Religion
Related: About this forumCan someone tell me what kind of logic this is:
A: An all-powerful deity exists and is responsible for everything.
B: I believe this is true, and have faith that it is true, therefore:
C: An all-powerful deity exists and is responsible for everything.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)Faith is not logic. Some people choose to believe that there may be things beyond man's understanding. Also, some people believe that because God is beyond their understanding, human attempts at religion are exactly that -- attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible. Some people who choose to seek God believe that in that seeking they become better themselves.
There are others who see their books as infallible and their truths as unquestionable. They tend the one who try to connect science up with religion which only results in rigidity and absurdity.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)However, that does not engender in me any need to believe in some sort of supernatural entity in any way. It merely reflects the inadequacy of the human intellect to understand everything.
For me, the physical universe just is. While it's interesting to try to learn why things occur as they do, it's not essential to the continuing universe in any way. Understanding does not really matter much, as much fun as it is to try to understand.
Cary
(11,746 posts)That's the most superficial level of interpretation of religion. I was taught, in my religion, to search for the deeper meaning. The stories are not literally true, because for one thing the stories cannot be literally true. For another, it doesn't matter whether the stories are literally true.
I am not religious in any way, but I think we do a disservice to religion by insisting that it must be literally true or it is false. We are talking, after all, about concepts created by Bronze Age people who had a deep passion for finding their creator and having a relationship. If one keeps that fact in context and takes that fact into consideration, a lot more is possible.
The late Joseph Campbell said that religions are like word processing programs. Each one has different keystroke combinations, but if you know the particular keystrokes for the particular program they will all get you to the same place. I think that's true, and everything else we hear about this religion or that religion is just someone with some ridiculous, irrational agenda.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)whether by a "big bang" or a "let it be" is not in question. The fact of the matter is, we and everything around us, are.
A 'god' is a need to explain the incomprehensible...one light year 5.88 trillion miles according to human reckoning, add many, many billions of miles in our universe when looking out and the 'author(s)' of our creation and earthly existence are not able to be reconciled by an all loving deity(heaven) and at the same time all angry deity, at our inability to adhere to a set of 'rules and edicts'. Whether conscious or not, this inability to adhere to godly 'rules' thus assuring us a place in everlasting pain and torment(hell) ruled by one of gods creations, the devil who is also incomprehensible, to me. This existence and creator created a hitler and a trump. Why?
This deity of incomprehensible imagination, in being able to create everything the conscious mind experiences is, to me, NOT able to be explained except by faith in some words, written by humans and supposedly inspired by divine revelation. Which in most cases had an agenda not related to 'saving our souls'.
So to me religion and the interpreted(from holy books) concepts attributed to the deity-author of this existence we experience are tools to control human progress or as in the case of current and all era ameriKKKa continually stoking religiously inspired hate and racism, southern baptist a prime example, and in a lot of the case used to get rich, quick. The huge 'palaces' of so-called american religious leaders are testament to that hypocrisy.
The only thing I know is, everyone of us inhabiting this planet will know the truth of why we are one day or maybe not....got to cut the grass...have a good one
Cary
(11,746 posts)What we perceive is all an illusion.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)especially after devoting 20 years of my life in pursuit of 'the truth'. God is a concept of human imagination, everything else just is. I have faith that this just can't be all there is, if so what's the use. What is after death....we will find out I guess. I hope a trump or a hitler are 'judged' for their earthly evil. Otherwise we are just some kind of 'experiment'....
Cary
(11,746 posts)heaven05
(18,124 posts)to understand, hate, murder, rape, racists, hitler, trump, bannon, gorka, stalin, vlad the impaler, herod, empress wu, king john 1199-1216, cheney-bush II and thousands of others past and present responsible for the death of millions.....of course at my death understanding this life will or will not have meaning or relevance in eternity, so your question, "why must there be a point", will be answered, maybe. If this is all there is, then there is no point, just random happening from creation to our probable destruction of this planet, so won't mean a damn thing....
Cary
(11,746 posts)It is what it is.
Corvo Bianco
(1,148 posts)It's pointless. If there were a point it sure as shit wouldn't be the zombie water walker, nor would it be seventy virgins.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)I am fascinated by things like relativity and quantum physics as well as evolution. Probably all are correct unless a better scientific explanation is found. But I also believe in a certain intuition that I cannot explain, nor do I feel a strong need to. I believe I have been saved from a life of misery by a Power Greater than myself, something those who have experienced the same will understand.
My pursuit of faith has made me more empathetic, sympathetic, loving and kind. If it turns out in the end that human logic reigns supreme over all, and I was wrong, I will not regret it in the least.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)Because I enjoy learning about such things. Still, I really insist that the things I learn have some basis in reality. I also have intuition, which has led me astray many, many times. I have learned not to rely on it very much.
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)and somehow my faith allows me to find the humility to do that. I wish I could explain it fully, but I honestly cannot. I do like your respectful approach, however, most atheist on here think it is all about trying to play "gotcha" with those who have faith.
BigmanPigman
(51,590 posts)eternally since I have been an Atheist (like the rest of my family) since I was 12. CCD was the nail in the coffin for me. I did buy communion wafers on line a few years ago since I remembered how tasty they were, they still are. A little salsa was a nice addition.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)I believe it is yet another invention of goat herders a very long time ago. More stories around the campfire to scare small children into behaving properly.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)
brush
(53,776 posts)
edhopper
(33,579 posts)God is beyond understanding.
But my faith tells me exactly what he wants every person to do and not do.
And I will kill people over this surety and force his will (which I am 100% certain of) on everyone.
But God is unknowable. Except for the absolutely true writings we have from him.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)But, you know, thinking about it makes my brain hurt, so I won't bother.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)A. The universe has always existed.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)I'm good with that, really.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)the universe is aware.
I base that belief on the double-slit experiment.
the observer collapses the wave function
sagesnow
(2,824 posts)This is an excellent video explaining how electron can behave as a wave until an observer looks at it.
"This means an electron- the core element of what we call our solid "physical reality"- is only a solid particle when someone is looking at it. Otherwise, it is a wave and not solid at all."
Hopefully people will look with open minds at some of these videos attempting to explain the probable implications of this basic Quantum principle before replying.
Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)Which is not always. It had a beginning.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)We do not have any kind of reasonable perspective on that event that would allow us to confirm it as the beginning of the universe.
It is not possible for there to have been a beginning. A beginning forces you to have a creator. If there is a creator then that creator would have to have always existed.
Something infinite is required.
Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)You might need an infinite universe with no point of origin, but it seems the universe doesn't. The evidence is pretty compelling. That there was a beginning does not require a creator, it just requires nothing to be unstable.
On the other hand accelerating expansion implies an infinite future, although a cold dark and empty one.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)If "nothing" is unstable, it isn't "nothing"....it is the universe.
This theory of the "unstable nothing" is something that someone made up when confronted with the infinite nature of the universe.
"The evidence is pretty compelling".....what evidence? nothing?
Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)The evidence is that this universe we are in originated approximately 13.8B years ago. The physical evidence gets us back to fractions of a second after it started. You can google the current state of cosmology.
The evidence starts with what is known as the "cosmic background radiation".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background
Some guys are like Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku. Google quantum vacuum.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I'm speaking in terms of the greater universe.
The energy or potential that existed prior to the event is still an aspect of that greater, eternal universe.
Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)The universe is by definition everything, all of space and time. Everything cannot be contained in "something else".
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)I only used the term "greater universe" because you have been describing the observable universe as if it were "everything" and that it sprang from "unstable nothing"
I don't like using the term multiverse because there are too many different theories associated with it.
My contention is that there is far more than this observable "universe" and that it is eternal.
Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)As uncomfortable as it is what we have evidence for is a universe that has a beginning.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)As uncomfortable as it is, things which have a beginning must have a cause. If there is a cause, then there was something before the big bang.
My position is more rational. I don't have to create any outlandish claims like "it magically appeared".
or "the man in the sky with a white beard created it"
The problem is that space is expanding at a rate faster than the speed of light and it is accelerating. We will never reach a point where we can see beyond that ever expanding space. We might be able to think outside of the box, but we will never be able to look outside of it.
Do you really believe that the limited space that we call our "universe" is the only thing that has ever existed?
Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)you asked how it could start from nothing, and really the answer is we don't know, but we do know that a quantum vacuum is unstable. While "an eternal container" might seem more rational to you, it is based on zero evidence. Nor does it make any sense if one accepts the definition of the universe as all of space and time. There is no place or time for anything else. Nor does it solve the origin problem. If we accept your out of space-time container, how does that explain how the universe gets going? All it does is provide a stand in, a mental construct to hold a universe that is originating, as conceptualizing space-time starting is difficult.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)it makes no sense.
A quantum vacuum is not empty. There is energy there....and particles that move into and out of existence, just as they do within our universe.
It is not "nothing".
Also, if its instability could create one universe, it could and would create untold numbers of universes. How could a quantum vacuum so unstable that it created our enormous, energy filled universe NOT create many more?
Cary
(11,746 posts)Throwing caution to the wind, there were times when I could make an equation by simply creating an undefined variable. It seems to me that creating an all knowing, all powerful entity is just that: an undefined variable.
The problem, I think, is that people with agendas take that variable literally. People do this, in my opinion, because they're charlatans. A Joel Osteen can get millions of people to send him money by cloaking himself in this undefined variable. History is replete with charlatans like Osteen, and much worse.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)Brilliant, huh?
Cary
(11,746 posts)Did Bronze Age people understand the universe? They had no concept of atoms, electrons, protons, neutrons, quarks, valences, neutrinos, .... They were speaking in the language that they knew.
They were doing the best they could do. And in fact if you look at Eastern religions you can find some fascinating parallels with modern physics.
It's not at all unreasonable to create a catch all variable. It is unreasonable, though, for modern people to fill that variable in with unfounded conclusions.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)anything, really, except perhaps regarding human nature and interactions with other humans. That still seems to work about the same way. If it helped them to form a concept of an all-powerful guiding entity to explain their surroundings and natural events, I have no problem with that.
But, as you say, it seems odd for people to still use Bronze Age understanding to explain things that are now explained pretty well by science. That has always puzzled me.
Cary
(11,746 posts)I am suggesting that there is something to be learned from taking religion in context. These are, after all, our ancestors. We don't exist without our ancestors.
CozyMystery
(652 posts)Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/66/Circular-Reasoning
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Love is real. But there is no logic to it. Same with hate.
Apples meet oranges. Religion, as does atheism, requires faith.
Can you logically prove god exists? Nope. Neither can you logically prove god does not exist. Either position, theism or atheism, requires faith. Agnosticism may be logical.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Then, please, absolutely prove to me that there cannot be a god, period. Do not make any assumptions or redifine what I am asking for. Simply prove that there is no god of any form, period.
I will anxiously await your proof.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)You are confused about that.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....if it were so "logical", it should be easy!
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)like that. It is impossible. It's also unnecessary.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You cannot prove there is no god.
Just as nobody can prove that there is one.
Both are impossible.
Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)ollie10
(2,091 posts)Just saying you can't prove or disprove the existence of god. If you can, please help.
Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)different?
You've made the claim that belief in the existence of some thing for which there is no evidence of its existence is equivalent to disbelief in some thing for which there is no evidence of its existence.
How does the thing matter?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....in a similar way as the religious right is insulting to atheists.
To make a false equivalence between any religion (not just Christian....but throw into the mix Buddhism, Islam, Judaism and all the rest) and believing in unicorns is ludicrous.
For one thing, most religions have a lot of ethical teachings, spiritual stuff, and etc whereas unicorns do not. To compare the life of Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Mother Theresa to a follower of unicorns because they believed in a deity.....is pretty danged weak. Then throw in the teachings of Jesus, Confucius, Gautama Buddha, Moses and imply they are nothing more than unicorn worshippers....that is even weaker.
It is alway easy to misrepresent someone else's opinions.
All I am saying is you cannot prove god exists, and you cannot prove god does not exist.
If you can prove either, please let me know. But please spare me the self-righteousness of comparing religious experience to unicorns. It is not becoming, and neither does it strengthen your case.
Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)the logical implications of theistic assertions becomes insulting when those assertions are applied to other beliefs held without evidence.
I did not claim that belief in unicorns is a religion or is equivalent to a religion. You made a specific assertion, that non-belief in gods is equivalent to belief in gods, because neither can be proved. The claim you have made is that a belief in the existence of gods, a belief that something exists without any evidence for that things existence, is equivalent to the non-belief that this thing exists. The substitution of unicorns for gods simply illustrates why the claim is silly.
The long history of religion is irrelevant. The ethical teachings of religion are also irrelevant. The question is not how wonderful religion is, the question is does your claim that: belief in the existence of something without evidence is equivalent to not believing in the existence of something for which there is no evidence, make sense, and my example again points out why it doesn't.
Substituting gods for unicorns does not alter the logic.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)There is evidence that there is a god, and there is evidence that there is not a god. For you to make the stupendous claim that there is not even any evidence is preposterous.
However, as much evidence as there may be, there is no proof. Which is my one and only point.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)This is like the first time someone here has claimed that.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)As an illustration an innocent man could be put on trial because there is evidence pointing to his guilt. Yes, there may be circumstantial or other evidence...... So can you allow me that there can be evidence on both sides of an issue?
So, that being said, look at the world around you. It is full of "miracles". Just the fact that you are (presumably) alive is a "miracle" that cannot be explained. Yes, you can explain the heart beating, the biological stuff, but how about the consciousness? How about life itself? Love also is evidence. Just as hate can be "evidence" of the opposite.
So there is "evidence" that could be explained by some force being behind it. Call it god, or call it what you will. And if you are so inclined you can find "evidence" to support the idea that there is no god. And besides there are hundreds of conceptions of what god is. Some believe god is in us.
But...essentially....nobody can prove it, one way or another. It comes down to a certain amount of issues that cannot be proven.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)The cure-all "god did it" holds little water.
Meanwhile things like evolution, plate tectonics, lightning rods, multiple religions and sects all mount against the proposal of god.
You are right that technically I can't prove it doesn't exist, but, in your condescension, you fail to make the point where I have to.
Prove that there isn't an invisible unicorn right behind you at all times.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)there is such a thing as a god? Children don't come up with this idea on their own. They're indoctrinated into this belief, by adults they trust. Often they are threatened with terrible consequences if they don't believe as the adults in their lives want them to.
For example: "If you don't believe in God, you'll go to hell and burn for eternity."
All this evidence you think supports the idea of a god only works if you already believe there's a god. Chances are very high that you already believe there's a god because you were told to believe it.
Just out of curiosity, when you say there is evidence that there is a god, do you have a particular god in mind? Or are you just speaking generally, and any old all purpose, garden-variety god will do for the purposes of the discussion?
ollie10
(2,091 posts).....neither am I promoting one brand of it.
I merely have said a radical thing, apparently: you cannot prove the existance of god and you cannot prove god does not exist either. I apparently may be burned as a heretic!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Unicorns, leprechauns, the Loch Ness Monster, and on and on. It's a huge list and it includes every single god that has ever been worshipped. Ever.
Should we as humans adopt the "unless we can prove it's not real, we must accept it could be" philosophy for everything? I mean germ theory is just a theory, there are other ones available. Germ theory fits the evidence the best, but it COULD be wrong. Same with gravity. Invisible flying elves might be pushing objects closer together based on their mass. We can't PROVE that's not the case, you know.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You cannot prove there is a god, and you can't prove there isn't. That doesn't mean we have to believe in god. Nor does that mean we have to reject the idea of religion.
We are capable of using reason. And we follow that towards different paths sometimes. Best to respect people of various faiths as well as those who don't follow them.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)After all, he's just on a different path right? Who can say he's wrong? You can't prove his god doesn't exist, you know.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....and non-Christians alike.
It is not his religion that is bad. It is his white supremacy views, racism, anti-semitism, etc etc....which, by the way, contradict christian values of love for your enemies. You could argue that racism is blasphemy towards the creator.....
So, whether David Duke calls himself a christian matters very little. He could call himself a multi-billionaire, but that doesn't have much believability. It is his hatred that is wrong with him. (Hatred, being the opposite of love, and love being one of the primary commandments of jesus.)
So yes we can respect all religions of the world....buddhism, christianity, islam, Taoism, and all the rest....even though one person who calls himself a follower of one of the religions is a bastard. You go down a slippery slope if you look down on certain religions.....that is, after all, what David Duke does.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I have finally met the Christian who knows what REAL Christianity is. I am glad you are able to say with 100% absolute certainty that you know other people's versions of Christianity are wrong, and yours is right.
How soon can you begin a tour of the USA explaining to all the right-wing bigoted Christians that they're wrong? It will be wonderful to clear this all up and get past the hate. I can't wait!
Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)Please do provide it.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)So you have no evidence for the existence of any gods. There are indeed well established, and generally considered failed, arguments that attempt to prove that gods exist absent any evidence, but you aren't going there.
Your evidence is:
Life therefore gods.
Consciousness therefore gods.
Love therefore gods.
Hate (apparently) therefore no gods.
Nothing in that list requires that gods exist. You might as well have said "there are things I don't understand therefore gods".
I have no idea how the emotion of love proves the existence of Zeus while the emotion of hate proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
I attribute the miraculous fact that I am alive to unicorns.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....maybe you are really as silly as you look?
I have said that there is no way to prove whether a god exists or not. That's it.
Now, you can talk all you want about unicorns and speghetti monsters and zeus but you are just being more and more silly.
I was asked to give examples of evidence. I carefully explained that evidence is not proof. And you create this straw man argument that I am promoting the existance of god. Not at all. Just pointing out the mystery of it all.
You are not taking the discussion seriously, so I see no point to continue. Have a good day.
Voltaire2
(13,030 posts)believe Zeus exists. You claimed life consciousness and the emotion love were all evidence for gods.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Where did I say that the evidence proves anything? Nowhere!
Why is it that you are resisting the idea that nobody can prove or disprove the existence of god?
Mariana
(14,856 posts)is on the person who makes the claim. Rejecting someones assertion that there is a god because there is no evidence for it doesn't require any faith.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)It is NOT simply rejecting someone else's assertion. It is a belief in and of itself, that there is NO god.
There may be evidence to support such a claim, but you cannot prove that this is so any more than the theists can prove that there is a god.
It makes little difference to me either way.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)such things. No faith is needed not to believe that something exists.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Being a doubter is something I would call agnostic. Believing that there is a god is theism in my view....and believing that there is no god is atheism. By this definition, agnosticism is the more logical since it doubts the unprovable
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)Instead, you're attempting to tell me something. You've also asked me to do something, to wit: prove the nonexistence of deities. I won't do that, because it cannot be done. Nor do I need to do that.
So, there is no argument, really, at all.
Have a nice day.
Assuming, of course, the day exists.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)One needn't even believe in the existence of days. The sun becomes visible on Earth as the Earth rotates, and then disappears some time later. That makes the day. So, the day demonstrates its own existence, objectively. The word "day" exists because of that phenomenon, which is experienced by everyone.
I don't believe anyone disputes the existence of days.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Susan: John, I believe there's a god and you should believe it, too.
John: Show me some evidence, please.
Susan: There isn't any, but I believe it. You should too.
John. No.
You seriously say that John's position requires faith the same way Susan's position does?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....in your example. His position is more similar to an agnostic.
You could reverse the dialogue too....
Jill: Phil, I don't believe in a god and I don't think you should either
Phil: Show me some evidence there is no god
Jill: I can't prove it, but I believe it. You should too.
Phil: No
Can you seriously say Phil's position requires faith in the same way Jill's does?
Methinks the problem is not theism or atheism.....the problem is when someone thinks the other is ignorant and a fool.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)You don't get to make up your own definitions of words just because you don't like the real ones.
Atheism: Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism
Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic
ollie10
(2,091 posts)If the Oxford definition is correct, then atheists don't believe in a god but they won't commit to saying that there is no god.
So what word would we use to describe those people who believe there is no god?
My main point is, whatever word you want to use, you cannot prove god exists and you can't prove god doesn't exist.
My secondary point is it matters little to me....it matters to some (but not all) religious folks who think their religion makes them superior....and it matters to some (but not all) non-religious folks who think they are smarter than the religious folks whom they look down on as heretics to the logical order of the universe.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)I never say that I believe there is no god. Belief is an affirmative word. It is an affirmative statement. Saying that you don't believe something is a negative statement. There is a major difference between the two things.
I am an atheist. I don't care what anyone else believes, as long as they don't insist that I or others believe as they do. I don't believe there are any gods or any other supernatural entities of any kind. What you can believe is your own business, and I don't care.
I won't tell you not to believe. That's none of my business. I will, however, tell you that I do not believe that deities exist.
Please think about negative and positive statements. They differ from each other.
Mariana
(14,856 posts)Why wouldn't you call them atheists, too? If they believe no gods exist, then it must also be true that they have no belief that any gods exist. Using the word atheist for them is correct. Why do you feel you need a different word? Why are you trying so hard, even going so far as to make up your own definitions of words, to convince yourself that atheists are religious?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)So, you are claiming something exists, until you pony up we can just say "nah" and be on our way. That which is proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Or perhaps extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Secondly, you don't get to define atheism. You don't get to argue it either unless you are willing to accept that the definition of theist is "one who believes in an invisible sky wizard"
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....that I never claimed anything exists. Nor have I said anything does not exist!
What I have said, quite clearly, is that nobody can prove whether god exists, one way or another.
Why is that simple concept so hard for you to accept?
Furthermore, your conception of what a theist is is wacky. There are all sorts of religions who do not believe in some sort of invisible sky wizard. I would suggest you take a course in comparative religions.
But at any rate I am so happy for you to know that you don't have to get all hot and bothered by me saying something I never said....
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)So no refutation is needed. If no one is claiming a god exists, then no one is claiming it doesn't.
I don't accept it because it's a flawed argument, and I refuted it.
Your condescension is noted, as is your refusal to answer any point I made.
Why are you so scared to be confronted? Going straight to insults and denial?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....that I have not made an argument for or against the existence of god....I merely point out the FACT that nobody is able to PROVE it one way or other. Why so much difficulty accepting the uncertainty about whether there is a god? Do you have to have an answer, yes or no? I don't....and I find it silly that anyone would
Mariana
(14,856 posts)as if it makes any difference at all. It really doesn't. You're just determined to convince everyone that atheists aren't really atheists at all, but are religious. Fine. Of course, it's extremely disrespectful, rude and obnoxious to try to dictate to other people what they must believe - for example, atheists have to believe what Ollie says, or they can't be atheists. But what the hell, it's your right to be disrespectful, rude and obnoxious, if that 's how you really want to be.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You are putting words into my mouth.
I have never dictated what anyone should believe. Rather.....
I have said that I beieve that it is true that you canNOT prove that a god exists, neither can you prove that a god does not exist.
I understand that this is a radical statement. The right wing Christians will be mad at me because I am wrong....it says so in the Bible. And those who are convinced that there cannot be a god will be mad at me with an equal amount of intolerance.
