Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…136137139141142…196

Comments

  • #6902
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    SebBerkovich wrote: »
    So, God's existence is completely unprovable.

    So in column A (the "god exists" column) i've got nothing.

    In column B (the "god doesn't exist" column) i've got mostly circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. Which isn't bad considering God is supposed to be untraceable by science.

    I think it's pretty clear that a reasonable person raised would religion would be very unlikely to convert.
    Not sure what ye are talking about because in column A you have all the anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. It's column B that has nothing.
    The thing is, anecdotal and circumstantial evidence isn't evidence at all, it's a hypothesis at best and a misinterpretation at worst.
    So a reasonable person has to choose between some testimony supported by a theory and Ahhhh... nothing. I can see how they would chose to believe.


  • #6903
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    onlinenerd wrote: »
    The believers will believe even if they cant prove the existence of God because Christ himself said Blessed are those who not seen me yet believe and this is what is known as faith because you cant prove God is present yet you know he is there always.
    That does not make any sense. You believe in the existence of god basically because a book has told you that god said that god exists...?

    Can you lend me €1000? I am good for it. You can believe I am good for it because I have told you in a post that I am good for it.

    MrP


  • #6904
    onlinenerd
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭onlinenerd


    MrPudding wrote: »
    That does not make any sense. You believe in the existence of god basically because a book has told you that god said that god exists...?

    Can you lend me €1000? I am good for it. You can believe I am good for it because I have told you in a post that I am good for it.

    MrP

    MrP you seem to a non believer and so you say that you believe in something made up y the people which is atheism and I say can you give me 1000 euro claiming on your beliefs that God is not real?


  • #6905
    FISMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,616 ✭✭✭FISMA


    SebBerkovich wrote: »
    Any proof would be a good start though.

    What proof would be acceptable to you? Please provide one example.


  • #6906
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    onlinenerd wrote: »
    MrP you seem to a non believer and so you say that you believe in something made up y the people which is atheism and I say can you give me 1000 euro claiming on your beliefs that God is not real?
    Your sentence really lacks sense, but i think I see what you are getting at. I think you are trying to say that someone has shown me that there are no gods and I believe that, that is not strictly accurate. Atheism is not something made up by the people in the sense that religion is. I do not believe in gods because the evidence presented to me is inadequate to convince me that they exist.

    See, this is not me listening to atheists, looking at evidence they present and favouring that evidence over evidence for gods, it is simply me rejecting the "evidence" for gods.

    I can't say for sure whether or not there is a god, all I can say is that I have yet to see any evidence that would suggest to me that gods exist, and as a result I will live my life as if they don't.

    So, I reject the evidence presented to me for the existence of gods. I have looked at the evidence and deemed it to me insufficient to prove what it claims to prove. Having rejected the evidence for the existence of gods I find myself, merely by a binary process of elimination, believing that gods do not exist. There is no faith, there is no evidence that gods do not exist, there is simply a rejection of the evidence for gods.

    Atheism is belief in the same way as bald is a hair colour.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • #6907
    onlinenerd
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭onlinenerd


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Your sentence really lacks sense, but i think I see what you are getting at. I think you are trying to say that someone has shown me that there are no gods and I believe that, that is not strictly accurate. Atheism is not something made up by the people in the sense that religion is. I do not believe in gods because the evidence presented to me is inadequate to convince me that they exist.

    See, this is not me listening to atheists, looking at evidence they present and favouring that evidence over evidence for gods, it is simply me rejecting the "evidence" for gods.

    I can't say for sure whether or not there is a god, all I can say is that I have yet to see any evidence that would suggest to me that gods exist, and as a result I will live my life as if they don't.

    So, I reject the evidence presented to me for the existence of gods. I have looked at the evidence and deemed it to me insufficient to prove what it claims to prove. Having rejected the evidence for the existence of gods I find myself, merely by a binary process of elimination, believing that gods do not exist. There is no faith, there is no evidence that gods do not exist, there is simply a rejection of the evidence for gods.

    Atheism is belief in the same way as bald is a hair colour.

    MrP


    What evidence would be high enough for you to believe in God?


  • #6908
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    onlinenerd wrote: »
    What evidence would be high enough for you to believe in God?

    What evidence have you got?

    MrP


  • #6909
    onlinenerd
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭onlinenerd


    MrPudding wrote: »
    What evidence have you got?

    MrP

    Enough evidence contrasting from my Mums cure to watching thousands of people testify cures from cures such as cancer, AID and many diseases including which have come from right in front of my eyes and experiencing them myself.

    All this proves there might be a higher being has to exist as they are none other than miracles and what about the saints of the church such as Padre Pio and stigmata and many marian apparitions such as Lourdes, Knock and Fatima.

    Even scientists cannot explain it.


  • #6910
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    onlinenerd wrote: »
    Enough evidence contrasting from my Mums cure to watching thousands of people testify cures from cures such as cancer, AID and many diseases including which have come from right in front of my eyes and experiencing them myself.

    All this proves there might be a higher being has to exist as they are none other than miracles and what about the saints of the church such as Padre Pio and stigmata and many marian apparitions such as Lourdes, Knock and Fatima.

    Even scientists cannot explain it.

    How do you know your God caused the cure? How do you even know a God was the cause of the cure? How do you know it wasn't because of medical treatment?

    And it's an insane stretch to go from "cure of cancer" to "the God of the Bible exists".

    Also, why should anyone bother to go the doctor if thousands are healed from cancer through other means? Is it all a big scam?

    What can scientists not explain? (As if this is a trump card for you to play - scientists relish the chance to learn something new about the world).


  • #6911
    onlinenerd
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭onlinenerd


    Gumbi wrote: »
    How do you know your God caused the cure? How do you even know a God was the cause of the cure? How do you know it wasn't because of medical treatment?

    And it's an insane stretch to go from "cure of cancer" to "the God of the Bible exists".

    Also, why should anyone bother to go the doctor if thousands are healed from cancer through other means? Is it all a big scam?

    What can scientists not explain? (As if this is a trump card for you to play - scientists relish the chance to learn something new about the world).

    If you call upon the name of God and you are cured, it would be a coincidence that the person was cured because of medicine as well. this has happened more than once so it cannot be the medicine that cured the person and I am also talking about terminally ill people with no medicine available.

    Science cannot explain this and so is termed as a miracle.


  • Advertisement
  • #6912
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Gumbi wrote: »
    How do you know your God caused the cure? How do you even know a God was the cause of the cure? How do you know it wasn't because of medical treatment?

    And it's an insane stretch to go from "cure of cancer" to "the God of the Bible exists".

    Also, why should anyone bother to go the doctor if thousands are healed from cancer through other means? Is it all a big scam?

    What can scientists not explain? (As if this is a trump card for you to play - scientists relish the chance to learn something new about the world).

    Jezes pipe down if they believe that God cured an illness surely you can accept that.

    Why have a canary over it ?

    I believe there's something out there helping the believer's, but it's not the one and only Christian God...

    Who's to say there's no healing power out there that people can tap into.

    Some say it's satanic if it's anything other than Jesus but I don't think so.

    I had healings but I don't bother shouting from the roof top about it.

    If someone has faith and they rely on that faith or way of living and feel better,how can a strident atheist say it didn't happen...

    They weren't there, the thing is spiritual and religious people have one thing in common and that's a belief in something outside themselves.

    If you're a believer it works if not im afraid it will never work :-(


  • #6913
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    onlinenerd wrote: »
    If you call upon the name of God and you are cured, it would be a coincidence that the person was cured because of medicine as well. this has happened more than once so it cannot be the medicine that cured the person and I am also talking about terminally ill people with no medicine available.

    Science cannot explain this and so is termed as a miracle.

    If I say it's going to rain tomorrow, and it does, does that mean that I predicted the future? No, of course it doesn't
    Do you what causality is?


  • #6914
    onlinenerd
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭onlinenerd


    Geomy wrote: »
    Jezes pipe down if they believe that God cured an illness surely you can accept that.

    Why have a canary over it ?

    I believe there's something out there helping the believer's, but it's not the one and only Christian God...

    Who's to say there's no healing power out there that people can tap into.

    Some say it's satanic if it's anything other than Jesus but I don't think so.

    I had healing but I don't bother shouting from the roof top about it.

    If someone has faith and they rely on that faith or way of living and feel better,how can a strident atheist say it didn't happen...

    They weren't there, the thing is spiritual and religious people have one thing in common and that's a belief in something outside themselves.

    If you're a believer it works if not im afraid it will never work :-(

    If it is satanic you need to call on the name of satan and not God and when you call God you cannot be cured by satan because he cannot tolerate praising and worshiping God and in order for a cure to work you need faith not just come to church on a random day and pray for a cure and never come again.

    Even if satan cured you,it would be for your downfall without doubt.


  • #6915
    onlinenerd
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭onlinenerd


    Gumbi wrote: »
    If I say it's going to rain tomorrow, and it does, does that mean that I predicted the future? No, of course it doesn't
    Do you what causality is?

    No you didnt predict the future, you just guessed between raining and not raining and you got the correct answer.


  • #6916
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    onlinenerd wrote: »
    No you didnt predict the future, you just guessed between raining and not raining and you got the correct answer.

    Now when you say if someone prayed and they were cured of cancer, how can you say it was God and not the medical treatment? (Note that medical treatment has been shown to work in clinical trials, etc.).


  • #6917
    onlinenerd
    Registered Users Posts: 195 ✭✭onlinenerd


    Gumbi wrote: »
    Now when you say if someone prayed and they were cured of cancer, how can you say it was God and not the medical treatment? (Note that medical treatment has been shown to work in clinical trials, etc.).

    Why does the cure have to work only when you pray to God? Couldnt the cure have worked anytime else


  • #6918
    Almaviva
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭Almaviva


    Geomy wrote: »
    Jezes pipe down if they believe that God cured an illness surely you can accept that.
    Wouldnt accept it at all. Someone believing something doesnt make it so. They can be (and in this care are) mistaken.

    Geomy wrote: »
    Who's to say there's no healing power out there that people can tap into.
    Anyone who considers the evidence rationally, rather than with a predisposed irrational belief that the 'power out there' is there.
    Geomy wrote: »
    If someone has faith and they rely on that faith or way of living and feel better,how can a strident atheist say it didn't happen.
    Because the evidence that the someone is deluding themselves is greater than the evidence that their faith is justified.
    Geomy wrote: »
    They weren't there, the thing is spiritual and religious people have one thing in common and that's a belief in something outside themselves.

    If you're a believer it works if not im afraid it will never work :-(

    This statement has no foundation. 'It' will never work for the believer or the non believer - just the non-believer recognises the truth.


  • #6919
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,868 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    onlinenerd wrote: »
    Why does the cure have to work only when you pray to God? Couldnt the cure have worked anytime else

    Assuming the curing of a disease is rare: Perhaps it did? If we just assume goddidit and don't check any further we'd never find out.

    Assuming it's an easily curable disease: Really terrible argument, as it does all the time.


  • #6920
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Almaviva wrote: »
    Wouldnt accept it at all. Someone believing something doesnt make it so. They can be (and in this care are) mistaken.



    Anyone who considers the evidence rationally, rather than with a predisposed irrational belief that the 'power out there' is there.


    Because the evidence that the someone is deluding themselves is greater than the evidence that their faith is justified.



    This statement has no foundation. 'It' will never work for the believer or the non believer - just the non-believer recognises the truth.

    Nice try :-)


  • #6921
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Edit:

    Seems that I inadvertently double posted. I am a very naughty boy.splat.gif

    Please note the third post was intentional. The topic raised is important, and different enough, to warrant a seperate post.


  • Advertisement
  • #6922
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    hinault wrote: »
    And I hope that no atheist would require me to provide proof of my belief in the existence of God.

    Why not? You are, in fact, asking us to accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence, and for which there is quite a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting its non existence.
    hinault wrote: »
    The old saying : for the believer no proof is needed and for the non-believer all the proof in the world would never be sufficient!

    Actually if you gave proof I would accept the existence of god*. For example while in college I was pretty much a climate change denier, but upon reading the scientific literature and evidence (as distilled for me by Sci. Am.) I changed my views and accepted that climate change was indeed happening, and is likely to be catastrophic.

    * Belief is taking a thing to be true sans evidence. If you have proof, there is no belief position.


  • #6923
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Geomy wrote: »
    Jezes pipe down if they believe that God cured an illness surely you can accept that.

    Why have a canary over it ?

    Because people are killed on a regular basis by snake oil salesmen who say "don't go to a doctor, through my intercessionary powers god will cure you. But only if you sign over the deeds to your house".

    Or you get people who have wacky beliefs which lead to their children dying of preventable disease.

    Seriously, anyone who has an ounce of compassion or human decency would be up in arms about "faith healing", and how it causes mass death and suffering.


  • #6924
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Because people are killed on a regular basis by snake oil salesmen who say "don't go to a doctor, through my intercessionary powers god will cure you. But only if you sign over the deeds to your house".

    Or you get people who have wacky beliefs which lead to their children dying of preventable disease.

    Seriously, anyone who has an ounce of compassion or human decency would be up in arms about "faith healing", and how it causes mass death and suffering.

    I know where your coming from but you're taking it to the extreme....

    ;-)


  • #6925
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    Geomy wrote: »
    I know where your coming from but you're taking it to the extreme....

    ;-)

    No, it's a real life example of a real problem. Not one in a million hyperbole.


  • #6926
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Gumbi wrote: »
    No, it's a real life example of a real problem. Not one in a million hyperbole.

    Well for a non believer you seem to be very interested in it all.

    Maybe you should get a megaphone, stand on top of Grafton St and enlighten everyone.

    It's about time the non believers had their say and rid the world of religion and spirituality....

    Would that be possible ?

    I don't think so. ...


  • #6927
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Geomy wrote: »
    Well for a non believer you seem to be very interested in it all.

    Maybe you should get a megaphone, stand on top of Grafton St and enlighten everyone.

    It's about time the non believers had their say and rid the world of religion and spirituality....

    Would that be possible ?

    I don't think so. ...

    Or you know, he could just post on a public forum about the dangers of faith healing.

    First you told him to pipe down, what is the harm if they believe they were cured by faith.

    When it was pointed out to you the harm is that is supports the notion of faith healing as a real thing you said that was an extreme example

    When it was pointed out that it isn't an extreme example it happens all the time you response is to tell him to grab a microphone and go rant at speakers corner.

    Maybe a better response would be to simply say good point I hadn't considered that.


  • #6928
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Or you know, he could just post on a public forum about the dangers of faith healing.

    First you told him to pipe down, what is the harm if they believe they were cured by faith.

    When it was pointed out to you the harm is that is supports the notion of faith healing as a real thing you said that was an extreme example

    When it was pointed out that it isn't an extreme example it happens all the time you response is to tell him to grab a microphone and go rant at speakers corner.

    Maybe a better response would be to simply say good point I hadn't considered that.

    It doesn't happen all the time,if it did everyone would be praying or meditating for good health and peace of mind....

    If someone contributed their stroke of good luck, healing or emotional well being to the power of prayer, meditation or a belief in divine intervention by God that's their business. ...

    If they force their faith and beliefs or lack of on others ill call them a control freak or Co dependent...

    There's no harm in Josie Mc Nulty getting up in the morning thanking God for everything and living a descent life.....

    I think the religious, spiritual and atheism plus fanatics are far more dangerous than the people living a simple life. ...

    I don't need to get into a circular debate, I think you get my gist. ..

    If someone is harmless and they are content with their beliefs or lack of then I think it's best to leave them be....

    What's the point in trying to change someone's point of view, that will only show off your own insecurities of trying to fix everyone....especially when the motive is a selfish one..

    And I for one have my moment's of insecurities about God, Atheism the cosmos etc


  • #6929
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Geomy wrote: »
    I don't need to get into a circular debate, I think you get my gist. ..

    It is only becoming a circular debate because you keep asking questions and then ignoring the answer. You asked what is the harm, it was explained to you what the harm is. You then just asked what is the harm again, suggesting that this is merely rhetorical and your implied assertion is there isn't any harm.

    You are wrong, there is harm.

    If you are interested in seriously discussing that I'm happy to engage, but by the sounds of it you aren't and you have already made up your mind.


  • #6930
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is only becoming a circular debate because you keep asking questions and then ignoring the answer. You asked what is the harm, it was explained to you what the harm is. You then just asked what is the harm again, suggesting that this is merely rhetorical and your implied assertion is there isn't any harm.

    You are wrong, there is harm.

    If you are interested in seriously discussing that I'm happy to engage, but by the sounds of it you aren't and you have already made up your mind.

    Zombrex I would have a discussion with you if it was on even ground.
    But your starting the good old cunning and baffling technique I often seen you engage with other forum members. ....

    Telling me im not answering your question and saying you explained such and such, and then telling me that I ignored what you said....
    You are tactical and if you were s barrister I would definitely recommend you ;-)

    You see im aware of your techniques of debating and turning it all back on the other side, and you also have an ability to sound much more intelligent and interesting than a layman like myself....


  • Advertisement
  • #6931
    Gumbi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,698 ✭✭✭Gumbi


    Geomy wrote: »
    Zombrex I would have a discussion with you if it was on even ground.
    But your starting the good old cunning and baffling technique I often seen you engage with other forum members. ....

    Telling me im not answering your question and saying you explained such and such, and then telling me that I ignored what you said....
    You are tactical and if you were s barrister I would definitely recommend you ;-)

    You see im aware of your techniques of debating and turning it all back on the other side, and you also have an ability to sound much more intelligent and interesting than a layman like myself....
    You're either ignorant, or a liar. You didn't avoid Zombrex's answer (though you are NOW avoiding his challenge), you avoided MY answer. You asked what was wrong with faith healing. I answered. Respond.


  • #6932
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Geomy wrote: »
    Zombrex I would have a discussion with you if it was on even ground.
    But your starting the good old cunning and baffling technique I often seen you engage with other forum members. ....

    Telling me im not answering your question and saying you explained such and such, and then telling me that I ignored what you said....
    You are tactical and if you were s barrister I would definitely recommend you ;-)

    You see im aware of your techniques of debating and turning it all back on the other side, and you also have an ability to sound much more intelligent and interesting than a layman like myself....

    So why not outsmart him by answering the questions ? If you believe your arguments have merit will they not withstand the scrutiny ?


  • #6933
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Maybe there were wires crossed somewhere but I don't see any harm in someone living a simple religious or spiritual lifestyle...ok there are instances of hazardous belief's etc

    Not everyone who are religious or spiritual are intense or obsessed about it all, just like atheists and agnostics not giving a toss....

    Spirituality, Atheism and Religion might be more of a cognitive thing rather than a choice....

    Im not an Atheist so cognitively I can't identify with the concept.
    I could identify with an Atheist who likes fishing, surfing, gardening, coffee reading,I can't identify with one who sees the harm in the old lady down the road who lives a simple life and goes to mass every day.
    Its her choice and no matter what you say about her religious lifestyle, more than likely she will get insulted rather than enlightened.
    She's not handing her children's inheritance over to the church or all her pension into the collection box every day.

    But sure maybe im tying myself in knots here but ill accept for today I can't follow on in this discussion.

    Maybe you see the harm in it becomes you're aware of all the pitfalls and hazards of Religion I can see that too.

    If my mum was being taken for a ride by the church or any religious organisation id be up in arms and angry. ..

    Ok im probably looking at this from on alacart religious point of view...


  • #6934
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Geomy wrote: »
    Maybe there were wires crossed somewhere but I don't see any harm in someone living a simple religious or spiritual lifestyle...ok there are instances of hazardous belief's etc

    Not everyone who are religious or spiritual are intense or obsessed about it all, just like atheists and agnostics not giving a toss....

    Spirituality, Atheism and Religion might be more of a cognitive thing rather than a choice....

    Im not an Atheist so cognitively I can't identify with the concept.
    I could identify with an Atheist who likes fishing, surfing, gardening, coffee reading,I can't identify with one who sees the harm in the old lady down the road who lives a simple life and goes to mass every day.
    Its her choice and no matter what you say about her religious lifestyle, more than likely she will get insulted rather than enlightened.
    She's not handing her children's inheritance over to the church or all her pension into the collection box every day.

    But sure maybe im tying myself in knots here but ill accept for today I can't follow on in this discussion.

    Maybe you see the harm in it becomes you're aware of all the pitfalls and hazards of Religion I can see that too.

    If my mum was being taken for a ride by the church or any religious organisation id be up in arms and angry. ..

    Ok im probably looking at this from on alacart religious point of view...

    I don't think anyone has a problem with this , and in the same way I presume you have no problem with an atheist living their lives in exactly the same way.

    The problem arises when any group tries to enshrine their beliefs in law. And that is what most of the kerfuffle is about.

    How do you feel about that ?


  • #6935
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Geomy wrote: »
    She's not handing her children's inheritance over to the church or all her pension into the collection box every day.

    You are setting up a straw man.

    You say you cannot see the harm in a person living a spiritual/religious life where that doesn't result in any harm to themselves.

    Well obviously. The point is that it probably will result in harm to themselves because that is how humans works. The whole attraction of religious faith is a sense of security in the system you adopt and a sense that it will make sense to he problems you face in the world. This leads to you putting your trust in an untested system rather than alternatives.

    Your argument is basically you don't see the harm in people paying lip service to religious faith because you know that when push comes to shove they will abandon that faith and return to trust in established systems.

    But they often don't precisely because of the appeal of religious faith. The more someone genuinely believes the more likely they are to put faith in these systems rather than ones that have been shown to work.

    Relying on the reality that most people aren't actually that religious as a reason not to attack religious faith is paradoxical.


  • #6936
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    I don't agree with any religious or spiritual group who tries to enshrine their beliefs in any law or societies etc


  • Advertisement
  • #6937
    Almaviva
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭Almaviva


    Geomy wrote: »
    I don't agree with any religious or spiritual group who tries to enshrine their beliefs in any law or societies etc

    How about the catholic lobby though for example on our topic du jour - abortion legislation ?

    While there are those who opt for a pro-choice view, those who apt for a pro-life view, its quite possible that the issue is swung towards the pro-life side by the 3rd grouping who have no view of their own, but are pro-life because their religion tells them they are.

    Is that not a religious grouping, in this case catholics, trying to enshrine their beliefs in law?
    (Just picking an example to illustrate, and not wanting to get into the abortion debate itsef.)


  • #6938
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    I know it's paradoxical sure im more than likely a walking paradox and hypocritical at times...

    I probably sit on the fence too much, happy out in my comfort zone...

    Im aware of the hazards of belief and putting one's faith in something that can't be quantified.
    And the results can be dangerous. ..
    Maybe some day ill settle for one or the other, sure im learning a lot from these discussions.


  • #6939
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Almaviva wrote: »
    How about the catholic lobby though for example on our topic du jour - abortion legislation ?

    While there are those who opt for a pro-choice view, those who apt for a pro-life view, its quite possible that the issue is swung towards the pro-life side by the 3rd grouping who have no view of their own, but are pro-life because their religion tells them they are.

    Is that not a religious grouping, in this case catholics, trying to enshrine their beliefs in law?
    (Just picking an example to illustrate, and not wanting to get into the abortion debate itsef.)

    I think its up to the Irish people in general, we live in a democracy and there's a lot at stake.

    If the 3rd party get their way it's then unfortunate for the pro choice people and a sign of the times.

    Maybe if they decide to vote every 4 years it will move towards the pro choice side eventually.

    Whatever way it goes there's going to be people put out.

    Democracy rules. ..


  • #6940
    Almaviva
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,490 ✭✭✭Almaviva


    Geomy wrote: »
    I think its up to the Irish people in general, we live in a democracy and there's a lot at stake.

    If the 3rd party get their way it's then unfortunate for the pro choice people and a sign of the times.

    Maybe if they decide to vote every 4 years it will move towards the pro choice side eventually.

    Whatever way it goes there's going to be people put out.

    Democracy rules. ..

    So you would disagree with those promoting whatever view for the drafting of legislation if it comes from religious doctrine ?


  • #6941
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Geomy wrote: »
    I don't agree with any religious or spiritual group who tries to enshrine their beliefs in any law or societies etc

    So basically you're against every religious group ever created.

    One of the main reasons for religions in the first place is that they are a means to gaining power, up until recently massive power. They all try to force their views onto everybody else.


  • Advertisement
  • #6942
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    Almaviva wrote: »
    So you would disagree with those promoting whatever view for the drafting of legislation if it comes from religious doctrine ?

    Of course, sure we have a mixed society.

    There's probably a lot of red tape involved too, so that's a headache if it's suggested to change legislation and drafts etc


  • #6943
    hinault
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Why not? You are, in fact, asking us to accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence, and for which there is quite a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting its non existence..

    I'm not asking you to accept anything. I did put forward the reasons as to why I have a belief. You are free to accept or reject the reasons for that belief as you wish.


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Actually if you gave proof I would accept the existence of god*. For example while in college I was pretty much a climate change denier, but upon reading the scientific literature and evidence (as distilled for me by Sci. Am.) I changed my views and accepted that climate change was indeed happening, and is likely to be catastrophic.

    * Belief is taking a thing to be true sans evidence. If you have proof, there is no belief position.

    The evidence is provided by those whose claims are contained in the Bible.
    Whether that evidence is sufficient to persuade you is immaterial to me quite frankly.


  • #6944
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Why not? You are, in fact, asking us to accept the existence of something for which there is no evidence, and for which there is quite a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting its non existence. Actually if you gave proof I would accept the existence of god*.

    * Belief is taking a thing to be true sans evidence. If you have proof, there is no belief position.


    Belief can also be based on evidence, concluding something to be true from the current evidence, which later turns out to be false. That is the beauty of science which continues to unfold and teach us new fascinating aspects of our reality and overturn previous ideas. For many hundreds of years the accepted belief was that the sun rotated around the earth, based on observed evidence. It turned out to be false. The Milky Way was believed to be the entire universe, that was false, and on and on..

    At its core, leaving aside the theist vs atheist argument regarding personal Gods, the belief in a benevolent creator is a belief based on evidence. The evidence is the fact that there is a universe and it is perfectly tuned for life, or as the strong anthropic principle implies "the universe knew we were coming" (Freeman Dyson). Although this idea gets ridiculed by non-scientists, scientists are generally in agreement that unless an infinite number of universes exist (the multiverse), then you might have to have a fine tuner. As the cosmologist Bernard Carr said "If you don't want God, you better have a multiverse". The attached Discover Magazine article explores the whole concept of the "fine tuned" universe versus the multiverse, with some profound and honest inputs from leading scientists.

    While we are on the subject of belief and evidence, there is zero observed evidence for a multiverse and zero observed evidence for string theory which might confirm a multiverse. There is absolutely nothing else that we know of that can even attempt to explain the universe we observe, so at present it is multiverse or a fine-tuner, take your pick.

    The problem that scientists face with the God issue is that the scientific community is predominantly an atheist community, and mention of God gets ridiculed. In addition, scientists who veer into metaphysics get labeled as "new age" cranks. The best example of this is the subject of consciousness, where the current neuroscience belief that consciousness is an emergent "epiphenomenon" of the brain is held by most scientists and increasing by non-scientists. This view is not however shared by some leading theoretical physicists; Andrei Linde believes that consciousness is a fundamental component of the universe, and that space, time and consciousness emerged simultaneously.

    "Without someone observing the universe, the universe is actually dead" or put another way the universe does not exist without consciousness, which is as fundamental as everything else we observe and call space-time. This is not Deepak talking, this guy is a Professor of Physics at Stanford.



    http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator#.UL-j24Vr4ck


  • #6945
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    "Without someone observing the universe, the universe is actually dead"

    How very post post-modern.
    This is an idea explored by Neil Gaiman in several of his works most notably 1602.
    It's not proof of anything though, just a convincing argument for a 'watcher'. Realistically this is never going to be proven or disproved by science, its the realm of philosophy or metaphysics, possibly even religion ;). Which leaves up in the same place, non believers wont accept those arguments and believers won't need them.


  • #6946
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    "Without someone observing the universe, the universe is actually dead" or put another way the universe does not exist without consciousness

    Er no. You are equating dead with non-existence. That wasn't what Linde was talking about (dead things after all still exist)

    Linde was talking about the evolution of the universe and the paradox that if you apply the calculations for a wave function to the universe as a whole then time becomes irrelevant and you cannot therefore have a changing universe, ie a universe that moves from different states. The paradox may possibly be resolved by changing the question from why does the universe evolve to why does the universe appear to evolve to an observer in the universe. With the introduction of this observer you have a changing universe as observed by the observer in the universe (and again observer does not require conscious observer)

    A correct fix of your post would be this

    "Without someone observing the universe, the universe is actually dead" or put another way the universe does not appear to change/grow without an observer inside it

    Also Andrei Linde is well known for his wacky musing on various new age spirituality topics, from consciousness to reincarnation. I imagine he would find you and other new age followers taking what he says so seriously with great amusement. Half the time he seems to be just seeing who he can wind up.


  • #6947
    Geomy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,296 ✭✭✭Geomy


    I think what he means is "if we are dead our interpretation of the universe doesn't exist"

    Not that the universe as a whole ceases to exist.


  • #6948
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Er no. You are equating dead with non-existence. That wasn't what Linde was talking about (dead things after all still exist)

    Linde was talking about the evolution of the universe and the paradox that if you apply the calculations for a wave function to the universe as a whole then time becomes irrelevant and you cannot therefore have a changing universe, ie a universe that moves from different states. The paradox may possibly be resolved by changing the question from why does the universe evolve to why does the universe appear to evolve to an observer in the universe. With the introduction of this observer you have a changing universe as observed by the observer in the universe (and again observer does not require conscious observer)

    I am not a New Age follower, so debate honestly and less of the ad hominem please.

    Have a listen to the following (short) interview with Linde where he explains in non-wacky detail what you are trying to say above. The last bit is interesting, he said he was advised by his book editor to delete any reference to consciousness as he would "lose the respect of his colleagues". His response is "if I remove it I would lose my own self respect".

    What Linde means by "dead" is that the universe "as we observe it" according to the Wheeler-DeWitt equation does non exist.

    The paradox Linde is referring to as you say is that the Wheeler-DeWitt equation for the wave function of the universe implies that the universe cannot evolve in time without an observer. However, you cannot remove the conscious observer as Linde explains. You can set up a camera which is an inanimate observer, but a conscious observer still has to observe what the camera records. The paradox is why do "we" see the universe evolve in a certain way in time when what the Wheeler-DeWitt equation tells us is the universe does not evolve in time. It's quite the paradox, and you simply cannot remove consciousness from the question as Linde explains.

    http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Why-Explore-Consciousness-and-Cosmos-Andrei-Linde-/874


  • #6949
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    as Linde explains.

    Please summarise in your own words Linde's explanation for why that is the case.


  • #6950
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Please summarise in your own words Linde's explanation for why that is the case.

    I have to go do the work thing but will get back to this later.


  • #6951
    nagirrac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Please summarise in your own words Linde's explanation for why that is the case.

    Certainly.
    Linde in the interview, displaying none of the wackiness you implied, references three of the most baffling problems in all of science; 1) the time problem of quantum cosmology, 2) the measurement problem in QM, and 3) the hard problem of consciousness. To people working in these individual fields, these questions may be unrelated (a neuroscientist for example would likely spend little time thinking about the measurement problem in QM, even though it may ultimately answer the hard question of consciousness), but to some scientists they are very related.

    To focus on the time problem, as there is intersection there with the other two. Linde references the DeWitt paper from 1967 where it was demonstrated that the wave function for the universe summed to zero i.e. the positive energy of all matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. In addition, there is no time evolution as the other side of the Schrodinger equation has to match, so the universe does not change with time. The resolution to this according to DeWitt is that we are not actually measuring the wave function of the universe, we are measuring the wave function of the universe minus ourselves, the observer. We could use some type of camera say, as the measurement device. According to Linde this still does not resolve the problem as the camera becomes part of the "rest of the universe" that is separate from us observing it.

    This is analogous to the measurement problem in QM, as yes you get the same observed wave function collapse (or not, depending on interpretation) if you use a mechanical measurement device as using a conscious observer, but you still cannot separate the conscious observer from the experiment. This is proven conclusively in the Wheeler delayed choice thought experiment (later confirmed by actual experiment), where if you do anything to learn the behavior of say a photon after the fact, it changes the outcome of the experiment that has already been done. You simply have to either include consciousness in your interpretation of QM or ignore it as many physicists do.

    The upshot of all of this is that without participants, we have a dead universe that does not evolve with time, in other words the universe that we observe as having a past, present and future does not exist. The only way to think about an "alive" universe is to think of it as a subjective observer and the rest of the objective universe, and not just any observer, a conscious observer. This last bit will undoubtedly sound new age woo to you, but the evidence suggests many leading scientists now accept this view. Why do you think Anton Zeilinger, who sits in the chair formerly occupied by Schrodinger, and other leading physicists and cosmologists held several meetings with the Dalai Lama to discuss the interface of cosmology, QM and Buddhism? Why would they do this if they think the consciousness connection is woo? They did it because Buddhists understand consciousness to a level that science is just starting to uncover.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement