The truth about Atheism?

[Persol]

Re: Cris

Originally posted by Fluidity
The pretense of your argument hinges on the assumption that human beings are capable of investigating dimensions outside their comprehension; we are physically, technologically, and mentally incapable of studying the dimensions in which God most probably exists.
If you are going to consider someone the creator, it's fair to say that he had to have access to this dimension to create. That being so, proof of God(s)' existance may be in this dimension

My belief in God hinges on the limitations of man's ability to percieve the Universe, this Earth, or himself from the myriad of extra-dimensional Universe(s).
See above

If we view these invisible dimensions through analogy, where any and all of these dimension are represented by an opaque vessel we cannot lift, open, or touch in any way, we are all left to decide what may be in the vessel.
If the dimension is invisible to us, we don't know it is there...

For the following reasons, it would be illogical for us to assume the vessel is empty. Moreover, in our own world, we are driven to investigate what is in the vessel. We would not claim, without a full investigation, that the vessel is empty.
How would you investigate that which we cannot observe or interact with?

We would be wrong to assume that God is not interacting with the dimensions of our existence.
By definitation, god would have to interact with our dimension.

In fact, we would be wrong to assume we would exist at all without God.
We would also be wrong to assume that we wouldn't exist without a god.

Virtually every property of mass and energy would be dependent upon God, if we, and this Universe, are an extension of God's being or creation. Upon realizing we are dependent upon God for everything we see and need, we would become grateful for having been created.
Just because someone creates something, doesn't mean they stick around.

We would not only recognize our dependence upon God, we would be in awe of God's abilities.
We would be in awe, but we can not prove that god exists. Likewise, even if a god does exist, we cannot prove that it is still here (other then god coming down from the heaven and smiting me of course)

Either that, or we would simply be angry at God for creating us as flawed individuals, and argue over the very concept of a loving God.
People already do this

I hope you see some inherent logic in this concept. If not, you are completely unreasonable and this discussion will go nowhere.
I do declare that I may be unreasonable.

I authored a much longer version of this proof in my Philosophy class, and that paper has been used in debates for the last 10 years.
Sounds interesting... do you have a link? (or post)

~Clay

 

[Fluidity]

Boy oh boy..

Originally posted by Fluidity
The pretense of your argument hinges on the assumption that human beings are capable of investigating dimensions outside their comprehension; ...
<HR>
If you are going to consider someone the creator, it's fair to say that he had to have access to this dimension to create. That being so, proof of God(s)' existance may be in this dimension
<HR>
>>>This dimension is a product of another. Why would you assume we could percieve the interaction?
<HR>
My belief in God hinges on the limitations of man's ability to percieve the Universe, this Earth, or himself from the myriad of extra-dimensional Universe(s).
<HR>
See above
>>>See above...

<HR>
If we view these invisible dimensions through analogy, where any and all of these dimension are represented by an opaque vessel we cannot lift, open, or touch in any way, we are all left to decide what may be in the vessel.
<HR>
If the dimension is invisible to us, we don't know it is there...
>>>psst...that's why I used an analogy...


For the following reasons, it would be illogical for us to assume the vessel is empty. Moreover, in our own world, we are driven to investigate what is in the vessel. We would not claim, without a full investigation, that the vessel is empty.
<HR>
How would you investigate that which we cannot observe or interact with?
<HR>
>>>You really are thick-headed. See above!

We would be wrong to assume that God is not interacting with the dimensions of our existence.
<HR>
By definitation, god would have to interact with our dimension.
<HR>
>>>psst...that's what that sentence means...

In fact, we would be wrong to assume we would exist at all without God.
<HR>
We would also be wrong to assume that we wouldn't exist without a god.
<HR>
>>>umm...I just proved you were (most logically) created by God, therefore you wouldn't exist without God...

Virtually every property of mass and energy would be dependent upon God, if we, and this Universe, are an extension of God's being or creation. Upon realizing we are dependent upon God for everything we see and need, we would become grateful for having been created.
<HR>
Just because someone creates something, doesn't mean they stick around.
<HR>
>>>Does this mean we wouldn't acknowledge our creator?
And, since we cannot directly interact with God, your ineffectual statement is completely irrelevant.

We would not only recognize our dependence upon God, we would be in awe of God's abilities.
<HR>
We would be in awe, but we can not prove that god exists. Likewise, even if a god does exist, we cannot prove that it is still here (other then god coming down from the heaven and smiting me of course)
<HR>
>>>We can't prove it, but it is the most logical decision to believe,
as this model explains.


Either that, or we would simply be angry at God for creating us as flawed individuals, and argue over the very concept of a loving God.
<HR>
People already do this
<HR>
>>>Really?

I hope you see some inherent logic in this concept. If not, you are completely unreasonable and this discussion will go nowhere.
<HR>
I do declare that I may be unreasonable.
<HR>
>>>I agree.

I authored a much longer version of this proof in my Philosophy class, and that paper has been used in debates for the last 10 years.
<HR>
Sounds interesting... do you have a link? (or post)
<HR>
No, and there is damn good reason for that.

 

[Fluidity]

wesmorris

It is beneath me to do the things you suggest.
Like too many of the people on this site, you have no argument, only useless jibe.
All you managed to do was look impish in your response.

Wow, I'm unimpressed.

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by Fluidity

We would be wrong to assume that God is not interacting with the dimensions of our existence.

and

If you are going to consider someone the creator, it's fair to say that he had to have access to this dimension to create. That being so, proof of God(s)' existance may be in this dimension
>>>This dimension is a product of another. Why would you assume we could percieve the interaction?

First, you are assuming this whole 'dimension is a product of another' thing which has no basis. Leaving that alone for now, an interaction with our universe means a change in our universe. We can observe changes.

For the following reasons, it would be illogical for us to assume the vessel is empty. Moreover, in our own world, we are driven to investigate what is in the vessel. We would not claim, without a full investigation, that the vessel is empty.
>>How would you investigate that which we cannot observe or interact with?
>>>You really are thick-headed. See above!
And I'm looking for what exactly? All that you are 'attempting' to prove is that god is in some ofther dimension but interacts with ours... yet we can't see the interaction... so we wouldn't be able to tell anyhow....

In fact, we would be wrong to assume we would exist at all without God.
>>We would also be wrong to assume that we wouldn't exist without a god.
>>>umm...I just proved you were (most logically) created by God, therefore you wouldn't exist without God...
You proved no such thing... there was no valid argument.

Virtually every property of mass and energy would be dependent upon God, if we, and this Universe, are an extension of God's being or creation. Upon realizing we are dependent upon God for everything we see and need, we would become grateful for having been created.
>>Just because someone creates something, doesn't mean they stick around.
>>>Does this mean we wouldn't acknowledge our creator?
And, since we cannot directly interact with God, your ineffectual statement is completely irrelevant.
No, it means if 'somehow' you could prove we had a creator, you couldn't prove that we were still dependant on the creator.

Either that, or we would simply be angry at God for creating us as flawed individuals, and argue over the very concept of a loving God.
>>People already do this
>>>Really?
It's a common Christan method to down-play atheism.
http://pub30.ezboard.com/fdigitalrealm21745frm10


I hope you see some inherent logic in this concept. If not, you are completely unreasonable and this discussion will go nowhere.
>>I do declare that I may be unreasonable.
>>>I agree.
Good... we have to start somewhere

I authored a much longer version of this proof in my Philosophy class, and that paper has been used in debates for the last 10 years.
>>Sounds interesting... do you have a link? (or post)
>>>No, and there is damn good reason for that.
Which is? It must be a strong paper if it's been used in debates for the last 10 years. Someone must have a link.


Just to make your argument clear:
Humans cannot observe other dimensions
God most likely exists in another dimension -no proof
I believe god exists because humans have limited observational ability -I think you missed a step
Since we can not observe other dimensions, it would be illogical to assume they are empty -It is illogical that we can do anything but guess
It is wrong to assume we exist without god -not an arguement, but a statement
Our existance relies on gods interaction -no proof
When we realize this dependance, we will be grateful and in awe, or we could be angry -There's options here for everyone!
Other people should see the inherent logic in this concept
If you do not think this is logical, you are unreasonable -it doesn't follow any type of logical progression
I (Fluidity) hate using this model -Yet another thing we agree upon

 

[Persol]

Re: wesmorris

Originally posted by Fluidity
It is beneath me to do the things you suggest.
Like too many of the people on this site, you have no argument, only useless jibe.
All you managed to do was look impish in your response.

Wow, I'm unimpressed.

Don't worry wesmorris... it wasn't a useless jibe if you made someone laugh

(not that you would have been worried anyhow )

 

[Cris]

Fluid,

Persol seems to have done a good job in responding to your post but I'll add my comments as well.

The pretense of your argument hinges on the assumption that human beings are capable of investigating dimensions outside their comprehension;

No it doesn't. Such fantasy dimensions are the realm of the theist.

we are physically, technologically, and mentally incapable of studying the dimensions in which God most probably exists.

If we are incapable of knowing anything about such places then there is no way you can assess a probability about an unknowable entity and which unknowable place such an unknown thing might unknowably reside.

My belief in God hinges on the limitations of man's ability to percieve the Universe, this Earth, or himself from the myriad of extra-dimensional Universe(s).

I think wes described your illogic here quite well. It is exactly because of your inability to perceive such things that makes you entirely irrational in concluding that a god must exist.

When we are faced with an opaque container that we cannot open and have no method to observe or detect the contents then indeed we can reach no conclusions about the potential contents.

The primary flaw in your argument is the assumption that the container exists or could exist. Without any evidence that the container exists then any attempt to deduce the contents of something that may not exist is entirely futile, and any conclusions would be indistinguishable from a fantasy.

We would be wrong to assume that God is not interacting with the dimensions of our existence.

And equally we would have no reason to conclude that he exists or that he is interacting with anything.

In fact, we would be wrong to assume we would exist at all without God.

And equally we have no reason to assume we could not exist without a god.

If God is in the extra-dimensional Universe(s), our existence relies completely upon God's interaction with this Universe.

That doesn't follow at all. We could equally argue that this god exists in this extra dimensional universe and is entirely separate from us and we have no dependency on him whatsoever. Without factual support one fantasy is as good as any other.

Virtually every property of mass and energy would be dependent upon God, if we, and this Universe, are an extension of God's being or creation.

A big IF. All you have is a fantasy again.

Upon realizing we are dependent upon God for everything we see and need, we would become grateful for having been created.

Sure why not. But this took a series of fantasies to reach this point so it has no credibility of being real.

We would not only recognize our dependence upon God, we would be in awe of God's abilities.

I'm not sure why awe would result. If my existence depended on such a condition then that would be simple matter of fact that I can't influence.

I hope you see some inherent logic in this concept.

The fantasy is internally logically consistent, but then we could say the same thing about a cartoon movie. Fiction novels are also usually logically consistent.

What you haven't shown is any link between this fantasy and anything in the real universe.

I authored a much longer version of this proof in my Philosophy class, and that paper has been used in debates for the last 10 years.

What was it that you were trying to prove? There is no proof here and I find it highly improbable that any respectable philosopher would consider such an article worthy of serious debate apart from perhaps an illustration for ridicule. Sorry to burst your bubble but these statements are significantly naïve.

 

[Fluidity]

Cris et al

It's very easy to 'suggest' a given theory is fantasy.
We could argue that time does NOT stop at the speed of light,
or that there is no warpage of space-time, and that gravity is a magnetic force, alone. We could argue against these things, but that would be pointless because they are proven theories. There are other dimensions to this Universe than we cannot see or feel, or measure. But, arguing that suggestion with you would be pointless.

It is also very easy to 'suggest' a logical progression is broken because the underlying root of its foundation is theoretical.
But, since none of you are capable of looking at this concept objectively, dicussing any logical progression based on theory with you is pointless.

Most of you seem to hold the power of your knowledge and intellect above the power of ignorance.

It is what we do not know that we strive to learn; this is the gravitational force of knowledge, without it, we would be living in caves.

The belief in God requires the humility to acknowledge the power of the unknown; it is apparent most atheists, if you represent a fair cross-section, are incapable of this simple act of humility.

Based on this conclusion, the concept of basing a belief on the unknown is inconcievable to the atheist.

I find deep fault in any individual that lacks the humility to admit man's knowledge is finite, or assumes human awareness is in any way complete, regardess of the equipment we build to see what our eyes cannot see, or ears cannot hear.

I have lost a great deal of respect for most of you, because you are incapable of objectively considering the realm of possibilities that lie outside the scope of your knowledge and awareness.

To say we have no use for exploring the possibility of the existence of God would be parallel to saying we have no use to explore the unknown; and this is ignorance.

 

[Cris]

Fluid,

It's very easy to 'suggest' a given theory is fantasy.

But you are not offering a theory (in the scientific sense), at best we could call your idea an hypothesis, but to progress to a theory you would need evidential support. But if you are offering your idea as if it were true, as opposed to an hypothesis, and without evidence then your idea is a fantasy.

So what is it that you are offering? Do you just have an idea that you'd like to explore to see if it has potential or are you claiming that your idea must be true?

There are other dimensions to this Universe than we cannot see or feel, or measure. But, arguing that suggestion with you would be pointless.

It would indeed be pointless if you claim such things are true. Since as you state we can't detect them then it is impossible to know that they are or might be true. If you want to propose them as ideas for discussion with no assumption about whether they are true or not then you will find many here willing to use their imagination and explore such ideas.

The problem you will face is your continual insistence on making unsupported assertions. For example you state " There are ..". This is a blatant unsupported assertion, and no one will want to debate with you when you adopt such an irrational starting point.

But, since none of you are capable of looking at this concept objectively, dicussing any logical progression based on theory with you is pointless.

I think most of us would be delighted to discuss your ideas objectively if you were prepared to offer them as ideas rather than truths.

Most of you seem to hold the power of your knowledge and intellect above the power of ignorance.

Neither does it help your case when you make nonsense statements like that.

It is what we do not know that we strive to learn; this is the gravitational force of knowledge, without it, we would be living in caves.

This is a strange expression, but essentially this is true. So if you stop presenting your ideas as if they are true and adopt the scientific approach of hypothesizing then you could be quite popular here.

The belief in God requires the humility to acknowledge the power of the unknown; it is apparent most atheists, if you represent a fair cross-section, are incapable of this simple act of humility.

So here is where many of us will have problems with your approach again. You require us to accept without question -

1. That a God exists without evidential support for the claim.
2. That the unknown has some power that we must accept without any evidential support.
3. That somehow atheists are inferior to you.

With such an approach you are doomed before you even begin.

Based on this conclusion, the concept of basing a belief on the unknown is inconcievable to the atheist.

Well of course since there is no good reason to believe in something that is unknown. The entire concept is quite irrational.

For example, floating 2 feet above your head is an invisible and immaterial super powerful crystalline dodecahedron 3 feet in diameter. I assert that this is true, but of course this would be unknown to you. But I insist you believe it. So what reason would you have to believe my unsupported assertions? None of course. And that is exactly the idiotic approach you are taking with your ideas about an unknown god.

I find deep fault in any individual that lacks the humility to admit man's knowledge is finite, or assumes human awareness is in any way complete, regardess of the equipment we build to see what our eyes cannot see, or ears cannot hear.

But that is the argument of the atheist and the scientist. There is a general acceptance that there is far more we don't known than what we do know. But there is no reason to accept something as true just because of someone's unsupported imaginative fantasies. The discovery of real knowledge takes effort and the need to find real supportive evidence. You cannot short-circuit this process.

I have lost a great deal of respect for most of you, because you are incapable of objectively considering the realm of possibilities that lie outside the scope of your knowledge and awareness.

Then understand that it is not us that is in error here. You have made assertions that you can't support. Try adopting the approach of the scientist with a genuine desire to explore potentially new ideas and hypotheses with no assumption about the truth or untruth of such ideas.

To say we have no use for exploring the possibility of the existence of God would be parallel to saying we have no use to explore the unknown; and this is ignorance.

But no one has said anything like that, that is your own uninformed perception of the skeptics position. If you assert something as truth and do not support the idea then you appear no more than an irrational fanatic.

If you make more of an effort to propose your ideas as hypotheses for open discussion with no presumption concerning their validity then you will earn significant respect here and potentially genuine interest.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: Cris et al

Originally posted by Fluidity
Based on this conclusion, the concept of basing a belief on the unknown is inconcievable to the atheist.

Not at all. I delight in watching my granchildren do it all the time, and I applaud their appreciation of fantasy.

 

[wesmorris]

Re: wesmorris

Originally posted by Fluidity
It is beneath me to do the things you suggest.
Like too many of the people on this site, you have no argument, only useless jibe.
All you managed to do was look impish in your response.

Wow, I'm unimpressed.

Impish? Awe. You're sweet. Stop it.

 

[wesmorris]

Oh, yeah and I forgot.... you said (and I paraphrase) "being educated is beneath me".

ROFLMAO

So you want to be ignorant. You seem to right on track. Fine work.

 

[Fluidity]

So here is where many of us will have problems with your approach again. You require us to accept without question -

1. That a God exists without evidential support for the claim.
2. That the unknown has some power that we must accept without any evidential support.
3. That somehow atheists are inferior to you.

With such an approach you are doomed before you even begin.
<HR>
What I actually am 'asking' you to do is:

1) Admit the possibility that God exists without 'proof' for the claim.
2) Admit the unknown 'is' a power we must accept.
3) Explain why atheists refuse to accept the above as rational thought.

 

[Fluidity]

wesmorris

Originally posted by wesmorris
Oh, yeah and I forgot.... you said (and I paraphrase) "being educated is beneath me".

ROFLMAO

So you want to be ignorant. You seem to right on track. Fine work.

Ooops... This really is funny. You should be a rag journalist; they do this all the time.

 

[Persol]

Re: Cris

The pretense of your argument hinges on the assumption that human beings are capable of investigating dimensions outside their comprehension. We are actually incapable of studying the dimensions in which Elvis most probably exists in an alive and well state.

My belief in Elvis hinges on the fact that man has limit powers of observation in this universe.

If we view these invisible dimensions through analogy, where any and all of these dimension are represented by an opaque vessel we cannot lift, open, or touch in any way, we are all left to decide what may be in the vessel. For the following reasons, it would be illogical for us to assume the vessel is empty. Moreover, in our own world, we are driven to investigate what is in the vessel. We would not claim, without a full investigation, that the vessel is empty. But, we cannot open this vessel; it is outside the reach of human intervention.

We would be wrong to assume that Elvis is not interacting with the dimensions of our existence. In fact, we would be wrong to assume we would exist at all without Elvis. If God is in the extra-dimensional Universe(s), our existence relies completely upon Elvis's interaction with this Universe. He has always been and he will always be.

Virtually every property of mass and energy would be dependent upon Elvis, if we, and this Universe, are an extension of Elvis's being or creation. Upon realizing we are dependent upon God for everything we see and need, we would become grateful for having been created. We would not only recognize our dependence upon Elvis, we would be in awe of Elvis's abilities.

Either that, or we would simply be angry at Elvis for creating us as flawed individuals, and argue over the very concept of a fat and drugged up Elvis.

I hope you see the lack inherent logic in this concept. If not, you are completely unreasonable and this discussion will go nowhere. I hate having to use this model, because it shouldn't be necessary, and it is a trajedy when it isn't respected.

I authored a much longer version of this proof in my Philosophy 101 class, and that paper has been being used as an example of how not to win an argument for 10 years. I have yet to pass the class.

~Mud

P.S. - Elvis is your saviour!

P.P.S - This is actually sightly more logical... since we atleast have proof that Elvis exists. He may have just gone into another dimension as a sort of rehab.

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by Fluidity

What I actually am 'asking' you to do is:

1) Admit the possibility that God exists without 'proof' for the claim.
2) Admit the unknown 'is' a power we must accept.
3) Explain why atheists refuse to accept the above as rational thought.

What I actually am 'asking' you to do is:

1) Admit the possibility that Elvis exists in another dimension without 'proof' for the claim.
2) Admit that we must accept his unknown power.
3) Explain why god believers refuse to accept the above as rational thought. That Elvis is your saviour!

 

[Fluidity]

Persol

1) Admit the possibility that Elvis exists in another dimension without 'proof' for the claim.

>>>I can admit this.

2) Admit that we must accept his unknown power.

>>>Albeit the probability his power inert, I can even admit this.

3) Explain why god believers refuse to accept the above as rational thought. That Elvis is your saviour!

>>>God believers don't need Elvis.

 

[Fluidity]

Elvis is God

Yes! The creator of my Universe, the leader of my elvis-fearing friends. I see the light! Damn those sequins are shiny!

Give it up, friends! It's the King!

Thank you, Persol, Thank Elvis I have found him.

Woo Hooo!

 

[Persol]

Fluidity,
1) Admit the possibility that God exists without 'proof' for the claim.
I admit it possible, unfortunately you can not base arguments on possibilites that can not be proved. the claim. Even if I was too say that all your claims are possible, all that is doing is say that your conclusion is 'possible'. Not definite, and not most likely. So, will you:
Admit the possibility that God does not exists without 'proof' for the claim.

2) Admit the unknown 'is' a power we must accept.
Oh well, no help here. It is unknown, so what are we accepting? So I ask you to:
Admit the unknown 'is not' a power we must accept.

We accept that there is knowledge that we do not have. I do not accept that this is "a power we must accept". Why must I?

3) Explain why atheists refuse to accept the above as rational
Hell, I'm not even atheist and I just answered that. Read my last 2 statements. My Elvis arguement uses the same exact 'logic', and is not rational as I hope you see.

 

[Persol]

Re: Elvis is God

Albeit the probability his power inert, I can even admit this.

You can't figure out the probability of something which is completely unknown. But I guess it doesn't matter since....

Yes! The creator of my Universe, the leader of my elvis-fearing friends. I see the light! Damn those sequins are shiny!
Give it up, friends! It's the King!
Thank you, Persol, Thank Elvis I have found him.
Woo Hooo!

Thank you. Case closed. Elvis is god. We can all go home now.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Persol
What I actually am 'asking' you to do is:

1) Admit the possibility that Elvis exists in another dimension without 'proof' for the claim.
2) Admit that we must accept his unknown power.
3) Explain why god believers refuse to accept the above as rational thought. That Elvis is your saviour!

Any theory of existence involving Elvis wins me over by default. I just hope it's the fat, Vegas Elvis cuz he's a lot funnier.

They didn't call Him King for nuthin baby. Ah -uh-huh.
*Elvis lip twitch and superstar pose*