Halo 2 Forum > Off-topic > Debate Forum > Religion Debate
 
 
Display Modes Thread Tools
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#61
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjorn_248 View Post
Here's another perspective. Talked about this with my friend who took a few philosophy classes.

What's wrong with having god as a non-influencing observer who exists outside of time and therefore sees all decisions that you make of your own free will without interfering?
As long as he isn't punishing me for what I do? Nothing at all. If he created us with such omniscient knowledge, he did influence our decisions... but again this doesn't really matter if he isn't punishing us for our actions.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 03:08 PM.
McDevy
Soshified
McDevy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Skag Gully
Posts: 10,941
Subtract from McDevy's ReputationAdd to McDevy's Reputation McDevy is a novice
#62
03-30-2011
Default

I'd like to point out that it's actually unreasonable to consider oneself agnostic.

In order for one to be agnostic, the idea that there is a god needs to be an idea that is believable. If that idea hadn't simply been exercised or brought to your attention in your lifetime you wouldn't feel the need to be so apologetically compelled to shake a stick at it/give it a fair chance, etc etc. This is simply a problem of past cultures' historically beating this into being accepted as an earnest outcome.

It's all the more disturbing when 'bad' meta-physical ideas are brought into a greater social consciousness, and are entertained with the same abandonment of logical scrutiny that many science-fiction ideas do. They just simply aren't fair, reasonable comparisons as to say faster-than-light travel or teleportation.

Religiosity does not earn the same 'fair game' argument that other hypothesis' do, so to speak.

Last edited by McDevy; 03-30-2011 at 03:12 PM.
davobrosia
Ask Z for $50
davobrosia's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 22,593
Subtract from davobrosia's ReputationAdd to davobrosia's Reputation davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000 davobrosia IS OVER 9000
Send a message via AIM to davobrosia
#63
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjorn_248 View Post
Here's another perspective. Talked about this with my friend who took a few philosophy classes.

What's wrong with having god as a non-influencing observer who exists outside of time and therefore sees all decisions that you make of your own free will without interfering?
The fact that the existence of that knowledge ipso facto precludes free will.
Spoiler!
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#64
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
I'd point out that it's unreasonable to consider yourself agnostic.

In order for one to be agnostic, the idea that there is a god needs to be an idea that is believable. If that idea hadn't simply been exercised or brought to your attention in your lifetime you wouldn't feel the need to be so apologetically compelled to shake a stick at it/give it a fair chance, etc etc.
My understanding is that atheists consider all possible notions of god to be 100% untrue. I don't think we're quite there yet to make that claim objectively, so I consider myself agnostic. However, that doesn't mean I consider any notion of god as possible. There are many religious claims that I confidently dismiss as untrue because they are downright ridiculous.

Does that make sense? I'm simply open to the possibility that there is something more out there, but I'm not going to believe in it until more evidence is found.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 03:23 PM.
McDevy
Soshified
McDevy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Skag Gully
Posts: 10,941
Subtract from McDevy's ReputationAdd to McDevy's Reputation McDevy is a novice
#65
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
My understanding is that atheists consider all possible notions of god to be 100% untrue. I don't think we're quite there yet to make that claim objectively, so I consider myself agnostic. However, that doesn't mean I consider any notion of god as possible. There are many religious claims that I confidently dismiss as untrue because they are downright ridiculous.

Does that make sense? I'm simply open to the possibility that there is something more out there, but I'm not going to believe in it until more evidence is found.
Being open to there being 'something else' as you put it doesn't necessarily imply it's a god, per say.

By acknowledging an existence of a possible god you are to some degree: acknowledging the reasons that birthed that one idea to which you understand, being equally plausible/attainable.

There's simply no reason, empirically or rationally, to entertain the existence of any sort of omnipotent, omniscient god.

For what it's worth -- this occurrence of circumstances originated out of sociology, anthropology, and geopolitics.
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#66
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
Being open to there being 'something else' as you put it doesn't necessarily imply it's a god, per say.

By acknowledging an existence of a possible god you are to some degree: acknowledging the reasons that birthed that one idea to which you understand, being equally plausible/attainable.

There's simply no reason, empirically or rationally, to entertain the existence of any sort of omnipotent, omniscient god.

For what it's worth -- this occurrence of circumstances originated out of sociology, anthropology, and geopolitics.
I consider that "something else" could potentially be a god, but again, I won't believe in god until there's more evidence for him.

Is there empirical reasoning for completely writing off the existence of anything that can be considered god? For you to absolutely claim X does not exist, the burden of proof would be on you.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 03:44 PM.
McDevy
Soshified
McDevy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Skag Gully
Posts: 10,941
Subtract from McDevy's ReputationAdd to McDevy's Reputation McDevy is a novice
#67
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
I consider that "something else" could potentially be a god, but again, I won't believe in god until there's more evidence for him.

Is there empirical reasoning for completely writing off the existence of anything that can be considered god? For you to absolutely claim X does not exist, the burden of proof would be on you.
...No it wouldn't.

I've made no positive assertion, and I can't prove the negative assertion that I have.

The burden of proof is on the one who accepts the idea of a god in the first place. Can you explain the reason of how you came to accept the possibility?

One doesn't just give any serious thought or entertain the idea of Bigfoot because of the idea there could be one exists, right?

You just go about your day -- "oh yeah bigfoot, whatever". Well, except for goatzeus in this case.

I've also made no absolute claim for anything to exist or not. You're getting past the presumption you made that there could be a god based solely on the idea of one and not the evidence of one.

Last edited by McDevy; 03-30-2011 at 04:07 PM.
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#68
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
...No it wouldn't.

I've made no positive assertion, and I can't prove the negative assertion that I have.

The burden of proof is on the one who accepts the idea of a god in the first place. Can you explain the reason of how you came to accept the possibility?

One doesn't just give any serious thought or entertain the idea of Bigfoot because of the idea there could be one exists, right?

You just go about your day -- "oh yeah bigfoot, whatever". Well, except for goatzeus in this case.
I accept it as a possibility because the absolute origin of the universe hasn't been discovered yet, and there isn't evidence absolutely negating the notion of a god of some sort. Science may prove it wrong in the future, which case I will obviously not believe in it. Science may prove it correct in the future, which case I will believe in it. For now, I simply say "I don't know".

Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. Atheists make the claim that god doesn't exist. Theists make the claim that god exists (many times, this is a particular god). I have no claim. My notion is that right now, we don't have the evidence to completely deny or confirm intelligent design of some sort. I have no claim, but I do seek to know the answer. That makes me agnostic.

The only thing I do claim is that many of the religious propositions for the origin of the universe are untrue because they aren't consistent with science we currently have and logic. I do have burden of proof with that statement, and I think my arguments hold up rather well.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 04:28 PM.
McDevy
Soshified
McDevy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Skag Gully
Posts: 10,941
Subtract from McDevy's ReputationAdd to McDevy's Reputation McDevy is a novice
#69
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy View Post
I accept it as a possibility because the absolute origin of the universe hasn't been discovered yet, and there isn't evidence absolutely negating the notion of a god of some sort. Science may prove it wrong in the future, which case I will obviously not believe in it. Science may prove it correct in the future, which case I will believe in it. For now, I simply say "I don't know".
The point is rather, why are you talking as if the idea of a god is at all possible to begin with? No one has even laid the ground for a common understanding that the idea of a god is even fathomable -- like I said, this is all still a hefty presumption on your end.

You don't need to think it's necessary to make any sort of absolute claim in order to rationalize the absence of a need to presume there could be a god altogether.

There could be many things, as you know -- but you don't acknowledge their actual existence based solely on the possibility of the thought that there could be. That sounds a lot more to me like an absolute jump in rationale to arrive at that acknowledgement.

Quote:
Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You are making the claim that god doesn't exist. Theists make the deductive claim that god exists.
Are you actually going with that? I'll let you figure out where you went wrong.

Quote:
I have no claim. My notion is that right now, we don't have the evidence to completely deny or confirm intelligent design of some sort. I have no claim, but I do seek to know the answer.
But you have, in that the even ground you're assertively presiding over (that being the idea of there being a god to begin with) is futilely being given a fair shake, as if it isn't an unreasonable belief one may have.

Quote:
The only thing I do claim is that many of the religious propositions for the origin of the universe are untrue because they aren't consistent with science we do currently know and logic. I have burden of proof with that statement, and I think it holds up rather well.
I don't think you understand how logic works.
FraGTaLiTy
Level 48
FraGTaLiTy's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Limbo
Posts: 7,716
Subtract from FraGTaLiTy's ReputationAdd to FraGTaLiTy's Reputation FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame FraGTaLiTy is on the rise to fame
#70
03-30-2011
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BORAT IS FOLLY View Post
The point is rather, why are you talking as if the idea of a god is at all possible to begin with? No one has even laid the ground for a common understanding that the idea of a god is even fathomable -- like I said, this is all still a hefty presumption on your end.

You don't need to think it's necessary to make any sort of absolute claim in order to rationalize the absence of a need to presume there could be a god altogether.

There could be many things, as you know -- but you don't acknowledge their actual existence based solely on the possibility of the thought that there could be. That sounds a lot more to me like an absolute jump in rationale to arrive at that acknowledgement.



Are you actually going with that? I'll let you figure out where you went wrong.



But you have, in that the even ground you're assertively presiding over (that being the idea of there being a god to begin with) is futilely being given a fair shake, as if it isn't an unreasonable belief one may have.



I don't think you understand how logic works.
Burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim. It isn't exclusive to a positive claim. There most be evidence supporting the affirmation or the denial of something. If someone claimed evolution was true 2000 years ago, and had no evidence at the given time supporting it, I cannot deny the existence of evolution at that time on the basis of his lack of evidence. By denying his notion of evolution, I now have made a claim, and the burden of proof is now shared between both.

On the other hand, if I simply told him that there is not enough evidence supporting his claim for it to be considered as truth, I would share no burden of proof. I am open to arriving back on the issue once more evidence is found in favor of his claim. And clearly, hundreds of years later, it would be proven true.

Asserting that "I don't know" is not a claim. I am arguing nothing when I say that.

Last edited by FraGTaLiTy; 03-30-2011 at 04:48 PM.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off