On what God is

[TruthSeeker]

Ts,

It is a pleasure watching you evolve.

Well.... thanks.... I guess....

Hope that doesn't sound too condescending.

Naah. Everyone always evolve.....




Still trying to prove that God exists, tough. Well.... I think I did find an answer. But I should polish it before I can present to anyone....

 

[TruthSeeker]

Following is men's ownership of NATURE.

Yeah.... I highly doubt that is actually true. Unless, of course, you would argue that mankind has puposefully caused a tsunami to sweep away more than 100,000 lives......

 

[water]

In philosophy it has been said that until we know everything possible then it is not possible to prove anything. So anything we say here can only be attempts at approximations. The discussion here then becomes a matter of evaluating qualitative properties of such approximations.

Muahahahah-ah, what a cop-out.

" It all depends on what you are *willing* to accept as fact."

Why not use the dictionary definition?

Uh. You are being deliberately difficult.
You do know how much it takes to make a sound scientific claim, do you?
It takes a lot.

I don’t really understand your issue. The terms you list are labels we have placed on real events and conditions – these are facts, i.e. they are not imaginary.

Labels, yes LABELS we place on real events and conditions.
The old Germans said that thunder (such a real event!) was god Thor slamming down with his hammer.
That we say thunder is the audial effect when ...[insert the whole current scientifc definition], does not exclude what the old Germans thought.
We are just using DIFFERENT symbolic languages.
To them, Thor was as real as those electricity and audio laws are to us.

"Define "rational"."

In agreement with logical reasoning.

Logical reasoning is helpless unless you put in premises. The choice of premises, however, is not self-evident, not a matter of choice, and depends on the reference frame. The reference frame of Christianity is different than that of modern science or of Buddhism etc.
Eventually, we come to absurd claims like, "Science is right, Buddhism is wrong". But how? In its own reference frame, science is right; in its own reference frame Buddhism is right.
If you want to claim that science is ultimately right, and that this renders Buddhism wrong, then you are claiming to have knowledge even superior to science. How you are going to pull this off, I don't know.

Can you show that a god represents real world events or conditions?

It is about labeling, values and preferences.
As such, talking about God is mostly a matter of an ideological and ethical discourse, and about a certain system of values and preferences.

A belief in God is a belief in an overarching organisational principle that constitues the structure of a certain system of values and preferences.

We are often tempted to say "God *is* [insert definition refering to an object or characteristic]" -- but then we tend to fall in the traps of anthropomorphization, or at least reification. As if God were to be some man-like being.
And then, other definitions that we try to apply to this man-like being, render those earlier definitions worthless. But this isn't because the definitions were contradictory -- it is because we have created an anthropomorphic being first. No wonder that definitions that weren't meant to be anthropomorphised render our whole construct (mixture of anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic) contradictionary, and we eventually have to write it off as possible.

Will start a thread on this.

A definition of God would be a description of an imaginary object whereas the definition of Justice describes real conditions and events.

Per you. Some see God in the beauty of a flower!

OK but why are you telling me? Note that I have not claimed there is no God and my objections are with theist claims rather than their traditions or practices.

You have been arguing against an "imaginary being".

How come that esp. declared atheists are also the ones who are the most cynical, stiff, uncreative and emotionally cold people?

You mean like Einstein, Carl Sagan, Ernest Hemingway, Arthur C Clarke, Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, Gene Roddenbury, and many more. What factual support do you have for your claim?

Alright, you have provided the straw, and made a nice strawman, and I have the torch.

Look at the forums here, some of the declared atheists: Full of gall!

So you are one of those cold heartless atheists who you appear to despise so much.

I don't go around declaring "I am an atheist! Religionists are stupid!"

Have you seen a therapist yet? ;-)

Screw you.


* * *

Water: feel free to respond to my post. Of course, also feel free not to respond to it. I couldn't care.. such is my cold nature

Shall I light your fire too?

 

[TruthSeeker]

In philosophy it has been said that until we know everything possible then it is not possible to prove anything. So anything we say here can only be attempts at approximations. The discussion here then becomes a matter of evaluating qualitative properties of such approximations.

Muahahahah-ah, what a cop-out.

Well... I must agree with Cris. If you don't know everything, you are bound to discover something that can go against your previous claims. That's why science is always evolving. That's why you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. If you don't understand this concept and the implications behind the argument from ignorance, you will never be able to find any truth.

Actually, that is one of the first principles of my philosophy. It is impossible to understand the Truth if you don't perceive all parts of the Truth at the same time. Because if you perceive the Truth through the reductionist perspective you end up missing parts of the Truth, which won't fit when you try to perceive the Truth in the bigger picture. That's what kills reductionism and validates the holistic principle behind my philosophy.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Cris,

Are you still seacrhing for immortality?

How about finding out a way to neutralize the waste produced by lysosomes? Maybe do it genetically, or in another way that neutralizes the pH in our bodies?

 

[Cris]

Water,

You have been arguing against an "imaginary being".

Not sure if that was a typo or not, but if not then I suspect you have missed the point of this discussion. My argument is specifically that gods are imaginary but that isn’t the same thing as stating that they do not exist which was the logical fallacy you quoted in your opening.

 

[Cris]

TS,

Are you still seacrhing for immortality?

Of course, but I'll settle for an open ended lifespan in the short term.

 

[duendy]

Yeah.... I highly doubt that is actually true. Unless, of course, you would argue that mankind has puposefully caused a tsunami to sweep away more than 100,000 lives......

Nooooo, they don't REALLy own it....and i dont mean 'mankind' i mean the patriarchy...the'rule of the fathers'

you kow those old myths of the Dragon, and the male hero that fights and kills it to get to the treasure? well Dragon IS Goddess, and is Nature. It is PROTECTING Nature, but in patriarchal mythology Dragon is demonized, and thus, so is Nature. Nature is to be conquesred, therefore, by the hero-upstart

this is still going on, without any receptivity for Deepness or spirit

Patriarchy is anti-Nature and will deny this to itself, because it believes what its doing is for the 'good', the 'light'. It fears the dark, death, the feminine

it has split 'male' and 'female' as it splits all polar-related opposites which are a dynamic continuum in reality

 

[TruthSeeker]

Of course, but I'll settle for an open ended lifespan in the short term.

Well... good luck!

Nooooo, they don't REALLy own it....and i dont mean 'mankind' i mean the patriarchy...the'rule of the fathers'

you kow those old myths of the Dragon, and the male hero that fights and kills it to get to the treasure? well Dragon IS Goddess, and is Nature. It is PROTECTING Nature, but in patriarchal mythology Dragon is demonized, and thus, so is Nature. Nature is to be conquesred, therefore, by the hero-upstart

this is still going on, without any receptivity for Deepness or spirit

Patriarchy is anti-Nature and will deny this to itself, because it believes what its doing is for the 'good', the 'light'. It fears the dark, death, the feminine

it has split 'male' and 'female' as it splits all polar-related opposites which are a dynamic continuum in reality

You seem to have a pretty good understanding of archetypes....

 

[wesmorris]

No. It's not circular, even though many will claim so.

BS. It's a matter of faith, you know it. Faith is circular. I'm not saying it's "bad", but that doesn't mean it isn't circular.

We must be, and we can be more exact.

I don't think it's possible as I explained above.

I say we can prove God by a two-way inductive process. A two-way inductive process is when you come up with an explanation or theory that enables you to see the very evidence on which this explanation or theory is based.

And I say based on any usefull definition of the concept, you're wrong. The concept itself necessitates circularity and cannot be proved and I attempted to demonstrate with my analysis of the applicable word "omnipresent". The same argument would apply other attributes of the concept of god.

Many scientific breakthroughs are results of two-way inductive reasoning. In science, this is often called working on a "hunch" or "intuition", which leads the scientist to reconceptualize certain basic knowledges, set up a hypothesis and see if it holds (which includes acting as if it is true), which then offers to see new evidence to support or contradicts the hypothesis. The whole thing is then tested again, and then called a theory.

Yes yes, I agree but it's simply innapplicable to the subject matter based on the attributes specified in the definition.

We can do the same with the belief in God. It is just that the evidence we use is of a different nature than science is used to, but this still doesn't mean that the application of the method is invalid.

You're making excuses. The method is invalid if it cannot be repeated.

But just because something is currently "imaginary" does not mean that it does not exist, or that it has no effect on us.

Of course, however it does mean that it cannot be proven.

This is still thinking of god in terms of empirical reasoning.

Right. That's how the scientific method works as you're well aware.

But how are we to think of god in terms of empirical reasoning, if we have determined before that god is imaginary?

We have determined that status as a consequence of the definition. It's not arbitary or whimsical, it's that as defined, the concept of god cannot be shown to be other than imaginary.

Are we to measure imaginary entitites with empirical methods?!

Now, that would be madness, sheer madness!

You engage in the contradiction you shun. If it is to be shown to be real, empirical methods are the means. That shouldn't be a problem if it's real, right? If it is, then it shows that god cannot be proved. If it isn't, then please present the evidence so we can validate your experiment.

By that same token, your love for your wife and children is also not real.

It is real to me and them, that's all that matters. The consequences of a lack of belief in my love for my family is negligable to someone who isn't in my family. That my love for them is imaginary or non-existent to some is of no consequence to me. I do not need to prove it to anyone but them. The same cannot be said if you want to claim that god is real. (please note that I'm not saying god isn't real, just that the concept cannot be rationally proven because it's necessarily beyond the limits that empirical methods can prove.

You do realize the immense implications of this?

Certainly. The basis for all human conception is perception. Ultimately, perception is a convention. That it is relevant to reality outside your own mind is an assumption. It cannot be proven. I believe it, but I accept it on faith.

Then those who don't believe in God do so due to a convention.

Indeed. I for instance, have accepted what I percieve to be reason on faith.

I dare you to go to those atheists and tell them their unbelief is based on a convention! They'll maul you.

LOL. You don't think I've been there, done that? I've been doing it during my entire sciforums experience. Ask Cris. We strongly disagree on this point I do believe.

Regardless though, I think I hold my own against the maul.

This has the statistic trap in it: "to the satisfaction of all rational observers". All? What if it is 90%, or 51% of them? Or does that mean that those 10% or 49% of rational observers weren't rational?

Yeah I know, but for the sake of convenience I stated it as such. Perhaps you know what I mean. I meant basically "demonstrable". God is not demonstrable unless you accept that god has been demonstrated. That is exactly circular. Demonstrations of god could be attributed to anything in imagination. Pink unicorns, blah blah, you've heard it all before. That leaves god somewhat lacking in the proof department.

Neither can values or preferences be defined in a way that is rational.
We have to treat them as a given, axiomatically.

Exactly.

In the Gödel thread in human science, we've touched on that too. It's the problem of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and how in the system of religion, God is such an axiom that fixes the otherwise necessary inconsistency of a system.

It could be said to "fix" that inconsitency. I might call it "sloppy, unnecessary patchwork BS" - though it's incredibly practical.

Hm?
I don't see how you get to this.

Definitions are circular, communication is based on definitions. Consider any two things that attempt to communicate. To do so, they must have definitions in common. Since the definitions are circular (all are identities), all communication is based in circularity at its core.

The basis of communication is definitely the assumption that communicators understand eachother. If all communicators would not enter communication on this assumption, they would never even open their mouths.

Close enough. I disagree to an extent, but agree with what I percieve to be the spirit of what you're saying.

That we act on this assumption shows only when misunderstandings come up, but otherwise, we act as if we understand eachother.

Well, I'll avoid delving into that for now...

Complete consistency is impossible in living beings; due to being limited and exposed to a changing environment, living beings learn, change, adapt, and this interferes with the consistency of their cognitive systems, and makes them inconsistent.

Absolutely. It's a matter of practicality.

To compensate for those inconsistencies, some fixations and circularities may appear.

They are necessary. Survival commands it. When we attempt a rational analysis of what is real and what is not however, we must circumvent practicality in lieu of a deeper understanding. My understanding is that the concept of god is necessarily unproveable as a consequence of its definition. Further, adjustments to the definition to make it more tangible renders the concept something other than what it was to begin with and thusly warrents a new word to mark its place.

 

[wesmorris]

Now that I think about it, I think values and preferences can actually be defined as rational. I do believe there is accounting for taste, but the records required for the analysis either do not exist or are not necessarily accessable in most people. I have a pretty good idea of where most of my tastes came from... how they got there. You don't know where they came from because you have no access to the experience of being me. You might be able to guesstimate the basis for some of them.

It's worthy to note however, that again at their core they are conventions like you say... attributable to random causes for the most part. The formation and development of my body are guided by genetics, but have random elements. The particular manner in which my body happens to send and process signals through my mind is a result of the continuation of the processes by which I came to be - each confined to the limitations of the system in which they function (physics). Ultimately as I see it, this is basically an identity: You = You

If the function of the universe can be defined as rational, you - as part of that system - must function rationally, even if your behavior isn't rational in another frame of reference.

 

[cole grey]

Cris says,

"In philosophy it has been said that until we know everything possible then it is not possible to prove anything. So anything we say here can only be attempts at approximations. The discussion here then becomes a matter of evaluating qualitative properties of such approximations."

I think a key issue here is that most atheists don't have any right to claim a knowledge of the qualitative properties of God. If the approximations and explanations of God are not accepted, you just won't know much about the real thing. As a matter of fact you will claim there is nothing to even know abut the thing itself at all.

I can't claim to know the qualitative values of a person's love for their spouse, even if I know their story. I had a friend whose marriage was a perfect example of love and harmony, in my mind. Spouse had an affair with best friend. Now the marriage isn't worth much. Was I wrong or right in thinking the marriage had so much value? What this shows is that you can judge approximations, but unless you know the real relationship you cannot claim to be qualified to judge it.


EDIT - I mean to say that the atheist will not attribute what they know of God to be God, not that the atheist can know nothing about God. I just wanted to make the above statements more clear with this...

 

[water]

BS. It's a matter of faith, you know it. Faith is circular. I'm not saying it's "bad", but that doesn't mean it isn't circular.

No. I have a hunch that blaming it all an circularity is misleading. I'll tell you more when I find out more.

I say we can prove God by a two-way inductive process. A two-way inductive process is when you come up with an explanation or theory that enables you to see the very evidence on which this explanation or theory is based.

And I say based on any usefull definition of the concept, you're wrong. The concept itself necessitates circularity and cannot be proved and I attempted to demonstrate with my analysis of the applicable word "omnipresent". The same argument would apply other attributes of the concept of god.

Those troubles comes from us reifing God, even anthropomorphisizing. But this doesn't mean that the concept of God itself is faulty. It is when we reify it in a certain way, that it becomes faulty.

We can do the same with the belief in God. It is just that the evidence we use is of a different nature than science is used to, but this still doesn't mean that the application of the method is invalid.

You're making excuses. The method is invalid if it cannot be repeated.

Then you have to write off two-way inductive reasoning as invalid. It is in its nature that it cannot be repeated, not by plan.

This is still thinking of god in terms of empirical reasoning.

Right. That's how the scientific method works as you're well aware.

But this assumes that God is to be empirically measured, when the definitions of God that we do have, are such that they are beyond empirical measuring. What we are measuring or looking for empirically is a reification of the concept of God, and since it is a reification, it necessarily fails -- as the concept of God says that God is not a thing, not an object.

You engage in the contradiction you shun.

You have no idea how smart I am.

If it is to be shown to be real, empirical methods are the means. That shouldn't be a problem if it's real, right? If it is, then it shows that god cannot be proved. If it isn't, then please present the evidence so we can validate your experiment.

Again, you are after proving a reification.
Essentially, you are after a sky daddy, that old man with a beard -- only in a more scientificalized verson.

This ought to fail, as God is no such thing.

By that same token, your love for your wife and children is also not real.

It is real to me and them, that's all that matters. The consequences of a lack of belief in my love for my family is negligable to someone who isn't in my family. That my love for them is imaginary or non-existent to some is of no consequence to me. I do not need to prove it to anyone but them.

How come you do not need to prove it to anyone but them?
And not to forget, "The method is invalid if it cannot be repeated."

The same cannot be said if you want to claim that god is real. (please note that I'm not saying god isn't real, just that the concept cannot be rationally proven because it's necessarily beyond the limits that empirical methods can prove.

*Why* couldn't I say the same for God?
Tell me, *why* couldn't I say the same for God as for your love for your wife and children?

Certainly. The basis for all human conception is perception. Ultimately, perception is a convention. That it is relevant to reality outside your own mind is an assumption. It cannot be proven. I believe it, but I accept it on faith.

And one of those conventions is that God is to be viewed as something empirical, intersubjectively testable, in a lab. And if it cannot be proven that way, then God doesn't exist. I say such a convention is misleading.

LOL. You don't think I've been there, done that? I've been doing it during my entire sciforums experience. Ask Cris. We strongly disagree on this point I do believe.

Oh, Cris. Cris, Cris, Cris.

Regardless though, I think I hold my own against the maul.

Good boy.

Yeah I know, but for the sake of convenience I stated it as such. Perhaps you know what I mean. I meant basically "demonstrable". God is not demonstrable unless you accept that god has been demonstrated. That is exactly circular. Demonstrations of god could be attributed to anything in imagination. Pink unicorns, blah blah, you've heard it all before. That leaves god somewhat lacking in the proof department.

Again, this argument coming from the convention that God is to be a thing, an object.

In the Gödel thread in human science, we've touched on that too. It's the problem of Gödel's incompleteness theorems, and how in the system of religion, God is such an axiom that fixes the otherwise necessary inconsistency of a system.

It could be said to "fix" that inconsitency. I might call it "sloppy, unnecessary patchwork BS" - though it's incredibly practical.

There's more to it.
You are still trapped in analyticity.

Definitions are circular, communication is based on definitions. Consider any two things that attempt to communicate. To do so, they must have definitions in common. Since the definitions are circular (all are identities), all communication is based in circularity at its core.

I think this will need revision.

My understanding is that the concept of god is necessarily unproveable as a consequence of its definition.

Why not view God as something personal, yet still communal?
The same we do with emotions, values and preferences.

Now that I think about it, I think values and preferences can actually be defined as rational. I do believe there is accounting for taste, but the records required for the analysis either do not exist or are not necessarily accessable in most people. I have a pretty good idea of where most of my tastes came from... how they got there. You don't know where they came from because you have no access to the experience of being me. You might be able to guesstimate the basis for some of them.

This, being said with the benefit of hindsight, mind you.
See in advance, ex ante, we can only deal with them as some sort of givens, axioms.

 

[wesmorris]

No. I have a hunch that blaming it all an circularity is misleading. I'll tell you more when I find out more.

It's not blaming it on circularity. I'm simply pointing it out that the circularity is obviously there... necessarily even. Further, I believe observational distance renders your argument moot. What is important about proving the concept of god is das ding en sich, (did I spell that wrong? I was copying off of your homework.). IMO, an inferred god cannot be very useful. I've presented lengthy arguments along these lines before. I'm too lazy to go into it at the moment.

Those troubles comes from us reifing God, even anthropomorphisizing.

It's impossible not to anthropomorphisize the concept of god. It was born of anthropomorphisation to begin with and shall remain there ad infinitum. I'd say that the god concept is the freakin pinnacle of anthropomorphisation. Funny in that as I see it, a useful definition of god renders the reality of the "being" or "phenomenon" necessarily incomprehensible.

But this doesn't mean that the concept of God itself is faulty. It is when we reify it in a certain way, that it becomes faulty.

I suppose it depends on the definition you use. I'm referring to the abrahamic god, which is a very faulty concept as far as I can tell.

Then you have to write off two-way inductive reasoning as invalid. It is in its nature that it cannot be repeated, not by plan.

It can yeild a theory to be tested. It can yeild valid results that must be verified with repeatability. I think I misphrased what I was trying to say in that instance, but it's too much effort for a small point to expound at this time.

But this assumes that God is to be empirically measured, when the definitions of God that we do have, are such that they are beyond empirical measuring.

I think you're confused. There's no need to prove that the concept of god exists, or that it is imaginary. That it is discussed is proof. If it is "real" in the sense that it is a physical thing, guy in sky, or whatever, then empirical evidence is required. If not, then proof is provided in discussion of concept. Certainly the idea of god exists, so no problem. Perhaps I should ask what exactly you want to prove or disprove...? Okay. What exactly are you trying to prove or disprove?

What we are measuring or looking for empirically is a reification of the concept of God, and since it is a reification, it necessarily fails -- as the concept of God says that God is not a thing, not an object.

Have you considered the implications?!?! Try telling a religionist that god is not an object or thing. They'll maul you! Seriously though - if god is not a thing or an object, why call it god and why does it need to be proved? What exactly is god as you see it? I see you address it below to some extent, but it's WEAK! Be specific.

You have no idea how smart I am.

I think I have a pretty good idea.

Again, you are after proving a reification.

No I'm not. I'm after demonstrating that it can't be proven one way or another. Looks like we agree, but disagree on what "god" is supposed to be. I default to the vernacular usage, but you seem to have some exotic waterized definition or idea about it that you are apparently reluctant to share.

Essentially, you are after a sky daddy, that old man with a beard -- only in a more scientificalized verson.

No I'm not. I'm not trying to prove anything but that efforts to prove god are moot as a consequence of the definition.

This ought to fail, as God is no such thing.

Yet you won't say what kind of thing it is!

How come you do not need to prove it to anyone but them?

Because it is inconsequential to people who don't care about it.

And not to forget, "The method is invalid if it cannot be repeated."

I haven't forgotten, thanks.

*Why* couldn't I say the same for God?

Because I said so. HA! Erm... I explained why before.

Tell me, *why* couldn't I say the same for God as for your love for your wife and children?

You could but you'd be wrong. I already explained why.

And one of those conventions is that God is to be viewed as something empirical, intersubjectively testable, in a lab.

That is not a convention. It's a consequence.

And if it cannot be proven that way, then God doesn't exist.

You know that conclusion is incorrect! Think about what you just said. Tisk tisk. That it cannot be proven doesn't necessarily mean anything as to it's actuality. It simply means we can't make valid rational statements to confirm or deny it. It's indeterminant.

I say such a convention is misleading.

I say you mislead yourself on that one.

Again, this argument coming from the convention that God is to be a thing, an object.

Blah blah blah. Quit dancing and spit it out already. The vernacular usage of "god" is "abraham's mac-daddy" in my culture. You've obviously got some damned hippy conception of perhaps a "vapor daddy" or whatever. Thus we're discussing two different things. I don't think your vapor daddy is really what most people think of as "god", but whatever... let's at least discuss the same concept. Since I have no access to the experience of being you, I'd like you to help me out with whatever this thing is that you're calling god. How about a few words to give an idea of what the hell you're talking about.

There's more to it.
You are still trapped in analyticity.

"Trapped"? Uhm.. aren't we analyzing an issue? I can just make shit up if you want. Let me know.

I think this will need revision.

Wha? It's perfect! PERFECT!!!!!!!!! Shit man I could spend my whole life revising the stuff I said. You no likey eh? Hmmm... I though it was cool.

Why not view God as something personal, yet still communal?

"something"? That's pretty specific. There are a lot of things that are personal yet communal. Do you have a specific thing in mind? I thought you said god wasn't a thing?

The same we do with emotions, values and preferences.

Ah, well I can demonstrate to you that I have values and preferences. Can you demonstrate the need for the god concept in terms of "creation"? It seems superfluous to me.

This, being said with the benefit of hindsight, mind you.
See in advance, ex ante, we can only deal with them as some sort of givens, axioms.

What about in the present? That's usually the only way I look at things, because the present is the only constant I can think of .

It's always right now. Always.

 

[one_raven]

this same story=pattern is also in Eastern myth...where 'Maya'--yet again meaning the Feminine, is seen as illusion and impure, as is the 'self' in Buddhism

Buddhism as a patriarchal order?
I would agree with you if you were to say that about Taoism (male being included in Yin and female being Yang), but Buddhsim?
There is no restrictions aginst females in Buddhist society -they can become Monks, Boddishatvas and Buddhas.
Female is not considered dark or negative in any way.
The key precepts of Buddhism was respect and protection of nature, which, as you clearly pointed out, is feminine.

What do you mean that Maya is seen as impure and illusion in Buddhism?
Queen Maya was Siddhartha's very real physical mother.
If anything she is seen as the pure vessel (not unlike the Virgin Mary) that carried Siddhartha into the natural (feminine) world.
Please explain your reasoning a bit further.
Thanks.

 

[cole grey]

Re: maya - I found this interesting...

"Un-deified, Maya is a "veil of illusion," or a wondrous display, a magical dance -- a trick that employs distraction to keep us bound to samsara, the Wheel of Existences.

Maya is not a Trickster in the sense of an agent that purposely misleads or misguides.* She is not Mara in disguise.* Her majesty, ingenuity and intricacy generously permits us, or inspires us, to glimpse the possibility of "Enlightenment."* It is our own failings that distract us from this objective."

http://www.khandro.net/Bud_mother.htm

 

[water]

Wes,

I will start a new thread where I will consider what you have said in your last post here.
See you there!

 

[MarcAC]

The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

To put that another way: -
When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:


The thing exists.

It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.

Therefore the the non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively denied. Out goes atheism - it seems this one was a double edged sword. Well done. Another nail in the atheist's coffin.

 

[MarcAC]

A logical premise must use a fact or evidence if it is to be valid. Religious assertions cannot form any valid premises since they have no factual basis, i.e. faith is used instead. Religious assertions are therefore necessarily illogical, i.e. are irrational.

Evidence is always open to interpretation and thus may be accepted or rejected. Therefore we can see why such assertions as the one in bold above can simply be dismissed as illustrators of simple arrogance: unless one may have some evidence to support his asserted fact?

By its very definition an imaginary object has no factual basis, i.e. it would not be imaginary otherwise. To then assert that something imaginary does exist simply defies the rules of logic and by definition is an irrational claim.

Most definitely...

No definition of a god in the history of mankind has any factual support.

Another arrogant statement for which any conclusive factual support can doubtfully be provided: or maybe immortality has already been achieved through downloading oneself into a computer... you holdin' out on us?

Religious institutions know this extremely well hence their overwhelming need to assert the importance of faith. If they had any evidence then faith would never be needed.

Regardless of how much it is denied faith is instrinsic to the acceptance of any form of evidence claimed as one most likely will never evaluate all the available evidence [supporting or against] and also never completely trust his line of reasoning without using another's as some sort of reference which then starts a process to infinity.

If a concept has no factual support then the object is imaginary. This does not exclude the possibility that some factual support might materialize in the future at which time the object would cease to be imaginary.

It also doesn't exclude the possibility that some factual support is claimed (exists) and is simply rejected by whoever refuses to accept it thus labelling it imaginary.

The issue is not that a god does not exist but that theists cannot show that their imaginary gods do exist.

Theists make attempts to and can show that God exists and while some accept the evidence presented in support others will reject it - such is the nature of objectivity and free will. As water stellarly stated in some paraphrase; you can't accept something which your mind is conclusively against (for whatever emotional reason).

Absolutely no factual support. If you know of a god that is not imaginary then quote a single fact that proves such a god exists – otherwise such a god is no more than a product of imagination.

As was stated facts may be asserted yet they may not be accepted as supporting evidence by the individual. For example; some use the fact that humans have some sort of objective morality as a fact that this morality is defined by something greater than the human itself. Morality is a personal phenomenon thus this something that defines morality must have some personal nature associated with it - God.

You have confused “imaginary” with “non existent”, these are not the same thing. Something currently imaginary may in fact exist yet there is no factual support for it. For example stories of extra-terrestrial aliens are products of human imagination since we have no factual support for such beings. Many suspect that one day such beings might be discovered and then they will not be imaginary. Similarly if a god ever appears then the concept will cease to be just imaginary.

Yet some claim evidence for such being's existence and proliference but are dismissed in various ways since the mind of most is set against such individuals as being 'kooks'. If one is to be honest, rational, and on a quest for knowledge and knowledge of truth then one will honestly evaluate as much of the claimed evidence presented to them as possible.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Therefore the the non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively denied. Out goes atheism - it seems this one was a double edged sword. Well done. Another nail in the atheist's coffin.

That is pretty old news? Have you read the argument from ignorance thread? I guess Xev closed it before most people could see it....
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42975