Disproving God? part1

[Logos385]

I Seek 2:

I would say humanity is physically very similar or inferior in some cases to the rest of the animal kingdom, but mentally we are strides ahead. Our intelligence is our (at least perceived) superiority.

 

[Louemma]

I Seek 2:

I would say humanity is physically very similar or inferior in some cases to the rest of the animal kingdom, but mentally we are strides ahead. Our intelligence is our (at least perceived) superiority.

:newidea: Maybe all the Athestist that considers themselves a part of the animal kingdom will evolute back into monkeys Just joking.I do hope you find Jesus and the eyes of your heart will be open.Peace:thumbsup:

 

[stringbeanduck]

I thought it was interesting to see that OP not give detailed responces to the arguements against the one he copied and pasted on this forum.

 

[Louemma]

I believe the question of a deity’s existence is one of the most prominent we can research, and I love research. Thus, this is one of the places I go to gather information on people’s beliefs, hear arguments, and debate. The forum rules specifically state I am allowed to do so, as long as I don’t disrespect. If you feel I am being disrespectful, please tell me so, and I will attempt to rectify my attitude.
The second part, yes. The first part, once again, is something I would disagree with. It’s true that if many things were even slightly different, everything would change. But all this means is that, “If things were different, things would be different.” This holds next to no practical meaning, because we have next to no idea about how different the universe would be in a different situation… we have no data to feed in! : ).
And if that happens, so be it. However, first evidence will have to convince me : ). Thanks for your time.

Logos this is sad because you state in order for you to believe you need evidence and you will not get evidence unless you do believe.I have found in my studies over the years that people like yourself have trust issues to begin with.You will not even trust your own self to step out in Faith on your quest for the search of God.Friend the unbelief is your blinders and you will never see your way to finding God unless you step out in faith

 

[Detales]

Logos385~“I believe the question of a deity’s existence is one of the most prominent we can research, and I love research.” This is truly a wonderful attitude. Quite contrary to a signature on here that advocates only sticking to what has been “handed down” as if that could even have any consistency. That person has never played “telephone.”

My favorite quote in this matter, Logos, is from Nisargadatta. He said "The search for Reality is the most dangerous undertaking; it will destroy your world. And what a wonderful prospect that is, because as you know from research, your perspective changes and your world changes, and yet you still can say “I am!” And of course the world that is destroyed, eventually, is the one constituted of your ignorance and its limits.

Many will find it necessary not to do what you do, that is, research, because of their need for stability in what they now have. That is well and good. But some are more adventurous and ready for a much greater bite of Universe than what most choose to restrict themselves to.

I also like that “re-search” has the overtone of looking again. So often we pass up the obvious because of our deep seated conviction that what we have is all there is and that what we see is in one-to-one correspondence to reality. Of course, that cannot be. We can only unfold our understanding through experience.

But interestingly, though the contents of our experience changes, even drastically or profoundly, one thing remains the same. We can from birth to death say “I am.” I have always felt, that since this is the closest thing to the unchanging Nature attributed to God, that it is also the most productive area of research. IN my more thn fifty years of research on this basis, I have only grown increasingly sure that such inquiry is the most productive, well beyond any parameter of simple faith, as useful as that certainly can be. It is just that, as you might find, there is so much more.

I therefor wish you the very best in your endeavors!

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[Logos385]

Logos this is sad because you state in order for you to believe you need evidence and you will not get evidence unless you do believe.I have found in my studies over the years that people like yourself have trust issues to begin with.You will not even trust your own self to step out in Faith on your quest for the search of God.Friend the unbelief is your blinders and you will never see your way to finding God unless you step out in faith

I’m not sure I appreciate being called sad, for my worldview actually sustains me quite nicely. I trust myself quite a bit, and find the idea of foregoing evidence to garner evidence quite inane. To do what you ask is to relinquish a scientific foundation… And I respect the sciences in which I immerse myself far too much : ).

Edit: And homo sapiens, objectively, are part of the animal kingdom. Simple taxonomic classification.

 

[djeter]

I’m not sure I appreciate being called sad, for my worldview actually sustains me quite nicely. I trust myself quite a bit, and find the idea of foregoing evidence to garner evidence quite inane. To do what you ask is to relinquish a scientific foundation… And I respect the sciences in which I immerse myself far too much : ).

Your worldview will sustain you nicely until it doesn’t. Many of us on these forums were just like you.

Actually Logos it might interest you that wthin the Church there is no general consensus among Catholic writers as to the best way of establishing the existence of God, the supreme presupposition of our faith. To complicate matters more, The First Vatican Council, in the course of the document Del Filius declared “The one and true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known through the creation by the natural light of human reason.”

The council’s teaching is that images of the divine found in natural religion in all cultures can be modified or purified so as to produce a concept of God as the Creator Lord, the source of nature and history alike. At this point our hypothetical atheist (ever snarky) is probably thinking: “Ah, so there is a God and it can be proved by human reason, but nobody has found Him yet. Nice.”

The biblical materials for a concept of God do not organize themselves. They do not automatically arrange themselves into a satisfactory form. They achieve that form only when the human mind, seeking to understand its own faith, begins to work on them and to set them out in more intelligible ways.

To organize the biblical materials, we soon find that we need to draw on such philosophical categories as good and evil, freedom and necessity, person and nature, mind and will, essence and existence, being and knowing. Of course, the application of these notions to God is an attempt to speak of what lies beyond the world within terms drawn from this world, and so is only justified if we always add a postscript to that effect.

But as Karl Rahner once put it, definitions are much less an end than a beginning. Much more here where one of my favorite Catholic writers lays out six approaches to God – sorry no scientific proofs because God cannot be the object of a scientific hypotheses.

the rest here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/09/approaches-to-god%e2%80%99s-existence/

dj

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Ah yes, Sailor. Thank you for the loving comparisons. Who was it who said "It is great luck for leaders that men don’t think? I remember now… he was a chancellor of Germany, called Hitler. And, since it is clear that you haven’t read my post with any degree of discrimination, I would think the quote fits and you wear it well. Here’s another quote that might be useful. “Think, Arthur, think!” ~ Merlin.

If you can see yourself clearly, you might as well see the Christ Child and actually have a Christmas worth celebrating. I am not against your religion, Sailor, I am for using it to wake up. You won’t, if you can’t see though it to why you have it. But if it serves you well as you know it, then Peace be upon you.

Thanks for the condescension, but it’s not just ‘my’ religion. It is the Church which Christ founded upon this earth.

Dittos.

 

[Logos385]

Wonderful post, Detales : ).

Your worldview will sustain you nicely until it doesn’t.

Well, of course.

Many of us on these forums were just like you.

I don’t know, I think all of us are unique. : D

Actually Logos it might interest you that wthin the Church there is no general consensus among Catholic writers as to the best way of establishing the existence of God, the supreme presupposition of our faith. To complicate matters more, The First Vatican Council, in the course of the document Del Filius declared “The one and true God, our Creator and Lord, can be known through the creation by the natural light of human reason.”

And I would disagree. With the last part, I mean.

The council’s teaching is that images of the divine found in natural religion in all cultures can be modified or purified so as to produce a concept of God as the Creator Lord, the source of nature and history alike. At this point our hypothetical atheist (ever snarky) is probably thinking: “Ah, so there is a God and it can be proved by human reason, but nobody has found Him yet. Nice.”

Ah. I don’t find myself snarky.

The biblical materials for a concept of God do not organize themselves. They do not automatically arrange themselves into a satisfactory form. They achieve that form only when the human mind, seeking to understand its own faith, begins to work on them and to set them out in more intelligible ways.

Ok.

To organize the biblical materials, we soon find that we need to draw on such philosophical categories as good and evil, freedom and necessity, person and nature, mind and will, essence and existence, being and knowing. Of course, the application of these notions to God is an attempt to speak of what lies beyond the world within terms drawn from this world, and so is only justified if we always add a postscript to that effect.

What’s the use of applying these things to a deity if that deity is still possibly nonexistent? Seems a fruitless pursuit. At least to my empirically-minded self : ).

But as Karl Rahner once put it, definitions are much less an end than a beginning. Much more here where one of my favorite Catholic writers lays out six approaches to God – sorry no scientific proofs because God cannot be the object of a scientific hypotheses.

the rest here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/09/09/approaches-to-god%e2%80%99s-existence/

dj

What do you mean God cannot be the object of a scientific hypothesis? Any proposed natural effect of the proposed deity can be tested empirically.

Such as:
Communication with humankind
Universal flood
Type of creation
Prayer
Perfection
Etc.

 

[djeter]

Logos385: What do you mean God cannot be the object of a scientific hypothesis?​

Science rejects the supernatural.

Alan Mittleman explains it here: "The problem begins with the way all such conversations are framed. God, contra the late Richard Rorty, is not a conversation stopper, but the question “Does God exist?” surely is. It tilts toward the atheist’s strength, for it assumes that the religious believer is committed to the existence of something akin to unicorns or gremlins, for which there is not the slightest bit of evidence. In asking “Does God exist?” the atheist challenges the believer to produce sufficient evidence to persuade him. The believer cannot. That which counts as evidence for the believer can be explained or explained away by the atheist.

Evidence can always be interpreted in a variety of ways, some of them unfavorable to the believer’s case. (If you claim that God spoke to you in a dream, how is that different, as David Hume asked, from dreaming that God spoke to you?) The atheist will charge that the believer’s interpretation is gratuitous or merely circular: The believer is simply asserting the truth (of Scripture, for example) of precisely that which he must demonstrate.

When modern science is brought into the discussion, the believer is hard pressed to find a bit of room left for God to occupy. Our contemporary ways of thinking about nature leave little space for God-as-hypothesis. Science has no place for untestable hypotheses. Once again, the way such science-and-God questions are framed—Does science render belief in God obsolete?—diverts believers from testifying to the God they claim to love. It squeezes them into making existence claims on behalf of a distant God in a universe that doesn’t have a place for him."

You will find more of the above here.

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/05/23/asking-the-wrong-question-a-meditation-on-the-question-%e2%80%9cdoes-god-exist%e2%80%9d/

It has become my standard response to those who pose the question “Does God exist?”

dj

 

[Detales]

djeter, I agree that the existence question as applied to God is impossible. First, the word “exist” is itself deceptive, as its root means >Latin existere, exsistere, to come forth, be manifest : ex- (out from), ex- + sistere, to stand; So, off the bat, if we use the word “exist” we are dealing with the impression that God is dependent.

True to christianist form, “exist” has devolved to mean “be” in the same sense that to religionists “faith” is synonymous with “knowledge.” Granted, faith is synthetic knowledge, in the same sense that playing Dungeons and Dragons requires “knowledge” of that game. But it has limited applications, and in the case of christianist thinking, the ideas it fosters pertinent to a deity are in fact prophylactic and preventative of actual insight, except, perhaps, in their use akin to the zen koan. So while we can rightfully say, on the proper grounds, that “God IS,” we may not accurately or usefully say “God exists.”

So while I agree with Buber that God cannot be discussed, but neither can God be addressed as “You” without attributing to God personhood, which an impossibility. Reason and faith are the most vacant areas and least useful in “finding” God other than as an emotive experience that is strictly personal and not referent to the actuality of Deity. In this respect, both religionism and atheism are mistaken and will never resolve the issue, because it is impossibly framed.

 

[Logos385]

It has become my standard response to those who pose the question “Does God exist?”

dj

I’m not sure what you are saying here, but my statement was in response to someone else, and I was actually showing them all the parts of a “God Hypothesis” that could be tested, not asserting that God could not be.

