If there's a God Is there also a Devil?
- Thread starter greywolf
- Start date
SouthStar,
Kat
No one has demonstrated that there is any truth in Christianity. For that one must have some proof and has been shown already you don't have any that's why you have to rest on irrational blind faith.
It is apparent from your posts regardless of what I say. Just learn from it and move on.
Kat
Enigma,
Kat
Not quite. There is nothing to explain. The spirit concept is of your own making. If you take the spirit concept out of the equation then everything still works just fine. It is a redundant idea and has no value.
Or more accurately it shows that humans have fertile, active and often irrational imaginations.
Kat
That would be nice, but I won't hold my breathKatazia said:
There is a difference between what we don't know and what can't be known. You can be fairly certain that the concept of spirit is imaginative. You can argue that it is speculative. But you can't 'know' it's fantasy. If you claim it is fantasy, are you prepared to argue that all concept is fantasy? In that case, the concept of a hypercube is also fantasy. Paradoxically, it's also the consequence of a rationalistic and rigorous view of world. On what grounds do you dismiss one concept and not the other? Rigor? Objectivety? I propose it is simply this: You cannot accept the idea that there are things that cannot be known, and yet simply are. It's an affront to something inside you. Somehow, everything must have an explanation or it can't be real.
I don't know - however, this is why I mentioned spooky action at a distance. How can anyone make sense of the fact that one particle 'magically' transforms at the same instant that it's sister particle is observed, regardless of the distance between the two. (...unless the particles aren't separate at all, but are instead adjacent to each other at the next higher domain, and their appearance of moving away from each other at the speed of light is the real fantasy - but you see, that idea itself requires imaginative, speculative fantasy.) As far as SouthStar's simplistic and conventional view, it's inherent reasonable-ness is mirrored by a principle in chaos theory - namely that a simple model can be used to accurately represent complex behavior.
Those who live by Occam's razor, die by Occam's razor. I'm not the one introducing these complexities. Physicists at Princeton and elsewhere are, in an attempt to explain what they observe and experience. I'm simply trying to help you understand that you are in fact viewing the world in exactly the same simplistic, fantastical way that you accuse SouthStar of doing. You just don't seem to realize it, and you make the mistake over and over again. You can become as vehement as you like with your words, but you can never prove there isn't an afterlife. It is your statement of faith that there isn't one, and that makes you as 'irrational' as you accuse SouthStar of being.
The so-called fantasy isn't baseless, it's basis just doesn't seem to be within your grasp. I would try to answer your question about the role of spirit if I thought you were actually interested. But at this time, "the brain" cannot account for all I have experienced in my life. And since you don't share my experiences, you would simply chalk up anything I had to say as fantasy. I pray and my prayers are answered. I don't have to explain how it happens - but you do.
The "mechanism" being evident:
Romans 1
God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Romans 1
God's Wrath Against Mankind
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Turduckin,
Also from Webster – Concept: 2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.
The differences are subtle and perhaps just a matter of degree. But “spirit” does not derive from particular instances so it would be more accurate to call it a fantasy.
Kat
And the end result remains unknown.
From Webster – Fantasy: 2 : FANCY; especially : the free play of creative imagination.
Also from Webster – Concept: 2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.
The differences are subtle and perhaps just a matter of degree. But “spirit” does not derive from particular instances so it would be more accurate to call it a fantasy.
You present a paradox – if somethings are unknown then you cannot state that they “are”.
You appear to have our roles reversed. Surely it is the religionist who insists on explanations and invents fantasies such as gods and spirits to explain the unknown rather than simply accept that there are things we do not know.
But it isn’t a simple model merely a simplistic view. For a spirit to exist means an entire supernatural realm must come into existence – that is hardly a simple model. And I see no inherent reasonableness in the spirit concept. It simply exists to satisfy false promises of an afterlife common to essentially all religions.
No not at all, I’m just not prepared to accept fanciful speculations as if they are true now, i.e. gods and spirits. That there are doubtless features of the universe that we do not understand is something I’m quite content to accept.
I have never stated that there is no afterlife merely that the concept is a fantasy. Please prove there is an afterlife and prove it isn’t a fantasy if you believe I am wrong.
As I said I have never claimed that spirits, gods or an afterlife do not exist merely that they are fantasy concepts. If you believe they are real then demonstrate their existence.
It remains baseless unless you have clear and credible evidence that spirits exist – do you have any such evidence?
I cannot see that you could have anything other than imaginative fiction and I suspect you know that.
Given that we are still studying the brain your conclusion seems very premature and somewhat irrational to prefer a fanciful supernatural concept above the more likely natural explanation.
Certainly if you could not definitely show that your brain could not account for the phenomena.
I doubt that the issues are that clear cut and there are many psychological factors we would have to consider.
Kat
It seems to me, that for you to believe something exisits, Kat, you must have proof beyond any doubt that it is there for you to see, to experience. The fact is, you can't prove anything. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing at all." -Socrates There is no way to prove to me that I am sitting at a computer typing now, for all you know I could be plugged into the Matrix. So since you can't prove that anything exists (and you can't, so don't tell me you can) then why do you see such a problem with believing something exists such as God or the Devil. You don't have absolute proof that cats exist, you don't have absolute proof God exists, so please, tell me the difference.
I know this wasn't aimed at me, but I'm gonna respond anyway.
DJ Erock, you are way way off track. The difference that you've asked for, is that "real" things are openly testable. If someone claims that cats exist, you can test his claims. You can go take a look in a pet shop, or go round to the guys house and see his pet cats and so on. Reality does not need to be taken on 'faith' simply because it is observable and testable. I have a pet cat right here and I can present it for anyone who feels it cannot be proven.
Of course.. you could be "plugged in to the matrix", but that, like god and the devil, also lacks any instance of credible evidence- and no, a film with keanu reeves does not count as evidence.
If a claim is going to be made it has to be supported with evidence of such. If I stated that theres a giant pink orang utan floating above my house, you cannot disprove that claim, (unless you come here and don't see it - but then I'm sure I could think up an excuse), but you would agree that you would not take my claim seriously, and the same must apply to everyone elses claims that are completely unsupportable.
If something cannot be observed in any manner, or tested in any manner then it is classifiable as non-existant, and will remain so until such time that the above criteria have been met.
I agree with you here Snakelord, in that you can go and test and observe physical things, and know they are real, they exist; but it seems to me that Kat will not accept anything that she does not have absolute, no questions asked proof for. She seems to believe that there must be natural, completely explained scientific evidence for anything she can believe in. My point is that you cannot have proof of anything, you cannot know anything without a doubt. Simply because you can see one thing and not another doesn't prove that one exists more than another. I may be taking the role of a hopeless skeptic, but thats the only way to rationally look at things. You cannot, CANNOT prove that anything is what it seems, so what is the big difference between believing that your cat is sitting in your lap, and believing that there is a God that created you?
Katazia, What is the purpose of life. If we were just some cosmic freak of nature, then why do we have morals, why do we bother living, there isn't really a point to it is there? We are just the product of thousand of accidental mutations.
DJ Erock,
But let’s return to scientific “proof” for a moment. Try this link -
http://www.carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm
Please also note that - In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ~Stephen J. Gould
Kat
Then your perspective is incorrect. What I usually suggest is that we need credible evidence; it is rare that I suggest/request a proof, and then I have never suggested an absolute proof or one that is beyond doubt, whatever that means.
This largely depends on what you mean by ‘proof’. Mathematicians certainly have proofs, and in logic we can achieve proofs, but a proof in science generally has different connotations. But if you are talking about absolute proofs then you are close since the only way we can achieve those is when we know absolutely everything.
OK but why would I care?
Interesting statement. Apart from the rather obvious closed mindedness you seem to have created a conundrum for yourself. On the one hand you state that nothing can be proved yet here you are trying to state an absolute proof that nothing can be proved. So if your statement is true then that proves that it is false. Quite obviously your claim is false.
But let’s return to scientific “proof” for a moment. Try this link -
http://www.carlton.paschools.pa.sk.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm
Please also note that - In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. ~Stephen J. Gould
Because there is no credible evidence that would meet any, logical, scientific or even legal requirements to warrant any meaningful conclusion. The ideas are childish fantasies and should not be taken seriously.
So stop expecting absolute proofs, I don’t.
Kat