you just can't prove it.
BTW, think about what you posted, you basically helped prove my very point...
“Arbitrary” means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual
You have NO EVIDENCE of non-exsistence, therefore your claim of non-exsistence is Arbitrary
the king of the jews shows up again. BTW Snow; Do you have a hammer? If you do and the king shows up we can test a theory that I have been toying with.
Sorry Charlie...
-- Modified on 3/24/2011 9:16:30 PM
The real problem with the concept of God is not that it is untrue, but that it is arbitrary.
If a man asserts such an idea, whether he does so by error or ignorance or corruption, his idea is thereby epistemologically invalidated. It has no relation to reality or to human cognition.
Remember that man’s consciousness is not automatic, and not automatically correct. So if man is to be able to claim any proposition as true, or even as possible, he must follow definite epistemological rules, rules designed to guide his mental processes and keep his conclusions in correspondence to reality. In sum, if man is to achieve knowledge, he must adhere to objective validating methods—i.e., he must shun the arbitrary . . . .
Since an arbitrary statement has no connection to man’s means of knowledge or his grasp of reality, cognitively speaking such a statement must be treated as though nothing had been said.
Let me elaborate this point. An arbitrary claim has no cognitive status whatever. According to Objectivism, such a claim is not to be regarded as true or as false. If it is arbitrary, it is entitled to no epistemological assessment at all; it is simply to be dismissed as though it hadn’t come up . . . . The truth is established by reference to a body of evidence and within a context; the false is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence. The arbitrary, however, has no relation to evidence, facts, or context. It is the human equivalent of [noises produced by] a parrot . . . sounds without any tie to reality, without content or significance.
In a sense, therefore, the arbitrary is even worse than the false. The false at least has a relation (albeit a negative one) to reality; it has reached the field of human cognition, although it represents an error—but in that sense it is closer to reality than the brazenly arbitrary.
For the New Intellectual Galt’s Speech, Atlas Shrugged
{quote]Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.
For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.
Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.
Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .
“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”
The Philosophy of Objectivism Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism”
lecture series (1976), Lecture 2
do you keep trying to argue the wrong premise!!!!
This is just like last time. PLEASE PLEASE keep up wiht the thread!!
The subject is, "There is no God"
You arguments are about "You can not prove there is a God"
If you want to argue that point, start a new thread...
Your arguments do not apply here...
Sorry, my last attempt to reply seemed to get a bit mixed up. Here is a re-post:
The real problem with the concept of God is not that it is untrue, but that it is arbitrary.
“Arbitrary” means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual; its basis is neither direct observation nor any kind of theoretical argument. [An arbitrary idea is] a sheer assertion with no attempt to validate it or connect it to reality.
If a man asserts such an idea, whether he does so by error or ignorance or corruption, his idea is thereby epistemologically invalidated. It has no relation to reality or to human cognition.
Remember that man’s consciousness is not automatic, and not automatically correct. So if man is to be able to claim any proposition as true, or even as possible, he must follow definite epistemological rules, rules designed to guide his mental processes and keep his conclusions in correspondence to reality. In sum, if man is to achieve knowledge, he must adhere to objective validating methods—i.e., he must shun the arbitrary . . . .
Since an arbitrary statement has no connection to man’s means of knowledge or his grasp of reality, cognitively speaking such a statement must be treated as though nothing had been said.
Let me elaborate this point. An arbitrary claim has no cognitive status whatever. According to Objectivism, such a claim is not to be regarded as true or as false. If it is arbitrary, it is entitled to no epistemological assessment at all; it is simply to be dismissed as though it hadn’t come up . . . . The truth is established by reference to a body of evidence and within a context; the false is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence. The arbitrary, however, has no relation to evidence, facts, or context. It is the human equivalent of [noises produced by] a parrot . . . sounds without any tie to reality, without content or significance.
In a sense, therefore, the arbitrary is even worse than the false. The false at least has a relation (albeit a negative one) to reality; it has reached the field of human cognition, although it represents an error—but in that sense it is closer to reality than the brazenly arbitrary.
For the New Intellectual Galt’s Speech, Atlas Shrugged
For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.
Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.
Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .
“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”
The Philosophy of Objectivism Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism”
lecture series (1976), Lecture 2
you just can't prove it.
BTW, think about what you posted, you basically helped prove my very point...
“Arbitrary” means a claim put forth in the absence of evidence of any sort, perceptual or conceptual
You have NO EVIDENCE of non-exsistence, therefore your claim of non-exsistence is Arbitrary
But the only rational conclusion about the arbitrary is that it doesn't exist.
It is the positive claim that is arbitrary. The negative one is the default.
By whose definition is the negative the default??
So basically you are saying you do not have to prove your belief but someone else has to prove theirs ??
Sorry, I stick by my argument, ANY statement needs to be proven, otherwise it is personal opinion.
The problem is not just that there is no proof for the existence of God, but NO EVIDENCE AT ALL TO EVEN SUGGEST IT!
Do leprechauns exist? I say there is no such thing.
Is there an invisible pink unicorn standing behind you as you type at your computer? I say no.
Because both of those are completely absurd, arbitrary claims. They need to be rejected completely. Till you can provide me with the teensiest shred of evidence to the contrary, there ain't no such thing!
Especially if you continue to refuse to provide a definition for the concept of God.
Let me make this clear: I have proven that there is no such thing as God. The argument about the arbitrary is the proof. Since there is no evidence, and not even any meaning to the concept, I reject the very idea entirely, and that is what I mean by saying that there is no God.
-- Modified on 3/26/2011 12:02:21 AM
You keep coming back to the same place...
You said...
Till you can provide me with the teensiest shred of evidence to the contrary, there ain't no such thing!
Wrong thread. I am not here to prove anything and do not need to, YOU are the one making the assertion.
EXAMPLE. There are species they find from time to time which have been documented as extince for hundreds of years. You ask anyone before the find and they would say, YEAH, THEY NO LONGER EXIST"
All of a sudden, wha-la, opps, saw one, all of our conventional belief based on the very arguments you put forward, "can't see them, they must not exist" is wrong....
You my friend, are the same, can't see him, can't find proof, therefore he can't exist.
And like all those other scientists I mentioned, you may very will be wrong...
So let me be clear, you have proven nothign to me, which is the whole point of philosophical argument. Proving something to yourself means nothing.
Therefore you have failed in the debate.
Remember, I am not trying to prove anything, you are, so the burden is on you, and you haev failed...
Sorry....
-- Modified on 3/26/2011 4:31:45 AM
But my argument IS that, since there is no rational argument or evidence, there is no such thing!
When it comes to species believed to be extinct, the belief that they do not exist anymore is open to doubt because there is reason to believe they might still be around in places nobody has looked, yet. These species did exist once. We had empirical evidence for their existence before. Full proof that they are extinct would be a perfect survey of every place they might possibly be. That is different from an assertion for the existence of somehting we never had any evidence for in the first place.
And of course, since there are serious contradictions in the concept of God, such a thing cannot exist.
Something that existed before anything existed is a contradiction.
A consciousness that was conscious before there was anything to be conscious of is a contradiction.
A being that is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent in a universe where things like the Japan tsunami happen is a contradiction.
A disembodied consciousness is a contradiction of everything we know about what consciousness is.
The infinite does not exist except as a mathematical abstraction.
Everything that people say God is, is a contradiction of reality.
As to your repeated assertion that I am making the positive claim, my claim that there is no God is a response to claims throughout this entire culture that there is this something called God. I didn't make up the concept of God and then try to prove that it doesn't exist.That would be beyond stupid. You don't have to be the one claiming there is a God for the burden of proof to be on someone other than me. All this other philosophical argument is basically just added extras to show how insanely irrational the very concept is.
I know your argument is as you say...
"since there is no rational argument or evidence, there is no such thing"
They probably thought the same thing about fish that produced their own light source, until we finally had the ability to go that deep in teh sea....
It's a weak argument you are using, one that is HIGHLY flawed!! I have given you multiple examples of real world situations where it did not work, you just keep running back to it though. There was NO empirical evidnece that these types of creatures existed before their discovery, therefore using your method, they could not exist.
Wrong...
Sorry, but I think the only thing proven in our thread is the fact that your approach is flawed by the examples I have cited.
You also said...
And of course, since there are serious contradictions in the concept of God, such a thing cannot exist
Hell, my kids have contradictions about whether mayonnaise tastes good. THEREFORE, MAYONNAISE MUST NOT EXIST....
Are you kidding me???
Open your mind...
Bottom line is you can not prove there is no God, I ,on the other hand, can not prove there is one.
To do so in either direction is exactly what I said it was in the last thread, just an act of Man's Vanity.
-- Modified on 3/26/2011 9:17:38 AM
"since there is no rational argument or evidence, there is no such thing"
They probably thought the same thing about fish that produced their own light source, until we finally had the ability to go that deep in teh sea....
It's a weak argument you are using, one that is HIGHLY flawed!! I have given you multiple examples of real world situations where it did not work, you just keep running back to it though. There was NO empirical evidnece that these types of creatures existed before their discovery, therefore using your method, they could not exist.
Wrong...
The claim that there is this thing called "God", which you refuse to define, have no evidence for its existence, and in many ways contradicts our previous knowledge is in no way comparable to speculation based on a known biochemical process occurring in a previously unexplored place.
And of course, since there are serious contradictions in the concept of God, such a thing cannot exist
Hell, my kids have contradictions about whether mayonnaise tastes good. THEREFORE, MAYONNAISE MUST NOT EXIST....
Are you kidding me???
That child A and child B disagree about whether or not mayonnaise tastes good does not constitute a metaphysical contradiction. They are different statements about the different children in relation to mayonnaise. The idea that God is a conscious being that created the universe contradicts the basic metaphysical axiom that consciousness must be consciousness of something that already exists. That God is infinite contradicts the law of identity.
Open your mind...
Bottom line is you can not prove there is no God, I ,on the other hand, can not prove there is one.
To do so in either direction is exactly what I said it was in the last thread, just an act of Man's Vanity.
You said....
A scientist observing fireflies generating their own light could have, logically and validly hypothesized that maybe some creatures in the dark depths of the ocean could do the same thing
Fireflys do not exist all over the globe. What about where they do not exist? Are scientists in those parts of the world so tied to where they live that they are not allowed to draw conclusions? Once again you make the HUGE assumptions, "the scientist would have seen..." Come on!! How weak a point is that!!!
The only reason God does not correspond to your reality is because your mind is closed. You are tied to the physical, the observable.
Once again, ANOTHER REAL WORLD EXAMPLE WHICH SHOWS YOUR FLAWED METHODS. Atoms. For centuries we could not see them, we could not touch them, hear them, or observe them in anyway.
Using your train of reasoning, therfore, atoms DID NOT EXIST, until we finalyl were able to have the technology to see them.
According to you, they never existed. Only our proof makes them real....
Why can you not prove God does not exist, simple, because for all the arguments you put forth, they are infintesibly juvenile when it comes to trying to address such matters. They restrict themselves to the known universe, which is SO LIMITING for these disucssions, as I said earlier, its like trying to solve a Calculus problem using basic math...
You're theories assume there is nothing beyond what you can comprehend, this is why you fail
Then you fall right back into your same trap!! You say...
"The claim that there is this thing called "God"
NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE!!! READ THE THREAD AND KEEP UP!!!
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CLAIM THERE IS NO GOD!!!
When you have to twist the argument, it generally means you have lost the argument...
Sorry....
More evidence that you have absolutely no clue about my methods.
Once again, ANOTHER REAL WORLD EXAMPLE WHICH SHOWS YOUR FLAWED METHODS. Atoms. For centuries we could not see them, we could not touch them, hear them, or observe them in anyway.
Using your train of reasoning, therfore, atoms DID NOT EXIST, until we finalyl were able to have the technology to see them.
The physical objects in the world around us are the form in which we see atoms. They are made of atoms.
We know atoms exist because of a vast amount of empirical evidence for them. You don't have to see individual atoms to know they exist.
From The Objective Standard:
Both of these errors—the dogmatic belief that was unsupported by evidence, followed by the dogmatic skepticism that ignored abundant evidence—were based on false theories of knowledge. The early atomists were rationalists; they believed that knowledge can be acquired by reason alone, independent of sensory data. The 19th-century skeptics were modern empiricists; they believed that knowledge is merely a description of sensory data and therefore references to non-observable entities are meaningless. But scientific knowledge is neither the floating abstractions of rationalists nor the perceptual-level descriptions of empiricists; it is the grasp of causal relationships identified by means of the inductive method. In this article, we will see how the atomic nature of matter was identified as the fundamental cause that explains a wide range of narrower laws.
If we follow the idea of atoms from ancient Greece to the 19th century, one remarkable fact stands out. So long as the atomic theory was not induced from scientific data, it was entirely useless. For more than two millennia, scientists were unable to make any predictions or to devise any experiments based on the theory. It explained nothing and integrated nothing. Because the Greek idea of atoms did not derive from observed facts, it remained isolated from the real knowledge of those who investigated nature. If one tries to think about the implications of an arbitrary idea, one simply draws a blank; implications depend upon connections to the rest of one’s knowledge.
You are the one twisting the argument.
Your arguments are all based on a large number of fallacies which I don't even need Objectivism to refute. You are often using something similar to the analytic/synthetic dichotomy of Kant. The argument about not being able to see atoms I have encountered in discussions with creationists. Most people trained in the scientific method know how to refute that nonsense.
We were always able to see atoms ???
That's your argument???
OK, well then I sippose it's fair enough for me to say I see God in all of his wonderous creations. Has as much credibility as I see atoms everywhere...
You said....
The conclusion that atoms exist, or that God does not, are conclusions we reach. They are true or false long before then, and are there to be discovered.
True, you just have not discovered that God does not exist or does.
You oversimplify by many orders of magnitude. I am talking about the distinction between the form we perceive object in, and the object we perceive. We perceive atoms in the form of things like chairs, tables, rocks.
You demonstrate, again, they you do not understand what I am saying.
However, that is all beside the point. We know that atoms exist because of a vast amount of empirical evidence. Your argument that disbelieving in God based on the total absence of empirical evidence is in any way like disbelieving in atoms because you can't see them is nonsense.
There is no evidence AT ALL, not the tiniest bit, for the existence of God.
There is TONS of empirical evidence for that existence of atoms. We do not need to see them individually, directly. There is all the empirical evidence which was used to develop the whole field of chemistry in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Tell me this, what elemts make up a neutron.
You can;t answer because we have no way of seeing it. So early on you talk about evidence, the ack therof and therefore it can not exist. NOW, you give yourself a huge pass and say oh well, we could see the Macro effects of it....
Pretty convenient.
So try this one, one common description of God is that he is in all things. PERHAPS he is the building block of atoms, this is why he is all present, all seeing.
Don't like the concrpt, prove it wrong.
You can't, because you lack the technology and you "new" line of reasoning has to accept the possibility...
AND FINALLY, you said
There is no evidence AT ALL, not the tiniest bit, for the existence of God.
WRONG THREAD, START A NEW ONE!!!
You can respond if you want, I will not waste any more time answering.
You can not prove you point and to try is just Vanity after so many examples I have shown as to why you can't, and more importantly, you seem unable to stick ith the subject at hand. If you want to start a new thread with the other position, I will be glad to debate that point.
Sorry, better luck next time...
Classification: Baryon
Composition: 1 up quark, 2 down quarks
Particle statistics: Fermionic
Group: Hadron
Interaction: Gravity, Weak, Strong
Symbol(s): n, n0, N0
Antiparticle: Antineutron
Theorized: Ernest Rutherford[1][2] (1920)
Discovered: James Chadwick[1] (1932)
Mass: 1.67492729(28)×10−27 kg 939.565560(81) MeV/c2 1.0086649156(6) u[3]
Mean lifetime: 885.7(8) s (free)
Electric charge: 0 e 0 C
Electric dipole moment: lt 2.9×10−26 e·cm
Electric polarizability: 1.16(15)×10−3 fm3
Magnetic moment: −1.9130427(5) μN
Magnetic polarizability: 3.7(20)×10−4 fm3
Spin: 1⁄2
Isospin: 1⁄2
Parity: +1
Condensed: I(JP) = 1⁄2(1⁄2+)
Again and again and again, its all about the evidence. NOT the wrong thread. That's what this is all about.
If there is no evidence for something, there is no reason to believe it exists. There is no reason to even bring up the question.
I am not familiar with the empirical evidence which leads to the theory of quarks, but they are not arbitrary concepts. God is.
I reject the arbitrary entirely.
there is a St. Croix. With all the shit going on in the world, I thought it would be more.
Even with your catch phrases, I still want you to make money.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=138001&boardID=39&page=
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=138005&boardID=39&page=
Charlie is merely trying to "bait" you------& he's ALWAYS successful at doing this ----LOL !
If you " Holy rollers" were SO secure in your belief in an "omnipotent God, why are you SO insecure?! Why don't you just ig charlie when he does this ?
Ahhhh, "religious hobbyists"-----the ultimate oxymoron-----or should I say morons----
------------LMFAO !
but he is enough of the time to keep doing it.
Truth be told, Charlie is more effective with his four word catch phrase than AE is with his countless links and specific criticisms of religion. I guess it's all in the delivery. lol
I think we should make a deal with the religious folk amongst us. We will laugh at them in this lifetime and they can laugh at us in the next.
and I'm not taking any chances to laugh at you, waiting for the next life-time.
I don't see anybody thumping the Bible either.
If you " Holy rollers" were SO secure in your belief in an "omnipotent God, why are you SO insecure?! Why don't you just ig charlie when he does this ?
Ahhhh, "religious hobbyists"-----the ultimate oxymoron-----or should I say morons----
------------LMFAO !wish I could say the same about you-----
Priapus
"If you " Holy rollers" were SO secure in your belief in an "omnipotent God, why are you SO insecure?!"
I have noticed the same thing but from both sides, although on this board, some of the most vocal atheists, seem to show insecurity they don't see in their own mirror.
I am not a Holy Roller or similar,however I have no fear, or feel contemptuous anger towards someone I meet,or a cousin who says they are going to pray for me.
IMO many atheists portray themselves as insecure as a defensive Christian or Muslim, continually preaching their message when it's apparent the audience isn't going to change their mind.. Charlie being the most defensive of religious beliefs I have seen on this board. How many times has he said There is no God? He is more repetitious than a Jehovah Witness.
What I don't understand,the amount of families who are in exile from one another,because some family members are vocally adamant about religious or not beliefs.
Many families learn to bite their lip at family gatherings, or else they would never see each other.
Since most of us won't be getting together for
Thanksgiving, I expect both sides on this board to continue as usual.
-- Modified on 3/24/2011 9:11:32 AM
My vote would have to go to Asian Elvis in this regard, Charlie at least posts on other subjects besides "there is no god eom", Asian Elvis posts about nothing else but the "inaneness" of religion, even a person who loathes religion as much as me eventually has enough of the same subject. As you said, no one is changing anyone elses opinion on the subject.
shove their religion down your throat and try to make you live by their code. They're no different than Islamo-fascists. But I respect people who quietly adhere to their beliefs. In fact, I envy the comfort they get from them. I just can't sign on because my mind simply doesn't accept a higher power of any kind. To me, the world is adequately explained by science.
Some things we just don't know, and perhaps will never know. Some/most people just can't accept that, and would rather believe a fairy tale rather than accept the fact that we don't know "everything", nor are we likely to.
I get a laugh every time some very religious person tells me "Well scientists don't know everything!".
This entirely misses the point. If they knew everything, they wouldn't need science. Science is a METHOD for obtaining knowledge. If you have all of it, why would you need a method for getting it?
Exactly! Anyway, I know all I need to in order to reject the idea of "God," or to explain the inexplicable by saying, "It's God's will."
Interesting how those that claim not to be religious are so fixated on it.
we are all part of one great Source energy (God). We came from spiritual infinitude for a purpose and destiny. We are spiritual beings having a human experience. No one (devil) is not going to get you , no one (Jesus) is not going to save you. We negate ourselves. It's all just a dream or illusion, depending on what we choose to look at or create magnetically (energy) into our existence. We are here to create and have fun, and fulfill our deepest dreams. And I believe we will learn the lessons of love, as that is all we will take back with us. Got a strong feeling I have been here many times and experienced life over again (de ja vu). We have put the idea that there is a devil outside of ourselves, truth is everyone has good and evil inside. Love and Light to everyone. Madison