How can God not exist?

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

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    I don't know.

    Erm, well they had round things and made a name for them.

    Sounds like you have a lot of research to do. Maybe it's just easier if you say "god did it" and move on.

    No.

    Could be. I could perhaps, if supplied the appropriate quantity and quality of weed, describe something pretty complex in pretty sweet detail. Wow especially if I didn't spend all my time dicking around online with zero attention span. Hmm.

    Uh, I'm not skeptical of god. Not at all. I'm skeptical of people who say they know things about "him", or could possibly fathom anything remotely... well, whatever. I'm not at all skeptical. God cancels itself out via 'way beyondness', except in the eyes of those who well... don't understand what the fuck they're really saying. As I've stated: "GOD" is the anthropomorphization of nature, period. It is ego projecting itself onto the majestic, and reporting back whatever it must as a byproduct of that ego. It's a function, embodied by the emotionally needy as "the creator who created me in HIS image". *puke*

    Narcissists.

    Well I'm not sure, but "people made that shit up to feel better about stuff" sits pretty easy with me. I'm satisfied with that.

    Well personally, I see "god" as an evolutionary conceptual tool that's largely responsible for the success of the species, so yeah once that ball got rolling its utility was way to valuable to release. Biggest meme EVER (probably.... nevermind).

    Big ups.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    15,058
    There is How? and there is Why?
    They are very different questions.

    How? is something we can easily enough fiddle with and come to quite reliable conclusions.
    Why? is another matter.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    Mostly the "Why?" is "Because it can't do anything else..." but some consider that a meaningless response... which others would consider somewhat matches the question, and that any other answer would be unsubstantiated supposition.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    What Sarkus said.

    Like, twice and stuff.
     
  8. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,015
  9. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    The knowledge of God espoused by those ancients from the source I provided. It's all there in the Bhagavata Purana.

    jan.
     
  10. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Sarkus,



    Why do you think there is an origin in the first place?



    I know what you think.
    What i'd like to know is why you think that.
    That scripture is relaying information that had already been known
    from previous generations. It makes no mention of a time when some humans
    didn't know the things it mentions.



    Sarkus, doesn't that text tell you anything?



    Either that or God exists (the simpler option).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    That carpet is looking very bulgy with all the sweeping.


    Ok Sarkus.
    I see we're not going to get past your world view.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    jan.
     
  11. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I think it is is actually communal - in the sense that it is limited and meaningful within a particular group of people who "speak the same language" and live together.
     
  12. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    Because there was a point in the past when Man did not exist. Man now exists and has belief in God.
    Hence it is rational to assume that there was an origin of that belief.
    Because I consider it the rational position... wholly within the ability of Man without any need to invoke the reality of the tenet of the belief in question.
    Given that it is a document of religious intent, is it likely that it would mention things that would damage the view it was trying to portray?
    However, I do not know that scripture well enough to know what it doesn't mention. But because it doesn't mention a negative, you take it as support for the positive? "It doesn't mention that they didn't know... therefore we should assume that they did know!" sort of thing?
    It tells me that they had a surprisingly advanced level of understanding for the time compared with the European civilisations of the same era, and that their understanding was entwined within their religion... and at the boundaries of their understanding they appear to put God (something beyond testing)... and that their understanding was subsequently lost to the masses when their civilisation collapsed.
    One reason religion survives is because many people do see God existing as the "simpler option" and are not driven enough to seek beyond that answer.
    And as for actually being the "simpler option"... on one side you have the natural world, on the other you have a God that has no evidence to support it beyond that which is identical to that found within the natural world.
    So - which side is "simpler"... the Natural World... or the Natural World + God?
    Admittedly this is a somewhat "simplistic" analysis but it should highlight a flaw in considering God in any way the "simpler option" to anyone who bothers to think about it.
    Would that the be an actual carpet or the one that has no evidence to support its existence but under which people try to hide everything?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Sarkus,



    It's not any more rational than any other explanation.




    It is a historical account of the creation of the material world.
    In short, the entire knowledge is filtered down by certain people according
    to the different times, place, and circumstances.
    That would explain how some people were in possession of knowledge beyond
    their physical human capabilities (so to speak)



    Ancient people who had scientific knowledge were highly religious, so I don't
    see that what you say makes any difference. It seems knowledge can be gotten through religion, and scripture.



    Sarkus, why talk of ''evidence''?
    You wouldn't know evidence of God if it paraded itself infront of you. For all
    you know it may be doing that.
    The natural world, as we see it, is an illusion. Meaning it's not really ''as it actually is'' in the real sense of particles. Our ability to fathom the real world is seriously flawed, as our senses are faulty. So we need help in making sense of it. In ancient times they didn't have the tools of modern science to view into outer space, but yet they knew about space. How so?



    Let's assume we have a soul. A spiritual particle which is responsible for the animation of our physical bodies. The soul = God, and our bodies = the natural world. There is no question of one being simpler than the other, as one is merely a medium for the other. For the purpose of the material world, they work perfectly together.



    It's simple only because it is easily accessed by any human (should they choose), which is what one would expect if God existed. But it is scientifically
    difficult (by science I mean pertaining knowledge of God) in this day and age.
    But such knowledge was obtained by some ancient religious people.



    The one you keep sweeping information that doesn't fit, under.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    You know, the lump you keep tripping over.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    jan.
     
