To start off on a debate since it is allowed, I am going to go with one of the main subjects that appear in most people's discussions. Is God real?
RULES
-No flaming or trolling. Emphasis on flaming. Keep the argument down to a mild level.
-Back up what you say. I know it's hard for this, but don't just say something like "God is fake". Tell WHY you think God is fake, and use science to back it up if you have to. If you want to say "God is real", then the same goes for you. If you are going to use sources, then make sure they are credible, not just from someones blog (unless they source on that, and THAT source is credible).
-Keep this as mature as possible. This is basically like repeating the first rule, but don't let your emotions/beliefs get in the way of your argument. It makes you and your whole case look childish.
STARTING ARGUMENT:
God is not real because there is no scientific proof that he ever existed and did what he did (create people, make the world, etc.).
>>275 This experiment will only prove that giving money to some perceived-to-be-worthwhile cause may give someone a better feeling than hoarding money for oneself, not prove the existence of some invisible being. There is no causality in this experiment.
>I've met literally hundreds of people in my lifetime that have proven the existence of God themselves. They are witnesses, as I am, of the existence of God.
Look, seriously, DO the experiment. I'll tell you it works. Hundreds of others can tell you it works. Just because you THINK it doesn't work doesn't mean you know anything. If you choose not to try and find God you won't ever find him and you're the one that has chosen to live in ignorance.
Don't foget to do the other half of the experiment. Stop tithing for a year and see if you see no sign of God around. After both years, compare your results.
Sex scandal hits Atlanta-area megachurch
"At its peak in the early 1990s, it claimed about 10,000 members and 24 pastors and was a media powerhouse. By soliciting tithes of 10 percent from each member's income, the church was able to build a Bible college, two schools, a worldwide TV ministry and a $12 million sanctuary the size of a fortress.
Today, though, membership is down to about 1,500, the church has 18 pastors, most of them volunteers, and the Bible college and TV ministry have shuttered — a downturn blamed largely on complaints about the alleged sexual transgressions of the elder Paulks."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_re_us/preacher_paternity_8
>Look, seriously, DO the experiment. I'll tell you it works. Hundreds of others can tell you it works. Just because you THINK it doesn't work doesn't mean you know anything. If you choose not to try and find God you won't ever find him and you're the one that has chosen to live in ignorance.
SERIOUSLY, learn how to make an experiment. You have to take into account all possibilities before you can assume the cause of an event. Also, I don't live in ignorance but I live in logic.
Anyway, I promise I will perform your experiment as soon as you finish/repeat high school.
>try and find God
And once again, the variable "God" is undefined.
Compilation cannot proceed. Program aborted.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
cut thread here
But you have another problem. You haven't really defined what a blessing is. This makes the experiment worthless even if you do the control.
What you need is something specific, something that an outside observer will agree is a "blessing". For example, if we had identical twins, inject both with a disease of our choosing (nonfatal of course), we could have one tithe and the other not. If tithing works, tithing twin should heal faster than nontithing twin. Then we have something.
But just having a vague "something good will happen" means nothing. It's too subjective. I like sushi, my brother hates it. So if we both get sushi, I record it as positive, my brother records it as negative. That won't work in an experiment. You need something objective and publicly observable.
You might as well spend 10% of your income at the casino.
But in >>276 the success isn't specific. You can't do statistics on people rating whether or not they feel blessed or not. You'd need something specific, because the observers are biased. Someone who believes in God will feel "blessed" by something an athiest would call "lucky". So the same feeling gets a different result based on the bias of the observer.
Check cure rates on a disease and at least you've got something that isn't going to be a hit for believers and a miss for unbelievers. Bias in this case is going to piss all over any results you get if you're going to allow participants to self-rate.
Then let me define success (like it matters for an experiment I won't perform):
-Health
-Good income
-No problems
-Happiness
-Satisfaction with their own lives in whichever terms means for each single participant
Happy? let this thread die now.
>>288. that's a miserable definition of success.
Nope, not happy. How about you die now, and we keep the thread alive?
'SUPERSTITION' IN THE PIGEON
B. F. Skinner
A pigeon...is put into an experimental cage for a few minutes each day. A food hopper attached to the cage may be swung into place so that the pigeon can eat from it. A solenoid and a timing relay hold the hopper in place for five sec. at each reinforcement.
If a clock is now arranged to present the food hopper at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior, operant conditioning usually takes place. In six out of eight cases the resulting responses were so clearly defined that two observers could agree perfectly in counting instances. One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return... None of these responses appeared in any noticeable strength during adaptation to the cage or until the food hopper was periodically presented...
The conditioning process is usually obvious. The bird happens to be executing some response as the hopper appears; as a result it tends to repeat this response.
Why is a thread about god in science anyway. Don't we have a place for religious dweebery yet? Pfft.
My experiment:
1)I walked into my kitchen grabbed a plate and placed it on the table.
2)I ask in a clear and loud voice "Attention god if you are omnieverything make a ham and cheese sandwich appear on this here plate!".
3)I wait 5 minutes.
4)I go into the fridge make a sandwich.
Conclusion:God couldn't make a sandwich but I could so that means if I can make a samidge and god can't that I am vastly superior to god and therefore he isn't omnifantastic or that I am in fact god but if I am god then why did I do the experiment?If I was god shouldn't I have known then if I am god yet I didn't know that would mean i'm not omnispectacular but if god isn't omniamazing..............
> "Attention god if you are omnieverything make a ham and cheese sandwich appear on this here plate!".
I just felt I had to get a post in here before the inevitable equally ham-fisted anti-evolution counter argument showed up.
Gentlemen!
I am proud to announce that I have not very recently stumbled upon indefatigable proof that god, or really cool aliens, who would be roughly equivalent for all pratical means and purposes; do, does, did, and may have in fact existed at one point in the future!
Such proof MUST be observed first hand at http://www.timecube.com/ in a most rigorously and professionally scienctiferiffical fashion.
Apparently there is no way something of this magnitude could have come into existence naturally, without presupposing a form of ribonucleic base bonded with four-helix single-sided simultaneously rotational cubes; obviously we have every expectction to reproducibly prooved this as soon as we come down.
Thusly as such &c, the erudite MUST entertain the notion that there is something, Ergot Gratis: supranatural, afeet!
>>293
Silly atheist, you didn't say what kind of bread you wanted the sandwich made with! God can't read your mind!
This thread brings the lulz.
Let's start from first principles. What is a "god?" What do we mean when we say the word? How do we define it? What attributes does a "god" have?
| ＼
|Д｀) No one is here.
|⊂ I can dance now !
|
♪ ☆
♪ ／ ＼ RANTA TAN
ヽ(´Д｀;)ﾉ RANTA TAN
( へ) RANTA RANTA
く TAN
♪ ☆
♪ ／ ＼ RANTA RANTA
ヽ（;´Д｀）ﾉ RANTA TAN
(へ ) RANTA TANTA
> TAN
>>294 "Thou shalt not test the Lord your God."
is which god real?
the christian one? Alah? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl?
any/all of them?
the existence of a divine being cannot be scientificaly proven, or disproven.
>>302
winner
>>302
Actually it can be proven; we just don't know how or if or whatever but God or the aliens who created us could well just appear in Earth tomorrow and thus it's scientifically proven. It just cannot be disproven.
>>304
The question is: How can you be convinced that the being has divine power and not highly advanced technology?
>>305
No, the question is: what does "divine being" even mean in a human context?
this thread has been going around in circles with people rising the same arguments over and over again, why don't you all read the whole thing before even thinking that you have something worth to say?
this thread has been going around in circles with people rising the same arguments over and over again, why don't you all read the whole thing before even thinking that you have something worth to say?
it all only boils down to one thing: belief or unbelief.
Everyone who posts in threads like these deserves a long and painful death, including me.
And especially >>300 for bumping it.
God may be real but it is not in the way the bible says.
I notice that after 312 posts, still nobody has come up with a single definition for that "God" thingie.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipotent
it seems narcissistic of us humans to try to fully understand something like the concept of an all powerful being with the amount that we learned in our meager exisitance
You know... any good discussion about God should start with a list of definitions.
So, the question "Does God exist?" has to come up and narrow it down to the following definitions:
Starting the argument without actually defining the parameters is stupid. In the end all you get is a dozen idiots beating off their meats ideologically, to no benefit.
God is not a single concept, but has multiple incompatible meanings for different cultures. A god of rain would not at all be considered a god by certain cultures, if humans can also induce rain. Some people would consider an immortal a god, others not.
As for god being almighty, omniscient, etc,... There is a logical flaw there. An entity so complete can only be the full universe/reality. And if so, why not just call it reality, universe? And if it's not, then it can't be almighty.
Also, I can't imagine that there can be something which has a will, but is still infinite. Having a will implies a limit on which to exercise this will.
All in all, I find the concept of infinite almighty god the most broken there is. But hey, if it makes people happy to feel they have a strong father looking for them, why not?...
exactly, it's not possible for humans to try to perceive something that is infinite and shit like that and try to understand it with our finite knowledge. it's like trying to cram an entire ocean into a water cup, it's just not possible, at least for now
I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying that if you want a useful discussion, do it properly.
Because you can discuss about the nature and existence of God as a construct of intelligence.
You can discuss the existence of the experience of divinity, because if anything, there seems to be some kind of evidence of something happening when one meditates or experiences an ecstatic vision (what happens? Why, parts of the brain shuts down. Ha ha, I know right?).
You can discuss the effects of God as a historical reality, which not only was responsible for the Sistine Chapel and the poetry of Rumi, but also the Inquisition and pogroms.
You can even discuss the absurdity of a God who exists as a separate, material entity, and point out the philosophical and evidence-based holes, and conclude, quite rightly, that God has no material existence.
You can even point out that doctrines like fundamentalism are bad because they are ideologically and philosophically untenable. After all, what kind of God only allows a limited number of his creations access to paradise and damns the rest to eternal suffering? You can say these things, and you can make claims about it.
But to start the conversation saying, "So... does God exist?" You're trolling. Not only that, but it's old trolling.
>it's not possible for humans to try to perceive something that is infinite and shit like that and try to understand it with our finite knowledge.
If you are speaking about god, allow me to disagree,... Of course, one could say that god is by essence impossible to understand by humans, and then it would be impossible to discuss about it. But that's just a postulate. You can also assume that god is just an human construct and as so totally within reach of human understanding.
Basically, you can't postulate that god is outside of human understanding. It may well be that it's the case, but we don't know, and can't assume that.
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.
"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto."
In short: HA HA HA, CONGRATULATIONS. YOU'RE FUCKED NOW.
the only way i can think of to counter the assertion of, "if god is omni-all, why is there still evil?" is to present my fellow anonymous with Alvin Plantinga's line of reasoning towards the exisitance of evil:
along with this line of reasoning:
The second is a pathetic cop-out, and I can't imagine anyone taking that seriously. As for the first, I'd say that having a plan that involves massive suffering would preclude one from being "good". Especially if one is omnipotent and can create any outcome by just willing it into action, without the need for a plan of any kind.
The fact that god can't achieve a greater good without evil means he's not almighty,...
Maybe you should also define omnipotence.
Able to do anything, even leave the toilet seat down.
God is real. nuff said. AND HE ROCKS!!!
in before (and probably after but I'm too lazy to check) giant unmovable rock argument
Forget God, what if an unstoppable rock hits an immovable rock?
The unstoppable rock bounces off, because changing trajectory is not stopping.
"I'd say that having a plan that involves massive suffering would preclude one from being "good"."Problem is, without God, you have no absolute standard by which you can call anything 'good.'
"The fact that god can't achieve a greater good without evil means he's not almighty,..."Problem is, without God, you have no absolute standard by which you can call anything 'evil.'
Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?
>>332 Depends, if it bounces in the exact opposite direction then it would have stopped to do so.
>>334 Oh noes. Quick, someone form a working group.
If we're talking Elohim/Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah, for this particular God it's the former.
God says murder is evil, but if God tells you to sacrifice your own son than it's evil not to obey him.
So biblically speaking the only sin is disobedience.
Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?Neither. An action is morally good if it conforms to the charcter of God.
"So biblically speaking the only sin is disobedience."Nope, but murder does fall into the category of disobedience. Murder is an absolute moral wrong. Keep in mind that murder is 'that killing which is unlawful.' If God commands it, it is not unlawful, and therefore not murder.
Yes, you do. Human suffering.
>>339
This reduces God's benevolence to a tautology: "God is good because God conforms to the character of God." I see no reason why it could not, hypothetically, have instead been in God's character to revel in human suffering, rendering such a characteristic morally good. Thus morals that derive from the nature of God are just as arbitrary as those which derive from the nature of humans.
Moreover, it would seem that this makes God incapable of committing evil, and thus not omnipotent.
> If God commands it,
Thank you for proving my point.
All sins are equal in Yahweh's eye because they all derive from disobedience of His commands.
> Murder is an absolute moral wrong
Not according to the Word of God.
Ecclesiastes 3:3
3:1 To every [thing there is] a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up [that which is] planted;
3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
3:4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
3:5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
3:6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
3:7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
3:8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Yes, you do. Human suffering.
Moreover, it would seem that this makes God incapable of committing evil, and thus not omnipotent.The ability to contradict oneself is not a power, it is a weakness. You might just as well say, God can't be omnipotent, because he can't be God, and not be God at the same time and in the same way.
All sins are equal in Yahweh's eye because they all derive from disobedience of His commands.Nope, all sins are NOT equal, all sins, however, make us equally undeserving of God's grace.
A time to killPerhaps you should read my post again. Murder is that killing which is UNLAWFUL. Lawful killing is not murder.
You can't answer those questions about your god, either, so I don't see why I should bother.
You can't answer those questions about your god, either, so I don't see why I should bother.You positted 'human suffering' as an absolute moral standard, I didn't. Support your claim.
And you posited 'god'. You support your claim first.
And you posited 'god'. You support your claim first.God, as He has revealed to us, has created us in His image to conform to His moral nature. God, is universal, not made of matter, and invariant, and thus accounts for the nature of absolute (universal, abstract, and invariant laws). An absolute moral wrong is anything which does not conform with the moral nature of God, as He has revealed to us. Now, you may not agree with the support for my claim, but, what is yours? What is your absolute standard of 'human suffering,' and by what absolute standard is it 'bad?'
Which god is that, exactly? There are a whole lot of them to choose from, and they all have different laws. Which ones should we follow?
And which one is that? Back up your answer.
Is it just me, or is the postulation that an absolute moral standard of good and evil would not exist without God completely irrelevant to theodicy?
The problem of evil does not cast any doubt on God's existence: it casts doubt on whether God, if He exists, is both benevolent and omnipotent as is the popular Judeo-Christian conception of Him. If God and/or morality don't exist at all, then the problem is moot.
As such, I don't think it even belongs in this thread. You should start a new one if you want to debate it further, separate from the problem of God's existence.
Anyway, theodicy aside, proofthatgodexists.org's central argument as I understand it seems to be that all absolutes (logic, morality, uniformity of nature) have to derive from a transcendental and likewise absolute existence - God.
My question is, why does this absolute have to be God? Why can't it just be an absolute? If it is a god, how do we know it is the Judeo-Christian God? Since it's transcendental, it is impossible to formulate any meaningful theories about it, and I don't see there could exist any evidence of its precise nature either.
it casts doubt on whether God, if He exists, is both benevolent and omnipotentOnly if one begs the question by presupposing that God could not have a morally sufficient reason for the evil in this world.
My question is, why does this absolute have to be God? Why can't it just be an absolute?Posit what you believe, and I will be happy to refute it.
Since it's transcendental, it is impossible to formulate any meaningful theories about it, and I don't see there could exist any evidence of its precise nature either.Again, only if one begs the question by presupposing that God could not reveal things about Himself to us in such a way that we can know them for certain.
> Nope, all sins are NOT equal
James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
Please find a scripture passage that lays claim to a hierarchy of sin to support your argument. No Dante, please.
> Murder is that killing which is UNLAWFUL. Lawful killing is not murder.
God makes the law.
Biblical law is God's word.
Breaking that law is sin.
Sin is disobedience.
> Posit what you believe, and I will be happy to refute it.
I believe that we cannot know anything (in the sense that it is usable as a scientific fact) about anything that is transcendental. Other than its existence or non-existence, perhaps.
> Again, only if one begs the question by presupposing that God could not reveal things about Himself to us in such a way that we can know them for certain.
Perhaps you could present some examples, assuming God has done such things already and your counter-argument is not purely hypothetical.
> The one true God of Christianity, as He has revealed to us.
He has not revealed this to me. I'll need some actual proof first. And yes, I am the same person, and I will back up my claim as soon as you back up yours, as you made your claim first.
And yes, I am the same person, and I will back up my claim as soon as you back up yours, as you made your claim first.I did back up my answer. God is the source of absolute morality as He has revealed to us. As I said, you may not like my claim, or how I back it up, but, I believe it is your turn, then we can compare notes. What is the absolute standard by which you determine what 'suffering' is, and what is the absolute standard by which you call it 'wrong?'
I believe that we cannot know anything (in the sense that it is usable as a scientific fact) about anything that is transcendental. Other than its existence or non-existence, perhaps.How about you tell me how it is possible for you to know ANYTHING?
Perhaps you could present some examplesKnowledge, or proof of any kind, is evidence that God exists, for without Him, neither would be possible.
> I did back up my answer. God is the source of absolute morality as He has revealed to us.
You are begging the question. You need to give some proof that the god you are referring to is actually the christian god. You have not provided any so far.
> As I said, you may not like my claim, or how I back it up, but, I believe it is your turn, then we can compare notes.
How about I just say "I'm right, end of story"? It would be as valid as your claim.
So no, you still haven't done anything. Provide some justification that the god that you say has to exist for logic or whatever to be valid actually is the christian god.
So no, you still haven't done anything.Well, as I said, you may not like my claim, or how I justify it, but your refusal to even attempt to justify your own speaks volumes.
> How about you tell me how it is possible for you to know ANYTHING?
By observing it with my own five senses. We went over this back in >>177-230 or thereabouts. Was it not resolved to your satisfaction?
> Knowledge, or proof of any kind, is evidence that God exists, for without Him, neither would be possible.
I don't understand why knowledge would be impossible without God. Please elaborate.
As for "proof", such a concept only exists in formal sciences such as logic and mathematics, and is necessarily based on a set of axioms.
Is God an axiom?
By observing it with my own five senses.How do you know that your senses, or the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid? Surely you would agree that knowledge cannot be attained through invalid senses or reasoning?
I don't understand why knowledge would be impossible without God. Please elaborate.In order to know anything, one would have to know everything or have revelation from someone who does, else it would end in an infinite regress of 'and how do you know that?' The Christian claim is that God has revealed some things to us, in such a way that we can know them for certain (i.e. murder is wrong, love is right). So if you were to ask me, how I know that murder is wrong, I would answer, 'because God has revealed this to us, and God knows everything.' Hopefully you can see from my point above that claiming knowledge is gained autonomously through the senses, doesn't cut it.
As for "proof", such a concept only exists in formal sciences such as logic and mathematics, and is necessarily based on a set of axioms.Then that very statement would have to be invalid as it cannot be proven.
Is God an axiomI would say that God has made himself evident to us, not that He is self-evident.
You have been owned dozens of times, GTFO
So basically, you think you can make any invalid claim, and then just say "you may not like my claim" and thus escape from ever having to justify anything you say? That is incredibly dishonest. Hardly befitting of a christian.
Now, a challenge: Prove your claims, or never post again.
> How do you know that your senses, or the reasoning with which you interpret them are valid? Surely you would agree that knowledge cannot be attained through invalid senses or reasoning?
Consensus and verification. The vast majority of people would be able to agree, for instance, that the sky and the ocean are a similar hue. Someone arguing otherwise would be grounds for the investigation of a visual or mental defect in the individual, or perhaps a local anomaly in the sky/ocean (pollution these days...)
