JcP

Sure take your time. And I won't remind you about this, either. It's your choice.

Governor

Any ceremony concerning god, even mine, should be done in a closet and you must wash your hands afterward.

This thread is dirty.

__________________
'Marijuana is responsible for evolution itself' Dr. Robert Melamede
"Fuck the monkeys" Ken Gorman
potgov@yahoo.com
420 Medicine

snapshot

I think the scientific approach is the best approach.

The scientist would say, "Since you have no proof of anything relating to anything that can be considered 'God', you must leave God off the table until you find some evidence for its existence." In other words, you must perform a bottom up assessment. What would cause you to think that God exists in the first place? Obviously, your statement that everything must have a cause.

You may even logically say that the cause is the creator is God, but with no proof, it's simply an argument to be proven at a later time when evidence can be manifest for that conclusion. As of now, there's only reasoning to suggest that it is likely that this creator is what we would consider God, but nothing but inferences can be made strictly off the logic. Logic requires real-world evidence to be able to justify an argument.

The logician would say, "The inability to disprove something does not equal proof." In this case, the inability to disprove the existence of God does not mean God exists.

To the Gov: It's a dirty job, but I think someone has to do it. I think anything you feel passionately about you should argue to the bitter end. Even if it means arguing about God.

There are people are there who are trying to convince others that he exists. They tell you that the fact that you can't prove its existence is the reason for believing, which is anti-intellectual. It teaches people not to think. When I think about it, there's no reason to think that there is a God. There may have been a cause, but labeling it beyond that is pointless - mere speculation and conjecture. But people are told that God is a part of reality when in reality there is no place for it.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

snapshot

Now that I look into it it looks like a fallacy of equivocation. You're using creation with two different meanings.

I'm not smart enuogh yet to be able to point it out. What I can say is that no logical arguments go on forever. For every true logical argument there is a real-world example that you can point to. A concrete example. At least that's what the book says. Again I'm not smart enough most of the time to be able to explain what I've learned. I feel I'm only smart enough to know when someone is reaching beyond logic and suspends thinking in order to make room for god in their rationale. I just wish I could explain it better.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

Waves

are you saying theres no place for speculation on a prime cause?

remember your time-frames, snapshot. do you expect our ancient ancestors to say "well there may have been a cause that started our universe, but exploring that cause is beyond our ability so lets just leave it at that."

No, dude, they didnt do that. They went on and explored. They didnt have the technology we do to prove/disprove(which has nothing to do with actual "proof" but more with inter-personal validation) anything, so they made due. And they came up with some really interesting stuff. And now that stuff is getting old and we are in a transition period from the old to the new. You cant expect people to drop beliefs they've been using for thousands and thousands and thousands of years because "god cant be proven to exist or not exist" or whatever. Until you can prove god DOESNT EXIST, people will believe in God. Because it works and it makes people happy and warm.

__________________
On this life that we call home
The years go fast and the days go so slow

snapshot

There's always room for speculation. But you should believe in something just because you speculate it. I speculate pink elephants.

And I expect people today to be smarter than people of yesteryear. Being ignorant is not a reason to start making up irrational beliefs.

Interesting does not = true, nor does it equal a reason to believe. If anything, the point of talking about all this stuff is to induce thinking. Believing in God is the opposite of that in my opinion. Since you can't be disproved it is much more rationale to not hold an opinion either way. For some reason people think this will somehow "displease the Gods!" They think their belief in God is required. That, in short, is a belief in belief, which is what I've been saying is the most irrational, which is the reason for starting this thread. What reason does anyone have that we are required to believe in a deity? Especially with no evidence.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

verklingen

We exist. Is that not evidence enough?

Scientific reasoning is notoriously inadequate. I can make a claim that humans are mortal and will die eventually, but in order to prove this the scientist must observe each and every man who has ever lived to verify that he does indeed at some point die.

Does it not stand to reason that in order to exist we must be the effect of some previous cause? I fail to see how any argument could refute this assertion. Scientists attempt to describe the same phenomena the ancients grappled with, just with intricate models and more flowery words. These are their (the scientists') sensationalist stories: the mythology for our modern times.

I reject all stories, and seek the truth which hides beneath their dressing.

__________________

“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.”

snapshot

We exist is good enough for the question, not the answer.

And the beauty about science is that it's never sure of anything, even with evidence. It's baffling to me how someone could be completely sure of something with no evidence.

Science relies on evidence. The theories it comes up with may be relatable to mythology in a sense that it is not the whole answer, but it doesn't claim to be.

Hasn't mythology been even more historically inadequate? Zeus? What evidence was he based on?

The thing I admire about science is its intrinsic willingness to say I don't know. People who believe in God for some reason tend to think this is somehow bad.

I have no problem with saying that the Universe must have had a cause. But that's only a starting point. What was the cause? What's the evidence for a cause? People jump to conclusions and say it must be God. Aren't people notorious for putting God in places where they couldn't understand something before? Such as the weather?

God is finally at a safe place before the beginning of the Universe, but for how much longer? To say that God was the cause is jumping to conclusions without any evidence, which is worse than what inadequate science does, which says "I don't know."

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

JcP

As I said at the very beginning of our reparte snapshot, you cannot understand something if you choose to not understand it.

You can use semantics to get out of anything. Christ, Clinton actually said "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is." or something to that effect.

I've given you your logic proof, I've done it both semantically and mathematically using algebraic letterholders.

If that's not the proof you need, you are not seeking proof. You are seeking others to prescribe to your outlook, no matter how "proven" it is to be backwards.

You're not WRONG. You're just not making logical sense. And apparently that's what you're basing your argument on. So if you choose logic, I suggest being logical.

A = B
B = C
C = A = B.

Basic logic proofset. You can't get much easier than that.

JcP

Verklingen, if you're interested there is a wonderful book called Pirates! In an adventure with scientists, written by a man named Gideon Defoe.

It's totally ridiculous, but the basic argument that scientists are just people in funny clothes is made quite brilliantly.

I dunno about you, but if I could choose any costume to wear, I'd be Jack Sparrow. A pirate. Aye. That or Peter Pan.

Captain Hook or Peter Pan....odd. :-)

ziplock

Bob is a fisher.
I fish.
Therefore, I am Bob because I fish.

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

JcP

to be a synonymous logic proof it would need to be:

Bob is THE fisher.
I fish.
Therefore I am Bob.

Unless of course you want to argue that God is in fact multiple "things." In which case I offer:

God is a creator.
I create.
Therefore I am a God.

Or

God is a creator.
I am a creator.
Therefore we are equal.

snapshot

Omg, jcp came up with the prove that proves god exists!

smartest person in the world on yahooka. he proves god exists. can't be wrong.

/sarcasm

I wish I was smart enough to tell you how wrong you are. I can only infer that you are not the first person to come up with such a proof because it's about the simplest proof I've ever seen. Nor do I think that that proof has gone disproved for so long (since logic began).

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

snapshot

I think you have to first prove that God is the creator before you can make the arguement that God is the creator. Otherwise that statement is meaningless.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

ziplock

Bob is THE judge.
I judge.
Therefore, I am Bob because I judge.

The first statement deals with a position, and considering such is relative. Bob for instance, could be the Judge of a current trial I'm going through, or he could be one in a previous trial unrelated to any I'm currently involved in. Bob could have judged only one trial, and still be in a position of judge. He doesn't have to be actively judging to be in such a position.

The second statement deals with an action, a behavior. I judge. What? What do I judge? Do I judge you? Your appearance? Your grammar? Your political views?

The conclusive statement then says that because I judge, which is an action that judges do, I am Bob, because he is a judge.

What you're doing is affirming the consequent.If someone is God (P), then they are a creator (Q).
JcP is a creator (Q).
Therefore JcP is God (P).

So, you could very well be a creator, just not a Godly one. You could very well be a judge, but not one in court. Your judgements, while similar, could vary in nature quite profoundly from that of a judge's. Your creations, while similar, could vary in nature quite profoundly from that of a God's. Thus, the relativity I stated previously.

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

snapshot

god damn logic is hard.

luckily there's a logic and semantics course at the college I'm going to now.

i'm going to have to take that.

thanks ziplock. it was nice of you to jump in and offer your 2 cents even though you didn't have to.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

ziplock

I wasn't going too, I've been pretty passive as far as message boards go lately. Still haven't addressed any of that Middle Eastern shit... Oh well. Just after reading that it really stuck out to me. Shows where my priorities are. No problem though!

__________________
Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.

snapshot

Well when you get a chance, put me in my place. I've been giving the Israelis oral sex about the war.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins

JcP

whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute here please. I am not engaging in any of this conversation about God for any reason other than snapshot's opinion that "I AM" is an incomplete definition. That's it.

Ziplock, I am going by Snapshot's definition of God. You are using an incomplete metaphor to critique my logic chain. Although your posts are right in the context you are choosing, please read the entire thread first. This became the issue when Snapshot continued to express that he "doesn't know" and that science and logic is the only truth (re: science relies on evidence). My reply was "I Am." is something I know, to which we got into the discussion of whether God is external or part of us all. My argument is we ARE (among infinite other things) God. His argument, it seems, is that there's no way for me to know that.

Therefore, for any of your logic chains to be relevant, you have to choose your context.

There is a difference between the God Snapshot refers to (the all-omnipotent creator externalized from any of us that is undefinable because it is something no one can ever know) and a profession anyone can take up such as a fisherman.

Moreover, you're using a variable that is irrelevant. Bob is a name we give the context of individuality to. In algebra, the variables are not defined.

Bob = specific integer, such as 1.
A = undefined concept (such as God in this situation).

Which is why in order for your original post to make sense, Bob would have to be THE ONLY fisherman, otherwise A is not equal to B and C because C is the specific integer I have chosen to evaluate (myself).

A = B
B = C
C = A = B

is much different than

1 = B
B = 5
5 = B = 1.

Why? Because in the second chain (and the reason your logic excerpt is true, but irrelevant) B could be something such as 5 AND 1. Or 5, 3, 9, and 1. Or any infinite variables you care to prescribe to the undefined integer.

In the first case, however, all three integers are not defined.

Therefore, if A = God, then B is God and C is God for the logic to remain true.
If A is God and B is creation, then C is God and creation for the logic chain to remain true.

You cannot negate a logic chain by changing the variables. If you change it, you're asking a different logic chain.

ANYWAYS, I cannot believe I just had to spent 5 minutes talking about a subject in school I vowed never to waste my time with again. But there you go.

for the sake of clarity:

God = creation (1)
I = creation (1)
therefore I = 1 = God. This does not prove I am God, but it proves we are equal. And by definition, I am therefore a God. since we are debating a monotheistic God concept in this thread, and since that is the context we have chosen for our logic chain, we are ALL God.

snapshot

I don't have a definition of God, yo. I think that it's totally premature to define God as anything but a cause. I could expand on that definition by calling it an unknown cause. The point, I guess, is that to attribute anything more to God would be just wild conjecture based on nothing other than our curiousity as to why we are here.

So you could do something like zees:

God is defined as a cause.
The Universe was created.
A creation requires a cause.
Therefore God is the cause of the Universe.

That, I think, is stating that if God can be defined as anything, it's a cause to the creation of the Universe. I don't think that anything else can be said about God though.

__________________
We are all atheists about most of the gods that society has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.
-Richard Dawkins