Oh well. It matters not to me. If you can prove me wrong, please do so. Prove to me there is a god or that there is not a god. Nobody has ever been able to do that, so I am looking forward to your historic accomplishment. Go for it!
Mariana
(14,856 posts)It doesn't and it isn't.
Your demands for proof are ridiculous. Do you demand that someone who doesn't believe in ghosts PROVE there aren't any? Do you demand that of someone who doesn't believe in leprechauns? Bigfoot? Flying saucers? Zombies? Shape-shifting reptilians disguised as humans, controlling the world's governments for their own nefarious ends?
Of course not.
An atheist may say, "Maybe there's such things as gods, but I don't believe in them." Atheists do not have to conform to your personal made-up definition of the word "atheist". You've already been shown that your personal made-up definition is wrong.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You cannot prove there is a god, or not a god.
Why are you so upset????
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You can't prove it doesn't exist, but it's right behind you. Also it created everything.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)When someone disagrees with you?
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You can't prove it doesn't exist.
That's where your argument leads, puts all unprovable claims on the same level (which they all are).
You are in no position to be calling people dismissive of differing opinions with the hostility and condension you came out with.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 28, 2017, 06:38 PM - Edit history (1)
.....you are being very dismissive.
You project. I made a reasonable point, actually a point that most reasonable people believe, ie, you cannot prove there is a god and you cannot prove there is not a god.
I was not promoting a religion. Heck, I did not even promote a belief in god. All I said was nobody can prove it one way or another.
I suspect that you are one of those arrogant people who look down on people of faith....because you know what you believe and you are so narrow minded that you cannot accept the idea that others have other views of the cosmos than you do. So you make fun of them for following unicorns. Quaint. Heck, even if someone hasn't promoted the existence of a god and all he did was say it is unprovable, heck call him a unicorn follower too! Being dismissive is what you do when you are losing an argument.
If you disagree with my point (that you cannot prove there is not a god, and you cannot prove there is a god)....then that should be a simple thing for someone of your intellectual heft and all-knowing attitude to prove me wrong.....and the way to do that is to prove to me either there is a god or prove to me there is not a god. Unless you can do one or the other (your choice) , my premise stands: you cannot prove it one way or the other.
So good luck in proving it. Or just continue diverting.....your choice.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)People making the claim have the burdon of proof. If you're not making a claim, then there is nothing to refute, and your whole point is moot.
Regardless of how offended you get, the unicorn dilemma is still true, you can't refute it, and you placed everyone's good on that level, not me.
You also came out swinging and are accusing everyone else of doing what you yourself are guilty of.
Almost like someone who recently left...
ollie10
(2,091 posts)"People making the claim have the burdon (sic) of proof"
Except I have not made a claim. I have merely said that you cannot prove the claim of whether god exists, one way or other. It is hard to refute a claim that has not been made....so you say.... "your whole point is moot"....which is.....AGAIN....being DISMISSIVE.
For this reasonable statement, I have been raked over the coals as if I am some sort of heretic.
I see no point in continuing. Enjoy your day, lord
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)If you had quoted me with the intent of refuting my words, instead of pointing out a spelling error, you would have seen that I wasn't specifying you personally. Someone is making a claim, yes? It is on them to back it up.
If you claim no one is making the claim, then there is nothing to refute.
Offence isn't an argument, neither is hostility, and you've come to the table with double servings of both. Yelling and repeating yourself just shows the weakness of your own argument.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Fine. Then why are you spending so much time objecting to my observation that nobody can prove whether there is a god or not?
It sounds like you have a dog in this race.....
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)You have no dog in this race, you said so yourself.
Your observation is flawed, that's the problem.
Why are you arguing so adamantly for something you yourself said you didn't claim?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Are you disagreeing with my premise that you cannot prove whether god exists?
Just what DO you believe? And why?
I cannot for the life of me understand why it has become so controversial to point out that you can't prove whether there is a god or not.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)How is that any of your business? I rarely say that I believe anything in general. I never use the words "believe in" either. I find that a strange linguistic construction.
I believe many things. All are supported by evidence. I believe my mother loves me, for example, because I have a lifetime of evidence of that. I believe that there will be a sunrise every day of my life, as well as a sunset, because if that doesn't happen, my life will almost certainly already have ended.
I believe that every phenomenon has a perfectly logical natural explanation, but I do not believe that I know that explanation for everything. I believe that we understand the physical world better all the time and I believe that it's pretty clear that there is no supernatural world, place, or entities, since none have been in evidence.
I believe that democracy is the best way for humans to govern themselves, although it is very difficult in very large groups of humans. I believe that tyranny is a bad form of government, based on the evidence I have seen in my life and have learned about in studying history.
I could not possibly tell you all of the things I believe. That would take far longer than I have and far longer than you would have patience to hear.
I believe in nothing. I don't even know what "believe in" can possibly mean. It's a meaningless construction. I believe actual things that make sense and that actually exist. I have no "faith." I have observation and education.
Still, if you believe something that is all-encompassing, why not tell us what that is. If you are willing to ask others, then you should be willing to tell us, if you can.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)....that I do not believe that the existence of god can be proven one way or the other.
I await evidence from theists or non-theists to argue against my point.
Any takers?
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)It was an open-ended question. So, I ask you: What do you believe? If you feel you can ask that question of others, then you should be more than willing to answer it for yourself.
I suggest that it is wrong to ask people questions like that unless you are willing to answer them yourself. So. What do you believe?
You just told me something you did not believe.
Many people have told you what they do not believe. Disbelief is not belief. In fact, it is the antonym of belief. Your question has been answered, but not in the way you would like. Too bad.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)"Are you disagreeing with my premise that you cannot prove whether god exists?
Just what DO you believe? And why?"
Let's be clear. I was asking if they disagreed with my premise that you cannot prove whether god exists. I was being redundant, perhaps, in asking the question twice. But is frustrating when you ask the same question so many times and get no answer.... So go ahead and dock my pay for redundancy. It ain't much anyhow.
I am not here to talk about my personal beliefs. And I don't really care whether anyone believes in god. I was making only one point, and one point only, that nobody can prove that god exists and nobody can prove that god does notexist. I thought it such a basic point I was surprised by the reaction to it. Quite frankly, it isn't that big of a point in the first place.
Now as to my point, most religious people accept this, and that is why they call their belief "faith". Then again, on the fringe there are the fundies who KNOW that god exists, it says so in the Bible, blah blah, blah. But most Christians know that it is not anything they can prove.
And, likewise, most non-theists also know you cannot prove god does not exist. They may doubt god exists, they believe god doesn't exist, or they may even have strong feelings about it. But most know deep down that this is simply a belief,nothing they can prove. And I suppose there are the fundies on the other side, who KNOW god does not exist because, well, they just know it.
So....when I was getting resistance from what I thought was a reasonable suggestion.....my question was where on this continuum are you coming from.....? It was simple curiosity. And I really don't really care that much.
So, I withdraw my questions. I don't really care any more. This is getting really to be belaboring the point. If you want to resist the notion that you cannot prove or disprove the existence of god, and you don't want to explain your reasoning....that is fine. It makes no difference to me.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Can someone tell me what kind of logic this is:
A: An all-powerful deity exists and is responsible for everything.
B: I believe this is true, and have faith that it is true, therefore:
C: An all-powerful deity exists and is responsible for everything.
I would answer that this is an example of circular logic.
Now can someone tell me what kind of logic this is:
A: An all-powerful deity does not exist and is not responsible for everything.
B. I believe this is true, and have faith that it is true, therefore:
C: An all-powerful deity does not exist and is not responsible for everything...
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)No one has to prove a god doesn't exist, because there is no proof to disprove.
You're right, no one can disprove what hasn't been proven, you can just be like "lolno" and move on.
Burden is on the one making the claim. And the claim is that one exists, not that one doesn't.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)You keep putting me into a box of someone claiming that there is a god. Why is that? I never said that.
I have said that it cannot be proven one way or the other. Yet you get upset and apparently disagree with my premise.
Here's the truth: if you are interested in discussing this proposition instead of changing it, then fine. But if you just want to continue to misrepresent what my point is, there is no reason to continue this. I have better things to do.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I never said you did clam that.
But you are claiming that a claim is being made, correct?
ollie10
(2,091 posts)it makes no sense to continue.
If you want to have the last word, then by all means take it.
I have better things to do. Find someone else to contemplate life's mysteries with.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)I'll continue because you keep twisting my words around and refuse to answer direct questions like this one: Do you admit that people are making that claim?
rock
(13,218 posts)In fact, the conclusion IS the major premise. So the logic is not even as fast as dead slow. 
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)
WhiteTara
(29,713 posts)outside creating everything. And HE is everything.
Of course if something is everything, it can not be outside of anything.
unblock
(52,222 posts)a fallacious "proof" of proposition (c) by simply assuming it as a premise (a).
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)I am NOT a Scientologist.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)Fiction was what he wrote throughout his career. Everything he wrote was fiction. But, at least we know who wrote it, eh?
heaven05
(18,124 posts)
sarisataka
(18,651 posts)The converse the same?
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)Moostache
(9,895 posts)“The greatest mystery the universe offers is not life but size. Size encompasses life, and the Tower encompasses size. The child, who is most at home with wonder, says: Daddy, what is above the sky? And the father says: The darkness of space. The child: What is beyond space? The father: The galaxy. The child: Beyond the galaxy? The father: Another galaxy. The child: Beyond the other galaxies? The father: No one knows.
"You see? Size defeats us. For the fish, the lake in which he lives is the universe. What does the fish think when he is jerked up by the mouth through the silver limits of existence and into a new universe where the air drowns him and the light is blue madness? Where huge bipeds with no gills stuff it into a suffocating box and cover it with wet weeds to die?
"Or one might take the tip of the pencil and magnify it. One reaches the point where a stunning realization strikes home: The pencil tip is not solid; it is composed of atoms which whirl and revolve like a trillion demon planets. What seems solid to us is actually only a loose net held together by gravity. Viewed at their actual size, the distances between these atoms might become league, gulfs, aeons. The atoms themselves are composed of nuclei and revolving protons and electrons. One may step down further to subatomic particles. And then to what? Tachyons? Nothing? Of course not. Everything in the universe denies nothing; to suggest an ending is the one absurdity.
"If you fell outward to the limit of the universe, would you find a board fence and signs reading DEAD END? No. You might find something hard and rounded, as the chick must see the egg from the inside. And if you should peck through the shell (or find a door), what great and torrential light might shine through your opening at the end of space? Might you look through and discover our entire universe is but part of one atom on a blade of grass? Might you be forced to think that by burning a twig you incinerate an eternity of eternities? That existence rises not to one infinite but to an infinity of them?
"Perhaps you saw what place our universe plays in the scheme of things - as no more than an atom in a blade of grass. Could it be that everything we can perceive, from the microscopic virus to the distant Horsehead Nebula, is contained in one blade of grass that may have existed for only a single season in an alien time-flow? What if that blade should be cut off by a scythe? When it begins to die, would the rot seep into our universe and our own lives, turning everything yellow and brown and desiccated? Perhaps it’s already begun to happen. We say the world has moved on; maybe we really mean that it has begun to dry up.
"Think how small such a concept of things make us, gunslinger! If a God watches over it all, does He actually mete out justice for such a race of gnats? Does His eye see the sparrow fall when the sparrow is less than a speck of hydrogen floating disconnected in the depth of space? And if He does see… what must the nature of such a God be? Where does He live? How is it possible to live beyond infinity?
"Imagine the sand of the Mohaine Desert, which you crossed to find me, and imagine a trillion universes - not worlds by universes - encapsulated in each grain of that desert; and within each universe an infinity of others. We tower over these universes from our pitiful grass vantage point; with one swing of your boot you may knock a billion billion worlds flying off into darkness, a chain never to be completed.
"Size, gunslinger… size.”
– The Man In Black, The Dark Tower Book 1 - The Gunslinger
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)within it. It appears to be impossible for us to view it from outside of its boundaries, as well.
Limitations. For example, my beagle and beagle/basset dogs appear to believe that rabbits only exist when they're running. They fail to recognize them if rabbits remain still, even if they're only a few feet away. Until they run, they do not exist for those dogs. Once they do run, however, they are potential lunch items, and of great interest to the dogs.
Rabbits, apparently, are aware of this and are very good at remaining motionless when a dog is nearby.
What a dog makes of the universe, I have no idea.
underpants
(182,802 posts)
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...
ms liberty
(8,574 posts)It could be one of the others, there's a bunch of them, but that is my immediate impression. It's faulty reasoning as well, but did you want a definition or an opinion?
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)That's it. Thanks!
Iggo
(47,552 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)or the pointing finger for the moon.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)In spite of the absence of proof, I believe and have faith that an all-powerful deity exists and created for everything.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)My OP. my words. You don't get to change them, I'm afraid.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But my words were simply a commentary on what I perceive to be logic of the post.
MineralMan
(146,307 posts)what I wrote. What you wrote is quite unlike what I wrote, so I wouldn't write that. I didn't really see any commentary in your reply, just a different statement.
Soxfan58
(3,479 posts)Is logical.
delisen
(6,043 posts)delisen
(6,043 posts)
rogerashton
(3,920 posts)Definition of agnostic in English:
agnostic
NOUN
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/agnostic
Definition of atheist in English:
atheist
NOUN
A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
‘he is a committed atheist’
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheist
Apparently, one can be both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. The view described as "atheist" here can often equally be described as "agnostic." My dad was an atheist, but he had a proof that he was right. I have seen that "proof" echoed here. Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now. (But my dad was a good and reasonable man, willing to try to explain his ideas to a nine-year-old.)
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...
Comatose Sphagetti
(836 posts)Last edited Sun Aug 27, 2017, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)
