The Bible says that a fool says within his heart that there is no God. Is this a fair statement? For the purpose of discussion we will define God as the totality of reality. Let's consider the following. The fool, according to scripture, would say that God does not exist based on his perception of reality and the inability to fully comprehend God. However, what is greater, is it the lesser individual or the reality of which he is apart? Since the individual is apart of reality rather than the totality of that reality, we must assume the individual is the lesser in comparison to the reality of which he is apart. If so, we must further assume that the individual can never fully grasp that which is greater than himself. To grasp the totality of reality would mean that the individual would have to be equal to or greater than that reality. Therefore, the lesser individual that embraces God, can never fully understand or comprehend God as a result. The fool, however, errors in rejecting the potential reality of God based on his inability to fathom reality in its totality. Therefore, those that embrace God must do so on some level of "faith". Faith is acknowledging the individuals inability to fathom reality in its totality and relying on the possibility of a greater reality than himself. The fool, demands to be able to fully comprehend all that he believes and therefore will inescapably reject the totality of reality which he incapable of fathoming and as a result rejects certain aspects of reality that exist. The only ones capable of embracing the totality of their reality are those who walk by faith. The fool is the only one who is not open to that which he cannot fully understand.
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles No. Not all fools say "There is no God." Some fools say "There is a God." Do I need to name names, or do you accept my counterexample in the abstract?
I would say that there are different levels of intellect and ability to think logically. Those that maximize their potential and are open to the totality of reality may sound foolish due to poor reasoning skills and intellect, however, I would not label them a fool. I would label the individual a fool who has a high enough intellect and reasoning skills on average, but is to proud to admit that his intellect and reasoning skills are not enough to understand the totality of reality that he is apart of. There is a wise saying that says, "The more you know, the more you should realize what you don't know." Pride often gets in the way, however.
Originally posted by whodey I would say that there are different levels of intellect and ability to think logically. Those that maximize their potential and are open to the totality of reality may sound foolish due to poor reasoning skills and intellect, however, I would not label them a fool. I would label the individual a fool who has a high enough intellect and reasoning skills on now, the more you should realize what you don't know." Pride often gets in the way, however.
The problem with that is you on the one hand want people to use reason to explain your concept of god but you cannot use reason to show any reality associated with your god. You can only supply words about 'I believe in this god' which has nothing to do with reality, its only your belief. 6 billion people on earth believing in the exact same god as you will not make it so if there is no god. And of course Vice Versa. So just having a belief system is no match for reality. And it doesn't matter if someone of intellectual ability less than Kant or Einstein doesn't want to admit he or she is not capable of reasoning this out, NOBODY can reason out a proof of the existance of god. MAYBE god could but since we are not gods you can safely rule out anyone on earth past present or most probably future of being able to prove OR disprove the existance of god based on reason alone.
Originally posted by sonhouse The problem with that is you on the one hand want people to use reason to explain your concept of god but you cannot use reason to show any reality associated with your god. You can only supply words about 'I believe in this god' which has nothing to do with reality, its only your belief. 6 billion people on earth believing in the exact same god as you will ...[text shortened]... obably future of being able to prove OR disprove the existance of god based on reason alone.
No. I said the fool says in his heart there is no God. I did not say that their concept of God must fit mine. Neither did I say it is the Christian concept of God. I suppose you could even argue that one is not sure if there is a God. The fool is the one that is confident that there is no God.
Originally posted by whodey No. I said the fool says in his heart there is no God. I did not say that their concept of God must fit mine. Neither did I say it is the Christian concept of God. I suppose you could even argue that one is not sure if there is a God. The fool is the one that is confident that there is no God.
Do you understand the very big difference between not believing there is a god and believing that there is not a god? Most sensible atheists do the former.
Originally posted by royalchicken Do you understand the very big difference between not believing there is a god and believing that there is not a god? Most sensible atheists do the former.
No. Not believing there is a God is the same as believing that there is not a God. The words are the same, it is just worded a little differently. IF you think there is a difference, please share.
Originally posted by whodey No. Not believing there is a God is the same as believing that there is not a God. The words are the same, it is just worded a little differently. IF you think there is a difference, please share.
No, sorry; I've discussed this too many times. Just Google 'weak atheism' and 'strong atheism'.
Originally posted by whodey No. Not believing there is a God is the same as believing that there is not a God. The words are the same, it is just worded a little differently. IF you think there is a difference, please share.
Technically, this is true. Belief means "assessed as being of >50% probability". So:
Belief in God = God is >50% likely
Do not believe in God = God is not >50% likely; therefore God is =/< 50% likely.
Believe there is no God = Lack of God is >50% likely, which means that God is =/< 50% likely.
EDIT - No; Believe there is no God = God is < 50% likely. There is a very slight difference. If God is assessed as 50% likely, one does not believe there is a God, but cannot believe there is not a God either.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Technically, this is true. Belief means "assessed as being of >50% probability". So:
Belief in God = God is >50% likely
Do not believe in God = God is not >50% likely; therefore God is =/< 50% likely.
Believe there is no God = Lack of God is >50% likely, which means that God is =/< 50% likely.
So you are essentially saying the glass is half full or half empty.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Technically, this is true. Belief means "assessed as being of >50% probability". So:
Belief in God = God is >50% likely
Do not believe in God = God is not >50% likely; therefore God is =/< 50% likely.
Believe there is no God = Lack of God is >50% likely, which means that God is =/< 50% likely.
Not really; 'belief' is not a binary thing; a claim can be believed to a (sometimes subjectively) measured extent between 0 and 1 inclusive. This is one of the best ways of interpreting the probability axioms.
Originally posted by whodey The weak atheist verses the strong atheist? I would gather that the strong atheist would be the fool or would you consider neither to be the fool?
I'm not calling anybody a fool; I'm saying that the strong atheist has a position as untenable as that of the theist, because xe has made an unsupported claim, while the weak atheist has merely said "No, I'm not going to believe you until you provide evidence, and, when the issue comes up, I'll not bring god into any of my reasoning and decisions, because there is nothing to indicate Xe exists." Do you see how this is different from the claim "There is no god"?
Originally posted by royalchicken Not really; 'belief' is not a binary thing; a claim can be believed to a (sometimes subjectively) measured extent between 0 and 1 inclusive. This is one of the best ways of interpreting the probability axioms.
Originally posted by royalchicken I'm not calling anybody a fool; I'm saying that the strong atheist has a position as untenable as that of the theist, because xe has made an unsupported claim, while the weak atheist has merely said "No, I'm not going to believe you until you provide evidence, and, when the issue comes up, I'll not bring god into any of my reasoning and decisions, becau ...[text shortened]... indicate Xe exists." Do you see how this is different from the claim "There is no god"?
What probability do the strong and weak atheists attribute to the possibility of God existing? Strong atheist says 0% I am sure, but what of the other? Could one think the Christian God is 50% likely, or 49% likely, or 1% likely, or 0.0000000000000001% likely to exist and be a weak atheist?
Who is fool'in who?
24 May '06 21:423 edits
Back to Top