do you believe there is a GOD?

[pkmntrainerharry]

<p>double post.</p>

[silence_kit]

<p>

reason is based on observation. evidence, theory, proof.
basing your premises on god is not equivalent to basing your premises on observation. one is not supported by anything beyond your willingness to believe, the other is supported by reality.

</p>

<p>no it isn’t. reason is a game you play to reach necessary conclusions given some basic facts.</p>

<p>the thing about god is that he can’t be observed–so you can’t use observation to say whether or not he exists.</p>

<p>

\a sociopath which have different values will reach a different conclusion, which is valid, if despicable to normal people.

</p>

<p>right. exactly. and you have no chance of reconciling his and your beliefs with reason. his beliefs are logical.</p>

[pkmntrainerharry]

<p>

given some basic facts.

which you obtain from observation of reality… ‘god exists’ isn’t a fact unless you show it’s a fact (don’t reply “that’s your opinion”, please—i don’t see him/her/it, i don’t see him/her/it blessing christians, being outraged over women wearing skimpy clothes, etc.).</p>

<p>god can’t be observed. now the christian god claims a lot of things that should be observable. creationist creeds, catholic crackers, the power of prayer, prosperity gospel, etc. so on…</p>

<p>the only god science can’t kill is the god that claims nothing. and even then, it’s still not a fact that such a god exists until someone can show how it’s so.</p>

<p>

right. exactly. and you have no chance of reconciling his and your beliefs with reason.

because there’s no absolute right or wrong in ‘should’ questions. you need value judgements. just like there’s no reconciling “which is better: chocolate vs coffee” with reason.</p>

[silence_kit]

<p>

for something to be really logical/reasonable it has to start with reality and not contradict reality.

</p>

<p>you don’t really believe this. example: mathematics has no basis in reality, but i’m sure that you don’t disagree with its results.</p>

<p>i’m going 2 bed. i’ll respond to your posts later.</p>

[pkmntrainerharry]

<p>on the contrary, we don’t disagree with mathematics’ results because they have a basis in reality. they’re our paper representations of reality. if airplanes started falling down it’d mean our math is wrong.</p>

<p>those working in math are writing on paper, but when you apply the numbers to engineering, planes fly!
but now those praying for healing from god don’t heal better than those who don’t pray… i think that shows something.</p>

[applicannot]

<p>

For one of the first times in this thread he prefaced something with “if”. That means that there is some possibility, however minuscule he make think it is, of the validity of that proof, and the existence of a “creator”. He didn’t admit anything, just left room for some possibility of something else, which I think is refreshing.

</p>

<p>Yeah, that doesn’t make sense at all. You can use IF to set up a hypothetical situation. IF the world was flat, we’d fall off the edge. That doesn’t mean I believe there’s a possibility the world is flat; it does mean that I’ve set up an explanation for your understanding.</p>

[ikillers]

<p>Of course it makes sense. If he was that sure he would’ve just totally dismissed the whole argument. He admitted the possibility of the creation of the universe.</p>

[schaden]

<p>

I see this as a breakthrough, gotakun! You’ve admitted that there exists the possibility of a creator! Wow, that one post did more than 33 pages of arguments! </p>

<p>He goes into more depth about why that creator would possess the characteristics of the Christian God further in the article. All that second point is trying to say is that there if there is an explanation of the existence of the universe, that reason would have to be some powerful, infinite force, just to create something like the universe. We just call it God. You could call it the flying spaghetti monster, but the name doesn’t really matter.

</p>

<p>Hm yeah, thanks for responding to my posts. </p>

<p>You see, this is what these religious nuts will do, they’ll go after the individual and not the argument. The ultimate “argument dodgers”. Well maybe besides liberals, but that’s another story.</p>

<p>By the way, what if you saw a ball rolling down the street. You don’t know where it came from, so in your mind there is a possibility it came from out of the universe, from a dinosaur named Harry. Making it “theoretically possible” isn’t significant at all.</p>

<p>

no it isn’t. reason is a game you play to reach necessary conclusions given some basic facts.

</p>

<p>Yes it is. Reason is observation and persistence. If something happens over and over again then you have reason to believe it will happen again.</p>

[HarveyLewis]

<p>Will all you ‘rational’ and ‘logical’ (a)theists *<strong><em>ing well stop stereotyping. In case you didn’t know, it’s *</em></strong>ing stupid.</p>

[pkmntrainerharry]

<p>yeah… will all you stop stereotyping… my irony meter just broke</p>

[gotakun]

<p>

@silence_kit

lol when i say axiom, i mean ‘something you accept as true at face value so you can reason from it’. this is what most people mean when they say axiom. again, nothing controversial here. if you don’t believe me, read the wikipedia page on ‘axiom’. you are wasting time by picking at this.

