15 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasEvery time you use your mind in order to find out what you ignore there is not such a thing as "win" or "loss". This procedure is like using your car to go somewhere -you just have to drive with accuracy whilst driving, paying attention all the time in order to avoid accidents. If you are too carefull and very experienced and time rich and healthy and young and a bit lucky and with a good car on a well paved road and with your beloved company and with the music you like the most and with some money in your pocket you could even enjoy the journey once the whether is sweet😵
Four yes vs three no - does that mean I win?
So it means that, no matter of the properties of "god", there is a well accepted definition for this invention of the Human that can give a shape to the specific idea behind it. It also means that we may start talking about "god" and to adjust or even fine tune this shape, just as we may do for everything, even when the primal definition is obscure or lacks of further pieces of information or keeps us kinda separated, for there are dialectic techniques that they can boost us from what we ignore to what we know or to what we are kindly requested to come to know😵
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleYes...?
Every time you use your mind in order to find out what you ignore there is not such a thing as "win" or "loss". This procedure is like using your car to go somewhere -you just have to drive with accuracy whilst driving, paying attention all the time in order to avoid accidents. If you are too carefull and very experienced and time rich and healthy and y ...[text shortened]... from what we ignore to what we know or to what we are kindly requested to come to know😵
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleI would be more comfortable with:
The fact that there are differ religions means not that there is not a universal definition of "god". In general, we all know that "god" is considered the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe; the theists attribute to this supernatural existence the virtues of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence, they claim that s/he ...[text shortened]... hat jazz.
I have no problem at all to accept this definition amongst else, for starters😵
"god": a entity (not necessarily the only one believed to be in existence) with supernatural powers that some people believe in and possibly worship.
"God": a single entity with supernatural powers that some people believe in and possibly worship.
Beyond that one really has to start specifying which religions or groups of religions one is talking about.
I think it is ridiculous to try to prove that the general 'god' does not exist as it is simply too vague a definition (though none the less useful). However, for a specific religion, the combination of the word "God" and the stated claims of the religion results in a far more specific definition for which we often can find evidence against its existence - or even better simply show that the religions definition is incoherent.
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadSure thing;
I would be more comfortable with:
"god": a entity (not necessarily the only one believed to be in existence) with supernatural powers that some people believe in and possibly worship.
"God": a single entity with supernatural powers that some people believe in and possibly worship.
Beyond that one really has to start specifying which religions or groups ...[text shortened]... its existence - or even better simply show that the religions definition is incoherent.
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis seems to be a good approach.
I would be more comfortable with:
"god": a entity (not necessarily the only one believed to be in existence) with supernatural powers that some people believe in and possibly worship.
"God": a single entity with supernatural powers that some people believe in and possibly worship.
Beyond that one really has to start specifying which religions or groups ...[text shortened]... its existence - or even better simply show that the religions definition is incoherent.
Definition: "'god': a entity with supernatural powers that some people believe in and possibly worship."
(Do we agree of the definition of 'supernatural powers'? Yes, I think we do.)
If there is a method of proving the existance of this 'god', or proving the non-existance of this 'god', I would be very happy. I think it's much harder to prove the non-existance (*), so in my opinion we have to focus to prove the existance. If this fail, then we don't know anything, but if we succeed, then we know a lot.
(*) Why is it so hard to prove a non-existance? If we want to prove the non-existance of a three legged bird we have to examine every bird that exist. If we do that, hw can we be sure that there is not another one not yet found? Is it enough to find most of the birds, and not all? But it's enough to find one single bird with three legs to show there are such birds. However, they haven't shown that there are more than one by just finding one three legged bird.
To prove one god, doesn't matter which, disproves the non-existance. But it doesn't say if this god is the only one or if there are more of them fitting the definition of 'god'.
Those who say that god exist must have a really easy task to provide the data, but none has done this so far. Many have tried though.
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasNo need to get lost into endless phrastical labyrinths.
This seems to be a good approach.
Definition: "'god': a entity with supernatural powers that some people believe in and possibly worship."
(Do we agree of the definition of 'supernatural powers'? Yes, I think we do.)
If there is a method of proving the existance of this 'god', or proving the non-existance of this 'god', I would be very happy. I think ...[text shortened]... sk to provide the data, but none has done this so far. Many have tried though.
The Problem that caused the invention of "god" is mainly the lack of knowledge. The theists just refuse to accept that in order to answer each "because" we need time, and that probably some "because" will be found (if they finally will be...) after a long time.
However I see no reason why I have to attribute whatever I ignore to "god"😵
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasHow will you proceed with this Problem? How do you cope with your lack of knowledge?
This seems to be a good approach.
Definition: "'god': a entity with supernatural powers that some people believe in and possibly worship."
(Do we agree of the definition of 'supernatural powers'? Yes, I think we do.)
If there is a method of proving the existance of this 'god', or proving the non-existance of this 'god', I would be very happy. I think ...[text shortened]... sk to provide the data, but none has done this so far. Many have tried though.
I follow methods and I do not create a system -"god" is merely a closed sustem. My method is to become aware of what I see, and then I focus on it. I avoid to build a system that contains the so called "Absolute Truth". If this kind of Absolute Truth really exists but we cannot perceive it just because our mental power is limited, it is definately covered behind a previous manifestation or a previous existence; this previous existence is not a manifestation without cause but the first manifestation at the level of the physical world (t=0 smiles in front of us but it is still unreachable).
Now, somebody is free to bow to the Theology and worship the old "wise" Abrahamic "god" who sits on his throne and blahblahblah, whilst the scientist will go a bit further, the philosopher will be able to reach the Absolute through his mataphysics and the meditator will try to grasp the plexus of his holistic understanding through his mind along with his non-conceptual awareness -but that's all. For the time being, it seems to me that there is no "god" that Philosophy and Science can prove her/ his/ its existence😵
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetle"How will you proceed with this Problem?" You mean how to prove the existance of god? I don't. It's not my problem. Others who want to prove it scientifically has that problem.
How will you proceed with this Problem? How do you cope with your lack of knowledge?
I follow methods and I do not create a system -"god" is merely a closed sustem. My method is to become aware of what I see, and then I focus on it. I avoid to build a system that contains the so called "Absolute Truth". If this kind of Absolute Truth really exists bu ...[text shortened]... hat there is no "god" that Philosophy and Science can prove her/ his/ its existence😵
I still say that you cannot prove the existance of god scientifically, nor the non-existance. Of the sole reason that you cannot ever mix religion with science.
But if someone really can come up with a scientific proof, I would be happy! So anyone who tries, I gladly help.
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasYeppers.
"How will you proceed with this Problem?" You mean how to prove the existance of god? I don't. It's not my problem. Others who want to prove it scientifically has that problem.
I still say that you cannot prove the existance of god scientifically, nor the non-existance. Of the sole reason that you cannot ever mix religion with science.
But if someon ...[text shortened]... y can come up with a scientific proof, I would be happy! So anyone who tries, I gladly help.
Religion and Science are not inherent characteristics of the Human but merely products of his mind, both caused during his interpretation of the physical world and of the nature of her/ himself. They are just two different ways the Human uses in order to solve the Problem; one is free to pick the first or the latter😵
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleDo I sense something here?
...and many feel free to pick or to avoid both😵
I say that religion cannot ever be a part of science, right? If it is, then the least we can demand from such a science is that the most essential part of believing there is a god is to prove his existance scientifically. If not, it's not much of a science, is it?
He, who still says religioin is a science, has the burden to provide a proof of the existance of god. Not me. I cannot prove anything I don't believe in, can I?
So anyone who clamis that religion can be treated scientifically has to prove the most fundamental thing of it all - the existance of god. If he succeed, then we go from there. Else, I still think that religion cannot ever be a part of religion.
So it's not that I am lazy, but because I believe it is impossible. Hence: not a part of science.
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasScience and Religion are just two different mental approaches of the Human on her/ his way to understanding. The Human is the agent who determines the aspects of the Religion just the way s/he likes, whilst this same Human uses Science in order to overcome her/ his ignorance.
Do I sense something here?
I say that religion cannot ever be a part of science, right? If it is, then the least we can demand from such a science is that the most essential part of believing there is a god is to prove his existance scientifically. If not, it's not much of a science, is it?
He, who still says religioin is a science, has the burden t ...[text shortened]... t's not that I am lazy, but because I believe it is impossible. Hence: not a part of science.
In my opinion Religion is meaningless because it is the fruit of a specific kind of hope and of ignorance distributed through axioms that they have to be accepted blindly "as is". I never had a debate at which I could not demonstrate this fact.
However, Religion and Science can mix allright, because they are both related to the struggle of the Human to overcome the Problem. This is the reason why Religion confronts Science and Science confronts Religion, whilst the theists refuse the scientific finds and evidence that reinforce their beliefs and at the same time they dismiss the ones that they do not cope with their religious views😵
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by black beetleOh, I have to make a correction at the last paragraph of my abv post.
Science and Religion are just two different mental approaches of the Human on her/ his way to understanding. The Human is the agent who determines the aspects of the Religion just the way s/he likes, whilst this same Human uses Science in order to overcome her/ his ignorance.
In my opinion Religion is meaningless because it is the fruit of a specific ...[text shortened]... and at the same time they dismiss the ones that they do not cope with their religious views😵
Correct is: "...whilst the theists refuse to accept the scientific finds and evidence that don't reinforce their beliefs..."
Excuse me for the inconvenience🙂
15 Apr 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasAs I pointed out previously the easiest solution is to prove that the definition of the God in question is incoherent.
This seems to be a good approach.
Definition: "'god': a entity with supernatural powers that some people believe in and possibly worship."
(Do we agree of the definition of 'supernatural powers'? Yes, I think we do.)
If there is a method of proving the existance of this 'god', or proving the non-existance of this 'god', I would be very happy. I think ...[text shortened]... e. If this fail, then we don't know anything, but if we succeed, then we know a lot.
For example 'supernatural' is in itself an incoherent word and practically on its own renders most gods non existent.
Have you watched that Monty Python movie (I forget which one) where God disappears in a puff of logic?