Appolinaria Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Just wondering, is there anyone here that believes the existence of some deity beyond the understanding of mankind is absolutely not possible? Not even as a remote possibility? Oh, I'm sure. Could you please explain your reasoning, it would answer a lot of things for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Just wondering, is there anyone here that believes the existence of some deity beyond the understanding of mankind is absolutely not possible? Not even as a remote possibility? I don't believe it's even possible... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Just wondering, is there anyone here that believes the existence of some deity beyond the understanding of mankind is absolutely not possible? Not even as a remote possibility? I find it so incredibly mind bogglingly very unlikely as to not be worthy of any thought, but to maintain my integrity I have to stipulate that I could maybe possibly sort of kinda perhaps if you squint real hard potentially be wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qsa Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 The Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago? But I might be misinterpreting that as the beginning of the universe, and it might just be the beginning of the expansion? I don't mind the usual answers given that god knows best of why he created the universe and us.But I find it strange that his creation has direct evidence to negate his existence. for example the atoms are formed under strict law , with his powers he could make them do the same thing they are doing now without any properties, you know like magic. the same thing with the sun he could have created any source, maybe even without source for photons to simulate the sun. And to keep us on the ground without gravity, and make the earth flat. This reqular property of nature suggests to me that he had no choice but to create it that way. I could go on for ever. well then who is forcing whom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I find it so incredibly mind bogglingly very unlikely as to not be worthy of any thought, but to maintain my integrity I have to stipulate that I could maybe possibly sort of kinda perhaps if you squint real hard potentially be wrong. I have to say that I respect that a lot, iNow. I don't mind the usual answers given that god knows best of why he created the universe and us.But I find it strange that his creation has direct evidence to negate his existence. for example the atoms are formed under strict law , with his powers he could make them do the same thing they are doing now without any properties, you know like magic. the same thing with the sun he could have created any source, maybe even without source for photons to simulate the sun. And to keep us on the ground without gravity, and make the earth flat. This reqular property of nature suggests to me that he had no choice but to create it that way. I could go on for ever. well then who is forcing whom. That's interesting. So if there is a god, why follow rules? Why have logic? Why not just use his all powerful creation magic to get the job done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Do you know what intellectually honest theists are called? They're called "atheists." There are intellectually honest theists, many of them. There are also intellectually honest atheists. But as you have so clearly demonstrated, not all atheists are intellectually honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I have to say that I respect that a lot, iNow. Thank you, Appolinaria. I'm glad to have earned it from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
36grit Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 That's interesting. So if there is a god, why follow rules? Why have logic? Why not just use his all powerful creation magic to get the job done? Rest assured that the children of chaos belong to the father of chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 There are intellectually honest theists, many of them. There are also intellectually honest atheists. But as you have so clearly demonstrated, not all atheists are intellectually honest. That's a little harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 There's no objective evidence of that. But there is objective evidence that our universe exists. The existance of the universe cannot be used in the case for a creator, you cant say: "the universe is here so it must have been created by god" By that logic I could say it was created by goblins... There are a lot of unanswered questions in the universe, but that's no reason to jump to conclusions about magical creator gods. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Oh, I'm sure. Could you please explain your reasoning, it would answer a lot of things for me. You can't really prove the non-existence of anything and you certainly wouldn't be able to disprove the existence that is above mankind's realm of understanding, i.e. some supernatural entity. I was just trying to find a point to this thread. I find it so incredibly mind bogglingly very unlikely as to not be worthy of any thought, but to maintain my integrity I have to stipulate that I could maybe possibly sort of kinda perhaps if you squint real hard potentially be wrong. I agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Just wondering, is there anyone here that believes the existence of some deity beyond the understanding of mankind is absolutely not possible? Not even as a remote possibility? I am a hard atheist which describes the criteria you just laid down. I actively deny the existence of a god or deity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) I am a hard atheist which describes the criteria you just laid down. I actively deny the existence of a god or deity. If you are completely certain doesn't that compromise you as a scientist and puts you on the level of a zealot or fundamentalist (without the ranting and raving attribute!)? Genuine question not a criticism. Edited January 16, 2012 by StringJunky 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 If you are completely certain doesn't that compromise you as a scientist and puts you on the level of a zealot or fundamentalist (without the ranting and raving attribute!)? Genuine question not a criticism. I know this wasn't directly asked of me but since i fall into the intellectually dishonest category because I actively believe there are no gods. If it makes me intellectually dishonest not believe in unicorns or fairies or dragons, zeuss, thor, jupiter or anything else supernatural i see no reason to not to disbelieve in any other gods either no matter how small the crack in reality they are supposed to live in.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbacotJosser Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 boring If you are looking for entertainment I suggest you read a book or go to the movies, or possibly post more than one word... that high pitched screeching sound is a horde of millions of angry adolescent girls declaring jihad Oh God, i can hear them coming now, where is my shot gun, oh no, they are riding unicorns! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) I know this wasn't directly asked of me but since i fall into the intellectually dishonest category because I actively believe there are no gods. If it makes me intellectually dishonest not believe in unicorns or fairies or dragons, zeuss, thor, jupiter or anything else supernatural i see no reason to not to disbelieve in any other gods either no matter how small the crack in reality they are supposed to live in.... I'm quite happy for any hard athiest to respond. The point I was alluding to was not about honesty but conforming to the general scientific ethos of preserving some uncertainty in ones assessment of some things ie they are highly improbable but never impossible. iNow as vitriolic as he is, regarding religious matters, conforms to this view. To quote: I find it so incredibly mind bogglingly very unlikely as to not be worthy of any thought, but to maintain my integrity I have to stipulate that I could maybe possibly sort of kinda perhaps if you squint real hard potentially be wrong. I hope I haven't taken his quote out of his intended context. Is this quality not an important part of the scientific mindset? Edited January 16, 2012 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 That's a little harsh. Thanks, but IMO his argument is more weak and unsupported than it is harsh. I elucidated on more than one occasion my reasons for the assertion that one cannot be intellectually honest AND hold an affirmative believe in god. People are free to agree or disagree with my position, but I at least laid it out clearly and provided context for it. In comparison, his post asserting that I'm intellectually dishonest is little more than unsupported emotive barb with no explanation... a weak personal knee-jerk aspersion on me and my character as opposed to a logical or coherent rebuttal of my position. I'm quite willing to entertain the possibility that I'm not being intellectually honest in my position, but... I must say... it's going to take a little more than a hit and run outburst like that for me to do so. The point I was alluding to was not about honesty but conforming to the general scientific ethos of preserving some uncertainty in ones assessment of some things ie they are highly improbable but never impossible. iNow as vitriolic as he is, regarding religious matters, conforms to this view. To quote: I find it so incredibly mind bogglingly very unlikely as to not be worthy of any thought, but to maintain my integrity I have to stipulate that I could maybe possibly sort of kinda perhaps if you squint real hard potentially be wrong. I hope I haven't taken his quote out of his intended context. Is this quality not an important part of the scientific mindset? I think you're fine with the way you've presented it. No worries. I don't feel misrepresented at all by your post. I may argue strongly and without restraint, but I always concede to a lack of certainty on just about everything... Even the existence of unicorns and Puff the Magic Dragon (it's really incredibly unlikely, but I cannot say for sure they don't exist in context of the "scientific ethos"). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I am a hard atheist which describes the criteria you just laid down. I actively deny the existence of a god or deity. So you claim the supernatural is impossible? Can you prove that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I'm quite happy for any hard athiest to respond. The point I was alluding to was not about honesty but conforming to the general scientific ethos of preserving some uncertainty in ones assessment of some things ie they are highly improbable but never impossible. iNow as vitriolic as he is, regarding religious matters, conforms to this view. To quote: I find it so incredibly mind bogglingly very unlikely as to not be worthy of any thought, but to maintain my integrity I have to stipulate that I could maybe possibly sort of kinda perhaps if you squint real hard potentially be wrong. I hope I haven't taken his quote out of his intended context. Is this quality not an important part of the scientific mindset? If indeed someone showed me evidence of gods I am willing to change my mind but so far in my life i have seen no evidence what so ever nor do i see any need to acknowledge the possibility of gods... or anything else supernatural... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 If indeed someone showed me evidence of gods I am willing to change my mind but so far in my life i have seen no evidence what so ever nor do i see any need to acknowledge the possibility of gods... or anything else supernatural... I'll second that, show me god and I'll show you a pious dude Until then, I'll maintain my perfectly valid skepticism It's one thing to be open minded but that seems in a lot of cases to lead to empty headed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted January 16, 2012 Author Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) There are intellectually honest theists, many of them. There are also intellectually honest atheists. But as you have so clearly demonstrated, not all atheists are intellectually honest. Excuse me!!! I very much agree with you and INow that the only way to progress humanity is to have real quality meme pool in our brains and to achieve that it is very much important to have that scientific attitude and it should be exercized often so that we won't fall into pseudoscience and start dedicating our lives and start believing in anything we want. The scientific community has a huge responsibility on its shoulders to suppress pseudoscience, fraudulents and make sure that only testified real data is passed on and if its real, the meme will be automatically passed on we don't have to make it look real, it will survive on its own. I started this thread to disprove the existence of God with the same scientific rigour and attitude as we apply for other arguments and Moontanman requested for theistic models and I gave one but because of how those models work such a model can be scientifically or universally testified only when a theist brings such phenomena to the scientific method of enquiry and I have requested a few days to demonstrate such a phenomena and I very well know it is on my head to show that such an idea is real. I also explained why such a phenomena is so rare and why it is difficult to gain such knowledge. This is the reason I posted this in the speculation forums and I am working on to come up with an argument and I will post it soon so that we can speculate it on common grounds. I don't know what made INow to say this and I quote. Really, what's the point of carrying on the conversation? I'm talking to children who think Puff the Magic dragon is a fucking historical creature that actually existed, and that anyone who claims otherwise just hasn't "surrendered" enough or is being rude for not accepting that this is a different "magisteria" equally worthy of respect It wasn't required and I have said that I didn't started this thread to beg respect for such an idea with out earning it first. I was just speculating. Just because you don't have the right insight to understand the idea doesn't in any way make the idea less credible and deserve dismissal. Yes the Aryas were Gnostic theists so the argument here is not that whether we require a God in our model or not, the argument here is that we can not model or simulate this world without bringing God into the picture. Its not whether science requires God or not. So when the situation is like this and since science has not yet found a fundamental model explaining all things from the origin to till now why is an argument that a God exists and is currently interfering with human affairs is not a feasible and a possible argument. Most people here hold a default position and doesn't really allow a model of the world involving God, this is the attitude of a gnostic atheist, if you really want to be that guy why do you allow the argument of God to creep in, I mean if this is the scientific attitude then why don't science be so gnostic and say that the probability and the possibility of the existence of God is absolutely zero. It has not shown that and yet some are unwilling to accept or speculate on an argument which has a huge collection of data called as scriptures or the word of God which also gives a method to know god. Many people here talk of unicorns, puff the magic dragons and other funny things or whatever and they might even have a scripture of their own and they are asking to worship them. These are all may be great ideas but what they don't understand is that if someone worships them and gains some knowledge and demonstrates it in public then that idea will survive and it will be found out to be very real. This may sound silly but it works doesn't it. Talking of intellectual honesty. I don't deny evolution by Natural selection, I don't deny Quantum physics or relativity but I have serious doubts about our full understanding as to how evolution happens you may say random mutations followed by cumulative selection but it doesn't satisfy me. Einstein was never satisfied with the copenhagen interpretation of QM, it doesn't satisfy Roger Penrose, it doesn't satisfy me too. You may be good at math and know something about statistical probability and it might have led to some amazing technological advancements but it has not yet answered those philosophical questions and this is the reason why guys like me pop in holding the argument of a God. I am a theist and I am trying to be a genuine gnostic theist so I am speculating on whether my argument makes me a gnostic theist or not. I want to put my belief systems to test and see whether it bears any truth in reality so what's wrong with that, how I am termed to be intellectually dishonest? If I rationalize irrespective of what the outcome of the test is and still hold on to my beliefs then it would be a dishonesty on my part isn't it? I think people should read this. When Epilepsy goes by a other name Q: How has writing this story affected your life? The important part for me wasn't writing the book and having it published. It was the opportunity to meet the Lees and spend a number of years thinking about Hmong culture. I became a different sort of mother as a result (basing my care of my children on Foua's). The importance the Hmong place on the extended family undoubtedly has made me spend more time with my own parents and expend more effort trying to persuade relatives to move nearby. And although my own thinking has become neither less rational nor more spiritual, my respect for nonintellectual ways of looking at the world increased a thousandfold. -Anne Fadiman Author of the book The Spirit Catches you and you Fall down Edited January 16, 2012 by immortal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 If indeed someone showed me evidence of gods I am willing to change my mind but so far in my life i have seen no evidence what so ever nor do i see any need to acknowledge the possibility of gods... or anything else supernatural... I don't see it as proving the possibility, this threads about disproving it. Like you, I have absolutely no belief in any god or anything else supernatural but I'm not going to claim that I can prove them impossible either, especially under scientific rigor. Are you? I'm not even going to claim as a fact that they do not exist because I know that's something I can't prove. See my point? You cannot disprove the existence of gods, ghosts, unicorns, leprechauns, etc.. so the whole thread is a completely pointless debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 (edited) I started this thread to disprove the existence of God with the same scientific rigour and attitude as we apply for other arguments... A noble aim, but as a theist surely you know that any athiest argument can be countered with "god did it" or "he moves in mysterious ways" or something similar ...we can not model or simulate this world without bringing God into the picture. Why not? This seems like your opinion rather than an objective argument So when the situation is like this and since science has not yet found a fundamental model explaining all things from the origin to till now why is an argument that a God exists and is currently interfering with human affairs is not a feasible and a possible argument. It certainly doesn't make it any more feasible, just because science doesn't have the answer is no excuse to bail out and believe in magic ...and yet some are unwilling to accept or speculate on an argument which has a huge collection of data called as scriptures or the word of God which also gives a method to know god I wouldn't call the scriptures "data" - stories, memes, opinion, hyperbole but not data Edited January 16, 2012 by Tres Juicy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't see it as proving the possibility, this threads about disproving it. Like you, I have absolutely no belief in any god or anything else supernatural but I'm not going to claim that I can prove them impossible either, especially under scientific rigor. Are you? I'm not even going to claim as a fact that they do not exist because I know that's something I can't prove. See my point? You cannot disprove the existence of gods, ghosts, unicorns, leprechauns, etc.. so the whole thread is a completely pointless debate. Well like I said earlier, i have an invisible dragon in my basement that no one but me can see or touch on any way, prove me wrong... It is a silly argument, you can't really disprove the supernatural but that is no reason to believe in it either or even assume it might be correct. Evidence talks, horse feathers walk... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now