FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
WHY?
Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Logic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertising.






Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
Posted:     Post subject:

Back to top
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:50 pm    Post subject: Re: WHY?  Reply with quote

They call me Tater Salad wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Why do we often try to establish the existence of God through the validity of religions?

Shouldn't we first establish whether we think God exists or not, then if "yes" then move on to what could be his true message?


That would make sense, but first wouldn't you need to establish for yourself what you think God should be and or why He/it should exist, in order to determine whether He/it could exist?


No. Existence itself is not preceded by the description of the existing thing. First, possible existence of a creator is examined. Obviously, no creator, no God. Then, we decide what characteristics that "said thing" might have, after we first decide there is a creator. You are putting the carriage before the horse, so to speak. Now I know that I breached one small piece of logic. I did put the characteristic of creator on to God first, before the existence was decided. But this is only because of the logical conclusion that if there is a God, then it HAS to be the creator, otherwise, we may look to God's creator as God, which sends us into a ridiculous tizzy. So we are forced to accept that exception, as dictated by logic.
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
They call me Tater Salad
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 51



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:57 pm    Post subject: Re: WHY? Reply with quote

Mutley wrote:


No. Existence itself is not preceded by the description of the existing thing. First, possible existence of a creator is examined. Obviously, no creator, no God.


So maybe since I never questioned the possibility that a god could exist I automatically by-passed the first step--but how can one who is naturally skeptical or who has determined for himself (such as All_Brains) that God doesn't exist get past that?  It's reasonable to me to say that no-one can prove the existence of God, nor really even the possiblity of God.  So what you're suggesting requires "gnosis"--but personally I know of quite a few atheists who later redacted their positions on God through logical/intellectual means, not purely spiritual.
_________________
He who laughs last didn't get it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
brainout
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 275


Location: Houston
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Hi, God.  If you're really up there and I'm  not talking to myself, would you help me to know You?  Thank you, ameen."

A five-year old would handle the whole thing that way.  When I was 13 I hadn't yet read Camus and filled my head with all kinds of non-sequiturs as we adults so often do.  So instead I looked up at the ceiling and asked, "Which God ARE You?" and promptly fell asleep. Smile

You don't need religion to have a relationship with God.  Better to avoid it, completely.  You do need contact with God, and you do need Logic 24/7 to know you're not hallucinating that contact.  For a developing relationship with God, you'll need a book God writes, so you can PROVE you're not hallucinating, since Divine Logic will be the same yet higher, than human.  Same pathways, but just like boundaries in real estate, a "yes" becomes a "no" when a boundary is reached.

Math teaches you all that.  But you need God's Math, at some point.  God's Thinking, yes.  Religion, never.
_________________
God needs no defending, and always begs the premise.  For belief of any kind, always needs self-auditing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MrInquisitive
New Member
New Member


Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 23


Location: Western/Northern hemisphere
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:03 pm    Post subject: Duh...what?... Reply with quote

joker

..."in order to establish the existence or non-existence of a god, one has to have a concept of how that god would be."...


Uh!!! Do we really need to do that, at all?

Rolling Eyes

I really don't get it! I never think about this crap, at all.

It is puzzling to me me that you do...


Of course! It has no value to me to think about it!
_________________
The most important voice to listen to is the one within one's head!
Everything else may be influential, or not!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
MrInquisitive
New Member
New Member


Joined: 14 Jan 2008
Posts: 23


Location: Western/Northern hemisphere
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

..."Don't expect rationality, don't expect intelligence, and don't expect consistancy in my thoughts, and you won't be disappointed."...

I am very disappointed. It has a streak of "follow me" between here and the equator.

You are trying to say something.

I think it has something to do with the fact that you have discovered that your power is yours and it was always there.

You just simply used to "believe" that you had no power at all.

If you had no power at all, you simply wouldn't have the opportunity to expose your "irrational, unintelligent, inconsistent thoughts"!!!
_________________
The most important voice to listen to is the one within one's head!
Everything else may be influential, or not!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 10:26 am    Post subject: Re: WHY? Reply with quote

All_Brains wrote:
Why do we often try to establish the existence of God through the validity of religions?

Shouldn't we first establish whether we think God exists or not, then if "yes" then move on to what could be his true message?


I think humans are "wired" that way.  Our brain seems to be wired to require some kind of God concept, but it can be overridden.

An approach I have found interesting, but by no means conclusive, is to examine the various popular characterisations of God, and his/her attributes, and see if they make sense.

I have pulled the following from http://www.qsmithwmu.com/a_big_bang_cosmological_argument_for_god's_nonexistence_(1992).htm
which, in effect, is saying the popular characterizations of God are logically inconsistent with modern physics, i.e., the Big Bang.  I am not arguing for against the BB, but logically, either the popular characterizations of God are wrong, the BB is wrong, or both.  Please read the entire article.


Quote:
3. The Big Bang Cosmological Argument for Atheism

I shall use the four aspects of big bang cosmology explicated in the last section as the scientific premises of my atheistic argument. The first three scientific premises articulated in the last section, the Einstein equation, Friedmann's solutions to this equation and the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem, provide us with the two premises

(1) The big bang singularity is the earliest state of the universe.

(2) The earliest state of the universe is inanimate

(2) follows from (1) since the singularity involves the life-hostile conditions of infinite temperature, infinite curvature and infinite density.

The fourth scientific idea explained in the last section, the principle of ignorance, gives us the summary premise

(3) No law governs the big bang singularity and consequently there is no guarantee that it will emit a configuration of particles that will evolve into an animate universe.

(1)-(3) entail

(4) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe.

My argument is that (4) is inconsistent with the hypothesis that God created the earliest state of the universe, since it is true of God that if he created the earliest state of the universe, then he would have ensured that this state is animate or evolves into animate states of the universe. It is essential to the idea of God in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition that if he creates a universe, he creates an animate universe, and therefore that if he creates a first state of the universe, he

creates a state that is, or is guaranteed to evolve into, an animate state. If somebody says, 'it does not matter to God whether the universe he creates is animate or inanimate,' this person is operating with a concept of God that is at odds with classical theism. I think it would be granted by virtually all contemporary theists in the analytic tradition (M. and R. Adams, Craig, Menzel, Morris, Plantinga, Quinn, Schlesinger, Swinburne, Wainwright, Wolterstorff and many others) that God, if he creates a universe, intends his creation to be animate. Richard Swinburne writes, for example, that 'orderly universes' are those required by animate creatures and that 'God has overriding reason to make an orderly universe if he makes a universe at all.'[16]

The above statement of the 'big bang cosmological argument for God's nonexistence' is of course just a starter, since the theist has available to himself or herself numerous counterarguments or objections. In the remainder of this paper I will state an d respond to some of these objections.



There are many more intriguing articles here, http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_religion.htm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Always_Faithful
New Member
New Member


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 11



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:56 am    Post subject: Re: WHY? Reply with quote

kafir forever wrote:
(4) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe.



As a determinist, I disagree with this point. I believe (and have good grounds to believe) that, in any situation, only one possible outcome can be generated (through natural law, which must concern any "cause" of the big bang). Therefore, the Big Bang was guraenteed to result in, not only the universe, but the very state of the universe we have now. You could still argue that God would have made the circumstances less delicately tuned towards the outcome of planetary and solar existence, but one could easily argue that, in order to generate the current state of existence (which could be assumed to be the one desired by this God for any particular purpose), a very specific mode of beggining for the Universe had to be used for the natural progression necessary.

Of course, I realise that determinism rules out free will and hence any validity or fairness to an earthly test or afterlife (and hence an Abrahamic God), but my point is not to defend God, only to point out how certain philosophies discredit the cosmological argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 5:09 am    Post subject: Re: WHY? Reply with quote

Always_Faithful wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
(4) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe.



As a determinist, I disagree with this point. I believe (and have good grounds to believe) that, in any situation, only one possible outcome can be generated (through natural law, which must concern any "cause" of the big bang). Therefore, the Big Bang was guraenteed to result in, not only the universe, but the very state of the universe we have now. You could still argue that God would have made the circumstances less delicately tuned towards the outcome of planetary and solar existence, but one could easily argue that, in order to generate the current state of existence (which could be assumed to be the one desired by this God for any particular purpose), a very specific mode of beggining for the Universe had to be used for the natural progression necessary.

