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    Assinine!

    You can't diprove santa- and how do you know what may come to pass?
     
  14. TheHammerSpeaks

    TheHammerSpeaks Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Argue what you may, but Science is not an art- unless you consider it the 'art of observing reality'. And religion is not a science.

    And neither is philosophy. That is the point I was driving.

    "The same on going and never changing debate is useless. It has proven of little value to humanity and nothing leads me to expect a sudden philosophical break through in the same old spiel."

    New breakthroughs are being made all the time. Popper must have developed his falsificationism in the fifties, and I do not believe that deconstruction gained any serious recognition until the early seventies. Derrida is still alive, even.

    "Time for something New."

    The scientific method is hardly new, let alone New.

    "I am a semi-professional writer. I watch my form and I simplfy my speech for understanding- nothing personal, but who knows who may find interest in this exchange?"

    "Faith in grammar" was a reference to Nietzsche; it had nothing to do with form or technique. However, while writing clearly is of great importance, it is often necessary to assume that the reader is familiar, to a certain degree, with the works of popular philosophers for the sake of brevity. I think it was Nietzsche himself who proved that great works of philosophy can be written in fifty pages.

    "My philosophy pays attention to all things substantial. I have posted it many times- and will do so now if you are not familiar with it. ( hear that groan!)"

    By all means! I would reciprocate, but I have no system.

    "[T]heologians and the like ASK, but DO NOT answer questions. They uncover nothing but one anothers opinions. ZERO evidence."

    Francis Bacon was a philosopher before a scientist. If philosophers do not uncover knowledge, then all the gains of the scientific method do not constitute knowledge.

    "If all men die tonight- what value your philosophy?"

    I imagine that if all men died tonight there would be very little value in anything.

    "Let me tell you- when standing on death's door, philosophy is of little value."

    Perhaps, but faith is everything; and if philosophy can lead one to faith, then why not take that road?

    "Can we test your pre-suppositoins? They are subject to neither failure nor verifacation. They are rationalization; nothing more."

    I make no presuppositions. I ask you if we can test yours. The most ironic thing about induction is that it cannot be verified by process of induction.

    "You can test my basic theories.
    you pre-suppoose the existence of god with zero evidence. You can't even test his existence. Pure Assumption."

    Not only did I offer the cosmological and teleological arguments as proof in the first post I made on this thread, but I made it clear that nothing can be known about a being unless the existence of the being is presupposed.

    "Word games won't work. I am well versed in semantics."

    There are no word games here, just brutal honesty.

    "I know it. So do many others."

    And so did Kant, and so did Hegel, and so did Schopenhauer, and holes were found in all of their arguments.

    "Explanation: no god."

    No, to make that conclusion I would have to find an explaination for the subject/object distinction elsewhere. There is no logical explaination to be found, so the only explaination left is a Being who can transcend the limits of logic.

    No, since thought is limitted by language, knowledge cannot transcend those same limits. To summarize, there are some problems which one cannot think through; one must feel it; one must live it.

    "More word games. The tooth fairy is real, because I believe it."

    This is not about knowledge vs. belief; it is about the limits of rationality.

    "Your arguments are homocentric and cannot be addressed by a student of all creation. According to you, that would be God's Creation."

    Quite the contrary, I am no humanist. I do not believe that man is the measure of all things (e.g. morality. This belief is an unavoidable consequence of atheism, that or nihilism). I do not believe that all the secrets of the universe can be unlocked by reason, a man-made device.

    "You require HUMAN opinion to validate reality- the very definition of homocentric!"

    No, you need subjective experience to validate reality, I never said it has to be a human subject. An animal is a subject, so is God, even a rock is a subject (though I do not believe it can experience).

    "For reasons not relavant now (read: long and boring), it would be better for all concerned if we not hijack this thread to too great a degree."

    If you post your response to this in another thread, I will post all subsequent replies there, as well.
     
  15. geckopelli

    geckopelli Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    Again, all you say is opinon. None of it has any real world implications. No insight may be gained. No basis for prediction is offered.

    You talk of god- but it's just talk. It get's you know where. Your whorship of past icons dose nothing to progress your knowledge.

    If humanity ceased now, it would be of little consequence to the Universe.
    ------------------------
    EQUIOTICS


    C / U à O + E + U à e + t + U à C + U


    Chaosßà Uncertainty

    PRIMARY REACTION

    Chaos / Uncertainty à Order + Entropy + Uncertainty

    SECONDARY REACTIONS

    I. Order + Uncertainty àExpressions of Energy + Uncertainty

    II. Entropy + Uncertainty àExpressions of Entropy + Uncertainty


    TERTIARY REACTION

    Expressions of Energy + Expressions of Entropy + Uncertaintyà Chaos + Uncertainty


    The Axioms of Equiotics

    I. Uncertainty Permeates

    II. Order is the basis of Existence

    III. Existence is subjugated to Entropy


    The Precepts

    I. Existence remains consistent within it’s self

    II. Components of Existence influence one another in an observable manner.

    III. The universe can be perceived at multiple levels


    Life + Energy x Environment --> Increasing Complexity of available life-forms.
     
  16. geckopelli

    geckopelli Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ps
    reality requires no validation. It simply IS- Human opinon not withstanding.
     
  17. TheHammerSpeaks

    TheHammerSpeaks Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Again, all you say is opinon. None of it has any real world implications."

