God

[yerazhishda]

Re: God

If you really care to experience the arguments against supernatural beliefs and you feel you have the intellectual ability to understand them you can read books by all of the standard author: Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, A.J. Ayers, Baruch Spinoza, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, David Hume, Bertrand Russell and so on. I'm not willing to say much more than there isn't a single argument by people who support supernatural thought that has not been defeated by the logic of the other side and you can take that however you like.

I wouldn't put psuedo pop-philosopher Richard Dawkins in the same league as Spinoza. There are much better philosophers who espouse atheism without being as militaristic and hateful.

[jgk3]

Re: God

what's wrong with being illogical?

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God (sorry Dusken). Either way what you are left with is a belief. I know atheists hate this but I cannot change it. That is the way it goes.

I don't need to disprove the existence of a god. It is the theist that must provide the proof for a god and it is impossible for him to do so because it is not a testable hypothesis. At this point elementary logic would conclude that belief in a god is illogical because there is no epistemological reason to believe it. Period.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

What if your religion still prompted you to adhere to a quite secular scientific method in order to provide enhancements for society at large in productivity and learning, much like in the case of Confucianism?

Are logic and faith really diametrically opposed?

Logic and the belief in supernatural things are mutually exclusive. One may say that they support science and the scientific method, and in all common practice that may be true. However, as soon as supernatural beliefs come into play the person is being illogical.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

oh, i had taken you comment about fence sitting as referring to my own about in case there is a heaven. My logic in the reasoning that there must be, or has been a supernatural power was because something must have come before nothing, in order for everything else that exists to come into existence. Now whether it is a god(s) or an atom that expanded, or some other non biological matter, that's up for debate. But for me it makes sense that something must have existed before nothing, and the idea that there is or was a god(s) that came out of no where to create the universe make more sense to me at least, than just non biological matter appearing out of nowhere developing into the universe we know today

I posted a link in response to someone else that linked to a website I feel gives a good intro to the first cause argument. You may find it helpful.

We do not know what came before the Big Bang, if anything at all, but one cannot say that it must be a god. That is very wrong. It is even wrong to say it is likely a god.

[Stark Evade]

Re: God

O ok. You are not an Armenian.

I'll inform my parents.

[Armanen]

Re: God

You have no idea what you are talking about. Good bye.

O ok. You are not an Armenian. Goodbye!

[yerazhishda]

Re: God

It does not require the same amount of faith. You need to be more familiar with logic and maybe even Occam's Razor.

I am familiar enough with logic to know that it is limited.

Science is not based on the senses of an individual.

So we do not use our eyes, ears, nose, hands and sometimes mouth (!) to gather and interpret the world around us? At the end of the day, humans are the intemediary in interpreting scientific data and thus is subject to the deception/limitation of the senses.

I have already stated that science doesn't say anything is a 100%. You seem to not understand the goal of science and the fact that if it is shown that something is the best process for gaining knowledge and understanding, placing confidence in anything else is illogical.

I know that the goal of science is to collect verifiable knowledge. However, knowledge in the context of science is limited to objects that are falsifiable. This means that the Scientific Method cannot be, and should not be, carried over to philosophy; it has been done before with disasterous effects.

Like I've said before logic and reason are fallible - never mind the fact that two people can be asked the same question and arrive at two different answers "logically".

I am not new to this. There isn't a single argument that is not fallacious.

It depends what arguments you are looking at. If you are looking at these types of arguments or Aquinas' Proofs then of course you are going to think they are fallacious. If you look at arguments by esteemed philosopher-theologian Hans Kung then I think you will be presently surprised at how he deals with the issues of modern philosophy, atheism, and God head on.

It is generally agreed upon for concrete and logical reasons.

But essentially the "infiniteness of the universe" cannot be empirically verified. I could say the same thing that you said, only this time referring to God. "It cannot be empirically verified, but I believe it for logical reasons."

The same thing can be said about the Law of Gravity - it is something that we cannot see at this point. We can identify it as being a "force of energy" that makes planets orbit and such but we cannot say with certainty that it is completely True. We can only rely, on faith, that our senses are not decieving us and that what we are observing is actually happening.

By the way, I'm sure you know that all physical laws break down at the beginning of the universe, right?

[Anonymouse]

Re: God

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God (sorry Dusken). Either way what you are left with is a belief. I know atheists hate this but I cannot change it. That is the way it goes.

[LadyLazarus]

Re: God

I'm not a great fan of organized religion. In fact, it should be squashed and the sooner the better (for the reasons outlined below by others which I won't reiterate). The commies might have had the right idea *sigh*

That having been said, I do object to such staunch opposition to spirituality (and I mean that in a very general sense). After all, a prayer to (a however imaginary) God is akin to an artist's inspired reverie, or a poet's silent discourse with his Muse. The passion, the faith, the feeling of possibility should be held in the same esteem as typical religious fervor (slight sarcasm, sorry). And, as such, no religiosity should be bashed. Many an undertaking altering the history of mankind (from war to art and everything in between)has been made possible by the zealous "true believer" type. If his/her God didn't exist, perhaps all of humanity wouldn't have benefitted.

Anyway, to each his own, I suppose.