.......that while any sort of intelligent creation is debatable, not to mention a creator who has revealed himself, it is in fact DEBATABLE. In other words, regardless of how probable the existence of God may be, his/her existence is in fact possible. The concept, of and unto itself, is logical. Perhaps unproovable, but likewise can it not be disproven. Thusly, I have come to believe that any logical man must take a stance within their own perception in one of two ways: Existent untill proven otherwise or Nonexistent untill proven otherwise. While it may be that we shall never be able to logically prove divine existence nor disprove it, and we may take a middle path of ognosticism, we all truly must lean one way or the other in some miniscual way.
That said, is it logical to believe in a higher being? Is it rational do perceive the universe as the handiwork of something far greater than humanity in its present state? Indeed! For if we have come to understand the order of things around us, we may logically assume that it was put there by an ordered consciousness, intentionally and with purpose.
Likewise, is it logical to "believe" that there is no higher power? That we are creations of mathamtical probability in an infinite (or atleast proposterously large by our mode of thought) equation? Of course it is. There is nothing so tangible as to produce definitive proof of a God or god-like being (obviously). And further, when we attempt to put aspects into this God and contend that it has revealed itself to us, we drift further away from the rational of provability. As such, it is perfectly reasonable to not only doubt such an existence, but to refute it.
That said, what is it that makes a man sway towards one train of thought or the other? Either stance is truly rational. If a man doubts such a higher power, it makes perfect sense for him to refute it entirely. And if a man affirms the possibility to that he believes in such an existence, it also makes perfect sense for him to believe that this power has revealed itself to its creation. Since either one is equitably as good as the other, what makes us sway to one side or the other?
Now, it is no secret that I, personally, am a beleiver in a higher power. I believe that I was created, that I have purpose, that I am the product of something far greater than myself and the sum of my kind. The reason I believe this is simple: I want it to be so. It's really that simple. I unerstand that either notion is just as logical, but this is the scenario I prefer, and thusly I trust in the more preferable scenario.
So that's it. It really is that simple. I make sense and you make sense. That is all. We don't know, probably never will, but both notions make just as much sense. So there you go. I will tell you what does not make sense though: To deny the other end of the spectrum it fair due. To do so is to be blind, and I refuse to be that.
There are atheists who will rant and rave about how they can prove there is no God. They KNOW there is no higher power. They will rattle off all kinds of so-called "proof", but in the end it amounts to nothing and the truth is that they just want to know what the hell is going on, just like everyone else who ever lived. They prove nothing, they know nothing, and that's the bottom line they refuse to see.
Likewise, there are a fair number of theists who would condemn me for not declaring our belief as "the unrefutable and undeniable truth of the universe". They would say that I disrespect our God by admitting that we may be wrong. By allowing merit to the notion that the higher power we pray to every day, give so much time and emotion to, devote our heart to, live our lives by, and turn to for everything every day of our lives.....by allowing merit that this being may not even exist, I am not a true servant of our God. Some would even assert that I am not amond his people because of this. This does nothing different that the case with the extremist atheist. Like them, these people are also blind, and as I said, I refuse to be that. My faith is blind. I and my mind however, are not.
In the end, I realize it really doesn't matter. I hope that my belief is true. I hope that all of my work is not in vain. But even if it is, I am proud to stand on the side that I do, because I dared to believe in something. I stand before this world, honestly unafraid. For if I am in fact an immortal being bound by this flesh alone to this world, then I fear nothing before me for this is but the blink of an eye in my eternal being and with the passing of my corporeal form I shall rise up and be more powerful than I can possibly imagine. And if not? Then nothing I do in this lifeif really of any true import. If I am a creature and nothing more, than I am simply pleased to have had the opportunity to exist for some small portion of time and represent my unique creation and place its mark upon this universe. If nothing stands before me to be my judge, then everything I do is as perfect as it gets and my oblivion shall be bitter sweet.
Whoever you are, wherever you are, stand for something.
Best Regards,
Sean
Originally posted by OmnislashReally nicely said, Sean. Any disagreements I could have would be nit-picky--except maybe for this: I don't think faith has to be blind, or ought to be blind. And I somehow don't think yours is: seems pretty open and informed and thoughtful (with the integrity of self-questioning) to me.
