Results 126 to 150 of 179

  1. Post
    Amoki wrote:
    The only editing that happened was the removal of a single "not".

    But Fellas is right - you're response is a cop-out. If you're not familiar with Western philosophy, why is it my problem if you're don't understand what is at hand? Parmenides' Paradox is a staple of Classical philosophy on which Plato and Aristotle attempted to answer, from there on the Church synthesized those viewpoints about reality into its definition of the word "God".
    I guess my problem is trying to make that mean something relevant. Like I get the gist of your opening post in this thread, but you're not saying anything definitive either way, as usual you're talking about someone else's argument, rather than presenting your own.

  2. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    Actually, because we haven't discovered the cause or can not discover the cause, because of our physical limitations, does not mean "God Exists" either. I am sure you have heard of the phrase "God of the gaps", whereby God is used in place of our gap of knowledge and this continues to get smaller and smaller. The initial cause, is just one of those "gaps in our knowledge". Many of these gaps may never get filled but that does not prove God(s) must exist. All it is saying is we don't know everything yet and we may never will do.
    Pretty much. I recall an older philosophical debate which rested on God creating man, because you can't get intelligence from nothing. Yet we now have a fairly comprehensive picture of the development of intelligence up to a human level, the argument only holds of you don't possess an elementary understanding of how brains went from rudimentary light sensors to what we have now.

  3. Post
    silvereye wrote:
    edit: oh no... he ignored me! I'm proud to be his first! Please someone quote me because I just know he can't resist the urge. He's much more weak willed than I initially thought.
    I'll put a bob in either way.

    It's an amusing schtick though. If only I didn't know other grown men who communicate the same, for real.

  4. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I am not "learned". Much of what you said has gone way over my head. I work on verifiable facts and figures, not wish-washy words. No one person has been able to prove that God or gods exist, to my level of understanding of things that are real.

    Science for me is the research of what we don't yet fully understand of the physical world. And from what I understand of God(s) is that they are not definable in physical terms I can relate to. Hence for me God(s) does not exist.
    Well, is this principle itself verifiable by facts and figure, or is it just a personal philosophy that *works* for you?
    Drives like an Asian till he gets behind the wheel of a holden

  5. Post
    bradc wrote:
    I guess my problem is trying to make that mean something relevant. Like I get the gist of your opening post in this thread, but you're not saying anything definitive either way, as usual you're talking about someone else's argument, rather than presenting your own.
    But I'm not interested in presenting an argument. I am not even interested in arguing. I only pointed out that the elephant in the room with this particular thread is that the word "God" has been defined in all sorts of varying condition - pantheistic, personalistic, Classical, etc. Such so that to say "god/God"doesn't exist" is completely meaningless until you sort out what the word "god/God" means to any particular person.

    I personally don't care about a God whose ontological and epistemological status is as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. On the other hand, a First Cause that exists because reality and change is best explained by causality and the actuality-potentiality distinction is "common sense"... given that science itself works on the basis of causality and the actuality-potentiality distinction.
    Drives like an Asian till he gets behind the wheel of a holden

  6. Post
    Nobody is disagreeing about cause and effect. It's the nature of the "first cause" which is in question, or whether or not it even exists - which by the way would be of utmost interest to science. If it exists, even if it seems like some willing God - it would be a branch of science in no time.

    The problem I have is that some theological intellectuals give much weight to the God hypothesis over admitting they having no idea. At this stage it's not a two-horse race with a meagre two options to choose from. That shows a lack of imagination more than anything.

  7. Post
    Amoki wrote:
    But I'm not interested in presenting an argument. I am not even interested in arguing. I only pointed out that the elephant in the room with this particular thread is that the word "God" has been defined in all sorts of varying condition - pantheistic, personalistic, Classical, etc. Such so that to say "god/God"doesn't exist" is completely meaningless until you sort out what the word "god/God" means to any particular person.
    I think you can meaningfully say "God doesn't exist" as a position, in relation to any known definition of God to the individual. So unless you're going to present a specific case for a definition of God for someone to consider, your point is pretty irrelevant.

    It'd be like you saying "I dont like ice cream", and I say "well that means nothing, because what flavour or type of ice cream are you talking about?", because I think I know a flavour you couldn't not like. Presumably you just didn't enjoy any ice cream you've ever encountered.

  8. Post
    Amoki wrote:
    Well, is this principle itself verifiable by facts and figure, or is it just a personal philosophy that *works* for you?
    I don't need to prove that any defined or undefined God(s) exist or not.

    And it is not a "principle" to state "God does not exist?", to me. For me, this is simply a situation that without satisfactory evidence to the contrary, I am happy to accept.

  9. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I don't need to prove that any defined or undefined God(s) exist or not.

    And it is not a "principle" to state "God does not exist?", to me. For me, this is simply a situation that without satisfactory evidence to the contrary, I am happy to accept.
    Yeah I think people can't seem to grasp the difference in saying "we have no good reason to believe god exists" & "god definitely does not exist".
    I can (and should) fall into the first category which btw is totally compatible with atheism. Lacking a belief is not the same as a statement of fact. I can however say that it is the only reasonable position to have given the evidence I personally have on offer. I also happen to be skeptical about personal revelations which are essentially the "nah, you can't touch me" argument.

    All that wish-wash aside, we can fairly certainly say traditional and extremely detailed versions of God are very likely to be horse-shit.

  10. Post
    Yeah ultimately it's about plausibility. We can trace so much of the universe back to natural selective pressures, there's not much of a foundation to suddenly have a massive uturn and place a conscious entity in there when the puzzle gets harder.

  11. Post
    bradc wrote:
    Yeah ultimately it's about plausibility. We can trace so much of the universe back to natural selective pressures, there's not much of a foundation to suddenly have a massive uturn and place a conscious entity in there when the puzzle gets harder.
    Yup, God of the gaps. It's so obvious that god has always retreated into the gaps that I don't know why anyone wouldn't at least be wary of doing it again. it has happened hundreds of times already right?

    The more open minded theologians will continue to do it until the concept of God is so vague as to be inseparable from "the thing that made the earliest thing happen". And it shouldn't make sense to us... it would be suspicious if it did as we're only very terrestrial shaven apes trying to fathom a view from outside the box.

  12. Post
    silvereye wrote:
    WTF is this. Can you paraphrase that in english Revias? I feel 80% of the words are unnecessary.
    Wankery, even.

  13. Post
    Edward Diego wrote:
    Wankery, even.
    I'm surprised you haven't actually read through some of the early Hellenic philosophy; if you had you'd realise he's not actually speaking out his ass with wankery terms, he's literally recounting some of the philosophical principles that came from that period.

    Wankery more so, is people who have limited understanding of the topic calling Amoki out for using big sentences, because they're too stupid to know what he's referring to. If this was OD, fine, but in the CEPP? This shit is childs play, I'm actually surprised more of you didn't know what he was referring to.

  14. Post
    Fella wrote:
    Wankery more so, is people who have limited understanding of the topic calling Amoki out for using big sentences, because they're too stupid to know what he's referring to. If this was OD, fine, but in the CEPP? This shit is childs play, I'm actually surprised more of you didn't know what he was referring to.
    So God(s) can't be defined without using big know-it-all words. It reminds of the middles-ages, when churches and monasteries hid this knowledge behind Latin or completely from the masses, in case they see through the real delusion that it is.

  15. Post
    I would've thought with the level of disdain and contempt Fella holds towards almost the whole forum community, the plebs not knowing this child's play would've been self evident.

    My posts only have punctuation due to sheer luck, as I roll my forehead on the keys and dribble on my mouse.

  16. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    So God(s) can't be defined without using big know-it-all words. It reminds of the middles-ages, when churches and monasteries hid this knowledge behind Latin or completely from the masses, in case they see through the real delusion that it is.
    You're attempting to state science is a reasonable gauge to dismiss the notion of a God. You've already simplified it to black and white in your head, with "Christian God is proven wrong, therefore all notions of God are wrong" so you're not really the target audience for Hellenic philosophical principles.

  17. Post
    Fella wrote:
    You're attempting to state science is a reasonable gauge to dismiss the notion of a God. You've already simplified it to black and white in your head, with "Christian God is proven wrong, therefore all notions of God are wrong" so you're not really the target audience for Hellenic philosophical principles.
    I am not trying to dismiss God(s) with science, only that there is no scientific evidence to their existence. Much like, ghosts, demons and lots of other supernatural beings.

    As I have said early, it is not me who needs to prove that God(s) does not exist, but on the person who say they do to prove it. Otherwise, quite simply, like millions of other human imaginations, they are just ideas created in the brains of people.

  18. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    I am not trying to dismiss God(s) with science, only that there is no scientific evidence to their existence. Much like, ghosts, demons and lots of other supernatural beings.

    As I have said early, it is not me who needs to prove that God(s) does not exist, but on the person who say they do to prove it. Otherwise, quite simply, like millions of other human imaginations, they are just ideas created in the brains of people.
    You're using the burden of proof, or "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right" - however you can't disprove the notion that there was a creation moment by a higher power. The idea that you have at the moment is just one of the billion other ideas people have out of their own human imagination, you just somehow have a delusion in thinking that your idea is backed in scientific principle, which it isn't.

    Which comes back to the whole actuality-potentiality discussion, Science has no capability to work without casual link. The scientific method doesn't work in an uncaused cause scenario.

  19. Post
    Fella wrote:
    Maori hadn't expanded beyond small tribes and would have certainly been wiped out by disease or famine sooner or later on this Island.
    Hypothetically, maybe. But in reality they continue to live and thrive as a culture. Stronger now than ever before I would say. That was the measure, continued existance. If you're going to shift the goal posts from "didn't make it" to " could do better.." or "but if X happened, then what.." thats your problem.

  20. Post
    Fella wrote:
    You're using the burden of proof, or "You can't prove me wrong, therefore I'm right" - however you can't disprove the notion that there was a creation moment by a higher power. The idea that you have at the moment is just one of the billion other ideas people have out of their own human imagination, you just somehow have a delusion in thinking that your idea is backed in scientific principle, which it isn't.

    Which comes back to the whole actuality-potentiality discussion, Science has no capability to work without casual link. The scientific method doesn't work in an uncaused cause scenario.
    However, your position sounds a lot like: "Because we have not yet discovered (or may never do) the initial 'cause', therefore a higher power must exist" - This is too much like the "God of Gaps" argument.

    The default position is "something does not exist", until evidence is found to the contrary. And in the case of an atheist like me, the default position is "absence of belief in God(s)", until I receive evidence to the contrary.

    In addition, you should know you can not prove a "negative position". I do not need to disprove that there was a creation moment, I just have no evidence for it. We have trouble establishing 'facts' from just days and weeks ago, let alone billions of years ago, with our limited skills and technology.

  21. Post
    Unsettled wrote:
    Hypothetically, maybe. But in reality they continue to live and thrive as a culture. Stronger now than ever before I would say. That was the measure, continued existance. If you're going to shift the goal posts from "didn't make it" to " could do better.." or "but if X happened, then what.." thats your problem.
    Well put another way, they were hardly on the pathway to any industry, defensive capability or sustainable agriculture; considering the land mass they had, had the English not conquered them, the Australians or Indonesians most definitely would've by now.

    They "thrive" as a culture, because a superior culture came in and provided them all of the things they would never have provided themselves. Said superior culture had it's backings in organised religion.

  22. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    However, your position sounds a lot like: "Because we have not yet discovered (or may never do) the initial 'cause', therefore a higher power must exist" - This is too much like the "God of Gaps" argument.

    The default position is "something does not exist", until evidence is found to the contrary. And in the case of an atheist like me, the default position is "absence of belief in God(s)", until I receive evidence to the contrary.

    In addition, you should know you can not prove a "negative position". I do not need to disprove that there was a creation moment, I just have no evidence for it. We have trouble establishing 'facts' from just days and weeks ago, let alone billions of years ago, with our limited skills and technology.
    My position is simple; we don't know. We have no way of even assessing it under the ways that we would normally determine a proven outcome and we have a dilemma that ultimately means science itself has no basis with which to test the problem.

    It should baffle you as much as it baffles me, that for us to exist, something predated existence to cause existence. It should also baffle you that extremely logical people with a strong basis in science have made statements indicating either string theory (multiple dimensions) or that we are in some sort of simulation based on what they can ascertain.

    No issue with you saying "The Christian God is a myth" because it so very obviously is, but don't use Science as some sort of catch all as to why a creator can't exist. Science falls apart in this domain.

  23. Post
    I do agree that we don't know what existed before existence. However, I am more inclined to believe that there has always been existence and always will be.

    Many theories are still awaiting to be discovered and tested. Meanwhile, I am happy to accept that there is no God(s) based on our current level of intelligence, technology, age or whatever.

  24. Post
    I don't place too much importance on the origin or nature of existence because it seems evident that the reality of that isn't relevant to human existence. There is a crazy amount of issues closer to us we should be overcoming.

  25. Post
    No, science logically reinforces that theres no creator. There is no evidence in the universe that either astronomical objects, or biological life was created by a being.

    All observable phenomenon are simple things combine to make complex things. Therefore a complex intelligence predating the existence of everything else, makes no scientific sense. How would this hyper being have come to exist? And its impossible to answer because theres no evidence they do exist. And all our experience of living intelligence requires evolution.

    All you are doing with a 'god' is replacing one unknown (whats going on here then) with an absurd mystery, that breaks down into many unknowns. How, Why, where did is it now? Whats our purpose?
    And the answers we invented are next level "sounds made up" I don't know about you, but I'm perfectly happy not knowing. I'm not going to desperately cling to an answer that no honest person could accept as real.