55
   

How can something come from nothing?

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 11:37 am
@Looking4Truth,
aah....."Truth" with a big "T", and this is only "temporary reality" you say !
Now its Frank's turn to ask you how you know that ! Wink

aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 11:55 am
@Frank Apisa,
Don't take it too serious, about the fence sitter thing. I was just using a bit of humor.

Quote:
There are some atheists who do not do that. Some atheists (admittedly very few these days) say they do know...and they also say they know there are no gods. So you are really incorrect here.

Sorry for the confusion on my part, by "They" I meant agnostics.

Quote:
Not sure of your point, but it is an issue I enjoy discussing...if you are so disposed.

What say?


No problem.
A simple question:
If there is enough evidence to prove the existence of a God will you believe in a God?
I know I would, and most other atheists I know also agree with me.
But I do know a few individuals who doesn't answer the question and say no amount of evidence can be shown to prove God's existence. What say you about such individual's decline of belief based on such assumption?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 12:14 pm
@aspvenom,
I saw a conjurer produce a rabbit in a hat that had nothing in it and I didn't believe it.
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 12:25 pm
@spendius,
http://images.zaazu.com/img/scratch-head03-idea-animated-animation-smiley-emoticon-000416-large.gif
Are you sure you saw it right? Because I clearly saw a hat conjured out of a rabbit, and I didn't believe it.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 12:45 pm
@aspvenom,
The issue of "amount of evidence" is ridiculous, because the definition of evidence lies with "the perceiver". And since definitions of "God's manifestations" are nebulous, there will be no agreement as to evidence.


aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 12:58 pm
@fresco,
Yes I see that. Snook made a thread, that discussed such an issue. The threshold of evidence that would be sufficient for an non-believe individual to conclude there is a god can different from another non-believer. Each person is different. I am talking about individuals here, not all non-believers as a group.
What is to keep an atheistic individual who see better evidence to believe in a God, to avoid changing their mind?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 02:00 pm
@aspvenom,
You still don't quite get it. An atheist by definition is not looking for evidence...Evidence of "what" ?
Now it may certainly be the case that in extreme personal circumstances a proclaimed "fair weather atheist" might in desperation resort to a socially familiar ritual called "praying", and on deliverance may reconsider his position. But note that social rituals are culture specific, and the "atheist" could equally well end up having faith in Shiva etc. "Selves" and "beliefs" are co-extensive, co-existent, co-defining and subject to change.
aspvenom
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 02:11 pm
@fresco,
I didn't say looking for evidence. I'm saying if they believe they have somehow attained evidence in anyway.
God or gods, it's no matter to me.
If lack of evidence is once believed to be absence of credibility by a nonbeliever individual, then by some chance if some evidence pertinent to that individual presents itself to gain credibility, what then, is what I'm getting at. They have the freedom to discard the experience and "evidence" and choose to be nonbeliever, can't they?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 02:39 pm
@aspvenom,
Point understood, but the fundamental error in my opinion is to think "belief" or "atheism" is about "existence of an invisible entity" rather than aspects of "self-integrity". And since "selves" are social constructs, we are ultimately involved in issues of social conformity in thought and action, rather than ontology. The case for the psychological and social functions of religions is far more convincing due to the plethora of forms, than is the pseudo-scientific game of weighing "evidence".
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 02:51 pm
@fresco,
Agreed!

How would you describe the psychological and social functions of religion and what would mass atheism produce in their place.

It's all sophistry anyway. The point is the rejection of Christian inhibitions of sexual promiscuity. Combined with the known principle that being novel attracts more attention than the ordinary.

And it's a bit like rejection of sliced bread because you don't like the way it is promoted.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 03:17 pm
@aspvenom,
Quote:
No problem.
A simple question:
If there is enough evidence to prove the existence of a God will you believe in a God?


If there is enough evidence to prove the existence of a God...I would not have to "believe" there is a God...I would KNOW there is a God.

Quote:
I know I would, and most other atheists I know also agree with me.
But I do know a few individuals who doesn't answer the question and say no amount of evidence can be shown to prove God's existence. What say you about such individual's decline of belief based on such assumption?


Your question posited that there WOULD BE enough evidence to prove the existence of a God. If there are people who would not KNOW that a thing is true IF it has been proved to them...then that person has problems.

Quite honestly, I wouldn't even need "PROOF" in any real sense. Strong, unambiguous evidence would probably sway me to guess there is a God.

I don't see it...and I certainly do not see any evidence at all that no gods exist.

0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 03:40 pm
@spendius,
Those functions are predominantly about the codification and attempted regulation of our primate inheritance of sexual activity, tribalism, and social pecking orders. Such codification is the price we pay for our evolutionary "advantage" of being cognate animals who anticipate "consequences". The trappings of" divine purpose" and "afterlife" etc are psychological palliatives which buffer believers against anticipation of "the void".

Mass atheism is unlikely to "work" as shown by totalitarian systems which replace "divine authority" with a "charismatic leader" who often aspires to a "god-like" role. That is not to say that "humanistic spirituality" should not be advocated, but I am cynical about the intellectual abilities of the masses to accept such a disappointment relative to theistic promises.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 04:22 pm
@fresco,
So Prof. Dawkins, and his followers simply want our evolutionary "advantage" of being cognate animals who anticipate "consequences" whilst rejecting any codifications of our primate inheritance of sexual activity, tribalism, and social pecking orders. A cake and eat it job.

And I know no worthwhile evidence that shows that the two are not in symbiosis.

Quote:
That is not to say that "humanistic spirituality" should not be advocated, but I am cynical about the intellectual abilities of the masses to accept such a disappointment relative to theistic promises.


That's a bit snotty fresco. Most of us here are molecules of the masses. I'm so bloody average I stick out like a sore forefinger.

Would the hierarchies in the "humanistic spirituality" permit their ministers of the trade to be portrayed on TV, and in other places, as the C.of E, is constrained to permit its ministers to be. What would a Guru of Dibley look like? Would anything be funny at all? Could you have Blackpool postcards, bloomers ribaldry, mother-in-law jokes, Yes Minister and Pageants on the Thames?

I mean in the event that the intellectual abilities of the masses were raised by the success, often claimed, of the government's educational policies, sufficiently for them to cease to be disappointed and "humanistic spirituality" to become all the rage and not to put too fine a point on it, common.

I suspect, old chap, that you would find the words to keep a step or two ahead.

PS--You would need a hierarchy to prevent there being as many "humanistic spiritualities" as there are people.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 04:58 pm
@spendius,
I'm quite content to be "snotty".
Several years as a school teacher confirmed the observation of one wit who remarked that teaching was often "like casting pearls before swine....the pearls were sometimes artificial , but the swine were usually real."
And one of my "spiritual influences", Gurdjieff famously used to say to his followers, "there is no intellectual slumming here".

So, irrespective of your "interesting objections" I think the bulk of humanity will be doomed to continue to cultivate and transmit their cognitive viruses (aka religious beliefs) at the risk of pernicious social consequences of varying magnitudes.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 06:01 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
And one of my "spiritual influences", Gurdjieff famously used to say to his followers, "there is no intellectual slumming here".


That does not mean that there was no intellectual slumming there. It just means that Gurdjieff asserted that there wasn't and Ms Mandy Rice-Davies would have replied--"well, he would wouldn't he?"

What we want to know fresco is whether "humanistic spiritualities" involve the risk of pernicious social consequences and,if so, will they be of a greater or lesser magnitude than the consequences of religious belief which we have evidence for it not having done too badly on the whole what with poverty being defined as having an income of less than £15,000.

I think we can take it for granted that there will be pernicious social consequences of whatever we decide to do.

Who do you think you are addressing? I have explained what the real point is. Are you in denial?
0 Replies
 
tenderfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 09:28 pm
@aspvenom,
aspvenom wrote:

Actually an agnostic, the fence sitters Laughing , are on equal ground with atheism. They always resort to say there isn't sufficient evidence to claim one or the other so as the saying goes "I don't know." It is a fairly rational stance. Most atheists are partially agnostics in that if sufficient evidence is found in the existence of a God, then they have the disposition to change their beliefs. Only a small percent of atheists will say they'll never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever never ever ever ever ever evvvvvvvveeerrrr gonna believe in God no matter what the evidence maybe.

No way --- if what you are saying is in the belief in respect to a particular God ( yours ) first you must make sure the person you call a atheist is picking on your God and not some one else's because if it's some other God and you don't believe that is the true God then that makes you a Atheist as well.
0 Replies
 
tenderfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 09:40 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote...My statement, "it might or it might not”…is 100% correct no matter what the REALITY. Your assertion is only correct if the REALITY is that the universe is infinite. So I am not sure why you suppose your assertion “has more grounds.”

Can you fill me in on why you think that? Unquote.

I already have ( there can't be a start line as there has to be something to determine the "Start" ) ~~~ you prove to me that my space ship "might " hit something and if it does hit what " might " be there, just tell me what might be the other side???
tenderfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 09:54 pm
@Looking4Truth,
Looking4Truth wrote:

Quote:
And "truth" is

There can only be 1 answer. 1 truth. We have always gained knowledge, but we have never came to the understanding of truth. Will truth ever be revealed? I believe so. It's what we don't see that is not understood. Understanding of the unknown truth, I think, will be known once this temporary reality is transformed into infinite truth.


Before you can "Transform " anything you must first understand it and have reasoning power, plus a understanding of science, to back you up. If you don't possesses this, it realty only leaves you what religion your parents gave you and whatever that religion tells you in their sacred book.
Looking4Truth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 10:05 pm
@fresco,
I've been waiting for Frank to ask, but I lost my patients Wink . Ah the big "temporary reality" and how I know that. Can you fathom ETERNITY? I can't. Can you imagine what has had to have ALWAYS been? I can't. Eternity past is something that had to have been. Something that had no physical being to it. Something with no time, distance, nor matter. Nothing mattered. Something matters now. Excuse my play on words, I'm just having a little fun with my explanation Smile . What is isn't understood. What was can't be imagined. What will be? Why? A couple of simple questions to ponder. Wink
Looking4Truth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2013 10:08 pm
@tenderfoot,
All religion has been deceived. True history has been destroyed and forgotton.
 

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
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 01:21:49