Prove that God doesn't exist.

[Zylstra]

The invention of writing was a marvelous advancement in technology (if that is the right word) that allows us to do a lot which we could not do before.

But at the same time it allows us to fail to use our full potential in terms of using our memories.

demonstrate

I bet that if I start off with the first few words of any one of a hundred pop songs or jingles many of you could recognize the song and finish the rest of it. You have the ability to remember a great amount of knowledge. Yet what have you really done with that ability?

I can remember the directions I was given: 'Go down three clicks and make a left. Don't go right, because there's a hungry alligator in that swap. Go down and other two clicks and go down the third cave from the left. In it, I've stashed a bunch of food.

Now, if I can write that down, I can save those instructions- or even begin making maps and save many locations- for many years.

At the same time how many of you can make change by "counting up" if the cash register stops working?

That's mathematics and deals only with short-term memory. Care to try again?

For those of you who are younger: What product does Tony think is Terrriffic!?

Nothing, gut I hear corn flakes are great.



still waiting on that demonstration

 

[Aus22]

I agre with Dr Who " that the technology of writing he invention of writing was a marvelous advancement in technology (if that is the right word) that allows us to do a lot which we could not do before.

But at the same time it allows us to fail to use our full potential in terms of using our memories."

This is not the say that I want to go back to when there was no writing or when most people could not read or write. However every invention does have drawbacks. How many wars have been started by writing, in fact made worst because so many could read the writings of say Hitler. Of cause his words would have effected people in his region in the past but I doubt it would have led to a world war if not written and read by millions.

Writing can do good as well and the fact that the great works of so many philosophers, poets , musicans etc are availble to so many is an advancement.
However are we as a whole more influence by these writings but the pop fiction more likely to be read by most. Did the Da Vinci Code really help many people. So it gave a version of history but how many read the opposing versions. In the end man is more likely to read only what he likes just as he use to only listin to what he likes.

The example of The Telievangists is a good point. People had been saying similar things in the past but now a who nation can hear them. There is much evidence hat these claims of healing physical illness are fake. Yet millions still belive them in one of the most sophisicated countries in the world.

I am not saying that religion can not help non physical illnesses. I recently heard from a women with depression. She has no religious or other beliefs system. She belives that the material world ie evil and her only hope is to exploit others before they exploit her.

I would reconmend she see a psychologist . He will try to give her a more postive outlook on life. Meditation might also help. This would have been done in the past. It is now back by many scientists. Our inability to see alternatives is one of the weakness of more life We are too cynical about the past but not enough about the present.

 

[PLC1]

There is the testable truth and there is the philosophized or imagined truth... you're a smart fellow you know the difference.

The only way to test whether or not we really have souls, or whether the human being is a body only, is to die. If we don't, then we won't know anything. If we do, then we'll know.

So yes, for practical purposes, the idea of a soul is a philosophized truth. It can't be proven.

Now there are people who don't know the difference. They are called paranoid schizophrenics. But sane people know. If human beings couldn't prove that they exist then they also couldn't prove that anyone ever dies. Yet we all know people do die don't we?

Not really. We know that the body dies.

And if you think about it if we all didn't exist and were just figments of our own imaginations... those same imaginations would be making up the "soul" idea. So no points there on the soul side.

I know that I exist. I think, therefore I am. What I'm questioning is your existence. For all I know, you're just a made up character, like Homer Simpson. You haven't proven to me that you exist, and I don't think you can. It is one of t he philosophized or imagined truths you mentioned above.

But as I've said over & over some people need supernatural beliefs. It makes them feel at ease to be in a given like group and have some sort of an explanation about the unknown.

I suppose that's so. Other people, on the other hand, seem to feel a need to discredit anything that can't be proven scientifically. They have a need to deny supernatural beliefs. Of course, that's no proof one way or the other.

That's each persons choice and I defend their right to do that. So as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else there's no problem with me. Now if they present the supernatural as FACT... then it's they who opened that door and they shouldn't be upset by confrontation to their story.

Oh, I'm not upset by your confrontation of my story. You can't prove to me that we don't have souls any more than I can prove that we do. That is one thing that makes it such an interesting subject for philosophical discussion. Were there a definitive proof one way or the other, then there would be no point of discussing it.

As for your televangelist, he's just a charlatan IMO. Can you prove me wrong or right?

 

[Zylstra]

you've yet to demonstrate any impact on our memory caused by the invention of writing


of course, it's not like we have to memorize every word in the language, the alphabet, rules of grammar, context...

 

[Dr.Who]

demonstrate


I can remember the directions I was given: 'Go down three clicks and make a left. Don't go right, because there's a hungry alligator in that swap. Go down and other two clicks and go down the third cave from the left. In it, I've stashed a bunch of food.

Now, if I can write that down, I can save those instructions- or even begin making maps and save many locations- for many years.


That's mathematics and deals only with short-term memory. Care to try again?


Nothing, gut I hear corn flakes are great.



still waiting on that demonstration

Apparently your whole post is a demonstration. Writing is such a crutch for you that you have lost most of your ability to remember much of anything.

 

[Dr.Who]

The only way to test whether or not we really have souls, or whether the human being is a body only, is to die. If we don't, then we won't know anything. If we do, then we'll know.

So yes, for practical purposes, the idea of a soul is a philosophized truth. It can't be proven.

If you believe that the testimony of your senses can be trusted (that is a faith itself) then the existence of a soul is testable should a spirit being ever be witnessed with any sense or tool.

Many have made claims but now we get to debate the credibility of those claims.

 

[Dr.Who]

Not really. We know that the body dies.




I know that I exist. I think, therefore I am. What I'm questioning is your existence. For all I know, you're just a made up character, like Homer Simpson. You haven't proven to me that you exist, and I don't think you can. It is one of t he philosophized or imagined truths you mentioned above.

If we assume that the testimony of our sense can be trusted then we do indeed know a lot. We know that others exist, and that others die as you have pointed out. We just can't forget that the assumption that our senses can be trusted is an assumption. even without a faith in empiricism we know that we ourselves exist based on the assumption that logic is true based on Cogitu ergo sum.

 

[Dr.Who]

I suppose that's so. Other people, on the other hand, seem to feel a need to discredit anything that can't be proven scientifically. They have a need to deny supernatural beliefs. Of course, that's no proof one way or the other.

There is no proof of anything at all unless one starts with some sort of assumption.

When debating we just have to remember what the assumptions are.

Is logic true?
Can the senses be trusted?
Is reality limited to only the natural?

 

[Zylstra]

If we assume that the testimony of our sense can be trusted

Can they? Ever dreamed? Mistaken a person's identity? Did a double-take? Ever met a schizophrenic?

then we do indeed know a lot. We know that others exist

How?

No, you don't

 

[Zylstra]

Are you ever going to present your demonstration showing that writing caused and/or causes a lesser development of memory, or are you just going to continue evading and posting pathetic ad homs?

 

[top gun]

The only way to test whether or not we really have souls, or whether the human being is a body only, is to die. If we don't, then we won't know anything. If we do, then we'll know.

So yes, for practical purposes, the idea of a soul is a philosophized truth. It can't be proven.

Exactly. It's something that you were TOLD about or you'd never even know. There have been people all over the world... on desert islands... don't know a thing about a soul. Because they were never indoctrinated to the idea.

Not really. We know that the body dies.

Exactly. We know that all that can be proven to exist is no longer living and is decomposing.

I know that I exist. I think, therefore I am. What I'm questioning is your existence. For all I know, you're just a made up character, like Homer Simpson. You haven't proven to me that you exist, and I don't think you can. It is one of t he philosophized or imagined truths you mentioned above.

You're smarter than that. If we met you'd know I exist. You'd be able to make that definite conclusion on fact and comparison that I am there and alive.

I suppose that's so. Other people, on the other hand, seem to feel a need to discredit anything that can't be proven scientifically. They have a need to deny supernatural beliefs. Of course, that's no proof one way or the other.

But one looks for patterns of fact when gaining knowledge. Just like at one time the world was thought to be flat. We gain knowledge and grow. The idea of the supernatural is not only in religion but in witchcraft and voodoo and many other things. The fact that one simply does not choose to follow any of these man made beliefs because they are not scientific and have been discredited seems to only point to that persons ability to weigh probabilities.

Oh, I'm not upset by your confrontation of my story. You can't prove to me that we don't have souls any more than I can prove that we do. That is one thing that makes it such an interesting subject for philosophical discussion. Were there a definitive proof one way or the other, then there would be no point of discussing it.

As for your televangelist, he's just a charlatan IMO. Can you prove me wrong or right?

It's very hard to prove a negative... I'd even say impossible if you go outside the boundaries of what we know to be true and stroll on over to the mystical supernatural anything could happen world of make believe.

But here's the rub and why my position bears up much better. I can show a pattern of scientific progress that religious doctrine has been caught laking on or contradicted on. Dinosaurs is a good example.

On the other hand if I go mystical sure I can make all your points. But I can also make them just as credibly saying it was an hyper advanced sect of aliens or a witch named Zelda or a sorcerer named Alakazam.

When there's that much leadway in something that wants to be spoken of as FACT... it fails by the mere number of other really unbelievable things it could also be.

 

[PLC1]

Exactly. It's something that you were TOLD about or you'd never even know. There have been people all over the world... on desert islands... don't know a thing about a soul. Because they were never indoctrinated to the idea.

And yet, every culture that has ever existed has believed that man has a spirit or soul, and has believed that there is a god, or more likely, gods. It is something that humans seem to know innately, far from having to be indoctrinated to the idea.

Exactly. We know that all that can be proven to exist is no longer living and is decomposing.



You're smarter than that. If we met you'd know I exist. You'd be able to make that definite conclusion on fact and comparison that I am there and alive.

For the record, yes, I believe that you exist. I also believe that your soul and mine exist, yet there is no proof of the existence of you, your soul, or mine.

But one looks for patterns of fact when gaining knowledge. Just like at one time the world was thought to be flat. We gain knowledge and grow. The idea of the supernatural is not only in religion but in witchcraft and voodoo and many other things. The fact that one simply does not choose to follow any of these man made beliefs because they are not scientific and have been discredited seems to only point to that persons ability to weigh probabilities.

Yes, you have a point there. What are the probabilities that intelligence can spring from non living matter on its own? Isn't that the real alternative to believing that there is some "supernatural" force, some intelligence behind it all?

It's very hard to prove a negative... I'd even say impossible if you go outside the boundaries of what we know to be true and stroll on over to the mystical supernatural anything could happen world of make believe.

There you go, assuming that anything that can't be seen or felt is from the world of make believe. Is the world of nine dimensions also from the world of make believe? That is a scientific hypothesis, not a religious idea, yet it isn't tangible. It's not even understandable without a lot more mathematical training than I possess.

But here's the rub and why my position bears up much better. I can show a pattern of scientific progress that religious doctrine has been caught laking on or contradicted on. Dinosaurs is a good example.

Dinosaurs only contradict a very narrow interpretation of ancient writings. Dinosaurs don't do a thing to disprove that there is a creator, or that man is more than just a body.

On the other hand if I go mystical sure I can make all your points. But I can also make them just as credibly saying it was an hyper advanced sect of aliens or a witch named Zelda or a sorcerer named Alakazam.

When there's that much leadway in something that wants to be spoken of as FACT... it fails by the mere number of other really unbelievable things it could also be.

[/QUOTE]

One or the other unbelievable idea has to be true:

Either an intelligence other than mankind's created the life we find on this planet, including us, or intelligence (ours) simply came into being on its own from non living matter (starting with abiogenesis, and then finishing with evolution.

So, which one do you believe? Intelligence springing spontaneously from non living matter, a "supernatural" intelligence guiding the whole process?

 

[top gun]

And yet, every culture that has ever existed has believed that man has a spirit or soul, and has believed that there is a god, or more likely, gods. It is something that humans seem to know innately, far from having to be indoctrinated to the idea.

There are tribes that believed that the sun was god or that corn god or Fire was god. Or that there was a whole cornucopia of gods.
This is nothing more than a human fear response to the unknown. And the very fact that the corn god would be right up their with any other god... think about it.

For the record, yes, I believe that you exist. I also believe that your soul and mine exist, yet there is no proof of the existence of you, your soul, or mine.

There is PROOF that people exist by the simple fact that human beings can think, calculate and make judgments. To say otherwise is to say nothing exists... it's all a dream (including the soul idea). Because nothing is easier to deduce than that people are alive and do exist.

So if your argument is that neither people or the idea of a soul exist because it's all just a dream then at least that's consistent. Incorrect but consistent.

Yes, you have a point there. What are the probabilities that intelligence can spring from non living matter on its own? Isn't that the real alternative to believing that there is some "supernatural" force, some intelligence behind it all?

What's the chances that something as benign and harmless as an atom can under the right circumstances become a nuclear explosion? What's the chances that a soft lump of black coal could become the world's hardest crystal clear substance? What's the chances that creatures now of the sea used to be land animals and visa versa due to their evolution?

I could go on be you see the point. We can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that many, MANY Unbelievable things can happen through nature.

There you go, assuming that anything that can't be seen or felt is from the world of make believe. Is the world of nine dimensions also from the world of make believe? That is a scientific hypothesis, not a religious idea, yet it isn't tangible. It's not even understandable without a lot more mathematical training than I possess.

Scientific theory is a reaching out or extending from what we already scientifically know. A story that has been passed down from one area and one tribe of people while there are many other tribes saying much different but also self serving things is... a story. Add to that the hocas pocas so it cannot challenged is just that. An attempt to inoculate a story from criticism.

Much like Santa Claus and flying reindeer.

Dinosaurs only contradict a very narrow interpretation of ancient writings. Dinosaurs don't do a thing to disprove that there is a creator, or that man is more than just a body.

Oh yes it certainly does. But you'll just pull out another abracadabra card out to cover that as well. The Bible is said to be the direct word of god. God created all things at once. Yet we know scientifically that dinosaurs were millions of years killed off before man ever existed.

This is when the gods time is not mans time card is played to cover a direct contradiction.

One or the other unbelievable idea has to be true:

Either an intelligence other than mankind's created the life we find on this planet, including us, or intelligence (ours) simply came into being on its own from non living matter (starting with abiogenesis, and then finishing with evolution.

So, which one do you believe? Intelligence springing spontaneously from non living matter, a "supernatural" intelligence guiding the whole process?

That's not the only choices. It could be a whole advanced alien race and not a god as you know it. This race may well have knowledge into things we can't even imagine. They may be making people if we're just going to go out on a guessing spree.

But I believe it is much more likely that the documentaries I've watched on the history channel and the discovery channel are true. The conditions of space and all it's natural elements evolved. Eventually we came to this point.

 

[PLC1]

There are tribes that believed that the sun was god or that corn god or Fire was god. Or that there was a whole cornucopia of gods.
This is nothing more than a human fear response to the unknown. And the very fact that the corn god would be right up their with any other god... think about it.



There is PROOF that people exist by the simple fact that human beings can think, calculate and make judgments. To say otherwise is to say nothing exists... it's all a dream (including the soul idea). Because nothing is easier to deduce than that people are alive and do exist.

So if your argument is that neither people or the idea of a soul exist because it's all just a dream then at least that's consistent. Incorrect but consistent.

Actually, my point is just the opposite. Both people, and their souls do exist. That is also consistent, but not incorrect.

I can't prove that souls exist, you can't prove you exist, yet I think that both you and your soul do exist.

What's the chances that something as benign and harmless as an atom can under the right circumstances become a nuclear explosion? What's the chances that a soft lump of black coal could become the world's hardest crystal clear substance? What's the chances that creatures now of the sea used to be land animals and visa versa due to their evolution?

I could go on be you see the point. We can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that many, MANY Unbelievable things can happen through nature.

Yes, many things happen just due to nature. None of the things you mention have consciousness or intelligence. If it weren't for intelligence, would any of the other incredible forces of nature exist at all?

Oh yes it certainly does. But you'll just pull out another abracadabra card out to cover that as well. The Bible is said to be the direct word of god. God created all things at once. Yet we know scientifically that dinosaurs were millions of years killed off before man ever existed.

I didn't say that the Bible was the direct word of god, in fact, have argued just the opposite on this very forum. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the Bible that says there were no dinosaurs. The Bible was, in fact, written at a time when no one knew anything about dinosaurs, so it doesn't mention them at all.

The pathetic attempt to discredit the existence of dinosaurs millions of years ago is just a way to keep a narrow interpretation of ancient writings alive. It has nothing to do with god.

That's not the only choices. It could be a whole advanced alien race and not a god as you know it. This race may well have knowledge into things we can't even imagine. They may be making people if we're just going to go out on a guessing spree.

If that is so, then the advanced alien race would be god, wouldn't it?

You're arguing against "god as I know it". I don't know god. No one does.

But I believe it is much more likely that the documentaries I've watched on the history channel and the discovery channel are true. The conditions of space and all it's natural elements evolved. Eventually we came to this point.

I'm not sure that they say that the conditions of space and all its natural elements evolved, but they do say that life on Earth evolved. What they don't say is that it evolved all on its own. There is no conflict between the theory of evolution and the existence of god.

Moreover, while evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, there is one more element that would be necessary for life to have come into existence and evolved intelligence without any guidance. That, of course, is abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis, the genesis of life from non living matter, has never been proven possible.

 

[Zylstra]

And yet, every culture that has ever existed has believed that man has a spirit or soul, and has believed that there is a god, or more likely, gods. It is something that humans seem to know innately, far from having to be indoctrinated to the idea.

Appeal to mass ignorance merely highlights your on ignorance

One or the other unbelievable idea has to be true:

Either an intelligence other than mankind's created the life we find on this planet, including us, or intelligence (ours) simply came into being on its own from non living matter (starting with abiogenesis, and then finishing with evolution.

Evolution only 'finishes' with extinction.

Again, highlighting your ignorance...