0
   

Why trying to prove or disprove god is stupid

 
 
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 12:41 pm
God is a being which cannot be defined as all who believe in him know him/her/it differently manifest as different things. God by all accounts is beyond human understanding otherwise he would be useless as he would hold no answers that we could not potentially know without him. Because he is beyond understanding, using a logical process to define him is a contradiciton, also, because he hypothetically created everything, including logic, he must also be outside of the system he created and it a part of or extension of him/her/it thus you are attempting to describe the properties of that in which we are contained from within and using parts of the container as the description. To describe somthing in terms of itself can only be approximate and the same is true of description in general, we can only approximate an object in words, pictures and ideas. Our understanding of that which we cannot replicate is incomplete and there is nothing that we can create, we can only manipulate our surroundings as we are a part of them.
In order for somthing to be the creator of somthing else it must be of a fundamentally different nature. We can manipulate patterns, this can be considered creative, but we cannot create matter or change physical law, we are bound by it and try our best to work around it to master our surroundings, but we do not have ultimate control over our surroundings because we are of them. A constituent of a whole,i.e. logic, cannot be used to describe it completely, it falls into an infinite loop (yes I do enjoy proof by infinite loops and contradictions but who doesn'tSmile) when describing itself.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,677 • Replies: 21
No top replies

 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 01:57 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Pondering the existence of anything isn't stupid.
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 02:08 pm
@Zetherin,
The efforts to 'prove' God in European philosophy has ONLY to do with the fact that reason and logic are held as important -- and thus reason has been used as a tool to validate preexisting religious beliefs. To 'disprove' God is a reaction to this, though it actually makes less sense than the effort to affirmatively prove God. It makes more sense to attack the rationality of religion than to rationally disprove God.
Ramsey phil
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 05:14 pm
@Aedes,
Question? What if God is not creator?

And if God exists logic, then how can he also exist within it? For example... Miracles, and faith experiences.

But then again, Language proves a gap here. When we sometimes say we are trying to argue for or against God, sometimes that God might only be a Superhuman entity or other higher deity, and not God, as we know it.

For example, which God are we proving? A Christian God? a Buddhist God ect..

I think of it this way. We're not trying to prove the existence of a God, but more we're trying to find out whether all this morality crap is actually worth while.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 05:49 pm
@Ramsey phil,
Ramsey wrote:
Question? What if God is not creator?

And if God exists logic, then how can he also exist within it? For example... Miracles, and faith experiences.

But then again, Language proves a gap here. When we sometimes say we are trying to argue for or against God, sometimes that God might only be a Superhuman entity or other higher deity, and not God, as we know it.

For example, which God are we proving? A Christian God? a Buddhist God ect..

I think of it this way. We're not trying to prove the existence of a God, but more we're trying to find out whether all this morality crap is actually worth while.


This morality crap can still be worthwhile, even without the existence of a God. I believe kindness is powerful. There aren't many things that I find concrete in this existence, but it's really hard to deny how peace and kindness bring humanity together...an ability to understand, to transcend our discriminations. I don't know the answers to all of humanity's problems, but I do know that if we aren't peaceful and work as one, nothing will get fixed (And no, I don't want this to just sound like a cliche, as I contemplate this daily...sometimes to a cause of a headache). So, when I'm kind to someone, I'm not doing it because I'm trying to look "good" in God's eyes (I'm actually agnostic), I do it because I feel it benefits humanity.

Listen, as for the OP, I really don't know where to go with this. I mean, there a number of topics in which we can say we just aren't capable of understanding, yet we still contemplate. That's something we must consider, and is something the study epistemology taps into -a n attempt to analyze what our limits are, knowledge-wise. However, this shouldn't stop us from contemplation! On the contrary, we must keep contemplating in order to really see our limit! We can't just say it's not possible, else the study will be in vain! Remember, there have been many things that have enlightened us in the past in which we initially thought we would never be able to comprehend (Take a look at the Hadron Collider).

It's most certainly not stupid to contemplate God, regardless of the notion you choose to explore.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 10:59 pm
@Zetherin,
If we pin down a particular notion of God, then I see no problem exploring the logical coherency of that notion.

Quote:
God by all accounts is beyond human understanding otherwise he would be useless as he would hold no answers that we could not potentially know without him.


By all accounts? Again, I have to disagree. As far as I can tell, some suggest that understanding God is extremely important.
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 02:50 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
It seems that if we can understand god he hold no answers that we do not or rather cannot. If he is beyond us, then he holds no answer that we can comprehend in our current form or any form that our current form can understand assuming that humans somehow can transcend our current form which is a very wild presumtion.
Forgive me for being so brash in my presentation, I find it to be the quckest way to lay all cards on the table for sorting and discarding. I at no point said that the consideration of god or a creator is stupid, you misunderstood the structure and meaning of my statement. I simply stated that any attempt to prove or disprove a creator is irrational.
To didymos, perhapse I should have clarified; I meant more specifically a creator, all creation myths included. The very concept of a creator is somthing which has no grounding logically because logic begs the question of who/what created the creator and it turns into an infinite line of reactions with no solid base. That being said, logic cannot be used in discrediting a creator theory because it has little to no place in such an idea unless the creator is of similar nature to us in which case see above arguments.
I again reiterate that I am in no way attacking those who believe or disbelieve in a creator; nor am I attacking considerations based upon the assumptions of a creators existence or nonexistence, but rather I hold that logic is not sufficient in proving or disproving a creator.
Mephistopheles phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 04:08 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
Pondering the existence of anything isn't stupid.


I absolutely agree and lend my full support to you. Philosophy is never stupid.

How do I "thank" you for your post?
Mephistopheles phil
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 04:15 pm
@Ramsey phil,
Ramsey wrote:
Question? What if God is not creator?

And if God exists logic, then how can he also exist within it? For example... Miracles, and faith experiences.

But then again, Language proves a gap here. When we sometimes say we are trying to argue for or against God, sometimes that God might only be a Superhuman entity or other higher deity, and not God, as we know it.

For example, which God are we proving? A Christian God? a Buddhist God ect..

I think of it this way. We're not trying to prove the existence of a God, but more we're trying to find out whether all this morality crap is actually worth while.


I don't mean to make you feel bad but I am both utterly confused and absolutely in shock of what you just said because it's one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm attacking your statements.

I mean, come on, "What if God is not creator?" I can't think of a single theistic ideology that doesn't think of God or a God as a creator...

"And if God exists logic, then how can he also exist within it? For example... Miracles, and faith experiences." Now what the hell is that supposed to mean? If "God exists logic"? Orange windows mango fruit?

Now another problem I have with your post is this: "When we sometimes say we are trying to argue for or against God, sometimes that God might only be a Superhuman entity or other higher deity, and not God, as we know it." If someone is arguing for or against the CONCEPT of God then that CONCEPT is, to that individual, God. So what you said was equally stupid as the previous comments.

"a Buddhist God ect.." Buddhists don't believe in a God.

I'm sorry, honestly. If I'm going to be reported or banned for this, so be it, I can accept that. I am just pointing out I am offended by the absolute nonsensical nature and stupidity of his guy's post. It frankly pisses me off it's so stupid.

Again, I'm sorry for lowering myself to being extremely harsh but I'm sure everyone here has called someone stupid before so let's be fair here.
Zetetic11235
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 08:22 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Mephistopheles wrote:
I absolutely agree and lend my full support to you. Philosophy is never stupid.

How do I "thank" you for your post?

I stated twice that he misunderstood what I wrote and put words into my mouth, I never attacked the process of consideration, just of proof or disproff as it is not applicable to the subject, please read posts more carefully and I will do my best to try to word things more clearly.
We haven't even considered the problem I adressed much yet.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 04:55 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
It seems that if we can understand god he hold no answers that we do not or rather cannot. If he is beyond us, then he holds no answer that we can comprehend in our current form or any form that our current form can understand assuming that humans somehow can transcend our current form which is a very wild presumtion.
Forgive me for being so brash in my presentation, I find it to be the quckest way to lay all cards on the table for sorting and discarding. I at no point said that the consideration of god or a creator is stupid, you misunderstood the structure and meaning of my statement. I simply stated that any attempt to prove or disprove a creator is irrational.
To didymos, perhapse I should have clarified; I meant more specifically a creator, all creation myths included. The very concept of a creator is somthing which has no grounding logically because logic begs the question of who/what created the creator and it turns into an infinite line of reactions with no solid base. That being said, logic cannot be used in discrediting a creator theory because it has little to no place in such an idea unless the creator is of similar nature to us in which case see above arguments.
I again reiterate that I am in no way attacking those who believe or disbelieve in a creator; nor am I attacking considerations based upon the assumptions of a creators existence or nonexistence, but rather I hold that logic is not sufficient in proving or disproving a creator.


Since you use logic to prove or disprove, and logic doesn't have a place with something this abstract, it's stupid to attempt to prove or disprove a creator. I see your point. Yeah, I believe the majority misunderstood you. I apologize.

As for the rest of this discussion, there's nothing to really argue against. I'd be surprised if someone tried to argue that logic does have a place in a creator being proved or disproved. This is a different realm entirely, dealing with faith. Not logic. But, who knows what people can conjure up.
0 Replies
 
Justin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 11:48 pm
@Mephistopheles phil,
Mephistopheles wrote:
I don't mean to make you feel bad but I am both utterly confused and absolutely in shock of what you just said because it's one of the stupidest posts I've ever seen. I'm not attacking you personally, I'm attacking your statements.


If this isn't a personal insult, then I don't know what is. One of the wonderful things about life is that one only expresses that which one is so think about this next time you start calling someone stupid for posing questions in Philosophy. Ramsey's post was very legit and offered his viewpoint and you follow up with this?

Another thing I'd like to point out to all you philosophers is that one express what's within and therefore recognized the faults within oneself and points fingers at another. Being totally and utterly tricked and played by ones own ego. Calling another man stupid in this case was uncalled for. Is it the pot or the kettle who calls the other black?

Mephistopheles wrote:
I'm sorry, honestly. If I'm going to be reported or banned for this, so be it, I can accept that. I am just pointing out I am offended by the absolute nonsensical nature and stupidity of his guy's post. It frankly pisses me off it's so stupid.


Mephistopheles, let me say that you are pushing a fine line. You've talked about murder and insulted the intelligence of others in this forum and are trying to damage another man's spirit of desire to carry out Philosophical dialog. This IS against the rules of this forum and will not be tolerated. One thing we practice here is social philosophy and if that's an issue with you, then kindly step out.

Mephistopheles wrote:
Again, I'm sorry for lowering myself to being extremely harsh but I'm sure everyone here has called someone stupid before so let's be fair here.


Fair. You're right. After all this and that last comment, fair is fair and you are right,... no sense in not being fair. Rules were broken here and possibly a direct attempt of insulting your fellow man which is in violation of the rules in this forum. Read this and take a week off and consider this a FAIR warning.

You insult anyone on this forum like you've insulted in the above you will not be welcome back. Period.
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 12:43 am
@Justin,
I agree with your decision, Justin, but these statements I just don't get,

Quote:

One of the wonderful things about life is that one only expresses that which one is so

and

Another thing I'd like to point out to all you philosophers is that one express what's within and therefore recognized the faults within oneself and points fingers at another.


I agree that this is sometimes the case, perhaps even often the case, (whether it applies to the present situation I'll not speculate,) but to say "that one only expresses" suggests that this reasoning applies to all situations, and I don't think it does. Yes, people often point the finger at reflections of their own flaws, but it's somewhat drastic a generalization to say that those are the only flaws we point out.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 01:01 am
@Solace,
Quote:
I agree that this is sometimes the case, perhaps even often the case, (whether it applies to the present situation I'll not speculate,) but to say "that one only expresses" suggests that this reasoning applies to all situations, and I don't think it does. Yes, people often point the finger at reflections of their own flaws, but it's somewhat drastic a generalization to say that those are the only flaws we point out.


What flaw are we immune to?

Any flaw we point out is a flaw we ourselves have. I might criticize the violence of someone who loves to fight, but it goes without saying that I can be violent, even if that violence is not physical violence.
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 01:19 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Umm... I think you sort of answered your own question, DT. Unless you love to fight, then criticizing someone's love of fighting is not pointing out a flaw that you possess.

This is also a generalization that I simply don't agree with. To say that you are capable of having a flaw, isn't to say that you have it.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 04:14 am
@Solace,
Quote:
Umm... I think you sort of answered your own question, DT. Unless you love to fight, then criticizing someone's love of fighting is not pointing out a flaw that you possess.

This is also a generalization that I simply don't agree with. To say that you are capable of having a flaw, isn't to say that you have it.
But the flaw in loving a fight isn't simply loving a fight - the flaw is being violent. The flaw may not be as pronounced in me, as I do not love to fight, however, I have the flaw because there are times when I am violent, even if I'm not physically violent.

If I criticize someone's love of fighting, I am criticizing their violence - otherwise, what is wrong with the fighting?

You see what I'm getting at? We all covet sometimes, some more than others, but the flaw is universal. We are all violent sometimes, some more than others, but the flaw is universal.

I'm not big on sweeping generalizations, either, Solace, but this one is an exception. I think I understand where you are coming from - if I do not fight, it is false to say I fight. But I think we need to look at the underlying causes of something like a love of fighting.

I can't imagine someone who has a love of fighting who's violent tendencies stop at fighting. There is something deeper at work, some psychological scar that drives the person towards violence.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 06:06 am
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
to say "that one only expresses" suggests that this reasoning applies to all situations, and I don't think it does. Yes, people often point the finger at reflections of their own flaws, but it's somewhat drastic a generalization to say that those are the only flaws we point out.
This seems a small quibble, and not worth taking over the thread. Furthermore, Justin's post was because of an administrative need in this forum, and if you start picking it apart because of some nuanced disagreement you're going to lose the importance (and indeed generalizability) of the rest of his message.

I'd encourage you, however, to raise this question as a new topic unto itself in the 'Philosophy of Mind' section. But let's separate it from this immediate issue, please.
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 07:30 am
@Aedes,
Thanks, Aedes, and you're right. I didn't mean to cast doubt on Justin's decision to ban Mephistophiles for a week. The dude had it coming for his uncalled for, and certainly unsolicitied, remarks. But ya, it is off-topic, so... I'll leave it by saying that Thomas made a very worthy defense of a generalization that I still don't agree with.
0 Replies
 
Justin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 08:26 am
@Solace,
It was sort of general and written shortly after I arrived home from VA and in utter disgust about the overtone of the post in question. Telling someone I'm sorry and don't mean it personally and then following up repeatedly with how stupid a legitimate post is... is merely a reflection of ones own insecurities, and it's not uncommon. As humans we do this all to often.

Anyway, no worries and I'll edit the post so it makes a bit more sense because after reading it, it did kind of confuse me as well. I'll try to stay clear of generalizations like that in the future.

As far as decisions like banning, certainly we'd rather not ban anyone however if we all treated each other like this poster treated another, this forum would turn into chaos and chaos is not what this is all about. OK, I wont ramble. 7 days ban is all it is and it was earned by the user.
Solace
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Jun, 2008 08:33 am
@Justin,
Agreed completely.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why trying to prove or disprove god is stupid
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 02/03/2023 at 10:24:25