...the epic debate.

Subject: ...the epic debate. Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:09 pm

So... is there a god? And, if so, to what extent? And, if omnipotent, then can he make a boulder so big he cannot move it? Etc...

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:33 pm

I really don't think so.

Give me evidence that there is a god, I will be an instant believer. As it is, believing in something exists, just because there's no reason it doesn't exist, is silly.

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:49 pm

There is some evidence for a kind of immiterial energy, but I'm not sure that it's caused by anything that we can't eventually figure out.

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:50 pm

Can you show me that evidence? I'd love to see it

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:52 pm

Double-blind placebo-controlled tests that Reiki has a beneficial effect. I don't have a link to the research, but if it's that important I can look for it, I think I saw a source in the book I got this from...

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:53 pm

It'd be really cool if you could find that.

Subject: A Tue Oct 13, 2009 10:33 pm

Assume there is a god.
Yes, he could make a boulder that big... and then he would move it anyways
mind=blown

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:32 am

Griffin wrote:

believing something just because there's no reason it doesn't exist, is silly.

I agree with this logic. However, the opposite is true too, just because we can't perceive something doesn't mean its not there. Kind of like when we discover something new, we have the tendency to assume that the phenomena is new, when in reality, it's probably been going on for eons. My two cents.

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:53 pm

Logan_Mitchell wrote:

Griffin wrote:

believing something just because there's no reason it doesn't exist, is silly.

I agree with this logic. However, the opposite is true too, just because we can't perceive something doesn't mean its not there. Kind of like when we discover something new, we have the tendency to assume that the phenomena is new, when in reality, it's probably been going on for eons. My two cents.

If you have no evidence for something's existance, you can neither prove nor (in this case) disprove it. However, you should not believe in it until you have reason to do so.

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:12 pm

But one of the many logical explanations for religion is the psychological 'need' for a deity, or similar. Is this reason enough to believe in something?

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:13 pm

...you're saying that the fact that, psychologically, we automatically create deities is a reason to belive that they're real?

Orange Posts: 39 Reputation: 0 Join date: 2009-10-12

Pascal's Wager/thread imo

I'm agnostic because even though there's an extremely low chance of God actually existing if he does I would rather not go to hell or wherever because I was wrong

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:47 pm

Max_Chalmers wrote:

Pascal's Wager/thread imo

I'm agnostic because even though there's an extremely low chance of God actually existing if he does I would rather not go to hell or wherever because I was wrong

I'd rather not live my life as a lie just because of the extremely remote possibility of something...

Logan_Mitchell wrote:

But one of the many logical explanations for religion is the psychological 'need' for a deity, or similar. Is this reason enough to believe in something?

I think that is a wonderful argument for religious tolerance. Do not attempt to crush someone's belief, because it's probably something they base their life on

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:02 pm

Max_Chalmers wrote:

I'm agnostic because even though there's an extremely low chance of God actually existing if he does I would rather not go to hell or wherever because I was wrong

That's not agnosticism, that's indecisiveness. But I'll give you something on one point--if hypothetical-god-thing actually did send people to Hell for believing that it doesn't exist, many self-proclaimed "agnostics" would likely be right there with them, and you probably would be too.

For the sake of this thread, let us define a few things.
First of all, agnosticism is not a religion at all. It is not even an inherently theological belief. However, it IS one of the most horrendously misused and abused labels ever. It is the philosophical idea that certain things (in this context, usually the existence of a god or gods) aren't or can't ever be known.
Secondly, though neither is atheism a religion, it is a theology, and in some ways it is as much a statement of faith as Christianity.
And finally, theistic belief does not imply religion. My definition, at least, of religion includes those customs and practices that accompany or are a part of a belief. Not only that, but plenty of people are (for example) practicing Christians, but do not believe or are uncertain of their belief in God. Though they would almost certainly not identify as such, theoretically a person could be a Christian atheist.

On another note, it's kind of silly to talk about the "chance" of God existing. How exactly does one evaluate the probability of a divine entity?

Another diversion: the well-known and highly paraphrased quote commonly attributed to Epicurus

Quote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

In the original quote, as I understand it, it is more likely that the last pair of lines were in fact before the third pair, and the wording by this point in time is uncertain, but it's still pretty widely quoted. Keep in mind, Epicurus was NOT an atheist. It's believed that he was closer to being a deist than anything else. In other words, he believed in the gods, but did not believe that they intervened in the affairs of humans.
And all in all deism is a pretty good resolution to this trilemma. Another way of phrasing this in conjunction with the quote would be that God does have morals, but they compel him to let us deal with the problems we got ourselves into. The only other resolution that I can come up with is that God does not have the same concept of morality that we do.

Assuming that this latter case is in fact a reality, and for the sake of making a point, I will ask a series of related, only SOMEWHAT rhetorical, questions.

-Why would God send people to Hell at all?
-Why would God send people to Hell for being nonbelievers when people are given no actual evidence of God's existence?
-What would God send people to hell for?
-Why do people assume that humans are capable of answering that question?
-Why do people assume that they can not only answer it, but know all of the answers?
-How does God decide what is damnable?
-What is there to say that his decision in this matter is not fully arbitrary?
-Why, then, would anybody assume that religion results in salvation?

And now, if you've made it through that veritably stone-dense wall of text, I congratulate you and leave you to ponder.

Subject: Re: ...the epic debate. Sat Oct 17, 2009 12:29 pm

Quote:

Pascal's Wager/thread imo

I'm agnostic because even though there's an extremely low chance of God actually existing if he does I would rather not go to hell or wherever because I was wrong

I think the whole point of Occam's razor in this context is that one doesn't even have to bother with Pascal's wager because there's no reason to believe a God exists in the first place.

Being an agnostic is a point of view that makes a lot of sense, but we also have to evalute its usefulness. Why would one believe in God? As far as I can tell, there are several good reasons. One, humility. God is a very useful way to understand that we are not, in fact, in control. Another is that God is a place to turn when you literally have no where else. I happen to think tht these beliefs are more useful to some people than to others, and if it really makes people's lives better, why question it? Not everyone is concerned with Truth, in the philosophical sense.

I would contend, Griff, that in cases like these, where we literally have no possibility of knowing, that living your life that way wouldn't be a "lie". If someone believes in God, doesn't that make him functionally real?

I'm interested, also: For the sake of conversation, there is a God. What is He/She/It like?

» ...the epic debate.
» One Epic Signature - Neverwinter
» The Most Epic [Music maybe] Video of All Time
» Clan: Epic Fighters
» Debate ng Bayan

...the epic debate.

...the epic debate.

Similar topics

Similar topics