Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-9-2007, 05:43 PM   #101
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Er...so you think he's using the bible to prove the nonexistance of God?

The bible is only an authoratative text insofar as it is assumed to be divinely inspired. If you use God-given words to prove God doesn't exist, you are inherantly self-defeating...
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-9-2007, 05:48 PM   #102
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: God.

If someone says "this text is the basis for claims x, y, and z", it's a reasonable course of action to examine claims x, y, and z, and search for inconsistencies and contradictions. By showing that a text doesn't make sense, you can show either that:

A: It wasn't divinely inspired
B: God's message is completely incomprehensible or contradictory to human beings following logical or rational thought.

If you accept B, as some Christians do, you either have to accept that the bible cannot be used as a basis for action when human reason contradicts it, or you have to reject reason altogether.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-9-2007, 05:53 PM   #103
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

If someone says "I am going to prove god does not exist" and uses as a source, a book that is only a valid source is God does exist, we have a problem.

If God does exist (And thus the book is an acceptable source) any "proof" that God does not exist based on that book is faulty in some manner (be it that the person arguing was faulty in their phrasing of the argument, or interpretation of the evidence)

If God does not exist (And thus the book is not an acceptable source) any "proof" that God does not exist based on that book is (while concluding an accurate thing [ie. That God does not in fact exist]) simply a coincidence that their argument (based on faulty information) happened to lead to a conclusion that was correct.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-9-2007, 06:27 PM   #104
Master_of_the_Faster
FFR Player
 
Master_of_the_Faster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
Default Re: God.

A book was written about gods some time ago from humans. First of all, there is no evidence that a god wrote this book, gave consent to this book, or met with any human beings. Second of all, we are talking about religious books written a long time ago. A religious book would only be used by a person/society to enact what they feel should be "normal" (not to mention that "normal" standards from a long time ago are different from that of today [slavery]). The book itself may be right, but there is a chance that it might be wrong (considering there is no proven connection of god to the statements). Anything that tries to counter an argument made for a religious book would be a claim that would not work because an opponent of the book could only use the text (which is hypothetical). Unless a religion contradicts itself (god is good, yet it created hell) or if a religion is proven wrong ([assuming the role of believing one god]there are many gods, not one because I met them all and you can see them for yourselves while still being alive), there is no real way to contradict a religion and even still, one part of a religion being proven wrong doesn't make everything else wrong. The bottom line is that you can't argue for or against hypotheticals, but it's best to have real evidence with 100% truth or the intent of finding 100% truth because you can have a neutral stance that doesn't involve being so one sided (bombing the World Trade Centers) and because you are always right (science so far).
Master_of_the_Faster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-9-2007, 06:29 PM   #105
ledwix
Giant Pi Operator
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Age: 30
Posts: 2,878
Send a message via AIM to ledwix Send a message via Yahoo to ledwix
Default Re: God.

Science has always been right so far? When was this decided?
ledwix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-9-2007, 06:34 PM   #106
Master_of_the_Faster
FFR Player
 
Master_of_the_Faster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
Default Re: God.

Since every single theory ever made. Even if certain theories are faulty or aren't explained fully with what we have, science has the intent of being 100% right and not bigoting others against each other.
Master_of_the_Faster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-9-2007, 06:36 PM   #107
ledwix
Giant Pi Operator
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California
Age: 30
Posts: 2,878
Send a message via AIM to ledwix Send a message via Yahoo to ledwix
Default Re: God.

...so we always thought the Earth was round? That's just one example, and I don't want to have to name any more. Science has conflicting theories all the time; sometimes several conflicting theories trying to explain the same phenomena end up being proven false.

Last edited by ledwix; 06-9-2007 at 06:40 PM..
ledwix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-9-2007, 06:42 PM   #108
Master_of_the_Faster
FFR Player
 
Master_of_the_Faster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
Default Re: God.

