more metaphysics
Danimal -This assumption isn’t born out of faith. It’s merely an inductive inference we make based on experience. The same is true with the existence of gods.
I suspect that some who believe in God would claim that their belief was merely and inductive inference based on experience.
bob - butcher boy wrote: I probably lean more towards a belief than a non-belief. Why? Well I like to believe that I really do choose to do my actions. I cannot reconcile myself to the idea that I am just a very complicated piece of machinery that seems to have free will, but in fact does not. Without free will I cannot see any value in morality since whether something is moral or not will really have no effect on what we do anyway. Perhaps this is just another side to the egotistical human that STV talks of above. Anyway after that bit of rambling, I'm thinking that only the existence of a God can allow me out of the trap of determinism, and as I don't really like being in that trap, then I am tending towards belief in God rather than belief in nothing.
Why not accept free will and an ethical sense as apparent facts of life? Ones that you can use to create yourself. There are a lot of things we can't understand - the fact of existence for example - but that we accept as part of reality anyway. The god notion doesn't explain free will any better than it explains the existence of the universe.
butcher boy - bob wrote:
The god notion doesn't explain free will any better than it explains the existence of the universe.
It doesn't explain it but it allows the possibility which I think the 'Godless' option precludes.
jdsmith - I feel that free will is more a matter of understanding one's own actions and desires in relation to their known and unknown consequences than god's gift to mankind.
Chris - butcher boy wrote: It always amuses me when hardcore atheists say that belief in God is irrational. They never see that both sides are limited to faith rather than proof.
I don't believe in leprechauns. I can't prove they don't exist, though. Am I irrational? Is my position based in faith?
Is belief in leprechauns irrational?
Chris - fred smith wrote: If anyone really thinks about these things I do not understand how so many can doubt the existence of God.
Well, the total lack of evidence for the existence of God, and the sheer absurdity of the notion of God are both good reasons to doubt God's existence.
bob - butcher boy wrote: bob wrote: The god notion doesn't explain free will any better than it explains the existence of the universe.
It doesn't explain it but it allows the possibility which I think the 'Godless' option precludes.
Free will and an ethical sense are as real as anything else we experience. It is no more neccssary to assume a god behind them than there is to assume a god behind the universe. The godless option precludes nothing.
TomHill - bob wrote: Free will and an ethical sense are as real as anything else we experience. It is no more neccssary to assume a god behind them than there is to assume a god behind the universe. The godless option precludes nothing.
Yet it seems logical to you to assume there is no god behind them.
Anyone who says there is no god... prove it.
Prove what you say? I cant prove there is a god. I cant prove a damn thing. How can you prove a counter argument?
Somebody wrote - The mainstream belief in God is that he has always existed. Some ask "What was before God?"
The answer is "Nothing. God has always existed and nothing existed prior to him (it)." or contrary to mainstream belief; "Something did exist before God." If so what was/is it? and did anything exist before that? Both arguments seem highly illogical.
When did time begin? What was there before time? The logical answers are; "No time." and "Time" but both are illogical answers. Did time always exist? If so when? and what was before that? (please feel free to add other answers )
Is the universe endless? Apparently so, because the scientists believe it is expanding. If it is not endless, what is on the other side? If it is, how can it be expanding? If it is a series of wormholes, black holes and white holes, there must logically still be an edge of the universe? But what is on the other side? Totally illogical, yet the universe exists.
The Universe is estimated by scientists to be 10-15 million years old (a little older - or younger - than our galaxy ).
This would imply the universe had a beginning. What was here before the universe? Nothing? Did the universe appear nowhere and from nothing? Illogical? If there was something here, what was it? Where was it? and what was here before that? and before that? and before that? etc.? Logical?
I was taught in science class that energy can not be created or destroyed, only changed. Does that mean that energy has always existed? Where did it come from? It must have been here before the universe. But where is that? I was taught in the same science class that it is illogical to believe that God could always have existed. (Alright not in these explicit terms - but God doesn't exist = God could not have always existed. )
Is it logical to believe that energy could have always existed, but God could not?
It seems that it is highly illogical to believe in God. And it seems highly illogical not too.
TomHill wrote - bob wrote: Free will and an ethical sense are as real as anything else we experience. It is no more neccssary to assume a god behind them than there is to assume a god behind the universe. The godless option precludes nothing.
Yet it seems logical to you to assume there is no god behind them.
Anyone who says there is no god... prove it.
