Author Topic: Probabilities of God's existence debate  (Read 54990 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #551 on: February 22, 2014, 05:47:18 PM »
^so full of shit. And more evidence you're a theist.

Religious texts, many of them, advocate those things through violent means. It's a hypocritical contradiction. It's hatred through fictional peace, love, and unity.

You don't fool any of us with your nonsense.

-Nam
Yes when we realise that religious texts are not an authority on anything we can evolve to become better than the book.

When we write a book the book is not the authority. The human being is. The teacher is an authority.

The theists would say to the rigid - "The Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath"..

My point was woo when I mentioned the problem of the dictionary and its meanings.

The dictionary is not an authority we need to evolve our thinking and when that happens new meanings are created out of the same words.

 

The problem of non flexibility is a human ego based one when faced with facts it should continuously evolve through flexibility until it truly knows the ultimate truth
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12465
  • Darwins +293/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #552 on: February 22, 2014, 05:56:24 PM »
In my view; if there is a God and that God is a being, then that being has a nature by which it is limited.

I've been telling this to theists for a while.  If a god exists, then it is natural.  It must have a "way of existing" that is real and definable, or else saying that it exists is meaningless.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #553 on: February 22, 2014, 06:45:07 PM »

Sorry, Jesuis, but no! Definitely no!  Either a god exists or it does not. Just like you either exist or you do not. That you have posted messages and I have answered them suggests we both exist though it is possible someone else posted on our behalf. That's how the word works - something either exists or it does not (Schroedinger's cat excepted of course) . The same applies to gods - they can't be like the cat,l existing and not-existing at the same time. Most gods are supposed to have created the earth / world/ cosmos/ universe and that sort of task cannot be carried out by something that doesn't exist.

The next thing to say about existing is that existence is not dependant on who starts looking. All along, if one person finds a god, another person ought to be able to find the same god assuming the method was given to them by the first person. Certainly it should not depend on who looks because if it does it strongly suggests that the god is located in the neurons of the person looking and has not other existence.
We cannot say except for the cat because that makes it all possible.
However my point was that this is the probabilities thread. Not the thread "we know for certain".
I was trying to say we need to keep in mind the nature of human beings and their intent when we are examining this evidence we claim in books. 
If we want to battle with certain religious believers then we have won. If we want to find a truth then we need to look at the intent of the writer.

"God said not to kill"  and "God said to kill".
The intent comes from the person who makes the claim God Said ... and we can choose to follow the part to non violence or to violence. But we should not claim God said any of that. 

A good person would say God made me like that and a bad guy will say god made me like that. However both have choice. Theists who know God would say not to kill. There is no question that he does not know and no question what god's intent is. The other intent sounds like a king writing his own version to allow him to kill because he wants to justify his killing in his own mind.
 
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #554 on: February 22, 2014, 07:00:15 PM »
If we're arguing for the existence of god we have to argue necessity, we can not argue likelihood

I can argue certainty. Wanna see me do it?
Should that not be "Wanna hear me do it"
I am well out of my league here.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #555 on: February 22, 2014, 07:14:21 PM »
It doesn't really help too much. Especially when spouted by theists who say evolution never happened.
In fact, it doesn't help at all.
Theist do not speak about evolution we do. Theists speak about God and teach their disciples or students a method to know. Present day Theists teach Meditation, self-awareness, ethical and conscious living.

Whether we evolved or have not isn't their concern. If we want to know what they know we would need a teacher like that. And since we have no such need it ain't gonna happen.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6630
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #556 on: February 22, 2014, 08:12:31 PM »
It doesn't really help too much. Especially when spouted by theists who say evolution never happened.
In fact, it doesn't help at all.
Theist do not speak about evolution we do. Theists speak about God and teach their disciples or students a method to know. Present day Theists teach Meditation, self-awareness, ethical and conscious living.

Whether we evolved or have not isn't their concern. If we want to know what they know we would need a teacher like that. And since we have no such need it ain't gonna happen.

Nah, it ain't gonna happen because they have nothing to teach. It isn't our fault.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #557 on: February 22, 2014, 08:15:00 PM »
Philosopher_at_large and Jesuis, I won't be posting anymore for several hours. Just letting you know. If I don't post at all in the next, say... 16 hours, feel free to remind me about your posts.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12703
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #558 on: February 23, 2014, 01:57:32 AM »
The more evolved amongst us seek peace compassion human unity conscious awareness.

I ca't speak for others, but I seek commas.

...and "n's" for "ca't"'s.

;)

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6630
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #559 on: February 23, 2014, 02:38:18 AM »
The more evolved amongst us seek peace compassion human unity conscious awareness.

I ca't speak for others, but I seek commas.

...and "n's" for "ca't"'s.

;)

-Nam

You can experience my wit or my spelling, but not both.  ;D
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12703
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #560 on: February 23, 2014, 02:39:14 AM »
The more evolved amongst us seek peace compassion human unity conscious awareness.

I ca't speak for others, but I seek commas.

...and "n's" for "ca't"'s.

;)

-Nam

You can experience my wit or my spelling, but not both.  ;D

And that's where we differ!

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6630
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #561 on: February 23, 2014, 02:50:41 AM »
The more evolved amongst us seek peace compassion human unity conscious awareness.

I ca't speak for others, but I seek commas.

...and "n's" for "ca't"'s.

;)

-Nam

You can experience my wit or my spelling, but not both.  ;D

And that's where we differ!

-Nam

I kant possubly argew witth yu their.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #562 on: February 23, 2014, 03:28:51 AM »
Again, how can a being that knows everything know the unknowable? To say that a being knows everything MUST be qualified. a being that knows everything knows everything that is knowable.

That's why it's "supernatural".

Defined by whom? so far as I know, only theologians and I think they're dead wrong.

I'm no theologian, and that's how I define a god.

Even here you're contradicting your self. By your own admission, a limitless being, IE: one that is omniscient and omnipotent, is impossible. If a limitless being is incapable of existing then such a being can not be perfect or "the most powerful". Hence, limitations MUST agree with you when it comes to defining the most powerful being (whatever that means) in all existence, because a limitless being is by definition impossible and thus by definition not perfect.

I never said a god had to be perfect. Perfection is unattainable.

God is truth.

See, this is an example of BS. I asked you to define "Truth" (capital "T") after you said "God" (again, capital "G", whatever that means) was "Truth". The very first sentence of your so-called "explanation" is simply a restating of what you already said, which provides no information whatsoever and is therefore useless in this context.

It cannot change - it always was and will always be the same.
The concept in the mind of man changes but God does not.

So your definition of god is not omnipotent or omniscient? No can do. Pathetic excuse for a god, IMO.

Should that not be "Wanna hear me do it"
I am well out of my league here.

If you can hear words written on a forum, either you have text-to-speech software or a brain problem.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #563 on: February 23, 2014, 09:33:42 AM »
That's why it's "supernatural".

That is not why it's supernatural. God is said to be "supernatural" (meaning 'beyond nature') because it is outside the material order. You're talking about logical impossibilities like a square circle, an odd 2, or omniscience combined with omnipotence, having nothing to do with the material. 

I'm no theologian, and that's how I define a god.

How do you define a God again? The only definition from you that I've been able to determine is that God is something that has to be omnipotent and omniscient and therefor God is something that's impossible.

It is, (if that is the case), the diametric opposite of Anselm's mistake when he said that God is by definition something that exists therefor God is necessary. Both of these, (in my opinion), are just a false maze where the only way out is to accept the person's position.

I never said a god had to be perfect. Perfection is unattainable.


That's true, you said "the most powerful", but my point still stands. You're insisting that a "most powerful being" must either be both omniscient and omnipotent, or else it isn't the most powerful, but also that such a being is paradoxical and cannot exist (and therefor can't be the most powerful). I think also that a better word for perfection is "vacuous" we don't really know what we mean when we say it.

« Last Edit: February 23, 2014, 09:44:57 AM by Philosopher_at_large »
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #564 on: February 23, 2014, 09:49:03 AM »
That is not why it's supernatural. God is said to be "supernatural" (meaning 'beyond nature') because it is outside the material order. You're talking about logical impossibilities like a square circle, an odd 2, or omniscience combined with omnipotence, having nothing to do with the material. 

Given that everything in existence is natural, I'd think that "supernatural" would also fall under "logical impossibility".

How do you define a God again? The only definition from you that I've been able to determine is that God is something that has to be omnipotent and omniscient and therefor God is something that's impossible.

That's my definition. For a god to be worthy of worship, it also needs to be benevolent.

It is, (if that is the case), the diametric opposite of Anselm's mistake when he said that God is by definition something that exists therefor God exists. Both of these, (in my opinion), are just a false maze where the only way out is to accept the person's position.

Say whut? Dafuq is a "diametric opposite"? Who's "Anselm"?

That's true, you said "the most powerful", but my point still stands. You're insisting that a "most powerful being" must either be both omniscient and omnipotent, or else it isn't the most powerful, but also that such a being is paradoxical and cannot exist (and therefor can't be the most powerful). I think also that a better word for perfection is "vacuous" we don't really know what we mean when we say it.

That's my definition and it's why I'm a gnostic atheist (no, the space between "a" and "gnostic" isn't a typo). Gods are impossible. Period.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #565 on: February 23, 2014, 02:20:07 PM »
Given that everything in existence is natural, I'd think that "supernatural" would also fall under "logical impossibility".

If materialism is true then you are correct. I don't think it is, but that's my own opinion. You could be right. 


That's my definition. For a god to be worthy of worship, it also needs to be benevolent.

Wait, I thought you said it had to be two contradictory things: IE: Omnipotent and omniscient, you didn't say anything about it being benevolent.

Say whut? Dafuq is a "diametric opposite"? Who's "Anselm"?

Anselm was a theologian and philosopher who argued that god exists by definition; I was saying that you appear to be making the same mistake in exactly the other direction: IE: That God 'doesn't' exist by definition. The problem is that both of you appear to have designed definitions for god that suit your respective view of the issue.

That's my definition and it's why I'm a gnostic atheist (no, the space between "a" and "gnostic" isn't a typo). Gods are impossible. Period.

Yes, but you seem a little dogmatic about it. Assuming materialism isn't wrong, materialism may be true. Stating it as an established truth is an error.
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #566 on: February 23, 2014, 02:27:50 PM »
It doesn't really help too much. Especially when spouted by theists who say evolution never happened.
In fact, it doesn't help at all.
Theist do not speak about evolution we do. Theists speak about God and teach their disciples or students a method to know. Present day Theists teach Meditation, self-awareness, ethical and conscious living.

Whether we evolved or have not isn't their concern. If we want to know what they know we would need a teacher like that. And since we have no such need it ain't gonna happen.

Nah, it ain't gonna happen because they have nothing to teach. It isn't our fault.

We are accountable for our thoughts words and deeds. Theists teach their students how to be aware of accounting process.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #567 on: February 23, 2014, 02:50:14 PM »
If materialism is true then you are correct. I don't think it is, but that's my own opinion. You could be right. 

I'm 200% sure I'm right. Hyperbolically speaking. Of course, that doesn't mean I am right.

Wait, I thought you said it had to be two contradictory things: IE: Omnipotent and omniscient, you didn't say anything about it being benevolent.

I added that, in order to be worthy of worship, a god also needs to be benevolent. In other words, it's not necessary for a god to be benevolent, unless said god also wants to be worthy of worship.

Anselm was a theologian and philosopher who argued that god exists by definition; I was saying that you appear to be making the same mistake in exactly the other direction: IE: That God 'doesn't' exist by definition. The problem is that both of you appear to have designed definitions for god that suit your respective view of the issue.

I defined what a god is to suit my search for perfection. During said search, I realized that "perfect" was unattainable, but an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent being was the closest to "perfect" one could get.

Yes, but you seem a little dogmatic about it. Assuming materialism isn't wrong, materialism may be true. Stating it as an established truth is an error.

Assuming String theory isn't wrong, it may be true. Assuming anything isn't wrong, it may be true. Where exactly is the relevance of that?
I state it as an established truth because it's what the evidence tells me. If you have evidence that materialism is wrong, present it. Put up or shut up, as it were.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #568 on: February 23, 2014, 02:57:46 PM »
Gods are impossible. Period.

Theists say that is our problem Belief! -  they acknowledge that we cannot know God unless we want to know.

They say its because we do not know the life giving principle is that energizes matter we are limited with this knowledge.

They call this life giving principle the spirit or the soul. And because of its spiritual nature and its level of consciousness in the human form there is a higher potential to us.

They say the human body is an instrument that can be used to know God. 

When we have been taught how to discipline the mind and how to rise into spheres of spiritual consciousness - we can know God.

This is how their disciples know the same self evident truths.

For them God is not impossible it is a method to self realization. It is an ethical, moral, compassionate, truthful, way of living for us to know God.

We do not have this agenda in Gnostic Atheism nor do we have such a humane intent for humanity at large.

Only the theists do that because they know God through a process of self realization to God realization.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2014, 03:01:51 PM by Jesuis »
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #569 on: February 23, 2014, 03:01:37 PM »
<snip>

I will not address someone when that someone is lying about being an atheist. Because his/her post simply does not make sense, given the truth.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #570 on: February 23, 2014, 03:06:49 PM »
<snip>

I will not address someone when that someone is lying about being an atheist. Because his/her post simply does not make sense, given the truth.

" Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe."

Where is the truth in this -- It is a lie --
Life forms are glowing sparks of consciousness.
You cannot start your search for truth by building upon a lie.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #571 on: February 23, 2014, 03:08:32 PM »
" Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe."

Where is the truth in this -- It is a lie --
Life forms are glowing sparks of consciousness.
You cannot start your search for truth by building upon a lie.

Hello, pot. I'm kettle.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2699
  • Darwins +114/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #572 on: February 23, 2014, 03:09:02 PM »
Philosopher,

I'd like to query the question of materialism with you. Over however long science has been working - let's say since Newton, we have found great explanatory and utilitarian benefits from science which has, to date, been rooted in materialism. So far as I know, there is no reason for that other than the fact that anything supernatural seems to be found in ancient texts and  in stories and, to date, has not evidence in its support.

Given this, why is one not being reasonable in sticking with material explanations until anything new comes in to suggest otherwise. Of course, this rules out gods but that might not be a great loss,
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6630
  • Darwins +798/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #573 on: February 23, 2014, 03:14:54 PM »
" Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe."

Agreed. So why would specks need to imagine that there is any sort of ultimate truth? We can enjoy being specks just fine without making a big deal out of it.

I'm all for learning to be a good speck, but I see no need to make a big deal out of it by pretending that we are more than just specks, or that there is some sort of ultimate spickiness. Because there isn't. I am a speck authority, and I assure that you you're just doing stuff that makes being a speck less easy to appreciate. We're all pretty cool without the artificial depth you are trying to impart.

Specks don't need to pretend to be all philosophical and stuff. You'd be better off finding another hobby. 
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #574 on: February 23, 2014, 04:11:52 PM »
" Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe."

Agreed. So why would specks need to imagine that there is any sort of ultimate truth? We can enjoy being specks just fine without making a big deal out of it.

I'm all for learning to be a good speck, but I see no need to make a big deal out of it by pretending that we are more than just specks, or that there is some sort of ultimate spickiness. Because there isn't. I am a speck authority, and I assure that you you're just doing stuff that makes being a speck less easy to appreciate. We're all pretty cool without the artificial depth you are trying to impart.

Specks don't need to pretend to be all philosophical and stuff. You'd be better off finding another hobby.
Specks need to be conscious first ---- matter is speck and speck but not conscious -- life is.
Why would you agree with the statement when it has no truth? Maybe you are pretending?
Every pursuit of knowledge does reveal some a'spects of life, but more than that it reveals our ignorance. The world may say that so & so person is very knowledgeable, but that so called learned person humbly "knows" as to how little he or she "knows", and how much there is still left to "know".


Did you like ' ? cute right?
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #575 on: February 23, 2014, 04:15:11 PM »
" Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe."

Where is the truth in this -- It is a lie --
Life forms are glowing sparks of consciousness.
You cannot start your search for truth by building upon a lie.

Hello, pot. I'm kettle.
How does karma point work again?
Don't worry you won't be getting them from me. I am too humble or too egotistical to indulge it its madness.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11141
  • Darwins +294/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #576 on: February 23, 2014, 04:22:22 PM »
How does karma point work again?
Don't worry you won't be getting them from me. I am too humble or too egotistical to indulge it its madness.

You give +1's to good posts and -1's to bad posts. I thought this would be obvious.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken/Lucifer/All In One/Orion.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #577 on: February 23, 2014, 04:34:41 PM »
Philosopher,

I'd like to query the question of materialism with you. Over however long science has been working - let's say since Newton, we have found great explanatory and utilitarian benefits from science which has, to date, been rooted in materialism. So far as I know, there is no reason for that other than the fact that anything supernatural seems to be found in ancient texts and  in stories and, to date, has not evidence in its support.

Given this, why is one not being reasonable in sticking with material explanations until anything new comes in to suggest otherwise. Of course, this rules out gods but that might not be a great loss,
The observer of material or matter is a supernatural or spiritual being having a physical experience.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Jesuis

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Darwins +10/-160
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #578 on: February 23, 2014, 04:40:24 PM »
How does karma point work again?
Don't worry you won't be getting them from me. I am too humble or too egotistical to indulge it its madness.

You give +1's to good posts and -1's to bad posts. I thought this would be obvious.
Don't worry - its like the devils work. They decide what you reap and what you sow.
As a human being I have no need for it. Everyone has a right and that right is freedom.
According to Theists: Theists know God, Atheists don't.

Offline Philosopher_at_large

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 681
  • Darwins +18/-2
Re: Probabilities of God's existence debate
« Reply #579 on: February 23, 2014, 04:47:18 PM »
I defined what a god is to suit my search for perfection. During said search, I realized that "perfect" was unattainable, but an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent being was the closest to "perfect" one could get.

But you didn't say that being omniscient and omnipotent was anything close to perfect, you said that it was impossible; IE, not perfect.

Assuming String theory isn't wrong, it may be true. Assuming anything isn't wrong, it may be true. Where exactly is the relevance of that?
I state it as an established truth because it's what the evidence tells me. If you have evidence that materialism is wrong, present it. Put up or shut up, as it were.

There is no reason to think of the big bang as the beginning of "all" time and space as opposed to merely that of our own universe, ours is a merely 'possible' universe, then the cosmos as a whole is radically contingent. So far as we know, anything that is radically contingent requires an external force to preserve it in being and keep it from passing away into nothingness. Thus, there must be something beyond the material.

This observation probably won't be satisfying to you as you're a materialist and place a higher value on empirical evidence than theoretical logic, but that is the case I would make to demonstrate, (if nothing else) that belief in the non material is reasonable.

 
"A moral philosophy that is fact based should be based upon the facts about human nature and nothing else." - Mortimer J. Adler