Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| Proofs of God's non-existence |
| 06.13.04 (7:35 pm) [edit] |
|
Over the next couple of blogs, I will be presenting some ideas concerning the existence of God. I hope to explain why it is I would contend that no such being exists. This is sort of a work in progress, so your comments will help to make me better clarify things, and maybe consider alternate ideas, as well. There are 6 parts to this, but I doubt that I will get around to posting all 5 at once, as they are not all complete as of yet. However, here are the 6 basic themes: Proofs of God’s non-existence 1. Considering the number of various religions and alternate definitions of God, there can be no God. 2. Pascal’s wager in reverse- if there is no God and we spend our lives believing and acting as though there is, we lose quite a bit. 3. Traditional arguments offer no proof- all rely on assumption. 4. To base one’s life on the possibility of a God is destructive and demeaning to life. 5. Morality is truer when applied by the individual, not on the basis of religious doctrine. 6. The evolutionary theory of morality- we have come to learn what is right and wrong in terms of what is beneficial to our survival and what is dangerous. Also, let me preface this with the acknowledgment that it is rather illogical to attempt to prove a negative. There is no way for me to actually prove that something does not exist. However, I can give reasons that explain the doubtful nature of God's existence. |
posted by: Trent (reply)
post date: 06.13.04 (6:48 pm)
Do you exist?
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 06.13.04 (6:53 pm)
Reply to: Trent
Yes, I do. I am a physical being. Cogito ergo sum.
posted by: Trent (reply)
post date: 06.14.04 (6:01 am)
Reply to: DragonBait22
How do I know that?
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 06.14.04 (7:53 am)
Reply to: DragonBait22
You may con a rationalist with that, but not an empiricist. ;-)
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 06.14.04 (8:25 am)
I look forward to this, but how are you going to avoid the pitfalls?
If Pascal's wager is inherently unsound and illogical, how will using it in reverse be any more sound? If it is not logical to begin with, the reverse will prove nothing.
Traditional arguments rely on assumptions, but so do all arguments. You cannot have an argument without a set of premises. The premises must be assumed to be true. But if you have to prove that they are true, then you would ultimately run into the same problem again. Either they are based on assumptions or they would be based on premises that you must prove also. Ultimately, it all boils down to axioms. But an axiom or postulate is nothing more than an unproven assumption that is merely accepted. While axioms may appear true because of experience, that shows at most that inductive reasoning gives them support, and that ultimately, all deductive reasoning is inductive since its postulates are inductive. But if all reasoning is ultimately based on assumption, and you don't consider assumption to be relevant when it comes to proof, then that would mean that there is no such thing as a rational argument since all arguments rely on assumptions.
For point four, I have two words: Petitio Principii. Be careful to avoid it. Make sure that this point is your conclusion and not your premise.
If point five is true, that does not disprove the existence of God. It merely shows that morality is something that transcends many conceptions of God. The problem with Bertrand Russell's argument is that if God could not have simply stated a different set of rules for morality, that does not imply that they are somehow independent of God or from something beyond God. It simply means that God cannot do what is logically inconsistent. That's not a limitation for the same reason that the "create a stone that even He cannot lift it" is not a true limitation. If things are inherently moral or immoral independently of whether God said so, that merely shows that the two are consistent, or that people have the wrong conception of morality or of God's will. It's like saying that the fact that Hot Wheels cars stay on the track has nothing to do with Mattel's design, but with the laws of physics. The reality is that they are one in the same since the cars and tracks are designed to work with the laws of physics.
If morality is evolutionary, that has nothing to do with whether there is a creator or not. It may raise questions as to specific beliefs of some religions, but even there, religious doctrine is often consistent with your evolutionary view, not something that goes against it. But even if it contradicted it, it would not be relevant. Understanding morality is a learning process, and like all learning, it's evolutionary. That's no more inconsistent with the idea of a God than the notion that children can learn is inconsistent with the idea that they were produced by a mother and father.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 06.14.04 (10:07 am)
Reply to: mblog
You can't prove there is no God- that's not her point. It's always going to be possible there is one. She's just showing the improbability of one, especially the specific conceptions of them.
posted by: DrForbush (reply)
post date: 06.14.04 (1:00 pm)
If you first define God as a being, then you just need to prove that no being could exist that is infinite. Infinite power would require all the energy of the Universe inorder to be a being and to exist in our universe.
So, either God is outside or beyond our universe, or God is beyond or outside our definition of being a being.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 06.14.04 (4:07 pm)
Reply to: Trent
I could prove to you that I exist if you came to where I live. The difference between my existence and the possibility of God's is that you wouldn't have to die to find out if I exist, and I don't ask you to make any sacrifices in your life.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 06.14.04 (4:12 pm)
Reply to: mblog
Lol, way to argue with my points before I even make them! ;)
Yes, there are definitely counterpoints to be made in this discussion - I certainly wouldn't be able to achieve what so many great minds before me have attempted, and there's no way any proof either way can be given, short of God coming out and admitting He exists. So, I'm not really trying to prove God doesn't exist- that would be silly- I am only explaining and defending my views. And I'll get to your points made here when I post more. :)
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 06.14.04 (4:14 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
So then, if the manner of God's existence can't be defined, how does He exist? And if so, what is His existence, how do we know this, and why?
posted by: DrForbush (reply)
post date: 06.14.04 (4:26 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
Actually I didn't say it couldn't be defined, I just said what the problem was with defining God in that specific way.
posted by: Trent (reply)
post date: 06.14.04 (5:22 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
I already know that God exists, it is your existence that has yet to be proven to me.
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 06.14.04 (5:25 pm)
Reply to: Trent
And how do you 'know' God exists?
posted by: Trent (reply)
post date: 06.16.04 (12:53 am)
Reply to: DragonBait22
How do I know you exist?
posted by: Roy (reply)
post date: 06.16.04 (7:38 pm)
If God did not exist, Man would find it nessessary to create Him.
posted by: fish_hfd (reply)
post date: 06.29.07 (1:54 pm)
It's nice
posted by: cypeSooff (reply)
post date: 11.16.07 (2:42 am)
Two new studies show why some people are more attractive for members of the opposite sex than others.
The University of Florida, Florida State University found that physically attractive people almost instantly attract the attention of the interlocutor, sobesednitsy with them, literally, it is difficult to make eye. This conclusion was reached by a series of psychological experiments, which were determined by the people who believe in sending the first seconds after the acquaintance. Here, a curious feature: single, unmarried experimental preferred to look at the guys, beauty opposite sex, and family, people most often by representatives of their sex.
The authors believe that this feature developed a behavior as a result of the evolution: a man trying to find a decent pair to acquire offspring. If this is resolved, he wondered potential rivals. Detailed information about this magazine will be published Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
In turn, a joint study of the Rockefeller University, Rockefeller University and Duke University, Duke University in North Carolina revealed that women are perceived differently by men smell. During experiments studied the perception of women one of the ingredients of male pheromone-androstenona smell, which is contained in urine or sweat.
The results were startling: women are part of this repugnant odor, and the other part is very attractive, resembling the smell of vanilla, and the third group have not felt any smell. The authors argue that the reason is that the differences in the receptor responsible for the olfactory system, from different people are different.
It has long been proven that mammals (including human) odor is one way of attracting the attention of representatives of the opposite sex. A detailed article about the journal Nature will publish.
