While most see the truth in this statement, it is impossible to prove something to someone that chooses not, or simply cannot, understand.
You win. I cannot prove to you that there is a force that holds your atoms together, or you to the earth. I cannot prove to you that there is a force that underlies your very existence.
I cannot prove you exist. I will accept your definition, I only believe it.
Please forward your bank account to me.
I am
r~
Where in Nigeria should I send it to?
cosmosdan
And what if I have no need for any concept of a god or gods?
Can you not see that you are customizing your god to fit your beliefs?
Free will may apply to someone who chooses between right and wrong. Free will does not apply to innocent victims of say 9/11. Of course they would have willed to just go home to their loved ones at the end of the day.
Thats a bunch of assumptions. Is your point that your statement doesn’t make sense? I agree. It sure doesn’t. Your statement has nothing to say about the existance of God.
Ain’t free will great? God is just a word. There are lots of ideas about God that I reject or don’t understand. Use another term. It doesn’t matter. Do believe there is truth? You can resist concepts of God but eventually the truth will assert itself and “I don’t need that” or “I don’t believe that” will be a denial of what is. You already have things you believe for your own personal reasons. Life will challenge those beliefs.
Since they are my beliefs I don’t see how that is avoidable. It’s a natural part of the process. I “see” God through the filter of my unique human viewpoint and experience. The important thing is that I recognize that and realize I have much to learn.
But through our choices we have the ability to relieve or prevent the suffering of others, even the victems of 9/11. What is are the limit’s of our potential? How will we discover them?
We can talk about suffering that is not about choice, such as natural disasters. I don’t mean to trivialize anyone’s experience but think about it. Imagine for a moment we are immortal spirits rather than these physical bodies. Everything that happens in this physical world is only fleeting. Just a passing experience with the potential to teach us. Thats what Jesus taught when he said don’t place your treasure in the things that time can corrupt. He asked us not to fear those that have the power to kill the physical body, but to hold in awe, and devote ourselves to, the eternal.
Maybe not. But it has a lot to say about your foolish belief.
cosmosdan
Wouldn’t that be immortal spirits that occupy physical bodies?
And I’ve heard that umpteen times. And just because it’s romantic and you hope it’s true and it just “feels” right, it has no basis in fact.
Anyway, I’m going to treat my fellow human beings as if this is all there is. And that makes life most precious.
The influence God may or may not have on this physical world is just as unprovable as God’s existance. Was the influence of the sun essntial to the life of man long before our ability to understand and explain it?
This is great. I’ve never seen it put this way and appreciate this observation. In reading a lot about different beliefs I asked myself this same question. How do I seperate tradition and myth from the truth? I came to the conclusion that whatever I believe is my responsibility and mine alone. No man, group, or religious tradition will tell me what is the truth. Only the dictates of my own conscience and experience. In that regard I respect others right to make the same determination.
Not nessecarily. Aside from the manufactured beliefs and the influence of emotion, we do not know how the spirit of God may be moving within the hearts of mankind. As I said, were the properties of the sun meaningful to us before we understood them and were able to measure them?
The claim itself? The only point I might see is to get someone else to consider the possibility and seek the answers for themselves. What are the limits to the potential value of that kind of questioning and seeking? How can we progress in anything without it?
The interesting debate to me is"If God is, then what are the qualities of God, or ourselves for that matter. How do the pieces of this cosmic puzzle fit together and how does that change our day to day, moment to moment?
Proven to whom? Everyone? Perhaps it need only be proven to the individual. None of us needs the approval of others to form a conviction and act upon it.
I believe what Jesus {and others} taught was that we can connect to that something more through an internal voice he called the Holy Spirit. He described it as the way to all truth, and the only way to gain knowledge of God and God’s will.
I don’t think the termnology we use to express that matters that much except when we allow tthe termnology to be the thing that seperates us.
It says nothing at all about my beliefs. You resorting to insults about things you know little or nothing about does say something. Try and figure out what that is.
I don’t prefer the term occupy but it’s not important.
I wasn’t presenting anything as hard fact. It’s part of the things we just don’t know. You seemed to be saying that the possibility of God wasn’t really logical because of certain things. I was only offering plausible possibilities. I think the truth is bound to be logical.
By all means, choose what is meaningful to you. I hope most people do that.
cosmosdan
Well ya know, I wish most would too.
Let me see if I understand this. Ex Machina has a perfectly good argument against the existence of god. By “perfectly good”, I mean likely to work against street preachers. Also, religious upbringings. However, many dopers here subscribe to the “We can’t see god, or prove his existence in the least, but we will still call ourselves christians” camp. They have no interest in disproving his model, because they don’t subscribe to the model of god that he is discussing.
Is that right?
And that, right there, is where you’re wrong.
People have been pointing out, ad nauseum, the many ways in which Ex Machina’s argument fails. It’s not just subtly flawed; it’s fundamentally flawed. Heck, it defies basic common sense!
So no, it’s not a “perfectly good” argument by any stretch of the imagination.
Scott, you have quickly and almost coherently demonstrated that you do not understand this.