Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Vash108 wrote: The first. If the bible was truly gods words, who are they to pick and choose what goes in it.
So a bunch of guys got together and decided they needed to take all the 'Gods Word' floating around and pick the ones they thought most true. Also not the Council of Nicea (Though Constantine Commissioned 50 Bibles with the same basic structure we use today a few years after Nicea). Biblical Canon != Canon Law. You're thinking of the Council of Trent, though the Synod of Hippo 1000 years earlier had reached essentially the same conclusion (The Synod of Hippo didn't approve Revelation). Nicea had nothing to do with the development of Biblical Canon.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/09 05:56:53
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Uno: There's quite a few good reasons to explain the idea of an "uncountable" amount of birds, most of which have at least some claim to scientific certainty (e.g. what you perceive as the picture of a flock of birds, is just your brain priming bird-relevant information. Since we usually don't bother counting how many birds are in a flock, that info was not contained in what you had on your mind.)
Duo: Even when accepting your premise, you still fail to deliver a logical link between it and the existence of god. It's not even a logical fallacy, but a straight up lack of any internal logic.
Ergo: While the experience might have been of importance to you, and has served as a sort of revelation, I can't help but citing a slightly butchered quote: "Faith is, when we try to replace reason and logic with emotion."
daedalus wrote: I used to not believe in any gods. I still don't worship any.
However, I now believe every god (no matter the religion) is real simply if things happen in the real world based upon the actions people take in the name of that god, for good or evil. I mean, whether there is an intangible thing watching down upon you and judging you for your actions doesn't affect me quite like your actions do. But you wouldn't act that way if you didn't believe in a god. Belief begets action, thus there is power in belief. It is in that power that your god is real. The only thing believers get wrong is the causality. No god created us, we created them by acting as their agents.
That soup kitchen being run by a church is real because of a god. Holy wars are also actions because of a god, making it exactly as real.
The OP's argument is still weak sauce.
I'm not of a religious persuasion and doubt I ever will be; but this is a very interesting way of looking at religion and what it does that hadn't occured to me before.
Thanks daedalus! You've given me something interesting to think about!
Couple of things. Just because you don't know which of the numbers 1 through 9 you saw, doesn't mean you saw some magical other, unknowable-by-by-anyone-but-God number. It simply means you don't know which of the numbers between 1 and 9 you saw.
As for the second stepwise God exists reasoning, the first counterargument that came into my head was that just because I can conceive of something doesn't mean that it has to actually exist, does exist, or even can exist. Indeed, there is a logical disconnect between being able to conceive something inconceivable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/09 08:55:54
2.5 pages in, and there's still no asshattery from either pro or anti-religious parties.
Well done guys!
While I'm an atheist by nature, I'm happy enough for anyone to have their own beliefs as long as a) It allows them to be a better person and cope with their existence on this rock and b) That they practice their faith quietly with manipulating or indoctrinating others and children in particular.
I think Jorge Luis Borges had a faith affirming dream or experience, one that cannot be explained or passed on to others. Those who seek affirmation of a deity or creed will find it. The harder you search, the greater the revelation. Similarly those who do not search in such a manner will not experience a revelation, but may still appreciate the beauty or poignancy of what stirred such affirming feelings in others. Both approaches are no more or less valid than the other and are of equal value.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/09 11:00:23
Zond wrote: I think the OP had a faith affirming dream, one that cannot be explained or passed on to others. Those who seek affirmation of a deity or creed will find it. The harder you search, the greater the revelation. Similarly those who do not search in such a manner will not experience a revelation, but may still appreciate the beauty or poignancy of what stirred such affirming feelings in others. Both approaches are no more or less valid than the other and are of equal value.
No, the OP just copy pasted the Argumentum Ornithologicum from Jorge Luis Borges work "Dreamtigers" (and without even stating his source).
Aw no, faith in Dakka destroyed! All my meager brain power for the day wasted. However surely someone just won Dakka bingo with that remark, making this thread useful again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/09 10:56:46
I'm a declared atheist, my reasons are my own, but this thread has stirred something in me faith wise.
I just ate lunch, I don't know how many calories were in my lunch, but there was definately more than one, and considering it was a modest repast, I would say that there were less than my RDA of calories in it (about 2100 being a male in a sedentary job). I threw most of the packaging away, so it fits in my lunchbox, so I am unable to determine the number of calories in my lunch, but the supermarket I purchased the components of my lunch from, does know the exact calorific content of those components (and therefore my whole lunch), so it is unknown to me, but known to a higher power (a corporation of some vast size and wealth)
And that is why you hear people yelling FOR THE EMPEROR rather than FOR LOGICAL AND QUANTIFIABLE BASED DECISIONS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE MAJORITY!
Phototoxin wrote:Kids go in , they waste tonnes of money on marnus calgar and his landraider, the slaneshi-like GW revel at this lust and short term profit margin pleasure. Meanwhile father time and cunning lord tzeentch whisper 'our games are better AND cheaper' and then players leave for mantic and warmahordes.
daveNYC wrote:The Craftworld guys, who are such stick-in-the-muds that they manage to make the Ultramarines look like an Ibiza nightclub that spiked its Red Bull with LSD.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
If I might illustrate why this doesn't really work, replace God with Felis Magnus, a universe-sized cat.
1. Our understanding of Felis Magnus is a cat of which no bigger cat an be conceived.
2. The idea of Felis Magnus exists in the mind.
3. A cat that exists both in the mind and in reality is bigger than a cat that exists only in the mind.
4. If Felis Magnus only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a bigger cat—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine a cat that is bigger than Felis Magnus.
6. Therefore, Felis Magnus exists.
Imagining things does not make them magically pop out from your imagination into reality.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/07/09 11:54:04
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
Is this copy right infringement?
From Dreamtigers, by Jorge Luis Borges, translated by Mildred Boyer
timetowaste85 wrote: While I believe in God 100%, this rationale sounds like the "vision" created through the use of shrooms. In a similar vein, I'd like to posit that cake+hydrogen peroxide=Proof of God. Because...well, honestly, if I need to explain my math after that first post, then it's all of you that need help.
Fafnir wrote: OP, I'm sure that sounded so insightful when you were high, but you might want to reconsider once you've come down.
Did nobody notice the part where I said the OP took the theorem he posted from Borges Proof for the Existence of God? I posted it on Page 1 of this thread... come on, its published for christs sake (no pun intended) how did nobody but me pick up on that??
No, the OP just copy pasted the Argumentum Ornithologicum from Jorge Luis Borges work "Dreamtigers" (and without even stating his source).
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
Is this copy right infringement?
From Dreamtigers, by Jorge Luis Borges, translated by Mildred Boyer
THANK YOU!
Seems we got a little Shia LeBeouf in training over here hehe
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
If I might illustrate why this doesn't really work, replace God with Felis Magnus, a universe-sized cat.
1. Our understanding of Felis Magnus is a cat of which no bigger cat an be conceived.
2. The idea of Felis Magnus exists in the mind.
3. A cat that exists both in the mind and in reality is bigger than a cat that exists only in the mind.
4. If Felis Magnus only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a bigger cat—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine a cat that is bigger than Felis Magnus.
6. Therefore, Felis Magnus exists.
Imagining things does not make them magically pop out from your imagination into reality.
Ketara wrote: Try something with a noodly appendage.
I draw a firm line at outright blasphemy, and I will not cross it. Besides, how could anyone understand unless they've also been touched by the dangling angel hairs. Pastafari!
P.S. Please don't anyone confuse my religion with Trustafarianism, which is reserved for white guys with dreadlocks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/09 13:00:02
Vash108 wrote: The first. If the bible was truly gods words, who are they to pick and choose what goes in it.
So a bunch of guys got together and decided they needed to take all the 'Gods Word' floating around and pick the ones they thought most true. Also not the Council of Nicea (Though Constantine Commissioned 50 Bibles with the same basic structure we use today a few years after Nicea). Biblical Canon != Canon Law. You're thinking of the Council of Trent, though the Synod of Hippo 1000 years earlier had reached essentially the same conclusion (The Synod of Hippo didn't approve Revelation). Nicea had nothing to do with the development of Biblical Canon.
Iron_Captain wrote: 1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
Somebody's been copypasting Anselm from Wikipedia.
Regardless, Kant, Aquinas & Hume would like a word....
Yup, I was wondering if anyone would recognise it. The knowledge of the Dakka community really amazes me at times.
I took a Philosophy A Level about seven years ago, and covered the various ontological arguments pretty comprehensively. You're doing something similar now I presume?
Yeah, we just had a lesson about Anselm and his argument a little while ago.
hughpower wrote: I close my eyes and see a flock of birds. The vision lasts a second or perhaps less; I don’t know how many birds I saw. Were they a definite or an indefinite number? This problem involves the question of the existence of God. If God exists, the number is definite, because how many birds I saw is known to God. If God does not exist, the number is indefinite, because nobody was able to take count. In this case, I saw fewer than ten birds (let’s say) and more than one; but I did not see nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, or two birds. I saw a number between ten and one, but not nine, eight, seven, six, five, etc. That number, as a whole number, is inconceivable. Therefore, God exists.
So, god exists if the sum of avians can be quantified, but, does not exist if the avians cannot be quantified. I'm sorry, that's not how it works. Being able to quantify something tends to suggests it's mundane. If it's mundane, then it's not divine. If something is unquantifiable, that doesn't auotmatically lend support for the existence of the divine. You are operating on the assumption that you understand how god operates. What if God can't see into your mind? What if he doesn't care, and has more important things to do than look at your perverse attraction to pigeons? I can conceive of a perfectly square room whose euclidean geometry suggests it has 4 walls, yet, somehow there's another pair of walls that are perpendicular to the reference frame the 4 initial walls are in. This hyper-dimensional reality exists only in my head. Does this prove or disprove god? The answer is it does neither. It's like answering "purple" to a question that asks for a response scaled from 1 to 10.
I will also say this. I get the track you are moving along. Descartes did it better, and I did not find his argument compelling either.
Wilytank wrote: Which god are we talking about by the way? VIshnu? Odin? Nurgle?
As ChaosOmega pointed out, an omniscient god is necessary, e.g. Jehovah, but not Ninsun.
Why not Odin? He sacrificed one of his eyes to gain knowledge of the past, present, and future. That's pretty omniscient if you ask me. Besides, he's got a more impressive beard than Jehovah and better songs have been written about him. I think I know which one I'd prefer.
BTW, those birds you saw, they were probably ravens and Odin's two ravens were among them.
In terms of awesome gods, I'm gonna go with Kali
she has a dress made of arms!
Wall o text responding to a lot of folks in this thread, I hope the spoiler thing works
Spoiler:
As bad as I feel the OP’s line of reasoning is (basically I cant know X, but Xinfinity cannot exist, B is purported to know X, therefore B exists) what little reasoning to the contrary that has been offered so far is just as bad.
Wilytank: Which god are we talking about by the way? VIshnu? Odin? Nurgle?
We are talking about the accepted philosophical concept/definition of big G God. Namely the maximally great being possessing the maximal value of every great making property. Now stop being obtuse >
Chaos0xomega: …But therein lies a problem, the idea of an omniscient God is a relatively recent one in human history, and discounts the conceptualizations of God's which predate that development, and thus creates an issue in which a large number of faiths, both past and present, are essentially invalidated, or rather, this 'proof of God' only works if you share the frame of reference of one who believes in an omniscient God. Given that the nature of God and whether or not he (or she) is omniscient is something that is presently uncertain, the entire proof basically falls apart at its assumptions, invalidating any conclusions drawn from it.
When the knowledge was gained is irrelevant to the veracity of the knowledge. You seem to make a mistake here that I feel shows a bit about your personal ignorance (please do not read that with ANY malicious tone it is meant kindly!) on this matter. The concept of God (cap G) is different than the concept of gods (small g) they are not the same thing and conflating the two will only force you to draw incorrect conclusions. The concept of created gods is irrelevant to any discussion involving uncreated Gods. Any discussion involving God requires the assumption that God is uncreated as it is one of the great making properties required for the concept of the maximally great being. As a side point, God would be genderless. God is not a species of animal that has sexual gender. God, from a judeo- christian perspective is referred to in the masculine due to Gods fatherly relation with humanity.
Daemonhammer: I used to be a christian.
Then I learned about what the Germans and later the Russians did to my country. I relaised I cannot worship an entity that would allow such tings to happen. And the free will thing dosent work for me.
Im sorry, but why was what the Germans and Russians did wrong? Where did you get your standard by which to judge their actions thusly? To that point, why is a deity that allows people to do what they want to do, a bad one? We either have free will or we don’t. If we have free will the Russians and Germans are free to commit whatever atrocities they wish to. If we do not have free will, then the Russians and Germans did nothing wrong, merely acting on impulses they have no control over, and your outrage at what they did is also just you feeling what you are forced to feel.
Iron_captain:
1. Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
2. The idea of God exists in the mind.
3. A being that exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.
4. If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
6. Therefore, God exists.
The problem, as I see it with Anselms reasoning is simply at point 2 and 3. We made a switch here from talking about an idea of a being, to discussing the being. The second problem I see is the statement that a being can ACTUALLY exist in the mind of another being. I see no reason to accept that; in fact, to exist a being must exist independently of others. Otherwise the being is merely a concept/idea.
Peregrine: It's also a terrible argument because of point #4: if god is a being so great that it is beyond human understanding then how can you make the subjective judgement that existing in reality improves the greatness of a being?
Funny, I never thought you would borrow from Islam to argue against the concept of God. The ability to know something exhaustively doesn’t preclude one from drawing conclusions. You could argue their conclusions are faulty, but that requires proof and not mere assertion. We do not and in fact cannot, know God exhaustively, or else God wouldn’t be an infinitely great being eh? Now to address the conclusion of your statement, if a being does not really exist (that is the meaning of exist in reality) it cannot BE a great being, but merely the CONCEPT of a great being.
Daemonhammer: To quote Captain Jean-Luc Picard:
"Any being sufficently advanced could be considered a god in the eyes of those less advanced."
To quote myself responding to Captain Jean-luc Picard: *squeak* err… umm.. Iloveyou!
But no seriously, any god who is merely more technologically advanced than its supplicants is not God (note the capital G ad the concept to which it refers, i.e. the concept this thread is discussing)
Quick statement to respond to a number of similar posts, the concept of God=/= God. Concepts of God exist unequivocally, the question is does the Being the concept describes exist?
Vash108: When you realize most of Christianity's beliefs, symbols, religious days and customs were just taken from other religions at the time by their current rulers to get them to conform. It all starts to fall apart.
Also council of Nicea anyone?
Wrong on so many levels, Zeitgeist is a travesty that has misinformed SO many people. You ARE correct on the appropriation of many cultures existing holidays, but that was done by the catholic church to aid in the assimilation of Christianity and roman culture into far flung and various gothic/celtic/druidic faiths. The birth of Christ was already widely celebrated before the hijacking of winter solstice into Christmas. The symbols of the holiday were adapted and used as parables to explain Christian doctrine in an easily understood and readily available fashion.
What about the Council of Nicea?
Prior to the codification of what is now the New Testament, the documents were already held as God breathed scripture. The assembly of the bible was more a logistical thing than some conspiracy to control the masses. It was also done because at the time there were a lot of folks popping up saying they found “new gospels” and had “new revelations” that contradicted already established scripture (I.E. Pauline letters etc…) Canonization combated that, it prevented attempted rewriting of history.
TIgurius: While I'm an atheist by nature, I'm happy enough for anyone to have their own beliefs as long as a) It allows them to be a better person and cope with their existence on this rock and b) That they practice their faith quietly with manipulating or indoctrinating others and children in particular.
I find that requiring believers to believe quietly and in their own little corners as well as not teaching their children THEIR beliefs but rather, yours it would seem, is pretty close to being dangerously hypocritical. What’s the default if you can’t teach your own children your own convictions? Teach them yours? A muslim’s? A Buddhists? A Christians? Not to teach them anything? A parent’s job is to teach their children how to behave within society. If that behavior is grounded in a faith system, why should a parent ignore the foundations? Because you disagree with their beliefs? Seems fishy to me is all…
Jasper76: If I might illustrate why this doesn't really work, replace God with Felis Magnus, a universe-sized cat.
1. Our understanding of Felis Magnus is a cat of which no bigger cat an be conceived.
2. The idea of Felis Magnus exists in the mind.
3. A cat that exists both in the mind and in reality is bigger than a cat that exists only in the mind.
4. If Felis Magnus only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a bigger cat—that which exists in reality.
5. We cannot imagine a cat that is bigger than Felis Magnus.
6. Therefore, Felis Magnus exists.
Imagining things does not make them magically pop out from your imagination into reality.
Your argument suffers the same problems as the original as well as a new one. A universe-sized cat is a problematic concept as several of the properties that make a creature a cat, would could not possibly be possessed by a universe sized creature (such as its food source, its origin [parents suffer the same problem] just to name a few off the top of my head).
I whole heartedly agree with your last statement however.
The FSM belongs on my dinner plate, im hungry and spaghetti is one of my faves >
Tldnr?: I am a christian, I think the op's logic is flawed:
If God exists X =/= X~, if G doesn't exist X=X~. I was unable to count X, but actual X is inconceivable, therefore God exists.
It makes pretty much 0 sense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/10 18:38:34
When your wife suggests roleplay as a result of your table top gaming... life just seems right
I took my wife thru the BRB for fantasy and 40k, the first thing she said was "AWESOME"... codex: Chaos Daemons Nurgle..... to all those who says God aint real....
If you want a logical link well: I am Wiccan. I am also a practising witch. A few years back when my income was £00.00 I cast a spell for money. Within a week I had £70.00. For me that is proof of a logical link betwixt my religion and reality. Even more so, I see plants and trees come back to life after a long winter, I see baby animals born and feats of Natures - my Goddess's - wrath and love that are undeniable. I see the sun come up at day and the Lady Moon at night. That is a tenable link.
OP, just because you could not count the birds it does not prove anything. If you want a link well.... When was one of your prayers last answered?
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
I know what you mean. I have a rock that repels tigers. I keep it at my house, because when I leave, I'm usually in the car, and then indoors, and I'm pretty sure tigers can't open doors. I do take it with me while camping though, and would you believe? I've never seen tigers when I'm around the rock. I know it works, because I saw tigers once when I didn't have the rock.
master of ordinance wrote: A few years back when my income was £00.00 I cast a spell for money. Within a week I had £70.00. For me that is proof of a logical link betwixt my religion and reality.
With respect, this sounds to me like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
master of ordinance wrote: Even more so, I see plants and trees come back to life after a long winter, I see baby animals born and feats of Natures - my Goddess's - wrath and love that are undeniable. I see the sun come up at day and the Lady Moon at night. That is a tenable link.
...and all of these phenomena were described by science quite sometime ago with no appeal to the supernatural necessary.
~4100
~1660
