Why do I need god?: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Why do I need god? » Why do I need god?

Why do I need god?
A final challenge to you theists

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Why do I need god?

moonlight
Lunatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Location: stuck on earth
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 510

Posted 03/19/08 - 11:36 AM:	#26
Lex wrote: By your ridiculous logic, it follows that: anything that cannot be proven wrong is a valid assumption about reality that should be applied to the world around us. It's not worded very right, but yes. If X cannot be proven or disproven (you seem to voluntarily ignore this bit all the time), then yes X can be assumed. If X is assumed, then X is provable from the assumptions. And by the way this is not my logic. It's called classical logic. Lex wrote: Fine. I believe in a god XXXX. XXXX declares that I should kill all people adopting online an online username moonlight. Therefore I should go and kill you, and this will be perfectly acceptable. To you it will be, because you have assumed that 'XXXX exists', therefore it is a provable fact. It follows you obey your God. To me it will not be acceptable because I haven't assumed this fact, so the sentence 'XXXX exists' remains neither provable, nor disprovable from the assumption. So I'll disagree with you. I don't see what surprises you here. This happens all the time in our world. Not everyone has the same beliefs, because not everyone is forced to make the same assumptions. After all, you cannot prove that indeed there is no random god XXXX who wants you to die. Of course not. I haven't assumed the fact, and nothing implies it. Thus the fact is unprovable from the assumptions. If I were to assume the fact however, it would become provable to me. Lex wrote: You see, you sound rather ostensibly thick (...) If you had any idea what science and logic are, you would know that Hypotheses are made when you have some observations that point in that direction. And you sound rather young. Do read up on logic please. You'll like it, I'm sure. Moreover, you're wrong about 'hypothesis'. A hypothesis does not require any observations or evidence to be formulated. A hypothesis is held to be true, until evidence or observations contradict it. A hypothesis is therefore usually defended by a thesis that will argue that such evidence doesn't exists. If you were to do research, as in the context of a PhD, then you would start by formulating a hypothesis. For example: "The XYZ robot can sort apples into green ones and red ones with at least 90% success rate." Then you go on to show by building a robot, doing experiments, analyzing its functioning, etc. If you find out that actually in one experiment the robot only had a success rate of 40%, then you change the hypothesis at that point. It only takes a single observation to invalidate a hypothesis, but it requires none to formulate one. Cordially, moonlight. Edited by moonlight on 03/19/08 - 11:43 AM
_____________________ All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 03/19/08 - 11:57 AM:	#27
Dictionary definition of hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an OBSERVATION, PHENOMENON, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Dictionary definition of logic: The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and VALIDITY IN DEDUCTIVE reasoning. So you admitted that the existence XXXX means nothing to you. Furthermore, if I decide to (with validity) to act out XXXX's commands, you will have to kill me to protect yourself: XXXX is a violation of your right to live, and you can't ignore him, you have to FIGHT him. If the entire world believed in XXXX, you would naturally have no choice but to attempt to prove that XXXX does not exist and that the very notion of him is totally ridiculous. Although the example is a tiny bit grotesque (though not as out-of-place as your ridiculous satellite example), it illustrates the point: XXXX = religion to me. I admit that I am younger than you, but my age is irrelevant to the fact that your comprehension is extremely bad. Anyway, these two definitions scrap everything you said if you have a modicum of common sense. FOR THE LAST TIME: I conveniently laid out 5 statements that I asked you to address. This will be about the 5th time I am asking you to answer at least one of them, and you still continue to ignore them. Rather disrespectful, don't you think? This is also the reason I got tired of these debates a while ago: trying to argue with theists is much like a human trying to prove his superiority of thought to amoeba. Completely hopeless. I hope you understand my belligerence: I am hearing the same thing over and over again and never hear you address anything of relevance. If I hear nothing interesting I will have to discontinue this. Truly yours, Lex Edited by Lex on 03/19/08 - 12:03 PM

Mortalfool
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 19, 2008
Location: Southside Va.
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 46

Posted 03/19/08 - 12:24 PM:	#28
Lex wrote: Fairly interesting. However, this article is also "lukewarm" 1: The fact there is no evidence for "no god" does not make it rational to assume that he exists or that the probability is even 50%. Right up front I said it was a purely subjective view, mine, and since I am the one that decides exactly where I stand on the probability scale, I said I'm on the mid line; half/half Lex wrote: 4: Belief in a fantasy (something that feels good) is the same as taking drugs. It creates retards and people unable to think as is already being manifested in this debate. Lex you're amazing! You tell us you have all the value of mud in your life, and then have the audacity to deride our 'thinking' abilities . Personally, if my life presented the outlook your life does, I'd be looking for someone to teach me a rational way of looking at life.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 03/19/08 - 12:46 PM:	#29
Mortalfool wrote: [quote=Lex] Lex you're amazing! You tell us you have all the value of mud in your life, and then have the audacity to deride our 'thinking' abilities . Personally, if my life presented the outlook your life does, I'd be looking for someone to teach me a rational way of looking at life. I never said anything about anybody having the value of mud in my life. Nor do I see how you assumed that: I assure you, I would not waste my time conversing with mud. I don't see how statements about mental ability are audacious. 1: You said something about letting go of stupid people, so I don't believe it is your place to argue "complete tolerance". 2: It is only natural to attempt to correct people's misconceptions, ignoring to do so if you believe they are wrong is cowardice or simply "not caring". 3: I was actually not referring to you when I made the "demonstrated in this debate" statement. Though I disagree with you, you have so far not demonstrated to me a lack of reasonable cranial activity. I am very unassuming by nature, so even accusing me of prejudiced intolerance is wrong.

moonlight
Lunatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Location: stuck on earth
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 510

Posted 03/19/08 - 02:10 PM:	#30
Lex wrote: Dictionary definition of hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an OBSERVATION, PHENOMENON, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Obvisouly a hypothesis is about something, i.e. a phenomenon. What did you think: that a hypothesis was about nothing? The phenomenon is what the hypothesis is about. Still it requires no proof to be formulated. As you can read for yourself: it is a tentative explanation. In other words an assumption. To restate my example: the hypothesis about the phenomenon of "robots being able to sort apples with a success rate of 90%" requires no proof, or thesis to be formulated. It may be assumed therefore. If it assumed then it is provable from the assumption, and therefore: True. If however a single new fact contradicts the hypothesis, i.e. proves it to be false, then its assumption must be removed from your knowledge base. The hypothesis then becomes false, without your knowledge base being contradictory, i.e. every statement in the world becoming true, including your false hypothesis (since you can prove anything from a contradiction). I hope you understood this time around. Lex wrote: Dictionary definition of logic: The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and VALIDITY IN DEDUCTIVE reasoning. Yes. And? How exactly is that supposed to add anything to the discussion? How does this contradict the fact that when you assume a hypothesis, then the hypothesis is provable from the assumptions? By the way, your dictionary definition is incomplete. Logic does not encompass only deductive reasoning. There are also logics based on inductive, abductive, retroductive (and more) reasoning. Lex wrote: So you admitted that the existence XXXX means nothing to you. Furthermore, if I decide to (with validity) to act out XXXX's commands, you will have to kill me to protect yourself: No I don't have to kill you. How did you deduce that? I could also simply arrest you and put you away. Or alternatively I could poke your eyes, pierce your eardrums, cut your vocal chords, chop your legs and arms off, and set you free. Nothing implies that the sentence "me must kill you to remove the threat on me" is a truth, i.e. a valid sentence. It is only a satisfiable one. Just like the sentence "God exists". Once again, you need to be able to distinguish between what can be possibly true, and what is always true, or in other words: between what is not provable and what is provable. Otherwise you can't speak of truth and proofs and look serious. Lex wrote: XXXX is a violation of your right to live, and you can't ignore him, you have to FIGHT him. Again the above is only a satisfiable fact, a possibly true one. In no way is it a valid one, in other words a provable one. To illustrate this: I could go into hiding, instead of fighting. Lex wrote: If the entire world believed in XXXX, you would naturally have no choice but to attempt to prove that XXXX does not exist and that the very notion of him is totally ridiculous. Wrong again. I do have a choice. Your sentence is not a theorem, a true fact, a provable fact. To illustrate: I could set off a massive hydrogen bomb and destroy the world. Problem solved. Alternatively, I could also assume 'XXXX is a God' is true on the basis of the assumption that "if you can't beat them, then join them". Nothing implies I must prove that the sentence "XXXX is not a God" is false. This cannot be done anyway, because the sentence is not provable from the axioms of logic. Lex wrote: FOR THE LAST TIME: I conveniently laid out 5 statements that I asked you to address. Answering you, would require me to give my view on your questions and you, the author. The reason being that I don't believe you really are after answers. Rather you are struggling with a decision if you want my opinion. You think you know so well that "God doesn't exist" that you believe you can prove it. Which is equivalent to saying that you can disprove that "God exists". Well then if that is the case, please... proceed. Prove to me that God doesn't exist, or equivalently prove to me that the sentence "God exists" is false. Lay down your initial assumptions, and your rules of inference, and proceed. Be my guest. Truth is, you will be forced to assume something in order to proceed. You need axioms. In your case you have assumed certain statement such as "I can do Good without God". The participant called dwilljo told you that the idea of "Good" presupposes the idea of "God", or some form or another of a religious or moral system. He told you that it is an oxymoron. You replied with your Kanitan categorical argument, which pretends to prove that "Good" is something inherent to humans and the world. But that argument doesn't prove anything. It rests itself on other assumptions which may be dismissed. For instance: how do you know that you have the "right" to be happy? Who gave you that right? Who declared this legal framework to be valid? Why should I accept it? What if I were some bizzare Satanist, instead of a theist, and that I believed that nobody has the right to be happy? How could Kant's argument prove me wrong, since I do not share its assumptions? So, overall, if you had given a bit of thought to your questions yourself, you would have seen that proving a statement, (which means deriving that statement from a set of assumptions using inference rules) which is itself a contigency, in other words which may be wrong, and may be false, is not possible if people do not share the same set of assumptions. Unfortunately, some participants are encouraging you on the wrong track by telling you the "burden of proof" rests on either atheists, or theists. Trouble is: there is no burden of proof, because there is no proof to derive, without first assuming some axioms. Proving that "God exists" is not possible without the assumption that God exists, or the adoption of a set of assumptions that imply that "God exists". Same goes for the negation of the statement: "God does not exist". Proving such statements without assuming them first, or otherwise assuming a set of statements that implies them, is just as impossible as proving that "Pizza is tasty" is a true statement. "Pizza is tasty" is only provable if you assume, if you believe, that pizza is tasty. If you assume, believe instead that "Only Asian food is tasty", then it follows that "Pizza is not tasty". If you assume nothing about pizzas, then the statement is merely possible: it is neither true, nor false. In other words, neither it, nor its contradiction are provable. Lex wrote: This is also the reason I got tired of these debates a while ago: trying to argue with theists is much like a human trying to prove his superiority of thought to amoeba. Completely hopeless. I hope you understand my belligerence Not anymore than I understand Hitler's belligerence. Dehumanizing the other side is typical of warfare, not of philosophy. So again: chill out, relax, have sex, avoid capital letters, and do read up on logic. I'm sure you'll like it all. Cordially, moonlight.
_____________________ All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 03/19/08 - 03:30 PM:	#31
moonlight wrote: Obvisouly a hypothesis is about something, i.e. a phenomenon. What did you think: that a hypothesis was about nothing? The phenomenon is what the hypothesis is about. Still it requires no proof to be formulated. As you can read for yourself: it is a tentative explanation. In other words an assumption. Yes. And? How exactly is that supposed to add anything to the discussion? No I don't have to kill you. How did you deduce that? I could also simply arrest you and put you away. Again the above is only a satisfiable fact, a possibly true one. In no way is it a valid one, in other words a provable one. To illustrate this: I could go into hiding, instead of fighting. Wrong again. I do have a choice. Your sentence is not a theorem, a true fact, a provable fact. To illustrate: I could set off a massive hydrogen bomb and destroy the world. Problem solved. Alternatively, I could also assume 'XXXX is a God' is true on the basis of the assumption that "if you can't beat them, then join them". Nothing implies I must prove that the sentence "XXXX is not a God" is false. This cannot be done anyway, because the sentence is not provable from the axioms of logic. Answering you, would require me to give my view on your questions and you, the author. The reason being that I don't believe you really are after answers. Rather you are struggling with a decision if you want my opinion. Not anymore than I understand Hitler's belligerence. Dehumanizing the other side is typical of warfare, not of philosophy. So again: chill out, relax, have sex, avoid capital letters, and do read up on logic. I'm sure you'll like it all. Cordially, moonlight. No not really, you can't just lock me up. Not if the world decided to believe in XXXX. You can't hide either, not from everyone on Earth. You can't join them (well I couldn't because I am not a coward) because they want to kill you. That was a symbolic example, representative of the whole notion of religion. 1: I AM after answers. 2: You never rely on logic. You always stray from answering any question directly and rely on your 4th language. If you were a good reader, you might have noticed that my initial point was not to weave around creation untangling a mess of statements you spewed, in fact I purposely asked specific questions to avoid that. My goal is to show incongruities within religion (namely dominant christianity) that make its existence irrational. moonlight wrote: Answering you, would require me to give my view on your questions and you, the author. The reason being that I don't believe you really are after answers. Rather you are struggling with a decision if you want my opinion. Well you know what? When I say I am after the answers, maybe I am? You again dismissed the challenge by saying that: you do not mean what you are writing. Hats off to you, mastermind of comprehension. Why did I include the definitions? Because your argument specifically said moonlight wrote: Moreover, you're wrong about 'hypothesis'. A hypothesis does not require any observations or evidence to be formulated. Dictionary definition of hypothesis: A tentative explanation for an OBSERVATION, PHENOMENON, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation. Do you seriously not realize that you mocked my knowledge of a definition, and after I showed you where you were wrong you made up some random bs. Please remember before throwing unsupported accusations at me, that you were the first one to comment on my mental state rather than make an argument. So, Monsieur Adolf, you have no basis for accusing me of being like Hitler. In fact, you have no evidence whatsoever to compare me to Hitler. So please chill out, relax, have sex, avoid meaningless accusations, and do LEARN what logic is. One of my talents is seeing logical connections between statements very clearly, and your reasoning is a jumbled mess. Truly yours, Lex Edited by Lex on 03/19/08 - 03:34 PM

moonlight
Lunatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Location: stuck on earth
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 510

Posted 03/19/08 - 04:31 PM:	#32
Dear Lex, So I can't lock you up, and I can't hide either if the whole world decides to believe in your XXXX God. But what if the whole world doesn't decide to believe in XXXX? I could hide then right? So there is a possibility that your example doesn't hold true in every situation, i.e. is not provable from the axioms of logic? The fact that you aren't a coward, doesn't mean that I can't be one, and therefore there's another possibility to prove that your "logical truth" does not in fact hold in every situation: I could join them instead of "having no choice but to fight them" as you claim. I find funny your efforts to eliminate every counter example I propose, to show that I would "have no choice than to fight or kill you/them" and that therefore the statement is provably true. By the way you didn't address the possibility that I could set off a hydrogen bomb (let's say by accident, just to make it a bit more irrefutable - although I'm sure you don't see why) that destroys the world. Here's another option yet again: I could kill myself. So, it is not a logically true fact, that "I have no choice but to fight you, or kill you". It is only a possibility. Face it: your symbolic example just doesn't work. Symbolic or not, you put it forward to try and demonstrate that the example is a true fact, a provable one, a logically true one, true in every situation, just like "God does not exists" is a provable fact according to you. I showed you this wasn't the case by proposing situations which do not fit with it. Since I don't think you'd be so ridiculous so as to actually think that enumerating counter examples to every one of my propositions which shows that your statement is not true, would work, I must contemplate - out of respect for you and your mental state - the possibility that you are being simply rhetorical, and that therefore you are not after answers when you ask your questions. In my opinion, what you want is rather confirmation that your decision to assume "God doesn't exist" in your own mind is okay, which would mean that you are struggling with your decision, with your own issues basically. Just noticing by the way. It's not my problem anyway. But I can understand your rhetoric claims that I do not rely on logic in this context: I even find them funny I must say in such a context. It is equally funny to see you claim that I am the one who refuses your challenge: which is basically to prove that the statement "God exists" is true. But my dear friend, if such a statement is false, then its negation must be provable, right? Then why do you not prove it yourself then? Prove that the statement "God does not exists" is a logical truth since you are so confident in your stance. Obviously you can't do that. In fact you can prove neither that "God exists", nor that "God doesn't exist", and if I'm wrong then present your proof. So you choose to put the burden of proof with the theists. Did I hear "equal rights" anybody? You can't prove either the statement or its negation, and you're angry, tired and frustrated that theists aren't able to do so either? What a nice cop out Lex If someone, like myself, dares to point out that this is a cop out, you simply evade the "accusation" by saying they're not using logic. And underlying all this are your own personal issues with your religious choices. And I'm supposed to be the tangled mess... I love your jokes. I do apologise however. Recommending you to read on logic was a mistake. I should have started by recommending that you simply learn how to read. Full stop. Because evidently you seem to be struggling with two simple lines from a dictionary. For some reason, you seem to think that an "explanation - i.e. a statement - about a phenomenon, that can be tested" needs to be tested and evidence obtained for it, before being expressible. I wonder what other books you've "overread" in this way apart from dictionaries. Maybe Bibles? Korans? Ah well... I'll be generous though, and still give you one more recommendation: don't try and make people cry. You have talent at making them laugh. It's like a God given gift to you, if you don't mind me saying. Like when you think you've recognised other talents in yourself such as having a HAL-like inbuilt reasoner in your head. Now that's funny. But I recommend you stick to comedy, not tragicomedy. Claiming that I hurt your feelings by commenting on your mental state, and that this allows you to compare our discussion to that of a human with an ameoba, with you as the human is bad tragedy. It doesn't make anyone cry. Although if you keep saying things like: Lex wrote: I don't see how statements about mental ability are audacious two paragraphs earlier to participants like Mortalfool, then you might indeed end up looking like a mortal fool and killing people out of laughter. Ta ta, moonlight. Edited by moonlight on 03/19/08 - 04:37 PM
_____________________ All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 03/19/08 - 05:18 PM:	#33
Dear moonlight, This is the last time I will bother to respond to your ridiculous blabber You see, this is what argument is about. If YOU make a statement, and I clearly and logically show that it is wrong, then your argument is not valid. That makes debating with you pointless. Hence I give counterexamples. However you simply choose to confuse what is a clear matter with an incoherent amalgam of irrelevant statements. I will respond thoroughly to every one of your accusations, and because logic and reason fails to convince you of ANYTHING, I will let other people judge who is correct. moonlight wrote: Dear Lex, So I can't lock you up, and I can't hide either if the whole world decides to believe in your XXXX God. But what if the whole world doesn't decide to believe in XXXX? I could hide then right? So there is a possibility that your example doesn't hold true in every situation, i.e. is not provable from the axioms of logic? The fact that you aren't a coward, doesn't mean that I can't be one, and therefore there's another possibility to prove that your "logical truth" does not in fact hold in every situation: I could join them instead of "having no choice but to fight them" as you claim. No my friend, I quite specifically said "They want to kill anyone with a moniker "moonlight", or they simply want to kill YOU. Let's say they think you are a witch. Do you think that people accused of witchcraft had a million choices and died because of their utter stupidity? I don't think you do. This is why my example is articulate and clear. Therefore there is nothing wrong with my statement. moonlight wrote: I find funny your efforts to eliminate every counter example I propose, to show that I would "have no choice than to fight or kill you/them" and that therefore the statement is provably true. By the way you didn't address the possibility that I could set off a hydrogen bomb (let's say by accident, just to make it a bit more irrefutable - although I'm sure you don't see why) that destroys the world. Here's another option yet again: I could kill myself. So, it is not a logically true fact, that "I have no choice but to fight you, or kill you". It is only a possibility. You find my trying to debate with you logically funny? Well, I guess I should too, at this point, for all the results it achieves. moonlight wrote: Face it: your symbolic example just doesn't work. Symbolic or not, you put it forward to try and demonstrate that the example is a true fact, a provable one, a logically true one, true in every situation, just like "God does not exists" is a provable fact according to you. I showed you this wasn't the case by proposing situations which do not fit with it. Here is the only thing I agree with you on: examples don't work. Because you refuse to accept any logical argument I make, dance around my use of language for your own reasons (don't know, don't care), and don't say anything useful to anyone. moonlight wrote: Since I don't think you'd be so ridiculous so as to actually think that enumerating counter examples to every one of my propositions which shows that your statement is not true, would work, I must contemplate - out of respect for you and your mental state - the possibility that you are being simply rhetorical, and that therefore you are not after answers when you ask your questions. In my opinion, what you want is rather confirmation that your decision to assume "God doesn't exist" in your own mind is okay, which would mean that you are struggling with your decision, with your own issues basically. Just noticing by the way. It's not my problem anyway. But I can understand your rhetoric claims that I do not rely on logic in this context: I even find them funny I must say in such a context. Ever heard of the notion of an argument? An argument means hearing out someone's arguments, analyzing them and, if relevant, providing counter-arguments. If you find that irrational, I can't help you. moonlight wrote: It is equally funny to see you claim that I am the one who refuses your challenge: which is basically to prove that the statement "God exists" is true. But my dear friend, if such a statement is false, then its negation must be provable, right? Then why do you not prove it yourself then? Prove that the statement "God does not exists" is a logical truth since you are so confident in your stance. Obviously you can't do that. In fact you can prove neither that "God exists", nor that "God doesn't exist", and if I'm wrong then present your proof. So you choose to put the burden of proof with the theists. Did I hear "equal rights" anybody? You can't prove either the statement or its negation, and you're angry, tired and frustrated that theists aren't able to do so either? Finally, we are getting somewhere. READ THIS CAREFULLY: YOU ARE WRONG, I DID NOT ask you to prove the statement: "God exists". I specifically asked you to avoid that topic. My challenge was different, I asked you to answer my original question. If you are particularly thick, read the title of this thread: WHY DO I NEED GOD?. The question is, why do I need god? If I can be just as "good" in the religious sense of the word as a christian, with the only difference being that I do not want to warship god. Also I said that religion is HARMFUL (maybe because humans make it that way, but that does not matter for this argument). You never addressed either one of these statements. And frankly, I am tired of repeating myself after having done it six times. moonlight wrote: What a nice cop out Lex If someone, like myself, dares to point out that this is a cop out, you simply evade the "accusation" by saying they're not using logic. And underlying all this are your own personal issues with your religious choices. And I'm supposed to be the tangled mess... I love your jokes. I never evaded. I tackled every one of your statements, and you said: "I find funny your efforts to eliminate every counter example I propose". Ac cop out? How is using logic a cop out? It's as simple as that: I say that your statement is illogical, and you say that this is a cop out. Yes indeed, I claim that you calling a cop out (since there is none) is also illogical. I never called you a tangled mess: that honor goes to the gibberish you spout. moonlight wrote: I do apologise however. Recommending you to read on logic was a mistake. I should have started by recommending that you simply learn how to read. Full stop. Because evidently you seem to be struggling with two simple lines from a dictionary. For some reason, you seem to think that an "explanation - i.e. a statement - about a phenomenon, that can be tested" needs to be tested and evidence obtained for it, before being expressible. I wonder what other books you've "overread" in this way apart from dictionaries. Maybe Bibles? Korans? Ah well... "Bibles? Korans?" There are many? Seems like I am indeed ignorant. Whatever, skip that. Moonlight, me pointing out a mistake in your knowledge of a definition is not really that stupid of me. I already quoted your exact words in the previous post. You said that a Hypothesis has nothing to do with observation of a phenomenon, so I tried to help you by showing you explicitly why that is wrong. I am not allowed to examine your arguments? moonlight wrote: I'll be generous though, and still give you one more recommendation: don't try and make people cry. You have talent at making them laugh. It's like a God given gift to you, if you don't mind me saying. Like when you think you've recognised other talents in yourself such as having a HAL-like inbuilt reasoner in your head. Now that's funny. But I recommend you stick to comedy, not tragicomedy. Claiming that I hurt your feelings by commenting on your mental state, and that this allows you to compare our discussion to that of a human with an ameoba, with you as the human is bad tragedy. It doesn't make anyone cry. Although if you keep saying things like: I have no idea how you ended up assuming that I want to make you cry. I don't. I never care about other people's feelings, except for out of necessity because otherwise I will seem "antisocial". Here I am just being honest. I repeatedly asked you to stay on topic. After the sixth time, I commented that this argument did indeed seem like conversation with an inanimate object or bacteria because it was going nowhere. I was not hurt by your statements: they had nothing to do with the topic and I asked you to refrain from repeating them over and over. If I made you cry, I am very sorry. moonlight wrote: Although if you keep saying things like: Lex wrote: I don't see how statements about mental ability are audacious two paragraphs earlier to participants like Mortalfool, then you might indeed end up looking like a mortal fool and killing people out of laughter. two paragraphs earlier to participants like Mortalfool, then you might indeed end up looking like a mortal fool and killing people out of laughter. You recommended that I learn how to read? Well, if you were as nice as to quote the entire thing: Lex wrote: I never said anything about anybody having the value of mud in my life. Nor do I see how you assumed that: I assure you, I would not waste my time conversing with mud. I don't see how statements about mental ability are audacious. 1: You said something about letting go of stupid people, so I don't believe it is your place to argue "complete tolerance". 2: It is only natural to attempt to correct people's misconceptions, ignoring to do so if you believe they are wrong is cowardice or simply "not caring". 3: I was actually not referring to you when I made the "demonstrated in this debate" statement. Though I disagree with you, you have so far not demonstrated to me a lack of reasonable cranial activity. I am very unassuming by nature, so even accusing me of prejudiced intolerance is wrong. You would perhaps notice that I was talking responding to Mortalfool's statement. In another thread, he mentioned that he did not want to deal with stupid people, so I was merely surprised by his finding that statements about mental ability are audacious. Besides, that was AFTER you kindly pointed out to me that I was confused and I asked you to stay on topic, which is apparently a bit difficult for you to do. At this point, your posts are nothing but an array of personal insults. You argue that people read my arguments will die of laughter. I certainly did not know I had this talent. Well, I would be glad to hear their opinion. Truly yours, Lex Edited by Lex on 03/19/08 - 05:22 PM

moonlight
Lunatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Location: stuck on earth
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 510

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 03/19/08 - 07:09 PM:	#34
Hi Lex, Lex wrote: No my friend, I quite specifically said "They want to kill anyone with a moniker "moonlight", or they simply want to kill YOU. I told you you were funny. You quote the antecedant when I spoke of the consequent. I didn't discuss the fact that you said such people would want to kill me. That's just an assumption of yours. I argued with your reasoning, and by that I mean the conclusion you deduced from your assumption. And your conclusion was that I would have no other choice but to fight them. So I pointed out the fact that this wasn't logically true, that your reasoning is flawed, and gave you examples of alternatives, to illustrate this. The fact that most people who were accused of witch craft, died at the stake, does not imply that every person accused of witch craft, died at the stake. In other words, your sweeping generalizations aren't logical truths, even if you think they are, because logical truths need to hold true, all the time, not just most of the time. It is this fundamental distinction bewteen possible truth and logical truth which you seem unable to grasp, or unwilling to admit. And that is why examples, as you have noted yourself, will not work. If the form of the argument is not logically true, then it doesn't matter what the arguments talks about (witches, purple dinosaurs, ...): it will remain not logically true, and a mere logical possibility. This is what formal logic examines: the forms of the arguments. Whether the argument is about God, pizzas or Chihuahua dogs matters not. Only the form of the argument matters. So you can change the characters in your story from God, to purple dinosaurs to XXXX Gods and then again to witches: if your story isn't logically valid, it will remain so whatever "examples" you hide it under. And by the way an argument here is not argument in the sense of people arguying. An argument in logic means to go from one statement to the other, via inference rules. So stop making a fool of yourself by claiming that arguments are about listening to the other person's arguments, etc. Such circular explanations give the impression that you don't have the first idea about what logic is. Moreover, your question "why do I need God" presupposes that God exists in case you didn't notice. For if God didn't exists, whether or not you would need him would be irrelevant. You can't create him by definition, and nothing else can. He creates you by definition, as well as everything else. So it wouldn't matter whether you needed him or not if God didn't exist. If God did exist, that would be a different story. But obviously you assume God doesn't exist: so there is no point to your question. The only intelligible interpretation that could be given to it, would be to translate into: "prove me that God exists, so that I can address the topic's question", or alternatively "prove me that God doesn't exist, because I'm not sure, hence the fact I asked question". Both cases imply your have your own issues to deal with. That's your business: after all they are your own issues. The fact that it is impossible to prove or the disprove God's existence also means that your questions cannot be addressed as they are posed. So you'll keep getting inevitably frustrated by such discussions. But then again it is your choice. I intervened on the thread to point out that your reasoning in the OP and title is flawed. Logic does interest me my friend. Regarding the Bibles and Korans: don't apologize. It's ok to learn. There are obviously many Bibles: the Latin Vulgate Bible from which most modern Bibles stem was only declared to be the correct version at the council of Trent in the 16th century. Same goes for the Koran: each translation is considered to be different from the original Arabic text, and is deemed to be different and of lesser value than the Arabic version. Regarding a hypothesis. I said that you did not need an observation to make a hypothesis. I did not say you did not need an observation or a phenomenon. As you will see for yourself your definition states that a hypothesis is a statement for an observation or a phenomenon. A phenomenon is something that is perceived via the senses, like the monn's orbit may be perceived with sight, or with a person's own mind, like an idea of robots sorting apples springs to mind. In other words: it doesn't have to be an observation. It may be an idea, as in a phenomenon perceived by the mind only. That disjunction in the definition is apparently giving you trouble. A mathematical hypothesis for example requires no observation, and may be turned into a theorem if proved in the context of mathematics. Cordially, moonlight.
_____________________ All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 207

Posted 03/20/08 - 01:50 AM:	#35
Thanks for that guys To step in, can I just say that I think moonlight has given you his answers to your questions. He may not have worded it in the way you'd like, but none the less, his truth is there. However my take on it is also quite simple. You don't because you don't have to do anything, even if there is a God that is between you and him/she/whatever. You never know he may just like your smile! Although to achieve your goal of who is the Goodest! (YES GOODEST!) or not, you would need God simply because you believe he knows better than you. Yes this is based on the assumption God communicates in one way or another with individuals, but moreover you would open yourself to this communication or guidance, which let’s be honest is a cornerstone of most people's faith in God and also why the argument over ego is so valid. Simply being good for purely altruistic reasons would be a somewhat "lukewarm" approach. Let’s say someone stabbed you and stole your money, it is quite reasonable that they should go to prison. But say you believed in God and for some reason you felt he wanted you to let the person go, because they had learned a lesson and would go on and benefit mankind etc, etc. Regardless of whether this was just a delusion or not , you did not press charges. There is no justification for this when simply being good for goodness sake. Even if you argue you are being good for the sake of the individual what of the possibility of future crime. You could be viewed as selfish if the individual was to attack someone else. This is where the moral framework comes into play. Who decides what is good, what is moral etc? Well for some this decision is made through looking for guidance from God when morally grey choices need to be made that logic alone don't fully satisfy. And if you did want people to only answer the question you probably should have only posted the question and not the introductory statement. Also I think the point that has also been made is that it is relevant to definitively assert whether you believe God exists or not before asking why you would need him, as in the absence of that knowledge, the assumption is that you don't, based on the question, and the response is dependent on whether you do or not. Obviously if you do believe then it’s just logical to believe in him, the question is how you determine what he wants or expects from you. Although again if you felt he did exist but was of no consequence to you, or evil then as I said you wouldn't have to. “It's quite selfish to be good because God will reward you for it, don't you think? “ No It's quite selfish to be good ONLY because God will reward you for it. But no more so than only being good to try and prove you can without God. If you believe in God then it is quite natural to be good despite the rewards and punishments, as you have testified yourself. I hope you weren’t suggesting that this was a standard rational for people who believe in God. As for the need for religion, it's like asking why anyone would need any organization based on like minded people gathering under a common belief. It exists for those who believe in it those who don't have a religion have no need for it but it is not for them. Its right to exist is not determined by what it offers those outside of its target audiance. And to suggest it offers nothing other than child-molestations, inquisitions and crusades would be foolish. Oh and to your question: "Why are you people out there claiming to be good when you are actually useless?" What exactly do you mean by this? Edited by Techeth on 03/20/08 - 08:10 AM
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy

HeWhoKnowsNothing
Truly Unwise

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 82

Posted 03/20/08 - 07:52 AM:	#36
TO: This Thread CC: Lex Hey guys, I'm just posting to say that I'll be stepping out of this thread pending offensive remarks by Lex. At first I was motivated to assist Lex simply because his views seemed to coincide with my own. However, Lex's views started to seem tangential to my own after a certain point. After a short period of further observation I have ascertained that Lex is too emotionally attached to his arguments, and I would recommend that he attempt to emotionally detach himself from them for the following reason: The strongest logical arguments are the ones which are made with no emotional biases. Well, with that I take my leave. +++ END COMMUNICATION +++ (I don't know why I wrote like this, I suppose I am feeling playful right now)
_____________________ I know only one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 03/20/08 - 08:46 AM:	#37
HeWhoKnowsNothing wrote: TO: This Thread CC: Lex Hey guys, I'm just posting to say that I'll be stepping out of this thread pending offensive remarks by Lex. At first I was motivated to assist Lex simply because his views seemed to coincide with my own. However, Lex's views started to seem tangential to my own after a certain point. After a short period of further observation I have ascertained that Lex is too emotionally attached to his arguments, and I would recommend that he attempt to emotionally detach himself from them for the following reason: The strongest logical arguments are the ones which are made with no emotional biases. Well, with that I take my leave. +++ END COMMUNICATION +++ (I don't know why I wrote like this, I suppose I am feeling playful right now) I would appreciate if you would attempt to read the entire thing before you come to such a conclusion. Although I specifically and carefully answered everything moonlight said, he continued to harass my mental health and make fun of my attempts to provide a counter-argument for everything he said (please take the time to read and you will see it is true). In fact he opened by saying that he thinks I am confused. Now why does he have to assume that, I do not know. READ MY FIRST PARAGRAPH. I specifically posted that because I wanted a meaningful discussion without stepping into the more general debate about specific proof for god's existence. Nevertheless, moonlight continuously came back to this topic even though I explicitly stated that I do not want to argue about it. Every time I tried to prove something, he would say he thinks it is funny and useless for me to list counter-examples. I do not have an emotional attachment, but I have little patience (READ MY FIRST PARAGRAPH). This person named moonlight continuously ignored my polite requests to answer my questions, and actually said that I have emotional problems because I capitalize some of my text for emphasis. Are you going to tell me I have a problem? He finished by recommending that I read up on logic. Is that where I was supposed to continue a detached debate with him, according to you? Naturally I became more forceful in my attempts to either get this guy to respond properly or to have him leave me alone because the discussion was getting nowhere. In my last post, I carefully answered each of his accusations and vowed to not humor his posts with a response anymore, because it was not useful. If you feel that I am the one initiating offensive remarks, I suppose it's your choice, but please do read everything I respond to carefully first.

HeWhoKnowsNothing
Truly Unwise

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 14, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 82

Posted 03/20/08 - 10:18 AM:	#38
Lex wrote: I would appreciate if you would attempt to read the entire thing before you come to such a conclusion. Although I specifically and carefully answered everything moonlight said, he continued to harass my mental health and make fun of my attempts to provide a counter-argument for everything he said (please take the time to read and you will see it is true). In fact he opened by saying that he thinks I am confused. Now why does he have to assume that, I do not know. READ MY FIRST PARAGRAPH. I specifically posted that because I wanted a meaningful discussion without stepping into the more general debate about specific proof for god's existence. Nevertheless, moonlight continuously came back to this topic even though I explicitly stated that I do not want to argue about it. Every time I tried to prove something, he would say he thinks it is funny and useless for me to list counter-examples. I do not have an emotional attachment, but I have little patience (READ MY FIRST PARAGRAPH). This person named moonlight continuously ignored my polite requests to answer my questions, and actually said that I have emotional problems because I capitalize some of my text for emphasis. Are you going to tell me I have a problem? He finished by recommending that I read up on logic. Is that where I was supposed to continue a detached debate with him, according to you? Naturally I became more forceful in my attempts to either get this guy to respond properly or to have him leave me alone because the discussion was getting nowhere. In my last post, I carefully answered each of his accusations and vowed to not humor his posts with a response anymore, because it was not useful. If you feel that I am the one initiating offensive remarks, I suppose it's your choice, but please do read everything I respond to carefully first. Believe me, I read your first paragraph, if you look again you will see I was the first person to reply on this thread. I expressed that you shouldn't be arguing over the value of a religion versus but rather it's validity. I also recommended that you not badmouth religions, after which you started badmouthing religions. Also, the two questions you wanted him to answer: "1: in the first post, I asked why I should need god's guidance if I can be just as good in the christian sense without god. 2: Religion is a delusion that is DANGEROUS and HARMFUL. Please, in your next arguments PROVE to me that it is not rather than commenting on my mental state. If you wish, I will concede insanity, but please answer my question, will you?" I can sympathize with how you feel about moonlight (in a sense), because I can also often become irritated with his beat-around-the-bush answers. However, getting angry will not solve the problem, and moonlight being moonlight is no excuse for allowing your emotions to get the better of you. I'll do you one last favour (if you can call my other attempts at advice favours) and answer both of your questions. 1. You don't need god's guidance, however if you are attempting to act 'good in a Christian sense' then you have already taken guidance from their god. 2. This really depends on the way you look at it. On one hand, religion was responsible for many of the bloodiest and most horrifying incidents in the history of mankind. On the other hand, the current incarnation of most religious institutions are mostly harmless; they usually perform a whole slew of charitable acts and are generally good for whatever community they are in. The other 'beneficial' thing religion does (depending on what you consider beneficial) is that it placates the masses. People heading to a 9-to-5 job, wasting away without really accomplishing anything in life can find comfort that they are following a creed greater than our entire collective human existance. Their ideals may be false, but they may just be what keep the human race from boiling over and killing itself. My point in saying all this is that religion is something so deep-seated and ingrained in our society that defining the good and the bad it brings is impossible in any practical sense.
_____________________ I know only one thing, and that is that I know nothing.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 03/20/08 - 10:34 AM:	#39
HeWhoKnowsNothing wrote: Believe me, I read your first paragraph, if you look again you will see I was the first person to reply on this thread. I expressed that you shouldn't be arguing over the value of a religion versus but rather it's validity. I also recommended that you not badmouth religions, after which you started badmouthing religions. I can sympathize with how you feel about moonlight (in a sense), because I can also often become irritated with his beat-around-the-bush answers. However, getting angry will not solve the problem, and moonlight being moonlight is no excuse for allowing your emotions to get the better of you. I'll do you one last favour (if you can call my other attempts at advice favours) and answer both of your questions. 1. You don't need god's guidance, however if you are attempting to act 'good in a Christian sense' then you have already taken guidance from their god. 2. This really depends on the way you look at it. On one hand, religion was responsible for many of the bloodiest and most horrifying incidents in the history of mankind. On the other hand, the current incarnation of most religious institutions are mostly harmless; they usually perform a whole slew of charitable acts and are generally good for whatever community they are in. The other 'beneficial' thing religion does (depending on what you consider beneficial) is that it placates the masses. People heading to a 9-to-5 job, wasting away without really accomplishing anything in life can find comfort that they are following a creed greater than our entire collective human existance. Their ideals may be false, but they may just be what keep the human race from boiling over and killing itself. My point in saying all this is that religion is something so deep-seated and ingrained in our society that defining the good and the bad it brings is impossible in any practical sense. 1: I don't need any favours from you. You are free to discuss this because you feel like it, otherwise ignore it completely. 2: I am tired of repeating myself: I don't get angry. I was not getting any response from this individual, and the pointless pseudo-debate already took over a page of posts. For this reason, I had to 1: Ignore him 2: Attempt to get him to answer my question in a straight-forward way. If you believe that my method was wrong, propose a different one before you accuse me of badmouthing anybody. I already told you, he went as far as to say that capitalizing letters manifested my emotional instability. All I wanted was to get back on track. 3: I am not taking guidance from god, since I do not believe in his existence, but from what I personally want. 4: So you agreed that religion was rather evil in the old dies. Right now, we still have phenomena such as religious wars, debates, institutions. All these destroy lives and resources that could be used to better society. From an economic and practical perspective, your argument that religion is "harmless" makes no sense. Once again, I don't need any "last favours". I intended this to be a debate, so if you don't feel like arguing your point, don't bother posting. I hope that this thread has not been completely lost at this point, since there is already too much irrelevant information. I will ask everyone to stop commenting on the previous 2 pages and focus solely on my first post, because this has turned into me proving that I am not angry/confused to a bunch of people. If possible, get back on topic.

moonlight
Lunatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Location: stuck on earth
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 510

Posted 03/20/08 - 10:44 AM:	#40
HeWhoKnowsNothing wrote: I can sympathize with how you feel about moonlight (in a sense), because I can also often become irritated with his beat-around-the-bush answers. I don't beat around the bush, I rather beat the bush around. I don't have time for other methods, when the questions themselves are a messy bush. His first question assumes God exists. Yet it is not his case, since being an atheist, he assumes God doesn't exist. His second question, asks participants to prove that religions are bad. That's like asking people to prove pizza is bad. It's a matter of personal judgement, not a logical validity that can follow from the axioms of classical logic. A proof depends on the personal assumptions of the prover. And please: do let him get angry. He has to get it out of him, if he ever wants to get passed it. Besides, it's entertaining. Cordially, moonlight.
_____________________ All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 03/20/08 - 11:08 AM:	#41
Moonlight, if you have nothing more to contribute, please avoid posting. If you wish, you can start a: "Don't you think Lex is angry?" thread. Truly yours, Lex Once again: Everyone please remember that this is a formal debate of a certain topic. I thank you ahead of time for any meaningful posts I might see.

Tyrion Lannister
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 24, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 7

Posted 03/20/08 - 06:40 PM:	#42
Lex, there are many people who view religion in a similar light as you do. Before a move on with this I believe there are a couple things that should be made clear. Religions are made up of people and people are imperfect. One is always bombarded by the sentiment "no one's perfect!" If human nature is brought to bear in any form of a institution there will be flaws. For one to appreciate it a person has to look beyond the flaws. If one was to continue with this train of thought one would have to admit that getting an impression of a religion by observing the people is a gross injustice. You stated something about a person who does good on earth will be repaid in an after life and you found it selfish. It is selfish to find the idea selfish! Also it is important to understand that you can't argue (in your terms) if religion exists! As Thomas Aquinace pointed out to do so is like trying to count apples with oranges. In your terms you will never understand religion because you are not willing to humble yourself. Many fear religion and defy it through argument because it makes one great by lowering them. It is impossible for anyone to to make someone see what they have already closed there eyes too. One last point that i have noticed... It is a terrible injustice and "easy way out" when people state "its a matter of opinion" or "It depends on your prospective." For the supposed "philosophers" that follow this sentiment they should close the book and kill themselves now. If they have that little connection and empathy with the rest of the human race to think everyone lives in a lonely personal box then there is no reason to go on living!
_____________________ scrutatus animus

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 03/20/08 - 07:55 PM:	#43
Tyrion Lannister wrote: Lex, there are many people who view religion in a similar light as you do. Before a move on with this I believe there are a couple things that should be made clear. Religions are made up of people and people are imperfect. One is always bombarded by the sentiment "no one's perfect!" If human nature is brought to bear in any form of a institution there will be flaws. For one to appreciate it a person has to look beyond the flaws. If one was to continue with this train of thought one would have to admit that getting an impression of a religion by observing the people is a gross injustice. You stated something about a person who does good on earth will be repaid in an after life and you found it selfish. It is selfish to find the idea selfish! Also it is important to understand that you can't argue (in your terms) if religion exists! As Thomas Aquinace pointed out to do so is like trying to count apples with oranges. In your terms you will never understand religion because you are not willing to humble yourself. Many fear religion and defy it through argument because it makes one great by lowering them. It is impossible for anyone to to make someone see what they have already closed there eyes too. One last point that i have noticed... It is a terrible injustice and "easy way out" when people state "its a matter of opinion" or "It depends on your prospective." For the supposed "philosophers" that follow this sentiment they should close the book and kill themselves now. If they have that little connection and empathy with the rest of the human race to think everyone lives in a lonely personal box then there is no reason to go on living! I didn't say anything about people being perfect. Observing people IS my only way to form an opinion of what is a human-defined concept in the first place. It is not selfish to find the idea selfish. If it was: it does not prove that doing something because an overlord orders you to and expecting to reap rewards is noble. I did not argue about existence of (you said religion, I believe you meant god, because obviously religion exists) god: in fact, I said: assume he exists. Whatever. Why should I follow his guidance and worship him. WHY? I don't fear anything. I THINK. True I don't humble myself. Prove to me that I should. I didn't closed my eyes. I looked at it and had dirt thrown in them, so that I couldn't see, so I got myself a pair of safety goggles. The last comment (easy way out one): was that aimed at me? I believe it pertains to another poster, but I wanted to make sure.

Sophistry
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2008
Location: UK
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 46

Posted 03/20/08 - 09:07 PM:	#44
Hi all! Brand new to these forums, and this was the first thread I stumbled across. Very interesting discussion. Moonlight, could I ask you to clarify something? I'm slightly confused by this: moonlight wrote: To restate my example: the hypothesis about the phenomenon of "robots being able to sort apples with a success rate of 90%" requires no proof, or thesis to be formulated. It may be assumed therefore. If it assumed then it is provable from the assumption, and therefore: True. It seems like you are arguing that any hypothesis that 'requires no proof' is true. Obviously this is not the case, so could you clarify your position? I must say I'm rather confused! Thanks.
_____________________ http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3617

Posted 03/20/08 - 10:08 PM:	#45
moonlight wrote: Religious people claim that the sentence "there is a God" is a valid sentence. Atheists rush to claim the opposite: that it is invalid. Both positions are ridiculous. Atheism argues (i.e. demonstrates) that "theism" consists in unsound arguments (e.g. scripture reveals god's word "because" god / scripture says so ...) in defense of incoherent claims (e.g. "god is" x, y, z ... that "transcends" all instances of x, y, z ...)
_____________________ If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 207

Posted 03/21/08 - 03:23 AM:	#46
Lex I think the problem we are having is you are asking why YOU personally should believe in GOD, which I think is something, Moonlight was trying to say. Obviously this is not something that can be simply answered, as I said in general terms if you assume God exists, you would believe in him, believing that he would offer you guidance, knowing the imperfection of your design. Clearly this guidance is interpreted and therefore determined by the individual, so creates the paradox of, exposing the imperfection of man as seen by the ease with which people wage and are recruited into holy wars. As well as the positive, in those that make selfless and sacrificial acts for the better of mankind all in the name of God, which those who go into holy wars think they are doing. Religion is valid/useful based on the fact people believe in God. The simple fact people believe in God is why religion exists and continues to exist. It would be nonsense to suggest that one can believe in God but can't come together to share and express that belief. The problem with religion is that so many people believe in it that it has a tremendous power, and like all organisations has leaders who are exposed to that power and therefore can be corrupted by it, as is human nature. To argue it as a negative force is understandable but religion itself can no more be judged by what people do with it than a dollar bill, or a penny with the Queens face. Clearly this idea of imperfection is not something you champion in regard to yourself, but I think this thread is example enough of why you may consider humbling yourself. I think if you were to read it again with a degree of detachment you may see why. You have seemingly taken offense where there doesn't seem to be any, although the personal attachment HeWhoKnowsNothing mention, may be the reason for this. But that is for you to decide. This isn't an attempt to just have ago, but an observation as to why you may be having problems with this thread.
_____________________ Studying is like rowing against the current, if you are not moving forward, you are moving backward. - Chinese proverb Life's a bitch but God forbid the bitch divorce me! - Anon Silence makes the soul feel sick - Timid Timothy

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 173

Posted 03/21/08 - 10:43 AM:	#47
Techeth wrote: Lex I think the problem we are having is you are asking why YOU personally should believe in GOD, which I think is something, Moonlight was trying to say. Obviously this is not something that can be simply answered, as I said in general terms if you assume God exists, you would believe in him, believing that he would offer you guidance, knowing the imperfection of your design. Clearly this guidance is interpreted and therefore determined by the individual, so creates the paradox of, exposing the imperfection of man as seen by the ease with which people wage and are recruited into holy wars. As well as the positive, in those that make selfless and sacrificial acts for the better of mankind all in the name of God, which those who go into holy wars think they are doing. Religion is valid/useful based on the fact people believe in God. The simple fact people believe in God is why religion exists and continues to exist. It would be nonsense to suggest that one can believe in God but can't come together to share and express that belief. The problem with religion is that so many people believe in it that it has a tremendous power, and like all organisations has leaders who are exposed to that power and therefore can be corrupted by it, as is human nature. To argue it as a negative force is understandable but religion itself can no more be judged by what people do with it than a dollar bill, or a penny with the Queens face. Clearly this idea of imperfection is not something you champion in regard to yourself, but I think this thread is example enough of why you may consider humbling yourself. I think if you were to read it again with a degree of detachment you may see why. You have seemingly taken offense where there doesn't seem to be any, although the personal attachment HeWhoKnowsNothing mention, may be the reason for this. But that is for you to decide. This isn't an attempt to just have ago, but an observation as to why you may be having problems with this thread. Nope. You don't exactly get the point of my inquiry. Do you realize that every new generation will become infused with the notion of religion, and turn into moonlight? Living in delusion, and leaving the condition of this world in the hands of some convenient entity that does not (in my opinion) exist. I am saying that the world will be a better place if everybody thinks like me. For example, if everyone on Earth dies except for a small group of people, and that group later reaches the size of contemporary society, but without religion, they will be much better off. There will be less evil and suffering. One more thing: you people keep throwing the words "personal attachment" around, so I am going to make this absolutely clear: NO SHIT. The very fact that I am arguing this means a) I have nothing to do with my time b) I am truly interested in the situation and therefore am trying to understand it better. Of course I have personal attachment. I am interested in the issue, and in affirmative action. Do you really think my life goal is to win a forum debate? Not really, I want to do something useful with it, which naturally implies that I care. In fact, I care about the world enough to challenge rotten convention which is called "tolerance" today: don't touch anybody it's not nice, go live in your box. BUT: despite my attachment, I was trying to make a simple logical argument. The only reason my frustration surfaced in any way was because I specifically put in my first paragraph to ask people for a reasonable debate and that usually these end with people badmouthing me randomly and next thing I know the gentleman named moonlight is explaining that I am psychologically unstable/angry because I capitalize writing for emphasis. Is that really the way you would want a debate to proceed? Other than that, I am looking forward to an actual logic-based debate. We live in a real world, measured by real quantities and not abstractions. When I say: something is better, I can test this statement by measuring things intrinsically (or naturally) defined as good: lack of human suffering, etc. Also I can critically and logically analyze my system of belief to see if it is valid, and I am doing just that with religion.

hichaechoc
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 22, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 35

Posted 03/21/08 - 11:40 AM:	#48
"We live in a real world, measured by real quantities and not abstractions. When I say: something is better, I can test this statement by measuring things intrinsically (or naturally) defined as good: lack of human suffering, etc. Also I can critically and logically analyze my system of belief to see if it is valid, and I am doing just that with religion." But people do measure certain things by abstractions. People's perception of beauty, for example, or art differs from person to person. What I might call beautiful someone else will call garbage. Just because you can quantify something, e.g. weight, does not mean that someone else will have a different perception of weight, or, indeed, the object that you are weighing. You have your own system of belief, which you may or may not deem to be valid, but you cannot say that someone else cannot find a problem with it. Reason is also subjective to an extent, with differing opinions between people about wether the ontological arguement for the existence of god is just a trick or not.
_____________________ "Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create Him." Arthur C. Clarke

moonlight
Lunatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Location: stuck on earth
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 510

Posted 03/21/08 - 02:37 PM:	#49
Hi Tyrion, Tyrion Lannister wrote: It is a terrible injustice and "easy way out" when people state "its a matter of opinion" or "It depends on your prospective." For the supposed "philosophers" that follow this sentiment they should close the book and kill themselves now. If they have that little connection and empathy with the rest of the human race to think everyone lives in a lonely personal box then there is no reason to go on living! If we refrain from saying "it is a matter of opinion", "of personal perspective" then it would mean that opinion did not exist, and that humans would be entirely predictable and that their behaviour can be modelized. The world, and the humans which interact within it would be totally deterministic and predictable. While this may be true, nobody to my knowledge has a model that can determine and predict humans in such a way. Humans are way too complex. Thus the justification for using "opinions" and "personal perspectives" as descriptions about our reality. There is a difference between not being able to explain and predict totally humanity as an entity, and thinking that humans each live in their own personal box. It is not black or white: there are greys. Cordially, moonlight.
_____________________ All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

moonlight
Lunatic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 10, 2005
Location: stuck on earth
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 510

Posted 03/21/08 - 03:00 PM:	#50
Hi Sophistry, Sophistry wrote: It seems like you are arguing that any hypothesis that 'requires no proof' is true. Obviously this is not the case, so could you clarify your position? I must say I'm rather confused! Thanks. A piece of knowledge is a proposition that we hold to be either True or False. We may assume knowledge, or infer it (by some reasoning process: deduction, abduction, etc.) from other knowledge previously assumed or inferred. A hypothesis, as a piece of knowledge, requires no proof to be held true by a person. It too may be assumed. However the hypothesis needs to be falsifiable, so as to qualify as knowledge. This possibility must remain open. The result is that, until you have no evidence contradicting a hypothesis, you may assume that it is true. The problem with some hypothesis, is that on the one hand it is unlikely that it will be falsified, but at the same time nobody can rule out that possibility. A statement such as "God does not exist" or "aliens do not exist" can be falsified if God or ET shows up, and a statement such as "God exists" or "aliens exist" can also be falsified if the search space is exhausted. The trouble is, it is unlikely we can exhaust such large search spaces. In the case of God the search space for the interpretations of God's word, i.e. the number of interpretations for natural language texts held to be God's wrod is really large, and in the case of aliens, the physical universe is equally vast. Similarly, it is unlikely that either will show up. Cordially, moonlight.
_____________________ All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.