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?

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 157

Posted 03/24/08 - 12:12 PM:	#101
Lex, if you want to leave God out of it stop bringing her ( Unenlightened) up. Your question has nothing to do with why you need God but rather religion. I brought this up before but I don't think you like answering my questions. Lex wrote: You want me to prove S false (once again, it has nothing to do with god, rather with religion as defined by humans)? What kind of evidence will you take? All I need to prove is that religion does harm to make S invalid by its own definition. The Crusades, Inquisition, Jihad, the corruption within the institution of the contemporary church, the waste of resources on the upkeep of hordes of priests, pedophile priests, hand lotion being sprayed from water guns on images of saints to deceive congregations into believing in miracles? Is that a valid measure of goodness? Once again, I cannot imagine any reason why you personally would NEED or HAVE to have a religion, as most religion testify you really only need to believe in God. They exist because people want to be a part of them not because they need to be. Is that it... Crusades, Inquisition, Jihad etc. Com'on your smarter than that. The argument is religion is not valid because it represents humanity, because those who are religious are not somehow transcended into enlightened beings. If religion is valid we should already live in heaven? All I have to add is WWI, II, slavery, genocide, world famine, and I can argue the demolition of society as we know it and maybe the Human race. Or is you argument that what you have stated is the entire contribution of religion? I applaud your search for answers, but this has gone a bit �Pete Tong�.
_____________________ 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

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 03/24/08 - 12:19 PM:	#102
moonlight wrote: Hi Sophistry As to how I make decisions with such a method of adopting knowledge. I still don't think it will lead to anymore bad decisions than your method. The reason being is that I do not elevate the religious knowledge - for example that "God exists", that "He said so and so" - above the rest of my knowledge. If I adopt some new proposition, and this leads to a contradiction with my existing knowledge, then I make corrections: whether it is a piece of religious knowledge or non religious knowledge that needs to be corrected matters not. I have no hierarchy with religious propositions held high above non religious ones in my mind. The beliefs I hold to be true are all equal to me. Moreover since God doesn't speak to me, the religious propositions I hold to be true, are all interpretations of a religious text. It is not like I have uploaded the religious text itself, letter for letter, like some syntactic package, in my mind and held it to be true. That would be meaningless. I interpret it, into propositions, which have semantics, meaning, which I then hold to be true. Since these religious propositions do not, contradict the rest of my knowledge, I see no problem. Were they allowed to hold a higher status and drive the format of my knowledge base, then yes I would say that's a problem. But it isn't the case: religious or not, all knowledge is held to be true equally in my mind. The religious and non religious knowledge, must reconcile, so as to live in my mind. So I still see no problem with my position. Perhaps if you provided a concrete example. Here is an example of how basing your decisions on non-evidence-based beliefs can lead to bad outcomes. Say you live in London and need to be in LA for a meeting at a specific time. You need to catch a plane in order to make the meeting. An evidence-based approach would lead you to look up the flight times before arriving at the airport, which would probably result in you making the meeting on time. However, if you decide instead to simply assume that there will be a flight at an arbitrary time then there is a relatively high probability that you will fail to make the meeting. Surely you must admit that this demonstrates the fallacy of basing decisions on assumptions. Now for a more pertinent example. Say you arbitrarily decide that the Bible is the word of God. You then adopt a number of moral imperatives from the text based on this non-evidence-based belief. One of these is that the penalty for adultery is death, and thus you decide to kill your wife after you find her being unfaithful. Pretty bad outcome. moonlight wrote: Also, you seem to see the fact that in your approach the premises have less chances of being false as a bonus, a good thing. I don't see how this is. Since as humans we have the possibility to back track and correct our knowledge bases, I don't see how the issue is a problem at all. If the premises have 5% chance of being false, then it means we have 5% chance of having to make corrections. If it is 50% chance of falsehood, then it means 50% chance of making corrections. But in all cases, we succeed 100% at correcting our knowledge bases. This is not the case. Just because we make a mistake it does not follow that it will definitely be corrected. Even if all mistakes did eventually get corrected there might be a long time lag between the mistake being made and it being corrected. In some cases the time delay might be measured in years or centuries, during which people have to suffer the consequences of faulty beliefs. Your argument that we should deliberately adopt a system that makes mistakes more likely so that we will have the chance to correct them in the future seems asinine. moonlight wrote: The complexity, the hardness, resides in being able to offer distinct beliefs for each individual, or relatively small groups of individuals. After all: what is a dogma? It is an established set of beliefs, right? No, it's an established set of beliefs that is usually based on little or no evidence, and is not open to rational argument. moonlight wrote: Established in the sense of "pluraly established", "shared by many people". Removing the dogma means many many people will stop believing in those beliefs of the dogma. But they will only do so in exchange for other beliefs. They won't accept to go from a state of belief, of knowledge, to a state of ignorance, of disbelief. That is contrary to human nature. You have to offer some new beliefs, for the previous ones, the ones of the current dogma to be abandonned. And here is the complexity: Can you offer distinct propositions, distinct beliefs to all these people? Because if you only offer say 5 alternatives beliefs, for 1 billion people, then you will get a new dogma which will emerge naturally, quickly. The 5 beliefs will become established among many people. That is precisely the definition of a dogma. You have a new dogma facing you. Mission failed. You assume that people have to be given their beliefs. I am proposing that they can use their own brains and think for themselves. And besides, even if most of humanity is incapable of escaping dogma (and I'm not conceding this), why does this mean that you, as an individual, have to submit to bad thinking. No matter what everybody else is doing you have the power to take control of your beliefs and start thinking clearly. What do we replace dogma with? Evidence-based thinking that is open to change and criticism. moonlight wrote: The complexity of eliminating dogmas, does not lie therefore in simply getting rid of the established beliefs. It -- paradoxically -- lies in raising the number of established beliefs, so as to avoid the new set of beliefs to be overshared. It is a matter of simple combinatorics really. For example, simply getting rid of the proposition "God exists" to replace it with the proposition "God does not exists", in other words simply going from theism to atheism, will not change a thing to the human condition. The new dogma will simply be different, an atheistic one, instead of a theistic one, but it will also be the same: just as powerful as its predecessor. You are drawing a false dichotomy. I am not proposing that we replace 'God exists' with 'God does not exist'. The third option is only to adopt a belief when there is a reason to do so. In this case there is arguably no good reason to adopt either, and so we simply abandon both. moonlight wrote: To make things worse: beliefs don't fall out of the sky. They correspond to propositions, in other words they are the result of interpretations of our surroundings, of our texts, etc. Well according to you they do fall out of the sky! You have previously admitted that you 'assumed' the belief that there is a God simply because there is no evidence contradicting the belief. moonlight wrote: As you said people are lazy and like when others think for them. Will these others ever be able to generate a sufficient amount of beliefs, which they will obviously not themselves all hold to be true (ethical issue here) so as to create enough beliefs to avoid them becoming dogmas? This is far from obvious if you ask me. Again, people can think for themselves. They do not need other people to generate their beliefs for them. Democracy by the way, since you mention it, has turned into a dogma of its own, and impresses me little. Democracy did get Hitler elected and indirectly sent the Jews to the camps. That was 75 years ago. Today, in the name of democracy, Iraq is invaded and turned into a land of anarchy. Democracy has become a dogma today, more so than ever. A widely established belief, that few question. The word itself automatically makes heads nod in agreement at public meetings, without anyone even stopping to question it, even when it is Bush giving lectures about what this new democratic God wills next. I don't really want to get into a discussion on the merits and demerits of democracy, although I will certainly admit it is an imperfect system. I also admit that, unfortunately, some do adopt its tenets as a dogma. However, the point of this example was to demonstrate that it is possible for an ideology to be undogmatic. It is not necessary to believe anything based on no evidence to believe that we ought to have democratic democratic elections.
_____________________ http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 166

