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 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-14-2013, 09:36 PM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,059,423 times
Reputation: 1059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6 View Post
I'm guessing you wouldn't apply that "logic" to anything else.
Sure I would.

But you did point out to me that I misread the two options.

I meant - you can't be expected to prove a negative and option A has no proof whatsoever so the obvious answer is there is no god.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2013, 10:15 PM
 
Location: NJ
17,579 posts, read 39,794,977 times
Reputation: 16147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludy-L View Post
Sure I would.

But you did point out to me that I misread the two options.

I meant - you can't be expected to prove a negative and option A has no proof whatsoever so the obvious answer is there is no god.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Posted with TapaTalk
Got ya.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 02:27 PM
 
2,478 posts, read 4,871,684 times
Reputation: 4489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bludy-L View Post
In the lack of any proof, and since you cannot prove a negative, only A is a realistic answer

Posted with TapaTalk
Actually it's the opposite. Imagine applyling that philosphy in our legal system.
"We the state cannot prove you are guilty of _____ crime, and you cannot prove you didn't do something since you didn't do it. Therefore, you are guilty."

***edit, I see you simply mistated***
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 08:11 PM
 
2,040 posts, read 2,059,423 times
Reputation: 1059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ankhharu View Post
Actually it's the opposite. Imagine applyling that philosphy in our legal system.
"We the state cannot prove you are guilty of _____ crime, and you cannot prove you didn't do something since you didn't do it. Therefore, you are guilty."

***edit, I see you simply mistated***
Yes....I mistated what I meant because on a cellphone with Tapatalk, you can't see the prior post.....it's all just up to memory.

Posted with TapaTalk
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 10:15 PM
 
Location: 'greater' Buffalo, NY
3,067 posts, read 2,110,588 times
Reputation: 3965
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
It is crucial to point out, however, that practically all "knowledge" in the past which allegedly pointed to the existence of God has been systematically proven to be false as real evidence has replaced it over the course of time.

This is very telling.
What can you tell me about the multiverse? This is a potentially (but not really) empirical question.

In reality, travric (if I recalled the name correctly) ended the thread with the prior comment (the one you responded to).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 10:25 PM
 
Location: 'greater' Buffalo, NY
3,067 posts, read 2,110,588 times
Reputation: 3965
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post

I am with you on that. The only difference between us (so far as I can see) is that I cannot on the basis of the evidence so much rule out that unthinking and unplanning natural forces behind cosmic causation that I must lean towards the 'God' theory.
I don't even know that there's any difference between us but our imagination of the unknowable. I don't lean towards a theory of any sort...my only point with the previous posts was that it's a mistake to lean towards ANY theory, god, a-god, whatever else we might dream up. I think the term/idea (to the extent that the idea and the term correspond) of "atheism" is a mistake because of what I just said, that there's no reason to conclude...anything. Which is why I think OP Dooley's end (being "the biggest agnostic in the world") is correct, if not the means he used to get there (because he did not justify his position very well...and I say this as someone who just endorsed travirc's comment about an over-reliance on logic sometimes equaling obfuscation...hmm, another paradox? What does the prevalence of paradoxes suggest about the "rule of logic" in the universe?)

And I don't even know his motives, ultimately. A glance at his previous comment suggests he's a theist. I don't care, in this case. I would say he's correct, in a vacuum, that an overconfidence in logic can result in obfuscation (of reality, as it is, logic or no logic).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2013, 10:28 PM
 
Location: 'greater' Buffalo, NY
3,067 posts, read 2,110,588 times
Reputation: 3965
Also, I'm sorry if I was an ******* with my prior comments. Won't be the last time, if I continue to post here. I'm passionate in my defense of nothingness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2013, 03:20 AM
 
39,189 posts, read 10,872,385 times
Reputation: 5093
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Marcinkiewicz View Post
I don't even know that there's any difference between us but our imagination of the unknowable. I don't lean towards a theory of any sort...my only point with the previous posts was that it's a mistake to lean towards ANY theory, god, a-god, whatever else we might dream up. I think the term/idea (to the extent that the idea and the term correspond) of "atheism" is a mistake because of what I just said, that there's no reason to conclude...anything. Which is why I think OP Dooley's end (being "the biggest agnostic in the world") is correct, if not the means he used to get there (because he did not justify his position very well...and I say this as someone who just endorsed travirc's comment about an over-reliance on logic sometimes equaling obfuscation...hmm, another paradox? What does the prevalence of paradoxes suggest about the "rule of logic" in the universe?)

And I don't even know his motives, ultimately. A glance at his previous comment suggests he's a theist. I don't care, in this case. I would say he's correct, in a vacuum, that an overconfidence in logic can result in obfuscation (of reality, as it is, logic or no logic).
We seem to be in agreement. The point about being agnostic about the existence of any god or not seeing any really persuasive evidence or argument for the God -claim is that such things (aside from definite claims made in the Holy books) are un -knowable. And if our imagination of the unknowable differs that is neither here nor there as what we imagine is pure speculation.

But what I suspect is here and there on this subject is the logically mandatory belief - response to god -claims where we say 'we do not know whether they are true or not', which is to say 'I will not believe that they are true until I do know'. This (not the strident denial of God's existence that theists depict atheism as (and which definition of course gets into the dictionaries) is the whole of the Logical rationale of atheism, and all the rest is commentary.

As to dooley's motives, It is not my business to comment here. All I want to do is take issue with claims, opinions, arguments and supposed supportive evidence which he might post here, if I disagree, which I feel, as one who thinks that our beliefs should be based on sound evidence, not speculation, Faith or indoctrinated creeds, obliged to do.

P.s, so far as I am concerned, I don't mind what people say or how they say it, and even welcome it, if it does show signs of being a discussion. I prefer it to those threads which degenerate into mutual abuse and the use of rhetorical trickiness to score cheap and irrelevant points like some crafty lawyer.

That, I cannot recall you doing. In fact you are on my mental list of honest and quite open -minded debators whose interest is getting at the truth.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-19-2013 at 03:34 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2013, 10:15 AM
 
4,456 posts, read 3,707,855 times
Reputation: 3109
Also, I'm sorry if I was an ******* with my prior comments. Won't be the last time, if I continue to post here. I'm passionate in my defense of nothingness.

We all must make our stand, eh???...;-)...And in fact sometimes I think 'nothingness' may be the key to unlocking this secret that has lodged in our axons and synapses. We go 'deep' into the atom and thus get empirical details on the actions of previously never before seen particles below. We go 'deep' into the universe and explore the ehavens hwere I might say we were born. You know WE ARE made of star-stuff. When we look back in the eons of time we see literally ourselves in another PHYSICAL dimension. We frankly are there but in another manifestation. Point to ponder I think. We are on a journey where we underscore the physical and emprirical aspects of our life. Arguably perhaps it can get us closer to the Grail. Where did we come from? Was there a Creatror pulling the strings? Is the universe eternal? You know we really haven't got ansers here but we're on an exploration to get them...perhaps one day. Science indeed in fact may bridge the gap with theism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2013, 11:02 AM
 
3,404 posts, read 2,252,114 times
Reputation: 1315
Quote:
Originally Posted by travric View Post
Where did we come from? Was there a Creatror pulling the strings? Is the universe eternal? You know we really haven't got ansers here but we're on an exploration to get them...perhaps one day. Science indeed in fact may bridge the gap with theism.
You know, I am not so sure that science and theism, at least as we know it now, are compatible in the sense of one proving or establishing the other. The problem I see is two fold.

First, for science to be able to contribute or "bridge the gap" with theism, the theist must define god in a way that is compatible with scientific inquiry. At present, most theists have an understanding of god that relies on transcendence or a miraculous nature. What kind of god could you validate experimentally?

The second issue is a bit fuzzier, but it is sort of the corollary to the first problem. My question is if there is a phenomenon that is fundamentally understandable, testable, and verifiable using an empirical scientific approach, does it deserve to be labelled "god"? We don't label airplanes miraculous, because we understand them. Even things like General Relativity or Quantum Electrodynamics, which still have a lot of unknowns we don't consider to be divine, because while we do not have complete understanding of them, we do have enough to make useful predictions. I am a bit unsure if it is even a reasonable approach at all to assume that something that we could empirically validate, mathematically predict, and logically understand should ever be called "god"...

Right now, I think maybe they are by definition exclusive, since a god that can be understood, predicted, tested, and observed seems like it stops being a god and just becomes a really powerful person, or a natural force. It seems to me that the essence of deity is incomprehensibility, transcendence, and just a general idea of not being able to fully comprehend it. Without that mystery, the divine quickly becomes mundane...

-NoCapo
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 $104,000 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top