Of course, I realise that determinism rules out free will and hence any validity or fairness to an earthly test or afterlife (and hence an Abrahamic God), but my point is not to defend God, only to point out how certain philosophies discredit the cosmological argument.


Withn all due respect, did you read the article?  The uncertainty in the outcome is due to Quantum Mechanics where there is no real determinism.  Please read the article and comment on it directly, with quotes, when appropriate.  I am interested in the argument, not our own personal philosophies.

The article's argument can be reduced to the logical inconsistencies between BB/QM physics and the traditional attributes associated with God.  It does not prove that God does not exist, it only points out that if you believe in the BB, then God cannot have the traditional attributes associated with God.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Always_Faithful
New Member
New Member


Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 11



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:36 am    Post subject: Re: WHY? Reply with quote

kafir forever wrote:
Always_Faithful wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
(4) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe.



As a determinist, I disagree with this point. I believe (and have good grounds to believe) that, in any situation, only one possible outcome can be generated (through natural law, which must concern any "cause" of the big bang). Therefore, the Big Bang was guraenteed to result in, not only the universe, but the very state of the universe we have now. You could still argue that God would have made the circumstances less delicately tuned towards the outcome of planetary and solar existence, but one could easily argue that, in order to generate the current state of existence (which could be assumed to be the one desired by this God for any particular purpose), a very specific mode of beggining for the Universe had to be used for the natural progression necessary.

Of course, I realise that determinism rules out free will and hence any validity or fairness to an earthly test or afterlife (and hence an Abrahamic God), but my point is not to defend God, only to point out how certain philosophies discredit the cosmological argument.


Withn all due respect, did you read the article?  The uncertainty in the outcome is due to Quantum Mechanics where there is no real determinism.  Please read the article and comment on it directly, with quotes, when appropriate.  I am interested in the argument, not our own personal philosophies.

The article's argument can be reduced to the logical inconsistencies between BB/QM physics and the traditional attributes associated with God.  It does not prove that God does not exist, it only points out that if you believe in the BB, then God cannot have the traditional attributes associated with God.


I didn't read the artical; the link doesn't work for me. If your point was that the traditional Abrahamic God (and not just simply a competent God) is disproven by the argument, then I'd agree; determinism or no determinism. The link url was misleading, but I shouldn't have jumped into an answer like that.

EDIT: I've found the artical, I'll give it a read now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kafir forever
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 135



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:07 am    Post subject: Re: WHY? Reply with quote

Always_Faithful wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
Always_Faithful wrote:
kafir forever wrote:
(4) The earliest state of the universe is not guaranteed to evolve into an animate state of the universe.



As a determinist, I disagree with this point. I believe (and have good grounds to believe) that, in any situation, only one possible outcome can be generated (through natural law, which must concern any "cause" of the big bang). Therefore, the Big Bang was guraenteed to result in, not only the universe, but the very state of the universe we have now. You could still argue that God would have made the circumstances less delicately tuned towards the outcome of planetary and solar existence, but one could easily argue that, in order to generate the current state of existence (which could be assumed to be the one desired by this God for any particular purpose), a very specific mode of beggining for the Universe had to be used for the natural progression necessary.

Of course, I realise that determinism rules out free will and hence any validity or fairness to an earthly test or afterlife (and hence an Abrahamic God), but my point is not to defend God, only to point out how certain philosophies discredit the cosmological argument.


Withn all due respect, did you read the article?  The uncertainty in the outcome is due to Quantum Mechanics where there is no real determinism.  Please read the article and comment on it directly, with quotes, when appropriate.  I am interested in the argument, not our own personal philosophies.

The article's argument can be reduced to the logical inconsistencies between BB/QM physics and the traditional attributes associated with God.  It does not prove that God does not exist, it only points out that if you believe in the BB, then God cannot have the traditional attributes associated with God.


I didn't read the artical; the link doesn't work for me. If your point was that the traditional Abrahamic God (and not just simply a competent God) is disproven by the argument, then I'd agree; determinism or no determinism. The link url was misleading, but I shouldn't have jumped into an answer like that.

EDIT: I've found the artical, I'll give it a read now.


Thanks, A_F.  The link did seem to be cut short, but all that is needed is to copy/past the entire string into a browser address.  Glad you were able to make it work.  Looking forward to your thoughts.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> Logic All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum