mathemagician
New member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 39
- MBTI Type
- ISTP
- Enneagram
- 7w8
- Instinctual Variant
- sx
God might not exist for you, but he exists for me.
A good post.
Can you discuss Islam fundamentalism with Islam fundamentalists?
No.
You cannot discuss religion with religious people.
The first principle of logic.
That's quite a good point, but I don't see an argument in favour of the existence of a god in it. You can use it even as an argument for the non-existence of a god. Humans made holy texts where they wrote down their beliefs, their sense of awe, their moral rules,...
What I meant is this. Most religions say (next to a "love your neighbour" idea) that their god is the only one to worship and to believe in. Just look at the first laws of Moses: the first says "love god above all", the second "don't use his name in vain", the third "you should devote one day a week to god". Only from nr. 4 on it's about humans and morality. The same you can see in Christianity and in the Islam.
So god wants us to believe in him at least as much as he wants us to be good to each other. Still he doesn't send a clear proof of his existence! The sort of proof that can't be mistaken for an indifferent nature made by chance and selection.
This is a fair point, and the best answer I can give to this is the following metaphor.
If I could talk to fish I don't think I could convince one that the ocean exists. After all what evidence would I give? It would take me a while to make the fish realize that he is swimming in water, but that is not convincing evidence of an ocean. Or I could point to all the vast and diverse life living in the water, but the fish would just tell me that all of that alleged evidence is simply, "the way things are". I could try to show the fish the boundaries of the ocean, but the ocean is vast and where the oceans meet it's hard to tell where one ocean begins and another ends. From the fish's perspective the ocean is immeasurable. So I don't think I could ever convince the fish using evidence. I mean there is plenty of evidence, but there is so much that it's hard to see it, because the evidence simply looks like everything that exists.
Instead if I really wanted to convice the fish I would use a different approach by trying to win his trust. Then he might simply take my word for it instead. I would do this because it is easier to convince the fish this way then by trying to convince him that the evidence really was evidence.
And this is the approach that I think God has taken. He has sent trustworthy people like Jesus or Mohammad or Siddhartha to guide the rest of us. The decline in modern religion, I believe, has nothing to do with science. Rather it has to do with a lack of trustworthy religious leaders. Rising from the dead was just as irrational 2000 years ago as it is today. But people believe these things in spite of them being irrational because they trust the people giving the message. I became a Christian because I trust the authors of the New Testament. I also trusted the pastor of the church I've been attending the past several years. However I don't particularly trust either the Pope or Rick Warren or any other major religious figure I see on TV. The public figures give religion a bad name and I think that affects a person's view of religion more than any scientific evidence (or lack thereof).
So even though I believe in God I don't think science will find any "evidence" of God's existence. Not unless they find a way to measure the immeasurable. However I think anyone with doubts or skepticism could be made to change their mind if they found a believer they could really trust. Talk of evidence is misleading because no one has been convinced by evidence even though many of the greatest minds in history have believed in some sort of God or transcendent entity. Were Isaac Newton or Socrates really ignorant and irrational people?
Such a wild amount of crude sophistry!
Blahblahblah.
The_Living_Laser said:If I could talk to fish I don't think I could convince one that the ocean exists. After all what evidence would I give? It would take me a while to make the fish realize that he is swimming in water, but that is not convincing evidence of an ocean. Or I could point to all the vast and diverse life living in the water, but the fish would just tell me that all of that alleged evidence is simply, "the way things are". I could try to show the fish the boundaries of the ocean, but the ocean is vast and where the oceans meet it's hard to tell where one ocean begins and another ends. From the fish's perspective the ocean is immeasurable. So I don't think I could ever convince the fish using evidence. I mean there is plenty of evidence, but there is so much that it's hard to see it, because the evidence simply looks like everything that exists.
This from the same man who uttered this profound statement above:
How depressing it is to realize, that neither of us is drunk off our rockers. It's a shame really.
This is a fair point, and the best answer I can give to this is the following metaphor.
If I could talk to fish I don't think I could convince one that the ocean exists. After all what evidence would I give? It would take me a while to make the fish realize that he is swimming in water, but that is not convincing evidence of an ocean. Or I could point to all the vast and diverse life living in the water, but the fish would just tell me that all of that alleged evidence is simply, "the way things are". I could try to show the fish the boundaries of the ocean, but the ocean is vast and where the oceans meet it's hard to tell where one ocean begins and another ends. From the fish's perspective the ocean is immeasurable. So I don't think I could ever convince the fish using evidence. I mean there is plenty of evidence, but there is so much that it's hard to see it, because the evidence simply looks like everything that exists.
Instead if I really wanted to convice the fish I would use a different approach by trying to win his trust. Then he might simply take my word for it instead. I would do this because it is easier to convince the fish this way then by trying to convince him that the evidence really was evidence.
And this is the approach that I think God has taken. He has sent trustworthy people like Jesus or Mohammad or Siddhartha to guide the rest of us. The decline in modern religion, I believe, has nothing to do with science. Rather it has to do with a lack of trustworthy religious leaders. Rising from the dead was just as irrational 2000 years ago as it is today. But people believe these things in spite of them being irrational because they trust the people giving the message. I became a Christian because I trust the authors of the New Testament. I also trusted the pastor of the church I've been attending the past several years. However I don't particularly trust either the Pope or Rick Warren or any other major religious figure I see on TV. The public figures give religion a bad name and I think that affects a person's view of religion more than any scientific evidence (or lack thereof).
So even though I believe in God I don't think science will find any "evidence" of God's existence. Not unless they find a way to measure the immeasurable. However I think anyone with doubts or skepticism could be made to change their mind if they found a believer they could really trust. Talk of evidence is misleading because no one has been convinced by evidence even though many of the greatest minds in history have believed in some sort of God or transcendent entity. Were Isaac Newton or Socrates really ignorant and irrational people?
Such a wild amount of crude sophistry!
I do not disbelieve in god based upon this notion that there are no trustworthy believers. I do disbelieve in god, however, because there are no good arguments in his favor - although, being the ignorant fish I am, I can hardly be blamed for this wretched sin.
I assume that, if people come to a thread like this, they would like to discuss. Of course they'll defend their opinions, why not, that's what I do too. I myself lost my belief because of lots of great discussions - and I'm ready to gain it back, too.A good post.
Can you discuss Islam fundamentalism with Islam fundamentalists?
No.
You cannot discuss religion with religious people.
The first principle of logic.
I do disbelieve in god, however, because there are no good arguments in his favor - although, being the ignorant fish I am, I can hardly be blamed for this wretched sin.
The issue there to me is that you have no guarantee that the two situations you are equating in your inductive reasoning are alike whatsoever.
etc...
Even who we determine is trustworthy or not is based on our own personal values and standards and isn't necessarily derived from some inherent truth. So claiming that certain authorities are indeed authorities seems to be yet another self-spawned choice of one's own reality, rather than inherent and thus a reality that can be derived by anyone who cares to examine it.
Crude sophistry? Really? Hardly.
So let me get this right, you disbelief in God not because of a lack of evidence but because you can think of or find no good argument to do so or "in his favour"?
I'm unsure what the stuff about fish and sin is meant to mean though.
For example I've never heard anyone say a disparaging word against Mother Theresa. If a person is consistently honest and compassionate and they consistently yield positive results in their deeds, then people will consider them trustworthy. It's not simply a matter of personality traits.
I assume that, if people come to a thread like this, they would like to discuss. Of course they'll defend their opinions, why not, that's what I do too. I myself lost my belief because of lots of great discussions - and I'm ready to gain it back, too.
Even as a believer, I was of the opinion that I should have arguments for it. My reasoning was: "if I lose my belief just by discussing or by thinking about arguments, then it wasn't worth to keep to begin with!"
Wildcat is right. There's nothing you can say unless they want to see it.