Support NeoGAF

[blame space]

can we just agree that if you subscribe to any religion you should have to use bumpers in bowling?

 

[Slavik81]

Too much philosophy and too little science.

You don't need to attack Aristion's argument for lack of evidence. It's logically broken even on its own terms. At just about every step of the way, too.

But if the source of all logic is unknowable, the logic that is entailed by it is unknowable, and we could never have any knowledge of anything at all. In other words, if we could only define something by what it is not (e.g. indeterminate, impersonal, unknowable etc.) then you cannot know anything about it at all, including it's existence!

A universe in which nothing is certain. So?

This is similar to the deterministic position of Parmenides, who famously asserted that freedom or change is impossible. But this must be false, as one can conceive of oneself as existing under different circumstances or existing within a different Universe than the one we currently exist in

This chain of logic is broken. Just because we can conceive of things happening differently doesn't disprove determinism. In a deterministic universe, things could only happen one way. That would include you thinking of other ways that things you think could have happened, given your limited knowledge. Or even just purely hypothetical imaginary realities.

There are reasons why determinism is not well-supported these days, but this isn't one of them.

This is why the only logical position to hold (and the position that is assumed by everyone who reasons), is that the source of all reality is not absolute determinism or absolute indeterminism, but a libertarian (free) agent who freely brings the Universe into existence, and who can be defined as an agent who is spaceless, timeless, immaterial and MUST be personal in order to avoid the irrational implications of the erroneous positions that have been outlined.

Yes, because 'free' and 'personal' means that it's neither indeterminate nor determinate. You've constructed a series of logical fallacies to rule out all that is possible and instead insert your paradox as the answer.

It's like we were discussing a set of ascending stairs in some person's house. Using an irrelevant case, you argue first that the first stair must be higher than the last. Then, using a logical fallacy, you argue that the last stair must be higher than the first.

Finally, you come to the conclusion. That this must be the shape of their stairs:

 

[Undubbed]

As an atheist, I'm getting tired of these religious debate topics myself.

I used to like 'em and posted in some of them along time ago, but nowadays it's the same arguments and counter-arguments all the damn time. I guess there's just not much more to discuss?

These topics are heavily trite by now. Everytime I see one I'm like "Oh, come on! Another one?". Whether it's pro theist or not.

 

[Zaptruder]

I believe in God. I have my reasons.

Of course you would. If you only had one reason, it would be easy to show you the falsehood of that reason, meaning you wouldn't be believing in God.

And it's not like any one reason is enough to damn... you gotta strike down multiple reasons - including logic independent reasons such as social reasons for belief.

 

[Kapura]

Of course you would. If you only had one reason, it would be easy to show you the falsehood of that reason, meaning you wouldn't be believing in God.

And it's not like any one reason is enough to damn... you gotta strike down multiple reasons - including logic independent reasons such as social reasons for belief.

You, on the other hand, can just get away with being an asshole. Maybe we should examine the reasons for that, eh?

 

[Pixel Pete]

You, on the other hand, can just get away with being an asshole. Maybe we should examine the reasons for that, eh?

In his defense, "I have my reasons" reads as "Don't try and convince me, it's not open to discussion" which then has me asking the purpose of popping into this thread for that one statement.

Otherwise, yeah, being a dick isn't conducive to progress. He could just as easily have simply asked what his reasons are. Well...

What are your reasons? for believing in god Seda? I like to probe every now and then on the hopes that the reasons are not frustrating ambiguous for once.

 

[blame space]

yeah, just once i want to hear that someone's reason for believing in god is that they want the world to be a better place or they want to help the less-fortunate or something.

unfortunately we life in an enlightened time.

 

[Nocebo]

You, on the other hand, can just get away with being an asshole. Maybe we should examine the reasons for that, eh?

How is he being an asshole?

 

[Seda]

In his defense, "I have my reasons" reads as "Don't try and convince me, it's not open to discussion" which then has me asking the purpose of popping into this thread for that one statement.

Otherwise, yeah, being a dick isn't conducive to progress. He could just as easily have simply asked what his reasons are. Well...

What are your reasons? for believing in god Seda? I like to probe every now and then on the hopes that the reasons are not frustrating ambiguous for once.

It's not something I'd like to talk about in an environment like this. I just wanted to say that it's a belief I have. That's all. I don't want to prove, explain, or argue anything. I hope this doesn't come across as weird or nonsensical (or rude), because that's the last thing I want to come across. I don't mean to be snarky or anything.

 

[blame space]

It's not something I'd like to talk about in an environment like this. I just wanted to say that it's a belief I have. That's all. I don't want to prove, explain, or argue anything. I hope this doesn't come across as weird or nonsensical (or rude), because that's the last thing I want to come across. I don't mean to be snarky or anything.

this is a vs. thread man

 

[blame space]

a vs thread..

 

[scar tissue]

I know the need for religion is hardwired into the human brain, and I respect people with moderate beliefs.
I'm a hardcore atheist, but I still have rituals I do before tests or other difficult situations because they make me feel better. Deep down, I know they don't actually do anything, of course.

But anyone who actually strongly believes in any particular god(s) is a moron and should be put under tutelage.
There, I said it.

 

[Seda]

this is a vs. thread man

Good point.

Back to Gaming side.

 

[leadbelly]

Alright, Big Bang:
Universe was in a condensed state (nontrivial)
Something happened (unclear what)
Universe expanded pretty fast as a result
Evidence for expansion is found in background radiation (Finding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation)
Lots of mysteries remain unsolved (extremely nontrivial magical stuff like dark matter and shit)

Start from there.

Where do you start? It's sort of paradoxical. If the Universe exists (or doesn't exist depending on how you look at it) infinitely in one state, how then can it suddenly exist in another? There is no beginning, no point in which a change can occur. If there is infinitely nothing, then there can never be something.

 

[Raist]

I don't know if you watch many channel's that talks about the universe but if you do they present almost every theory as FACT they don't even mention them as theories anymore.

So there should be a disclaimer at the beginning of the Bible I guess.
Like "Warning: the events depicted in this book happened 2 thousand years ago, are reported by various people who may or may not have been sane, and are impossible to verify with little facts to back them up."

 

[SnakeXs]

Where do you start? It's sort of paradoxical. If the Universe exists (or doesn't exist depending on how you look at it) infinitely in one state, how then can it suddenly exist in another? There is no beginning, no point in which a change can occur. If there is infinitely nothing, then there can never be something.

Case closed, folks.

 

[Dr. Malik]

this is a vs. thread man

who is winning? has somebody been converted to either side yet?

 

[blame space]

Good point.

Back to Gaming side.

who is winning? has somebody been converted to either side yet?

i have bad news..

 

[Monocle]

There is a God because of the impossibility of the contrary. For the atheist, the source of reality (i.e. the Universe) is either absolute chance or an absolute determinism. If it is the former (chance), we could never know of what this 'absolute' is, as the concept of randomness is an incoherent concept to a person who thinks in deterministic categories.

The ancient philosopher Anaximander spoke of the 'arche' (source) of all reality an indeterminate being which created the Universe by absolute chance, and yet paradoxically, he said that he had intellectual knowledge of it. But if the source of all logic is unknowable, the logic that is entailed by it is unknowable, and we could never have any knowledge of anything at all. In other words, if we could only define something by what it is not (e.g. indeterminate, impersonal, unknowable etc.) then you cannot know anything about it at all, including it's existence!

The other route the Atheist could take is to assert that the Universe is absolutely logically necessary (the Universe is eternal and was not brought into existence). This is similar to the deterministic position of Parmenides, who famously asserted that freedom or change is impossible. But this must be false, as one can conceive of oneself as existing under different circumstances or existing within a different Universe than the one we currently exist in (otherwise the 'I' that I can conceive of as existing in another universe is not really me at all). There is similarly the properly basic belief that humans have freedom in choice (and thus we have moral obligations due to our ability to choose otherwise).

This is why the only logical position to hold (and the position that is assumed by everyone who reasons), is that the source of all reality is not absolute determinism or absolute indeterminism, but a libertarian (free) agent who freely brings the Universe into existence, and who can be defined as an agent who is spaceless, timeless, immaterial and MUST be personal in order to avoid the irrational implications of the erroneous positions that have been outlined.

A spaceless and timeless thing could neither be present in any location, nor interact with the world, nor change. Thus you have posited a nonexistent entity that, were it to exist, could not perform any action, and were it able to act, would perforce have no effect on reality. You have reasoned your god out of existence with a swift series of paradoxes.

 

[CriginsMcJuggs]

Where do you start? It's sort of paradoxical. If the Universe exists (or doesn't exist depending on how you look at it) infinitely in one state, how then can it suddenly exist in another? There is no beginning, no point in which a change can occur. If there is infinitely nothing, then there can never be something.

I'll let someone smarter than me answer this, but this argument doesnt work because if you say god started it all, I say who/what created god?

 

[blame space]

listen, god happened because he always was and always will be.. that's all the logic you should need.

 

[Monocle]

I'll let someone smarter than me answer this, but this argument doesnt work because if you say god started it all, I say who/what created god?

That, in a sentence, is why the First Cause argument fails. If everything must have a cause, God must have been caused. If one allows an eternal being, one could just as well allow an eternal universe. So we're back to square one, as they say.

Bertrand Russell disposed of this and other fallacious arguments for God's existence before any of us were born.

 

[Nocebo]

who is winning? has somebody been converted to either side yet?

People turn away from religion through open discussion of the flaws in religious thinking all the time. It usually takes quite a bit of time and there isn't any one comment that's going to do it of course. But suggesting that discussions like these are useless is a bit short sighted.

 

[leadbelly]

I'll let someone smarter than me answer this, but this argument doesnt work because if you say god started it all, I say who/what created god?

I didn't even get into the debate on whether a god exists or not. Whether the universe existed in a "condensed" state, as he put it, or there was literally nothing before the Big Bang, the problem still exists. If you say the universe existed in a condensed state before the Big Bang, then the question arises what was before the condensed state? The answer is nothing is before the condensed state. Therefore the condensed state is beginningless, existing outside of time. It has always been in that state, so how can the Big Bang occur?

 

[Monocle]

I didn't even get into the debate on whether a god exists or not. Whether the universe existed in a "condensed" state as he put it or there was literally nothing before the Big Bang, the problem still exists. If you say the universe existed in a condensed state before the Big Bang, then question arises what was before the condensed state? The answer is nothing is before the condensed state. Therefore the condensed state is beginningless, existing outside of time. It has always been in that state, so how can the Big Bang occur?

A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss

 

[Dr. Malik]

People turn away from religion through open discussion of the flaws in religious thinking all the time. It usually takes quite a bit of time and there isn't any one comment that's going to do it of course. But suggesting that discussions like these are useless is a bit short sighted.

I wasn't, especially since it was a Gaf thread that planted some doubt in my mind back in the day about religion. Was just being humorous.

 

[leadbelly]

A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss

I'll watch it and then comment.

 

[Nocebo]

I wasn't, especially since it was a Gaf thread that planted some doubt in my mind back in the day about religion. Was just being humorous.

Oh sorry, usually comments like that are meant as snarky and sarcastic etc.
My bad.

 

[Zaptruder]

I know the need for religion is hardwired into the human brain, and I respect people with moderate beliefs.
I'm a hardcore atheist, but I still have rituals I do before tests or other difficult situations because they make me feel better. Deep down, I know they don't actually do anything, of course.

But anyone who actually strongly believes in any particular god(s) is a moron and should be put under tutelage.
There, I said it.

The need for religion is not hardwired into the brain. It is a probable outcome given the iterative interaction between the brain, the environment and complex social cultures, but it is no more hardwired into the brain than a desire to wear clothes is wired into our brain.

 

[blame space]

i fucking hate wearing clothes

 

[Roland Deschain]

Religion is a stain on humanity. The more enlightened and civilized the world becomes, the more this stain will be washed way.

 

[scar tissue]

The need for religion is not hardwired into the brain. It is a probable outcome given the iterative interaction between the brain, the environment and complex social cultures, but it is no more hardwired into the brain than a desire to wear clothes is wired into our brain.

Wrong.
Wearing clothes started purely as a practical thing and is now primarily a social one.
Lots of 'savage' cultures don't wear proper clothes.
Not a single culture is atheistic.

Also, science says you are wrong: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/04/religion.uk

 

[Zaptruder]

That, in a sentence, is why the First Cause argument fails. If everything must have a cause, God must have been caused. If one allows an eternal being, one could just as well allow an eternal universe. So we're back to square one, as they say.

Bertrand Russell disposed of this and other fallacious arguments for God's existence before any of us were born.

The specifics of the argument are a little out of date, but the point is still strong.

I prefer moving the first cause off from the earth and the universe onto the idea that anything that *can* exist, will exist.

What's implied is that; not all things can exist... they must be consistent and self supporting and non contradictory in its internal nature.

 

[S.Empiricus]

If you can't understand each other how do you expect to understand the universe?

 

[Slavik81]

I didn't even get into the debate on whether a god exists or not. Whether the universe existed in a "condensed" state, as he put it, or there was literally nothing before the Big Bang, the problem still exists. If you say the universe existed in a condensed state before the Big Bang, then the question arises what was before the condensed state? The answer is nothing is before the condensed state. Therefore the condensed state is beginningless, existing outside of time. It has always been in that state, so how can the Big Bang occur?

I don't think that something that exists outside of time can 'always' be anything. 'Always' has meaning only within the bounds of a universe that has time. You can't measure something in a dimension that doesn't exist.

If you can't understand each other how do you expect to understand the universe?

I don't think anyone should expect to understand the universe.

 

[S.Empiricus]

I don't think anyone should expect to understand the universe.

It shall be difficult to prove or disprove the existence of God then.

In another thread someone (I don't recall who) argued that if God is infinite then it would be impossible for him to prove his existence to finite creatures as an infinite being. Simple argument, very good. I haven't thought a way around that one yet.

 

[Zaptruder]

Wrong.
Wearing clothes started purely as a practical thing and is now primarily a social one.
Lots of 'savage' cultures don't wear proper clothes.
Not a single culture is atheistic.

Also, science says you are wrong: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/04/religion.uk

I wouldn't put too much heed into journalistic reporting of scientific studies. The deliberate miswording and slant for the sake of creating more palatable stories for general consumption very often mislead readers on the specifics.

Suffice it to say: saying that something is hardwired means that the structure will be present in all normal instances of human brains. Like having eyes, ears, limbs are hard wired into the human genetic code. (and in more specific and applicable examples; neurons in the brain that are sensitive to certain types of information (patterns of electro-chemical impulses from specific other areas of the brain/nervous/sensory system) - such as visible light radiation, or movement, or certain sound frequencies, etc).

Language is something that we have a propensity for; but isn't actually hardwired into us - it's something that occurs with a high degree of probability given the iterative interactions between brain structures and environmental structures that form the norm for humans.

Similarly, religion is something that we are 'primed' for (or vunerable to), because of (among various overlapping reasons) our desire to seek answers for observed phenomena, our drive to survive, social/cultural structures in place to propogate them, the nature in which we partition and acquire information and knowledge, our capacity for empathy which extends to our frequent desire to anthropomorphize the intentions of non human things and creatures and events.

Similar to clothing; we have the tools, abilities, drives, social-cultural reinforcements in place that push us towards clothing ourselves.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Where do you start? It's sort of paradoxical. If the Universe exists (or doesn't exist depending on how you look at it) infinitely in one state, how then can it suddenly exist in another? There is no beginning, no point in which a change can occur. If there is infinitely nothing, then there can never be something.

In an infinite universe, not only is everything possible, but everything that can already has happened.

In a finite universe, what seems impossible in 100 years can be inevitable in 100 million.

 

[demolitio]

Does anyone actually think they're going to change people's minds about their faith? It's not something that a debate on the internet is going to change and you sure as hell (pun!) aren't going to change anyone's beliefs by insulting them like calling someone a moron for their own beliefs...

Faith isn't something that's going to be defined by a back and forth argument on the internet yet it continues to happen time and time again. Judging by some of the campaigning in here as well, you'd think athiesm is a religion just based on how determined some people are to convince others to join them in not believing. So what makes them any different than the people that try to convert others to their religion? (In before the smartass remark that says "the difference is that they're right".)

Can't we all just get along? There's having a discussion on it and then there's throwing petty insults around for someone else's views. You aren't changing anyone's views that way.

 

[scar tissue]

Suffice it to say: saying that something is hardwired means that the structure will be present in all normal instances of human brains. Like having eyes, ears, limbs are hard wired into the human genetic code. (and in more specific and applicable examples; neurons in the brain that are sensitive to certain types of information (patterns of electro-chemical impulses from specific other areas of the brain/nervous/sensory system) - such as visible light radiation, or movement, or certain sound frequencies, etc).

Well, if you put it like that...

Still, the vulnerability towards religion is hardwired into the brain and the result is basically the same.
Religion practically always occurs, except when a culture is sufficiently enlightened.

 

[Zaptruder]

Does anyone actually think they're going to change people's minds about their faith? It's not something that a debate on the internet is going to change and you sure as hell (pun!) aren't going to change anyone's beliefs by insulting them like calling someone a moron for their own beliefs...

Faith isn't something that's going to be defined by a back and forth argument on the internet yet it continues to happen time and time again. Judging by some of the campaigning in here as well, you'd think athiesm is a religion just based on how determined some people are to convince others to join them in not believing.

Can't we all just get along?

I changed my mind on religion; believer to non believer. It was done by a combination of information, reflection, discussion.

Assuming that I have a mind that is akin to most other human minds, it is only natural to think that we can change the minds of others through discussion (maybe not a single discussion though).

 

[Monocle]

Does anyone actually think they're going to change people's minds about their faith? It's not something that a debate on the internet is going to change and you sure as hell (pun!) aren't going to change anyone's beliefs by insulting them like calling someone a moron for their own beliefs...

Faith isn't something that's going to be defined by a back and forth argument on the internet yet it continues to happen time and time again. Judging by some of the campaigning in here as well, you'd think athiesm is a religion just based on how determined some people are to convince others to join them in not believing.

Can't we all just get along?

Or: the purpose of argument isn't just to persuade, but to exchange views and better understand our own. Also, it's the height of pessimism to assume that all arguments are futile because people's beliefs are unshakable. Haven't you ever changed your mind? Is it really so difficult to imagine that a reader of this thread might be swayed one way or the other after critically evaluating the points that have been made?

 

[scar tissue]

Does anyone actually think they're going to change people's minds about their faith? It's not something that a debate on the internet is going to change and you sure as hell (pun!) aren't going to change anyone's beliefs by insulting them like calling someone a moron for their own beliefs...

Faith isn't something that's going to be defined by a back and forth argument on the internet yet it continues to happen time and time again. Judging by some of the campaigning in here as well, you'd think atheism is a religion just based on how determined some people are to convince others to join them in not believing.

Can't we all just get along?

We could, but if provoked, I'll call an idiot one if i see one.
And the more hardcore religious people provoke me plenty.

 

[Zaptruder]

Well, if you put it like that...

Still, the vulnerability towards religion is hardwired into the brain and the result is basically the same.
Religion practically always occurs, except when a culture is sufficiently enlightened.

But that's the thing... it doesn't always practically occur. Not in individuals, and not even in all societies (although the propensity for religious institutions and groups to rise to the top of the social heirachy in a time where there are precious few explanations for natural phenomena is very powerful).

The difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is simply: You can figure out the systems and mechanics that make us vunerable to religious indoctrination, and devise ways and methods to counteract that vunerability.

It's like, we're vunerable to varying weather conditions - we build shelters against them.

 

[demolitio]

Or: the purpose of argument isn't just to persuade, but to exchange views and better understand our own.

You got me before the edit. As I put above now, having a discussion is fine and can be informative to some, but some of the guys posting the insults aren't going to change anyone's views and only put their defenses up even more.

It's like politics in a way. Perfect to discuss yet some instantly go for insults to make their views sound smarter in their eyes. Sorry for feeling that way, but after the last debate on another site, I was a little fed up with the disrespect on ALL sides.

I had to change my religion after playing God of War and finding all of my Greek gods dead.

 

[S.Empiricus]

The Norse gods are cooler anyway. Baldr anyone? Ragnarok?

 

[Nocebo]

Wrong.
Wearing clothes started purely as a practical thing and is now primarily a social one.
Lots of 'savage' cultures don't wear proper clothes.
Not a single culture is atheistic.

Also, science says you are wrong: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/04/religion.uk

This culture seems atheistic:
http://freethinker.co.uk/2008/11/08/how-an-amazonian-tribe-turned-a-missionary-into-an-atheist/

 

[Slavik81]

It shall be difficult to prove or disprove the existence of God then

In another thread someone (I don't recall who) argued that if God is infinite then it would be impossible for him to prove his existence to finite creatures as an infinite being. Simple argument, very good. I haven't thought a way around that one yet.

As an agnostic atheist, so difficulty in proving the existence of God more or less what I expect.

The god you describe sounds a lot like a deist god, and I have no important objections about a god of that sort.

In an infinite universe, not only is everything possible, but everything that can already has happened.

That's clearly false. The universe being infinite does not mean that everything is possible. Just because a set is infinite does not mean that it is the set of everything. For instance, there are infinitely many even numbers, but '3' is not one of them.

 

[Monocle]

You got me before the edit. As I put above now, having a discussion is fine and can be informative to some, but some of the guys posting the insults aren't going to change anyone's views and only put their defenses up even more.

It's like politics in a way. Perfect to discuss yet some instantly go for insults to make their views sound smarter in their eyes. Sorry for feeling that way, but after the last debate on another site, I was a little fed up with the disrespect on ALL sides.

I had to change my religion after playing God of War and finding all of my Greek gods dead.

Big topics like religion and politics tend to get people riled up. You're bound to hear overblown rhetoric from every camp. It's pretty much a standard feature of public discourse, so we've just got to learn to roll with it. As long as we remember always to carefully evaluate an argument before dismissing or accepting it, no matter whose mouth it comes from, we're alright.

And Zeus isn't dead, he's biding his time, chilling with Odin...

 

[Pixel Pete]

That's clearly false. The universe being infinite does not mean that everything is possible. Just because a set is infinite does not mean that it is the set of everything. For instance, there are infinitely many even numbers, but '3' is not one of them.

It's purely conceptual, it's an abstract concept that the human mind isn't equipped to comprehend. So abstract that the conditions for an infinite universe could be so fundamentally foreign that 3 could under certain conditions be even.
The mathematical example you gave only applies to a finite universe. The rules would be different in an infinite universe.

That said, mathematics isn't physics; absolutes are allowed. It would be possible to prove that 3 is never an even number even in a fundamentally different universe.

anyway my point is that I see no way to logically posit that our universe is infinite. If not for mathematical reasons, then certainly for temporal reasons.

But i digress. Regardless of who is correct, or if either of us is, your rebuttal makes me think about it more deeply. It's mostly OT though...