Now, I'm aware that reasoning seems to contradict the argument against the theistic worldview, since the majority of the world population does believe in a God or gods. However, there are major disagreements about the nature of this God, and that is enough to give me doubt. Christians are the most populous, but they're split about half-and-half over the question of whether the Pope is Christ's representative on Earth. Twenty percent of the world believes there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. About ten percent believes in Vishnu, Shiva, etc and another ten percent don't believe in gods per se, but believe one can achieve a godlike state by achieving enlightenment. So on and so forth.
I think that when so many people disagree about something so vehemently, something odd is going on, and it's probably not that seventy percent of humans on Earth are brain-damaged.
Another major problem with spiritual knowledge and experiences - demonstrated by your failure, thus far, to explain the precise nature of how God has revealed himself to you - are that they are almost wholly ineffable, nor transferable by any other means. Most sensory experiences are ineffable when you get down to the basics - try and describe "blue" without using any sort of analogy, simile or metaphor - but at least one can point to the sky and say "That's blue." As far as I know, there's nothing you can point to and say "That's God." You can merely present your ontological arguments, have us read the prophecies come of other people's spiritual experiences from thousands of years ago, and hope that we arrive at a similar epiphany.
I doubt your spiritual beliefs because, being non-transferable, there is no way for me to evaluate for myself whether they are true observations or the product of faulty senses or reasoning. Properly done science can always be reduced to observations; one can travel to the Galapagos and see the same things Darwin did back when he wrote his controversial little book. But when you point at logic, I see only a set of convenient axioms. When you point at morality, I see a social construct.
> Then that very statement would have to be invalid as it cannot be proven.
It cannot be proven that there exists no concept of proof outside of formal sciences such as logic and mathematics? I suppose so, but that just makes my statement falsifiable, not false.
Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
As I see it, the reason that proof only exists in formal sciences is that in the natural world, there are an infinite number of potential confounding factors which may disprove a theory once they are discovered. Therefore certainty is impossible unless you remove the natural world and replace it with a set of axioms - such as the bases of logic and mathematics.
By the way, two other interesting pages on Wikipedia I found while researching that last post:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Argument_for_the_Non-existence_of_God
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29 (something that everyone posting in would do well to keep in mind)
So basically, you think you can make any invalid claim, and then just say "you may not like my claim" and thus escape from ever having to justify anything you say?Um, nope, I said, I have positted my claim, I am waiting for you to posit yours so we can compare their justifications. Not holding my breath though.
Consensus and verification.Do you use your senses and reasoning to determine whether or not there has been a consensus on the validity of senses and reasoning?
I think that when so many people disagree about something so vehemently, something odd is going on, and it's probably not that seventy percent of humans on Earth are brain-damaged.Nope, they are ‘suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.’ (Romans 1: 18-21).
Another major problem with spiritual knowledge and experiences - demonstrated by your failure, thus far, to explain the precise nature of how God has revealed himself to youYou never asked. God has revealed Himself to us through His Word, and through His creation.
You can merely present your ontological arguments, have us read the prophecies come of other people's spiritual experiences from thousands of years ago, and hope that we arrive at a similar epiphany.Nope, I do not use ontological arguments, nor do I appeal to the spiritual experiences of others, I simply state that without God, proof of anything is impossible. Should be easy to refute, just tell us how proof of anything is possible without God.
I doubt your spiritual beliefs because, being non-transferable, there is no way for me to evaluate for myself whether they are true observations or the product of faulty senses or reasoning.I am not appealing to my spiritual beliefs, I am simply asking you to account for proof and knowledge according to YOUR worldview.
Properly done science can always be reduced to observationsPerhaps you can give me an example of science that has been reduced to observation, and tell me how you know that its findings are valid?
When you point at morality, I see a social construct.When you point at a social construct, I see arbitrary morality, and a worldview that says raping babies could be right.
suppose so, but that just makes my statement falsifiable, not false.Never said it was false, I said it was invalid, or ‘without foundation,’ and therefore meaningless.
Therefore certainty is impossible unless you remove the natural world and replace it with a set of axioms - such as the bases of logic and mathematics.Are you certain of that, if so, what axiom did you use to derive that conclusion? Also, how do you account for the laws of logic and mathematics according to your worldview?
> Do you use your senses and reasoning to determine whether or not there has been a consensus on the validity of senses and reasoning?
Yes, because it is impossible to communicate with others without using the senses, and impossible to understand what they say without using reasoning. I suppose my ability to communicate with and understand others cannot be taken for granted; there is a chance that I am severely psychotic and this discussion is taking place entirely in my imagination, or that the entire universe is in fact a fabrication of my mind, per metaphysical solipsism. However, in those cases I don't see that it really matters since I must just be arguing with myself.
> God has revealed Himself to us through His Word
Would this be the Bible? I know of no evidence that indicates that's anything other than a record composed (probably from earlier oral traditions) by various scribes/priests around 1000-500 BCE, some tracts written by a radical sect of Judaism in the 1st century, and other apocrypha of earthly origins. The book itself claims that it is the word of God, of course - but so do the Avesta, the Koran, etc.
> and through His creation.
I have no quarrel with deists. However, there's no evidence to back them up either.
> Should be easy to refute, just tell us how proof of anything is possible without God.
There's a discipline called "quantum logic" that successfully maps the principles of classical propositional logic (minus the distributive law, for easily understood reasons) as projections on a Hilbert space, which is an Euclidian space generalized to infinitely many dimensions. An "Euclidian space" means that it is a theoretical space in accord with various observations a Greek dude named Euclid once formulated by observing the geometry our very own world.
Is that what you were looking for? A way to account for logic that is grounded in the physical world?
> Perhaps you can give me an example of science that has been reduced to observation, and tell me how you know that its findings are valid?
The color of the sky due to a phenomenon known as the Tyndall effect (or Rayleigh scattering), which states that small molecules suspended in a gas, solution, or other colloid scatter shorter wavelengths of light (like blue) more than they do long wavelengths (like red.) An experiment that demonstrates this is to mix a little soap into a tank of water, then shine a beam of white light through it in a dark room; done properly, the sides of the tank will emit a slightly bluish light, while the end of the tank shines a reddish light. During the daytime, the direction in which sunlight reaches the earth is random and thus a large amount of visible scattering takes place, but at dawn and dusk sunlight is focused over the horizon and we see the unscattered light instead.
I know this piece of science is valid because my teacher repeated the experiment for us in 6th grade, and drew a diagram of the sun, the earth and a gigantic cosmic fishtank to illustrate the analogy.
> When you point at a social construct, I see arbitrary morality, and a worldview that says raping babies could be right.
Undoubtedly someone has raped babies in the past, and God, despite being omnipotent, did not intervene; He allowed those babies to be raped for a reason that is morally sufficient for Him. Does that not mean that God also views raping babies to be 'right' in certain situations?
I'd rather discuss morality in the "problem of evil" thread though.
(continuation of the above reply, it was too long for the comment field)
> Never said it was false, I said it was invalid, or ‘without foundation,’ and therefore meaningless.
If it's invalid, then why not demonstrate it as invalid by showing me a formal proof that is outside the domain of logic or mathematics? I would prefer a peer-reviewed source.
> Are you certain of that, if so, what axiom did you use to derive that conclusion?
A philosophical one, I suppose, stated by Socrates: "One thing only I know, and that is that I know nothing."
In other words, as human beings are not omnipotent, it is impossible for us to formulate a theory that anticipates every eventuality and confounding factor - unless we create our own closed system in which such things do not intervene.
> Also, how do you account for the laws of logic and mathematics according to your worldview?
I mentioned one way of accounting for logic above.
As for mathematics, that seems pretty easy to derive from physical observations as well. If I have an apple and take another one, I now have two apples. If I measure the circumference of a circle and divide it by the diameter, I have an irrational number commonly known as pi. Mathematics can be, and was, built up from observational principles like these.
> Um, nope, I said, I have positted my claim, I am waiting for you to posit yours so we can compare their justifications. Not holding my breath though.
No, see, you once again seem unfamiliar with how an argument works. There's no "comparing" to be done. You need to back up your own claims, completely independent of what anyone else says.
And you haven't.
Now do so, or stop posting.