The answer to the Does God exist question from Human Practice

[Royce]

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."

 

[FZ+]

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.

 

[dschou]

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.

 

[BoulderHead]

*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.

 

[FZ+]

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... 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.

 

[Royce]

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.

 

[BoulderHead]

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.

No, sorry if it appeared so.

 

[dschou]

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."

 

[FZ+]

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.

 

[Zero]

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.

 

[dschou]

Originally posted by FZ+
That's not in any dictionary I read. The world generally accepted, self-evident and necessary are used there.

fine. to avoid clouding the real issue, i shall henceforth use the term "fundamental assumption from which one's worldview progresses"

No. I have found no evidence that an absolute overseer can even exist. In fact, all observations work against it.

yet you must live your life. each day you are faced with decisions, and ultimately, those decisions are made (even if they are not made, a decision not to make them has been made). in the end, your absolute overseer is the thing which precipitates your decision making process. thus an absolute overseer does exist and either you believe in God's existence, or you denounce any such existence and depend on your own self-governance.

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.

on the contrary. you can ignore God and scorn his existence but you can never rightly disprove it, as you yourself have previously agreed to.

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.

thats just it. my personal opinion regarding God's existence is meaningless, just as yours to the contrary is as well. nevertheless, God either exists, or he doesn't and hence, we are directed to look for consequences of this fundamental assumption from which one's worldview progresses.

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.

exactement. i have stated this originally ("you must believe it...").

When you talk about the consequences of God - consider which God. And consider which godless reality.

there is either one God or no gods since God is by nature all powerful. and there is only one reality, of which we will all at sometime come to understand.

my first post in this forum was typed in full enthusiasm, with the (since revealed as false) idealism that i could effect some change in the opinions of the readers. it is disheartening, to say the least, to hear responses which continue, without pause or reproach, to utter what has been uttered now for millenia by the hearts of man. some small change in thought patterns, some minute - almost imperceptible - adjustment of bias, that is all i have wanted. but alas, the prospect of change for the better is but the opiate of my mind and is not meant to be. i therefore bid the interested parties adieau, as this will be my last correspondance in this thread.

till we meet on the ramparts,
with all grace and respect,
dschou

 

[Zero]

Belief in deities IS self-governance, really, since there are no gods making laws, and you choose to follow what you choose to believe in.

 

[FZ+]

in the end, your absolute overseer is the thing which precipitates your decision making process.

Then, to use your word I have an absolute overseer. But it's nature is not absolute. My non-absolute absolute overseer is my subjective view of the world - what I see. I do not govern myself, because "Me" does not have an absolute existence. I am part of the world and merely exist as part of the world. As there is no evidence for absolute, one way government.

on the contrary. you can ignore God and scorn his existence but you can never rightly disprove it, as you yourself have previously agreed to.

And you can never prove it, as you have failed to remember. In this way, a certainty in God is a fatal error - in precisely the same way a certainty in no god is.

my personal opinion regarding God's existence is meaningless, just as yours to the contrary is as well.

Strange, but you again seem to have forgotten what my point of view is. My point of view is that WE DON'T KNOW. This is far from meaningless. Your point of view is that we do (and not just that. We "certainly" know), and this is meaningless without justification.

exactement. i have stated this originally ("you must believe it...").

And yet you choose to flaunt it my making the meaninglessly absolute assertion that I "am wrong, and will be held accountable."

there is either one God or no gods since God is by nature all powerful.

Strange, but that by talking about God's "nature", you already assume it exists. Thus breaching your original statement again. As you said yourself.
And God as all poweful does not proclude the existence of a set of Gods.

But the actual point I make is rather different. I am saying that while you pick and choose your God (why Yahweh, for example, and not Anubis) to fit in the gaps of reality, and hence allow the God based framework to take any number of claims, you ignore that you are simultaneous denying the existence of all other Gods. And that by assuming that no-god gives only one set of consequences (which you assert is absurd), you have failed to give reality itself the flexibility (as we do not know the whole of reality, and never will) you grant your possibilities of gods. That, when forming your consequence idea, you must first determine what God can do that reality can't.

No easy job.

it is disheartening, to say the least, to hear responses which continue, without pause or reproach, to utter what has been uttered now for millenia by the hearts of man.

One might note rather cynically that it is you who have been giving quotes from (presumeably) ancient scriptures.

 

[FZ+]

To translate zero, even with God, you cannot escape self-governance (if such a thing exists) thanks simply to the act by which you choose a god.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by FZ+
To translate zero, even with God, you cannot escape self-governance (if such a thing exists) thanks simply to the act by which you choose a god.

That's pretty much it...we are governed absolutely in a physical sense by things like gravity, but there is no apparent counterpart for behavioral governing, besides what we impose on ourselves.

 

[heusdens]

God is inexistent as for instance light without darkness, good without evil, positive without negative, etc.