... Therefore God does not exist.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by loinburger
What do you mean "where"? In Germany, I suppose, since that's where Habermas and Apel are from...

I'm asking where is the answer to the question!

[Dauphin]

At the moment we have lots of laws, which are unrelated (or only slightly related) to one another. The goal of a theory of everything is to combine all of these laws into one law, so that all the individual laws are just special cases of the same thing. However, at the end you are still left with one law (or principle from which it is derived). You cannot further combine one law with itself to get no laws at all - therefore there will at best be one law (or principle) which we cannot explain. Where did it come from?

The parallel with Polytheism to Monotheism is ironic.

So why invent God at all? Why not say "Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang, therefore we cannot say what happened before the Big Bang"? I'm still seeing an unnecessary layer here.

Rephrase the question "Why did time come into existence from non-existence? Or if it has always existed why does it exist?". You should now see a necessary layer/answer.

Besides, ignoring questions for which you cannot answer to avoid "extra layers" is not what is meant by Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor presupposes that you have a plausible explanations to begin with.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Zealot
I'm asking where is the answer to the question!

In Apel's, and moreso Habermas's, writings. Discourse Ethics and Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action are the places to start.

Read between the lines a little.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by loinburger
In Apel's, and moreso Habermas's, writings. Discourse Ethics and Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action are the places to start.

Read between the lines a little.

Oh, and where exactly did you mention that article/book/whatever before, wise guy?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Rephrase the question "Why did time come into existence from non-existence? Or if it has always existed why does it exist?". You should now see a necessary layer/answer.

There is a question, I'm not denying that. I'm saying that belief in God does not answer the question in a more satisfactory manner than non-belief in God.

If we say "God created the Universe," and then say "We cannot say who created God because God is timeless," then this is equivalent to saying "The Universe arose from a singularity," and then saying "We cannot say what created the singularity because singularities are timeless" for purposes of answering the question "What came before the Big Bang?"

Yet when God creates the universe we get side-effects ("God created morality," "God created an afterlife," "God gave us free will," "God is dead," etc.) which are completely unrelated to the question being answered. When the universe comes out of a singularity then we get no side-effects.

Besides, ignoring questions for which you cannot answer to avoid "extra layers" is not what is meant by Ockham's razor. Ockham's razor presupposes that you have a plausible explanations to begin with.

If the Big Bang arose from a singularity, and singularities are timeless, then we have added another layer when we say that God created the singularity. Worse yet, we have added a layer that produces unrelated side-effects.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Zealot
Oh, and where exactly did you mention that article/book/whatever before, wise guy?

I mentioned Habermas and Apel. If I'd thought that there was even a remote possibility that you'd read any Habermas then I'd have given you the article names.

[Dauphin]

Are wrong answers better than no answers?

When the universe comes out of a singularity then we get no side-effects.

Not surprisingly, but we also get no answers. God theory provides "unbased" speculation, singularity reasoning is just "it is".

If you observe a phenomena would you speculate as to its cause and rick being completely wrong, or just say "I will never understand" and give up. INMHO philosophical thought about the subject is better than no thought.

[loinburger]

Re: Are wrong answers better than no answers?

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Not surprisingly, but we also get no answers. God theory provides "unbased" speculation, singularity reasoning is just "it is".

This is because the statements "X created the universe" and "X did Y," where Y might be "gave us consciousness," or perhaps "created morality," are not causally related. You can't expect to know the answer to life, the universe, and everything just from speculations on who or what created the universe; it is just one piece of the puzzle.

If you observe a phenomena would you speculate as to its cause and rick being completely wrong, or just say "I will never understand" and give up.

I would speculate. One such phenomenon/question/speculation is "Why is there Good and Evil"? I could say "There is Good and Evil because God has decreed it so, and this is within his power because He created the Universe," or I could say "God might have created Good and Evil, but it is dangerous to assume that this is the case because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that God created the Universe. However, argumentation theory gives an argument for why there is Good and Evil that does not rely on such arbitrary assumptions, therefore argumentation theory gives a more plausible argument than God-theory." By eliminating God's side-effects, or at the very least by calling them into question, one is able to avoid dangerous and unenlightening assumptions in other philosophical matters.

INMHO philosophical thought about the subject is better than no thought.

I agree. However, reasoned philosophical thought is better than philosophical thought that allows for arbitrary side-effects.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Zealot


Of course I can refute them! They are hand-made statues, with no interaction with humanity in all of their history, no contact whatsoever! That's why they didn't survive! That's why there were some people wich were, for example, Greek and Jew, without being Israelite! You are right when you say many made them up to explain phenomenons, but everybody they based it in God(s) that are not on this Realm! Don't you think it's far too much coincidence?

I wouldn't think so, Hinduism survived, and it is similar, many Gods and godesses.

I don't think it would be ethical to say my religion is better than others. Neither do I think the Internet could be a proper place for such debate. What I can say is that if you started doing some research among those who want to teach?
Then make a stand whether it's a myth or not!

I was just drawing conclusions from the fact that your God does not act anymore and he did before. Other religions, or pagan gods could make the same claim. Therefore since you think one is a myth why shouldn't the other one be a myth too. - you say no contact with humanity? Well how about hinduism again, it doesn't have much in common with Christianity and it is still here, and definitly is in touch with people there.

Come again?
Are you telling me that what was written by the prophets, wich, BTW, you don't know them, is not understandable?

no their moral messages are great, but their claims that this was made in the name of God, are not necessarily correct. Roman lawyers could have been making the same claims and you don't believe them. That could be just a choice to seek for the higher authority to protect them in the eyes of the nation.

I understand your skepticism around religion, I understand that there are a lot of religions around the world, and many are some crap that a loony wrote some centuries ago. But that's why I have been insisting you do some reseach. Don't search at some site why the Bible has fallacies in point A, B, or C! You'll never find the proper explanation in there! What I'm talking about is for you to start a project that might involve years to get all the answers you want!

you see with the science you can make a cause and effect relationship , with religion you cannot. Does that make religion obsolete?
And research to what point will it lead me? If you could show that there is a God trough study, wouldn't that be an accepted fact now? How can you conduct a study with the lack of evidence. On which facts do you base your conclusions?
[q]
Yet, you will never have the argument to question God's authority because He was inactive longer than you would see reasonable. In the worst case, you would need to know every Divine law.
Thankfully, you don't need to. Just start with the right one. [q/]

If God created us as reasonable beings, why doesn't he leave enough reasons for us to let us know that he is here? Or you migh say that there is the book. But there are other books that claim the same. So at the end which one should be the authority and on which basis can you refute the others and keep your own?

[Dauphin]

If God created us as reasonable beings, why doesn't he leave enough reasons for us to let us know that he is here?

I will give a commonly given answer, that is "reasonable" under the assumption that God exists, but first consider what would happen if God did reveal/had revealed himself to everyone on the planet.

Give me a hypothesis.

[Goingonit]

Assuming God exists, God needs faith to exist. Otherwise, why create a humanity with the power to not heed God?

[Wraith]

--"I just can't believe in the theory of evolution, because in the real world"

Well, I honestly don't see any reason to doubt it. Looking for macro level changes is a bit of a strawman, however. I'd suggest that the most immediate examples to look at are things like pesticide resistance and antibiotic resistance. Both are clear examples of how organisms change over time to better survive in their environment.

--"This is its intention I believe."

That is part of the fun, yes. But, as has been mentioned, there is a point to all of it.

--"there is no answer because the question doesn't make sense."

Well, we don't know yet that the question doesn't make sense. What if one of the Big Crunch theories is eventually validated, and it turns out that the universe has probably undergone a series of expansions and collapses? As of yet, we can't say that the question is meaningless.

--"therefore there will at best be one law (or principle) which we cannot explain. Where did it come from?"

That's the problem. There will always be at least one assumption at the root of any argument. And no assumption can be proven within the system it is an assumption for. So we can't know for sure where it came from. Saying that it was created by god is no more valid than any other argument.

--"Of course they are there. That was my whole point"

But you can't claim the same about god. If you're going to claim that he exists outside of reality and does not interact with it in any measurable way, then the question of god's existence becomes meaningless. Either way, it doesn't matter to us on that basis. (Note again, agnostic here, not atheist.)
If you assume that god exists outside of reality, but does interact with it, then you should be able to provide evidence. That's all I'm asking for. (Note to Zealot: The Bible does not count as evidence without other sources to support it. I also have to ask why you consider the Bible to be any more valid than any other religious text.)

--"For your information, a Grand Unified Theory"

Hm. I wasn't aware of that difference. And I thought that at least some of the forces had been strongly tied (the "electro-weak" force).

--"Looking back to human governments, I really have little hopes for the future!"

Looking back on religions, I have even less...

--"Where does the standard of human morality come from for example?"

I feel Rand answered this one pretty well, actually. The point being that there is no need to assume a god to be able to answer these questions.

Wraith
Hail to the Sun God! He is the Fun God! Ra! Ra! Ra!

[Zealot]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

Originally posted by Zealot


Of course I can refute them! They are hand-made statues, with no interaction with humanity in all of their history, no contact whatsoever! That's why they didn't survive! That's why there were some people wich were, for example, Greek and Jew, without being Israelite! You are right when you say many made them up to explain phenomenons, but everybody they based it in God(s) that are not on this Realm! Don't you think it's far too much coincidence?

I wouldn't think so, Hinduism survived, and it is similar, many Gods and godesses.

I'm sorry, I don't know Hinduism very well. Are you saying that the Hindus claim to have received an inspired message from their Gods, so that they could have a better life, ie, to prosper?

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

I don't think it would be ethical to say my religion is better than others. Neither do I think the Internet could be a proper place for such debate. What I can say is that if you started doing some research among those who want to teach?
Then make a stand whether it's a myth or not!

I was just drawing conclusions from the fact that your God does not act anymore and he did before. Other religions, or pagan gods could make the same claim. Therefore since you think one is a myth why shouldn't the other one be a myth too. - you say no contact with humanity? Well how about hinduism again, it doesn't have much in common with Christianity and it is still here, and definitly is in touch with people there.

I don't think you would read the bible to figure that out, would you? Even if someone offered his time to help you understanding why is the Bible reliable, would you still read it?

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave

Come again?
Are you telling me that what was written by the prophets, wich, BTW, you don't know them, is not understandable?

no their moral messages are great, but their claims that this was made in the name of God, are not necessarily correct. Roman lawyers could have been making the same claims and you don't believe them. That could be just a choice to seek for the higher authority to protect them in the eyes of the nation.

I'm talking about the Judean-Christian religion, the first monotheistic religion to have historical record. You want to say that others could make the same claims? Sure! Would the rest of the known world accept their "religion"? I honestly don't think so.

[Dauphin]

What if one of the Big Crunch theories is eventually validated

Oh wait....

[MrFun]

There are some atheists who demand respect from religiously faithful people, but will not return that respect.

There are some religiously faithful people who demand respect from atheists, but will not return that respect.

In other words, this thread is becoming long-winded and boring. But, I can count this as my third thread for a sleeping-aid thanks to some of you guys.