Question for Theists

[jarofthoughts]

This is a false statement because science has its foundation in that science is the creation of an ontological being left as a tool to be used to discover the truth. Science is independent to man bur is the product of an all knowing God. Your assertion is based on a slip in logic.

Forgetting for the moment that this has absolutely nothing to do with the comment you apparently replied to, what is your reasoning for the bolded sentence above?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Or one could argue that God is all knowing to the point that his understanding is like all the oceans and in comparison our understanding is like a thimble of water of the oceans. We understand the thimble of water but God knows about the oceans of water. What we think is evil is just our limited concept of water and God is using the evil of the world to purify the worlld. We simply do not understand what God is doing. Thus, the problem of evil is thusly dispatched.

Ah. The old "god moves in mysterious ways" claim. It was nonsense when it was first proposed and it is nonsense now. Move along please.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The Wizard: You said, "You do realize that your argument puts god on exactly the same level as faeries, Santa and crystal healing?

<snipped>

Welcome to the World in which the beliefs in God, the gods and the Divine are affecting and in essence a part of about everything currently seen and experienced. It's called Reality and its many shades and planes of cause-n-effect... :areyoucra

I never said that the belief itself wasn't real. But just because the belief in something affects the world, which it clearly does, that does not mean that the object of belief is real. If I believe that there is a blue goblin living under my kitchen sink and that he tells me to always wear a hat on pain of damnation, then that clearly affects my life. That does not in any way indicate, however, that there IS a blue goblin living under my sink.
Belief, as a psychological state, clearly exist.
This state clearly affects reality.
But that does not mean that the things people believe in are real.

 

[jarofthoughts]

One more question before I ead some of your post to see what I think about your ideas on what is real. Was your reference to science in any way a reference to ontological knowledge and what is your source of knowledge?

While the ontological argument for god is from a philosophically logical point of view sound, the conclusion it comes to is not. This is one case where if you turn the argument on its head it would still be philosophically and logically correct, but in order to show which one is correct you would need evidence.
Science is based on empirical evidence and the disproving of hypothesis and it is without question the best and most efficient method we have for figuring out how the universe works. And while ontology and science is connected on a logical level, there are clearly limits to this connection.
I'm not sure what you mean by "my source of knowledge". I read books and research papers, I watch documentaries, I learn from my teachers and from people around me...just like most people I suppose.
If you're wondering about the source of a specific point I've made feel free to ask and I will do my best to provide an answer.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think I want to step in here in your semantical argument about God. You must assume that ontological reality is a thing and not an actual existence in itself Theist do not say some "things" had to always exist. That is in fact the view of atheist because they say you can not get something from nothing.

That is not what atheists say.
That is what classical physics tells us and it may, on some level, turn out to be wrong, although we're not exactly sure how and why at this point.
The Casimir Effect, for instance, is quite interesting.

Theist agree with that and believe that a cosmological reality came from an ontological reality called God.

I know that this is what, at least, many theists believe.

The atheist simply must claim that cosmology must have always existed but the theist rationally explains how the physical universe came to exist.

Why do you think that atheists have to claim that?

Thus, the ontological argument is not faulty and because you can not imagine something does not mean it is not true. You do present a semantic argument with much fault.

I agree that me (or anyone else for that matter) not being able to imagine something is not proof that it doesn't exist. That would be preposterous. However, the fact that you can logically turn the ontological argument on its head like this shows that it is faulty. If we're only going by the arguments, both are equally valid from a philosophical and logical point of view, but since they are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be correct. Hence we need to look elsewhere for a resolution to this question and the ontological argument has helped us not at all in either direction.

 

[jarofthoughts]

In no way does he do what you suggest. You only by definition and faulty syllogisms do you assert this.

Then show me where my syllogism fails me. Explain to me why these things do not fall into the same category.

 

[jarofthoughts]

This is a nonsense question and does not denounce a belief system based on ontology. It does denounce a system of reality based only on cosmological data only.

As shown above, the ontological argument for god is, at least according to me, useless and faulty. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Danmac]

Not to my knowledge, but assuming that every human, is like just you seems a little presumptuous. Sure we share many things, but your concept of searching for "completeness", whatever that is, does not appear to be one of them.

We are to some degree unique, but in general all humans require the exact same needs. If I have a natural need then it is not absurd to assume all humans have that same natural need. I can tell you alot about you because I know me.

I don't recall saying that there are no phony Christians... :no:

No you said no true scotsman. I just cut to the chase.

What's this obsession with "completeness"?
I think you need to define that term for me before we continue this.
Pleasure, simplified, is nature's way of getting us to do stuff that in the end helps spreading our genes.

It is the same as yours. It is a need to experience euphoria in its perfect state. My search is over. You are still attempting to find it via various pleasures. Only your euphoric episodes are temporary due to pleasures inability to sustain your desired euphoric utopia.

So you don't need pleasure?
Also, I don't worship pleasure or connect anything supernatural to it.
Which is really the crux of this matter.

Dopamine does not need human activity to produce the desired effect. And yes, you do worship pleasure , you just don't know it. My guess is when work is done the first thing you reach for is something to pleasure you. Is that about right?

Errr... No. I never said that there is not or cannot be a god. I said that the case for it is severely lacking and in need of some serious evidence before I'll consider including it into my view of reality.

The case for space ships was severely lacking 200 years ago, but it didn't stop science from looking for them.

Oh, and stop assuming things from what I say. If something is unclear feel free to ask. Cause right now it seems as if you are way off the mark.

You are quite predictable. its hard not to.

 

[The Wizard]

I never said that the belief itself wasn't real. But just because the belief in something affects the world, which it clearly does, that does not mean that the object of belief is real. If I believe that there is a blue goblin living under my kitchen sink and that he tells me to always wear a hat on pain of damnation, then that clearly affects my life. That does not in any way indicate, however, that there IS a blue goblin living under my sink.
Belief, as a psychological state, clearly exist.
This state clearly affects reality.
But that does not mean that the things people believe in are real.

Beliefs can be found as Omni-present in many things and in many ways... including physical affects, as I have already demonstrated in previous posts. Surely, you have concluded the reality of that by now?

Certain beliefs were a contributor to the reason this forum or thread exists, no? We are on a "religion education forum" are we not? What helps lead to the creation of a religion education forum? Our survey says," BELIEFS.. ding, ding, ding, lol. "

If you are reading this post then particular beliefs have contributed to the influence of your own eyeballs, thinking and actions, perhaps even helped in the growth of a new brain cell for you, imagine that, lol. Such things would be much more than just "a psychological state" would it not?

Belief systems that follow knowledge and truth about the affects of belief, plus experience, can be quite valuable and rational. They can add many values in Life. That is what many have a problem with- they can't seem to connect the results of belief to their life or reality. Many still think that the effects of belief go no further than someones head. Unfortunately, they haven't even woke up yet.... :angel2:

 

[jarofthoughts]

We are to some degree unique, but in general all humans require the exact same needs. If I have a natural need then it is not absurd to assume all humans have that same natural need. I can tell you alot about you because I know me.

Sure, but claiming that your psychological need for god automatically translates into what other people need seems highly premature.

No you said no true scotsman. I just cut to the chase.

Then you have assumed my intention and missed the mark (just like I warned you against).
Read more about the "no true scotsman" fallacy here.

It is the same as yours. It is a need to experience euphoria in its perfect state. My search is over. You are still attempting to find it via various pleasures. Only your euphoric episodes are temporary due to pleasures inability to sustain your desired euphoric utopia.

Everyone's euphoric "episodes" are temporary. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to distinguish them. If your brain pumped out insane amounts of dopamine on a constant basis your receptors would overload and gradually shut down as a response which is what happens to heroine addicts. Eventually they are unable to feel happiness and pleasure. You may think that your state is continuous, but if so then you are deluding yourself. The level is never constant.

Dopamine does not need human activity to produce the desired effect. And yes, you do worship pleasure , you just don't know it.

Wow... So now you've determined that I'm a hedonist. Amazing... :sarcastic

My guess is when work is done the first thing you reach for is something to pleasure you. Is that about right?

I actually take great pleasure in doing my work.

The case for space ships was severely lacking 200 years ago, but it didn't stop science from looking for them.

By "spaceships" do you mean UFOs and aliens?

You are quite predictable. its hard not to.

Apparently less so than you think.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Beliefs can be found as Omni-present in many things and in many ways... including physical affects, as I have already demonstrated in previous posts. Surely, you have concluded the reality of that by now?

Certain beliefs were a contributor to the reason this forum or thread exists, no? We are on a "religion education forum" are we not? What helps lead to the creation of a religion education forum? Our survey says," BELIEFS.. ding, ding, ding, lol. "

If you are reading this post then particular beliefs have contributed to the influence of your own eyeballs, thinking and actions, perhaps even helped in the growth of a new brain cell for you, imagine that, lol. Such things would be much more than just "a psychological state" would it not?

Belief systems that follow knowledge and truth about the affects of belief, plus experience, can be quite valuable and rational. They can add many values in Life. That is what many have a problem with- they can't seem to connect the results of belief to their life or reality. Many still think that the effects of belief go no further than someones head. Unfortunately, they haven't even woke up yet.... :angel2:

All of this completely sidesteps the point I was making.
Just because belief itself is real, useful, valuable or whatever you like, that does not mean that what that belief is about is real.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

That is not exactly an accurate description of how cosmology views the origin of the universe...

Justify that statement, explain yourself, I would like to rip you to pieces here....for fun.

You seem to have a different interpretation of the theory of inflationary expansion....please elucidate.

With that kind of reasoning we might as well opt for the matrix hypothesis.

I couldnt give a toss....do what thou will

It is possible...whatever you would prefer to imagine.

 

[Danmac]

Sure, but claiming that your psychological need for god automatically translates into what other people need seems highly premature.

Entertaining pleasure is an attempt to satisfy ones natural longing for euphoria. Pleasure is simply the round peg we are stuffing into a square hole. Indeed pleasure is sweet to the taste, but it sours in the stomach.

Then you have assumed my intention and missed the mark (just like I warned you against).
Read more about the "no true scotsman" fallacy here.

I am assuming motive not volition.

Everyone's euphoric "episodes" are temporary. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to distinguish them. If your brain pumped out insane amounts of dopamine on a constant basis your receptors would overload and gradually shut down as a response which is what happens to heroine addicts. Eventually they are unable to feel happiness and pleasure. You may think that your state is continuous, but if so then you are deluding yourself. The level is never constant.

Human nature is indeed in a state of corruption. Therefore our ability to abide continuously in the desired state is hindered. Death is the only thing that can remove the obstacle that keeps us from a perfect state of euphoria, which btw is the effect of being in God's full presence.

Wow... So now you've determined that I'm a hedonist. Amazing... :sarcastic

All people have a longing to satisfy our natural thirst for perfect euphoria. Pleasure is the only counterfeit substitute for the real thing.

I actually take great pleasure in doing my work.

As do athletes. Maybe work is your drug of choice. We call them workaholics.

By "spaceships" do you mean UFOs and aliens?

No I mean our quest for space travel.

Apparently less so than you think.

I know what a granny smith apple tastes like before I bite into it.

 

[Ben Masada]

I have a question for those of you who believe in a god or gods, and it is actually a very important question so please take some time to consider the implications before you answer.

If no God existed, would you still want to believe in one?

While I consider the implications of your question upon yourself, let me ask a similar one. If you were sure that God existed, would you still not want to believe in Him?

 

[Debunker]

That is like saying "why didn't birds develop hard shells like a turtle" or "why didn't humans develop skin like a chameleon". Having a brain with the size and computing capabilities that we have is a very costly affair and natural selection would not necessarily allow it for many other species, or as the case may be, none at all. There are however comparable brains out there. Chimpanzees, ravens and elephants have all passed the Gallup Mirror test, and many species show potential for reasoning skills.

Potential you say but where are they? You offer none as an example of your science is true. I only ask for a few. You must produce or give this point up in your reasoning process. You view of science is not true or you could show duplication of your postulations. Is that not the crux of the scientific method?

 

[Debunker]

Forgetting for the moment that this has absolutely nothing to do with the comment you apparently replied to, what is your reasoning for the bolded sentence above?

I understand your wish to to deny the fact you said it was not scientific to assume there was a God, but what I was saying that it is equally true of science for you to say there is not a God.I hope this helps.

 

[Debunker]

Ah. The old "god moves in mysterious ways" claim. It was nonsense when it was first proposed and it is nonsense now. Move along please.

Yes sir, I will move along as you move. Thanks for the invite but I am not sure you are welcoming me.

 

[Debunker]

I never said that the belief itself wasn't real. But just because the belief in something affects the world, which it clearly does, that does not mean that the object of belief is real. If I believe that there is a blue goblin living under my kitchen sink and that he tells me to always wear a hat on pain of damnation, then that clearly affects my life. That does not in any way indicate, however, that there IS a blue goblin living under my sink.
Belief, as a psychological state, clearly exist.
This state clearly affects reality.
But that does not mean that the things people believe in are real.

Which is also true of atheist, right?

 

[Debunker]

While the ontological argument for god is from a philosophically logical point of view sound, the conclusion it comes to is not. This is one case where if you turn the argument on its head it would still be philosophically and logically correct, but in order to show which one is correct you would need evidence.
Science is based on empirical evidence and the disproving of hypothesis and it is without question the best and most efficient method we have for figuring out how the universe works. And while ontology and science is connected on a logical level, there are clearly limits to this connection.
I'm not sure what you mean by "my source of knowledge". I read books and research papers, I watch documentaries, I learn from my teachers and from people around me...just like most people I suppose.
If you're wondering about the source of a specific point I've made feel free to ask and I will do my best to provide an answer.

Me too. I read the same papers as you but I have a total different conclusions. You do not use science correctly, foe example, your example of evolution does not duplicate itself. What other parts of the scientific method do you leave out in your interpretation of what is real? As with Ale Gore, you fudge the facts about the real world and as this is discovered, you lose credibility.

 

[Debunker]

]


I agree that me (or anyone else for that matter) not being able to imagine something is not proof that it doesn't exist. That would be preposterous. However, the fact that you can logically turn the ontological argument on its head like this shows that it is faulty. If we're only going by the arguments, both are equally valid from a philosophical and logical point of view, but since they are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be correct. Hence we need to look elsewhere for a resolution to this question and the ontological argument has helped us not at all in either direction.

That is not what atheists say.
That is what classical physics tells us and it may, on some level, turn out to be wrong, although we're not exactly sure how and why at this point.
The Casimir Effect, for instance, is quite interesting.[/URL
I know that this is what, at least, many theists believe.

Why do you think that atheists have to claim that?

Yes, the atheist does say there is no ontology. If he admits there is a God, he admits he loses the argument. In your case, you lose the point with ether claim but that is the box you have created for yourself.

The classical physics position is that there is a limited amount of energy/matter in the universe. It precludes creation of matter from nothing. New science has a theory that matter can be created by ontological thought processes. That sounds like God thinking and willing matter into existence to me. I have not been able to will even a grain of sand into existence. How about you?