First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Atheism is wrong, Theism is also wrong
Posted 10/1/14

There is no Scientific theory or analysis to disprove anything Theological. Apples and Oranges. Its vain of to try. Like qualesia said, its better not to get involved in these arguments. All they can do is argue endlessly

The idea of faith is belief , not evidence . Its like trying to put God in a man's trial. Its really stupid and utterly ridiculous, but let them.
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/1/14 , edited 10/1/14

Zeboim wrote:


There is no Scientific theory or analysis to disprove anything Theological. Apples and Oranges. Its vain of to try. Like qualesia said, its better not to get involved in these arguments. All they can do is argue endlessly

The idea of faith is belief , not evidence . Its like trying to put God in a man's trial. Its really stupid and utterly ridiculous, but let them.


Apples and oranges are both fruits.

I agree, there is currently no Scientific theory or analysis to disprove anything Theological. There is, coincidentally, also no scientific theory or analysis to prove that how we interact with and observe the world is accurate or meaningful.

How do you know what you see is actually what's happening? Because you can sometimes also hear it happening and the belief is reinforced by your hearing. Then how do you know what you're hearing is accurate? Because you can correlate and reaffirm it with your sight. Yes that is true, but that's not proof, that's conjecture. It is possible that your hearing and sight are working together to deceive you. Same can be said about all five senses.

Science and religion both require a certain amount of faith. Religion requires faith to believe an unprovable existence, science requires faith to believe in the accuracy of our perceptions; because both are fundamentally unprovable.

I won't try to tell you whether god exists or not. I will only try to explain that an unquestioning belief in either god's existence or nonexistence is not the most logical stance to take on this issue. We should continually question our own beliefs and scrutinize ourselves above all others. If people were able to achieve this, we would drastically reduce the amount of conflicts in the world. Since every time a conflict should arise, people's first thought would then be "what did I do wrong?" instead of "what did they do wrong?"
Posted 10/1/14 , edited 10/1/14
if you think, 'be damned with wrong and right'.. you may have a chance to question your beliefs. imo
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/1/14

severticas wrote:

if you think, 'be damned with wrong and right'.. you may have a chance to question your beliefs. imo


See that's a danger with philosophical ideas being spread too quickly through media and not slowing down to explain exactly what it means. Yes right and wrong are a construct of humanity, their existence as far as morality goes is not self-evident. However there definitely is a practical right and wrong. If you have a specific goal in mind, there is definitely a right way and a wrong way to reach that goal. If my goal is to avoid a speeding ticket, driving at 120mph in a police station's parking lot is most definitely the wrong way of reaching my goal. Not to mention I'll probably crash into something.

If my goal is to avoid conflicts with others, self scrutiny is at least one right way to achieve that. However being the right way to achieve a certain goal has no bearing on something's inherent moral value, which I believe is what you're referring to when saying "be damned with wrong and right."
Posted 10/1/14
i think you should watch this video..or anyone in denial should as well.it will help you settle down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXDDZrYOuAE
Posted 10/1/14 , edited 10/1/14

excalion wrote:


severticas wrote:

if you think, 'be damned with wrong and right'.. you may have a chance to question your beliefs. imo


See that's a danger with philosophical ideas being spread too quickly through media and not slowing down to explain exactly what it means. Yes right and wrong are a construct of humanity, their existence as far as morality goes is not self-evident. However there definitely is a practical right and wrong. If you have a specific goal in mind, there is definitely a right way and a wrong way to reach that goal. If my goal is to avoid a speeding ticket, driving at 120mph in a police station's parking lot is most definitely the wrong way of reaching my goal. Not to mention I'll probably crash into something.

If my goal is to avoid conflicts with others, self scrutiny is at least one right way to achieve that. However being the right way to achieve a certain goal has no bearing on something's inherent moral value, which I believe is what you're referring to when saying "be damned with wrong and right."


