god thread, number 3 Options

[*disco infiltrator*]

So, it seems that everything talked about in another thread leads to religion.

So here we are!
Debate the existence of God and which one's right and stuff.

I would post links to God threads 1 & 2, but you can't search for three-letter words.
(2 got to 50 pages, think we can beat it?!?)

Er, I'll start.
I'm atheist. Prove me wrong.
By prove, I mean state facts that have been backed up by solid evidence. I have yet to see that happen in all 70 combined pages of threads 1 & 2.

[*mipadi*]

I'll start off by saying that I place a heavy emphasis on science; I am a computer science student, after all. When I want to explain something, I pull out my ruler, or protractor, and measure angles, calculate sines, cosines, tangents, radians, and what have you, and draw a conclusion. My studies and research is based mostly around math and science. So naturally, I believe that yes, the wind can be measured with tools, and explained scientifically. Clearly wind is caused by pockets of high-pressure air moving into pockets of low-pressure air. I certainly can explain why one pocket is of a higher pressure than the other. And I can certainly ascribe visual indicators—leaves blowing, trees bending—to wind.

Having said that, if I may play Devil's advocate for a minute, it's certainly easy to see how a religious person could argue this point. Could he not say that the wind itself is caused by God, and every "scientific" indicator, from trees bending to measuring the excitement of the atoms that make up the air (i.e. temperature) is willed by God?

And there we have the crux of the problem: All the application of logic in the world is not going to shake a believer. I don't believe in God because I invest a lot in tools of science, and God doesn't make sense to me. I don't believe what I noted the believer would tell me—I think that's a load of garbage. But it's very easy to see how the faithful can undercut scientific principles. And that is why we have a problem: The tools of science cannot penetrate faith, and faith cannot shake the tools of science. So what is the point of trying to apply the tools or beliefs of one discipline to another?

As I noted, I very much believe in science, and I once made a similar argument to a friend of mine who is currently at working on a philosophy thesis. As he pointed out to me, religion and science are both ways of examining The Truth—and The Truth, ultimately, is defined by one's own perceptions and experiences, which makes it highly subjective. (He had a further interesting discussion, but not being a student of philosophy myself, and having no interest in philosophy, aside from the narrow study of symbolic logic, I didn't care to remember all of his precise details and arguments.)

[NoSex]

So naturally, I believe that yes, the wind can be measured with tools, and explained scientifically. Clearly wind is caused by pockets of high-pressure air moving into pockets of low-pressure air. I certainly can explain why one pocket is of a higher pressure than the other. And I can certainly ascribe visual indicators—leaves blowing, trees bending—to wind.

Main Entry: ex·plain
Pronunciation: ik-'splAn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English explanen, from Latin explanare, literally, to make level, from ex- + planus level, flat -- more at FLOOR
transitive senses
1 a : to make known b : to make plain or understandable <footnotes that explain the terms>
2 : to give the reason for or cause of
3 : to show the logical development or relationships of
intransitive senses : to make something plain or understandable
- ex·plain·able /-'splA-n&-b&l/ adjective
- ex·plain·er noun
- explain oneself : to clarify one's statements or the reasons for one's conduct
synonyms EXPLAIN, EXPOUND, EXPLICATE, ELUCIDATE, INTERPRET mean to make something clear or understandable. EXPLAIN implies a making plain or intelligible what is not immediately obvious or entirely known <explain the rules>. EXPOUND implies a careful often elaborate explanation <expounding a scientific theory>. EXPLICATE adds the idea of a developed or detailed analysis <explicate a poem>. ELUCIDATE stresses the throwing of light upon as by offering details or motives previously unclear or only implicit <elucidate an obscure passage>. INTERPRET adds to EXPLAIN the need for imagination or sympathy or special knowledge in dealing with something <interpreting a work of art>.

A true explanation leads directly to understanding. We explain the unknown with the known, in hopes that the unknown may one day become known. In the case of trees silently moving, you can most certainly explain this phenomena. This is good.

Having said that, if I may play Devil's advocate for a minute, it's certainly easy to see how a religious person could argue this point. Could he not say that the wind itself is caused by God, and every "scientific" indicator, from trees bending to measuring the excitement of the atoms that make up the air (i.e. temperature) is willed by God?

A religious person could very well say that, but in no way does that make it any more true. As you demonstrated above, we can explain exactly what is going on behind the movement of the trees. We can demonstrate a definate causal relationship behind the movement and the wind. The same can not be said in this instance. A religious individual can not demonstrate that a "God" has a causal relation to the movement of trees or the effects of wind in general.

If a religious person were to say this, it would not be an explanation. As an explanation allows us to understand an often unknown phenomena, we would expect that if subscribing a "God" to the wind was truly an explanation, such a relationship could be demonstrated. No such relation can be shown.

Saying that God causes the wind or created the universe is equivalent to saying that KGHSDAHA causes the wind or that ajknhjkldfHABV created the universe. In these cases, we are attempting to explaining the unknown with the less known, or the unknowable. In many cases where a religious believe understands God to be an explanation to the cosmological problem, in reality, that same "explanation" is almost entirely meaningless, nonsensical, incoherent, and in no way does it truly help us to understand what is happening in our universe.

And there we have the crux of the problem: All the application of logic in the world is not going to shake a believer.

We have been over this before. But, I'll make it quick this time. That is a hasty generalization, and is simply not true.

But it's very easy to see how the faithful can undercut scientific principles. And that is why we have a problem: The tools of science cannot penetrate faith, and faith cannot shake the tools of science. So what is the point of trying to apply the tools or beliefs of one discipline to another?

Refer to my post about George H. Smith's tool box analogy as well as the meaning behind my dubious nature towards faith. Wait till someone responds to my list of questions on the nature of faith, maybe then we will have something to actually discuss.

As he pointed out to me, religion and science are both ways of examining The Truth—and The Truth, ultimately, is defined by one's own perceptions and experiences, which makes it highly subjective. (He had a further interesting discussion, but not being a student of philosophy myself, and having no interest in philosophy, aside from the narrow study of symbolic logic, I didn't care to remember all of his precise details and arguments.)

We can show how "science" is a form of examining the truth. No one has yet to show me how "religion" is even capable of examination, let alone examination of 'the truth.'

Depends on what you are talking about. A great deal of things are subjective, morality, beauty, intellectual taste, and any other number of human experiences. However, The truth, as the truth corresponds with reality, is objective.

"The apple is red. The car is there. God exists. George W. Bush does not exist."

Those are all objective propositions. As in, they have truth values and their truth values can not be determined by the subject.

[*mipadi*]

Main Entry: ex·plain
Pronunciation: ik-'splAn
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English explanen, from Latin explanare, literally, to make level, from ex- + planus level, flat -- more at FLOOR
transitive senses
1 a : to make known b : to make plain or understandable <footnotes that explain the terms>
2 : to give the reason for or cause of
3 : to show the logical development or relationships of
intransitive senses : to make something plain or understandable
- ex·plain·able /-'splA-n&-b&l/ adjective
- ex·plain·er noun
- explain oneself : to clarify one's statements or the reasons for one's conduct
synonyms EXPLAIN, EXPOUND, EXPLICATE, ELUCIDATE, INTERPRET mean to make something clear or understandable. EXPLAIN implies a making plain or intelligible what is not immediately obvious or entirely known <explain the rules>. EXPOUND implies a careful often elaborate explanation <expounding a scientific theory>. EXPLICATE adds the idea of a developed or detailed analysis <explicate a poem>. ELUCIDATE stresses the throwing of light upon as by offering details or motives previously unclear or only implicit <elucidate an obscure passage>. INTERPRET adds to EXPLAIN the need for imagination or sympathy or special knowledge in dealing with something <interpreting a work of art>.

A true explanation leads directly to understanding. We explain the unknown with the known, in hopes that the unknown may one day become known. In the case of trees silently moving, you can most certainly explain this phenomena. This is good.
A religious person could very well say that, but in no way does that make it any more true. As you demonstrated above, we can explain exactly what is going on behind the movement of the trees. We can demonstrate a definate causal relationship behind the movement and the wind. The same can not be said in this instance. A religious individual can not demonstrate that a "God" has a causal relation to the movement of trees or the effects of wind in general.

If a religious person were to say this, it would not be an explanation. As an explanation allows us to understand an often unknown phenomena, we would expect that if subscribing a "God" to the wind was truly an explanation, such a relationship could be demonstrated. No such relation can be shown.

Saying that God causes the wind or created the universe is equivalent to saying that KGHSDAHA causes the wind or that ajknhjkldfHABV created the universe. In these cases, we are attempting to explaining the unknown with the less known, or the unknowable. In many cases where a religious believe understands God to be an explanation to the cosmological problem, in reality, that same "explanation" is almost entirely meaningless, nonsensical, incoherent, and in no way does it truly help us to understand what is happening in our universe.
We have been over this before. But, I'll make it quick this time. That is a hasty generalization, and is simply not true.
Refer to my post about George H. Smith's tool box analogy as well as the meaning behind my dubious nature towards faith. Wait till someone responds to my list of questions on the nature of faith, maybe then we will have something to actually discuss.
We can show how "science" is a form of examining the truth. No one has yet to show me how "religion" is even capable of examination, let alone examination of 'the truth.'

Depends on what you are talking about. A great deal of things are subjective, morality, beauty, intellectual taste, and any other number of human experiences. However, The truth, as the truth corresponds with reality, is objective.

"The apple is red. The car is there. God exists. George W. Bush does not exist."

Those are all objective propositions. As in, they have truth values and their truth values can not be determined by the subject.

You're still applying tools of logic to an issue that requires nothing but faith, which is exactly my point: That logic doesn't really work here. You can explain logically why it's foolish to believe in a God, yet that clearly doesn't counteract faith.

[NoSex]

You're still applying tools of logic to an issue that requires nothing but faith, which is exactly my point: That logic doesn't really work here. You can explain logically why it's foolish to believe in a God, yet that clearly doesn't counteract faith.

And how many times will I have to ask?

What other tools are there?

Why doesn't logic work here, and what does work and why?

Counteract what?

What exactly is faith?

So, in this case, it would be most important to first examine the epistemological nature of both faith, and logic.

I pose these questions to a faith believer:

1. What is faith, exactly?
2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih?
3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith?
4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith?
5. Of what value is faith?
6. Of what use is faith?
7. Imagine that we were to put several individuals in a room to observe an event and attempt to explain said event with two different tools. In the first test we would give them the tools of logic science as a means to explain the observed event. Several of the individuals came out with different explanations. As logic is a tightly defined process, we can study each participant's methodology to determine who went wrong and where, and who has created a cogent, cohesive, and deductive explanation. We can explain why different people came about different explanations and show them what needs to be done in order to become more accurate in their observations, and explanations. Now, moving into the second test, we would give that participants the supposed tools of faith as a means to explain the observed events. Coming out of the experiment, each participant has came to a different conclusion and explanation. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong in their explanations?

[*mipadi*]

And how many times will I have to ask?

What other tools are there?

Why doesn't logic work here, and what does work and why?

Counteract what?

What exactly is faith?

I don't think there are other tools. My point is that there's really no way to argue one way or the other. That's the point I have been making. Nothing works when one side is relying on faith, and the other is applying logic.

And, as I said in the beginning, what's the point? I don't care about one person's personal beliefs, as long as they don't affect me; if they affect me, then I'll deal with that issue, but not the issue of that person's faith. What is so important about showing a religious believer the (perceived) error in their thinking and reasoning? If his belief isn't affecting your life, why does it matter? If his belief is affecting your life, why not deal with that issue, rather than attacking his beliefs?

[NoSex]

I don't think there are other tools. My point is that there's really no way to argue one way or the other. That's the point I have been making. Nothing works when one side is relying on faith, and the other is applying logic.

And, as I said in the beginning, what's the point? I don't care about one person's personal beliefs, as long as they don't affect me; if they affect me, then I'll deal with that issue, but not the issue of that person's faith. What is so important about showing a religious believer the (perceived) error in their thinking and reasoning? If his belief isn't affecting your life, why does it matter? If his belief is affecting your life, why not deal with that issue, rather than attacking his beliefs?

The point is to discredit faith in the first place.

However, you obviously don't have any ambition to participate in this debate. So, unless you feel like contributing, stop posting about how futile and useless you think the debate is.

Also, note strongly that your argument against debating this issue can be applied to nearly any other philosophical problem. We already went through this, contribute or stop. Please and thank you.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about how everyone is too good for this debate topic.

[*mipadi*]

The point is to discredit faith in the first place.

However, you obviously don't have any ambition to participate in this debate. So, unless you feel like contributing, stop posting about how futile and useless you think the debate is.

Also, note strongly that your argument against debating this issue can be applied to nearly any other philosophical problem. We already went through this, contribute or stop. Please and thank you.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about how everyone is too good for this debate topic.

How about you not tell me what to do or how to debate? My thoughts do raise an interesting point. Just because I'm not replying in the fashion you'd like, doesn't mean that I haven't made a point. You're not the king of this thread, and you don't dictate the debate style.

My ambition for participation is to point out not only how futile the debate is in the first place, but also to question why it occurs at all. It seems not to be an attempt to gain any insight or to see how other people think, but merely to "win", to prove one's intellectual superiority, and, more importantly, to prove that one is more "intellectual" because one does not believe in a construct such as God. I think this is contemptuous to the extreme. This thread is little more than a carnival for pseudo-intellectuals.

Naturally you'll say that, because I don't "just answer the question", I'm being "too good" for this debate topic. Not at all. I'm just questioning why it occurs. It's on subject. One can't always choose what one wants to debate.

Perhaps my argument against debating this issue is valid. Perhaps many philosopical issues are foolish to debate, and little more than intellectual curiosities with little real bearing. And perhaps not. But I'm not pretentious enough to claim that my ideas are completely original—undoubtedly they've been applied to similar situations before. So then, therefore, there must be some argument that shoots them down completely.

[NoSex]

[quote]
How about you not tell me what to do or how to debate?
[/quote]

I'm not telling you what to do or how to debate. I'm nicely asking for you to ignore the thread if you feel the debate is useless. You aren't adding anything to the debate by constantly trying to discredit it.

[quote]
My thoughts [i]do raise an interesting point.[/I]
[/quote]

Not really. We have all heard it a million times from both sides. I'm trying to move the debate on, but you insist on this meaningless stagnation. If you honestly believe it will go no where, ignore the thread. Please.

[quote]
Just because I'm not replying in the fashion you'd like, doesn't mean that I haven't made a point. You're not the king of this thread, and you don't dictate the debate style.[/quote]

You aren't debating the topic. You are trying to tell us why no one should ever debate this topic, you are the one trying to be the "king" of the thread. If the existence of this thread is so threatening to you, I suggest that you ignore it until you are able and willing to contribute. The point here is to debate the topic at hand, and that is what I am trying to do.

[quote]
My ambition for participation is to point out not only how futile the debate [i]is in the first place, but also to question why it occurs at all.[/I][/quote]

1. I don't believe the debate is futile.
2. It's entertaining. Very.
3. I have learned a great deal by participating in these forms of debate.
4. It's a very important topic that nearly every human being has some form of interest in. THis only adds to its interest.
5. If you are so adamently opposed to the debate, I suggest you either ignore this thread or create a topic to debate the importance behind debating religious ideas. Otherwise, you are just disturbing this debate.
6. You have made your point in this thread several times now, you have ignored all my counter points. We heard you the first time, please progress with the debate, or stop.

[quote]
It seems not to be an attempt to gain any insight or to see how other people think, but merely to "win", to prove one's intellectual superiority, and, more importantly, to prove that one is more "intellectual" because one does not believe in a construct such as God. I think this is contemptuous to the extreme. This thread is little more than a carnival for pseudo-intellectuals.[/quote]

Thanks for the ad hominem arguments, not to mention the extreme straw man of what exactly is going on here. I'm sorry, but I don't agree at all with your opinion. None of these are my intentions.

[quote]
Naturally you'll say that, because I don't "just answer the question", I'm being "too good" for this debate topic. Not at all. I'm just questioning why it occurs. It's on subject. One can't always choose what one wants to debate.[/quote]

We have already gone through all of this in another topic.

Scroll down a bit. There you go.

[quote]
Perhaps my argument against debating this issue [i]is valid. Perhaps many philosopical issues are foolish to debate, and little more than intellectual curiosities with little real bearing. And perhaps not. But I'm not pretentious enough to claim that my ideas are completely original—undoubtedly they've been applied to similar situations before. So then, therefore, there must be some argument that shoots them down completely.[/I]
[/quote]

I think this is where the great irony lies. You are essentially attacking this thread because you feel it is meaningless to debate. But, you know this debate will continue. Whether it be here, or somewhere else, theological discussion is a main topic in all levels of philosophical discussion. People, since they continue to debate, obviously find some value you in. What are your reasons for telling us that such value does not exist?

And, don't worry, no one here, insofar as I have seen, has been "pretentious" enough to claim that their ideas and completely original. Whatever your goals are, they seem "futile" and "meaningless" to me. As, those who continue debate continue for their own personal reasons, and those who ignore the debate and detest it, will do so for their own. Are you trying to fit one subjective taste against another?

[QUOTE]
It seems like you are attacking rather than debating. [/quote]

I'm trying to debate the topic at hand and being attacked for it.

[QUOTE]
Mipadi's contributions to this thread have been thoughtful and insightful. His comments do contribute to this debate and raise valid issues.[/QUOTE]

We have already discussed these issues. He ignores my counterpoints and continues ad nauseam.

[QUOTE]Your attempt to proclaim logic and science as the paragon of life seems to be a personal vendetta against those who value other measures of quality and worth. [/QUOTE]

I never proclaimed any such thing. You also are operating on an ad hominem argument. I am challenging those "other measures of quality and worth" and trying to get meaningful responses. Refer back to my list of questions directed to faith believers.

[QUOTE]Even though you have managed to proclaim your allegiance to science, you have yet to offer any rationale that vaults it to the lofty position you claim it holds.[/QUOTE]

What thread are you reading? I never proclaimed my allegiance to science, not even close. Midpadi might have, but I came no where close. Nor, would I.

[QUOTE]
Yes, I too have a wealth of education in the sciences and logic, but find my personal compass guided by more than what can be proven.[/QUOTE]

That's cool, but for an entirely different debate.

[QUOTE] It's pompous to believe that science has the capacity to interpret the entirety of the universe and humankind.[/QUOTE]

I would have to agree. Science isn't even about that. I'm glad I never said anything like that.

[QUOTE]It is only one mechanism of understanding and interpretation of life that is as valid as believing in God is.[/QUOTE]

You would have to prove that.

[QUOTE]
Your absolute zeal for scientific rationalization will never serve as the authority/seal of approval of my personal observations. [/QUOTE]

You might need to reread the thread. You got me all wrong. Straw man, straw man.

[QUOTE]That belief makes a false assumption that someone other than me is the determinant of my reality and able to dictate how I exercise my freewill. To surrender that gift to science is the very thing you are criticizing religion for doing.[/QUOTE]

Straw man.

[QUOTE]
While you have an extensive vocabulary and value logic, remember, your opinion of life remains nothing more than a personal belief. The attempt you are making to force it to the point of absolute truth is an exercise in futility.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was never attempting such a thing. Silly straw men.

{MY QUOTES WON'T WORK AND IT MAKES ME CRY}

[*mipadi*]

You aren't debating the topic. You are trying to tell us why no one should ever debate this topic, you are the one trying to be the "king" of the thread. If the existence of this thread is so threatening to you, I suggest that you ignore it until you are able and willing to contribute. The point here is to debate the topic at hand, and that is what I am trying to do.

Threatening? Not at all. I'm just bringing up a very good point. If one hopes to debate this issue, one really needs to know why one is debating this issue, and how one is going about it.

My point as to whether the existence can ever be proven, or even discussed in this context, is quite a valid one; in fact, it is one that has been dealt with often in philosophical thought. Much of Bertrand Russell's work, for example, dealt with existence, claims of existence, and how one deals with existence in logic. Russell eventually noted that existence cannot be shown logically--it exists outside the realm of logical thought. Existence is, in fact, a necessary presupposition to any discussion involving logical thought. So no, my point wasn't raised because I am threatened by any discussion of God (why would I be threated by such discussion, anyway?); my point was raised because it does highlight an issue with this very discussion, that of the claims of existence of a being.