    Faith is a real world implication; making one's life into a work of art is a real world implication.

    "No insight may be gained."

    Insight into the nature of God, the self, and knowledge may be gained. I already said this, and you have not composed any response to this other than "that's just your opinion," which is not at all convincing.

    "No basis for prediction is offered."

    So what? The truth is that nothing can be predicted with certainty. You have not formulated a response to this either.

    "You talk of god- but it's just talk."

    No, faith is a process of becoming; I have written this before too.

    "It get's you know where."

    A Freudian slip, perhaps.

    "Your whorship of past icons dose nothing to progress your knowledge."

    How egocentric can you be to dismiss the greatest minds the world has ever produced and put yourself, a completely unknown pseudo-philosopher, on a pedestal so far above them? I do not mindlessly agree with agree with my "icons," rather I point out their flaws and expand upon their merits. This is what every philosopher worth reading does. I have not heard enough of your thought to formulate a definate analysis yet. However, I greatly suspect that at least one of your problems is that you dehistoricize everything.

    "If humanity ceased now, it would be of little consequence to the Universe."

    I do not think that philosophy in general would be of any consequence to anything if humanity ceased to be, yours included.

    What is this supposed to be? Please do not tell me that is your philosophy! I guess you should probably take me through it step by step; I have already come this far. But this is going to be easy.

    "reality requires no validation. It simply IS- Human opinon not withstanding."

    If by validation, you mean verification, then that is a presupposition very similar to Kierkegaard's argument for the existence of God, which you rejected. In your philosophy, which appartently prides itself on being free of presupposition, this presents a problem. You offer no argument supporting the existence of an objective world other than, "It simply is." You accept a leap of faith only when it suits your purposes.
     
  18. geckopelli

    geckopelli Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    Reality is my philosophy.

    Your list of great minds lacks a single man of non-homocentric genius. Great minds? They answered no questions. The questions they asked were completley homocentric, in any case.

    I Tend to John Lokce and Albert Einstien for my philosophical bent, I'm afraid- practical men, ultimately.
    ----------
    Your opinion is what is unconvincing. You state the existence of god and than back it up with empty rhetoric. "It's true because I say it's true and that means it's true. And other people thought it was true back when the earth was the center of thje solar system." Same tired bible defence disguised.
    -----------
    Equiotics is probably outside your ken, because it allows for no assumptions. It does, however, allow for a possible god and the human conciet known as philosophy. As well as Quatum Physics and Uncertainty.

    I defy you to do better or to tear holes in it.

    I warn you it's been subject to much debate among so-called theologan and bona-fide physcist.
    ------
    But please- merely insisting I'm wrong without offering evidence of right has never succeded in these forums, and it won't succeed now.

    "There is a god"- offer one shred of real evidence.

    You can't.
     
  19. TheHammerSpeaks

    TheHammerSpeaks Member

    Messages:
    148
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Reality is my philosophy."

    That sounds very nice, but you still need to run through your arguments step by step if I am to critique them.

    "Your list of great minds lacks a single man of non-homocentric genius. Great minds? They answered no questions. The questions they asked were completley homocentric, in any case."

    What is it with you and homocentricity? First of all, homocentricity is not a fallacy; and second, I am not homocentric, as I have already demonstrated.

    "I Tend to John Lokce and Albert Einstien for my philosophical bent, I'm afraid- practical men, ultimately."

    Firstly, both of those men believed in God. Secondly, Einstein was not a philosopher and never said anything of any philosophical importance (not that this subtracts from his ability as a physicist, a subject of which I know nothing) of which I am aware. And finally, John Locke's philosophy is full of holes (e.g. the primary/secondary quality distinction) and presuppositions (e.g. universal human rights).

    "Your opinion is what is unconvincing. You state the existence of god and than back it up with empty rhetoric. "It's true because I say it's true and that means it's true. And other people thought it was true back when the earth was the center of thje solar system." Same tired bible defence disguised."

    Have you been paying the slightest bit of attention to my arguments?

    "Equiotics is probably outside your ken, because it allows for no assumptions. It does, however, allow for a possible god and the human conciet known as philosophy. As well as Quatum Physics and Uncertainty."

    Equiotics? What is the etymology of that? The navigation of horses? And I just pointed out an assumption of "equiotics" in my last post which you never responded to. In a debate, you cannot just ignore questions you cannot answer.

    "I defy you to do better or to tear holes in it."

    How can a tear holes in it if you want explain it to me?

    "But please- merely insisting I'm wrong without offering evidence of right has never succeded in these forums, and it won't succeed now."

    That never succeeds anywhere, and that is precisely why you have not convinced me of anything so far.

    "'There is a god'- offer one shred of real evidence."

    How many times do I have to do this: the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, existence must be presupposed to have any kind of knowledge of anything. I have offered these three arguments for the third time now, and you have not criticized them once, apart from saying, "That's your opinion." That's not going to cut it.
     
  20. geckopelli

    geckopelli Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    Likes Received:
    2
    Your arguments are useless.

    Just because you state them does not give validation to them. they fall flat in the face of reality.

    Non sequitor is non sequitor.

    I am a student of reality. Your words describe nothing but other words. They're valueless.

    You've offered no proof of god. You've stated that conciousness is required for existence. Unqualified statements are well and good; but who cares?
     

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