Prove what you say? I cant prove there is a god. I cant prove a damn thing. How can you prove a counter argument?
bob - You want me to prove the non existence of something that nobody has ever seen?
Danimal - butcher boy wrote: I understand both the Easter Bunny and the Dragon examples but think that they represent something different. It is possible that we have merely invented the God figure for our own sanity and to explain certain things we can't understand, despite much thought and reflection. I'm not so sure the same can be said for the idea of the Easter Bunny or the invisible dragon. I am one of those 'not too sure variety' although at the moment I probably lean more towards a belief than a non-belief. Why? Well I like to believe that I really do choose to do my actions. I cannot reconcile myself to the idea that I am just a very complicated piece of machinery that seems to have free will, but in fact does not. Without free will I cannot see any value in morality since whether something is moral or not will really have no effect on what we do anyway. Perhaps this is just another side to the egotistical human that STV talks of above. Anyway after that bit of rambling, I'm thinking that only the existence of a God can allow me out of the trap of determinism, and as I don't really like being in that trap, then I am tending towards belief in God rather than belief in nothing. (I don't think the Easter Bunny or the invisibkle dragon help in this regard )
They’re only different in terms of their emotional fulfillment. Otherwise, belief in God is not any more rational than belief in invisible dragons. When we talk about belief in God existing on the same footing as disbelief, it’s really irrelevant whether belief in God helps you cope. It might be more relevant in terms of its practical value, but it doesn't make it any more true.
By the way, you seem to be saying that rejecting the concept of god mandates acceptance of determinism. Why would you say that? Free will can exist without god.
smerf wrote - I don't know if God is dead, but God sure is old.
According to the US Geological Survey, a part of the US Department of the Interior, the Earth is around 4.54 billion years old; the Milky Way Galaxy is between 11-13 billion years old; and the Universe is between 10-15 billion years of age. Although, I don't see how the Universe could ever be 10 billion years old and the Milky Way 11 billion years old. Shouldn't the Universe come first? Scientists.
butcher boy - Danimal wrote: By the way, you seem to be saying that rejecting the concept of god mandates acceptance of determinism. Why would you say that?
Because I need to find a way to be able to break the law of cause and effect. I cannot see how you can have free will without this condition being met. If there is something else that can break into the chain of cause and effect that allows us real control then that would do just as well as 'God'. Thing is, I haven't been able to work out even a basic concept about how that might occur.
I suspect that some who believe in God would claim that their belief was merely and inductive inference based on experience.
bob - butcher boy wrote: I probably lean more towards a belief than a non-belief. Why? Well I like to believe that I really do choose to do my actions. I cannot reconcile myself to the idea that I am just a very complicated piece of machinery that seems to have free will, but in fact does not. Without free will I cannot see any value in morality since whether something is moral or not will really have no effect on what we do anyway. Perhaps this is just another side to the egotistical human that STV talks of above. Anyway after that bit of rambling, I'm thinking that only the existence of a God can allow me out of the trap of determinism, and as I don't really like being in that trap, then I am tending towards belief in God rather than belief in nothing.
Why not accept free will and an ethical sense as apparent facts of life? Ones that you can use to create yourself. There are a lot of things we can't understand - the fact of existence for example - but that we accept as part of reality anyway. The god notion doesn't explain free will any better than it explains the existence of the universe.
butcher boy - bob wrote:
The god notion doesn't explain free will any better than it explains the existence of the universe.
It doesn't explain it but it allows the possibility which I think the 'Godless' option precludes.
jdsmith - I feel that free will is more a matter of understanding one's own actions and desires in relation to their known and unknown consequences than god's gift to mankind.
Chris - butcher boy wrote: It always amuses me when hardcore atheists say that belief in God is irrational. They never see that both sides are limited to faith rather than proof.
I don't believe in leprechauns. I can't prove they don't exist, though. Am I irrational? Is my position based in faith?
Is belief in leprechauns irrational?
Chris - fred smith wrote: If anyone really thinks about these things I do not understand how so many can doubt the existence of God.
Well, the total lack of evidence for the existence of God, and the sheer absurdity of the notion of God are both good reasons to doubt God's existence.
bob - butcher boy wrote: bob wrote: The god notion doesn't explain free will any better than it explains the existence of the universe.
It doesn't explain it but it allows the possibility which I think the 'Godless' option precludes.
Free will and an ethical sense are as real as anything else we experience. It is no more neccssary to assume a god behind them than there is to assume a god behind the universe. The godless option precludes nothing.
TomHill - bob wrote: Free will and an ethical sense are as real as anything else we experience. It is no more neccssary to assume a god behind them than there is to assume a god behind the universe. The godless option precludes nothing.
Yet it seems logical to you to assume there is no god behind them.
Anyone who says there is no god... prove it.
Prove what you say? I cant prove there is a god. I cant prove a damn thing. How can you prove a counter argument?
Somebody wrote - The mainstream belief in God is that he has always existed. Some ask "What was before God?"
The answer is "Nothing. God has always existed and nothing existed prior to him (it)." or contrary to mainstream belief; "Something did exist before God." If so what was/is it? and did anything exist before that? Both arguments seem highly illogical.
When did time begin? What was there before time? The logical answers are; "No time." and "Time" but both are illogical answers. Did time always exist? If so when? and what was before that? (please feel free to add other answers )
Is the universe endless? Apparently so, because the scientists believe it is expanding. If it is not endless, what is on the other side? If it is, how can it be expanding? If it is a series of wormholes, black holes and white holes, there must logically still be an edge of the universe? But what is on the other side? Totally illogical, yet the universe exists.
The Universe is estimated by scientists to be 10-15 million years old (a little older - or younger - than our galaxy ).
This would imply the universe had a beginning. What was here before the universe? Nothing? Did the universe appear nowhere and from nothing? Illogical? If there was something here, what was it? Where was it? and what was here before that? and before that? and before that? etc.? Logical?
I was taught in science class that energy can not be created or destroyed, only changed. Does that mean that energy has always existed? Where did it come from? It must have been here before the universe. But where is that? I was taught in the same science class that it is illogical to believe that God could always have existed. (Alright not in these explicit terms - but God doesn't exist = God could not have always existed. )
Is it logical to believe that energy could have always existed, but God could not?
It seems that it is highly illogical to believe in God. And it seems highly illogical not too.
TomHill wrote - bob wrote: Free will and an ethical sense are as real as anything else we experience. It is no more neccssary to assume a god behind them than there is to assume a god behind the universe. The godless option precludes nothing.
Yet it seems logical to you to assume there is no god behind them.
Anyone who says there is no god... prove it.
Prove what you say? I cant prove there is a god. I cant prove a damn thing. How can you prove a counter argument?
bob - You want me to prove the non existence of something that nobody has ever seen?
Danimal - butcher boy wrote: I understand both the Easter Bunny and the Dragon examples but think that they represent something different. It is possible that we have merely invented the God figure for our own sanity and to explain certain things we can't understand, despite much thought and reflection. I'm not so sure the same can be said for the idea of the Easter Bunny or the invisible dragon. I am one of those 'not too sure variety' although at the moment I probably lean more towards a belief than a non-belief. Why? Well I like to believe that I really do choose to do my actions. I cannot reconcile myself to the idea that I am just a very complicated piece of machinery that seems to have free will, but in fact does not. Without free will I cannot see any value in morality since whether something is moral or not will really have no effect on what we do anyway. Perhaps this is just another side to the egotistical human that STV talks of above. Anyway after that bit of rambling, I'm thinking that only the existence of a God can allow me out of the trap of determinism, and as I don't really like being in that trap, then I am tending towards belief in God rather than belief in nothing. (I don't think the Easter Bunny or the invisibkle dragon help in this regard )
They’re only different in terms of their emotional fulfillment. Otherwise, belief in God is not any more rational than belief in invisible dragons. When we talk about belief in God existing on the same footing as disbelief, it’s really irrelevant whether belief in God helps you cope. It might be more relevant in terms of its practical value, but it doesn't make it any more true.
By the way, you seem to be saying that rejecting the concept of god mandates acceptance of determinism. Why would you say that? Free will can exist without god.
smerf wrote - I don't know if God is dead, but God sure is old.
According to the US Geological Survey, a part of the US Department of the Interior, the Earth is around 4.54 billion years old; the Milky Way Galaxy is between 11-13 billion years old; and the Universe is between 10-15 billion years of age. Although, I don't see how the Universe could ever be 10 billion years old and the Milky Way 11 billion years old. Shouldn't the Universe come first? Scientists.
butcher boy - Danimal wrote: By the way, you seem to be saying that rejecting the concept of god mandates acceptance of determinism. Why would you say that?
Because I need to find a way to be able to break the law of cause and effect. I cannot see how you can have free will without this condition being met. If there is something else that can break into the chain of cause and effect that allows us real control then that would do just as well as 'God'. Thing is, I haven't been able to work out even a basic concept about how that might occur.
posted by david at 10:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home