This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Hell
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
First, philosophy is different, and is not a search for scientific proof of the supernatural. And it would be quite silly to present a philosophical argument in place of a scientific one.
It is different, but it's similar in the sense that you're searching for something that can never be obtained. It's similarly 'pointless' in that respect, no?
Because I've accepted that I cannot, through my own efforts, prove or disprove God's existence ...
For the variables, I've made no such acceptance.
This relies on the idea that it's ok to give up looking for God, because you think that if he existed, he's omnipotent and capable of hiding from you if he wanted. That's a very Christian oriented view - if you bring it around to another supernatural 'religion', say, an inherent belief in karma, I don't think you could argue that.
They also do not have the ability to reveal themselves to me all on their own (or do they? o.O)
Well, they're inherently random, right? You never really know ;)
Quantum Randomness or hidden variables is choosing between two things we cannot prove or disprove.
Theism or atheism is choosing between something we can prove and something we cannot prove or disprove.
Heckler's stated my viewpoint on the matter quite well.
Post by
Heckler
This relies on the idea that it's ok to give up looking for God, because you think that if he existed, he's omnipotent and capable of hiding from you if he wanted. That's a very Christian oriented view - if you bring it around to another supernatural 'religion', say, an inherent belief in karma, I don't think you could argue that.
Well, the second bit I said: "or more properly, that if God wanted his existence proven, he could simply prove it; and if he did not want it to be provable, then it would certainly be within his power to make it that way too" was specifically designed to put a Christian slant on the point I was trying to make, to make it better fit the context of the discussion.
When you bring up other religions, it changes up the method of the argument, but the general crux of it remains -- short of personal revelation (which also falls short in a broad sense -- ie. outside of your own mind), there's no path to prove or disprove existence of God, or Karma, or Nirvana, or Heaven, or Reincarnation, or Enlightenment, or Hell, etc. -- and therefore it is impossible, and altogether futile to try (to
prove
it).
To your point about philosophy, I think philosophy
can
be useless sometimes, yes =D But not as useless as trying to scientifically prove religious beliefs, and not useless
in general
. An analogy:
Scientific proof involves building a path to the proof using smaller proofs. Each proof serves as a brick on the road to the eventual goal. Sometimes the bricks are found deductively, sometimes inductively, sometimes on accident -- but they all share the fact that they are sound, that is, they are provable independent of their discoverer -- and they cannot be placed into the path until this is true.
Proving religion scientifically is quickly deemed impossible by this method, as there's not even a single brick to lay down where many thousands are needed. What is the first scientific step to proving God?
Discussing religion via Philosophy can much be viewed in the same light, and so long as each brick provides a good discussion, it can serve as a step in the path. Philosophy often doesn't even need a goal though, and since it is not burdened by the Provability requirements of Science, the road quickly goes in many directions and leads to many places. As far as their usefulness, that is probably more decided by the destination than the path -- but I'll definitely concede that Philosophy is not useless in general.
Post by
73830
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
if hell exists, I would prefer the dantes inferno book series approach on it, that you are in hell to learn from your mistakes, and not to just suffer for all eternity.
but then again, when has religion been about being nice?
Actually that is what my religion belives, is that after you die and before the Ressurection you are sent to paradise if you were good, or spirit prison if you were bad. In spirit prison you can learn from your mistakes, and then after you are resurrected you can repent and learn to do good during the Millennium (1000 years during which the devil is unable to tempt anyone.)
Post by
Skreeran
Then no, you didn't believe hard enough. God isn't a parent who you can keep asking for money from when you need it. He's there to give you inspiration to do better things (if I'm not mistaken).?
Then what's the point of arguing for faith healing? If God wouldn't even speak to me, why should I believe that someone else was cured of cancer?
And that's notwithstanding the point that that's only the Christian understanding of what God is. The Jewish version would probably tell you to go suck it up and stop being such a whiney brat.Well, I'd probably agree with that. I don't like the Old Testament god.
Not in this thread, you haven't. You have in others though.I don't think I have, barring that one SAD fueled outburst that I had early on in the Why your religion thread.
The implication was there. This is what I mean about being rude and/or disrespectful.I know you won't believe me, but I'll say it anyway. I wasn't sterotyping. I was trying to illustrate a typical religious person, a militant religious person, and a pacifist religious person. Average and two extremes. These days, radical muslims tend to be the most extreme religious people out there. Not all muslims, just the radicals.
