Why? That question is at the very heart of the reason the IPU got created.
Omnipotence and omniscience are logically contradictory, so we can prove that your God does not exist. In any case, those claiming the existence of something must provide evidence for it, not those denying the existence of something.
Two more things. I agree that people can have a relationship with the concept of God. But when she was little my daughter had a relationship with her imaginary friends. She grew out of it.
As for the positive impact, do you have any evidence that it is God belief and not religious participation which accounts for it? Being social creatures, I can accept that for many people being social is positive - just like married guys live longer.
You’re quite simply put, wrong. I think you’ve been spending too much time in other threads or discussions about this. You have brought in a slew of assumptions I can only assume you acquired that way. You need to open up your mind a little bit and stop assuming you know where I’m coming from.
I’m AGNOSTIC! I have been simply trying to explore some avenue of discussion.
So, every time anyone talks about you or with you, they should be required to acknowledge all of the bad qualities you have whenever they dare mention the good ones? That makes no sense on a practical level!
For the purposes of the OP’s post, the bad causes ‘believers’ have are irrelevant IMO. Like I basically said in my OP, ignorant, religious, zealots are a breed of their own. Why should all ‘believers’ have to carry that baggage when it’s not relevant? You seem to assume that anyone who participates in religion is some sort of bigot. Just the fact that you think that way makes you a hypocrite…
That is your opinion which has no basis in reality.
Yeah, except you left out how the “thousands of years” part of my post was only relative when accompanied with “intertwined with culture and history.” To me, it seems that culture and history occupy a more significant definition than just “age.” So basically, you missed the point and focused on a small detail that’s irrelevant when standing by itself.
Sure, you have the Immovable paradox, but how does physics play into this? Where is the proof that God cannot possibly exist? Oh wait, there is none.
What? lol. Your the one who has all of a sudden decided that we are playing football, then you get stirred up when the goal-posts aren’t in the right place? LOL
I’m not shifting anything bud. You just need to be more careful about what you assume. Like I said, I’m agnostic. I’m just curious as to how someone can be so utterly certain of something to the point where they are a hypocrite…
You do realize by going around and emphatically saying that anyone who believes in God has a STUPID belief sounds remarkably similar to a religious zealot going around and being dumbfounded by people who don’t believe.
You mean YOU don’t at all. How can you be so sure of yourself? You must still be growing up if you truly believe you know better than anyone who prays.
You would be surprised then, what some modern people believe.
Meh, if you say so. I thought I was presenting a point to show that you don’t need to rationalize or understand the the idea of “God’s Plan” for it still to exist.
Nothing, it was a parable. Meant to simply make a point.
lol
The IPU doesn’t inspire belief very well and is not easily related to. On the other hand, the Christian God has characteristics that are very conducive for prayer. Just sayin, the IPU is not a good example for the point unless your not really trying to engage in a meaningful discussion. The IPU is more for people who want to bash religion. If you replace the IPU with “the universe,” or something that doesn’t resemble a domesticated animal, then I’ll bite.
The fact that electrons can be in two places at once is a logical contradiction to us, that doesn’t disprove that example of quantum mechanics. Good thing I’m not really claiming anything, just engaging in discussion
I’ll cite the same article i cited in my OP.
I think we can infer that a positive belief in God is inherently better for with or without religion. You make a valid point by addressing religion and the positive social support that goes along with it. But as for the specific evidence your asking for, even if there were a need for it which there’s not, it is too subjective to determine that accurately.
And like I’ve said previously, if the IPU had been established thousands of years ago, giving holy woosters time to [del]justify their existence[/del]philosophize the details, and the concept of “God” was a recent construct developed on the internet to prove a point, you would be making the exact same arguments in the opposite direction.
In what way is the Christian God “very conducive for prayer”? Do Hindus find the Christian God conducive to prayer? Do Jews? How about Muslims?
Ah, so you are the arbiter of what’s theologically acceptable and worthy of worship and what is not. The Hindu god Ganesha resembles an often domesticated animal. I assume you do not deem it worthy of worship. Correct?
This particular link you give us again doesn’t mention religion with positive thought, although I imagine some studies could, just as there are some which would show a negative correlation. I have often found many believers needing the exhortation from others to often help them make it through another day. If their religion were working for them, it seems more could go it alone and not have to seek out others to help reinforce their beliefs. Previously when citing to that link you also stated:
A positive attitude probably helps whether believer or non-believer, but again, where are you gathering religion into this link? I doubt there are any credible studies which show believers having lower stress levels, sleep better at night, and are more immune to disease.
No credible school of thought expects those with the negation to bare the burden of proof on existence claims such as these. Often negations can be proved satisfactory when one gets to limit the domain of the search, and descriptive terms are used. God isn’t one of them, and when attributes are often given, most can easily recognize the logical flaws which several have already pointed out, and then there is the problem of evil which has caused many a theist to give up on these god concepts altogether.
Quite a few like to define their god with omnibenevolence, omnipresence, and sentience too. I can see maybe a cheap placebo effect out of believing in such a god, but not sure having that much faith in such a concept is all that positive of a virtue to have, and if one got carried away with it, could lead to other serious problems.
You might be right, if the IPU had time to become culturally integrated, it might also become acceptable as a modern religious figure. But no, I can’t say that I in particular would be making the exact same argument in the opposite direction, because I have my own thoughts about what God would be like, aside from any specific religious form, if it exists. Like I said, I’m agnostic. Even if there is a God, I imagine it would have no corporeal form, and it if it were to ever take on a corporeal form, it would simply be something conducive to the specific situation.
If this is the point that everyone is trying to make with the IPU analogy, then all of this should be included in the analogy. Plain and simple. Otherwise it’s left open for people like me to easily question it.
As compared to an Invisible pink Unicorn? I think the answer is evident given my other posts.
That’s not relevant to my point. My quarrel is specifically with the IPU and/or Tree.
In this specific case about an IPU, I have made my opinion clear. And Ganesha is still humanoid, so I don’t see what your point is. Also, were not talking about “worship,” were talking about prayer. There is a distinct difference.
That’s actually pretty close to my point. I never really intended to get into some religious debate, although I knew I was bound to get some responses. There are many cases of people having a terminal illness, who go on to make a miraculous recovery. They then consider it a blessing from God. When it may really be more about their earnest belief that they will heal, rather than God performing a miracle.
The mind is a powerful thing and has been shown to have greater influence over the body than most people might think. I’m not saying you can ‘believe’ yourself through anything, just that it can have a positive effect to feel comforted by the thought of a God who protects you. Kinda like how smiling increases dopamine levels in the brain making you happier. This works even with a fake smile.
It was an inference, and a preconceived notion on the matter from other cases I’ve heard about and read in the past. I was just batting around the idea that believing in God is not unhealthy, in and of itself, by providing a new perspective on the matter.
I was really addressing the the over-confident and slanderous manner that Der Trihs was addressing the subject with. It just seems silly to make the “science disproves it” argument because if it were that simple, I think they would have already made a public service announcement about it… I mean there is so much that we still do not understand. There is no ‘theory of everything’ that has been proven.
I agree to some extent. But on a simplistic level, I think it can make people better off than they were. Even if all that’s happening with prayer, church, and faith is some sort of introspective maturation process. When they pray, it might just be a form of meditation where they bounce ideas off of themselves allowing them to see answers to problems more clearly by believing that God is the one responding back. There are unhealthy ways to do this, but as I have previously stated, when done properly, I think it can be beneficial.
Not so sure that you would get, say, a cosmologist to agree with that. What exactly is the reality of the Big Bang singularity, or of the multiverse? In particular, how about useful self-consistent mathematical models that eliminate the Big Bang altogether as a physical occurrence and relegate it to the status of a delusion resulting from our limited perception of time?
The reason that I bring this up is that many cosmologists are quasi-religious but in an unconventional way, which leads me to opine that the concepts of “God” are as limitless and varied as our imaginations. Basically I agree with you at the level that I have no patience with Biblical literalists and screeching evangelicals, but there can be profound and personal views of faith with which I don’t really take issue, and which may not only be emotionally helpful but which have philosophical validity.
I’d ask someone who believed this question: say we have five groups each believing in a mutually contradictory and singular god. Each of these gods have been worshiped for quite a while, and has a set of quite devout believers. How do we determine which, if any, of these gods exist? How can any believer in one god disprove the others? And, is the argument for existence different in any way from that for the IPU?
Fervent and long belief in something in no way indicates that this something exists.
If one wishes to link god to the universe, as some do, since we know that the universe then god exists. But that isn’t what almost anyone means by god, and seems a way of sneaking god in. A god, by the way, which is functionally equivalent to not existing.
I can swear that you were talking about it being impossible to disprove god, and then giving this as the definition.
Can an electron exist in two places at once with probability 1 in both places? Nope. Now here is the argument for a bi-omni god being logically impossible.
Say God, in his omniscience, knows that he is going to make a sparrow fall at the corner of Main and First next Friday at 1 pm. He obviously can do this. No, if he is omnipotent he can also not do it. But if he does not do it, he is incorrect in knowing that he will do it, and is not omniscient. If he is indeed omniscient, and correctly knows it is going to happen, then he is not omnipotent, since he can’t make it not happen.
Say he is almost omniscient, and actually omnipotent. Then he is no longer logically necessary. God is the greatest - but it is logically possible to have another God who is omniscient and almost omnipotent. Which God is greater?
Don’t tell me that God just chooses to not keep the sparrow from falling, since this is about what God is able to do, not what God actually does. Ignoring omniscience, God being able to only make a coin come down heads or tails - not both - in no way shows he is not omnipotent. Ditto for the making a pizza too big to eat nonsense.
And face a public backlash to no purpose? The falsehood of God is obvious; the fact that science shows the standard version of God to be impossible is already obvious to anyone with even the most superficial knowledge of science, and has been for a long time. Science has been the enemy of God for centuries; there’s no need to make a public announcement as to the fact at this point.
And belief in God (and other gods) is as baseless and ridiculous as belief in Santa Claus; anyone who insists in believing in either as an adult isn’t going to respond to evidence or logic, or they wouldn’t believe in the first place.
So? We understand enough to see that “God” is nonsensical, and has no basis at all in reality. You are just demanding that the concept of “God” be given special treatment; the evidence is more than enough to call God impossible, if it was some other idea.
Great example. IMHO it is all about a person’s character. If their faith is the vehicle that helps them toward comapssion toward others, charity, humility, and a great positive effect on the lives they touch, then why would you tell them “Your faith is stupid and delusional”
That said , experience has taught me that what a person gives lip service to has nothing to do with their actual character. My atheist sister is one of the kindest most thoughtful people I know.
I think you are intentionally misinterpreting what IPU means.
Go on then, split this hair for me:
wor·ship noun \ˈwər-shəp also ˈwȯr-
: the act of showing respect and love for a god especially by praying with other people who believe in the same god : the act of worshipping God or a god
pray verb \ˈprā
: to speak to God especially in order to give thanks or to ask for something
: to hope or wish very much for something to happen
Seriously? Isn’t every person on the planet some mix of positive and negative? Sounds to me like this lady has a lot more in the positive column. And what kind of ignorance are you referring to. We have no idea of the details of her belief beyond the fact that she goes to church regularly and teaches Sinday School. Do you have any idea what she is teaching?
Let’s ad that the “we might be better off without” is total speculation and personal opinion, and as such is relatively meaningless.
In my area, it’s easy to find many conservative folks blaming the world’s ills on atheists on the local religious channels. It’s also easy to find them on the internet. Says Josh McDowell: Atheists and skeptics now have equal access to our children as we have, which is why the number of Christian youth who believe in the fundamentals of Christianity is decreasing and sexual immorality is growing.Full article.
Times are a changing, however. When Gallup first began asking the question in 1958 if they would vote for an nonbeliever as president, only 18% said they would. In 2011, an imaginary atheist candidate first passed the 50% threshold. Recently 54% said they would vote for a well-qualified atheist from the same Gallup polling. Link
The people who insist on demanding that God should be taken seriously just because they say so. And, the believers who seem unable to grasp that some other people genuinely don’t regard God as plausible.