Well, there you have it.. a goal. In many cases, conflict itself is a necessity to asking further questions.. it might be more your personality to stop and think before action..which is good but not always correct. for example, you might delay when time is of the essence... refer to psychopathic minds that can save lives. are you promoting self-deprecation?
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/1/14

Shin-Nrl wrote:

i think you should watch this video..or anyone in denial should as well.it will help you settle down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXDDZrYOuAE


Sorry but I'm not going to sit through a 2 hour long video without any kind of incentive regarding how rewarding the video will be. I assume you have seen the video so I will ask you a question. If you can satisfactorily answer this one question, I promise I will take the time and watch the video from beginning to end.

My question is also Epicurus's question:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
20259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / The centroid of a...
Offline
Posted 10/1/14 , edited 10/1/14

severticas wrote:


excalion wrote:


severticas wrote:

if you think, 'be damned with wrong and right'.. you may have a chance to question your beliefs. imo


See that's a danger with philosophical ideas being spread too quickly through media and not slowing down to explain exactly what it means. Yes right and wrong are a construct of humanity, their existence as far as morality goes is not self-evident. However there definitely is a practical right and wrong. If you have a specific goal in mind, there is definitely a right way and a wrong way to reach that goal. If my goal is to avoid a speeding ticket, driving at 120mph in a police station's parking lot is most definitely the wrong way of reaching my goal. Not to mention I'll probably crash into something.

If my goal is to avoid conflicts with others, self scrutiny is at least one right way to achieve that. However being the right way to achieve a certain goal has no bearing on something's inherent moral value, which I believe is what you're referring to when saying "be damned with wrong and right."


Well, there you have it.. a goal. In many cases, conflict itself is a necessity to asking further questions.. it might be more your personality to stop and think before action..which is good but not always correct. for example, you might delay when time is of the essence... refer to psychopathic minds that can save lives. are you promoting self-deprecation?


Which is why I said if my goal is to avoid conflicts with others. Goals change depending on the situation and what your goals are in which situations is a question of morality, which we are not talking about. What we are talking about however, is the fact that there are right ways and wrong ways to reach a specific goal.

What is the difference between self-deprecation and humbleness? The answer to this question should also answer your question to me.
Posted 10/1/14 , edited 10/1/14

excalion wrote:


Shin-Nrl wrote:

i think you should watch this video..or anyone in denial should as well.it will help you settle down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXDDZrYOuAE


Sorry but I'm not going to sit through a 2 hour long video without any kind of incentive regarding how rewarding the video will be. I assume you have seen the video so I will ask you a question. If you can satisfactorily answer this one question, I promise I will take the time and watch the video from beginning to end.

My question is also Epicurus's question:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”


I didn't watch anymore than 20 minutes and i promise you it is rewarding.the best i've found in youtube..i'm not very good at these topics but it explain every theory about the universe in a scientific way and how its related to god..in other words just prove anything atheists say about science was actually made by a creator..i think it can help agnostics more than atheists..excuse my grammer
19132 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/1/14
We cannot disprove that Santa Claus exists :D

btw you make very nice points in your opening post.


However nothing will ever make me religious
13652 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
こ ~ じ ~ か
Offline
Posted 10/1/14

excalion wrote:


Shin-Nrl wrote:

i think you should watch this video..or anyone in denial should as well.it will help you settle down

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXDDZrYOuAE


Sorry but I'm not going to sit through a 2 hour long video without any kind of incentive regarding how rewarding the video will be. I assume you have seen the video so I will ask you a question. If you can satisfactorily answer this one question, I promise I will take the time and watch the video from beginning to end.

My question is also Epicurus's question:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”


Epicurus's question only applies to the Abrahamic God and any gods similar to him. The Greek Gods, for example, are far from omnipotent, and some are downright malevolent, but they still called them gods. Also, they're much more interesting than Yahweh. That dude is a snoozer, I tell you.
8351 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/1/14
I agree. The scientism the modern world has agreed to follow makes dialogue like this so poisonous. It isn't so much about proof as much as it is about having a reason, be it emotional, logical or personal for whatever you believe. We need a philosophy, we need a first principle of faith in trusting the world around us before we can move on to any sort of system of verification.

