Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Rational Proof of God's Existence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doomsy said:
I put it to you that if we assume that Satan does not have a physical presence, his existance as an idea is still irrefutable. There is certainly plenty written about him.

The idea or concept that there is such a thing or person as Satan does exist. The idea exists but it is only an idea. The written evidence shows that the idea of Satan exists but but because the idea exists does not mean that Satan exists. Ideas of all sorts exist in fictional literature but only while reading the book do you 'suspend disbelief' in for example Harry Potter until you close the book and get back to reality.

The idea of God also exists but the idea may not be true. As with all written evidence you have to examine where it comes from and who wrote it. The oldest sources are in the Bible Old Testament and the other religious books which come from the same source.

These books were written by self-styled 'prophets' who had the aim of recording the history of their tribes and keeping their people in line in religious terms. They had the 'idea' of God and also referred to the idea of Satan. They also refer to 'false gods' like Baal that they wanted their tribes to avoid. The idea of Baal did not make them believe in him/it. Belief is at the basis of all religious ideas. The prophets may to a greater or lesser extent have believed in God but in any case they would need to make sure that their 'flock' continued this belief system because it held together the tribes as they travelled around.

I don't see any reason why I, in my tribe at a different location on the planet and in a different millenium should adopt the belief systems of the above described ancient tribes.

Hocus
 
exosculate said:
I reckon you could be all those things - but don't forget Jesus saves
A slight derail... :oops:
Jesus and Satan were having an ongoing argument about who was better on his computer. They had been going at it for days, and God was tired of hearing all of the bickering. Finally God said, "Cool it. I am going to set up a test that will run two hours and I will judge who does the better job."

So down Satan and Jesus sat at the keyboards and typed away. They moused. They did spreadsheets. They wrote reports. They sent faxes. They sent e-mail. They sent out e-mail with attachments. They downloaded. They did some genealogy reports. They made cards. They did every known job.

But ten minutes before their time was up, lightening suddenly flashed across the sky, thunder rolled, the rain poured and, of course, the electricity went off. Satan stared at his blank screen and screamed every curse word known in the underworld. Jesus just sighed. The electricity finally flickered back on, and each of them restarted their computers.

Satan started searching frantically, screaming "It's gone! It's all gone! I lost everything when the power went out!"

Meanwhile, Jesus quietly started printing out all of his files from the past two hours. Satan observed this and became irate. "Wait! He cheated, how did he do it?"

God shrugged and said, "Jesus saves."
 
the thing is with all of these "rational proof" thingies is that all the arguments basically have flaws in them, they're going to confirm a faith in g-d to someone that already believes, but they won't really convince an atheist. it's not really about proof is it, it's about whether or not you believe in something and the things that have happened in your life for you to come to that conclusion.

i've been learning about all this for the past two years in philosophy and ethics, and it's still a hard thing to get my head around, where the proof comes from IMO is the experiences that i have had, but if you haven't had those then you probably won't be convinced unless you experienced it yourself, so this argument is a bit pointless ;)
 
you mean after 2200 posts god hasn't been rationally proved to exist?

fucksake. *flounces*
 
slaar said:
frogwoman - So, basically, there isn't any rational evidence. Not that difficult really.

well there is actually loads of evidence, but you always end up getting back to "what caused the big bang" and "what started evolution" and all that kind of stuff, so it just becomes a bit of a circle jerk ... lol

it's not that there isn't evidence for it, it's that these arguments never actually get to go anywhere ;)
 
Trouble is, this thread was started on the assumption that evidence isn't even neccesary. It's all done with logic. and mirrors.
 
lol, but you can't decisively prove anything by logic alone can you? you actually have to have facts and background ifo to back it all up surely? (or is this a whole other thread?)
 
frogwoman said:
lol, but you can't decisively prove anything by logic alone can you? you actually have to have facts and background ifo to back it all up surely? (or is this a whole other thread?)

Yep, the two posts on this page so far pretty much sum up the entire thread :)
 
frogwoman said:
lol, but you can't decisively prove anything by logic alone can you? you actually have to have facts and background ifo to back it all up surely? (or is this a whole other thread?)

Logic is truer than facts. Why? Because facts *change,* with culture and history, while logic remains the same. Facts are not independent of our perceptions of them, while logic is.
 
Fuckin hell, Ive ploughed through this shite & proof of God still evades me.Or have I missed the crucial point ? Whats going on ? Can some one fill me in ? help!
 
phildwyer said:
Logic is truer than facts. Why? Because facts *change,* with culture and history, while logic remains the same. Facts are not independent of our perceptions of them, while logic is.

What good is logic without facts?

I can't believe this thread has returned from the dead.
 
Jo/Joe said:
What good is logic without facts?

I can't believe this thread has returned from the dead.

Hideous isn't it. Mind you, I do remember the speed of light changing when they brought in universal suffrage. Maybe Phil has a point.
 
i was trying to think of something helpful or explanitory to put on this thread but y'know i just can't think of anything

i could go into a long debate question what difines facts and what befines logic but whats the point... it's not like anyone is gonna change their minds on this

to use a sutibly religious analogy it's like chanting sutras to a horse
 
Crispy said:
Hideous isn't it. Mind you, I do remember the speed of light changing when they brought in universal suffrage. Maybe Phil has a point.

As so often, its not a particularly controversial point. The word "fact" itself means "something made." What counts as a fact, and the meaning of facts, and therefore the facts themselves insofar as we know them, change with history and culture. Its a well-known fact. Anyway, here's an interesting question to ponder: are there any facts we *don't* know?
 
phildwyer said:
What counts as a fact, and the meaning of facts, and therefore the facts themselves insofar as we know them, change with history and culture.
Well, I don't know what is meant by a fact, but, surely you can prove things with knowledge without believing that facts *every* matter of fact is socially constructed. I would go as far to say that EVERY professional philosopher thinks that there are logical truths.
wiki said:
A priori is a Latin phrase meaning "from the former" or less literally "before experience". In much of the modern Western tradition, the term a priori is considered to mean propositional knowledge that can be had without, or "prior to", experience. It is usually contrasted with a posteriori knowledge meaning "after experience", which requires experience (In law, the term ex post facto replaces a posteriori).

For those within the mainstream of the tradition, mathematics and logic are generally considered a priori disciplines. Statements such as "2 + 2 = 4", for example, are considered to be "a priori", because they are thought to come out of reflection alone.
Are there any facts we *don't* know?
I reckon so. How do we know that though?
 
FFS! has this thread been resurrected because phil's gun nut thread was binned?

GOD DOES NOT FUCKING EXIST! GOD IS AN INVENTION BY IRRATIONAL MEN WHO NEED ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO ASK FOR THEMSELVES!


The phrase "God's will" is nothing but a means of abrogating responsibility for one's own actions.
 
nino_savatte said:

GOD DOES NOT FUCKING EXIST! GOD IS AN INVENTION BY IRRATIONAL MEN WHO NEED ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT THEY ARE UNABLE TO ASK FOR THEMSELVES!

I know that you become angry when your assumptions and preconceptions are challenged, but please calm down and consider this. God is not like the Yeti, or the Loch Ness Monster. God is an *idea.* Do you think that ideas exist? That is the first question you need to answer, and we can proceed from there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom