Do you believe in God?

[LeMansAid]

Because it pleases Him to work in an unverifiable manner.

But you are able to verify that God's work is unverifiable?

 

[Moto54]

And what people believe to be right might actually be right.

Did Newton believe that the universe was essentially a clockwork mechanism? Or was it rational?
Einstein did not believe in the 'spooky action at a distance' between subatomic particles, but he was wrong. Or irrational? The reality did not appeal to him. Neither did god playing dice, but it shows how beliefs get mixed in. Being rational isnt everything.

 

[niky]

Did Newton believe that the universe was essentially a clockwork mechanism? Or was it rational?
Einstein did not believe in the 'spooky action at a distance' between subatomic particles, but he was wrong. Or irrational? The reality did not appeal to him. Neither did god playing dice, but it shows how beliefs get mixed in. Being rational isnt everything.

Einstein had his reservations about quantum theory, but he at least had the honesty to recognize that it worked. Somewhat. And his belief in the shortcomings of quantum theory were expounded upon elsewhere, in a somewhat less glib form than short, out-of-context quotes.

As we are still trying to unify Quantum Physics and General Relativity, due to their individual inadequacies at explaining the Universe in its totality, Einstein's reservations are not without merit.

 

[Cb]

no

 

[Imari]

Being rational isnt everything.

It is when you're trying to figure things out. Otherwise you're just guessing.

 

[Moto54]

Einstein had his reservations about quantum theory, but he at least had the honesty to recognize that it worked. Somewhat. And his belief in the shortcomings of quantum theory were expounded upon elsewhere, in a somewhat less glib form than short, out-of-context quotes.

As we are still trying to unify Quantum Physics and General Relativity, due to their individual inadequacies at explaining the Universe in its totality, Einstein's reservations are not without merit.

Richard Feynman figured 'anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics doesnt know much about it' ..or words to that effect. Therefore my issue is with holding rationality up as the gold standard of understanding. We know that atoms are mostly empty space- that the amount of your body sitting there that is not empty space would be a particle of solidness too small for the naked eye to see.
I dont know that the quality of being purely rational as possible helps a person absorb such truths as quantum mechanics demonstrates. It has its limits.

 

[niky]

Richard Feynman figured 'anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics doesnt know much about it' ..or words to that effect. Therefore my issue is with holding rationality up as the gold standard of understanding. We know that atoms are mostly empty space- that the amount of your body sitting there that is not empty space would be a particle of solidness too small for the naked eye to see.
I dont know that the quality of being purely rational as possible helps a person absorb such truths as quantum mechanics demonstrates. It has its limits.

Quantum physics is still a rational system.

It's counter-intuitive, and difficult for people to understand. And the math goes over almost everyone's heads. But it is still a rational system.

The limits to our understanding of quantum mechanics are not because we use rational thought to interpret it. But because we (or 99.999999% of us, at least) aren't smart enough to wrap our minds around it.

 

[Famine]

Did Newton believe that the universe was essentially a clockwork mechanism? Or was it rational?

I don't know what Newton believed, nor would I presume to speak of it. However it's not rational to believe that the universe is anything, because belief is fundamentally irrational.

Not that this means that what you believe in is always wrong, just that the belief itself is irrational.

Einstein did not believe in the 'spooky action at a distance' between subatomic particles, but he was wrong. Or irrational? The reality did not appeal to him. Neither did god playing dice, but it shows how beliefs get mixed in. Being rational isnt everything.

Actually it is - when it comes to understanding the universe. To restate:

You can't arrive at a false position rationally, but you can reasonably. You can also reasonably arrive at a true position, but that doesn't make the reasoning correct. It's only correct if it has been reached rationally.

 

[Moto54]

It's counter-intuitive

I appreciate yours and Famines answers. I dont have time at this wi-fi spot, but I have to object when
I hear someone say the truths arrived at by quantum mechanics are counter intuitive. Intuition is not
something (it seems to me) a person steeped in science should comment on. Its more likely that what someone intuitively and natively experiences as true, but has zero math apptitude, would be confirmed (after a manner) by quantum mechanics (probabilities, uncertainty, superposition, sum over histories, etc.)
Anyway.. its all good.
I hope.

 

[niky]

I appreciate yours and Famines answers. I dont have time at this wi-fi spot, but I have to object when
I hear someone say the truths arrived at by quantum mechanics are counter intuitive. Intuition is not
something (it seems to me) a person steeped in science should comment on. Its more likely that what someone intuitively and natively experiences as true, but has zero math apptitude, would be confirmed (after a manner) by quantum mechanics (probabilities, uncertainty, superposition, sum over histories, etc.)
Anyway.. its all good.
I hope.

I'm not saying that intuition is what you should base science on. I'm simply objecting to the statement that rationality runs counter to the study of quantum mechanics.

Clinging to intuition, despite evidence to the contrary, runs counter to the study of quantum mechanics.

 

[huskeR32]

I can't prove God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't

These are not equal.

 

[Moto54]

I'm simply objecting to the statement that rationality runs counter to the study of quantum mechanics.

I never said rational thought (thought agreeable to reason) runs counter to quantum mechanics.

I do not believe rational thought can contain quantum mechanics. Example: its been shown that
time, flowing from the past and into the future, is nowhere supported by physics. Instead its more
likely that time (if its a series of moments, or 'nows') exists simultaneously in all of its probable
expressions. All 'nows' exist at once. Einstein can be quoted as saying as much (past, present, future
is an illusion)

I dont think 'thought agreeable to reason' as it is typically encountered, contains that truth about time.

 

[Famine]

I never said rational thought (thought agreeable to reason) runs counter to quantum mechanics.

I do not believe rational thought can contain quantum mechanics. Example: its been shown that
time, flowing from the past and into the future, is nowhere supported by physics. Instead its more
likely that time (if its a series of moments, or 'nows') exists simultaneously in all of its probable
expressions. All 'nows' exist at once. Einstein can be quoted as saying as much (past, present, future
is an illusion)

I dont think 'thought agreeable to reason' as it is typically encountered, contains that truth about time.

Don't confuse reasoning and rationality - that's why I separated the two in my earlier posts. Rationality is logic.

You can't arrive at a false position rationally, but you can reasonably. You can also reasonably arrive at a true position, but that doesn't make the reasoning correct. It's only correct if it has been reached rationally.

 

[Moto54]

Don't confuse reasoning and rationality - that's why I separated the two in my earlier posts. Rationality is logic.

I believe you dude but I was going by the definition in the dictionary

 

[Famine]

I believe you dude but I was going by the definition in the dictionary

Which one?

I mean, I did go over this on the last page and you quoted part of it, but I'll post it again:

People do not reason the same way as one another, that's for sure - and what may seem reasonable to someone may seem unreasonable to someone else. But their reasoning can be both rational and irrational.

Beliefs are an example of something irrational. It's not rational to hold a position on something in spite of facts. Belief can be both reasonable and unreasonable though. In our part of the world it's reasonable to believe that you should be nice to one another because God commands it, but unreasonable to believe that you should throw homosexuals off tall buildings because God commands it - yet in other parts of the world it's wholly reasonable to throw homosexuals off tall buildings because God commands it. Both are irrational.

Rationality is, very specifically, reasoning with logic as opposed to simple reasoning.

 

[Joey D]

To throw my two cents in, the way I see it is if the existence of a supernatural being was rational, you'd be able to prove that it exists, however you can't prove that it exists. You can reason that a supernatural being exists based on your experiences, research, observations, among other things.

I know that a supernatural being can't be proven, or at least can't be proven (or disproven) yet, however based on the world around me, what I've been able to observe, and the questions I've asked, I've been able to reason that there is probably a supernatural power and because of that I believe there is one (or many).

 

[huskeR32]

can't be proven (or disproven) yet

These are not equal.

I hate to sound like a broken record with that, but it's an important distinction to understand. And once you do, you will realize the problems with

based on the world around me, what I've been able to observe, and the questions I've asked, I've been able to reason that there is probably a supernatural power and because of that I believe there is one (or many).

