Religions > Atheism > Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it.
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Alias" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2004 07:25:57 PM |
| Object: |
Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence. But,
when doing such denial or makimg such statements, they must have some
concept of God in mind, otherwise, they would be acting or thinking
irrationally. But what concept of God do or can they have in mind? I
answer that they literally do not and cannot have a complete concept
of God in mind. (an infinite, undefine-able being, they all agree)
Thus, their reasoning, as such, must be somewhat irrational. Of
course, the same epistemologial and reasoning limitations apply to
theists as well. However, it can make sense to argue about various
definite finite attributes that some proposed God may or may not have
or should have. But, such a god is not the same as that one having
infinite attributes which necessarily remains undefined in totality.
Damscot
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
21 Oct 2004 09:28:12 AM |
|
|
"Alias" <damscot9@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7dc30e65.0410201625.53aed9d9@posting.google.com...
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence. But,
when doing such denial or makimg such statements, they must have some
concept of God in mind, otherwise, they would be acting or thinking
irrationally. But what concept of God do or can they have in mind? I
answer that they literally do not and cannot have a complete concept
of God in mind. (an infinite, undefine-able being, they all agree)
As a matter of fact I don't agree with your definition of God. God is a
mental construct, which you call xyz.
Thus, their reasoning, as such, must be somewhat irrational. Of
course, the same epistemologial and reasoning limitations apply to
theists as well.
Your reasoning could be called irrational sice you insist that what's inside
your mind has to exist outside of it. Definition of delusion.
However, it can make sense to argue about various
definite finite attributes that some proposed God may or may not have
or should have. But, such a god is not the same as that one having
infinite attributes which necessarily remains undefined in totality.
Damscot
The attributes are imaginary. Do you want to argue about something in your
imagination? "You can't argue with a sick mind."
--
Freedom of thought entails no "Intellectual Property".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
21 Oct 2004 11:45:19 AM |
|
|
(Alias) writes:
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence. But,
when doing such denial or makimg such statements, they must have some
concept of God in mind, otherwise, they would be acting or thinking
irrationally. But what concept of God do or can they have in mind? I
answer that they literally do not and cannot have a complete concept
of God in mind. (an infinite, undefine-able being, they all agree)
Thus, their reasoning, as such, must be somewhat irrational. Of
course, the same epistemologial and reasoning limitations apply to
theists as well. However, it can make sense to argue about various
definite finite attributes that some proposed God may or may not have
or should have. But, such a god is not the same as that one having
infinite attributes which necessarily remains undefined in totality.
Twaddle. As someone else pointed out recently, "the set of all
real numbers between zero and one" is (1) infinite, (2) defined in
totality, and (3) precisely bounded. So the notion that something which
has infinite attributes is necessarily impossible to define and
necessarily unbounded is simply incorrect.
Not a word of the above paragraph makes sense if you do not
accept the fundamental axioms of mathematics, but such a rejection is to
your detriment, not your benefit.
In our universe, if we accept as axiomatic that we are not
subject to a universe of Cartesian daemons, then we have only the other
choice: there is no supernatural at all. And atheism is the only
correct response. Everything else is willful ignorance.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alias" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
22 Oct 2004 12:18:41 PM |
|
|
"Elf M. Sternberg" <elf@drizzle.com> wrote in message news:<87r7nsuijk.fsf@drizzle.com>...
damscot9@aol.com (Alias) writes:
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence. But,
when doing such denial or makimg such statements, they must have some
concept of God in mind, otherwise, they would be acting or thinking
irrationally. But what concept of God do or can they have in mind? I
answer that they literally do not and cannot have a complete concept
of God in mind. (an infinite, undefine-able being, they all agree)
Thus, their reasoning, as such, must be somewhat irrational. Of
course, the same epistemologial and reasoning limitations apply to
theists as well. However, it can make sense to argue about various
definite finite attributes that some proposed God may or may not have
or should have. But, such a god is not the same as that one having
infinite attributes which necessarily remains undefined in totality.
Twaddle. As someone else pointed out recently, "the set of all
real numbers between zero and one" is (1) infinite, (2) defined in
totality, and (3) precisely bounded. So the notion that something which
has infinite attributes is necessarily impossible to define and
necessarily unbounded is simply incorrect.
So, I suppose from your "definition" of the real numbers, you are
intimately familiar with each and every one of them, in totality? You
have all of them in your mind?
I say that is obviously false. In truth, there are an infinite number
of real numbers in the range you stated that you (and all others) know
nothing about. For just one example, (Pi - 3) is in the range you
mentioned; yet no one knows this number; that is, all of it's digits.
Computers have determined a few million perhaps, but that is still
nothing, zilch, compared to the infinite number of them that lie in
Plato's world waiting forever to be discovered. And, like Pi, what we
know about an infinite God is also practically nothing. Your response
is typical of immature shallow thinkers who hastily or emotionally
jump to wrong conclusions without thinking a matter through. But, I
believe you can do better.
Regards
Not a word of the above paragraph makes sense if you do not
accept the fundamental axioms of mathematics, but such a rejection is to
your detriment, not your benefit.
In our universe, if we accept as axiomatic that we are not
subject to a universe of Cartesian daemons, then we have only the other
choice: there is no supernatural at all. And atheism is the only
correct response. Everything else is willful ignorance.
Elf
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
24 Oct 2004 08:06:11 PM |
|
|
(Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410201625.53aed9d9@posting.google.com>...
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence.
If God does not exist then God is literally nothing - so saying that I
"deny" that God exists is quite literally saying that I am denying
that nothingness exists.
That can hardly be a crime against reason.
Nothingness doesn't have existence.
It has no properties or atributes at all.
So to "know" and truthfully assert that it is somehow wrong to deny
"God", you must know that God is not nothing - and since no one
"knows" anything at all about God - anybody that so asserts that
"denying" God is a problem is obviously not being rational or
truthful.
But,
when doing such denial or makimg such statements, they must have some
concept of God in mind, otherwise, they would be acting or thinking
irrationally.
I know many different and often mutually contradictory concepts of
Gods.
All my "knowledge" is about beliefs about God - I know nothing at all
of God itself.
I believe this is a true statement for every person on the planet.
But what concept of God do or can they have in mind?
Why do you need to "know" everything there is to know about, say,
unicorns to not believe in them?
If I say "I don't believe in unicorns" but fail to specify the *exact*
weight, color and food preferences of the unicorn that I dont believe
in, does that mean I am irrational for not believing in unicorns?
I say there is no camel in my living room.
You say "how long is its tail?"
I say, truthfully, that I do not know how long the tail of the camel
that isnt in my living room is.
You call me "irrational" - because I dont know everything - in fact
know nothing - about the non existent camel in my living room.
What is wrong with this picture?
I
answer that they literally do not and cannot have a complete concept
of God in mind.
Sure I agree 100% - but that is not a problem.(see above about the
camel that isnt in my living room)
You cannot "know" things about a non existent thing.
Non existent things don't have properties to know about - and you
cannot - even in principle - learn of the properties of non existent
things - so being in complete ignorance of any and all properties of
non existent things cannot in itself be a problem or a defect.
Believing you "know" things about non existent entities *is* a problem
- not the converse.
(an infinite, undefine-able being, they all agree)
Thus, their reasoning, as such, must be somewhat irrational.
Why?
You make no sense.
Of
course, the same epistemologial and reasoning limitations apply to
theists as well. However, it can make sense to argue about various
definite finite attributes that some proposed God may or may not have
or should have. But, such a god is not the same as that one having
infinite attributes which necessarily remains undefined in totality.
Damscot
I do not have to be concerned about any being that remains "undefined
in totality". It would be irrational and in all ways pointless to give
such any consideration - let alone worship it.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alias" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
25 Oct 2004 08:43:04 PM |
|
|
(Richo) wrote in message news:<d753a705.0410241706.483ff0f@posting.google.com>...
damscot9@aol.com (Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410201625.53aed9d9@posting.google.com>...
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence.
If God does not exist then God is literally nothing - so saying that I
"deny" that God exists is quite literally saying that I am denying
that nothingness exists.
That can hardly be a crime against reason.
Nothingness doesn't have existence.
It has no properties or atributes at all.
I think you missed the point, The point is that it is not knowable
whether God exists.
In your above paragraph you started with the words: "IF" God does not
exist ... etc., which is O.K.; but then you presumme that God "is" non
existent as a basis to reach your conclusions from here onward in
almost all your arguments. And thus, you messed up almost all your
arguments.
So to "know" and truthfully assert that it is somehow wrong to deny
"God", you must know that God is not nothing -
Again, We don't know that God is or is not nothing ... so for you to
deny God is irrational.
and since no one
"knows" anything at all about God - anybody that so asserts that
"denying" God is a problem is obviously not being rational or
truthful.
But,
when doing such denial or makimg such statements, they must have some
concept of God in mind, otherwise, they would be acting or thinking
irrationally.
I know many different and often mutually contradictory concepts of
Gods.
All my "knowledge" is about beliefs about God - I know nothing at all
of God itself.
I believe this is a true statement for every person on the planet.
But what concept of God do or can they have in mind?
Why do you need to "know" everything there is to know about, say,
unicorns to not believe in them?
If I say "I don't believe in unicorns" but fail to specify the *exact*
weight, color and food preferences of the unicorn that I dont believe
in, does that mean I am irrational for not believing in unicorns?
I say there is no camel in my living room.
You say "how long is its tail?"
I say, truthfully, that I do not know how long the tail of the camel
that isnt in my living room is.
You call me "irrational" - because I dont know everything - in fact
know nothing - about the non existent camel in my living room.
What is wrong with this picture?
I
answer that they literally do not and cannot have a complete concept
of God in mind.
Sure I agree 100% - but that is not a problem.(see above about the
camel that isnt in my living room)
You cannot "know" things about a non existent thing.
Non existent things don't have properties to know about - and you
cannot - even in principle - learn of the properties of non existent
things - so being in complete ignorance of any and all properties of
non existent things cannot in itself be a problem or a defect.
Believing you "know" things about non existent entities *is* a problem
- not the converse.
(an infinite, undefine-able being, they all agree)
Thus, their reasoning, as such, must be somewhat irrational.
Why?
You make no sense.
Of
course, the same epistemologial and reasoning limitations apply to
theists as well. However, it can make sense to argue about various
definite finite attributes that some proposed God may or may not have
or should have. But, such a god is not the same as that one having
infinite attributes which necessarily remains undefined in totality.
Damscot
I do not have to be concerned about any being that remains "undefined
in totality". It would be irrational and in all ways pointless to give
such any consideration - let alone worship it.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
26 Oct 2004 05:23:26 PM |
|
|
(Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410251743.7eb2202f@posting.google.com>...
m.richardson@utas.edu.au (Richo) wrote in message news:<d753a705.0410241706.483ff0f@posting.google.com>...
(Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410201625.53aed9d9@posting.google.com>...
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence.
If God does not exist then God is literally nothing - so saying that I
"deny" that God exists is quite literally saying that I am denying
that nothingness exists.
That can hardly be a crime against reason.
Nothingness doesn't have existence.
It has no properties or atributes at all.
I think you missed the point, The point is that it is not knowable
whether God exists.
I acknowledged that point explicitly.
In your above paragraph you started with the words: "IF" God does not
exist ... etc., which is O.K.; but then you presumme that God "is" non
existent as a basis to reach your conclusions from here onward in
almost all your arguments.
No I didnt.
You are asserting (without knowledge) that I am denying something.
It is entirely probable - I would say very likely, although not
certain, that I am in fact denying nothing.
I cant be certain that i am "denying" nothing - but that is OK, I am
not certain of anything in this world.
I think "deny" is a loaded term in any case.
Which is why i take the accusation that I am denying anything with a
pinch of salt. I dont know that I am "denying" anything - i am pretty
certain I am not.
More to the point, believers dont know that I am denying anything -
they simply believe (without evidence) that I am.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
27 Oct 2004 02:08:25 AM |
|
|
(Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410251743.7eb2202f@posting.google.com>...
m.richardson@utas.edu.au (Richo) wrote in message news:<d753a705.0410241706.483ff0f@posting.google.com>...
(Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410201625.53aed9d9@posting.google.com>...
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence.
If God does not exist then God is literally nothing - so saying that I
"deny" that God exists is quite literally saying that I am denying
that nothingness exists.
That can hardly be a crime against reason.
Nothingness doesn't have existence.
It has no properties or atributes at all.
I think you missed the point, The point is that it is not knowable
whether God exists.
In your above paragraph you started with the words: "IF" God does not
exist ... etc., which is O.K.; but then you presumme that God "is" non
existent as a basis to reach your conclusions from here onward in
almost all your arguments. And thus, you messed up almost all your
arguments.
So to "know" and truthfully assert that it is somehow wrong to deny
"God", you must know that God is not nothing -
Again, We don't know that God is or is not nothing ... so for you to
deny God is irrational.
I don't believe in God - whether or not calling that "denying" God is
justified is a debatable proposition.
I cannot believe in "X" simply because it is concievably a theoretical
possibility.
(rather I *can*, but I try not to believe things without good reason -
I strive to be free of superstition and prejudice.)
A rational person believes in "x" because he has good reasons to.
I have no reasons (zero reasons) to believe in God, so I dont.
You (and the world in general) call that "denying God".
