User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 53

  1. #21
    your resident asshole
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,407

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Ha!

    The invisible microscopic dragon has not been something which has been discussed and debated and driven thinkers from the very beginning of oral tradition and later written records.
    I don't see how this is relevant.

    I'm actually claiming nothing, it is a fact, God is, even in the act of attempting to deny, deride or disprove God, God is. If God were not there would be no discussion. Do you understand? This is not unproblematic an understanding to convey and I would suspect that you would have to have read the sources I have, considered the things I have to reach the same conclusions I have.
    I'm afraid I don't quite understand. You can have discussions and debates about things that do not exist. What about bigfoot? The Loch Ness Monster? These things have been debated for a long time. "But I don't believe in those silly things!" You might say. It doesn't matter. Some people do. The point is that you can have a lengthy discussion about something that may or may not exist.

    Also, you can't go out and just state something as "fact" and then provide no support to back it up. Why is the existence of God a "fact?"

    Which would include masses of Jung, many of his primary sources too.
    Just because someone intelligent said/believed something, doesn't make it true.

    So far as the requisite further proof or explanation, I'm not sure I do, I mean maybe, sometimes, I do think that way but it is a little like a lot of open ended questions in relationships, how can one person be certain when another says to them they love them for instance? It is a case that for some there never will be sufficient evidence, while for others they do not need any to begin with. That's a basic question of belief, you do or you dont, you either can or you cant, you will struggle with that or you wont.
    Here's the thing....No one claims to know for certain whether or not God exists. The point isn't about certainty on either side. Anyone who claims to know for certain that God does exist or God does not exist is being a bit silly. Of course this isn't something you can prove.

    But that's not the point.

    The point is taking a step back, and asking yourself what is most likely. Taking the bigfoot example, we look and have seen no decent evidence for the existence for bigfoot. Although we can never technically prove his nonexistence, we can make the conclusion that he does not exist based on lack of evidence. Technically, we can't know for certain whether or not he exists, but most deem it silly to entertain the idea that he does.

    A lot of the doubts, which are articulated frequently with haughty arrogance or even cruel malice rather than simple certainty, are a form of confirmation bias and category error, there is a hope and a wish which is easily confirmed and that experience it is hoped can be transmitted as quickly and widely as any countervailing opinion or belief.
    Can you elaborate on this bolded part a bit?

  2. #22
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529
    When we believe in God, we suspend our disbelief.

    And when we believe in God as children, we suspend our disbelief involuntarily.

    But when we believe in God as grown ups, we suspend our disbelief voluntarily.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DisneyGeek View Post
    I don't see how this is relevant.
    Well you mentioned you dragon so.

    I'm afraid I don't quite understand. You can have discussions and debates about things that do not exist. What about bigfoot? The Loch Ness Monster? These things have been debated for a long time. "But I don't believe in those silly things!" You might say. It doesn't matter. Some people do. The point is that you can have a lengthy discussion about something that may or may not exist.
    Yeah, I knew this would prove to be the sticking point maybe, I'm not sure how to overcome this obsticle without doing something like recommending a dozen different books. I could perhaps frame what I am saying in such a way as to make it appealing to, what I presume is your position, the mindset of a non-believer but in doing so I would only appear to be vindicating non-belief, which is not my position.

    Although I would say that the existence or none existence of the things you mention bigfoot, loch ness monster etc. are not perrenial and universal, they have not emerged as points of wonder or discussion within human communities which are seperated or isolated or not in contact with one another, if you know what I mean.

    Also, you can't go out and just state something as "fact" and then provide no support to back it up. Why is the existence of God a "fact?"
    I believe the existence of God is fact because it is perrenial and universally featured within humankind's thinking and theorising.


    Just because someone intelligent said/believed something, doesn't make it true.
    I would not imply such a thing. I dont believe you understood what I wrote at all. That was not an appeal to authority, it was indicating one source among many if you were interested in how I had reached my conclusions. Maybe you're not really interested. Which is fine.


    Here's the thing....No one claims to know for certain whether or not God exists. The point isn't about certainty on either side. Anyone who claims to know for certain that God does exist or God does not exist is being a bit silly. Of course this isn't something you can prove.

    But that's not the point.

    The point is taking a step back, and asking yourself what is most likely. Taking the bigfoot example, we look and have seen no decent evidence for the existence for bigfoot. Although we can never technically prove his nonexistence, we can make the conclusion that he does not exist based on lack of evidence. Technically, we can't know for certain whether or not he exists, but most deem it silly to entertain the idea that he does.
    Yeah, I'm familiar with the whole probably but not likely idea, I've read about it in relation to rationalisations made during the cold war about the power and intent of the superpowers.

    In relation to the God discussion, presently the existence of God appears unlikely or even absurd, at another time and place the opposite would have been self-evident, I do not believe that this is a result of leaps and bounds in science or philosophy but instead corresponds to public mood or culture which does not foster any kind of belief generally, there are a lot of different reasons for this I would suggest, some of them political trends, a lot of them underpinned by economic and social changes but really anything which is going to be demanding or involve obligations or from which consequences will stem is not something people are going to be that interested in finding out is fact or evidencing.


    Can you elaborate on this bolded part a bit?
    People who do not wish to believe in things and who are more comfortable with disbelief or non-belief will seek to have that confirmed in their researches, I know it can cut both ways but those who disbelieve in things are inclined to present this as logical and rational and devoid of any cognitive bias whereas the believing mind is explained as completely corresponding to or arising from cognitive bias.

    Category errors are when you explain one thing with reference to another of a different kind as though there were equivalence when there is not. Like comparisons between big foot, the loch ness monster and God.

  4. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    When we believe in God, we suspend our disbelief.

    And when we believe in God as children, we suspend our disbelief involuntarily.

    But when we believe in God as grown ups, we suspend our disbelief voluntarily.
    I didnt suspend my disbelief involuntarily while I was a child. On the basis of my experience alone this is bunk. Why do you speak with authority you dont have Victor? Where's your research?

  5. #25
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Thinking that there had to be a beginning is putting the divine into a little pill that a human can swallow. But in doing so they limit and confine it, and leave a lot of it out.

    Notice how God had to create the earth. Not only did he have to create it but it took him time to do it. They go into detail about how God did things in a specific order in a specific time. They did this to encapsulate things for tiny minds that could not understand dimensions or voids or other levels of being, minds that could only have their illusion of reality and not realize an abstract model. This is seriously placing shackles on God.

    Aristotle posited the unmoved mover. But this does not mean the Abrahamic God, or any god. Aristotle's unmoved mover is not a creator. It does not live in heaven. It is in void - it is nothing. It has no place, it has no time, it has no self. It does not create. They cannot directly interact with matter because they have no physical being.

    The unmoved mover does not move, yet allows things to be moved. It was not the first cause. Things end up being infinite regardless, if nothing comes from nothing. Humans could not conceive of the universe having no beginning. It is full of death and change - change is the only constant.

    Humans did not understand though that they did not solve the problem of where things begin. They could not accept an infinite universe so they came up with an infinite God, without realizing that they are possibly one and the same. There is still no real beginning from nothing - they just placed non-beginning onto God because they felt more comfortable with it there for some reason.

  6. #26
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    i don't think it works like that - in my life time, i do not believe i have ever met an adult monotheist who declared "o creationism is just my opinion about the universe, show me that god is not the most plausible explanation and i'll just change my mind".
    Yes, many suffer from closed-minded certitude.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    now reason and various argument might be there to justify the faith, but as far as i can tell, faith isn't dependent on either, and honestly, its the religious people who have the awareness and inner strength to simply state it and face it in its most naked raw form inside of them, the one who can hold onto it even when they understand how M theory can dismiss the need for a creator on mathematical levels which are beyond me, the ones who study the extreme questions of consciousness through neurology and somehow believe in souls, the ones who house faith in their inner workings and need no relay on dogma's or excuses... those are the ones i can't help but respect their faith without the slightest bit of forced PC etiquette or sarcasm.
    If scientific theory can answer a question, that question is outside the realm of faith. We don't need to believe what can be proven. Believing what has been disproven is just willful ignorance or outright idiocy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mane View Post
    i mean, how can you find that human capacity to be anything but beautifully brilliant?
    There is an essential humility, perhaps, in the human capacity to envision a being on such a higher level than ourselves. There definitely is some innate human tendency to identify and relate to deity or some higher power, though that says much more about us than that higher power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    I agree with the OP. items 1 & 2 are specious arguments as presented. However, according to the Christian faith God's gift is free will. Thus to the rational individual no proof can exist for God since that proof would compel acceptance. The basis for faith is subjective belief that is not objective truth. However, the rational mind may be predisposed towards belief in God since this mind insists on order the logical extension of which is a unified theory. With increased sophistication using inductive reasoning this will become increasingly obvious, as patterns are detected in apparently independent observations. Why else would an otherwise rational thinker like Jung declare publically I know that God exists and fail to present proofs.
    No proof can exist for God because the existence of God is not falsifiable. It cannot be proven or disproven. Faith is exactly that: believing in something despite the absence of proof. I have it myself, but would not attempt to justify its contents on rational grounds. I justify my having it on the rational principle of utility.

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Humans did not understand though that they did not solve the problem of where things begin. They could not accept an infinite universe so they came up with an infinite God, without realizing that they are possibly one and the same. There is still no real beginning from nothing - they just placed non-beginning onto God because they felt more comfortable with it there for some reason.
    I like this.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  7. #27
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    God would be an existence that serves as the foundation for all existences, including himself; God would leave not a single facet of reality unsupported. That there is negation in the universe means that no such being exists, because negation cannot be derived from existing things, not even a supreme being. Existing things are in themselves, and as a whole, positive, and one is helpless to derive a void from the positive: what is full is full, not empty. Even if one speaks of negations in positive language (e.g. "There is a void in his life."), in doing so, one is really using negations (to speak of a void is to speak of an absent presence, a positive rendered negative). On the other hand, existence can be derived from nothingness, because the negation of a negation is an affirmation. That isn't to say that nothingness caused or even could have caused the universe: nothingness lacks creative power. It is to say that the universe can be described as not nothing; it is negation in the form of negating negation: the universe is not negation. That is the same thing as to say that the universe is a positivity, all over again, and it puts into relief the fact that positivity doesn't merely sometimes coincide with negativity but actually assumes negativity. One could not possibly get rid of negativity and thereby create a supreme being without any lacks about it, for getting rid of negativity is just what gives rise to positivity, which as I said, assumes negativity. Even if one were to get all the negations out of the universe, and put them outside of it as a pure negation of reality in general, opposite to a homogeneous positivity which is at least within its confines free of fractures and limitations, this positivity would still be lacking the traits of God. It would have no self consciousness and no origin at all, much less one determined by itself, because selfhood and causation, like all existing things, both entail negation: self-awareness requires a distancing from oneself, and an origin is a moment disconnected from the present. And even if it could somehow possess these traits in the absence of negation within itself, it would not be able to equate itself to the negation outside of it; it would not be able to say "I am nothing" for that would destroy it; its existence would be entirely dependent on it not being nothing. A god's existence would depend on nothing; this being's existence would depend on itself. That, of course, introduces an inherent self-relation that must exist within any existing thing (since the type of existence I just described would be the simplest, most primordial kind possible), for which reason not even an infinitely simple singularity could exist; such a singularity must be, as soon as it comes to exist, already divided from itself by its own self-dependence.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  8. #28
    Gone Aesthete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/sx
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Let us not forget the worst of them "I believe in God because it comforts me". While I am glad that somebody is comforted by a belief in God, it is best to see the truth beyond some rosy picture. I believe in the existence of God, but hardly because it comforts me; to be honest, it might be the opposite of comfort.
    Great men are like eagles, and build their nest on some lofty solitude.

    Schopenhauer

  9. #29
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,552

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aesthete View Post
    Let us not forget the worst of them "I believe in God because it comforts me". While I am glad that somebody is comforted by a belief in God, it is best to see the truth beyond some rosy picture. I believe in the existence of God, but hardly because it comforts me; to be honest, it might be the opposite of comfort.
    But this is the equivalent of saying, "I prefer chocolate ice cream because it tastes good". It identifies faith as a highly subjective and personal choice, which it is. It is the believers who attempt to justify their faith using objective criteria who are the worst. They pretend (or actually see) faith to be something it is not.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  10. #30
    Gone Aesthete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/sx
    Posts
    385

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    But this is the equivalent of saying, "I prefer chocolate ice cream because it tastes good". It identifies faith as a highly subjective and personal choice, which it is. It is the believers who attempt to justify their faith using objective criteria who are the worst. They pretend (or actually see) faith to be something it is not.
    Oops! I didn't phrase what I meant properly. It is true that faith is often--if not always--a product of that--and the same applies to "non-faith", Atheism, which is really still faith--but that cannot be used to prove God. Questions along the lines of "Can you prove the existence of God?", while they are idiotic per se and are best left unanswered, cannot be answered by "As it gives me comfort, it must be real". The question "Can you disprove the existence of God?", in a similar fashion, cannot be answered by saying "As it gives me comfort that any action I do now will not be eternally under probation, it must be real." or by "Well, how come I haven't seen, smelled or touched God if he exists?".
    Great men are like eagles, and build their nest on some lofty solitude.

    Schopenhauer

Similar Threads

  1. There are two types of people in the world...
    By Legion in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 08-23-2016, 05:13 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-15-2014, 04:30 AM
  3. Which is more useful in the real world?
    By yenom in forum Academics and Careers
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 05-04-2013, 03:31 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-07-2013, 08:43 AM
  5. The two tragedies in life...
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-15-2010, 11:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO