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 03/21/08 - 03:21 PM:	#51
180 Proof wrote: Atheism argues (i.e. demonstrates) that "theism" consists in unsound arguments So what? You think that this is equivalent to demonstrating that the arguments of theists are false? All atheism has achieved in this way is to show that the logic required to express religious truths is unsound. You can even add: incomplete and inconsistent. You think this is a problem? Many sentences in natural language describing the world require higher order quantification in order to be expressed. Many sentences describing arithmetic truths require such higher order logic. Truths that "transcend" entire infinite sets of numbers require "super predicates" of higher order logic and the possibility to quantify over them. Yet guess what: higher order quantificational logic is... unsound, incomplete and inconsistent. Do you think this means that every sentence in natural language, about the world or arithmetic, that requires higher order logic, is false? Obviously not... All you've done, by saying the arguments held to be true by theists or mathematicians, are unsound, is to say that it is impossible to derive sound, complete and consistent proofs of their truth or falsehood. In no way is this equivalent to a demonstration of the argument's falsehood. It's gonna take more than that I'm afraid. 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 - 03:33 PM:	#52
Lex wrote: 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 Boo hoo hoo... Funny guy... I told you you were confused. Was it not you who was practically begging for me to leave you alone, and crying about the fact that I judge your mental state? Have you inherited the Marquis de Sade's genes? Is this an invitation? Cordially, Monsieur Adolf. P.S: It's great that you care so much about the world, that you believe it would be better off if it simply thought like you and agreed with you. You are the personification of altruism. Edited by moonlight on 03/21/08 - 03:38 PM
_____________________ All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 03/21/08 - 04:52 PM:	#53
moonlight wrote: Hi Sophistry, Hello. moonlight wrote: 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. Well, you can't 'assume' knowledge. According to the classical tripartite definition of knowledge, in order for you to know that p: 1. You must believe that p 2. You must have some justification for that belief 3. p must be true Simply assuming something to be true is not knowledge. It may be a belief, but that is something quite different. moonlight wrote: A hypothesis, as a piece of knowledge, requires no proof to be held true by a person. A hypothesis - by definition - does not constitute knowledge. It is a proposition to be tested. moonlight wrote: 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. You may certainly assume that it is true if you want to. I may assume that there are fairies orbiting Proxima Centauri if I so desire, but that assumption does not constitute knowledge, nor does it mean that there are fairies orbiting Proxima Centauri. moonlight wrote: 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. If your argument is that the statement 'God does not exist' cannot be (or is unlikely to be) disproved, then that's fine. But so what? I bet you can't disprove my theory about fairies orbiting Proxima Centauri either.
_____________________ http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 03/21/08 - 04:56 PM:	#54
I am not begging you to leave me alone ^^ I am simply saying that I started this thread because I wanted a good logical discussion of MY TOPIC. So I am ignoring you. I already said that I am not responding to your ridiculous arguments, I will leave it to the people whose questions you are answering to judge whether your arguments are sound. I now leave you in the capable hands of Father James Porter Yours truly, The Marquis "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." I am not arguing god's existence. I am asking to know why I (as a person representative of the general population) need to follow religious dogma. Certainly there are things that are not invariant. People react to cold and pain differently. A joke or a story is successful often depending on the audience. However, I couldn't care less about these rather unimportant things. I am talking about the concepts that are quite well-defined: for example, killing people is wrong, suffering is bad, happiness (not clearly defined) is good. In the real world, I can quantify these things through the current situation: is there poverty, war, etc.

FrankenPC
Aspirant

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 20

Posted 03/21/08 - 04:57 PM:	#55
I have a theory that humankind is a slave to the master/slave dichotomy. It's an instinct. we, as humans, are either a master or a slave at any given moment. Some people are masters their entire life and some are slaves. In other words, you either exhibit control over a situation or submission. Look around at the next social, you will see what I'm talking about. A single person will wander the floor acting the master one minute then, moving on to the next person, act the slave. Both behaviors must be tended to. Lack of stimulation by either one will lead to a cognitive dissonance. A form of insanity. Look at all the examples of people in power who become slaves to their sex drive. It's an incredible turn on to be a slave when you know you are a master and vice-versa. My meandering point is this: In this modern society of ours, independence is critical. As we free ourselves from the burden of instinct and venture forth on our own, our slave side requires a master to feel comfortable. So, some people seek out other groups of slaves. Religion is one of those groups. AA is another. Rotary club, free masons, etc. are yet more examples. Until we are free of this caveman mentality of clan leader vs clan member (master/slave) we will always have religion. FYI: I feel there is a vast difference between religion and spirituality.

moonlight
Lunatic

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

Posted 03/21/08 - 05:24 PM:	#56
Hi Sophistry, Sophistry wrote: Well, you can't 'assume' knowledge. According to the classical tripartite definition of knowledge, in order for you to know that p: 1. You must believe that p Belief is nothing more than assumption. Just like opinions amount to no more than assumptions. Believing in a proposition, amounts to holding that proposition to be true. Holding a proposition to be your opinion, amounts to holding that proposition to be true. Sophistry wrote: 2. You must have some justification for that belief The fact that nothing contradicts the proposition that I hold true, which you may call belief, opinion, knowledge, etc. is justification enough. Sophistry wrote: 3. p must be true For some proposition X to be true, it means that X is provable from a set of premises. If X is assumed as a premise, then obviously X is derivable from the premises, thus true. Sophistry wrote: Simply assuming something to be true is not knowledge. It may be a belief, but that is something quite different. Please, could you explain to me how a belief is any different from personal knowledge? Sophistry wrote: A hypothesis - by definition - does not constitute knowledge. It is a proposition to be tested. By definition if the hypothesis is held true, then it is a provable fact from the premises, and thus it is knoweldge. Obviously if it is tested and it turns out that some new knowledge contradicts the hypothesis then the hypothesis must be removed from our premises. As a result it is not derivable anymore from the premises, and thus not provable, and thus not true. In other words, a hypothesis is innocent of being false, and may thus be assumed to be true (which doesn't mean it has to be assumed to be true), until proven guilty of being false. Sophistry wrote: You may certainly assume that it is true if you want to. I may assume that there are fairies orbiting Proxima Centauri if I so desire, but that assumption does not constitute knowledge, nor does it mean that there are fairies orbiting Proxima Centauri. If you assume it to be true, then it does constitute knowledge to you. You can derive the proposition from your premises, since it is included in your premises, which is equivalent to saying that you can prove the proposition. It is therefore knowledge to you. It still does not constitute common knowledge however, since the proposition is not assumed by other people. Sophistry wrote: If your argument is that the statement 'God does not exist' cannot be (or is unlikely to be) disproved, then that's fine. But so what? I bet you can't disprove my theory about fairies orbiting Proxima Centauri either. So nothing. And indeed, I can't disprove your argument about faires orbiting Proxima Centauri. I have neither the time nor the resources. But someday, someone maybe will. In the mean time your knowledge is neither provable, nor disprovable to me, because I have neither assumed the proposition, nor have I assumed its contradiction. This is essentially what I have been saying on this thread: the assumption (or belief) that God exists, that pizza is tasty or that fairies orbit Proxima Centauri is a matter of personal preferrence, a matter of opinion: simply said a matter of faith. These are not statements which may be proven from the axioms (i.e. assumptions) provided by the commonly shared reasoning systems at our disposal such as propositional, first order, etc. logics. They depend on personally extended sets of the axioms of these logics, which are not shared by everyone. So there is no point trying to prove either that God exists, or its negation. It is simply hopeless. 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 03/21/08 - 06:30 PM:	#57
FrankenPC wrote: I have a theory that humankind is a slave to the master/slave dichotomy. It's an instinct. we, as humans, are either a master or a slave at any given moment. Some people are masters their entire life and some are slaves. In other words, you either exhibit control over a situation or submission. Look around at the next social, you will see what I'm talking about. A single person will wander the floor acting the master one minute then, moving on to the next person, act the slave. Both behaviors must be tended to. Lack of stimulation by either one will lead to a cognitive dissonance. A form of insanity. Look at all the examples of people in power who become slaves to their sex drive. It's an incredible turn on to be a slave when you know you are a master and vice-versa. My meandering point is this: In this modern society of ours, independence is critical. As we free ourselves from the burden of instinct and venture forth on our own, our slave side requires a master to feel comfortable. So, some people seek out other groups of slaves. Religion is one of those groups. AA is another. Rotary club, free masons, etc. are yet more examples. Until we are free of this caveman mentality of clan leader vs clan member (master/slave) we will always have religion. FYI: I feel there is a vast difference between religion and spirituality. I believe that the mentality you described is only one tendency. In fact, sounded like a fetish. Although I completely agree with the caveman mentality comment: in general, that is what we exhibit. Only when people start seeing injustice and acting to stop it, even if it means taking a bullet in the process, will there be progress. After all, it is a world order based on fear that instills fear and therefore perpetuates itself, and the same goes for ignorance.

moonlight
Lunatic

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

Posted 03/21/08 - 06:34 PM:	#58
Lex, Lex wrote: I am not arguing god's existence. I am asking to know why I (as a person representative of the general population) need to follow religious dogma. Dogma? What a funny word coming from you. It is obvious that you don't follow the commonly shared religious dogmas: doesn't take a genius to figure that one out. But your approach, of ditching the divinities will lead down the same road. Hence the funny aspect of your arguments and my objections. Your entire rejection of "God", and arguying that we do not need Him, is based on the existence of Good independently of Him. There is, in my opinion no such thing as some universal good. I am only convinced further when I read your description of this good which is supposedly inherent to the humans. Your explanation of what "Good" is, and why it doesn't require "God", which is based on the Kantian categorical argument, is totally circular. It is founded on the word "Good" to explain that "Good" is inherent to us. It throws legal declarations in my face just like any dogma would: "everyone has the right to be happy". Says who? This is just as good as a verse from the Bible to me. Now even if you are funny, you are clearly not an idiot. You have observed that some things are wrong with the world. That there are certain problems, in its history, in today's world, and others that are foreseeable in the future. Good! (no pun intended)... That is what demonstrates that you are not an idiot: you have been able to observe and draw a conclusion on a situation. Even some leading moral authorities have chosen instead to hide in an ivory tower, so you really made the good move there, and I say this sincerely. However it starts getting funny when you actually make the leap and believe that you can solve these problems. So off goes Lex, who starts trying to modelize the world, and after declaring "Good" to exists, "God" not to, and some more computation, he spurts out an answer: religion is responsible for most of these harms. Let's get rid of it. Burn it at the stake I say! Damn, that's good comedy! Did you actually think that there was such a thing as a free lunch in our world? Your solutions, whatever you propose, be it the elimination of religion, be it that everyone will agree with you, etc. will end up becoming dogmas of their own. This is the problem you do not seem to realize. Suppose tomorrow every government, every international organization, every police force, everything that yields power basically decides to outlaw all forms of known religions and Gods. and suppose further that everyone joins the band wagon and follows suit. You seriously think that this will fix the world? Now that is indeed funny... The idea of an ideal rationalized world, with no place for Gods, purple dinosaurs, and the like will itself turn into a dogma. Do you really think it is possible to attain a paradise like nirvana here on planet Earth, where "Good" is inherent to humans, and all the problems caused by the naughty religions will suddenly vanish? What the hell is wrong with you: did you smoke something? Just observe reality for God's sake or Goodness' sake - whichever you like. It does not support this. You thought that I was confronting you in some sort of theist vs atheist confrontation. If I have commented on your writings it is because of the inconsistency of their basis: you want to replace a religious dogma, by a social and moral dogma, where everyone believes in a basic moral value (that "Good" instead of "God" is all around us) and which is highly reasoned. You actually believe that you can come up with a rationalized theory for human societies by simply adding an extra letter "o" to "God"? I mean, ok it's funny for a while. But do wake up and smell the coffee, please. Ideal rationalized theories are one thing on paper, and another when they are taken up by the societies they were written for. You know Nazism, Democracy or Marxism are also all ideal rationalized theories. They all looked good on paper. The story was rather different when millions of humans got hold of them and adopted them. They adapted them as a result. What makes you think your own ideal ideal, well-thought and rational theory, of a world with "Good" te replace "God", will escape this destiny? What you don't seem to understand basically is that every society has its God(s). The ned of sacred divinities is a fact of human collections. You can call them God, gods, idols or whatever you like. This is in the nature of societies, of human beings. Whether it is Allah, Jesus, the Republic, the Nation, the Aryan Race, the People, the Workers, the fifty two gods with a 104 arms and legs each, the purple dinosaur, or even reason itself if you like... Each society will erect temples to its ideals, designate sanctuaries for them, and declare these to be sacred and inviolable. Just look at yourself on this thread: you thought that I was taking out a sword to defend my own "God" in the face of your theory of "Good" which is attempting to replace it, and in which you seem to believe so hard, which seems to be so important, practically sacred to you. The point is that, a society, whether based on ideals that are rationalised, or not, will have its own Gods. The rationalized talk takes its religious aspect, even if the previous "Gods" have been thrown in the bin. And people then "walk the talk" of the new Gods. You perhaps, expect an ideal rationalised theory to becomes universal to a society, and its fate to be different than that of Nazism, Communism or other ideal rationalisation of social and moral, i.e. human interactions? I don't think soooo... It is necessary therefore to recognize that societies are complex, and that all your theorization and complex equations and arguments to modelize them will fail to do so. If successful, and adopted by the masses, your ideal rationalised theory without a God, and only Good, will take on a life of its own, other than the one you predicted or intended. Don't you realize your theory of "Good" that will replace "God" will become a dogma, just like the other dogmas? Again let me repeat this: Marxism too looked good on paper when Marx wrote at the time of the Communes Revolt in Paris. It was very romantic and fancy and looked full of hope and reason, and all at the time... Marxist societies looked kind of different a century later you see. It is inevitable: every society has its Gods and if an ideal rationalized theory becomes so succesful as you intend it to, then the theory will become the new dogma, and bring in the new gang of divinities. It is not me who misunderstands your theory of societies that do not need "God" and only need "Good" instead. It is the theory's own potential success that could turn it into a man made dogma, a new God, and misinterpretations, just as happened with every other rationalised and ideal theory, or not ratinaliozed one, such as the ones based on "God", will happen. That is what could lead to the violence. Not the idea or concept of God itself. That's why I prefer to remain consistent with myself and keep my independence vis-a-vis any dogma, or potential dogma, that attempts to introduce man made idols. I will not sign blank checks to man made dogmas basically. Now don't misunderstand me. If you focused more on methods and processes to address specific social, moral and generally speaking human problems, and less on some sort unifying theory of morality, I would be the first to clap. Such work on processes and methods would be smaller in scope, but would have several advantages. It maintains the original observation: that there is problems which need fixing: this is good and essential to progress as I stated earlier. Also the risk of ending up with a succesful theory of "Good without God" that will mutate inevitably into a dogma, and turn "Good" into a new "God" in the name of which many shall be killed, is much reduced. The difference between modelizing physics and modelizing societies with reason is that rocks and continents don't offer feedback and don't think. Whether you get a physical model right or wrong, it doesn't matter with regard to waterfalls and continents because they won't give a toss about them. Whereas social and moral models may be adopted by societies: and they will not be as passive as a rock. Societies will first adopt and then adapt. And then react. Turn your rationalized theory and model into something else. There is a recursive element involved here. And you have no way of computing it in advance so as to prepare for every eventual reaction and adaptation by the societies. I hope, that by now you'll understand that I have no personal issue with you, and that I'm not here to defend my God because I believe your new one may pose a threat to it. My objections are not due to some boredom, or desire to pick on you either. I hope I have been able to make my objections more understandable to you this time around. Now, I have work to tend to. Good luck in your quest. 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 03/21/08 - 07:06 PM:	#59
moonlight: you continue to bother me for no reason. I already told you that I won't bother to respond to or in fact read your arguments. I am too tired of explaining to you that I am not emotionally unbalanced. A reminder to everyone else: remember that my original question was an examination of why I need god. I think that I can prove that without believing in god or following religious dogma, people could create a much better world: in fact, eliminate at least some of the suffering we see today. I did not attempt to prove whether he exists or not, but in a way proving my argument would prove that deifying god, even if an entity such as him existed, is wrong and therefore would not be demanded by such a deity were it kind.

moonlight
Lunatic

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

Posted 03/21/08 - 07:10 PM:	#60
Lex wrote: moonlight: you continue to bother me for no reason. I already told you that I won't bother to respond or in fact read your arguments. As you like. Cordially, moonlight.
_____________________ All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 73
Total Posts: 3629

Posted 03/21/08 - 11:21 PM: Subject: "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." (Mark 10:14)	#61
moonlight wrote: Many sentences in natural language describing the world require higher order quantification in order to be expressed. Many sentences describing arithmetic truths require such higher order logic. Truths that "transcend" entire infinite sets of numbers require "super predicates" of higher order logic and the possibility to quantify over them. Yet guess what: higher order quantificational logic is... unsound, incomplete and inconsistent. Do you think this means that every sentence in natural language, about the world or arithmetic, that requires higher order logic, is false? Obviously not... All you've done, by saying the arguments held to be true by theists ... are unsound, is to say that it is impossible to derive sound, complete and consistent proofs of their truth or falsehood. In no way is this equivalent to a demonstration of the argument's falsehood. It's gonna take more than that I'm afraid. In practice, moonbeam, an unsound argument is one that may or may not be formally valid but does not draw its inference from demonstrably true premises. The premises of JCI theism are self-professed "matters of faith" -- not matters of fact or proof -- and as such are neither true nor false. An unsound argument demonstrates it's own incoherence -- in effect, that its statement is devoid of any intelligible truth-conditions. I don't have to prove that "faith-based", theistic claims are "false" in order to expose that their premises are unintelligible: they are not designed for conveying truth-claims. No higher-order analyses (as you suggest) are required of "god-talk" to recognize this vapidity: one only has to observe that it is completely subjective, like babytalk for adults; one simply has to make careful study of how "god-talk" is predominantly used by believers to recognize that it always assumes what it concludes; and thus provides consolation (on the cheap cognitively). Atheism simply rejects "theism" (and religiosity) because it is infantalising in "word and deed". Edited by 180 Proof on 03/21/08 - 11:26 PM. Reason: abracadabra! (Are you mesmerized yet?)
_____________________ 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.

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 03/22/08 - 02:06 AM:	#62
180 Proof wrote: In practice ... an unsound argument is one that may or may not be formally valid but does not draw its inference from demonstrably true premises. "In practice"? You mean in a decidable, sound, complete and consistent reasoning system. Since there is no such system that formalizes, captures the world fully, your "in practice" is simply not good enough. Higher order systems, which are unfortunately unsound, incomplete and inconsistent are required. You can't even characterize "infinity" without such higher order quantification, let alone "God". Unless you denote "God", or "infinity", as objects with finite properties, in which case you're not using the words as meant, then you do need higher order systems. 180 Proof wrote: one simply has to make careful study of how "god-talk" is predominantly used by believers to recognize that it always assumes what it concludes So what? Did you just discover the moon? There is nothing wrong with assuming what will be concluded as long as the assumptions remain consistent with one another. "God" is neither provable nor unprovable in a sound, complete and consistent systems, so no axiom contradicts it. You may therefore assume it in such systems. Unless you assume something that also implies its negation, there is no problem. Moreover, the assumption doesn't capture fully the nature of God. It doesn't mean you couldn't one day (dis)prove it in higher order systems, if you could find a way to make them sound, complete and consistent. 180 Proof wrote: and thus provides consolation (on the cheap cognitively). [/b]Atheism simply rejects "theism" (and religiosity) because it is infantalising in "word and deed". Bof... point of view. moonlight. P.S: No, I'm not mesmerized by your editing skills. Or your use of the roll-eye smiley. Takes more than that usually.
_____________________ All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher. - Ambrose Bierce -

hichaechoc
Aspirant

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

Posted 03/22/08 - 02:33 AM:	#63
"I am asking to know why I (as a person representative of the general population) need to follow religious dogma. " There is no reason why you have to. You have free will, and you can therefore choose whether you belive in god/a certain dogma or not. This belief may or may not be motivated by what seems to you to be a valid proof. You could not follow a religion. Just because someone thinks that they can prove that you should follow a religious dogma does not mean you have to. You justify your own actions, even if the justification is that there isn't one.
_____________________ "Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create Him." Arthur C. Clarke

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 03/22/08 - 03:49 AM:	#64
moonlight wrote: Hi Sophistry, The fact that nothing contradicts the proposition that I hold true, which you may call belief, opinion, knowledge, etc. is justification enough. No, it's not. You must have some positive evidence for your belief in order for it to count as knowledge. The mere absence of contradictory evidence is insufficient. moonlight wrote: For some proposition X to be true, it means that X is provable from a set of premises. Weirdly, this might be true. But it doesn't mean that we know the set of premises from which X can be derived. A thing can be true without being provable by us. moonlight wrote: Please, could you explain to me how a belief is any different from personal knowledge? Knowledge is justified true belief. Belief is just belief, it need not be justified or true. Belief is a necessary condition for knowledge, but by itself not a sufficient one. moonlight wrote: By definition if the hypothesis is held true, then it is a provable fact from the premises, and thus it is knoweldge. No. Simply holding something as true does not qualify it as knowledge. Again, for a proposition to count as knowledge you must not merely believe the proposition but you must have justification for the truth of the proposition and the proposition must be true. moonlight wrote: In other words, a hypothesis is innocent of being false, and may thus be assumed to be true (which doesn't mean it has to be assumed to be true), until proven guilty of being false. The truth status of a proposition does not change merely as a result of being 'proven' anything. A proposition is either true or false. I have no idea what 'innocent of being false' or 'guilty of being false' could mean. moonlight wrote: If you assume it to be true, then it does constitute knowledge to you. No it does not. See above. moonlight wrote: This is essentially what I have been saying on this thread: the assumption (or belief) that God exists, that pizza is tasty or that fairies orbit Proxima Centauri is a matter of personal preferrence, a matter of opinion: simply said a matter of faith. These are not statements which may be proven from the axioms (i.e. assumptions) provided by the commonly shared reasoning systems at our disposal such as propositional, first order, etc. logics. They depend on personally extended sets of the axioms of these logics, which are not shared by everyone. So there is no point trying to prove either that God exists, or its negation. It is simply hopeless. We all live in the same world. Either God exists or He does not (for everybody). There is no such thing as 'personal knowledge' (i.e. a proposition that is 'true for' one person but not for everybody else). But disregarding all that. You seem to have more or less admitted that there is no more reason for believing in God than believing in fairies around Proxima Centauri. So, WHY have you chosen to 'assume' (in your parlance) the proposition 'God exists' rather than the proposition 'Fairies around Proxima Centauri' or any of the other infinite 'innocent of being false' (again, your jargon) propositions that exist?
_____________________ http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

unenlightened
The Artistic Donkey

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 989

Posted 03/22/08 - 05:54 AM:	#65
Sophistry wrote: We all live in the same world. Either God exists or He does not (for everybody). If God is defined as the creator of the world, then She, at least, does not entirely live 'in' it. rather the reverse. To exist is usually thought of as having a particular position in space and time, which God of course does not necessarily, have - at the least his historical existence as Roman emperor or Jesus or whatever, is not the limit of his being. So there is a strong sense in which it is the case that belief in a transcendent God is belief in something that by definition does not exist in the usual sense of the word. The fairies around Proxima Centurai have revealed to me that they do not exist, and therefore never lie. But don't take my word for it, ask them yourself.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 223

Posted 03/22/08 - 06:38 AM:	#66
Sophistry without wanting to get too involved in something that's got nothing to do with me, or wanting to come across as Moonlights bestest buddy. Isn't the answer to your last question "personal knowledge"? It is at least from my point of view. I was wondering, if I say "my mother loves me, I know my mother loves me" are you saying I can't personally know unless I can prove it to the world. I know what you are saying, (at least I think I do) you can't know something until it is proven to be true, but in retrospect of it being true, was it not known, personally? But when the thing cannot be proven can I not claim to personally know, if not why try to prove anything in the face of seemingly insurmountable evidence to the contrary, the grounds for the personal knowledge can be questioned, but if proven, I must be able to say "I knew it!" Lex wrote: Do you really think my life goal is to win a forum debate? Very good! Okay I won't further argue about your state of mind, only to say my point was I didn't feel your interpretation of some of the statements that offended you, were not how they were intended. Anyway, although I am sure you are a great example of humanity, is there any sound argument that in the absence of religion the world would be a better place. Simply saying bad things have happened by having it means by not having it the world would be a better place is madness no? Does that not suggest that religion is a force of its own guiding people and not the other way round, or is the argument without such a powerful platform, there wouldn't be another in its place? Also I am not sure whether when you use "God" in your question you mean "religion" because if you do mean God then you are doing better than me, because he has yet to pass his dogmas onto me! I only know of the dogmas of religions which claim to speak on his behalf. So, why you should believe in God if you assume he exists I have answered. Why you should believe in religion even if you assume God exists is quite different and I would suggest there is little argument for why you should. Yes you could quite easily be a very good person, as good as any theist without claiming a religion. But the purpose of religion isn't to prove you are better than those without, at least not to my understanding. It is to be a forum for likeminded people to share their beliefs as well as attempt to convince or encourage others that there view is the right one. The argument that people should think different is great, yes they should, but I don't agree it is impossible to do so while believing in religion.
_____________________ 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

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 03/22/08 - 07:01 AM:	#67
Techeth wrote: Sophistry without wanting to get too involved in something that's got nothing to do with me, or wanting to come across as Moonlights bestest buddy. Isn't the answer to your last question "personal knowledge"? It is at least from my point of view. I was wondering, if I say "my mother loves me, I know my mother loves me" are you saying I can't personally know unless I can prove it to the world. I know what you are saying, (at least I think I do) you can't know something until it is proven to be true That's not really what I'm saying. It is not necessary for you to prove something to the world in order for you to know it. To take your example; for you to know that your mother loves you, the following conditions must be met: 1. You must believe that your mother loves you. 2. You must have some justification for your belief that your mother loves you. Note that this does not have to be an ironclad proof. In this case, it might just be that your mother has exhibited loving behaviour towards you. 3. Your mother must, in fact, love you. Note also that this does not require that it has been proven that your mother loves you. A thing may be true even if it has not been proven to be true. It may be true that there are five planets orbiting Proxima Centauri, but we just do not know it yet.
_____________________ http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 223

Posted 03/22/08 - 07:10 AM:	#68
Okay so by your argument it is satisfactory to claim I know God exists, as long as I believe it, have some justification and God does infact exists, whether it can be proven or not? Then I am confused over your argument with moonlight and will just read and enjoy.
_____________________ 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

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 03/22/08 - 08:05 AM:	#69
Techeth wrote: Okay so by your argument it is satisfactory to claim I know God exists, as long as I believe it, have some justification and God does infact exists, whether it can be proven or not? Correct. Techeth wrote: Then I am confused over your argument with moonlight My argument with Moonlight is that Moonlight has written that: moonlight wrote: We may assume knowledge It's a bit hard to know what this might mean, but if it means that we can know things without having any justification, then I take issue with that. Later on, Moonlight wrote: moonlight wrote: The fact that nothing contradicts the proposition that I hold true, which you may call belief, opinion, knowledge, etc. is justification enough. But I contend that the mere absence of contradictory facts is not proper justification for a proposition. Even if I were to take this as justification it would follow that any number of propositions (I gave the example of there being fairies around Proxima Centauri) have equal justification. Therefore you would 'know' that there were fairies around Alpha Centauri just as well as you would 'know' that God exists (assuming, of course, that both propositions are true).
_____________________ http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 03/22/08 - 08:13 AM:	#70
unenlightened wrote: If God is defined as the creator of the world, then She, at least, does not entirely live 'in' it. rather the reverse. To exist is usually thought of as having a particular position in space and time, which God of course does not necessarily, have - at the least his historical existence as Roman emperor or Jesus or whatever, is not the limit of his being. So there is a strong sense in which it is the case that belief in a transcendent God is belief in something that by definition does not exist in the usual sense of the word. Sure, God might exist outside the universe or, if you like, outside space and time, but He would still exist in some sense, rather than not exist. I don't see quite how this detracts from what I'm saying. Or maybe you didn't mean for it to detract, and I'm just being unnecessarily argumentative.
_____________________ http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

hichaechoc
Aspirant

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

Posted 03/22/08 - 08:58 AM:	#71
"If God is defined as the creator of the world, then She, at least, does not entirely live 'in' it. rather the reverse. To exist is usually thought of as having a particular position in space and time, which God of course does not necessarily, have." If we take God to be a omnipotent creator of the universe, then to be omnipotent he must exist both 'inside' and 'outside' the universe (i.e. at all points in space time and outside), or he would be limited in that he did not have a presence in both.
_____________________ "Perhaps our role on this planet is not to worship God - but to create Him." Arthur C. Clarke

FrankenPC
Aspirant

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 20

Posted 03/22/08 - 12:01 PM:	#72
Turn on the Waaaay back machine to the stone age. When we lived in caves. There was a leader who told you what to do and a bunch of followers (masters and slaves). That developed into an instinct. The masters were the minority and the slaves were the majority. Fast forward to today. That instinct still persists. Yet, we have no one telling us what to do. I submit to you all, that the sole purpose of religion is to tell the slaves what to do. To the slaves, religion feels like a warm blanket so they flock to it. God is just a common manifestation of the ultimate master. How can you challenge a master you cannot see or touch? A very convenient prop for the religious zealots. So, yes, in a way god exists. It exists in our minds. Until we evolve away from the master/slave syndrome we will always be plagued by the god question.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 03/22/08 - 12:19 PM:	#73
Techeth wrote: Sophistry without wanting to get too involved in something that's got nothing to do with me, or wanting to come across as Moonlights bestest buddy. Isn't the answer to your last question "personal knowledge"? It is at least from my point of view. I was wondering, if I say "my mother loves me, I know my mother loves me" are you saying I can't personally know unless I can prove it to the world. I know what you are saying, (at least I think I do) you can't know something until it is proven to be true, but in retrospect of it being true, was it not known, personally? But when the thing cannot be proven can I not claim to personally know, if not why try to prove anything in the face of seemingly insurmountable evidence to the contrary, the grounds for the personal knowledge can be questioned, but if proven, I must be able to say "I knew it!" Very good! Okay I won't further argue about your state of mind, only to say my point was I didn't feel your interpretation of some of the statements that offended you, were not how they were intended. Anyway, although I am sure you are a great example of humanity, is there any sound argument that in the absence of religion the world would be a better place. Simply saying bad things have happened by having it means by not having it the world would be a better place is madness no? Does that not suggest that religion is a force of its own guiding people and not the other way round, or is the argument without such a powerful platform, there wouldn't be another in its place? Also I am not sure whether when you use "God" in your question you mean "religion" because if you do mean God then you are doing better than me, because he has yet to pass his dogmas onto me! I only know of the dogmas of religions which claim to speak on his behalf. So, why you should believe in God if you assume he exists I have answered. Why you should believe in religion even if you assume God exists is quite different and I would suggest there is little argument for why you should. Yes you could quite easily be a very good person, as good as any theist without claiming a religion. But the purpose of religion isn't to prove you are better than those without, at least not to my understanding. It is to be a forum for likeminded people to share their beliefs as well as attempt to convince or encourage others that there view is the right one. The argument that people should think different is great, yes they should, but I don't agree it is impossible to do so while believing in religion. You are assuming that religion is a preference just like artistic taste. It is not. It has to do with how we live. If god does not exist, then there is a problem because the REAL world is governed by people and ideas that claim to have a higher guiding force which in reality does not exist. If god exists, fine. However, by the very definition religion should be "good", teaching people how to become better and making the world a better place. If so far, all religious beliefs have done is impose more suffering and breed ignorance, it is a valid claim to say that the very existence of religion is paradoxical. Just like the fairies from Proxima Centauri: it is almost like fairies telling you they do not exist. TRUTH is not something that is personal knowledge, it is either there or not (binary). Since truth is what we want to learn in order to understand how to interpret and structure our lives, it is very important. Because we can not be sure that something is true in most cases, we usually have to do with premises: this is good, this is evil. Before we adopt a whole system of beliefs, we must carefully examine it: something moonlight argues against. In fact, some of his arguments have already been found so ridiculous by many people here I don't think I need to comment, but in short: he says that a hypothesis can be made without prior observation (which is against the definition of hypothesis) and therefore you can assume whatever the hell you want and be left alone. In that sense, murderers (maniacs) are perfectly justified in the eyes of society: they think that their excitement from killing is well worth another person's life. Sure, we cannot prove that this is false, but we as a society do not accept is as true anyway. We are rather picky about what we call truth: that is, when our ability to think is intact.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 03/22/08 - 12:28 PM:	#74
hichaechoc wrote: "If God is defined as the creator of the world, then She, at least, does not entirely live 'in' it. rather the reverse. To exist is usually thought of as having a particular position in space and time, which God of course does not necessarily, have." If we take God to be a omnipotent creator of the universe, then to be omnipotent he must exist both 'inside' and 'outside' the universe (i.e. at all points in space time and outside), or he would be limited in that he did not have a presence in both. I am talking about our definition of religion. Religion is something that exists to spread goodness. I claim: if it only spreads evil, the definition is ridiculous and the whole concept should be scrapped. After all, if there indeed is a guiding force, it won't allow evil to happen. If it is humans who are at fault, then obviously those who call themselves theists today are doing a horrible job anyway and their concept of religion should be scrapped. To anyone who will use the ridiculous example of religious charities as the one good thing religion does for society: sure, there are charities, but they are aimed at developing support for the church and bolstering its reputation, granting it even more power. MOST IMPORTANTLY, it is a bad allocation of resources: if people wanted to help the less fortunate, they should personally organize in order to help in the most effective way possible, rather than making donations that translate into charity but also into feeding the church institution: more gold rings for their priests, prettier churches, more children for them to molest. Charities are downright ridiculous by definition: there should be an effort fix the problems the world faces rather than to "alleviate" people's suffering in order to make yourself look good.

Lex
Graduate

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

Posted 03/22/08 - 12:36 PM:	#75
hichaechoc wrote: "I am asking to know why I (as a person representative of the general population) need to follow religious dogma. " There is no reason why you have to. You have free will, and you can therefore choose whether you belive in god/a certain dogma or not. This belief may or may not be motivated by what seems to you to be a valid proof. You could not follow a religion. Just because someone thinks that they can prove that you should follow a religious dogma does not mean you have to. You justify your own actions, even if the justification is that there isn't one. Ridiculous. That is antisocial: meaning a human does not live in or depend on society, and has no responsibility to it. If you say that I can believe anything I want, then I may choose to believe in murder, theft, etc. Or I may simply believe in suppressing others' rights to believe in anything they want, which makes your definition even more impossible. It's ridiculous to "justify your own actions". If you were not educated, you would be a brainless animal. Want to argue that? There are humans who have been raised by animals in the wild (wolves, for example, and no I am talking about reality not Maugli), and they are unable to think OR learn to think at this point, meaning that they no longer fit under the definition homo sapiens. The brain does not by default have any knowledge with which it can justify its own actions. There has to be something else that it can be used. If there is nothing absolute that the mind can grasp, then obviously anything you come up with on your own is simply your own whim and there is nothing to define it as right or wrong. Society, however, by existing, chooses to believe the former: that there are indeed absolutes that we should believe in. I want to know what these are, but for the moment, I want to understand what IS NOT such an absolute.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.