User Tag List

First 1422232425263474 Last

Results 231 to 240 of 743

  1. #231
    Senior Member BlueGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    It takes a lot of work to overturn belief in God and also the plausibility of that belief, its only generally the grown up who will find it immanently implausible to entertain such beliefs and I think as a consequence its often mistaken for a mark of maturity to disbelief.
    This appears to say that humans are born with belief in God. If people are not born with this belief than there is no need to overturn this belief. It simply never existed the same way the infant never believed that it was dead.
    Ne > Ti > Si >> Te > Se >> Fe > Fi > Ni
    5 so/sp
    Chaotic Neutral/Evil

  2. #232
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    If you give a definition of love it can be proven by showing such definition occurs. It's a failure to reach consensus on love, not the difficulty of actually proving it, that stops you from proving it. Love as defined by chemical reactions has been observed.
    You are close. It's more correct to say that one cannot prove love, because everyone has a personal stake in it. Everyone has there own subjective idea of what love should be. Therefore people draw there conclusions about love not from objective evidence, but rather from their own subjective opinion. I could say love exists and someone else could say it doesn't and we would never come to a resolution even though we use the same definition. We might agree that it is dumb to define love in terms of chemical reactions, but then still not agree about whether or not love exists.

    What definition would one give for God? Any definition that is not testable in some manner would mean God has no impact on us.
    What if we define God as "the thing that caused the Big Bang"? Since the Big Bang must have a cause, then God is proved. There that was easy.

    I would disagree that I care about whether there is some God doing absolutely nothing to alter me or anything I can observe. Such a God has less importance to me than the existence of a teapot orbiting in space as there is a way to test for that teapot given infinite resources.
    If this is true you are quite unusual. Just looking at this forum I see tons of threads discussing God and not one discussing a teapot between Mars and Jupiter.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    What definition would one give for God? Any definition that is not testable in some manner would mean God has no impact on us.
    How do we measure the influence of something that has choice rather than follows consistent laws? Especially if it also has awareness of the other laws present. That was what I was pointing out a few pages ago. Anything that is below the noise threshold is undetectable. So much can happen that will never be measured, whether it is because it is done when no one is measuring, or because it is part of what we see as randomness.

    If I gave you us as a game and said you have all knowledge of the universe and our thoughts, now play with us without us noticing, you'd probably do okay. When I came to test for you, you'd just laugh and do what I expected to see for no God.
    Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

  4. #234
    Senior Member BlueGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noigmn View Post
    How do we measure the influence of something that has choice rather than follows consistent laws? Especially if it also has awareness of the other laws present. That was what I was pointing out a few pages ago. Anything that is below the noise threshold is undetectable. So much can happen that will never be measured, whether it is because it is done when no one is measuring, or because it is part of what we see as randomness.

    If I gave you us as a game and said you have all knowledge of the universe and our thoughts, now play with us without us noticing, you'd probably do okay. When I came to test for you, you'd just laugh and do what I expected to see for no God.
    So god is not enacting any noticeable change? Why then would the people care about God? That is precisely the situation where God's existence has become meaningless. Were he to suddenly stop doing next to nothing there would now be a reason to care and also a way to prove his existence. This is similar to Occam's Razor. If the world doesn't change as a result of God's existence then God's existence can be ignored. There is no need to know whether there might be some great deception going on when that deception does nothing.

    If God is enacting change and we simply don't notice it than I challenge people to pay closer attention and find these changes. God is thus provable and people can not use the argument that it is not.
    Ne > Ti > Si >> Te > Se >> Fe > Fi > Ni
    5 so/sp
    Chaotic Neutral/Evil

  5. #235
    Senior Member BlueGray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    You are close. It's more correct to say that one cannot prove love, because everyone has a personal stake in it. Everyone has there own subjective idea of what love should be. Therefore people draw there conclusions about love not from objective evidence, but rather from their own subjective opinion. I could say love exists and someone else could say it doesn't and we would never come to a resolution even though we use the same definition. We might agree that it is dumb to define love in terms of chemical reactions, but then still not agree about whether or not love exists.
    It is possible to use subjective experiences to create a definition. With love most people simply fail to agree to any definition. I could define love as I enjoy spending time with someone, or I am happier when with them.

    What if we define God as "the thing that caused the Big Bang"? Since the Big Bang must have a cause, then God is proved. There that was easy.
    That can work as a definition for God. The problems come in when people make further assumptions on that and treat these assumptions as fact. Proving a definition is simple, it is making use of that definition accurately that is more difficult.


    If this is true you are quite unusual. Just looking at this forum I see tons of threads discussing God and not one discussing a teapot between Mars and Jupiter.
    People are discussing the possibility of a God that impacts their world. People in such threads aren't discussing about their personal God that does nothing but watches them and rejoices in their success. They are trying to talk about some universal God that changes the world. It is by applying that their idea of God changes the world that they give attention and meaning to it.
    Ne > Ti > Si >> Te > Se >> Fe > Fi > Ni
    5 so/sp
    Chaotic Neutral/Evil

  6. #236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    So god is not enacting any noticeable change? Why then would the people care about God? That is precisely the situation where God's existence has become meaningless. Were he to suddenly stop doing next to nothing there would now be a reason to care and also a way to prove his existence. This is similar to Occam's Razor. If the world doesn't change as a result of God's existence then God's existence can be ignored. There is no need to know whether there might be some great deception going on when that deception does nothing.

    If God is enacting change and we simply don't notice it than I challenge people to pay closer attention and find these changes. God is thus provable and people can not use the argument that it is not.
    That still didn't cover the assumptions contained in your other post. Noticeable and attributable are worlds apart.

    p.s. I'm an atheist.
    Freude, schöner Götterfunken Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum! Deine Zauber binden wieder Was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

  7. #237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueGray View Post
    This appears to say that humans are born with belief in God. If people are not born with this belief than there is no need to overturn this belief. It simply never existed the same way the infant never believed that it was dead.
    I dont believe Memetic theory can explain God, it can explain Atheism though.

  8. #238
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    ^ I have experienced God in a way that forced me to concede his/her existence.

    God and the experiences one gets from such an entity, are not of a nature that they can be aptly described.

    And even if they could, it would never be enough to convince you because your belief (in my most humble of opinions) extends only as far as your presumed greatness.

    You can talk theories all you want but don't knock it till you've tried it.

    Athiesm has a hubris to it that has always ran a chill down my spine.

  9. #239
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    ^ I have experienced God in a way that forced me to concede his/her existence.
    I bet a million lives that you merely labeled your experience 'god'; for it did not divulge its godness clearly to you (thus it cannot be 'aptly described'), so that through a lack of other explanations you reached for the easiest one: god, religion, tradition.

  10. #240
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    I bet a million lives...
    From you, that doesn't mean much.

Similar Threads

  1. Let's see how good you guys are
    By Anamalech in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 07-15-2010, 12:50 AM
  2. I don't know how much more I can take.
    By Haphazard in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 05-20-2010, 11:15 PM
  3. I really don't know how I feel about this...
    By Wade Wilson in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 07:21 PM
  4. Let's see how this goes...
    By whiteraven in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-15-2007, 08:05 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