I don't mind what you call it - sticks and stones ...
The motivation for calling this "denying God" and trying to put the
"burden of proof" on the unbeliever is what I find intriquing.
To my mind this twists things around so that supposedly *I* require
reasons to disbelieve in God - and not having reasons you then say *I*
am being irrational.
That's backwards thinking in my opinion - you don't need reasons to
not-believe in things - rather you (should) need reasons to believe in
things.
Not believing in things is usually not at all contraversial *unless*
that thing not believed in is very important to someone else - a
believer!
Then the rather unremarkable lack of belief is suddenly something
sinister and evil - its "denial".
This then is really a question of psychology, politics and
conforming/not conforming to the beliefs of the herd - not
epistemology.
The epistemology of "God" is easy - no one knows anything.
End of story.
We (atheist AND agnostics) agree on that - but we disagree on what
*follows* from that.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alias" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
28 Oct 2004 12:45:54 PM |
|
|
(Richo) wrote in message news:<d753a705.0410262308.608077a@posting.google.com>...
damscot9@aol.com (Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410251743.7eb2202f@posting.google.com>...
(Richo) wrote in message news:<d753a705.0410241706.483ff0f@posting.google.com>...
damscot9@aol.com (Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410201625.53aed9d9@posting.google.com>...
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence.
If God does not exist then God is literally nothing - so saying that I
"deny" that God exists is quite literally saying that I am denying
that nothingness exists.
That can hardly be a crime against reason.
Nothingness doesn't have existence.
It has no properties or atributes at all.
I think you missed the point, The point is that it is not knowable
whether God exists.
In your above paragraph you started with the words: "IF" God does not
exist ... etc., which is O.K.; but then you presumme that God "is" non
existent as a basis to reach your conclusions from here onward in
almost all your arguments. And thus, you messed up almost all your
arguments.
So to "know" and truthfully assert that it is somehow wrong to deny
"God", you must know that God is not nothing -
Again, We don't know that God is or is not nothing ... so for you to
deny God is irrational.
I don't believe in God - whether or not calling that "denying" God is
justified is a debatable proposition.
I cannot believe in "X" simply because it is concievably a theoretical
possibility.
This is hardly what's proposed. There are far more significant
considerations involving belief in a God; especially The God of
Christianity. Why do you suppose so many millions believe? "simply
because it is conceivably a theoretical possibility.?"
(rather I *can*, but I try not to believe things without good reason -
I strive to be free of superstition and prejudice.)
I do likewise, I agree it is wise to do so.
A rational person believes in "x" because he has good reasons to.
I have no reasons (zero reasons) to believe in God, so I don't.
You (and the world in general) call that "denying God".
I don't mind what you call it - sticks and stones ...
Do you know all the reasons that millions of believers have? And have
you rejected them all?
The motivation for calling this "denying God" and trying to put the
"burden of proof" on the unbeliever is what I find intriquing.
That may be intriguing, but I have not tried to place a burden of
proof on unbelievers. Nor have I tried to put a burden of guilt on
them for not believing. I certainly did not intend to. I have simply
stated that
no proof for God's existence is possible, at least proof/s that
atheists will accept.
It makes sense to me that God would not reveal Himself to unbelievers.
After all, the whole purported object of His Plan is to require faith;
ie.,
belief without proof. That's what this is all about. And this, I
believe, is the bone of contention with atheism. Atheists that I know
hate this (God's) requirement. They are pissed that they should be
required by God to believe without proof. This is purely a problem of
intellectual conceit and pride, as I see it. But, in my experience,
few atheists will admit to such.
I too am frustrated that I can't find compelling,
convincing or overwhelming proof that I could present to atheists (and
myself) that would convince me or them. However, The argument from
design does come close for me. If you found a Pentium 4 chip on the
beach would you assumme it was produced by nature accidently? I spent
30 years designing sophisticated electronic machines, using digital
logic and advanced math, but the complexity of biological life blows
me away. Michael Behe has deep insight and appreciation for the
wonders of biochemical designs, i.e., irreducible complexity, etc., I
believe he is no slouch, and that he is on the right track. It really
is hard to imagine how neo-Darwinian natural selection could achieve
such designs.
Anyway, I am not sure that God exists either, but I hope He does for
reasons including, but not limited to: Hope for unbounded forgiving
love, immortality, ultimate justice, etc., to name a few. I am willing
to believe in a God who has
all the good characteristics that I can think of - and by
extrapolation, more than I can think of; much more. In fact, looking
all around us and at the night sky, infinitely more. I don't think I
am being irrational for having such willingness and hope for these
reasons. Nor do I feel guilty, naive, irrational or foolish about
hoping for such reality. If you have something better to offer, I'm
listening.
In any case, thanks for "politely" sharing your well reasoned, well
presented thoughts and opinions. I wish everyone on this forum would
do likewise.
Regards
Snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
31 Oct 2004 07:17:17 PM |
|
|
(Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410280945.7310f4aa@posting.google.com>...
m.richardson@utas.edu.au (Richo) wrote in message news:<d753a705.0410262308.608077a@posting.google.com>...
(Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410251743.7eb2202f@posting.google.com>...
m.richardson@utas.edu.au (Richo) wrote in message news:<d753a705.0410241706.483ff0f@posting.google.com>...
(Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410201625.53aed9d9@posting.google.com>...
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence.
If God does not exist then God is literally nothing - so saying that I
"deny" that God exists is quite literally saying that I am denying
that nothingness exists.
That can hardly be a crime against reason.
Nothingness doesn't have existence.
It has no properties or atributes at all.
I think you missed the point, The point is that it is not knowable
whether God exists.
In your above paragraph you started with the words: "IF" God does not
exist ... etc., which is O.K.; but then you presumme that God "is" non
existent as a basis to reach your conclusions from here onward in
almost all your arguments. And thus, you messed up almost all your
arguments.
So to "know" and truthfully assert that it is somehow wrong to deny
"God", you must know that God is not nothing -
Again, We don't know that God is or is not nothing ... so for you to
deny God is irrational.
I don't believe in God - whether or not calling that "denying" God is
justified is a debatable proposition.
I cannot believe in "X" simply because it is concievably a theoretical
possibility.
This is hardly what's proposed. There are far more significant
considerations involving belief in a God; especially The God of
Christianity. Why do you suppose so many millions believe?
Because they have a strong emotional need to believe.
This is a very big and interesting subject in itself - but it doesnt
change anything I have said about the relationship between denial and
nonbelief.
There is a critically important point here - the *reasons* a christian
believes in God are in many ways irrelavent to the non believer.
The non believer does not have to feverently believe *the opposite* of
whatever reason motivates the believer.
"simply
because it is conceivably a theoretical possibility.?"
Certainly not. I wasnt even talking about the believers reasons for
belief.
(rather I *can*, but I try not to believe things without good reason -
I strive to be free of superstition and prejudice.)
I do likewise, I agree it is wise to do so.
A rational person believes in "x" because he has good reasons to.
I have no reasons (zero reasons) to believe in God, so I don't.
You (and the world in general) call that "denying God".
I don't mind what you call it - sticks and stones ...
Do you know all the reasons that millions of believers have?
No, not all.
And have
you rejected them all?
No.
In fact I believe in many of the same things - the importance of
compassion and justice for example.
But my belief in justice cause me to reject the worship of the God
depicted in the bible, wheras a believer would give that as a reason
*for* belief.
So it isnt a simple as it first seems.
The motivation for calling this "denying God" and trying to put the
"burden of proof" on the unbeliever is what I find intriquing.
That may be intriguing, but I have not tried to place a burden of
proof on unbelievers. Nor have I tried to put a burden of guilt on
them for not believing. I certainly did not intend to. I have simply
stated that
no proof for God's existence is possible, at least proof/s that
atheists will accept.
I certainly accept that as true - but so what?
I am not particularly moved by the absence of proof.
I recognise the bald fact and then say "so what?"
It makes sense to me that God would not reveal Himself to unbelievers.
After all, the whole purported object of His Plan is to require faith;
ie.,
belief without proof. That's what this is all about. And this, I
believe, is the bone of contention with atheism. Atheists that I know
hate this (God's) requirement. They are pissed that they should be
required by God to believe without proof. This is purely a problem of
intellectual conceit and pride, as I see it. But, in my experience,
few atheists will admit to such.
I too am frustrated that I can't find compelling,
convincing or overwhelming proof that I could present to atheists (and
myself) that would convince me or them. However, The argument from
design does come close for me. If you found a Pentium 4 chip on the
beach would you assumme it was produced by nature accidently?
No of course not.
But if I found a leaf or a fish or a bird, I would.
Because a "grown thing" and a "made thing" resemble each other only
superficially.
I spent
30 years designing sophisticated electronic machines, using digital
logic and advanced math, but the complexity of biological life blows
me away.
Me too.
Check out :
http://www.jhuger.com/watchmaker.mv
Michael Behe has deep insight and appreciation for the
wonders of biochemical designs, i.e., irreducible complexity, etc., I
believe he is no slouch, and that he is on the right track. It really
is hard to imagine how neo-Darwinian natural selection could achieve
such designs.
Our imaginations have limitations.
Why would you *want* to live in a world that was "easy" to understand.
The complexity and mystery of the universe is a gift for curious
exploring minds.
Wanting everything to be instantly understandable in simplistic terms
is lazy and unimaginative.
I find Behe and his ilk lazy, unimaginative, quitters.
The attitude can be summed up as:
"I cant see the answer, so there isnt one"
If we all thought like him, there would be no progress.
Anyway, I am not sure that God exists either, but I hope He does for
reasons including, but not limited to: Hope for unbounded forgiving
love, immortality, ultimate justice, etc., to name a few. I am willing
to believe in a God who has
all the good characteristics that I can think of - and by
extrapolation, more than I can think of; much more. In fact, looking
all around us and at the night sky, infinitely more. I don't think I
am being irrational for having such willingness and hope for these
reasons. Nor do I feel guilty, naive, irrational or foolish about
hoping for such reality. If you have something better to offer, I'm
listening.
Something better?
Infinite Possibility.
There is no God - so we are free - ultimately free.
We can do evil or good.
We can make the future or destroy it.
Our choice, our responsibility.
Such freedom is both exiting and terrifying.
If God exists then we are at best "pets" at worst slaves.
Whether we can *image* something better or not is up to us - whether
what we imagine can become true is another story.
If there is no God then imagining him will not bring him into
existence.
We can imagine a world ruled by compassion and justice and then bring
it into existence.
Personally - I cant imagine anything worse than being the pet or slave
or toy of an infinitely powerful and cupricious God - I would wish for
oblivion rather than to belong to such a tyrant.
In any case, thanks for "politely" sharing your well reasoned, well
presented thoughts and opinions.
You are welcome,
Peace.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alias" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
04 Nov 2004 12:53:28 PM |
|
|
(Richo) wrote in message news:<d753a705.0410311717.6e8448a5@posting.google.com>...
damscot9@aol.com (Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410280945.7310f4aa@posting.google.com>...
(Richo) wrote in message news:<d753a705.0410262308.608077a@posting.google.com>...
damscot9@aol.com (Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410251743.7eb2202f@posting.google.com>...
(Richo) wrote in message news:<d753a705.0410241706.483ff0f@posting.google.com>...
damscot9@aol.com (Alias) wrote in message news:<7dc30e65.0410201625.53aed9d9@posting.google.com>...
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence.
If God does not exist then God is literally nothing - so saying that I
"deny" that God exists is quite literally saying that I am denying
that nothingness exists.
That can hardly be a crime against reason.
Nothingness doesn't have existence.
It has no properties or atributes at all.
I think you missed the point, The point is that it is not knowable
whether God exists.
In your above paragraph you started with the words: "IF" God does not
exist ... etc., which is O.K.; but then you presumme that God "is" non
existent as a basis to reach your conclusions from here onward in
almost all your arguments. And thus, you messed up almost all your
arguments.
So to "know" and truthfully assert that it is somehow wrong to deny
"God", you must know that God is not nothing -
Again, We don't know that God is or is not nothing ... so for you to
deny God is irrational.
I don't believe in God - whether or not calling that "denying" God is
justified is a debatable proposition.
I cannot believe in "X" simply because it is concievably a theoretical
possibility.
This is hardly what's proposed. There are far more significant
considerations involving belief in a God; especially The God of
Christianity. Why do you suppose so many millions believe?
Because they have a strong emotional need to believe.
This is a very big and interesting subject in itself - but it doesnt
change anything I have said about the relationship between denial and
nonbelief.
There is a critically important point here - the *reasons* a christian
believes in God are in many ways irrelavent to the non believer.
The non believer does not have to feverently believe *the opposite* of
whatever reason motivates the believer.
"simply
because it is conceivably a theoretical possibility.?"
Certainly not. I wasnt even talking about the believers reasons for
belief.
(rather I *can*, but I try not to believe things without good reason -
I strive to be free of superstition and prejudice.)
I do likewise, I agree it is wise to do so.
A rational person believes in "x" because he has good reasons to.
I have no reasons (zero reasons) to believe in God, so I don't.
You (and the world in general) call that "denying God".
I don't mind what you call it - sticks and stones ...
Do you know all the reasons that millions of believers have?
No, not all.
And have
you rejected them all?
No.
In fact I believe in many of the same things - the importance of
compassion and justice for example.
