Prove that God doesn't exist.

[ArmChair General]

Thanks, General, some of my best friends are fundies, in fact two of my brothers are as well. Okay, so none of my friends are fundies and neither of my brothers speaks to me much either, but, Hey, Jesus said to love your neighbors as yourself and I like the teachings of Jesus--it's just His self-identified followers that I have problems with usually.

as Ghandi said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ"

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

as Ghandi said, "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ"

Just exactly! Gandhi was a wise man. He also said, "An eye for an eye and soon the whole world is blind."

 

[vyo476]

You wish to reduce everything that I said to this inane 4-word question - and whatever else you imagine it implies?

I'm a deist. What of it?

I was just curious and I'd like to think I'm making sense of some of what you have to say.

Touchy, touchy. You need to switch to decaf, my friend.

 

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Ok, for all you Atheists out there: Let's hear your argument against the existence of God. For those of you believers: why should/shouldn't God/religion play a part in politics???

Which God?

 

[numinus]

Silly me, I went to the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary (updated July 2007)

You should've gotten a dictionary of philosophical terms, then.

Perhaps all texts can be so subjected, but what it comes down to is that you or whomever is reading between the lines is INTERPRETING what they read rather than going by what is ACTUALLY written there.

Of course. Only something couched in mathematics is beyond subjective interpretation.

And each person doing so, will read and interpret it differently. That's why there are umpteen versions of the Bible (the Reader's Digest Condensed Bible, the Unisex Bible, and the Joseph Smith Inspired Bibles are my favorites because they are such egregious examples of what people have been doing to the Bible for centuries by "reading between the lines"). This interesting process of "reading between the lines" is also responsible for the more than 2500 sects of Christians in the world today.

Nope. The reason there are a multiplicity of christian sects is because people do not abide by the fundamental teaching of its founder - UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.

I don't have any problem with mathematics, but you are the one who has been claiming axioms and human reason and morality are fixed and universal. Nothing you have posted supports those claims.

Think for a minute - what makes the study of mathematics absolute?

Underlying all the theorems derived from it - its most fundamental axiom relates to EXISTENCE and DISTINCTNESS of the real number system.

But one can also say the SAME for human nature - that it exists and is distinct, no?

 

[numinus]

I was just curious and I'd like to think I'm making sense of some of what you have to say.

Touchy, touchy. You need to switch to decaf, my friend.

From personal experience, I have realized that the people most fond of putting others in neat little labels are the more ignorant sort.

But you are indeed correct - I need to switch to decaf - although I would question the whole point of drinking decaf as both silly and pretentious.

 

[numinus]

Im glad you are here Mare Tranquility, I personally wouldnt extend the same 'niceness' to someone as dumb and ignorant as numinus.

For me, its a waste of time. Just calling him an ignorant fundy that deserves to be eaten by lions is good enough for me. But I'm not a very tolerant person.

Hey vyo476!

See exactly what I mean?!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nope. The reason there are a multiplicity of christian sects is because people do not abide by the fundamental teaching of its founder - UNCONDITIONAL LOVE.

I love the way you make these absolute statements with nothing to back them up. I know a whole BUNCH of Christian folks who would disagree with you--what makes you right?

Think for a minute - what makes the study of mathematics absolute?
Underlying all the theorems derived from it - its most fundamental axiom relates to EXISTENCE and DISTINCTNESS of the real number system.

But one can also say the SAME for human nature - that it exists and is distinct, no?

No. Human nature exists, but we cannot define it. Distinct, from what? Each person is distinct from every other person? This is another statement that has superficial meaning but doesn't actually say anything unless you define what the words mean the way YOU are using them.

 

[numinus]

I love the way you make these absolute statements with nothing to back them up. I know a whole BUNCH of Christian folks who would disagree with you--what makes you right?

Can you think of any reason why people shouldn't love unconditionally?

And if folks do not adhere to this fundamental tenet, can they reasonably claim to be christians in the first place?

No. Human nature exists, but we cannot define it.

Correction. We cannot define it in its ENTIRETY. Inherent in this nature is man's CREATIVE POTENTIAL.

Human nature is not some nebulous thing that defies any attempt at definition, you know.

Distinct, from what? Each person is distinct from every other person?

It is distinct from other ORDERS OF EXISTENCE. This is in the metaphysical sense.

This is another statement that has superficial meaning but doesn't actually say anything unless you define what the words mean the way YOU are using them.

Hence the analogy.

Distinctness is fundamental in math. It prohibits a statement like 2=3.

In the same vein, one cannot equate the existence of inanimate objects with human existence.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Can you think of any reason why people shouldn't love unconditionally?

I can't, but then I don't speak for everyone else, just for me.

And if folks do not adhere to this fundamental tenet, can they reasonably claim to be christians in the first place?

Who am I to pass judgment on other people? If there is no absolute definition of "Christian" then how could I possibly pontificate on who is and is not?

Correction. We cannot define it in its ENTIRETY. Inherent in this nature is man's CREATIVE POTENTIAL.

Human nature is not some nebulous thing that defies any attempt at definition, you know.

Yeah, so what? If you cannot define it in its ENTIRETY then you cannot make any valid statements about the vast majority of it that you CANNOT DEFINE. It's like the blind men examining the elephant.

It is distinct from other ORDERS OF EXISTENCE. This is in the metaphysical sense.

Metaphysics is as amorphous and vaporous as religion, you cannot make any demonstrably valid point with either of them. You cannot show that there are "other ORDERS OF EXISTENCE".

Hence the analogy.
Distinctness is fundamental in math. It prohibits a statement like 2=3.
In the same vein, one cannot equate the existence of inanimate objects with human existence.

Before you can make the bolded statement truthfully, you will have to prove that "inanimate" objects even exist vis a vis "animate" objects. Everything in the Universe appears to be made up of energy, so defining inanimate energy from animate energy is probably impossible. The "distinctness" to which you refer is a mental construct useful for delineating differences in systems like mathematics, but it doesn't exist demonstrably in the physical Universe.

 

[numinus]

I can't, but then I don't speak for everyone else, just for me.

You can speak of say, the legality in another person's action, can't you?

Morality is merely a dictate of moral law.

Who am I to pass judgment on other people? If there is no absolute definition of "Christian" then how could I possibly pontificate on who is and is not?

Of course there is - one who adheres to the teachings attributed to jesus the christ.

Yeah, so what? If you cannot define it in its ENTIRETY then you cannot make any valid statements about the vast majority of it that you CANNOT DEFINE. It's like the blind men examining the elephant.

Ah, but not all avenues of inquiry in science and math are defined in their entirety.

But that doesn't stop us from using them, does it?

Metaphysics is as amorphous and vaporous as religion, you cannot make any demonstrably valid point with either of them. You cannot show that there are "other ORDERS OF EXISTENCE".

Metaphysics is the study of the nature of existence.

One of the most important standards of existence is immutability.

Metaphysics is anything but 'amorphous and vaporous'.

Before you can make the bolded statement truthfully, you will have to prove that "inanimate" objects even exist vis a vis "animate" objects.

In metaphysics, matter has a fluid existence - hence not existence in its truest sense.

A human being, on the other hand, while having a material 'existence', also has will.

A person is always viewed within this duality.

Everything in the Universe appears to be made up of energy, so defining inanimate energy from animate energy is probably impossible.

The universe is made up of mostly 'dark energy' - which isn't like the energy we know of. Its got one foot firmly set in pure speculation.

The good thing about philosophy is that it isn't bound exclusively to empirical phenomenon. It operates on logic alone.

And when one speaks of 'animate and inanimate' in the metaphysical sense, it only means the existence of will.

The "distinctness" to which you refer is a mental construct useful for delineating differences in systems like mathematics, but it doesn't exist demonstrably in the physical Universe.

How can mathematics be a mental construct when it is absolutely independent of subjectivity, eh?

The physical universe, to some extent, may be described both quantitavely and qualitatively. What is that if not a statement of distnctness?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You can speak of say, the legality in another person's action, can't you?
Morality is merely a dictate of moral law.
Of course there is - one who adheres to the teachings attributed to jesus the christ.
Ah, but not all avenues of inquiry in science and math are defined in their entirety.
But that doesn't stop us from using them, does it?
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of existence.
One of the most important standards of existence is immutability.
Metaphysics is anything but 'amorphous and vaporous'.
In metaphysics, matter has a fluid existence - hence not existence in its truest sense.
A human being, on the other hand, while having a material 'existence', also has will.
A person is always viewed within this duality.
The universe is made up of mostly 'dark energy' - which isn't like the energy we know of. Its got one foot firmly set in pure speculation.
The good thing about philosophy is that it isn't bound exclusively to empirical phenomenon. It operates on logic alone.
And when one speaks of 'animate and inanimate' in the metaphysical sense, it only means the existence of will.
How can mathematics be a mental construct when it is absolutely independent of subjectivity, eh?
The physical universe, to some extent, may be described both quantitavely and qualitatively. What is that if not a statement of distnctness?

I tried to explain before that arguing Kantian philosophy or any other complex philosophical subject with the breadth and depth that we have been attempting is pointless here. This is not the venue for such an endeavor. I don't think that you have adequately internalized the arguments that you are using, what I hear are quotes and interpretations of quotes, not heartfelt or intuitive understanding and conviction. We would have to know each other better, know more about each other's backgrounds and situations in order to be able to write TO the other person rather than just respond to words on a screen. I realize that you want to discuss these things, but I think you need to find someone in the flesh to do it with rather than anonymous strangers on the internet.

 

[numinus]

I tried to explain before that arguing Kantian philosophy or any other complex philosophical subject with the breadth and depth that we have been attempting is pointless here. This is not the venue for such an endeavor. I don't think that you have adequately internalized the arguments that you are using, what I hear are quotes and interpretations of quotes, not heartfelt or intuitive understanding and conviction. We would have to know each other better, know more about each other's backgrounds and situations in order to be able to write TO the other person rather than just respond to words on a screen. I realize that you want to discuss these things, but I think you need to find someone in the flesh to do it with rather than anonymous strangers on the internet.

You merely said that philosophy is vague.

No explanation WHATSOEVER.

Did you think anyone would accept such a statement on your say so alone?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You merely said that philosophy is vague.
No explanation WHATSOEVER.
Did you think anyone would accept such a statement on your say so alone?

I think that when we couple your incomplete understanding of Kantian philosophy with your inability to comprehend what's written to you, that we have the perfect prescription for misunderstanding.

No one should take anything I say on my say so. All people should think for themselves. I didn't say that all philosophy was vague, some is very pointed and specific--you aren't posting any of that kind.

 

[numinus]

I think that when we couple your incomplete understanding of Kantian philosophy with your inability to comprehend what's written to you, that we have the perfect prescription for misunderstanding.

And where exactly is my understanding of kantian ethics incomplete, hmm?

No one should take anything I say on my say so. All people should think for themselves. I didn't say that all philosophy was vague, some is very pointed and specific--you aren't posting any of that kind.

And kantian ethics is vague, hmm?

I wonder where you posted the explanation for that one?