Science can change over time to become 100% right even if it isn't. The most common religions can't change over time (unless you make a whole new one or destroy one from existence) to become 100% right (that is, if they are at fault in any way).

Last edited by Master_of_the_Faster; 06-9-2007 at 06:45 PM..
Master_of_the_Faster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-9-2007, 08:26 PM   #109
trillobyite
FFR Player
 
trillobyite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 310
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollus View Post
Well, Francis Collins seems to be a very reasonable and openminded person. Unfortunately, lots of people insist on the validity of their holy books, usually written thousands of years ago (There are exceptions, obviously. The Mormons come to mind.) in the face of logic, science and common sense. Some people believe that religion and science are completely incompatable, scientists and religious people alike. There are fundamental questions that science has so far been incapable of answering, and Theistic Evolution may be the answer of our existance and that of the universe.

However, I wouldn't be so quick to jump to the simple solution. Even if science doesn't have a plausible theory about the absolute origin of our universe (before the Big Bang), it doesn't mean they won't have one in the future. Even if you tie the concept of creationism and theistic evolution in with science, saying "We can't understand it right now, so God must have done it" isn't the best idea.

Finding a semi-plausible theory and declaring the case closing is just taking the easy way out. (But I still respect your religious openmindedness to science. No offence.)
Well, I don't trust science to solve the meaning of the universe anytime within our lifetimes, so for now I prefer Theistic Evolution. Heck, if God comes down from the sky and says "everything the Bible says is true," I'll become an evangelist. I don't know what will happen in the future to solve the mystery, so we should all believe in whatever we would prefer to believe, as long as it doesn't contradict the facts, until new facts arise that do contradict what we already believe. Otherwise we would all be nihilists. And btw I'm not tying in creationism into any of this, creationism is a fundementalist theory, it is not science.
__________________
Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lives here on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.
http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html
trillobyite is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-9-2007, 08:31 PM   #110
Master_of_the_Faster
FFR Player
 
Master_of_the_Faster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
Default Re: God.

Honestly, I really don't care what a person feels on god, religion, or science. I will have my views of science and well other people and their views and stuff. I just don't want people shoving any of that God says that homosexuals are bad stuff. I hate bigotry over all things. Honor that your own statements could be false even if they are true and perhaps people would get along better. Take life, liberty, and property with pure 100% justification or else keep it to yourself. That's all I ask of anyone.
Master_of_the_Faster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-9-2007, 09:31 PM   #111
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Honestly, I really don't care what a person feels on god, religion, or science.
Quote:
Honor that your own statements could be false even if they are true and perhaps people would get along better.
Pot...meet kettle, I believe you two have something in common.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2007, 02:31 AM   #112
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
If someone says "I am going to prove god does not exist" and uses as a source, a book that is only a valid source is God does exist, we have a problem.
People don't say this. People say "I am going to prove that the book assumed to be a valid source of proof for concepts x, y, and z is self-contradicting or otherwise incomprehensible".

Meaning, again, (and again and again and again), either human beings are too stupid to understand God's word and there isn't a contradiction to reason, it isn't God's word because of its contradiction to sound reason, or reason PERIOD isn't as sound as human beings believe.

Quote:
If God does not exist (And thus the book is not an acceptable source) any "proof" that God does not exist based on that book is (while concluding an accurate thing [ie. That God does not in fact exist]) simply a coincidence that their argument (based on faulty information) happened to lead to a conclusion that was correct.
It is possible to use the falsity of a consequent to derive the falsity of an antecedent. In this case God is assumed to be the antecedent to the bible. If God is perfect in all aspects and actions and the bible is imperfect, the God of the bible cannot exist based on logic.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2007, 02:40 AM   #113
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
If someone says "I am going to prove god does not exist"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilroy_x
People don't say this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by plasmix
Therefore, God does not exist.
Well, except the person to whom I was responding.

Also:
Quote:
If God is perfect in all aspects and actions and the bible is imperfect, the God of the bible cannot exist based on logic.
They didn't conclude that God may exist but not as portrayed in the bible, they concluded that God flat-out does not exist.

I don't see why this is a big deal: If you want to use the bible as a source and claim it is valid, you -must- also assume that the bible was divinely inspired (to wit: That God does exist) or else you have no proof of the validity of your source.

Using the bible to disprove God is self-defeating logic, because in order to use the bible, you have to tacitly admit to proof of God.

Last edited by devonin; 06-10-2007 at 02:43 AM..
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2007, 02:47 AM   #114
Kit-
Private College
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Kit-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lol badger
Posts: 536
Default Re: God.

By your logic, proof by contradiction is not a valid form of proof. What Kilroy is saying is that by assuming that the Bible is a valid source, we can show that the Bible is not a valid source—meaning that the only possible explanation is that the Bible is in fact not a valid source, implying that the God described in the Bible does not exist.
__________________
<img src="Bent Lines" />
Kit- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2007, 02:53 AM   #115
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Proof by contradiction would involve proving !God purely on the basis of the consequences of assuming God.

I disagree that one of the consequences of assuming 'God' is 'The complete validity and truth of the bible'
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2007, 02:53 AM   #116
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
Also: They didn't conclude that God may exist but not as portrayed in the bible, they concluded that God flat-out does not exist.
Perhaps this is an issue of miscommunication.

Quote:
I don't see why this is a big deal: If you want to use the bible as a source and claim it is valid
Just stop there. You're mixing up two understandings of the word valid. It is possible to cite an invalid argument. When refuting it, for instance. Just because you make reference of a text and of statements made in it doesn't mean you accept the text as valid. It's a big deal because what you're saying makes no damn sense.


Quote:
Using the bible to disprove God is self-defeating logic, because in order to use the bible, you have to tacitly admit to proof of God.
In the uncyclopedia article on the flying spaghetti monster, it states that the FSM was responsible for the creation of the universe. At the same time, uncyclopedia hosts an article on God which states God created the universe. Given the contradiction in these things, the text of uncyclopdia is incoherent.


Now, based on those statements do you think I am giving tacit admission to the role of the FSM in creating the universe? How about the role of God in creating the universe? Even though these things can't both be held at the same time? Even though I'm citing a source for the deliberate intention of showing it to be invalid?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, congratulations, you may have brain damage!
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2007, 02:55 AM   #117
Kit-
Private College
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Kit-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lol badger
Posts: 536
Default Re: God.

Who said anything about !God? I believe I said !(God as described in the bible).
__________________
<img src="Bent Lines" />
Kit- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2007, 02:55 AM   #118
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Well Kilroy, I inadvertantly responded to your question in the post above: I deny that a necessary consequence of the existance of God is the validty and truth of the bible.

The bible can be completely and utterly wrong and God can still exist, so proving that the bible is completely and utterly wrong does not allow you to conclude that God does not exist.

Edit: Sniping everywhere!

Quote:
Who said anything about !God? I believe I said !(God as described in the bible).
The person who said !God is the person to whom I was responding when you all took issue with what I said.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2007, 02:55 AM   #119
Kilroy_x
Little Chief Hare
FFR Veteran
 
Kilroy_x's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Colorado
Age: 32
Posts: 783
Send a message via AIM to Kilroy_x
Default Re: God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin View Post
Proof by contradiction would involve proving !God purely on the basis of the consequences of assuming God.

I disagree that one of the consequences of assuming 'God' is 'The complete validity and truth of the bible'
No, but assuming 'bible is true' leads to 'assume god is perfect in all aspects'. Introduce 'bible is product of God', introduce 'bible is not perfect'. And there you go.
Kilroy_x is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2007, 02:57 AM   #120
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default Re: God.

Well, go back in time and tell the person I was responding to that they should go ahead and phrase their argument in a way that they did not phrase their argument when I set about pointing out that it was a bad argument.
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution