How exactly would one take the 'we' out of the equation? Elaborate please. And then how does that create another image of god?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
can you proove there isn't a deity?
- Thread starter kloth
- Start date
How exactly would one take the 'we' out of the equation? Elaborate please. And then how does that create another image of god?
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I agree it would be a useless world but that does not mean it false. We could be brains in a vat being fed all the information we think is reality for some bizarre reason. Don't for a second think I agree that that is the truth. It is a point I use on atheists who are sure theoretical science contains no faith at all. It certainly does contain faith as even other cognition does. I only mentioned 1 level of uncertainty. Another would be the natural law that works where we can measure them, also work everywhere else. That is a claim requiring faith. The point being we all use faith but only theists will admit it.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I did not use the "and so I must exist" part. I used only that we think and even Nietzsche could do nothing with that. I think Nietzsche wrong but it was not a point I was contending. Actually Nietzsche makes my actual point stronger.
Oh, I didn't mean a useless world...it was more around the usefulness of belief in solipsism.
Think of it like this. Your belief informs your actions, at least to some degree. Imagine you did believe in solipsism. What would the outcome of that belief be? Best case, it would have no impact on your behaviour, worst case you would become sociopathic or psychopathic, since you would stop seeing the world around you as real.
Further, solipsism is truly impossible to prove or disprove. That being the case, it is useless (or worse) to hold belief in it, or consider it may be truth, regardless of whether it is truth.
I understand why you're using it. It's cool.
It comes down to how you define faith, in my opinion. I personally would never use the word 'faith' to describe my beliefs, but mostly that's due to the religious overtones of the word rather than it being strictly incorrect. Equally, I'd never describe myself as spiritual, but I believe in many things people would commonly attribute to my 'spiritual' side.
For what it's worth, where there is a gap in our knowledge (and there are a lot) I try to apply Occams Razor. I also try to be honest with myself on what it is I 'know' versus what it is I am guessing.
So, in terms of solipsism, I can tell myself I don't believe in it, as it isn't the simplest explanation based on the evidence before me. I can't prove it wrong, but I have no reason to believe I am dreaming (or similar), so I don't.
In terms of God, I similarly have no reason to believe, based on the evidence I am aware of. I haven't decided to be an atheist, I simply haven't got a reason to be a theist. By default, that makes me an atheist, I suppose. Much like solipsism, there is no possible way for me to ever disprove a Deist God. Disproving any God is difficult...at best I could point out inconsistencies with a religion, but how does that relate to God?
I've mentioned before that fundamentalism is something I have an issue with. If you're suggesting that fundamentalism can exist without religion, then I agree.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
I've read through the thread and am coming to this a little late. Most people have made the point that atheists typically do not claim to be 100% convinced that there can't be any kind of deity. Also, you used the word "proof", which is subject to a lot of debate. You didn't define what would constitute "proof" for you, so that invites an open-ended debate over that subject.
If I could have advised you on how to couch your question, I would have suggested: "What makes atheists so certain that there are no gods?" Being certain is not the same as claiming "100% convinced", so the question might have attracted more interesting answers than the standard "burden of proof is on believers". There is certainly no shortage of believers who will claim 100% certainty that God exists, and it is relatively easy for reasonable people to reject their position. Most reasonable people who reject or hold a belief in God (or gods) will readily admit that they have doubts. Their certainty is not just absolute.
So I would have advised you to couch the question differently. What makes atheists so certain that there is no God (or any god, for that matter)?
If I had to answer that question, I would not be able to give you a really simple answer, because belief in gods is not a simple belief. It rests on a lot of other beliefs that you and I may differ strongly on. Before you get to a belief in gods, you have to believe in a spiritual plane of existence, where thinking beings--volitional agents--exist and interact with physical reality. Typically, you have to believe that human minds can exist independently of physical bodies (although not all theists claim to believe this). Typically, you also have to believe that gods are spiritual beings that exist independently of physical reality, yet they can affect physical events. If you don't find such underlying (foundational) beliefs credible, then belief in God (or gods) becomes much less credible.
So, what I am saying here is that god-belief depends on other beliefs that we may not necessarily share. Your acceptance of those beliefs makes it a lot easier for you to feel that belief in God makes perfect sense. Indeed, you may feel that it is a compelling belief, given that foundation. My rejection of that underlying foundation undermines belief in deities of any kind (at least, in their conventional sense). So my "proof" of the non-existence of God(s) would not have a simple, straightforward answer. It would involve me chipping away at your foundation--explaining why I think your belief rests on very questionable assumptions.
So if 'God' is thought...it proves 'God' DOES exist.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
The burden of proof is in the hands of those who believe in a deity, there has never been anyone who could prove there was one, so why waist your time trying to prove there isn't one, its really that simple.
Yep. In a sense it does.
Also proves Winnie the Pooh exists though. Do you believe in a tradition all-powerful-being type? I don't think it quite proves THAT.
Yes. I believe in an all-powerful being type God. That of which is thought itself. The original thought of 'being'. Nothing existed until someone, or something...realized it existed. Hince...the 'creator of all things.' So its proveable. Especially since we have a conscience as human beings...that makes us: 'made in 'God's image'. God-like, capable of thinking.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
I think we covered this point already in another thread but... no harm in saying it again.
We have sentience yes. But sentience itself is not evidence of a sentient creator. It is evidence of sentience itself. So long as you describe you "god" as the general concept of "sentience" and not a supernatural creator with all power then yes we can conclude that senteience exists and you have labled it god. But any descriptor past that isn't conclusivly (or even remotely) established because sentience itself exists .
Yes...i seem to have become quite a nag really...shame on me for that. Besides...im not 'highly qualified' for participation in debate anyways...we are all just aimlessly bouncing of each others personal concepts anyways. Lol. Best regards to you.
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Yes...i seem to have become quite a nag really...shame on me for that. Besides...im not 'highly qualified' for participation in debate anyways...we are all just aimlessly bouncing of each others personal concepts anyways. Lol. Best regards to you.
There are no requirements to be in the debate forum so long as you abide by the rules. Feel free to continue in debates. You have been far more polite and plesant than several other people that simply jump on to try and push an agenda.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Then it follows your stance must include....substance begets spirit....
and spirit cannot exist without having been born....
and all of life is terminal without continuance.
All of life as chemistry.
There's an interesting thought.
Maybe im not quite following...regardless...it is: 'we'...it is: 'us' its not singular...and really cant be taken out of the equation. 'We' think. If God is thought...it proves we are created in his image...because, 'we' think. It is not an 'I' concept.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Just a moment ago, in another thread, I bumped the notion of existence.
For this thread....I think, therefore I am.
(who said that?...can't recall at this moment)
But if 'we' humans can do so and claim our sayings are profound....
why don't 'we' allow God the same courtesy?
For this thread....I think, therefore I am.
(who said that?...can't recall at this moment)
But if 'we' humans can do so and claim our sayings are profound....
why don't 'we' allow God the same courtesy?
It can be taken out of the equation, if the equation is "Thought = God."
Even the thought of yourself.
Armed with the thought of yourself, it's a small step to remove the "you": "your" understanding becomes a stand-alone understanding, becoming of itself and belonging to none. Else, it is an "I" concept.
Metaphysics meets grammar.