  14. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    Provide me with an alternative explanation and let's take it from there, shall we?
    Key here would be "filtered down by certain people".
    The only linkage to a divine source would be because one of those people said as much.
    And each layer of filtering has bias (unintentional or otherwise).
    You generally do the ancient civilisations a disservice, and come across somewhat arrogantly in favour of modern society and our achievements.
    Do you consider them unintelligent, stupid people? They were mostly religious, so I could see why you might!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Fallacy of correlation vs causation (correlation does not imply causation)...just because they were religious, living in a religious society where religion was pervasive and dominated... much like the Dark Ages of Europe... etc
    I do not deny that knowledge can be passed on through religion, and I could imagine that one of their tools to get people to believe in the unprovable aspects was to say "well, it says X and we now know X is correct... therefore this MUST also be true".
    If we can't go back to or consider the evidence then we are working purely on authority, and there it is often just a matter of "he who shouts loudest... or kills the most."
    It may be... but while there exists the possibility of an entirely natural explanation I see no reason to invoke God as a possible cause of that evidence.
    Maybe if you do see evidence you should be looking at yourself and asking why you do?
    Sure. Yet you are relying on these same senses to identify something as evidence of "God"? :shrug:
    I would imagine they looked upward at night.
    It really is that simple.
    From repeated observations they would see patterns in the sky... the most obvious being the phases of the moon, then the passage of the constellations. From there come theories, models, predictions, testing, refinement etc.
    But again, you have a rather disparaging view of ancient societies and just how advanced they might have been.
    Let's not. There's no proven need to assume such.
    It's also what you would expect from an idea that is unprovable and offers no meaningful answer to any question that is answerable.
    And you can demonstrate the truth of this knowledge, and thus separate it from merely a belief?
    Such as?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Sarkus,


    As I said, the knowledge could have been passed down by higher conscious
    beings. At least that would explain the gravity of the knowledge possessed by these people.


    So?
    That's how these ancient people describe the passage of knowledge. It's called an ascending process.



    Maybe you judge by your own standard.
    Why would they want to distort the message of God?



    On the contrary (without arrogance).



    We've already been over this.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!





    Erm! Erm! Erm! Erm!



    I take it you have some knowledge on the Dark Ages.
    Get some knowledge on vedic culture, and have fun seeing how mistaken you are.



    You're way of the mark with regard vedic society, and how God was percieved by the people, especially in the ages that preceeded Kali-Yuga.
    Go do some research.


    Why have you taken my response out of context?



    You're entitled to you opinion.



    Hardly the same thing.



    So they looked up at the sky, saw the planets in the solar system, calculated how far each one was. Saw that they all moved in their own orbit. Calculated the universe (beyond the solar system) contained more planets...

    Now you have to explain their amazing physiology.



    What does the theory of evolution suggest regarding progression of species?


    A famous Aristotle quote would just fit nicely here, but it escapes me at present.

    Understanding how they came across the knowledge is good place to start.

    I'd start another thread for that one.
    If I have the time, I will.

    jan.
     
  16. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    It's in James R's profile, that's where I look it up when I need it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,454
    First, to introduce the concept of "higher conscious beings" as an explanation relegates it in terms of rationality until such time as those "higher conscious beings" are necessary in order to explain the situation. Since an alternative exists that does not require them, that other explanation is more rational.
    Next?
    Are you saying that it is not possible that they could have garnered this information merely from looking at the skies and establishing ideas... i.e. an entirely natural process?
    You say "So?" as though you don't recognise the appeal to authority inherent in such a process?
    They may genuinely not want to or indeed know that they are doing so.
    I can offer possibilities, such as wishing to project a message more appropriate to the times, wishing to bring people into line, wishing to promote their own positions within the society... one can not say for sure.
    While you continue to suggest that the knowledge could only have come through divine intervention you do them a disservice.
    I can only assume that you are confusing my reference to the European Dark Ages with the similarly worded Dark Ages of Vedic scripture?
    Feel free to at least explain where you think I wide of the mark and how it negates the possibility I gave?
    I haven't. You asked "Why talk of 'evidence'?" in relation to how something is seen as being more rational or not. The response I gave is thus not out of context and thus remains appropriate.
    Indeed I am, as are we all. Although I do struggle to understand why people invoke that which is not shown to be necessary in order to give an explanation, rather than say "I don't know".
    Why not? You claim the senses are flawed, yet you are relying on those same senses, and thus your criticism was called out as being hypocritical.
    If that is what you say they did.
    And how accurately would you say they managed these things - preferably with some examples?
    What about their physiology? Are their skeletons unusual?
    Define "progression".
    We remain fit for purpose, and still go through some evolutionary changes as our diet changes, and as we cope with increased population etc, but I can't see evolution having too much of a say with regard the rise and fall of societies and information.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    While I of course can assume that we have a soul, for the purpose of this discussion it is enough to say that it is not rational to do so.
    Sure. And with such pursuits for understanding one can either start with the simple / natural explanations and only invoke things as they become necessary, or start with the irrational position by invoking that which has not (yet) been shown to be necessary.
    A famous Sherlock Holmes quote would just fit nicely here, but it escapes me at present.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. glaucon tending tangentially Moderator

    Messages:
    5,502
    It may be treated as being communal, but the experience itself (the source of purported information) is purely subjective...
     
  19. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Since this applies to all human experiences anyway, its not a counterargument here.
     
  20. Kennyc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    33 pages, you've got to be kidding!

    Gods are a natural and normal invention of the human mind to satisfy our innate need to know and predict how things work in order to survive. Nothing more than that.
     
  21. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    I guess my sin is to envy people their certainty, whatever it may be about ...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Kennyc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    993
    Are you certain?
     
  23. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Well, I don't envy them 24/7/365 ...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page