32
   

Another day when there is no God

 
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 05:21 pm
@edgarblythe,
There are "logical reasons" for a "god" to exist, Ed. Doesn't prove there is a god, but the old logical argument regarding the necessity for an "unmoved mover,'" (or "uncaused cause") in order to avoid an infinite regress of "cause and effect," has always had some "logical appeal" to it, even if it is a little self-contradictory.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 05:26 pm
@layman,
Aristotle and his Prime Mover? As you say, it's a little self contradictory if we ask the nature and origin of our prime mover.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 05:31 pm
If they did not make up gods from their imagination, whence the notion, without evidence?
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 05:42 pm
@edgarblythe,
You will be in a better position to raise that question when Science "discovers" the origin of the universe and our existence. That hasn't yet been done. Theories exist, but they contradict each other, and none has been proven. Indeed, by the usual standards of science based on theories subject to the result of direct observation (as opposed to inference based on incomplete data) there is good philosophical reason to believe that no such theory can be proven by scientific standards.

It is one thing to argue about traditional and largely metaphorical writings describing our creation being "disproved" by Darwin, but quite another to argue the absence of a creator.

You are entitled to your certainty, even if it looks foolish to a thinking person.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 05:47 pm
It only looks foolish to some thinking persons.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 06:10 pm
@roger,
Quote:
Aristotle and his Prime Mover? As you say, it's a little self contradictory if we ask the nature and origin of our prime mover.


Yeah, but maybe not as contradictory as saying everything has a cause, because then the regression never ends. To say there is one, unique, thing that had no cause solves that problem, even if it does contradict any premise that EVERYTHING has a cause. The answer is simply that "everything' doesn't.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 06:28 pm
Cause, reason, purpose, are human concepts. Apply them to the working of the universe you get anthropomorphism. Nothing more.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 06:30 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Cause, reason, purpose, are human concepts. Apply them to the working of the universe you get anthropomorphism. Nothing more.


What do YOU "apply" to the "universe," Ed?

It was you who made a statement about what is "logical," wasn't it?
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 06:34 pm
At last, at last, I understand the angels on the head of a pin thing.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 07:22 pm
I let the universe be. I leave it to science to try to unravel its makeup.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 07:36 pm
@edgarblythe,
I
Quote:
let the universe be. I leave it to science to try to unravel its makeup


What would science get you? Nothing more than anthropomorphism, right?.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 07:40 pm
@layman,
Examining the pieces is not giving it human meaning.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 07:42 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Cause, reason, purpose, are human concepts. Apply them to the working of the universe you get anthropomorphism. Nothing more.


Last I heard, "science" is pretty much based on the "human concepts" of cause and reason.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 07:44 pm
@layman,
Science is supposed to work without putting the scientist into the equation.
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Apr, 2015 07:51 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Science is supposed to work without putting the scientist into the equation


Not sure how that would be relevant to what you said, to wit:

Quote:
Cause, reason, purpose, are human concepts. Apply them to the working of the universe you get anthropomorphism. Nothing more.

But maybe you didn't really mean what you said. It really doesn't matter, either way, I suppose.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 04:35 am
The Great Flydini
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 05:35 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

If they did not make up gods from their imagination, whence the notion, without evidence?


Humans come up with all sorts of weird things in their imagination, Edgar. Perhaps they did come up with this one.

I never said they did not come up with gods through their imaginations...but I did say they MAY NOT HAVE. IF there is a GOD...and IF the GOD wants humans to have a sense of IT...IT may have built in that sense.

You are arbitrarily saying it has to be that humans simply made the notion of gods up.

We do not know. If they did come up with it through their imaginations...they MAY be right...and they MAY be wrong.

Essentially, all I am saying is that the question of the existence or non-existence of gods as part of the true nature of the REALITY of existence...

...is still unanswerable...

...and I am suggesting that people who insist there is/has to be a god...

...and the people who insist there are no gods/cannot be any gods...

...are both making the same logical errors. Just in different directions.

Anyway...I acknowledge this will almost certainly be another day without evidence of the existence or non-existence of a GOD...and that we will be no closer to determining whether there is one, many or none.



0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 11:11 am
We have humans, after the trial and error of evolution, and they have this god thing that was magically instilled somewhere along the way. Was that in the amphibian stage or what? Suddenly they know gods? Pardon me while I go off to giggle uncontrollably.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 12:28 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

We have humans, after the trial and error of evolution, and they have this god thing that was magically instilled somewhere along the way. Was that in the amphibian stage or what? Suddenly they know gods? Pardon me while I go off to giggle uncontrollably.


No one is saying anything close to that, Edgar. And since you cannot bring yourself to offer me the courtesy of addressing your remarks to me when they are meant for me...I am responding to your comment as though it had been addressed to me.

You asked where does the notion come from...and I offered one possible place.

The problem here is that the theist want to say that a GOD almost certainly exists...and that a GOD is the best possible explanation for existence. For various reasons, none of which I find compelling, they "believe" a GOD exists.

Atheists want to say it is almost certain there are no gods...and that "no gods" is the most compelling vision of existence. For various reasons, none of which I find compelling, folk like you "believe" no gods exist.

Go giggle uncontrollably if you must. There is lots to giggle at in the theist arguments...and in the supposed logic and reasons of the atheists argument.

Nearly as I can tell...we do not really know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and the guesses of both theists and atheists should be taken with a grain or several of salt.

And perhaps an occasional giggle.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Apr, 2015 12:36 pm
All I can say is, I don't agree with you and almost certainly never will. Now I want to get back to my thread without these digressions. Not likely on an open forum, but I will try.
 

Related Topics

Is "God" just our conscience? - Question by Groomers123
believe in god! - Question by roammer
The existence of God - Question by jwagner
Are Gods Judgments righteous? - Discussion by Smileyrius
What did God do on Day 8? - Question by HesDeltanCaptain
What do you think about world? - Question by Joona
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/19/2019 at 02:29:42