That's like saying lightning was caused by Zeus for a while, then guys like Alessandro Volta and Benjamin Franklin put him out of a job.
How can God not exist?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
That's like saying lightning was caused by Zeus for a while, then guys like Alessandro Volta and Benjamin Franklin put him out of a job.
Exactly
Nothing wrong with saying that is there? Or rather... people believed lightning was caused by zeus. Not so much anymore. That's how religion evolves.
lol, well yeah
then again, we wouldn't know that till the two other guys come along.
we will also think the job truly belongs to the two blokes till some other person or thing put them out of the job too.
all human known facts are like that.
lol, well yeah
then again, we wouldn't know that till the two other guys come along.
we will also think the job truly belongs to the two blokes till some other person or thing put them out of the job too.
all human known facts are like that.
I agree 100%, I simply argue that this logical skepticism should be applied to any belief or claim made by humans, no one has the full final answer, and pure logic itself is insufficient to deduce anything (such as God, for example) unless you assume something at the start.
Sure. And?
And as I understand it, the original purpose of this thread was to try and beat the dead horse that is the "Cartesian proof of God". My purpose has been to argue that the human conception of God doesn't necessarily require any divinity in order to be conceived.
If the human conception of God wouldn't necessarily require any divinity in order to be conceived, then there would be no atheists.
Most people can and do conceive of God on the grounds of negating ordinary terms, but only some take to worship of God.
How do you reach such a conclusion? If humans are capable of postulating a being who goes beyond all past and future finite experiences, how does that imply that all of them will choose to use this ability to conceive, and to believe in the resulting concept?
And what definition of God do worshippers give which isn't also based on negating finite material things?
"God" is surely the most famous entity, almost everyone has heard something about Him (true or not). So they had to, to a lesser or greater extent, use their ability to conceive of God.
As for belief - see below:
I suppose we can view "God is the Supreme Being" as a negative definition - ie. "God is not an ordinary being" -, although worshippers usually do not formulate explicitly negative definitions of God like the latter one.
I think that in order for someone to actually believe in God, there has to be input from God as well.
This is the point where many discussions on belief in God go amiss, and instead there is the assumption that belief in God is a person's own doing (or at least the doing of a society).
it's just that, god is the explanation to that you can't explain, and as long as there are things you can't explain, then you can conceive of what god is(or isn't).
god is like the term infinity, which mathematically isn't a number, but a concept.
whatever big number you think of, that's infinity. you can think of a bigger number? then that's infinity, and so on.
that's what i gathered of the ontological argument thingy.
god is like the term infinity, which mathematically isn't a number, but a concept.
whatever big number you think of, that's infinity. you can think of a bigger number? then that's infinity, and so on.
that's what i gathered of the ontological argument thingy.
People are always coming up with new concepts, especially ones that can give the inventor an advantage of some kind. So what possible advantage could knowing God do for me? Well if I were to speak for God, people would listen to me and I would profit and gain influence and power.
Yes, happens all the time and it always starts with a question that someone wants an answer for.
You said there would be no atheists if the concept of God merely came from negating finite material things. Where do you get this idea that an atheist who can conceive of "God" by the standard definition must also believe in such a concept?
Every definition I've ever heard from a worshipper has ended up being exactly equivalent to the material-based negation of what God is not, although they might not themselves realize this basic fact.
Well you can think whatever you like, but can you find a logical justification to support your line of thinking?
Can you provide conclusive proof that this assumption is false?
Good point. Obviously, the answer can only be "no".
Does Signal's point then mean that, because someone can believe in vampires, vampires must therefore exist??
I think it does.
And that would be a fallacy....
haha
Are you sure? Have you got any proof that vampires don't exist?? WELL HAVE YOU??!?!
(j/k)
Are you sure? Have you got any proof that vampires don't exist?? WELL HAVE YOU??!?!
(j/k)
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2721695&postcount=88
Still waiting for you to substantiate this or retract it Jan.
Already done so.
I suggest you show where my analasys was wrong without
resorting to your own personal definitions.
jan.
Where did you do this Jan?
Lie.
Another lie. At no time have I "resorted to my own personal definitions".
Your "analysis" has been shown to be completely incorrect.
Let's get something straight.
You're the liar, not me.
You said the dictionary definition I used to show the religiosity of
some (if not all explicit) atheists, was a colloquial term.
Prove it?
jan.
- Status