48 replies to this topic

[Megell]

Anyone here ever noticed that religious phylosophers, mainly the ones from the christain branch of faith have are considered the forfounders of modern religion? And have you ever noticed that the religious theories in favor of athisim are always said to rely on spohestry an rhedorict?

Well the other day I was thinking about this, and the matter of fact is that its true. All arguments that are for the nonexistance of God are always viewed as rhetorical. Basically meaning a play on words and emotions, or using incorrect logic.

Well the other day, (more like the other year.) I was sitting and thinking about this. And as truth turns out, a long time ago, philosophy was actually much different. It was common knowledge that the theories of Gods existance were in question. All arguements for the existant of God were based on logic that required reverse logic, double think, and the like.

Well along comes a philosopher named locke... locke stated that because God exists, philosophy must be wrong if its proving his unexistance, so therefore we must remoddle philosophy. This idea was very liked by numorious groups: kings, queens, popes, and theologans instants took to the idea and philosophy was remade to say that arguements against god were wrong, while arguements in his favor were correct.

Hmmmmm, well this is rather odd scince it ment that all arguements would have to be in favor of a greater being, rather then against it, to be correct. Therefore, doesn't this mean there is a good chance that modern philosophical method is based on a baised system?

Well thats just theory... The church, kings, and many other facides had good reason to remake these things. Philosophy and god had really nothing to do with it. Ever heard the quote "the devine rule of the kind", or "papal infalability?" sounds sort of stange to me doesn't it. Why would philosophy be remade unless someone had something to gain from it?

I'll leave the rest up too you.

[Kinewa]

There are tone of atheistic arguments. Just read them for yourself. If you can find some that aren't just rhetoric, then they aren't all rhetoric. I'm thinking that Philosophy is so free that any argument can be made without restrictions. Although there are some biased philosophers out there, philosophy itself is not.

What really matters in philosophy is validity and strength of an argument. That's all there is to it.

[Megell]

There are tone of atheistic arguments. Just read them for yourself. If you can find some that aren't just rhetoric, then they aren't all rhetoric. I'm thinking that Philosophy is so free that any argument can be made without restrictions. Although there are some biased philosophers out there, philosophy itself is not.

What really matters in philosophy is validity and strength of an argument. That's all there is to it.

Yes, and no. Alot of the arguements that old style philosophy were based on were validated as rehdorict merely because it is based on the idea that "God is real, therefore a philosophy that disproves him is wrong." This ment that arguements that were akin to the type of ones that said things against god were ruled as inccorect for solely that reason.

Aka, this implies that philosophy is not balanced.

Now don't get me wrong or anything, without a doubt god exists, but alot of our philosophy is therefore based on the whole black and white prihncipal. We leave no room for 'shadows and grey'. Basically meaning that modern philosphy is incorrectly based...

Though it does come to many of the right conclusions, our methods are biased.

[Queztatlapoca]

oh no....

Philosophy in and of itself without influence of any one man is completely unbiased. It uses reason and empirical data to reach, or attempt to reach, a conclusion. Today's philosophy isn't based on ideas that god must exist.

And now getting to another point. You say that without a doubt god exists. How much does god exist? or how does god exist? I will say that god can exist as an idea shared by many BUT there is no way of truly proving or disproving his actual existence

[Megell]

oh no....

Philosophy in and of itself without influence of any one man is completely unbiased. It uses reason and empirical data to reach, or attempt to reach, a conclusion. Today's philosophy isn't based on ideas that god must exist.

And now getting to another point. You say that without a doubt god exists. How much does god exist? or how does god exist? I will say that god can exist as an idea shared by many BUT there is no way of truly proving or disproving his actual existence

alright, lets put it this way, the chances of a cell developing in the universe by random assemmble in a perfect envorment is about 64^40-100. (look up mugen: Chance of random cell development for factual end.) This is in a perfect evorment, where everything is put in the right boxs so it happens. But the universe is not like this, so the odds of haing a planit capiable of this are something like 1/121^70million. Also, mathamatically the odds of a universe spawning in the first case are some 1/a astronomical number that can be fathomed. This imples that at very most, life should be simple singe celled organisms. However if we look into how structured the world is, then it aplly that to the mix.


Well I don't want to waste the entire forms memmorry in numbers. but lest put it this way. Without somesort of greater being creating us, then the odds of the universe randomly coming into existance are about the same of as you survining being struck by a truck, then set on fire, shot in the head several dozzen times with rocket launcher, then put in acid, thrown into a trash compactor, drawn and quartered, cancerized, and melted/nuked. And then walking away from it all without a scratch on your body.

If you feel like trying those odds, be my guest. Mathimatically all odds indicate there is a God. Though not nessicarily a nice one.

[Queztatlapoca]

merely disproving theory A does not prove theory B. Mathematically the odds (odds, being a chance/percentage of something occuring) say that it is improbable for a random cell to be formed. Not impossible, and on top of that how long has the universe existed? What if it(the big bang or whatever you want to call it) wasn't a beginning but another part of a cycle? What if the universe expands, like it still is, then contracts, like it will, to a point where all matter/energy is condensed upon itself and repells from itself at speeds faster than light because of magnets playing upon each other?

I once again will say this. God does not exist in a real malleable way. The idea gives people hope, answers, and strength to move on but he does not have an actual physical being. He exists as love exists, as the number 7 exists, as yesterday and tomorrow exist. No more, no less.

P.S. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

[Megell]

(Thank You! )

Your right of course, but the same holds true for the reverse. Also your overlooking a simple science term called akums razor. It states that the simpliest situation [mathimatically in this case,] tends to be the correct. In otherwords whats more likely, the odds being so infavorable that even if we put alevery second in history as a odd in its favor, the chance of the universe forming a cell is pratically nill. Then if we look at the odds of the universe even forming, again, nill. Then if we examine us, in a ordered world, the odds are even less then nill of use coming ot existance.

Or just a being that simply put together for whatever reason.

The simple thing is, God just makes sense. And trust me, I debated this topic for a long time. God isn't a concept like love or seven, he is a mathimatical fact.

[Queztatlapoca]

math also happens to contain a little number called "i". If you haven't heard of it, it is the square root of negative 1. An impossible number. And math is also something that only exists in our minds.

and i have debated this issue a long while to. I can "prove" god does not, nay, cannot exist.

[Caseyweederman]

"Occam's Razor" is a rule of thumb. As you said, Megell, "tends to be".
I would suggest that the existence of God is not the simplest answer, though I do believe He exists.

[Megell]

"dyslexic" razors much? lol, your forggetting that its pointless to correct my spelling.

Anyways, as I was saying, tends to be is a big word. It implies a fact greater then fifty percent in mathimatical values. So I could be wrong admittedly, the topics information is too vauge anyways to make a truely rock solid arguement either way. HOWEVER, the gambling odds are still significanlty in my favor.

[Queztatlapoca]

you're allowing chance to determine the existence of god? and what of your faith? using numbers to prove the existence of god makes him just that a mathematical proof. it takes away what the christian god is supposed to be (i think). Breaking your god down and examining him/her/it takes away what god is best at doing. Providing hope, or answers. Both science and religion say they have answers. Neither does.

[Megell]

Well philosphy has nothing to do with my faith. Its like this; math can prove that god exists to a reasonable level. However faith is what you view that god as, or lack of. For example, my faith is that I beleive god as what I view him as, not what other people view him as. I realize thats a little confusing, but its the only way to explain it. Fact is I know he exists, faith is saying I thing he is in this forum.

[Caseyweederman]

I wasn't correcting your spelling, Megell. I was referring to a subject you used, and in no way will I ever spell something wrong to make you feel better. The point that you missed was that Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb. As Queztatlapoca said, Occam's Razor (my own post, the right spelling, hope I don't STEP ON ANY TOES) deals with CHANCE ONLY. Occam's Razor is NOT proof or evidence for anything.

[Megell]

I wasn't correcting your spelling, Megell. I was referring to a subject you used, and in no way will I ever spell something wrong to make you feel better. The point that you missed was that Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb. As Queztatlapoca said, Occam's Razor (my own post, the right spelling, hope I don't STEP ON ANY TOES) deals with CHANCE ONLY. Occam's Razor is NOT proof or evidence for anything.

Yah, but regardless, the odds are just to good to ignore either way. Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, but because its that, it means in some cases it can be wrong. But most of the time its right. Its pointless to disagree with because its like saying "if I suffocate myself to dead, I will get up and live because I killed myself. Therefore as my killer, I must be alive." Its a redundent argument that relies on the play of words, and the ignoring of the odds.

Sure I can't prove it too fact. But I can prove it to the point that it coincides with the point, if you jump in front of a moving train. All odds are you will die. But I can't absolutely prove it.

[Drackir]

~Moving to rants and raves...and renaming that forum.~

[Queztatlapoca]

ok...listen

when dealing with past events you cannot use chance at all. The event either happened or didn't happen one way or another. Chance can only be used to predict future events

[Caseyweederman]

The past and the future are the same. There is one definite way things will happen. Chance is our way of trying to explain what we don't know.

[Megell]

Alright then, switch the word chance to probability, that solves the problem of the wording. Probability is in favor of god creating the universe. (And before you bite my head off for that, think about it. )

[Queztatlapoca]

....probability and chance mean the same thing...

[Megell]

Yes and no, probability = theo dds of something or happening, or something happend. Chance refers to the odds of it happening. Chance only infers the future. Probability implies outcomes.