Is belief in a god just self-delusion?

h05el1 said:
The fact that you get "were" and "where" confused just throws all your education arguments back in your face. The whole frog thing was just irrelevant, as you said, so try to understand it as an example, which is how it was meant. What I'm saying is, anyone could claim anything, SUCH AS ME BEING A FROG, and you can't give me a piece of evidence to prove I'm not a very intelligent frog who can type. Go on, give me a piece of evidence. Exactly. So I'm saying, you can't give me a solid piece of evidence that God or something close to God exists, so I'll take it for a fact, the same way you take for a fact that I'm not a frog. Please tell me you understand that.
Click to expand...

Goodness, grammar has nothing to do with argument quit trying to pick at nonsense. All I am saying is that is its ignorant for you to state such things in your OP. calm down this isn't going to derail either of our standings.
 
Although you bringing a frog into this argument is just an example it isn't a very good one considering the grounds we were talking about.
 
laladopi said:
Goodness, grammar has nothing to do with argument quit trying to pick at nonsense. All I am saying is that is its ignorant for you to state such things in your OP. calm down this isn't going to derail either of our standings.
Click to expand...

I don't even know what your standing is. But can you at least say you understood what I was trying to say? That anything can be claimed, but until it's proven, it may as well not be true? BTW I wasn't picking at nonsense; you started mentioning my education and parents in the first place.
 
laladopi said:
Although you bringing a frog into this argument is just an example it isn't a very good one considering the grounds we were talking about.
Click to expand...

An example is an example, and doesn't always have to relate to the subject. It was just me trying to get my ideas across more easily. Come on, it was an understandable example.
 
h05el1 said:
An example is an example, and doesn't always have to relate to the subject. It was just me trying to get my ideas across more easily. Come on, it was an understandable example.
Click to expand...

Think about this.
If God could be proven, in the way you imply, then how could he be God?

jan.
 
h05el1 said:
What do you mean by that?
(Not trying to sound mean, I just don't understand what you're saying)
Click to expand...

You say there is no proof of God.
For one who does not believe in God, I imagine "proof" would require
physical evidence, yet God is not a physical being, hence the reason there
is no scientific evidence.
But if some scientist suddenly came running out of his lav, test-tube in hand, claiming proof of God, based on scientifice evidence. Wouldn't you think that strange?

jan.
 
I never gave you a standing. I understand what you are saying I am stating that it is somewhat ridiculous. I mentioned your education and parenting under the assumption that you being a frog is nonsense. It has no affect on the subject of "God".
 
h05el1 said:
An example is an example, and doesn't always have to relate to the subject. It was just me trying to get my ideas across more easily. Come on, it was an understandable example.
Click to expand...

Put if you are trying to explain something a relative example would be good.
 
I know. It was just an example. Since when can an example be ridiculous? That's why I called it an example. Incidentally, how do you know me being a frog is nonsense? That's what I'm trying to point out: someone could just say God is existing is ridiculous.
 
Jan Ardena said:
You say there is no proof of God.
For one who does not believe in God, I imagine "proof" would require
physical evidence, yet God is not a physical being, hence the reason there
is no scientific evidence.
But if some scientist suddenly came running out of his lav, test-tube in hand, claiming proof of God, based on scientifice evidence. Wouldn't you think that strange?

jan.
Click to expand...

Good point. But if God isn't a physical being, and we are, then surely, if God exists, and created us, he wouldn't expect us to believe in him, because he limited us to depending on physical things and logic. Also, if God could never be proven, then doesn't that make religion invalid, because it is what they believe is proof of God.
 
h05el1 said:
Good point. But if God isn't a physical being, and we are, then surely, if God exists, and created us, he wouldn't expect us to believe in him, because he limited us to depending on physical things and logic
Click to expand...
there are numerous schools of philosophy

empiricism (the belief that objective reality can be determined by the senses) and (the belief that the objective world can be determined by) logic, are but two of them.

On the side note logic doesn't establish truth, since you can have a logical statement that is completely false.

eg

All pigs can fly and all horses are pigs therefore all horses can fly.

You can also have truthful statements that are illogical too. So truth doesn't establish logic.

eg

Today is Tuesday and I am wearing black shoes therefore I am hungry.


Also, if God could never be proven, then doesn't that make religion invalid, because it is what they believe is proof of God.
Click to expand...
I think Jan is making the point that god is not established as being (directly) approached by the endeavors of empiricism and logic alone .... so holding there is no (empirical) proof for god comes as no surprise.
(How many years of research with the mind and senses would it take to reveal something that is beyond the mind and senses?)

Its not that god cannot be proven.

Its that god cannot be proven with empiricism.

There's nothing wrong with empiricism. Just that it is the wrong tool for the job.

Kind of like there's nothing wrong with a tape measure.... unless you are using it to measure temperature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top