Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:23am PT
|
Bruce, you need to go learn what an ad hominem attack is.
I attacked your (and the author's)lack of reason, not you.
Now, deal with what I said, if you can.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:25am PT
|
Sir Bruce's reasoning was pretty good.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:27am PT
|
Werner, I suggest that you SHOW how it is good, and show that what I said is wrong.
Show means prove by the way.
Otherwise, you may sit down, as opinion doesn't really matter in a logical argument.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:30am PT
|
so far I haven't seen any serious discussion of my initial thesis, that is, that god exists in thought, as a product of the mind.
I don't see any diminution of "god" in this construction, and it gets around the necessity of explaining how god exists without being a part of the physical universe. The fact that god is an idea does not necessarily confine god to a particular physical process, either, as there are generalizations of that process. Thought is mechanical, the result of thought, however, is not necessarily predictable.
As for the power of thought, we know ideas that are strong enough to move whole civilizations.
It does turn things around a bit, but preserves the essential nature of god, and permits the physical universe to exist as we believe it does... as a physical system, no more, no less.
Everything we know about god we have learned from other people. We know nothing about god beyond our own thought.
|
|
bob d'antonio
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:34am PT
|
Ed wrote: so far I haven't seen any serious discussion of my initial thesis, that is, that god exists in thought, as a product of the mind.
Where else would it come from? That has been the basis for my posts.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:52am PT
|
Dirt
Sir Bruce's post is self explanatory. I like it.
"In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God."
I don't need to show what you said is wrong.
Since I never made any reference to anything you said.
Now! you go prove that God doesn't exist
Show means prove by the way, Dirt.
Otherwise, you may sit down, too.
LOL See how stupid this can get.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 03:04am PT
|
yes Bob... I meant, perhaps, refutation?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 05:36am PT
|
Well, hmmm. It would appear we now have two learned apologeticists onboard - one Christian, one Vedic. Both mount ardent defenses of the veracity of the respective tracts underlying their religious beliefs and perceptions of God. Which is correct? Or, is one simply describing the tail of God while the other his trunk? How are less learned men and women to choose?
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 08:16am PT
|
Ed, what's the point? Seems like it brings up more complications then solves problems. Think of all of the different ways that people have perceived God or gods over the ages. I'm thinking you're twice as smart as me, so I'm probably missing something. As far as I'm concerned, God needs no explaining. The reasons that so many cultures have come up with the notion of God I'm sure can be explained, again, through the lens of evolution (how could it not?). Humankind has a penchant for assigning meaning to things and intention to behaviour. It had survival value.
|
|
cintune
climber
Penn's Woods
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 08:17am PT
|
Vedic tradition actually had a sort of tentative grasp on some of the tenets of science, if you look at the ideas of kundalini and the bodhi as intimations of neurobiology, for example.
Judeo-Christian-Islamicism gets failing grades on all counts. This is why its various forms are still so appealing to the uneducated.
Fear of death is the root of all religion. It is a form of denial.
People believe what they want to believe.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 09:37am PT
|
Ed said: so far I haven't seen any serious discussion of my initial thesis, that is, that god exists in thought, as a product of the mind.
Well, I don't have too much to say about it. I agree wholeheartedly, of course. And perhaps there's some value in adding nomenclature to this somewhat nebulous concept, and stating that the concept of God(s) is a tremendously powerful meme (or family of memes). So powerful that it has taken on its own evolution, and in addition to propagating its kind, has also spawned thousands of other sub-memes called religions out of it.
But where does this take us? Certainly nowhere closer to an understanding, a reconciliation, with the world of the True Believer. Because to all of them, it is absolutely imperative that God be a "real", a "true" force outside and independent of their own mind and consciousness.
Actually, this notion that to a true believer, no matter the faith, "God" must be a mirror of our mind; must be an entity outside of us - fascinating! It's the only thing I can think of that's a vehemently held commonality between deist philosophies.
Anyway, if you're looking for a way to bridge the gap between believer and non-believer, I think you're looking in the wrong direction.
GO
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 10:32am PT
|
Werner, your comments show that you don't know anything about logic, or logical argument.
You can't support what you say, and so you claim you don't have to.
You fail to offer a counter argument, because you have not got one.
BAH.
One more time, SHOW where what I said is wrong. OR, show how what Bruce quoted is right.
IF you can't do that, there's nothing more to discuss on the issue.
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 10:56am PT
|
"so far I haven't seen any serious discussion of my initial thesis, that is, that god exists in thought, as a product of the mind. "
Carl Jung talked about the archtypes. Joseph Campbell found common threads in religion and mythology around the world in civilizations that had no contact. So the minds have something innate in common. Similar father rolls, similar heros, similar dreams, similar demons. Is there really anything more? Religion, to me, adds a structure, a way of life, a best-known-recipie for civilization, happiness, etc, on top of this, based on eons of tradition. As one would expect, certainly in modern times, not everyone gets it. I also say much of the dogma has become outdated and lost on the modern mind as science becomes more sophisticated.
J
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 11:00am PT
|
I only now read Brunosafari's long post. I goota say, a couple of things bear pointing out.
Copernicus, Newton and Eienstein were convinced Theists
 Wrong for sure, in the case of Einstein. With respect to the other two, who wasn't a theist back then?
Atheism is logically untenable or self-defeating. In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God. This is the logical principle of identity, the number one in mathematics, and cannot be refuted.
Sheesh, where do you start with this one? I would say this is not "logic" in any sense of the word. It's God that needs explaining (if you believe in him), not the other way around. In fact, I prefer the word humanist to atheist. The word atheist makes it seem like you are going out of your way to actively refute deism - I don't think that's necessary. Believing in God is the unnatural state that needs explaining - my world view is consistent and whole, thank you very much.
One other point; "proof" of God from the "how could this complicated thing exist without a designer?" can be explained, relatively easily, within the context of evolution.
|
|
Binks
Social climber
i am of the universe and you know what it's worth.
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 11:21am PT
|
People have been arguing this crap and variations of it for thousands of years and there is no resolution. We still make the same mistakes people have been making for the entire life of the human race. No amount of technological progress seems to change this. The Greeks had just as heated discussions concerning philosophy and their gods and it preceded them. There has never been any collective resolution concerning gods and philosophy or "science". There never never will be. Every lifetime gets to try it all again and the jury is still out.
|
|
bc
climber
Prescott, AZ
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:06pm PT
|
John "I just recognize that on this forum, most of those who call themselves scientist or materialist, do not believe in God because they haven't been able to prove Gods existence."
Werner "Now! you go prove that God doesn't exist."
The burden of proof lies with the religious to verify their wild claims (gods existence and desires, reincarnation, virgin births, worldwide floods, etc. etc. etc.), not the sceptic. One cannot disprove lots of things (sun orbiting teapot, pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters, etc. see below). Why should nonbelievers be required to provide negative evidence when believers can't provide any positive evidence at all? Unless you have some and aren't sharing with the rest of us. Wishful thinking, ancient texts and anecdotal stories is about all you have, but these hardly count as evidence for the existence of any supernatural being.
From Wikipedia:
"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial Teapot, was an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), intended to refute the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. In an article entitled "Is There a God?",[1] commissioned (but never published) by Illustrated magazine in 1952, Russell wrote:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
In his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain, Richard Dawkins developed the teapot theme a little further:
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.
The concept of Russell's teapot has been extrapolated into humorous, more explicitly religion-parodying forms such as the Invisible Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
bc
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 12:22pm PT
|
We can argue all day over whether darkness exists or whether it is just the absence of light.
But the real question is why "someone" doesn't just turn on the light. No one has come up with a good answer to that.
|
|
GOclimb
Trad climber
Boston, MA
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 01:26pm PT
|
Nita, thanks for that.
GO
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2008 - 01:44pm PT
|
"But the real question is why "someone" doesn't just turn on the light. No one has come up with a good answer to that."
The warden does not free the prisoner at his own request.
The prison term must be finished first. Otherwise the prisoner must be superior to the warden.
This applies the same logic in a crude way to Sir Bruce's statement below.
"In order to claim God does not exist with certainty, one would have to possess exhaustive knowledge, i.e. one would have to be God."
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!