Moderator: Dan~
The Big Bang is the greatest chunk of horseshit ever devised.
Atheists believe in it. They believe in an even more irrational notion than God.
God is simply not built of reason, you arrive at it through a more complete psychic process. It is a stage of mind, a humanity. And the poems about gods creating the world, are all about elements and logics, not about bearded old men.
The Big Bang however, this is fully and actively contrarational. I is onsensical to posit a beginning of time including a state before that, which was supposedly singular and yet gave birth to something that is not - so, you mean, god exists, we just call him "science" now, and destroy science, but dont mind because we're morons anyway not to be trusted with it... the belief of the Last Man: a seismic event in time space occurred, thus this was the god that died and we are now ashamed to believe in, because ae sin and do nothing but sin and waste out lives. Fuck Big Bangers -
The error: tto push causal logic through a state defined as negative of the causalitylogics you are working with, so as to arrive at the conclusion that everything was created in an instance out of a timeless all-being.
Erik_ wrote:In this thread, I'm going to quickly explain why the theistic worldview is rational.
I am a perenial theist, which means that I see truths of the divine in many different religions and philosophies.
There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God.
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguements.
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.
According to popular science, the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.
So, contrary to popular opinion, science actually evinces the possibility of God's existence, as the big bang theory is congruent
with the Kalam cosmlogical argument, something based in philosophy.
There are many more things I can state on this topic, but I will leave it at this and see what sort of dialogues can occur through this.
E wrote:
There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguments
The Kalam cosmlogical argument to me is the soundest one
In essence it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause
of this universe is something timeless immaterial intelligent and very powerful . These qualities are conventionally associated with God
According to popular science the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe
So contrary to popular opinion science actually evinces the possibility of Gods existence as the big bang theory is
congruent with the Kalam cosmlogical argument something based in philosophy
Erik_ wrote:
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.
Fanman wrote:Erik_ wrote:
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.
Yet, there is only anecdotal evidence for the existence of such a being, such as people's testimonies. I'm agnostic, but I think that logical arguments for the existence of God all encounter the same problem, in that they all require a leap of faith. How can an argument be sound or even relatively sound if the conclusion is reliant upon faith and not fact? I don't believe that theism is unreasonable, because there may be compelling reasons why people believe in God, but I don't understand how in epistemological terms, belief can be called “justified”? How do we argue that someone's belief in God is justified, for what reasons?
Fanman wrote:Erik_ wrote:
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.
Yet, there is only anecdotal evidence for the existence of such a being, such as people's testimonies. I'm agnostic, but I think that logical arguments for the existence of God all encounter the same problem, in that they all require a leap of faith. How can an argument be sound or even relatively sound if the conclusion is reliant upon faith and not fact? I don't believe that theism is unreasonable, because there may be compelling reasons why people believe in God, but I don't understand how in epistemological terms, belief can be called “justified”? How do we argue that someone's belief in God is justified, for what reasons?
Fanman wrote:Hey Serendipper, blue waves are all good buddy.
I agree that whilst faith can be based upon interpretations, inclinations or even seeming correlations, it lacks the rigorous validity which would allow it to be justified as knowledge. If faith could be confirmed or justified, it would cease to be faith and become knowledge. The very nature of faith is belief without evidence, so it doesn't actually justify anything outside of what the individual believes. As such, I think we are well within reason to reject faith based claims posited as knowledge.
The KCA is perhaps the strongest logical argument for the existence of a creator, but it relies on cause and effect, which IMV makes it anecdotal rather than evidential. It seems logical that all things have a cause, but it is impossible to know if that is actually the case. Furthermore, if we accept that all things are caused, why should we then accept that one single being is uncaused.
Jakob wrote:There is, as all beginning thinkers realize, no cerainty to be attained whatsoever.
All knowledge requires a basic faith in the soundness of ones own mind. A philosopher is someone who radically questions this presumption.
In very simple terms, this is what Sokrates teaches.
The belief that one can be certain, as a limited being, of anything at all was put in question.
Erik_ wrote:In this thread, I'm going to quickly explain why the theistic worldview is rational.
I am a perenial theist, which means that I see truths of the divine in many different religions and philosophies.
There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God.
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguements.
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.
According to popular science, the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.
So, contrary to popular opinion, science actually evinces the possibility of God's existence, as the big bang theory is congruent
with the Kalam cosmlogical argument, something based in philosophy.
There are many more things I can state on this topic, but I will leave it at this and see what sort of dialogues can occur through this.
Please explain how you use empiricism to prove impossibility. If I observe millions of white swans and never see a black one, does that make a black swan impossible?Prismatic567 wrote:Erik_ wrote:In this thread, I'm going to quickly explain why the theistic worldview is rational.
I am a perenial theist, which means that I see truths of the divine in many different religions and philosophies.
There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God.
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguements.
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.
According to popular science, the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.
So, contrary to popular opinion, science actually evinces the possibility of God's existence, as the big bang theory is congruent
with the Kalam cosmlogical argument, something based in philosophy.
There are many more things I can state on this topic, but I will leave it at this and see what sort of dialogues can occur through this.
Nah! theism cannot & NEVER be justified rationally.
The Kalam cosmlogical argument faced various rational restraints, i.e.1. The epistemological infinite regression, i.e. there is no absolute first cause,
2. Cause and Effect re Hume is psychological, i.e. customs, habits and constant conjunction.
3. Scientific theories are merely polished conjectures [Popper] therefore cannot be a justified argument for an absolute God.
From the above, there are no reliable grounds for any sound justifications to theism.
The only sound justification to theism are desperate psychological and emotional necessities to soothe an inherent existential crisis. The thought of a God is merely thinking of something fake [illusory] to relieve psychological impulses.
Note thoughts themselves [even unjustified] do have great impacts on the person to the extent of killing the person, generate a positive attitude or providing reliefs to psychological pains, in this case the thought of God provide reliefs for existential pains.
The solution to all violent and evil acts related to God is to address it from the psychological perspectives within the theists brain/mind.
This had been addressed by Buddhism and other non-theistic spiritual paths since thousands of years ago albeit using crude methods. So we have to refine these existing methods.
In the first place the idea of God as real is an impossibility.
God is an Impossibility
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... ossibility
Thus to even start a discussion on whether God exists as real is moot.
felix dakat wrote:Please explain how you use empiricism to prove impossibility. If I observe millions of white swans and never see a black one, does that make a black swan impossible?Prismatic wrote:Nah! theism cannot & NEVER be justified rationally.
The Kalam cosmlogical argument faced various rational restraints, i.e.1. The epistemological infinite regression, i.e. there is no absolute first cause,
2. Cause and Effect re Hume is psychological, i.e. customs, habits and constant conjunction.
3. Scientific theories are merely polished conjectures [Popper] therefore cannot be a justified argument for an absolute God.
From the above, there are no reliable grounds for any sound justifications to theism.
The only sound justification to theism are desperate psychological and emotional necessities to soothe an inherent existential crisis. The thought of a God is merely thinking of something fake [illusory] to relieve psychological impulses.
Note thoughts themselves [even unjustified] do have great impacts on the person to the extent of killing the person, generate a positive attitude or providing reliefs to psychological pains, in this case the thought of God provide reliefs for existential pains.
The solution to all violent and evil acts related to God is to address it from the psychological perspectives within the theists brain/mind.
This had been addressed by Buddhism and other non-theistic spiritual paths since thousands of years ago albeit using crude methods. So we have to refine these existing methods.
In the first place the idea of God as real is an impossibility.
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&hilit=god+impossibility
Thus to even start a discussion on whether God exists as real is moot.
Erik_ wrote:In this thread, I'm going to quickly explain why the theistic worldview is rational.
I am a perenial theist, which means that I see truths of the divine in many different religions and philosophies.
There are various forms of evidence for the existence of God.
The primary ones that are compelling are philosophical arguements.
The Kalam cosmlogical argument, to me, is the soundest one.
In essence, it posits that whatever begins to exist has a cause, and that the physical universe had a beginning and that the cause of this
universe is something timeless, immaterial, intelligent and very powerful. These qualities are conventionally associated with God.
According to popular science, the big bang theory is the most plausible explanation for the origin of the universe.
So, contrary to popular opinion, science actually evinces the possibility of God's existence, as the big bang theory is congruent
with the Kalam cosmlogical argument, something based in philosophy.
There are many more things I can state on this topic, but I will leave it at this and see what sort of dialogues can occur through this.
In the first place the idea of God as real is an impossibility.
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&hilit=god+impossibility
Thus to even start a discussion on whether God exists as real is moot.
Anything that is empirically possible and can be verified cannot be dismissed as impossible.
Thus an empirically related God, e.g. that bearded man in the sky [anthropomorphized] is possible. The challenge is to bring empirical evidence of such a god for verification which is very unlikely.
Fanman wrote:Serendipper,
I like your comments on faith, cause and effect and time, they are well thought out. I agree that if there was something existent before time began, it would be problematic to measure in linear terms, such as cause and effect, because there is no such frame of reference. All we can say is that anything pre time simply “existed” and there's a sense of infinity about that.
In terms of faith, I agree that there is a type of faith that we can call justified, but that, I feel, is based upon empirical knowledge, such as having faith that things which have occurred repeatedly will continue to occur. Religious faith is justified based upon correlation and testimonies, it's anecdotal, not completely blind, but lacking in rigorous testability and empirical veracity.
Serendipper wrote:That philosophy negates its own foundation.
Venture wrote:Its been awhile since I visited these forums and a lot has changed for me since.
The Earth will eventually shake us off like a bad case of the fleas
I've always found it fascinating that atheists could be more if not just as 'moral' than the quiet Christian
encode_decode wrote:Serendipper wrote:That philosophy negates its own foundation.
What is the foundation of philosophy?
Serendipper wrote:I'm not sure of the foundation for philosophy itself, I was just saying that a philosophy that starts with the premise that one cannot trust himself is a philosophy that is self-defeating because the premise itself would be in question.
Serendipper wrote:That's what philosophy is, but its foundation? I don't know. It's just how you're put together I guess.
encode_decode wrote:Serendipper wrote:I'm not sure of the foundation for philosophy itself, I was just saying that a philosophy that starts with the premise that one cannot trust himself is a philosophy that is self-defeating because the premise itself would be in question.
Ah ha . . . yes . . . a philosophy. Often overlooked is the fact that there is no philosophy but just a bunch of philosophies.
Serendipper wrote:That's what philosophy is, but its foundation? I don't know. It's just how you're put together I guess.
Philosophy has no foundation but a good philosophy does.
I am pretty certain that you catch my drift.
Return to Religion and Spirituality
Users browsing this forum: Dan~