Philosophy's, theory's. And just a big post.

[TWTCommish]

I can't stay out of these; too much ignorance and falsehoods would go unnoticed and unchallenged, and I hate that. I can live with people not believing, but I hate the idea of them not believing because they listened to the wrong people and no one was there to point out problems with what they were hearing.

You're right, we won't know until we're way past the point where we can post here. IMO, though, that's no reason to ignore the issue. It's something I think everyone should face. It's not going to go away...and disagreement is no reason to avoid making a choice altogether. That's my view, at least. Do the best you can with what you have.

[Jake Bunce]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Naturally you've got it all figured out, and the billions who disagree with you are merely victims of the largest, most elaborate host (100-fold) in the history of mankind.

yep

[Skeptical]

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Why would the use of logic mean God is less likely to exist? IMO, the fact that things seem to have a meaning and order behind them...that these systems seem to NATURALLY work, makes it MORE likely.

So are you saying it's very likely God does exist or not very likely? From a scale of 1 to 100 where lies your conviction of god being a real thing?

[patvdv]

What do percentages matter? 2% is just as valid as 87%. Like c-prompt said; 'we are all right and we are all wrong', simply because you determine wrong and right based on a context. And here we are back at the relativity concept. We live in a 'boxed' world and LIKELY (but maybe also not so), our children will live in a world where that 'box' has expanded due to increased knowlegde. What is non-sense now, may make perfect sense tomorrow. It doesn't matter WHAT you think or believe, as you long are you willing to concept the idea that WHAT you believe or think may change in the future, then it's ok. Try some lateral thinking

[chrispadfield]

Originally posted by Skeptical
I think this thread has turned logic into nonsense basically.

Anyways... getting back on topic...

Since it seems obvious we have an agreement that human judgement and conclusions are based on logic or at least our perception of it, do you guys not agree that it's much much much more likely that god does not exist? Or are we gonna sit here and continue to massage logic to make 1000 seem less than 1?

This whole logic thing was just a diversion but an important one because Jakeman suggested he didn't have faith in anything. Sure logic is very likely to be true, but it is not necessarily, we have faith in it. Sure, I believe that faith in logic, big bang, evolution is more credible (for me) than faith in religion but I wonder if they are fundamentally different things. Both require some sort of evidence it just makes a difference how you take that evidence.

Jakeman, your attempt to proove logic is to be honest laughable. You provide two examples and suggest that is proof. I can show you two men who have black hair, thus I have prooved that all men have black hair. And remember, just because something can not currently be disproved does no way mean it is prooved. Otherwise everyone's invisible friend you would claim is real?

[Skeptical]

Originally posted by chrispadfield
[B]

This whole logic thing was just a diversion but an important one because Jakeman suggested he didn't have faith in anything. Sure logic is very likely to be true, but it is not necessarily, we have faith in it. Sure, I believe that faith in logic, big bang, evolution is more credible (for me) than faith in religion but I wonder if they are fundamentally different things. Both require some sort of evidence it just makes a difference how you take that evidence.

Chris, now that is an explanation I can respect and accept. Maybe not completely agree, but nevertheless, respectable.

[Skeptical]

Originally posted by patvdv
What do percentages matter? 2% is just as valid as 87%. Like c-prompt said; 'we are all right and we are all wrong', simply because you determine wrong and right based on a context. And here we are back at the relativity concept. We live in a 'boxed' world and LIKELY (but maybe also not so), our children will live in a world where that 'box' has expanded due to increased knowlegde. What is non-sense now, may make perfect sense tomorrow. It doesn't matter WHAT you think or believe, as you long are you willing to concept the idea that WHAT you believe or think may change in the future, then it's ok. Try some lateral thinking

Let me quote an earlier post I made in this same thread, as it answers and counters your point perfectly:

... but what bothers me is how people can take the side that is about 10,000 times weaker and make it seem as though it's the more convincing of the two.

It's like me trying to tell everyone that they can fly, if they can just harness their magical manna within them. Or that Miss Cleo and her psychic friends are for real.

When you make a statement or hypothesis, it must be backed by proof. By default all hypotheses must be treated as being false (theoretically not absolute of course) until proven true by way of convincing evidence. Otherwise people can just sit there and conjure up thousands upon thousands of theories, from Aliens to psychics to invisible people to time travel to telepathy to life after death. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is essential.

[chrispadfield]

That is where I would agree with you skepetical, creationism for me is similair to believing in father christmas, the evidence is just not there. There might be some (but then there are lots of books about father christmas so there is *some* evidence that he exists), however for something like Jesus and God, while I don't believe in them personally there is considerable more evidence that they exist and certainly no contradictions that creationism imposes (e.g. age of earth, who where the people Cain met when he left etc).

[patvdv]

Originally posted by Skeptical


Let me quote an earlier post I made in this same thread, as it answers and counters your point perfectly:

... but what bothers me is how people can take the side that is about 10,000 times weaker and make it seem as though it's the more convincing of the two.

It's like me trying to tell everyone that they can fly, if they can just harness their magical manna within them. Or that Miss Cleo and her psychic friends are for real.

When you make a statement or hypothesis, it must be backed by proof. By default all hypotheses must be treated as being false (theoretically not absolute of course) until proven true by way of convincing evidence. Otherwise people can just sit there and conjure up thousands upon thousands of theories, from Aliens to psychics to invisible people to time travel to telepathy to life after death. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is essential.

No no, you still fail to see my point. You're still thinking within the border lines of our current logic. You are thinking in means of 'forward' and 'backward' (false/true, right/wrong). What I am trying to point out is that MIGHT be more to it: 'left' and 'right', 'up' and 'down'. Concepts that don't fit into our current scheme of things. I am not stating that your logic is WRONG but rather that it may relative to 'x,y,z'. I also believe that in our current way of living the transitive law holds up, that the speed of light is one of the cosmic absolutes but I am also willing to accept that they can change. That is my point.

[TWTCommish]

So are you saying it's very likely God does exist or not very likely? From a scale of 1 to 100 where lies your conviction of god being a real thing?

I can't nail it down a percentage. But I am quite sure that some sort of God exists. Very sure, in fact. Less sure that I'm believing in the right God, but I've no significant doubt that there is something there.

[Wayne Luke]

Originally posted by Skeptical


So are you saying it's very likely God does exist or not very likely? From a scale of 1 to 100 where lies your conviction of god being a real thing?

100... Let me clarify, I am 100 percent certain that there are divine entities. These range from angels to deitiess and even malevolent entities. But I don't believe in a "Supreme God" and a "Supreme Evil" with nothing in between.

[chrispadfield]

Wayne, what do you mean by divine? is this something that is just not physical? and if so what differentiates these beings?

[Jake Bunce]

Originally posted by chrispadfield
Jakeman, your attempt to proove logic is to be honest laughable. You provide two examples and suggest that is proof.

i provide two examples as examples... as in, "this is an example where this law is true and cannot be disputed." do you deny that if 4 = 2+2 and 2+2 = 2^2 then 4 = 2^2? this is a supporting example. i'm no mathematition. how many examples do you require? go ask a math teacher at a local college or something.

can you give me a similar undisputable example that relates to religion? if nothing is absolute then we must argue small examples to help improve our arguments. don't dance around the direct questions to masturbate the what ifs. we need to break down this complicated situation into simpler pieces.

Originally posted by wluke
100... Let me clarify, I am 100 percent certain that there are divine entities. These range from angels to deitiess and even malevolent entities. But I don't believe in a "Supreme God" and a "Supreme Evil" with nothing in between.

i am 100% certain that divine entities do not exist

[TWTCommish]

You seem awfully fond of the word masturbation.

Keep rambling...go ahead. As I already pointed out (I think you ignored it...if I were to take a page out of your book, I'd say you were "avoiding" it), you are operating under the assumption that everything you need for proof can even be obtained.

"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." -- Albert Einstein

[Wayne Luke]

Originally posted by chrispadfield
Wayne, what do you mean by divine? is this something that is just not physical? and if so what differentiates these beings?

Well, I posted an awfully long post in response. Well over three or four pages worth. It was the simplest that I could narrow it down to. My own religious notes number in the hundreds of pages.

If you email me privately, I will send you references if you are sincere in learning more.