Reply
Tue 17 Jan, 2006 10:30 pm
It is more reasonable to believe there is a man hiding in the bushes outside your house than to believe in a deity
This is my proposition. Now I will attempt to support it.
Here goes.
-There is evidence that bushes exist. We have tested bushes, and know they are in fact bushes.
-There is no evidence, testable or otherwise, of a spiritual realm (where a deity would live, right?)
-There is precedent for people hiding in bushes. I myself have hidden in a few bushes during childhood games of hide and seek.(which also supports that people do, and can, in fact hide;supporting another part of my proposition)
-There is no precedent for the existence of a deity. Nobody has observed one existing. Not even in the bushes.
-There is understandable motive for someone to hide in the bushes. Maybe they are voyeurs or perhaps hiding from the law. Perhaps they are a serial killer.
-There is no understandable motive for a deity to exist. Who created it? A motive must be intended by an outside source, unless of course deity 'self created', but if so how did it have a will to be before it existed? A mind boggler.
Clearly, it is far more reasonable to believe there is a man hiding in my bushes than it is to believe in a deity. Still, I don't believe there is a man hiding in my bushes.
But lets go further. Believing in a deity is one thing, but believing in a deity and then further going on to define his attributes, absent of any evidence, is problematic.
Now I would have to believe the man in my bushes had a 12 inch knife, had escaped from a very specific sanitarium, and was on a mission to cut out my liver and sell it on ebay. Still, believing all that is more reasonable than believing in an all powerful, all loving, personal god that 'wants' us to follow jesus.
Why? as well as all the above reasons for a 'man in the bushes'(sans knife and murderous intent), there is also precedent for things such as the existence of knives, homicidal behavior, and organ removal.
Again, there is no precedent for the qualities 'all loving' 'omnicscient' 'omnipresent' or pretty much any of the other attributes most believers assign their deity.
Therefore it is MUCH more reasonable to believe there is a maniac in the bushes outside my house right now slathering over the aquisition of my liver through the most brutal means possible than to believe in a personal god.
Somehow I doubt I will lose any sleep worrying about that possible maniac, and given no reason to believe he is out there, why would anyone believe something far less reasonable?
-
Bwaaaaaaa hahaha! Dok, this is great!... I think this could prove to be quite an interesting discussion... whooooooo.... Scary thing is though... your starting to sound a little like me in how you approached this...
Um, I don't really know if I can refute this... but I'm sure willing to try... once I sort through all of what you said here that is. (wipes the sweat from her brow) So... here goes nothing... LOL will get back to you on this soon...
Ok, I've decided to take this on one bit at a time... I know it's grueling but I don't want to get lost in a bunch of... hmmm... silliness I guess.. So here I go:
Quote:-There is evidence that bushes exist. We have tested bushes, and know they are in fact bushes.
-There is no evidence, testable or otherwise, of a spiritual realm (where a deity would live, right?)
That depends what you consider evidence. If you want to get technical here there are several different types of evidence. But we won't go down that path... just yet anyway..
So moving on I would like to use the same example I used earlier today:
Quote: Let's talk about oxygen. Can you see it? nope. Can you feel it? nope. Can you touch it? nope. Can you smell it? nope. Can you hear it? nope. Yet it's there right? Science has "proven" that we need it to live. But how can I trust that oxygen is REALLY there if I can't see, feel, touch, smell, or hear it?
Then just for the sake of making a point I said:
Quote:I personally have never done any of the tests to prove that oxygen really exists. So I could easily say in ignorance that it doesn't. (let me make it clear I am not stating that though) If I'm not willing to look at what science offers as evidence of oxygen's existance even though you may have looked at it and proven it to yourself, what good is your argument against mine?
My point in saying this was simple. There are other kinds of evidence than just the physical proofs that science offers. If I were to say something that offended you and your response to me was, "Man shut up hephzibah, Kiss my butt, I'm not talking to you anymore!" That is evidence that I offended you. It's not physical proof. You can't do any tests in a lab to prove that I offended you because it's not a physical matter. It's an emotional matter. I hurt your feelings and you reacted to that. Correct?
Hep,
Quote:
That depends what you consider evidence. If you want to get technical here there are several different types of evidence. But we won't go down that path... just yet anyway..
Evidence to be useful, must be testable and reproducable. 'Personal experience' may constitute evidence on a personal level (depending entirely of course on ones standard of evidence), but in order for evidence to be entered into a debate or discussion, it must be demonstrable on some level. Otherwise it remains nebulous and ultimately pointless.
Quote:
Let's talk about oxygen. Can you see it? nope. Can you feel it? nope. Can you touch it? nope. Can you smell it? nope. Can you hear it? nope. Yet it's there right? Science has "proven" that we need it to live. But how can I trust that oxygen is REALLY there if I can't see, feel, touch, smell, or hear it?
Oxygen is measurable and testable. You can observe oxygen under a microscope. Deity is neither measurable nor testable. Apples and oranges.
Quote:
My point in saying this was simple. There are other kinds of evidence than just the physical proofs that science offers. If I were to say something that offended you and your response to me was, "Man shut up hephzibah, Kiss my butt, I'm not talking to you anymore!" That is evidence that I offended you. It's not physical proof. You can't do any tests in a lab to prove that I offended you because it's not a physical matter. It's an emotional matter. I hurt your feelings and you reacted to that. Correct?
What you offer IS physical evidence, though. If you 'offend' someone and they react in a way which is congruent with past examples of people 'being offended' (which it would have to for you to identify it as such), that constitutes evidence. You could further test this though the measurement of heartrate/breathing/adrenalin production of the offendee, in a lab. How exactly do you test or measure deity? Grapefruits and watermelons.
Anyway, I am assuming from your post that you are taking the angle of "personal experience=evidence". But since that is completely useless for discussion lets stick to the demonstrable and reproducable shall we?
Dr S,
I know you love Wittgenstein ! .....Your proposition is "playing" with the word "belief" by juxtaposition of different contextual usages. This is what W. calls "language going on holiday".
fresco wrote:Dr S,
I know you love Wittgenstein ! .....Your proposition is "playing" with the word "belief" by juxtaposition of different contextual usages. This is what W. calls "language going on holiday".
You are one seriously perceptive cat.
Dr S,
On the other hand I personally applaud your metaphor "man in the bushes" = "god in the clouds".
What does one have to do to become a member of this mutual mastubatory society?
Imur,
Your tag implies you know the Woody Allen answer.
Recognize that "your brain is your second most favorite organ".
Great metaphor Dok! I sure wish I could lay down my ideas in such a concise and intelligent way... have you ever considered writing a book?
I like it Dok.
...and remember folks, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're NOT out to git ya.
but I don't even have bushes outside my house.
..and I suppose you have solid evidence that those bushes don't exist Chai Tea ?
..you know you can't prove a negative.
two positives can't equal a negative...........sure, sure.
The OP?
It's operating on a couple of levels.
But I really do think it's more reasonable to think there is a psycho killer with a 12 inch butcher knife in the bushes outside your house at this very moment than to believe in the god of the bible.
For reasons stated previously.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace