A Failure To Convince Me That Any Gods Exist

As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you can't demonstrate any impact that the belief in this entity has had on the formation of Western civilization, which has been profoundly impacted by belief in Gog. In fact, aside from whether you believe God exists, it is an empirical fact that belief in God has had enormous formative impact on Western civilization. So trivializing it in this manner simply demonstrates ignorance of the issues.

As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you can't demonstrate any impact that the belief in this entity has had on the formation of Western civilization, which has been profoundly impacted by belief in Gog. In fact, aside from whether you believe God exists, it is an empirical fact that belief in God has had enormous formative impact on Western civilization. So trivializing it in this manner simply demonstrates ignorance of the issues.

jeeprs wrote:

As for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you can't demonstrate any impact that the belief in this entity has had on the formation of Western civilization, which has been profoundly impacted by belief in Gog. In fact, aside from whether you believe God exists, it is an empirical fact that belief in God has had enormous formative impact on Western civilization. So trivializing it in this manner simply demonstrates ignorance of the issues.

ipse dixit

A god is real because the belief in a god effected western civilization. Western civilization is real and has an impact on you, therefore god must be real.

You've made an excellent case that the belief in god is real, not the god.

A
R
T

Concerning the Truth on God or anything else hardly could it be proved.

So I honestly don´t believe that you were looking for proof or certainty on this matter !

To believe or to believe that not, you of course in good will, would have to look for a desirable model to fit the role...either to take or to criticize!

From what I could read on your so far well articulated speech you negatively comment the classical models, I agree with what mainly was said, it makes sense to some extent, but why should we not open the expression, the term God, to a more enlarged approach given the magnitude it is supposed to circumscribe ?

So I guess we should start believing that aliens are visiting earth and abducting people. This has had a huge impact on western civilization, so it must be true.

You've made an excellent case that the belief in god is real, not the god.

Why not? Because there is no need to. I can tell that you open your definition up such that you believe in a god. I believe you do so because you want a god to be real. If I defined the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the air we breathe, would the FSM be real? By my definition, sure. However, such definition is tailored specifically to product, and not actually to test the idea of the FSM.

I'm glad you've found a way to incorporate the belief in a god, if it makes you comfortable. I simply do not require this kind of comfort, so I have no need to force the belief in an unnecessary being.

A
R
T

Quote:

You've made an excellent case that the belief in god is real, not the god.

Indeed but from a pragmatic viewpoint, it is very important nevertheless.

It is a fact that the vast majority of people have some kind of belief in a 'higher being' whether they are institutionally religious or not.

The fact that they believe it is empirically demonstrable, and the consequences of the belief are also significant, regardless of whether you think the belief has any corresponding reality.

Sure, the consequences are significant. Hundreds of burnt witches can't all be innocent right?

I don´t believe in a God just because it makes me feel comfortable, or happy, or whatever you might think natural to such belief.

I have an intuitive recursive sense of Unity out of everything I see around me, this impression of, a hard bound in the patterns of information that compose my perception of Reality, a sense of self fundament, self justification, almost abstract, and certainly not restrained by concepts, or human, morally based, biased perspectives.

GOD to me, is the entire length of the Information string that cannot be reproduced or explained if not by itself own "Beingness"(lets put it this way).

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

You've now defined a god. How is this convincing that it exists? You've defined god in lots of other undefined terms.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

God on this light, is the eternal motion machine without can be end or true beginning, and far beyond Big-Bang or Big-Crunch chronology and symmetry.

Comparing a god to an eternal motion machine in trying to convince a person that it is real is a bit ironic.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

One that turns the "imperfection" of masses forces and energy´s lack of equilibrium into the perfect justification of diversity...the engine of Becoming !

What is imperfect about mass?
What of energy is out of equilibrium?

These are two huge claims.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Why should n´t I believe in such a God ?

By all means, believe. It doesn't harm me. Go nuts. It simply isn't a cogent argument for me to believe.

A
R
T

Quote:

Sure, the consequences are significant. Hundreds of burnt witches can't all be innocent right?

That's curious, I had read somewhere that institutional religion had done things other than burn witches, but if you know better....

Anyway, one of the differences I have with atheists is that they fail to recognize the normative value of the judeo-christian ethos in the formation of Western society, usually due to their own anti-religious prejudices. I know that such prejudices have a strong historical justification, due to the appalling way that the Christian institutions have behaved at various times, but that is not the whole story either.

God to me is Unity itself ! ONE !!! (more like a number)

jeeprs wrote:

Quote:

Sure, the consequences are significant. Hundreds of burnt witches can't all be innocent right?

That's curious, I had read somewhere that institutional religion had done things other than burn witches, but if you know better....

Anyway, one of the differences I have with atheists is that they fail to recognize the normative value of the judeo-christian ethos in the formation of Western society, usually due to their own anti-religious prejudices. I know that such prejudices have a strong historical justification, due to the appalling way that the Christian institutions have behaved at various times, but that is not the whole story either.

This was visited earlier in this thread by Finn. The idea that atheism is reactionary--specifically that atheists are in rebellion to modern religion as opposed to founded on a naturalist foundation is nothing new. This accusation fails in a number of ways.

1) Atheism is older than ANY religion, let alone Judaism and Christianity.
2) The formation of western civilization may have rested in the normative values of the judeo-christian ethos, but what is normative to the judeo-christian values is based on previous cultures and civilizations. E.g. - The Jews didn't invent "thou shalt not kill." When (read: if) Moses spoke these words, the appropriate response should have been, "no ****."

A
R
The atheist apostate meme is a non-starter.

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

God to me is Unity itself ! ONE !!! (more like a number)

Interesting argument. So, I can't believe in unity without believing in a god then? If I already believe in unity, what does god add to that belief?

How is that not augmentation?

A
R
T

Why is this "unified property set" a god and not a unicorn?

A
R
T