Author Topic: what is the premise of your main argument here...?  (Read 822 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online eh!

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1296
  • Darwins +44/-30
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #58 on: August 09, 2014, 08:08:27 PM »
^ oh lord have mercy on your sole...
Signature goes here...

Offline Defiance

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 663
  • Darwins +26/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #59 on: August 09, 2014, 08:27:51 PM »
Main: God/s do not exist. In order to talk about any actions, miracles, etc., you first need to prove that he exists.
"God is just and fair"
*God kills 2.5 million of people he KNEW would turn out like this in the flood*
*Humanity turns bad again, when God knew it would*
We should feel guilty for this.

Offline shnozzola

Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #60 on: August 11, 2014, 05:08:51 PM »
have you ever read the reluctant messiah by richard bach... just a short easy read... with some interesting ideas.   one of the thoughts goes like this - "the measure of a person ignorance is their depth of belief in other people's pain and suffering

Frank,
   Sorry my reply has taken so long.  I looked up the quote:
"The mark of your ignorance is the depth of your belief in injustice and tragedy."

From:  http://www.inner-growth.info/private/richard_bach_quotes.htm


   - I'm not sure I understand it.  I could interpret it to mean - if a person looks at their own tragedy and thinks it is important, that is a small view of existence.  I agree.   I do not think it means looking at human tragedy, like the holocaust, or world wars, disasters, or what is happening currently to Mexican children, or people in Sudan, or Iraq, as unimportant.  While I can agree that looking at humanity's sorrows from Alpha Centauri puts things in perspective - a truth,  I enjoy the irony (of our existence) that the Alpha Centauri view is completely wrong, not a truth, and we must fight for survival of our species, our society, as our work for our ancestors and descendants.   The fun of it is realizing the two opposite truths.  If that makes me ignorant, C'est la vie !
« Last Edit: August 11, 2014, 05:13:29 PM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1328
  • Darwins +96/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: what is the premise of your main argument here...?
« Reply #61 on: August 16, 2014, 12:49:47 PM »
I think there is a difference between imagination and what is actually possible. People can always make up imaginary qualities for a god to define it further beyond the boundaries of knowledge.

Well I think all god’s are imaginary, but you’ve hit the nail on the head. People can imagine those types of qualities which is exactly why relativistic quantum field theory argument can't disprove a god's existence.

No one is putting limits on this god concept. it can be as huge as the imagination can be. However arbitrary or not. Whenever this god thing zips out of time and space, how does it get back in, without invoking time.
Unless of course it's zipping into another place that contains time and space, but that would just make the move (excuse the pun) a waste of time.

How does Yahweh invoke the growth of horns on Moses’ forehead when Moses views his backside? How does Zeus conjure a lightning bolt? How does Kingu’s blood form into human organs? Asking how a deity zips in and out of space/time is a fruitless question like those examples. It’s a supernatural law breaking being. It doesn’t matter if we know how it’s done- these beings just do it (supposedly).

Foxy’s argument that a god can’t exist in t=0 IS putting a limitation on it. What if this unknown being thrives in unstable quantum states? What if the area outside of the universe is an incubation chamber for infantile gods? We couldn’t possibly know. And I think it’s unfair to say we do.

I'll try to explain why I was not putting a limitation on a god, but that science does put a limitation on it and can disprove it.

One way science disproves gods.

Taking an easy example first, imagine that we still believed in many gods about one hundred and fifty years ago, a storm god, a war god, a sun god, an electricity god, a light god and a magnetism god. Then Maxwell comes along and shows that electricity, light and magnetism are really all the same thing. Immediately, the three gods of electricity, light and magnetism are eliminated and replaced by an electromagnetism god with new attributes. No limits were placed on the three gods to prove that they did not exist. It was science which showed that the three gods had no real independent existence. In other words we were just looking at the properties of the three gods the wrong way and assuming that the three gods existed with their properties.

Now back to the god who lives outside of space and time and creates universes. Science has discovered that space, time and existence are not independent properties. Just like the situation with the three gods above, the properties of space, time and existence are not attributes which are taken away from the power of a god. We were just looking at those attributes the wrong way. They never had any independent existence. They were only a product of the human brain looking at the situation in the wrong way and assuming that a god existed with or without these properties.

Why does the human brain interpret the universe in the wrong way? Evolution. We have evolved to survive in a particular situation and our brains make the most convenient assumptions for that situation. Here is an interesting point. Some people who construct abstract properties about their situation see the abstract properties as theoretical, other people see the abstract properties as real in some sense. This last group of people will often imagine a reality which they cannot see in order to visualise these abstractions. We call them religious people. Lukvance is an extreme case of someone who struggles to tell the difference between abstraction and reality, but all religious people do it. Some examples of abstractions which they see as real are; thought (of a god) without a structure or brain, purpose (of a god) without a structure or brain, morality (of a god) as objective without a structure or brain, personality the same, soul the same, space, time, cause, effect, existence.

Since the abstract properties which religious people use to construct alternative realities are taken from daily experience, they are usually easy for science to disprove. This is why the definition of gods natures has had to change as science advances. Science is now at the stage when we can say that creator gods of universes do not exist. That is not to say that religious people can be convinced that their beliefs are false. Beliefs don't depend on facts since they are irrational, but the beliefs can be disproved objectively. The problem is how to convince someone that their irrational belief has been disproved.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V