This I Believe There is / is not a God

Freebase Dali · 07-25-2009, 08:50 PM

Anyone who "knows" based on anything other than proof, is delusional.

boo boo · 07-25-2009, 09:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Anyone who "knows" based on anything other than proof, is delusional.

I don't claim to know anything, I just know what I believe.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that's not the same thing.

Freebase Dali · 07-25-2009, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I don't claim to know anything, I just know what I believe.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that's not the same thing.

I wasn't referring to you, but you're absolutely right.
Believing has absolutely nothing to do with knowing.

right-track · 07-26-2009, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Anyone who "knows" based on anything other than proof, is delusional.

Best post in this thread. ^

The onus isn't on disproving the existance of God but, on discovering what is the truth.
There is no reason to believe in anything of which there is no evidence.

cardboard adolescent · 07-26-2009, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I don't claim to know anything, I just know what I believe.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that's not the same thing.

so you don't claim to know something but you do claim to know something? no, it's not the same thing, it's a flat-out contradiction.

still, i essentially see what you're saying. as kierkegaard put it, there is no room for faith without doubt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

Best post in this thread. ^

The onus isn't on disproving the existance of God but, on discovering what is the truth.
There is no reason to believe in anything of which there is no evidence.

what sort of evidence do you expect God to leave behind? it's like you're looking for God's signature in the world, when the world is God's signature. as Leibniz put it: "why is there something rather than nothing?" why do things want to exist? is it really that subjectivity is a phenomena of objects (what does that even mean?) or is it rather that objects (the very idea of an object) is a phenomena of subjectivity? everyone seems to start from what they don't know (ie, what they've been taught--science) rather from what they do know... emotions, interpersonal relationships, desire--for meaning, companionship, reward for overcoming urges that set us against others... why isn't all that evidence? basically what people seem to be looking for when they demand evidence of god's existence is a miracle, that is, they expect God to undo the logic of his own creation. why would he do that? because you want him to? the entire atheistic attitude towards God is entirely backwards, which is why they have a hard time understanding Christian arguments.

here's my suggestion, stop paying attention to fundamentalists, start reading Kierkegaard or Pascal.

even Schopenhauer, just to get over the stifling spirit of positivism. if the only connections you look for in life are factual connections, you won't get very far. in fact, nobody does this. everyone assumes, extrapolates, uses analogies and metaphors to understand things in general, in abstract.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

They usually do it via counter-logic.

The funny thing is that everyone is sitting there arguing the logic of the existence of god, when the logic used is specifically bound in the constraints of our known universe.
Since no one knows for sure what exists outside our universe, it's kind of hard to assume that the rules of logic that exist, in this universe, apply to anything outside it.
After all, logic is based on observation of fact. You can't make a logical argument based on an unknown factor.

What that means is that no one knows. So there's really no point in arguing it. That's why "faith" has such a large following... it's the only alternative for most.

it goes beyond that, it's not just that logic can only express our universe, logic in fact can only express itself. that is, logic can only express tautologies and the general logical form of the tautology, which is to say that logic can't really express anything. it's just a game with symbols and rules that define how the symbols interact--when you derive propositions from axioms you don't gain information, you only unfold the information in the axioms.

to wittgenstein!

6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no value exists--and if it did exist, it would have no value.
If there is any value that does have value, it must lie outside the whole sphere of what happens and is the case. For all that happens and is the case is accidental.
What makes it non-accidental cannot lie within the world, since if it did it would itself be accidental.
It must lie outside the world.

by this, to deny God is to deny sense and meaning, which as I have already pointed out are subjective phenomena which compose the immediacy of our experience, rather than the mediated 'information' about the world we get through them.

boo boo · 07-26-2009, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

so you don't claim to know something but you do claim to know something? no, it's not the same thing, it's a flat-out contradiction.

still, i essentially see what you're saying. as kierkegaard put it, there is no room for faith without doubt.

what sort of evidence do you expect God to leave behind? it's like you're looking for God's signature in the world, when the world is God's signature. as Leibniz put it: "why is there something rather than nothing?" why do things want to exist? is it really that subjectivity is a phenomena of objects (what does that even mean?) or is it rather that objects (the very idea of an object) is a phenomena of subjectivity? everyone seems to start from what they don't know (ie, what they've been taught--science) rather from what they do know... emotions, interpersonal relationships, desire--for meaning, companionship, reward for overcoming urges that set us against others... why isn't all that evidence? basically what people seem to be looking for when they demand evidence of god's existence is a miracle, that is, they expect God to undo the logic of his own creation. why would he do that? because you want him to? the entire atheistic attitude towards God is entirely backwards, which is why they have a hard time understanding Christian arguments.

here's my suggestion, stop paying attention to fundamentalists, start reading Kierkegaard or Pascal.

even Schopenhauer, just to get over the stifling spirit of positivism. if the only connections you look for in life are factual connections, you won't get very far. in fact, nobody does this. everyone assumes, extrapolates, uses analogies and metaphors to understand things in general, in abstract.

I'm aware that it's a contradiction.

But I'm inclined to believe there is a god and that's not something I can do anything about.

However I don't claim there to be any factual evidence for his existance. I guess you could call it faith, even though I'm not a spiritual person by any means.

right-track · 07-26-2009, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

what sort of evidence do you expect God to leave behind?

Non because he/she/it doesn't exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

it's like you're looking for God's signature in the world, when the world is God's signature. as Leibniz put it: "why is there something rather than nothing?" why do things want to exist? is it really that subjectivity is a phenomena of objects (what does that even mean?) or is it rather that objects (the very idea of an object) is a phenomena of subjectivity? everyone seems to start from what they don't know (ie, what they've been taught--science) rather from what they do know... emotions, interpersonal relationships, desire--for meaning, companionship, reward for overcoming urges that set us against others... why isn't all that evidence? basically what people seem to be looking for when they demand evidence of god's existence is a miracle, that is, they expect God to undo the logic of his own creation. why would he do that? because you want him to? the entire atheistic attitude towards God is entirely backwards, which is why they have a hard time understanding Christian arguments.

Who's looking for God's signature? Certainly not me.
Is there any evidence of God's signature? Certainly not, unless you can provide me with hard evidence of course.
And don't quote Leibniz because "why is there something rather than nothing?" is a question and not an answer. What kind of evidence is that other than an opinion.
Most people start out in life not with what they are taught but what they are told as children. This isn't learning btw. And for the most part children believe what they are told.
I was told Santa Claus was real, until it became obvious that he didn't exist.

"everyone seems to start from what they don't know (ie, what they've been taught--science) rather from what they do know... emotions, interpersonal relationships, desire--for meaning, companionship, reward for overcoming urges that set us against others... why isn't all that evidence?"

Is it possible these things you speak of are able to exist without God?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

here's my suggestion, stop paying attention to fundamentalists, start reading Kierkegaard or Pascal.

1. I don't.
2. Why should I? Do they provide hard evidence of God's existence? If not, I won't waste my time.

My opinions on the non existence/existence of God are based on complete lack of evidence. This doesn't make me any less spiritual than a christian, or any other deluded religious individual.
I consider myself spiritual when I listen to music, read poetry, wonder at the beauty of the universe, but I don't put these things down to a divine influence. I have no reason to.
There are lots of things in this world we can't disprove. What matters in life is what is true. God nor the universe care what I think. If there was no God would I be bereft of my emotions, my love of music, my sense of compassion with all things sentient?

streetwaves · 07-26-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

what sort of evidence do you expect God to leave behind? it's like you're looking for God's signature in the world, when the world is God's signature.

a sort of cop-out i think, considering the existence of everything does not necessitate the conclusion of a god existing. to combat this, a scientist may argue that the universe looks exactly as it would without a god.

Quote:

as Leibniz put it: "why is there something rather than nothing?"

a question we've all at one point wondered, but not a warranted one in my opinion. the idea of nothing existing is entirely human imagination at work. from our perspective, it would seem that things are coming into and going out of existence everyday. because of this we can imagine nothing existing, but based on a flawed premise. i've argued this way before, but while we see what appears to be things going in and out of existence, nothing truly has. if only we had a firmer grasp of this reality, questions like the one from liebniz or questions of "creation" would look increasingly more absurd in my opinion. by the way, isn't the existence of nothing a self-refuting idea? it seems to me that it is.

Quote:

why do things want to exist? is it really that subjectivity is a phenomena of objects (what does that even mean?) or is it rather that objects (the very idea of an object) is a phenomena of subjectivity? everyone seems to start from what they don't know (ie, what they've been taught--science) rather from what they do know... emotions, interpersonal relationships, desire--for meaning, companionship, reward for overcoming urges that set us against others... why isn't all that evidence? basically what people seem to be looking for when they demand evidence of god's existence is a miracle, that is, they expect God to undo the logic of his own creation. why would he do that? because you want him to? the entire atheistic attitude towards God is entirely backwards, which is why they have a hard time understanding Christian arguments.

not sure how you come to the conclusion that "emotions, interpersonal relationships, desire--for meaning, companionship, reward for overcoming urges that set us against others" can only exist with god. it seems to me you're merely begging the question.

boo boo · 07-26-2009, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

Best post in this thread. ^

The onus isn't on disproving the existance of God but, on discovering what is the truth.
There is no reason to believe in anything of which there is no evidence.

Yeah, but there is no evidence that god doesn't exist.

So I guess that means the only logical thing to believe in is "I dunno".

cardboard adolescent · 07-25-2009, 11:23 PM

so you can know something without believing it?

as for proof, there always has to be some unprovable element that the proof derives its validity from, doesn't there?

07-25-2009, 08:50 PM	#1 (permalink)
Freebase Dali Partying on the inside Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,584	Anyone who "knows" based on anything other than proof, is delusional. __________________

07-25-2009, 11:23 PM	#10 (permalink)
cardboard adolescent ;) Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: CA Posts: 3,511	so you can know something without believing it? as for proof, there always has to be some unprovable element that the proof derives its validity from, doesn't there?