God Does Not Exist Because .........

[LetThereBe]

I am interested, and as best as I understand your terms..... I agree so far.

[Flip Jackson]

Sorry, been out of town since Friday visiting family. Didn't think this would get so long in a few days.

I will try to address your #5 as best as I can. Feelings and such are hard to address because they come from so many things. Intuition is a big one. So often we just "feel" we have forgotten something, someone is watching us, and so on. I think things like love and happiness even fit in this area. There are so many facets of emotion that, even though we try to explain them with hormones and stuff, that isn't quite enough. Maybe we just don't understand our bodies enough and the things that cause them to react all the many ways they do. I guess this could be strongly related to touch, but in an inward way. Its difficult to explain.

I do think that feelings and logic can be used to create concepts, but they probably have to use information that has been previously recieved from other senses.

I suppose I will concede, until I can come up with a reason why I shouldn't, that the five obvious senses are the main ways we see our reality, and we generally build from there. I still hold that an emotional or intuitive sense holds sway in the concepts we form.

I agree that concepts are formed in our mind and our based on things we have experienced with our senses. I agree that when we use logic we attempt to form concepts that do not contradict themselves.

To gain knowledge about reality, we must use logic. Sounds alright to me. I still don't see where this is going, but am ready for the next point. For future reference, I like that you want to hit this at the source instead of another silly "atheists are going to Hell, and thiests bite" thread. I will try to keep up with what is happening, but some pretty important stuff is going on in my life, so I make no promises.

Peace out for now doudes.

[zynner]

Flip:

I suppose I will concede, until I can come up with a reason why I shouldn't,

Are you saying you want a reason to accept a counter view? Faith is not good enough?

that the five obvious senses are the main ways we see our reality, and we generally build from there.

OK.

LTB:

I am interested, and as best as I understand your terms..... I agree so far.

OK.

I will point out one thing: both of you are attempting to leave yourselves an "out." Do you notice that?

Moving along, we now have agreement on:

(1) Reality exists and includes everything.
(2) If god exists, he exists in reality.
(3) If god exists, he exists independent of what any person thinks.
(4) Each thing (entity) that exists in reality has a unique identity.
(5) Our senses are our primary method of gaining knowledge about reality.
(6) We form abstract concepts, which are linked to what we perceive in reality.
(7) We gain knowledge by organizing our perceptions and abstractions with the method of logic.

So, what is "knowledge?" I will define it as: Knowledge is that which we are aware is a fact of reality. We must identify something that is the subject of study. We must then determine whether or not this something is consistent with reality. If it is, we can say that we know it, or that we have gained knowledge that it is true (or that it is false).

I will add #8: Knowledge is that which we are aware is a fact of reality.

Further, the process of using our senses, forming concepts, and using logic is a process of thinking that is called "reason." This is the human method of gaining knowledge, or facts about reality.

It is the basis upon which all human knowledge exists. When Armstrong set foot on the Moon, he had to know what to do. In addition, there were many other people throughout history who gained facts of reality (knowledge) that led to his Moon walk. There had to be someone figured out how to land the craft. Someone had to figure out how to launch the craft. Someone had to figure out how to build the craft. Someone had to figure out how to make the marterials and parts to build the craft. Someone had to figure out various aspects of space, gravity, propulsion, engineering and physics. In short, Neil Armstrong did not do it all himself. His action was the sum total of all the knowledge he and the others involved in the project had available in order to take that action.

The way each of these people were able to learn various facts of reality was to use reason. That is, they perceived reality, they formed concepts based upon that, they used a logical means of testing ideas against reality, discarding the ones that did not work and keeping the ones that did, and then building upon that base of knowledge going forward.

This is the only way humans can gain knowledge, which means it is the only way humans can understand reality. Reason is our means of gaining knowledge about reality. It is our only way.

When we have emotions, feelings, intuitions, etc., we feeling physical processes within our bodies, which are a link between our ideas and our perceptions. For example, if you see a lion charging at you, you feel fear. This is a natural instinct causing you to take action. Why do you feel the fear? Because something in reality (the lion) is being perceived and it is conflicting with some idea you hold as a value (your value to live). This conflict results in a bad emotion. When we feel good emotions, it is our body's process of comparing something in reality with an idea we hold as a positive value and we get a good emotion because they are in harmony (good), rather than confliction (bad).

These feelings can give us hunches about things. The scientist trying to build a rocket might suddenly think that a particular trajectory might make a better entry to orbit. It's a hunch. He values figuring out how to get the job done, so he thinks about it. He comes up with concepts of ideas that are possiblities, based on his existing knowledge. So, he uses logic to figure out how to test the idea, and then tests the idea in reality to see if he is right.

Notice, he thinks it MIGHT be better. He does not have knowledge that it IS better UNTIL he tests it using reason (senses, concepts, logic). His knowledge did NOT come from his hunch. It came from his ability to reason. This is true for ALL knowledge.

I will now add #9: Reason (senses, concepts, logic) is our only means of knowledge.

So, we have:

(1) Reality exists and includes everything.
(2) If god exists, he exists in reality.
(3) If god exists, he exists independent of what any person thinks.
(4) Each thing (entity) that exists in reality has a unique identity.
(5) Our senses are our primary method of gaining knowledge about reality.
(6) We form abstract concepts, which are linked to what we perceive in reality.
(7) We gain knowledge by organizing our perceptions and abstractions with the method of logic.
* (8) Knowledge is that which we are aware is a fact of reality.
* (9) Reason (senses, concepts, logic) is our only means of knowledge.

Do you agree?

If you disagree with #8 or #9, then state your case.

~ zynner

[LetThereBe]

You presuppose the non-existance of God. If the supernatural does exist, then direct revelation could be an additional means of knowledge.

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe You presuppose the non-existance of God. If the supernatural does exist, then direct revelation could be an additional means of knowledge.

It would be the only means of knowledge of the supernatural. And it would be completely unreliable. How do you know that I have not already given you revelation of my godness. And that mother in Texas that bashed her kids heads in with a rock because god told her to, why put her in an insane asylum, she should be a saint and people should be allowed to come to her from everywhere because she is holy.

In the end revalation says more about the people that want to believe in such things than it can ever say about any supernatural.

Starboy

[zynner]

Quote by: LetThereBe You presuppose the non-existance of God.

Nope. #1-9 are my only statements. Show me where there is such a presupposition. It isn't there.

If the supernatural does exist, then direct revelation could be an additional means of knowledge.

"IF the supernatural exits, THEN revelation can be a means of knowledge."

That's an if-then statement.

YOU are the one presupposing things.

Show that revelation is a means of knowledge WITHOUT making that presupposition.

Show that revelation is a means of knowledge about ANYTHING, without presupposing god.

~ zynner

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Starboy It would be the only means of knowledge of the supernatural. And it would be completely unreliable. How do you know that I have not already given you revelation of my godness. And that mother in Texas that bashed her kids heads in with a rock because god told her to, why put her in an insane asylum, she should be a saint and people should be allowed to come to her from everywhere because she is holy. In the end revalation says more about the people that want to believe in such things than it can ever say about any supernatural. Starboy

But thats only true if the supernatural doesn't exist

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: zynner Nope. #1-9 are my only statements. Show me where there is such a presupposition. It isn't there. "IF the supernatural exits, THEN revelation can be a means of knowledge." That's an if-then statement. YOU are the one presupposing things. Show that revelation is a means of knowledge WITHOUT making that presupposition. Show that revelation is a means of knowledge about ANYTHING, without presupposing god. ~ zynner

No. I only leave open the possibility, while you elminate the possibility from the offset. You say that reason is the only source of knowledge. I just say there exists the possibility of another. I presuppose nothing. I merely leave the door open. I have not experienced divine revelation, so I cannot prove that it is a means of knowledge.

[zynner]

Quote by: LetThereBe No. I only leave open the possibility, while you elminate the possibility from the offset. You say that reason is the only source of knowledge. I just say there exists the possibility of another. I presuppose nothing. I merely leave the door open. I have not experienced divine revelation, so I cannot prove that it is a means of knowledge.

You can't away with that crap, dude.

You said:

"IF the supernatural exits, THEN revelation can be a means of knowledge."

I said:

That's an if-then statement.

Show that revelation is a means of knowledge about ANYTHING, without presupposing god.

Now, answer that if you expect to be taken seriously at all.

Use your mind. Think.

~ zynner

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe But thats only true if the supernatural doesn't exist

It doesn't matter. There is no way to tell whose revelation is real or not. But then again if the supernatural were actually real then you wouldn't need revelation. Revelation is the tip-off that it is bull shit.

Starboy

[Flip Jackson]

Is it really that difficult to show a little respect for a different view? Zynner, I have said repeatedly to you and a number of other people, I don't rely on blind faith. I have reasons for what I believe and what I do. Save your ridicule.

I would amend #8 just a little. I think knowledge is our best explanation of reality. I wouldn't say it is a fact of reality. A lot of scientific theories are explained to the best of our understanding, and we are always trying to make them better. I consider very few absolute facts, but we are working towards those facts.

I would like to point out that very little is based on feelings alone. Like you said, if you have a hunch or a feeling, you validate that feeling with other senses. That is true of most senses. Often we prefer to experience something with more than one sense, though we tend to accept a lot of knowledge from our eyes as fact. Usually if we hear something, we don't fully believe it is there unless we see it also.

About revelation. I think it fits in fine with what Zynner has said. I generally consider revelation as something you can either see or hear. I guess it could come as solely a feeling. But no matter how it is recieved, it is necessary to use reason to explain what just happened. Logic and reason is how we explain reality.

I don't think I have a problem with #9. I think that no matter what we experience, it is necessary to use reason to interpret what the experience means.

And I am not trying to leave myself an "out," as you said in your last post. I very rarely like to make concrete statements because it is usually easy to find something I overlooked, or realize something new. I'm not leaving myself "outs" so much as I am trying to keep my mind open to some new info. I could get.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Starboy Certainly one can draw that conclusion but so what? God is everything and god is nothing. A distinction that is no distinction is of no importance. Other than giving some kind of mental buzz to people that are easily amused it doesn't illuminate anything. Starboy

Your logic doesn't work. God is everything. He is not "Nothing". There's a huge distinction between being everything and being nothing. Using your logic a glass full of water is the same as is an empty one. It's just not true.

To say God is everything is not mental buzz at all. It's very simple. But it might be a unique concept to many.

[Boetie]

God does not exist. It started out with animism, then it evolved into polytheism, and finally graduated into monotheism.

The interesting thing is that when it finalized into monotheism, killings, wars, bloodshed and all the stupidity manifested and all done in the name of this monotheist god surfaced in the face of mankind. The three main religion Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all based more on politics than religion, in fact it is politics desquised as religion.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Starboy My point was that once you allow an all powerful being into your scheme of things then a turd is no longer a turd. It could be a god. I could be a god. Anything could be a god. Starboy

BTW: Eventually in your life you will not be able to creat a turd. When you finally do you will recognize that a turd in indeed one of God's blessings.

You're equation is interesting. But it doesn't apply. Consider the situation before the Big Bang (assuming that it's true). [There was no "time" before the BB.] The eons were just an instant.

Prior to the BB there was just a little itty bitty bit of infinite energy. There was no space, (The primorial atom was not "floating" in a huge void of space, space had not been created yet.) there was no time, there was nothing.....but there was something; I call it God. Hawkings said that it's known what happened an instant after the BB event, but we do not know why it happened. He said that the cause could be God. I accept Hawking's concept. Why not?

God is therefore the cause of the universe that occurred after the BB. (He was also everything prior to the birthing event. He is that tiny bit of energy.

I'm not sure that God thinks. He might though. Is the Universe actually a huge brain? Did God get smarter as the Universe grew? We know the universe has a charge, it is electric. Does it think? Could it be a huge computer? Could the universe be God's brain?

Of course I'm speculating - guessing. But I think that you get my drift, which is; God is much more than an old man sitting in heaven checking out the people on Earth.

My concept is extremely simple. It's also impossible to prove or refute. You are free, therefore; to accept or deny. I don't care one way or the other. And I doubt that God does either.

But it is interesting.

And BTW: the denominator in your equation is not zero, it's one.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Boetie God does not exist. It started out with animism, then it evolved into polytheism, and finally graduated into monotheism. The interesting thing is that when it finalized into monotheism, killings, wars, bloodshed and all the stupidity manifested and all done in the name of this monotheist god surfaced in the face of mankind. The three main religion Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all based more on politics than religion, in fact it is politics desquised as religion.

You are not discussing God here. You are discussing organized religion, which is a manifestation of mankind. Man has organized his search for God, these organizations are called religions. They have everything to do with man, and nothing to do with God.

Think outside of the box.

[Boetie]

Logjam posts You are not discussing God here

Logjam,

You didn't read my post. If you noticed I started out with animism. Animism is a belief not organized religion. Neanthredal man or early man didn't believe in a God, they believed in things like rocks having a soul, this evolved into the current madness we have today. Your attempt to make it out as if the concept God was the first concept of man needs some refining as it is not to convincing.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Flip Jackson I generally consider revelation as something you can either see or hear. I guess it could come as solely a feeling. But no matter how it is recieved, it is necessary to use reason to explain what just happened. Logic and reason is how we explain reality.

No, no and no. When you discuss the reasons for revelation you left out "thought". Certainly Helen Keller had revelations and she could neither see or hear.

Nor does logic necessarily prove the axioms of reality. Things that are very real can be illogical, for example; the Big Bang.

Logic comes from our ability to think and understand. There is, there must be; trueisms in existance that we can neither understand or even concieve of.

To say that something can only be real if it can be understood is false. There are also things that seem logical that are untrue. Take welfare programs for instance. We give money to the poor so that they will become successful and middle class. Seems logical, but it is false.

Furthermore, we do not have to explain reality to accept that it exists. Explanations can change, but realities of existance do not. Just consider man's changing explanations of the heavens.

Man's understanding of existance is irrevelant to truth of existance. Certainly we can learn and that's nice. But it's neither here nor there in the grand skeem of things.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Boetie Logjam, You didn't read my post. If you noticed I started out with animism. Animism is a belief not organized religion. Neanthredal man or early man didn't believe in a God, they believed in things like rocks having a soul, this evolved into the current madness we have today. Your attempt to make it out as if the concept God was the first concept of man needs some refining as it is not to convincing.

We do not know what Neanderthal man thought, but we do know that he buried his dead with ceremony, so it's seems that he had some kind of religious beliefs. It was Cro Magnum who worshiped that famous bear skull. Nor do we know when man developed a concept of the mystical. Neanderthal BTW: was quite primitive to our eyes, anyway. He could not speak; he probably grunted and used hand signals.

I've do not recall every hearing the term "animism" before. It is a new term? But I don't see how the term effects my earlier post. Glad you defined the term for me though.

I did not say that thinking of God was man's first thought. His first thoughts probably had something to do with chow and ladies. I suspect that man did not muse about his beginnings, or why things are; until he developed some leasure time. Time to think.

I am not trying to "convince" you of anything. After posting on sites like these I've discovered that trying to change a liberal's mind is counterproductive (assuming that you are a liberal).

I am simply discussing my concept of God. Furthermore I am not so intellectually conceided that I demand that you agree with me. After all, who am I? I'm just a guy sitting by my upstairs study window watching Fall's clouds drift by, thinking about the cosmos.

[Logjam]

Quote by: Boetie God does not exist.

You cannot say this, because you don't know that God doesn't exist. You just think that God doesn't exist.

Furthermore I don't think that you understand my concept of God. I think that you are considering the standard Christian concept of God. Which is (or can be) a God in heaven judging the comings and goings of folks on Earth. He's much more than that.

My concept of God is counter standard religious, I think. For example, I don't think He judges anyone. We judge ourselves and we have to live with our indiscretions.

My concept is something like this: God is, and if is, is; then so is God. I don't think that God cares what you, or I believe. I'm not even sure that he thinks. But the very fact that I can see down the road causes me to know that He is.

[Son of Belial]

Quote by: Logjam We do not know what Neanderthal man thought, but we do know that he buried his dead with ceremony, so it's seems that he had some kind of religious beliefs. It was Cro Magnum who worshiped that famous bear skull. Nor do we know when man developed a concept of the mystical. Neanderthal BTW: was quite primitive to our eyes, anyway. He could not speak; he probably grunted and used hand signals.

Cro-magnon man looked incrediblty similar to us. I saw an image where they took a skull and created what he would have looked like; if you saw him on the street, you wouldn't really think much of him.

I've do not recall every hearing the term "animism" before. It is a new term? But I don't see how the term effects my earlier post. Glad you defined the term for me though.[/quote]

Animists see spirits in everything. So they might worship spirits of trees, stones, have fetishes, see signs in everything, etc.