20% cooler!

Join a laid-back, close-knit community of mixed interests Get a free account!

  1. #454772012-12-28 08:41:18 *Mairu said:

    @Pigboss I just believe in stuff that have doubt in it. In God, there is no doubt nor proof. Doubt makes it real, in my opinion. Something that is not doubtful is not a thing at all. That's it really.

  2. #454802012-12-28 08:46:19 *Mairu said:

    @PigBoss His philosophy on Doubt is what I mean. Mine is just a bit different.

    Descartes attempted to address the former issue via his method of doubt. His basic strategy was to consider false any belief that falls prey to even the slightest doubt. This “hyperbolic doubt” then serves to clear the way for what Descartes considers to be an unprejudiced search for the truth. This clearing of his previously held beliefs then puts him at an epistemological ground-zero. From here Descartes sets out to find something that lies beyond all doubt. He eventually discovers that “I exist” is impossible to doubt and is, therefore, absolutely certain. It is from this point that Descartes proceeds to demonstrate God’s existence and that God cannot be a deceiver. This, in turn, serves to fix the certainty of everything that is clearly and distinctly understood and provides the epistemological foundation Descartes set out to find.

  3. #454822012-12-28 08:52:08Ethereal said:

    Definitely. I've seen too much to not believe in God. Miracles at their finest that only God could produce. It's naive to believe so much could just fall together without a more divine power beyond our understanding to say the least, and when people say they do not believe in God because of hardships they have gone through it makes me sick that they don't have even the slightest understanding. There have been plenty of people that claim they have done things in the name of God that I do not agree with, and but those people are not God regardless if they claim their actions for such.

    Also, in a simplistic view that I'm sure many may not understand, if you don't believe in God what do you believe in? Nothing? Science? Well, either way. . . If you do not believe in a more divine power how do you explain our creation in the slightest? You mean to say we evolved, well, if you want to argue that go right ahead. However, where did what we evolved came from? Oh? The Big Bang? Or w/e nonsense, it all boils down to this --- Where did what come from? Eventually it boils down to something had to be here forever. Now, either way you can say the Universe and particles or some sort of BS have been around forever. But think for a second, can you comprehend that? That particles were around forever. Where did those particles come from? No where?

    Man, or rather, science, seems to think there is an answer for everything. That you can come to a logical conclusion the entire way, when in fact, at least the way they are currently doing it (by asking where what came from aka -- Humans = Monkies = Some sort of fish organism = particles, etc) you eventually arrive at a conclusion that makes absolutely no sense.

    The only reasonable explanation is a power that we can not comprehend. A power or being far beyond our understanding that can have really been around forever to make everything happen and fall in place as it such has. A power or being that of which is divine.

    So yes, I very much so believe in God. Countless times has it been proven to me through my very eyes through the events that have shaped me.

    Also, one last joke that I feel might be somewhat appropriate for this topic. (Forgive me if it's not exactly the same it may really be, but I feel it gives the general idea)

    A man was stranded at sea. A sailor on a ship came by and asked the man, "Do you need help? Why not hop on board?" The man replied, "No thanks. God will save me." Later on, some people on a cruise stumble upon the guy and ask, "You there! Shall I call the captain to bring you on board? You look like you're in quite the predicament!" He replied, "No thank you. God will save me." Finally, after getting weary, a helicopter spots the man and goes down to help. The man replies, "Thank you, but God will save me" and refused to go with them. Finally, the man drowned, and asked, "God, why didn't you come to save me when I was drowning?" God replied, "I sent you two boats and a helicopter."

  4. #454842012-12-28 08:58:40PigBoss said:

    @Mairu_Orihara I do have great respect for the philosophers of the past, but it does not make them correct, and in time there are philosophers that prove even the greatest minds of their time how wrong they are. I am here to ask of CL's opinions and asking them why/how they back it up.

    I deny Rene Descartes's logic because he uses circular logic to prove that there is a benevolent God: a fallacy.

    Using Rene's own logic, I cannot believe in Rene's logic because a part of his logic is flawed, thus I will completely reject Rene's thoughts altogether.

    I hope you reply. I'd like to start up a nice discussion :)

  5. #454852012-12-28 08:59:54PigBoss said:

    @Rune I am just asking for your opinion and --if you want to-- your reasoning behind your opinion.

    So far, you said that you do not believe in a divine being.

  6. #454872012-12-28 09:04:21PigBoss said:

    @Ethereal Whao.. Thank you for the effort of answering my question, but I have a few points to talk about if you may.

    I'll copy/paste your comment and reply after each paragraph or so.

  7. #454892012-12-28 09:04:25Rune said:

    @PigBoss

    My reasoning is quite simple: I chose not to. I have no philosophical backing whatsoever.

    You could say I hate it and since it thrives on people's beliefs, I choose not to believe because fuck it.

  8. #454972012-12-28 09:21:38 *Deftones said:

    I do believe in a creator. I believe that this whole universe is simulated by a super computer, that computer was made by an IT guy. Our god is a IT guy. But if you think about it, what if their universe is simulated? And we are just a simulation running within a simulation.

    http://i.imgur.com/YkyXk.jpg

  9. #454992012-12-28 09:24:26PigBoss said:

    Definitely. I've seen too much to not believe in God. Miracles at their finest that only God could produce. It's naive to believe so much could just fall together without a more divine power beyond our understanding to say the least, and when people say they do not believe in God because of hardships they have gone through it makes me sick that they don't have even the slightest understanding. There have been plenty of people that claim they have done things in the name of God that I do not agree with, and but those people are not God regardless if they claim their actions for such.

    What I got from this paragraph is that God creates miracles. My opinion is that miracles are created by chance/possibility, but the possibility that God has to do with it cannot be proven or disproven.

    I am going to bring up some historical information. Since the beginning of recorded history, which is defined by the invention of writing by the Sumerians around 6000 years ago, historians have cataloged over 3700 supernatural beings, of which 2870 can be considered deities.

    Coming back to the possibility idea, my question is this: out of the 2870 gods mentioned, what are the chances that one of them is a true god? What are the chances that more than one of them (multi-theism) are true gods?

    Also, what are the chances that none of them are true gods?

    What is the chance that there is/are a god/gods, but it is not what any human portrayed it/them?

    If god exists, does he have to matter? Literally. Should it be incarnated into matter (which takes space and weighs)?

    What if god is something that cannot be weighed nor measured (that is to say, does he "exist")?

    What is your definition of "existence"? If god is not anything palpable (able to touch-matter), could he be matterless?

    Being god implies an all knowing supreme being. Could he possibly be the space between all matter, that which is why he can observe everything and anything? Or is he embodied in each and every particle in existence?

    Could he be the alpha and the omega, everything (matter), and nothing (the space between all matter)?

  10. #455022012-12-28 09:48:37Ethereal said:

    @PigBoss for your opening statement you are correct that there is no "proof" of any of it, if you take proof in it's absolute most literal form. In which I will answer you that nothing is absolute or "proven." Nothing. At all. Scientists have "proven" things before just to later find out it was the furthest thing from proof. The closest thing to being proved is that you exist. Be it in the reality you think you are, or in someone's imagination, or in some simulator, you exist. Somewhere.

    The reason I take the miracles I have seen and experienced as an actual miracle rather than coincidence or chance is because they are either something so rare, or even something unimaginable, that the "chance" of being a chance is far more unlikely than the possibility of it being a miracle -- A fast example is a dear old friend of mine. She had a disease of a sort ( I don't recall the name and also am no longer in contact with her, so I will leave it up for you to decide if this is some BS story to help prove my point, though I would at least ask for the courtesy for the likelyhood of it to be taken into consideration) She went to several doctors and they all told her the same thing,about her chances of living being slim to none. And that none ever had before. Not a single person with it. But, she was a strong believer, and she eventually overcame it. If you are sincere in understanding this and would wish to speak with her about her story, I will more than gladly help you get in contact with her to ask her yourself. The other reason I see them as miracles, more so than merely chance, is when and why they seem to happen. Because the miracles only come when they are needed. I have yet to see something miraculous happen in a moment it has no place. Also, do you have any respect for detectives? I personally do, and I've heard one of their mottos to be something along the line, " Detectives do not believe in mere chance " (I believe that they even said that in a batman movie but I am not positive on that, not that being in a batman movie makes it true, but I see it as a good saying)

    As for the 2870 question, I am a bit puzzled the mere question itself as I do not see God as a mere event. If you mean to say there are 2870 divine creatures that people as a whole believe in world wide, when combined and all mixed together, I cannot give you mathematical answers. However, I can say this: If so much has happened as to make people believe in so many beings world wide that are of a divine power then I should think it be obvious, considering how many "coincidences" or "chances" that may have occured to make people believe this constant idea of a divine being through out the world. Keeping in mind those are only ones noted in history. Do you believe everything is documented in history?

    As for does God have matter, I regret to admit I am no scholar, nor read my Bible as often I should. Although, I will say this. Heaven is described as being an unimaginable place, beyond any person's wildest dreams. That being said, I feel God is also something we cannot imagine up. God may be matter, or may be something more than matter. A matter more real than that of what we see as matter but do not imagine of in.

    I do not personally have beliefs that God is all matter and lives in everything, however, I do see reason how some could see it as such.

    And yes.

  11. #455032012-12-28 10:01:08Kirn said:

    I have seen too much to believe in any divine power. All the greatest miracles, mysteries and fuck-ups are created by accidents and humans. Who are also accidents themselves.

    I do, however, believe in God as in one of human creations. And it is quite a feat, really, to create actual belief out of nothing. But from this point of view I equally believe in all gods - Christian God, Ancient Egypt gods, Japanese spirits, Norse Pantheon (me favorite bastards), Indian totems and African trickster gods.

  12. #455042012-12-28 10:04:35 *PigBoss said:

    Also, in a simplistic view that I'm sure many may not understand, if you don't believe in God what do you believe in? Nothing? Science? Well, either way. . . If you do not believe in a more divine power how do you explain our creation in the slightest? You mean to say we evolved, well, if you want to argue that go right ahead.

    Belief is defined as "(Noun) 1. An acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. 2. Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction."

    Now, I am sure there are people out there that believe in science, those that believe in religion, and also those that believe in both. I don't know if you can believe in nothing. I don't know if that is even possible.

    You have to realize that science is not perfect. I cannot say the same for god because I do not have enough information on it and I do not know for certain if it does "exist." I will stray away from

    Science is defined as this: "(Noun) The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural..."

    Science and religion, at the very core, are one and the same; they are systems of beliefs that attempt to explain everything.

    Those that study and work in the scientific community seek the truth of everything. Everything includes evolution, the big bang, gravity, and yes, where we came from. You see, scientists are attempting to explain our very existence. Knowledge is not innate; we can only painfully observe, test, confirm or reject hypotheses, and in the end edit our way of thinking. The Theory of Gravity and the Theory of Evolution are therefore not "nonsense." While you can say that "evolution is just a theory," you cannot easily disprove it, because theories are backed up with mountains of information. Yes. Theories can be wrong, and scientists are actively trying to correct it to become more perfect (closer to the absolute truth).

    From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

    A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

    Those who reject evolution are labeled in my eyes as ignorant.

    The United States National Academy of Sciences states that

    "Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."

    Therefore, my argument is that you should consider evolution as a calibrated fact.

    Even things we take for granted as facts are still not determined to be perfectly known.

    Read @Gargron's thread for an example of why constants are changing: thecolorless.net/posts/show/45331

    EDIT: Picture time!

    http://i.imgur.com/PHAl3.png