This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Abstraction · 61-69, M
He is dead to people who ironically exert a lot of anger at the very idea they don't believe in.
For me, no.
1. I embrace science, history and philosophy. Nothing in those for an open-minded rational person that either proves or disproves the existence of God.
2. Some very rational ideas have evidences, but remain without definitive proof. This is one of them. It's not irrational to believe, for instance, that there is life on other planets. Not a shred of proof. This does not imply they must therefore believe in pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters (one of the really lame arguments).
3. Confirmation bias means most people are like shook cans of coke full only of the arguments that support what they already think. On both sides. They just spurt them. Often incapable of questioning them.
4. Having been agnostic and interested in the topic, I can probably catalogue the arguments against the existence of God. Some really good ones, others are quite lame. None are definitive.
5. When I stack up some of the most fascinating aspects of our beautiful universe, arguments for and against, and some other stuff - with my experiences - I don't conclude God is dead.
6. Good luck with whatever view you take. I'm never going to convince you. 10 years of discussion on EP shows after spending lots of time I can defend the rationality of either view (God or no god), but people get a bit nasty. Couldn't be stuffed. :)
For me, no.
1. I embrace science, history and philosophy. Nothing in those for an open-minded rational person that either proves or disproves the existence of God.
2. Some very rational ideas have evidences, but remain without definitive proof. This is one of them. It's not irrational to believe, for instance, that there is life on other planets. Not a shred of proof. This does not imply they must therefore believe in pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters (one of the really lame arguments).
3. Confirmation bias means most people are like shook cans of coke full only of the arguments that support what they already think. On both sides. They just spurt them. Often incapable of questioning them.
4. Having been agnostic and interested in the topic, I can probably catalogue the arguments against the existence of God. Some really good ones, others are quite lame. None are definitive.
5. When I stack up some of the most fascinating aspects of our beautiful universe, arguments for and against, and some other stuff - with my experiences - I don't conclude God is dead.
6. Good luck with whatever view you take. I'm never going to convince you. 10 years of discussion on EP shows after spending lots of time I can defend the rationality of either view (God or no god), but people get a bit nasty. Couldn't be stuffed. :)
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@Abstraction [quote]proves or disproves the existence of God[/quote]
The question doesn’t even arise.
1. there's no proof that gods exist (otherwise we'd all be theists)
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might be lurking around a mountain-top somewhere)
3. in any event, there's [i]no compelling necessity[/i] to even postulate gods, and the postulation explains nothing... it merely tries to explain everything away. We can simply drop the postulation into the bin, and we lose nothing.
4. therefore, I have no gods
The question doesn’t even arise.
1. there's no proof that gods exist (otherwise we'd all be theists)
2. there's no proof that gods don't exist (they might be lurking around a mountain-top somewhere)
3. in any event, there's [i]no compelling necessity[/i] to even postulate gods, and the postulation explains nothing... it merely tries to explain everything away. We can simply drop the postulation into the bin, and we lose nothing.
4. therefore, I have no gods
Maximusmax · M
@newjaninev2 but if there is a God it would not just end there. A living Being should be capable of some kind of relationship, which is where that step of existence leads to
Abstraction · 61-69, M
@newjaninev2 'The question doesn't arise'? The fact that it constantly does in itself is noteworthy (throughout history in most societies, continuing, and includes very intelligent people). This has more possible explanations than your stated interpretations I've read on SW. They're quite good, but there are other possibilities.
You've found no compelling necessity. You're being true to your findings. Great. I support that.
Of course, 'compelling necessity' isn't the only basis for reasonable postulation - a quick perusal of both the history and epistemology of science affirms that.
I prefer to say I have found good reason. You don't know what those many compelling reasons are that have convinced me. I have no evangelical need to try to convince you. I've noticed you do seem to have that. And, no, I don't attempt to explain anything away.
You've found no compelling necessity. You're being true to your findings. Great. I support that.
Of course, 'compelling necessity' isn't the only basis for reasonable postulation - a quick perusal of both the history and epistemology of science affirms that.
I prefer to say I have found good reason. You don't know what those many compelling reasons are that have convinced me. I have no evangelical need to try to convince you. I've noticed you do seem to have that. And, no, I don't attempt to explain anything away.