Of God and Leprecauns

  • Thread starter Mohaamad
  • Start date
  • #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.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Mentat
3,918
3
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.
 
  • #3
I apologize, I will post topics concerning God in the religion forum from now on.
 
  • #4
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,254
2
Originally posted by Mentat
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.

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.
 
  • #5
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,254
2
Originally posted by Mohaamad
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.

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."
 
  • #6
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by Mohaamad

God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality.

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.
 
  • #8
Les Sleeth
Gold Member
2,254
2
Originally posted by Mentat
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.

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.

Originally posted by Mentat
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.

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:
  • #9
wuliheron
2,135
0
Originally posted by Mohaamad
Believing in a God and believing in medusa are totally different matters.

God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality.

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.
 
  • #10
Iacchus32
2,313
1


Originally posted by Alexander
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.
Actually there's nothing wrong with this, in the sense that man was and still is, a "mythological being."
 
  • #11
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by LW Sleeth
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."


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.

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.

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

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?

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 separation is necessary, however, so that we don't flood the Philosophy section with posts from every field.
 
  • #12
Atheism is purely a personal...belief
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
 
  • #13
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by BoulderHead
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

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.
 
  • #14
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Iacchus32
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.

But non-existence is not a state. All they are saying is that they don't take for granted the core belief of theists.
 
  • #15
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by BoulderHead
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
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.
 
  • #16
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Mentat
But non-existence is not a state. All they are saying is that they don't take for granted the core belief of theists.
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.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by Iacchus32
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.
...While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism--
 
  • #18
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Iacchus32
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.

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.
 
  • #19
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by BoulderHead
...While these are categories of atheism, they do not exhaust the meaning of atheism--
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.
 
  • #20
Originally posted by Iacchus32
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.
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...
 
  • #21
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Mentat
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.
How can you base something merely upon the lack of evidence? Wouldn't that be the same as making an assumption? And isn't this what you "so-called" Atheists ascribe to faith? Sorry, I'm not going to buy it!
 
  • #22
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by BoulderHead
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...

...which is a paradoxical assumption, btw.
 
  • #23
wuliheron
2,135
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
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.

Note that you could just as easily define religious or spiritual as personal knowledge of the existence of God(s) or the Divine. Ya'll are welcome to fight over how to split semantic hairs, but bottom line all you are doing is fighting over words.
 
  • #24
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by BoulderHead
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...
Then there's no need to discuss it further then is there? ... But then again, that would be playing right into your hand now wouldn't it?
 
  • #25
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Mentat
...which is a paradoxical assumption, btw.
Oh, weren't you the one who just said you preferred to think of it as a mystery?
 
  • #26
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then there's no need to discuss it further then is there? ... But then again, that would be playing right into your hand now wouldn't it?

Well, you could just admit you were wrong, and leave it alone (without worrying about whether you are "playing into his hand"), but that's just my personaly opinion.
 
  • #27
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by wuliheron
Note that you could just as easily define religious or spiritual as personal knowledge of the existence of God(s) or the Divine. Ya'll are welcome to fight over how to split semantic hairs, but bottom line all you are doing is fighting over words.
Thank you! ...

And yes, what is reality but just a word?
 
  • #28
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Oh, weren't you the one who just said you preferred to think of it as a mystery?

I said nothing of the kind!
 
  • #29
wuliheron
2,135
0
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Thank you! ...

And yes, what is reality but just a word?

Reality is also an observation and experience. :0)
 
  • #30
So, it comes down to a squab…

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Then there's no need to discuss it further then is there? ...
Not as long as you stop trying to misrepresent my position…
But then again, that would be playing right into your hand now wouldn't it?
Beside the point.

It is terrible to see a man who has the incomprehensible in his grasp, does not know what to do with it, and sits playing with a toy called God.
-Tolstoy
 
  • #31
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Mentat
I said nothing of the kind!
From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2357" ...

Originally posted by Mentat
You and Wuliheron are going to get along good.

I, on the other hand, don't much care for this use of the word "paradox". Did you actually mean "mystery"?
Oh I see, you made "the inference" to mystery, but may not necessarily choose mystery over paradox either. Sorry ... Of course I don't know what else that leaves you with?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by Mentat
Well, you could just admit you were wrong, and leave it alone (without worrying about whether you are "playing into his hand"), but that's just my personaly opinion.
By playing into his hand I mean allowing him to believe what he wants in his own smug self-satisfied way, meaning it would probably suit him just fine. But that doesn't make me wrong about what I'm saying ... Otherwise I could just drop the whole issue. But then again why should I, if I have a point to make? Although it would seem that's what "everyone" would prefer? ...

Man I didn't realize you guys were so touchy!
 
  • #33
Originally posted by Iacchus32
By playing into his hand I mean allowing him to believe what he wants in his own smug self-satisfied way, meaning it would probably suit him just fine. But that doesn't make me wrong about what I'm saying ... Otherwise I could just drop the whole issue. But then again why should I, if I have a point to make? Although it would seem that's what "everyone" would prefer?

Man I didn't realize you guys were so touchy!
But you are wrong, Iacchus32!

What we need to do is look at what you said about the quote I used;
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.
I attest to the fact that I cannot prove whether god exists or not, you follow?
Your ‘typical encounters with atheists’ can be used, at most, to formulate a generalization, but if you attempt to apply this to me personally you are mistaken.

Should I lump you into the ‘religionist’ category and consider nothing more needs to be said?
 
  • #34
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by wuliheron
Reality is also an observation and experience. :0)
Oh really? And on whose word? Yours? ... Mine? ... BoulderHead's? ...

Yet I'm afraid I can't take your word for it!
 
  • #35
Iacchus32
2,313
1
Originally posted by BoulderHead
But you are wrong, Iacchus32!

What we need to do is look at what you said about the quote I used; I attest to the fact that I cannot prove whether god exists or not, you follow?
You attest? But what does that mean? ... It still sounds like a matter of faith to me.


Your ‘typical encounters with atheists’ can be used, at most, to formulate a generalization, but if you attempt to apply this to me personally you are mistaken.
Well what other criteria am I supposed to use if not my own experience?


Should I lump you into the ‘religionist’ category and consider nothing more needs to be said?
That's entirely up to you, people do it anyway.
 

Suggested for: Of God and Leprecauns

Replies
3
Views
592
Replies
1
Views
942
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
513
Replies
3
Views
255
Replies
1
Views
285
Replies
3
Views
260
Replies
3
Views
297
Replies
1
Views
314
Replies
19
Views
542
Top