How can God not exist?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Jan Ardena, Mar 25, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,097
    Sarkus,


    It doesn't matter to me.
    It's good that you have this openess of mind.

    Of course not.

    Hey, I'm okay with that.


    Kali-yuga.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    I think you're doing quite well.
    What about their knowledge of God?
    Do you still believe it was invented?

    jan.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    Messages:
    5,502

    Firstly: what do you mean by "knowledge of God"? To my mind, there is no such thing....

    Secondly: if, by "knowledge of God" you simply refer to what is said by believers about God, then clearly, you're using some irregular usage of the term "knowledge".....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    If we acknowledge the possibility of divine revelation and that some people simply have it - then we're kind of stuck in this discussion, and are left to either accept their claims or not.

    I think that for the sake of the argument, we must accept that possibility.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    Messages:
    5,502
    I couldn't disagree more.

    Even if one were prepared to accept such a thing, by no means whatsoever would it qualify as "knowledge"....

    I do however, think that you've successfully noted exactly why these kinds of discussions are meaningless....
     
  8. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Why shouldn't we accept that possibility (even if just for the sake of the argument)?


    Why wouldn't that qualify as knowledge?


    I didn't say they are meaningless, just that there is a point when discussion comes to a halt and the only way forward is for one party to unquestioningly submit to the other. It's like this everywhere, though, religion or astrophysics.
    It comes down to accepting the apriori tenets of a field or discipline; and these tenets cannot be further explained or anaylzed.
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    From elsewhere -

    Here's a way for God "not to exist": by believing that our everyday life as we tend to live it in modern society is reality, and all else fantasy.
     
  10. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    This is difficult to accept since the Bible has been shown to be incorrect in this area, even in its foundational sections.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Riiight.
    Because you are God.
     
  12. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    It's easy to think of things that don't exist. And "God" is related to pre-existing concepts, anyway. People have always credited the unexplainable (to them, within the limits of their knowledge for the time) to the supernatural.
     
  13. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I just don't see why some people make this step.

    When I find something that I cannot explain, I think "I am sure there is a perfectly rational explanation for it."
    I never blame Murphy's Law or "bad luck" or "God" or "it's a mystery".
    I really don't understand why some people do that.


    More importantly, it is not clear how there would be a common, what to speak of necessary relation between not having the explanation for something and concluding said thing must have been caused by supernatural forces.

    So I am not at all convinced by the idea in the quoted post.
     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    I think it the most rational explanation.
    I think the origin of belief in God is lost to us entirely. We will never be certain how it came about, but I would envisage that it began long before even this civilisation, and was first conceived when Man was able to observe patterns (such as the sun, moon cycles etc) but not understand why.

    Once the belief in God becomes prevalent, it pervaded society (via the marketing genius of religions and the desire/need for traditions and maintaining patterns) although with the concept of God being pushed back with each new level of understanding of the natural world.
    At some point they would reach an understanding of God that put it beyond all further examination, and thus ""future-proofed" it from further (possibly conflicting) understanding of the natural world.

    Once at that point it is just a matter of continued advertising and marketing.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    Messages:
    5,502
    Oh, sure, for the sake of the argument, that's fine.
    Naturally though, we must also therefore accept the possibility of the opposite. I know you realize this, but a number of people in here do not seem to see this, which is the cause of their misunderstanding...


    Because it doesn't satisfy any recognized conditions thereof.

    Moreover, such an 'experience' (sic) is strictly, and necessarily wholly subjective....


    I agree with what you say here, for the most part.
    However, you fail to note that there are some conceptions that are not amenable to such analysis, usually because the consist solely of a priori; thus: meaningless. There is such a concept relevant to this 'discussion'.



    Well put.
     
  16. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
    Now you know that SciWriter is just a mammal romanticist who likes science as much as the liberal arts and that the foundational cosmology and unevolution sections of the Bible have been shown to be 100% incorrect, even in the two different divinely inspired versions of Genesis.
     
  17. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    Three steps to God's existence:

    1: being created from god?

    2: imagining god

    3: becoming god

    One is an assumption. Two is a fact. Three is almost impossible these days.
     
  18. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    Well, 4000 years ago, we didn't even have the scientific capabilities to understand things that seem like common knowledge today. When you can't even understand why the sun rises every morning, it probably skews your view on pretty much everything.
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Really, it is known why the Sun rises?
     
  20. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    The theists say though that if one practices according to their instructions, then one will come to the same conclusions as they.
    This is unassailable.
    It is also a tall order, for most people.
    In fact, it is such a tall order that it seems practically impossible to follow through with it.
    This is probably why the whole theist/atheist debate is doomed to be hopeless.
     
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    Oh yes. Because it has no choice... given that both the sun and earth are dancing to an entirely predictable tune from that great artist called Gravity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    We can still ask why it is that they have no choice.
     
  23. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    I know why the sun rises.

    I mean, I'm damn sure I understand why it appears to rise.

    What does that really mean?

    Does that mean it's true?

    If everyone everywhere for instance, believed something analogous to what I believe, would that mean anything except for what each person perceives it to mean?

    Facts are a very convenient means of rapid communication, but they don't always mean what one thinks they should. Depends exactly on the implicit "to whom".

    Pardon my diversion from the topic, I'm tired and I think part of my brain is asleep.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page