|
| Thread: poll: Should we believe in God or no? (inspired by french mathematician Pascal) |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
posted November 28, 2003 12:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's my take, either way the basic argument put forward is entirely flawed.
Exactly. Reversing the burden of proof is a logical fallacy, and you canīt draw any sensible conclusion out of a logical fallacy. Period.
But how do you explain this to a person who is either not able or not willing to understand the basics of logic and human communication?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 28, 2003 02:17 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I didnt assume anything from you, really. Im probably about as sure as you are
Actually you assumed I would make up excuses to cover your reasoning, which by extension assumes I don't believe.
Quote:
You asked me to prove that Nessie and Little Gray Men dont exist, but I cant do that. I think they probably do exist, thats why I couldnt be a defense lawyer
And I would get into the Kennedy thing, but that would be way off topic, if you want to debate that bring it up in Attack Iraq.
Uhmmm nope, I was using them as an example of reversing your argument to show it's faults thats all, showing you how you can't use such an argument because it's flawed at it's heart. The burden of proof always lies with the person trying to show something exists, or the thing itself. All I ask is that if there's something you don't believe in, whatever it may be that you prove it does not exist. Should you then be incapable of doing so, it does, and that is why the argument is flawed.
The point wasn't to make the argument or discussion about any of them points, the point was to show the flaws in such a conclusion from lack of proof. Nor is my point to say that the fact that you use such an argument proves god does not exist, it's merely to show you and others are not approaching things the right way by making such a point. It's self defeating to use illogical arguments as it will drive people from religion if they think your mind has to agree with such strange conclusions.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted November 28, 2003 03:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's self defeating to use illogical arguments as it will drive people from religion if they think your mind has to agree with such strange conclusions.
I agree. Although I do believe in God, this is not the correct way to prove that he exists. There is one logical part to Wolfman's argument, though. You can't say that God does not exist just because there is no proof of his existance. It's just like the people in the middle ages who believed that the Earth was flat.
But I'm not going to debate about this (what's the point, if none of the sides can be actually proven anyway) because I don't care if other people actually believe in God. I do think it's only common sense to admit that there is a chance that he exists.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 28, 2003 03:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There is one logical part to Wolfman's argument, though. You can't say that God does not exist just because there is no proof of his existance
Oh entirely, but that cannot then be used in the way he and others extended it to.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2003 04:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There is one logical part to Wolfman's argument, though. You can't say that God does not exist just because there is no proof of his existance.
Well, but thatīs not part of Wolfmanīs bad argument, itīs IYYīs completely different and good argument. The lack of evidence for the existence of godly beings is a good reason not to believe in their existence, but does in no way prove their nonexistence.
____________
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted November 28, 2003 05:13 AM |
|
|
Perhaps we should have the thread renamed "Does God Exist?"  No need for objectivity.
The argument that God cannot be proven to exist is true, but think about this. I was once taught that for the Big Bang to have occurred in such a way that the particles fell into such a perfect alignment to create the universe, they must have gone through a reaction that had about a one in ten billion chance of working out. This number is, of course, debatable, but there is, IMO, a very low probability of the Big Bang working out like it has. Also take into account that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed naturally. Unless by some miracle the Big Bang actually created the universe without a guiding hand, then it can be assumed that there is some supreme being guiding the machinations of the universe.
Should we believe in God (i.e. a supreme being)? I believe so. Has God been correctly defined as of now? Who really knows?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 28, 2003 05:38 AM |
|
|
Im not arguing anymore. Nothing anyone says in an Internet argument is going to change the way anyone thinks.
With the Big Bang thing, there was an equally slim chance of life starting on this planet. But here we are, arguing about it.
PH, I looked back and I guess I did jump to the conclusion that you didnt believe in God. Probably because you usually take the other side of an argument than me.
____________
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 28, 2003 06:49 PM |
|
|
Hello Shadowcaster,
Quote:
Perhaps we should have the thread renamed "Does God Exist?"
Yes, that would be a better name for this thread. Most possible names for this thread would have been better than this, as there are more refutations of Pascalīs Wager on the internet than I have socks. (And yes, I do have many socks.)
Quote:
The argument that God cannot be proven to exist is true, but think about this. I was once taught that for the Big Bang to have occurred in such a way that the particles fell into such a perfect alignment to create the universe, they must have gone through a reaction that had about a one in ten billion chance of working out. This number is, of course, debatable, but there is, IMO, a very low probability of the Big Bang working out like it has.
The argument of probability regarding the evolution of the universe, or the evolution of life by the way, is always problematic. Whatīs the chance that you exist? Itīs very close to impossible. Of the millions of sperms that emerge from one ejaculation (and it must be the right one!), only one was able to win the race. Congratulations, by the way  .
If it hadnīt been you, it would have been someone else. If it hadnīt been this universe, it might have been another one. If there hadnīt been this biological evolution, it probably would have been a different one, with totally different species.
Take a plate from the kitchen and throw it to the ground: The chance that it will shatter the way it does is close to impossible, a zero with countless zeroes behind the comma. Once the shards are standing still, itīs exactly 1.
Quote:
Should we believe in God (i.e. a supreme being)? I believe so. Has God been correctly defined as of now? Who really knows?
Every infinite regress of questions for the cause will at one point lead to the answer I donīt know. Sooner when the person being asked is me, later when itīs an astrophysic (if the universe is the subject in question). Now you may think that the easiest explanation for the final unanswerable question is to say:God did it. But that does not solve our problem, only shifts it. God does not stop the regress, next question will be for the cause of godīs existence, and at this point or the next one, you will end up with the same answer that I did: I donīt know.
Myself I am an agnostic regarding the question for the first cause, as I prefer not to draw any conclusions out of my ignorance. But even though I donīt share it, I think the belief in the existence of some kind of unrecognizable force, that triggered the first movement, is perfectly reasonable. Thatīs the god the deists and pantheists believe in, and the one you seem to be approving of.
Many christians and muslims like to jump into this breach, and identify the above god with Allah or the christian trinity. What they seem to miss is the fact that a hypothetical first-movement-being, the god of Voltaire or Spinoza, or your founding father Thomas Jefferson, has nothing in common with the anthropocentric god from the bible (or the koran), who takes influence on the world, loves and scorns, demands to be worshipped and rewards/punishes accordingly.
Strange as this may sound, the god of first cause actually has much more in common with agnostic and negative atheist views than with any of the three big monotheist religions.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 06, 2004 08:58 AM |
|
|
I Don't Know If God Exists
If I knew God existed I'd probably have questions. If I knew for a fact that God did not exist then I would wonder what it is that made me cry on September 11th, 2001. Pictures of war and pain and suffering all over this world strike me with questions. "Why", I would say. Why do people want to kill other people? Why the hurt?
I really don't know if God exists but when bad things happen you will see some people, that you never even knew of before, rise to the occasion and become a hero. Was it God that caused the situation or was it God that told the hero to stand up and stop being afraid? I don't know.
I do know that in my heart there is the will to help others. I have a normal life and I sit by performing my duties as both husband and father. It seems like there might come a day when I will be required to be more than that. That day may never come. If it meant I could save thousands of lives then I am ready to do my part. Until then I will love my wife and my children as I suppose I was meant to do. I think being a hero means that you have to truly understand what it is you have. It means loved ones are the value as opposed to objects. If God existed then I'm pretty sure he or she would agree
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 06, 2004 10:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
If God existed then I'm pretty sure he or she would agree
Why do you think so, Consis? She may be evil.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 07, 2004 12:44 AM |
|
|
I Really Don't Know
Quote:
She may be evil.
Lews_Therin,
I had thought it was a joke considering this line right here. I had thought you were going for a slander-type joke aimed at liberal females who preach that god is a woman. Even though hell hath no fury, etc. That's why I thought it was a joke.
Considering that you were serious, I really don't know. I don't even know if a God exists to begin with therefore I wouldn't know any sort of personality disposition related to it.
I was trying to say that I try to pay attention to what's in front of me. If I met you in person I'd hope and try for an enjoyable time. I'd try to find out your interests, absorb something about your personality, and try to apply a little humor to a first impression. It's the people that matter to me. If God exists or doesn't there doesn't seem to be an influence that affects me today as of this very moment. Perhaps it will come tomorrow or the next day, or it may never come and I may never know if God truly exists, but I won't waste time trying to find out when I have so little to give and share between my wife and three kids. Everybody needs my time as I'm sure many people need yours as well. As for the question, who knows, maybe the answer will come but I think one must enjoy life else they find themselves a mole stuck in a tunnel without any light facing a rock in the front and metal to the rear. Dismal, that's what I like to avoid by truly living. My assumption of a God that might relate to my opinions is merely a little arrogance I suppose. But hey, I'm human. Is it not human to err?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 07, 2004 01:59 AM |
|
|
Hey, Lews_Therin, I just wanted to say that I totally agree with your views. Btw, I'm an atheist, actually more of an agnostic, but it seems more reasonable to me not to beleive in god if there are no proofs, rather then to beleive.
And that force you are talking about. Is it a being, awere of its existance? I don't think so. Why don't we call it simply nature, natural laws or reality? Why call it God?
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 07, 2004 08:30 AM |
|
|
Hello Consis,
in fact I was a bit tongue-in-cheek in both my post and my IM, so I think that both ways you read me you got my point .
Yes, I very much agree with you. We have this life to live and donīt know of any other(s) - if thereīs an omnipotent transcendental being that wants me to believe in its existence, it should express itself more clearly. If we assume that god gave me my rationality, I would consider it to be blasphemy not to use it, and instead believe in something without any good reasons. Thus, in the spirit of pascalīs wager, I also feel that Iīm on the safer side by being an infidel .
Hello Svarog,
Quote:
Why don't we call it simply nature, natural laws or reality? Why call it God?
that is a good question. I think that all the words you suggested may fail to cover the whole picture. If I understand it correctly, the pantheist view also has a spiritual aspect in that it admires (and possibly seeks contact with) the harmony, the "oneness" of all that is.
Personally I tend to think that pantheism is just a variation on atheism that leaves room for those who are more spiritually inclined. There is not that much difference between saying 'god is everything' and 'god is nothing'. But I suppose that Khaelo will disagree with me here ...
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 07, 2004 08:48 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 7 Feb 2004
|
I'm a polytheist, not a pantheist. "Hard" pantheism is pretty similar to atheism-with-spirituality, IMO, but most pantheists I've seen are soft. That is, they believe more along the lines of "God is everything beautiful and natural and kewl" rather than "God is everything, period." To my way of thinking, that all-good pantheistic god makes as little sense as the omnipotent all-good monotheistic god. But that's beside the point.
The proof of divinity that actually convinces people tends far and away to be personal experience. Without that touch, there's no reason to believe and many reasons not to. The gods can take care of themselves; it is not for us humans to pester our fellows trying to prove divine existance.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2004 08:48 AM |
|
|
Aaaa ... yes, the other p-theism .
Yes Khaelo, personal experience as a reason for belief makes sense to me (although you can probably guess that I tend to a more skeptical interpretation).
The problem IMO begins when the concept of revelation comes into play: Belief based on another personīs experience. That person may 1) err or 2) lie, may have been 3) tricked/deceived, or may really have had 4) contact with a divine being.
From our everyday experience, we know that 1-3 happens regularly, which makes it a much more likely explanation. And if we already had experience with 4 ... then what do we need someone elseīs revelation for ?
____________
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted February 18, 2004 04:54 AM |
|
|
consistency game
Has the Battleground God game been posted here before? I can't recall seeing it on HC. It's supposed to determine how consistently one applies belief. The questions are worded in tricky ways, and some of the criteria are arguable (IMHO), but it does make you think.
Game
I got 0 hits and bit one bullet.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted February 18, 2004 05:13 AM |
|
|
Same here ... question 15 got me biting .
____________
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted February 18, 2004 05:33 AM |
|
|
As the first person (I believe) to answer true to the first question, I took 1 hit and bit the bullet three times. But I have a slight qualm about this test. It seems to depict God's will and his plan as concrete and easily definable things and tried to compare human interpretations of both with the right to interpret them based on a lack of evidence.
I was hit when I said the man was not justified in raping and killing prostitutes when I had said earlier that a strong inner conviction surpassed external, concrete evidence in determining whether or not God (or any god) exists. The test's justification for allowing me to be hit was that I had said strong inner convictions were more important than external evidence yet did not deem his convictions, which he claimed came from God, were justifiable without any evidence to back up the claims that he was actually working on orders from the man upstairs. The contradiction hinges on whether or not I believed the Bible could be counted as external evidence. My answer to that question was "no," because the evidential support it provides is curcumstantial, depending on whether or not you believe all of it to be true or not. While it did make me think, I do not view this test as entirely accurate because it fails to take into account some of the more abstract views that Christianity is based upon. That is, of course, only one's man opinion, so feel free to let me know what any of you think.
____________
>_>
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted February 19, 2004 02:31 PM |
|
|
I bit one bullet.
I said that I don't find it rational to beleive in God if proofs don't exist. And later said that I beleive in the theory of evolution.
They concluded that I beleive in the theory of evolution without firm proofs (!!!), and I think it's irrational to beleive in God without proofs. According to them, that contradicts me.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
|
posted February 20, 2004 08:12 PM |
|
|
OK, lets consider this a moment. If there is no God, then there is no right and wrong. Athiests cannot have a right and wrong. Why? If you call something wrong, then what are you comparing it to? In order for there to be a wrong, there must be something that is not wrong, and thus right. What is right? You have no standard, so what you are saying is that it does not conform to your particular whims. Who cares if you do not like something? If you do not like headaches, or putting your kids to bed, does that mean that those things are evil? Athiests thus cannot have a right and wrong! Odd, isn't it?
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
| |
|
|
