Theology Question

[Cancel 1 2023]

Trying to prove or disprove God is something I leave to the fundamentalist holy rollers and the militant atheists.

I wish I knew who these "militant atheists" were. As someone who actually UNDERSTANDS their atheism I can firmly say that it is impossible to "prove a negative". You cannot "disprove" God. You can only look at evidence for or against his existence. That's all you can ever do.

(Again, apologies for being an atheist in your presence, I know it upsets you. Please do not suggest I am an antisemite again)

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Hey, asshole. You started by quoting Leibniz without a citation. Quit being a fucking troll.

As you wish.

 

[IBDaMann]

Agreed 100%. There is zero evidence of anything beyond the natural universe, despite multiverse theories.

You don't know this. All you can say is that YOU have not observed anything supernatural and that you do not believe/accept the claims of those who claim such.

You do not get to ban anyone from observing anything supernatural and you only get to speak for yourself.

 

[IBDaMann]

FWIW, I don't believe in evil as a force.

... but you believe in RACISM as a force. What deity controls it, by the way? Hey, is PRIVILEGE a force too? What deity controls that? You think TRUMPISM is a force and that Trump is the deity that controls that.

I hope they don't pull your feeding tube, Terry. until you've had your dream.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

... but you believe in RACISM as a force. What deity controls it, by the way? Hey, is PRIVILEGE a force too? What deity controls that? You think TRUMPISM is a force and that Trump is the deity that controls that.

I hope they don't pull your feeding tube, Terry. until you've had your dream.

Thanks for proving your paranoid schizophrenia every day, Sybil!

It's like Mark Twain's comment about how it's better to be thought a fool than open one's mouth and prove it to everyone.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

It's like Mark Twain's comment about how it's better to be thought a fool than open one's mouth and prove it to everyone.

From Quote Investigator:

In conclusion, there is no substantive evidence that this popular adage was coined or employed by Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain. The earliest ascriptions to these famous figures appeared many years post death. QI thinks that Maurice Switzer is currently the top choice for coiner of the expression though future data may reveal alternative claimants.

REFERENCE

 

[Ross Dolan]

I wish I knew who these "militant atheists" were. As someone who actually UNDERSTANDS their atheism I can firmly say that it is impossible to "prove a negative". You cannot "disprove" God. You can only look at evidence for or against his existence. That's all you can ever do.

(Again, apologies for being an atheist in your presence, I know it upsets you. Please do not suggest I am an antisemite again)

It is not impossible to prove a negative.

Assert a negative like, "There are no live African elephants in my top left desk drawer"...

...and then prove it by opening the drawer.

It IS impossible to prove something as universal as the non-existence of gods.

One thing I have noticed is the use of the word "atheist" here. "Atheist" is a descriptor...and one that has several meanings.

The discussion becomes much less complex if one stops the use of the descriptor...and use the actual description itself.

If you mean "People who assert no gods exist...xyz"...stop using "atheists...xyz" and instead use what you mean, "People who assert no gods exist...xyz."

Not all people who identify as atheists assert that no gods exist.

BUT...it appears that EVERY PERSON who uses "atheist" as a descriptor has one of two different "beliefs." Either they "believe" no gods exist...or they "believe" it is more probable that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist."

Insofar as that is the case, they are as much "believers" as any theist.

 

[BidenPresident]

It is not impossible to prove a negative.

Assert a negative like, "There are no live African elephants in my top left desk drawer"...

...and then prove it by opening the drawer.

It IS impossible to prove something as universal as the non-existence of gods.

One thing I have noticed is the use of the word "atheist" here. "Atheist" is a descriptor...and one that has several meanings.

The discussion becomes much less complex if one stops the use of the descriptor...and use the actual description itself.

If you mean "People who assert no gods exist...xyz"...stop using "atheists...xyz" and instead use what you mean, "People who assert no gods exist...xyz."

Not all people who identify as atheists assert that no gods exist.

BUT...it appears that EVERY PERSON who uses "atheist" as a descriptor has one of two different "beliefs." Either they "believe" no gods exist...or they "believe" it is more probable that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist."

Insofar as that is the case, they are as much "believers" as any theist.

So you do and do not believe gods may or may not exist. Possibly. Or not. Very decisive. Maybe.

 

[Ross Dolan]

So you do and do not believe gods may or may not exist. Possibly. Or not. Very decisive. Maybe.

Here is my take on the question of gods:


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

 

[BidenPresident]

Here is my take on the question of gods:


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Very clear. God may or may not exist possibly but who's to say. Or not.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

It is not impossible to prove a negative.

Assert a negative like, "There are no live African elephants in my top left desk drawer"...

...and then prove it by opening the drawer.

It IS impossible to prove something as universal as the non-existence of gods.

One thing I have noticed is the use of the word "atheist" here. "Atheist" is a descriptor...and one that has several meanings.

The discussion becomes much less complex if one stops the use of the descriptor...and use the actual description itself.

If you mean "People who assert no gods exist...xyz"...stop using "atheists...xyz" and instead use what you mean, "People who assert no gods exist...xyz."

Not all people who identify as atheists assert that no gods exist.

BUT...it appears that EVERY PERSON who uses "atheist" as a descriptor has one of two different "beliefs." Either they "believe" no gods exist...or they "believe" it is more probable that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist."

Insofar as that is the case, they are as much "believers" as any theist.

Agree on the point about atheists. I am the kind of atheist who simply fails to believe in God. I can always be convinced with sufficient evidence otherwise. That is the most logically robust position.

It is, however, a somewhat contentious point here on this particular forum with Cypress. He seems to really dislike atheism if it questions some things in the Old Testament. He ended up suggesting I was an antisemite because I pointed out theologically difficult concepts concerning the God of the Old Testament. His friend, Doc Dutch, then decided I was a "violent atheist".

There are people on here who claim equanimity about religious belief but they have a VERY negative view of atheism. I can only assume the obvious when I see that.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

From Quote Investigator:
REFERENCE

Proverbs 17:28.
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.

Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.


Thanks for the link. Good advice. You should consider taking it. Vaya con Dios.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It is not impossible to prove a negative.

Assert a negative like, "There are no live African elephants in my top left desk drawer"...

...and then prove it by opening the drawer.

It IS impossible to prove something as universal as the non-existence of gods.

One thing I have noticed is the use of the word "atheist" here. "Atheist" is a descriptor...and one that has several meanings.

The discussion becomes much less complex if one stops the use of the descriptor...and use the actual description itself.

If you mean "People who assert no gods exist...xyz"...stop using "atheists...xyz" and instead use what you mean, "People who assert no gods exist...xyz."

Not all people who identify as atheists assert that no gods exist.

BUT...it appears that EVERY PERSON who uses "atheist" as a descriptor has one of two different "beliefs." Either they "believe" no gods exist...or they "believe" it is more probable that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist."

Insofar as that is the case, they are as much "believers" as any theist.

Agreed. It's why agnosticism is the most logical POV. Leaning toward atheism or theism involves unprovable beliefs.

 

[Cypress]

Here is my take on the question of gods:


I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Agnosticism seems like the most logical approach.

Knowledge, as in certain, neccessary, and universal knowledge which is beyond any doubt is perhaps largely beyond our simian cognitive abilities.

Science only provides us interpretations of the relationships between empirical observations. It generally doesn't answer questions about any reality behind those relationships. Those are metaphysical questions, and science doesn't typically concern with questions of that nature.

On the other hand, imagination and ritual belief are highly unreliable. But I think the Dao, Brahman, Li, God are all human constructs that presuppose a higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos. Absent any relevant information, it seems to me that a higher organizing principle is just as likely, as a cosmos that resulted randomly and for no discernable reason whatsoever.

 

[BidenPresident]

Agnosticism seems like the most logical approach.

Knowledge, as in certain, neccessary, and universal knowledge which is beyond any doubt is perhaps largely beyond our simian cognitive abilities.

Science only provides us interpretations of the relationships between empirical observations. It generally doesn't answer questions about any reality behind those relationships. Those are metaphysical questions, and science doesn't typically concern with questions of that nature.

On the other hand, imagination and ritual belief are highly unreliable. But I think the Dao, Brahman, Li, God are all human constructs that presuppose a higher organizing principle underlying the cosmos. Absent any relevant information, it seems to me that a higher organizing principle is just as likely, as a cosmos that resulted randomly and for no discernable reason whatsoever.

Agnosticism is just moral indecision.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Proverbs 17:28.
Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.

Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.


Thanks for the link. Good advice. You should consider taking it. Vaya con Dios.

Maybe you should. You attributed the quote but were now shown it is not necessarily what you said.

But you said it anyway.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Agreed. It's why agnosticism is the most logical POV. Leaning toward atheism or theism involves unprovable beliefs.

Wrong.

You are not agnostic about invisible elephants in the road when you are driving. You are not testing for them, you simply fail to believe they exist.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Agnosticism is just moral indecision.

No it is not.

It is a very, very firm decisive decision.

And an honest one...which it has over those who assert there IS a god and those who assert THERE ARE NO GODS.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Agnosticism is just moral indecision.

Here is my position again (an agnostic position)...and there is no indecision whatsoever in that position. There is an explanation of why I will not make a blind guess in either direction. Nothing indecisive about that.




I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Maybe you should. You attributed the quote but were now shown it is not necessarily what you said.

But you said it anyway.

Sad. Now you know why I keep telling everyone who thinks I'm Perry PhD that I don't have a PhD. LOL