 

[Joey D]

These are not equal.

I hate to sound like a broken record with that, but it's an important distinction to understand. And once you do, you will realize the problems with

As for the proven/disproven, the reason I said it is because I don't count out some event happening in the future that makes either of those things an absolute. I have no way of knowing if a supernatural being will appear someday and have us on earth see it with out own eyes. I also have no way of knowing if we will ever uncover some great knowledge that proves, with irrefutable evidence, there can't be a supernatural being. I don't know, nor does anyone else, and since I don't know I'm not going to present it as a factual statement.

And I have no problem with how I've reasoned a supernatural being exists, I know and accept it's a belief that can't be proven at this time and may never be proven.

 

[Imari]

I do not believe rational thought can contain quantum mechanics.

You're wrong.

Example: its been shown that time, flowing from the past and into the future, is nowhere supported by physics.

Explain more. What does supported by physics mean?

Physics is merely a collection of explanations of things we've observed. Physics does not claim to explain everything in perfect detail, there are many things that remain poorly understood or not understood at all.

 

[sammy neuman]

But you are able to verify that God's work is unverifiable?

Well...no, but I suspect you knew that already.

These are not equal.

It would seem that I don't understand the distinction, please explain further.

 

[enigma911]

Yes, I do. Any other position will end inevitably in nihilistic materialism- there is no sense in life without God. Science and knowledge is truly a tremendous power, but man has become arrogant in thinking of themselves of God(s).
I challenge you, enemies of God: Why do we exist? Why should I continue on living if I know that in the end, death is inevitable, in the end, all things that begin in this world will come to an end, that in the end, progress is not eternal and will come to an end, that there is an end to everything and that from a scientific position, there is no reason for our existence except to continue on living and breeding, knowing that death is unavoidable and there is an end to everything; and that therefore there is no reason to continue on living, because the end of life is inevitable and the struggle to continue living is futile at the very end.
Which leads to one conclusion: my death can not be avoided. Therefore, it should not matter if my death is today or tomorrow, if I end my life through my own hand or if I die through "natural" causes; at the end of the equation, nature, God's eternal law, has destined death for all living beings.
Life is unreasonable, our existence has no reason, nihilism.
This is the stance of the irreligious people, truly those who do not recognise their fallacy.

 

[niky]

This is the stance of the irreligious people, truly those who do not recognise their fallacy.

Why, hellooooooo sunshine.

-

Forgive me for joyfully going on about my day, practicing my humanism, trying to make the world a better place for humans and humanity, and not falling down into a pit of bottomless existentialist despair. (I do believe I got that out of the way in twelfth grade.)

 

[JKgo]

God's eternal law, has destined death for all living beings.

...

Sounds like someone I wouldn't want to talk to, making such laws...

So it doesn't matter whether you believe or not, at end you still kick the bucket the same way. Huh.

 

[enigma911]

Why, hellooooooo sunshine.

-

Forgive me for joyfully going on about my day, practicing my humanism, trying to make the world a better place for humans and humanity, and not falling down into a pit of bottomless existentialist despair. (I do believe I got that out of the way in twelfth grade.)

Please refute my stance, maybe I went overboard with my kind of speech, but saying that "I do believe I got that out of the way in twelfth grade" is like saying "One with a heart is communist until the age of 20, one without a brain is communist past 20"; this is not an argument, it's ":censoredosting".

...


Sounds like someone I wouldn't want to talk to, making such laws...


So it doesn't matter whether you believe or not, at end you still kick the bucket the same way. Huh.

That's not an argument for religious people, because salvation awaits.
But let us not get into this matter, I want to hear a rebuttal of my post.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Yes, I do. Any other position will end inevitably in nihilistic materialism- there is no sense in life without God. Science and knowledge is truly a tremendous power, but man has become arrogant in thinking of themselves of God(s).
I challenge you, enemies of God: Why do we exist? Why should I continue on living if I know that in the end, death is inevitable, in the end, all things that begin in this world will come to an end, that in the end, progress is not eternal and will come to an end, that there is an end to everything and that from a scientific position, there is no reason for our existence except to continue on living and breeding, knowing that death is unavoidable and there is an end to everything; and that therefore there is no reason to continue on living, because the end of life is inevitable and the struggle to continue living is futile at the very end.
Which leads to one conclusion: my death can not be avoided. Therefore, it should not matter if my death is today or tomorrow, if I end my life through my own hand or if I die through "natural" causes; at the end of the equation, nature, God's eternal law, has destined death for all living beings.
Life is unreasonable, our existence has no reason, nihilism.
This is the stance of the irreligious people, truly those who do not recognise their fallacy.

Sounds like you're saying there's no point in doing things if they end, that must make your life very boring.

 

[niky]

":censoredosting".

Bringing levity into a discussion is hardly worth being sworn at for.

Of course, if you would like to continue swearing at people, I do believe other moderators might take a dim view of the quality of that post.

But let us not get into this matter, I want to hear a rebuttal of my post.

If you must.

Any other position will end inevitably in nihilistic materialism- there is no sense in life without God.

This is your assertion. And this assumes that people cannot find sense in life without God. Buddhists would take issue with that. Taoists would take issue with that. Confucianists would take issue with that. Humanists would take issue with that... and so on and so forth.

If nihilistic materialism is inevitable, why isn't every non-theist a nihilistic materialist?

Science and knowledge is truly a tremendous power, but man has become arrogant in thinking of themselves of God(s).

To believe yourself a God, you first have to believe in Gods.

I challenge you, enemies of God: Why do we exist?

Because we exist.

Why should I continue on living if I know that in the end, death is inevitable, in the end, all things that begin in this world will come to an end, that in the end, progress is not eternal and will come to an end, that there is an end to everything and that from a scientific position, there is no reason for our existence except to continue on living and breeding, knowing that death is unavoidable and there is an end to everything; and that therefore there is no reason to continue on living, because the end of life is inevitable and the struggle to continue living is futile at the very end.

Because we can. Because, while you will eventually age and die, what you do while you live affects the world around you. You can either leave it a better world or a worse world than the one you were born into. And the choice is entirely up to you.

Which leads to one conclusion: my death can not be avoided.

True. Maybe.

Therefore, it should not matter if my death is today or tomorrow, if I end my life through my own hand or if I die through "natural" causes; at the end of the equation, nature, God's eternal law, has destined death for all living beings.

If you're arguing from a non-theistic standpoint, why bring God into it?

More importantly, what leads you to believe it doesn't matter, or would not matter in a Godless world? Are you saying people don't matter?

More to the point... that other people don't matter?

Does this mean that, in the absence of God, you would place no value on human life?

Life is unreasonable, our existence has no reason, nihilism.
This is the stance of the irreligious people, truly those who do not recognise their fallacy.

In other words, yes, then. In the absence of religion, human life has no value to you.

How lowly you must think of us who believe that human life has intrinsic value outside of an arbitrary belief system.

 

[enigma911]

Sounds like you're saying there's no point in doing things if they end, that must make your life very boring.

And yet, life is unreasonable. Scientifically seen, the end is unavoidable. Remember death. It is true that one may argue that under these circumstance, one should live life to the fullest instead.
But this doesn't refute my central argument.
One who doesn't believe in God also will say that life and existence are unreasonable,that there is no reason to choose existence over non-existence except materialistic joy, joy that will not last forever.
Death awaits. Unless one doesn't argue that either a) life is eternal or b) the meaning of life is not continue on living or breeding; one will inevitably end in a nihilistic pithole,ignoring the fact that death awaits, like niky does.

 

[niky]

And yet, life is unreasonable. Scientifically seen, the end is unavoidable. Remember death. It is true that one may argue that under these circumstance, one should live life to the fullest instead.
But this doesn't refute my central argument.
One who doesn't believe in God also will say that life and existence are unreasonable,that there is no reason to choose existence over non-existence except materialistic joy, joy that will not last forever.
Death awaits. Unless one doesn't argue that either a) life is eternal or b) the meaning of life is not continue on living or breeding; one will inevitably end in a nihilistic pithole,ignoring the fact that death awaits, like niky does.

Who's ignoring what, now?

-

You make a lot of claims about what people who don't believe in god believe.

Just because some atheists are nihilists doesn't make all atheists nihilists.

I gave you a reason for living. And it's a simple one.

-

We are humans. We are born humans. We die humans.

-

As humans, our biological imperative is ensuring the continuation of our bloodline.

-

And the best way to assure the continuance of that bloodline is to work to provide a better world, a better future for our descendants.

That involves helping other people. And not being a jerk. Cooperation provides the best chances of survival for the young. "Do unto others", as Confucius said, long before Christ.

-

Sounds like a reason to choose existence, doesn't it? And it doesn't involve materialistic joy at all.

 

[enigma911]

Bringing levity into a discussion is hardly worth being sworn at for.

Of course, if you would like to continue swearing at people, I do believe other moderators might take a dim view of the quality of that post.



If you must.



This is your assertion. And this assumes that people cannot find sense in life without God. Buddhists would take issue with that. Taoists would take issue with that. Confucianists would take issue with that. Humanists would take issue with that... and so on and so forth.

If nihilistic materialism is inevitable, why isn't every non-theist a nihilistic materialist?



To believe yourself a God, you first have to believe in Gods.



Because we exist.



Because we can. Because, while you will eventually age and die, what you do while you live affects the world around you. You can either leave it a better world or a worse world than the one you were born into. And the choice is entirely up to you.



True. Maybe.



If you're arguing from a non-theistic standpoint, why bring God into it?

More importantly, what leads you to believe it doesn't matter, or would not matter in a Godless world? Are you saying people don't matter?

More to the point... that other people don't matter?

Does this mean that, in the absence of God, you would place no value on human life?



In other words, yes, then. In the absence of religion, human life has no value to you.

How lowly you must think of us who believe that human life has intrinsic value outside of an arbitrary belief system.

Buddhists believe in an afterlife, something which atheists do not. Similiarily, Buddhism does not equate with a non-theistic stance, Buddhists can and did believe in God(s).
Taoism and Confucianism are, like humanism, a philsophical stance.
Now then, this doesn't explain the unreasonableness off life and existence.
You say that we exist because we exist, elaborate further on that, do I eat because I eat, rape because I rape, kill because I kill?

You say that an individual can influence the world. I argue: are you certain of that? It is true that every single human individual does influence the world partly, but this influence has almost vanished entirely with the coming of the age of the industry: little does one Bangladeshi matter more or less to the average man, we have "too many humans" in this world anyway.
Additionally, influencing the world will matter little to one who dies too, what does he gain by that if he dies anyway? Why should I help and take care of people if I don't want to, if these people do not take care of me, if at the end of the equation I die anyway? Why shouls I not take the path of crime, why should I not choose to steal from the rich, to rape when I want, to pursuit absolute joy in disregard of everything else?

Why do other people matter?

I only used God as a rhetorical device (or not :^)) there, ignore it.

Yes, I believe that, because my life matters more than others. I am the most important person on this world, I seek all the pleasure in this world, because what matters for me is making life joyful,I will die anyway.

 

[huskeR32]

It would seem that I don't understand the distinction, please explain further.

That the existence of god can be neither proved nor disproved does not mean that both possibilities are equally likely.

--

I want to hear a rebuttal of my post.

There's very little to rebut - you essentially only made one claim:

there is no sense in life without God

This nonsense has been trotted out many times in this thread already. Nobody has ever been able to even begin to demonstrate that it's true. If you'd like to take a crack at it, go ahead.

Beyond that, you demonstrated nothing other than that you appear to be going through some sort of existential crisis.

As for some of your questions:

I challenge you, enemies of God: Why do we exist?

Who says there must be a reason for our existence?

Why should I continue on living if I know that in the end, death is inevitable[?]

I can only answer for myself, but my reason to "continue on living" is that I'm having a hell of a good time doing so.