The only place I disagree with the OP is in suggesting remaining in religion means remaining in stagnation. To this all the mystics of the church respond and say you are wrong because the experience of God and the divine is not limited. We find satisfaction in the old and unchanging and do not need to reinvent the wheel every time we think.

Posted 10/2/14 , edited 10/2/14

excalion wrote:


severticas wrote:


excalion wrote:


severticas wrote:

if you think, 'be damned with wrong and right'.. you may have a chance to question your beliefs. imo


See that's a danger with philosophical ideas being spread too quickly through media and not slowing down to explain exactly what it means. Yes right and wrong are a construct of humanity, their existence as far as morality goes is not self-evident. However there definitely is a practical right and wrong. If you have a specific goal in mind, there is definitely a right way and a wrong way to reach that goal. If my goal is to avoid a speeding ticket, driving at 120mph in a police station's parking lot is most definitely the wrong way of reaching my goal. Not to mention I'll probably crash into something.

If my goal is to avoid conflicts with others, self scrutiny is at least one right way to achieve that. However being the right way to achieve a certain goal has no bearing on something's inherent moral value, which I believe is what you're referring to when saying "be damned with wrong and right."


Well, there you have it.. a goal. In many cases, conflict itself is a necessity to asking further questions.. it might be more your personality to stop and think before action..which is good but not always correct. for example, you might delay when time is of the essence... refer to psychopathic minds that can save lives. are you promoting self-deprecation?


Which is why I said if my goal is to avoid conflicts with others. Goals change depending on the situation and what your goals are in which situations is a question of morality, which we are not talking about. What we are talking about however, is the fact that there are right ways and wrong ways to reach a specific goal.

What is the difference between self-deprecation and humbleness? The answer to this question should also answer your question to me.


Oh...



here you have the opening post ^
11497 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/2/14

excalion wrote:


SilvaZoldyck wrote:
Well P1 is trivially easy to refute the necessary truth of.

P || !P.
P=Q&!Q
Q&!Q||Q&!Q
Therefore !(P||!P)

Basically, if "we can accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now" contains a contradiction, the premise is false.

So now we need to really hone in on what we mean by 'defined' or 'ill-defined'.

For convenience, in context of the discussion, if something is 'defined' it is 'a concept agreed upon by the participants in the logical argument'.

That is, we both have a shared understanding of what the word referred to means, in the same way we both understand what "fire truck" represents. We share a similar definition in our vocabulary. "Ill-defined" is then an arbitrary concept, whose meaning can be made to be anything without agreement". They could, then, contain contradictions.


No.
P = "we can accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of God now."
Q = "God is a contradiction."


This is how you're currently trying to refute P1, but you're not addressing P, you're address a part of P which is a Fallacy of division. As you have structured it, P != Q. So your form of P = Q & ~Q will never happen.


An ill-defined idea doesn't make it necessarily BOTH contradictory and non-contradictory. An ill-defined idea is contradictory OR non-contradictory. The correct form would be P & (Q v ~Q). That's not really saying much is it?

If I accept the way you've structured this, you've done the heavy lifting.

An ill defined idea contains contradictions, as I mentioned. It's not "either contradictory OR non-contradictory", it's the fact that the whole concept itself of 'an ill-defined idea' contains contradictions.

It is basically a pronoun without a reference, and thus the word is simply a reference to ALL things, mutually exclusive or not.

Consider the word 'something'. It is defined, but defined as a pronoun, which means it gets its definition from OTHER things. It is thus ill-defined only when it isn't a reference to some noun or pronoun.

''we can accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of something now"

The sentence is true, and false, "currently ill-defined idea of something now" is true in that we can determine the validity of pronouns (I'd say our inability to write well without them is a pretty good demonstration) and false in the sense that we cannot determine the validity of whatever concept is being referred to hasn't been substituted.

'God' is a very ill-defined noun, but it's still better defined than a word with no agreed upon meaning.

"'we can accurately determine the validity of the currently ill-defined idea of blorpgamsal now"

Now we don't even have a cue for 'insert a noun/pronoun/concept here' because blorpgamsal doesn't appear to have that referential nature shared in our vocabulary.

