Disproving the Existence of God

[six45ive]

Whether it's an oxymoron or not depends purely on whether it contains contradictory elements. It doesn't, therefore it's not an oxymoron.

 

I'm afraid it does which I will clearly point out to you when you've answered my question 'what are the arguments to claim that proofs of Gods existence/non-existence are not at all relevant to their personal belief?'

 

I'm unsure as to exactly what changes you've made to my argument to make it rational.

 

I haven't made any changes to your 'argument' because you haven't made one yet. I made changes to your 'statement' so that it reads more accurately so you may want to re read it;

 

'The context was, a rational person who believes in God who uses arguments, not to try and proove God exists, but to debate some of the issues that lie around that question- one of which could be using arguments to claim that proofs of Gods existence/non-existence are not at all relevant to their personal belief.'

 

Best thing is to read over my recent previous posts on this thread and the other current 'God thread' (I'll post a link to the other thread if you're not aware of it) as I've written several hundred words on some of those arguments- clearly there's no point me rewriting them when you can simply go over those posts.

 

You don't have to rewrite them, just copy and paste the 'arguments to claim that proofs of Gods existence/non-existence are not at all relevant to their personal belief'.

Shouldn't be too difficult for you to do to back up your claim. Don't forget, it's you making the claim here so it's up to you to provide the evidence.

[Grahame]

Yeah that's it Grahame. Take one individual case and completely twist what I said, while completely avoiding the question. It's precisely what I have come to expect. I'm going to go all Paxman on you now and I'm going to continue asking you until you answer the question...

 

How do you reconcile your two statements "I do not believe that we are born with evil in us" and "Mankind is inherently evil" which are completely contradictory?

 

Substitute mankind for cars.

 

"I do not believe a well made car leaves the factory with faults in it" but I do believe "Cars are inherently faulty."

 

[evildrneil]

Yes and I pointed out that your terminology was wrong to try and conflate beliefs with simple opinion when you're discussing an important issue like the belief in a god with the opinion of who was the better group, the Rolling Stones or the Beatles.

 

What I stated as beliefs were perfectly well described by the definition I gave. As for conflating the two - are you sure your not making a false separation between the words for your own purposes - dictionaries and thesauri seem to be quite happy using them synonymously?

 

be·lief

–noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction:

 

 

No he's got it correct.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

 

That depends entirely on the definition. Given that the gnosis in agnostic while it is translated as "knowledge" it specifically refers to an intuitive mystical knowledge not any sort of reasoned scientific knowlege (epistemiology). It's this lack of direct translation that makes it such a difficult concept to work with and one that has some many definiions of connotations. I work with it as meaning:

 

Agnostic:

- noun

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

 

As he clearly stated in the video that 'beliefs inform actions' and therefore there needs to be an understanding of the value that can be given to those beliefs so we can make a rational judgement about the actions carried out because of those beliefs.

 

But a belief is not an action. If I hold a belief in X then there is no need for any sort of validation because it is an abstract. If I perform action Y based on belief that X is absolutely true and I need to explain action Y then there may, by extension, need to be an explaination for X.

 

No because the definition of faith is; 'belief without evidence/proof'. In this thread I've provided some evidence that gives an understanding that it's impossible for a theistic god to exist.

 

Erm no you haven't - you provided some philosophical arguments which are entirely predicated on a set of beliefs which you obviously hild but which aren't absolute fact.

 

I'm still waiting for you to explain that one to me.

 

As I said before - I can't explain it as I don#t subscribe to that belief structure. The fact I don't subscribe to it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

And that's OK but most scientists are atheists.

 

Whether or not that's true you still can't conflate the two terms

 

No, I'm quite happy with the title. It broadens the scope of discussion from a purely theistic god to the undefined god which is clearly no god at all.

 

Hardly clearly no god at all - you're simply putting your views down as absolute and self evident fact which is by no means the case.

 

Then you'd be completely wrong.

I would have said that an irrational person is one who says "I believe X but I know that I can not prove it's veracity but it works for me so I'm happy in that belief and how it informs my actions" where a rational person is one who will "withold a belief until such evidence comes along that is required to meet its burden of proof".

 

Again - in your opinion. Unfortunately once again your using your opinions as absolute fact rather than as oppinions...

 

No just those that make a claim.

 

Why just those who make a claim - a claim of a personal truth (i.e. a belief) requires no external validation where a claim of an absolute truth (i.e. something that will affect others) requires some external validation.

[dagaul101]

I think we all have faith to a certain extent, even the atheist, the disbelief in a God is in of itself a manisfestation of faith, faith in no faith

[Grahame]

If only you can take responsibility, then why ask god for forgiveness? Sounds like 'passing the buck' to me.

 

If you mug an old lady then you are responsible. You cannot forgive yourself that can only come from the person you have wronged.

 

Shouldn't the "self" take responsibility themself? I would rather someone [a person] forgive me for my actions, than commit something that I know is wrong, only to ask god for forgiveness.

 

Of course 'self' should take responsibility for yourself. As above, you are correct in thinking forgiveness can only come from someone else, so think of the family where harming one person hurts the whole family. You might for example have the 'father' to answer to.

 

Part of understanding 'selfish' oneself, is knowing what is wrong, for your own preconceptions of what 'wrong' is. For that reason, everyone has different meanings of wrong. Yours are perhaps based on biblical writing.

 

Putting the Bible to one side for the moment, I define 'wrong' as anything that either harms you, your family, other people, or society at large.

 

 

[sharrowman]

'Putting the Bible to one side for the moment, I define 'wrong' as anything that either harms you, your family, other people, or society at large. '

 

Like cars?

Or sugar?

[sharrowman]

God has been superceded by technology, whether he exists or not he has been rendered redundant. The religious promise of salvation after death has been upstaged by the technological promise of eternal life on earth.

 

Yarp

[six45ive]

What I stated as beliefs were perfectly well described by the definition I gave. As for conflating the two - are you sure your not making a false separation between the words for your own purposes - dictionaries and thesauri seem to be quite happy using them synonymously?

 

be·lief

–noun

1. something believed; an opinion or conviction:

 

Colloquially I don't have a problem with the above definition but here we're talking specifically about religious beliefs (faith) but if you're happy to concede that your faith is just an opinion (no more and no less) then I'm quite happy with that.

 

That depends entirely on the definition. Given that the gnosis in agnostic while it is translated as "knowledge" it specifically refers to an intuitive mystical knowledge not any sort of reasoned scientific knowlege (epistemiology). It's this lack of direct translation that makes it such a difficult concept to work with and one that has some many definiions of connotations. I work with it as meaning:

 

Agnostic:

- noun

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

 

Yes which is what Matt said on the video and I would follow his line of reasoning by describing myself as an agnostic atheist and antitheist. However, as shown by this thread, I'm about as close to gnosticism as I believe it's possible to be on this subject with the evidence that's available atm.

 

But a belief is not an action. If I hold a belief in X then there is no need for any sort of validation because it is an abstract. If I perform action Y based on belief that X is absolutely true and I need to explain action Y then there may, by extension, need to be an explaination for X.

 

I never said a belief was an action but thank you for agreeing with me on the rest of your statement.

 

Erm no you haven't - you provided some philosophical arguments which are entirely predicated on a set of beliefs which you obviously hold but which aren't absolute fact.

 

No, I've provided some philosophical evidence that a xtians or theists definition of god is an impossibility.

 

As I said before - I can't explain it as I don#t subscribe to that belief structure. The fact I don't subscribe to it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

So, if you can't explain a statement that you made then why did you make it? What point does it serve?

 

Whether or not that's true you still can't conflate the two terms

 

I can because in my experience of being around scientists (and being one myself) their atheism comes from understanding the scientific method and why it's the best method we have for seperating fact from fiction. Although I agree that some scientists manage to compartmentalise their religious beliefs from their scientific knowledge.

 

Hardly clearly no god at all - you're simply putting your views down as absolute and self evident fact which is by no means the case.

 

Then please explain how an undefined god is god and I'll respond to that. Without that my default position is clearly correct.

 

Why just those who make a claim - a claim of a personal truth (i.e. a belief) requires no external validation where a claim of an absolute truth (i.e. something that will affect others) requires some external validation.

 

Can you explain why a claim about 'personal truth (i.e. a belief)' would never affect that person's actions?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWvPPhM2Vao

[Karis]

I think we all have faith to a certain extent, even the atheist, the disbelief in a God is in of itself a manisfestation of faith, faith in no faith

 

No. Disbelief is not in ANY way faith. In fact, they are polar opposites.

 

It can, at best, be considered a belief (in your own opinions).

[Grahame]

'Putting the Bible to one side for the moment, I define 'wrong' as anything that either harms you, your family, other people, or society at large. '

 

Like cars?

Or sugar?

 

We were talking about the things people do.

 

Putting the Bible to one side for the moment, I define 'wrong' as anything PEOPLE DO that either harms you, your family, other people, or society at large. '