|
What would you consider to be evidence for God?
|
 RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 14, 2016 at 2:50 pm
(This post was last modified: April 14, 2016 at 2:51 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(April 14, 2016 at 8:05 am)ChadWooters Wrote: A fairie is not that which the greater than which cannot be conceived. That which greater than can not be conceived of: Absolute happiness and pleasure + complete absence of unhappiness and pain for all conscious lifeforms. That is not a god. A god is a made up being.  (April 14, 2016 at 2:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The most basic definition of God comes from Anselm: God is that which the greater than which cannot be conceived.One issue I'd have here is that this implies that we can conceive of everything. In other words, if we can't conceive of it, it can't exist. But even ignoring that, and I accept that definition, there's a second problem. I could say the character of the Abrahamic holy books, Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah, is in fact a higher being, but since I can conceive of something greater than Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah, that character as described is not 'God'.  RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 14, 2016 at 7:21 pm
(This post was last modified: April 14, 2016 at 7:41 pm by ApeNotKillApe.)
(April 14, 2016 at 2:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(April 14, 2016 at 9:14 am)RozKek Wrote: Do you phrase like that on purpose to fry people's brains? Anselm? Seriously? Might as well consult a retarded tree stump.
I am John Cena's hip-hop album.
 RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 14, 2016 at 8:02 pm
(This post was last modified: April 14, 2016 at 8:04 pm by Simon Moon.)
(April 14, 2016 at 2:47 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(April 14, 2016 at 9:14 am)RozKek Wrote: Do you phrase like that on purpose to fry people's brains? When the Christian god is compared to mythological creatures, it is not done to compare the alleged attributes given to them. It is done because both the Christian god and other mythological creatures all fit into the set of, "unsupported and unevidenced existential supernatural claims". What you are trying to pass off as a defeater for the comparison is no different than unicorn believers arguing against someone who is comparing them, to say, fairies. "Unicorns are that which have magic blood greater than which cannot be conceived". I sure disarmed the comparison to fairies, didn't I? So no, your Anselm quote does not disarm comparisons between the Christian god and other mythological creatures. You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.  RE: What would you consider to be evidence for God?
April 14, 2016 at 8:19 pm
(This post was last modified: April 14, 2016 at 8:20 pm by Simon Moon.)
(April 14, 2016 at 8:10 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(April 14, 2016 at 8:02 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: So no, your Anselm quote does not disarm comparisons between the Christian god and other mythological creatures. As soon as your god is supported by demonstrable, falsifiable, verifiable evidence, then it will no longer be a member of the set of unevidenced and unsupported existential claims (along with other mythological creatures in that set), then we can talk. Again, not comparing the attributes given to various mythological creatures. Just comparing their lack of evidence. You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence. (April 14, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: As soon as your god mathematics is supported by demonstrable, falsifiable, verifiable evidence, then it will no longer be a member of the set of unevidenced and unsupported existential claims...then we can talk. I altered your quote. Falsifiability and empirical verification are not a requirements for all forms of knowledge. They do not apply to mathematics nor do they apply to logic nor philosophy. Without the findings of these branches of knowledge natural science would be baseless and impossible. 
Therefore "God", right?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
"God" has to be redefined into something actually falsifiable for there to be evidence for it.
And of course, that wouldn't prove any of the gods actually believed in. (April 14, 2016 at 8:37 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(April 14, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: As soon as your god mathematics is supported by demonstrable, falsifiable, verifiable evidence, then it will no longer be a member of the set of unevidenced and unsupported existential claims...then we can talk. Math may just be a concept of the mind. There are 3 ways something can be said to exist: 1. in reality 2. a concept of the mind 3. a product of language If you are claiming that your god is a concept of the mind, then we agree. You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
