Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gaylene Wetzel on March 15, 2011 at 6:37pm

I haven't read all the posts yet, so sorry if I'm reapeating what someone else said.  My view is that since you can't prove a negative, we are unable to prove that god doesn't exist.  That said, I think it highly unlikely that there is a god, especially not one that fits the current thinking of any particular religion.  I'd like to see us de-evolve the desire/urge/need for a supreme being.  More science and comparative religion early, and all the way through school please!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kara Smith on March 15, 2011 at 6:41pm

I agree. I didn't learn much science growing up, but I was fortunate enough to go to a Waldorf-style school where we learned about a huge number of polytheistic myths. I think that one needs to hear them all in order to have a well-balanced perspective on the myths of the current era.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will-I Am S. on March 15, 2011 at 6:58pm

I disagree, it depends on what GOD you are talking about. The GOD I addressed can not exist. And regardless, the concept of GOD is pure opinion should some entity actually exist anyways. I don't consider Cows GODS, or even Divine while some might. Burgers with ketchup in my view is no different than a GOD that can't do shit without existence, or information, much less exist at all.

In a world of opinions, an opinion is only relevant to those whom share, or have the opinion. Otherwise they are entirely irrelevant when it comes to a subject such as this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 15, 2011 at 7:08pm

Why do you assert that a negative cannot be proven? This old myth gets hauled out and makes the rounds as some sort of given, but it simply isn't true. You will often even find people who should no better harping this tired tune... people like James Randi and Richard Dawkins. Some even think it is a law of logic. However, name one single professional logician who believes this. You will not find one because it simply isn't so. One can prove a negative as simply as proving a positive.

Example: There are no live elephants in your ear.

I should think you can prove this either way in short order.

Proving that God doesn't exist is only a little more complex. You see, we have a coherent definition of "live elephant." When I write those letters, you know what I mean. But when you write the letters "GOD," I don't have any idea what you mean. It is just a mystical grunt rather than a word. So, in my effort to prove that God does not exist, I need not do any heavy lifting at all until you can provide a coherent definition for God.

Once that is done, disproving it is child's play.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gaylene Wetzel on March 15, 2011 at 7:21pm

Well, if you want to add things to 'there is no god', that's a whole different argument.  There is no god in my life/mind/heart/left ear is not the same as 'there is no god'.  And, perhaps I should take a philosophy class or two...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 15, 2011 at 7:28pm

While most of us atheists have said "there is no god," the assertion is meaningless and requires no proof unless and until one defines "god."

Otherwise, you are simply saying, "there is no 'jittlebogger.'" Until I know what the hell a "jittlebogger" is, I have no work to do. The same with this "God" of which you speak.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kara Smith on March 15, 2011 at 7:21pm

One can certainly prove a negative; proving a universal negative is much more difficult and in some cases impossible. It's easy to show there is no cat in this box; impossible under normal circumstances to demonstrate that there are no cats in any boxes, ever, or ever will be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 15, 2011 at 7:48pm

I've seen cats in boxes, so would not actually take that position. However, even so-called universal negatives can often be disproven, sometimes with logic and semantics alone.
The idea that universal negatives cannot be proven is based on the lack of time and manpower to comb the infinite void. Those wishing to illustrate this point often position their argument in a distant, unreachable place in deep space where the hope is, since you cannot journey there and survey the area, you cannot offer observable evidence. This is seldom necessary.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will-I Am S. on March 15, 2011 at 7:55pm

I can prove non-existence doesn't exist literally and universally. It's because the definition states that itself can not exist. And thus I can prove a negative. It's no different than proving one cat to be impossible to be in a Box if the cat could never fit in the box. However, this doesn't mean there aren't higher beings that some fool might choose to bow to and worship as a god. :P

 

Under the definition of the Christian GOD or even Allah the cat could never fit in the box because the definition would be arguing that the Cat is the box, and is anything and everything in the box. :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 15, 2011 at 8:09pm

"Higher beings" and "a higher power." These are coherent words. I think anyone who has ever had a boss, a parent, or been pulled over for speeding will acknowledge a belief in a higher power.

And we can easily imagine that there might be a planet somewhere in the universe inhabited by intelligent beings who are technologically and biologically so advanced in comparison to us that they would certainly be higher beings.

It is even possible to fathom that they seeded a barren earth with life and gave us our origin... and that they may return and deem us a failure and destroy us. Would this make them deities any more than one of us would claim to be a deity to a bowl of sea monkeys?

Again... it is up to the asserter of said deity to coherently define "God."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Will-I Am S. on March 15, 2011 at 9:07pm

They have defined it, but most Christians seem to have no freaking clue that it had been. It's why I pointed to Chapter 14 in the Fount Of Knowledge, as posted a few posts above. Sure it's a bit ambiguous, but it's their definition none-the-less.

 

Abstract 1:
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

It's pretty much the Cat is not just in the box, it's the box entirely. They made this description because they know that arguing these attributes separately (cherry picking), they could circumvent logic and reason.. Never will you see a theist (a smart one anyways), attempt to use all these together and actually attempt to address them together... It's also why they like to stick to just using "omnipotence", and "omniscience" while sweeping the rest under the carpet. It's so easy to prey on peoples vulnerabilities this way, or play a GOD of the Gaps mind game...

 

But when you slap them all together and then apply information theory to them, they all collapse entirely.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vince Watkins on March 16, 2011 at 3:39am

Will, that wasn't a definition. It was a run-on stream of bullshit.

Tacking together every word you connote as having to do with the subject and then calling it an abstract doesn't make it so and certainly doesn't make it the secretly agreed upon definition of every theist out there.

This is not what information theory is about.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 55
• 56
• 57
• 58
• 59
• …
• 155
• Next ›
• Page