Forum menu
Mleh, get used to it. ‘Tis the nature of the universe.
You've tried this line before. Debunked thoroughly in the thread.
Neither was Einstein, or Newton, or Galileo. what’s your point?
The fact that you have asked me this despite me referring to my appeals makes me realise you are not as well read as I thought. Apologies. This does somewhat explain your approach.
Mleh, get used to it. ‘Tis the nature of the universe.
Also, I forgot to mention, the nature of the universe is Newtonian and General Relativity. so not mleh, or woolly.
.
Apart from the bits that are quantum and pay no attention to the Newtonian laws. Mleh, arguing with absolutists, waste of time (and space)
This is just shameful selective quoting seeing as my quote was
the nature of the universe is Newtonian and General Relativity.
What is general relativity???
from wiki
. So far, all tests of general relativity have been shown to be in agreement with the theory. The time dependent solutions of general relativity enable us to talk about the history of the universe and have provided the modern framework for cosmology, thus leading to the discovery of the Big Bang and cosmic microwave background radiation. Despite the introduction of a number of alternative theories, general relativity continues to be the simplest theory consistent with experimental data.
It doesn't chime with quantum mechanics, but only in theory.
And when they do resolve it, it still won't be "mleh or woolly". I mean what was the purpose of that comment other than to chip in with a little digs that don't really make any argument, but might prove some pedantry?
I'm not being personal, but seeing as you don't seem to know anything about logic, logical fallacies, the philosophy of science, or astrophysics/cosmology why are you commenting on them?
Science isn’t really a thing. Its just a loose collection of human knowledge based around methods of ordered observation. It’s not a thing you can say is or is not important.
I'm well aware of what science is thanks.
You're all missing the point, completely. We've already said that you can't prove the existence of God or the non-existence. So given those two facts, the argument is rendered pointless. You are therefore free to BELIEVE whatever you want.
In science, a theory has to be provable in order to be accepted. But faith is not science. You may as well aim to prove that football is rubbish, or that modern art is not real art.
In my view, the evidence does not support the existence of God. But so what? So what if I choose to start believing in it, because I want to?
Mleh, I'm done, you're clearly getting personal as you get desperate.
Molly says it better than me (as per normal) you miss the point.
I’m well aware of what science is thanks.
To be fair, I am not convinced.
You’re all missing the point, completely. We’ve already said that you can’t prove the existence of God or the non-existence. So given those two facts, the argument is rendered pointless. You are therefore free to BELIEVE whatever you want.
As TJ said you are balancing out these two which is wrong. I think this might be one of those "clever arguemnts" you don't like. The argument is not pointless, nobody can prove the non existence of anything. So that side of the argument is rendered null.
One can only demonstrate the likely hood of the existence of something, there is zero evidence to show the likelyhood of deities. There is a shed load of evidence to show they were made up. So the inabilty to prove the existence - kinda shows that god does not exist as far as you could say that about anything, its about as definite as it gets.
In science, a theory has to be provable in order to be accepted. But faith is not science. You may as well aim to prove that football is rubbish, or that modern art is not real art.
Not equivalent in any way. This is a classic category error. (thats another "clever arguement" in your parlance) Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, therfore there is no god to discuss.
At least with footy or art you can see and partake in footy and art. Yes you can discuss these things ad nauseam, but they do at least exist.
You are free to believe in whatever you want, just as I am free to think its utterly foolish and quite dangerous.
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence
That's what I've been saying all along.
The point I am trying to make is that faith is not a valueless concept despite the lack of evidence.
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence, therfore there is no god to discuss.
No, there is. We can discuss hypothetical concepts. Or at least, I can.
All you are doing is searching for proof and evidence to determine the fundamental nature of the universe. Which is fine. But what if someone doesn't care about that?
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence
That’s what I’ve been saying all along.
Ok fine we can agree on that much. 😂
The point I am trying to make is that faith is not a valueless concept despite the lack of evidence.
I think its a dangerous concept in respect of religion. I can have faith that England will win the world cup, thats harmless to a point, unless I use that faith to gamble my life savings..
No, there is. We can discuss hypothetical concepts. Or at least, I can.
Anyone can.
What does it matter if God exists or not?
EDIT - why did you delete this? Its the best question so far?
I think this is the nub of it.
It matters because the faith in god has created so much misery. Faith in something that is an obvious made up story - if you look at the history of religion and gods - has lead to all this misery and bad things. Plus promoting this way of thinking has contributed to the undermining of science (I'd argue that is scientists fault but its a different story), and contributed to all the gaslighting and mis/disinformation going on in the world today.
Responsible people should be working to bring back some idea of truth to the world.
All you are doing is searching for proof and evidence to determine the fundamental nature of the universe. Which is fine. But what if someone doesn’t care about that?
1) If you/they don't care, then why do people need to beleive in god? God is an answer, albeit flawed, to that question, that the point of it.
2) You'd be suprised to learn, I don't 'care' about the fundamental nature of the universe. I mean I don't need to know, I do not really give a damn. I am glad other people are working on it, but I doubt they will ever find out, becasue I think it is probably unknowable.
3) I care about making sure that peopel are not conned or manipulated, or know the the truth before they decide on anything. You molgrips may be aware of the nature of science, that you cannot prove a negative, that a theory needs to be falsifiable, that there is no evidence of god, and safely allow yourself to have faith. In fact if you know those things and still believe then it is true faith. (but you have said you personally do not believe)
But can you say hand on heart that many/most other believers actually do not realise the fundamentals of scientific thought, and if they did that would likely change their belief.
I know a few academics like this but almost all lay people I have discussed this with have ended up questioning their faith. Thats my issue, I see it as a major con for the unwary. If you know the facts and still choose? Fine.
Hence I think for you Molly as a confessed unbeliever, you should make it your duty to ensure people know what you know.
So given those two facts, the argument is rendered pointless. You are therefore free to BELIEVE whatever you want.
The flaw here is that only really applies to a deist approach. Which doesnt tend to be that prominent in religions since it has the obvious problem when the leader says "do x" they cant follow up with "because its the word of god".
This is the best post you've made so far 5plusn8
1) If you/they don’t care, then why do people need to beleive in god?
Why don't you come along to the pub night and ask?
But can you say hand on heart that many/most other believers actually do not realise the fundamentals of scientific thought, and if they did that would likely change their belief.
I've thought about this a lot. I used to think like you, when I was much younger. I constructed many arguments along these lines in my head, tearing apart the concept of Christian god. Then I realised something - if I were to argue with a religious person, what if I won? I'd take something from them that they love and value greatly. What kind of dick would that make me? Would I feel proud of myself as they stare into the abyss contemplating inevitable oblivion? I don't enjoy that part of atheism, why would I force it on someone else?
I care about making sure that peopel are not conned or manipulated, or know the the truth before they decide on anything.
So do I.
It matters because the faith in god has created so much misery.
We already covered this, but here goes again:
1) You can't separate religion from all the other motives in history that have caused war and misery and allowed people to be manipulated.
2) You can't say that without religion you wouldn't have wars. It's pretty obvious from an anthropological point of view (that's a science by the way) that tribes must come into conflict over resources, and they will make up all sorts of things to justify it. But just because some human invokes God to get people on his side doesn't mean that a) he wouldn't have invoked something else if there hadn't been God and b) the war wouldn't have happened without a God to invoke.
It seems clear to me that the argument about religion is different to the argument about faith as a concept, and different again from the one about the existence of a God.
the Atheist list is going to be much much shorter,than list saying “Can’t be sure” innit
That's the agnostic list you've got there.
We’ve already said that you can’t prove the existence of God or the non-existence. So given those two facts
Stop you there Mols, you little tinker. These are not the same "two facts" at all.
It is not possible to prove the non-existence of a god, you're quite right.
But it absolutely should be possible to prove the existence of a god should one exist, we just haven't worked out how to do it yet.
What happened to the OP? Preying elsewhere or weeping at the missed £2s?
But it absolutely should be possible to prove the existence of a god should one exist, we just haven’t worked out how to do it yet.
Nah not really for the same reasons as proving the non-existence. We don't even have a universal definition of 'God', for a start, which is bound to hamper efforts. But even if we take the traditional definition of an intelligent omnipresent being, nothing He could do could prove His existence. If a white robed bearded figure descended from heaven saying 'I am God!' and doing miracles, no-one could be sure it wasn't say, some sort of powerful alien in the style of Q from Star Trek TNG. The famous Arthur C Clarke quote springs to mind. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of Christians would refuse to believe that it actually was God. Last time this is alleged to have happened a lot of people didn't believe it.
Take for example a pious man walking down the street when a potted plant falls off a windowsill and smashes to the ground just infront of him. If he hadn't had to side-step a shitting seagull a few seconds before he'd have been right under it and died. Did God send the seagull, or did God send the plant pot? Was God trying to kill him but the seagull thwarted it? Or was he going to die by chance and God saved him with the seagull? It's not really possible to tell.
A being without limits could do anything, but anything could happen anyway for other reasons, so any given thing that has happened cannot be definitively attributed to a God or.. er.. disattributed.
The OP is not currently at his desk.
Rubber_Buccaneer
What happened to the OP? Preying elsewhere or weeping at the missed £2s?
That is not a very nice thing to say even if you don't believe in God etc. What is £2? Very little.
My view is that you can listen to what they have to say but you don't have to accept them. Respect and logic are two different matters. Try not to confuse respect with logic.
Some religious leaders want to have respect but they their logic don't stack up, in that case just take whatever that sounds logical to you and leave the rest behind.
Nah not really for the same reasons as proving the non-existence. We don’t even have a universal definition of ‘God’, for a start, which is bound to hamper efforts.
Sure we could. If we have something reasonable to go on we can extrapolate. Ask CERN.
nothing He could do could prove His existence
You're saying we'd reject first-hand witness as proof. Yet we base an entire ideology on 1500 year old documents being fact.
Think about that for a minute. Is the notion of a god is so outlandish that if there were the second coming tomorrow, the believers would be sceptical?
a pious man walking down the street when a potted plant falls off a windowsill and smashes to the ground just infront of him
What you've got there is Survivor Bias.
... most people (even the pious?) would think it’s a new David Blaine stunt?"
Yes, but the question is what is he teaching? Magic tricks? I have no need for that.
The notion of a god is so outlandish ...
I don't think it is outlandish. As I said earlier it could be cosmic conscious energy that is so fine but still exist in material world but our understanding is minimal. They might have the ability to create etc ... think about what make us conscious? Energy pulse? Some sort of electricity inside us? (don't know the technical term). What makes the heart beat? Brain wave? What is that? Energy? What is that?
p/s: we are "mechanical" without the energy flow isn't it. so what is that energy that keeps us going? Even starting the process of energy (carbohydrate whatever) still need energy but what is that?
[edited as you were replying, apologies]
Im still worshipping Ra the Sun God.
I intend to offer up thanks later on tomorrow and make an offering by way of an orange fizz ice lolly.
Which I shall sacrifice in his name.
Yet we base an entire ideology on 1500 year old documents being fact.
Not sure all religious people see them as facts, more a story that gives guidance on how to live and act.
Could probably do with an update that is more fitting to 2022 but the premise that everyone lived their lives in for example a christian way is a good one in theory and if everyone was truly trying to do that it would be a nice place to live.
In practice it is clearly not working out...
I Ching.
Does God Exist?
Cast Hexagram:
39 蹇 Chien / Obstruction
Description
Chien / Obstruction
Above K'AN THE ABYSMAL, WATER
Below KÊN KEEPING STILL, MOUNTAIN
The hexagram pictures a dangerous abyss lying before us and a steep, inaccessible mountain rising behind us. We are surrounded by obstacles; at the same time, since the mountain has the attribute of keeping still, there is implicit a hint as to how we can extricate ourselves. The hexagram represents obstructions that appear in the course of time but that can and should be overcome. Therefore all the instruction given is directed to overcoming them.
Yet we base an entire ideology on 1500 year old documents being fact.
No, we really don't. For a start, many of the books are a lot older than that. And we can be fairly sure that the ideology or similar others existed long before even those books did.
My view is that many people want, and possibly need faith. These people like religion, because it satisfies that need. But why? You could say that it's some kind of neurological defect, but you could also say that it is God touching them, and you can't really prove either way. You could point at neurotransmitters being activated, but you can't (as far as I know) point at why they'd be activated by this idea.
I don't wish to trivialise the views of the faithful here although I feel the above might be construed as such.
Yet we base an entire ideology on 1500 year old documents being fact.
And of course it is just a subset of all of the available documents that were chosen for a reason. SaxonRider is great with this stuff
https://laotiantimes.com/2022/05/11/eleven-bodies-found-at-thai-excrement-cult-temple/
Blood of Christ, etc...
Sorry,I've avoided this for a few days as I think it drifted a little too far......
My view is that many people want, and possibly need faith. These people like religion, because it satisfies that need. But why?
Does there have to be a 'why'?
Human nature is a product of evolution.
We,as a species still seem to need to believe in the irrational.
There's no point in getting annoyed about it, can we not just discuss it sensibly whilst accepting that we all have our own point of view?
Interesting contributions by Chewk as usual, btw. Appreciated.
Does there have to be a ‘why’?
No, it's there if you want it. But no.
Also, define irrational.
You could point at neurotransmitters being activated, but you can’t (as far as I know) point at why they’d be activated by this idea.
Evolutionary pressures is the answer. Feeling good with communal activity is an evolutionary advantage as it binds tribes together
It's complicated. 🙂
We all set limits on what we believe to be rational because of individual learned experience.
However, faith determines how far we are willing to stretch our personal definition of rationality beyond that.
Excellent example above regarding Newtonian and non Newtonian physics.
Do I find non Newtonian physics rational?
Yes.
Why?
Even though I have only a little personal experience of it as a student, I DO have personal experience of the validity of the scientific method.
Therefore I'm often happy to accept the findings of those following that method even though I have little experience of the subject myself.
Faith and science.
39 Chien / Obstruction
There's a pack of French dogs in the way?
And of course it is just a subset of all of the available documents that were chosen for a reason.
And what reason do we suppose that might be?
And what reason do we suppose that might be?
This is well known.
But the Bible != Religion != Faith != God
Evolutionary pressures is the answer.
Arguably once you get to religion and variants such as nationalism its more a way of short circuiting evolutionary pressures and getting them still to apply once you have outgrown the group size where they would normally apply.
redthunder
I Ching.
That's just energy reading which is just a reflection of your current state of energy level. Energy level change all the time. Nothing else. I see it as just bullc*ap. Some people use it to "predict" the future which is foolish. Relying on those bullc*ap to guide you in life will only destroy you. You create your own future and nothing can be predicted absolutely.
This is well known.
Care to enlighten me?
Irrelevant but - Top line from Jarvis in 'Glory Days' relating to I ching
"I used to do the I Ching
But then I had to feed the meter
Now I can't see in to the future
But at least I can use the heater
It doesn't get much better than this
This is how we live our glory days"
Care to enlighten me?
I thought it was common knowledge that it's a collection of books assembled by the authorities to project the view they wanted to at that particular time. The sections are even called 'books'. In the case of Christianity it was the council of er... *googles* Rome.
Are we still on for this folks?
Was rather looking forward to it.
We are. I will not be around until the 4th of June, but will schedule it for a day as soon as possible afterward.
Excellent.
Thanks.