What if I said a property of The Flying Spaghetti Monster was that he was divinely perfect and incomprehensible?
Now all of a sudden he has to exist for the world to make sense. If that sort of answer made me feel good, I could see myself believing that until the day I die.
Or what about the possibility of the collusion of several perfect gods? Can there be several of them?
Most eminent scientists fall into the group of 99.9% atheist and .1% agnostic, I think. I call myself an atheist, and I defend the stance of atheism, but when it boils down to it, Jesus could be the creator of the universe, and purple dragons could exist. I might also be in a coma right now and just conversing with my own conscious. Some would say this makes me an agnostic.
I think atheism is still a more accurate description though, because I do not hold any beliefs about the existence of a god or gods.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
There are lots of bright thinkers on there. Popular atheist Sam Harris has a lot of good videos, but if that isn't your thing, so do popular theists such as Reza Aslan and Rick Warren.
Steven Pinker is an experimental psychologist working at both MIT and Harvard, so if anyone has a nice, comforting way of explaining the ubiquity of supernatural beliefs in humans, it would probably be someone like him.
You might also benefit from reading the first four arguments for the existence of god on this page:
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
and watch this video, to put things in perspective:
|
Thread: Logic and God...
-
05-01-2008, 02:44 PM #121
Last edited by Galt; 05-01-2008 at 02:56 PM.
-
05-01-2008, 02:47 PM #122
So you believe all of the gods or correct except perhaps christianity?
Which type would you consider youself?
"Classical pantheism, which is expressed in the immanent God of Kabalistic Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Monism, neopaganism, and the New Age, generally viewing God in either a personal or cosmic manner.
Biblical pantheism, which is expressed in the writings of the Bible with the understanding of personification linguistics as a cultural communication idiom in Hebrew language. [Isa 55:12] [Acts 17:28]
Naturalistic pantheism, based on the relatively recent views of Baruch Spinoza (who may have been influenced by Biblical pantheism) and John Toland (who coined the term "pantheism"), as well as contemporary influences.
"
"Perhaps the most significant debate within the pantheistic community is about the nature of God. Classical pantheism believes in a personal, conscious, and omniscient God, and sees this God as uniting all true religions. Naturalistic pantheism believes in an unconscious, non-sentient Universe, which, while being holy and beautiful, is seen as being a God in a non-traditional and impersonal sense.
"
-
05-01-2008, 02:49 PM #123
-
05-01-2008, 02:59 PM #124
-
-
05-01-2008, 03:00 PM #125
-
05-01-2008, 03:02 PM #126
-
05-01-2008, 03:06 PM #127
You're askin what type of pantheist am I. Thing is, they're all relevant. So choosing a type makes no sense really, but that's my opinion.
Edit: ItalicLast edited by Danny23; 05-01-2008 at 04:04 PM.
أشهد أن لا إله إلاَّ الله و أشهد أن محمد رسول الله
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🚷 Anti-Degeneracy League 🚷
https://www.twitter.com/eyeonpalestine
Mossad acronym: ISIS AKA Israeli Secret Intelligence Service
-
05-01-2008, 03:57 PM #128
-
-
05-01-2008, 04:06 PM #129
- Join Date: Apr 2006
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
- Age: 36
- Posts: 5,040
- Rep Power: 1635
What's wrong is the fact that it is an inadequate tool of analysis. It is a limited aspect of a relativley new and barbaric species of limited intelligence. Applying this tool to the supernatural is ludicrous and presumptious. By the universe as a whole i mean, the entire universe (i.e. not just the earth, or our solar system, or our galaxy, or the thousands of galaxies around our galaxy, but the universe it its entirety).
Last edited by TheCon; 05-01-2008 at 04:13 PM.
Loyal fan of the:
♦ San Jose Sharks ♦
♦ San Francisco Giants ♦
♦ San Francisco 49ers ♦
♦ Golden State Warriors ♦
-
05-01-2008, 04:14 PM #130
-
05-01-2008, 04:16 PM #131
Reps to OP. I came to the same conclusion as you a while ago. Unfortunately, most people are too narrow-minded to see things that way. Most people want to have some type of answer that they can hold on to and say is their belief... not some type of cycle of hypothetical statements which reaches the conclusion that we in fact can't reach a conclusion on these metaphysical matters.
I made a thread similar to this a while ago but it just ended in theism/atheism bashing as most do... and seeing as to how this has reached 5 pages I'm assuming this one has as well.Force Factor Log: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=142378451&p=833477401#post833477401
Journal: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3226291
**New Jersey Crew (908)**
*Always Injured, but Still Stronger Than You Crew*
-
05-01-2008, 04:21 PM #132
- Join Date: Apr 2006
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
- Age: 36
- Posts: 5,040
- Rep Power: 1635
^^^ this is why. and again, i've already granted science is the best thing ever and is extraordinarily useful. all i am asserting is that logic is not as useful as many atheists and theists alike might claim it to be in terms of metaphysical matters.
Oh and 908, that is a perfect summary of both my stance and this thread lol.Loyal fan of the:
♦ San Jose Sharks ♦
♦ San Francisco Giants ♦
♦ San Francisco 49ers ♦
♦ Golden State Warriors ♦
-
-
05-01-2008, 04:31 PM #133
Yes, you said it's because we are primitive and so on, that does not prove logic/rationality/science to be primitive, it's just an assertion. Just because logic and science is used by primitives does not mean it has a viable alternative. What gets a fire lit faster, a firebow + tinder or wishing really really hard?
-
05-01-2008, 04:38 PM #134
- Join Date: Apr 2006
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
- Age: 36
- Posts: 5,040
- Rep Power: 1635
It seems like your responses are out of context from what has been said before. I simply want a justification for thinking that it is perfectly logical and rational to say "God does not exist" and ridiculous to say "God does exist." There's no proof either way. One says "well because logic is capable of answering questions like these and it suggests there's no God so i'm an atheist" the other one says "well religious texts are able to answer questions like these and they suggest a God exists so im a theist." Why can't we all just say the truth? We don't know and we have no conclusive proof either way. Any claims we make are pathetically grounded at best. That way, either we take that and say we are agnostic, choose to believe there is a God, or choose to believe there isn't. Either way, the discussion is mute for now since we are all equally wrong/right.
Edit: And i want to make it clear, there was never an assertion made. I simply said that this is the way i view it (this is how it seems to me) and asked someone to make the argument that either logic is more effective than religious texts at asserting truths about a supreme being or vice versa.Last edited by TheCon; 05-01-2008 at 04:41 PM.
Loyal fan of the:
♦ San Jose Sharks ♦
♦ San Francisco Giants ♦
♦ San Francisco 49ers ♦
♦ Golden State Warriors ♦
-
05-01-2008, 04:41 PM #135
Why would it matter which lights faster? Instead we should study the science of wishing/thought manifestation on a scientific (quantum physics/mechanics) level. Could you not agree? I believe we should have science of everything instead of thinking about it on a rational level and just disregarding it. Anything is possible...
أشهد أن لا إله إلاَّ الله و أشهد أن محمد رسول الله
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
🚷 Anti-Degeneracy League 🚷
https://www.twitter.com/eyeonpalestine
Mossad acronym: ISIS AKA Israeli Secret Intelligence Service
-
05-01-2008, 04:51 PM #136
Which gods from which texts? How are you weighing their truth-value?
What evidence do you have that a transcendental being has tried to communicate with human beings?
And another question, is there a limit to transcendental beings, forces, and powers? Could the first being, or god, be too complex for us to understand, but wouldn't there then be the possibility of another greater god that neither us or our local being could understand, and then one for that being as well, and so on?
Exactly, just like The Flying Spaghetti Monster.Last edited by Galt; 05-01-2008 at 04:54 PM.
-
-
05-01-2008, 04:59 PM #137
-
05-01-2008, 05:07 PM #138
No evidence, right. So how do you know which god you are even talking about?
That's what I thought, you would figure the worlds greatest scientists would be aware and thrilled if there were some good evidence suggesting any intelligence other than human had tried to contact us.
Why? Why can't there be two gods? Or an infinite number of gods who can't be aware of another. Turtles all the way down!
Edit*********
Looks like I caught you before you made your mind up about the universe and all of the gods people have ever written about in books. Okay, I'll respond to this one too:
But some of the gods conflict with each other, in that they demand to be the only god. Also, have you even seen what most of the gods purport to do in the world? A lot of it is pretty mundane and unconvincing.
Here is a quote by Hawking that I think is relevant, in which he talks about the Pope's misguided ideas about the universe:
Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]Last edited by Galt; 05-01-2008 at 05:12 PM.
-
05-01-2008, 05:15 PM #139
- Join Date: Apr 2006
- Location: Los Angeles, California, United States
- Age: 36
- Posts: 5,040
- Rep Power: 1635
I said yes to the question of whether or not there could be an infnite number of Gods. and "I don't know" to whether there is a limit "to transcendental beings, forces, and powers?" Then I said "yes" to the possibility of "the first being, or god, be too complex for us to understand, but wouldn't there then be the possibility of another greater god that neither us or our local being could understand, and then one for that being as well, and so on?"
The fact that a lot of God's contradict one another is irrelevant. The way I or anyone else knows what God they are talking about is that they choose the one they like best. None of this runs contrary to the fact that no matter what side you take (besides agnosticism) you are still equally right/wrong.Loyal fan of the:
♦ San Jose Sharks ♦
♦ San Francisco Giants ♦
♦ San Francisco 49ers ♦
♦ Golden State Warriors ♦
-
05-01-2008, 05:58 PM #140
OK, well you can't prove or disprove a non-falsifiable matter like God with science and you can't prove or disprove anything at all with faith. So in that sense, you cannot make a final determination about God with either. However, I disagree with your line of reasoning in that you appear to be saying "well neither answers the question, therefore they are equally valid."
For a start, two methods than give the same inconclusive result are not neccessarily equally valid. We know that logic/rationality/science produces tangible results, it's the superior method. In fact, it IS a method, unlike faith. There's a choice between something that works and something that doesn't.
Secondly, while logic cannot disprove God, it can certainly demonstrate the unlikeliness of God. And since God is not falisfiable, that's the best answer we will ever get.
-
-
05-01-2008, 07:01 PM #141
-
05-01-2008, 07:25 PM #142
-
05-01-2008, 07:38 PM #143
Can you define 'god' explicitly here?
Just like we can't truly know if The Flying Spaghetti Monster actually exists.
So what is the point of these gods, for what purpose do you imagine them in the universe?
I think many of those gods would have to disagree.
But anyway, where is your evidence that this ultimate transcendence occasionally makes itself known at all, let alone specifically in a certain genre of literature?
No, we can take sides based on probabilities here, and there will either be or not be deities and spirits in existence. The fact that people can be wrong does not mean that there can not also be an objective truth to be discovered(or never to be discovered).
There is absolutely no evidence for or against Russell's Teapot. It transcends our ability to perceive it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russels_Teapot
The same goes for The Transcendental Argument For The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
One last point that you seem to be overlooking from the first Steven Pinker video I posted, and I'm not sure how you missed it:
"Now as soon as soon as we're having this conversation, as long as we are trying to persuade one another of why you should do something or should believe something, you are already committed to reason. We are not engaged in a fistfight. We're not bribing each other to believe something. We're trying to provide reasons. We're trying to persuade, to convince.
As long as you?re doing that in the place first place, you're not hitting someone with a chair, or putting a gun to their head, or bribing them to believe something. You've lost any argument you have against reason. You've already signed on to reason whether you like it or not. So the fact that we're having this conversation shows that we are committed to reason."
-
05-01-2008, 07:47 PM #144
-
-
05-01-2008, 08:02 PM #145
-
05-01-2008, 08:14 PM #146
-
05-01-2008, 08:27 PM #147
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpo...1&postcount=22
I wasn't trying to offend you with the part asking whether or not you knew about it yet, no reason to get defensive.
Look at the above post, and I urge you strongly to consider that Stephen Hawking is probably correct in his assessment.Last edited by Galt; 05-01-2008 at 08:32 PM.
-
05-01-2008, 08:30 PM #148
This is why philosophy is dangerous if taken the wrong way, like the OP is doing now. With logic, 1 + 1 = 2, and this logic is obviously correct due to our mathematics that can be reproduced in real world application. With faith, nothing requires proof, real world application, or any sort of replicable testing. The OP is making the false assumption that our logic is flawed due to our "inadequate" intellectual ability. The only reason he feels that our intellectual ability is flawed is due to his believing in a supernatural being, which is devaluing life and what it is capable of.
-
-
05-01-2008, 08:31 PM #149
-
05-01-2008, 08:38 PM #150
- Join Date: Mar 2007
- Location: North Carolina, United States
- Age: 49
- Posts: 7,747
- Rep Power: 5907
Originally Posted by Galt
I simply feel creation itself is self evident and speaks for itself. You want proof? Simply look at it. Anything more and you can easily get lost in the parts.
Physicist also admit in nature everything is inherently empty correct? Therefore, everything is supported by nothing...or something they can't see (my conclusion).Last edited by Enso; 05-01-2008 at 08:40 PM.
When you get to the top of the mountain, keep climbing
Bookmarks