What do we do with a word that has NO agreed upon meaning, a word whose only use in discourse appears to attempt to illustrate a set of syllables with an apparent absence of an agreed upon meaning? Well we could substitute that meaning in for the word, and because it's certainly still a nebulous definition, as was designed to tailor the argument, in for the word. So do we have a method to determine the validity of an 'ill defined word whose only use in discourse appears to attempt to illustrate a set of syllables with an apparent absence of an agreed upon meaning'?

Any argument you make would I assume be rooted in logic, which IS the methodology, so yes, we have one, it'd be logic. We thus can say the statement is true, we have a method to determine the validity of a currently ill defined idea of LITERALLY WHATEVER YOU WANT so long as you accept it is 'ill-defined'.

But likewise, with 'something', this suffers from the problem of ill-defined things, in that we actually haven't got an agreed upon definition so we can't determine the validity UNTIL something is substituted. Thus we 'can't currently verify the ill defined idea of blorpgamsal'.

Both of these are true 'currently', and it doesn't matter what you mean by either 'blorpgamsal' or 'something' if you're saying it's already ill-defined. An ill-defined 'something' is both 'something' and nothing by design. An ill-defined 'blorpgamsal' is both something and nothing by design.

Ceding something as 'ill-defined' is the same as ceding multiple substitutions at once. Some words can be better defined than others, 'something' certainly is better defined even when in absence of a pronoun than blorpgamsal. If you want to call the sound 'god' the equivalent of blorpgamsal it really makes 'god' seem like a stupid concept for anyone to care at all about, any more than we should care about blorpgamsal.

Only when you define things more clearly do you begin to erase other simultaneous substitutions.



Yes but P isn't an ill-defined concept. P is a statement regarding what we can currently do with an ill-defined concept.


What we do with ill-defined concepts is offer multiple simultaneous substitutions, some of them contradictory. We are kinda forced to, since the less we understand what is meant, the more we have to interpret and insert.


Its truth value has no reliance on what that ill-defined concept actually is. I could just as well say "We can do X or we cannot do X." You don't need to know what X is to tell me the form is correct, and that's all you can really say about it. Until I go ahead and define X = Q & ~Q, there is nothing more to be said.


You defined it as ill-defined. You seriously can't see where that would get you into trouble? If you go ahead and define it you change your entire premise from a substitution of "'we can accurately determine the validity of [insert]" to "we can accurately determine the validity of [that which you inserted]"

Given the structure of your sentence is to insert, I can, and do, insert, from the field of possible inserts I can because I don't know what you mean. So far I have a bunch of contradictory things for what that phrase means, all simultaneously. It's not one "or" the other, it's "it means many different things" because I can take an ill-defined idea to mean a lot of different things. Only by defining it do we begin to narrow the scope so that it contains fewer contradictions.

If you insert a definition such that it is a concept very well defined, then the answer is trivially "yes". "We can determine the validity of trees existing". If we have a sufficient degree of agreement for what those words mean, if our definitions are sufficiently well defined, then we DO have a method, it wouldn't be a question. Logic/epistimology, etc.

Even if what exactly we mean by those words isn't known, so long as we can come to general agreement, we still have a method. I'm willing to under certain definitions of the word 'fish' agree 'fish' exist even though 'fish' happens to be a surprisingly hard word to define.

But simultaneously I'm also happy to argue that 'fish' don't exist, in that the word is too contradictory to be useful.

I both can, and cannot, determine the validity of the ill-defined idea of 'fish' because it is both defined in a way that I consider valid and totally false. (If 'fish' were better defined, I'd be able to determine the validity outright, like I can with 'birds' which don't have massive contradictions in what is meant.)

The looser the definition, the more wiggle room we have to substitute multiple things. By defining it as 'ill-defined', you are saying 'SUBSTITUTE HERE!" You might even at this point more strongly define 'ill-defined', which is kinda the point.


I'm choosing to not define God yet, I'm leaving it ill-define for now just like I'm leaving X undefined.


By leaving X undefined, you're permitting substitutions for X. The more strictly you define it, the fewer substitutions can be made. I could choose from any element of the set of 'ill-defined' concepts which aren't excluded by your definitions.

Consider the sentence. "I saw a couple birds today". "Bird" is in context is partially ill-defined. It doesn't tell me the type of bird. So I could in my mind any number of possible combinations of birds, but I'm not going to substitute 'bear' for 'bird' as the definition for 'bird' excludes 'bear'. ("Fish" again is a whole other story)

I certainly have a method to determine 'birds' exist, but if you're defining 'bird' as ill-defined such that I don't know what you mean by it, I can't determine the concept.

The whole point of adding definitions to clarify what you meant is to avoid the contradictions inherent when you have vague terms.

"Oh, that's not what I meant, I meant X, Y, Z" is the process of defining things more clearly to avoid contradictions.


If you say "well I can't accept or refute a premise with parts of it undefined." Then how do you to accept any form of logical deduction? I can literally define any P or Q or X or whatever as A & ~A and refute it; or accept it. Basically at that point I can do whatever I want with it. Oh wait, this is a thing, it's called the principle of explosion. Now you're the one refusing to accept logic.


It's because 'undefined' things are indistinguishable, so thus you CAN attribute multiple simultaneous contradictory definitions to them.

The problem comes with the less defined, the more you allow the other to substitute. If I were talking to people who spoke only spanish, and I only english, saying "sea sea sea" pointing at the sea. Would the others interpret me as saying "water?" "ocean?" "Yes?" The less distinguishable, the more we're permitted to insert. Because ill-defined concepts can contain contradictions, the less you define yourself, the more I am allowed to choose.



You're missing the point. I'm not saying whether God exists or not. I'm positing two possibilities about what we can do with an ill-defined idea. Either we can validate it right now or we cant. Can you validate an ill-defined idea right now? Any excuse for why you can't, is still, "you can't".


We do BOTH. Right now, I can BOTH 'validate' an ill-defined idea if by 'ill-defined idea' you mean 'a concept whose definition is not commonly agreed upon', because we're both referring to the idea of exactly that, therefore, it is a valid concept. But I also cannot validate the idea of an 'ill-defined idea' if by that you don't mean the concept that I believe you to mean, and therefore, require you still to substitute a stronger definition before I can validate an 'ill-defined idea'.

Then, at some later time, if you provide a stronger definition then I can once again evaluate that definition and if it is sufficiently strong then I could do the same thing, right then, if the definition is strong, I can simply validate. If it's vague, and still ill-defined, then I can insert what I believe it to mean but ALSO not be able to validate until you provide a stronger definition. I do both of these, because while I do have a concept of what an 'ill-defined idea' is, I don't know if it matches yours, so until the definitions are made stronger, I hold a contradiction to that question, because 'ill-defined' is a concept that invites contradictions in logical arguments.



God is not currently the focus of my argument, an ill-defined idea is. I have not yet tried, in the current argument, to affirm or deny the existence of God. So far I have only done a logical deduction on what we can do with an ill-defined idea.

I don't care right now what theists have for their definition of God. The only thing I care about right now is whether we can or cannot validify an ill-defined idea. Don't drag anything else into the discussion, deal with that first. Hopefully underlining, italicizing and bolding that word will help draw attention to it.



We can do quite a lot with an ill-defined idea. The less defined, the more we can substitute. You'll always find that the stronger your definition and context the fewer contradictions you'll allow. (You'll also find that it's VERY hard to eliminate all contradictions in the definitions we hold)

... It's late but I'm going to postulate that defining an idea between people is perhaps the process of eliminating contradictions from the shared concept. "Bats" were once considered birds and god damn 'fish' is a badly defined word.
Posted 10/2/14 , edited 10/2/14
All I can say to this is...and I quote Arthur C. Clarke:


Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying.


And I apply this to God...either we have God...or we are just the product of an explosion so there is no Creator...both scare me a lot.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.