A, B and C do fit though, with their understanding of the universe. D fits with your understanding of the universe. Again, it's just as irrational, key point being that they're equally (ir)rational.
But of course, I'm agnostic, so I'm somewhat biased in that respect ;)Well, it is impossible to be completely unbiased. I'm at least somewhat biased against the idea of god for personal reasons. However, I try my best to look at things objectively.
Scientifically, I look at the universe and say "The universe is running just fine, and there's no sign of an all-powerful all-knowing intelligence that deeply cares about us. What evidence do I have to believe? What evidence do you have to believe?
And I look back at Earth and I see my siblings being brainwashed by my parents in the exact same way I was. I see my neighbors children being brainwashed to mindlessly believe in a deity before they are old enough to make a rational decision. And that brainwashing sticks with most people for their whole lives.
So I want to stop it.
Strawman based on you arguing about Christianity. That doesn't preclude the existence of a god. Although my points related to Christianity, they can be applied to any religion, agnosticism included.Once people stop claiming that God physically created our universe; physically created us; physically healed a person; physically sent his son to die... et cetera, I will stop trying to poke holes in the idea that those things happened.
But they do claim that God is a physical thing. And so I continue.
Oh, I do agree with you, I'm just saying that non-theist scientists will often make the same flaws in logic as theist believers. That's the whole point I've been trying to make to Skreeran in the first place.Of course they can.
What I and many others strive to do is steadily hammer out all the flaws in our knowledge. My big thing is religion. Other people tackle quack medicine. Other people do their hardest to verify and correct history.
And as far as Quantum Randomness goes, my stance is still that everything can be explained. Everything fits inside the box. Everything has a cause. Finding that explanation is up to us.
I do not believe in magic.
An analogy:
Scientific proof involves building a path to the proof using smaller proofs. Each proof serves as a brick on the road to the eventual goal. Sometimes the bricks are found deductively, sometimes inductively, sometimes on accident -- but they all share the fact that they are sound, that is, they are provable independent of their discoverer -- and they cannot be placed into the path until this is true.
Proving religion scientifically is quickly deemed impossible by this method, as there's not even a single brick to lay down where many thousands are needed. What is the first scientific step to proving God?I like that analogy.
if hell exists, I would prefer the dantes inferno book series approach on it, that you are in hell to learn from your mistakes, and not to just suffer for all eternity.
but then again, when has religion been about being nice?Actually, based on my understanding Dante's stories, those were permanent hells too.
Actually that is what my religion belives, is that after you die and before the Ressurection you are sent to paradise if you were good, or spirit prison if you were bad. In spirit prison you can learn from your mistakes, and then after you are resurrected you can repent and learn to do good during the Millennium (1000 years during which the devil is unable to tempt anyone.)How do you know?
I mean, yeah, that'd be great if that how it was. But I really don't understand how anyone could just blindly believe that, other than having it imprinted on their psyche from a vulnerable age.
How do you know that's what will happen? How do you know I won't reincarnate, like Adams believes?
How do you know that I won't just rot in the ground, as science would tell us?
Post by
Monday
How do you know?
I mean, yeah, that'd be great if that how it was. But I really don't understand how anyone could just blindly believe that, other than having it imprinted on their psyche from a vulnerable age.
How do you know that's what will happen? How do you know I won't reincarnate, like Adams believes?
How do you know that I won't just rot in the ground, as science would tell us?
Faith in what the Prophet of God+ scriptures tell me.
Did I mention I hate this argument? It's stupid, you aren't supposed to
know
you are supposed to have faith. I've responded to this argument time after time, stop bringing it up, because my answer will be the same,
time after time.
Post by
Skreeran
How do you know?
I mean, yeah, that'd be great if that how it was. But I really don't understand how anyone could just blindly believe that, other than having it imprinted on their psyche from a vulnerable age.
How do you know that's what will happen? How do you know I won't reincarnate, like Adams believes?
How do you know that I won't just rot in the ground, as science would tell us?
Faith in what the Prophet of God+ scriptures tell me.
Did I mention I hate this argument? It's stupid, you aren't supposed to
know
you are supposed to have faith. I've responded to this argument time after time, stop bringing it up, because my answer will be the same,
time after time.
Why do you have faith? How does that make it true? I mean, how is that different from having faith that Santa Claus is real?
Post by
Monday
How do you know?
I mean, yeah, that'd be great if that how it was. But I really don't understand how anyone could just blindly believe that, other than having it imprinted on their psyche from a vulnerable age.
How do you know that's what will happen? How do you know I won't reincarnate, like Adams believes?
How do you know that I won't just rot in the ground, as science would tell us?
Faith in what the Prophet of God+ scriptures tell me.
Did I mention I hate this argument? It's stupid, you aren't supposed to
know
you are supposed to have faith. I've responded to this argument time after time, stop bringing it up, because my answer will be the same,
time after time.
Why do you have faith? How does that make it true? I mean, how is that different from having faith that Santa Claus is real?
Because I have evidence God exists and that Santa doesn't.
Post by
Skreeran
How do you know?
I mean, yeah, that'd be great if that how it was. But I really don't understand how anyone could just blindly believe that, other than having it imprinted on their psyche from a vulnerable age.
How do you know that's what will happen? How do you know I won't reincarnate, like Adams believes?
How do you know that I won't just rot in the ground, as science would tell us?
Faith in what the Prophet of God+ scriptures tell me.
Did I mention I hate this argument? It's stupid, you aren't supposed to
know
you are supposed to have faith. I've responded to this argument time after time, stop bringing it up, because my answer will be the same,
time after time.
Why do you have faith? How does that make it true? I mean, how is that different from having faith that Santa Claus is real?
Because I have evidence God exists and that Santa doesn't.Well then it isn't pure faith, now, is it?
Post by
Monday
How do you know?
I mean, yeah, that'd be great if that how it was. But I really don't understand how anyone could just blindly believe that, other than having it imprinted on their psyche from a vulnerable age.
How do you know that's what will happen? How do you know I won't reincarnate, like Adams believes?
How do you know that I won't just rot in the ground, as science would tell us?
Faith in what the Prophet of God+ scriptures tell me.
Did I mention I hate this argument? It's stupid, you aren't supposed to
know
you are supposed to have faith. I've responded to this argument time after time, stop bringing it up, because my answer will be the same,
time after time.
Why do you have faith? How does that make it true? I mean, how is that different from having faith that Santa Claus is real?
Because I have evidence God exists and that Santa doesn't.Well then it isn't pure faith, now, is it?
Augmented faith yes.
Pure faith is stupid. Faith with experiences is everything.
Post by
Heckler
Pure faith is stupid.Interesting. I'll assume you'll retract this eventually and so say nothing further.
Post by
Squishalot
When you bring up other religions, it changes up the method of the argument, but the general crux of it remains -- short of personal revelation (which also falls short in a broad sense -- ie. outside of your own mind), there's no path to prove or disprove existence of God, or Karma, or Nirvana, or Heaven, or Reincarnation, or Enlightenment, or Hell, etc. -- and therefore it is impossible, and altogether futile to try (to prove it).
That's not true. Perhaps there's an underlying sense of intertia in nature that results in Karma, and influenced by hidden variables that result in non-random effects.
You can always search for answers. My point about trying to divert it away from Christianity is that Christianity sets itself up to be unprovable, but the presence of a deity generically doesn't.
Pure faith is stupid.Interesting. I'll assume you'll retract this eventually and so say nothing further.
A Christian wouldn't know what to believe if they didn't have someone / some text guiding them, no? There can't be any such thing as 'pure faith' - there will always be an external influencing factor.
Proving religion scientifically is quickly deemed impossible by this method, as there's not even a single brick to lay down where many thousands are needed. What is the first scientific step to proving God?
It's a nice analogy. The only problem is, there are bricks that you can lay down. You can demonstrate that things occur outside of man's understanding and outside the laws of the universe. You can philosophise that the universe had to be created from something, and that said creator would have to be outside our universe in order to create it. Bricks of theology are no less stable than philosophy bricks, but they're just not generally accepted as 'science'. But then again, neither are many philosophical bricks.
I know you won't believe me, but I'll say it anyway. I wasn't sterotyping. I was trying to illustrate a typical religious person, a militant religious person, and a pacifist religious person. Average and two extremes. These days, radical muslims tend to be the most extreme religious people out there. Not all muslims, just the radicals.
Ok, I'll accept that on the face of it.
Well, it is impossible to be completely unbiased. I'm at least somewhat biased against the idea of god for personal reasons. However, I try my best to look at things objectively.
Impossible, yes, but it shouldn't stop you from trying. I don't think you're looking at religion objectively because of your bias, though.
Scientifically, I look at the universe and say "The universe is running just fine, and there's no sign of an all-powerful all-knowing intelligence that deeply cares about us. What evidence do I have to believe? What evidence do you have to believe?
Scientifically, I look at the universe and say "The universe is running just fine, and there's no sign of any hidden variables that might somehow cure a person without leaving visible evidence behind. What evidence do I have to believe? What evidence do you have to believe?"
It's just as (ir)rational.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, I'm going to have to bow out of the discussion. Things are horribly busy at work this week, and are likely to be for the next couple of weeks, so I'll have less time to discuss back and forth as I have been over the last week. I'll try to drop in every now and then though.
Thanks for the discussion all.
Post by
Heckler
It's a nice analogy. The only problem is, there are bricks that you can lay down.
Philosophical / Theological bricks, sure (see 3rd paragraph of that section). Scientific bricks, not so much.
Thanks for the discussion all.
Right back at you. =)
Post by
Orranis
It's a nice analogy. The only problem is, there are bricks that you can lay down.
Philosophical / Theological bricks, sure (see 3rd paragraph of that section). Scientific bricks, not so much.
Even then, I find those bricks to be flawed. My point is basically I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours
That was the point of the Religious thread I had made. Why is your God any more valid than any others?
Post by
Heckler
Even then, I find those bricks to be flawed.
Me too, in a scientific context. Philosophical bricks are probably allowed to be flawed though, as they're not necessarily intended for anyone but the person who finds them.
Why is your God any more valid than any others?
Chances are one of the belief systems (atheism included) is actually "more valid" than all others, but since we can't know, it does seem rather pointless to argue about it. I don't have anything against belief systems trying to "recruit" people (again, atheism included), as long those people are free to reject the offer.
I'll assume this one wasn't directed at me though =D
Post by
Monday
Pure faith is stupid.Interesting. I'll assume you'll retract this eventually and so say nothing further.
I do in fact think it is, well not stupid, but not the best.
I don't go on Pure faith alone, I have many things to affirm my faith, but just picking one religion and believing isn't enough for me.
Post by
Orranis
Even then, I find those bricks to be flawed.
Me too, in a scientific context. Philosophical bricks are probably allowed to be flawed though, as they're not necessarily intended for anyone but the person who finds them.
Why is your God any more valid than any others?
Chances are one of the belief systems (atheism included) is actually "more valid" than all others, but since we can't know, it does seem rather pointless to argue about it. I don't have anything against belief systems trying to "recruit" people (again, atheism included), as long those people are free to reject the offer.
I'll assume this one wasn't directed at me though =D
Of course, but any philosophical brick used to define God does not define a Christian God, or a Jewish God, or a Muslim God, or a pagan God, or whatever.
Post by
Squishalot
Even then, I find those bricks to be flawed.
Me too, in a scientific context. Philosophical bricks are probably allowed to be flawed though, as they're not necessarily intended for anyone but the person who finds them.
Why is your God any more valid than any others?
Chances are one of the belief systems (atheism included) is actually "more valid" than all others, but since we can't know, it does seem rather pointless to argue about it. I don't have anything against belief systems trying to "recruit" people (again, atheism included), as long those people are free to reject the offer.
I'll assume this one wasn't directed at me though =D
Of course, but any philosophical brick used to define God does not define a Christian God, or a Jewish God, or a Muslim God, or a pagan God, or whatever.
If you go back to the start of the brick analogy, you'll see that we were removing references to any particular God, and attempting to find the existence of a god generally.
It's a nice analogy. The only problem is, there are bricks that you can lay down.
Philosophical / Theological bricks, sure (see 3rd paragraph of that section). Scientific bricks, not so much.
That's why I specified: "Bricks of theology are no less stable than philosophy bricks, but they're just not generally accepted as 'science'. But then again, neither are many philosophical bricks."
I'm equating theological evidence of God to philosophical evidence of anything. It's not scientific, but, again, going back to the heart of the brick analogy, it doesn't mean that we should stop looking for answers, because it's not a pointless search, like philosophy.
Post by
Orranis
So I just found this statistic: Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10
Post by
Skreeran
So I just found this statistic: Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10You know, this and all this talk about faith healing reminds me of a song! :D
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dead
by Voltaire!
And as a bonus, another great song by him! This one is relevant to the OP!
Hell in a Handbasket
.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.