But my belief in justice cause me to reject the worship of the God
depicted in the bible, wheras a believer would give that as a reason
*for* belief.
So it isnt a simple as it first seems.
The motivation for calling this "denying God" and trying to put the
"burden of proof" on the unbeliever is what I find intriquing.
That may be intriguing, but I have not tried to place a burden of
proof on unbelievers. Nor have I tried to put a burden of guilt on
them for not believing. I certainly did not intend to. I have simply
stated that
no proof for God's existence is possible, at least proof/s that
atheists will accept.
I certainly accept that as true - but so what?
I am not particularly moved by the absence of proof.
I recognise the bald fact and then say "so what?"
It makes sense to me that God would not reveal Himself to unbelievers.
After all, the whole purported object of His Plan is to require faith;
ie.,
belief without proof. That's what this is all about. And this, I
believe, is the bone of contention with atheism. Atheists that I know
hate this (God's) requirement. They are pissed that they should be
required by God to believe without proof. This is purely a problem of
intellectual conceit and pride, as I see it. But, in my experience,
few atheists will admit to such.
I too am frustrated that I can't find compelling,
convincing or overwhelming proof that I could present to atheists (and
myself) that would convince me or them. However, The argument from
design does come close for me. If you found a Pentium 4 chip on the
beach would you assumme it was produced by nature accidently?
No of course not.
But if I found a leaf or a fish or a bird, I would.
Because a "grown thing" and a "made thing" resemble each other only
superficially.
I spent
30 years designing sophisticated electronic machines, using digital
logic and advanced math, but the complexity of biological life blows
me away.
Me too.
Check out :
http://www.jhuger.com/watchmaker.mv
Michael Behe has deep insight and appreciation for the
wonders of biochemical designs, i.e., irreducible complexity, etc., I
believe he is no slouch, and that he is on the right track. It really
is hard to imagine how neo-Darwinian natural selection could achieve
such designs.
Our imaginations have limitations.
Why would you *want* to live in a world that was "easy" to understand.
The complexity and mystery of the universe is a gift for curious
exploring minds.
Wanting everything to be instantly understandable in simplistic terms
is lazy and unimaginative.
I find Behe and his ilk lazy, unimaginative, quitters.
The attitude can be summed up as:
"I cant see the answer, so there isnt one"
If we all thought like him, there would be no progress.
Anyway, I am not sure that God exists either, but I hope He does for
reasons including, but not limited to: Hope for unbounded forgiving
love, immortality, ultimate justice, etc., to name a few. I am willing
to believe in a God who has
all the good characteristics that I can think of - and by
extrapolation, more than I can think of; much more. In fact, looking
all around us and at the night sky, infinitely more. I don't think I
am being irrational for having such willingness and hope for these
reasons. Nor do I feel guilty, naive, irrational or foolish about
hoping for such reality. If you have something better to offer, I'm
listening.
Something better?
Infinite Possibility.
There is no God - so we are free - ultimately free.
We can do evil or good.
We can make the future or destroy it.
Our choice, our responsibility.
Suppose, contrarily, that You have these freedoms with God and only
because of God.?
Such freedom is both exiting and terrifying.
We have the same consequences of freedom with God.
If God exists then we are at best "pets" at worst slaves.
Where on earth do you get such notions? From (your) marriage perhaps?
;-)
The God I conceive of or conjure up isn't like that at all. Your view
of God sounds just like what Lucifer (Satan) is said to have
complained to God about. If God created all good things and all things
good, then Evil was spawned by Satan and others via free will, not by
God. The biblical idea or portrayal of Satan attributes great powers
to him. Satan is the Prince of evil in our reality, not God. As it
seems to me, God could not posssibly endow free will to his creatures
without risking that evil might result. We might ask, if God knows
all, then why would He create beings with free will that He knew would
be misused? This looks like a paradox, but it isn't necessarily. The
total good that free-willed creatures do may outweigh the total evil,
and thus, in the end, God's plan works and justice prevails. I'm not
claiming that this is all true, but just that it seems logically
consistent and possible to me.
It seems to me that we (humanity) can form a logically consistent set
of beliefs about God; such that, good people would prefer that
particular theism over atheism. I don't believe that the opposite is
true. That is, I don't believe that good people would prefer atheism
over such a good and proper "ideal" theism. I suppose this comes down
to saying that the best ideology of atheism spawns only evil ends, and
that "ideal" theism spawns only good ends. To test this thesis, lets
pick a good end. Say immortality. Does atheism support it? Nope.
Consequently, atheists live selfishly and greedily for the here and
now. "Get it while you can, there's nothing after death." How about
true love (compassion) for fellow man? Does atheism support that?
Nope. Atheists believe in survival of the fittest, i.e., "dog eat
dog." tough ***** if you can't compete, and "Do unto others before they
do unto you." etc., these are just some of the direct evil ends and
consequences of atheism. There are many more evil ends which follow
logically from atheism. Sure, evil follows from theism also. But,
indirectly, from a different source. It is not the ideology of
Christianity and some other theistic belief systems that causes or
promotes evil, it is rather the practices of hypocrits, so-called
"followers", that do evil while claiming to be true believers. I could
go on and on, but time is short in this domain. Where will we spend
eternity? Who really knows?
Whether we can *image* something better or not is up to us - whether
what we imagine can become true is another story.
If there is no God then imagining him will not bring him into
existence.
We can imagine a world ruled by compassion and justice and then bring
it into existence.
Personally - I cant imagine anything worse than being the pet or slave
or toy of an infinitely powerful and cupricious God - I would wish for
oblivion rather than to belong to such a tyrant.
In any case, thanks for "politely" sharing your well reasoned, well
presented thoughts and opinions.
You are welcome,
Peace.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
28 Oct 2004 04:28:38 PM |
|
|
In article <7dc30e65.0410280945.7310f4aa@posting.google.com>,
(Alias) wrote:
The argument from
design does come close for me. If you found a Pentium 4 chip on the
beach would you assumme it was produced by nature accidently? I spent
30 years designing sophisticated electronic machines, using digital
logic and advanced math, but the complexity of biological life blows
me away. Michael Behe has deep insight and appreciation for the
wonders of biochemical designs, i.e., irreducible complexity, etc., I
believe he is no slouch, and that he is on the right track. It really
is hard to imagine how neo-Darwinian natural selection could achieve
such designs.
The problem with so-called Intelligent Design is that it assumes,
fallaciously, that one can reason from function to design without
knowing what the intent was, or even if there was any intent. For
example, on Sept. 11th, 2001, it was demonstrated that a jetliner
*functions* quite well as a weapon capable of destroying large
buildings. However, observing this *function* tells us nothing about
the *design* of the jetliner.
