nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Is it over yet? 
The Rational Proof of God's Existence
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
- Status
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
nino_savatte said:Is it over yet?
We can live in hope!
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Phil?
Nah, wedge strategy, innit. You've already pointed to the fact that jesus freaks have a good 'ol tradition of lying about it.phildwyer said:
phildwyer said:
* concentrates hard *
* image of village idiot starts to form in head *
* realises error of ways *
Ok, I accept that you could be a perfectly genuine idiot, without any ulterior motive.
As it happens I have. In fact I used to be a priest.phildwyer said:
Nah, just lying.
Does that mean that we'll be hearing from Zword and Azrael23 soon?phildwyer said:
Praise be to the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Final and absolute proof that the FSM's noodley appendage touches us all:
http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html
Final and absolute proof that the FSM's noodley appendage touches us all:
http://www.fred.net/tds/noodles/noodle.html
I've been making the same point for days.phildwyer said:
You seem to be arguing that:
Fv cannot be any other type of thing which makes up the world, so it must be made of a new type of thing; it meets some of our criterea for the definition of sprirt, so this new type of thing must be, spirit.
I can't remember what we reason fv to be from its description as spirit, but I assume that you use knowledge of how spirit is, and hence how fv is, to argue for the existence of God in some way.
But I could invent any term that could explain what fv is: as long as part of its meaning was that from what we know about fv, fv could be it; why would we be any more sure that 'spirit' better describes fv than my new concept? Of course I could make sure that by describing fv as A we learn further about what fv is like (Invisible to God, conscious, it belongs to me) from simply explaining that it is part of the meaning of the term A that it is these things (I assume thats what your saying).
So you have to further justify the particular inference of: it cannot be an idea or material thing, so it must be spirit. There must be something particular about 'spirit' that means we can say that fv is spirit, while we cannot say fv is A.
I would say that you have to show that 'spirit' is actually a real concept if you want to, reason from its description as such.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
There are only two reason why anyone goes to Amsterdam. 
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Alex B said:
No, the canals and the Rijksmuseum.
The trams aren't too bad either, though not as nice as the ones in Lyon.
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
phildwyer said:
Is this a euphemism, or a biblical parable?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Ah, but you would claim that, wouldn't you?phildwyer said:
Such as attempting not to irritate the bulldog while you bugger it, I suspect.
ska invita
back on the other side
Really good article about the psychology and genetics of religious thinking:Why do we believe in God?
Incidentally, although I agree with the points made in the article I think it would be both bad science and premature to let the above rule out all the unknowable possibilities of creation/pre-big-bang/higher consciousness/supernature/holographic universe/etc, etc, etc,
Organised religion and religiosity are one thing, the un/knowable possibilities of a deeper nature and structure to our universe beyond our current comprehension are another.
Incidentally, although I agree with the points made in the article I think it would be both bad science and premature to let the above rule out all the unknowable possibilities of creation/pre-big-bang/higher consciousness/supernature/holographic universe/etc, etc, etc,
Organised religion and religiosity are one thing, the un/knowable possibilities of a deeper nature and structure to our universe beyond our current comprehension are another.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
bloody jesus will have risen from the dead again before we see a proof of god, rational or otherwise, on this thread.
Negativland
Pope Handsome VII
It's made me consider the whole debate more seriously, and to look at how I justify my atheism. In terms of proof, though, Phil seems to have barely taken the first step - all this so far seems like a decent 'story' - the devil, a spirit and the antithesis of human life seem like good analogies for financial value - but I can't see that it has been proven that these are the only correct way to look at it. As 118118 has said many a time, it needs to be defined what exactly a spirit is, shown that such a thing can exist, and that financial value must be this and this alone.
It's also put me off the asterisk for life
It's also put me off the asterisk for life
In Bloom said:
Actually there have been one or two, but they're keeping it quiet. I'll endeavor to continue my proof in a couple of days, but it may be hard to keep up the same level of acrimonious controversy now that I've actually met so many participants on this thread at PROD. At least Gurrier wasn't there though, so I can continue to bash away at him. Anyway, I'm off to Heathrow now, been to 6 countries in the last 8 days and am pretty knackered, but I shall return, oh yes...
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Negativland said:It's made me consider the whole debate more seriously, and to look at how I justify my atheism. In terms of proof, though, Phil seems to have barely taken the first step - all this so far seems like a decent 'story' - the devil, a spirit and the antithesis of human life seem like good analogies for financial value - but I can't see that it has been proven that these are the only correct way to look at it. As 118118 has said many a time, it needs to be defined what exactly a spirit is, shown that such a thing can exist, and that financial value must be this and this alone.
It's also put me off the asterisk for life
*me too* at all of that as well. It's certainly all very fascinating, but pretty far off a *proof* for me.
- Status
Similar threads