I did read the wiki entry for “axiom,” which is why I’m disagreeing with you. Unless you are talking about some sort of “common sense” axiom, and not the same kind of mathematical/logical axiom that we are referring to ;). I see the term used as you use it in other sources, but no source specifically cites “god exists” as an axiom. The ones that do cite specific axioms refer more to ones that relate to the wiki entry’s definition, very different from something like “god exists.”</p>

[NonAntiAnarchist]

<p>God’s existence surely isn’t axiomatic. Just because someone uses “God exists” as their first premise does not mean that “God exists” is an axiom.</p>

[silence_kit]

<p>

on the contrary, we don’t disagree with mathematics’ results because they have a basis in reality. they’re our paper representations of reality. if airplanes started falling down it’d mean our math is wrong.

</p>

<p>You are confusing math with physics & engineering. Physicists & engineers do observations of reality, and then write down math formulas that explain what’s going on. The ‘realistic content’ is in figuring out what formulas to write down, not in the math itself. If airplanes fell down, it would be because the engineers made in error in how they encoded the problem into mathematics. Do you see the distinction I’m making?</p>

<p>Math could be done just as easily on Mars as on Earth—the game played is to take basic facts, reason from them, and see what conclusions you get. No observation required. This is one example of something worth knowing & reasoning about without looking at the natural world. </p>

<p>Call me out if I’m mischaracterizing what’s going on. My first point, which you agree with, is:</p>

<p>-You can be religious and have a perfectly consistent belief system (aka be logical)</p>

<p>the argument is moving towards this second point in which we disagree:</p>

<ul>
<li>is it worthwhile to reason about things which we can’t observe?<br></li>
</ul>

<p>I say yes. Math is pretty cool. Religion is pretty cool to a lot of people as well. Talking about politics, what is right and what is wrong are things worth reasoning about. These things involve ideas not strictly rooted in the natural world.</p>

<p>

Just because someone uses “God exists” as their first premise does not mean that “God exists” is an axiom.

</p>

<p>yeah it does. first premise & axiom (at least the way im using those words) are synonyms.</p>

<p>

I did read the wiki entry for “axiom,” which is why I’m disagreeing with you. . . . I see the term used as you use it in other sources, but no source specifically cites “god exists” as an axiom.

</p>

<p>you obviously didnt read it carefully because the point is that you can pick any statement you want and make it an axiom in your system. there isn’t an ‘approved list’ of axioms.</p>

[schaden]

<p>I wouldn’t say math is unobservable. If we didn’t have any senses, would math exist? And you can’t really reason about math, rather you can use math as a tool to reason about physical things. Politics can be reasoned about by things that have been observed in the past, otherwise it is just a personality match (and usually is anyway).</p>

[pkmntrainerharry]

<p>

Math could be done just as easily on Mars as on Earth—the game played is to take basic facts, reason from them, and see what conclusions you get. No observation required.

take basic facts from…? i’m not familiar with the philosophy of math. but i don’t see how you can figure out math without reality. you can’t just randomly make up ‘there was a man who impregnated a woman to create himself which technically means he’s a motherf…’ nevermind.</p>

<p>

-You can be religious and have a perfectly consistent belief system (aka be logical)

i didn’t agree with this. i reject that god’s existence can be taken as a given.</p>

<p>you think being religious can be perfectly consistent because you think taking “god exists” as a given is logical.</p>

<p>in your definition of axioms/premises, you can take any axioms you want to be true, and reason logically within the boundaries of the axiom you made true.</p>

<p>it really comes down to the example i gave earlier. believing in god is logical if my believing in the green dragon in my garage is logical.</p>

<p>since accepting ‘there is a god’ without evidence/observation is as ridiculous as accepting ‘there is a green dragon in my garage’, i will answer the thread’s question: No, I do not believe there is a GOD.</p>

[peter_parker_1]

<p>Utter Derailment of the Kalam Cosmological Argument</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Things exist either necessarily (must be) or contingently (happen to be).</p></li>
<li><p>Things that exist necessarily exist because of their own nature (i.e. numbers).</p></li>
<li><p>Things that exist contingently (happen to exist, or exist arbitrarily) require explanation.</p></li>
<li><p>The universe exists contingently, so it requires explanation.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Hold it right there, partner. Statement number 3 is false.</p>

<p>Things that exist arbitrarily do not require explanation. That is why they are arbitrary. If they had a reason for existence, then they would not be arbitrary, now would they.</p>

<p>The theologian tries to use the argument that if you found a mysterious ball in the woods, there must be an explanation. Well, sure — I’m sure someone or something moved or put the ball there; the ball must have gotten there somehow. </p>

<p>Then he also says the universe is like a giant ball. Well, fair enough – there’s nothing different about the matter in the rest of the universe. Hence, there surely must be some cause for the universe – someone must have put it there.</p>

<p>However, what REALLY put the ball in the woods? Let’s explore the matter.</p>

<p>Well, the ball is there because someone dropped there, or maybe the wind. Why did that happen? It was the result of arbitrary environmental/ human factors — due to the haphazard system of life that exists on this planet, which resulted (contingently) from the forces of the big bang, which resulted from ?? You see, the ball really has no explanation at all. NOTHING in this universe has explanation because anything, ANYTHING at all you can answer, can be followed by an endless query of “Why?”… “Well why <em>that</em>? Think Arnold in the Terminator.</p>

<p>It’s funny… this argument for God can be turned around as one against God. It claims that anything contingent (arbitrary is a better word, really) – must have some reason.</p>

<p>Since this universe is 1 of 1,000 let’s say — well how was it selected? By God, naturally, theists claim.</p>

<p>Here’s a question: what was the factor/ explanation for God choosing THIS universe to create? He had thousands to choose from. Exact same problem. In this case, God’s selection is arbitrary.</p>

[peter_parker_1]

<p>Also, I never claimed that God has a biological mind.</p>

<p>That would be an even more fantastical claim than any on this thread. The God argued for on this thread clearly doest not exist in any physical form.</p>

<p>However — you are missing a fundamental contradiction in the fact that a mind cannot be a first cause, because a mind itself NECESSITATES a cause. A mind necessitates prior knowledge, prior reason, prior experience, prior decision-making influences or considerations, prior ANYTHING – unless it is truly or utterly random or arbitrary, in which I would posit it is not a mind at all.</p>

<p>I ask all you theists a question.</p>

<p>If God does not think or make decisions arbitrarily, then how does he decide to do something?</p>

<p>What did God consider when he decided to create the universe?</p>

<p>If he did not consider or think anything, then it was decided arbitrarily/ randomly.</p>

<p>So what did he consider?</p>

<p>You can say “I don’t know” or “it’s beyond our comprehension.” That’s fair.</p>

<p>But he must have considered SOMETHING, thought SOMETHING, or it was created arbitrarily or without reason (and really not by a mind).</p>

<p>Let’s say the thing he considered is SOMETHING A.</p>

<p>Well, why did he consider SOMETHING A and not SOMETHING B? Why didn’t he consider SOMETHING C?</p>

<p>What determined, or what basis, decided that he was going to consider SOMETHING A?</p>

<p>If it was nothing – well then, it was a pretty arbitrary decision, now wasn’t it?</p>

<p>But if some explanation or reason determined what God would consider — that he ultimately must have and only could have based the creation of the universe on consideration SOMETHING A – then that reason, that explanation, that property — it is superior to God; God is not all-powerful; he is not God and he is governed by rules as arbitrary as anything else in this cold, uncaring universe.</p>

<p>As you can see, the reasoning is inescapable. Thanks for playing.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word “arbitrary” means. Arbitrariness in fact REQUIRES an act of individual consideration. For something to not be arbitrary, it must already exist as some predetermined LAW (the course of action would be predecided; no consideration is necessary).</p>

<p>If you think your argument is still completely sound, please reconstruct it in a way that makes sense, before claiming that it is the “Ultimate Disproof of God.”</p>

[peter_parker_1]

<p>Well by arbitrary I mean random. Replace the word arbitrary with random if you like — I just don’t believe anything is truly random in nature so I used arbitrary in a synonymous sense.</p>

<p>I meant the definion 1: Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.</p>

<p>Things can be arbitrary (without reason) without be necessarily random - though I guess when considering the grand questions, they are one in the same. Why don’t you stick to the meaning my context implies, without bringing up alternate definitions that conflict with it.</p>

<p>I’m still waiting for someone to refute the logic of my argument rather than critiquing my word choice for something quite clear.</p>

[NonAntiAnarchist]

<p>Great posts, Spidey.</p>

<p>

first premise & axiom (at least the way im using those words) are synonyms.

</p>

<p>An axiom is something that is self-evident.</p>