[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.
Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?
If so, try proving it.
Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.
Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.
The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.
Damn good post katzenjammer!
Also, that is why science starts with a theory and then it stands as fact unless disproved. NOTHING is even proven, only disproved.
So we are all running around feeling comfortable that we (man) know it all, when in fact, we are basing this on a bunch of ideas (theories) that to date have not been disproved. Nothing has ever been proven!
So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?
[/quote]
I’m saying that we don’t have any tools to test the existence of God in a scientific manner. That doesn’t mean there is not a God.
I was pointing out that science never proves anything that we take for granted. Science only has theories that, to date, have not been disproved.
This is not my rule. I was just pointing out how modern science operates. Not that I agree with it.
No, there is something different in that space compared to other space. So we have a theory that we call a vacuum. We test this theory the best we can and to date we have not be able to disprove the theory that it is a vacuum.
On a related topic, my beef with science is that when their long held theories are proved to be inconsistent with current test results they rarely go back and dump the original hypothesis for a new one. They continue with their current assumption and modify the theory based on that assumption. This is the human bias factor in science which keeps it fairly closed minded IMO.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!
So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?
Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?
[/quote]
[quote]bluefloyd wrote:
Food for thought, is it possible to believe in a convential god and not (a) be religious and/or (b) believe in religion. Remeber the convential god comes from religion.[/quote]
God can only be defined in terms of the human experience and as such will then always fall into the religion category. However, science is the same way. We can only test things that fall into the human experience and explain them in those same terms.
So at a fundamental level, both science and religion attempt to explain the world in terms of the human experience, they just use different approaches. And IMO, both are biased.
However, I am quite capable of knowing bullshit when I read it. And it is quite clear to me that you, sir, are a bullshit artist playing at being an intellectual. [/quote]
What was the first clue, could it have been the “differentiate the difference” part?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
pat wrote:
Questioning causality as we know it is not a bad thing.
I have no problem with questioning causality, but it is, as Aristotle might say, “at home in a different type of philosophical inquiry.”
If we deny causality, then we deny any underlying reality to experience. As such, philosophical inquiry would have to end. I see it as intellectually cheap, the same as solipsism. The position cannot be refuted, but it avoids dealing with the world as it presents itself to us.[/quote]
I tend to agree but that is no longer true when causality becomes an argument for the existence of god.
There are several problems with that and the nature of causality is one of them.
The argument is basically this:
God exists because we see the world as we must.
If there is a cheap argument in there, this is it, pointing that out is not a cheap argument.
[quote]orion wrote:
I tend to agree but that is no longer true when causality becomes an argument for the existence of god.
[/quote]
It depends on how that argument is meant. If the argument is that because there is causality (order) there must be some being to have put things into order, then I agree, that is a very flawed argument. There is order simultaneous with our existence because order is a prerequisite for our kind of being.
If the argument is Aristotelian in nature, which is to say that every effect has a cause, and as such there must be a first cause which is not caused, I argue that this fits within our experience and is reasonable. But then, Aristotle does not create a religion out of the first cause.
[quote]
If there is a cheap argument in there, this is it, pointing that out is not a cheap argument.[/quote]
If you are saying that causality is not necessary, I agree.
(1) The world is perfect, because it exists. Since existence is superior to non-existence, all alternative worlds do not exist. Axiom: Existence is superior to non-existence.
(2) If the world is perfect, then it must contain a benevolent all-encompassing intelligence. A world of random chance is imperfect and does not exist.
Therefore, since existence is perfect and perfection implies a perfect being in charge of the whole thing, we call this being God and God must exist. A world without God would be imperfect and cannot exist. (Modus Tollens?)
[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.
I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.
People were able to measure time before clocks existed. As far as I know clocks don’t make the sun come up or go down, cause babies to age into adults, or cause rust to grow on iron. Time is not an illusion as you suggest. The question is, is a clock measures time, what is it measuring.
What is transparent about “it”?
I did not say time was an illusion- I kind of said time is a category we think in.
That is not the same.
Hell, that makes even less sense, please explain…
It goes back to Kant.
Obviously we experience things. In order to experience thing we must have categories to experience things.
Those categories must have been in you before you could experience anything, because you could not possibly learn them from experience.
That also means though that you cannot experience anything if your categories of experience do not allow for it.
An analogy would be:
You can see the color red because you have eyes that can.
You cannot learn to see the color red from experience , your red perception mechanism must have been there all along.
A priori, if you will.
That means in turn that you never see colors as the “really” are, but only in the way your eyes lets you see them.
Now imagine an animal that sees in a different spectrum, or sees with its ears, like bats.
Their experience of reality must necessarily differ from yours.
It is the same way with the Kantian categories, you have a concept of causality and time and space built in. This enables you to experience reality in these categories, but only in these categories.
The reason why you experience causality or time is because you must, just like you cannot see not red when something is red. But, just like the color red is really just an interpretation of your brain of what is happening, so are causality and time.
The only difference is that you cannot not think in terms of these categories.
So, in conclusion, those things are not so much an illusion but pre-wired concepts that at least work good enough for us go survive. But while these concepts make experience possible, they also limit it your potential experiences.[/quote]
I would argue that while preconceptions and our ability to interperate the world around us may color what we understand, it is a separate thing from what actually is…And in rare cases, it may even be possible that we perceive things accurately.
My stance on time is that “it” isn’t an actual thing, it a measure of movement and change. The measurement can be arbitrary. So your contention that “time” is a man made thing is at least partially correct. We developed a consistent system by which to measure movement and change. The measurement system is man made, the fact that things move and change is not, but both are necessary for “time” to work.
[quote]orion wrote:
nephorm wrote:
pat wrote:
Questioning causality as we know it is not a bad thing.
I have no problem with questioning causality, but it is, as Aristotle might say, “at home in a different type of philosophical inquiry.”
If we deny causality, then we deny any underlying reality to experience. As such, philosophical inquiry would have to end. I see it as intellectually cheap, the same as solipsism. The position cannot be refuted, but it avoids dealing with the world as it presents itself to us.
I tend to agree but that is no longer true when causality becomes an argument for the existence of god.
There are several problems with that and the nature of causality is one of them.
The argument is basically this:
God exists because we see the world as we must.
If there is a cheap argument in there, this is it, pointing that out is not a cheap argument.[/quote]
That is your argument. It is also not a counter argument to the cosmological argument. It is something else all together, a red herring.
The using causality as a argument for the existence of God as survived 2 millennia unrefuted. While it cannot fully prove the existence of God, it cannot be, or has not been refuted.
What information are you privy to that would at long last put the cosmological argument to bed once and for all? Why is it false? You have only stated that you don’t believe it, but why is it false?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
pat wrote:
Questioning causality as we know it is not a bad thing.
I have no problem with questioning causality, but it is, as Aristotle might say, “at home in a different type of philosophical inquiry.”
If we deny causality, then we deny any underlying reality to experience. As such, philosophical inquiry would have to end. I see it as intellectually cheap, the same as solipsism. The position cannot be refuted, but it avoids dealing with the world as it presents itself to us.[/quote]
Which is another problem with it. Again, if we are going to say causality does not exist, we might as well break it down to nothing exists. You’d have a hell of a time proving otherwise, but we wouldn’t get anywhere either.
(1) The world is perfect, because it exists. Since existence is superior to non-existence, all alternative worlds do not exist. Axiom: Existence is superior to non-existence.
[/quote]
This is not a rational argument as you cannot define non-existent in terms of the human experience without being able to measure what non-existence is in terms of the human experience. So I have to disagree with you in that we have no basis to evaluate the relative perfection of the world.
[quote]
(2) If the world is perfect, then it must contain a benevolent all-encompassing intelligence. A world of random chance is imperfect and does not exist.
Therefore, since existence is perfect and perfection implies a perfect being in charge of the whole thing, we call this being God and God must exist. A world without God would be imperfect and cannot exist. (Modus Tollens?)[/quote]
Now this I have to agree with. Clearly from the smallest particle to the vast universe, as we know it, there is order. And in the human experience order comes about through conscience and deliberate action. So based on our current understanding of what we can test, order must come about by some action. That would imply that some force, entity or outside influence must have been involved in creation of our current universe and world. So from a system perspective, it is reasonable to believe that God exists.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Now this I have to agree with. Clearly from the smallest particle to the vast universe, as we know it, there is order. And in the human experience order comes about through conscience and deliberate action. So based on our current understanding of what we can test, order must come about by some action. That would imply that some force, entity or outside influence must have been involved in creation of our current universe and world. So from a system perspective, it is reasonable to believe that God exists.
[/quote]
There may be order simply because there would have to be order for observing beings to exist. If order is a necessary precondition of our existence, then order is not, itself, proof of any higher being.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Its really quite simple:
(1) The world is perfect, because it exists. Since existence is superior to non-existence, all alternative worlds do not exist. Axiom: Existence is superior to non-existence.
This is not a rational argument as you cannot define non-existent in terms of the human experience without being able to measure what non-existence is in terms of the human experience. So I have to disagree with you in that we have no basis to evaluate the relative perfection of the world.
(2) If the world is perfect, then it must contain a benevolent all-encompassing intelligence. A world of random chance is imperfect and does not exist.
Therefore, since existence is perfect and perfection implies a perfect being in charge of the whole thing, we call this being God and God must exist. A world without God would be imperfect and cannot exist. (Modus Tollens?)
Now this I have to agree with. Clearly from the smallest particle to the vast universe, as we know it, there is order. And in the human experience order comes about through conscience and deliberate action. So based on our current understanding of what we can test, order must come about by some action. That would imply that some force, entity or outside influence must have been involved in creation of our current universe and world. So from a system perspective, it is reasonable to believe that God exists.
[/quote]
The problem is with this argument is it is missing premises. Because order exists, somthing had to put it into order, blank, blank, blank, therefore God exists.
The linearity of the argument is clean and starts out well, filling in the gaps is the problem, there is a large chunk of info missing between an ordered universe and God exists. It has the makings of a good argument, it just needs to be honed.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Now this I have to agree with. Clearly from the smallest particle to the vast universe, as we know it, there is order. And in the human experience order comes about through conscience and deliberate action. So based on our current understanding of what we can test, order must come about by some action. That would imply that some force, entity or outside influence must have been involved in creation of our current universe and world. So from a system perspective, it is reasonable to believe that God exists.
There may be order simply because there would have to be order for observing beings to exist. If order is a necessary precondition of our existence, then order is not, itself, proof of any higher being.[/quote]
On what basis do you say that beings cannot exist in an environment without order? That is also an assumption that cannot be tested. As such, it is just as valid to state that order has been applied externally.
I’m sure you are also aware that Chaos Theory believers feel that everything is random, which in my assessment is not mathematically feasible due to the very delicate balance required to maintain life and the amount of time that this balance has “randomly” been maintained.
I would argue that while preconceptions and our ability to interperate the world around us may color what we understand, it is a separate thing from what actually is…And in rare cases, it may even be possible that we perceive things accurately.
[/quote]
It is not so much a matter of interpretation. The red analogy only goes so far.
It is a matter of the very mental apparatus which make you experience things.
The difference is that you can change an interpretation but you cannot not think in those categories. Those categories do not color what we experience they basically determine how we see the world and that we see it at all.
The hard part is that you literally cannot think without these concepts, which make it hard to think a world without it.
[quote]
My stance on time is that “it” isn’t an actual thing, it a measure of movement and change. The measurement can be arbitrary. So your contention that “time” is a man made thing is at least partially correct. We developed a consistent system by which to measure movement and change. The measurement system is man made, the fact that things move and change is not, but both are necessary for “time” to work. [/quote]
I never said that time was a human invention. I said that the idea of time is built in in every human being and a necessary prerequisite for our ability to experience things.
[quote]pat wrote:
orion wrote:
nephorm wrote:
pat wrote:
Questioning causality as we know it is not a bad thing.
I have no problem with questioning causality, but it is, as Aristotle might say, “at home in a different type of philosophical inquiry.”
If we deny causality, then we deny any underlying reality to experience. As such, philosophical inquiry would have to end. I see it as intellectually cheap, the same as solipsism. The position cannot be refuted, but it avoids dealing with the world as it presents itself to us.
I tend to agree but that is no longer true when causality becomes an argument for the existence of god.
There are several problems with that and the nature of causality is one of them.
The argument is basically this:
God exists because we see the world as we must.
If there is a cheap argument in there, this is it, pointing that out is not a cheap argument.
That is your argument. It is also not a counter argument to the cosmological argument. It is something else all together, a red herring.
The using causality as a argument for the existence of God as survived 2 millennia unrefuted. While it cannot fully prove the existence of God, it cannot be, or has not been refuted.
What information are you privy to that would at long last put the cosmological argument to bed once and for all? Why is it false? You have only stated that you don’t believe it, but why is it false?[/quote]
OK.
A prime mover must not be God-
argument refuted.
or
before there was a universe there was no time, hence no before, hence no cause and effect, hence no prime mover.
[quote]orion wrote:
pat wrote:
orion wrote:
nephorm wrote:
pat wrote:
Questioning causality as we know it is not a bad thing.
I have no problem with questioning causality, but it is, as Aristotle might say, “at home in a different type of philosophical inquiry.”
If we deny causality, then we deny any underlying reality to experience. As such, philosophical inquiry would have to end. I see it as intellectually cheap, the same as solipsism. The position cannot be refuted, but it avoids dealing with the world as it presents itself to us.
I tend to agree but that is no longer true when causality becomes an argument for the existence of god.
There are several problems with that and the nature of causality is one of them.
The argument is basically this:
God exists because we see the world as we must.
If there is a cheap argument in there, this is it, pointing that out is not a cheap argument.
That is your argument. It is also not a counter argument to the cosmological argument. It is something else all together, a red herring.
The using causality as a argument for the existence of God as survived 2 millennia unrefuted. While it cannot fully prove the existence of God, it cannot be, or has not been refuted.
What information are you privy to that would at long last put the cosmological argument to bed once and for all? Why is it false? You have only stated that you don’t believe it, but why is it false?
OK.
A prime mover must not be God-
argument refuted.
or
before there was a universe there was no time, hence no before, hence no cause and effect, hence no prime mover.
[/quote]
The counter arguments to the counter arguments, refute the counter arguments.
From your very link:
[i]"1. The cosmological argument as held by Aristotle, Aquinas, Maimonides and Averroes does not involve time. C. Stephen Evans argues that “This objection applies only to temporal versions of the argument…The thrust of the argument is that the present existence of contingent objects requires that there be a necessary being.”[14] Their arguments concern immediate causation, as for example the will moving the hand moving the stick. The argument based on the assumptions of modern physics given above, on the other hand, involves serious problems. For example, if the motion of the stick is caused merely by a chain of locomotive acts emanating through time from the Big Bang, free will in man is destroyed.
The cosmological argument is posited on the assumption that everything in the experience of our twenty-one physical senses is natural and that everything natural is caused, contingent and dependent �?? subject to cause by the uncaused cause.
That includes time. Time is understood as “natural” in substance, while the uncaused cause is not natural and therefore not operable in time. i.e.: Aristotle, who first formulated the argument, believed the natural, caused universe was infinite, without beginning. Aquinas, who re-formulated the argument as a proof for monotheism, understood the Divine as outside of time, viewing all of time, indeed being present in all of time, simultaneously like a vast simulacrum
Gottfried Leibniz
Gottfried Leibniz argued that “there [is] something rather than nothing” because there is a being that is necessary for all else to exist.
Gottfried Leibniz argued that “there [is] something rather than nothing” because there is a being that is necessary for all else to exist.
Gottfried Leibniz stated the problem in his conclusion, although his terminology included some assumptions. If his principle of sufficient reason is indeed universally applicable, then the First Thing must either (1) be its own cause or (2) have a non-causal explanation. The non-causal explanation would either (a) make the First Thing’s existence be in some way self-explanatory or (b) make it follow in an explanatory way from self-explanatory truths, such as the truths of logic.
All three options have had defenders. Thus, option (1), the causa sui option, is defended by Descartes. Option (2a) is held by some of those like Aquinas who think that God’s essence is identical with God’s existence, or by those who hold, more weakly, that God’s existence follows from his essence. Option (2b) essentially holds that there is a sound ontological argument for the existence of God, although we may not have discovered it yet. It follows from the principle of sufficient reason that one of the three options holds, but a defender of the Principle does not need to give an independent proof of any one of these options. It is, after all, the conclusion of the argument that one of these holds. In fact, this conclusion might be the starting point for responding to the problem of identifying the First Thing with God �?? that is how it is in Aquinas, for instance. Thus, if one could show the premises of the cosmological argument to be true and show that options (1) and (2a) were not tenable, then the cosmological argument would turn into an argument for the existence of an ontological argument. We would then know that there is a sound ontological argument, even if we did not know what it is.[/i]"
Second, as explained earlier in the tread, simultaneous causation does exist and is not time, nor space contingent. Hence causation can exist independent of time and space. The argument from contingency deals with that.
Third, you cannot prove that prior to the universe’s existence there was no time. In addition, if, prior to the universe’s existence there was nothing, what caused the universe, (and time) to exist?
Hence not refuted.
The only stalemate the two sides can agree on, is a stalemate is that the “prime-mover” is God. Though a seemingly reasonable leap, it is still a leap. For now.
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
pat wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Give me an example of what i may believe in that i can’t prove.
Good grief, where to start? Try this one: do you believe that time exists?
If so, try proving it.
Much of the “realities” we take for granted to be true (that, say, time not only exists, but moves in a “forward” direction) are, it turns out, far more mysterious than they appear.
Indeed, the “certainties” that we cling to in our own lives, not to mention many aspects of the universe itself, are majestically opaque, intrinsically unprovable, and (perhaps) ultimately unknowable.
The point is this: to say that religion is a bunch of “hooey” because it depends upon unprovable conjectures is a fallacious argument.
Time is nothing but a million different clock faces all over the world. A collection of cogs and springs or electronic parts.Time helps us get to work on time or watch our favorite TV program.
Time has never been claimed as an entity. It is a tool.
I have never called it “hooey”, I have merely questioned its necessity…I want to understand why it has such a hold over people. How people can so deeply believe in something so transparent…That is my view only, I speak for no one else.
People were able to measure time before clocks existed. As far as I know clocks don’t make the sun come up or go down, cause babies to age into adults, or cause rust to grow on iron. Time is not an illusion as you suggest. The question is, is a clock measures time, what is it measuring.
What is transparent about “it”?
The clock face comment was a generality i used as an example.
It is a tool. nothing more. Rust is a chemical reaction. The earth revolves on it own axis as well as around the sun. This was “Measured” by the Inca. Babies into adults complicated chemistry that eventually burns out or malfunctions.
Surely cannot claim that “time” as we know has any influence over anything other than as a measurement.
If so tell me how…I am intrigued… [/quote]
Measurements don’t change anything, the analyze things. Time is a measurement of movement and change. If nothing moved and nothing changed, then “time” as we know it would cease because there would be nothing to measure. Of course, you could never experience this as you as well would be frozen in space.
Religion doesn’t go around trying to “Better” itself, it stays a constant throughout and therefore unfortunately it becomes dated.
It is something that is being taken as “Gospel” so to speak, even though it has never been, for lack of a better word, proven.
You still haven’t answered my question yet: do you believe in things that cannot be, “for lack of a better word, proven?”
You don’t want to answer this - and it’s pretty obvious why.
Can you see the pointlessness of this sort of attitude?
Yes, I absolutely see the pointlessness of this attitude.
that is a question that has no answer that will ever be acceptable to people with beliefs like yourself.
If i say yes, then it will be thrown at me as to “why can you not then believe there is a god”
If i say no, i am a hypocrite, because i have said that i believe we will always have an ever changing view of how and why the world we live in is what it is.
people with beliefs as strong as i feel yours are, will always find it hard to understand how or why others cannot see what to you is so obvious…but to me it is obvious only in a different way…
So my answer to your question is…I have no answer. I dont need one.[/quote]
You need one if your are going to refute arguments. Answering by not answering is really a way of avoiding the truth.
Based on what I have read from you, your arguments for atheism is pretty weak, you really need to rethink them and do much better. I have heard good arguments for atheism, but you haven’t presented any except, you feel absolved from needing one. That is a crock of shit, you took a stance on an issue, you need to be able to defend it, or not take a stand on it publicly.
And for the record, you do believe in things that cannot be proven; everyday. I bet you can’t even give me a decent argument that you exist, much less anything else.
[quote]pat wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Perfectcircle wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Nothing has ever been proven!
So are you basing this statement for or against religious belief of a “God”?
Neither. What is being said here is this: religion is not unique in proceeding upon unprovable axioms. You do so as a person. Science does so on a daily basis. And yet, for some reason it seems to drive you nuts that “RELIGION” does as well. Why?
I think you’re really reaching comparing the things science takes for granted and the things religion takes for granted. Science is based on empirical observation and repeatability. While it’s true no scientist can guarantee the laws of physics will still be true tomorrow, I don’t know of anyone that will step in front of a bus just in case they changed. Religion assumes that the things written in a 2000 year old book that contradicts itself (there are 2 creations stories that directly contradict each other in Genesis) are the key to higher knowledge, instead of the just strange things written in a very old book.
Religion is a means by which to communicate with God, not an “Old Book”. Science, as empirical as it is, is still fallible. Just see this sight. Read scientific articles from 1999 and now and see how much has changed, all of which was based empirically. So in science, you still end up taking things on faith. Like the experiment was conducted correctly with the proper controls, the experimenter knew what he was doing, etc. If you weren’t there and know it was conducted correctly you are acting on faith that it was. [/quote]
If you want to define religion as a way to communicate with god then you’d better have some really good proof that A) There is a god, and B) that’s he’s listening. Otherwise, you’re just playing make believe about sky fairies.
The fact that science continually revises itself is not a weakness, it is a strength. Besides, you’re completely missing the point. It’s a small leap of faith to say someone with a PhD conducted an experiment the way his research indicates. And it’s easy to go back if his results turn out to be incorrect. It is a huge huge huge (can’t stress this enough) leap of faith to assume there is a god. It’s an even larger leap to assume that he is your god, not the muslim god, or the flying spaghetti monster. Furthermore, there is no good reason to take those leaps.