NationStates Jolt Archive

I hope that the following creates a debate that does not resort to "this book says this", etc...

Anyway....

Do you believe in a substance infinite, eternal, inmutable, independent, omniscient, and omnipotent?

I wonder if the idea of God proves his real existence. If there is really no such being, then I must have created the conception, and if I could make such a proposition, then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true. Therefore, there must be some kind of archetype for an infinite being, from which the conception was derived in the first place. In other words, the existence of God is contained in the idea we have of him/her/it.

A book I wrote when I was 5 says 'choo'. I think I've proved my standpoint on this.

Something so incredibly finely tuned as the universe did not just appear from nothing.

There has to of been a creator.

There is no basis for atheism.

Something so incredibly finely tuned as the universe did not just appear from nothing.

There has to of been a creator.
You see, the problem is that jump of logic there.

Something so incredibly finely tuned as the universe did not just appear from nothing.

There has to of been a creator.

There is no basis for atheism.

Something so finely tuned as a creator did not just appear from nothing.

There has to have been something to create it.

I have a question about god - who cares?

Either:
- the universe is as it is, and god exists,
or:
- the universe is as it is, and god doesn't exist.

either way, the universe is as it is, so who cares?

I have a question about god - who cares?

Either:
- the universe is as it is, and god exists,
or:
- the universe is as it is, and god doesn't exist.

either way, the universe is as it is, so who cares?

Er. People apparently.

I have a question about god - who cares?

Either:
- the universe is as it is, and god exists,
or:
- the universe is as it is, and god doesn't exist.

either way, the universe is as it is, so who cares?

It may not affect your day to day life to such an extent. But if one or the other was proven to be 100% true, you don't think it would cause a huge psychological shift amongst society/ies?

Something so finely tuned as a creator did not just appear from nothing.

There has to have been something to create it.

That depends if you believe it exists within this universe.

It may not affect your day to day life to such an extent. But if one or the other was proven to be 100% true, you don't think it would cause a huge psychological shift amongst society/ies?

only societies containing gullible dumbasses. if it doesn't affect my life, why would it affect the way i think about my life?

edit: and since it is impossible to prove, who cares what would happen if it were proven? That's about as useful as wondering what your life would be like if I was god.

I hope that the following creates a debate that does not resort to "this book says this", etc...

Anyway....

Do you believe in a substance infinite, eternal, inmutable, independent, omniscient, and omnipotent?

I wonder if the idea of God proves his real existence. If there is really no such being, then I must have created the conception, and if I could make such a proposition, then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true. Therefore, there must be some kind of archetype for an infinite being, from which the conception was derived in the first place. In other words, the existence of God is contained in the idea we have of him/her/it.

You have fallen into the trap of consequntialism, think really think. Why dose something need a cause simple becuase evey event youve view to date has had to your knowledge of estimation a cause.

but as hume said. " if you where to view only white swans, you would assume that all the swans in the world where white, untill you visited austrialia and saw a black one."

Assumtion is the mother of all fuck ups, We know really very very very little about the inner workings of space, and our premature conclusion that it had a start, we simply cant assume this. yet we do

Therefore i must dissagree, the idea of an event or object dose not nessisitate the idea that it had a cause, thats simply your value judgement.

Just as the idea of God, dose not nessisitate god existing for that idea to exist.

either way, the universe is as it is, so who cares?
It's more like a case where either the universe is as it is and there is no God, or the universe is as it is and there is a God and a consequence for not believing. Even that's a gross simplification of other possibilities as well, I'm just reducing it two the two major ones here.

Something so incredibly finely tuned as the universe did not just appear from nothing.

There has to of been a creator.

There is no basis for atheism.

No basis for Atheism? I'm not an Atheist, but are you forgetting the basis of their rights to choose not to believe in something? You cant make someone believe in a God/religion. They have a belief (or non belief system) that is based on their own principles and theories. Doesnt matter if it makes sense to you or not. Thats your opinion. Which of course you have the right to feel as you do.

Have we not established that there cant be an original thread about God without it turning into a god exists/doesnt exist, creationism/evolution argument?

It's more like a case where either the universe is as it is and there is no God, or the universe is as it is and there is a God and a consequence for not believing. Even that's a gross simplification of other possibilities as well, I'm just reducing it two the two major ones here.

oh i see, if god exists we have to be scared of going to hell. that is, if god exists and hell exists. so many ifs, who cares?

only societies containing gullible dumbasses. if it doesn't affect my life, why would it affect the way i think about my life?

so, infact every society on the planet.

if God was only proven to exist in the mind, then maybe a more universal set of beliefs or morals could maybe exist.

Whereas if God was proven to exist (in the christian fashion), and heaven could only be attainable under certain conditions, you don't think most people would follow the rules to get them in?

You have fallen into the trap of consequntialism, think really think. Why dose something need a cause simple becuase evey event youve view to date has had to your knowledge of estimation a cause.

but as hume said. " if you where to view only white swans, you would assume that all the swans in the world where white, untill you visited austrialia and saw a black one."

Assumtion is the mother of all fuck ups, We know really very very very little about the inner workings of space, and our premature conclusion that it had a start, we simply cant assume this. yet we do

Therefore i must dissagree, the idea of an event or object dose not nessisitate the idea that it had a cause, thats simply your value judgement.

Just as the idea of God, dose not nessisitate god existing for that idea to exist.

no? so God cannot exist in the mind of someone?

no? so God cannot exist in the mind of someone?
that would not be god then, would it, it would just be rationlist construct of a singular persons mind, he wouldnt be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and bevelone,as even if he was a hilluscination, he would be limited by that person mind and its resorces, therefore he would not meet the offical critieria, for the Jehova class near eastern god, Judesim, chrisitanity, islam and so on.
Therefore nope by logic he set himself he dose not furfill his own criteria, therefore god could not (if he where what we are told by relgion and our understand of what if if to be a god) exist solely in the mind.

Something so incredibly finely tuned as the universe did not just appear from nothing.

There has to of been a creator.

There is no basis for atheism.
If the universe is so finely tuned, why does Mars, Saturn and the other planets devoid of life? How come animals cease to exist all the time if the universe is finely tuned?

If there is a creator, he cut corners when he designed it, methinks.

Not to mention that you are missing a couple of logical steps from your premisce to your conclusion.

And there is basis for atheism even if there is a supreme being.

I have a question about god - who cares?

Humanity as a whole would have been a lot less advanced if we used that kind of reasoning.

Think about all the medical, scientific, philosophical breakthrough we had because someone decided that "Who cares?" would not be enough.

that would not be god then, would it, it would just be rationlist construct of a singular persons mind, he wouldnt be omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and bevelone,as even if he was a hilluscination, he would be limited by that person mind and its resorces, therefore he would not meet the offical critieria, for the Jehova class near eastern god, Judesim, chrisitanity, islam and so on.
Therefore nope by logic he set himself he dose not furfill his own criteria, therefore god could not (if he where what we are told by relgion and our understand of what if if to be a god) exist solely in the mind.

I quite agree. Yet to many people he does exist (in some shape of form). And according to my knowledge God is an idea. And thus limited to the mind.

Many children believe in Santa.
Is that a proof for the existence of Santa?

I don't believe that there is a god.

Something so incredibly finely tuned as the universe did not just appear from nothing.

There has to of been a creator.

There is no basis for atheism.
Your wrong, go back and read what ive written.
Your whole conclusion is the failings of an mind that has not grasped all the concepts yet, sucks to be you.


I quite agree. Yet to many people he does exist (in some shape of form). And according to my knowledge God is an idea. And thus limited to the mind.
You get a high five

THE WHOLE CAUSATION AGRUMENT IS ALL. YES ALL BASED ON DEFUNKED LARGELY INCOHERENT CHRISTIAN PHILOSOSPY AND THINKING.

Hume(least i think it was, not looking it up to lazy) i think it was a least, totally ripped on this with whole theory of causality.

Many children believe in Santa.
Is that a proof for the existence of Santa?

