Does God Exist? (1 Viewer)

[dark_angel]

Well that's fine but your opinion isn't very helpful without reasons

i gave reasons, but like i said 3 times before, whatever will be put forth will eventually be dismissed.

this is why the arguement is subjective, you can either beleive the evidence, or not beleive.

although this is a bivalent statement, it has subjective connotations.

it seems pretty obvious that the arguement is going no where, and if i give any more evidence, it will obviously be rejected so there is no real point in me researching stuff.

how can we argue this point without getting into fights every couple of posts or so, without evidence, and with no quoting from holy texts.

This sounds like fun.

ok let me try think up some sort of arguement, for the existence of god, which i dont think is possible, but i will give it a try nonetheless

 

[MoonlightSonata]

i gave reasons, but like i said 3 times before, whatever will be put forth will eventually be dismissed.

It may be dismissed properly, and logically, or it may not be dismissed validly. But if no-one gives any actual reasons for the existence of God, there really is nothing to dismiss is there?

this is why the arguement is subjective, you can either beleive the evidence, or not beleive.

The evidence must be put to the light of logic, reason and argument. That, in principle, is not subjective. Therefore in principle, it is possible to come to an objective, better-informed position.

how can we argue this point without getting into fights every couple of posts or so, without evidence, and with no quoting from holy texts.

Would you like me to argue for the existence of God for you? I can argue both sides if you want. It certainly seems it is needed on the theist side of things anyway.

ok let me try think up some sort of arguement, for the existence of god, which i dont think is possible

Oh it's very possible, but not very persuassive.

 

[dark_angel]

It may be dismissed properly, and logically, or it may not be dismissed validly. But if no-one gives any actual reasons for the existence of God, there really is nothing to dismiss is there?



The evidence must be put to the light of logic, reason and argument. That, in principle, is not subjective. Therefore in principle, it is possible to come to an objective, better-informed position.



Would you like me to argue for the existence of God for you? I can argue both sides if you want. It certainly seems it is needed on the theist side of things anyway.



Oh it's very possible, but not very persuassive.

so your saying that logic, reason and arguement are not subjective?

This sentence is (hopefully) logical, perfectly reasonable and can be argued against.

however, the sentence that i just wrote was entirely subjective. you wouldve thought of something else, but that just illustrates my point.

logic differs in different people, what may seem logical to one person may seem like total bs to another.

same with observers. relativity of simultaneaty (damn cant spell). u know the deal




no please, do not argue more of those logical arguments, i'm pretty sure your 2 years of philosphy will kick my 1 year of philo

but i do want to debate this topic furthur and also come to a higher 'cathartic truth if u will', so let us be logical and rational about this.

how can we continue this without going in circles?

 

[Comrade nathan]

logic differs in different people, what may seem logical to one person may seem like total bs to another.

No there is a objective logic. The sun will come up tomorrow due to past experince. Thats is objective logic.

No the sun will no come up tomorrow, i believe we will fall of our axis and we will never see the sun again. Subjective logic.

no please, do not argue more of those logical arguments, i'm pretty sure your 2 years of philosphy will kick my 1 year of philo

You have done 1 year philosophy and you havent covered subjectivity and objectivity. You must of missed alot of class.

how can we argue this point without getting into fights every couple of posts or so, without evidence, and with no quoting from holy texts.

Its debate thats for the theist to decide. Were not goint o magically come together.


With thisw subjective objective thing that people cant grasp, there is a objectivity law. Existence is objective, its objective that it exist. It is objective that either god exist or he doesnt. We view everything objectivly. What we see is a sensation of the material world. We do no view it subjectivly. That means when we see a ball and someone says no it is square, it is really a ball and that person saying it is square doesnt change objectivity. We use logic to get the idea in our head once proccese by the brain as a sensation.

The procces of any thought is to find objectivity, thats what we try to do with any phenomena. We view and then try to interupt. We can say i believe it is this and thats it. There is objective truth and thats final.

 

[dark_angel]

No there is a objective logic. The sun will come up tomorrow due to past experince. Thats is objective logic.

No the sun will no come up tomorrow, i believe we will fall of our axis and we will never see the sun again. Subjective logic.



You have done 1 year philosophy and you havent covered subjectivity and objectivity. You must of missed alot of class.



Its debate thats for the theist to decide. Were not goint o magically come together.


With thisw subjective objective thing that people cant grasp, there is a objectivity law. Existence is objective, its objective that it exist. It is objective that either god exist or he doesnt. We view everything objectivly. What we see is a sensation of the material world. We do no view it subjectivly. That means when we see a ball and someone says no it is square, it is really a ball and that person saying it is square doesnt change objectivity. We use logic to get the idea in our head once proccese by the brain as a sensation.

The procces of any thought is to find objectivity, thats what we try to do with any phenomena. We view and then try to interupt. We can say i believe it is this and thats it. There is objective truth and thats final.

Objective:

1. Susceptible to assessment as true or false.
2. Capable of being supported by good reasons.

Subjective: dependant on human attitudes.

 

[dark_angel]

i didnt miss alot of class, infact i did not go to class at all, as i did not have any

i learnt philosophy independantly

 

[Vezzellda]

Ok, I haven't looked at this for, shock, a whole day, and already there's 10 more pages! This is getting crazy!

Um, joujou, did you ask me a question like 10 pages ago, somewhere? or am I imagining it, cause I can't find it...

There is no 'right' or 'wrong' religion, religion is based upon the individual.

God either exists or he doesn't exist. Whether you believe it or not. It's not subjective. Religions are right or wrong. True or false.

I'm getting quite annoyed at all this subjective stuff.

How, dark_angel, can the existence of God be based upon the individual? There must be something that is true and something that is untrue. Some people claim there is, say, a single wrathful angry God, others say there are spirits in plants and rocks and whatever else, others say there is no God. These are all mutually exclusive, only one can be true, we are talking about the state of the universe here. It's like you're saying that the existence of a certain "God" depends on our believing it to be true, and that we have the right to decide which "God" exists.

And I'm going to ask this question again, cause no one responded, for those who don't believe in God or are undecided, what do you think is going to happen to you when you die?

 

[Generator]

No, it isn't.

You can't say, "oh God exists because I believe he exists."

The claim is either true or false.

With respect to this issue, I do not believe that it is as objective as you think. To me, 'faith' in logic seems just as valid as faith in a religious belief for whoever may be trying to justify their position. They are justifying their own point of view and not mine, afterall. But with that in mind, it is kind of obvious that any attempt to question my own position would result in a bloody verbal battle to the death (much like this one). I'm an agnostic of sorts, if that helps.

In other words, I am full of it, and it was a pointless point to make.

edit (again): clarified my point.

 

[dark_angel]

I do not believe that this as objective as you think. To me, 'faith' in logic seems just as valid as faith in a religious belief for whoever may be trying to justify their position. They are justifying their own point of view and not mine, afterall. But with that in mind, it is kind of obvious that any attempt to question my own position would result in a bloody verbal battle to the death (much like this one). I'm an agnostic of sorts, if that helps.

In other words, I am full of it.

lol...but yes i agree, logic stems from the human mind, hence it is subjective.

 

[dark_angel]

Actually i dont think any object or other 'thing' can be seen as an objective feature in this universe, as we cannot trust are senses, and we would be making false (or possibly false) assumtions. Except mayb Descartes statement, but i still have doubts

 

[Bone577]

Actually i dont think any object or other 'thing' can be seen as an objective feature in this universe, as we cannot trust are senses, and we would be making false (or possibly false) assumtions. Except mayb Descartes statement, but i still have doubts

Descartes was fantastic, if it wasn't for Newtonian physics, descartes would have ruled the end of mysticism. Damn Newton.

 

[Bone577]

lol...but yes i agree, logic stems from the human mind, hence it is subjective.

How is logic subject to human attitudes? The very basis of logic goes against subjectivity.

For example, computers are capable of the same logical processes. Are they also subjective?

 

[dark_angel]

How is logic subject to human attitudes? The very basis of logic goes against subjectivity.

For example, computers are capable of the same logical processes. Are they also subjective?

actually computers are programmed (by none other than us humans, mind u), u put in data and u get answers

there is no logic in computers (unless perhaps they are quantum computers)

all logical deduction from the human mind is subjective.

(but perhaps you can equate the human mind to that of a computer?!?! we get stimuli or data, which is converted into electrical impulses and then processed by our brain)

very complex stuff

 

[Bone577]

actually computers are programmed, u put in data and u get answers

there is no logic in computers (unless perhaps they are quantum computers)

The first computer was called "the logic engine" i think the second "the inference engine". This tells you something about there function. Although programmed, there logical process is not. They go through logical process in a very fundemental mathamatical way.

(but perhaps you can equate the human mind to that of a computer?!?! we get stimuli or data, which is converted into electrical impulses and then processed by our brain)

very complex stuff

Actually I believe that all things can be calculated and predicted if processing power was great enough and we could collect all relevant data in the universe (both of these goals are unachievable of course). I believe that nothing is random.

Considering this i dont think there is any fundemental difference between computer and brain, it is merely about their complexities and inner workings. The mind absorbs data (the input) calculates it (process) and sends messages to parts of the body (output). Seemingly random or unexplainable actions are understandable, because we cannot possibly comprehend all the raw input a brain has recieved over a lifetime, that added with the complexity of the brain, we can't realistic predict human actions, yet the actions ARE predictable. You can see the parallel with the idea that nothing in the universe is random.

 

[dark_angel]

The first computer was called "the logic engine" i think the second "the inference engine". This tells you something about there function. Although programmed, there logical process is not. They go through logical process in a very fundemental mathamatical way.




Actually I believe that all things can be calculated and predicted if processing power was great enough and we could collect all relevant data in the universe (both of these goals are unachievable of course). I believe that nothing is random.

Considering this i dont think there is any fundemental difference between computer and brain, it is merely about their complexities and inner workings. The mind absorbs data (the input) calculates it (process) and sends messages to parts of the body (output). Seemingly random or unexplainable actions are understandable, because we cannot possibly comprehend all the raw input a brain has recieved over a lifetime, that added with the complexity of the brain, we can't realistic predict human actions, yet the actions ARE predictable. You can see the parallel with the idea that nothing in the universe is random.

ok if nothing in the universe is random

then y do we have an entire branch of mathematics based on probability

in the realm of the quantum everything is random

lol

so you are a fatalist i presume, do u beleive that your actions were predestined?

 

[lengstar]

i hate pre-destiny. i like the idea that what i'm doing now its ultimately altering the shape of my future. like, too much netting and my eyes are going to get worse.... oh... wait... it already happened.

i loved the matrix btw.

 

[Bone577]

ok if nothing in the universe is random

then y do we have an entire branch of mathematics based on probability

in the realm of the quantum everything is random

lol

so you are a fatalist i presume, do u beleive that your actions were predestined?

How is the existence of probability an argument against my philosophy on the matter? I mean, probability is what us mortals use to attempt to predict things. If you really wanted to analyse the probability of lets suppose, a dice being rolled, you would have to consider every minute detail of the dices surface, aerodynamics, gravity, wind, density, weight, the tables density, hardness, material, not to mentionthe way it is thrown. The possibility of variables are near infinite, but the result could be calculated given necessary data is compiled and processing power was sufficient.
Probability in maths is taking away the complexities and trying to guess what may occur based on simplification. In general the dice has a 1/6 chance of landing on any one side, but for a given throw of the dice the probability is 1/1 of falling on the side it happens to fall on.

This idea is supported by time dialation and relativity. The fact that you cannot under any circumstance exceed the speed of light, hence cannot go back in time mean that there is only one path in time. There are no alternate paths like you see in Back to the Future. This means there is only ever one possible outcome.

 

[dark_angel]

How is the existence of probability an argument against my philosophy on the matter? I mean, probability is what us mortals use to attempt to predict things. If you really wanted to analyse the probability of lets suppose, a dice being rolled, you would have to consider every minute detail of the dices surface, aerodynamics, gravity, wind, density, weight, the tables density, hardness, material, not to mentionthe way it is thrown. The possibility of variables are near infinite, but the result could be calculated given necessary data is compiled and processing power was sufficient.
Probability in maths is taking away the complexities and trying to guess what may occur based on simplification. In general the dice has a 1/6 chance of landing on any one side, but for a given throw of the dice the probability is 1/1 of falling on the side it happens to fall on.

This idea is supported by time dialation and relativity. The fact that you cannot under any circumstance exceed the speed of light, hence cannot go back in time mean that there is only one path in time. There are no alternate paths like you see in Back to the Future. This means there is only ever one possible outcome.

There is no 'one' path in time. What you are referring to is the passage of time or 'temporal becomming', some sort of time 'pathway'

I think plato summed up the idea pretty well when he eloquently stated 'time is the moving shadow of eternity'.

Time dilation just implies that time will always be different for different observers, and that furthurs the point that there is no 'passage' of time.

We commonly suppose that time passes or flows from the future, into the present and into the past, but this notion is wholly spurious.

- the transience of time is not plausible as one could apply a rate of change to it if time were a movement. we would apparently require soe mysterious meta-time to mesure the rate of temporal passage. It will not do to say that an event recedes into the past at a rate of one second per second; this is like saying that a ruler gts larger to the right at the rate of one centimetre per centimentre, or a temperature to increaes at one degree per degree.

Such a conception of future events, each wating its turn to cross the threshold of he present, may be as old as speculation about the nature of time.

This conception of time as an unfolding manifold of events is responsible for the mistakend view of temporal flow or passage, and hence to say that time pases is to say nothng more exciting than things change.

The belief that there is such a process as 'becoming', or such a phenomenon as temporal passage, is a conceptual isllusion generated by the vivid but misleading spatial metaphors which we habitually deploy to describe the familiar world of process and change. This is the Parmenides' legacy.

a more logical deduction would show that the inconsistencies with time, or should i say 'Space-time' since time is inexorably connected to space (which was also a finding of einteins theory of relativity). 'Time' 'runs' slower on earth than in deep space outside any other considerable gravitational field, as a larger mass warps the space and time around it.

Time is not uniform, there is no 'pathway' of time

so are u still saying that u are a fatalist?

 

[Bone577]

There is no 'one' path in time. What you are referring to is the passage of time or 'temporal becomming', some sort of time 'pathway'

I think plato summed up the idea pretty well when he eloquently stated 'time is the moving shadow of eternity'.

Time dilation just implies that time will always be different for different observers, and that furthurs the point that there is no 'passage' of time.

We commonly suppose that time passes or flows from the future, into the present and into the past, but this notion is wholly spurious.

- the transience of time is not plausible as one could apply a rate of change to it if time were a movement. we would apparently require soe mysterious meta-time to mesure the rate of temporal passage. It will not do to say that an event recedes into the past at a rate of one second per second; this is like saying that a ruler gts larger to the right at the rate of one centimetre per centimentre, or a temperature to increaes at one degree per degree.

Such a conception of future events, each wating its turn to cross the threshold of he present, may be as old as speculation about the nature of time.

This conception of time as an unfolding manifold of events is responsible for the mistakend view of temporal flow or passage, and hence to say that time pases is to say nothng more exciting than things change.

The belief that there is such a process as 'becoming', or such a phenomenon as temporal passage, is a conceptual isllusion generated by the vivid but misleading spatial metaphors which we habitually deploy to describe the familiar world of process and change. This is the Parmenides' legacy.

a more logical deduction would show that the inconsistencies with time, or should i say 'Space-time' since time is inexorably connected to space (which was also a finding of einteins theory of relativity). 'Time' 'runs' slower on earth than in deep space outside any other considerable gravitational field, as a larger mass warps the space and time around it.

Time is not uniform, there is no 'pathway' of time

so are u still saying that u are a fatalist?

Of course, again what you are saying in no way disuades me from my stance.

Why should it? You are in essence saying that time is not a path as such and time cannot "unfold" before us. You are trying to seperate time from mystisism commonly involved with it, which is fantastic, and i agree completely. There is no room for mystisism in philosophy.
In fact when i braught up the fact that time travel is impossible i was trying to illustrate this, that there is no path as such, merely occurances, that cannot be relived.



It is the nature of pre-determination that i think you misunderstand me on. I don't believe in the normal idea of destiny, merely that there is only one possible outcome and that outcome is calculable given sufficient data and processing power.

For example, there is no human choice as such, every choice someone makes is a logical result of input data and processing. There is reason behind even the most mundane of human actions, this reason is a result of processing of data in the brain. The processing is governed by predictable chemical and electrical processes. These processes are just soo complex to us, that we treat it as an unknown.

The only reason anything seems random, or chaotic is because we cannot begin to comprehend the complexity of the its processes.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Actually i dont think any object or other 'thing' can be seen as an objective feature in this universe, as we cannot trust are senses, and we would be making false (or possibly false) assumtions. Except mayb Descartes statement, but i still have doubts

Why do you think this. The only time we cannot trust our sense if our sense organs are damage. Sensations are force on to us, we have no control so therefore we see objectivity.