Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Of God and Leprecauns

  1. May 22, 2003 #1
    Believing in a God and believing in medusa are totally different matters.

    God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality. Just like hypothesizing that the there were other lands to be discovered; thus the discovery of America and other continents. The question is whether we humans, as a function of time, have more to discover. Of course, God is an ultimate hypothesis of reality rather than a discreet hypothesis. It is kind of like hypothesizing the existence of aliens; from the existence of other planets. Except that the existence of God can only be "proved" through an afterlife; all others can be "proved" in this life. Nothing can be proved in this life, only established by our free will.

    Being logical can have several connotations. You can be absolutely logical; if you consider yourself a mathmatician and only a mathmatician you can base matters on whether they can be absolutely proved through mathmatical reasoning; of course this would be only an "inherent" proof (it is intrinsically reasonable; intrinsically it seems to provide an absolute proof). Of course the mathmatician would be wrong because he is ultimately human being and not a mathmatician. However, even a "mathmatically minded human being" will have to consider the fact that we are beings of facultative logic. It is more "irrational" to persist in trying to prove that God exist. Irrational meaning a non-rational, endless, stubborn and personal pursuit. We can only make a rational hypothesis on this matter of whether God exist or not. Of course it would be better to consider several facets of reality before one decides. Atheism is purely a personal.......belief. A methodological, facultative philosophy. And thus it is an emotionally based philosophy. All beliefs are personal; thus the reason for us discussing it here, we believe as a means to an end. I apologize if my english was difficult to understand.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 22, 2003 #2
    Welcome to the PFs, Mohamaad! :smile:

    I understand that, being new, you may not have a complete understanding of where certain threads belong, so I feel it only right to inform you that threads about God and the like are to be posted in the "Religion" Forum.
     
  4. May 22, 2003 #3
    I apologize, I will post topics concerning God in the religion forum from now on.
     
  5. May 22, 2003 #4

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I would like to respectfully disagree Mentat. His post, to me, seems oriented toward the issue of God proof, which we have agreed is appropriate for the philosophy section. He has not mentioned any religion or its dogma, but rather has discussed the trials of argument and proof for such a elusive and personal subject as belief and non-belief in God.
     
  6. May 22, 2003 #5

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I would add to your point that for some God is a logical inference taken from the nature of creation, that some also feel there is "something more."
     
  7. May 22, 2003 #6
    We have agreed to nothing of the kind. No offence, but it was made rather clear, in the rules for the Philosophy Forum in the old PFs, that any topic regarding belief in God is better posted in the Religion Forum.

    This is true, but it still falls under the idea of Religion. It would be like me posting about the difficutly of finding a Theory of Everything on the Philosophy Forum. While it is broad, and doesn't include any specific theory, it is better posted in the Theoretical Physics section.
     
  8. May 22, 2003 #7
    Yes, gods pushing Sun across sky (=Ra) and trowing lightning bolts (=Zeus) were a hypothesis of primitive men who did not know how Sun moves or thunderstorm develops.

    With the advent of science and education we found that processes in Nature go without gods (say, Sun crosses sky by itself without help of Ra) and thus the hypothesis of God(s) was discarded by facts.
     
  9. May 22, 2003 #8

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What was decided in the old forum is not relevant any longer. We discussed this issue anew in Kerrie's sticky "God Topics." I suggest you go into the "Religion" section and look under Kerrie's post "Change in forum name." There you will find the following:

    "Due to the label of 'God,' we are just calling this forum Religion only therefore it addresses all belief systems. All philosophical disucssions regarding the concept of God can be made in Philosophy so long as they stay philosophical...any that turn religious will be moved here."

    It is obviously Kerrie's decision where things go, so unless she has made you her assistant you might consider letting her handle the classification thing.

    Nonsense. Debates about the provability of God is as old as philosophy. It has ALWAYS been part of the discipline. Do you want to to take charge of reinventing philosophy too?
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2003
  10. May 22, 2003 #9
    This contradicts what you said in your other post about God being paradoxical. God is no less irrational a concept then infinity or a prime motivator for example. To assert otherwise is absurd and simply makes the use of words such as paradox and irrational meaningless.
     
  11. May 22, 2003 #10
    Re: Re: Of God and Leprecauns

    Actually there's nothing wrong with this, in the sense that man was and still is, a "mythological being."
     
  12. May 22, 2003 #11


    First off, I don't read anything in the Religion Forum. You should already know that.

    Also, I don't see why Kerrie has changed the distinction (between Philosophy and one of it's branches (Religion)), but I will respect her choice. I just hope that this kind of reasoning is not used to get String Theory and American Politics discussed in the Philosophy Forum. After all, these are all very legitimate forms of Philosophy.

    I do submit to her choice, and gladly so. I was merely unaware of it.

    Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, and all fields devoted to such a pursuit are parts of it. Every Forum here (except for "General Discussion", "PhysicsForums Feedback" and "PhysicsForums Chat") is devoted to some branch of Philosophy. The seperation is necessary, however, so that we don't flood the Philosophy section with posts from every field.
     
  13. May 22, 2003 #12
    Here the beast raises its head again.

    "*Atheism, therefore, is the absence of theistic belief.* One who does not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being is properly designated as an atheist. Atheism is sometimes defined as "the belief that there is no God of any kind," or the claim that a god cannot exist. While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism-- and are somewhat misleading with respect to the basic nature of atheism. *Atheism, in its basic form, is not a belief: it is the absence of belief.* An atheist is not primarily a person who *believes* that a god does *not* exist, rather he does *not believe* in the existence of a god."
    -George Smith
     
  14. May 22, 2003 #13
    I like this quote! I've been trying to get that point across, rather painstakingly, to quite a few people, and yet George Smith had already put it so eloquently.
     
  15. May 22, 2003 #14
    But non-existence is not a state. All they are saying is that they don't take for granted the core belief of theists.
     
  16. May 22, 2003 #15
    And yet they will attest to the fact that God "does not" exist. At least this is the typical encounter that I've had with Atheists.
     
  17. May 22, 2003 #16
    Oops! It looks like we got out of sequence here! Sorry.

    No, I think you've mistaken this for agnosticism. And even that is still based upon belief.
     
  18. May 22, 2003 #17
    ...While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism--
     
  19. May 22, 2003 #18
    No, it is based on the lack thereof. It is paradoxical to try to refer to the "belief of disbelief". Conclusion: it's not a belief, just the absence of one.
     
  20. May 22, 2003 #19
    And yet what is the core issue upon what Atheism is based? Hey, I've always understood it to be the belief in the non-existence of God. If this is so, then please don't try to disguise the issue.
     
  21. May 22, 2003 #20
    I'm not trying to disguise the issue. You, on the other hand, seem to be insisting that a lack of a belief is a belief...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Of God and Leprecauns
  1. Of God and Leprecauns (Replies: 1)

  2. IF God (Replies: 41)

  3. Gods (Replies: 22)

  4. God ! (Replies: 2)

Loading...