I don't believe that there is a god.

to the children yes. Proof is all very nice. But you'll notice that most people believe what they want.
Most people believe that we evolved from lower animals. Yet scientists are the first to say its a theory. So most people believe something that could (probably not but never know!) be wrong.

to the children yes. Proof is all very nice. But you'll notice that most people believe what they want.
Most people believe that we evolved from lower animals. Yet scientists are the first to say its a theory. So most people believe something that could (probably not but never know!) be wrong.
But there is an objektive truth which everybody has to accept. When I believe that I can fly, in fact I still can't.
Although neither God's existence nor his non-existence are part of this truth.

Although neither God's existence nor his non-existence are part of this truth.

Intresting expand on this please it is not instanlty clear.

But there is an objektive truth which everybody has to accept. When I believe that I can fly, in fact I still can't.
Although neither God's existence nor his non-existence are part of this truth.

actually liking this debate so far, no (insert book)-thumping religious nuts yet!

But how can something be objective in this sense? I flew for a total of 4 hours 2 weeks ago. Of course i did not flap my arms and take off, but i still flew.
It seems to me that everything is subjective as it all depends on how we process the information we are given.
Cannot 2 people watch the same event, and recount 2 entirely different stories afterwards?

Cannot 2 people watch the same event, and recount 2 entirely different stories afterwards?
Opinions and attitudes are subjective, but there are some physical laws which count for everyone. Gravity, for example. Nobody can say that gravity doesn't exist objective.
Also, I think that there must be some objectiveness in what's right and what's not. If everything is subjective, none could be blamed for anything he did.

Opinions and attitudes are subjective, but there are some physical laws which count for everyone. Gravity, for example. Nobody can say that gravity doesn't exist objective.
Just a few days ago, somebody here denied the existence of gravity.
They can certainly say it, and even believe it.

I wonder if the idea of God proves his real existence. If there is really no such being, then I must have created the conception, and if I could make such a proposition, then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true. Therefore, there must be some kind of archetype for an infinite being, from which the conception was derived in the first place. In other words, the existence of God is contained in the idea we have of him/her/it.

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

"ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists."

Just a few days ago, somebody here denied the existence of gravity.
They can certainly say it, and even believe it.
They can try to ignore gravity's presence. Let's see how good they will be at it.

Something so incredibly finely tuned as the universe did not just appear from nothing.

There has to of been a creator.

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

"COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists."

I can imagine up a pink unicorn with wings. Doesn't mean it exists. I can imagine flying. Doesn't mean I can.

--

If we use the 'everything must have been created, especially something as complex as the universe' then why is God an exception to 'everything'?

--

About gravity... I've thought about that. I don't have proof there is gravity. I'm just taught it and believe it to be true. For all I know it could be some crazy made up idea. People used to be taught the world was flat. I'm sure there is proof for gravity and I shall continue assuming it to be true but I don't actually know the proof for it.

Wow, how totally off the point have I gone...

Opinions and attitudes are subjective, but there are some physical laws which count for everyone. Gravity, for example. Nobody can say that gravity doesn't exist objective.
Also, I think that there must be some objectiveness in what's right and what's not. If everything is subjective, none could be blamed for anything he did.

again, I beleive in the theory of gravity. I drop something and it falls to the ground. Yet I never studied the theory or remember it anyway. We know what we know because we were taught it. Or that at least the correct theory makes the most sense.

But when people are blamed for something, say a crime, ie theft. Is that not the subjective values of the nation/state you live in?

Whats the new and different part about this post compared to all the other God ones?

Opinions and attitudes are subjective, but there are some physical laws which count for everyone. Gravity, for example. Nobody can say that gravity doesn't exist objective.
Also, I think that there must be some objectiveness in what's right and what's not. If everything is subjective, none could be blamed for anything he did.
Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks. :)

Seriously, Gravity is variable and is non-existent in some places (space). It is concievable that a space-faring race is not aware of gravity.

to the children yes. Proof is all very nice. But you'll notice that most people believe what they want.
Most people believe that we evolved from lower animals. Yet scientists are the first to say its a theory. So most people believe something that could (probably not but never know!) be wrong.

Not another person who doesn't know what a theory is in the scientific sense!

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation that best complies with the evidence.

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

"ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) I define God to be X.
(2) Since I can conceive of X, X must exist.
(3) Therefore, God exists."

thanks!!!!

But when people are blamed for something, say a crime, ie theft. Is that not the subjective values of the nation/state you live in?
Yes, but there must be an objective code for human behaviour. Although none culture or human has totally found it, there are some laws which count in every human community which evolved on earth. (For example, killing each other without any reason is banned in every culture.)

I may add, that this thought of mine is subjective too.

Gravity is a myth, the earth sucks.
Well...earth sucks indeed. That's what gravity tells us. (Or something like that.^^)

I can imagine up a pink unicorn with wings. Doesn't mean it exists. I can imagine flying. Doesn't mean I can.

--

If we use the 'everything must have been created, especially something as complex as the universe' then why is God an exception to 'everything'?

--

About gravity... I've thought about that. I don't have proof there is gravity. I'm just taught it and believe it to be true. For all I know it could be some crazy made up idea. People used to be taught the world was flat. I'm sure there is proof for gravity and I shall continue assuming it to be true but I don't actually know the proof for it.

Wow, how totally off the point have I gone...

but you are right.

Whats the new and different part about this post compared to all the other God ones?

have you read the original post? (just checking going by your name...)

no religion involved?

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation that best complies with the evidence.

I wouldn't define fact as something which seems like the most likely explanation. Again, look back in history. It seemed the most likely explanation that everything revolved around us (EDIT:the sun, planets etc around the earth). Was that fact? It was seen as fact but it wasn't. So why are things different now? We don't know, 100% certainity that evolution is true. So it isn't fact. It's just the most likely explanation.

I wouldn't define fact as something which seems like the most likely explanation. Again, look back in history. It seemed the most likely explanation that everything revolved around us (EDIT:the sun, planets etc around the earth). Was that fact? It was seen as fact but it wasn't. So why are things different now? We don't know, 100% certainity that evolution is true. So it isn't fact. It's just the most likely explanation.

No, evolution is a fact. It has been studied and observed.

The theory of evolution is the explanation and description as to how evolution happens. Just like the theory of gravity is the explanation and description of gravity, while gravity itself is a fact. The theory will change the more we know about gravity, but gravity itself will not. Same thing with the theory of evolution - it will be revised to fit with future discoveries, but evolution itself won't.

[QUOTE=Daroth]I wonder if the idea of God proves his real existence. If there is really no such being, then I must have created the conception, and if I could make such a proposition, then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true.QUOTE]

What do you mean 'unmake this preposition'? 'Unmake a preposition' makes as much sense as 'unmake an idea'. You could withdraw a preposition, but it would always exist as something you thought up, true or untrue.

Not another person who doesn't know what a theory is in the scientific sense!

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation that best complies with the evidence.

well to date, I have not met a biologist who is willing to say for 100% certainty that the current theory of evolution is the sole and only explanation for life on this planet.
Remember we are talking about a puzzle where a few pieces are still missing.

have you read the original post? (just checking going by your name...)

no religion involved?

Yup, thats the name of my country in nation states, it has nothing to do with me personally other than its the type of nation I wanted to create in this game. I read the original post and got to wondering whats so different about this one. I still havent found the difference.

well to date, I have not met a biologist who is willing to say for 100% certainty that the current theory of evolution is the sole and only explanation for life on this planet.
Remember we are talking about a puzzle where a few pieces are still missing.

Hence why the theory is constantly revised to fit with the evidence.

Evolution itself, though, is a fact.

Oh, and the theory of evolution is not an explanation for life on this planet. There are several theories on abiogenesis that cover that.

[QUOTE=Daroth]I wonder if the idea of God proves his real existence. If there is really no such being, then I must have created the conception, and if I could make such a proposition, then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true.QUOTE]

What do you mean 'unmake this preposition'? 'Unmake a preposition' makes as much sense as 'unmake an idea'. You could withdraw a preposition, but it would always exist as something you thought up, true or untrue.

(sigh) .....then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true.

notice the last 4 words? that is my answer. so no you cant unmake it

thanks!!!!

I was ridiculing your "proof".

[QUOTE=Pyromanstahn]

(sigh) .....then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true.

notice the last 4 words? that is my answer. so no you cant unmake it

But you are suggesting that as the preposition of God cannot be unmade then that proves it can't have been made. But that would mean that no prepositions about anything can be made, since no preposition can be 'unmade'. It is not true that if you can make something you must be able to unmake it.

I wonder if the idea of God proves his real existence. If there is really no such being, then I must have created the conception, and if I could make such a proposition, then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true. Therefore, there must be some kind of archetype for an infinite being, from which the conception was derived in the first place. In other words, the existence of God is contained in the idea we have of him/her/it.

This is the fallacy proposed by St. Anselm (or pretty close, anyway).

I could say that the idea of a unicorn proves its existence. Or the idea of my having a 14 inch penis as big around as my forearm proves its existence.

Wishing doesn't make it so.

Hence why the theory is constantly revised to fit with the evidence.

Evolution itself, though, is a fact.

I never at any point said evolution was fact or fiction. What I was refering to is what people believe. Most people believe in evolution. Do they believe this because they have made an exhaustive study of all knowledge pertaining to the subject, or is because they were taught it in school and told it was fact and only silly people believe in creationism.

Yup, thats the name of my country in nation states, it has nothing to do with me personally other than its the type of nation I wanted to create in this game. I read the original post and got to wondering whats so different about this one. I still havent found the difference.

probably nothing in the end. Just hoping to create a more interesting debate than the usual. YOUR GOING TO HELL FOR NOT BELIEVE!!! or something similar.
Was hoping for original ideas and views, or at least not parroting sum web source

I was ridiculing your "proof".

hell happy people are showing an interest. By the way my proof is only an idea and is just as tangible as a pink unicorn

[QUOTE=Daroth]

But you are suggesting that as the preposition of God cannot be unmade then that proves it can't have been made. But that would mean that no prepositions about anything can be made, since no preposition can be 'unmade'. It is not true that if you can make something you must be able to unmake it.

if i can make a wall, i can unmake it. knock it down.
Whereas a proposition once made, cannot be unmade.

[QUOTE=Pyromanstahn]

if i can make a wall, i can unmake it. knock it down.
Whereas a proposition once made, cannot be unmade.

Yes so your proof is rubbish. (no offense)

[QUOTE=Daroth]

Yes so your proof is rubbish. (no offense)

I wonder if the idea of God proves his real existence. If there is really no such being, then I must have created the conception, and if I could make such a proposition, then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true. Therefore, there must be some kind of archetype for an infinite being, from which the conception was derived in the first place. In other words, the existence of God is contained in the idea we have of him/her/it.

Read the first sentence. I WONDER whether the idea of God proves his real existance.

I've attempted to create a situation where people can voice ideas and such. NOT go "I can prove you wrong I read this, etc..." What some people seem to like to do is pull theories of the net and treat them as their own. Debate is not simply about "me right, you wrong". nothing is gained and nothing is learnt. Its no better than masturbation of the mind. all you do is gratify yourself.

[QUOTE=Pyromanstahn]

I wonder if the idea of God proves his real existence. If there is really no such being, then I must have created the conception, and if I could make such a proposition, then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true. Therefore, there must be some kind of archetype for an infinite being, from which the conception was derived in the first place. In other words, the existence of God is contained in the idea we have of him/her/it.

Read the first sentence. I WONDER whether the idea of God proves his real existance.

I've attempted to create a situation where people can voice ideas and such. NOT go "I can prove you wrong I read this, etc..." What some people to to like to do is pull theories of the net and treat them as their own. Debate is not simply about "me right, you wrong". nothing is gained and nothing is learnt. Its no better than masturbation of the mind. all you do is gratify yourself.


This is nothing new. This is St. Anselm's fallacy.

[QUOTE=Daroth]


This is nothing new. This is St. Anselm's fallacy.

you know whats the real bugger. I thought i was being original. Don't even know who St. Anselm is

[QUOTE=Whispering Legs]

you know whats the real bugger. I thought i was being original. Don't even know who St. Anselm is

Start here.
http://www.saintaquinas.com/philosophy.html

Read all of it, and come back later with another idea.

It's always good to think.

Your wrong, go back and read what ive written.
Your whole conclusion is the failings of an mind that has not grasped all the concepts yet, sucks to be you.

That argument is invalid.

and the thing about the swans is a totally different thing.. everything has to of been created. It really is that simple, so don't spew a load of geek babble.

There was a programme on Channel 4 (UK) not long back which set out that argument pretty well. More and more scientists are also coming to the conclusion that because the universe and life in general are so finely tuned that it is extremely unlikely that these fine-tunes were not the result of a higher power.


Once again, the atheist philosophy has no basis whatsoever.

Do you believe in a substance infinite, eternal, inmutable, independent, omniscient, and omnipotent?
No.

I wonder if the idea of God proves his real existence. If there is really no such being, then I must have created the conception, and if I could make such a proposition, then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true. Therefore, there must be some kind of archetype for an infinite being, from which the conception was derived in the first place. In other words, the existence of God is contained in the idea we have of him/her/it.
(sorry in advance if this sounds like a lecture; it's just me trying to get my thoughts straight in the early morning)

No, an idea of something is not proof of the real existence of that thing. Because we can conceive of it, that does not make it real. It does, however, make for a very real idea, and the content of that idea does exist, in the imagination.

You create concepts, yes, and recognize those passed on to you from others. They are are a type of idea. You cannot unmake an idea or a concept. Once it is made, it exists; you cannot undo existence; however, unless and until you voice it to another consciousness or put it down on paper, it exists only in your mind. Then, at that time, its existence is 'subjectively real'.

'Real' is differentiated from 'subjectively real' by virtue of being objective (existing external to the subject consciousness). In other words, when we say a thing 'is real' we usually mean objectively real; this is the default in our language. And modern English equates what is real with what exists. This creates a conundrum: subjective things, like the content of ideas, exist yet are not real; yet they are real for the subject, but cannot be considered to exist. The fault is entirely in our langauge. (I myself am becoming more considerate of how I use it.)

But I digress. The existence of objective reality is unquestionable, as everyone shares, or has equal potential to share, in it. The existence of things subjectively real is entirely questionable by everyone but one person, the subject. Things 'subjectively real' can only be shared by the faculties of sympathy and empathy. They require a consciousness.

Existence precedes consciousness. This means that in order for a consciousness to be aware of things, external or internal, it must first identify things; and in order to identify things, these things have to be there to be identified. In order for consciousness to have awareness, things must already exist. This means that things we are aware of exist, so they must necessarily be differentiated by whether that existence is objectively or subjectively real.

Ideas, concepts, memories, feelings, intuitions, signs... these are subjectively real. They are, by definition, particular to one human consciousness. The way to make them objectively real is words. We do it every day: emulate god in our creations. Speak reality into being by voicing our ideas. "In the beginning" god used words to create the world; this speaks of taking something subjectively real and making it objectively real.

The idea of God is creation. Speaking is an act of creation, taking things that exist subjectively and bringing them into the realm that modern English has defined as being the only "really real" existence, the physical world, making them objectively real.

The meaning of god is contained in the idea we have of it/him/her. God is love. God is creation.

A symbol is something that means something else. We can look at the symbol of a thing and recognize it to *be* its meaning, what it represents. Anything that exists can symbolize something if we give it meaning. And that meaning exists. We create it. Look at what we have done... With the concept of symbolism, and our lovely ability for words, and our human faculty of awareness, we have brought another thing into existence that wasn't there before: the meaning of a symbol. Such a talent for creation we have in our words! Emulating God, each of us.

We can assign meaning to things that exist, either objectively or subjectively real. We can look at the world, get an idea of it, take the content of that idea and assign it meaning. We can then take that meaning and assign it to other things in the real world --that's the scientist-consciousness born, the mind that must see if the assigned meaning can be expanded upon, using other things to give it more meaning, and used to give other things more meaning.

The danger lies in giving the meaning away to something external; in thinking that since the meaning is apparent in more than one external thing it has some objective reality; that it is shared between them. The mistake is thinking that the meaning of things does not come from us but is assigned by "fate" or the world or circumstances, rather than by our own consciousness. When we say, "I was born a Taurus. I am bull-headed because of the time of year I was born," we are making such a mistake. Or when we say, "I can see God's hand at work in the actions of those people," and not recognize it as a human consciousness assigning meaning to circumstances. All meaning comes from human consciousness recognizing it and identifying it. And all meaning is subjective, unique to each person.

There was a programme on Channel 4 (UK) not long back which set out that argument pretty well. More and more scientists are also coming to the conclusion that because the universe and life in general are so finely tuned that it is extremely unlikely that these fine-tunes were not the result of a higher power.


Once again, the atheist philosophy has no basis whatsoever.


The response to that is the Anthropic Principle. No matter how unlikely it is that the universe would turn out the way it did, if it didn't we wouldn't be here arguing about it. If you combine that with the theory that we live in an infinite multiverse, where everything must happen somewhere, then we must be here, in this finely tuned universe, as we cannot be anywhere else.

That argument is invalid.

and the thing about the swans is a totally different thing.. everything has to of been created. It really is that simple, so don't spew a load of geek babble.

There was a programme on Channel 4 (UK) not long back which set out that argument pretty well. More and more scientists are also coming to the conclusion that because the universe and life in general are so finely tuned that it is extremely unlikely that these fine-tunes were not the result of a higher power.


Once again, the atheist philosophy has no basis whatsoever.

so your willing to beleive in something that is infinite, eternal, inmutable, independent, omniscient, and omnipotent?

[QUOTE=Pyromanstahn]

I wonder if the idea of God proves his real existence. If there is really no such being, then I must have created the conception, and if I could make such a proposition, then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true. Therefore, there must be some kind of archetype for an infinite being, from which the conception was derived in the first place. In other words, the existence of God is contained in the idea we have of him/her/it.

Read the first sentence. I WONDER whether the idea of God proves his real existance.

I've attempted to create a situation where people can voice ideas and such. NOT go "I can prove you wrong I read this, etc..." What some people seem to like to do is pull theories of the net and treat them as their own. Debate is not simply about "me right, you wrong". nothing is gained and nothing is learnt. Its no better than masturbation of the mind. all you do is gratify yourself.

Sorry, I missed the 'wonder'. I thought you were presenting this theory as something you believed to be true.

I believe in no god. (god is a general term, and i hate when people always associate it with the christian faith.) I sure like that masonic god though! *sarcasm*

so your willing to beleive in something that is infinite, eternal, inmutable, independent, omniscient, and omnipotent?

Yes, I believe that is what 'God' is.

great post willamena!!!

[QUOTE=Daroth]

Sorry, I missed the 'wonder'. I thought you were presenting this theory as something you believed to be true.

fair enough. personally don't beleive in God. but god is what we make it.

You see, the problem is that jump of logic there.
There's another jump of logic that assumes the stuff to create the universe was just there. That isn't any more outlandish than to assume that it was created.

I wonder if the idea of God proves his real existence. If there is really no such being, then I must have created the conception, and if I could make such a proposition, then I could also unmake this proposition, which can't be true. Therefore, there must be some kind of archetype for an infinite being, from which the conception was derived in the first place. In other words, the existence of God is contained in the idea we have of him/her/it.

I recently read Tolkien again - he has an idea called 'elves'. My kids just saw 'The Grudge' and now have an idea called 'Ghosts'.

God exists in the same way that elves and ghosts do.

I recently read Tolkien again - he has an idea called 'elves'. My kids just saw 'The Grudge' and now have an idea called 'Ghosts'.

God exists in the same way that elves and ghosts do.

surprising amount of people beleive in ghosts. Hell they even have TV shows trying to find them. which i find utterly preposterous myself

so your willing to beleive in something that is infinite, eternal, inmutable, independent, omniscient, and omnipotent?

Some of these qualities are logically impossible.

