On what God is

[MarcAC]

There is some other point to SouthStar's questioning and doubting strategy, even though what seems most apparent is that he is merely spiting, resenting, doubting for the sake of doubting.

O.k. I was beginning to think the equations of hydrostatic pressure were giving way and he was on his way to the black hole of insanity.

 

[Karmashock]

Please, start a thread, and write in big letters:

Science has no opinion on God what so ever.

Science is an agnostic, not an atheist or a deist.


Okay?

What is wrong with this thread? It seemed relevant to the debate.

 

[water]

What is wrong with this thread? It seemed relevant to the debate.

Nothing is wrong with your post, it is relevant.
But I would still like your idea to be promulgated more vigorously.
Many fights go on on and on here because some people are just very, very eager to disprove God using science, never willing to see that this is not a proper way to disprove God.

 

[wesmorris]

Water,

Who has tried to disprove god?

 

[water]

Who has tried to disprove god?

The most noteable example I know of (from my time here) is this proof.
Then there is the group of more or less militant atheists who regularly say that since there is no scientific proof for something like god, we can't claim there is a god, and thus there is no god. Or they things like "There is no god, god is only in your imagination" or "god is merely a fantasy, and since it is a fantasy, it cannot be proven to exist" etc. You know them all.

What I don't understand is why some atheists on one hand concede that since there is no conclusive proof of god yet and thus it is possible to still find a proof, but then on the other hand define god as "imaginary" and thus nonexistent (Hi, Cris!).

 

[wesmorris]

The most noteable example I know of (from my time here) is this proof.
Then there is the group of more or less militant atheists who regularly say that since there is no scientific proof for something like god, we can't claim there is a god, and thus there is no god.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. IMO, it's as retarded to claim a lack of god as it is to claim god. Actually, maybe claiming a lack of god is worse, because it's trying to prove a negative. At least a theist thinks he has proof, however misguided I might think it is.

Or they things like "There is no god, god is only in your imagination" or "god is merely a fantasy, and since it is a fantasy, it cannot be proven to exist" etc. You know them all.

Yeah probably. I don't see it much though. Could be I don't pay close enough attention.

What I don't understand is why some atheists on one hand concede that since there is no conclusive proof of god yet and thus it is possible to still find a proof, but then on the other hand define god as "imaginary" and thus nonexistent (Hi, Cris!).

Well I agree up to the imaginary part, but the conclusion simply doesn't follow. I don't think that's exactly cris's line of reasoning... but maybe I missed something. I think he cites the lack of evidence as reason to nullify the question, rendering it non-existent as in indeterminant to the point of stupidity... well, I'll let him speak for himself.

 

[water]

True. I think existence will forever be expereinced more than it is understood - at least in this life - same with God.

Yes, it is so with all things.

It looks as if people believe what they do out of vanity, or because they don't know any better -

The question remains; Is there better to be known?

There might be -- but to get there, one must first assume it can be.

- and that there is ultimately no proper justification for belief (any belief, for that matter).

Why do you believe that? How do you justify that belief? If you do, why do you believe it's justified? How do you justify your conception of justification?

If we say there is no "universal overarching principle", the problem of any justification remains ultimately unsolvable.

Sometimes we shouldn't fear circles - in many cases things cannot make sense without them.

I think they aren't circles -- more like spirals, "circles in time"; as such, we aren't really trapped in circularity.

When one ends up in a circle of reasoning (all cases I guess) one should then realise that reason alone is not the only source of justification - but this is the age of reason isn't it?

And this is *the* problem of justification -- it seems that the major stream is to demand that something can receive proper justification *only* if it can be justified via reason.

Personally, I strongly oppose this view, and, how else, of course -- I cannot provide a reasonable justification for my opposition ...

 

[§outh§tar]

I think they aren't circles -- more like spirals, "circles in time"; as such, we aren't really trapped in circularity.

Why aren't we trapped in circularity?

Thought so.

There might be -- but to get there, one must first assume it can be.

Not at all. This insinuates that we can think. If you are prepared to assume this and dig a hole, I'll hand you the shovel. But.

When that something "better" comes along, you can only assume it is better. You can't know that it is better. Unless of course we indeed can think.

 

[water]

Why aren't we trapped in circularity?

Are we standing still? Are we changing?
If we are not standing still, if we change, then this indicates that we are not trapped in circularity.

There might be -- but to get there, one must first assume it can be.

Not at all. This insinuates that we can think. If you are prepared to assume this and dig a hole, I'll hand you the shovel. But.

When that something "better" comes along, you can only assume it is better. You can't know that it is better. Unless of course we indeed can think.

You are looking further than the mark.

 

[§outh§tar]

Are we standing still? Are we changing?
If we are not standing still, if we change, then this indicates that we are not trapped in circularity.

Thought, water, thought.

Just because you think you are changing does not mean you are changing. We shouldn't treat thought as if it is truth. Is there an independent way of verifying that we are changing? No!

I know you are probably going to argue from ignorance, but the point is - if you are going to say thought is the closest we can get to truth, then you must be prepared to say you think independently - otherwise why would you trust throught?

You are looking further than the mark.

Nature has programmed us to strive for the mark. Only there isn't one. That's why we keep searching. Don't know what we are looking for.

 

[water]

Just because you think you are changing does not mean you are changing. We shouldn't treat thought as if it is truth. Is there an independent way of verifying that we are changing? No!

I know you are probably going to argue from ignorance, but the point is - if you are going to say thought is the closest we can get to truth, then you must be prepared to say you think independently - otherwise why would you trust throught?

You do realize you are being circular, and viciously circular to boot?
With thought, you are doubting thought; with thought, you are saying thought is not reliable.

And I'm not saying that "thought is the closest we can get to truth". That would be rabid reductionism.

You are looking further than the mark.

Nature has programmed us to strive for the mark. Only there isn't one. That's why we keep searching. Don't know what we are looking for.

How do you know there is no mark?

Are you, like, trying to say you can prove a negative? And what is more, that you have proven a negative?

 

[§outh§tar]

You do realize you are being circular, and viciously circular to boot?
With thought, you are doubting thought; with thought, you are saying thought is not reliable.

And I'm not saying that "thought is the closest we can get to truth". That would be rabid reductionism.

That's the problem. We fail by our very standards. With thought, we can say thought is reliable. With thought, we can say thought is unreliable. We are trapped. This is why we are trapped.

How do you know there is no mark?

Are you, like, trying to say you can prove a negative? And what is more, that you have proven a negative?

I am saying the expectation of a mark to be reached, a goal, is illusory. We all have it - because nature programmed us that way. No one can ever reach it - because it's not there. This mark we speak of, it is only in the head. Do you want to know how it got there? Not by you. But by