(September 13, 2010 at 11:14 am)Liu Bei mixed with Leondias Wrote: I'd like address this in a differant order if you don't mind.

Sure

Quote:2. I am saying that concepts in the religion that don't make sense to me also factor in. i.e. the two good gods thing but there is still evil. Another thing I reject is if it is not possible, I reject the concept of a devil, for y would a honest, nice, peaceful god allow his people rot in hell for lack faith. That is one reason. This can go on for each religion you put in front of me exempt this one there for assuming any less is ignorant. Plus another reason is that the Religion spread(and is still alive) without bloodshed. We have no crimes against humanity.

Re: Two Good Gods and Evil.

The free will Theodicy can solve this problem to an extent quite persuasively, that being if God(s) wants to judge us on our moral actions, we cannot be determined puppet beings, so we must have free will in order to be "morally good" or "morally evil" - If God(s) require that we be Morally Good then there must be the opportunity of evil.

This doesn't solve the natural disaster or suffering innocence problems though.

Re: The devil:

Maybe God isn't omni-benevolent, that really is the only way this can work satisfactorily i agree.

Naturalism doesn't suffer any of these problems

Quote:4. The method I use is accurate because if religion is possible is a individual question for each religion.

You mean that we need to judge the veracity of each religious separately? I disagree, any theistic religions (that posit God) can be rejected due to a lack of reason for their existence, be it evidential or through logical necessity.

Quote:Then do you believe in its moral standards is another.

A religion could have permissible moral standards and still be false because the God does not exist - this simply means that the individuals who constructed the religion had good morals.

Quote: Then do you think it actually happened, thats another.

Agreed.

Quote: Then it is matter of which you believe. There is no way to prove religion.

There is no reason to believe religious claims, especially those pertaining to the existence of God.

Why do you believe you are reasonable in believing in your theology? I have asked you this specific question multiple times and all you seem to be able to go is point out flaws in other god concepts.

Quote:So we have to make ethical choices.

If one believes in a theology then they are more likely to consider the moral edicts of the religion to be "good" as they form the belief that it was god who dictated these morals, therefore they are less likely to be critical of such moral attitudes, and this leads to some of the most serious ethical issues ever established, such as being anit-abortion and the subsequent justification for bombing abortion clinics, denying Gays their rights, tribalism leading to separation and/or war etc.

If one believes in a theology and can provide no valid reason for doing so yet still follows the moral edicts to their natural conclusion, then they are often likely to do things that would be considered morally reprehensible in any meta-ethical theory, simply because they believe these edicts are commanded by a god.

I like to say we are having nice talk(THEVOID).
Ok so I think that it is reasonable to believe in religion because I know its impossible to dis/prove the gods. I can believe my self to believe that there is no afterlife. The reason I believe in my gods(or theogony as you put it) is because:
1.The creation story makes sense.
2.Polythiesism makes more sense than Monothiesm.
3.That I have a belief that I can feel the gods. But not in a personal sense.
4.Moral standards are geneuine(i.e. doesn't promote slavery)
5.No dogma.

---

"A religion could have permissible moral standards and still be false because the God does not exist - this simply means that the individuals who constructed the religion had good morals." Yeah but then if you are wrong atleast you believed in something that had good morals and was possible.
"There is no reason to believe religious claims, especially those pertaining to the existence of God. " Yes there is, because you can't disprove it either.
"You mean that we need to judge the veracity of each religious separately? I disagree, any theistic religions (that posit God) can be rejected due to a lack of reason for their existence, be it evidential or through logical necessity." I think so because every religion has differant applications and may have a good arguement. But if they didn't have any logic then well....

Hello?

(September 13, 2010 at 7:05 pm)Liu Bei mixed with Leondias Wrote: I like to say we are having nice talk(THEVOID).

Agreeed.

Quote:Ok so I think that it is reasonable to believe in religion because I know its impossible to dis/prove the gods. I can believe my self to believe that there is no afterlife. The reason I believe in my gods(or theogony as you put it) is because:
1.The creation story makes sense.

This is just personal credulity.

Firstly, just because something makes sense does not mean it is true, there are many concepts that make sense logically that are not believed by anyone to represent the existence of actual objects in reality, therefore this argument cannot be used as an indication of the truth of the proposition and thus is insufficient in forming rational belief.

Quote:2.Polythiesism makes more sense than Monothiesm.

How so? And like i said above, the fact that something makes sense does not mean it is true.

Also, the key question is not "does polytheism make more sense than monotheism" but "is polytheism more likely to be true than either Monotheism or non-theism" and to establish this you need a higher standard of evidence than simply assessing how much "sense" it makes to an individual.

Quote:3.That I have a belief that I can feel the gods. But not in a personal sense.

Ok, so what is this 'feeling' that you are attributing to Gods?

Do you have any evidence that this feeling was caused by a God? Is it logically necessary that a God caused this feeling?

If neither of the above are true then you have no good reason for holding this belief.

Quote:4.Moral standards are geneuine(i.e. doesn't promote slavery)

I agree that they are too, objective morality is achievable in Desire Utilitarianism (my preferred meta-ethical theory) without resulting to Gods or "intrinsic values" as objective standards though, so to claim that objective standards necessitate god's existence is once again fallacious.

Quote:5.No dogma.

---

This is not in any way related to the truth of a proposition. If Dogmatic God existed then Dogma would be expected. Since you have not shown that a dogmatic God does not exist, using the absence of Dogma as an argument for your theism qualifies as a bare assertion fallacy.

Quote:

Quote:"A religion could have permissible moral standards and still be false because the God does not exist - this simply means that the individuals who constructed the religion had good morals."

Yeah but then if you are wrong atleast you believed in something that had good morals and was possible.

If you believe that God is all good? As in the problem of evil? I agree that a god that is all-good is something that is contrary to reality. But this is not an argument for your theism, which is what i am waiting to see still.

Quote:

Quote:"There is no reason to believe religious claims, especially those pertaining to the existence of God. "

Yes there is, because you can't disprove it either.

Do you not see how flawed this reasoning is? Belief should be justified, there should be a positive case for the existence of such a being such as evidence indicating their existence or logical necessity for the existence. If one is justified in belief simply because something has not be disproved then i challenge you to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and if you cannot then by your own standards you should believe it to be true - Of course you don't however, and this just shows that you have a double standard, the argument that it cannot be disproved applies equally to both cases, yet you would not use the argument to attempt to justify a theology that is not your own.

Quote:

Quote:"You mean that we need to judge the veracity of each religious separately? I disagree, any theistic religions (that posit God) can be rejected due to a lack of reason for their existence, be it evidential or through logical necessity."

I think so because every religion has differant applications and may have a good arguement. But if they didn't have any logic then well....

But absolutely none of the arguments can demonstrate that a God or Gods necessarily exist, and if that cannot be done then the internal arguments based on that assumption are irrelevant. In other words if God(s) cannot be rationally believed to exist then every belief system based on that assumption also cannot be rationally believed to be true as the assumption of God in the arguments would be a bare-assertion fallacy.

Do you see what i'm getting at? Without first establishing the existence of God as a rational belief to hold, all subsequent beliefs are irrational.

I notice you still haven't provided any arguments for your theism specifically...

"This is just personal credulity.

Firstly, just because something makes sense does not mean it is true, there are many concepts that make sense logically that are not believed by anyone to represent the existence of actual objects in reality, therefore this argument cannot be used as an indication of the truth of the proposition and thus is insufficient in forming rational belief."
That is not exactly true, if something doesn't make sense then it can't be true. As an a logical sense... so it would be a good arguement.
"How so? And like i said above, the fact that something makes sense does not mean it is true.
Also, the key question is not "does polytheism make more sense than monotheism" but "is polytheism more likely to be true than either Monotheism or non-theism" and to establish this you need a higher standard of evidence than simply assessing how much "sense" it makes to an individual"
Well it is more likely according Occam's Razor it is. This is actually a reason I believe in hellenion. Because I believe in the law of cause and effect I think the Big Bang is a insuffient theory to the Universe, even though I think it is possible. While the contidiction in Monotheism are a plenty.
"Do you not see how flawed this reasoning is? Belief should be justified, there should be a positive case for the existence of such a being such as evidence indicating their existence or logical necessity for the existence. If one is justified in belief simply because something has not be disproved then i challenge you to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and if you cannot then by your own standards you should believe it to be true - Of course you don't however, and this just shows that you have a double standard, the argument that it cannot be disproved applies equally to both cases, yet you would not use the argument to attempt to justify a theology that is not your own."
You are comparing the Flying Spaghetti Monster to the Gods? Two problems with that. One the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is not a very old religion. Another problem is that Hellenion has a logical starting the Spaghetti Monster is monotheisic religion. I(as I said) don't think monotheism is logical answer to the universe.

Quote:That is not exactly true, if something doesn't make sense then it can't be true. As an a logical sense... so it would be a good argument.

It is perfectly true. Most of why concepts like relativity make sense to us now is because we have an understanding of them, when GR first emerged it didn't really make sense to anyone, regardless of the fact that it's a true description of large scale reality.

Quantum Mechanics still doesn't make sense to anyone, but the predictions it makes continually verify it's truth.

The concept of perpetual motion and cold fusion make sense just as much as God does, but none of these things are true.

So something can be true without making sense and can be false while it does make sense.

Therefore an argument from an ability to 'make sense' of the proposition simply cannot be used to conclude upon the truth of any proposition.

Quote:Well it is more likely according Occam's Razor it is.

Bullshit, Because you need to give each god properties, proposing several gods require more assumptions than one god.

Quote: This is actually a reason I believe in hellenion.

And as was expected, your reasoning is flawed.

Quote: Because I believe in the law of cause and effect I think the Big Bang is a insuffient theory to the Universe, even though I think it is possible.

And we have another fundamental misunderstanding:

The Big Bang model DOES NOT explain the origin of the universe, or the creation of something from nothing - It describes the emergence of space-time from the "singularity"

Quote: While the contidiction in Monotheism are a plenty.

And why is your polytheism more probable? You still haven't made a single argument, you've simply asserted this as being true.

Quote:One the Flying Spaghetti Monster, is not a very old religion.

This is a fallacy, the argument from antiquity: The age of a belief has no bearing on whether or no the belief is true. For this to be accepted as an argument against the FSM, and to use this standard consistently, you would also have to use this as an argument for Geocentrism, it has been believed for much much longer than Heliocentrism and if antiquity is relevant then this would have to be considered evidence for Geocentrisim.

However, since we know Geocentrism to be false, that from every frame of reference outside this planet the earth rotates the Sun, it must be said that antiquity is not necessarily true, therefore to use it as an argument for the existence of one god concept over another, or to disregard a more recent concepts, is entirely unjustified.

Quote: Another problem is that Hellenion has a logical starting the Spaghetti Monster is monotheisic religion. I(as I said) don't think monotheism is logical answer to the universe.

You have asserted that to be true, but you haven't provided a single good reason for your position.

by makes sense I mean it is possible and not improble. Now before you go and challanage that. It is not a improble answer that universe started in Chaos and gave birth to the Creators of Man. Based on another religions storys it is pretty probable.ex: The six day theory. The Big Bang theory(we will confront that later). Even the Sun and the Moon having kids to create the universe. This probabilty is based on possiblity of existance and logical sense, as I meant to say(this about the Quantum Mechanics arguement) things that are commonsense. You mean to tell me that it is possible that Ocean is enity and that its demigods(water towers) move around at night and a whole bunch exploded with the ocean in it and that is why Iron is 4th most common element on earth, is logical explanation for the universe, according to Peter Shinner(Godless) it is. As we know that is crazy explanation for universe and is definitly not possible, why? Not because of Science. We can't prove that wrong, but we can use common sense. BTW Perputal motion maybe possible according to some scientists. Because(they give a example in the laws of thermodynamics[the one that says that particles can pop in and out existance inside a atom]) that not all the laws are perfect.
"Bullshit, Because you need to give each god properties, proposing several gods require more assumptions than one god. "
Your reasoning is flawed. Polythiesm in general is not due to assumptions about each gods personlity, we don't assume to know very many things about the Gods nor do we pretend too(Monothiesm). We simply claim that are Gods are the creators of the the World as we know it and that they have jobs, but this no more cocky than any other religion or asserting that there is no higher creator. Polythiesm makes more sense than Monotheism because of the innocence problems. The Gods never claimed that theyed help us, so why should we say that it is the Gods working in mysterious ways(monothiesm). In fact there are many examples that the Gods like to get in the way(see pandoras box), but take favour amoung some mortals more than others. The lack of a devil also helps Polythiesm. Polythiesm doesn't claim that there is supreme being that is so strong, yet he lets there be sin, and let it run rampent. Also the Gods could have differing intrests and that would cause the world to get alitte iffy. Also the existance of God that is all loving and all forgiving and lets his people rot in hell(Monothiesm) is contary to reality.

The big bang, is according to theory, the event that lead to the formation of universe. Now there are many more problems then the cause and effect law, also the problem that information can't travel faster then the speed of light.Also known as the Horizon problem. Not to mention the Dark matter and energy problem and the flatness problem. And don't tell me about the Inflation theory, it has too many contridictions. BTW Space and time are 2 differnant varibles.
That is little bit childish. FSM is a 5 year old religion. Geocentrism is not true, we know that but think about this ok so there are only 2 problems with comparing Geocentrism with religion. One that if something is made up and completly no reason behind it, when is more likely to be made closer to the beginning of man, or toward the middle? Also another thing religion is not a scientific theory. So at comparing those things:

(September 22, 2010 at 11:01 pm)Liu Bei mixed with Leondias Wrote: by makes sense I mean it is possible and not improble. Now before you go and challanage that. It is not a improble answer that universe started in Chaos and gave birth to the Creators of Man.

1) If by "makes sense" you mean "possible and not improbable(likely)" then just say so - Calling it Making Sense is going to get you nowhere if that isn't what you actually mean.

2) Since man is less complex than Gods it is more probable that chaos created man and then man invented Gods.

Quote: Based on another religions storys it is pretty probable.ex: The six day theory. The Big Bang theory(we will confront that later). Even the Sun and the Moon having kids to create the universe

Just because one religious story of creation is dumber than your own one does not make your one more likely to be true.

Quote:. This probabilty is based on possiblity of existance and logical sense, as I meant to say(this about the Quantum Mechanics arguement) things that are commonsense.

Then specifically make your arguments from a likelihood of them being true.

Quote: You mean to tell me that it is possible that Ocean is enity and that its demigods(water towers) move around at night and a whole bunch exploded with the ocean in it and that is why Iron is 4th most common element on earth, is logical explanation for the universe, according to Peter Shinner(Godless) it is. As we know that is crazy explanation for universe and is definitly not possible,

Of course it's not possible, it's complete stupidity.

Quote:why? Not because of Science. We can't prove that wrong, but we can use common sense.

This is well within the abilities of science to disprove.

Oceans are large bodies of water containing various molecules and chemicals. Such things are not intelligent.

'Water Towers' do not have the energy required to create iron. This requires nuclear fusion.

Quote: BTW Perputal motion maybe possible according to some scientists. Because(they give a example in the laws of thermodynamics[the one that says that particles can pop in and out existance inside a atom]) that not all the laws are perfect.

lol at your use of thermodynamics, especially since i am about to use thermodynamics to disprove perpetual motion.

The first law of thermodynamics states (simply put) that energy can neither be created or destroyed.
Perpetual motion requires the creation of energy.
Perpetual motion is false.

Particles 'popping into existence' are called virtual particles, they are each the antithesis of each other, one negative one positive. The net energy is zero. Therefore no energy was created.

Quote:Your reasoning is flawed. Polythiesm in general is not due to assumptions about each gods personlity, we don't assume to know very many things about the Gods nor do we pretend too(Monothiesm). We simply claim that are Gods are the creators of the the World as we know it and that they have jobs, but this no more cocky than any other religion or asserting that there is no higher creator.

1) Atheism isn't a religion, it's the rejection of God claims.

2) Nobody asserts that there "is no creator", we only say that the reasons provided for the existence of such a being are complete bullshit.

Quote: Polythiesm makes more sense than Monotheism because of the innocence problems. The Gods never claimed that theyed help us, so why should we say that it is the Gods working in mysterious ways(monothiesm).

Who gives a shit? You need to provide reasons for your polytheism, not just reasons why polytheism is less dumb than monotheism.

Quote: In fact there are many examples that the Gods like to get in the way(see pandoras box), but take favour amoung some mortals more than others. The lack of a devil also helps Polythiesm. Polythiesm doesn't claim that there is supreme being that is so strong, yet he lets there be sin, and let it run rampent. Also the Gods could have differing intrests and that would cause the world to get alitte iffy. Also the existance of God that is all loving and all forgiving and lets his people rot in hell(Monothiesm) is contary to reality.

Again, who gives a shit? This isn't an argument for polytheism.

Quote:The big bang, is according to theory, the event that lead to the formation of universe.

No, it isn't. It's the beginning of spacetime.

See the first law of thermodynamics again, energy is neither created or destroyed, it only changes form. The emergence of spacetime was a change in form. The net energy is identical to when it started therefore the universe never "began".

Quote: Now there are many more problems then the cause and effect law, also the problem that information can't travel faster then the speed of light. Also known as the Horizon problem.

The horizon problem was solved by inflation.

Quote: Not to mention the Dark matter and energy problem

Problems for what? They aren't problems:

1) Dark matter is heavy matter that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum and therefore is not visible.

2) Dark energy is the constant Lambda - What is the problem you think this presents for big bang cosmology?

Quote:and the flatness problem.

The flatness of the universe isn't a problem

Quote: And don't tell me about the Inflation theory,

"Don't tell me about the theory that solves the problem" in other words.

You should look at the non-uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation - This was predicted by the inflationary model of the big bang and was verified as an extremely accurate prediction (to the 7th decimal place by WISE), a prediction that wasn't accounted for by any other big bang model.

What are the chances of inflationary model correctly making such a prediction with such a high degree of accuracy if it were not true? Extremely improbable. Conclusion? The inflationary model of the big bag is most likely true.

Quote: it has too many contridictions.

What contradictions? I guarantee any you present are misunderstandings, as the inflationary model is internally consistent.

Quote: BTW Space and time are 2 differnant varibles.

lol, if you want to be specific they are 4 variables in the standard model (x, y, z, t) and 11 in M-Theory.

Though just considering you thought it was clever to bring this up shows you don't have a clue what spacetime actually referrers to, which is the impression i get from all your arguments in physics.

Quote:That is little bit childish. FSM is a 5 year old religion.

A 5 year old parody religion. And that doesn't matter, I just wanted to show that arguing against it from antiquity is a fallacy.

Quote:Geocentrism is not true, we know that but think about this ok so there are only 2 problems with comparing Geocentrismtrism with religion.

You really don't get it do you? I was showing why your argument from antiquity was a fallacy, because antiquity supports Geocentrism and if antiquity is in any way indicative of the truth of a proposition (which is what you tried to use it for) then we must see antiquity as an argument for Geocentrism. Since Geocentrism is false antiquity is not indicative of the truth an is thus not a good argument against the existence of the FSM.

Quote: One that if something is made up and completly no reason behind it, when is more likely to be made closer to the beginning of man, or toward the middle?

And you use an argument from Antiquity AGAIN!

1) Where in the course of the existence of man the idea was conceived of does not contribute towards the truth of the proposition.

2) If this was true then you shouldn't be using any physics as an argument, because physics is less antique than blaming it on angels and demons.

You not only don't seem to get why antiquity is a useless argument, you are completely inconsistent in your application of it!

Quote: Also another thing religion is not a scientific theory. So at comparing those things:

*Yawn* The comparison was to demonstrate a flaw in your reasoning, something that applies to both apriori and aposteriori arguments. The fact that one example was science and one was religion is completely irrelevant - I could have used any case in history and philosophy and demonstrated the exact same point.

And after all of this you STILL haven't provided an argument for the existence of your polytheism.

Again:

1) I do not give a shit if your polytheism is less dumb than monotheism because it says nothing about whether your polytheism is true.

2) Any argument that is fallacious (such as your arguments from antiquity) cannot be used to conclude upon the truth of the proposition in question.

This conversation is WAY more complicated than it needs to be.

People bypass logic to get to religion. That's why it's a "leap of faith".

Religion will die out naturally as science pushes it further into a corner.

One day religion will seem funny to us.

(let's just hope it doesn't kill us all first)

If someone comes here with a sincere argument for God i'm not just going to dismiss them for such ascenine reasons.