Question for Atheists

Well I still think the notion of relying on Modern Western epistemology to prove or disprove the existence of an external deity is wrong-headed. God's existence cannot be proven or disproven if one's mind is straightjacketed by the demands of modern science. You cannot take a materialistic stance that objectifies God in a serious effort to find an invisible, undetectable entity. God's existence must be experienced differently. You must think of an epistemology beyond science.

If Santa, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or pink ravens had a profound transformative impact on people's lives, I would not think you were making a logical error of unfair comparison.

Would limb regeneration really be proof of God? How so? Why is it that something like that would satisfy you when profound personal transformation would not? Is it really more tangible to you? Do you need to witness a miracle to consider the possibility of God. Even if you did, would you not search for a way to explain it as a placebo effect, self-motivation, or anything similar?

 

Science is logic and reason. I see nothing wrong with applying this to

Does Santa not have a profound impact on the lives of children?

Does the number of people who believe in a concept make it more or less valid?

Limb regeneration, if it suddenly happened when prayed for, is unrealistic enough to justify belief in a supernatural force intervening. Humans have never been able to spontaneously grow their limbs back, ever. No placebo effect or self-motivation could really have an effect here.

 

Right, so you hold that those opposing views cannot be reconciled, thus your thinking is dualistic.

How do you know that you were trying it on your own, or that the results were the same? You have simply chosen to believe so, just as I have chosen to declare God indespensible from such attempts. Therefore God exists for me, but not for you. QED

Perhaps, but that does not make such qualities any less real to people's picture of reality in the here and now.

 

They can be reconciled. I have been both, and completely understand both sides. As such, I revert to the pro-choice side.

Unless God has helped me with every single thing I've ever attempted, good or evil, I am capable of accomplishing things by myself. There was no "good luck" coming into play, I made it with hard work, skill, and intelligence, with no help from the outside.

Exactly right!

 

let me ask all you athiest, where do we go when we die

 

Nowhere. Your consciousness ceases to exist.

 

In the ground Excell

 

Im pretty much athiest but i believe in ghosts n shit. definately something goes on when you die imo. Just because there is no god does not mean there is not some kind of afterlife.

 

yeah thats completly true and yet many athiests attempt to "disprove" gods existance, its possible to attempt to disprove gods characteristics but not a diety itself

 

Just like it's impossible to disprove the IPU, FSM, Santa, and Smurfs.

 

haha yes thats exactly what were disscusing, but is it really possible to prove that anything at all exists?

 

Only tautologies.

For those of you who don't know, a tautology is a proposition that conveys no new information simply because, by definition, it is true. For example, "a brother is a male sibling", "triangles have three sides", and "bachelors are unmarried". All of those things are true by definition, and involved no logical deductions.

 

Shredder, that is only you. I have spoken to other athiests at my school, they differ. The only thing that holds all athiests together is their disbelief of a god, or an ultimate supreme being- the rest is simply opinionated. However, I was implying unearthly topics regarding the heavens and such, not mind abstractions.

 

Oh, then yes, I would tend to agree with you there.

 

This is one of those rare occasions where Shredder actually agrees with someone.

 

Actually, Shredderbeam, your examples are of linguistic rather than logical tautologies because they are based on the definitions of the words involved. Your definition is mostly right though, in the sense of a logical tautology: a tautology is a true proposition that conveys no new information. Examples would be: "today it will snow or not snow", or "Clinton will win or not win the nomination", etc.

And yes, of course it is possible to prove that something exists, or would you be so bold as to try to deny that the words you are reading right now do not exist. Do you question or deny your own existence?

It is also possible to prove that something does not exist if you limit the scope of your investigation. There are no dragons in my living room. What cannot be proven is a universal negative proposition; such as: God does not exist.

It is more difficult to prove that something does not exist than to prove that something does exist, at least if we are talking abot scientific proof (rather than some sort of vapid metaphysics). To scientifically prove that something exists, I need olny observe it, and have my observations verified by others. Based on numerous verifications (i.e., reliability), the scientific community would be forced to accept that the observed phenomenon did in fact exist. Theory would give way to fact... It is more difficult to prove that something does not exist, because skeptics can always argue that more observations are needed to reach a conclusion.

 

Actually, yes, you're right. I didn't think of that.

Well, it is possible to reasonably prove that something exists. I can see the words, it is a subjective experience that my consciousness is experiencing, and it is not irrational for me to believe what I see.

However, it is not impossible for me to be wrong. It could be an illusion of sorts.

As to the concept that the knowledge of self is the only immutable thing that one can know for certain (outside of tautologies), I'm not so sure. I can see that the experience of self could be an illusion, though it is quite difficult to put into words. Sometimes, I vaguely see myself from a third person perspective, or seem to, at any rate. This provides a tiny glimpse into how it might be possible.

If I may provide a rather uncouth example: When one is intoxicated, to the point of "blacking out", one's awareness seems to slip away, though the body continues to function. It's rather like transforming into a philosophical zombie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie), a somewhat unsettling experience.

Well, said dragon could be invisible, extremely small, always be right behind you, etc.

Yes, now there I agree. I would say that, at least in my world view, there are two ways of proving something: Purely logical proof, and scientific proof. To scientifically disprove something like God universally is just about impossible, because there is no way that we can observe every point in the universe simultaneously. It would be much easier to prove that God did exist, for example, a God coming down and performing clear and obvious miracles, answering questions, subjecting itself to some sort of test, etc.

Lol, I agree with people a large amount of the time. I just usually don't say anything if I agree, unless I feel the need to clarify something.

 

these are many things yet for the science to discover, some ppl in the past were sure this planet was plain, so we cant just say something is unreal or inexistent just because we cant explain it yet with scientist methods or logic

 

thats great, but until science says god exists it does not. Because for something to exist, science has to be able to prove it.

 

so the earth was plain untill science discover it was a sphere?
and electricity doesnt existed 1500 years ago cuz with our scientist level at that moment we couldnt explained it .
facts have always been facts even if our conception is in discrepancy at the moment
Maybe in some years the scientinst would be able to prove by some methods god existance we dont know at all, im not telling this is going to happen but . it might