blame space
Banned
can we just agree that if you subscribe to any religion you should have to use bumpers in bowling?
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.Noirulus said:Too much philosophy and too little science.
A universe in which nothing is certain. So?Aristion said: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!
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.Aristion said: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
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.Aristion said: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.
Seda said:I believe in God. I have my reasons.
You, on the other hand, can just get away with being an asshole. Maybe we should examine the reasons for that, eh?Zaptruder said: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 said: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?Kapura said:You, on the other hand, can just get away with being an asshole. Maybe we should examine the reasons for that, eh?
Pixel Pete said: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.
Seda said: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.
wolfmat said: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.
GTP_Daverytimes said: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.
leadbelly said: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.
blame space said:this is a vs. thread man
Seda said:Good point.
Back to Gaming side.
Marius_ said:who is winning? has somebody been converted to either side yet?
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.Aristion said: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.
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?leadbelly said: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.
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.CriginsMcJuggs said: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?
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.Marius_ said:who is winning? has somebody been converted to either side yet?
CriginsMcJuggs said: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?
A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Kraussleadbelly said: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?
Nocebo said: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.
Monocle said:
Oh sorry, usually comments like that are meant as snarky and sarcastic etc.Marius_ said: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.
scar tissue said: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.
Wrong.Zaptruder said: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.
Monocle said: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.
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.leadbelly said: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 anyone should expect to understand the universe.S.Empiricus said:If you can't understand each other how do you expect to understand the universe?
Slavik81 said:I don't think anyone should expect to understand the universe.
scar tissue said: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
leadbelly said: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.
Well, if you put it like that...Zaptruder said: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).
demolitio said: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?demolitio said: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?
We could, but if provoked, I'll call an idiot one if i see one.demolitio said: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?
scar tissue said: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.
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.Monocle said:Or: the purpose of argument isn't just to persuade, but to exchange views and better understand our own.
This culture seems atheistic:scar tissue said: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
As an agnostic atheist, so difficulty in proving the existence of God more or less what I expect.S.Empiricus said: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.
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.Pixel Pete said:In an infinite universe, not only is everything possible, but everything that can already has happened.
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.demolitio said: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.
Slavik81 said: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.