U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-21-2011, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,108 posts, read 1,390,255 times
Reputation: 992

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEarthBeneathMe View Post
I'm curious, are these two on the same level for you, or does one have more credence than the other:

1. There's a God watching over us.
2. There's an invisible unicorn behind you as you read this.

To me, they're exactly equal. Both are equally absurd, and I don't give any one more credence than the other.
I do not give one more credence than the other. I do not believe that either is true. I don't even have an inkling of suspicion that either is true. But, here we are talking about our beliefs concerning these ideas and their extreme unlikelihood of being true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEarthBeneathMe View Post
I think the difference between us is that I'm not afraid to say "that's the world of Fantasy, and I'm not going to waste my time with it."
I am not afraid to say that's in the world of fantasy, so that is not the difference between us. I think the difference between us is I am not afraid to follow the rules of logic where they lead us regardless of how it sounds.

This is according to the rules of logic, "A logically possible proposition is one that can be asserted without implying a logical contradiction". The existence of a god outside the universe does not imply a logical contradiction. If you think there is a logical contradiction, please spell it out.

As I said before the existence of some types of gods do logically contradict themselves. But, there is nothing inherently contradictory about a god existing outside of the universe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEarthBeneathMe View Post
There are billions of things that no one can logically prove impossible to exists, but to me it does not mean I automatically allow for it to exist. While you may be worrying about whether that invisible unicorn behind you just may exists, I'll laugh it off and say "what a stupid idea.."*
Trust me, I am not worrying about whether that invisible unicorn is behind me, nor do I worry about whether a god exists. Although both are possible, they are so improbable, there is no need to worry about them. But again, there is a difference between improbable and impossible. And, you are right, there are billions of things that no one can logically prove impossible, but logically, as long as they are not inherently contradictory, those things are possible.

Logic demands it. We may not like it. We may want to fight it or deny it, but what is logical is logical. The question of whether something is logical is separate from the question of whether that something actually exists or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEarthBeneathMe View Post
Don't mistake this to be an antiscience "we shouldn't investigate the world around us" way of thinking. I work in the medical field and I know how far investigation into observable phenomena has brought us - but when you get to "everyone really has 10 fingers on each hand, the other five are just invisible" - I'm not afraid to call it BS and quickly move on with my life.
There are things that we can demonstrate are not true. Acknowledging that something is logically possible does not mean one has to dwell on that possibility. I spend my time thinking about what is probable, what is likely, but I have no problem admitting what is logically possible, either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEarthBeneathMe View Post
*And if you're not wondering if just may be that invisible unicorn behind you actually could exist - welcome to being biased towards one particular goofy belief (God) over another. It's what happens with indoctrination, growing up in a society engrained by it, or even just giving in to that small emotional portion of us all that yearns for something bigger than ourselves, a way to reconnect with family, etc etc..
Let me stop you there because this paragraph does not apply to me. I think I already said earlier that as long as something is not inherently contradictory, and I don't see how an invisible unicorn being behind me would be inherently contradictory, then it is logically possible.

But, the nice thing about the invisible unicorn being behind me possibility, is that I might be able to test that possibility by setting up an infrared camera or sensitive audio recorder or something to gather evidence for or against to determine whether it is or is not there. But, whether or not something is empirically testable is different than whether something is logically possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-21-2011, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Ohio
8,847 posts, read 4,000,130 times
Reputation: 4218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Djuna View Post
No, there are now three of us

To say there is a possibility of a god in my mind, also means I have to say there is a likelihood of all of kinds of mythical creatures and weird and wonderful phenomenon. I will not apologise for refusing to intellectually sink to that level. God has been investigated for millenniums, we have the scientific wherewithal to discover this god. There is no evidence people...none...you are simply fudging your logic to even entertain the possibility.
This is somthing that has always got to me whenever I hear it. Science is the study of all things natural, correct? So, how do you ever expect to learn the truth about a supernatural God through science? IF there is a God, he/she/it would not be bound by the same laws and/or restrictions that us natural beings are. We are products of a natural world, if there is a God, it would be supernatural.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Quan12 View Post
I believe Bruce Almighty covered the enormous difficulty posed by this.
You stole my post lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 07:06 PM
 
Location: Ohio
8,847 posts, read 4,000,130 times
Reputation: 4218
I would also agree with Hueffenhardt, however improbable you may think a God is, you have no grounds to say that one is impossible, unless you know all the secrets of the universe and and beyond.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 10:36 PM
 
1,426 posts, read 1,068,539 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
I would also agree with Hueffenhardt, however improbable you may think a God is, you have no grounds to say that one is impossible, unless you know all the secrets of the universe and and beyond.
But do you see what other nonsense the "no matter how unlikely, if you cant prove its impossible you have to assume it may exist" line of thinking opens up? Youre suddenly thrust into a world potentially full of every kind of nonsense people, at any time, believed in.

From gods on chariots riding across the sky, to norse war gods, to the indian gods, to pagan gods, to supernatural entities etc etc etc.

I think you guys are ignoring the tidal wave of what that line of thinkibg means, and skating by with just God as a left over.

You dont have to know all the secrets of the universe in order to say you dont believe in the christian god or any other, but rather look at the world in perspective, recognize that with every religion people feel the same 100% conviction in their faith. The pastor preaching across the street from me feels the same conviction as the man in india praying to their god. The child seeing the gifts santa left probably feels the same way.

I think you guys suffer from the too much open minded bug. A completely open mind is not good as it lets in junk and validates nonsense. I think a filter is a good thing to have,as it filters out the nonsense from the worthwhile.

If you take that mindset, please dont skimp on the thousands of other gods people believed in and died for. Christianity captures only a third of the worlds population, afterall..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 10:38 PM
 
16,310 posts, read 14,544,105 times
Reputation: 7970
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEarthBeneathMe View Post
I'm curious, are these two on the same level for you, or does one have more credence than the other:

1. There's a God watching over us.
2. There's an invisible unicorn behind you as you read this.

To me, they're exactly equal. Both are equally absurd, and I don't give any one more credence than the other.

I think the difference between us is that I'm not afraid to say "that's the world of Fantasy, and I'm not going to waste my time with it."
Agree
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2011, 11:10 PM
 
23,053 posts, read 11,149,070 times
Reputation: 3900
Hueff is correct about logic . . . but I keep waiting for the syllogisms that logically proceed from premises of no life, no consciousness and no intelligence . . . to predicates of life, consciousness and intelligence. I keep asking because he and others keep asserting that their views are the most logical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2011, 04:56 AM
 
Location: Florida
11,242 posts, read 7,949,005 times
Reputation: 9188
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Hueff is correct about logic . . . but I keep waiting for the syllogisms that logically proceed from premises of no life, no consciousness and no intelligence . . . to predicates of life, consciousness and intelligence. I keep asking because he and others keep asserting that their views are the most logical.
Some have been offered.You've obviously ignored or dismissed them.
Your ego apparently needs a conclusive answer during your lifetime.
Mine (ours?)doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2011, 06:21 AM
 
Location: Golden, CO
2,108 posts, read 1,390,255 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Hueff is correct about logic . . . but I keep waiting for the syllogisms that logically proceed from premises of no life, no consciousness and no intelligence . . . to predicates of life, consciousness and intelligence. I keep asking because he and others keep asserting that their views are the most logical.
I have consistently acknowledged that we do not know, yet, how those things came about. Scientists and theorists are working on it.

I am currently reviewing your hypothesis as I have time, and will post my response when I am done.

I do completely disagree with you, as do many other researcher/theorists in the field of consciousness, that monism can't work because that would mean consciousness is self-referential (my words not yours), or using your words, a camera taking a picture of itself. Most modern theorists do not believe consciousness is self-referential. Consciousness produces a product that is not a picture of its own inner workings; it produces only an illusion of its inner workings.

An illusion: The hands aren't really drawing each other. A third hand, not pictured here, drew them both.



There have been a number of studies that show people are often completely unaware of the true reasons why they do what they do. If asked, they will create an explanation that seems reasonable given what is available to them, and often they will be certain that reason they created is the true reason why they did it.

In a classic study, participants subtly exposed to words related to the elderly subsequently walked more slowly down a hallway after leaving the experiment. I am not sure if this was this study or a different one, but if you were to ask them why they are walking more slowly, they would make up reasonable explanations such as they have no place to be right now, etc. They won't consider the true reason, that their brains were primed to activate neurons associated with the elderly.

We are not consciously aware of the processing of our brains. Consciousness is a subroutine the brain produces to give us the illusion that we have access to the inner workings of the brain. It is not self-referential; therefore, the argument that monism cannot account for consciousness because consciousness would be self-referential is without merit.

Now, that still leaves a whole lot of unanswered questions of how neural networks can create the experience of the mind, but it permits us to continue looking for answers to those questions in monist/materialist framework.

Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 06-22-2011 at 06:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2011, 07:26 AM
 
4,786 posts, read 3,587,257 times
Reputation: 1648
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
This is somthing that has always got to me whenever I hear it. Science is the study of all things natural, correct? So, how do you ever expect to learn the truth about a supernatural God through science?
Does this god have anything to do with the universe? If so, we can observe that interaction with the natural world. If not, it's functionally identical to not existing at all as far as anything in the universe is concerned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2011, 08:47 AM
 
Location: kind of North of the middle of nowhere, FL
2,971 posts, read 1,571,526 times
Reputation: 2350
Someone asked Richard Dawkins if anyone has ever given him a "clever or interesting argument"

YouTube - ‪The Best Richard Dawkins Moment Ever!!!‬‏


I would welcome an intellegent, enlightened and insightful discussion with a theist. In 40 something years, that has never happened to me, either.

My experience is as follows: An "enightened" spiritual teacher is atttaining "Self-actualization" because he or she has left the bonds of religion and dogma, and therefore would not have a vested interest in selling a theistic belief to others, but instead focusing on teahing and encouraging another to reach his or her full potential. And along the lines of, for example, thervada buddhism, a belief in diety is not required for this.

On the other hand, those who are attemting to sell theism and dogma are the ones I have found who have bought into a religion, complete with rules, dogma and restrictions. Perhaps this is out of a sense of guilt, or peer pressure. I have always noted and been fascinated with the group psychology at work behind the religious experience. Ultimately, this selling of diety boils down to not so much a sale of divine power but a contract for religious obligation. And religions, created entirely by man, hold the flaws of man, including that super-human god of the Bible for example, the one who is supposed to be omnipotent, but is limited by ego and anger, prone to fits of rage and racism, all the things that even we as 21st century humans know better, and with which we as self-actualized beings would not waste time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:05 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top