The answer to the Does God exist question from Human Practice

  • Thread starter Thread starter heusdens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Human
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the philosophical debate regarding the existence of God, contrasting idealism, materialism, and theism. It emphasizes that early human societies developed religions as provisional answers to existential questions, which evolved alongside scientific understanding. Critics argue that God, as a non-objective being, lacks real existence and is a projection of human consciousness. The conversation also touches on the limitations of achieving absolute objectivity, suggesting that while mankind progresses in knowledge, the concept of a higher being remains contentious. Ultimately, the dialogue reflects the ongoing tension between materialist and spiritual perspectives in understanding existence.
  • #51
Hmm it seems we are doing nothing but going in circles now. You aren't saying much that I don't already understand but I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. First of all, to your point about what it means to be designed, let's just say for the purposes of this discussion that a designed thing is a thing that has been directly and intentionally created for some purpose by an intelligent being.

Now if you take a look at everything that fits this description around you, you may notice that the odds of most of these things being created by chance is almost impossible. Much like the automobile example. Never heard of one occurring by chance. Let me make this clear...it is not the subjective function that makes it low in probability" It is the actualy physical configuration and it's properties that make it unlikely. The odds of parts being arranged in this specific way is so much lower than the other possibilities. So all I'm saying to you is that there MUST be a correlation between a designed thing and the odds of it occurring in nature by chance. The proof is all around you. Does this mean that everything that has impossible odds is designed? NO! I concede this. All I'm saying is that it could be a strong indicator. Strong enough to at least be open to investigating the possibility. This is why I said that automobile parts coming together by chance to allow for the engine cranking is a rare configuration that would suggest the possibility of design. Let me say this one more time knowledge of purpose or functionaility is not needed to do what I have suggested above. The correlation of probability and intent is all that is needed.



Originally posted by FZ+
Because we define human as being X and X, and having X abilities. If you could levitate things, then I wouldn't consider you as human in the conventional sense. And as you say that you are, like me a human, then I come to expect certain things of you, like an inability to levitate things. :wink:

But you not considering me human (because I can levitate) and then concluding that I can't levitate because I consider myself human is assuming that we define human the same way. I'm not sure how this shows anything.

I still claim that if you do not know everything about the universe then you cannot say what is a possible evolutive path for anything in it. Just because it never happened before doesn't mean it can't happen now.

Just to bring perspective to this discussion of levitation...I brought it up to show you that you do exactly what I'm claiming can be done. And that is to dismiss something based on past experience even though I can make the same claims to you that you have been making to me; that you cannot possiby have enough knowledge to do this.

But would it? You can raise this because we of course expect engines to crank. But suppose I threw together any mess of things and it managed to rotate a bit before it ran to a halt, as a equilibrium (such as when it ran out of fuel...), would you say that was an indication of design?
If the configuration is low enough in probability compared to the other options then yes I am saying you would need to consider a special arrangement that has intent built in. But my position would state that if you're configuration really came out by chance then it would not be able to do any of the things you have claimed it is doing because it is almost impossible for that to happen! The situation you are trying to paint which is one where the most impossible thing really does happen by chance and shows the flaw in what I'm saying cannot happen very often at all. By definition!

But you see, this doesn't work. As you increase in scale, the probability of chance raises to infinity, while the probability of design remains constant.
I don't understand this. There is no such measure as the "probability of chance". All there is is the probability of one configuration compared to the probability of all the other options. That is all there is. It is all math. There is no design, purpose, functionaility or any of that in this approach that I am using. All you can do is compare the probability of one configuration to others. When the question increases in scope the probabilities of all the options will increase accordingly but the comparison will be the same.

I am asking... can you be sure of this? To say this, you must first have seen enough of forests in the first place to know what to expect... And still it is in part a reflection of your personal instincts, not a distinct quality from reality. Ie. it shows purpose to your particular sense of purpose, but it isn't universally purposeful. I bet dogs never notice. :wink:

And dogs don't disbelieve levitation either. I can decern this about trees with about the same credibility that you can decern I can't levitate things. To put this tree discussion in perspective...I brought this up because I was showing a real world problem where I use odds to make a decision. I claim I've seen enough forest to do this just as you claim you know humans well enough to know what I can and cannot do. So you either agree that this method can be used(in the case of humans) or you do not believe it can be used(like in the case of forest). Which is it?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Originally posted by heusdens
Untrue. Our knowledge comes from objective experience, from our relation with objective reality.

Our minds know nothing by themselves.

Arguing against this is like trying to argue against 2+2=5. I think enough people here agree with what I said to make it not worth trying .
 
  • #53
Originally posted by Fliption
Arguing against this is like trying to argue against 2+2=5. I think enough people here agree with what I said to make it not worth trying .
People agreeing with you doesn't make you right...and you KNOW this, man!
 
  • #54
Originally posted by Zero
People agreeing with you doesn't make you right...and you KNOW this, man!


True, but his position is extreme and we have enough things to sort out without having to deal with this kind of stuff. If you want We can get LifeGazer back to help balance out this extreme view.
 
  • #55
Originally posted by Fliption
True, but his position is extreme and we have enough things to sort out without having to deal with this kind of stuff. If you want We can get LifeGazer back to help balance out this extreme view.
LOL, when you put it that way, never mind!
 
  • #56
Now if you take a look at everything that fits this description around you, you may notice that the odds of most of these things being created by chance is almost impossible.
But I am saying that the odds of any other thing that is not apparently designed appearing by chance is also almost zero. I am saying that we identify the specific entity - car, because we have in our minds a specific attributed purpose to it.

Does this mean that everything that has impossible odds is designed? NO! I concede this. All I'm saying is that it could be a strong indicator.
Let's look at it from a different direction. To use such odds as an indicator, it must be specified that all else which is apparently not designed has comparatively high odds of existence. I simply don't think this is generally the case.

Maybe we should just agree with disagree.

The correlation of probability and intent is all that is needed.
What I really require is the correlation of high probability, with lack of intent.

But you not considering me human (because I can levitate) and then concluding that I can't levitate because I consider myself human is assuming that we define human the same way. I'm not sure how this shows anything.
Heh... Hell... I've forgotten what this whole levitation thing was about...

Just because it never happened before doesn't mean it can't happen now.
Uh... isn't that exactly what I was trying to say, when I was talking about our lack of knowledge of an essentially infinite universe? I'm confused...

And that is to dismiss something based on past experience even though I can make the same claims to you that you have been making to me; that you cannot possiby have enough knowledge to do this.
Ah, now I remember... I mean that my belief in your lack of ability to levitate stuff stems from two things - an act of definition as to what is human and humanly capable, and a trust in that you share my definition as the basis of a language system. And the point was that while we have some experience of humanity and a good, consistent definition of what humanity represents, we know nothing of what chance is capable of, or of the existence of a designer that would allow the alternative of the design.

If the configuration is low enough in probability compared to the other options then yes I am saying you would need to consider a special arrangement that has intent built in.
But my sticker is that all the possibilities has almost no probability, and all of them produce a distinct result. The trick is in identifying a meaningful result. A boulder rolling down a hill fits in the idea of engine as identified - increase the length of the hill and it can run for a long time.

What is the difference between the engine and the hill but that the engine does something that is subjectively - to our perspective - useful?

All there is is the probability of one configuration compared to the probability of all the other options.
The thing is, we aren't looking for one configuration, but for anyone of many configurations that fulfills a certain subjective threshold. And that by raising or lowering the threshold, we change the resultant probability.
And then we get the feedback problem. How do we assess the probability, even comparative, but by observing the incidents happen? If we see a low probability event occur, then you can simply raise the probability of the result. And so, by this method, we would conclude from an engine that the probability of the engine occurring is much larger than we expected, so the occurance of the engine is nothing out of the ordinary - rather, it is our original assessment of the probability of an engine appearing that was flawed and unrealistic.

So you either agree that this method can be used(in the case of humans) or you do not believe it can be used(like in the case of forest). Which is it?
My point is that I do not believe you are using the method as you are suggesting, but by the method of comparing known alternatives.
 
  • #57
Originally posted by FZ+
But I am saying that the odds of any other thing that is not apparently designed appearing by chance is also almost zero. I am saying that we identify the specific entity - car, because we have in our minds a specific attributed purpose to it.
Yes, I have agreed with you that the odds of any specific snowflake occurring is almost zero. But the distinction is that these odds are no less than any other configuration of a snowflake given the boundaries that a snowflake operates in. And there is a 100% chance that it will take one of them.

This is clearly NOT the case with an engine made of automobile parts. If you bump into a contraption on Mars that could crank you would then ask yourself the question... "what are the odds that parts can naturally assemble themselves to allow the resulting creation to crank?" Yes, cranking would have to be part of the criteria but it is simply a physical property you have observed. There does not have to be any subjective understanding of the function of cranking.

Let's look at it from a different direction. To use such odds as an indicator, it must be specified that all else which is apparently not designed has comparatively high odds of existence. I simply don't think this is generally the case.

Neither do I. That is why I do not say that non-designed things have high probability. I say that they have significantly higher probability. There is a big difference. That is why I keep saying "compare" the options. That is where the huge disparity in probability is.

What I really require is the correlation of high probability, with lack of intent.
On a scale from 0 to 100, the number 3 would be a very low number. But it is huge compared to .0000000000000001.

Ah, now I remember... I mean that my belief in your lack of ability to levitate stuff stems from two things - an act of definition as to what is human and humanly capable, and a trust in that you share my definition as the basis of a language system.
Sure we might define human similarly but my definition might be slightly different and may not define it as a being who can't levitate. Especially if I could actually levitate and definitely considered myself human!

And the point was that while we have some experience of humanity and a good, consistent definition of what humanity represents, we know nothing of what chance is capable of, or of the existence of a designer that would allow the alternative of the design.

I still just don't see how you can claim that you can't speak about the universe due to lack of knowledge, yet you can compartmentalize any object inside of it and say everything that needs to be said. This method seems as unstable and subjective as what I'm suggesting.

But my sticker is that all the possibilities has almost no probability, and all of them produce a distinct result. The trick is in identifying a meaningful result. A boulder rolling down a hill fits in the idea of engine as identified - increase the length of the hill and it can run for a long time.

What is the difference between the engine and the hill but that the engine does something that is subjectively - to our perspective - useful?
I don't understand why you can't understand what I'm saying. The difference is obvious. Boulders run down hills all the time! Have you ever seen an automobile engine put itself together by chance? You keep getting hung up on the fact that we "know" what an automobile engine is therefore it is the usefulness of it that makes me single it out. Thats just the nature of the examples I've used. I have to use a device that we are both familiar with or else I have no way of pointing out the correlation between designed things and the improbability of them happening by chance.

The bottomline is that you can call anything you want an engine. Some engines will be designed and some will not. It has nothing to do with usefulness. It has to do with the odds of them appearing by chance. An engine like a boulder rolling down a hill is a natural engine. An engine made of automobile parts is not a natural engine. Why? Because you have never seen one created by nature.

The thing is, we aren't looking for one configuration, but for anyone of many configurations that fulfills a certain subjective threshold. And that by raising or lowering the threshold, we change the resultant probability.

And then we get the feedback problem. How do we assess the probability, even comparative, but by observing the incidents happen? If we see a low probability event occur, then you can simply raise the probability of the result. And so, by this method, we would conclude from an engine that the probability of the engine occurring is much larger than we expected, so the occurance of the engine is nothing out of the ordinary - rather, it is our original assessment of the probability of an engine appearing that was flawed and unrealistic.

Fine. But all you've done is described what we do in all our investigative endeavers. We make theories and test them. If we find evidence to suggest otherwise then we change our theories. I don't understand why in this case we have to assume the answer is "A" just because "B" might be wrong. Especially when "A" might be wrong as well. It just seems a bit insincere to me.

Also, all of what you have said applies to your conclusion about my ability to levitate.


My point is that I do not believe you are using the method as you are suggesting, but by the method of comparing known alternatives.

I didn't understand this.

I think my whole point is that we all do what I'm suggesting. You did it with my ability to levitate. You do it even though the idea that you know enough about humans to make this claim is itself as subjective as anything I've proposed. How do you know when you know enough? We all use our experience, intutition and subjective views when we're trying to figure things out. Everyone does!

So I entered this thread because once again I see people suddenly trying to act like strict, textbook following robots whenever the topic of design comes up.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Fliption:

You main argument then would be that since for instance an automobile has a hight improbability of assembling itself, given it's complexity and fine-tuning of parts to make it a working thing, it makes you conclude the thing needs a maker or creator.

And then you go on to reason since we need a maker or designer in that case, we need to assume that also in the case of complex living celss.

But here is the error in your thinking, namely the assumption that the making of a car is cause by an act of creation.

When exactly was this car created or designed? Well, please go and lookup all the history of making of cars, for most part it is recent history, that is not very difficult then.

The first question is -- was a car ever designed or created?
The concept of a car we did not get from thin air, or by one "creative" invention. Instead it was ... A DEVELOPMENT PROCESS!

A car started being an automobile when we were combining two different concepts: that of a charot and that of a benzine or diesel motor. So to explain the automobile, you need to explain bot the charot and the benzine or diesel motor. And then there are other parts to the automobile. All denote a specific development history.
The first element in car design was the rolling of tree trunks and or round stones for some form of transporation, and then making that into an artifact of human technology, the wheel.

So the deisgn history of the car is already a history of thousands of years!

Does not add up to one creation event, does it?
 
  • #59
Has this thread turned into an ID topic?
 
  • #60
No, the car was not one creative event but thousands of creative events logical put together one step at a time to create something that did not exist in objective reality before. Wheels do not grow on trees nor do they fall from mountains. Wheels were invented and invention is a subjective creation. The idea for the wheel, car anything had to first form in some persons consciousness before that person could go about forming a wheel.

This idea was formed because of a perscieved subjective need. Every invention of mankind including objectivity is a subjective event.
 
  • #61
Originally posted by heusdens
Fliption:

You main argument then would be that since for instance an automobile has a hight improbability of assembling itself, given it's complexity and fine-tuning of parts to make it a working thing, it makes you conclude the thing needs a maker or creator.

No That's not my argument. I don't make any conclusions based on odds. All I'm doing is pointing out the correlation between designed things and the statistical improbability of those things happening in nature. If the odds are incredible enough it doesn't "need" anything like a creator necessarily. It just needs to be explored with a more open mind as to how it got where it is.


So the deisgn history of the car is already a history of thousands of years!

Does not add up to one creation event, does it?

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "one creation event". I couldn't careless how many events it takes, the point is that at each step of the development there was intent involved. I also don't like the word "creation" being used. At the moment we've been discussing anything from finding a circle of sticks in the woods to finding an object on Mars. I have no interest in any of the religious theories. The creation word tends to draw out the militant science whackos who then become dis-respectful and unproductive. Let's not do that to this thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #62
Originally posted by Fliption
The creation word tends to draw out the militant science whackos who then become dis-respectful and unproductive. Let's not do that to this thread.
Uh huh...*grins*


The problem I have with the design idea is that it depends on the unproven idea of intent, if'n you see my point. A car is designed with an intent in mind: transportation. What intent is there in a tree sloth, or a neutron star?
 
  • #63
This is clearly NOT the case with an engine made of automobile parts. If you bump into a contraption on Mars that could crank you would then ask yourself the question... "what are the odds that parts can naturally assemble themselves to allow the resulting creation to crank?" Yes, cranking would have to be part of the criteria but it is simply a physical property you have observed. There does not have to be any subjective understanding of the function of cranking.
But is it? What I am really correlating here is looking for one specific configuration of parts that make it crank with looking for one specific pattern of water molecules that let's the finished snowflake fulfil your criteria of a certain shape - the puzzle is in selecting the precise criteria, and that is subjective.

Suppose we have a lock, with a hole with which a specific snowflake fits in, and we find a snowflake that happens to fit it. Then we would argue that the safe is designed, would we not? And hence is the point - the thing that makes us think the thing is designed is not the item, or whatever odds it has, but the safe, the mental keyhole in which it fits. Boulders do roll down hills, but they never roll down in exactly the same way. What is critical to the finding of purpose in these cases is us, and the purpose our subjectivity provides. That is what focuses our minds on the cranking of the engine instead of the special ways in can fall apart - the fact that we find it useful. And another problem is that we cannot determine if the key was made for the lock, or the lock was made for the key. If we have a lock and a key, then it is easy to suggest design is present. But with only a key, or a lock, then we cannot begin but by making assumptions.

I still just don't see how you can claim that you can't speak about the universe due to lack of knowledge, yet you can compartmentalize any object inside of it and say everything that needs to be said. This method seems as unstable and subjective as what I'm suggesting.
I think it goes back to another assumption of mine - that we can know anyone thing, but we simply will never know everything.

Boulders run down hills all the time! Have you ever seen an automobile engine put itself together by chance?
No, but I have never seen a boulder set itself in a position that makes it run down the hill either. (Just clarify for a moment. I am comparing the running down the hill of a boulder to the running of the engine, not the spontaneous creation of the latter) I am saying that in blunt, physical terms, the function of an engine is almost the same as the boulder down the hill. It is the function we have for it that sets the two apart. If I was to land one Earth and mankind was to disappear, by counting the number of engines around, I would conclude a high probability of the engines arriving by chance, since they all appear to be naturally present. Before we discovered glaciation etc, did we really believe people pushed boulders up hills, rigged them in precarious positions where they can fall?
The method for us the judge the probability of the boulders is to see how often they appear, though we cannot watch them spontaneously put themselves in positions where they can fall, we assume that they do so. By your method, if we compare the appearance of engines and boulders right now, without reference to function etc, we might be forgiven for interpretating that it is the boulders that are designed, not the engines.

I didn't understand this.
What I mean is that when I thought you can't levitate (ignoring the definition based objections) I considered two alternatives - that I know you can lie, and I know no mechanism you can levitate. But when we say about design of the metal block, I know that there is a chance of it appearing, but I don't know if the designers exist which would allow this block to appear any other way, and I don't know if they have any purpose for it. What is necessary is to establish the latter ones.
 
  • #64
But is it? What I am really correlating here is looking for one specific configuration of parts that make it crank with looking for one specific pattern of water molecules that let's the finished snowflake fulfil your criteria of a certain shape - the puzzle is in selecting the precise criteria, and that is subjective.

Suppose we have a lock, with a hole with which a specific snowflake fits in, and we find a snowflake that happens to fit it. Then we would argue that the safe is designed, would we not? And hence is the point - the thing that makes us think the thing is designed is not the item, or whatever odds it has, but the safe, the mental keyhole in which it fits. Boulders do roll down hills, but they never roll down in exactly the same way. What is critical to the finding of purpose in these cases is us, and the purpose our subjectivity provides. That is what focuses our minds on the cranking of the engine instead of the special ways in can fall apart - the fact that we find it useful. And another problem is that we cannot determine if the key was made for the lock, or the lock was made for the key. If we have a lock and a key, then it is easy to suggest design is present. But with only a key, or a lock, then we cannot begin but by making assumptions.

I hear what you're saying but I just don't agree with it. If I found a snowflake that fit exactly into a lock I would NOT think it was designed. It is because the feature that you are using to establish it as designed is the way it interacts with something else or gets "used". As opposed to a unique physical property that it has on it's own. You keep getting hung up on subjective usefulness. If this really happened, I would step back and ask myself, "Now what makes the characteristics of this snowflake any different in terms of it's odds than any other?" Nothing. That particular shape just happens to be the right shape for that lock but in and of itself, it has no less odds of occurring than any other shape. As opposed to an automobile engine. And I just cannot accept the idea that a cranking engine would just be ignored completely as an unusual object simply because we didn't know what the function of cranking was. That just seems ridiculous.


I think it goes back to another assumption of mine - that we can know anyone thing, but we simply will never know everything.
Ok, then we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

If I know everything about 99% of the species in the water, I still won't swim in the water until I find out whether the other 1% eats meat. Also, this 1% might influence the behavior of the other 99% in ways that I cannot know.


No, but I have never seen a boulder set itself in a position that makes it run down the hill either. (Just clarify for a moment. I am comparing the running down the hill of a boulder to the running of the engine, not the spontaneous creation of the latter) I am saying that in blunt, physical terms, the function of an engine is almost the same as the boulder down the hill. It is the function we have for it that sets the two apart. If I was to land one Earth and mankind was to disappear, by counting the number of engines around, I would conclude a high probability of the engines arriving by chance, since they all appear to be naturally present. Before we discovered glaciation etc, did we really believe people pushed boulders up hills, rigged them in precarious positions where they can fall?
The method for us the judge the probability of the boulders is to see how often they appear, though we cannot watch them spontaneously put themselves in positions where they can fall, we assume that they do so. By your method, if we compare the appearance of engines and boulders right now, without reference to function etc, we might be forgiven for interpretating that it is the boulders that are designed, not the engines.

huh? Heh. This is silly. Give us a little credit(since we all do what I'm suggesting). You are taking what I'm saying and then applying it in a vacuum of information and showing how absurd things would result. For example, you and I both know that if we shake a crate full of auto parts that they will never come out assembled in such a way for them to crank. How do we know this? I personally have zero experience shaking crates full of auto parts. It's because we have a very good understanding of how the laws of physics work in a setting such as this. The amount of information and experience that would play into a decision like this would be vast. It would not be constrained to the local setting and situation like you have done here. If I went to another planet and saw crankable cars everywhere and no people, I would entertain the option that the people have either died or left because I know that nature has never in my experience produced objects that are made up of hundreds of moving, symetrical metal parts and make a lot of noise when a small metal plate is turned. While this new planet may be different and defy the laws of physics as we know it, that is the risk we take everytime we create a theory. We base it on what we know and when we learn something different our theories change.




What I mean is that when I thought you can't levitate (ignoring the definition based objections) I considered two alternatives - that I know you can lie, and I know no mechanism you can levitate. But when we say about design of the metal block, I know that there is a chance of it appearing, but I don't know if the designers exist which would allow this block to appear any other way, and I don't know if they have any purpose for it. What is necessary is to establish the latter ones.

And I can as easily make the claim that there is no mechanism for a square metal box encasing assembled parts to happen naturally. The analogy seems clear to me. Neither have ever happened in our experience so they are in the same boat of credibility.

Just so you know...I wouldn't believe it if anyone told me they could levitate things either. Just like I wouldn't initially believe that box was created naturally. Consistency!
 
Last edited:
  • #65
some interesting quotes that may be somewhat applicable to this discussion:

"the fool says in his heart there is no God"

"...they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the creator. though they claimed to be wise they became fools."

lets step out on a limb here. God has declared purpose and intent. the purpose: his glory, the intent: our perfection. for this, you must believe. i cannot prove it. i don't want to. indeed, the day i prove this is the day i stop believing it for my God cannot be subject to me.

nevertheless, the sheer nonsense that is spewed forth by the atheist or the materialist (in short, the fool) is not above reproach or rebuttal though it nears "reductio ad absurdum".

some have proposed that because we cannot objectively prove the existence of God he does not exist. however, i cannot objectively prove my own existence. therefore i do not exist? please, enlighten me as to how i can objectively prove my own existence.

somewhere in all this reasoning, everyone became unreasonable (and for no apparent reason - the truth is quite obvious).
 
  • #66
Originally posted by Fliption
No That's not my argument. I don't make any conclusions based on odds. All I'm doing is pointing out the correlation between designed things and the statistical improbability of those things happening in nature. If the odds are incredible enough it doesn't "need" anything like a creator necessarily. It just needs to be explored with a more open mind as to how it got where it is.


Please explain to me how can you do a real probability calculation?
Doesn't that involve wild speculations about for instance:
- The number of planets that have earthlike conditions, which amongst others involve the number of stars, galaxies, etc. (there is presumably much more universe outside of the observable horizon!)

How can you claim to be able to perform probability calculus on that?

Secondly: you do not know the exact mechanism that evolves life from non-life. It makes your probability theory baseless then.



What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "one creation event". I couldn't careless how many events it takes, the point is that at each step of the development there was intent involved. I also don't like the word "creation" being used. At the moment we've been discussing anything from finding a circle of sticks in the woods to finding an object on Mars. I have no interest in any of the religious theories. The creation word tends to draw out the militant science whackos who then become dis-respectful and unproductive. Let's not do that to this thread.

What do you mean with "creation" then?
Isn't it the same then as determinism?

We have no problem by stating that there were determining events and laws at work in the material world, that caused life from non-life.
They obviously were there, since it happened.
 
  • #67
Originally posted by dschou
some interesting quotes that may be somewhat applicable to this discussion:

"the fool says in his heart there is no God"

"...they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served created things rather than the creator. though they claimed to be wise they became fools."

lets step out on a limb here. God has declared purpose and intent. the purpose: his glory, the intent: our perfection. for this, you must believe. i cannot prove it. i don't want to. indeed, the day i prove this is the day i stop believing it for my God cannot be subject to me.

nevertheless, the sheer nonsense that is spewed forth by the atheist or the materialist (in short, the fool) is not above reproach or rebuttal though it nears "reductio ad absurdum".

some have proposed that because we cannot objectively prove the existence of God he does not exist. however, i cannot objectively prove my own existence. therefore i do not exist? please, enlighten me as to how i can objectively prove my own existence.

somewhere in all this reasoning, everyone became unreasonable (and for no apparent reason - the truth is quite obvious).
This actually makes a lot of sense! Except for one thing perhaps, the part about God not being subject to us, otherwise I don't think He would have given us an ego. :wink:

While it also says something to this effect in the scriptures, when Jesus is asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of God?" and Jesus replies, "He who is least among you is the greatest."

Maybe this is why it's so hard to acknowledge that He exists, because He's so busy fulfilling the needs of His creation?
 
  • #68
Maybe this is why it's so hard to acknowledge that He exists, because He's so busy fulfilling the needs of His creation?
Guess again.
 
  • #69
Originally posted by dschou
some have proposed that because we cannot objectively prove the existence of God he does not exist. however, i cannot objectively prove my own existence. therefore i do not exist? please, enlighten me as to how i can objectively prove my own existence.

Ok. Want proof? Here is how you do this. Find someone in your neighbourhood. Now bow at each other in such a way your heads collide against each other firmly. If you both feel a sudden pain in the head, it means you both exist objectively.

Be carefull though not to do that too firmly, since then you might knock each other unconsciously, and in that state, you sense of objectivity gets lost a while.
 
  • #70
ok. your humour is lost on me.

banging heads with my neighbour is little more proof than pinching myself, which begs the question: why the outlandish imperative? i have an inkling that it was snide, underhanded attack, but that is neither here nor there.

now with regards to the reasoning here, that i can determine OBJECTIVELY my existence through SENSATION, i have little to say but that this is the most SUBJECTIVE method with which to determine my existence.

further, if, through sensation, i could determine existence (and i believe that i can), then God most definitely exists, for i have FELT his presence for some time now and have witnessed his grandeur most personally in his creation. if this sensation is but clouded delusion or perhaps - as one might say - a series of explainable chemical imbalances, then why could i not infer that the pain in my head as it becomes incident on my neighbour's is not likewise a clouded delusion? an unreality?

i will make an existential claim here. i propose that there is no way to determine objectively my own existence save through a series of inductive arguments which may or may not be flawed, but which do not in any way facilitate a deductive proof. QED.

some poetry:

THE WORLD is charged with the grandeur of God.
It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;
It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil
Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?
Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;
And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;
And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil
Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;
There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;
And though the last lights off the black West went
Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs—
Because the Holy Ghost over the bent
World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.


-Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844-1889)
 
  • #71
i will make an existential claim here. i propose that there is no way to determine objectively my own existence save through a series of inductive arguments which may or may not be flawed, but which do not in any way facilitate a deductive proof. QED.
You got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent - except with the belief system of the believer. QED.

For while we cannot consider the fact we have no objective way of ascertaining our own existence as a disproof of our existence, we cannot consider it a proof either. Same with god. The claim of foolishness drawn to anyone side is self-evidently wrong.


"the fool says in his heart there is no God"
Rather, the fool says in his heart that he knows.

Flipton:
If I went to another planet and saw crankable cars everywhere and no people, I would entertain the option that the people have either died or left because I know that nature has never in my experience produced objects that are made up of hundreds of moving, symetrical metal parts and make a lot of noise when a small metal plate is turned.
And when you go to Mars, and find the sky red instead of blue, you assume that your eyes have gone bad? I am still hinting that the recognition stems from the declaration that the act - cranking - can only be done by a designed thing, and that the identification of this act is a subjective process that cannot be expanded universally. You see, it can easy be argued that the snowflake's unique property is it's exact shape, which gives it the ability to fit into the hole. You can't make a distinction in that way.

And I can as easily make the claim that there is no mechanism for a square metal box encasing assembled parts to happen naturally.
Yes you can - you just said it flies together by chance. Anyhow, it doesn't matter because we have already determined that this is subjective - it is based on what claims you make. And so, we can't expand this as an universal principle.


Back to dschou:
some poetry:
I have always wondered why there are so few atheist poets. Can so few see the beauty there is in chance? That the mad dancing of little dots should give a fresh rhythm of order, and through it great complexity is something that is to me far more wondrous, and deep.
 
  • #72
----------------------------------------------
quote:

"You got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent - except with the belief system of the believer. QED."
-----------------------------------------------

allow me to interpret liberally what FZ+ has stated. i, on one hand, axiomatically exist because of the principle premise that my existence remains undisputed. however, God's existence - though likewise axiomatic in nature (by necessity) - cannot be presumed since it is a subject that as yet remains undetermined in the minds of many.

following this argument to its rightful conclusion then (and not to a premature termination as in the above reasoning), my existence is only axiomatic insofar as it remains undisputed. also, God's existence is assured when and only when all agnostic debate ceases (to the effect that we agree that he does exist).

i therefore dispute my own existence. i also declare that God's existence is beyond dispute and, further, that all those who declare to the contrary are purposefully lying in the interests of spurning philosophical debate. so we have it that my existence is disputed while God's is not and therefore God exists while i do not. which begs the question, who is writing this?

i find it truthfully comical that one would purport that God's existence depends on us accepting it. what wilful ignorance - how can anyone justify this untenable position? please do so, or at least try.

-----------------------------------------------
quote:
"For while we cannot consider the fact we have no objective way of ascertaining our own existence as a disproof of our existence, we cannot consider it a proof either. Same with god. The claim of foolishness drawn to anyone side is self-evidently wrong."
-----------------------------------------------

this would seem correct if i didn't know it to be wrong. the truth is, a believer in God stands directly opposite to one who denies his existence. to contemplate a raprochement between the two would be nonsense. therefore, as God's existence is axiomatic, and i do believe in his existence, my entire worldview is shaped by and evolves from this underlying premise. also, i am disposed to believe the words he has given us in his bible. therefore, if the bible says that the fool says in his heart "there is no God" i have little choice but to call the person who says "God does not exist" a fool. if i refrained from this, my faith would be internally inconsistent and would need to be revamped.

in conclusion, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and therein lies the truth of the matter.
 
Last edited:
  • #73
http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=axiom
"1 a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; maxim "
The existence of god is not generally accepted - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"3 a self-evident statement"
The existence is god is not self-evident - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"4 (Logic) (maths) a statement or formula that is stipulated to be true for the purpose of a chain of reasoning: the foundation of a formal deductive system "
The existence of god is not necessary - ergo, it is not an axiom.

One might note what this does say - in the mind of the believer, where the assumption of God forms the root of other thoughts, the idea of god is axiomatic and consistent. For one who does not beleive, the assumption of God is arbitary and unneccessary. Henceforth this does not at all indicate an absolute right position, and only ignorance lies in calling the other position inherently a fool.

also, i am disposed to believe the words he has given us in his bible. therefore, if the bible says that the fool says in his heart "there is no God" i have little choice but to call the person who says "God does not exist" a fool. if i refrained from this, my faith would be internally inconsistent and would need to be revamped.
I would call on you to rethink that position - there is a very long road between thinking that "some god" has to exist, than picking a specific one, as that implies not just neutrality but positive disbelief in the infinity of other Gods, which can be considered equally self-evident.

For your information, the fool proposal I made was in fact from Buddhism. Apparently their God (or universal reality, whatever) is wiser.

in conclusion, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and therein lies the truth of the matter.
Only if you believe so.
 
  • #74
Originally posted by dschou
----------------------------------------------
quote:

"You got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent - except with the belief system of the believer. QED."
-----------------------------------------------

allow me to interpret liberally what FZ+ has stated. i, on one hand, axiomatically exist because of the principle premise that my existence remains undisputed. however, God's existence - though likewise axiomatic in nature (by necessity) - cannot be presumed since it is a subject that as yet remains undetermined in the minds of many.

following this argument to its rightful conclusion then (and not to a premature termination as in the above reasoning), my existence is only axiomatic insofar as it remains undisputed. also, God's existence is assured when and only when all agnostic debate ceases (to the effect that we agree that he does exist).

i therefore dispute my own existence. i also declare that God's existence is beyond dispute and, further, that all those who declare to the contrary are purposefully lying in the interests of spurning philosophical debate. so we have it that my existence is disputed while God's is not and therefore God exists while i do not. which begs the question, who is writing this?

i find it truthfully comical that one would purport that God's existence depends on us accepting it. what wilful ignorance - how can anyone justify this untenable position? please do so, or at least try.

-----------------------------------------------
quote:
"For while we cannot consider the fact we have no objective way of ascertaining our own existence as a disproof of our existence, we cannot consider it a proof either. Same with god. The claim of foolishness drawn to anyone side is self-evidently wrong."
-----------------------------------------------

this would seem correct if i didn't know it to be wrong. the truth is, a believer in God stands directly opposite to one who denies his existence. to contemplate a raprochement between the two would be nonsense. therefore, as God's existence is axiomatic, and i do believe in his existence, my entire worldview is shaped by and evolves from this underlying premise. also, i am disposed to believe the words he has given us in his bible. therefore, if the bible says that the fool says in his heart "there is no God" i have little choice but to call the person who says "God does not exist" a fool. if i refrained from this, my faith would be internally inconsistent and would need to be revamped.

in conclusion, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and therein lies the truth of the matter.

Where does your outlook on reality in total begin, if not in acknowledging the fact that you are consciouss, and have consciouss awareness of a world, that exists outside, apart and independend of your mind?

You can't state you yourself do not exist, since you are aware that you are. You could just try the assumption that the world of which you are aware, and that is projected into your mind, would not exist independend, apart and outside of your mind.

However, then you have the following facts which you can not explain:
- Where did the world come from? If it is said that the world just exists entirely in your mind, and there is nothing outside of it, then what caused the world to exist?
- Why do we have senses, eyes and ears, if the world itself of which we are aware, would only exist in our mind?
- Why do other people/mind exist, and how can they exist outside and apart of our mind, if everything that exists, exist in our mind?
- Why don't we have all knowledge about everything, since everything would exist in our own minds?
- Why don't we have memories about an infinite past, so that it seems the world started from appearently nothing?

Clearly these questions can not be answered, based on our assumption.
We conclude therefore that our assumption that the world itself, would not exist apart, independend and outside of our mind, is wrong.

So, this means our basic position and our ground for any reasoned assumptions about the world, would have to start from the fact that the world itself, which is reflected and projected in our minds, denotes something that exists independend, outside and apart from our own minds.

This conclusion is satisfactory since it explains:
- Why we ourselves exists, since the world contains all the causes, and also contains our reason for existence
- Why we have senses, since we use them to perceive of the world, and be aware of it.
- Why we don't know everything, since the world exists outside of our mind.
- Why there are other people/minds, who are also aware of the same world
- Why the world itself, did not start, since it already existed before we were there.

I think this assumption is therefore far more reasonable as the assumption that the world would exist entirely within our own mind.

Since we reject that the world could have been entirely dependend on our own consciousness, and we know only directly our own consciousness, this means, we can only account that the world itself exists in objective and material form, without begin or end.

This therefore immediately rejects any creator thing.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
Objective reality is an assumption. You said this yourself, heusden.
You also said that we have perception, consciousness and awareness, all sujective things, thoughts. And then:
Since we reject that the world could have been entirely dependend on our own consciousness, and we know only directly our own consciousness, this means, we can only account that the world itself exists in objective and material form, without begin or end.

It is not that the objective world is dependent on our consciousness, it is that this is the only way that we can be aware of the world. We therefore have to assume that the objective material world exists with out any supporting evidence other than the subective awareness of ourselves and others.

Having already made an unsupported assumption there is no reason or reasonable need to assump that such as reality is without begin and without end. There is however supported reason to believe that the world, universe did indeed have a beginning and will have and end reguardless of the semantic argument of some 19th century philosophers.

There is no such thing as subjective objectivity nor can the subjective ever become objective. The terms are mutually exclusive and contradictory thus it is an oxymoron. We, therefore, have already agreed that both objectivity and subjectivity exists. This contradicts the position of extreme materialist in which only the objective material world exist and existence is only possible if something else exist outside of something else. This is rubbish. Either something exists indepent of anything else or it doesn't.

As the universe contains everything that exists by definition, nothing exists outside of the universe. By Marx's reasoning this make the universe nonexistent as there is nothing outside of itself.

Karl Marx was not a true philosopher,but had an agenda. He was attempting to rationalize and justify his political and economic revolution. His ability to reason philosophically was almost as good as his knowledge of economics in the real world and of human nature as it really is. If you care to look around you and see what a success communism and its classless society is compared to capitalism and democratic republics you will begin to get an inkling of his faulty thinking. That is unless of course he was being intentionally deceptive from the beginning, which wouldn't surprise me either.
 
  • #76
Originally posted by FZ+
And when you go to Mars, and find the sky red instead of blue, you assume that your eyes have gone bad? I am still hinting that the recognition stems from the declaration that the act - cranking - can only be done by a designed thing, and that the identification of this act is a subjective process that cannot be expanded universally.

I Agree! For the most part. But with the sky example I think you are making the same mistake that you made with the boulder example by assuming that I am proposing some strict line of rules to be followed. And then you apply it in a limited situation to come to absurd conclusions. If I went to Mars and saw a red sky I would NOT think something was wrong with my eyes. At least not at first. Because the blue sky color that I'm used to can be explained by the properties of the planet earth, it makes sense that the sky could very well be a different color on Mars. So let me say this one more time. I think that when confronted with a situation of EXTREME improbability based on all the knowledge and experience we have at our disposal(this includes the physics of sky color) we then investigate the truth with the best inductive reasoning we can muster.

What I'm talking about is the manner in which an "investigation" into the unknown takes place. When in the mode of investigation, all options should be left open and the clues looked at openly and then we make a conclusion based on the best knowledge that we have. What I am NOT talking about is a set of rules to follow to call something knowledge or have it included in a textbook. You and I both know that this is all subjective but a line has to be drawn in each situation. In some situations you may actually have enough knowledge to very reasonably suggest that something was designed and not generated by chance. Wether you have enough knowledge to do this could always be wrong but yet you did this very thing when you claimed to have enough knowledge about humans to say I can't levitate things. So what if you actually acquire as much knowledge of Mars? Might you also not be able to apply some judgement here as well,subjective as it is? We can't just ignore the obvious simply because we're going to assume that chance built everything. We don't do this in real life and I don't think we should pretend we do just because we're talking about design.



You see, it can easy be argued that the snowflake's unique property is it's exact shape, which gives it the ability to fit into the hole. You can't make a distinction in that way.
I can't? Why not? You derive the distinction from an interaction with an outside thing which has nothing to do with the formation of the snowflake to begin with. This can be easily distinguished from a snowflake that sings when it has a certain arrangement.

Yes you can - you just said it flies together by chance. Anyhow, it doesn't matter because we have already determined that this is subjective - it is based on what claims you make. And so, we can't expand this as an universal principle.

All it says is that we have to apply judgement based on what we know to all unknown situations. To argue that we should enter the lab with an assumption as opposed to being open to all options ESPECIALLY when you may have some evidence to suggest otherwise just seems irresponsible.
 
Last edited:
  • #77
Originally posted by FZ+
http://www.wordreference.com/english/definition.asp?en=axiom
"1 a generally accepted proposition or principle, sanctioned by experience; maxim "
The existence of god is not generally accepted - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"3 a self-evident statement"
The existence is god is not self-evident - ergo, it is not an axiom.
"4 (Logic) (maths) a statement or formula that is stipulated to be true for the purpose of a chain of reasoning: the foundation of a formal deductive system "
The existence of god is not necessary - ergo, it is not an axiom.

One might note what this does say - in the mind of the believer, where the assumption of God forms the root of other thoughts, the idea of god is axiomatic and consistent. For one who does not beleive, the assumption of God is arbitary and unneccessary.


this is obviously inconsistent with the argument proposed in a previous correspondance, as i have acknowledged the fallacy of that reasoning in my most recent posting (see above)

"...you got it. And hence the existence of you is an axiom as it is an undisputed assumption, while God, being a disputed assumption can not be considered proven or absolutely existent..."

until this inconsistency is unraveled or my argument directly rebutted, the claim that existence can be determined objectively or established via an axiom only by rule of general acceptance remains untenable. consequently, future argument along that vein is rendered superfluous (as is your frequent use of the word ergo).

now with regards to your final statement, the one which most strongly reveals your AXIOMATIC post-modernist world-view, it is incumbent on me to reveal some flaws in your position:

1. "only if you believe so", quite wrong. either God exists or he doesn't. if one were to counter that God exists only in my mind, then what is really being stated is that he doesn't exist at all, for anything that exists only in my mind is finite (a finite-subjective mind - Feuerbach) and God is declared infinite by definition of his existence. therefore he cannot exist in my mind, a contradiction. he can only exist as the creator of my mind and outside my mind.

2. post-modernism in general has no real practical application. laws and customs are applied generally, not specifically. likewise, peoples interact on a scale of multitudes, not as individuals. it is therefore impossible to establish norms which fully take into account the notions of individuality since the moral code, which is subscribed to and prescribed by the law, is dependant on personal beliefs. therefore, since post-modernism heeds no ground with respect to its claims for absolute tolerance (which is itself a vacuous concept), and it therefore cannot be applied, it is meaningless and amounts to little more than mere intellectual exercise - but without the benefit of gained wisdom.

merci beaucoup.

some more poetry:

i thank you God for most this amazing
day: for the leaping greenly spirits of trees
and a blue true dream of sky; and for everything
which is natural which is infinite which is yes

(i who have died am alive again today,
and this is the sun's birthday; this is the birth
day of life and of love and wings:and of the gay
great happening illimitably earth

how should tasting touching hearing seeing
breathing any - lifted from the no
of all nothing - human merely being
doubt unimaginable You?

(now the ears of my ears awake and
now the eyes of my eyes are opened)

-E.E. Cummings

from "100 Selected Poems", Grove Press, New York
 
Last edited:
  • #78
Originally posted by heusdens
Where does your outlook on reality in total begin, if not in acknowledging the fact that you are consciouss, and have consciouss awareness of a world, that exists outside, apart and independend of your mind?

You can't state you yourself do not exist, since you are aware that you are. You could just try the assumption that the world of which you are aware, and that is projected into your mind, would not exist independend, apart and outside of your mind.
the word is independent. note the 't'.

However, then you have the following facts which you can not explain:
- Where did the world come from? If it is said that the world just exists entirely in your mind, and there is nothing outside of it, then what caused the world to exist?
- Why do we have senses, eyes and ears, if the world itself of which we are aware, would only exist in our mind?
- Why do other people/mind exist, and how can they exist outside and apart of our mind, if everything that exists, exist in our mind?
- Why don't we have all knowledge about everything, since everything would exist in our own minds?
- Why don't we have memories about an infinite past, so that it seems the world started from appearently nothing?

Clearly these questions can not be answered, based on our assumption.
We conclude therefore that our assumption that the world itself, would not exist apart, independend and outside of our mind, is wrong.

our assumption implies me and i have assumed no such thing. on the contrary, as has already been explicitly stated, i contend that awareness of the world through sensation is purely subjective and further, that there is no methodology which can elevate this to the plane of objectivity. also, be aware that this in no way excludes either my own, or God's existence (refer to my previous post on this matter). rather, i readily profess both my own and God's existence. the conclusions previously drawn regarding this matter of my existence were so drawn in the hopes of revealing the illegitamacy of the views put forth by FZ+, since they necessitated (or at least allowed) my own non-existence with claims of general acceptance being the sole requirement for objective (or axiomatic) existence.

finally, if, supposing that the questions could be answered only (to one's knowledge) by accepting my existence, then this would in no way comprise an objective proof. this is a fundamental axiom of all scientific endeavour: a theory can be verified and generally accepted, but not to the exclusion of all other theories (so long as those theories, which may or may not be known, are consistent with the SUBJECTIVE sensations). for instance (and i do deplore giving inane examples), if two theories explained why the sky was blue, and neither contradicted any data collected by the senses, then either one could be held as true. even if only one theory explained the sky's blueness, it could NOT be held as absolute, thus negating any future hypothesis. so we have it that the now famous questions may be answered conveniently if my existence is assumed, but they do not necessitate it.

This therefore immediately rejects any creator thing.
nothing will. stop trying. it is a fruitless endeavour.
 
  • #79
1. "only if you believe so", quite wrong. either God exists or he doesn't. if one were to counter that God exists only in my mind, then what is really being stated is that he doesn't exist at all, for anything that exists only in my mind is finite (a finite-subjective mind - Feuerbach) and God is declared infinite by definition of his existence. therefore he cannot exist in my mind, a contradiction. he can only exist as the creator of my mind and outside my mind.
It seems that you have missed the main thrust of my argument. You are claiming that God is existent as a self-evident axiom, and thus does not require a deductive proof. Correct? I am saying that by failing to justify your statement that God is axiomatic in an objective sense, all you have said is a case of implication - that if you have a world view founded on the assumption of God's existence, it is natural for God to exist. It is a statement of a belief system - what is fundamentally lacking is the tie that makes it an account of the real world. Consider for example that it is equally valid to make axiomatic, as some have done, that a being such as God cannot exist - this too leads to a consistent world view. Leading to the consideration that this form of argument tells us nothing of the existence of God, but only what you believe in.
 
  • #80
Originally posted by dschou

our assumption implies me and i have assumed no such thing. on the contrary, as has already been explicitly stated, i contend that awareness of the world through sensation is purely subjective and further, that there is no methodology which can elevate this to the plane of objectivity. also, be aware that this in no way excludes either my own, or God's existence (refer to my previous post on this matter). rather, i readily profess both my own and God's existence.
[/b]

You have failed to demonstrate why it would be necessary to assume God. Since we conceive of God as a consciouss entity, how do you know of this 'mind of God' since all you have is your own mind?

You state that awareness of the world, and the projection in the mind, is purely subjective.
If that were the case, then you in fact assume that no such outer reality exists or has to exist.

Where does your awareness about the world then originate in?
From your mind alone?

So, in other words, the world in total would only exist in your subjective awareness of it.

But then explain me this:
- Where does the world come from? It could not have existed always in your mind, since your mind does not have infinite past memories
- Why are there other minds, who claim the same subjectivity as you?
Do these minds exist in the real (objective) sense, or are they all PART of YOUR mind then?
- Why do we have senses? If everything already exists within the mind, what are they good for then?
- Why don't we have all knowledge? If everything already exists within the mind, why wouldn't we have all knowledge?
- How can your mind exist only in subjective form? There are other people who can state the existence of both you, and your mindly awareness. This means your mind and you exist in the objective sense.



the conclusions previously drawn regarding this matter of my existence were so drawn in the hopes of revealing the illegitamacy of the views put forth by FZ+, since they necessitated (or at least allowed) my own non-existence with claims of general acceptance being the sole requirement for objective (or axiomatic) existence.

finally, if, supposing that the questions could be answered only (to one's knowledge) by accepting my existence, then this would in no way comprise an objective proof. this is a fundamental axiom of all scientific endeavour: a theory can be verified and generally accepted, but not to the exclusion of all other theories (so long as those theories, which may or may not be known, are consistent with the SUBJECTIVE sensations). for instance (and i do deplore giving inane examples), if two theories explained why the sky was blue, and neither contradicted any data collected by the senses, then either one could be held as true. even if only one theory explained the sky's blueness, it could NOT be held as absolute, thus negating any future hypothesis. so we have it that the now famous questions may be answered conveniently if my existence is assumed, but they do not necessitate it.
nothing will. stop trying. it is a fruitless endeavour.

You are explaining nothing, you are just presenting us an axiom with no back up, and it explans nothing.

You state that your existence is primary to the world. Well, that is a simple lie, since the world already existed before your existence in mindly form.

Since we do exist in mindly form, and which can be stated in the objective sense, there needs to be a cause for our existence in mindly form.

The mindly existence can not cause itself, so that is why we need to assume that a material world in the objective sense existed.

Nothing you can say, can refute that.

It is as simple as that!
 
  • #81
Originally posted by Fliption
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with "one creation event". I couldn't careless how many events it takes, the point is that at each step of the development there was intent involved. I also don't like the word "creation" being used. At the moment we've been discussing anything from finding a circle of sticks in the woods to finding an object on Mars. I have no interest in any of the religious theories. The creation word tends to draw out the militant science whackos who then become dis-respectful and unproductive. Let's not do that to this thread.

Me neither likes the word "creation" since it obfuscates what really goes on. As I have showed, even in the context of human society the term "creation" does not explain anything.

Now "intend" is also a strange concept.Does the sun "intend" to shine, and emit light? Do atoms and molecules "intend" to combine into more complex forms?

Same as with the word "creation" you can not use the word "intend" to describe anything in nature.

It is usefull only in human communication.
But it does not have an "absolute" meaning, and can not be used outside of the human context.

Wether we act by an outside pulse or drive, that makes us do things, or are aware of our intends, is rather arbitrarily.
We say we "intend" to do things, and sometimes our plan comes out.
But do we know if we "intend" our intentions? Maybe it was some outside force acting on us, we can not make even clear to ourselves.
Even so, we say that we "intended" things, which might not be the case.

The idea that all human made things are a "design" is already wrong.
We don't know what design works and which don't work, so we always progress in small steps, and see which works and which not.

The "design" of anything, is therefore always an interaction with the material reality, and keep those things that work, and reject the things that don't.

What comes out of that after many cycles of "micro creation" and testing, is not what anyone had intended it to be before we started it.

"Intend" and "creation" therefore are simply bad concepts.
 
  • #82
Originally posted by heusdens
Me neither likes the word "creation" since it obfuscates what really goes on. As I have showed, even in the context of human society the term "creation" does not explain anything.

Wow. Talk about missing the point. I have no problem with the definition of the word "creation" or it's use in this discussion. I was only suggesting that it not be used because we have many undisciplined debaters who loose focus and become irrational(or more irrational in some cases) when they see that word.


The "design" of anything, is therefore always an interaction with the material reality, and keep those things that work, and reject the things that don't.

What comes out of that after many cycles of "micro creation" and testing, is not what anyone had intended it to be before we started it.

"Intend" and "creation" therefore are simply bad concepts. [/B]

This whole speech on "intent" is completely irrelevant to the discussion that's going on here. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't matter. There's a lot more being discussed here than just semantics, Heusdens. Since you are getting bogged down in the words then let me explain it to you without those words. What is being discussed is "how can we distinguish between a thing that exists because willful beings directly influenced it to exist and those that occur through random natural processes?" Whether you call it intent, creation, design or the result of a long plug and chug process, the end result still owes it's existence to a willful being and not the other more random natural forces. Whether the end result was the original intent all along is irrelevant. As long as each step was directly and nonrandomly affected by a will being.
 
  • #83
Originally posted by heusdens

The mindly existence can not cause itself, so that is why we need to assume that a material world in the objective sense existed.

Nothing you can say, can refute that.

It is as simple as that! [/B]

This is the problem with this debate. No matter what side you choose you always have to postulate that something either created itself or has always been. The mindly existence you speak of can't create itself, you say. Nothing can create itself then. So now we're stuck with assuming something has always been. And your only reason for assuming this mindly existsnce has not always been is because you don't have all knowledge? Seems like a very narrow view of the possibilities to me.

Just to be clear let me say that I am not one of these people who thinks that the objective world doesn't exists. I am only stepping in because my position is that you can't know one way or the other and have no reason to be so confidently conclusive. All you have is unanswered questions. And if we could make conclusions based on unanswered questions then we can make all sorts of conclusions . Science currently can't explain consciousness for example. So this can be used to make all sorts of mystical claims. But just as the science deacons will tell you...it doesn't mean we want be able to explain it sometime in the future.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket Heusdens because it just might have a hole in it.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Originally posted by Fliption
This is the problem with this debate. No matter what side you choose you always have to postulate that something either created itself or has always been. The mindly existence you speak of can't create itself, you say. Nothing can create itself then. So now we're stuck with assuming something has always been. And your only reason for assuming this mindly existsnce has not always been is because you don't have all knowledge? Seems like a very narrow view of the possibilities to me.

Just to be clear let me say that I am not one of these people who thinks that the objective world doesn't exists. I am only stepping in because my position is that you can't know one way or the other and have no reason to be so confidently conclusive. All you have is unanswered questions. And if we could make conclusions based on unanswered questions then we can make all sorts of conclusions . Science currently can't explain consciousness for example. So this can be used to make all sorts of mystical claims. But just as the science deacons will tell you...it doesn't mean we want be able to explain it sometime in the future.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket Heusdens because it just might have a hole in it.

I agree with you on this.

But to accept the fact that we can't have all knowledge (or absolute knowledge) does not give credit to accepting all kind of myths and supernatural things either.

I merely explain that this does not affect in the least that our ordinary vision of reality is one in which our consciousness is a seconday feature of the world, and that the world itself has been there always.

Science can already explain a lot, but not everything. We have to accept the fact that we have only relative knowledge, and never complete knowledge.

From your consciousness, you can't conclude something else, since that would lead to some or other form of solipsism (assuming the world just exists in the mind and not outside of it).

The introduction of Gods (which we neither can know) isn't very helpfull either, it merely mystificates human reality. Religion assumes an absurd thing, namely absolute knowledge. It makes absolute statements about reality.


Absolute and Relative are philosophical terms concerning the mutual interdependence of things, processes and knowledge. ‘Absolute’ means independent, permanent and not subject to qualification. ‘Relative’ means partial or transient, dependent on circumstances or point-of-view. For dialectics, the Absolute is only the whole movement through various relative stages of understanding, but the progress of knowledge never comes to an end, so the absolute is relative. However, even a relative truth may nevertheless contain some grain of the whole absolute truth, so there is an absolute within the relative.
 
  • #85
Originally posted by Fliption
This whole speech on "intent" is completely irrelevant to the discussion that's going on here. Call it whatever you want. It doesn't matter. There's a lot more being discussed here than just semantics, Heusdens. Since you are getting bogged down in the words then let me explain it to you without those words. What is being discussed is "how can we distinguish between a thing that exists because willful beings directly influenced it to exist and those that occur through random natural processes?" Whether you call it intent, creation, design or the result of a long plug and chug process, the end result still owes it's existence to a willful being and not the other more random natural forces. Whether the end result was the original intent all along is irrelevant. As long as each step was directly and nonrandomly affected by a will being.

But that is precisely what I am discussing about.
Nature does not work with total randomness (it only looks that way, since we don't have absolute knowledge), and the human intend and will, is very relative also.

So what looks like an absolute opposite (design or change) in the end comes down to a similar development process.

Humans design a lot, but a lot of what is designed or invented, does not make it in the real world. What decides then what invention is good or not good?
There in most cases so many things involved in design processe of complex things, that there is no way it can be brought back to an individual will or intend. It's the permanent interaction between consciousness and the material world, that is the basis for these kind of development.
 
  • #86
Originally posted by FZ+
It seems that you have missed the main thrust of my argument. You are claiming that God is existent as a self-evident axiom, and thus does not require a deductive proof. Correct? I am saying that by failing to justify your statement that God is axiomatic in an objective sense, all you have said is a case of implication - that if you have a world view founded on the assumption of God's existence, it is natural for God to exist. It is a statement of a belief system - what is fundamentally lacking is the tie that makes it an account of the real world. Consider for example that it is equally valid to make axiomatic, as some have done, that a being such as God cannot exist - this too leads to a consistent world view. Leading to the consideration that this form of argument tells us nothing of the existence of God, but only what you believe in.

no. that is quite wrong. i have not missed the thrust of your argument. i have dealt with it head on by stating that there is some truth regarding God's existence and that regardless of the (in)consistencies of one's worldview, he either exists or doesn't, but not both. he cannot be relegated to the role of playing schrodinger's cat. i have simply used your original premise - that my existence is likewise axiomatic and dependant on the general acceptance thereof - to show that, had this some truth to it, God's existence could likewise be determined. if you fail to see that, then so be it.

i have ALWAYS maintained that God's existence is by necessity AXIOMATIC and hence it cannot be proven. why must i reiterate this stance time and again? my original post in this thread stated, and i quote:

"God has declared purpose and intent. the purpose: his glory, the intent: our perfection. for this, you must believe. i cannot prove it. i don't want to. indeed, the day i prove this is the day i stop believing it for my God cannot be subject to me."

this is final, as i grow weary of unnecessary argument divergences.
 
  • #87
Originally posted by heusdens

You have failed to demonstrate why it would be necessary to assume God. Since we conceive of God as a consciouss entity, how do you know of this 'mind of God' since all you have is your own mind?

You state that awareness of the world, and the projection in the mind, is purely subjective.
If that were the case, then you in fact assume that no such outer reality exists or has to exist.

Where does your awareness about the world then originate in?
From your mind alone?

So, in other words, the world in total would only exist in your subjective awareness of it.

But then explain me this:
- Where does the world come from? It could not have existed always in your mind, since your mind does not have infinite past memories
- Why are there other minds, who claim the same subjectivity as you?
Do these minds exist in the real (objective) sense, or are they all PART of YOUR mind then?
- Why do we have senses? If everything already exists within the mind, what are they good for then?
- Why don't we have all knowledge? If everything already exists within the mind, why wouldn't we have all knowledge?
- How can your mind exist only in subjective form? There are other people who can state the existence of both you, and your mindly awareness. This means your mind and you exist in the objective sense.

You are explaining nothing, you are just presenting us an axiom with no back up, and it explans nothing.

You state that your existence is primary to the world. Well, that is a simple lie, since the world already existed before your existence in mindly form.

Since we do exist in mindly form, and which can be stated in the objective sense, there needs to be a cause for our existence in mindly form.

The mindly existence can not cause itself, so that is why we need to assume that a material world in the objective sense existed.

Nothing you can say, can refute that.
It is as simple as that!

Allow me to reiterate the words of our esteemed colleague m. Royce:
"Objective reality is an assumption. You said this yourself, heusden."

this is correct in a magnitude as yet unparallelled in this discussion. i too believe that i exist OBJECTIVELY and INDEPENDANT of other's thoughts. but this belief is a result of speculative and inductive reasoning and does not constitute a proof.

besides, you have sidestepped the issue quite nicely hseudens. we began this thread in the hopes of discussing, to some conclusion, the existence of God, not me. i had hoped that my discussion of my own existence could be adopted as an argumentative statement in response to those made by FZ+, but not as a diversion to my original postulate (see above).
 
  • #88
Originally posted by heusdens
But that is precisely what I am discussing about.
Nature does not work with total randomness (it only looks that way, since we don't have absolute knowledge), and the human intend and will, is very relative also.

Exactly how do you define "random"? And then what does it mean to "look random"? And if we don't have absolute knowledge and therefore things look random, how is it that we know enough to say they aren't?
 
  • #89
dschou, I'm afraid that logical inductive or deductive reasoning will not work with our 'esteemed colleagues'. They, as ojective materialist, require objective proof for that which is not even subjective but spiritual and transcends both subjectivity and objectivity. They do this knowing that it is impossible so that they are never proven wrong. They use the same tactics when discussing objectivity vs subjectity or materialism vs idealism.

You pointed out earlier that you did not need to prove the existence of God. I believe that it is impossible to prove God to anyone even another believer. God is ultimately personal and will when we are ready to accept him prove undenialbly his presence to us, individually.

As a logical or philosophical discussion you will only find a few who will debate the issue in a reasonable manner but you must make no assumptions or unsupported statements without first declaring them as such. You have already been called on such thing a couple of times.

No one, despite their stance, is immune. This is a free-for-all, no- holds-barred, no quarter asked and none given melee. Having said that, welcome to the PF's. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
 
  • #90
Originally posted by Royce
dschou, I'm afraid that logical inductive or deductive reasoning will not work with our 'esteemed colleagues'. They, as ojective materialist, require objective proof for that which is not even subjective but spiritual and transcends both subjectivity and objectivity. They do this knowing that it is impossible so that they are never proven wrong. They use the same tactics when discussing objectivity vs subjectity or materialism vs idealism.

You pointed out earlier that you did not need to prove the existence of God. I believe that it is impossible to prove God to anyone even another believer. God is ultimately personal and will when we are ready to accept him prove undenialbly his presence to us, individually.

As a logical or philosophical discussion you will only find a few who will debate the issue in a reasonable manner but you must make no assumptions or unsupported statements without first declaring them as such. You have already been called on such thing a couple of times.

No one, despite their stance, is immune. This is a free-for-all, no- holds-barred, no quarter asked and none given melee. Having said that, welcome to the PF's. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

The problem is, you can fill in anything in place of the word 'God' and it is equally valid(or invalid, really). Fairies and elves, leprechauns, compassionate conservatives, and any other myth you can think of.
 
  • #91
or even a logical liberal, reasoning socialist, rational communist or even BH's invisible pink unicorn. Yes that is the problem but adding more mythical creatures into the discussing accomplishes nothing. To discuss or argue a point or thought it is better to keep it a point or single thought. While obfuscation may work other place it doesn't here. We are all familiar with the tactic "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit."
 
  • #92
i have ALWAYS maintained that God's existence is by necessity AXIOMATIC and hence it cannot be proven.
But you see, by this statement, you have invalidated any debate because an axiom is by definition something that is generally accepted - and neccessarily generally accepted. But it is clear that it is not - and so God is an assumption, not an absolute axiom. Note that this says nothing as to a sense of absolute truth - a large number of things are assumptions. This only says we don't know for sure, and thus there is a capacity for discussion. Geddit?

I'm not making an attack on theism at all, I am making a clarification of definitions. By the meaning of the word, god - existence or non-existence - cannot be considered as generally axiomatic.

Never proven wrong, but never proven right - that is the nature of God.
 
  • #93
Originally posted by FZ+
But you see, by this statement, you have invalidated any debate because an axiom is by definition something that is generally accepted - and neccessarily generally accepted. But it is clear that it is not - and so God is an assumption, not an absolute axiom. Note that this says nothing as to a sense of absolute truth - a large number of things are assumptions. This only says we don't know for sure, and thus there is a capacity for discussion. Geddit?

I'm not making an attack on theism at all, I am making a clarification of definitions. By the meaning of the word, god - existence or non-existence - cannot be considered as generally axiomatic.

Never proven wrong, but never proven right - that is the nature of God.

firstly, attributing to God a nature assumes his existence.

secondly, since the existence of God is assumptive, as you have stated explicitly, and since one's worldview is entirely shaped by acceptance/rejection of this assumption, it is axiomatic.

finally, as the existence of God as yet remains within the realm of the unproven, we must discuss not those things which might prove his existence (since i have argued that these do not exist) but we must rather look at the consequences of accepting/rejecting his existence. in this way, a tree may be known by its fruit; if by rejecting his existence certain undeniable effects can be established, than, to deal with these effects, we may induce some unequivocal notions as to his existence. these undeniable effects include, but are not limited to, each one of the questions which hseudens has posed, the very concepts of good/evil and, most notably, life and death.

ps. am i the only one who is mightily attempting to ignore the inane rubbish that dribbles forth from the mouth of zero? (s)he speaks only in half-truths and vague generalizations and simply regurgitates everything that is in pseudo-philosophical vogue.
 
  • #94
*sniff, sniff*
Originally posted by Royce
or even a logical liberal, reasoning socialist, rational communist or even BH's invisible pink unicorn.
I just knew there was a reason why my ears were ringing !

Yes that is the problem but adding more mythical creatures into the discussing accomplishes nothing.
I would argue just the opposite, for it serves to remind people that we are actually talking about something extremely vague here which people seem to all have their own different take on. People may think they are speaking of the same thing when only using that three-letter word yet from what I’ve seen no two people share the same notion of what such a thing might be. The reason for this is because the imagination is man’s principle religious faculty (credit to Karen Armstrong). I like to make sure people never lose sight of this.

To discuss or argue a point or thought it is better to keep it a point or single thought. While obfuscation may work other place it doesn't here. We are all familiar with the tactic "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit."
Yes, but the primary source of this material comes from people’s imaginations.
 
  • #95
firstly, attributing to God a nature assumes his existence.
Oops. I meant the nature the God argument.

secondly, since the existence of God is assumptive, as you have stated explicitly, and since one's worldview is entirely shaped by acceptance/rejection of this assumption, it is axiomatic.
No it is not.
Let's use some analogies.

Axiom: 1 + 1 = 2
This is an assumption, and it is generally held to be true, and it is necessary as part of any known mathematical system. Hence it is an axiom, though it cannot be proved.

Assume: Square root of two is rational
This is an assumption, but it is not generally held to be true, it is not necessary as the alternative exists that root 2 is irrational. Hence it is not an axiom. (in this case, the consistency of the resulting argument has been disproved. In the case of God, it is incomplete.)

Maybe we are just arguing in semantics here, but...

he speaks only in half-truths and vague generalizations and simply regurgitates everything that is in pseudo-philosophical vogue.
It has been informed that he is quite cuddly and happy at times. But such a state is understandably very hard to observe... :wink: If he bothers you too much, ignore him.



Let me just sum up my position:

I believe that significant in the universe exists only relative to an observer.
I believe that chance can account for complex form, and the mind is itself a manifestation of complexity - a holistic existence, rather than a fundamental one. Mankind can therefore be just a branch of that "chance".
I believe that an universe without god is as wholly consistent and logical as an universe without.
I believe that it is impossible to determine absolutely which of the alternatives exists.
Therefore, while acknowledging the possibility of any god, I choose to act on the assumption that god does not exist, because I believe it to be the better way.

Simple as that.
 
  • #96
But by the same reasoning doesn't everything?
Actually I think is more the inability of man to conceive God adequately. We have trouble enough trying to comprehend life or ourselves much less such a thing as God. Even if you do not believe it is beyond our mental ability to conceive apart of what God would be. We are forced to use our imagination and it is alway not up to the task. This is, I think, the main reason why there are so many opinions of what God is or would be if he did exist. Is God everything and everything of him or is God simply the no longer interested creator or is God a personal God who is a part of us all annd individually as well as the creator. The questions are endless. Even more than if he does not exist.

This is why it is such a facinating topic for discussion even while knowing that nothing certain can come of any of it. It at least exercises and stretches our minds.

Are you following me? I can't even make snide remarks hiden deep in other threads. :wink:
 
  • #97
Originally posted by Royce
But by the same reasoning doesn't everything?
Perhaps, but it is raised to some degree when dealing with this topic.
Actually I think is more the inability of man to conceive God adequately.
Because we are left to our own devices, think I. In this position what recourse is there but some introspection and a lot of imagination?
We have trouble enough trying to comprehend life or ourselves much less such a thing as God. Even if you do not believe it is beyond our mental ability to conceive apart of what God would be.
Indeed.
We are forced to use our imagination and it is alway not up to the task. This is, I think, the main reason why there are so many opinions of what God is or would be if he did exist.
One million people and likely as many fuzzy ideas.
Is God everything and everything of him or is God simply the no longer interested creator or is God a personal God who is a part of us all annd individually as well as the creator. The questions are endless. Even more than if he does not exist.
For me, projecting human traits into the mind of a god presents more problems than it solves. But being human I cannot think in terms alien to my essential nature. I cannot, for example, imagine what it would be like for a god to posses logic completely alien to my own. In fact, I cannot even imagine god at all, such a concept is completely hidden to my mind.
This is why it is such a facinating topic for discussion even while knowing that nothing certain can come of any of it. It at least exercises and stretches our minds.
To be able to imagine the unimaginable is, to me at least, simply unimaginable. This makes it an exercise in futility, imho, hence my affection for the following;

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

You see, I have never, despite what some may think, used that quote merely to mock people (although I’m a big fan of humor). The meaning for me runs much deeper than that.

[edit]
I should explain futher about it being "an exercise in futility", lest I be misunderstood. I'm not saying it shouldn't be attempted, I just believe it is an impossible task.
[/edit]

Are you following me? I can't even make snide remarks hiden deep in other threads. :wink:
No, sorry if it appeared so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98
Originally posted by FZ+
Oops. I meant the nature the God argument.


No it is not.
Let's use some analogies.

Axiom: 1 + 1 = 2
This is an assumption, and it is generally held to be true, and it is necessary as part of any known mathematical system. Hence it is an axiom, though it cannot be proved.

Assume: Square root of two is rational
This is an assumption, but it is not generally held to be true, it is not necessary as the alternative exists that root 2 is irrational. Hence it is not an axiom. (in this case, the consistency of the resulting argument has been disproved. In the case of God, it is incomplete.)
the examples are flawed. firstly, 1+1 = 2 is not an axiom. the axiom employed is more general and is related to the closure of integers under addition as well as the definition of the number system. secondly, that the rationality of the square root of two is not an axiom depends not at all on whether it is accepted as such. it is not an axiom for at least two reasons:
1. it is based on at least 3 other mathematical axioms
2. it is completely inconsistent with the axioms on which it is based, yielding an inconsistent mathematical framework (and thus it can be disproven)

an axiom is a fundamental assumption which defines, in a logical sequence, a consistent framework (and i do think we are arguing semantics here. yet in some cases the entire foundation of the thing being discussed rests on the razor-edge support of semantics).

Let me just sum up my position:

I believe that significant in the universe exists only relative to an observer.
I believe that chance can account for complex form, and the mind is itself a manifestation of complexity - a holistic existence, rather than a fundamental one. Mankind can therefore be just a branch of that "chance".
I believe that an universe without god is as wholly consistent and logical as an universe without.
I believe that it is impossible to determine absolutely which of the alternatives exists.
Therefore, while acknowledging the possibility of any god, I choose to act on the assumption that god does not exist, because I believe it to be the better way.

Simple as that.

i appreciate the use of the word belief, as it is entirely a belief system. you have CHOSEN to DISBELIEVE God and hence have followed your own mind as your absolute overseer - which will lead you to the worst absurdities imaginable - but still, you have not taken the fatal error of a great many atheists in attempting to disprove God's existence. however, God's existence depends not one iota on your acceptance of it, and, as you are most certainly incorrect in your stance (and deliberately, i might add) you will be brought to account with respect to this matter. therefore, allow me to repeat myself (once again):

"finally, as the existence of God as yet remains within the realm of the unproven, we must discuss not those things which might prove his existence (since i have argued that these do not exist) but we must rather look at the consequences of accepting/rejecting his existence. in this way, a tree may be known by its fruit; if by rejecting his existence certain undeniable effects can be established, than, to deal with these effects, we may induce some unequivocal notions as to his existence. these undeniable effects include, but are not limited to, each one of the questions which hseudens has posed, the very concepts of good/evil and, most notably, life and death."
 
Last edited:
  • #99
an axiom is a fundamental assumption which defines, in a logical sequence, a consistent framework
That's not in any dictionary I read. The world generally accepted, self-evident and necessary are used there.

you have CHOSEN to DISBELIEVE God
No. I have chosen not to believe in God, because I consider it's existence at present irrelevant.

hence have followed your own mind as your absolute overseer
No. I have found no evidence that an absolute overseer can even exist. In fact, all observations work against it.

which will lead you to the worst absurdities imaginable
Such as? If we do call the existence of God axiomatic, as you attempt to do, I can label the consequences of God's existence similarly absurd - as it contravenes my fundamental axiom. That is, in your terms, a fatal error. But choosing the positive belief of a specific God is also a "fatal error" in that way.

however, God's existence depends not one iota on your acceptance of it
Nor does god's non-existence. Note one thing here - your personal declaration of God, existence or not, is completely meaningless in any argument. You, while giving a sensible response on one hand, have committed the classic flaw of commiting your personal subjectivity as an absolute fact. While X or Y position cannot be proved, absolutism can.

as you are most certainly incorrect in your stance (and deliberately, i might add) you will be brought to account with respect to this matter.
You see, the one thing of clarity from all that you have said is that such certainty is immediately unfounded. There is no basis for such an exclamation, and you know it.

When you talk about the consequences of God - consider which God. And consider which godless reality.
 
  • #100
Don't you just love the thinly veiled threat in that post, FZ+? He seems to be saying "You will burn, infidel, for denying the truth!Mwahaha!"

On the other hand, lacking belief is things that don't seem to exist is perfectly reasonable.
 

Similar threads

Human evolution - From sperm to ape
Replies
4
Views
2K
How Does Historical Materialism Explain Human Development?
Replies
4
Views
6K
Using AI to evaluate white papers?
Replies
42
Views
1K
Dialectical and Historic Materialism
Replies
2
Views
3K
From Veggies to Meat: Man-Apes become Human
Replies
20
Views
4K
Why do humans seek answers about God and existence?
Replies
18
Views
5K
News Post-Scientific Technocratic Methodologies
Replies
12
Views
3K
Philosophy of Religion: Humanism & the Nature of Man
Replies
9
Views
3K
Social taboos, religion, ethics, absolute morality, God, etc.
Replies
16
Views
10K
Current and Future AI Threats to Humanity and the Human Response
Replies
10
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top