Originally Posted by JPreston
I love zombie movies and I think you've just invented another zombie genre. Now when god is mentioned I'm going to have that picture in my mind. Brains, brains!!
I think that in the situation of fox-holes and hospitals praying is a natural reaction to complete powerlessness. You want the positive outcome but have no means of achieving this so a natural reaction is hoping desperately. It's almost a going through the motions sort of reaction and a plead for help.
"Reality is what it is, not what you want it to be." Frank Zappa. ----------- "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." Huang Po.----------- "A drowsy line of wasted time bathes my open mind", - Ride.
Surely though, that "proof" in god comes down to semantics. After all, you could easily argue that the laws of science prove God's exsistance because it's statistically impossible for the universe to exist.
When people say there's no proof of God's exisistance, what they really mean is that there's no proof that the events as described in the Bible happened, they focus on a text that due to it's age, may well have been corrupted over the time.
The last 3 posts have been very interesting. I think we all know we are in the unresolved debate that is at least as old as time. Perhaps the discussion is at the point where both 'sides' must agree to disagree and accept each other's position? Those who believe will take the view that the Word of God (The Bible) will not and cannot be corrupted and odviously those who don't believe don't care.
Sorry, had to finally correct the title too (sorry Zak33).
in actuality, nothing should exist. not god, not the universe, nothing.
Vodka
No, that really doesn't follow at all. It's observably not impossible for the universe to exist, but even if it was (and you were somehow around all the same) then you could argue that unicorns exist for exactly the same reason. I don't have much interest in and so do not know much about such philosophical jiggery pokery but if you are you might be interested to read about the simulation argument (I will stick to the conventional concept of the universe and existence because to my mind the first of the three propositions will sadly be the truth).
Nice avatar BTW....
Not necessarily. If you'll forgive the wildly inappropriate metaphor, atheism is a broad church. There are many types of atheist, with some very different reasoning for their stance, and for that matter, with different stances on the existence (or otherwise) of God.
Some may say science did the trick, some may say that he may have pulled through anyway, but we'll never know because science intervened and that might be what what the difference, and some will tell you that it may have been prayer because, as atheists (of a given type) they don't believe in God as a personal evaluation but nor can they deny the possibility that they're wrong and if they are, prayer may have helped.
Atheism is a "broad church" because it covers a large variation in view and belief, or lack of.
Perhaps they manage because they have to.
I'll bite on that one. Just sticking to one type of life experience, I lost my sister-in-law to cancer, I lost both my mother and father to cancer (more or less simultaneously, they died less than three weeks apart), and I came uncomfortably close to losing my wife to cancer, but fortunately, medical technology, some excellent surgeons, modern drug treatments and perhaps a healthy dose of good fortune got us past that one .... so far. As a baptism of fire in life experiences, I hope that qualifies as a good start.
Did I pray? In the first example, not that I remember, but it was a long time ago. With mum and dad I was certainly desperate enough, but it didn't help. So what was the point? With the wife, no I didn't, and she survived anyway.
for the record, Jpreston, Teepee et al: There is PLENTY of evidence for God's existence. PLENTY. Problem is, you don't consider it evidence - you can and will trivialise it, dismiss it, reject it, because on occasion there *may* be purely rational explanations for the phenomenon, and also because you have an agenda. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone.
For example, as we've covered in previous threads, people experiencing miraculous healing: you put it all down to snake oil / smoke and mirrors.
I say: really? Your worldview prevents you from accepting it as anything but smoke and mirrors. If someone's leg grew, right in front of your eyes, you would still say it's rubbish / hallucination / etc.
Oh, I never said evidence is PROOF.
Just to be clear. After all, the Hindu's would claim it's one of their gods, the Buddhists would say it's one of theirs (yes, the Buddhists who worship), the Muslims would claim it's Allah, and who would be able to prove otherwise?
And on a personal level: I was talking to God last night. Had had a row with someone, and the way forward seemed VERY blurred / uncertain. He gave me the words and the actions to resolve it. I paused for a moment, then decided to go with His suggestion. Worked out flawlessly, and better than I'd hoped. Awesome. You're just going to say I was talking to myself - you can't PROVE that or know it for certain. I, on the other hand, know who I was talking to, know that the thoughts did not originate with me, and am pretty happy in the result too. Humbled, actually. For me, the usual strong evidence - for you, the ramblings of the delluded. Oh well, c'est la vie
That simulation arguement is remarkably similar to many other philosophical debates, it's based on a flawed hypothesis because it doesn't have a testable null hypothesis (e.g. you can't reverse the maths and prove the case that we aren't inside a simulation.No, that really doesn't follow at all. It's observably not impossible for the universe to exist, but even if it was (and you were somehow around all the same) then you could argue that unicorns exist for exactly the same reason. I don't have much interest in and so do not know much about such philosophical jiggery pokery but if you are you might be interested to read about the simulation argument (I will stick to the conventional concept of the universe and existence because to my mind the first of the three propositions will sadly be the truth).
Nice avatar BTW....
A simpler example is that if you tested a sample of people, you can easily say that 10% have red hair, and it's also true that 90% of people don't have red hair. Therefore, if you were testing a hypothesis that some but not all people have red hair, you've got your proof.
Now, the hard part with religion is that you've got to come up with an accurate test as to whether or not God exists, conceputally if we define God as the Creator of the universe as we know it, then there isn't a null hypothesis we can test, because you're left with either God created the universe or God DIDN'T create the universe (and by this I mean that the universe was never created at all). Since the universe plainly exists, we don't have a valid null hypothesis to test and therefore, we cannot resolve the original question.
This is why we either have to accept it on faith that God existed, or we have to accept it on faith that he didn't.
so.....in short...
I'm allowed some turkey...and a mince pie, but to even it out, I must avoid Songs of Praise and The Snowman.
K......got it
V good thread, and Santa, I must congratulate you on a 100% improvement over your initial HEXUS posts.
@_
I think everyone under the age of 65 - religious or not - must avoid Songs of Praise and The Snowman... The Snowman is probably ok if you're < 65 but hard of hearingI'm allowed some turkey...and a mince pie, but to even it out, I must avoid Songs of Praise and The Snowman.
K......got it
Same here, He told me Everton are going to beat Man U at Old Trafford today.
If he keeps to his word, I'll become a Christian.
Depends on what you call miraculous. 'er indoors watches all those weird medical programs on the discovery channel, etc and I've personally observed that anytime anyone recovers from anything the relatives in question all proclaim it as a miracle - regardless of whether or not there's a scientific explanation for it. In fact I'm beginning to think that to a certain branch of televised (?) Americans anything you are truly happy for is a miracle... If on the other hand you're talking about faith healers then there is no reason why any true faith healer could not be scientifically verified (i.e. proven to work, without necessarily showing how it works) and yet there cannot be any such case because it would be so well known about even if only as the ultimate trump card in conversations like this.
Point accepted - my world view does instantly assume that faith healing is not real. Show me proof however and I'd be more inclined to accept it. I would turn the point back on you but we all know what the answer will be - "I have faith, I don't need proof". Which is a non argument to me - I'm not asking if *you* need proof I'm saying there is no proof which is why I reject such schools of thought.
I will try not to mock but want to ask the obvious question. Person A was told, by the voices in his head, to kill person B and is now spending the rest of his life at her majesty's leisure... Person A is sure that the voices are not part of his own self - in his 'own mind' he would have never thought to do such things. What's the difference?
Last edited by malfunction; 23-12-2007 at 11:39 AM.
or even just mi5 because well you are kinda dodgy.Like I've said in the past, I believe in something but I don't know what. It could be a God, or even an intelligent being from another planet
Its intresting to note that the pro-god lot missed out on possibly the most important fact. This praying of yours might of brought some solicse. Some relief. We'll all have moments when we are alone, and the idea of god is quite useful for this.
In a way i'm envious of anyone who can do that. I wouldn't say its because i'm to smart, just too rational to even be able to believe. Also if i did begin to believe there was an almighty who controlled us, i would be too busy been bitter about why he'd blighted my mother in the first place etc.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I don't understand why (or agree that) we are left with only two options, unless you are using the words 'god' and 'creation' in the widest loosest senses conceivable which to my mind is not appropriate, nor compelling, nor indeed normal language. I'm not sure whether you say that from the perspective of a deist bordering on atheist or if you mean it as some sort of 'First Cause' argument - but you'd probably know that the First Cause argument is certainly flawed. If you allow god to be something that just lights the blue touchpaper at the start then never intervenes again then:
1) you still have not explained the existence of this god who therefore contradicts the definition of First Cause, so really have answered nothing.
2) you aren't left with anything to explain the incredible quackery that characterises religion today - messiahs, miracles, revelations etc. (I note you recognise that you can only conclude that god existed)
and
3) in order to get even to this unsatisfactory position, you still have to disregard all the religious creation fables in exactly the same way that an atheist does. So why bother with it?
I don't think that mankind will reach the level of understanding necessary to explain the physics of the start of the universe in any meaningful sense anytime soon but that does not mean that there is some supernatural unknowable element of it. We already know enough biology geology etc to be able to show that countless critical elements of religious dogma are total nonsense.
What's my agenda, or more generally, this fabled atheist agenda then? Let's say that I had some covert agenda and have been lying here to further it. Then I would believe at least on some level that I am bound for an enternity in hell being buggered by demons with tridents.
If I believed that, even a teeny tiny bit, what Earthly agenda would be so compelling for me that I would accept that fate just to further it? Come on fuddam - that really is nonsense.
Ah which reminds me, we used to use 'talking to god on the big white telephone' as a euphemism for alcohol induced sickness. So now I have my riposte to Stewart's earlier point....'There are plenty of atheists in foxholes, but there are no atheists vomiting uncontrollably into toilets'
/as an aside... Dawkins to preach atheism to US bible belt - Times Online <--
.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice: Pull down your pants and slide on the ice"
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