I can IMAGINE something somewhat like this as a concept (Indeed, in a role-playing game, I played a being who was eternal, timeless, and omni-present but bearing of avatars. I pulled it off rather well.

However, Torus Firewalker and the entity conceived of as "Change" that he derived from is NOT walking around seducing people right now.

If he did, the bastard could at least write me once in awhile to tell me how he's doing.

Some of these qualities are logically impossible.

I can IMAGINE something somewhat like this as a concept (Indeed, in a role-playing game, I played a being who was eternal, timeless, and omni-present but bearing of avatars. I pulled it off rather well.

However, Torus Firewalker and the entity conceived of as "Change" that he derived from is NOT walking around seducing people right now.

If he did, the bastard could at least write me once in awhile to tell me how he's doing.

hahaha

yeah thats it isn'it. God is a logical impossibility. Yet for many he/she/it is as real as anything else

That argument is invalid.

and the thing about the swans is a totally different thing.. everything has to of been created. It really is that simple, so don't spew a load of geek babble.


And that "everything" would include God, right? So God would have to be created.

Or you could arbitrarily decide that God doesn't need a creator. I can just as arbitrarily decide that the Universe doesn't need a creator. However, we have evidence that the universe exists - we can see it. We don't have any evidence that God exists.


There was a programme on Channel 4 (UK) not long back which set out that argument pretty well. More and more scientists are also coming to the conclusion that because the universe and life in general are so finely tuned that it is extremely unlikely that these fine-tunes were not the result of a higher power.

And where, may I ask, are they getting the probability?

What's the probability of me rolling a special number, such as 6, on a die? ...well, the correct answer is that with the information given, you've got no clue, since you don't know how many sides this die has (if it has 1 side, the probability of me rolling a 1 is 100%; if it has 10^10000 sides, the probability is damn low) and you don't know how many times I'm rolling the die. Heck, you don't even know whether 6 is the only special number that would count or whether there are others.

Likewise, trying to calculate the odds that life exists without a creator is fruitless, since we know neither whether life as we see it is the only possible life, nor how many different values the different physical constants can take, nor how many tries we get.


Once again, the atheist philosophy has no basis whatsoever.

Once again, you're repeating arguments that have no basis whatsoever.

I can IMAGINE something somewhat like this as a concept (Indeed, in a role-playing game, I played a being who was eternal, timeless, and omni-present but bearing of avatars. I pulled it off rather well.
A Time Lord? :)

Something so incredibly finely tuned as the universe did not just appear from nothing.

There has to of been a creator.

There is no basis for atheism.

the universe isn't finely tuned, it's chaotic and disasterous. ever heard of the kt extinction?

Why does that one event, moreso than any other, indicate the universe is chaotic?

Many children believe in Santa.
Is that a proof for the existence of Santa?

I don't believe that there is a god.

many people belive in macro evolution... does that mean macro evolution exists ?

I belive there is a god..

people suggest he is an "idea" .. yet there is nothing to disprove his existence.. just as there is nothing to prove it.. Simply because we do not have a test yet to prove either of these things... But just because we do not have a test.. dosn't not mean such a test does not exist.

Except the whole logical impossibility thing.

Now, one can test that something has abilities that would be, up until then, understood as 'supernatural'.

You cannot, however, test anything for omni-anything, partially due to it being logically impossible itself (How the hell do you test to prove a triangle HAS four sides?).

Now, given a being is cooperative and FINITE, we CAN test to see what it can and cannot do. The moment there was some effect that it couldn't pull off, we'd be able to disprove its being omnipotent (which would be quite easy to do with the four-sided triangle issue).

This, of course, is why the people who made up the myth assigned various traits that lead to untestability: being unable to approach and test the subject, or interact with it in a testable manner, sorta makes it impossible to test.

Hence, it becomes an IPU issue.

Pfft. There are an infinite number of worlds out there. There must be billions capable of harboring life. We just happen to be on one that developed intelligent life. With the numbers out there, it was bound to happen somewhere. I think it's terribly arrogant to think we're so special that it took some supernatural brain out there to create us. It's just a happy accident.