if it has no effect on objective reality, then it can only be imagined, assumed, envisioned, contemplated. oh yes. it only needs one instant of a thing for it to exist. no, we dont create reality, it is. no, reality is regardless of us. yes that true, if you conjure up a god in your subjective mind, yes it is equal to a tree conjured up in the same way. as I said in your subjective mind they have the same status.
I desire proof (logical or empirical) because it is illogical to believe something without reason. The alternative is to believe everything or nothing. I suppose what I would do would depend upon the implications of the proof. For instance a proof that implied a Christian God would evoke a different behavior than proof that implied a Hindu God. I've had no interaction with anything I can discern as a God. I don't know about you but not having underpants is a problem for me. I would find this very peculiar behavior but if this were true, so what? Why do theists bother talking about him? If you're supposed to know, you'll know and if you don't know you're not supposed to. It is then pointless to discuss the issue and running around proclaiming there is a God is moronic. ~Raithere
Whenever your underpants go missing they have been taken by the underpants gnomes. They take them to make a profit. How they make a profit is unknown, this is the mystery of the underpants gnomes. (for more info, watch SouthPark). You can't show this for God so why should I have to demonstrate it for underpants gnomes? If you truly believe in the underpants gnomes, or if you seriously contemplate your missing underwear, you will be able to perceive the underpants gnomes. People are often wrong. In fact, people are usually wrong. If you don't believe me take a trip to Vegas and go see all the people and the results of the billions upon billions of dollars they have lost because they don't understand statistics. ~Raithere
What would you consider 'proof'? False dichotomy. Theists have their reason for believing in God but disbelieving in leprechauns - ineffable as it may be. To be more specific, I think you need to state clearly that you think the theist's reason is "unreasonable" and explain why. Non circularly, of course. Otherwise it would be unreasonable.
We MUST assume it is possible that asdljfoiw33ehlsd exists? Eh.. To expand on what Raithere was saying.. to hold such a position, you must know something about said entity. To say God exists is to ascribe the natural property of 'existence' to the supernatural. And then we must provide some method of ascertaining existence (and rigorously define 'exist'). God is only anthropomorphized. There is no other available description. Either he is angry, or kind, or wise or .. etc. This tells atheists that God is only available in the human perception - that is, God was conjured in the human perception. If only theists and atheists would provide their own definitions of 'exist' and justify them logically, we would all be reasonable. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, but the noise has no meaning. Not necessarily. Yes, but it's existence it meaningless. Not necessarily. That question presumes god exists in the first place. A tree can be verified by later observation, unless of course you reject the observation... then you're lost and have nothing to go on. I accept the tree because it's part of my stimulous. God is an idea. While I will acknowledge the existence of the idea, it's relevance in nature is simply null unless you presume it so. The concept of god can neither be proved nor disproved to me. It's an invalid question by its definition. So long as you don't require consistency, one's criteria for proof can sway all over hell and there's nothing ethical anyone external to you can do to stop it.
ROFLMAO! Love it! I said that to my wife the other day! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It would depend upon the definition of God. The more detailed the definition, the more proof necessary. There are some definitions, such as cosmotheistic, that I can essentially agree with. Tiassa has one I like; God is greater than that which can be imagined, which is kind of hard to disagree with. Of course, I'm not quite convinced that these actually wind up meaning anything. I gave three options but your point is made. I left out subjective bias. Now how can I state clearly what I think about an unstated reason? What I typically find is that a theist's reason for belief is emotional. That the belief in a God fulfills certain desires and/or needs. The problem with this is that desire does not determine truth. Instead it tends to become a self-reinforcing fantasy that ignores the facts. For instance: I want to be able to affect the outcome of a situation I cannot control. I believe that rubbing my lucky rabbit's foot will help affect the outcome in my favor. I have a strong emotionally driven motivation to acknowledge the positive outcomes and ignore the negative ones. This reinforces my belief in my luck rabbit's foot, making me feel more secure when faced with worrisome situation. The problem is that proper analysis reveals that my luck rabbit's foot has no effect on the outcome of, for instance, a roulette table. My belief is false. Unfortunately, since I feel more secure when I have no real reason to, I am more likely to bet again at the roulette table and loose more money. ~Raithere
The title of this thread has a different connotation to me. I thought of those isolated tribes in the jungle that never heard of God, and the ones that died out without a chance to listen to modern missionaries. They had different ideas about religion, they had their own mythology and ways to practice. If God is everywhere, why would he neglect to tell these people about Him?
(Q), You are assuming that the only valid kind of evidence is that one which exists independent from observers. There is no such evidence. You are fighting a strwaman of your own making. Faith is given by God. Nobody seeks God on his own. No *person* can provide you proof of God, and this is what I have been telling you all along.
Raithere, I think the problem with proof is that you demand an inter-personal proof that exists independet of observers. There is no such proof. Then this is it for you, for now. But this doesn't mean that other people didn't or don't experience interaction. The Christian doctrine does teach that it is God who makes the first move: 1 John 4:9-10 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 19 We love because he first loved us. -- and that without that, a person does not seek nor find God: Rom. 2:10-11 There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. Rom. 9:16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. . Looking for a proof of God without God's intervention does not yield positive results. The talk was about underpants GNOMES. So everything. But -- 1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. For one thing, religionists are told to spread the message. For two, the world is in sin, and even while God incites faith in some people, these people, if surrounded only by spiritually dead people, will not be able to act on this incitement. For this, theists (and also other people, whom God may use for His purposes) are needed to help. Those who have ears, will hear. Those who have ears, want to hear. It is not that they wouldn't understand statistics. They do not care about statistics, and they believe in luck.
I have plenty of faith, and I'm an athiest. My faith has little to do with deities. I have faith in people, emotions, stimulous and reason. Why do I need a deity? If a deity gave me the power of reason, it would know I cannot accept IT on faith. Perhaps then, if there were such a deity... its message to me is "you're welcome" and "fahgettaboutit". Lacking such an ability to reason leaves one in a quandry wherein a deity (fictional or not) is the only way things make sense. That doesn't mean squat as to anything beyond that specific need. They are the ones who took his underpants, those bastards.
Now that is 100% wrong. Unless of course, you want to accept the necessary corollary: disbelief is also given by God.
I was talking to superluminal in another thread about how definitions of God were meaningless since they would always be anthropomorphizations, or at least restricted by human perspective. Many people operate by describing God based on what He does (or is purported to do), rather than what He is. After all, whether God is made out of cheese or out of salami Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!D) has no sway on whether or not He is perceived as 'benevolent', 'disinterested' etc. Human beings can hardly define themselves. We can't look into the mirror and point at a specific place and say "here I am!". And neither can we define ourselves in words. It is therefore no surprise that we have (shoddy) anthropomorphizations of God. Subjective bias is the mode by which all people in society operate. There is not one person who lives exclusively by objective reasoning. Whilst one may percieve oneself to be reasonable, another may see a fool. There are also problems of inconsistency: where we act 'senselessly' (in ways we would not 'normally' behave). This difficulty is experienced by both theists and atheists. Human beings are not meant to be reasoning machines. If we were, we would all be nihilists. You have opinions on the subject of God (though you don't believe in it or even know what it is), don't you? Undoubtedly, there are emotional foundations to theism. But you say emotions don't determine 'truth'. What determines 'truth' then and what does 'truth' mean? Your example is a little strawmannish since a person who doesn't believe in God can still have a 'lucky rabbit's foot'. Like I said, human beings are not meant to be reasoning machines. By analogy, we can also conclude that going on vacations is irrational since money would be wasted on frivolity when it could be used for college funds, bill paying, and so on. Just a matter of perspective. The main thing to ascertain is: Is it better to be a theist or an atheist? There are happy atheists, I'm sure, but there are also happy theists. Members of both groups can be intelligent, belligerent, insightful etc. I have a feeling that theists are not that different from atheists (although you both strive to be).
Interesting point. As an atheist, my personal opinion is this. Personal happiness is where you find it. If belief in god makes you happy, go for it. But you cannot then claim an equal footing for god against the testable realities of life and nature that affect our prosperity and survival. Take theism and put it in perspective. I could easily make the argument (and I have) that theism, by its predisposition to assert religious "truth" as fact and force others to follow it with no provable foundation, is the root of much avoidable suffering. Thus I argue that it is much better, in the big picture, to be an atheist. Why, for instance, are there certain foods that I may not eat? And on certain days? And why are there certain sexual preferences that are not allowed? Why must I close up shop on Sunday when I could be making some good profit? Why should stem cell research be forbidden? You get the idea.
Water, I am not sure if it's the position that's the issue. I think it may be individual values. I like truth alot and it is probably my topmost motivator. What about you? I am not taking a position of science. I am taking a position of aligning how we think to the way reality works. Here is my simplified model of 'what is': "The presence of information without interpretation". I see you putting in alot of locical thought into the scientific process. That logic that is being wielded is an example of aligning your thoughts to the way reality works. The exercise of thinking logically and refining thinking based on supportive / contradictory evidence that reality provides is a great way to begin resolving those problems you outlined. The answer provided to the sight question is an answer and probably has a relvenace and completeness that is less than 1% of what's available. The other 99%+ is a result of asking reality the right questions. Of course our current 100% may not be perfectly aligned with truth and it's ok to have an approximation. Time will get the answer closer and closer to it. Societal domestication and individual behavior result in varying levels of desensitization. This applies to both of us as we don't live in the wild. It's also irrelevant. I don't look down on it at all. I have emotional need... humans are just that way. I simply choose to understand it and try very hard not to let it misalign my interpretation of reality. While I don't have to find purpose in my life (which may be a result of how I am personally wired emotionally), I do have the option to choose or discard purpose and for all you know I may have done both numerous times. I own what I choose. If I am dead, then I can't choose so it only applies to the living. The concept of ownership I am using is admittedly newer and tends to be more prevalent in various careers involving people relationships. While it shares similarities to dedication, it is different nonetheless.
I don't know. Your mission is to compare two apples. Your choices for comparison are two apples or an apple and a sea urchin. If you choose anything but the two apples then you don't know something that I do. I might, I might not, and anywhere in between. It all depends on how I choose to manage the risk. I am a part of it and thusly I can interact with it. When I do so, it describes, relates, and stores the information in a structue (the brain) which is made up of reality.
How so bud? Faith is an unconditional trust that a fantasy-being is going to meet an crazy expectation: "Oh I just know santa will bring me that pony for Christmas", "God will get me through it", etc. Trust is simply not a factor here. I'll try to paraprase what I was originally trying to communicate. For the sake of exemplification, lets say string theory is proven true and everything is made up of open or closed loops of tiny vibrating strings of energy. Every nanometer of space would be compose of trillions of strings. As I occupy some segment of space, I would be composed of the same stuff as the rest of space. I am thus a construct of reality. My segment of strings can interact with all the other strings. Let me know if this clarifies or confuses my assertion.