Gods don't exist.

Talk about anything
User avatar
Gio
Posts: 705
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 10:54
Location: Brazil

Re: Gods don't exist.

24 May 2019, 13:22

Frosti wrote:
24 May 2019, 12:35
1. When God is very fast and bores at a 57-day sentence. Then we could use the forum here and now to write a script that modifies a sentence so that it hears a specific sound once a day. So we could arouse his interest! We could also increase the frequency by one million ...... hmmm is such a frequency possible at all? Is God bored? Since everything has come into existence that we know, he has to be terribly bored. The only event known to me in the speed of God - was then the big bang!
Very creative :D

Actually, the 1.000.000x example was merely to illustrate how a small change in the human limitations can lead to an entirely different "subjective reality". God is probably not bound to human limitations, such as boredom though. But than again, if i were to keep on brainstorming about this fictitious scenario, i think this 1.000.000x fast-smarter human could alleviate a lot of his boredom if he could watch 1.000.000 different "perspectives" (such as if he had 1.000.000 bodies OR if he just had the capacity to experience much more information than us at the same time). This would actually bring his "experience time" closer to our own. A "boreable" theoretical god would thus not be bored if he could entertain himself in watching the entire universe and perhaps even "other dimensions" such as heaven in real time. That would maybe still lead to a problem if the multiplicative factor of his psychic capabilities is infinite though :lol:
I love such discussions! I always have new ideas (associations)!
Me too. As long as we keep the level of course :thumbup:
User avatar
Frosti
Posts: 265
Joined: 27 Oct 2017, 14:30
GitHub: Ixiko

Re: Gods don't exist.

24 May 2019, 16:59

This project (Nr.1). It's not necessary to use our knowledge. I think it's still alive since decades now. It's called the SETI project.
And is he not bound to human limitations, why we think we have limitations. Do we know everything about us? I think there's more than one quantum in our brain that we use every day. This is not my idea! Quantumphysics brain! Why not? I ask my self - a little dogs and a big dogs brain - which dog has more capability's? None of them. I hope I'm staying right here. Why do not you notice a difference to the dog, say, one million brain cells left? I don't know. I have to think about it.
A_AhkUser
Posts: 1076
Joined: 06 Mar 2017, 16:18
GitHub: AAhkUser
Location: France

Re: Gods don't exist.

24 May 2019, 23:49

Gio wrote:
23 May 2019, 11:07
[...] a being capable of "seeing the fourth dimension" or rather "seeing time"[...] Another more earthly example is a being the size of bacteria, whose entire lifetime is not enougth to cross a few "gigantic" grains of sand.[...] [...] Consider a superior being [...] how would this being experience timelapses? [...] He, if human, would probably be too bored [...]
Frosti wrote:
24 May 2019, 16:59
I ask my self - a little dogs and a big dogs brain - which dog has more capability's? None of them. I hope I'm staying right here. Why do not you notice a difference to the dog, say, one million brain cells left?
Interestingly, animals, as far as we can say, may not get bored (boredom - that is, what's appear when one have "nothing" to do).
"Nothing" can appear but one can actually also "see" the time. The time appears ("it lasts longer") - and by excellence - in the aforementioned mood: the boredom.

@Gio Your exemples are valuable for me and interesting. Just as with Flipeador, I'm certainly sympathetic to your way you both looking at this matter, each time for different reasons. Concerning your quote, I want to see it as if you pour through a small alley - a consideration of the being of the phenomenon - of the avenue of discussion I suggested on the subject: a consideration of the phenomenon of being.
This being said, I'll give more elements to your game example, Gio (using a distinct conceptuality).
How one can hope define fear (for instance) from outside perspective? Intrinsically, the fear is lived; why the hell would we want to deny its existence and transcendance?
. existence:
A distinction is made in principle between a car and the consicence of a car. But nothing separates me, "res cogitans", from this car: nothing but my freedom. Actually, what can separate me from this car? "Mental structures" and other alleged internal worlds? The "degree of intelligence", a chromatopsia etc.? What can separate me from the being of the car because, precisely, it is? Not even its absence: it is an aspect of its being.
. transcendance:
Now what could be "me" aside from being consicience of a - for example - car? Husserl says: "every conscience is conscience of something" - for exemple: of this red car in the street on a moonlit night in the spring etc. The fear (the car etc.) is always (ontologically speaking, not epistemologically) objective because I'm afraid, by definition, of an object, of something (of snakes, of free women, of darkness - whatever). I'm afraid of something in the world - it should be - if you will pardon the expression - a no-brainer!
Actually, I cannot see this statement: "We are only brain" other than as lip service, aimed at filling, hide from view the holes of the universe. Actually, it is one thing to say: "The brain works like this. I can observe links between technically observable brain states (in the world) and observable human behaviours (for example: the fear)." But it is clearly another thing to say: "We are only brain".

