Why it is silly to look for evidence of God

wynn said:
I am referring you to the usual definitions of God.

It is silly, to say the least, for humans to try to test those definitions.
Click to expand...

You mean foolish, folly, fallacy and a few more f-words :eek:....like frivolous! :p

Nevertheless, it's (1) a leading question, i.e., containing an unfounded premise in the question. Other fallacies implicit in the "usual definition" of the OP:

(2) God = He: the anthropomorphic fallacy
(3) God = controller of the Universe: the science denialism extension to (2)
(4) bias to alternatives (2) and (3), omitting the null hypothesis: God = idea =0.

Fallacy to the power four.

Even under the bias correction to (4), alternatives (2) and (3) are tested, failed, and sent to the error heap. So falls the alternative hypothesis that props up (1), and all of this conversation collapses to the null position: God is an idea.
 
Aqueous Id said:
You mean foolish, folly, fallacy and a few more f-words :eek:....like frivolous! :p

Nevertheless, it's (1) a leading question, i.e., containing an unfounded premise in the question. Other fallacies implicit in the "usual definition" of the OP:

(2) God = He: the anthropomorphic fallacy
(3) God = controller of the Universe: the science denialism extension to (2)
(4) bias to alternatives (2) and (3), omitting the null hypothesis: God = idea =0.

Fallacy to the power four.

Even under the bias correction to (4), alternatives (2) and (3) are tested, failed, and sent to the error heap. So falls the alternative hypothesis that props up (1), and all of this conversation collapses to the null position: God is an idea.
Click to expand...

Another enlightened one! Oh, what abundance, oh what affluence, of what overflowing fullness of enlightened creatures!

I don't think I can take it anymore!

Oh!

:m:
 
Jan Ardena said:
The miskake being made here, IMO, is that belief in God is accepted as such, because of external traits, and because one says one believes.
In this case I am using the actual definition of the words atheist, and theist, which is not to be confused with ''mondern atheism'', which ties itself in with logic, science, and reason.
Click to expand...

There are various definitions of theism and atheism, yes.


Yes. So I take it you mean ''duty''?
So how is it possible to love, duty?
Click to expand...

The word "Dharma" has many meanings, indeed. One of them is 'duty.'

As I noted earlier, it also refers to the teachings that help living beings transcend samsara. Samsara literally means 'aimlessly wandering on'. Some cultures believe that having a path out of this aimlessly wandering on is a good thing and something to be grateful for - something to love, hence the sanskrit term dharma-rati.

As for loving one's duty - this one can see even in mundane settings:
Duty is, among other things, a regularity. Having regularity in one's life is something people generally appreciate.
Duty is also obligation. It is by keeping to our obligations that we consider ourselves worthy beings.

The notion that duty is something bothersome, a limitation of our freedom, is related to us being in situations where we have to keep to regularities and obligations or in ways / with attitudes which we at least intuitively believe have nothing to do with "how things really are" and where true happiness is.



I think that's quite an elevated intention.
It's says alot about SciForums, and the range, level, and topics, here.
Because of my desire to enjoy, I've learned alot of stuff since I've been here.
Click to expand...

Interesting! I haven't thought of this - one has a desire to enjoy, so one does things one enjoys (such as discuss at forums), and as a result, one learns.

I never thought that learning could be enjoyable!





And if I may add: I think you have too. :D
Click to expand...

Oh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top