NationStates Jolt Archive

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?

Why do you care?

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?
why do you need proof? nobody can (or at least nobody should be able to) convince you of a religion. either you believe in it, or you don't.

Last I checked the laws of physics, atoms cannot be created or destroyed

*looks everywhere*

Well thus we can conclude, that the materials used to create the universe was NOT created based on the laws of physics, but rather by something much more powerful.

Besides, what proof can you give me of God' inexistance?


EDIT: There really is no proof. This is just something I made up myself. But I think it still sends the same meaning.

Why do you care?
Because I am agnostic. I believe in the possibility of a God or gods, but I wish to have proof before I believe in them specifically. I'm simply curious as to whether any of you can give me proof.

Last I checked the laws of physics, atoms cannot be created or destroyed

*looks everywhere*

Well thus we can conclude, that the materials used to create the universe was NOT created based on the laws of physics, but rather by something much more powerful.

Besides, what proof can you give me of God' inexistance?
The laws of physics didn't exist before the universe. They came into being with the universe. Anyhoo that's still not evidence that a being created it.

In response to your second point, it's the responsibility of the person making the positive statement to provide evidence, not the other way around. If you think that's unfair, prove to me that my pet tyrannosaurus rex doesn't exist.

The laws of physics didn't exist before the universe. They came into being with the universe. Anyhoo that's still not evidence that a being created it.

In response to your second point, it's the responsibility of the person making the positive statement to provide evidence, not the other way around.
What proof do you have that it is my responsibility?

What proof do you have that it is my responsibility?
See my first post again. I edited it for just this purpose.

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?
None :)

1. Order of Nature
a) All things in the world work according to a set pattern.
b) This pattern could not have happened by accident, it had to be designed.
c) The designer of the world is God.

2. Uncaused Cause
a) All things in the world are caused by something outside themselves.
b) If we go back in time, the first cause of all things must be caused by itself (uncaused.)
c) This first uncaused cause is God.

3. Love
a) All people of all time have an experience of love.
b) Love is a spiritual reality that is greater than all people who love.
c) Love has a source that is beyond the human realm.
d) The source of love is God.

1. Order of Nature
a) All things in the world work according to a set pattern.
b) This pattern could not have happened by accident, it had to be designed.
c) The designer of the world is God.

2. Uncaused Cause
a) All things in the world are caused by something outside themselves.
b) If we go back in time, the first cause of all things must be caused by itself (uncaused.)
c) This first uncaused cause is God.

3. Love
a) All people of all time have an experience of love.
b) Love is a spiritual reality that is greater than all people who love.
c) Love has a source that is beyond the human realm.
d) The source of love is God.
1 What pattern? The patterns we see in living things can all be accounted for by genetic mutation and natural selection. The patterns in the wider universe are set by physics.

2 The first cause need not be sentient. It need not be a being. You are making an unwarrented assumption.

3 Love is accounted for by chemical reactions in the brain that were selected for in gregarious species to allow them to cooperate and survive.

1. Order of Nature
2. Uncaused Cause
3. Love


1. Argument from design: just because it is ordered does not meant that it was deliberately ordered. False argument.

2. Argument from Cause: Lots of refutations, my favourite is: cause is a human invention, show me a cause, not just a temporal sequence of events, but the cause itself. I never seed one.

3. Love. why not hate, or anger, or pride, or jealousy or any other emotion? No evidence whatsoever that these are not just simple epiphenomena.

There is no proof that there is a God. It is a thing of faith. I personally have faith that there is a God and His Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, died for our sins. It is a belief. Either you believe it or not. If you are close to God, some can hear Him speak to them. It is not uncommon for Christians to hear the Word of God being spoken to them. They just have to ask, then listen. God will always speak to you. The only question is...will you listen, and if you do, will you hear Him?

If you're agnostic, nothing we can say will change your mind. You just want to sit at your computer with a smug sense of satisfaction knowing that nothing we say will convince you there is a God. This pleasure with yourself is similar to taking candy from a baby knowing that it is powerless to take it back from you.
Stop making these types of threads, please.

There is no proof that there is a God. It is a thing of faith. I personally have faith that there is a God and His Son, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, died for our sins. It is a belief. Either you believe it or not. If you are close to God, some can hear Him speak to them. It is not uncommon for Christians to hear the Word of God being spoken to them. They just have to ask, then listen. God will always speak to you. The only question is...will you listen, and if you do, will you hear Him?

That my friend, is all in your head.

God doesnt exist........
none of us are really here......

Really?

If you're agnostic, nothing we can say will change your mind.

You do know of course that agnostic and atheist aren't the same thing? And that an agnostic is someone who is 'sitting on the fence'?

If by "God", you are referring to an omnipotent deity, it is impossible to provide "proof" of such being, just as it is impossible to provide proof against such a being.

-Verbatim-'s three arguments are all equivocations. This means that he concludes that a particular thing must exist; then he calls that particular thing "God" and says that God must exist. A "designer" of the universe need not be rational. The laws of the universe themselves could be the designer and the uncaused cause. In other words, the laws (or more fundamental laws that cause these laws) of the universe could exist of themselves because they are not physical. They need no creator in the same sense that atoms do because we know that time (and atoms) had a beginning. Laws do not need time.
Also, perhaps you can not love if you don't know God. However, I am an atheist and I still love people. How could I love if I were disconnected from the source of Love.
However, I disagree with Drunk commies' assertion that the side making the positive statement has the burden of proof. I believe the side making the more counter-intuitive or limiting argument has the burden of proof. For instance, we don't know whether humans have free will. While we are delaying judgement on this matter, we will act as if humans do have free will because the idea that we do not trivializes the whole point of making this decision in the first place.
We do not know whether God exists. While we delay judgement, we will act as though God does not exist (at least in application to science) because belief in God implies a belief that we cannot know the complete nature of the universe unless God reveals it to us. God has not directly revealed to us the nature of the universe. This means that theism and deism limit our ability to know the universe until He/She/It does reveal it to us. Until then, we will act as if God does not exist.
Also, if burden of proof was with atheists instead of theists, humans would never have proof in this matter. We cannot prove that God does not exist because of what "God" means. We cannot disprove the existence of an all-powerful being because an all-powerful being could hide himself perfectly from us. Thus, no matter how much we show that the universe could be a closed system, theists could refute us by saying "God, using his infinite power, made it what you call a 'closed system.'" However, if a God would only reveal himself and show that he is all powerful (and raise people from the dead and leave a legitimate historical record of this), I would believe. If someone did falsify abiogenesis, I would at least be a deist. No one has done either of these, so I do not believe because it is counter-intuitive.

If you're agnostic, nothing we can say will change your mind. You just want to sit at your computer with a smug sense of satisfaction knowing that nothing we say will convince you there is a God. This pleasure with yourself is similar to taking candy from a baby knowing that it is powerless to take it back from you.
Stop making these types of threads, please.
Uh, no. You didn't listen, nor do you know what agnostic means. You're thinking of athiests. Agnostic means you believe that there's a chance; you just need proof. And that's what I'm asking, in a non-confrontational, non-angry, non-smug, just-plain-curious tone: do you have proof?

Uh, no. You didn't listen, nor do you know what agnostic means. You're thinking of athiests. Agnostic means you believe that there's a chance; you just need proof. And that's what I'm asking, in a non-confrontational, non-angry, non-smug, just-plain-curious tone: do you have proof?

The proof that theists have is unfortunately not proof which they can share. If you really want to find it, you must look for it yourself.

Yeah, I was just posting my notes from religion class on "Proofs For The Existence of God".

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?
The ontological proof, the cosmological proof, the teleological proof and the moral proof. Theres a fifth one as well, but we haven't studied that one yet.

We atheists would also be convinced by proof, and such a proof could theoretically exist. A real miracle (something that disagrees completely with our observances of the nature of the universe) would prove God's existence.

The ontological proof, the cosmological proof, the teleological proof and the moral proof. Theres a fifth one as well, but we haven't studied that one yet.
They are, briefly, as follows

Ontological
God is the greatest conceivable being.
The greatest conceivable being has all perfections
Existance is a perfection
Therefore God exists.

This one was finally dismissed by Kant.


Cosmological
Everything has a cause independant of itself, so the universe must have had an uncaused cause. This first cause, the prime mover, is God

Bertrand Russell did away with this one (in its more sophisticated form) in a radio debate with Copplestone.


Teleological
Life, (humans, plants and animals) is so intricate and complex that it must have had an infinitely complex designer. This designer is God

Hume dealt a blow to the logic, but Darwin finally killed this one.


Moral
People have morality. Moral laws aren't obvious, so they need explaining. God is the explaination.

This doesn't prove that God is omnipotent or creator of the universe though.

I see where you're going with this, however, any act which disagrees completely with our observances of the nature of the universe could be the act of a superior race from another dimension or world. In reality, the interpretation of the incident as a "miracle" would simply be relative to the observer's technological sophistication.

We atheists would also be convinced by proof, and such a proof could theoretically exist. A real miracle (something that disagrees completely with our observances of the nature of the universe) would prove God's existence.

Not really. From a truly scientific viewpoint, it would simply mean that the rules must be different than we thought.

We atheists would also be convinced by proof, and such a proof could theoretically exist. A real miracle (something that disagrees completely with our observances of the nature of the universe) would prove God's existence.
Depends. It'd have to be a pretty extraordinary miracle, with some pretty extraordinary supporting evidence

A more accurate definition of "agnostic" is one who believes knowledge (gnosos) of gods' existance is unavailable. Like atheists, there is a range of strength or degree to this belief.

We are all agnostics as no one has any useful proof of gods' existance. Put simply, I don't know if gods exist and neither do you. Given the lack of evidence for gods and the lack of necessity for them in the universe, I am forced to conclude there are none.

Moral
People have morality. Moral laws aren't obvious, so they need explaining. God is the explaination.
Actually, this one is useless as we are a social species and morals are an evolutionary trait of such species.

The ontological proof "begs the question" as to whether a possible being must exist. The cosmological proof begs the question as to whether a rational creator is necessary. The teleological proof is an "argument from personal incredulity." The moral proof rejects all atheist moralities (and many exist) so that it can say that morality without God is impossible.

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?

Sure ... no problem. Give me a sec ... ok! Now turn around and look behind you.

D'oh! Too late. Never mind. But, trust me, it was great.

