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,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Do you believe in God?

Options
1…2728303233…36

Comments

  • Options
    #872
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    No. To trust is to affirm what is good in others.

    No dictionary I have uses that definition. You are making up your own definition of words to suit yourself at this point.
    realitykeeper wrote: »
    You say there is no evidence when in fact there is quite a lot if you count testimony as evidence.

    As I detailed to two users yesterday, at some length, testimony is indeed evidence but not for what you think it is.

    Worse testimony WITHIN a text is not evidence of the truth of the text. You are using the assertions of the bible to prove the truth of the bible. This is circular.

    So the issue is not whether testimony is evidence or not, but whether you are fallaciously using the evidence.


  • Options
    #873
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »
    We can't prove the wind exists, we know it does by it's effects.

    I corrected this error yesterday so weird that you contrive to make it again. Wind does not exist and we prove that by it's effects. Wind is the name we give TO an effect. It IS an effect. It is not itself a thing to be proven.
    Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »
    God is no different. I know Him by His effect in my life and those around me.

    Not the same thing at all. When we measure the effects of something in this world we can distinguish the effects of that thing by showing other things to not have the same effect. We can prove the effect of the thing being tested by distinguishing it from everything else.

    What you are doing is merely asserting the effect, without evidence or proof, of something you can not even evidence the existence of.

    To say these things are no different therefore is at best a joke, at worst a canard.
    Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »
    Whether I or anyone believes He exists or not doesn't change His existence.

    Exactly! You merely believing it, does not make it real :) Glad you see that. That is, at least, a start.
    Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »
    Do you really think us not believing in the afterlife or God means they don't exist just because we say so? It's either incredible ignorance or arrogance or both to think so.

    Do you really think us believing in the afterlife or God means they exist just because we say so? It's either incredible ignorance or arrogance or both to think so.


  • Options
    #874
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    What if you don't believe in the afterlife, what if you believe, this is the only life you will experience?

    Then you would be wrong.
    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    What do you mean by understanding this world? We ve made incredible discoveries as a species, no we do not understand everything, and we probably never will, but our discoveries thus far have been incredible

    No matter how much we know, there will always be other things we don`t know. I should point out that wisdom is more important than knowledge. In fact, without wisdom, knowledge has negative value. You complain of childhood cancer yet overlook the fact that humanity is driving many other species to extinction and created weapons of mass destruction which will probably be deployed at some point in the future. Surely if childhood cancer was such a concern, that is what would have consumed the full focus of our attention.

    Hypocrisy is another aspect of the human condition. To eradicate it, we should begin by prioritizing wisdom over knowledge.


  • Options
    #875
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Again though, a little schooling for you, the word "prove" is important here, if you are asking me to do science. We do not "prove" anything in science the way the word "prove" is used in the vernacular. We do not show anything to be 100% fact or true in science. We prove (which in science basically means test) hypothesis until the point it gets elevated to "Theory".
    Just to say in science the reason things get called theory, conjecture or hypothesis is usually aribtrary or historical. Many things are called theory but are completely unverified and some things are called a hypothesis or conjecture even though they have rigorous empirical support.


  • Options
    #876
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    .......

    To eradicate it, we should begin by prioritizing wisdom over knowledge.

    Been overdosing on Proverbs 4:6-7 again then have we ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #877
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    Just to say in science the reason things get called theory, conjecture or hypothesis is usually aribtrary or historical.

    I tend to write theory and Theory to make that distinction, though I do not always get it right :) But as you say if the field as a whole is not getting it right, then I can not really be expected to always do so either :)


  • Options
    #878
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 28,805 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    realitykeeper wrote:
    Then you would be wrong.

    I would see this statement as being rather arrogant, almost narcissistic. In my mind we have no absolute evidence of God's or the afterlife's existance, but I've no problem with people believing so, I respect their beliefs, but in return, I would ask them to also respect my beliefs.
    realitykeeper wrote:
    No matter how much we know, there will always be other things we don`t know. I should point out that wisdom is more important than knowledge. In fact, without wisdom, knowledge has negative value. You complain of childhood cancer yet overlook the fact that humanity is driving many other species to extinction and created weapons of mass destruction which will probably be deployed at some point in the future. Surely if childhood cancer was such a concern, that is what would have consumed the focus of our attention.

    Cancers of all types, and not just in children, they consume the thoughts of many humans, I'm very grateful of this, as it has helped many globally, it has even saved lives. All humans have abilities, it's important we spend our time perusing these abilities, but not all humans should be made focus on these issues entirely, as we have a multitude of serious issues to work on simultaneously


  • Options
    #879
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You act like those are two different things. If you walk into a room the evidence of your existence is also your effect. The effect you have on the rays of light coming from the sun, bouncing off your body, and hitting my eye balls. It is all just "effect" there too.

    In other words you are creating a distinction that does not actually exist. The distinction between proving the existence of something, and proving the effects that something has, is one that is only in your head. You have not pulled off the "Gotcha" you are pretending you have. Rather, you are just showing how little you understand your own question.

    As I said you can weigh it and ascertain it's attributes. That is a little more substantive that "proving its effect" too.

    Further since you are very much a lay man to science, I assume the distinction you invented above is centred around something like sight. You want proof you can physically be shown and see. Sure we can do that too! We can cool oxygen down to a temperature at which it liquefies and you can physically SEE it too. It is pale blue if you are wondering.

    You can also at low pressure initiate a plasma in it by bombarding it with electrons so that the oxygen molecules give off light. In this situation you can now see it, and it is a darkish pinkish color.

    We have also seen oxygen in space using telescopes.

    Again a lot more than "proving its effect" doncha think? I mean when it reaches the point you can literally SEE it in multiple ways and can be thrown to bounce off the side of your head.... exactly what type of "proof" are you specifically looking for here?

    Again though, a little schooling for you, the word "prove" is important here, if you are asking me to do science. We do not "prove" anything in science the way the word "prove" is used in the vernacular. We do not show anything to be 100% fact or true in science. We prove (which in science basically means test) hypothesis until the point it gets elevated to "Theory".

    The comedy of the "gotcha" you failed to achieve however is that with this "god" entity the thread is about you can not do any of the things I describe OR you describe. You can not weigh it. You can not ascertain a single attribute. You can not see it. You can not throw it and bounce it off your head. You can not measure it's effect or distinguish and separate it's effects from the effects of anything else.

    You got..... nothing.

    How do you know it's oxygen? Just because someone said it was? I've named it negyxo. Job done, that's what it's called.
    As I said, we never knew black holes existed until we experienced them. Just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's incredible arrogance to assert it doesn't just because you say so.

    But anyway, it comes to a point where one has to consider if a person is worth continuing to discuss something precious with. It's not.
    Jesus said if they are worthy, stay. If not, leave. I'm out!
    I'll leave you to your science and your ignorance.


  • Options
    #880
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    No dictionary I have uses that definition. You are making up your own definition of words to suit yourself at this point.

    I got it from the kung fu master: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwXxjSIzlcg

    i.e. affirm the good in man through trust.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    As I detailed to two users yesterday, at some length, testimony is indeed evidence but not for what you think it is.

    Worse testimony WITHIN a text is not evidence of the truth of the text. You are using the assertions of the bible to prove the truth of the bible. This is circular.

    So the issue is not whether testimony is evidence or not, but whether you are fallaciously using the evidence.

    If it is circular, then you have no argument. The text is evidence and it needs no defense as the text is not on trial.


  • Options
    #881
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I tend to write theory and Theory to make that distinction, though I do not always get it right :) But as you say if the field as a whole is not getting it right, then I can not really be expected to always do so either :)
    I'm not saying you are using it wrong, that is how it is used in the philosophy of science. Especially those philosophers of science following Popper or Kuhn. It's more the use of the word theory in science was long established in science itself prior to this. Where it more often means a well developed body of knowledge and interrelated conjectures where as hypothesis or conjecture usually means a short brief statement.

    More so than science getting it wrong, it just doesn't typically use the more recent philosophy of science meaning which you have given here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #882
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Wanderer78 wrote: »
    All humans have abilities, it's important we spend our time perusing these abilities, but not all humans should be made focus on these issues entirely, as we have a multitude of serious issues to work on simultaneously

    Yes but do these issues include warmongering, the development of horrendous weapons etc? It would seem a lot of people think so and yet we complain about childhood cancer. Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?


  • Options
    #883
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    I'm not saying you are using it wrong

    I know. I was being self critical there only, not suggesting you were. I do my best to make the same distinct when context demands it. But I know myself I do not always get it perfect.

    The more important distinction for me in THIS context is between one use of those terms, and how the user above is using them. I am not sure I know what he is asking me, partly because I am not sure HE knows what he is asking me. So I am working with im to discern those two things lest me and he talk at cross purposes.


  • Options
    #884
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I know. I was being self critical there only, not suggesting you were. I do my best to make the same distinct when context demands it. But I know myself I do not always get it perfect.

    The more important distinction for me in THIS context is between one use of those terms, and how the user above is using them. I am not sure I know what he is asking me, partly because I am not sure HE knows what he is asking me. So I am working with im to discern those two things lest me and he talk at cross purposes.
    Don't worry I get that, it's just to let you know it's another "gotcha" I've seen people use, they'll go off and find X theory which has no evidence. The problem being in many cases the scientific use of the word is in some closer to the every day use of the term. Scientists often say "right now it's only a theory" and things like that.


  • Options
    #885
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »
    How do you know it's oxygen?

    By discerning the attributes in the way I already described. You can observe other gases in the same way and they will not do the same things. You can LOOK at it in multiple ways and it looks different for a start. A candle will not burn in the presence of other gases. And so on. You can compile, test, retest and repeat the relevant attributes and distinguish oxygen from other things.

    The issue is we can not do ANY of this with your god hypothesis. We can not test it in ANY way to distinguish the effects of it from anything else. If you give me two gases I can perform tests and tell you which one is oxygen. You can not do that with a "god" hypothesis. You can not look at some "effect" you are attributing to god and in any way perform a test to verify OR negate the hypothesis.

    So what you are doing here, intentionally or unintentionally, is creating two different standards and jumping between them as it suits. And that is not a useful way to proceed.
    Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »
    As I said, we never knew black holes existed until we experienced them. Just because you haven't experienced something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    Sure there are things we did not know until we knew them. This is blatantly obvious and I wholly accept that. And until we had a reason to think Black Holes existed, we did not think black holes existed.

    But you are not really applying that standard to your god. What you are doing is somewhat different by suggesting it exists BEFORE we have reason to think it does. This is not therefore Analogbus to the history of black holes in the way you want to pretend.
    Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »
    It's incredible arrogance to assert it doesn't just because you say so.

    Did I at any point do that? I usually do not so I am surprised to hear this. Can you quote me so I can retract, or clarify, what it was I actually said?
    Taliyah Vast Gofer wrote: »
    I'll leave you to your science and your ignorance.

    What ignorance? You have not shown any in me yet.


  • Options
    #886
    Phoenix Wright
    Closed Accounts Posts: 717 ✭✭✭Phoenix Wright


    I have struggled to believe in God since I was a teenager, but who knows? I mean if you think about it, life itself is miracle so who is to say that there is not something else? We are very complicated beings with families, friends, emotions, thoughts and opinions. I almost struggle to believe that evolution, biology and socialisation can lead to this without some intervention and will from another force


  • Options
    #887
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    I got it from the kung fu master

    Regardless, you are introducing your own pet definitions for words to suit yourself. Which is not likely to help conversation much.
    realitykeeper wrote: »
    If it is circular, then you have no argument. The text is evidence and it needs no defense as the text is not on trial.

    Not sure what the word "trial" is attempting to do here. The point is that if we want to ascertain whether the events testified to in the Bible occurred, then merely resorting to the testimony of the bible is not going to do it. You need more than that.


  • Options
    #888
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Fourier wrote: »
    Scientists often say "right now it's only a theory" and things like that.

    Agreed, but very often while talking to the media I think, would I be right? At which point I assume 100% they are talking standard English and I am not thinking of the science meaning of those terms at all.

    Dawkins for example when communicating with the public will talk again and again about what the gene "wants". Knowing he is talking to the public, I do not see any reason to take him up on ascribing intentionality to a molecule.

    But yeah in general.... leaving science far behind.... I tend to get antsy when we use the same word for multiple things. It is one of the strengths and weaknesses of our language. It can generate great beauty and art, or great confusion and obfuscation.

    It has been a big issue for me in, say, the abortion debates. Where we have single words like "Human" to describe very disparate concepts. And much of the anti abortion rhetoric is founded solely in conflating all those meanings into one in such a way that they can leap between them at will in a fashion that manufactures points that are not actually there in reality.

    And it does not help that even people who should no better, myself included in this and I berate myself when I catch myself at it, will often switch between contexts and definitions in a way that is not entirely correct. Much like you describe above.


  • Options
    #889
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Phoenix Wright wrote: »
    I have struggled to believe in God since I was a teenager, but who knows? I mean if you think about it, life itself is miracle so who is to say that there is not something else?

    Indeed but this is very subjective. I think many people use the word "miracle" to mean things like awesome and wonderful and amazing and rare. In this sense life is very much a miracle to us. To be celebrated and awed at.

    The actual meaning of the word however is things like "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency."

    By this definition I think it is a mistake to describe life as a miracle for anything other than artistic license. It is not a miracle. It is just a beautiful wonder to us limited humans. And when something is that wonderous to us, we naturally want to ascribe it to something greater, like a god.

    But as Douglas Adams said..... Is it not enough the garden is beautiful without having to imagine there are fairies at the end of it.

    Part of the reason we struggle to accept evolution could have produced all this wonder is just that emotionally we do not WANT to think something so precious to us.... came from something so simple, mundane, and mindless.


  • Options
    #890
    Fourier
    Registered Users Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Agreed, but very often while talking to the media I think, would I be right? At which point I assume 100% they are talking standard English and I am not thinking of the science meaning of those terms at all.
    Actually it would be used that way even among scientists themselves. Basically even among each other scientists usually mean just "idea" or "proposal" or a body of interelated such ideas or proposals without intending much about their empirical support. I've heard people say things like "String Theory is still just a theory" at conferences.


  • Options
    #891
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Thought as much, which is why I edited "usually" out of my post and changed it to "very often" :)

    Think if I heard that at a conference I would get the same feeling I get when people at a gig say "I preferred his old stuff". :) Nothing really WRONG with saying that, but still..... it twangs something inside me all the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #892
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    This life, you see is inherently unfair.

    Yes, we noticed.

    So, if an all loving God created it, why didn't she make it fair?


  • Options
    #893
    Seanachai
    Registered Users Posts: 2,538 ✭✭✭Seanachai


    zimmermania wrote: »
    Once in a debate someone said "This mega big universe could not have just happened
    there must have been a creator" I then asked who created the creator?

    You're not the first to pose that question, Native Americans generally refer to it as the 'Great Mystery' which could be taken as a kind of a cop-out :rolleyes:.

    In the Eastern philosophies there isn't any need for a creator for anything to exist, it just is, scientists generally gravitate towards the Eastern viewpoint more.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakan_Tanka

    https://aeon.co/essays/can-buddhist-philosophy-explain-what-came-before-the-big-bang


  • Options
    #894
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Regardless, you are introducing your own pet definitions for words to suit yourself. Which is not likely to help conversation much.

    Miceart. I quoted Master Kan so it was not my definition. I am merely someone who agrees with Master Kan.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Not sure what the word "trial" is attempting to do here. The point is that if we want to ascertain whether the events testified to in the Bible occurred, then merely resorting to the testimony of the bible is not going to do it. You need more than that.

    You said there was no evidence. There is, i.e. testimony. Now you want more evidence? This reminds me of the parable of the rich man in hell:

    …30‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone is sent to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”


  • Options
    #895
    the-island-man
    Registered Users Posts: 488 ✭✭the-island-man


    Ryann Yummy Mosque wrote: »
    If you were baptized, then you're technically a Roman Catholic, regardless of whether you go to mass or believe in God. There's a formal process by which people can defect from the Catholic Church, but few bother to take that step..

    As of 2011 there is no formal process. The option was removed from canon law:
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/church-defection-website-shuts-due-to-change-in-canon-law-1.1488263


  • Options
    #896
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    You said there was no evidence. There is, i.e. testimony. Now you want more evidence? This reminds me of the parable of the rich man in hell:

    …30‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone is sent to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”
    That's circular reasoning. "This testimony is fact because it says it is".

    Or to use that old joke:

    Jesus: "Let me in so I can save you"

    Man: "Save me from what?"

    Jesus: "From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in".


    The value of any individual piece of evidence is measured by corroboration. The more it can be corroborated, the more valuable it is.

    A single piece of uncorroborated testimony is of extremely limited value.


  • Options
    #897
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Miceart. I quoted Master Kan so it was not my definition. I am merely someone who agrees with Master Kan.

    Please read more carefully. I did not say it was your definition. I am saying you are introducing your pet definitions. Different thing.

    But pedantic linguistic issues aside, you attempted to draw a parallel between faith and trust and I made the distinction that one is more evidence based that the other. That distinction still holds true for the new definition you just imported too.
    realitykeeper wrote: »
    You said there was no evidence. There is, i.e. testimony.

    And ONCE AGAIN (I am happy to say it as often as you are happy to repeat the error) the testimony is not evidence. At least not in the sense you are using it.

    If the question is "Is there a god" then the testimony that there is a god IS the thing we are trying to evidence. So using the testimony as evidence for itself, is circular. You are using AS evidence, the thing I am seeking evidence for.

    So no, I am not seeking "more" evidence. You have not provided ANY evidence yet for the thing I actually asked so I can not be seeking "more" by definition.

    The testimony of people who think there is a god, is only evidence that some people think there is a god. It is not, at all, evidence there actually is one.


  • Options
    #898
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Yes, we noticed.

    So, if an all living God created it, why didn't she make it fair?

    If you do not understand the ways of this life, you would not understand the reasoning of the next. Anecdotally, we know that inequality is in fact a very good thing as it encourages co-operation e.g. trade. Societies that try to impose equality end up impoverished with everyone attempting to serve only themselves. By contrast, a blind man can carry a sighted cripple. If there was no reason to co-operate, life would be unpleasant.

    Let he who hath understanding count the number of the beast. So it is the lack of understanding and the proliferation of confusion that enables evil to thrive.


  • Options
    #899
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    Let he who hath understanding count the number of the beast.
    I love that song.


  • Options
    #900
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    If you do not understand the ways of this life, you would not understand the reasoning of the next.

    Again, until you show there IS a next one, you have not shown there is anything to understand. So asserting people do not understand it, is fantasy on your part.

    Have you any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest human experience, subjectivity, or consciousness survives the death of the brain?

    Or do you just have more of this "I just know it" to offer?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #901
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    a blind man can carry a sighted cripple. If there was no reason to co-operate, life would be unpleasant.

    Life is unpleasant for the people who die in famines through no fault of their own, the children who die of cancer, the civilian casualties in war and terrorism. And these people are religious in the same proportion as any other people, belief in God is no protection from anything.

    And if your god exists, they set it up that way. They apparently like cancer and worms in children's eyes and so on.


Advertisement