My case for why there is no conscious, seperate entity such as God (Bible-like God, that is)

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Sunday, March 19, 2006 08:14
VIEWED: 18094
PAGE 10 of 11

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Are you saying that you don't think children deserve suffering less than others, but you simply brought up that point because you thought it would stir everybody up the most?

Yep.

Chrisisall

CAUSAL

Friday, March 17, 2006 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

To be intelletually responsible, I must hasten to add that the rules of predicate logic disallow the predication of existence. A number of philosophers, Aristotle and Kant among them, agreed in some form with the maxim that existence cannot be predicated of thing. This would jeopardize any argument which predicated existence to some particular.)

Wow.
I asked for it, I guess

My main argument really is this:
a) People feel the need to fully understand everything.
b) People cannot fully understand everything.
c) God is part of everything.
Therefore:
d) People cannot fully understand God.

Those that say they 'know', simply cannot. They are formulating their answers from their own understanding, or the imparted understanding of others.

So be at peace with not fully understanding.
But anyone saying "I know..." smacks of pride...

Chrisisall, who knows this...

Excellent point; given our limited human intellects, we are not capable of anything approaching comprehensive knowledge, even of the most basic of subjects. But if this argument is going to have maximal force, you're going to have to apply it as broadly as possible. For instance, say, to physics. If it is the case, as you asserted in premise "b" above, that people cannot fully understand everything, then your argument could be applied thusly:
a) People feel the need to fully understand everything.
b) People cannot fully understand everything.
c) Physics is part of everything.
Therefore:
d) People cannot fully understand physics.

Yet people continue to believe that although they do not fully understand physics, they can understand enough to use in everyday life (automobiles, can openers and electrical lights, for instance). Furthermore, the reality that physics isn't fully known doesn't throw doubt on the truth of the physics that is[/is] known. And further, while asserting full knowledge would certainly "smack of pride", asserting confidence in the veracity of what is, in fact, known (even if it is incomplete, as science will always be) certainly does not indicate pridefulness, but rather proper confidence it what is known, even if full knowledge has not been attained.

Your argument (if taken to apply to "everything") suggests that we can never understand anything fully (which I would agree to). But to advance from there to the conclusion that nothing can ever be said to be known seems unwarranted. If that were, in fact, the case, then we would be forced into the most radical kind of skepticism, even doubting the existence of persistent objects (after all, in this system, I con't "know" that there are persistent objects). I'd wake up in the morning and look in the mirror and be astonished that I looked the same as I did the previous day (if that is, I could get over the shock that the mirror was still in the bathroom, or that I still had a bathroom at all). Such skepticism flies in the face of common experience, and philosophers from Plato to Adler have rejected it as absurd. Surely you're not advocating that nothing at all can ever be known with certitude? You seem to be presupposing some distinction between God and other subjects (such that God cannot be known, while other things can) and I'm curious what that presupposition is.

My second objection to your argument has to do with the concept of "fully known". Your conclusion that God cannot be fully known does not entail that God cannot be known at all, which you seem to suggest in saying,

Quote:
Those that say they 'know', simply cannot.

This statement doesn't follow from your argument. What does follow is something like this: "Those that say they 'fully know', simply cannot", which, of course, I would agree with. But again, the admission that a subject isn't comprehensively known does not mean that cannot be known at all. For instance, I know that the brain plays some role in consciousness and cognition (because whe

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 17, 2006 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I have to go to work now, so I must be brief.
I have my own ideas on spirituality. I cannot prove them. They might be wrong. I may change them at some point. I'm okay with that.

You can't see, touch or coverse with a guy named God.
Therefore you can't prove or disprove his existence, period.(He said, as if it were important or final

)

Later, Causal.

Wage-slave Chrisisall

CAUSAL

Friday, March 17, 2006 7:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

I have to go to work now, so I must be brief.
I have my own ideas on spirituality. I cannot prove them. They might be wrong. I may change them at some point. I'm okay with that.

You can't see, touch or coverse with a guy named God.
Therefore you can't prove or disprove his existence, period.(He said, as if it were important or final)

Later, Causal.

Wage-slave Chrisisall

Cheers for work!

I agree with these points, with the following qualifications:

As regards seeing, touching, or conversing with God, you're right: this can't be done--IF by these you mean the conventional human understanding. I cannot see God as I could some physical object. This presents me no difficulty, though, because God isn't a physical object, so the inability to see Him as a physical object poses no real objection to His existence. Same deal with touching Him: not a physical object. And if by conversing you mean an audible-voice to audible-voice exchange, then no, I can't converse with Him either. But these presuppose a material monism when it comes to proof or disproof of something. I think that this is fairly limiting in terms of what counts as "proof". I can neither see nor touch my wife's love for me, but I see evidence of it in the way she treats me. Likewise, I can neither see nor touch God, but I take effects of God to be proof of His existence (I ascribe the material world to the work of God, I ascribe my own changed lifestyle to the work of God) (of course, I also acknowledge that there are counter-arguments to this, but for the sake of expediency, I won't go into a comprehensive defense). In short, while it is true that God isn't available for investigation in any tangible form, this neither neither disproves His existence nor does it mean that there is no proof of any kind.

As regards the statement that you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, I agree with that as well--IF you mean that God's existence cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. But I believe that God's existence can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt--though I hasten to add that the same argument may not be convincing to everyone. There is something about God's character that doesn't want to be provable beyond the shadow of a doubt. Were that the case, no faith would be required--and just about every conception of God that I know of emphasizes faith. There is something about faith that is inherently pleasing to God; I've spent a good deal of time thinking about it, and would be happy to discuss it with you, but I don't want to hijack the board (plus, it's rather involved).

Just wanted to extend a kudos to all involved in this discussion. This is a prime example of the way things can work if everybody discusses things calmly and rationally. Bravo Zulu!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

SIGNYM

Friday, March 17, 2006 11:27 PM

I can neither see nor touch electrons, but I can make them jump with a wave of my (magnetic) wand. Your wife's love is mainfest by the effect it has on her actions. I can't see temperature, but we can all measure it with a themrometer. Not trying to be a pr*ck, but the point is that God appears to have no consistent effect on the things that we CAN observe. And so when you say

Quote:
But I believe that God's existence can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt--though I hasten to add that the same argument may not be convincing to everyone

you can not bring any evidence- even indirect evidence- that we can all look at and say "Oh yeah". If you COULD prove God beyond a reasonable doubt, we wouldn't all be talking about it anymore.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:

There is something about faith that is inherently pleasing to God; I've spent a good deal of time thinking about it, and would be happy to discuss it with you, but I don't want to hijack the board (plus, it's rather involved).

Please, start that thread!
I'm SURE you would get a positive response.

Don't make me do it; I start too many as it is

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you COULD prove God beyond a reasonable doubt,

that would be a short wait for a train that comes.
And that ain't how it happens, apparently.

ChrisisallMal-like

CAUSAL

Saturday, March 18, 2006 3:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I can neither see nor touch electrons, but I can make them jump with a wave of my (magnetic) wand. Your wife's love is mainfest by the effect it has on her actions. I can't see temperature, but we can all measure it with a themrometer. Not trying to be a pr*ck, but the point is that God appears to have no consistent effect on the things that we CAN observe. And so when you say
Quote:
But I believe that God's existence can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt--though I hasten to add that the same argument may not be convincing to everyone
you can not bring any evidence- even indirect evidence- that we can all look at and say "Oh yeah". If you COULD prove God beyond a reasonable doubt, we wouldn't all be talking about it anymore.

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

So I started by being all pissed off, then stopped and saw this:

Quote:
...you can not bring any evidence- even indirect evidence- that we can all look at and say "Oh yeah".

And you know, you're absolutely right, there isn't any evidence that we can all agree to. But agreement isn't requisite for truth. If I propose, "death in the world proves there is no God", any number of people will disagree with that. But their disagreement has nothing to do with the truth value of that proposition. The truth value of that proposition is fixed and it it is independent of what anyone thinks about it. Similarly, the truth value of propositions in support of God's existence is fixed and independent of human judgments concerning those propositions. And disagreement in judgment in no way changes or invalidates the truth value (whatever it may be). I guess this is just a long and technical way to say that just because you don't accept something as evidence doesn't make it so.

This whole thing is an exercise in presuppositions, in any event. The people on one side presuppose certain things, and use them as evidence for God's existence and give arguments for that; but of course, these arguments can't be proven conclusively apart from the presuppositional axioms that form their foundations. The people on the other side presuppose certain conditions which would preclude God's existence, then argue against the existence of God on those bases; but again, these can't be proven conclusively either.

You're certainly right, Signym; there is no possible way to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that God exists. But be honest: you can't prove He doesn't, either.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

CARTOON

Saturday, March 18, 2006 4:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by queenofthenorth:
Haha. My plan is coming to fruition.

Exactly what I wanted you to think.

Oh, and BTW, for those of you who weren't aware, this discussion has also been extended over into a "part 2" thread: http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=18898 (for the sake of folks like myself who have dial-up, and don't have another few centuries to wait for this somewhat lengthy thread to load).

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:07 AM

Quote:
And you know, you're absolutely right, there isn't any evidence that we can all agree to. But agreement isn't requisite for truth.

No, but being able to test an idea IS necessary for "truth". I'm not talking about a "logical" framework but a scientific one. In science, you can never "prove" a hypothesis. For example, I can hypothesize that cyanide is poisonous to humans- but I can't prove it because there may be a few rare exceptions. I'd have to test every single human. But what you can do is form your hypothesis in a way that is can be disproved. I can say that cyanide is non-toxic, and just one case can disprove that statement. That's called the null hypothesis.

Quote:
This whole thing is an exercise in presuppositions, in any event. The people on one side presuppose certain things, and use them as evidence for God's existence and give arguments for that; but of course, these arguments can't be proven conclusively apart from the presuppositional axioms that form their foundations. The people on the other side presuppose certain conditions which would preclude God's existence, then argue against the existence of God on those bases; but again, these can't be proven conclusively either.

Well, I thought I was pretty clear about my assumptions: there is a universe, we are part of it, and we come to know it through our senses. And I thought I was pretty clear that these were assumptions.

Quote:
You're certainly right, Signym; there is no possible way to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that God exists. But be honest: you can't prove He doesn't, either.

First of all, 'proving' something (in my book) is an unfair test. Can't be done. But hypotheses can be tested. And some hypotheses are so reliable that we have come to use them in our everyday life. If "god" were as reliable a working hypothesis as gravity or electrons, we would be using that concept to light our cities or grow our food. Unfortunately, "god" can't be turned on by flipping a switch or opening a valve. In fact, "god" as a hypothesis seems to be either ineffectual or so far outside of the real world that it can't even be tested. If it can't be tested, it can't be disproved.

In any case, IMHO you haven't even demonstrated god beyond a reasonable doubt. When do you supposed you might actually get around to it?

---------------------------------
Free as in freedom, not beer.

PREV PAGE 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT PAGE