.......that while any sort of intelligent creation is debatable, not to mention a creator who has revealed himself, it is in fact DEBATABLE. In other words, regardless of how probable the existence of God may be, his/her existence is in fact possible. The concept, of and unto itself, is logical. Perhaps unproovable, but likewise can it not be disproven. Th ...[text shortened]... er you are, wherever you are, stand for something.
Best Regards,
Sean
Stephen
Originally posted by thesonofsaulI think that by this logic, everyone would choose a religion where they will be infinitely happy after death no matter what they do on Earth, their enemies would be sent to Hell, etc. You could make your own religion up; no one can prove it's not true!
This get's my rec. I especially liked how you point out that if neither side is provable, you have to choose the side you wold prefer to be actual.
And I agree with you that faith is blind. It has to be in order to be faith.
... --- ...
Originally posted by Omnislash
.......that while any sort of intelligent creation is debatable, not to mention a creator who has revealed himself, it is in fact DEBATABLE. In other words, regardless of how probable the existence of God may be, his/her existence is in fact possible. The concept, of and unto itself, is logical. Perhaps unproovable, but likewise can it not be disproven. Th ...[text shortened]... er you are, wherever you are, stand for something.
Best Regards,
Sean
Rec rec .....
Originally posted by OmnislashOf course I agree with very little that you've said here, but at least it's a post that is deserving of a serious response.
.......that while any sort of intelligent creation is debatable, not to mention a creator who has revealed himself, it is in fact DEBATABLE. In other words, regardless of how probable the existence of God may be, his/her existence is in f ...[text shortened]... stand for something.
Best Regards,
Sean
First of all with your observation that god is possible, but unprovable. This I agree with. But I disagree strongly with the notion that believing in an unprovable god is in any way logical. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In no other area would a logical person be willing to believe in the factual existence of something for which there is not a single shred of evidence. If I claimed the existence of magical pink unicorns, you would require me to somehow verify their existence before you would believe it. The proper course of action for a logical person would be to not believe in the existence of magical pink unicorns (or god) until the person claiming their existence can somehow substantiate their claim. Their failure to do so would not "prove" the claims were false, but merely point out that both claims are unworthy of belief. The christian unfailingly points to his bible as "proof" for his claim. As has been pointed out numerous times, you can't use the bible to prove that what the bible says is true. It's circular reasoning and it does not work.
Your second point that the appearance of "order" in the universe somehow requires a conscious designer is false. Order is not the same as design. William Paley's ideas are easily demolished, but would require more room than this post will allow. Perhaps another post in the future.
I agree with your claim that attempts to put aspects into god makes it harder to prove his existence. If a theist was to claim merely that there was a god of an indeterminate nature, it would be one thing. But for each specific characteristic he attributes to that god, the greater his burden of proof becomes. The claim that there is a specifically christian god comes with a higher burden of proof than does the claim that there is a god about which nothing can be known.
Your claim that you believe in a god simply because you want it to be so is absolutely stunning. You have completley abandoned any pretense to rationality with this statement. Your belief quickly devolves into nothing more than wishful thinking. Would it be nice to have a god watching over us? Perhaps. But wishing it were so doesn't make it true. I fail utterly to see how your capacity for self deceit could in any way be construed as being logical.
At no time do I deny the other end of the spectrum their fair due. I have listened to all their arguments but I continually find them to be lacking. If they come up with somethig better, then maybe I'll change my mind. But they've done a poor job of convincing me of the merits of their case so far. It seems that your definition of someone with an "open mind" is someone who agrees with you. Your caricature of atheism is a common strawman that christians frequently put forward. At no time do knowledgable atheists claim to KNOW that god does not exist. They rattle off many things that demonstrate that the theist has failed to prove his case for the existence of god. But this does not in any way prove that god does not exist. It merely demonstrates that the theist's case cannot be believed. An atheist does not claim to know anything, nor does he need to prove anything. The theist is the one who is making the claim. The burden of proof lies entirely with him. And while it may be logical to agree that a claim for which there is no proof might be an interesting hypothesis, it is quite illogical to believe it as a fact.
While many theists may condemn you for your failure to uphold the theistic party line, I applaud such a candid admission on your part. I would also strive to assure you that just because your god might be false, it does not follow that all your work is in vain or that your life would have no importance. Quite the contrary. Your life and work would have no absolute meaning externally assigned to them, that is true, but there is plenty of room for you and your loved ones to assign meaning to your own life in the here and now. The power is within you, Omnislash, and not with some theoretical god. Do not waste it.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOne can alwasy make up a religion. However, you have to feel it to have faith in it, so that makes it a bit trickier. As for sending enimies to Hell, well, of course! They're enemies! That's where they belong. Them and people who can't use a turn signal correctly.
I think that by this logic, everyone would choose a religion where they will be infinitely happy after death no matter what they do on Earth, their enemies would be sent to Hell, etc. You could make your own religion up; no one can prove it's not true!
... --- ...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat was amazingly insightful, Thousand. I'd never even thought of that.
I think that by this logic, everyone would choose a religion where they will be infinitely happy after death no matter what they do on Earth, their enemies would be sent to Hell, etc. You could make your own religion up; no one can prove it's not true!
Kind of makes you wonder why those stupid Jews made us be on our best behavior to get to heaven, eh?
Originally posted by rwingettThis is interesting: I gave Omni a rec, and find that I have to give you one as well—a rec for each side. Indicates the level of the discourse.
Of course I agree with very little that you've said here, but at least it's a post that is deserving of a serious response.
First of all with your observation that god is possible, but unprovable. This I agree with. But I disagree st ...[text shortened]... u, Omnislash, and not with some theoretical god. Do not waste it.
I have some questions, though (and they’re just that, questions--mostly):
But I disagree strongly with the notion that believing in an unprovable god is in any way logical. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In no other area would a logical person be willing to believe in the factual existence of something for which there is not a single shred of evidence.
It strikes me that we sometimes use the word “proof” (provable, unprovable, etc.) ambiguously in these threads. There are degrees of proof: sufficient evidence, preponderance of evidence, “beyond reasonable doubt,” etc. If someone thinks that they have sufficient evidence to make a decision, and someone else thinks the decision is in error, they still have to address the sufficiency of the evidence—the evidence is illusory, the weighting of the evidence is faulty, the evidence may equally well point to something else, etc. Even if an argument fails from a strictly logical point of view (as, for example, I also think the “argument from design” does, as does Anselm’s ontological argument), that doesn’t necessarily remove the evidentiary items from play does it? (There, finally a question mark!) I might be floundering a bit here, but I’d like to hear your thoughts, so that I can—well, think about them.
The christian unfailingly points to his bible as "proof" for his claim. As has been pointed out numerous times, you can't use the bible to prove that what the bible says is true. It's circular reasoning and it does not work.
Of course it’s circular, but, speaking as a sometime christian, I have unfailingly failed to apply that kind of argument. (Okay, that’s not a question.)
Your claim that you believe in a god simply because you want it to be so is absolutely stunning. You have completely abandoned any pretense to rationality with this statement. Your belief quickly devolves into nothing more than wishful thinking. Would it be nice to have a god watching over us? Perhaps. But wishing it were so doesn't make it true. I fail utterly to see how your capacity for self deceit could in any way be construed as being logical.
While irrationality gets us nowhere, does that mean that rationality gets us everywhere? I can think of a whole lot of things in my life, a majority perhaps (passionate love-making for example) that I have no desire to apply any tests of rationality to. To be more on point, suppose someone says, “Look, my decision that there is a ‘higher power’ helped me to get over an addiction. I don’t know that I can ‘prove’ the existence of that power; I can’t claim that any rational test would support that decision; I can’t say that something else wouldn’t have worked. But, since that seems to have worked, I see no reason to test other approaches because the risk for me seems too high.” Setting aside the fact that that is something of a “loaded” example (I’m not concerned here that you might not be sensitive to that person’s situation), does that necessarily constitute self-deceit? Might it not constitute a decision, even without any prior evidence to support it, for which the outcome itself provides some ex post facto evidentiary affirmation at least—sufficient evidence to keep the “belief” (the “proof” is in the pudding, so to speak)? At least, can it not be considered a hypothesis that, when acted upon, provides sufficient results to keep it, without any further question about burden-of-proof or the like? And can’t that notion be extended to less extreme areas, such as the possibility that a mystical or “spiritual” (a much-worn word that I don’t particularly like) stance toward life can add a dimension of “aesthetic” richness and spice to daily living? (I would extend this to include non-religious things as well.)
At bottom, is it possible that something that is difficult or impossible to establish as objective truth, can still carry a practical—and completely subjective—“trueness” (like the “trueness” of a harmonious piece of music, say, or solving an abstract mathematical problem for no particular reason but the enjoyment of the process, the play) for how I live? In the end, I don’t live my life objectively, so much as I live it subjectively, as my intensely personal affair.
Again, that all seems clumsily put to me, but maybe you can sort out what I’m getting at.
The rest of what you said I pretty much agree with. I guess maybe it comes down to the question of whether or not to claim for oneself a “truth” on entirely subjective grounds has some existential and rational validity beyond the question of whether or not it can be established objectively. Of course, if you’re going to put your claim up for debate, then you have to look at objective arguments from objective evidence.
While many theists may condemn you for your failure to uphold the theistic party line, I applaud such a candid admission on your part. I would also strive to assure you that just because your god might be false, it does not follow that all your work is in vain or that your life would have no importance. Quite the contrary. Your life and work would have no absolute meaning externally assigned to them, that is true, but there is plenty of room for you and your loved ones to assign meaning to your own life in the here and now. The power is within you, Omnislash, and not with some theoretical god. Do not waste it.
I don’t know what the theistic party line is; the positions seem far too diverse to me. But, in any event, I do think that we are the determiners of meaning in our lives (and, for myself, I really don’t have much interest in wondering about an “after-life”—there are such existential theists, outside the party-line perhaps). I always liked Ortega y Gasset’s line: “Man [sic] is the only animal that needs to create himself.”
Again, if you’re willing to sort through all this and offer some thoughts, I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
Stephen
Originally posted by rwingettIt is not that believing in an unprovable God is logical, it is that believing in an unprovable God is not any less logical than not believing in an unprovable God. Don't confuse logical with sensible. Now as for your pink unicorns--what is the concept of them? Are they nothing but a heretofore unknown animal, or do they symobolize some sort of human concept? If they don't mean anything, then they are nothing but a silly animal and are completely uncomprable to God. The existance of God is substantiated by what He means to people, by the effect He has. Perhaps He is only a psychological tool of the subconscious mind, but to accept that would decrease His usefulness as a tool, so that would be pointless. Your pink unicorn means nothing but a cute model for fuzzy Valentine's Day gifts, so it doesn't matter past a zoological standpoint whether it exists. If this is not true, please elaborate.
Of course I agree with very little that you've said here, but at least it's a post that is deserving of a serious response.
First of all with your observation that god is possible, but unprovable. This I agree with. But I disagree strongly with the notion that believing in an unprovable god is in any way logical. Nothing could be farther from the trut ...[text shortened]... nd now. The power is within you, Omnislash, and not with some theoretical god. Do not waste it.
I agree with you on the rediculousness of the Bible, and I don't think I need to reiterate my opinions on that point. I don't think there is a theistic party line though. Christian, maybe, but not theistic.
... --- ...
while you guys throw around words like debatable and logical
read this
The reason why everything exists is that God created it.
(This may be true, but as an explanation it carries no weight at all, because there is no way to test the theory. No evidence in the world could possibly show that this theory is false, because any evidence would have to be created by God, according to the theory.)
found that at a logic site
Originally posted by frogstompThat doesn't seem terribly logical to me. If you think the theory is false, then it certainly would hold no bearing on any attempts to disprove it. If you accept that the theory is true, then why are you trying to disprove it in the first place? What site did you get this off of? Perhaps you misquoted it?
while you guys throw around words like debatable and logical
read this
The reason why everything exists is that God created it.
(This may be true, but as an explanation it carries no weight at all, because there is no way to test the theory. No evidence in the world could possibly show that this theory is false, because any evidence would have to be created by God, according to the theory.)
found that at a logic site
Originally posted by thesonofsaulhttp://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
That doesn't seem terribly logical to me. If you think the theory is false, then it certainly would hold no bearing on any attempts to disprove it. If you accept that the theory is true, then why are you trying to disprove it in the first place? What site did you get this off of? Perhaps you misquoted it?