Theories about god

[gurlbidesign]

In the face of logic and science faith comes to the rescue.

[Primus]

but with 2 against 1 odds faith's chances are quickly diminishing in todays society

[ubermullet]

@Mallic

Question. has anyone tried putting the world in faith's hands? So how do you know that it wouldn't work? Hm? :)

@gurlbidesign

Acctually, science is continueing to prove the bible right and help prove God exists.
They've found evidence of the great flood, and Eden. And I said, everyone comes from one Mother.

And if you actually sit and read the whole bible and understand its teachings, you'll see the logic behind it.

So I don't know where you're getting your ideas from. But if you could tell me I would love to hear it! :D

[SubmissMe]

Bullshit, thats all I have to say. If you leave things up to faith, the world falls apart. I have faith we will find WMDs. I have faith that we are the right religion. Peace is based on logic

In the words of French Philosopher Rene Descartes, Faith is a gift which is not given to all humans. However all humans do have reason from which we can determine the existence of god.

[SubmissMe]

the bloke above me ubermullet wrote:

Acctually, science is continueing to prove the bible right and help prove God exists.
They've found evidence of the great flood, and Eden. And I said, everyone comes from one Mother.

And if you actually sit and read the whole bible and understand its teachings, you'll see the logic behind it.


Sorry, but thats untrue as well. In fact the view eliminitive materialism suggests that as science progresses we get rid of the metaphysical and are left with a more sensible materialist view.
For example, a few hundred years back we all belived in whichcraft then science advanced and proved us wrong. The same is of God and other metaphysical talk such as angels and souls.

I suggest looking at the works of David Hume, Ludwig Von Wittgenstein and in particular Sir Alfred Julius Ayer. They talk of the verification principle, which states that a statement is only meaningful if it is analytically correct or empirically verifiable.

The sentence "All dogs are canine" makes sense, as a dog by definition is a canine. Even a sentence such as "Behind me is a pink elephant" makes sense as I could look behind me and VERIFY this, even if it's wrong.

Talk of God is not intelligable, as we can never verify God's existence. It is nonsense to speak of God as nobody has any idea of who or what a God is.
As Marx said "Religion is the opium of the people"

How does everyone react to the verification principle then?

[gurlbidesign]

ok, my last post in this particular discussion. To those who "have faith" and believe regardless of evidence to the contrary....more power to you. I promise not to giggle if you promise not to preach.

[Mallic]

@Mallic

Question. has anyone tried putting the world in faith's hands? So how do you know that it wouldn't work? Hm? :)

@gurlbidesign

Acctually, science is continueing to prove the bible right and help prove God exists.
They've found evidence of the great flood, and Eden. And I said, everyone comes from one Mother.

And if you actually sit and read the whole bible and understand its teachings, you'll see the logic behind it.

So I don't know where you're getting your ideas from. But if you could tell me I would love to hear it! :D

The "Evidence" of the great flood is the Black Sea filling up

[SubmissMe]

@Mallic

Question. has anyone tried putting the world in faith's hands? So how do you know that it wouldn't work? Hm? :)

@gurlbidesign

Acctually, science is continueing to prove the bible right and help prove God exists.
They've found evidence of the great flood, and Eden. And I said, everyone comes from one Mother.

And if you actually sit and read the whole bible and understand its teachings, you'll see the logic behind it.

So I don't know where you're getting your ideas from. But if you could tell me I would love to hear it! :D

The "Evidence" of the great flood is the Black Sea filling up

And so you think this was caused by the Christian God then?

[Mallic]

No, this was the rising of the mediterantian (sic), not god

[SubmissMe]

To be honest I can't see why people strongly believe in God. I have my doubts, I just hope im very wrong.

[Ceot]

If their god exists.
May he strike me down now.
For I am a very inconveniant soul.

[Ceot]

Waits......

[Mallic]

No ceot, you can't do it like that! Of couse, they would claim that god does not care about you petty attempts to make yourself more important than god.... or some shit like that. The reason that sucide will put you in hell, apparently, is because the life you are living is not your own, it is gods. P)ardon me, but if you are going to make us live though about 80 years of shit after shit, come on, give us a exit button

[SubmissMe]

Nope, God's definition requires him to be transcendent (not of this world) So therefore as God is not a physical thing and cannot make contact with physical things, he can't strike you down dead.

[SubmissMe]

Waits..........

[Ceot]

Looks up and laughs......

[SubmissMe]

Ceot, im not being funny here but do you EVER post anything worthwhile?

[Jack]

Nope, God's definition requires him to be transcendent (not of this world) So therefore as God is not a physical thing and cannot make contact with physical things, he can't strike you down dead.

What other things are required of "God" in this definition?

[SubmissMe]

The god of classical theism, that is the Christian God, must:

Be transcendent (not of this earth and cannot intervene with the physical world)
Be omnipotent (all powerful)
Be omniscient (all knowing/seeing)
Be omnibenevolent (all loving)
Be eternal (live forever)

There's probably more but they're the main ones.

Of course this leads to problems in logic. Can god commit suicide? Can God create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it?

[Primus]

On the rock thing of course he cannot create a rock that he can't lift because that would prove the fundimentals wrong. Of course if he can't create the rock he is wrong there too... the best thing to do is not nit pick someone who can create a such a rock and just let it go... of course since I don't belive in this christian god anymore than some others I don't see the need to fear said rock either way so meh

[Jack]

The god of classical theism, that is the Christian God, must:

Be transcendent (not of this earth and cannot intervene with the physical world)
Be omnipotent (all powerful)
Be omniscient (all knowing/seeing)
Be omnibenevolent (all loving)
Be eternal (live forever)

There's probably more but they're the main ones.

Of course this leads to problems in logic. Can god commit suicide? Can God create a rock so heavy he himself cannot lift it?

There's conflict in there. "Cannot intervene with the physical world" and "Omnipotent". One cannot be all-powerful AND unable to interact/intervene in the physical world. Also one between: "Not of this earth" and "Omnipresent". Once again, one cannot be omnipresent and "not of this earth".

If you want to go deeper you will find at least one more conflict.

Jack

[Mallic]

Lots of conflicts, yes.... Does this mean that there isn't a god, or does it mean there is a differant god?

[JKnaugh13]

Why do you keep calling it the 'christian god'. The Christian God is the same as the Jewish God and the Muslim God.

[Mallic]

Ok, I issue a challange to all believers in christ .... Go though this quizz without dying....

[url]http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm[/url]

[Primus]

Maybe some us aren't Christian, Jewish, or Muslim and have a completly different god... in fact I am quite sure that my invisible friend can beat up your invisible friend

[Jack]

I got this from that test:

You've just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you agreed that it is rational to believe that the Loch Ness monster does not exist if there is an absence of strong evidence or argument that it does. No strong evidence or argument was required to show that the monster does not exist - absence of evidence or argument was enough. But now you claim that the atheist needs to be able to provide strong arguments or evidence if their belief in the non-existence of God is to be rational rather than a matter of faith.

The contradiction is that on the first ocassion (Loch Ness monster) you agreed that the absence of evidence or argument is enough to rationally justify belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness monster, but on this occasion (God), you do not.

There's a problem with this conclusion. Seeking evidence for an all-pervasive being is problematic in the issue of weighing a cylinder of salt water under water(or in other words: what do you weigh in respect to what?). Not only that, but I said it was rational to believe the loch ness monster doesn't exist; not that I didn't accept it as a possibility that the monster does exist in this universe or alternate realities, etc.

[Jack]

And another:

You've just taken a direct hit!

Earlier you said that it is justifiable to base one's beliefs about the external world on a firm, inner conviction, regardless of the external evidence, or lack of it, for the truth or falsity of this conviction. But now you do not accept that the rapist Peter Sutcliffe was justified in doing just that. The example of the rapist has exposed that you do not in fact agree that any belief is justified just because one is convinced of its truth. So you need to revise your opinion here. The intellectual sniper has scored a bull's-eye!

I did not say that it was acceptable for him to force his beliefs on other entities with free will. One can believe whatever one wants so long as ones beliefs do not violate the free will of another non-consenting entity.

[Jack]

You've just bitten a bullet!

In saying that God has the freedom and power to do that which is logically impossible (like creating square circles), you are saying that any discussion of God and ultimate reality cannot be constrained by basic principles of rationality. This would seem to make rational discourse about God impossible. If rational discourse about God is impossible, there is nothing rational we can say about God and nothing rational we can say to support our belief or disbelief in God. To reject rational constraints on religious discourse in this fashion requires accepting that religious convictions, including your religious convictions, are beyond any debate or rational discussion. This is to bite a bullet.

What bullet? It is rational that any omnipotent being can create a universe in which the definition of a circle is a square or a straight line is a curved one. The bullet is in your conception of rationality and existence.

[JKnaugh13]

Ok, I issue a challange to all believers in christ and that shit.... Go though this quizz without dying....
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god.htm

Moderator, please delete this. It goes against the spirit of the discussion.

See, I can do it too.

[Mallic]

Fine, I'll remove the 'and that shit'

[SubmissMe]

Firstly, there are different types of God and what they can supposedly do. Here everyone is concentrating on the Christian god, more commonly known as the god of classical theism.

Secondly, the whole squared cirle arguement is as old as they get. Believers in God will argue that yes, god can create a square circle but it would be in a way that we as humans cannot comprehend.

Whilst I don't personally condone disproving god by referring the almighty in the same context as "all that shit". I would've thought by now the conversation had moved on to thoughts about Ayer, Wittgenstein, Moritz Schlick and the logical postivists. At the moment we're still stuck on Aquinas and Descartes viewpoints.

[Mallic]

This quote sums up my thoughts about this debate about death.......

"We look at death from the selfish side, like: "That guy died. Oh, it's so sad." Why is it sad? He's away from all of this bad stuff that's here on Earth. I mean, at the worst, he's just somewhere quiet, no nothing. At best, he's an angel... or he's a spirit somewhere. What is so bad about that? " ~Tupac Shakur

[Primus]

My thoughts on death are slightly different

"Live is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's difficult" ~ Isaac Asimov

Matrix I know I misspelled that >.<

[SubmissMe]

Glad that's all cleared up then.

[Mallic]

Thats what I'm confused about.... Why will people not want to go though 1 minute of pain for a eternity of happiness?

[Primus]

Some us aren't destined for that eternity of hapiness

"I'd rather die with the sinners than cry with the saints. The sinners have much more fun, only the good die young" ~ Billy Joel

[SubmissMe]

What do you mean 1 minute of pain for eternal happiness?

[Mallic]

Drowning, electorcution, ect, ect you get the idea....

[SubmissMe]

But we can never KNOW that we will have eternal happiness. In fact it seems much more likely that when we're dead, that's the end. There is no more.

[Mallic]

In what does it seem more likely? Near Death Experiences are common

[Primus]

This is the end... my only friend the end.
He who dies with the most toys is none the less still dead.
Death: To stop sinning suddenly.
This is an ex-parrot

[Mallic]

lol.....parrot

[Primus]

Monty Python's Flying Circus ^.^

[Mallic]

Yeah, I know....

Go to [url]http://bulldotshit.com[/url] to find a videoclip of the classics, such as:
Dead Parrot
Spam
Every Sperm
Hungarian Phrasebook
Ministry of Silly Walks
Lumberjack Song

[Primus]

Why? I actually bought the whole flying circus on DVD, I also have Holy Grail, Life of Brian, Meaning of Life, And Now for Something Completly Different

[Mallic]

Damn you, I only have the movies.... I am going to get shows in the future

[SubmissMe]

In what does it seem more likely? Near Death Experiences are common

"The world is all that is the case" - Wittgenstein

We cannot talk of anything like this as language is based on experience and we have no experience of a transcendent reality.

[aeroue]

Just because we cannot speak of it does not mean it does not exist.

[Mallic]

But what is the point of talking of it if we cannot talk of it? BTW, is the rest of this tread going to be filled with semi-rhetorical questions?

[futile_mind]

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "existance is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have happened by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't.
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.