jcarl: Ok I'll go with that and rephrase my premise: does lack of evidence make theism irrational? ************* M*W: Yes, because if there were a God, we would all believe in it, and there would be no gray areas. Humanity would believe in One religion not a gazillion. If there were a God, there would need not even be religions to worship all the different gods. But, it's easy really, there is no God. ************* jcarl: Sounds like hard agnosticism, that we cannot know one way or the other. How do we know we can't know? ************* M*W: If there were a God, it could be proven without argument. It would be obvious and real. Man would not question the existence of God. But, because there's doubt -- there is no God.
that not very likely, the word now interpreted as lord and pronounced in some misguided quarters yahweh does not have any connection to the sun. the letters which make up the name YHVH are symbols of the four elements Y fire H water V air H earth. jesus is nothing to do with the sun either the hebrew name YHShVH which we now pronounce jesus although its hebrew pronunciation is yeshuah was the the same four elements with the fifith element Sh spirit.
1- "Does lack of evidence make x irrational?" Evidence or the lack of evidence has nothing to do as to whether something is rational or not. For example, it is compleatly rational to say: "Roberto comes from Mexico" even if I can't prove it or it turns out to be false latter on. Evidence has more to do concerning if x is proven or not, thats it. But then again, proof is pretty subjective stuff.. back up 4-5 posts and I already explained why. It is even more erroneous to claim that "where there is doubt there is inexistence", I won't even bother refuting that statement. In any case, faith is not founded on Reason (the philosophical exercise). This however does not mean they are inherently irrational (in the chaotic sense), but rather that they have a seperate foundation (revelation). So your wasting your time by attempting to apply rules that belong to Reason to faith based jugements. This point of view is extensively argued in Kant's groundbreaking work "Prolegomena to any futur metaphysics". 2- It does not follow that "if x existed we could prove it". In the past, many things existed without us knowing of them. In the futur, we will discover things that existed without our knowledge of them. Thus many things existed without having the necessity of human proof to validate their existence. In other words, things that exist simply exist. They do not require us -the humans- to think of them or to conceptualize them in order for them to be present in the material world. This said, existence has no need for our capability to demonstrate its own being-in-the-world. Conclusion: It is always funny to see how people who claim to be objective and non subject to faith often find themselves entertaining arguments that are far from objective and have many presuppositions that resemble those found in religious presuppositions of the world. There they go again! Presupposition that one somehow follows the other OR that the conclusion is somehow proven with what was previously stated. Order please!
So if everybody believed in the existence of a giant fairy with no one doubting, would that make the giant fairy reality? If so, since when is Truth dictated by consensus? Two questions: 1. What constitutes "obvious"? 2. How does this answer the question how we can know that we can't know?
So what you're saying is that supernatural can't exist because it can't be verified naturalistically. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that begging the question, that naturalistic observations are the only means of knowing anything?
I think medicine woman is stuck on a certain medieval definition of God. Like the one that says He controls everything, sees everything and knows everything. If such a God existed, humans would most likely be more aware of it. Of course, this does not make it impossible that such a God could exist and at the same time be perpetually be out of intellectual reach to humankind. In addition, by stating: "there is no God" medicine woman seems to oversimplify the debate. Indeed, there are many kinds of gods conceivable. For example, God could be like Plato's Demiurge: he created the world and has left it to grow by itself. Christian God: he is our creator and sent his son to save us. (Now there are so many variations of christianity, there could also be a legitimate debate as to which wing of christianism is right: evangelical, baptist, roman, anglican...) Primitive gods: (Greek or hindu gods) gods are forces which control the universe and thusly human existence through their own and conlficting natures. Agnostic God: I cannot know enought to speak of Him, but I sense the possibility of His existence. or as Blaise Pascal said: What can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence, nor the manifest presence of divinity, but the presence of a hidden God. Aristotlean God: He is the first Cause of the universe. Cartesian God: Without God, we would be unable to practice morality since we would lack transcendance. God is thus our only moral bearing. (paraphrased) So, someone who would hastely claim "there is no God" would have to prove the impossibility of all those definitions of God (including others since I haven't mentionned them all). This said, if someone is to claim that there is no God in existence, they really should specify what they are talking about and what are the proofs which show that God\gods do not exist instead of only moving hot air. Prisme
jcarl: So if everybody believed in the existence of a giant fairy with no one doubting, would that make the giant fairy reality? If so, since when is Truth dictated by consensus? ************* M*W: By this interpretation, yes. If "everybody believed in the existence of a giant fairy," whether or not it was reality, it would be the general consensus and difficult to argue. ************* jcarl: Two questions: 1. What constitutes "obvious"? ************* M*W: "Obvious" means the "truth, that which is "easily discovered, seen, or understood." ************* jcarl: 2. How does this answer the question how we can know that we can't know? ************* M*W: We cannot know that there is a "God." We cannot know that there was a "savior of mankind." Therefore, the debate goes on whether there was a god and whether there was a savior. The confusion lies in the fact that there was no god and no savior, and many illiterate christians refused to seek the truth.
Prisme: I think medicine woman is stuck on a certain medieval definition of God. Like the one that says He controls everything, sees everything and knows everything. If such a God existed, humans would most likely be more aware of it. Of course, this does not make it impossible that such a God could exist and at the same time be perpetually be out of intellectual reach to humankind. ************* M*W: Far from it! The only true god would be humanity. ************* Prisme: In addition, by stating: "there is no God" medicine woman seems to oversimplify the debate. Indeed, there are many kinds of gods conceivable. ************* M*W: Sure. There are many gods believed in by mere humans. ************* Prisme: For example, God could be like Plato's Demiurge: he created the world and has left it to grow by itself. ************* M*W: Maybe, but... ************* Prisme: Christian God: he is our creator and sent his son to save us. (Now there are so many variations of christianity, there could also be a legitimate debate as to which wing of christianism is right: evangelical, baptist, roman, anglican...) ************* M*W: There are "so many variations of God" that that no god could exist! ************* Prisme: Primitive gods: (Greek or hindu gods) gods are forces which control the universe and thusly human existence through their own and conlficting natures. Agnostic God: I cannot know enought to speak of Him, but I sense the possibility of His existence. or as Blaise Pascal said: What can be seen on earth indicates neither the total absence, nor the manifest presence of divinity, but the presence of a hidden God. ************* M*W: It's a matter of perception. ************* Prisme: Aristotlean God: He is the first Cause of the universe. Cartesian God: Without God, we would be unable to practice morality since we would lack transcendance. God is thus our only moral bearing. (paraphrased) So, someone who would hastely claim "there is no God" would have to prove the impossibility of all those definitions of God (including others since I haven't mentionned them all). This said, if someone is to claim that there is no God in existence, they really should specify what they are talking about and what are the proofs which show that God\gods do not exist instead of only moving hot air. ************* M*W: There is no god in existence. The existence of "God" cannot be proven; therefore, the people who believe in this "God" do so under false delusions. Therefore, no "god" exists.
Indeed it would be general consensus, but would that make it true? Obviously not: truth and non-truth are not contingent on a consensus. But what you said earlier was that since people squabble and essentially disagree about the existence and/or attributes of God, that is proof--or evidence at least--that no God exists. While your premise "God does not exist" may or may not be true, but the existence of such a being is in no way connected to how man practices religion. What would constitute "obvious" evidence of God? Restating the premise does not explain how we know that to be true. What I am searching for is how you can know that we cannot know.
If all your beliefs are based on absolute proof, then the only thing you can believe is your own existence (as per Descartes). I think it has already been pointed out that this logic is critically flawed because your premise does not necessarily lead to the conclusion given. jcarl has asked the question twice, "What would constitute "obvious" evidence of God?" This is significant because unequivocal evidence of anything besides one's own existence can never be attained. The only way of "knowing" something is to make a judgement about the credibility of the evidence, which clearly depends upon one's perception of it. If someone has preconceptions about the existence of god (i.e. does not exist until proven to exist), they will naturally tend to interpret the evidence in a way that supports their position. The argument will never get anywhere if to prove something means to achieve absolute certainty.
The point is we don't need to prove God. The supernatural is unncessary. God is supposed to be the first cause of the universe. But the totality of existence doesn't require a cause because causality presupposes existence. Time also presupposes existence. If existence didn't exist there would be no causality and no time.
but then you are also getting hung up on a certain definition of what god is. as i have said before if god exists god is within existence whether percieved or not, and being within that existence there is no cause required for gods existence because existence just exists.
I did'nt say that, nobody would be so stupid, until such time as they can possibly prove the existence of a supernatural realm, I will stick with what I know now, and use my senses to guide me. naturalism neither denies nor affirms the existence of God, either as transcendent or immanent. However, naturalism makes God an unnecessary hypothesis and essentially superfluous to scientific investigation. Reference to moral or divine purposes has no place in scientific explanations. On the other hand, the scope of science is limited to explanation of empirical phenomena without reference to forces, powers, influences, etc., which are supernatural.
are we back to this, banana as said on another thread all it takes is this... The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing. To put that another way: - When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain. From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing: The thing exists. It is unknown if the thing exists or not. It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria. is that helpful.
God is the force behind creation. he is not human, we are not created in his image, this is just humans way of inflating our own importance, we also use religion to give meaning to our existence. God is nature. Before the current round of Gods, yes we have gone through many believes in our time us humans, many religions existed that deified nature, astarte, mother nature, the female the nurturer giver of life. To me it makes more sence to worship the miricle that is all around us than to worship ourselves in the form of god made in our own image. Why are we so arogant as to believe the creator of all the universe and beyond made us in his image, my god we consider ourselves the bees knees don't we!!! When I listen to grown men going on about the bible, sin and son's of god and resurrections and I see the symbol of this religion is such an offencive cruel symbolism (cruxifiction) I think ...the real evil in this world is organised religion, maybe it is this that is holding back our spiritual advancment as a species. Until we take off these blinkers, we aint going to see anything.
How would we go about "proving"(very loose term) the existence of the supernatural? What would we use?
on this, your guess would be as good as mine. at the present time it would be redundant to try and prove a negative as Supernatural forces can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Supernatural claims assert phenomena beyond the realm of current scientific understanding, which are often in direct conflict with current scientific theory. I am prepared to wait, someday someone may find a way.
Ok if there's a god which god is it?. Click God contradicts Free Will of all living beings including itself: click A little bit of what M*W was talking about: click The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." Carl Sagan. The Onus of proof is and has always been of those who make the claims of such an existence. Thus! No one, not a single person in history has ever proven even his/or her own existence, then how the hell is anyone going to prove a god?. Godless.
Just because you cant see something doesnt meen it doesn't exist I believe that evolution occured and evolution is like a chain of dominos One thing happens after another. But who set up the dominos? The Answer is GOD.