@Gio @Frosti Now I can come back to your other exemples in general and I will try to give more elements, my point of view with the little general culture I have (expecially as regards the field of science). That's also why one may consider that I too easily cut the Gordian knot.
Admittedly, spirit is not just a word, the history of ideas as a real object, human apprehend itself through technics, etc. But, at the root, as BEING it can only experiences reality AS BEING and BEING. We have no access to an non-human absolute (God, death etc.). Human is, at the root, alone in the universe.
Regarding animals, lastly, they are an elusive aperture, a decompression in the being - I can't say otherwise. As I see it, it is doubtful that neurology solely - without help of the ethology in particular - could lead to an exhaustion of the being of animals. It will probably still remain an inexorable mystery.

If someone says: "I don't care about the question: why there's something instead of nothing"? As paradoxical as it might seem, I should specify: " I do not doubt it, this is precisely because you are this question." This is all the paradox of the OP, as I envisage it. "Carelessness" is a way of life just as, if not more, relevant than sickly preoccupation and anxiety. But this is far more easily said than done...

:beer: Cheers
User avatar
Gio
Posts: 705
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 10:54
Location: Brazil

Re: Gods don't exist.

27 May 2019, 11:08

A_AhkUser wrote:
24 May 2019, 23:49
Actually, I cannot see this statement: "We are only brain" other than as lip service, aimed at filling, hide from view the holes of the universe. Actually, it is one thing to say: "The brain works like this. I can observe links between technically observable brain states (in the world) and observable human behaviours (for example: the fear)." But it is clearly another thing to say: "We are only brain".

I will have to agree to that. In my mind this concept of "brain alone" is somewhat related to the problem of whether there is "any meaning in the universe", which is what i have been talking about. If one denies the existence of all meaning and purpose in the universe, one could then theoretically just go ahead and say that the brain does create all the psychological phenomenons we get to see in people for "no particular purpose". But if this were truly the case, if we were really inside a truly soulless mechanical universe, why are not the reactions (as in the "observable output responses") people have to their reality just the very exact same, but without any actual inner experience of the being? Why do we even have these experiences of the being at all? Because i think the following would be a much more likely scenario: The whole of a person would simply be "Robotically Simulated" without any "personally experienceable human reality" at all. "We" (or rather, the robots) could be having this exact same conversation then while none of us would even be here. We would just "think" we were here without any fantasy at all. This "human reality" would thus not only be a "fantasy of a robotic mind", but also a contradiction in itself: a very "highly improbable fantasy" for a real robotic mind to have in any conceivable mind that could exist in a meaningless universe scenario. The fantasy would be without a real cause, so i must say the fantasy should not be there. Afterall, if only the outputs of these robots could be brought to a cause, and not this "experienceable fantasy of a reality", then the later shoud just not be there. Claiming that "it is here because it is here" is just circular reasoning. These conclusions, or rather the problem of the "why" that is beyond the "how", are not unknown to atheists. In fact, conclusions like these are what has ultimately led some mainstream atheism advocates to go as far as to claim that any "why... ?" is just "a silly question". Acording to them, there is no "why" in the universe, just "hows" and then that's it. Things which "don't exist" also "have no cause". Therefore, the actual problem of the existence of the "human reality" is that "there is no human reality". It is just a denial. But in my opinion, that is exaclty what is trully silly: to ignore the whole of our reality for the mere sake of trying to see things from an absolutely innert perspective. If something as complex as the whole of the human reality does exist (and to me it obviously does!), then it must have a cause for itself, one that not only explains it's mechanics, but also it's very presence. "Why" is not a silly question at all.

Or is it truly reasonable to conclude that the only real things are the "binary states" (or rather the fundamental particles and forces) that comprise the minimum elements of our universe and their minimally describable interactions? That once you grow out of this set of tiny "things", it is all just a mere "illusion" that should not even be considered real or extant? That to formulate a question about the nature of being is just a silly idea? That complex effects like experienceable realities can be "fantasy without a cause"? I don't think so. To be reasonable is to seek answers, not to ignore questions.

If someone says: "I don't care about the question: why there's something instead of nothing"? As paradoxical as it might seem, I should specify: " I do not doubt it, this is precisely because you are this question." This is all the paradox of the OP, as I envisage it.

Wow, that was an excellent statement! I couldn't have put it in better terms :D
Cheers :beer:
User avatar
Gio
Posts: 705
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 10:54
Location: Brazil

Re: Gods don't exist.

27 May 2019, 11:47

Frosti wrote:
24 May 2019, 16:59
This project (Nr.1). It's not necessary to use our knowledge. I think it's still alive since decades now. It's called the SETI project.

Nicely remembered. The SETI project and the well known Fermi paradox. These are highly interesting subjects indeed. As mentioned, if the current estimates are correct, the universe being 13.8 billion years old, the earth being 4.5 billion years old, life on earth being 3.5 billion years old and humanity being less than 200 thousands years old... If the same process that happened here on earth could really have happened elsewhere and if we do have billions of trillions of stars in the universe as estimated... Why haven't we seen any meaningful alien communication using the perceivable frequencies of electromagnetic waves? If you count just 1% of the estimated time of the universe, that's 138 million light-years these waves could potentially have covered, while our whole galaxy (with billions of stars) is just 100.000 light-years across. Also, our neighbor galaxy andromeda is just 2.5 million light-years away... so If the process that led to intelligent life did happened elsewhere in the universe before it happened to us, and if it is not a completely absurdely unlikely occurence, we should theoretically see lot's of electromagnetic communication around us. The idea is that even if they did found better ways of communicating, the eventual experimentation of the technology among the billions of intelligent beings in those civilizations, even if just for fun or academic reasons, it should be getting here already...

The very SETI project is an undeniable evidence of how intriguing and mind-bogling to "scientists" this question is. There are many proposed explanations for the Fermi paradox, but they are basically rather grim. A less grim explanation could be that either these beings or their technology evolved so much that they have exceeded even the example of the 100.000.000x fast-smarter human, and the sole reason they don't even talk to us is either out of desire to see us to evolve alone OR because none of them would even care to talk to such inferior beings as we are. It may thus just be that in no longer than a few thousand years, we will have engineered successors that do not have most of our "limitations" (even including the sheer curiosity to experimenting known things).

And is he not bound to human limitations, why we think we have limitations. Do we know everything about us? I think there's more than one quantum in our brain that we use every day. This is not my idea! Quantumphysics brain! Why not? I ask my self - a little dogs and a big dogs brain - which dog has more capability's? None of them. I hope I'm staying right here. Why do not you notice a difference to the dog, say, one million brain cells left? I don't know. I have to think about it.

Well, we now know for a fact that neural networks do have limitations and one of such is the number of neurons. So even though the number of neurons is not the only limitation, thus resulting in a smaller net possibly being "smarter" sometimes, it is still a fact that bigger nets have more "resources" and these can lead them to become smarter in the broad sense. That's also a reason why we usually see a correlation between brain size and complexity of behaviour in the animal kingdom.

That being said, it is indeed not impossible for quantum physics to be somehow present in our brain, and the whole idea of human "limitations" is just about admiting the present state of human beings as still having "much to grow".

On another note: i was really expecting this debate to "grow" enougth to include discussions about cosmology and particle physics sometime, aswell as some of the more up-to-date pro-theism and pro-atheism arguments, but this seems to be taking a while. Anyone willing to do it, please feel free to do so :beer:
User avatar
joedf
Posts: 7358
Joined: 29 Sep 2013, 17:08
Facebook: J0EDF
Google: +joedf
GitHub: joedf
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Gods don't exist.

27 May 2019, 22:07

God's existence is unknowable and cannot be proven. :geek:
Image Image Image Image Image
Windows 10 x64 Professional, Intel i5-8500 @ 4.00 GHz, 2x8GB G.Skill RipJaws V - DDR4 3280 MHz, NVIDIA GTX 1060 6GB | [About Me] | [ASPDM - StdLib Distribution]
[Populate the AHK MiniCity!] | [Qonsole - Quake-like console emulator] | [LibCon - Autohotkey Console Library] | [About the AHK Foundation]
gregster
Posts: 3424
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 06:48

Re: Gods don't exist.

28 May 2019, 04:51

It is not possible to prove the nonexistence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Or Russell's teapot...

But does it really matter if God exists? I can see no positive correlation between being "religious" and being good...
User avatar
Cuadrix
Posts: 204
Joined: 07 May 2017, 08:26

Re: Gods don't exist.

28 May 2019, 04:55

It's an objective fact of reality that our lord and savior Momo the Mammoth created the universe. Proof? My butt clenched so hard it expanded and swallowed my chair.
----
User avatar
Gio
Posts: 705
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 10:54
Location: Brazil

Re: Gods don't exist.

28 May 2019, 10:28

gregster wrote:
28 May 2019, 04:51
But does it really matter if God exists?
Of course it does. Just think about the possible consequences.

gregster wrote:
28 May 2019, 04:51
I can see no positive correlation between being "religious" and being good...

Being religious and being good are indeed two different things. The vikings were very religious, but their religion made them think they had to die in battle while fighting fiercely if they were to ever hope to reach valhala (something like their heaven). Their religion made them violent. That being said though, it is much more common for those that continuously seek spiritual evolution to do achieve deeper views for the human role in the whole of existence (than it is for those that do not). If you spend some time studying and meditating about the various concepts of theology and ontology, aswell as related philosofical areas, you will certainly refine your way of seeing things. The problem with atheism is mostly that it (usually) blinds your mind to these concepts. If you keep jumping to a conclusion that something is not real before you even give yourself enougth time to digest the subject and think throughly the implications of that thing being in place, you will never get to experience deeper existential problems. The very question of this topic "does god exist?", although it is still up for debate, is very much just a starting point: There are much deeper thoughts and problems you can concern yourself with once you go past it.

of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Momo the Mammoth create

The question "which god is the real one" is actually a build up from the one in this debate (not the other way around). To present any possible yet non-exhaustive ridicule hipothesis for a build up question is not a way to disprove the validity of the first question. There are a number of logical fallacies in place when using this type of "argument" here.
User avatar
Cuadrix
Posts: 204
Joined: 07 May 2017, 08:26

Re: Gods don't exist.

28 May 2019, 12:59

The only logical fallacy I see here is you assuming your specific gods existence without any real evidence whatsoever, then saying that our god "claims" are fallacies when both claims are actually on the same ground level. There is zero evidence of any of them.

So, let me ask you a question:
Do you know why you actually are religious in the first place?
----
User avatar
Gio
Posts: 705
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 10:54
Location: Brazil

Re: Gods don't exist.

28 May 2019, 16:42

Cuadrix wrote:
28 May 2019, 12:59
The only logical fallacy I see here is you assuming your specific gods existence without any real evidence whatsoever, then saying that our god "claims" are fallacies when both claims are actually on the same ground level. There is zero evidence of any of them.

You are working to confuse matters there. This whole debate is about the question of whether a god possibly exists (any god, not mine, yours, or anyones). As i mentioned before, a second question such as "which god exists" (either mine or yours or anyones) is an entirely different question, and while this second question would be entirely dependant on the more fundamental question we are still discussing here (If any god exists), the opposite is not true at all. Therefore, it is not even at the table at the moment the matter of putting forward a specific god as the existing one.

I did stated that your arguments were of a fallacious nature and since you are denying it, i am am going to point out and clarify:

We are discussing here whether a conceptual god does exist. In this very debate, you have put forward a "Momo the mammoth" hipothesis based on "the clenching of your butt swallowing a chair", which is an argument solely of YOUR responsibility. This very argument, albeit it tries to pose itself as a valid hipothesis for a god by satisfying the requirement "any god", does contain something else implicitly: it's ridicule. Therefore, you wish, by the means of a very obvious association fallacy, to claim that the whole set of god hipothesis is also ridicule, but it is painfuly obvious that the ridiculeness of your hipothesis is a characteristic of YOUR argument alone, not a characteristic of the whole set of valid hipothesis.

If this were not enougth, in doing so, you are also making use of what we call a Strawman Fallacy: you have taken an argument from the other side (a conceptual god), created an entirely different argument from it by agreggating the ridicule (momo the mammoth), and then prompted this new idea as if it were equivalent to the original idea of the other side. This mammoth is entirely yours and it's ridicule is NOT transferable to the conceptual god idea we have been putting forward here.

So, let me ask you a question:
Do you know why you actually are religious in the first place?

As mentioned, the whole of my life ammounts to my current beliefs (as with anyones). Furthermore, i find joy in it: as mentioned, by contemplating concepts that are currently only accessible to reason through philosofy or theology, i get to experience with deeper ontological and metaphysical problems.
User avatar
joedf
Posts: 7358
Joined: 29 Sep 2013, 17:08
Facebook: J0EDF
Google: +joedf
GitHub: joedf
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Gods don't exist.

28 May 2019, 16:55

Good points. I should have been more explicit...

God's existence or non-existence is unknowable and cannot be proven or disproven. :geek: :mrgreen: :HeHe:
Image Image Image Image Image
Windows 10 x64 Professional, Intel i5-8500 @ 4.00 GHz, 2x8GB G.Skill RipJaws V - DDR4 3280 MHz, NVIDIA GTX 1060 6GB | [About Me] | [ASPDM - StdLib Distribution]
[Populate the AHK MiniCity!] | [Qonsole - Quake-like console emulator] | [LibCon - Autohotkey Console Library] | [About the AHK Foundation]
gregster
Posts: 3424
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 06:48

Re: Gods don't exist.

28 May 2019, 17:29

Gio wrote:
28 May 2019, 10:28
gregster wrote:
28 May 2019, 04:51
But does it really matter if God exists?
Of course it does. Just think about the possible consequences.
I feel pretty relaxed about the possible consequences for me and others. In the unlikely event that a god exists and if it's a loving god, we'll get along just fine. If it's an angry, revengeful god that wants to punish me because I questioned him, was tolerant towards gay people, ate pork or drank alcohol, I am happy to discuss these issues with him (not expecting a her in this case). I surely would have some questions about all the atrocities that happen(ed) in his name, without him doing anything about it.

Without god, the sorry state of the world surely make a lot more sense. So, we are probably solely responsible for making this world better... that means, we should always act as if there was no god to save us. I think a loving, empathetic, mature god would really like that.
Gio wrote:
28 May 2019, 10:28
gregster wrote:
28 May 2019, 04:51
I can see no positive correlation between being "religious" and being good...

Being religious and being good are indeed two different things. The vikings were very religious, but their religion made them think they had to die in battle while fighting fiercely if they were to ever hope to reach valhala (something like their heaven). Their religion made them violent. That being said though, it is much more common for those that continuously seek spiritual evolution to do achieve deeper views for the human role in the whole of existence (than it is for those that do not). If you spend some time studying and meditating about the various concepts of theology and ontology, aswell as related philosofical areas, you will certainly refine your way of seeing things. The problem with atheism is mostly that it (usually) blinds your mind to these concepts. If you keep jumping to a conclusion that something is not real before you even give yourself enougth time to digest the subject and think throughly the implications of that thing being in place, you will never get to experience deeper existential problems. The very question of this topic "does god exist?", although it is still up for debate, is very much just a starting point: There are much deeper thoughts and problems you can concern yourself with once you go past it.
This seems like an over-simplified description of the old Norse religion. Apart from that, I don't know how a more or less extinct religion that had a total different concept than today's religions, especially the abrahamitic religions, is of much relevance for this discussion (It is, for example, assumed that piety and the need for prayer were foreign concepts to the vikings; in general, there seemed to be a much bigger assumption of life's predetermination). I was talking about today's world and religions and their obvious hypocrisy (although this applies to the past as well.)

You are making pretty strong claims here and you also seem to make (wrong) assumptions about the amount of studying and meditating I have done in my life (after all, I am a lot older than my youthful online persona could make you think. :D ). Finally, if I look at the history of philosophy, I see no evidence that would underpin your generalizing and belittling views about the depth of thoughts that an agnostic or atheist thinker or philosopher can regularly reach. I would suspect that it is exactly the other way round... after all, it was the people who questioned religion, churches and the existence of god who broke down important barriers most of the time and brought enlighted ideas into this world.
Gio wrote:
28 May 2019, 10:28
of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Momo the Mammoth create
The question "which god is the real one" is actually a build up from the one in this debate (not the other way around). To present any possible yet non-exhaustive ridicule hipothesis for a build up question is not a way to disprove the validity of the first question. There are a number of logical fallacies in place when using this type of "argument" here.
"Which god is the real one" is really not the point here - it's about the (limited) possibility of proving the existence of any god.
User avatar
Cuadrix
Posts: 204
Joined: 07 May 2017, 08:26

Re: Gods don't exist.

28 May 2019, 18:13

This mammoth is entirely yours and it's ridicule is NOT transferable to the conceptual god idea we have been putting forward here.
Almost everything you said is true, but you don't seem to be getting my underlying point;
What if someone actually believed in Momo the Mammoth creating the universe? What if they genuinely did so?

In my case, it was definitely just ridicule, but lets say there was someone who actually believed in Momo the Mammoth. How would you distinguish whether he/she is ridiculing your beliefs or genuinely believes?
If you conclude that he/she must be ridiculing, then it only serves to prove that you are already firmly stuck in your own bias.
If you acknowledge his/her beliefs as valid hypotheses, then good for you; It still wouldn't change the fact that both of you are on the same ground level; None of your extraordinary beliefs can be measured, tested, observed, experimented on, and thus they can never be proven.
So even if my Momo the Mammoth joke was just a ridicule, there are people who genuinely believe in something that other religious people just straight up dismiss as ridicule of their own beliefs, when in reality both sides of the coin are actually just as valid as the other, whether religious people admit it or not.

Another thing; You said;
Therefore, it is not even at the table at the moment the matter of putting forward a specific god as the existing one.
Well in that case you should be consistent with your posts. The title of this thread is "Gods don't exist", and you said;
Of course God exists
...which assumes that a specific god exists, namely the christian/jewish version of the Abrahamic god. (Yes, I assume that's what you believe)
Also, you can't just come here and say "God" with a capital letter "G", because that is making a LOT of assumptions, not to mention not everyone recognizes your god by the title you give it. Your god has a name, Yahweh/Jesus. Use it if you actually think like what you posted above. Only that way can we be as neutral as possible, and actually make some good progress in the discussion.
----
User avatar
Gio
Posts: 705
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 10:54
Location: Brazil

Re: Gods don't exist.

28 May 2019, 20:16

gregster wrote:
28 May 2019, 17:29
Finally, if I look at the history of philosophy, I see no evidence that would underpin your generalizing and belittling views about the depth of thoughts that an agnostic or atheist thinker or philosopher can regularly reach.

An agnostic contemplating theology? maybe. But an atheist? well, while it may be theoretically possible for even an atheist to dedicate the required time to contemplate deep theological concepts, i don't think it is really wrong to claim that they (usually) will not. Think about it, can you imagine an atheist deeply pondering about "why god would rather not to interfere with evil done on earth"? It is much more likely that instead of seeking an answer to this question they will simply discard the question as completely "absurd" or even "silly" long before the matter even starts to weight in on their brains. Please don't forget that any exceptions (you or anyone else specific) will not make a rule, i have talked and even debated with many atheists in the past and am just being honest about this: they are (usually) quick to discard the possibility of a sound debate on these grounds.

I would suspect that it is exactly the other way round... after all, it was the people who questioned religion, churches and the existence of god who broke down important barriers most of the time and brought enlighted ideas into this world.

I have seen some debates where both sides actually make a claim to hold this very same merit. There are many atheist with scientific merits indeed and there are many theists too. I don't think that making a list of people with merit and the proofs of their beliefs, and then discussing the list here would be adequate though.

You are making pretty strong claims here and you also seem to make (wrong) assumptions about the amount of studying and meditating I have done in my life (after all, I am a lot older than my youthful online persona could make you think. :D ).

Sorry, i didn't intend to personally attack you or question your depth of thought or knowledge. The arguments proposed are to be the only target of the debate.
Cuadrix wrote:
28 May 2019, 18:13
What if someone actually believed in Momo the Mammoth creating the universe? What if they genuinely did so?

The problem of discussing specific beliefs whose range goes outside the scope of the fundamental question (whether any god exists) is exactly this shifting towards a completely different debate (with completely different arguments): you can only debate something if both sides do share similar premises that can act as fundamentals to the debate. Thus, since the specific premises that both sides share are the same only in some matters, the only thing you can discuss with an atheist (mostly) is thus the existence of a conceptual god or rather god as a concept. Why? Just try and bring up any argument bound to a religion from start: if one cites a passage from the bible (in example) they will see the debate quickly shift towards the validity of the bible with arguments concerning "absurd" or "contradictory" passages. But is this even adequate? Isn't it much more adequate to just stick to the fundamental question in the table until we exhaust the general arguments that both sides can agree on?

The idea of not expanding the scope too much when discussing fundamentals is not ill intended at all, rather it is a means of organization: debates do require both sides to hold similar premises. It would be the very same hassle if you were to try and prove the validity of multiplication to someone that only sees sums by presenting them with factors and powers as a starting point.

Once you get to debate with someone that is past these initial questions though, only then can things do change. When you can finally formulate new arguments by trusting some new premises to be valid (i.e.: god exists), only then can the matters at question go deeper in a debate, and only then can we finally access other types of discussions and arguments. Debating theism vs atheism is thus not the same as debating christianity vs bhudism. The later allows you to bring up arguments from both religions, the former simply doesn't. The former requires you to stick to nature, scientific evidences and perhaps some other easily verifiable facts about humans or our reality. Not much else.

Now to answer the question: if someone did believed in momo (as opposed to some other god), and i were to debate momo vs christianity, i would then be able to trust that this someone would hold some more premises that i hold aswell (theism), and so i would be able (only then) to debate christianity vs momonism with him.
gregster
Posts: 3424
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 06:48

Re: Gods don't exist.

29 May 2019, 03:15

Many relevant agnostic and atheist philosophers and religion-critical thinkers have started out as believers and have spent considerable time on contemplating their faith, before rejecting it (completely or partially). So, mostly dismissing their views as shallow from the start doesn't sound like it could be the basis for a healthy or fruitful open-minded discussion.

But I see no shred of evidence that being a believer is even a prerequisite for the ability to think deeply... of course, many people are not really into thinking, but that seems to be a general human trait, religious or not. So, there is probably a lot of anecdotal evidence about believers and non-believers that everyone could tell - but that won't tell us anything about the existence of god, but what could...?!

For me personally, the question how the believe in god is still continuously exploited and abused by churches and religions (and politics) is much more relevant than the question if god really exists...
User avatar
Gio
Posts: 705
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 10:54
Location: Brazil

Re: Gods don't exist.

29 May 2019, 09:56

gregster wrote:
29 May 2019, 03:15
Many relevant agnostic and atheist philosophers and religion-critical thinkers have started out as believers and have spent considerable time on contemplating their faith, before rejecting it (completely or partially). So, mostly dismissing their views as shallow from the start doesn't sound like it could be the basis for a healthy or fruitful open-minded discussion.
I think i have already made my point clear: atheists (usually) hold that god doesn't exist as a premise. That specific premise being in place and it matters not their whole background as "thinkers from the past" when it comes to their ability to pick a theological subject right now and think deeply about it, pondering new concepts to the exhaustion of their minds in order to draw in new conclusions (and thus evolve their views).

Do you not see their limitations yet? It is a thing from the present and it relates to the capacity to evolve new arguments: their past selves can no longer "evolve" thoughts, only their present selves possibly could (if only they had not blocked themselves with a new premise, of course). For a more formal evidence of how the difference between past and present views can affect the capacity to draw in a new conclusion, see Historian's Fallacy.

But I see no shred of evidence that being a believer is even a prerequisite for the ability to think deeply... of course, many people are not really into thinking, but that seems to be a general human trait, religious or not.

Atheists CAN think deeply. They just (usually - Do i really need to keep this word here all the time?) won't think deeply about any theological concepts that relate to a god. Doing that would be a contradiction to their own premises as atheists, and would prompt them to discard the whole question at hand early on (either that or ignore formal logic).

but that won't tell as anything about the existence of god, but what could...?!

Indeed, and we are now stuck in parallel argumentation that is probably not going to answer the original question. Hence why i have been saying we should stick to the matter at hand (the question of whether a god exists).

For me personally, the question how the believe in god is continuously exploited and abused by churches and religions (and politics) is much more relevant than the question if god really exists...

I understand how that question can be interesting, but i really think it should belong to another topic.

So now please allow me to get us back on the tracks of this topic:
Gio wrote:
22 May 2019, 13:16
Now, from a few rational pro-theism arguments on this debate i personally like, i guess i would point out the Fine-tuned Universe argument as quite an interesting one. How would you go about refuting it?
Gio wrote:
27 May 2019, 11:47
On another note: i was really expecting this debate to "grow" enougth to include discussions about cosmology and particle physics sometime, aswell as some of the more up-to-date pro-theism and pro-atheism arguments, but this seems to be taking a while. Anyone willing to do it, please feel free to do so :beer:
gregster
Posts: 3424
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 06:48

Re: Gods don't exist.

29 May 2019, 11:11

I can only see that your current views seem to limit your ability to enter a unprejudiced discussion. Apart from that, there are, for example, atheist agnostics (or agnostic atheists; and even agnostic theists). In practice, I see absolutely no dichotomy between theists and atheists - au contraire, there is a whole continuum of views, experiences and philosophies in-between (you can take me as an example - but probably also some of the other users that contributed to this thread).

I can only disagree with your view that humans cannot empathize with views or penetrate concepts intellectually that they don't currently hold. If that would be the case, I think that philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history and many other sciences wouldn't be possible at all, meaningful theology neither. Apart from that, all the problems or fallacies that atheist and agnostic thinkers could face, would certainly also apply to theist thinkers (although some might not be able to realize it).

Finally, I think that the abuse of belief is very closely related to the impossibility of proving god's (in-) existence and therefore an essential aspect of the central question of this topic. After all, it is impacting the lifes of most people on earth in one way or another, while the concept of the fine-tuned universe is only of fringe interest for most of humanity, depending on similar questionable and (most likely unprovable) assumptions like the existence of god.
User avatar
Gio
Posts: 705
Joined: 30 Sep 2013, 10:54
Location: Brazil

Re: Gods don't exist.

29 May 2019, 12:19

gregster wrote:
29 May 2019, 11:11
I can only see that your current views seem to limit your ability to enter a unprejudiced discussion. Apart from that, there are, for example, atheist agnostics (or agnostic atheists; and even agnostic theists). In practice, I see absolutely no dichotomy between theists and atheists - au contraire, there is a whole continuum of views, experiences and philosophies in-between (you can take me as an example - but probably also some of the other users that contributed to this thread).

Claiming that my views stem from prejudice is an argumentum ad hominem fallacy. If you still deny the differences of possible debates between groups that share only some premises and groups that share more premises, there is probably little more i can tell to you. The arguments about that are in the table already.

I can only disagree with your view that humans cannot empathize with views or penetrate concepts intellectually that they don't currently hold. If that would be the case, I think that philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history and many other sciences wouldn't be possible at all, meaningful theology neither.

How many books about the subject of reincarnation have you seen that were writen by atheists? (vs theists, just in case you find an improbable exception). I don't think that i am pointing out to something that is short of obvious at this point.

Apart from that, all the problems or fallacies that atheist and agnostic thinkers could face, would certainly also apply to theist thinkers (although some might not be able to realize it).

And they do. Debates between two or more christian sides, in example, have different possibilities of arguments than debates between shia and sunni muslims. I don't see how you can still not see the obvious problem of atheism being a denial of theist premises, and the obvious consequences of this denial for the debate between atheism and theism proponents.

Finally, I think that the abuse of belief is very closely related to the impossibility of proving god's (in-) existence and therefore an essential aspect of the central question of this topic. After all, it is impacting the lifes of most people on earth in one way or another, while the concept of the fine-tuned universe is only of fringe interest for most of humanity, depending on similar questionable and (most likely unprovable) assumptions like the existence of god.

The concept of the fine-tuned universe is a central theist argument in debates regarding the possible existence of a god. It is seen as an evidence that stems in part from knowledge accessed from deep scientific inquiry into the nature of the universe. On the other hand, the "possibilities and implications of abusing a belief" or however you want to phrase a question for a debate about the subject "abuse of belief", while a valid topic for a debate by themselves, would constitute an Appeal to Consequences fallacy if used as arguments to try and disprove the more fundamental question of the existence of a god (which is what this topic is about). For instance, if we either conclude that believing is good or bad, or even if we conclude the abuse of belief exists, or anything else related to beliefs themselves, none of these conclusions could really lead us to answer the more fundamental question of whether a god exists (or not). It is simple enougth to say that a god can exist regardless of any human beliefs.

Return to “Offtopic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests