Do you believe in god? and why

  • Thread starter DR OF DEATH
  • Start date

LogicalAtheist

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
It's a waste of time Alexander. I did that for you several times at the last PF site, and you didn't investigate them then. The truth is, you only are going to study that which supports your position, and dismiss anything which doesn't as nonsense. So the bad news is you get no more evidence, but the good news is I think you and LogicalAtheist are going to become great friends.

See Alex? It's funny that someone who only reads evidence supporting their idea actually thinks it's the others who are only reading one side?

One can be as twisted as the neurons in their "brain". Can they not?
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
One can easily see that God is mentioned within the
pages of books that are dated as "old".

TO suggest that anything in those pages applies
to reality takes on the burden of proof. You seem
to not understand this fundamental.

If I wrote down a sentence with a claim, on a piece of paper.

Your mere observations shows it's a sentence on a paper.
What ?
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
To say that the burden of proof lies on you to prove
that the claim is not true in reality, is absurd.
And yet you clearly said that science DOES
talk about God and DOES prove there is NO God.
Do I need to quote you on this, as a reminder ? :wink:
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
It's also breaking a fundamental of science. Do you
at least know this much? We'll take it in baby steps.
Thanks for being gentle with me.

Live long and prosper.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
The truth is, you only are going to study that
which supports your position, and dismiss anything
which doesn't as nonsense. So the bad news is you
get no more evidence, but the good news is I think
you and LogicalAtheist are going to become grea
friends.
How about me, objective enough for you ?
Care to try ?

Live long and prosper.
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by drag
Is that going to be your response every time
you are asked to explain something you consider
correct but got no clear idea why ?
Or, maybe, in some cases you'll just prefer
to ignore such requests as you did in another
thread here ?
Drag, I don't think you understand yet. LogicalAtheist is beyond having to explain himself to the pea-brains here at PF. He is a 23 year old college grad, who works in science! In fact, he is so far past normal intelligence, he, like a doctor of philosophy, is creating new principles of reason and standards of proof.

I think best we just surrender to his brillance and wait, with bated breath of course, for the next intellectual jewel his is going to drop on us. I've already set up a file to record his wisdom for posterity so future generations can benefit from this modern day prodigy.

As for you Drag, I suggest you humble yourself a little more in his presence, as I am doing.
 

LogicalAtheist

Mmm, drag I think you'll find sleeth will - if you do not agree with him - say that you too are one-sided. It's his crutch.

Drag - I am not attempting to insult YOU. I am however questioning your lack of understanding of the scientific method.

You seem to have mis understood me. Let me question you one some scientific fundamentals. If you do not agree, then I can't speak the same language as you. And thus this ends.

1. Do you understand that in science, the burden of proof of what is known as a singular claim of existance, lies on the side claiming such an object exists?

If you say yes, we continue. If not, then you're not agreeing with logic and science, and thus in whatever system you wish to think, think.
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by drag
How about me, objective enough for you ?
Care to try ?

Live long and prosper.
I will if you want, but don't you remember our discussions about the history of people who practice "union" or samadhi meditaion that I have spoken about so often? Their reports are different from those that merely speak from "faith" because they have pursued a direct experience. I do not say their reports are proof, but I do say it is evidence, and virtually no one who argues against the possibility of God is familiar with it. To me, that is an incomplete investigation of the evidence. Therefore, conclusions drawn without fairly considering it are not trustworthy conclusions.
 

LogicalAtheist

Sleeth's strange comment reminds me of the quote:

"... You owe me more than fear. You owe me awe."

As twisted as was the person who spoke those words, so speaks Sleeth.
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Sleeth's strange comment reminds me of the quote:

"... You owe me more than fear. You owe me awe."

As twisted as was the person who spoke those words, so speaks Sleeth.
Hmmmm . . . I like this. When are you going to start?
 

Les Sleeth

Gold Member
2,164
2
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Interesting! How exactly do you define enlightenment? I often look to the role that science plays in the philosophy of religions. Often it seems that information and events conspire to create leaps in thought or concept that ripple through religions and cultures...such as the renaissance period.
Rather than divert this thread (any more than I already have), you might read the thread on "Buddhism" MajinVegeta has going where Wuli and I debate enlightenment for a couple of pages.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
As for you Drag, I suggest you humble yourself
a little more in his presence, as I am doing. :wink:
Nah... I like head-to-head - great way to learn,
at least until and unless you discover there's a
wall in between or you crack your own skull - which
is also good because you can then reshape it accordingly. :wink:
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Mmm, drag I think you'll find sleeth will - if you
do not agree with him - say that you too are one-sided.
It's his crutch.
He has not yet, so far. And he has been around
for awhile.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - I am not attempting to insult YOU.
Don't worry about that. Insulting me is a
very difficult task that has to be undertaken
with great seriousness and dedication.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
You seem to have mis understood me.
That's what you seem to tell me repeatedly,
and yet you repeatedly refuse or avoid clearly
explaining yourself so that I COULD understand you.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
1. Do you understand that in science, the burden of
proof of what is known as a singular claim of
existance, lies on the side claiming such an
object exists?
If you just allow me to change the word
"existance" to "likely validity" then I agree.
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
If you say yes, we continue. If not, then you're
not agreeing with logic and science, and thus
in whatever system you wish to think, think.
Overall, like I said, the answer IS positive.
So ?
It is YOU who made a claim, not I.
Let me explore a certain direction for a moment
which may be what you're getting at - possibly
what you're implying is that since there
is no evidence of God, the term is not defined,
it is wrong to adress this concept at all then.
O.K. such a viewpoint is indeed relevant.
BUT, what YOU said was that there IS PROOF for
the INEXISTANCE of God. So, you adressed
something undefinable, so far, and said you
can prove it does not exist. Now, is THAT reasonable ?
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I will if you want, but don't you remember our
discussions about the history of people who
practice "union" or samadhi meditaion that I
have spoken about so often?
Ah... yes. In that case I appologize for my
poor memory, we went through this already.

Live long and prosper.
 

LogicalAtheist

Drag - yes, we'll get to the other thing soon.

First we needed that agreement.

The example claim states that this singular object (event) exists.

EXAMPLE: A anatemol exists.

There's my singular object claim

Anatemol - A sphere, which contains within it another sphere, symmetrically placed within the first, and with a radius of half the outter sphere

Ok, so that's what an anatemol is.

I write down in a book I publish (a very short book) called ANATEMOL, the single statement.

"An Anatemol exists."

that's my book, thanks for reading it.

The burden of proof lies on my to provide supporting evidence of my claim. Just like Einstein provided proof in all his publications, of his concepts.

Such another claim is "A God exists".

God - object with no properties other than it is God.

Ok, there's another claim, and it's definition. Meaning that we need no defining factors other than if it's God than it's God. Let's leave that and not nitpick.

Ok, now. Let's add something to the Anatemol.

Double existance claim:

"An Anatemol exists which has a square inside it's smallest sphere."

See, now my claim is not singular.

I hope that we can agree that statistically, the more requirements of such a claim, the less likely it is to occur.

Just like, the chance that you drive to work on friday is greater than the chance that you drive to work and get into an accident as well.

Point being, the more requirements to a claim, the less STATISTICALLY LIKELY.

Ok. Now. We need to understand in a simple manner how this relates to, let's say, this good ole christian God of there's.


claim: "God exists" (meaning the christian one, pretend no other religions with God exist)

Definition of God - A "being" which defines each and every property listed in the publication which made this claim. That publication is both testaments of the bible. We would need to list every single property of God listed.

Remember, treat the bible as an independant text. The definition of this God needs to be all those things. If we find an object in reality that meets all but one, it is not God whatsoever.

So now, statistically likelihood of this God is low, because the amount of claims are high.

But statistics don't prove it isn't so.

Just establish that indeed this independant claim gets less likely as it's property requires more supporting claims...............
 

LogicalAtheist

................Now.

We have looked at how unlikely a given written claim is in and of itself.

We have established that the burden of proof lies on the claim that such an event or object occurs or exists.

But. It still is good and fine to have not only the opposiing side waiting for this outrageous claim to have some proof, but to also take some time while waiting and find proven claims which contradict, and therefore disprove (to the satisfactory level of science) the claim we're waiting for proof of.

There's one thing that's important here. I don't mean to sound rude by saying that this is something most people mistake, and overlook.

The importance is that this claim of a god with the properties is INDEPENDANT. A given obbject is this item (God) if and ONLY IF it meets every requirement defining it.

Thus, if one defining parameter of it is proven to not be possible (through any of the many ways) it is considered not to exist.

NOTE: Science scrutinizes science, sure mistakes can be made. We need to care only about the here and now.

Let's leave it at that, you comment and when ready we'll do as said above and attack the paramaters.

I mean, we've been waiting for x thousands of years for the other side, we might as well have a go eh?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Ivan Seeking, I'm not sure what you meant in
your response to my message.
A few points I'd like to make that may be
relevant to what you said:
1. Science is merely observation and application
of various reasoning to it of the type that
does allow further progress in improving
this observation. Science is not faith.
I only meant that I have faith in the scientific process. Even though this faith is [edit: seemingly] justified by logic, "belief" still requires faith.

2. Science says nothing about things it does
not observe. As a consequence, science has
nothing to say about God, religion, pink
flying ellephants or my cat being God because
it has no data of this. It can niether confirm
or deny this or indeed adress it in any way.
Is this connected to what you said ?

Live long and prosper.
Exactly. Many people seek to use science as an argument for religious choices ; to believe or not to believe. All such arguments are anti-scientific by definition. Therefore, anyone who attempts to claim the death of God through science is violating the very precepts of their own proof. A religion born in violation of its own commandments? Baptism by heresy! .
 
Last edited:

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Greetings !
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Just establish that indeed this independant claim
gets less likely as it's property requires more
supporting claims...............
I will recognize this is likely because it seems
to support observation in most cases as well.
Yet, any time you're going to make a claim
that is not probabalistic but rather absolute,
or on the other hand does not seem to be supported
by presently availible observed data - and thus
unlikely, I will ask you to prove that claim (and
in the case of an absolute claim the
proof chain is likely to be infinite - thus
probably no proof).

As for your second post, I understand it mostly,
but I can only give it precise meaning once
you continue. Please, do.

Live long and prosper.
 
1,029
1
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Drag, I don't think you understand yet. LogicalAtheist is beyond having to explain himself to the pea-brains here at PF. He is a 23 year old college grad, who works in science! In fact, he is so far past normal intelligence, he, like a doctor of philosophy, is creating new principles of reason and standards of proof.

I think best we just surrender to his brillance and wait, with bated breath of course, for the next intellectual jewel his is going to drop on us. I've already set up a file to record his wisdom for posterity so future generations can benefit from this modern day prodigy.

As for you Drag, I suggest you humble yourself a little more in his presence, as I am doing.
LOL. Thank God, it's not just me.

And I thought I knew everything when I was 23. I didn't know anything compared to this guy!
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by Fliption
And I thought I knew everything when I was 23.
You WERE 23 ?! No way !
 
1,029
1
Originally posted by drag
You WERE 23 ?! No way !
Maybe. Maybe it was a dream. A very arrogant pig-headed dream
 
477
4
to believe is to accept as a truth without requiring proof. there is nothing anyone can say that will make you believe. i personally believe in nothing... observable truth is the path of my understanding.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by maximus
to believe is to accept as a truth without requiring proof. there is nothing anyone can say that will make you believe. i personally believe in nothing... observable truth is the path of my understanding.
Do you believe in believing in nothing ?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by drag
Do you believe in believing in nothing ?
Nothing is a perfectly good religion.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
Originally posted by maximus
to believe is to accept as a truth without requiring proof. there is nothing anyone can say that will make you believe. i personally believe in nothing... observable truth is the path of my understanding.
However, to limit ones beliefs to only that which can be proven is to exclude all truths that cannot be proven.

To do so is to "assume without proof" that no truths exist that cannot be proven. Your philosophy appear inconsistent.

What percentage of absolute truth can be proven beyond all doubt? Zero. This is why I argue that pure logic, if restricted by the artificial constraints of science, leads one inexorably to a religion of nothing. This entire philosophy fails by definition because science does not even address the question of God, or the supernatural, or any claims lacking specific forms of physical evidence; nor can science preclude the existence of these claims or beliefs any more than I can prove that I love my wife.[Edit]...although flowers do help :wink:
 
Last edited:
477
4
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
However, to limit ones beliefs to only that which can be proven is to exclude all truths that cannot be proven.

To do so is to "assume without proof" that no truths exist that cannot be proven. Your philosophy appear inconsistent.

:wink:

i have no problem with speculation.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by maximus
i have no problem with speculation.
What's speculation ?
Sounds like a belive synonym to me.:wink:
 
I believe in God since I know Him and talk to Him. I can visibly see Him work in my life. I can visibly see His effect on other lives. It becomes obvious to me however that words alone will not reach any of you. I can only pray that you find Him before you die.
 

LogicalAtheist

Originally posted by Singularity
I believe in God since I know Him and talk to Him. I can visibly see Him work in my life. I can visibly see His effect on other lives. It becomes obvious to me however that words alone will not reach any of you. I can only pray that you find Him before you die.

This is quite disturbing. Singularity, perhaps you have a psychological disorder that's un-diagnosed? At any yet, if you're seeing things, your health is in jeapordy.
 

Related Threads for: Do you believe in god? and why

  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Posted
2 3
Replies
59
Views
8K
  • Poll
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
90
Views
8K
  • Posted
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • Posted
2
Replies
34
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
4K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top