Posted 03/24/08 - 12:47 PM:	#103
Techeth wrote: Lex, if you want to leave God out of it stop bringing her ( Unenlightened) up. Your question has nothing to do with why you need God but rather religion. I brought this up before but I don't think you like answering my questions. Once again, I cannot imagine any reason why you personally would NEED or HAVE to have a religion, as most religion testify you really only need to believe in God. They exist because people want to be a part of them not because they need to be. Is that it... Crusades, Inquisition, Jihad etc. Com'on your smarter than that. The argument is religion is not valid because it represents humanity, because those who are religious are not somehow transcended into enlightened beings. If religion is valid we should already live in heaven? All I have to add is WWI, II, slavery, genocide, world famine, and I can argue the demolition of society as we know it and maybe the Human race. Or is you argument that what you have stated is the entire contribution of religion? I applaud your search for answers, but this has gone a bit �Pete Tong�. Sigh I love answering your questions, but apparently I did a bad job, so let me try again. (Also I like how you are trying to provoke debate about god's gender, but I don't have any opinion about that) 1. I never argued god's existence in my original question. Numerous people started here posted comments AS IF my purpose was specifically to prove he/she/it does not exist, and I perhaps inadvertently made remarks that made it seem as if this was the purpose of my argument. 2. Maybe you separate god and religion, but for me and for most people, religion is valid because of the existence of god, so you cannot distinguish them completely. All I am saying is that a god who wishes for the type of religion that is defined here on Earth cannot exist. There, I answered your question as directly as possible, and please do not use 2) as an excuse to say that I am arguing about god's existence. I am arguing about the validity of religion (with theists associated with god). Smarter than that? Trust me, I know what you meant when you said that, but you did not think it through enough. Even though evil is a purely human concept and all evil is perpetuated by humans and not definitions, I believe that DELUSION plays a large part in preventing those who could break out of this vicious circle. As it adds to the suffering and perpetuates delusion, prompting people to leave justice with god instead of personally taking action, I am arguing that religion is harmful while by definition it should be good. If this is not direct, I do not know what is. Edited by Lex on 03/24/08 - 01:09 PM

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 03/24/08 - 12:52 PM:	#104
Sophistry wrote: Here is an example of how basing your decisions on non-evidence-based beliefs can lead to bad outcomes. Say you live in London and need to be in LA for a meeting at a specific time. You need to catch a plane in order to make the meeting. An evidence-based approach would lead you to look up the flight times before arriving at the airport, which would probably result in you making the meeting on time. However, if you decide instead to simply assume that there will be a flight at an arbitrary time then there is a relatively high probability that you will fail to make the meeting. Surely you must admit that this demonstrates the fallacy of basing decisions on assumptions. But inductive reasoning is, itself, faith based. Every epistemological standard is unjustified at root. If everything were justified there would be no beginning, because every premise would require a justification. Therefeore, all epistemologies ASSUME something in order to PROVE anything. Science is one such standard, which has its unquestioned premises. Now for a more pertinent example. Say you arbitrarily decide that the Bible is the word of God. You then adopt a number of moral imperatives from the text based on this non-evidence-based belief. One of these is that the penalty for adultery is death, and thus you decide to kill your wife after you find her being unfaithful. Pretty bad outcome. Again, your standards ASSUME that bad outcomes ought to be avoided. But why? Why ought I avoid doing what is bad? No, it's an established set of beliefs that is usually based on little or no evidence, and is not open to rational argument. No, dogma is an unquestioned premise. Nietzsche was the first philosopher that wasn't dogmatic. He was the "underground" philosopher because he worked beneath all the standards of the dogmatic philosophers and challenged epistemology and morality at its root. What do we replace dogma with? Evidence-based thinking that is open to change and criticism. And is not the moral premise that we ought to think based on evidence a dogmatic proposition? Where's your support for such a claim? You are drawing a false dichotomy. I am not proposing that we replace 'God exists' with 'God does not exist'. The third option is only to adopt a belief when there is a reason to do so. In this case there is arguably no good reason to adopt either, and so we simply abandon both. Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of one.
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 03/24/08 - 01:46 PM:	#105
JAC wrote: But inductive reasoning is, itself, faith based. Every epistemological standard is unjustified at root. If everything were justified there would be no beginning, because every premise would require a justification. Therefeore, all epistemologies ASSUME something in order to PROVE anything. Science is one such standard, which has its unquestioned premises. As I have stated previously in this thread we can never be absolutely sure of anything. But we can do our best, using the imperfect tools of inductive and deductive reasoning, to make sure that our thinking is rooted in fact and evidence, rather than faith alone. Of course it is true that induction can not be independently proven as a reliable method. But in the absence of a foolproof system we must make do with the methods we have. You can't prove that walking through the wall won't get you out of the building faster than going through the door. But you still use the door, right? JAC wrote: Again, your standards ASSUME that bad outcomes ought to be avoided. But why? Why ought I avoid doing what is bad? The very meaning of the word 'bad' is something that is undesirable, is it not? JAC wrote: No, dogma is an unquestioned premise. That's pretty much what I said. JAC wrote: And is not the moral premise that we ought to think based on evidence a dogmatic proposition? Where's your support for such a claim? My support, as previously stated, is that thought based on dogma leads to bad outcomes. JAC wrote: Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of one. That's exactly my point.
_____________________ http://tomscrace.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/tomscrace

Makarismos
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 452

Posted 03/24/08 - 03:14 PM: Subject: shades of grey	#106
JAC wrote: Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of one. Atheism comes in different flavours. Strong atheists claim that they know that no god exists - this is a positive belief about the absence of a thing (they often claim silly things, like they need no evidence to have sure knowledge, "you cannot prove a negative" etc). Weak atheists do not believe in a god, though they admit they have no evidence. Agnostics say there is no evidence, and they don�t know what they believe. Ignostics think the concept of god is ill defined, and that any question using the term is currently unanswerable. oh, and the theists disagree about all of the above (apart from Buddhists which can be any of the above). Currently I�m hovering between agnosticism and ignosticism. P.S you do realise JAC that he can probably keep coming up with other reasons for things all day, or else he must simply have a stopping point, a brute fact. All ethical questions come down to this: an infinite regress, or a brute fact. I like to rely on my own moral feeling, how about you? Edited by Makarismos on 03/24/08 - 03:24 PM

Casualty
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 12, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 46

Posted 03/24/08 - 03:30 PM:	#107
I will try to give Lex what he is looking for: Assumption: God does/does not exist. Proof: Lex exists. (Don't try to prove it to him.) Lex knows (or thinks he knows) he thinks. Lex defines/assumes he defines -in either case, Lex assumes. Safe to say Lex does something, if not, then nothing, and if not that, then who knows -and by who I mean some random character we cannot prove or define, and by know I mean quantifiably justify by means we all agree with. So at least we all agree, right? Anyway, you can see the absurdities that come from questioning and writing down everything to the exact last assumption. Even if you do come up with a theory, people question it, and until you run out of every question and doubt, which is impossible since people will believe or not believe with or without any doubt -just choose to do something absurd- you have not justified everything... But I will start with an assumption I do not think anyone will question... That first part was just for fun. Lex thinks. Lex has thoughts. Thoughts are reduce-able. In one sense, difference exists in thought. In one sense, there are separate thoughts. In one sense, separation exists. Separation is either self sustaining or created. Self sustaining must have a cause. Cause implies reason. Reason implies system. System implies order. Order implies creator or greater system, which would then imply creator. Systems do not come from nothing and laws do not come from nothing, unless the laws are derived from what they govern, in which case, which came first, the law or the system, or was the system always? Either way you believe in something as always. Therefor; Something always was/is. So we know something exists and there are difference to what it is and is not. Now you can say that the nature of the system is such that it is self-made and not call it God. You can make it an impetuous force that has no bearings on your way of life, but this system, and I am talking to you simplify-ists too (for as much as you define you are stating a difference, and as much as you do not define you are examplifying it) is absolute. We can go on and on about the nature of the system, but I have to prove by logic that it is a person -has a soul. Well, let us define soul, and yes, a robot or syntax can have a soul if you set it all up right. Soul: Mind, Will, Emotions. Will: same as desires, makes actions: some might call it equallibrium or laws; the nature of the system itself would be its will. Therefor the choices of the system are predefined and acted upon within its nature. Emotions: It feels in that it has states and reactions that move it toward more ordered states according to its nature. Thoughts: The reactions of self to self within self -perhaps a state of being? Now I know this isn't satisfactory, but you catch my drift. While this may be some type of computer, it isn't hard to think of it as an individual when you look at all its parts. In fact, I venture to say that you can clearly see that it is an individual, though particularly variant from us humans. In which case it would make sense if we were only an image. To think that God may be more robot than human is absurd in a Christian sense. But to start first with that is far more than anyone has yet to venture in this post. I know that one can reach God with logic. Logic is based on nature and truth, which both will point to their creator. It is taking the step to believe it is God, rather than something else -the joy is in finding out that you are right. Our nature is such that we will always need more and more proof because we are always being pulled the opposite way. All the answers to your questions will only satisfy your momentary state. When you were young you had either more or less, and they were different -your nature changes. To keep it on track with what you find to be true, you must always learn and seek. I hope this starts you off on a different direction.

Sophistry
Aspirant

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

Posted 03/24/08 - 03:35 PM:	#108
Makarismos wrote: Weak atheists do not believe in a god, though they admit they have no evidence. Agnostics say there is no evidence, and they don�t know what they believe. So, what's the difference between a weak atheist and an agnostic?
_____________________ 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: 3520

Posted 03/24/08 - 10:08 PM:	#109
Sophistry wrote: So, what's the difference between a weak atheist and an agnostic? It seems the latter contends that *answers to questions about* gods** are inconclusive (i.e. undecidable) whereas the former argues that actions and *statements attributed to* gods** are unwarrantable (i.e. incredulous). It's a principled difference between "nonbelief" and "disbelief"; of course, in practice, these outlooks are indistinguishable for "believers" ...
_____________________ 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 sufficient -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

JAC
An Honest Aesthetic

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2007
Location: America
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 250

Posted 03/25/08 - 12:09 AM:	#110
Makarismos wrote: P.S you do realise JAC that he can probably keep coming up with other reasons for things all day, or else he must simply have a stopping point, a brute fact. All ethical questions come down to this: an infinite regress, or a brute fact. I like to rely on my own moral feeling, how about you? Yah, I realise that. I am the same way as you, personally. I rely on my innate feelings. I have come to discover that philosophy in general is just one giant first cause argument, haha. Sophistry, you and I may be on different pages. I can see that you understand the problem, but you feel it is ok to "make due" as you put it, with a less then perfect system; I would disagree. I want to overcome nihilism perfectly, and that can not be done with any current standard of interpretation that I have thus far heard of. The question still remains: why "make due" at all? Unless "making due", or placing yourself within an imperfect standard as you have yourself admitted, overcomes nihilism then it is not good enough for me; nor do I see any justification for why it ought to be aimed for. Maybe this is where we differ.
_____________________ "A life with love will have many thorns, but a life without love will have no roses." - Friedrich Nietzsche "I feel as if I were a piece in a game of chess, when my opponent says of it: That piece can not be moved." - Soren Kierkegaard

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 157

Posted 03/25/08 - 03:34 AM:	#111
Lex wrote: Sigh I love answering your questions, but apparently I did a bad job, so let me try again. (Also I like how you are trying to provoke debate about god's gender, but I don't have any opinion about that) 1. I never argued god's existence in my original question. Numerous people started here posted comments AS IF my purpose was specifically to prove he/she/it does not exist, and I perhaps inadvertently made remarks that made it seem as if this was the purpose of my argument. 2. Maybe you separate god and religion, but for me and for most people, religion is valid because of the existence of god, so you cannot distinguish them completely. All I am saying is that a god who wishes for the type of religion that is defined here on Earth cannot exist. There, I answered your question as directly as possible, and please do not use 2) as an excuse to say that I am arguing about god's existence. I am arguing about the validity of religion (with theists associated with god). Smarter than that? Trust me, I know what you meant when you said that, but you did not think it through enough. Even though evil is a purely human concept and all evil is perpetuated by humans and not definitions, I believe that DELUSION plays a large part in preventing those who could break out of this vicious circle. As it adds to the suffering and perpetuates delusion, prompting people to leave justice with god instead of personally taking action, I am arguing that religion is harmful while by definition it should be good. If this is not direct, I do not know what is. Lex please bare with me I am a simple man, and I appreciate you making it simple for me, but... 1) I never said you wanted to argue the existence of God, I said asking the question "Why do I need God?" (You can look at the title of the thread if you are unsure) brought God's existence into the debate, you should have asked a more specific question. 2) That�s fine I completely agree The problem with your argument is that if God is not a delusion then religion in principle is a reasonable construct. You have not proved that, so my point is you must first make a reasonable argument for change in religion, which reduces the impact of corrupt individuals or groups from abusing their power, or even reaching positions of power. Unless you expect religion to be run by someone other that? Human beings there will always be people who abuse their power. I completely agree terrible things have happened in the name of the church and God, but you become a victim of that delusion if you consider those people involved to be representatives of any God you may believe in. One of the cornerstones of the religion is freedom of will, if it is good enough God one would image it is good enough for the church.
_____________________ 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

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 157

Posted 03/25/08 - 03:45 AM:	#112
Casualty wrote: I know that one can reach God with logic. Logic is based on nature and truth, which both will point to their creator. It is taking the step to believe it is God, rather than something else -the joy is in finding out that you are right. Our nature is such that we will always need more and more proof because we are always being pulled the opposite way. All the answers to your questions will only satisfy your momentary state. When you were young you had either more or less, and they were different -your nature changes. To keep it on track with what you find to be true, you must always learn and seek. I hope this starts you off on a different direction. I believe the Christian view, (maybe others as well) says something along the lines of, those that believe in God will have all the evidence they need. But you must believe.
_____________________ 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

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 166

Posted 03/25/08 - 02:09 PM:	#113
Casualty wrote: I will try to give Lex what he is looking for: Assumption: God does/does not exist. Proof: Lex exists. (Don't try to prove it to him.) Lex knows (or thinks he knows) he thinks. Lex defines/assumes he defines -in either case, Lex assumes. Safe to say Lex does something, if not, then nothing, and if not that, then who knows -and by who I mean some random character we cannot prove or define, and by know I mean quantifiably justify by means we all agree with. So at least we all agree, right? Anyway, you can see the absurdities that come from questioning and writing down everything to the exact last assumption. Even if you do come up with a theory, people question it, and until you run out of every question and doubt, which is impossible since people will believe or not believe with or without any doubt -just choose to do something absurd- you have not justified everything... But I will start with an assumption I do not think anyone will question... That first part was just for fun. Lex thinks. Lex has thoughts. Thoughts are reduce-able. In one sense, difference exists in thought. In one sense, there are separate thoughts. In one sense, separation exists. Separation is either self sustaining or created. Self sustaining must have a cause. Cause implies reason. Reason implies system. System implies order. Order implies creator or greater system, which would then imply creator. Systems do not come from nothing and laws do not come from nothing, unless the laws are derived from what they govern, in which case, which came first, the law or the system, or was the system always? Either way you believe in something as always. Therefor; Something always was/is. So we know something exists and there are difference to what it is and is not. Now you can say that the nature of the system is such that it is self-made and not call it God. You can make it an impetuous force that has no bearings on your way of life, but this system, and I am talking to you simplify-ists too (for as much as you define you are stating a difference, and as much as you do not define you are examplifying it) is absolute. We can go on and on about the nature of the system, but I have to prove by logic that it is a person -has a soul. Well, let us define soul, and yes, a robot or syntax can have a soul if you set it all up right. Soul: Mind, Will, Emotions. Will: same as desires, makes actions: some might call it equallibrium or laws; the nature of the system itself would be its will. Therefor the choices of the system are predefined and acted upon within its nature. Emotions: It feels in that it has states and reactions that move it toward more ordered states according to its nature. Thoughts: The reactions of self to self within self -perhaps a state of being? Now I know this isn't satisfactory, but you catch my drift. While this may be some type of computer, it isn't hard to think of it as an individual when you look at all its parts. In fact, I venture to say that you can clearly see that it is an individual, though particularly variant from us humans. In which case it would make sense if we were only an image. To think that God may be more robot than human is absurd in a Christian sense. But to start first with that is far more than anyone has yet to venture in this post. I know that one can reach God with logic. Logic is based on nature and truth, which both will point to their creator. It is taking the step to believe it is God, rather than something else -the joy is in finding out that you are right. Our nature is such that we will always need more and more proof because we are always being pulled the opposite way. All the answers to your questions will only satisfy your momentary state. When you were young you had either more or less, and they were different -your nature changes. To keep it on track with what you find to be true, you must always learn and seek. I hope this starts you off on a different direction. One cat has nine tails. Proof: no cat has eight tails. One cat has one more tail than no cat. => One cat has nine tails. The silly but fun "girls = money" theorem is proven in exactly the same way as you "proved" that point. It is best termed pseudo logic or rather a series of broken connection and assumptions. I am using logic which cannot be questioned at the moment: true logic. Wth yours is that I can use a different combination of broken connections to reach a different or opposite conclusion from the same statement. I am basically being realistic: by human concrete definition of religion, it is a force for good. By proving that it does no good, you essentially prove that that definition is not valid in practice (and we live "in practice, so that's important). There is no way to logically arrive at god: not valid logic. Oh and no I do not assume. I KNOW that I exist, and I KNOW that I think. Obviously I can't prove that I am not a virtual character to another individual, but in my own mind there is no question about it. In any case it proves nothing about my original point. So the challenge still stands: explain how religion will make me a better person who will be better for society than the current me.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 166

Posted 03/25/08 - 02:16 PM:	#114
Techeth wrote: Lex please bare with me I am a simple man, and I appreciate you making it simple for me, but... 1) I never said you wanted to argue the existence of God, I said asking the question "Why do I need God?" (You can look at the title of the thread if you are unsure) brought God's existence into the debate, you should have asked a more specific question. 2) That�s fine I completely agree The problem with your argument is that if God is not a delusion then religion in principle is a reasonable construct. You have not proved that, so my point is you must first make a reasonable argument for change in religion, which reduces the impact of corrupt individuals or groups from abusing their power, or even reaching positions of power. Unless you expect religion to be run by someone other that? Human beings there will always be people who abuse their power. I completely agree terrible things have happened in the name of the church and God, but you become a victim of that delusion if you consider those people involved to be representatives of any God you may believe in. One of the cornerstones of the religion is freedom of will, if it is good enough God one would image it is good enough for the church. 1. Not really, it was phrased correctly. Read description: "A final challenge to you theists". Since this is a question to theists, and theists have a specific god that validates their religion, I was obviously talking about the god their religion describes. 2. Don't confuse the different gods. What I accept: the possibility of the existence of a more powerful/incomprehensible entity that by will or by accident could have created us. Why not, no evidence to the contrary. The god I do not believe in: the god prescribed by religion: a god who wants people to build churches and follow the institution's teachings and worship him personally, intending this for the general well-being of humanity. So when I say "even if he exists" I mean the more general definition of a god. Also, I use the logical technique of assuming existence to prove the impossibility of existence: When I said "even if he exists", I meant that in order for him to exist there must be a reason to follow his teachings for me personally: if there is none, it is not logical to assume that anything of the nature exists since its definition implies reason for existence.

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 157

Posted 03/25/08 - 03:23 PM:	#115
Well then as I said you would only believe if you felt that, through observing that religion, you would become closer to God and be open to his guidance. I can't argue with you over the God you believe any particular religion has prescribed to, or at least I don't care to. I consider myself religious but my understanding of God is mine not solely what the church has told me he is. Free will. I believe in one God.
_____________________ 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

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 166

Posted 03/25/08 - 04:37 PM:	#116
I don't see how your belief in any god is anything more than an assumption. While you might be a theist, you seem to be an undefined one: if you say you do not believe in the church, who exactly told you to believe in the god you believe in? Seems strange.

Techeth
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 19, 2008
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 157

Posted 03/25/08 - 05:56 PM:	#117
Please Lex, please... I never said I don't believe in the church! Where does it say that? Find the quote with the words "I do not believe in the church" You have to stop making assumptions about what I mean, and take what I say at face value or ask, or even say you assume, don't just come out with statements about what I believe and don't believe. I fear the world may not be quite what you make of it. You are right I guess I am a somewhat undefined theist. I do believe in the church in principle, because I believe in God, so the church makes sense. But I attempt to understand God for myself, I don't go to church to be told, who or what God is but to hear an opinion on it. Also I thought we were not debating the existence of God, that you yourself say may exist, we were debating the existence of what you perceive to be the perceived Christian God. I agreed with you and you still have a problem?
_____________________ 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

rossco
Nemos

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 13

Posted 03/25/08 - 07:07 PM:	#118
God isn't obvious to us, and there is no way to determine the essance of God, or determine what God actually is. I believe in God, but my conception of God is not a being who is the greatest good and rewards us with an afterlife in heaven. God is the mystery of nature, the mystery of life, the mystery of how we exist, why we exist - all the unanswerable questions. God is what motivates us to live, gives us our instincts to survive, and gives us emotions. Sure, DNA is the alleged molecule of life, but how does an arangement of molecules cause life? A leaf on a tree, the ovary of an orange; what is the knowledge, which is greater than any knowledge of man, that causes such things to grow so perfectly and symetrically? Evolution, sure, but there is something beyond evolution that causes evolution to occur in the first place. God isn't necissary to believe in order to live a virtuous life, but God must be necissary to cause life. He is the knowledge greater than the human mind who is always at work. It is easy to deny the existance of God if you don't search. I don't want to serve God, or pray to God, because I believe there is no one to pray to, since God only is, and can not judge. Does God even know of his own existance?
_____________________ All matter is merely energy condensed through a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. -Bill Hicks

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 166

Posted 03/25/08 - 08:06 PM:	#119
rossco wrote: God isn't obvious to us, and there is no way to determine the essance of God, or determine what God actually is. I believe in God, but my conception of God is not a being who is the greatest good and rewards us with an afterlife in heaven. God is the mystery of nature, the mystery of life, the mystery of how we exist, why we exist - all the unanswerable questions. God is what motivates us to live, gives us our instincts to survive, and gives us emotions. Sure, DNA is the alleged molecule of life, but how does an arangement of molecules cause life? A leaf on a tree, the ovary of an orange; what is the knowledge, which is greater than any knowledge of man, that causes such things to grow so perfectly and symetrically? Evolution, sure, but there is something beyond evolution that causes evolution to occur in the first place. God isn't necissary to believe in order to live a virtuous life, but God must be necissary to cause life. He is the knowledge greater than the human mind who is always at work. It is easy to deny the existance of God if you don't search. I don't want to serve God, or pray to God, because I believe there is no one to pray to, since God only is, and can not judge. Does God even know of his own existance? Abstract, vague. This is too elusive: I understand it sounds deep and philosophical, but is also squirmy and has no clear argument to extract and dissect.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 166

Posted 03/25/08 - 08:12 PM:	#120
Techeth wrote: Please Lex, please... I never said I don't believe in the church! Where does it say that? Find the quote with the words "I do not believe in the church" You have to stop making assumptions about what I mean, and take what I say at face value or ask, or even say you assume, don't just come out with statements about what I believe and don't believe. I fear the world may not be quite what you make of it. You are right I guess I am a somewhat undefined theist. I do believe in the church in principle, because I believe in God, so the church makes sense. But I attempt to understand God for myself, I don't go to church to be told, who or what God is but to hear an opinion on it. Also I thought we were not debating the existence of God, that you yourself say may exist, we were debating the existence of what you perceive to be the perceived Christian God. I agreed with you and you still have a problem? ???? "I can't argue with you over the God you believe any particular religion has prescribed to, or at least I don't care to. I consider myself religious but my understanding of God is mine not solely what the church has told me he is." I am not grabbing anything out of thin air. This statement literally means: "the church is not the ultimate authority on god to me" Hence: you somehow got the notion of god. Obviously someone theistic explained the concept to you at some point. Then you accepted his/her word. However, your definition of god, a concept initially supplied to you by the church, for some reason evolved into your own definition which is not encompassed fully by common dogma. Not sure how that works. You are not anywhere near as clear as you try to appear (or think you are). "I believe in god" "my understanding of God is mine not solely what the church has told me he is" "I never said I don't believe in the church!" "I do believe in the church in principle": AMBIGUOUS!! I accept that what you are saying might make sense to you, but since I am only able to read your statements I HAVE to take them at face value: that is what I do and I get a bunch of incongruities. I do not even know what you agreed with me on! (christian god DNE, religion is harmful, etc.)

rossco
Nemos

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 13

Posted 03/25/08 - 08:46 PM:	#121
I see that it is somewhat abstract, but there must be thought applied to what I said. I can't convince you to believe in God, nor do I even care whether you do or not. I can say though, that it is clear that there is a knowledge greater than the human mind at work. Lex, I suppose a good question for you would be to prove that God does not exist. I feel that I have given enough information to at least have someone think, meditate on the words I said, and conclude that "God" must necissarily exist. Oh, I suppose I missed the whole point of this topic, "Why do I need God?"... You don't need God, I have lived for years as an athiest, but throughout those years I have realized that athiesm is not logical. I think God is something you realize, you can't prove his existance with words.
_____________________ All matter is merely energy condensed through a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. -Bill Hicks

BitterCrank
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/25/08 - 08:49 PM: Subject: Good enough reason to believe - maybe	#122
Moonlight said: "You don't control your own beliefs, however much you admire reason. That's probably why so much anger surrounds religious debates, whether from atheists or believers. All are defending a personal state of belief, which they didn't choose, and not everyone is OK with this." Now, wait a minute. Are you saying that we have no control over what we believe, or that we have no control over the beliefs we were taught - before we were old enough to evaluate their content? People apply rational thought to their beliefs and make modifications at least sometimes. They prune away some parts of their belief system and reinforce others. Sometimes people abandon one belief system for another - often abruptly. In their study of what active church members in Minnesota believe, "Faith and Ferment," Sr. Joan Chittister, OSB and Martin Martin, Lutheran theologian, found that believers deviated from orthodoxy more than one would expect. Mainstream churches do not teach what some of these church leaders believed (such as the 12% who didn't think Jesus rose from the dead). I would agree that some people seem to be angry about the belief system they were given. Belief is one thing among many that are bestowed upon us without our choosing. Do you know people who are angry because their mother tongue is English and not French?
_____________________ If you can't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

Lex
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 166

Posted 03/25/08 - 09:34 PM:	#123
rossco wrote: I see that it is somewhat abstract, but there must be thought applied to what I said. I can't convince you to believe in God, nor do I even care whether you do or not. I can say though, that it is clear that there is a knowledge greater than the human mind at work. Lex, I suppose a good question for you would be to prove that God does not exist. I feel that I have given enough information to at least have someone think, meditate on the words I said, and conclude that "God" must necissarily exist. Oh, I suppose I missed the whole point of this topic, "Why do I need God?"... You don't need God, I have lived for years as an athiest, but throughout those years I have realized that athiesm is not logical. I think God is something you realize, you can't prove his existance with words. Don't see how it is logical in the least. You say that but provide no evidence whatsoever. Yes my point is different and does not concern god at all except for in the context of religion, and your argument does not even touch on that.

rossco
Nemos

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 13

Posted 03/25/08 - 09:46 PM:	#124
Lex wrote: Don't see how it is logical in the least. You say that but provide no evidence whatsoever. Yes my point is different and does not concern god at all except for in the context of religion, and your argument does not even touch on that. You don't see how athiesm is logical in the least? May want to rephrase that. And I do provide evidence, in fact, the evidence is right in front of your eyes. The evidence is your eyes. You are the evidence!! Anyway, enough said... Convince me to be an athiest and I'll be impressed. Actually, I think I could consider myseld boarderline athiest... interesting.
_____________________ All matter is merely energy condensed through a slow vibration. We are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively. There is no such thing as death, life is a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. -Bill Hicks

BitterCrank
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2008
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 52

Posted 03/26/08 - 12:19 AM: Subject: Why should you, indeed?	#125
Lex wrote: Here is my challenge: I say that I can be a better person than any christian or other theist without believing in a deity. I also believe that murder is wrong and believe in helping people and not being selfish. I do not claim to do it for the prize (going to heaven) or out of fear (going to hell). It's quite selfish to be good because god will reward you for it, don't you think? So why should I believe in this entity? Dear Lex, I haven't read every yard of this long thread, so I apologize extravagantly if I repeat a useless comment that has already been posted. I am not familiar with the rules of formal logic, but I am an old man without the time to learn another arcane sport. More extravagant apologies all round. It seems possible that you could be a better person than a large lot of Christians or other theists without believing in a deity. It seems less likely that you could be better than ALL OTHER Christians and theists, theistic belief or not. This is just a guess, but you are probably as fallible as all other humans, theist or otherwise. Being fallible just means you are in the same boat with all humankind. Don't take it as an insult. It is just hard to be good. We could bury ourselves in a long discussion of what "good" means, but I agree that being good out of fear of hell, hope for heaven, or the love of Jesus or God or SomeBody Else are insufficient reasons. Being good to others is an expression of love, caring, comradeship, fellow-feeling, or duty and is desirable because humans deserve good of each other. We should feed the hungry because they are hungry, heal the sick because they are sick, comfort the suffering because they suffer. So sure, you don't need a deity to be good. By the way, I was once a board member of a church where members were encouraged to give generously BECAUSE god might give them a blessing as a reward for their generosity. Sometimes people testified about how they had received this blessing after giving money to the church. (The blessings were usually material in nature.) When it comes to doing good, I personally would prefer that people focus on "doing" rather than "motivation". Does it make a difference to the hungry whether they are fed because someone is bucking for sainthood, because someone saw a tax benefit in making a donation, or because someone just felt the need and acted? What is needed is the food, never mind the motivation. Faithlessly, BitterCrank
_____________________ If you can't fan the flames of discontent, at least don't join the fire department.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.