|
Beyond that there's still the possibility we will eventually invent a device such that we can operate on whatever plain of existences god or gods operate on, take a tour around heaven or such. Unless a religion is making literally zero claims it is hypothetically possible to prove one of their claims, given sufficient progression of technology or through divine intervention is all I'm saying. Because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you can't really prove god doesn't exist making positive belief in god an unfalsifiable viewpoint, but the view that god doesn't exist is in some way falsifiable, it just hasn't been. There's an important difference there, and that's why I don't think it's reasonable to call atheism a faith.
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
There's not supposed to be a different plane of existence. You are making it more difficult than it is. In the conventional Catholic - Tomist view, there are these common parts of all beings: Existence (actualization), essence, form, substance. Not all beings have all these components (angels are said to be beings with essence and form, but no substance), and God is just a being who has no components other than being hence he's the only fully actualized being because he has no superfluous qualities; his nature is simply to be, and he is, which fully perfects his actuality. That doesn't seem like existing on a different plane of existence, it just means he exists philosophically, metaphysically before other things, and exists more perfectly (actualization, perfection and goodness are basically synonyms). Speaking of distinction of Heaven and Earth, Augustine's Civitas Dei speaks of the Church being a communion of the faithful both living and deceased; they too occupy the same "space", and are joint or divided by the will of the soul of each individual. Heaven isn't some weird dimension, it's just a state of human actualization (yes, we are returning to that - there are surprisingly few important concepts in theology, yet people tend to get it wrong all the time) steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
there are no inconsistencies in reality. those only appear if you try to analyze reality through any form of language. this is because language is hosed up
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
quakster posted:there are no inconsistencies in reality. those only appear if you try to analyze reality through any form of language. this is because language is hosed up Well, you could say that same thing about religion, so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
religion = a culture where the members don't question their leaders. the second they do, it returns to being a normal culture. this is why it is important for religious leaders to come up with all sorts of exciting nonsense; to distract the followers and keep the gravy train rolling. hope this helps
quakster fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There's not supposed to be a different plane of existence. You are making it more difficult than it is. In the conventional Catholic - Tomist view, there are these common parts of all beings: Existence (actualization), essence, form, substance. Not all beings have all these components (angels are said to be beings with essence and form, but no substance), and God is just a being who has no components other than being hence he's the only fully actualized being because he has no superfluous qualities; his nature is simply to be, and he is, which fully perfects his actuality. Someone like myself isn't making the claim god does not exist, merely that i have no reason to believe in such a being. It is theoretically possible to offer me some sort of proof that would change my mind here as i have no actual commitment to an ideology here. Someone who believes in god as a matter of faith does not have any point of proof that could make them change their minds. They might move away from believing in god for a variety of reasons but it will never be due to proof that god doesn't exist. One is technically falsifiable (though will likely never be) while one isn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
quakster posted:religion = a culture where the members don't question their leaders. the second they do, it returns to being a normal culture. this is why it is important for religious leaders to come up with all sorts of exciting nonsense, to distract the followers and keep the gravy train rolling. hope this helps glad you cracked that ol chestnut, you moron
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Im kind of getting frustrated here as you are intentionally missing my point over and over again trying to go after nitpicky specifics that presuppose this conversation is entirely about western faith in the first place. Why should it be about any other faith if it's the only faith I consider somewhat credible? Like asking a Communist to also argue from a capitalist point of view at the same time. quote:Someone like myself isn't making the claim god does not exist, merely that i have no reason to believe in such a being. It is theoretically possible to offer me some sort of proof that would change my mind here as i have no actual commitment to an ideology here. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Sep 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:glad you cracked that ol chestnut, you moron
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
i dont see how "god just is" is any better an answer than "everything just is", like if youre going to say everything is caused by something so something must have caused everything why bother introducing a third party and saying well this one thing doesnt need anything to cause it
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
XMNN posted:i dont see how "god just is" is any better an answer than "everything just is", like if youre going to say everything is caused by something so something must have caused everything why bother introducing a third party and saying well this one thing doesnt need anything to cause it Really it just rephrases the old Socratic idea that the purpose of man is to approach some infinite qualities. Christianity uses God as a point of reference from which it builds a hierarchy of its moral philosophy, placing the more perfect aspects of the general Christian virtue closer to God.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:it's the only faith I consider somewhat credible? Why is Christianity more credible, in your opinion, than Judaism or Islam?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Like suppose you lived in an ancient village that worshipped a god who carried the sun across the sky everyday. Their belief is that the sun rising in the east and setting in the west is because that is the divine will of their sungod. Then you have some shmoe who doesn't believe there is a being carrying the sun, they don't know why the sun moves but they don't think it's a god. If the religious leaders heard this mans doubts and appealed to their sungod, "tomorrow to convert our unbelievers, carry the sun from west to east", and the next day the sun went from west to east the shmoe would be pretty convinced. If however the sun still went from east to west, the believers would just chalk it off as a test of faith or their god not feeling it was important enough. There's are ways to "prove" to an atheist that god might exist, there are no such proofs the other way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
budgieinspector posted:Why is Christianity more credible, in your opinion, than Judaism or Islam? Judaism is just a national founding myth told as religion. I don't consider Islam outside the complex of western religions which the poster I responded to mentioned. If anything I think Islam is closer to the spirit of Christianity than most Protestant renewal denominations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:Like suppose you lived in an ancient village that worshipped a god who carried the sun across the sky everyday. Their belief is that the sun rising in the east and setting in the west is because that is the divine will of their sungod. Then you have some shmoe who doesn't believe there is a being carrying the sun, they don't know why the sun moves but they don't think it's a god. What's your opinion on the proof of God as effective cause or formal cause, as defined by Aristotle? I mean, I don't see how atheists can just satisfy themselves with these primitive narratives like "cave people sun worship; sun worship develop religion, religion be fake for that". It's the sort of attitude that leads Evangelicals to dismiss evolution as a silly theory, and makes me ashamed of calling myself an atheist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Why should it be about any other faith if it's the only faith I consider somewhat credible? Like asking a Communist to also argue from a capitalist point of view at the same time. My claims have nothing to do with christian theology you fuckwit thats precisely why i keep saying you are missing my point. It could be proven there is a god, the proof will depend on how your religion defines god but so long as it makes any affirmative claims about the extent of gods abilities or effects on the world it is possible for said god to demonstrate their power. It is not possible to prove there isn't a god.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:My claims have nothing to do with christian theology you fuckwit thats precisely why i keep saying you are missing my point. I don't see your point. You want a proof of faith? I said it was impossible in my very first post (and it's even more impossible if you don't recognize arguments from any specific religion). Any proof of God is a conjecture outside the realm of science. Therefore any productive conversation between a theist and atheist can only be limited to refuting misconceptions the two camps have about each other, which is what I've been trying to do. If you want a falsifiable claim about God, you can stop posting right now, I suppose, because you won't find an answer. Also I never asked you to prove God or anything, I just told you how God is conceived in what I consider the conceptually most advanced religious tradition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I don't see your point. You want a proof of faith? I said it was impossible in my very first post (and it's even more impossible if you don't recognize arguments from any specific religion). Any proof of God is a conjecture outside the realm of science. Therefore any productive conversation between a theist and atheist can only be limited to refuting misconceptions the two camps have about each other, which is what I've been trying to do. I'm disputing that atheism should be described as a faith because it is falsifiable. The fact that there could exist proof that would make me go "well now the evidence leans this way so thats what I'll go with" means its not at all faith based.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan wants this thread to be his personal cult but that's not happening. please post a thread in let's play instead
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
the last time someone started a cult over gbs posts, children got stabbed to appease the thin guy from the house in the woods. please do not start cults based on gbs
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
ArbitraryC posted:I'm disputing that atheism should be described as a faith because it is falsifiable. Alright, I agree. Still, my point that there should be a dialogue to repeal myths and misconceptions stands.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
quakster posted:steinrokkan wants this thread to be his personal cult but that's not happening. please post a thread in let's play instead how is your schizoid disorder treating ya
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
it's a full bladder, actually, but tbf the end result is indistinquishable
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
I'd like to see a boxing match between Jesus & Muhammad, personally. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
Whenever i hear "rationality" I unsafety my Browning
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
i just can't believe that a development from less to more complicated living beings took place that single celled organisms are the ancestors of fish, amphibians, birds, mammals and myself. you're telling me tomorrow ill be a god and that today i'm a man and that yesterday i was an ape 
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
yes, you are a bald chimp
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 12:36 |
|
|
god used to do all kinds of cool poo poo like part seas and smite entire cities and poo poo what happened to all that
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 02:24
|
|