I have to concede that point that a miracle wouldn't prove the existence of God. How stupid of me :headbang:

NONE
*ZING*
THREAD LIKE THIS NUMBER 1,341,21234

~~~!!!!!!!!

By vitue of me posting on a message board.

But seriously, being a supernatural being I'm pretty sure God's beyond the realm of empirical evidence.

According to my psychotic philosophy there cannot be any proof of the existence of God, as he is beyond our comprehension.

According to my psychotic philosophy there cannot be any proof of the existence of God, as he is beyond our comprehension.


So you're one of those dirty, crazy agnostics?

Good question. I'm sure nobody has ever asked that question before in the history of mankind. Also, I'm pretty sure that someone on this forum will have proof of the existence of god in an old shoebox somewhere, genius.

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?

If someone could do this they would have. All that is left is to realize and accept why no-one can do it.

Religion in general began as a way to explain the unknown. As a way to control the lesser-willed around you by being The One who can intercede with the god(s) - the "cause" of the frightening events around us.
Volcanoe rumbling? Throw a virgin girl into it as a sacrifice to the unhappy god.
Who knows if this was truly an effort to placate an angry deity or was it actually a way to get "payback" for a trade gone wrong. Perhaps it was an act of revenge after being romantically snubbed.
Present-day humans will never know the truth behind it all. We are mammals - not all that different from the apes that some shudder to think we are descended from. Actually, the theory is that we had a common ancestor. Until someone somewhere figures out time travel, all we will ever have is theories, both pro- and anti-.

sorry, but my two cents is required here, in the bible, it is said that first there is light, and then come plants and other things, BUT the sun which gives living energy (food for plants) was created after plants, how the HELL did they live?!? im not too sure if water came before plants but in anycase, the process which plants go through to live is photosynthesis the chemical equation for photosynthesis is as follows C6 + 6H2O ------> C6H12O2 the arrow represents sunlight as a catalyst.

Originally Posted by Andaluciae
According to my psychotic philosophy there cannot be any proof of the existence of God, as he is beyond our comprehension.

God is only beyond our comprehension if he exists. Imaginary beings, by the nature of being imaginay, are not beyond our imagination. So if God does exist, he is beyond our comprehension. If God does not exist he is not beyond our comprehension. I personally choose to believe that human beings can comprehend the physical nature of the universe. To believe otherwise would be limiting to knowledge because it would directly say that a limit to our potential knowledge does exist and that this limit is God (which is equivocating). As I stated earlier, I place burden of proof with the side that is more limiting to knowledge. Therefore, I refuse to believe in God until I have proof. If such a proof is impossible, I will never believe in God.

Read the book A Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. It provides lots of evidence for God through science.

This is the simplest answer that has been told to me and that I tell to others. It makes sense regardless of religion.

That is that it doesn't matter.

Period. End of disscussion. Let me explain this:

If there is a God, then praying to him and doing all that is important and benefitial to you. If there isn't a God, then when you die you die. Then it didn't matter if you prayed to God anyway.

A Case for a Creator is an argument from lack of knowledge. It is what atheists call a "god of the gaps" argument: humans do not currently understand some phenomenon, so they think of a creator who caused that phenomenon. This type of argument is more anti-science than any other because it assumes that science cannot conclude what we mean for it to conclude.

Though I don't wholheartedly believe this, Kierkegaard thought that trying to prove the existence of god destroys true faith.

As I fear faith, I will now prove both sides.

First, though you can't really prove god exists, you can prove its a good idea to worship him. Look at this: lets say the propability of god existing is 50%. If you believe in him you get infinite happiness in the afterlife if he exists, or nothing if he doesn't. If you don't believe in him you get infinite unhappiness in the afterlife if he exists or nothing if he doesn't. 50% times infinity plus 50% times 0 is infinity, 50% times negative infinity plus 50% times 0 is negative infinty. So long as the propability of god is above 0 this works. Bonus points to those who can find the flaw in this.

Second: If God is an omnipotnet, omniscient, sapient being that created the universe he could not exist. Here's my proof, know as the "god jacks off for eternity argument:
-The goal of any sapient being is the maximization of happiness and the minimization of guilt and boredom.
-As an omniscient being god knows he can just eliminate boredom and guilt and give himself infinite pleasure.
-As an omnipotent being he could do this.
-Thus he has no reason to create the universe or anything else.

Enjoy!

Originally posted by Gatabug
If there is a God, then praying to him and doing all that is important and benefitial to you. If there isn't a God, then when you die you die. Then it didn't matter if you prayed to God anyway.

Are you invoking Pascal's wager? Pascal's wager is a threat. I will not believe in God because I am threatened with pain (or promised pleasure) if I do so. Such a belief is like a kid who continues to believe in Santa Clause even though he isn't sure that Santa exists because he thinks he will get more presents this way (from his parents and from "Santa Clause").

Are you invoking Pascal's wager? Pascal's wager is a threat. I will not believe in God because I am threatened with pain (or promised pleasure) if I do so. Such a belief is like a kid who continues to believe in Santa Clause even though he isn't sure that Santa exists because he thinks he will get more presents this way (from his parents and from "Santa Clause").
Not only that, but it's a threat supported by seriously fallacious reasoning as well.

You should not seek proof. Doubt is the road to hell.

Originally posted by Vegas-Rex
The goal of any sapient being is the maximization of happiness and the minimization of guilt and boredom.

Although I am an atheist, and this is part of your "proof" that God does not exist, I challenge this argument. Perhaps God's way of maximizing happiness is by creating the universe. If God exists, He/She/It is so much more reasonable than you that you could not comprehend what would make such a being happy. Perhaps creating a universe is it.
As for your "proof" that people should believe in God, one can make the same argument for Atheism:
Originally posted by Napolean Buonaparte
Or conversely, consider Charles Fahringer's (my) gambit. Humans were created in labs by Alien Monsters from the planet Xob. We don't realize this because the Alien Monsters from the planet Xob are all-powerful masters of time and space and they designed the earth to seem as if it is "natural" (that is, resulting from causes other than Aliens) and designed our minds not to be able to comprehend this completely. Thus we can't actually tell for certain that we come from Aliens; but that is exactly the type of thing that aliens would do to us. So anyways, three years into the earth's existence the Alien Monsters sent an alien prophet to tell us all of this, and tell us that there would be a human named Jesus many years later who would try to convince us that he is god. The point of our existence, according to this alien prophet, is to disbelieve Jesus. The Aliens will be returning at some unspecified time in the future (maybe today!) and if anyone doesn't disbelieve Jesus (just one person) all of humanity will suffer absolute, infinite pain. But if no one believes in Jesus, we will all enjoy pure, infinite hapiness.

There are some parallels and differences between the Christian Pascal's wager and this argument. The major parallel is that the earth was created by some all-powerful being in each argument. That makes both of these arguments totally non-falsifiable (you can't disprove them) because all-powerful beings could do anything. For instance, they could create the earth and make it seem natural. They could also warp our perception to make us not necessarily be capable of realizing their existence. In fact some Christians do claim that God designed the earth 6000 years ago to seem as if it is billions of years old, by planting fake fossils in rock beds and making the rocks on the earth artificially aged from their beginning. Also, all Christians believe in "Mysteries" of the faith: things like the Trinity or the two-fold nature of Christ that humans supposedly can't understand (just like the aliens designing our minds to be unable to comprehend completely how they exist). Then there is the threat that these all-powerful beings will come back and make us suffer if we believed in a way they didn't like. But within this threat, no specific date is mentioned, so that we will never have a specific time when we know that the return will never happen. Thus the threat will always have its power. Finally, seeming proof is offered that each philosophy is correct (Christianity and Xobism). For Christianity, supposedly a man rose from the dead 2000 years ago, but the only people who definitely witnessed him being alive after his death were his followers. Also this man supposedly performed many miracles during his lifetime (although no historical data indicates this other than books written by his followers), and he perfectly fulfilled many prophecies (although, again only according to his followers). Followers of Xobism similarly "know" that the alien prophet came to earth three years after it was created. And that this prophet successfully predicted the coming of Jesus, and warned us to not follow him. Of course, the only way you can come to know about this is to accept my testimony that this alien prophet did exist without historical proof (multiple written sources by non-biased writers).
The differences, however, mean that you must choose to believe Xobism over Christianity. First of all, Christianity requires belief, which requires making a commitment of faith to continue to believe. Xobism only requires non-belief (you don't have to believe in the whole aliens thing -- just don't believe that Jesus is god), and non-belief is a lot easier than belief. Furthermore, Xobism supposedly pre-dates and predicts Christianity, so that if both the alien prophet and Jesus Christ exist, Xobism must be correct. But the biggest difference is that the punishment/reward system in Xobism is as extreme as possible. Christianity doesn't necessarily say that its heaven gives believers infinite hapiness and hell gives non-believers infinite pain, only that heaven makes believers happier than they could comprehend and that hell is extraordinarily painful because it is an absence of god, which Christians can't comprehend as being enjoyable, which is why they aren't atheists.
Even when I was a Christian, I didn't like Pascal's wager. I don't like being threatened. And such an argument could (as I've shown) just as easily be used for many other religions, including ones that tell people specifically not to believe in Christianity.

You should not seek proof. Doubt is the road to hell.
Ooh, good one.
Or not. What reason do I have to believe if I have no proof?

Ooh, good one.
Or not. What reason do I have to believe if I have no proof?

Trust in those who believe. Expand your consciousness beyond that which you understand through trust and you will become a much more powerful thinker.

Halle Berry?


My dog.




The patriots winning two super bowls in three years.



that's enough isn't it?

So you're one of those dirty, crazy agnostics?
In a way, I do believe that everyone must make up their own mind, as to whether they choose to believe or not. I'm not a true agnostic in the fact that I do believe there is a God, I'm just not totally sure about him. (him being the term that is natural for me to use)

Ooh, good one.
Or not. What reason do I have to believe if I have no proof?

Any reason that leads to antichristian thoughts is devilry.

Originally Posted by Cheebistan
Halle Berry?

Well, if gods do exist, she's might well be a goddess.

Are you invoking Pascal's wager? Pascal's wager is a threat. I will not believe in God because I am threatened with pain (or promised pleasure) if I do so. Such a belief is like a kid who continues to believe in Santa Clause even though he isn't sure that Santa exists because he thinks he will get more presents this way (from his parents and from "Santa Clause").

God is Santa Claus in a white dress.

I believe Yeehaa is merely being facetious.

Any reason that leads to antichristian thoughts is devilry.
But what if I don't believe in the devil? Why is it that your beliefs should apply to me?

But what if I don't believe in the devil? Why is it that your beliefs should apply to me?

Disbelief is heresy. Heresy is treason.

Although I am an atheist, and this is part of your "proof" that God does not exist, I challenge this argument. Perhaps God's way of maximizing happiness is by creating the universe. If God exists, He/She/It is so much more reasonable than you that you could not comprehend what would make such a being happy. Perhaps creating a universe is it.


What I'm saying is that even if God can get happiness from creating the universe he can get it more directly and thoroughly by modifying his own mind.

But what if I don't believe in the devil? Why is it that your beliefs should apply to me?

I don't believe in gravity but I can't seem to get off the planet. And I don't believe in police, but they still seem to think they can force their rules on me. Do you know how to get around that problem? If oyu do, please let me know, I'd be very interested to know how not to follow universal rules.

Disbelief is heresy. Heresy is treason.

And Treason is fun. Trust me. Or not.

Originally Posted by Our Earth
Trust in those who believe. Expand your consciousness beyond that which you understand through trust and you will become a much more powerful thinker.

Atheists are conscious of the possibility of god's existence. We are also conscious of the possibility of Xobism [see quote from Napolean Buonaparte, above]. We don't actually believe either of these though. Being open to possibility and claiming to have knowledge that you don't really have are two different things.

And Treason is fun. Trust me. Or not.

Sinful pleasure leads to damnation.

Trust in those who believe. Expand your consciousness beyond that which you understand through trust and you will become a much more powerful thinker.
I do, personally, feel a belief in something higher than us, whether a god or something different. I just still argue that it's totally unprovable either way, at least by what I've currently seen.

[QUOTE=Vegas-Rex]Though I don't wholheartedly believe this, Kierkegaard thought that trying to prove the existence of god destroys true faith.

As I fear faith, I will now prove both sides.

First, though you can't really prove god exists, you can prove its a good idea to worship him. Look at this: lets say the propability of god existing is 50%. If you believe in him you get infinite happiness in the afterlife if he exists, or nothing if he doesn't. If you don't believe in him you get infinite unhappiness in the afterlife if he exists or nothing if he doesn't. 50% times infinity plus 50% times 0 is infinity, 50% times negative infinity plus 50% times 0 is negative infinty. So long as the propability of god is above 0 this works. Bonus points to those who can find the flaw in this.

Second: If God is an omnipotnet, omniscient, sapient being that created the universe he could not exist. Here's my proof, know as the "god jacks off for eternity argument:
-The goal of any sapient being is the maximization of happiness and the minimization of guilt and boredom.
-As an omniscient being god knows he can just eliminate boredom and guilt and give himself infinite pleasure.
-As an omnipotent being he could do this.
-Thus he has no reason to create the universe or anything else.



O SON OF MAN!
I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.

(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)



O SON OF BEING!
With the hands of power I made thee and with the fingers of strength I created thee; and within thee have I placed the essence of My light. Be thou content with it and seek naught else, for My work is perfect and My command is binding. Question it not, nor have a doubt thereof

(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

I don't believe in gravity but I can't seem to get off the planet. And I don't believe in police, but they still seem to think they can force their rules on me. Do you know how to get around that problem? If oyu do, please let me know, I'd be very interested to know how not to follow universal rules.

You can sense gravity and its effects pretty much incontrovertably, therefore you can't not believe in it. The devil can easily be confused with other things, such as me.

I don't believe in gravity but I can't seem to get off the planet. And I don't believe in police, but they still seem to think they can force their rules on me. Do you know how to get around that problem? If oyu do, please let me know, I'd be very interested to know how not to follow universal rules.
:D
You have a good point.
I concede that argument.

Atheists are conscious of the possibility of god's existence. We are also conscious of the possibility of Xobism [see quote from Napolean Buonaparte, above]. We don't actually believe either of these though. Being open to possibility and claiming to have knowledge that you don't really have are two different things.

I was merely answering the quesiton of why a person should believe without proof. If we set our burden of proof high enough no trust is possible. If we set it too low everything becomes seemingly true. Niether solution seems ideal, but where to draw the line is still challenging. All I'm saying is that there's nothing better about choosing to trust those who say there is a God than choosing to trust those who say there isn't.

Atheists are conscious of the possibility of god's existence. We are also conscious of the possibility of Xobism [see quote from Napolean Buonaparte, above]. We don't actually believe either of these though. Being open to possibility and claiming to have knowledge that you don't really have are two different things.

If you don't directly believe in the nonexistence of God you're an agnostic, not an atheist.

Beware agnosticism, it is the road to atheism.

O SON OF MAN!
I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul with the spirit of life.

(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)
O SON OF BEING!
With the hands of power I made thee and with the fingers of strength I created thee; and within thee have I placed the essence of My light. Be thou content with it and seek naught else, for My work is perfect and My command is binding. Question it not, nor have a doubt thereof

(Baha'u'llah, The Arabic Hidden Words)

WTF??????? If God created us to fuck us he could fuck himself much better.

I was merely answering the quesiton of why a person should believe without proof. If we set our burden of proof high enough no trust is possible. If we set it too low everything becomes seemingly true. Niether solution seems ideal, but where to draw the line is still challenging. All I'm saying is that there's nothing better about choosing to trust those who say there is a God than choosing to trust those who say there isn't.

No trust is fun. Trust me. Or not.

You can sense gravity and its effects pretty much incontrovertably, therefore you can't not believe in it. The devil can easily be confused with other things, such as me.

The first part of your argument is good, but the second part invalidates it.

Gravity can easily be confused with other things. Newton postulated a gravitational force that acted on all bodies, but Einstein demonstrated that no such force could exist and stated that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light. He even went one step further and created a model of a warping universe to explain the apparent affect of gravity without the use of a force and without contradicting his equations. The point being that the true nature or a phenomenon cannot necessarily be understood by easily and initially observed characteristics of that phenomenon. Furthermore, some signs can be interpreted in many different ways, supporting many different conceptions about the nature of the universe.

[QUOTE=Vegas-Rex]Though I don't wholheartedly believe this, Kierkegaard thought that trying to prove the existence of god destroys true faith.

As I fear faith, I will now prove both sides.

First, though you can't really prove god exists, you can prove its a good idea to worship him. Look at this: lets say the propability of god existing is 50%. If you believe in him you get infinite happiness in the afterlife if he exists, or nothing if he doesn't. If you don't believe in him you get infinite unhappiness in the afterlife if he exists or nothing if he doesn't. 50% times infinity plus 50% times 0 is infinity, 50% times negative infinity plus 50% times 0 is negative infinty. So long as the propability of god is above 0 this works. Bonus points to those who can find the flaw in this.
Hee, this is like Pascal's wager.
One fault is that there are many religions, many of which are exclusive. If you pick the wrong God, you're damned, by some religions more damned than if you just didn't do anything.
Another is that nobody knows if God/Goddess/Thingee actually rewards for belief, he/she/it might just randomly punish people. Or may be outside of any understanding we can conceive of.
Second: If God is an omnipotnet, omniscient, sapient being that created the universe he could not exist. Here's my proof, know as the "god jacks off for eternity argument:
-The goal of any sapient being is the maximization of happiness and the minimization of guilt and boredom.
-As an omniscient being god knows he can just eliminate boredom and guilt and give himself infinite pleasure.
-As an omnipotent being he could do this.
-Thus he has no reason to create the universe or anything else.
But what if he/she/it does not work anything like what we believe he/she/it does?

Beware agnosticism, it is the road to atheism.

Since agnosticism is openness to both sides this seems to imply that atheism is the better side. I concede that.

No trust is fun. Trust me. Or not.

Trusting nothing is a fun exercise, but not productive beyond furthering one's understanding of one's relationship with the universe.

I love to say things like "The world is flat... or it's not" or "I'm telling the truth... or I'm lying" because it's totally coherent but means absolutely nothing.

Originally Posted by Our Earth
I'd be very interested to know how not to follow universal rules.

How is the devil or God a "universal rule?" You should not place something that no one has definitely experienced (feelings of "God moving in your life" could be psychological reactions to social stimuli) in the same "level of proof" as something that everyone has definitely experienced. Once again, atheists are open to God's existence. This does not mean we must believe that God definitely exists.

Originally Posted by Vegas-Rex
What I'm saying is that even if God can get happiness from creating the universe he can get it more directly and thoroughly by modifying his own mind.

Perhaps this is true, but maybe the universe is all in God's mind. Maybe we are the modification of his own mind. This is the theistic or deistic response.

Beware agnosticism, it is the road to atheism.
:rolleyes:

Do we have another Defensor Fidei on our hands here?

Since agnosticism is openness to both sides this seems to imply that atheism is the better side. I concede that.

Being led astray by the devil is by no means better.

Hee, this is like Pascal's wager.
One fault is that there are many religions, many of which are exclusive. If you pick the wrong God, you're damned, by some religions more damned than if you just didn't do anything.
Another is that nobody knows if God/Goddess/Thingee actually rewards for belief, he/she/it might just randomly punish people. Or may be outside of any understanding we can conceive of.

But what if he/she/it does not work anything like what we believe he/she/it does?

You get the bonus points, go ask the mods about them.

As for the other question, such a God would probably not be sapient according to any human definition. While such a being could exist, it would not behave like any God people have ever worshipped.

Being led astray by the devil is by know means better.
But if another God/Goddess/Thingee than your own exists, believing in your God may be by "know" means better as well. For instance, what if your "devil" was in reality the all-powerful Ruler of the Universe, and he created your God to tempt you?
How would you know either way?

As for the other question, such a God would probably not be sapient according to any human definition. While such a being could exist, it would not behave like any God people have ever worshipped.
What if people are trying to reduce something they can't understand to things that are simpler?

Just an idea, I don't know if it makes any sense.

Misspelling acknowledged and corrected.

But if another God/Goddess/Thingee than your own exists, believing in your God may be by "know" means better as well. For instance, what if your "devil" was in reality the all-powerful Ruler of the Universe, and he created your God to tempt you?
How would you know either way?

We are protected from such heresy by God's agents on earth. The government protects us from satan's devices.

Read the book A Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. It provides lots of evidence for God through science.
Read it, not very convincing.

How is the devil or God a "universal rule?" You should not place something that no one has definitely experienced (feelings of "God moving in your life" could be psychological reactions to social stimuli) in the same "level of proof" as something that everyone has definitely experienced. Once again, atheists are open to God's existence. This does not mean we must believe that God definitely exists.

They aren't necessarily, but if they exist in the sense that they are described as existing, then they are universal. In other words, "a universal rule is universal if it is universal." It sounds stupid and obvious, but sometimes it needs saying.

Can you think of anything that everyone has "definitely experienced?"

Atheists are not open to the potential existence of God, Agnostics are. What's more, no one is saying you must believe in God, I'm merely saying that whether you believe or not, if there is a God you are subject to his rules.

Originally Posted by Vegas-Rex
If you don't directly believe in the nonexistence of God you're an agnostic, not an atheist.

I am a weak atheist. Weak atheists do not claim to have disproof of God's existence. In the absence of proof that God does exist, we refuse to believe that It does. Furthermore, we conclude that we should act (at least epistimologically) as if God does not exist because concluding things from the possibility that God might exist (like Pascal's wager) is invalid. Strong atheists believe that God does not exist. Weak atheists actively do not believe that God exists. Agnostics do not actively believe that God exists or that God does not exist. Thus, weak atheists are a sub-group of agnostics. We do not actively believe either position. However, we are active in our lack of belief.

Originally Posted by Our Earth
I'm merely saying that whether you believe or not, if there is a God you are subject to his rules.

Okay, I agree with that. I understand what your other posts mean now, too. My explanation of my belief is in the post above this one.

We are protected from such heresy by God's agents on earth. The government protects us from satan's devices.
In the Constitution, I believe, are a couple of bits declaring separation of church and state.
And about separation of church and state.

Also, by this, do you mean that everything the government says is right while it's run by Christians?

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?

We're talking metaphysics here. Metaphysics is impossible to prove like you would try to prove anything in math or science. This includes Christian, Hindu, or atheistic metaphysics. We can make reasonable inferences, and I think that those inferences would lead most reasonable people to a belief in God. But if you want actual proof, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

In the Constitution, I believe, are a couple of bits declaring separation of church and state.
And about separation of church and state.

Also, by this, do you mean that everything the government says is right while it's run by Christians?

off topic: do you have your profile set to display posters' signatures?

off topic: do you have your profile set to display posters' signatures?
No. I have no idea how to.

Originally Posted by Robbopolis
I think that those inferences would lead most reasonable people to a belief in God

I disagree with the underlying assumption that the more reasonable meta-physical position is belief in God. I do agree with the assertion that most reasonable meta-physicists do believe in God. That doesn't mean that they are correct.

No. I have no idea how to.

Near the top of the forum screen are various buttons: "profile", "register", etc. If you click "profile", you can get into your profile, where you can edit your options , including making signatures, avatars and images visible.

1. Order of Nature
a) All things in the world work according to a set pattern.
b) This pattern could not have happened by accident, it had to be designed.
c) The designer of the world is God.

2. Uncaused Cause
a) All things in the world are caused by something outside themselves.
b) If we go back in time, the first cause of all things must be caused by itself (uncaused.)
c) This first uncaused cause is God.

3. Love
a) All people of all time have an experience of love.
b) Love is a spiritual reality that is greater than all people who love.
c) Love has a source that is beyond the human realm.
d) The source of love is God.

PRIMER FOR ERISIAN EVANGELISTS (Lord Omar)

The SOCRATIC APPROACH is most successful when confronting the ignorant. The "socratic approach" is what you call starting an argument by asking questions. You approach the innocent and simply ask "Did you know that god's name is ERIS, and that he is a girl?" If he/she should answer "Yes." then he is probably a fellow Erisian and so you can forget it. If he says "No." then quickly proceed to:
The BLIND ASSERTION and say "Well, he is a girl, and his name is ERIS!" Shrewdly observe if the subject is convinced. If he/she is, swear him/her into the Legion of Dynamic Discord before he/she changes his/her mind. If he/she does not appear convinced, then proceed to:
The FAITH BIT: "But you must have Faith! All is lost without Faith! I sure feel sorry for you if you don't have Faith!" And then add:
The ARGUMENT BY FEAR ....
Followed by the FIRST CLAUSE PLOY wherein you point to all of the discord and confusion in the world and exclaim, "Well, who the hell do you think all of this, wise guy?" If he/she says, "Nobody, just impersonal forces." then respond quickly with:
THE ARGUMENT BY SEMANTICAL GYMNASTICS ....
And then THE FIGURATIVE SYMBOLISM DODGE and confide that sophisticated people like him/herself recognize that Eris is a Figurative Symbol for an Ineffable Metaphysical Reality and that The Erisian Movement is really more like a poem than like a science and the he/she is liable to be turned into a Precious Mao Button and Distributed to The Poor in The Region of Thud if he/she does not get hip. Then put him/her on your mailing list.
-

Sound familiar? I could go on w/Argument by Fear and Argument by Semantical Gymnastics .... but i shan't. Porpoise served.

Near the top of the forum screen are various buttons: "profile", "register", etc. If you click "profile", you can get into your profile, where you can edit your options , including making signatures, avatars and images visible.
Oh, silly me! I can't believe I hadn't seen the thing to make signatures visible in there before!

Oh, silly me! I can't believe I hadn't seen the thing o make signature visible in there before!

It's not exactly obvious.

No one wants to make the 100th post on this thread? I'll do it.

That was only 99, this is 100.

Actually, they're both 100th, one the 100th post and the other the 100th reply.

My computer is showing me that that post was number 100. Is yours showing something different?

That was only 99, this is 100.
His was the 100th post, yours was the 100th reply.

EDIT: Oops, he edited his post. Oh well.

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?
Well Heres How i look at this see religeon is a freckin goverment plot o get money. just look at all the the fall theocracys

Religion might have originally been a government plot to get money. It obviously isn't in the United States, France, or other modern nations with seperation of Church and State. However, you could argue that the government still uses the ideas of religion (especially the requirement to submit to authority granted by God).

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?

I believe in God i have proof in my life, my existence, my prayers... but i doubt that would convince you. Can you prove God doesn't exist?

I believe in God i have proof in my life, my existence, my prayers... but i doubt that would convince you. Can you prove God doesn't exist?

In the realm of serious debate no one is ever asked to prove a negative, because by the nature of formal logic it is impossible without demonstrating not only non-existance, but impossibility. However, when dealing with such absolutes and universalities as God, I suppose it might be possible to reasonably demonstrate God's non-existance if in fact God does not exist. Otherwise, this request is just stupid, and the burden of proof continues to lay with believers.

In the realm of serious debate no one is ever asked to prove a negative, because by the nature of formal logic it is impossible without demonstrating not only non-existance, but impossibility. However, when dealing with such absolutes and universalities as God, I suppose it might be possible to reasonably demonstrate God's non-existance if in fact God does not exist. Otherwise, this request is just stupid, and the burden of proof continues to lay with believers.

"believers" should include people who do not believe in God too... They "believe" that there is no God. It takes just as much faith to believe that.

"believers" should include people who do not believe in God too... They "believe" that there is no God. It takes just as much faith to believe that.
If they specifically believe in no possibility of a God. It's a different story for agnostics.

Oh yeah, and he meant believers in God.

"believers" should include people who do not believe in God too... They "believe" that there is no God. It takes just as much faith to believe that.

"Believers" is taken to mean those who have a belief in the existance of God. I don't disagree that it is an act of faith to disbelieve in God as much as to believe in God, but the fact of the matter is that the burden of proof lies on those who believe that God exists rather than on those who believe God does not exist.

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?

What proof would you accept? The same sort of proof that you accept for your own existence? The same sort of proof that you accept for the existence of Africa?

"Believers" is taken to mean those who have a belief in the existance of God. I don't disagree that it is an act of faith to disbelieve in God as much as to believe in God, but the fact of the matter is that the burden of proof lies on those who believe that God exists rather than on those who believe God does not exist.
It would seem to me that the only "burden" lies on those who have no direct experience of God. Those who do have all the evidence that they need. (i.e. they don't need to prove it to others)

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Here you go.

Well, personally two things prove God for me. One, is the sheer vastness of everything... I know this sounds so simplistic, but it seems like the vastness of the universe is too grand to be random.
Also, there is the nature of atoms. If you study human biology, you'll notice that everything occurs in a chain reaction of atoms. It just seems so perfectly assembled, that say one element was removed from say the energy producing reaction, the entire thing would collapse. It seems that everything is so perfect, and fragile.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

Here you go.
Oh, that's painful.

Why does god's existence have to be logical when humans are not?

It would seem to me that the only "burden" lies on those who have no direct experience of God. Those who do have all the evidence that they need. (i.e. they don't need to prove it to others)

Well, depending on your particular beliefs, isn't a common facet of religious adherence the belief that it is good to try to help others come to share your beliefs? Prosceletizing (spelled wrong I'm sure, but whatever) religions don't allow their members to sit back and relax in the confidence that they are correct, they feel the need to prove what they believe to everyone else.

It is nice to be so confident in your beliefs that you don't feel the need to argue in their defense, but few people are at that point.

It would seem to me that the only "burden" lies on those who have no direct experience of God. Those who do have all the evidence that they need. (i.e. they don't need to prove it to others)
Well, if they're debating, they are the ones with the burden of proof on them. As stated before.

What's more, no one is saying you must believe in God, I'm merely saying that whether you believe or not, if there is a God you are subject to his rules.

Obviously. But before I do, I need to have proof that those rules are His, and not just yours.

Obviously. But before I do, I need to have proof that those rules are His, and not just yours.

There you have only trust to guide you.

Well, depending on your particular beliefs, isn't a common facet of religious adherence the belief that it is good to try to help others come to share your beliefs? Prosceletizing (spelled wrong I'm sure, but whatever) religions don't allow their members to sit back and relax in the confidence that they are correct, they feel the need to prove what they believe to everyone else.

It is nice to be so confident in your beliefs that you don't feel the need to argue in their defense, but few people are at that point.
Just Christian belief, and its off-shoots.

Romans 1 18,

But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves.[f] 19For the truth about God is known to them instinctively.[g] God has put this knowledge in their hearts. 20From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

The fact that you have asked for proof shows that god is working on your heart.. There's proof.

There you have only trust to guide you.

And why, pray tell, should I trust you?

Well, if they're debating, they are the ones with the burden of proof on them. As stated before.
But that's only a burden you put on them, by demanding to understand their god in the way that they do. They already understand their god.

Just Christian belief, and its off-shoots.

Nah, there are other religions that actively try to convert, though Christianity does the most.

What proof would you accept? The same sort of proof that you accept for your own existence? The same sort of proof that you accept for the existence of Africa?
You're taking a chance that they don't live in Africa. ;-)

And why, pray tell, should I trust you?

Don't trust OE. He's the Demon of the internet, and that's...umm...impressive, or something.

But that's only a burden you put on them, by demanding to understand their god in the way that they do. They already understand their god.
If they're going to try to convert us through debate, they should submit to its rules.

Don't trust OE. He's the Demon of the internet, and that's...umm...impressive, or something.

I'm not biased against demons. :)

You're taking a chance that they don't live in Africa. ;-)

Yes I am. I could easily change it to something else though. It just amuses me that people can be so smug about not having concrete or logical proof of God when we don't have that proof for our own existence or the existence of many things.

And why, pray tell, should I trust you?

Trust is earned, it's just an extension of understanding. If you see someone who is consistently correct about things, you might trust their belief on something even if you have no evidence to support it. Do you trust your parents, your teachers, your text books, encyclopedias, newspapers? Trust is an extension of the senses which allows people to gather information from a greater area and process it with more brain power. Trust and a symbolic communication system (language) are what allow humans to advance technologically, because, as they say, we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. We all understand that we can trust in the ideas of previous generations, at least in a practical sense, though there are some ideas about the nature of reality which are thrown into question with our advancements in understanding. That's why my faith isn't very strong, because so much of what was "known" in the past about the unobserved universe is turning out to be wrong, so my trust in them is weak. Others' trust is not weak like mine, so their faith is also stronger than mine. If you trust like they do, then you can believe that the laws of the Church are the laws of God, if not, then you might have doubts, there's no meaning to it really, but that's the way it is.

I'm not biased against demons. :)

I see you didn't get the joke.

I'm not biased against demons. :)

You should be, we're evil 'n' stuff.

I see you didn't get the joke.

I see you take me too serious. ;)

Trust is earned, it's just an extension of understanding. If you see someone who is consistently correct about things, you might trust their belief on something even if you have no evidence to support it. Do you trust your parents, your teachers, your text books, encyclopedias, newspapers? Trust is an extension of the senses which allows people to gather information from a greater area and process it with more brain power. Trust and a symbolic communication system (language) are what allow humans to advance technologically, because, as they say, we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. We all understand that we can trust in the ideas of previous generations, at least in a practical sense, though there are some ideas about the nature of reality which are thrown into question with our advancements in understanding. That's why my faith isn't very strong, because so much of what was "known" in the past about the unobserved universe is turning out to be wrong, so my trust in them is weak. Others' trust is not weak like mine, so their faith is also stronger than mine. If you trust like they do, then you can believe that the laws of the Church are the laws of God, if not, then you might have doubts, there's no meaning to it really, but that's the way it is.

Thanks for that explaination, God bless you. :)

If they're going to try to convert us through debate, they should submit to its rules.
Not all Christians are missionary; in fact, a very small percentage of them are.

I see you take me too serious. ;)

Actually, yes, I do. I take everyone more seriously than they deserve. It's very optimistic of me, but it's how I am.

Thanks for that explaination, God bless you. :)

Danke, danke.

Yes I am. I could easily change it to something else though. It just amuses me that people can be so smug about not having concrete or logical proof of God when we don't have that proof for our own existence or the existence of many things.
I have proof for my own existence. I experience things.

If they're going to try to convert us through debate, they should submit to its rules.

Hmmm. Can you provide me with concrete, absolute proof of the validity of those rules? I won't follow your rules if I have no good reason to do so.

I have proof for my own existence. I experience things.

Can you prove your existance to me, or only to yourself?

I have proof for my own existence. I experience things.

I would accept that proof. Others would not, because they believe that logic models accurately onto the universe.

Hmmm. Can you provide me with concrete, absolute proof of the validity of those rules? I won't follow your rules if I have no good reason to do so.

They are the rules of formal logic, and would take a long time to explain, but suffice it to say that we're right and that by the nature of the language, not by any arbitrary judgments, a negative cannot be proven, so the burden of proof lies with those who claim God exists.

To all you non believers, its no accident that you're posting these questions right now. The lord may be speaking to your heart. You have to open your heart, not your eyes to see god.

Hmmm. Can you provide me with concrete, absolute proof of the validity of those rules? I won't follow your rules if I have no good reason to do so.
Touché.

Can you prove your existance to me, or only to yourself?
Anything experiential is only useful as proof for the one experiencing it.

To all you non believers, its no accident that you're posting these questions right now. The lord may be speaking to your heart. You have to open your heart, not your eyes to see god.

Open heart surgery is incredibly dangerous, and almost impossible to perform on oneself.

Trust is earned, it's just an extension of understanding. If you see someone who is consistently correct about things, you might trust their belief on something even if you have no evidence to support it. Do you trust your parents, your teachers, your text books, encyclopedias, newspapers? Trust is an extension of the senses which allows people to gather information from a greater area and process it with more brain power. Trust and a symbolic communication system (language) are what allow humans to advance technologically, because, as they say, we don't have to reinvent the wheel every time. We all understand that we can trust in the ideas of previous generations, at least in a practical sense, though there are some ideas about the nature of reality which are thrown into question with our advancements in understanding. That's why my faith isn't very strong, because so much of what was "known" in the past about the unobserved universe is turning out to be wrong, so my trust in them is weak. Others' trust is not weak like mine, so their faith is also stronger than mine. If you trust like they do, then you can believe that the laws of the Church are the laws of God, if not, then you might have doubts, there's no meaning to it really, but that's the way it is.
We do have to reinvent the wheel every time if we hope to understand the subjectively experienced wheel.

I would accept that proof. Others would not, because they believe that logic models accurately onto the universe.

Linear logic is not useful for understanding the universe, but for understanding language it is necessary.

If you're agnostic, nothing we can say will change your mind. You just want to sit at your computer with a smug sense of satisfaction knowing that nothing we say will convince you there is a God. This pleasure with yourself is similar to taking candy from a baby knowing that it is powerless to take it back from you.
Stop making these types of threads, please.wrong. you lose. that's an atheist. agnostic is unsure. now go get your terms straight. I'm an atheist. you cannot change my mind without actual divine intervention that I cannot explain rationally any other way. if Picard is an agnostic, he is unsure. thus, his mind could be tilted either way. he is simply, as far as I can tell, attempting to find which way to tilt.

I'm sorry if this has already been answered, but I didn't have the patience to read 8 pages to find out if anyone had called him.

oh, and this too:
It would seem to me that the only "burden" lies on those who have no direct experience of God. Those who do have all the evidence that they need. (i.e. they don't need to prove it to others) then don't. if you've talked to god, feel free to believe in him. I'm not going to stop you. no one is. what you're trying to do is make it seel as if you have so that you prove it without coming out and saying it, thus making you feel righteous in upholding your beliefs and in being "modest". to quote a good friend of mine, "This pleasure with yourself is similar to taking candy from a baby knowing that it is powerless to take it back from you." and to quote you, "Anything experiential is only useful as proof for the one experiencing it."

ooh, while I'm being an atheistic attack dog...
I believe in God i have proof in my life, my existence, my prayers... but i doubt that would convince you. Can you prove God doesn't exist?proof in your prayers. that's real logically sound. "I pray to god so he must exist." and yes, actually, I can. you know that tsunami? you know them hurricanes ravaging florida constantly? or the earthquakes in California? if god loves all his children, why kill us off like that? and don't say 'Satan did it.' if God is all-powerful, he could stop Satan. and no 'Satan's all-powerful too.' either. that's impossible. there cannot be two rival omnipotent beings, since they either both lack the power to stop each other, which renders them none-all-powerful, or they both have the power to stop each other, in which case one of them would have done so long ago, rendering there only one. Bada! eat that. let's see... anyone else...

ah, here we go...
The fact that you have asked for proof shows that god is working on your heart.. There's proof.just looking at you name shows me you'll be hard to convince. this'll be fun. first off, my question "How do I know I'm not crazy?" is not proof that I'm crazy. nor is "Am I fat?" proof that I'm fat. the question "Is Blessed Assurance a blind follower of a false god?" is not proof that you are a blind follower of a false god, that's just a coincidence. you've lost already, but I'm having fun. Your argument is structurally sound according to a clause in the bible. there's a clause in my underwear that says 'Cory Arnold'. does that mean I can base a slew of assumptions on that? no, no it doesn't. NEXT!

alright, this is more of a sidenote than verbal assault:
Don't trust OE. He's the Demon of the internet, and that's...umm...impressive, or something....do I need to say a thing? I hope, for HR's sake there was a joke intended. if not, I cannot help you. I can only laugh at you. and feel free to call me one too.

OK I get your joke, but you actually hit the nail right on the head. I agree!!

Open heart surgery is incredibly dangerous, and almost impossible to perform on oneself.
Except as a metaphor.

They are the rules of formal logic, and would take a long time to explain, but suffice it to say that we're right and that by the nature of the language, not by any arbitrary judgments, a negative cannot be proven, so the burden of proof lies with those who claim God exists.

1. I'm...vaguely familiar with this "logic" of which you speak. :D
2. You imply that the nature of language is not abritrary. As a student of language, that amuses the hell out of me.

then don't. if you've talked to god, feel free to believe in him. I'm not going to stop you. no one is. what you're trying to do is make it seel as if you have so that you prove it without coming out and saying it, thus making you feel righteous in upholding your beliefs and in being "modest". to quote a good friend of mine, "This pleasure with yourself is similar to taking candy from a baby knowing that it is powerless to take it back from you."
I have talked with god. It said one thing: "love."

alright, this is more of a sidenote than verbal assault:
...do I need to say a thing? I hope, for HR's sake there was a joke intended. if not, I cannot help you. I can only laugh at you. and feel free to call me one too.

It was a joke, yes. OE started a thread saying he was the demon of the internet, and I making an attempt at a humorous reference. Obviously, not everyone has seen the thread and some would miss the joke.

1. I'm...vaguely familiar with this "logic" of which you speak. :D
2. You imply that the nature of language is not abritrary. As a student of language, that amuses the hell out of me.
LOL :)

LOL :)

Thank you! *bows* :)

We do have to reinvent the wheel every time if we hope to understand the subjectively experienced wheel.

We are constantly using technology we do not understand, we have only the knowledge that it works. Even modern inventors couldn't tell you how every piece of technology they use works.

Now as to the other possible meaning of that... By using the word "wheel" we describe a class of objects which share certain characteristics and whose properties are stored in our brain and refered to by that name. When we experience our first wheel it is entirely knew, and we must learn it's nature from the beginning, but with each subsequent wheel we must learn less and less about it, until we understand all wheels inherently based on our previous experience with similar existential phenomena. What is being reinvented is not the wheel itself, but the definition of the wheel within the mind of the individual. That's what "teaching" is for. Teaching is the repetitive presentation of similar phenomena until the pattern finding aspect of the brain picks up those aspects of the objects which are consistent allowing the symbol (word) used by society to describe that class of objects or events to be associated with those objects or events. In other words learning is the process by which one generation passes on its knowledge of the world through language to the next generation.

Touché.no, it wasn't. any formal debate has these rules. go to one. watch. you will see them in action. the affirmative must prove their case, the negative must prove the affirmative's evidence wrong. and don't tell me to go to a church to see god. what you see is people praying and singing and some old guy who likes young boys in inappropriate ways telling you why Jesus is the lord, via evidence from the bible!. you lose.

1. I'm...vaguely familiar with this "logic" of which you speak. :D
2. You imply that the nature of language is not abritrary. As a student of language, that amuses the hell out of me.

The specific symbols used are arbitrary, but their meaning and use is not.

no, it wasn't. any formal debate has these rules. go to one. watch. you will see them in action. the affirmative must prove their case, the negative must prove the affirmative's evidence wrong. and don't tell me to go to a church to see god. what you see is people praying and singing and some old guy who likes young boys in inappropriate ways telling you why Jesus is the lord, via evidence from the bible!. you lose.
?
I was arguing the same point as you are anyway, if you'd read the rest of the thread.
I say he *did* counter my point. Why should he follow these rules? Of course, it won't help his debating any, but he has no need to.

He?
She?
I dunno. I guessed he.

EDIT: About going to debates...
I just participated in a debate yesterday. I believe that counts as going to one, does it not?

The specific symbols used are arbitrary, but their meaning and use is not.

No? Why not?

No? Why not?
Language has clear rules. If it didn't, it would be incomprehensible, correct?

I have talked with god. It said one thing: "love."it. how quaint. anyway, you have talked to god. you are asserting this. thus you are trying to prove it. a base assumption for that argument is that god is real. thus you are, right there, attempting to prove god's existance.

and NA, I was debunking his, and simply disagreeing with the fact that he had a valid argument.

?
I was arguing the same point as you are anyway, if you'd read the rest of the thread.
I say he *did* counter my point. Why should he follow these rules? Of course, it won't help his debating any, but he has no need to.

He?
She?
I dunno. I guessed he.

EDIT: About going to debates...
I just participated in a debate yesterday. I believe that counts as going to one, does it not?

I am male, if you want to know.

no, it wasn't. any formal debate has these rules. go to one. watch. you will see them in action. the affirmative must prove their case, the negative must prove the affirmative's evidence wrong. and don't tell me to go to a church to see god. what you see is people praying and singing and some old guy who likes young boys in inappropriate ways telling you why Jesus is the lord, via evidence from the bible!. you lose.

Look just read 1st romans chapter 18, it wont kill you. Deep down you have to know it's the truth, maybe not right now but someday you will.

About going to debates...
I just participated in a debate yesterday. I believe that counts as going to one, does it not?

No.

Debate is fun, but I don't like the structure of most formal debate, I'm a Lincoln Douglass kind of guy myself, but even that is too structured some times. Mostly I hate the time, it doesn't always take the full time to make a point, and sometimes it takes much longer, and for the sake of coming to an agreement, rather than winning by talking the fastest, I think debates are much better without time limits.

"EDIT: About going to debates...
I just participated in a debate yesterday. I believe that counts as going to one, does it not?"

yes it does. now, was the negative trying to argue a point, or prove the argued point wrong? if they were arguing a point, why were they the 'negative'?

EDIT: Wait, do you mean a formal one, or just an argument?

"EDIT: About going to debates...
I just participated in a debate yesterday. I believe that counts as going to one, does it not?"

yes it does. now, was the negative trying to argue a point, or prove the argued point wrong? if they were arguing a point, why were they the 'negative'?
Umm, what?

Umm, what?okay, you meant an argument. never mind then, no it doesn't count.

No? Why not?

Because if their meanings were entirely arbitrary and different for every person communication would be impossible. As is not every word means exactly the same thing for any two people, but they are close enough that people can usually (not always) understand what each other is saying.

No.

Debate is fun, but I don't like the structure of most formal debate, I'm a Lincoln Douglass kind of guy myself, but even that is too structured some times. Mostly I hate the time, it doesn't always take the full time to make a point, and sometimes it takes much longer, and for the sake of coming to an agreement, rather than winning by talking the fastest, I think debates are much better without time limits.
Wait, did you say participating in a formal debate doesn't count as going to a formal debate?

And I hate the structure too! I had to skip two of my points in the closing argument that I really wanted to make... And the fact that they try to clearly divide it into sections of opening, offense, cross-examination, and closing is a bit annoying.

Language has clear rules. If it didn't, it would be incomprehensible, correct?

People made up those clear rules.

okay, you meant an argument. never mind then, no it doesn't count.

You are strange and confusing as well, I think, as confused.

People made up those clear rules.
Yes. That's rather the point, isn't it?

Now as to the other possible meaning of that... By using the word "wheel" we describe a class of objects which share certain characteristics and whose properties are stored in our brain and refered to by that name. When we experience our first wheel it is entirely knew, and we must learn it's nature from the beginning, but with each subsequent wheel we must learn less and less about it, until we understand all wheels inherently based on our previous experience with similar existential phenomena. What is being reinvented is not the wheel itself, but the definition of the wheel within the mind of the individual. That's what "teaching" is for. Teaching is the repetitive presentation of similar phenomena until the pattern finding aspect of the brain picks up those aspects of the objects which are consistent allowing the symbol (word) used by society to describe that class of objects or events to be associated with those objects or events. In other words learning is the process by which one generation passes on its knowledge of the world through language to the next generation.
The wheel was an analogy, a symbol that presented itself to me when I read your post. It is the wheel of the zodiac, a wheel that is inherent in every event that occurs on Earth (from a human perspective). And each event is unique in time. You have a very good grasp of the nature of repetitive learning necessary to be a good astrologer (that's intended as a compliment). Wheels within wheels. It's what teaching is for, indeed.

*impressed*

Wait, did you say participating in a formal debate doesn't count as going to a formal debate?

And I hate the structure too! I had to skip two of my points in the closing argument that I really wanted to make... And the fact that they try to clearly divide it into sections of opening, offense, cross-examination, and closing is a bit annoying.

I did in fact say that participating in a formal debate does not count as attending a formal debate.

I agree with all the rest of this.

People made up those clear rules.but they are commonly accepted. anyone who talks follows them in whatever language they speak. for example, if I ask you the alphabet, what would you say (as a test question. in real life, if I asked you the alphabet, you'd probably flip me off. not you in particular. just anyone who knows the commonly accepted hand gesture for '#&%)#)@*% you'. see how that works out?)

Because if their meanings were entirely arbitrary and different for every person communication would be impossible. As is not every word means exactly the same thing for any two people, but they are close enough that people can usually (not always) understand what each other is saying.

Communication is possible because people agree on the arbitrary symbols they use. Are you trying to tell me that something is no longer arbitrary if it's commonly accepted? If we all decided to ban fruit, that would not be arbitrary?

I did in fact say that participating in a formal debate does not count as attending a formal debate.

I agree with all the rest of this.
Ahh, I believe I understand what you are saying. Okay.

but they are commonly accepted. anyone who talks follows them in whatever language they speak. for example, if I ask you the alphabet, what would you say (as a test question. in real life, if I asked you the alphabet, you'd probably flip me off. not you in particular. just anyone who knows the commonly accepted hand gesture for '#&%)#)@*% you'. see how that works out?)


That's because one of the defining features of language, as opposed to communication, is that it is learned.

it. how quaint. anyway, you have talked to god. you are asserting this. thus you are trying to prove it. a base assumption for that argument is that god is real. thus you are, right there, attempting to prove god's existance.

and NA, I was debunking his, and simply disagreeing with the fact that he had a valid argument.
I really don't mind if anyone doesn't believe me. It was a subjectively real experience.

Yes. That's rather the point, isn't it?

Then you are proposing that because people made up the rules, the rules are not arbitrary?

The wheel was an analogy, a symbol that presented itself to me when I read your post. It is the wheel of the zodiac, a wheel that is inherent in every event that occurs on Earth (from a human perspective). And each event is unique in time. You have a very good grasp of the nature of repetitive learning necessary to be a good astrologer (that's intended as a compliment). Wheels within wheels. It's what teaching is for, indeed.

*impressed*

Thanks. I'm still learning ( :) ), but I like to think that my understanding of the nature of at least some aspects of the mind surpasses that of the average by some margin. Learning always fascinated me, especially in its capacity for maintaining society, which is why it always amuses me that people talk about how universities tend to be very liberal, because teaching is a necessarily conservative endevour.

Then you are proposing that because people made up the rules, the rules are not arbitrary?
Where'd the arbitrary/not arbitrary bit come in?
I thought we were debating whether logic should apply to language or something like that...
What did I miss?

Reguarding the burden of proof... Fluffy, lets see what the bible says

Luke 11:46 - And he said, "Woe to you lawyers also! for you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.

You want proof but you wont work for it

Communication is possible because people agree on the arbitrary symbols they use. Are you trying to tell me that something is no longer arbitrary if it's commonly accepted? If we all decided to ban fruit, that would not be arbitrary?

People agree on the meaning of the symbols, but the fact that the symbols are not the phenomena they describe, but only representitives of them, requires that they be agreed upon, rather than arbitrary. That is to say that the universe is not arbitrary, only the words we use to describe it. The particular symbol we use for a given meaning is arbitrary when it is created, and stays arbitrary even after it becomes widely accepted, but the meaning is inherent in nature and not arbitrary at all. Continuing with the fruit theme, if we decided to call apples oranges, and oranges apples, and everybody agreed, the meaning would not have changed, only the symbols, because the symbols are only associated with the meanings because of common understanding. The meanings themselves, however, are an aspect of the objects themselves, not the symbols.

Where'd the arbitrary/not arbitrary bit come in?
I thought we were debating whether logic should apply to language or something like that...
What did I miss?

The specific symbols used are arbitrary, but their meaning and use is not.

No? Why not?

You were responding to the above post, so I thought you were answering my question about why the meaning and use of the symbols of language is not arbitrary.

I did in fact say that participating in a formal debate does not count as attending a formal debate.

I agree with all the rest of this.I'm going to disagree. I was confused by what he was saying, but if he did indeed participate in a formal debate, he should know the rules. thus he should know that in formal debate, the negative is negative because they are trying to prove it in the negative. thus all they have to do is prove the affirmative wrong. they may use their own take on the issue, but the fact that their job is to prove the others wrong, not neccessarily themselves right, remains the same. for example, the argument is 'Is war good?' the affirmative tries to prove that yes, war is good. the negative only has to prove that the war is not good, and that the affirmative is wrong. say they were using the platform of 'guns are dangerous' to prove that war is not good. they don't have to prove that guns are dangerous, just use that to debunk proof that war is good.

oh, and if we all decided to ban fruit, there would have to be a good reason to get a majority of the world on board, so no it wouldn't be arbitrary.

You were responding to the above post, so I thought you were answering my question about why the meaning and use of the symbols of language is not arbitrary.
Ah, right. Silly me.
After rereading the thread, I still can't quite figure out what brought us to this, but it makes a bit more sense now.

Reguarding the burden of proof... Fluffy, lets see what the bible says

Luke 11:46 - And he said, "Woe to you lawyers also! for you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.

You want proof but you wont work for itah... the bible says so. you're a good little sheep. I don't feel the need to respond any further.

People agree on the meaning of the symbols, but the fact that the symbols are not the phenomena they describe, but only representitives of them, requires that they be agreed upon, rather than arbitrary. That is to say that the universe is not arbitrary, only the words we use to describe it. The particular symbol we use for a given meaning is arbitrary when it is created, and stays arbitrary even after it becomes widely accepted, but the meaning is inherent in nature and not arbitrary at all. Continuing with the fruit theme, if we decided to call apples oranges, and oranges apples, and everybody agreed, the meaning would not have changed, only the symbols, because the symbols are only associated with the meanings because of common understanding. The meanings themselves, however, are an aspect of the objects themselves, not the symbols.


You are aware your example only applies to words in the lexical category of nouns and verbs right?

So, explain Degrees, Determiners, Prepostsions, Adjectives, Adverbs, Conjunctions, or any of the other, countless, lexical categories out there, with that logic.

I'm going to disagree. I was confused by what he was saying, but if he did indeed participate in a formal debate, he should know the rules. thus he should know that in formal debate, the negative is negative because they are trying to prove it in the negative. thus all they have to do is prove the affirmative wrong. they may use their own take on the issue, but the fact that their job is to prove the others wrong, not neccessarily themselves right, remains the same. for example, the argument is 'Is war good?' the affirmative tries to prove that yes, war is good. the negative only has to prove that the war is not good, and that the affirmative is wrong. say they were using the platform of 'guns are dangerous' to prove that war is not good. they don't have to prove that guns are dangerous, just use that to debunk proof that war is good.

oh, and if we all decided to ban fruit, there would have to be a good reason to get a majority of the world on board, so no it wouldn't be arbitrary.

Well actually, I was just joking, but that's all well and good.

As for the nature of formal debate, the negative is trying to demonstrate flaws in the logic of the affirmative, nothing more. The affirmative presents a case and the negative spends the entire time explaining why what the affirmative says isn't true, or doesn't matter, but they never make any existential points.

ah... the bible says so. you're a good little sheep. I don't feel the need to respond any further.

HMMM, for some reason I thought this was a thread about god, I guess I'm not allowed to reference the Single most important document reguarding the subject?

HMMM, for some reason I thought this was a thread about god, I guess I'm not allowed to reference the Single most important document reguarding the subject?
Not if it relates to only one religion.

HMMM, for some reason I thought this was a thread about god, I guess I'm not allowed to reference the Single most important document reguarding the subject?


Read the first page, in fact, the very first post.

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?

I think that effectivly says the bible is not proof in this argument.

You are aware your example only applies to words in the lexical category of nouns and verbs right?

So, explain Degrees, Determiners, Prepostsions, Adjectives, Adverbs, Conjunctions, or any of the other, countless, lexical categories out there, with that logic.

Well, aside from the fact that adjectives (and adverbs) represent an understanding of the existential universe, and aside from the fact that conjuctions are just a superset of some of those countless other sets, it's fantastically easy to explain, because it doesn't matter that the others are arbitrary.

Words can be grouped into two classes, those that represent existential phenomena (and are arbitrary, but represent non-arbitrary ideas), and those that are used to link the former. Every word that isn't a noun, verb, adjective, or other such symbolic word, is just a particle, a linking word with no specific meaning. That's why you can say "apple is manzana in Spanish" but it's a lot harder to traslate these particles. It gets even harder when you go into different language trees, for instance, in Japanese there are no plurals, there is no definite article, and they use the particles o, e, ga, and i for a variety of things with no direct parallels to English. Those aspects of language which do not represent existential phenomena are often impossible to translate from language to language for that very reason. Grammar is arbitrary.

Personally, I want to understand what Dostanuot Loj was talking about with the verbs.

You are aware your example only applies to words in the lexical category of nouns and verbs right?

So, explain Degrees, Determiners, Prepostsions, Adjectives, Adverbs, Conjunctions, or any of the other, countless, lexical categories out there, with that logic.Degrees and Determiners: not quite sure what these are
Prepositions: if we switch the meanings of a and the, and we all agree, a meaning remains a same. any word with the definition is subject to this logic, but I'll continue.
Adjectives: tall-short. my, godzilla is short, even for the giant lizard. a midget over there is really tall.
Adverbs: quickly-slowly. that olympic runner ran slowly in a 100-meter dash. man, that sloth is moving so quickly.
Conjunctions: and and but are, in many situations , interchangeable. not always, though. the prez is in charge of the executive branch, [and/but] the speaker runs the house.
other, countless, lexical categories out there: name another one and I will with a, same, logical route. and please explain your commas, placed, randomly.

Well actually, I was just joking, but that's all well and good.

As for the nature of formal debate, the negative is trying to demonstrate flaws in the logic of the affirmative, nothing more. The affirmative presents a case and the negative spends the entire time explaining why what the affirmative says isn't true, or doesn't matter, but they never make any existential points.well, I apologize for not catching the joke. and that's approximately what I said. however, you can use facts to prove them irrelevant. for example, BA's bible assertion willamena proved wrong with a fact (it only applies to Christians). then DL proved it wron with another one, which is that it was stated that the bible was not proof here. so facts can be used in the negative, that's just not the goal.

Reply to the initial post:

No proof can be given, one way or the other. It is a matter of faith. St. Anselm said, "I believe so that I may understand," meaning that only through faith do we understand the universe.

God, by his very nature (self existing, beyond space and time, omnipotent), defies human logic. Therefore, human logic will not lead you to God. If you wish to base your faith on logic, you will remain an agnostic, that is the only logical choice. But that is not the correct choice. And you know that, which is why you have asked this question.

This may help: On Certainty (http://geocities.com/jasoneheath/essays/esscertainty)

Read Romans Chapter 5, you may understand a little better (Bible.com)

Degrees and Determiners: not quite sure what these are
Prepositions: if we switch the meanings of a and the, and we all agree, a meaning remains a same. any word with the definition is subject to this logic, but I'll continue.
Adjectives: tall-short. my, godzilla is short, even for the giant lizard. a midget over there is really tall.
Adverbs: quickly-slowly. that olympic runner ran slowly in a 100-meter dash. man, that sloth is moving so quickly.
Conjunctions: and and but are, in many situations , interchangeable. not always, though. the prez is in charge of the executive branch, [and/but] the speaker runs the house.
other, countless, lexical categories out there: name another one and I will with a, same, logical route. and please explain your commas, placed, randomly.


I think I misread your points then. I was bickering against what seemed to be a "words are not arbitrary because the words directly relate to the meaning/object they describe", which is not true. There is nothing stopping "Apple" to mean what we call an "orange", which was my point, there is no actual relationship between words and meaning, only a relationship we give them. In that sense, being the sense that all my profs, and all my texbooks say is true, then words are arbitrary.

As for "randomly placed comas", the only one I can find is between "other" and "countless", and that was probably a slip of my finger.
Other then that, any complaint you have about my use of punctuation, blame it on the school system. Punctuation was never drilled into me (neither was spelling until the last hear of high school, where it did no good), and I use comas to show a pause in speach. Thus, I type as I talk.

No proof can be given, one way or the other. It is a matter of faith. St. Anselm said, "I believe so that I may understand," meaning that only through faith do we understand the universe.

God, by his very nature (self existing, beyond space and time, omnipotent), defies human logic. Therefore, human logic will not lead you to God. If you wish to base your faith on logic, you will remain an agnostic, that is the only logical choice. But that is not the correct choice. And you know that, which is why you have asked this question.

This may help: On Certainty (http://geocities.com/jasoneheath/essays/esscertainty)since st. Anselm (I'm assuming you spelled that right) we've discovered things. for example, molecular biology makes life easier to understand without turning to insanity, excuse me, religion. But I agree with you on one thing: remaining agnostic is not the right choice. belief or disbelief are both fine, but uncertainty is worse than either. of course, the correct choice is belief in fact, not crazy monk-scribblings, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

I think I misread your points then. I was bickering against what seemed to be a "words are not arbitrary because the words directly relate to the meaning/object they describe", which is not true. There is nothing stopping "Apple" to mean what we call an "orange", which was my point, there is no actual relationship between words and meaning, only a relationship we give them. In that sense, being the sense that all my profs, and all my texbooks say is true, then words are arbitrary.

As for "randomly placed comas", the only one I can find is between "other" and "countless", and that was probably a slip of my finger.
Other then that, any complaint you have about my use of punctuation, blame it on the school system. Punctuation was never drilled into me (neither was spelling until the last hear of high school, where it did no good), and I use comas to show a pause in speach. Thus, I type as I talk.

You seemed to be disagreeing with what was being said before you, but you were in fact agreeing. The specific words used are arbitrary, but the meanings are not, which is why agreement on the meaning of words is necessary for communication.

I do the exact same thing with commas and it can be really bothersome. I never learned punctuation at all... ever. I just make it up as I go.

I think I misread your points then. I was bickering against what seemed to be a "words are not arbitrary because the words directly relate to the meaning/object they describe", which is not true. There is nothing stopping "Apple" to mean what we call an "orange", which was my point, there is no actual relationship between words and meaning, only a relationship we give them. In that sense, being the sense that all my profs, and all my texbooks say is true, then words are arbitrary.

As for "randomly placed comas", the only one I can find is between "other" and "countless", and that was probably a slip of my finger.
Other then that, any complaint you have about my use of punctuation, blame it on the school system. Punctuation was never drilled into me (neither was spelling until the last hear of high school, where it did no good), and I use comas to show a pause in speach. Thus, I type as I talk.I missed the statement that words are not arbitrary because the words directly relate to the meaning/object they describe, though maybe it was made. that is certainly wrong. what makes them non-arbitrary is that they have a meaning. Kergigglestiltzyenbopperclausendorf is arbitrary. it has no meaning. however, apple has a meaning, thus is not arbitrary, which I do not believe conflicts with your point.

EDIT: as for commas, there's another one between countless and lexical. as a general rule, whever you would say and if there was no pause, put a comma (assuming it's not being used as a conjunction) for example, you would not say 'countless and lexical categories', but you would say 'red and white and blue' if there were no commas. thus the and between red and whit becomes a comma. of course, the list must always have an 'and' before the last term. but you knew that. (I hope)

since st. Anselm (I'm assuming you spelled that right) we've discovered things. for example, molecular biology makes life easier to understand without turning to insanity, excuse me, religion. But I agree with you on one thing: remaining agnostic is not the right choice. belief or disbelief are both fine, but uncertainty is worse than either. of course, the correct choice is belief in fact, not crazy monk-scribblings, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Life is full of uncertainties, you should learn to live with them instead of insisting that you view the universe in one way or another.

of course, the correct choice is belief in fact, not crazy monk-scribblings, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

That's just it, there is no fact. You cannot be certain of anything. Everything you do, everyday, you do on faith. You don't know, when you fall asleep, that you will wake up the next morning. Yet you fall asleep anyway, BELIEVING you'll wake up next morning.

I just make it up as I go.


And in the end, isn't that all language is about?

Sorry, 3am, and I jumped in here to argue religion, and got sidetracked.. now when I can find a specific book, I'll refute all proofsusing the bible.

I missed the statement that words are not arbitrary because the words directly relate to the meaning/object they describe, though maybe it was made. that is certainly wrong. what makes them non-arbitrary is that they have a meaning. Kergigglestiltzyenbopperclausendorf is arbitrary. it has no meaning. however, apple has a meaning, thus is not arbitrary, which I do not believe conflicts with your point.

"Kergigglestiltzyenbopperclausendorf" could be understood as representitive of some meaning, and then it would be exactly the same as any other word. Conversely "apple" could be understood as representitive of no meaning, and therefor would appear only as a random collection of letters. Think about when you try to read a language you don't understand, the symbols they use seem to have no meaning to you, they appear random and arbitrary, but to readers of that language they are meaningful because people accept them as being meaningful.

And in the end, isn't that all language is about?

Not really, if I just made up words as I went gissk pap flanxr toblerone.

My last post in here, it was fun but this is getting silly, from 1st Timothy

1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

"Kergigglestiltzyenbopperclausendorf" could be understood as representitive of some meaning, and then it would be exactly the same as any other word. Conversely "apple" could be understood as representitive of no meaning, and therefor would appear only as a random collection of letters. Think about when you try to read a language you don't understand, the symbols they use seem to have no meaning to you, they appear random and arbitrary, but to readers of that language they are meaningful because people accept them as being meaningful.but there is no agreed-upon meaning. if I asked for a bushel of Kergigglestiltzyenbopperclausendorfs, even if I meant apples, no one would understand, thus making it as good as arbitrary. if I asked for apples, even if I meant oranges, I would get apples as you know the word, since that's what 'apples' means to english-speaking people. however, if Kergigglestiltzyenbopperclausendorf actually meant apples to me, it wouldn't be arbitrary to me, so I suppose it is subjective.

I've always thought Timothy was silly, too.

but there is no agreed-upon meaning. if I asked for a bushel of Kergigglestiltzyenbopperclausendorfs, even if I meant apples, no one would understand, thus making it as good as arbitrary. if I asked for apples, even if I meant oranges, I would get apples as you know the word, since that's what 'apples' means to english-speaking people. however, if Kergigglestiltzyenbopperclausendorf actually meant apples to me, it wouldn't be arbitrary to me, so I suppose it is subjective.

Yes, it is subjective, which, again, is why agreement is needed for communication. If everyone had their own set of words, even if they all described the same meanings communication would be impossible because no two people would understand the same set of syllables as having the same meaning.

What is the difference between the word "apple" and "manzana?" Is there any difference in meaning, or is the difference only in the collection of letters or sounds used to represent that meaning?

My last post in here, it was fun but this is getting silly, from 1st Timothy

1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm. and from jan/feb '05 traveler:
A blue vinyl Pan Am bag, a Shriner's red fez, and 7,000 funky aloha shirts ranging from $4 to $5,000 jam every square inch of space at Bailey's Antiques and Aloha shirts
see my point?

Read Romans Chapter 5, you may understand a little better (Bible.com)


Read "Bilgames and the Netherworld", lines 45 - 69, they prove not only that there is a god, but many gods and goddesses, and that you are wrong.

Heh... I just HAD to throw that in.. since you're using a "holy scripture" to prove existance, I will to, a scripture that goes against yours..


Now to sit back and wait to be called any number of names that I know will happen for using that pagan example.

I've always thought Timothy was silly, too.

Isn't it remarkable that a group of people asking obedience based on an understanding of the universe that requires ignoring logic would declaim those professions and those people who use logic?

Yes, it is subjective, which, again, is why agreement is needed for communication. If everyone had their own set of words, even if they all described the same meanings communication would be impossible because no two people would understand the same set of syllables as having the same meaning.

What is the difference between the word "apple" and "manzana?" Is there any difference in meaning, or is the difference only in the collection of letters or sounds used to represent that meaning?agreed. and meaning-wise, there's no difference except who can identify it as such a meaning.

Read "Bilgames and the Netherworld", lines 45 - 69, they prove not only that there is a god, but many gods and goddesses, and that you are wrong.

Heh... I just HAD to throw that in.. since you're using a "holy scripture" to prove existance, I will to, a scripture that goes against yours..


Now to sit back and wait to be called any number of names that I know will happen for using that pagan example.PAGANS!!!! I :fluffle: pagans!

no, really, you have quite a point. while we're at it, why is greek, roman, norse or egyptian religion called 'myth'? what's more unbelievable about Zeus than Jehovah, Yahweh, or Allah? the only difference is their age and what prefix comes before -theism.

You cannot be convinced unless you hear the word, see my logic. I dont expect you to turn into an instant bible banger I just thought I'd spread a little seed around.

Luke 8:11 - Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

PAGANS!!!! I :fluffle: pagans!

no, really, you have quite a point. while we're at it, why is greek, roman, norse or egyptian religion called 'myth'? what's more unbelievable about Zeus than Jehovah, Yahweh, or Allah? the only difference is their age and what prefix comes before -theism.

But, by "logic" wouldn't the oldest religions be the truest? Because, in fact, they are closer to the beginning.

Which I believe would make Kengir (Sumerian) and Hindu to be the only true religions.

agreed. and meaning-wise, there's no difference except who can identify it as such a meaning.

Yup... the symbols are arbitrary, but they represent a universal meaning.

We run into a little bit of trouble in the field of fiction, because the symbols represent imagined phenomena, rather than existential phenomena. And this ties into the original topic of the thread a bit, because if fiction did not exist, then all words would be representitive of existential phenomena, and the existence of a word for God would require the existance of God. In our case, however, God could be a word used to describe the idea, not the physic of God. That is the interpretation I like the most, that God does not exist in a conventional sense, but does exist within the minds of everyone as part of our psychology.

You cannot be convinced unless you hear the word, see my logic. I dont expect you to turn into an instant bible banger I just thought I'd spread a little seed around.

Luke 8:11 - Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.My last post in here

Ahem?

You cannot be convinced unless you hear the word, see my logic. I dont expect you to turn into an instant bible banger I just thought I'd spread a little seed around.

Luke 8:11 - Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.


Bilgames and Akka: Line 15-17; "Bilgames, lord of Kullab, placing his trust in the goddess Inanna, took no notice of what the city elders said.

I'm going to refute every bible thing you bring up with an equally valid passage from Sumerian texts.

But, by "logic" wouldn't the oldest religions be the truest? Because, in fact, they are closer to the beginning.

Which I believe would make Kengir (Sumerian) and Hindu to be the only true religions.

Sadly, logic doesn't hold with that idea. Older does not necessarily mean more true. However, there truly is no reason to believe that any idea about the existance or non-existance of a God or Gods is any more fantastic or unbelievable than any other. All ideas are equally improbable.

People agree on the meaning of the symbols, but the fact that the symbols are not the phenomena they describe, but only representitives of them, requires that they be agreed upon, rather than arbitrary. That is to say that the universe is not arbitrary, only the words we use to describe it. The particular symbol we use for a given meaning is arbitrary when it is created, and stays arbitrary even after it becomes widely accepted, but the meaning is inherent in nature and not arbitrary at all. Continuing with the fruit theme, if we decided to call apples oranges, and oranges apples, and everybody agreed, the meaning would not have changed, only the symbols, because the symbols are only associated with the meanings because of common understanding. The meanings themselves, however, are an aspect of the objects themselves, not the symbols.

1. The universe (and by extension the nature of objects, or more accurately, our perception thereof) is not arbitrary? What properties does the universe and/or our perception have that negate such a characterization?

2. Even if you assert that there is an existential and "objective" basis for language, that does not necessitate that language itself is any less arbitrary. All you have is a belief that the nature of objects is not arbitrary, and that our perceptions thereof are generally not arbitrary either.

Sorry I'm really outta here now, Yall have phun philosophizin now.

Sadly, logic doesn't hold with that idea. Older does not necessarily mean more true. However, there truly is no reason to believe that any idea about the existance or non-existance of a God or Gods is any more fantastic or unbelievable than any other. All ideas are equally improbable.


Umm.. I put quotation marks around logic for a reason. I wasn't claiming any real logic, just a percieved one.
Like how some people can percieve that a stork brings babies as logical, even though it's not to others.

But, by "logic" wouldn't the oldest religions be the truest? Because, in fact, they are closer to the beginning.

Which I believe would make Kengir (Sumerian) and Hindu to be the only true religions.actually, it would make spirit-worship the true religion. or, as it's original practicioners called it, "Ugh". I'm unfamiliar with Kengir, so maybe they're the same thing. oh, and yeah by logic, assuming there was a divine begining, older=truer, aproximately, since fact changes, evolves (I said the 'e' word!), and becomes distorted. for example, Pandora's box. there was no hope in the original Greek myth. that was added by modern westerners uncomfortable with that level of pure tragedy. the ancient greeks took their tragedy straight. proof: Oedipus Rex.

no, really, you have quite a point. while we're at it, why is greek, roman, norse or egyptian religion called 'myth'? what's more unbelievable about Zeus than Jehovah, Yahweh, or Allah? the only difference is their age and what prefix comes before -theism.
'Myths' related to religions are not the same as the modern definition of 'myth', which is equivocal to 'a falsehood that is generally accepted'.

The ancient/religious myths are about metaphors and symbolism, not lies.
"A retelling of a real-life incident made the distinction between myth and myth clear for me, and I hope it works for you. This happened during a radio interview when a fellow named Joe was being interviewed about myth, a topic on which he was passingly familiar* (the dialog is paraphrased). The interviewer began by stating what a myth is:

Host: A myth is a lie.
Joe: No. A myth is a metaphor.
Host: A metaphor is a lie!
Joe: No... Give me an example of a metaphor. What is a metaphor?
[The Host hemmed and hawed for a couple of minutes (he wasn't expecting a pop-quiz). Finally he thought of one.]
Host: Bill runs like a deer.
Joe: That is not a metaphor, that is a simile. The metaphor is: Bill is a deer.
Host: That's a lie!
Joe: No, that's a myth."

Quoting myself in an old essay. The "Joe" there is Joseph Campbell.

The distinction that was being made here is the difference between a simple comparison to a subject and a symbolic identification with the subject. A metaphor is a simile taken to another level. The simile "Bill runs like a deer" is a comparison between Bill and the deer; when we hear the comparison we know that Bill is fleet of foot. The metaphor "Bill is a deer" says the same thing, but speaks to those who are in the know, who can listen for the metaphor; those who know Bill, and so recognize the meaning behind the words. Someone coming along later and not knowing who Bill is may not understand; "You have a deer named Bill??" But once they too are in the know the metaphor becomes true for them as well. "Ahh! Bill ...deer ...yes, I get it now."

1. The universe (and by extension the nature of objects, or more accurately, our perception thereof) is not arbitrary? What properties does the universe and/or our perception have that negate such a characterization?

2. Even if you assert that there is an existential and "objective" basis for language, that does not necessitate that language itself is any less arbitrary. All you have is a belief that the nature of objects is not arbitrary, and that our perceptions thereof are generally not arbitrary either.

I cannot prove or demonstrate in any way that the universe has an objective aspect, it is simply what I believe.

I assert that there is an objective basis for language only in that words are associated by context and convention with understanding of the objective reality of the universe, as observed by the senses. I have been saying this over and over again, the words are arbitrary, but the meanings they are used to represent are not.

Yes, all I have in a belief that objects are not arbitrary in nature, and that our perceptions of those objects is not arbitrary either. In other words, I believe there is a universe, and I'm not schizophrenic. I could be wrong on one or both of those points, but in the mean time I'm pretty happy believing as I do.

And I'm not talking about the Bible being written by God through Man line, or something you could easily infer a different meaning from. I'm talking about absolute, concrete proof. Can you give it to me?

Don't think anyone can give you concrete proof to whether God exists. Because God is a personal experience and a personal relationship. Though, I can pray for you that God comes to you and show you himself.

actually, it would make spirit-worship the true religion. or, as it's original practicioners called it, "Ugh". I'm unfamiliar with Kengir, so maybe they're the same thing. oh, and yeah by logic, assuming there was a divine begining, older=truer, aproximately, since fact changes, evolves (I said the 'e' word!), and becomes distorted. for example, Pandora's box. there was no hope in the original Greek myth. that was added by modern westerners uncomfortable with that level of pure tragedy. the ancient greeks took their tragedy straight. proof: Oedipus Rex.


Actually, an interesting factoid, Kengir (I'm just throwing that word around, it's only the modern name for the Sumerian religion, and literally means "People of Sumer" in Sumerian) is the religion which the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Nubian... and so on, based their organisation on.
The infamous "Greek Pantheon" was an organisational system copied from the older Sumerian style.
It was, in effect, the oldest organised religion (Assuming Hinduism was not organised at the beginning).

Of course, you can go into odd tangents, like my theory that the Sumerian people were Aryans who moved into the area (since the Sumerians were not Semetic, like everyone else around them). But I know too little of any ancient Indian language to be able to compare them and find out.

well, I'm going to have to disagree with your explanation of myth. a myth is similar to a fable, but older. the term is used to denote either a story that is not true but has symbolism (pandora: symbolism: problems are womens' fault. that's the symbolism. that's another thing: the symbolism is not neccessarily true) or a lie, such as 'the myth of evolution' (which is another example of the point not having to be true). of course, those who use it in the second way are using it inaccurately, since evolution is a theory, not a story. 'Bill is a deer' is not a myth. it is, however, a perfectly good metaphor.

I cannot prove or demonstrate in any way that the universe has an objective aspect, it is simply what I believe.
The fact that it is necessary to believe this in order for science to operate is a strong indicator that the idea has some merit. :)

Actually, an interesting factoid, Kengir (I'm just throwing that word around, it's only the modern name for the Sumerian religion, and literally means "People of Sumer" in Sumerian) is the religion which the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Nubian... and so on, based their organisation on.
The infamous "Greek Pantheon" was an organisational system copied from the older Sumerian style.
It was, in effect, the oldest organised religion (Assuming Hinduism was not organised at the beginning).

Of course, you can go into odd tangents, like my theory that the Sumerian people were Aryans who moved into the area (since the Sumerians were not Semetic, like everyone else around them). But I know too little of any ancient Indian language to be able to compare them and find out.so it's not spirit worship? then it's not the first religion. well, spirit or ancestor worship.

it's 3 AM and I'm arguing about god. woah. dejá vu...

well, I'm going to have to disagree with your explanation of myth. a myth is similar to a fable, but older. the term is used to denote either a story that is not true but has symbolism (pandora: symbolism: problems are womens' fault. that's the symbolism. that's another thing: the symbolism is not neccessarily true) or a lie, such as 'the myth of evolution' (which is another example of the point not having to be true). of course, those who use it in the second way are using it inaccurately, since evolution is a theory, not a story. 'Bill is a deer' is not a myth. it is, however, a perfectly good metaphor.
Well, the dictionary and the study of mythology disagree with your defintions.

Myth, in the context of the "ancient myths," contains metaphor, which may represent symbolism that is entirely true.

so it's not spirit worship? then it's not the first religion. well, spirit or ancestor worship.


Define spirit worship then.

By defining gods/goddesses, ranking them, giving them tasks, and then paying tribue appropriatly, it seems to fit both organised religion, and what I think you mean by spirit worship.

Also, since ancestors are worshiped, some even being able to achieve god status in the underworld (Specificly thinking of Dimuzi and Bilgames). As well as sacrafices (giving food and water) must be made to/for the dead ancestors for them to exist comfortably in the afterlife, otherwise they just float around starving, miserable, and thirsty.

so it's not spirit worship? then it's not the first religion. well, spirit or ancestor worship.
What do you suppose is the "first" religion?

I cannot prove or demonstrate in any way that the universe has an objective aspect, it is simply what I believe.

I assert that there is an objective basis for language only in that words are associated by context and convention with understanding of the objective reality of the universe, as observed by the senses. I have been saying this over and over again, the words are arbitrary, but the meanings they are used to represent are not.

Words make up the language. Words are arbitrary. Therefore the language is arbitrary, per your own premises. Your assertion that meaning is not arbitrary in the case of objects is not relevant unless you are asserting that meaning makes up language. I rather thought that language was a representation of meaning, not the meaning itself. I suppose that you could assert that language is made up of both words and meanings, which would mean that language is both arbitrary and not arbitrary, but that's an apparent paradox.

Yes, all I have in a belief that objects are not arbitrary in nature, and that our perceptions of those objects is not arbitrary either. In other words, I believe there is a universe, and I'm not schizophrenic. I could be wrong on one or both of those points, but in the mean time I'm pretty happy believing as I do.

So am I. And I'm glad that you're happy. That's the best any of us can expect, really.

Well, the dictionary and the study of mythology disagree with your defintions.

Myth, in the context of the "ancient myths," contains metaphor, which may represent symbolism that is entirely true.
myth ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(mth)
n.
A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.

Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.


A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.

A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

I don't see metaphors. lies are in there, but notes as part of an ideology.
the source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=myth)

What do you suppose is the "first" religion? spirit or ancestor (a type of spirit) worship. not organized, but widespread enough to be a religion, not a cult. simply praying to spirits such as that of the forest, the wolf, the eagle, the rabbit (ooh-la-la!), or your great-grandfather. that's the first religion. unless you count self-belief.

spirit or ancestor (a type of spirit) worship. not organized, but widespread enough to be a religion, not a cult. simply praying to spirits such as that of the forest, the wolf, the eagle, the rabbit (ooh-la-la!), or your great-grandfather. that's the first religion. unless you count self-belief.


How do you know that's the first religion?
All we have to date religions by are writings, be they on clay, paper, or stone.
And as such, either hunting can be counted as a religion because it's on cave paintings, or we can ignore that.... (I don't wanna go into things that have no real backing but spectulation), or we can go with those things that have writing about them. And the Sumerians invented actual writing (not drawing), and used it for their religious beliefs.

Besides, isn;t organised religion still spirit worship?

Also, since ancestors are worshiped, some even being able to achieve god status in the underworld (Specificly thinking of Dimuzi and Bilgames). As well as sacrafices (giving food and water) must be made to/for the dead ancestors for them to exist comfortably in the afterlife, otherwise they just float around starving, miserable, and thirsty.
Curious to know about Dumuzi, re ancestor worship! The myth of Inanna and the dying and resurrected Dumuzi is specially inherited from the lunar myth of palaeolithic times; in fact, one of the best instances we have of this myth in archaeological record.

a fundamental type

Interesting. In this context, this phrase is basically a metaphor for metaphor. Someone writing dictionaries has a good sense of humor. :)

How do you know that's the first religion?
All we have to date religions by are writings, be they on clay, paper, or stone.
And as such, either hunting can be counted as a religion because it's on cave paintings, or we can ignore that.... (I don't wanna go into things that have no real backing but spectulation), or we can go with those things that have writing about them. And the Sumerians invented actual writing (not drawing), and used it for their religious beliefs.

Besides, isn;t organised religion still spirit worship?alright use your logic, but all evidence besides the first written source points to ancestral and nature-spirit worship as the first religion, including the fact that all other religions are built the back of those fundamentals. oh, and 'fundemental type' means, more closely, 'archetype', not 'metaphor'.

Words make up the language. Words are arbitrary. Therefore the language is arbitrary, per your own premises. Your assertion that meaning is not arbitrary in the case of objects is not relevant unless you are asserting that meaning makes up language. I rather thought that language was a representation of meaning, not the meaning itself. I suppose that you could assert that language is made up of both words and meanings, which would mean that language is both arbitrary and not arbitrary, but that's an apparent paradox.

I do assert that language is made up of both words and meanings, but rather than calling all of language both arbitrary and not arbitrary I acknoweldge that it should not be judged based on one some of it's constituent parts, so we say that language is in part arbitrary and in part not arbitrary, thus escaping the paradox.

Curious to know about Dumuzi, re ancestor worship! The myth of Inanna and the dying and resurrected Dumuzi is specially inherited from the lunar myth of palaeolithic times; in fact, one of the best instances we have of this myth in archaeological record.


Actually, the closest scholars have had to relating the story of Inannas inprisonment by her sister in Irkalla, and the subsequent use of her husband Dumuzi, who was the mortal king of one of the cities (Uruk I believe... she has a reputation of going after the leader of Uruk) as a replacement for her inprisonment in Irkalla. Since by Sumerian religious docterine, you are stuck in Irkalla once you go there, unless you can find someone to replace you.

Anyway, the closest scholars have is the crop cycle. Unfortunatly, it doesn't fit completely well in the way most people put it, since Dumuzi does not ever leave Irkalla after his inprisonment.
And besides, Nanna, the moon god, and Utu, the sun god, are already represented in a mythical sense of Irkalla, since they go there at certian times and provide judgement for the dead.

alright use your logic, but all evidence besides the first written source points to ancestral and nature-spirit worship as the first religion, including the fact that all other religions are built the back of those fundamentals. oh, and 'fundemental type' means, more closely, 'archetype', not 'metaphor'.

I said that "fundamental type" was a metaphor for metaphor, not that such is it's denotation. As you have already demonstrated, metaphors are not truth in the sense of a 1:1 correlation.