The basis of the existence of God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-09-2011, 05:31 PM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
In my opinion the The basis of the existence of God is actually quite simple, Fear of the unknown. To understand the origins of religion, you have to understand our distance past, even before homo sapiens.

So what did our Neanderthal cousins have to be afraid of? Natural events, and death. These ancient people understood causality, but little beyond that. So the eventual outcome was that a deity was responsible for these seemingly supernatural events.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2011, 02:39 AM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
(Hello again, this is the response.)
(Just a few queries, how do we actually prove anything outside this physical world? Some may say that God exists outside this physical world and thus we cannot physically prove his existence. Also, is science really limited to the physical world like what he mentioned? I believe science is more than that.)


YOU ARE STILL RESTRICTING YOURSELF TO PHYSICAL OBJECTS. We have no grounds to talk about. The "God of the gaps" argument which you talk about is rare and unbecoming. It is not my argument, was never my argument, and that fallacy is horrendously restricted. Just because we learn more everyday through science DOESN'T MEAN SCIENCE KNOWS EVERYTHING. By 'everything' you mean the physical plane. Science does not cover anything OTHER THAN THE PHYSICAL WORLD, the world which we experience through the senses. Knowledge OTHER than that, CANNOT and CAN NEVER BE explained by Science. Because it is not even within the jurisdiction of science itself. To claim that Science will do that, just as you have done, just shows your short-sightedness and the very fact that you cannot see past your own nose. There is no need to assume in such a case because science is PRECISELY defined as knowledge of the physical world. You are arguing based on the physical world, and indeed, ad infinitum, one would surely learn everything, if not almost everything about the physical world ad infinitum, if given infinite amounts of time. Planes OTHER THAN the physical world, (where the physical world does not exist) cannot be science simply CANNOT BE SOLVED because IT IS NOT OF THE JURISDICTION OF SCIENCE NOR IS SCIENCE ABLE BY DEFINITION TO BE ABLE TO NOTE ABOUT.

Your argument is entirely weak and irrelevant because it does not counter my argument in any way. It is attempting to sound sound by employing a method as if you were attacking my argument by stating it is a fallacy. The whole point is I never mentioned it was FULLY the physical world - science is the best field of knowledge we have of that - but fields other than the physical world, where Biology, Physics, Chemistry, break down or do not exist - are you going to explain those? Your argument is entirely discounted because it amounts to nothing in this discussion. I have never made any mention that science will never necessarily seek out all knowledge in the physical world. I speak of planes other than the physical dimension.

By attempting to argue that I am, or most of the world is, ignorant, you actually in effect perfectly proved your OWN ignorance.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-09-2011, 06:29 AM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
Your debating friend seems obsessed over science's adherence to the physical (ie things that exist.) Before we bemoan science's weakness in testing things outside the known universe, first one would need to prove that forces outside the actually universe exist and are relevant.

For forces to exist outside the universe to have any relevance they have to effect the known in some way, if so than it can be measured. If it can be measured then it is testable. If it is testable then it is provable. Do that first and then we can talk about science being inadequate.

“There is no sin except stupidity.” Oscar Wilde
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2011, 07:49 AM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
(07-09-2011 02:39 AM)robotworld Wrote:  YOU ARE STILL RESTRICTING YOURSELF TO PHYSICAL OBJECTS. We have no grounds to talk about. The "God of the gaps" argument which you talk about is rare and unbecoming. It is not my argument, was never my argument, and that fallacy is horrendously restricted. Just because we learn more everyday through science DOESN'T MEAN SCIENCE KNOWS EVERYTHING. By 'everything' you mean the physical plane. Science does not cover anything OTHER THAN THE PHYSICAL WORLD, the world which we experience through the senses. Knowledge OTHER than that, CANNOT and CAN NEVER BE explained by Science. Because it is not even within the jurisdiction of science itself. To claim that Science will do that, just as you have done, just shows your short-sightedness and the very fact that you cannot see past your own nose. There is no need to assume in such a case because science is PRECISELY defined as knowledge of the physical world. You are arguing based on the physical world, and indeed, ad infinitum, one would surely learn everything, if not almost everything about the physical world ad infinitum, if given infinite amounts of time. Planes OTHER THAN the physical world, (where the physical world does not exist) cannot be science simply CANNOT BE SOLVED because IT IS NOT OF THE JURISDICTION OF SCIENCE NOR IS SCIENCE ABLE BY DEFINITION TO BE ABLE TO NOTE ABOUT.

Your argument is entirely weak and irrelevant because it does not counter my argument in any way. It is attempting to sound sound by employing a method as if you were attacking my argument by stating it is a fallacy. The whole point is I never mentioned it was FULLY the physical world - science is the best field of knowledge we have of that - but fields other than the physical world, where Biology, Physics, Chemistry, break down or do not exist - are you going to explain those? Your argument is entirely discounted because it amounts to nothing in this discussion. I have never made any mention that science will never necessarily seek out all knowledge in the physical world. I speak of planes other than the physical dimension.

By attempting to argue that I am, or most of the world is, ignorant, you actually in effect perfectly proved your OWN ignorance.

My response to that would be something to the effect of:

"Yes, you're right; science is limited to the study and observation of the physical world and does not deal at all with the supernatural. However, your argument presupposes that there is a supernatural world and that is a big, and completely unsubstantiated, assumption on your part. Please provide evidence, any evidence, of anything that exists outside the supernatural world and I'll admit you are right in this and there is a god. Let me know when you find that evidence. I'll be waiting right here. "

The most likely response you will get are either examples from the bible, which are easy enough to refute as unsubstantiated stories that generally contradict themselves, or some phenomenon that science has not yet solved but most likely still has a logical explanation we will eventually stumble upon.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2011, 10:14 PM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
(06-09-2011 02:20 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(06-09-2011 12:24 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  If there were an all knowing, all powerful, loving being, he would do a much better job of communicating his existence to his creations.

Maybe he/she/it is a bastard who enjoys torturing his/her/its creations with uncertainty?

Huh

Many problems with the god phenomenon.
In the first instance we are dealing with defintions people come up with to explain dicey issues. As for god being a malevolent bastard, would not that make him a devil? The problem with semantics again raises its ugly head.
In terms of infinity I am unable to see how god could embrace his (by defintion) O.O.O. perfect too, arbitrary requirements.
In terms of an evolving "anything" it appears, to me, that change must alter all factors in the ball game;hence, even the 'highest god' would become stagnant without change, and with change the phenomenon becomes a lesser entity to that which it could become ad infinitum.
As for god being ineffable etc, Christian apologists have come up with theodicies to explain the seeming anomalies. I have not encountered anything convincing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2011, 01:59 PM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
Quote:"Yes, you're right; science is limited to the study and observation of the physical world and does not deal at all with the supernatural. However, your argument presupposes that there is a supernatural world and that is a big, and completely unsubstantiated, assumption on your part. Please provide evidence, any evidence, of anything that exists outside the supernatural world and I'll admit you are right in this and there is a god. Let me know when you find that evidence. I'll be waiting right here. "

Hmm... the rebuttal provided is indeed novel...

Evidence. Love. Hate. Lust. COGITO ERGO SUM. These exist beyond the physical world. If I wanted to be anal I could say that the external world, the PHYSICAL world, does not actually exist. And I am perfectly justified in saying so. However, if you were to say the planes other than the physical world do not necessarily exist, then you are making an unfounded argument. Which is automatically discounted. Read your philosophy before trying to attack my arguments.

I asked this then...
How do you then justify that the physical plane does not actually exist? A projection from the 4th dimension?

Descartes evil demon theory. Finish.
(Here's a link to said theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon)

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2011, 03:12 PM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
So, human emotions are proof of god? Is that his argument? Philosophical arguments are proof of god? This guy is really desperate to justify his belief system.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
10-09-2011, 08:46 AM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
(09-09-2011 01:59 PM)robotworld Wrote:  
Quote:"Yes, you're right; science is limited to the study and observation of the physical world and does not deal at all with the supernatural. However, your argument presupposes that there is a supernatural world and that is a big, and completely unsubstantiated, assumption on your part. Please provide evidence, any evidence, of anything that exists outside the supernatural world and I'll admit you are right in this and there is a god. Let me know when you find that evidence. I'll be waiting right here. "

Hmm... the rebuttal provided is indeed novel...

Evidence. Love. Hate. Lust. COGITO ERGO SUM. These exist beyond the physical world. If I wanted to be anal I could say that the external world, the PHYSICAL world, does not actually exist. And I am perfectly justified in saying so. However, if you were to say the planes other than the physical world do not necessarily exist, then you are making an unfounded argument. Which is automatically discounted. Read your philosophy before trying to attack my arguments.

I asked this then...
How do you then justify that the physical plane does not actually exist? A projection from the 4th dimension?

Descartes evil demon theory. Finish.
(Here's a link to said theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon)

haha. Read philosophy, since it's ever so useful. IMO, all philosophy is is a bunch of conjecture based on nothing. It's no better than getting baked and talking about the meaning of life, and often it's more strange. We exist, we are made out of atoms and we observe the world through our senses. We understand how these things work. Trying to say that we all don't exist or the physical doesn't exist, etc is just a stupid play on semantics and "what does it all mean!!!" when it's quite simple, actually. Trying to say we're all just in a massive simulation (the matrix) or dream is a pointless, ridiculous argument.

He's essentially making a ridiculous claim that you must disprove the existence of a spiritual realm/plane, he doesn't have to provide evidence. He's also making a silly claim that the physical world does not exist. Which is patently false and impossible to prove anyway (how do you prove that you don't exist? If that crazy theory was correct, nothing you could observe or measure would have any merit).

Better without God, and happier too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2011, 12:36 PM (This post was last modified: 10-09-2011 12:43 PM by Sines.)
RE: The basis of the existence of God
(06-09-2011 02:20 PM)Zatamon Wrote:  
(06-09-2011 12:24 PM)nontheocrat Wrote:  If there were an all knowing, all powerful, loving being, he would do a much better job of communicating his existence to his creations.

Maybe he/she/it is a bastard who enjoys torturing his/her/its creations with uncertainty?

Huh

Which also disproves the god being proposed Big Grin
(09-09-2011 01:59 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Evidence. Love. Hate. Lust. COGITO ERGO SUM. These exist beyond the physical world.

Actually, those all exist in the physical world. Conciousness is a phenomena that interacts with the physical body. Whatever it's source, it is at least partially physical, in order to interact with the physical. Emotions have been scientifically proven to be brain states (Check out Phineas Gauge on wikipedia).

Evidence is, I s'pose, a concept. But that concept is held in a physical brain. And concepts are certainly not supernatural. They simply don't exist in the usual sense we think of, but supernatural things would (the only unique thing about the 'supernatural' by definition, is that it is something that does not directly interact with the natural).

Back in the day of our earlier freethinkers, they merely had to dismiss claims of 'emotions come from god' as god of the gaps. Today, we are so fortunate to not only be able to make that claim, but actually show that they are factually wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2011, 02:51 AM
RE: The basis of the existence of God
There is a common phrase always mentioning how God is within us, and we have to open our minds and experience God. What do you usually say when faced with this?
(Here is his reply regarding emotions and God. He made some interesting points in there Smile)

I can understand doubt about God, because it happens to everyone, but you must remember, you cannot see God. You cannot hear God. You cannot touch God. You cannot smell God. You cannot taste God. Because God is not physical, and the senses break down when it comes to that. God is all about experience, and it is all about opening your mind to accept God.

It is a common phrase to say, "And when those trials come, my human nature - shouts the things to do... And God's soft prompting can be easily ignored". It's all about calming your inner self and finding that voice, because that voice is in there, and if you are caught up in your own ideals all the time, such as studying, insisting to find more knowledge, you will end up ignoring this voice. And when you finally listen to this voice you will get an understanding of what peace, and inner peace is. You will understand what love is. And that IS God speaking. It isn't God, but it is the experience of God.

And personally, emotions can never be described by science because emotions can be defined through the physical world. The Phineas Gauge case perfectly proves my point, that even though a person's personality might change (to take it even more simply, when one cuts the corpus callosum, the mind splits into two. Science merely explains that "the mind splits into two after the corpus callosum is severed" or "the left hemisphere of the brain forms emotion and affects linguistic capability." But that is all. Does it describe what love is? You see the point here, is that science describes how the emotion of love is formed as a thought in the brain because of how the neurons link with each other. It does not explain OUR experience of love. Can science really tell you the experience of anger, the feeling, as described in Albom's "For one more day?" Can science describe sadness, like when one loses his mother or father? Certainly science one day will be able to describe how these emotions come about. It, however, cannot describe the personal experience of emotions. Science never is able to describe Gauge's changes in character, in the way he experiences it. Sure, we can describe how Gauge changes his character, but if and I'm sure Gauge pauses to think, he, and only he alone, can be sure of what the experience is like to have primal urges overtake logical thought.

Welcome to science. You're gonna like it here - Phil Plait

Have you ever tried taking a comfort blanket away from a small child? - DLJ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: