Spirituality
26 Mar 12
27 Mar 12
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagea) unless you count some (shady, granted) accounts of the life of jesus no, there is no rational basis
a) Is there a rational basis for the belief that God exists?
b) Is belief-in-the-existence-of-God synonymous with having faith / being faithful?
b) since there is no proof of god, if we believe in him then all we have is faith
27 Mar 12
Originally posted by ZahlanziJesus is only relevant to the Christian God. Discounting that one, does not discount any of the others.
a) unless you count some (shady, granted) accounts of the life of jesus no, there is no rational basis
b) since there is no proof of god, if we believe in him then all we have is faith
--- Penguin
27 Mar 12
true that, i shouldn't have based my reply on a particular faith.
however most religions have some obscure mythical person they hold to have actually existed. they are willing to believe nonetheless because they have faith.
they why has to do with a desire to have meaning in their lives, more so than "i don't know" or "it's all a cosmic lottery, there is no meaning but the one you make yourself"
27 Mar 12
Originally posted by JS357To put it simply, in the words of Hindu saints and philosophers, God is beyond human mind's capacity to conceive completely or correctly, let alone describe in words. Hindu philosophy, however, asserts that God exists.
BdN: "My response: To say that God exists is to deny God."
Sounds apophatic to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology
quote:
Neither existence nor nonexistence as we understand it in the physical realm, applies to God; i.e., the Divine is abstract to the individual, beyond existing or not existing, and beyond conceptualization rega ...[text shortened]... of space and location.
God is not conceptually confined to assumptions based on time.
27 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobOne cannot calculate for the existence or non existence of something based on abstract
What do you reckon the odds are for your God existing? Can you give me a figure, or have you not done that calculation?
terms, for probability it appears to me is linked to an event, as in rolling a dice, flipping
a coin, getting the correct sequence of amino acids to form a protein molecule etc, it
therefore becomes apparent , that God, existing out-with the constraints of time cannot
be made subject to an particular event and the appraisal of a mathematical probability.
27 Mar 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI take that as a no then.
One cannot calculate for the existence or non existence of something based on abstract
terms, for probability it appears to me is linked to an event, as in rolling a dice, flipping
a coin, getting the correct sequence of amino acids to form a protein molecule etc, it
therefore becomes apparent , that God, existing out-with the constraints of ti ...[text shortened]... cannot
be made subject to an particular event and the appraisal of a mathematical probability.
Continuing with odds, there are 100 million sperm (on average) in one male ejaculation. So the odds of the sperm from your Dad that carried the genetic material to make you reaching the egg inside your Mum is 1 in 100,000,000. I make it approximately 200 generations to get back to the 6000 years you believe humans have lived on this planet. So that's 200 generations of 100,000,000 to 1 odds to trace down your family tree arriving at you here today, i make that odds of 1 in 1 followed by 1600 zeros, a colossal number but yet here you are playing chess. Using your logic you shouldn't believe you exist.
27 Mar 12
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAlso, as in the Upanishads, " Yato vacho nivartante, aprapya, manasa sah ". Meaning " From where the faculty of speech and the mind retreat, (knowing it to be) unreachable." You are quite clued into Hindu philosophy, great to know and thanks for that.
Neti ... neti ...
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Mar 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAnd would the 'materialism' these books refer to be about 'overcoming' something that could be seen as
I am reading not a few books at present and not by coincidence every one is designed
to help one overcome materialism!
synonymous with consumerism and trying to buy happiness through shopping and credit cards?
OR are they talking about 'overcoming' the view that the reality we see around us is (as far as we can tell
or detect) all that there is and that we are the physical product of our brains?
Because if your books are about the 'evils of consumerism' or similar then you are not talking about the
same thing I am when I talk about materialism.
How you define the word changes the meaning of what you are talking about.
What does the word materialist mean in these books you are reading?
Is it by any chance some conflation of two or more definitions so the books start out by pointing out the
'evils of consumerism' and capitalism and then having banged on about how bad these things are swiftly
switches the meaning of materialism to mean that the natural physical world is all there is, assume that this
requires the consumerism you have just trash talked, and thus claim that this other meaning is also therefore
trashed, and go on to claim that thus there must be god...
They wouldn't do anything like that would they?
27 Mar 12
3 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobThe thing is - even that is a generous probability; since for his mum and dad to initially meet and get on they had to be in a particular place with a particular frame of mind - the latter of course depending upon the events that had taken place earlier that day (and of course their frame of mind earlier that day also). But these happening are dependent upon the events which took place, for each of them separately, the day prior (and of course their reactions to them as they happened). This chain of dependencies goes back as far as they have lived. But then you also have to play the same game for his parents' parents, and then their parents, and so on....
I take that as a no then.
Continuing with odds, there are 100 million sperm (on average) in one male ejaculation. So the odds of the sperm from your Dad that carried the genetic material to make you reaching the egg inside your Mum is 1 in 100,000,000. I make it approximately 200 generations to get back to the 6000 years you believe humans have lived l number but yet here you are playing chess. Using your logic you shouldn't believe you exist.
Then one has to think about the odds of all these events happening (and of course the events that caused them to happen, and so on..), in the right order, over the course of 6000 (*cough*) years.
Indeed you could probably square the square of those 1600 zeros and we'd still have a very generous probability that Robbie Carrobie would be around today spouting the same old creationist nonsense!
27 Mar 12
5 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de Nagea) No rational basis. The majority of the earth's population are, for the most part, insane.....except for a few odd balls like you.
a) Is there a rational basis for the belief that God exists?
b) Is belief-in-the-existence-of-God synonymous with having faith / being faithful?
b) Why ask any more questions? It's not like you are going to get a "rational" response is it? Have you ever tried arguing with someone who is not rational? In fact, is this approach rational?
So what is to be done with the vast majority of people without the ability to reason? Should we medicate them or sedate them or perhaps a surgical intervention of some sort. Hmmm?
27 Mar 12
Originally posted by Proper Knobits hardly the same as making life from non life, is it!
I take that as a no then.
Continuing with odds, there are 100 million sperm (on average) in one male ejaculation. So the odds of the sperm from your Dad that carried the genetic material to make you reaching the egg inside your Mum is 1 in 100,000,000. I make it approximately 200 generations to get back to the 6000 years you believe humans have lived ...[text shortened]... l number but yet here you are playing chess. Using your logic you shouldn't believe you exist.
27 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeits encompasses all of these aspects for they are not entirely unrelated. It may be
And would the 'materialism' these books refer to be about 'overcoming' something that could be seen as
synonymous with consumerism and trying to buy happiness through shopping and credit cards?
OR are they talking about 'overcoming' the view that the reality we see around us is (as far as we can tell
or detect) all that there is and that we are th aim that thus there must be god...
They wouldn't do anything like that would they?
proven, although i have failed in my attempts before, to plot the correlation between
Consumerism and Darwinism!
27 Mar 12
Originally posted by Agergwhether its nonsense or not agers, is not the point, it forms a rational basis,
The thing is - even that is a generous probability; since for his mum and dad to initially meet and get on they had to be in a particular place with a particular frame of mind - the latter of course depending upon the events that had taken place earlier that day (and of course their frame of mind earlier that day also). But these happening are dependent upon t ...[text shortened]... ability that Robbie Carrobie would be around today spouting the same old creationist nonsense!
irrespective of whether you agree with the rationale or otherwise.