How can God not exist?
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
- Status
This is silly Jan. You bring of the question of existence of something, so if it's being questioned, its existence is not taken for granted. Unless of course you're a theist, bound by the powerful armor of circular logic.
I couldn't care less what scriptures say. People's reaction to those "scriptures" however, is damned interesting.
? Uh, different people know different things at different times Jan. This is a pretty broad and seemingly undirected question to me. If the question is serious, I'd need more specificity to understand what you're getting at. Oh, and what the hell is an "upper-planetary system"? You mean atmospheric systems?
? Are you implying that religion or theistic thought isn't naturally occurring? I said nothing of what you just said, yet you state it as if I had. What is "all of this" in the above? If my guess at understanding this is correct:
You can imagine whatever you like, in whatever manner it comes to be. The thing is as a friend of mine recently put so simply: "How do you know if you're wrong?"
If something is to be said to exist, I'd think it pretty useful to have it withstand some form of skepticism. Does the FSM exist?
As far as I can tell, as much so as the "god" of the abraham folks. "god" however, is more popular.
Why do you place this limit on creativity and imagination? How would you know you understand what someone else is or can imagine or create?
I do not believe you.
This is your current rationalization as to why you ask it.
Why you really ask it, is because the argumentative armor provided by the strength of your circular assumption won't let you think anything else.
I am rather unconvinced. However, so long as you wear your armor you'll be unable to see or even seriously consider otherwise.
It's obvious this type of thinking offers some sort of utility for you, so that's good. There's no reason to give that up when the alternatives must seem simply impossible and there's no real motivation to give up what you "know".
Of course though, this thread is rather disingenuous as the question is not really honest.
You already "know" god exists, so you asking "how it could not" is simply baiting to allow you a conduit for more rationalization, more mental masturbation to serve as scifodder. Yes, it takes one to know one.
wesmorris,
Where is the original claim of ''God exists''?
The idea is that God was invented, therefore God does not actually exist. Right?
The claim/idea that God does not exist seems to have been invented.
An upper-planetary system are the heavenly planets situated at the top of the universe, according to vedic scriptures.
How would pre-scientific people imagine phenomenons like ''planets'', universes, etc..
I'm just giving you an idea of where I'm coming from.
I'm not disputing being skeptical. I'm asking, where is the original claim of God's existence. As far as we are all aware God exists, and from that point we
ask questions and make decisions.
As for FSM, I don't care man.
Fair point. I can only go with what I see.
Which is why I ask.
I like your direct style, but as the person who asked it, I know that you're not
correct in your analasys.
As I said before, I like your direct style.
jan.
Where is the original claim of ''God exists''?
The idea is that God was invented, therefore God does not actually exist. Right?
The claim/idea that God does not exist seems to have been invented.
An upper-planetary system are the heavenly planets situated at the top of the universe, according to vedic scriptures.
How would pre-scientific people imagine phenomenons like ''planets'', universes, etc..
I'm just giving you an idea of where I'm coming from.
I'm not disputing being skeptical. I'm asking, where is the original claim of God's existence. As far as we are all aware God exists, and from that point we
ask questions and make decisions.
As for FSM, I don't care man.
Fair point. I can only go with what I see.
Which is why I ask.
I like your direct style, but as the person who asked it, I know that you're not
correct in your analasys.
I am rather unconvinced. However, so long as you wear your armor you'll be unable to see or even seriously consider otherwise.
It's obvious this type of thinking offers some sort of utility for you, so that's good. There's no reason to give that up when the alternatives must seem simply impossible and there's no real motivation to give up what you "know".
Of course though, this thread is rather disingenuous as the question is not really honest.
You already "know" god exists, so you asking "how it could not" is simply baiting to allow you a conduit for more rationalization, more mental masturbation to serve as scifodder. Yes, it takes one to know one.
As I said before, I like your direct style.
jan.
Which is a nonsensical statement.
The thread title for one.
Pardon? Who's this "we" you're referring to?
For example:
Genesis 1.1: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Quran 1.1-2: In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. [All] praise is [due] to Allah , Lord of the worlds -
SB 1.1.1: O my Lord, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, son of Vasudeva, O all-pervading Personality of Godhead, I offer my respectful obeisances unto You.
These verses imply the claim that God exists, otherwise the rest of the verses would be nonsensical.
I think it is originally about the meaning of "exist". The ontological dispute is as hot as ever.
Somewhere in each person's past, the idea was introduced to them. That's where. Often it's the first step in indoctrination.
In the sense that words were invented to convey ideas, yes.
NO. Not even close. WAY OFF. Seriously, come on.
However, if I think something actually exist, search for it and do not find it, then people say, "it's right here" and offer ever-increasing abstract bullshit to justify it, then am told you have to have "faith" to be able to see it... skepticism wins. I have to have a very small amount of faith for instance, to believe I typed this to you. All signs point to yes, so I require very little convincing and the cost of being wrong is rather negligible. The notion of god however, is quite the contrary. It should require a LOT of convincing IMO, due to the sweeping implications of the claim. Blah blah, etc. etc.
Because you can't seriously imagine the alternative. Funny that. Logically, that makes absolutely no sense yet you're so impacted by your faith, logic can fuck off. Believe it or not, I respect that. At least you have conviction and give a shit about something.
Well see back then the sky was a lot more clear at night....
Imagination is a powerful thing when there are far fewer distractions.
No Jan, someone in the past gave you the word - the idea. It existed to you from that point forward, same as with me - in the sense of the idea. You seem to think of the idea as representative of something "actual" or "part of reality" in the "consequential to the development of life, the universe and everything" kind of sense. I think of it as "actual" in the "oh shit the natives are restless tonight" kind of sense. To you, "universal reality", to me "interesting psychological phenomenon".
Ya well neither do I, but ridiculous arguments, ridiculous examples, blah.
Well of course if you're committed to your premise, you have to know that.
I don't know if I'm absolutely correct in my analysis. I offer my reaction based on shit that seem pertinent at the time while trying to maintain honesty to the best of my ability.
Thread should be closed, no fruits will it bear.
Oh, don't worry, it's close to getting there..
wesmorris,
Hey! It's not my idea.
That is the general (accepted) explanation from skeptics.
I agree.
Somethings cannot be seen with the eyes, no matter how hard you try.
This is all very nice wes, but i'm not actually trying to prove God's existence in this thread.
How could God have been concocted by primitive man?
The scriptures have all sort of information in them (doesn't matter whether they are correct) which suggests things like ''planets'', ''universe'', ''planetary orbits'', the distance of the sun and moon, and other tidbits which you wouldn't expect primitive, uncivilised, un-cultered people to concieve.
Wes, there's no problem in imagining the alternative idea.
Someone, or group, from our very distant path wanted answers as to why it thunders, so he/they came up with the idea of God. A supreme spiritual entity who created the heavens (upper-planetary system), and all the percieve, including themselves, through sound vibration, starting off with Lord Brahma who was manifested from the navel of a purusa incarnation of Lord Vishnu.....
I'm just not convinced this was the idea of primitive man, so now I'm questioning the skeptic idea.
It makes much more sense that this ''idea'' was already in existence before the arrival of man.
Okay, that's a good start.
But how could they judge these fantastice distances (present within scripture)
without knowing or experiencing the size of these phenomenons.
Yes, I agree with that. Someone in the past gave me information regarding the distance of the sun from the earth also.
According to skeptics, the idea of God began with people.
Even if it did evolve to become scriptures, the scriptures were taught from at least 5-6000 years ago with all this amazing information.
Then you're explanation differs from the general skeptic idea of how God came to be. I'm interested in the general idea.
The FSM idea is not ridiculous, I totally get it. But it's not God, and it's creator also confirms it's not God.
It is a mechanism.
Wes, you can say what you like, I know what I'm thinking.
With this kind of stubborness, I doubt we'll ever come to any kind of understanding.
Yeah! Course you do.
Glaucon, do yo thang baby, Empty Force.... is absolutely correct.
And it's good that you guys agree on something.
There is hope after all.
jan.
Hey! It's not my idea.
That is the general (accepted) explanation from skeptics.
I agree.
Somethings cannot be seen with the eyes, no matter how hard you try.
This is all very nice wes, but i'm not actually trying to prove God's existence in this thread.
How could God have been concocted by primitive man?
The scriptures have all sort of information in them (doesn't matter whether they are correct) which suggests things like ''planets'', ''universe'', ''planetary orbits'', the distance of the sun and moon, and other tidbits which you wouldn't expect primitive, uncivilised, un-cultered people to concieve.
Wes, there's no problem in imagining the alternative idea.
Someone, or group, from our very distant path wanted answers as to why it thunders, so he/they came up with the idea of God. A supreme spiritual entity who created the heavens (upper-planetary system), and all the percieve, including themselves, through sound vibration, starting off with Lord Brahma who was manifested from the navel of a purusa incarnation of Lord Vishnu.....
I'm just not convinced this was the idea of primitive man, so now I'm questioning the skeptic idea.
It makes much more sense that this ''idea'' was already in existence before the arrival of man.
Okay, that's a good start.
But how could they judge these fantastice distances (present within scripture)
without knowing or experiencing the size of these phenomenons.
Yes, I agree with that. Someone in the past gave me information regarding the distance of the sun from the earth also.
According to skeptics, the idea of God began with people.
Even if it did evolve to become scriptures, the scriptures were taught from at least 5-6000 years ago with all this amazing information.
Then you're explanation differs from the general skeptic idea of how God came to be. I'm interested in the general idea.
The FSM idea is not ridiculous, I totally get it. But it's not God, and it's creator also confirms it's not God.
It is a mechanism.
Wes, you can say what you like, I know what I'm thinking.
With this kind of stubborness, I doubt we'll ever come to any kind of understanding.
Yeah! Course you do.
Glaucon, do yo thang baby, Empty Force.... is absolutely correct.
And it's good that you guys agree on something.
There is hope after all.
jan.
Jan wasn't trying to be snide, but if you believe in god it seems to me you have little choice but to see arguments to the contrary as wrong, no matter how reasonable they might actually be. It's not "YOU", it's a consequence of real faith.
God is first brought into a persons life at a very young age when they've learned that they have no faith in the world alone, but only in God himself.
God can't not exist through misintepretation of faiths, because he is an absolute. Any faith that bases God as an absolute is a correct faith, the goal is in the exact correct logical areas of disagreement with some particular wordings- most especially - faith is true- faith real- god is an absolute- god is the origional creator- god is a merciful god- god made solomon or whoever sacrafice his only son (he didn't) - god is based off of only faith. Many of the particular wordings sets god as absolute. They even justify it. I mean to say, perhaps all belief in God is an absolute.
I wouldn't say it without being in the mode of being able to prove it, but it is logically justified like that I would believe- if a person says that it isn't then they're suspecting their entire testomony as a disagreement very spitefully and extrodinarially arragantly or ignorantly, and doing so could only cause them to misinterprete all of the facts that they're disagreeing with in the first place.
To me it seems that God is as factual as day, however, I will no state this again because I realize that it's true and needs not to be justified or pronounced
i could go way on if you like, but this is pretty close.
"Faith" is belief in God, meaning actual faith in him. Comes without an explination and a tag attributed to it. However a person could come to the sense of saying their faith as already self justified, however your intentions to physicially molest said person would be.
God can't not exist through misintepretation of faiths, because he is an absolute. Any faith that bases God as an absolute is a correct faith, the goal is in the exact correct logical areas of disagreement with some particular wordings- most especially - faith is true- faith real- god is an absolute- god is the origional creator- god is a merciful god- god made solomon or whoever sacrafice his only son (he didn't) - god is based off of only faith. Many of the particular wordings sets god as absolute. They even justify it. I mean to say, perhaps all belief in God is an absolute.
I wouldn't say it without being in the mode of being able to prove it, but it is logically justified like that I would believe- if a person says that it isn't then they're suspecting their entire testomony as a disagreement very spitefully and extrodinarially arragantly or ignorantly, and doing so could only cause them to misinterprete all of the facts that they're disagreeing with in the first place.
To me it seems that God is as factual as day, however, I will no state this again because I realize that it's true and needs not to be justified or pronounced
i could go way on if you like, but this is pretty close.
"Faith" is belief in God, meaning actual faith in him. Comes without an explination and a tag attributed to it. However a person could come to the sense of saying their faith as already self justified, however your intentions to physicially molest said person would be.
Actually, I would think that someone who has real faith (theist or atheist) would be able to understand arguments for and against, being able to entertain both scenarios.
Of course, we must also consider here that someone can have real faith, and yet declare this or that argument as wrong for rhetoric or didactic purposes in a particular situation.
I don't think alternatives can't be entertained, but only at arms length of course.
It seems to me that if you accept circular reasoning, you are trapped in the circle until you reject it. That's all I mean.
Jan accepts god. While accepting god, you cannot reject god or you're not really accepting it. "real faith" is this to me.
I have "real faith" that I (and you... ) exist for instance. No matter how reasonable of an argument you might offer to the contrary, I simply won't accept it. I will be able to understand the argument against my faith. I will simply refute it though because I've made the assumption and all my other reasonable junk depends on it.
So....
It seems to me that if you accept circular reasoning, you are trapped in the circle until you reject it. That's all I mean.
Jan accepts god. While accepting god, you cannot reject god or you're not really accepting it. "real faith" is this to me.
I have "real faith" that I (and you... ) exist for instance. No matter how reasonable of an argument you might offer to the contrary, I simply won't accept it. I will be able to understand the argument against my faith. I will simply refute it though because I've made the assumption and all my other reasonable junk depends on it.
So....
Wes,
it seems you are not prepared to participate fully in this discussion on the grounds that I am unable to to see both sides. Am I correct?
It also seems that you have strong faith in your ability to analyse my thought process desite on one occasion being told by myself that your analasys was wrong.
jan.
it seems you are not prepared to participate fully in this discussion on the grounds that I am unable to to see both sides. Am I correct?
It also seems that you have strong faith in your ability to analyse my thought process desite on one occasion being told by myself that your analasys was wrong.
jan.
In principle, there is one sense in which circular reasoning isn't actually that - when it produces the results it was supposed to.
But by definition, uninitated people cannot asses that. (Whether it is religion or astrophysics.)
My point is that there is a real limit to discussion.
There comes a point when there is stalemate; and the only way ahead is if one party unquestioningly accepts the other party's tenets.
Otherwise, the communication breaks down.
I suppose he does the same.
wesmorris,
You have faith that you exist?
Why?
Could it be that your understanding of faith, and what faith we actually have, are different.
To assume we have faith without that faith ever being tested is a little premature, wouldn't you say?
Under what normal circumstances would the need to arise to actually display faith in yours and my existence?
My questions do not require me to have faith in God. As I have tried to explain to you, they are not of a theistic nature. Sure, I believe in God, and sure, the questions may have come about because of this. But my belief has nothing to do with my the actual observation which presents itself therein.
Skeptics agree that the idea of God is an invented one, by specific types of folk.
This invention, when looked at closely, is littered with all kinds of information which should only be known in an age of modern science. 300 years or so?
So how can this be?
I think it's a reasonable question.
Then we have the question of how could such a being (God) be invented, with all this information, when no such thing or concept could have been present (according to skeptics).
Are these such hard questions to answer, that you have turn your attention to me? Talking as though I'm not even present? Come on?
I'll tell you straight. I don't agree with the skeptics on this. And faith doesn't ACTUALLY come into it. Nor does it need to..
jan.
You have faith that you exist?
Why?
Could it be that your understanding of faith, and what faith we actually have, are different.
To assume we have faith without that faith ever being tested is a little premature, wouldn't you say?
Under what normal circumstances would the need to arise to actually display faith in yours and my existence?
My questions do not require me to have faith in God. As I have tried to explain to you, they are not of a theistic nature. Sure, I believe in God, and sure, the questions may have come about because of this. But my belief has nothing to do with my the actual observation which presents itself therein.
Skeptics agree that the idea of God is an invented one, by specific types of folk.
This invention, when looked at closely, is littered with all kinds of information which should only be known in an age of modern science. 300 years or so?
So how can this be?
I think it's a reasonable question.
Then we have the question of how could such a being (God) be invented, with all this information, when no such thing or concept could have been present (according to skeptics).
Are these such hard questions to answer, that you have turn your attention to me? Talking as though I'm not even present? Come on?
I'll tell you straight. I don't agree with the skeptics on this. And faith doesn't ACTUALLY come into it. Nor does it need to..
jan.
Signal,
...what is so hard about the questions I am putting foward?
jan.
...what is so hard about the questions I am putting foward?
jan.
Submitting oneself to others, especially if the only reason seems to be so that the conversation could continue.
No, as I'd think obvious. Have I not participated fully? If not, how so?
It's not your thought process personally, it's that I see consequences to beliefs.
I have a reasonable amount of faith that I can process this type of argument in a reasonable and interesting way.
Meh.
- Status