 

[Logos385]

djeter, I agree that the existence question as applied to God is impossible. First, the word “exist” is itself deceptive, as its root means >Latin existere, exsistere, to come forth, be manifest : ex- (out from), ex- + sistere, to stand; So, off the bat, if we use the word “exist” we are dealing with the impression that God is dependent.

True to christianist form, “exist” has devolved to mean “be” in the same sense that to religionists “faith” is synonymous with “knowledge.” Granted, faith is synthetic knowledge, in the same sense that playing Dungeons and Dragons requires “knowledge” of that game. But it has limited applications, and in the case of christianist thinking, the ideas it fosters pertinent to a deity are in fact prophylactic and preventative of actual insight, except, perhaps, in their use akin to the zen koan. So while we can rightfully say, on the proper grounds, that “God IS,” we may not accurately or usefully say “God exists.”

So while I agree with Buber that God cannot be discussed, but neither can God be addressed as “You” without attributing to God personhood, which an impossibility. Reason and faith are the most vacant areas and least useful in “finding” God other than as an emotive experience that is strictly personal and not referent to the actuality of Deity. In this respect, both religionism and atheism are mistaken and will never resolve the issue, because it is impossibly framed.

I’m not sure I follow. What do you mean faith is synthetic knowledge?

And although, the roots of words often mean things not exactly equivalent to the accepted definition today, but that does not mean you can throw out the contemporary definition. To say “God is,” you must also be able to say “God exists,” and there is really no reason to separate the two. I feel as if we are getting away from the meat of discussion with your last post, and devolving into semantic banter… I think supreme truths are more profound than simple definitional alterations.

 

[Detales]

2+2 is practical knowledge, applicable, and useful in commonality with any human capable of math. Same goes for anything that can be verified by the action or thought of another human; any human who has the same parameters for the action as the original, say the building of a gasoline engine, a technique for chipping flint, or riding a bicycle. None of these are matters of faith.

If you take a book printed on paper that has currently over 100 versions and is subject to time, translation, interpretation, nuance, symbolism, unverifiable whatevers, and you make a system out of it that groups of people adhere to as if they were fact, you have synthetic knowledge. Made up. Faith. The adult word for “let’s pretend.” This is so even if the book is the remnants of a system used millenia ago to gain actual experiential knowledge. So “knowledge” based on misinterpretation or degradation of understanding is also synthetic, or constructed knowledge. It has no fit with such knowledge as practical, transferable knowledge, even if it is used as an explanatory myth.

Does that mean that there is no God? No. It simply means that the christianist god, eg, is synthetic. So to separate the original and current usage of such a word as “exiosts” is paramount in parsing out the actuality of an encounter that might be called “Deific.” Another factor in this, for instance, is that the commonly translated meanings and understandings of such words as “I” and “Father” are, as far as I can tell, incorrect insofar as they do not correspond with nuances of those words used in Teaching at the time and place of Jesus (Ieshua, or Iusu.)

Semantic “banter” is a sad misnomer for the attempt to clarify terms that are vital in understanding the roots of and means of acquisition of beliefs, yes?

 

[Logos385]

2+2 is practical knowledge, applicable, and useful in commonality with any human capable of math. Same goes for anything that can be verified by the action or thought of another human; any human who has the same parameters for the action as the original, say the building of a gasoline engine, a technique for chipping flint, or riding a bicycle. None of these are matters of faith.

Ok.

If you take a book printed on paper that has currently over 100 versions and is subject to time, translation, interpretation, nuance, symbolism, unverifiable whatevers, and you make a system out of it that groups of people adhere to as if they were fact, you have synthetic knowledge. Made up. Faith.

I see, so you are saying “synthetic knowledge” as a way to say “material that people take as fact despite the lack of evidence?”

The adult word for “let’s pretend.” This is so even if the book is the remnants of a system used millenia ago to gain actual experiential knowledge. So “knowledge” based on misinterpretation or degradation of understanding is also synthetic, or constructed knowledge. It has no fit with such knowledge as practical, transferable knowledge, even if it is used as an explanatory myth.

So I think I see how you are using “synthetic knowledge” and “constructed knowledge,” and I follow… but both constructed and synthetic seem bad words for it. Maybe false or faux knowledge? Illusory knowledge? Or just stick with belief/faith. Synthetic/Constructed seems to be a slight misrepresentation of what you’re trying to explain. But I think I follow now : ).

Does that mean that there is no God? No. It simply means that the christianist god, eg, is synthetic.

Once again: careful. Although synthetic means created, it also means in existence : ).

So to separate the original and current usage of such a word as “exiosts” is paramount in parsing out the actuality of an encounter that might be called “Deific.”

Why? I see nothing above that addresses this? It seems to me the modern term of existence is the one to use, dealing with whether or not a deity is apparent/ is. Why bring in the older term? It seems fairly irrelevant to the discussion? Unless you are trying to change the definition of exist to the older usage, then invoke scripture? But I really would rather not get into a scriptural discussion at this point in time.

Another factor in this, for instance, is that the commonly translated meanings and understandings of such words as “I” and “Father” are, as far as I can tell, incorrect insofar as they do not correspond with nuances of those words used in Teaching at the time and place of Jesus (Ieshua, or Iusu.)

Ah. Like I said, I would rather stay away from scripture.

Semantic “banter” is a sad misnomer for the attempt to clarify terms that are vital in understanding the roots of and means of acquisition of beliefs, yes?

Possibly, but possibly not. Often theological discussions devolve to just that.

Thanks for your time : ).

 

[Detales]

Logos~“material that people take as fact despite the lack of evidence?” Yes.

~Synthetic/Constructed seems to be a slight misrepresentation of what you’re trying to explain. I can see why you might like words like “faux” (I do faux finishes) or “illusory.” Certainly those might be additional elements to that kind of “knowledge,” but ultimately all knowledge other that that “I am” is constructed by omission or by incomplete perception. Religious “knowledge” is a special case because it is fundamentally deceptive by claiming to be what it isn’t–a way “to” God. It can be that only by way of acting like an unsolvable puzzle that exhausts the mind, like a koan, so that the windows of perception might be cleared. But few use it that way. Look what Augustine had to do…

~*Once again: careful. Although synthetic means created, it also means in existence : ). * And so…?

~Ah. Like I said, I would rather stay away from scripture. It isn’t a matter of scripture. It is a matter of being ware of ideas and nuances that have bearing on the way we gather and perceive information. You know, wrong premise, wrong conclusion. I would just like to see all the premises out on the table.

~*Thanks for your time : ). * Likewise.

 

[Logos385]

I can see why you might like words like “faux” (I do faux finishes) or “illusory.” Certainly those might be additional elements to that kind of “knowledge,” but ultimately all knowledge other that that “I am” is constructed by omission or by incomplete perception.

I see. I operate on the assumption that reality is reality and go from there. I no longer take part in what I see as useless arguments about what is 100% provable (I think therefore I am). They were/are interesting, but I don’t enjoy them nearly as much as I used to. Let’s not bring in this principle. : P.

Religious “knowledge” is a special case because it is fundamentally deceptive by claiming to be what it isn’t–a way “to” God. It can be that only by way of acting like an unsolvable puzzle that exhausts the mind, like a koan, so that the windows of perception might be cleared. But few use it that way. Look what Augustine had to do…
And so…?

It means that you seem to be presupposing a God figure.

It isn’t a matter of scripture. It is a matter of being ware of ideas and nuances that have bearing on the way we gather and perceive information. You know, wrong premise, wrong conclusion. I would just like to see all the premises out on the table.

I see : ). My two premises:

1. Reality is reality
2. The scientific method works

 

[Michael_Francis]

For the foreseeable future, there shall be no discussion in the Apologetics Forum of evolution or atheism. Anyone who starts such a thread or revives an old thread on those topics will be banned. This ban is planned to be temporary, but there are to be no public or private petitions that the ban be lifted. It will be lifted only when the mod (yours truly) discerns that the atmosphere in this forum has sufficiently cooled.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)