Likewise, suppose we have a stream in a forest, too wide for small
animals to cross, and suppose a large tree is growing near the stream,
taking advantage of the water supply. If there is a flood, and the
stream erodes away the bank under the roots of the tree, and it falls
over, it will likely fall over the stream (since the stream-side roots
were exposed first), making a functional bridge small animals can use to
cross the stream. But what *intent* was there to build a bridge? It
functions as one, but the function is a result of ordinary, non-sentient
natural forces operating the way they normally do.
The second problem with ID is that the evidence is not exactly
monotheistic. Even if we were able to infer design based on function
(and thus a designer based on the existence of a design), when we look
at Nature we see all kinds of conflict, and conflicting functions.
Thus, as function implies design, conflicting functions must imply
conflicting designs, and thus conflicting designers. It might be
arguably possible to reconcile all the designs as the work of a single
designer, but unless we have some a priori reason for doing so, it is
only plausible to deduce multiple, conflicting designers as the source
of the multiple, conflicting designs implied by the multiple conflicting
functions we observe in Creation.
Thirdly, as we look at these functions, we see that many of them are not
very nice. Relatively few organisms are able to maintain their own
survival without killing and consuming other organisms, and it is not
uncommon for the killer species to exhibit a certain wanton, unnecessary
cruelty in how they go about this bloody business. Certainly, if we are
to make inferences about Designers based on functions we observe in
Nature, we ought to infer that many of these designers have, shall we
say, cruel and evil tendencies.
Fourthly, there is an implicit assumption in ID that the Creator(s)
is/are willing and able to provide intelligent and impartial observers
with objective and verifiable proof of His/Her/Its/Their
existence--which is fine, but if this is true then that means there's no
reason why God can't reveal Himself to men. You can't maintain both
that God is unwilling to reveal Himself and that He simultaneously *is*
revealing Himself. It's not consistent. If God were willing to go to
all the trouble to leave proof of His existence in the more abstruse
aspects of molecular biology, it's hard to explain why He would not also
be willing to provide a more accessible proof so the rest of us
non-scientists could see it too.
There's probably a fifthly and sixthly too, but that's all I have time
for today :)
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/ -- Information about Alethea, the Creator of
all things, and about Alethian faith and practice.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
28 Oct 2004 03:09:33 PM |
|
|
In article <7dc30e65.0410280945.7310f4aa@posting.google.com>,
(Alias) wrote:
A rational person believes in "x" because he has good reasons to.
I have no reasons (zero reasons) to believe in God, so I don't.
You (and the world in general) call that "denying God".
I don't mind what you call it - sticks and stones ...
Do you know all the reasons that millions of believers have? And have
you rejected them all?
Let us make a couple not-unreasonable assumptions: that Christians are
willing and able to communicate with each other about the reasons for
believing in the Christian God, and that the Christian God Himself is
willing and able to communicate with men. The first assumption we can
support by observation--Christians share their testimonies with each
other even more freely than they do with unbelievers. The second
assumption can be justified on the grounds that, if the Christian God is
either unwilling or unable to communicate with men, then those who claim
to have received some form of communication from Him are necessarily
mistaken if not outright lying.
So, then, assuming that both God and man are willing and able to share
information about the reasons for believing, let's consider. What sorts
of reasons could someone have for believing? There could be many
reasons, and quite a few of them could produce a belief in God whether
or not the God in question actually existed. Peer pressure, for
instance, or childhood indoctrination, or superstition, or hearsay, or
other such psychosocial reasons. In other words, bad, spurious reasons
for believing. But there could also be good reasons, at least in
theory. Theoretically, one's beliefs might be based on verifiable
evidence and objective experience.
Supposing, then, that there exist good and valid reasons for believing
in the Christian God, along with a number of well-known spurious and
fallible reasons for believing, and supposing that both God and
believers are willing and able to share the reasons for belief, then the
best reasons ought to "float to the top," so to speak. That is, if you
want to give someone a reason to believe in your God, and you have both
a good reason and a bad reason, then if you're wise you'll give the good
reason, and not cloud the issue by bringing up the bad, spurious, and
refutable reasons. By this process, the good reasons ought to prevail
over the spurious ones, and the spurious reasons ought to wither from
neglect. Especially if an omniscient and all-wise God is involved.
Under the circumstances, then, it is not necessary to know *all* the
reasons why people might believe. If there exist *any* good reasons for
believing in the Christian God, these reasons ought to be as well-known
as Christianity itself. And by the same token, if 2,000 years of
Christian experience have failed to produce any reasons that are valid,
objectively-verifiable, non-spurious, non-refutable, and above all
well-known, then it is reasonable to conclude that the alleged good
reasons for believing in the Christian God are not merely unknown, but
unlikely to exist at all. Empirically, at least, there is some evidence
against the hypothesis that the Christian God actually exists.
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/ -- Information about Alethea, the God for Whom
there *is* objective and verifiable evidence, and about Alethian faith
and practice.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
28 Oct 2004 02:44:16 PM |
|
|
In article <7dc30e65.0410280945.7310f4aa@posting.google.com>,
(Alias) wrote:
I cannot believe in "X" simply because it is concievably a theoretical
possibility.
This is hardly what's proposed. There are far more significant
considerations involving belief in a God; especially The God of
Christianity. Why do you suppose so many millions believe? "simply
because it is conceivably a theoretical possibility.?"
Why "especially the God of Christianity"? What makes Christianity
deserve special considerations that other beliefs do not?
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/ -- Information about Alethea, the God who needs
no special considerations, and about Alethian faith and practice.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
28 Oct 2004 04:28:45 PM |
|
|
In article <7dc30e65.0410280945.7310f4aa@posting.google.com>,
(Alias) wrote:
The motivation for calling this "denying God" and trying to put the
"burden of proof" on the unbeliever is what I find intriquing.
That may be intriguing, but I have not tried to place a burden of
proof on unbelievers. Nor have I tried to put a burden of guilt on
them for not believing. I certainly did not intend to. I have simply
stated that
no proof for God's existence is possible, at least proof/s that
atheists will accept.
This is not true. There are any number of proofs that a genuine God
could produce that would be sufficient to demonstrate His existence,
even to unbelievers. A die-hard atheist might, in the final push, deny
that the being in front of him was actually divine, in the theological
sense, but if God would simply show up in person, in visible, audible,
tangible form, His *existence* would be undeniable. And that is only
the most basic proof of His existence. To say that God is incapable of
proving His own existence to men is to say that He is incapable of
communcating with men--which, if that is true, pulls the rug out from
under the whole Christian gospel before it even gets started.
It makes sense to me that God would not reveal Himself to unbelievers.
After all, the whole purported object of His Plan is to require faith;
ie.,
belief without proof. That's what this is all about. And this, I
believe, is the bone of contention with atheism. Atheists that I know
hate this (God's) requirement. They are pissed that they should be
required by God to believe without proof. This is purely a problem of
intellectual conceit and pride, as I see it. But, in my experience,
few atheists will admit to such.
The problem is that you propose something which inherently contradicts
the Christian Gospel. If God revealing Himself is somehow inherently
antithetical to faith, then what do you do with the apostles and
prophets and other Bible characters who allegedly both saw God and had
faith? What do you do with Pharoah, or even Paul, to whom God allegedly
revealed Himself while they were still unbelievers?
Inherent in the idea of evangelism is that God wants men to have reasons
to believe in Him. That's what witnessing is all about--giving
testimony, giving evidence, giving reasons for people to believe. If
that's all contrary to the possibility of faith arising in the heart of
the one who hears the witness, then you've got a problem--God wants men
to have faith without reasons, and evangelism is giving men reasons to
have faith. But they can't have the faith if giving men reliable
reasons for believing somehow destroys the faith they're supposed to
obtain!
Yet on the other hand, if God *does* want men to have a good reason to
believe in His existence, you have the obvious problem that in the real
world today, God's behavior does not match the behavior ascribed to Him
in the New Testament. If you say He can't do NT things today because
this is somehow destructive to faith, then He couldn't have done them in
NT times either. But if there was some way He could do them in NT times
without destroying faith, then why doesn't He employ that same way today?
Think about it: why would God want to define faith as "believing in
something you have no good, valid reason to believe"? The Bible stories
aren't about men who had faith because they had *no* reason to believe
in God, the Bible is about men who "remained faithful" to God after He
revealed Himself to them. Or at least, that's how the stories go. It
is neither reasonable nor scriptural to suppose that God--for some
strange reason--wants us to learn to trust in superstition and hearsay
and fantasy and wishful thinking, and wants us to learn to despise
reason and facts and verifiable observations. It's as though God
*prefers* to make us as vulnerable as possible to deception, and doesn't
like it when we cultivate the ability to distinguish between reality and
fantasy. Does it make any sense at all that the Christian God would
*want* that kind of situation?
This is one of the self-contradictions that is inherent in Christianity
as a religion that's supposed to be about the real world. The simplest,
most fundamental, most reliable test of whether Christianity is true is
to ask God to please show up in person, tangibly, audibly, visibly, and
tell you the truth about Christianity. A God who was willing and able
to appear on the earth, walk among men, suffer, die, and rise again on
the third day, ought to be willing and able to show up in person today.
If He doesn't, then you can either spend the rest of your life trying to
think up some plausible reason why He can't, or you can look into a God
like Alethea that doesn't need men to make up excuses for His/Her
failure to show up.
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/ -- Information about Alethea, the God who even
unbelievers experience visibly, audibly, and tangibly, and about
Alethian faith and practice.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
20 Oct 2004 09:05:29 PM |
|
|
(Alias) wrote in news:7dc30e65.0410201625.53aed9d9
@posting.google.com:
Atheists and agnostics either flatly deny that God exists; or, perhaps
less adamately, they state that they are opposed to belief in God
because they find or recognize no evidence of God's existence. But,
when doing such denial or makimg such statements, they must have some
concept of God in mind, otherwise, they would be acting or thinking
irrationally.
Wrong. Theists pick and chose which gods they believe in amoung the
millions that have been made up. Atheists don't believe in any of them.
If there was verifiable evidence of gods presented then atheists would
just change their minds on the subject. So, do you have any verifiable
evidence to present?
LK.
But what concept of God do or can they have in mind? I
answer that they literally do not and cannot have a complete concept
of God in mind. (an infinite, undefine-able being, they all agree)
Thus, their reasoning, as such, must be somewhat irrational. Of
course, the same epistemologial and reasoning limitations apply to
theists as well. However, it can make sense to argue about various
definite finite attributes that some proposed God may or may not have
or should have. But, such a god is not the same as that one having
infinite attributes which necessarily remains undefined in totality.
Damscot
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
23 Oct 2004 09:34:51 AM |
|
|
Alias wrote:
<snip>
What's with the 'or not' part? The burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the negative in any case.
"There are no gods" is not a claim (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial as theologs are always trying to do:
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of GodŽ, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for GodŽ) so there cannot be any such of a thing:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody like you who still believes there
might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for
GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does
not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which
Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
23 Oct 2004 03:55:03 PM |
|
|
In article <6_ted.302962$D%.97712@attbi_s51>, X <X@nospam.net> wrote:
Alias wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
Equal treatment is fair enough.
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
24 Oct 2004 01:39:45 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
<snip>
<unsnip>
What's with the 'or not' part? The burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the negative in any case.
"There are no gods" is not a claim (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial as theologs are always trying to do:
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of GodŽ, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for GodŽ) so there cannot be any such of a thing:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody like you who still believes there
might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for
GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does
not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which
Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
24 Oct 2004 04:05:36 AM |
|
|
In article <R6Ied.305588$D%.179655@attbi_s51>, X <X@nospam.net> wrote:
Virgil wrote:
<snip>
<unsnip>
What's with the 'or not' part?
What "or not" part?
If Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) is referring to
something that actually existed, it is no longer visible.
Or is this just another of the many instances in which Septic (of the
Magically Invisible Space Pixies) is seeing things that were never there?
With Septic X Capon, the Simple Pimple, it is getting harder to
communicate clearly because of all his reference to things that do not
exist that he keeps making.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
24 Oct 2004 08:07:57 AM |
|
|
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<R6Ied.305588$D%.179655@attbi_s51>...
Virgil wrote:
<snip>
<unsnip>
<snip>
<Fallacy of Argumentum ad Nauseum from Septic>
<again>
And Septic demonstrates the fact yet again that he remains the
completely mendacious, fallacious, and discredited old idiot fool
lying losin evader of alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alias" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
25 Oct 2004 09:18:23 PM |
|
|
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<6_ted.302962$D%.97712@attbi_s51>...
Alias wrote:
<snip>
What's with the 'or not' part? The burden of proof cannot be shifted to
the negative in any case.
"There are no gods" is not a claim (statement standing in need of
proof), it is the denial (the negation) of one, and the burden of proof
cannot be shifted to the denial as theologs are always trying to do:
The burden of proof is always on the ones who are a party to the
assertion in question. Shifting the burden of proof, a form of argument
_ad ignorantiam_, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the
person who denies or questions the assertion in question. The source of
the fallacy is the assumption that the assertion is true unless proven
otherwise. See http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting
denial : the negation in logic [www.m-w.com] [dictionary.reference.com]
denial : synonym negation [www.m-w.com/thesaurus]
Read this piece by Bertrand Russell on how the theist idea of GodŽ, the
hypothetical first cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special
pleading for GodŽ) so there cannot be any such of a thing:
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the
First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has
a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight
nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used
to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause,
and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart
from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First
Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a
young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I
for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day,
at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I
there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question 'Who
made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further
question `Who made god?'" That very simple sentence showed me, as I
still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If
everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the
same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about
the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The
argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world
could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand,
is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no
reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that
things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our
imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the
argument about the First Cause." -- Russell "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody like you who still believes there
might be one anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for
GodŽ, the hypothetical first cause/creator of the universe, that does
not run into this fatal problem inherent in the very idea of it, which
Russell points out.
<cue the chirping cicadas>
Russell says:
"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there
can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God,
so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument."
I say that Russell is wrong here. He says God must have a cause. But
this is not true. Russell, like all of us, doesn't understand God
either. God is the only exception to the law of contingent causality
precisely because He is causality itself. One of many attributes
ascribed to Him. Then Russell attempts to be sarcastic and he
substitutes the "world" for "God". What a blunder that is. The world
is nothing like God. God is called the "omniscient Being". The world
is not a Being, and just like Russell, it knows nothing about God.
And concerning your faulty logic, If "There are no Gods" is not a
statement, then there are no statements at all. You call it a "claim"
and try to use that "old dog that won't hunt phrase" "shifting the
burden of proof." argument.
Get with it grandpa, that old logic is as dead as Russell. So, Prove
to me there is no God. BTW, I'm not saying there is or isn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Nutter" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
26 Oct 2004 08:38:53 AM |
|
|
In article <7dc30e65.0410251818.4d52bf03@posting.google.com>,
(Alias) wrote:
Russell says:
"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there
can
be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God,
so
that there cannot be any validity in that argument."
I say that Russell is wrong here. He says God must have a cause. But
this is not true.
Hang on. Russell says IF the premise "Everything must have a cause" is
true, then it follows logically that God--being something--must also
have a cause. If, as you say, it is not true that God must have a
cause, then you are denying the premise "Everything must have a cause."
If it is false, however, that everything must have a cause, then there
is no basis for insisting that the universe itself must have a cause.
If it is true that things don't necessarily have to have a cause, then
the universe itself may or may not have one. We can't just assume that
it *must* have one. Perhaps the universe itself is the First Cause.
It all hinges on the premise "Everything must have a cause." If you
hold that the premise is true, then God must have a cause. If you hold
that it is false, then the universe needs no cause, and thus no God.
(Unless of course the universe itself is God :)
Russell, like all of us, doesn't understand God
either. God is the only exception to the law of contingent causality
precisely because He is causality itself.
The same argument could be made about the Universe, of course. Once you
start allowing exceptions to the premise "Everything must have a cause,"
you have to consider other possible exceptions as well. If the law of
cause and effect does not apply to *all* things, then we must consider
the question of what it does and does not apply to, before we can use it
as the basis for a First Cause argument.
The law of cause and effect is itself a natural law, part of the
universe we live in. The laws of nature are not subject to the law of
cause and effect, or at least, we do not observe these laws coming into
existence as the result of any particular cause. The laws of nature
cause certain things to happen, but they are not themselves caused by
anything--they are inherent in the nature of the universe. That is,
they are not the *product* of causality, but rather are forces of
causality, as far as we can observe. Hence it makes sense to apply your
exception to them, because this exception matches what we can actually
observe and objectively verify in the real world.
Significantly, we do not *observe* God causing anything in the real
world (by God I mean God in the traditional Judeo-Christian sense).
Whatever the Judeo-Christian God is credited with doing, He does in a
manner indistinguishable from the normal operation of natural laws and
processes, at least as far as can be objectively verified. If we cannot
find any observable difference between God causing something, and the
laws of nature causing something, then either God's contribution is
insignificant, or else--interestingly--the laws of nature themselves may
be part of God.
Then Russell attempts to be sarcastic and he
substitutes the "world" for "God". What a blunder that is. The world
is nothing like God. God is called the "omniscient Being". The world
is not a Being, and just like Russell, it knows nothing about God.
I don't think Russell is being sarcastic at all. By "world" he means
reality itself, the real world, as we call it--not just this simple,
tiny planet. It is true that Reality as a whole does not fit well into
the confines of what we, in our limited imaginations, conceive of as
being a "person," but then is that Reality's limitation or ours? Would
a genuine God fit into our limited concept of what a "person" ought to
be?
Again, our brains are a few pounds of meat that think by using
biochemical processes to send tiny electrical impulses around inside our
heads. Our understanding consists of concepts that are merely
simplified representations of mere pieces of a reality that is much more
complex than we can ever conceive of, and thus what we call "knowledge"
is inherently flawed and fallible under the best of circumstances. It
is no flattery to ascribe to God the limited and imperfect processes we
know of as "thinking" and "knowledge." There has to be more to
omniscience than that.
It is entirely reasonable to suppose that God's "thoughts" transcend our
concept of thinking by as much as His being transcends our concept of
"person." Rather than manipulating incomplete representations of some
isolated aspects of reality, for instance, we might suppose that His
mind actually manipulates reality itself, that His "thought processes"
manifest themselves in the way Reality shapes itself into new forms
while still maintaining the same underlying laws. This would imply that
the real world we experience is actually an experience of the thoughts
and even the being of God Himself.
Step by step, we draw closer to the possibility that Reality itself may
be divine, the uncaused Cause, the true God of whom ancient theologies
are only an inaccurate and superstitious representation. In this light,
Russell's conclusion that the real world may be its own uncaused cause
is not unreasonable at all. Call it "God" if you like--it transcends
our concept of personhood just as a genuine God might, and its mode of
"thinking" transcends our limited concept of what thought is, just as
the "thinking" of a genuine God might. Reality exists in all times and
all places, so it is omnipresent, just like we would expect a genuine
God to be. It is the ultimate and infallible standard of truth, just as
a real God ought to be. Its laws are omnipotent, irresistable and
unbreakable, just like a real God's ought to be.
Or don't call it God, if you'd rather not. The main point is that the
most the First Cause argument can do is lead us back to the real world
itself. You can't force the First Cause argument beyond that to a proof
that there exists some supernatural character, in the pattern of Man
himself, that is the cause of the universe. You can speculate about
such possibilities (and of course you're not limited to imagining that
there's only one supernatural Creator either), but you can't use the
First Cause argument as *proof,* for reasons Russell stated rather well.
Mark Nutter
manutter51@alethian.org
http://www.alethian.org/ -- Information about Alethea, the sane and
honest God, and about Alethian faith and practice.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Proof that God exists or not is impossible, so forget about it. |
26 Oct 2004 04:52:43 PM |
| | | | |
