As an unbeliever these are the churches i will only visit and sit through services

[dreschi]

You can love someone who does not exist. No need to believe me about this.

You can love someone you don't believe to exist?
Okay, NOW you lost me. I was able to follow you up to this point, but this is something I truly cannot understand.
Well, I guess it does not make much sense to delve into this further. But it was an interesting discussion.

 

[dreschi]

And here we touch on falsifiability, which is another take on this whole question, albeit one few find satisfying: if something is not falsifiable, that something is meaningless true or false. Taking Bertrand Russel's teapot as an example, say there's a teapot orbiting around the earth. Someone says great, let's get a telescope. Well, it's invisible. Okay, let's get some radar. Well, it's too small be to be detected by radar. Okay, let's build a big net to 'feel' it. Oh, it's also incorporeal. And so on. In the end you get an object that has no effect, affects nothing and cannot be affected - in other words, it makes no difference whether or not that object actually exists.

Not necessarily. Many concepts in psychology do make sense (in the sense that you can explain a lot if your assumption is true) but they are not falsifiable because you cannot dissect peoples minds. The human mind is something you cannot study. You can only study peoples actions, what they are saying, brainwaves, and so on. But all those are just indicators of the thing you're talking about, and not the thing itself.

This is deism, and much like falsifiability, is a sort of irrelevant conclusion - what I mean by irrelevant is that if it's true or not, it makes no difference to us here and now. If no creator is paying attention to us or acting on us as theists believe, said creator might as well just be the big bang with 'god' slapped on it.

Well, of course religious people will tell you that it matters after you've died.

Seeing as this is a porn forum after all this these sorts of discussions take time, that's genuinely fair enough.

A porn forum might be the only place to discuss such things with pornstars. Unless you happen to know a pornstar personally but I guess most of us don't.

 

[SabrinaDeep]

You can love someone you don't believe to exist?
Okay, NOW you lost me. I was able to follow you up to this point, but this is something I truly cannot understand.
Well, I guess it does not make much sense to delve into this further. But it was an interesting discussion.

Too much logic, Dreschi, too much logic. I haven't said

you can love someone you don't believe to exist

i have said

you can love someone who does not exist.

Find the difference. Logic won't help you here.

 

[dreschi]

Okay, I see the difference. And I made a mistake based on logic. But if I now understand you correctly, it is still not illogical.

You can love someone who does not exist - provided you believe that this someone exists.

But in that case, if you believe this someone to exist, you wouldn't say "you can love someone who does not exist."

 

[SabrinaDeep]

I need to befriend you, if you would accept

 

[dreschi]

Gladly accepted.

 

[Rattrap]

Not necessarily. Many concepts in psychology do make sense (in the sense that you can explain a lot if your assumption is true) but they are not falsifiable because you cannot dissect peoples minds. The human mind is something you cannot study. You can only study peoples actions, what they are saying, brainwaves, and so on. But all those are just indicators of the thing you're talking about, and not the thing itself.

I'm not exactly sure I understand you here; of course we can study the human mind, and have been doing so probably since people figured out they have one. Modern science has made all sorts of breakthroughs in detecting brain activity for different thoughts/responses/etc and there will likely come a day when it'll be literally possible to read someone's mind. As scary a thought as that is.

As to falsifiability, one must separate what isn't falsifiable in practice (i.e., the sun is going to explode in a few billion years - that's something we obviously can't disprove now, but that doesn't mean it isn't disprovable) and that which isn't inherently. The former is a practical matter, the latter fits into my aforementioned meaningless category.

Well, of course religious people will tell you that it matters after you've died.

Ah, but this is assuming there's an afterlife or soul involved, which is another conclusion entirely (that also doesn't follow from any previous premise - i.e., even if there is a creator, it doesn't follow that there's an afterlife. That part is pure human fantasty based out of primal fear of mortality).

 

[dreschi]

I'm not exactly sure I understand you here; of course we can study the human mind, and have been doing so probably since people figured out they have one. Modern science has made all sorts of breakthroughs in detecting brain activity for different thoughts/responses/etc and there will likely come a day when it'll be literally possible to read someone's mind. As scary a thought as that is.

Are you sure that it is actually the human mind that we study? Are we even sure that, scientifically speaking, there is such a thing as a "mind" and that it's not all just biochemical processes? There are some who theorize that there is no free will. But even those people, in their daily lives, act as if they have a free will, and they treat others as if they also have a free will. Apparently, it does make sense to assume that. I'm not sure how we would live our lives and organize society if we all knew that there is no free will.

 

[Jack Davenport]

A concept that science cannot explain or grasp. The supreme being has always existed if you accept the concept of a supreme being. There was no inception or creation of the supreme being. The universe would be its creation. The concept that nothing existed at one point in time is as hard to grasp and explain as the existence of a creator. What constitutes nothing? Vast darkness? No molecules, atoms, gasses? light, energy? Even nothingness in the profound sense is something of substance. For a moment try and visualize for the sake of argument a creator. Would this creator that not only created the universe that fuels our existence not put limitations on what we could fathom or explain through our scientific knowledge? Even our recognition of time is dependent upon movement through space or rotation of our planet .Then we have the added burden of trying to scientifically explain our existence, through physical law when these laws would not apply to a creator or something supernatural. Which leads us to faith, faith is based upon for some of us anyway, the careful examination of ourselves and that which surrounds us and reaching our own conclusions as to why we are here, how we came into existence and accepting that something far greater than we can ever comprehend made that happen. No amount of science will overcome faith nor should it or those that profess that faith should be subject to ridicule. The same holds true that require evidence because that is the only thing they are wired to accept.

 

[dreschi]

The supreme being has always existed if you accept the concept of a supreme being. (...) The concept that nothing existed at one point in time is as hard to grasp and explain as the existence of a creator.

If you accept the concept of a supreme being which created the universe, then it is more likely that this being exists outside of time, actually. I'm not a physicist, but as far as I know, the current theory is that space and time are one single entity, called space-time, which is why it does not make sense to ask what came before the big bang (or creation, if you believe in that).

There was no inception or creation of the supreme being.

How do you know?

For a moment try and visualize for the sake of argument a creator. Would this creator that not only created the universe that fuels our existence not put limitations on what we could fathom or explain through our scientific knowledge?

I don't really see why. There might, of course, be a reason I wouldn't understand.

Which leads us to faith, faith is based upon for some of us anyway, the careful examination of ourselves and that which surrounds us and reaching our own conclusions as to why we are here, how we came into existence and accepting that something far greater than we can ever comprehend made that happen.

Okay. But faith is usually not limited to believing there must be a creator. Most religious people also believe that there are moral standards this creator wants us to follow. And, there is usually the belief in some kind of afterlife. Both the moral standards and the belief in an afterlife do not necessarily follow from the belief in such a creator.

The fact that there are so many different religions, with vastly different belief systems, as to how the universe was created by whatever creator(s), what moral standards should be followed, what this afterlife looks like, and so on, makes some people wonder if it might not all be a product of the human mind. Add to the mix that unspeakable horrors have been done in the name of religion, it should be clear why some people are doubtful about religion. But as I already said, even if all religions are man-made, that would not disprove the existence of a creator.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

A concept that science cannot explain or grasp. The supreme being has always existed if you accept the concept of a supreme being. There was no inception or creation of the supreme being. The universe would be its creation. The concept that nothing existed at one point in time is as hard to grasp and explain as the existence of a creator. What constitutes nothing? Vast darkness? No molecules, atoms, gasses? light, energy? Even nothingness in the profound sense is something of substance. For a moment try and visualize for the sake of argument a creator. Would this creator that not only created the universe that fuels our existence not put limitations on what we could fathom or explain through our scientific knowledge? Even our recognition of time is dependent upon movement through space or rotation of our planet . Then we have the added burden of trying to scientifically explain our existence, through physical law when these laws would not apply to a creator or something supernatural.Which leads us to faith, faith is based upon for some of us anyway, the careful examination of ourselves and that which surrounds us and reaching our own conclusions as to why we are here, how we came into existence and accepting that something far greater than we can ever comprehend made that happen. No amount of science will overcome faith nor should it or those that profess that faith should be subject to ridicule. The same holds true that require evidence because that is the only thing they are wired to accept.

Welcome back :hatsoff:

Science doesn't say there was nothing.

But the thing is that evidence is important because without it we all just could make unsubstantiated claims and where would that lead us... nowhere. The argument that you raise is a logical fallacy. If you can assert that a creator needs no creator without any evidence then I can assert without evidence that the universe needs no creator. If you can assert without evidence that the universe needs a creator then I can assert without evidence that this creator needs a creator. That has nothing to do with 'concept'. And we can fill 500 pages in this thread going back and forth but it's going to lead nowhere.

I think you should have used "we choose to accept things" (which I don't think is ok, but I would accept that) rather than "based upon the careful examination of ourselves and that which surrounds us and reaching our own conclusions" because carefull examination also means scrutinizing critically in an objectifiable way. And this would also match your predefined position of "The supreme being has always existed if you accept the concept".

About faith being subject to ridicule... Personally I can't stand stupidity whether it's based on religion, science, politics, society, economy etc. I'm not particularly focusing on religion for that matter. But I will point it out. And I wouldn't mind if others pointed my stupidity out, I will learn from it. As you may have noticed I made a new post in the "stupid things religious say"-thread recently about Christians threatening a woman because her garden looks gay. Do you think their actions is doing christianity any favor or gain christianity more respect? I actually would rather have christians pointing this things out than me.

 

[Jack Davenport]

You misunderstood my post. I said that the inception of a creator does not mesh with" I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end" Not that I can fathom how something could exist forever. But you can rest assured that any entity that exists beyond the confines of space and time would certainly give or produce a measurement for beings that average 70 years of life something to go by.

Any being that created this universe would certainly impose limitations on what we could fathom.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

You misunderstood my post. I said that the inception of a creator does not mesh with" I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end" Not that I can fathom how something could exist forever. But you can rest assured that any entity that exists beyond the confines of space and time would certainly give or produce a measurement for beings that average 70 years of life something to go by.

Any being that created this universe would certainly impose limitations on what we could fathom.

Who, me?

No, that is not a misunderstanding as far as I can see. You choose to accept a concept and make unsubstantiated claims.

Any being that created this universe would certainly impose limitations on what we could fathom.

According to your own logic, how do you know, a falable human being with these same limitations, that your statement "the inception of a creator does not mesh with "I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end" is the correct one?

 

[Jack Davenport]

No I am simply stating that faith or the belief in a supreme being cannot be discounted by science when the very laws of physics could have been created by such a being. Moreover, that same being could have created thousands of parallel universes or galaxies that have completely different physical laws. Our science is examining only what we perceive our universe to be. I will never try and convince anyone that they should believe in a creator. I am only keeping open the option that such a creator could move the goalposts any time they choose.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

No I am simply stating that faith or the belief in a supreme being cannot be discounted by science when the very laws of physics could have been created by such a being. Moreover, that same being could have created thousands of parallel universes or galaxies that have completely different physical laws. Our science is examining only what we perceive our universe to be.

I understand but I'm saying that the same applies to you. When scientist talk about laws and theories they are simply talking about observations that are made and we simply don't know how these descriptions of observations could or would match ahother independant reality. Science doesn't claim that, nor does it mean that conclusions that are made match a reality that we can observe, or even an objective reality. Science never claims the ultimate answer. But neither can you. That's why proof is important by the way, it's the closest thing we get to understanding.

Which brings us back to the beginning where I say that we can fling poo at eachother for another 500 pages in this thread but it's not going to lead anywhere, because you are accepting a concept and after that it's, well, claims you make. There's no proof, but I can't disprove you either.

I will never try and convince anyone that they should believe in a creator. I am only keeping open the option that such a creator could move the goalposts any time they choose.

And I respect that.

 

[Jack Davenport]

This really boils down to something called Pascal's Wager. I believe that 50 percent of those that believe in a supreme bring are following that philosophy. The other 50 percent is comprised of believers because that are taught it and those that look at it from my perspective that the creator is not only the creator but quite mischievous in his creativity.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

This really boils down to something called Pascal's Wager. I believe that 50 percent of those that believe in a supreme bring are following that philosophy. The other 50 percent is comprised of believers because that are taught it and those that look at it from my perspective that the creator is not only the creator but quite mischievous in his creativity.

Interesting point. Made me think for a while but... I don't know. Assuming god is an all-knowing being, believing just in case off (Pascal's Wager) is not really the way to go. And it already implies that someone's not really believing it or has doubts. But accepting that you can't know yet choosing to believe, is not necessarily the same. And it's not that different from a situation you are already in. Or that I am in.

 

[Rattrap]

Are you sure that it is actually the human mind that we study? Are we even sure that, scientifically speaking, there is such a thing as a "mind" and that it's not all just biochemical processes?

I would say this is semantics.

There are some who theorize that there is no free will. But even those people, in their daily lives, act as if they have a free will, and they treat others as if they also have a free will. Apparently, it does make sense to assume that. I'm not sure how we would live our lives and organize society if we all knew that there is no free will.

According to some studies, it's likely that we don't. But pragmatically, this isn't meaningful.

But the thing is that evidence is important because without it we all just could make unsubstantiated claims and where would that lead us... nowhere. The argument that you raise is a logical fallacy. If you can assert that a creator needs no creator without any evidence then I can assert without evidence that the universe needs no creator. If you can assert without evidence that the universe needs a creator then I can assert without evidence that this creator needs a creator. That has nothing to do with 'concept'. And we can fill 500 pages in this thread going back and forth but it's going to lead nowhere.

Exactly.

Science never claims the ultimate answer. But neither can you. That's why proof is important by the way, it's the closest thing we get to understanding.

This I could repeat endlessly, and in a way I have - see my signature. It comes from Carl Sagan's The Demon-haunted World which I think is a must-read for...hell, everyone. It gets down to the fundamentals of critical thought and skepticism.

To add something more than "I agree" (can't rep GE anymore, so...), here are the two (already aforementioned) fallacies I see time after time in detail:
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Onus probandi

Sagan goes into these quite a bit in the book.

Interesting point. Made me think for a while but... I don't know. Assuming god is an all-knowing being, believing just in case off (Pascal's Wager) is not really the way to go. And it already implies that someone's not really believing it or has doubts. But accepting that you can't know yet choosing to believe, is not necessarily the same. And it's not that different from a situation you are already in. Or that I am in.

Although appealing on the surface, Pascal's Wager falls apart really quickly once you go into any depth with it. Why can be found endlessly with a quick Google search - here's just one: http://coffeetheory.com/2012/01/06/pascal-was-wrong-rethinking-pascals-wager/ (and this doesn't even touch on picking the right god with one's wager, nor does it touch on the actual cost of said belief, which Pascal's wager always assumes to be only time spent in church or similar lines - ignoring the effects of religion on society at large).

 

[Jack Davenport]

I am not sure what atheists are trying to demonstrate here. The only thing that can be reasonably extracted from this type of exchange is that science, critical thought and logic does not support the concept of a supreme being.

We get it And it is a very reasonable position to take. We don't require citations of Sagan or Nietzsche to grasp it.

On the other hand, any entity that could create a universe, living beings an ice cream truck out of thin air would more than likely have a whole different set of physical laws within their realm and they would impose restrictions on its intellectual capacity and would only allow them to understand their existence from the universe they know, recognize and understand.

 

[DP_LOVER]

^if that is the case then why have humans developed in such a way that we now live in a more secular age than ever before? If an all powerful being created the world and imposed these restrictions on is then why are more and more people classifying themselves as none religious?