I would believe in God if there was sufficient evidence (proof).
I promise not to close my eyes to any evidence.
Okay, so go ahead. Lay it on me. I'd like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person, but complex, tricky philosophical language just doesn't compute in my brain - it doesn't translate into actual ideas for me. Plain English, though, works just fine. So use common English.
Alright: Go!
This argument can just be turned around again in the other direction.
I'll believe in god until there is sufficient evidence that He does not exist.
etc. etc.
In the end faith is faith, and it goes both ways.
Well, no, that's a little different. Proving the "negative" is a bit different. You could say "I'll believe in God until the reasons I believe in God are demonstrated to, in all likelihood, be incorrect." Which is what happened to me.
Edit: I will go on record as someone who has been genuinely convinced by rational arguments. I've changed positions on homosexuality, the existence of God, the morality of abortion (twice!), and many others. My mind is changeable.
I was disagreeing with Brian888, who stated most atheists would believe in God if there were proof of it, and I said that they would more than likely close their eyes to anomalies like those presented by Heidegger's ontotheological constitution of metaphysics.
That's an absurd claim that I normally hear from Hellfire preachers on college campuses.
They might reclassify such an entity as an alien or some more useful term (because Deities are INCREDIBLY varied, and the idea of "God" even moreso), but they wouldn't just cram their ears with cotton if Zeus showed up at the door with lightning coming from his fists.
Certainly, a large number of atheists would not -like- the entity, depending on its personality and actions.
Well, I do think Podly is right to say that atheists would likely not immediately classify an entity as a "god." Alien or some kind of advanced illusion would probably be our first assumptions, and then we would demand further investigation.
This brings us to an idea that I'm not sure Podly has thought about, though—the total pointlessness of the idea of "supernatural."
When you label something "natural," you are basically saying that it is within the realm of observation and deduction. Lightning is a "natural" phenomenon because we can observe it and deduce the physical properties that cause it.
When you label something as supernatural, what you are really doing is asserting that it is immune to any investigation or attempt at understanding. Lightning was considered "supernatural" when people thought it was the weapon of gods. But even this is sort of a natural explanation, as it's an attempt to explain the physical cause of the phenomenon.
When you say something is supernatural, then, it is essentially an admission of ignorance and an assertion that said ignorance cannot ever be remedied. Thus, the very category of "supernatural" makes no sense to me. It undermines itself; it is an expression of nothing except comfort with a hole in one's knowledge.
Gottfriend Liebniz believed in God, but he approached God as within the bounds of nature, struggling to incorporate God into his philosophical system of monads (which, in some ways, resembles Einsteinian relativity). This kind of God is not supernatural. It is simply an unknown quantity that awaits further explanation in a natural framework.
This argument can just be turned around again in the other direction.
I'll believe in god until there is sufficient evidence that He does not exist.
etc. etc.
In the end faith is faith, and it goes both ways.
"Atheism is faith" only works with Strong Atheism.
Lacking a belief in something is not a belief, unless you use a meaningless version of the word.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
edited September 2009
I find the "common english" plea susceptible for two major reasons: 1) I believe that "common langauges" are common because they are built on western metaphysics, which means that if you want to argue against the overarching themes of western metaphysics, it is extremely difficult to do so in "common language, and 2) the concepts are extremely complex, and to speak about them in jargonless language requires years of study. To my ears, it is like trying to argue for quantum mechanics without using math.
But I will attempt a quick try right here: I believe that the human person is a being whose major concern is about his or her Being. I disagree with both Cartesian/Lockean subjectivity and the analytic subject of people like Russell and Dennett. I think that the human person is a self who discovers themselves and the world as both categorical, by which I mean predication. i.e., I am in New York City, and existential, i.e., I AM IN new york city. If the existential nature of humans is pursued, the question of Being, which is separate and different from the beings themselves, they will be confronted by the ontological difference: that beings are differed from Being. If this is so, two main questions arise: 1) What is Being, and 2) What does this difference say about our worldview? I agree with the way that Heidegger approached the problem: that we can perhaps leap out of this problem, but that the west has chosen one specific way to approach the problem, namely the onto-theo-logical constitution of metaphysics, and this is the ultimate foundation of all beliefs.
I would believe in God if there was sufficient evidence (proof).
I promise not to close my eyes to any evidence.
Okay, so go ahead. Lay it on me. I'd like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person, but complex, tricky philosophical language just doesn't compute in my brain - it doesn't translate into actual ideas for me. Plain English, though, works just fine. So use common English.
Alright: Go!
This argument can just be turned around again in the other direction.
I'll believe in god until there is sufficient evidence that He does not exist.
etc. etc.
In the end faith is faith, and it goes both ways.
I'll believe in fairies until you provide sufficient evidence they don't exist. (this is difficult to do because they turn invisible when humans observe them.)
I'll believe that there is a tiny teacup orbiting Alpha Centuri at a distance of 18.723 light-minutes until you provide sufficient evidence that there is not.
I'll believe that Quetzalcoatl raped and murdered a young girl until you provide sufficient evidence you didn't.
Etc. This is why the burden of proof is on the positive assertion.
When you say something is supernatural, then, it is essentially an admission of ignorance and an assertion that said ignorance cannot ever be remedied. Thus, the very category of "supernatural" makes no sense to me. It undermines itself; it is an expression of nothing except comfort with a hole in one's knowledge.
It strikes me as trying to define the world in one's own terms so that one's knowledge set can be the primary method of understanding.
Like if a carpenter tried to define the universe as a construction project.
When you say something is supernatural, then, it is essentially an admission of ignorance and an assertion that said ignorance cannot ever be remedied. Thus, the very category of "supernatural" makes no sense to me. It undermines itself; it is an expression of nothing except comfort with a hole in one's knowledge.
It strikes me as trying to define the world in one's own terms so that one's knowledge set can be the primary method of understanding.
Like if a carpenter tried to define the universe as a construction project.
that's metaphor, which is rather different
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
When you say something is supernatural, then, it is essentially an admission of ignorance and an assertion that said ignorance cannot ever be remedied. Thus, the very category of "supernatural" makes no sense to me. It undermines itself; it is an expression of nothing except comfort with a hole in one's knowledge.
It strikes me as trying to define the world in one's own terms so that one's knowledge set can be the primary method of understanding.
Like if a carpenter tried to define the universe as a construction project.
that's metaphor, which is rather different
I did not mean in metaphor.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Gottfriend Liebniz believed in God, but he approached God as within the bounds of nature, struggling to incorporate God into his philosophical system of monads (which, in some ways, resembles Einsteinian relativity). This kind of God is not supernatural. It is simply an unknown quantity that awaits further explanation in a natural framework.
I think that your reading of Leibniz is incorrect, especially since most Leibnizian critics believe that Leibniz thought that monads were not actually constitutive of the world, but folded from the monad world to the physical world. Deluze has a fanastic book about this.
Also, concerning your discussion of nature. Heidegger, in the first chapter of Introduction to Metaphysics, has a pretty fascinating discussion on the transition from the greek phusis (appearing, enlightened) to the latin natura (birthed, originated) and the effect that it had on the way we view the physical world. You might find it interesting.
But I will attempt a quick try right here: I believe that the human person is a being whose major concern is about his or her Being. I disagree with both Cartesian/Lockean subjectivity and the analytic subject of people like Russell and Dennett. I think that the human person is a self who discovers themselves and the world as both categorical, by which I mean predication. i.e., I am in New York City, and existential, i.e., I AM IN new york city. If the existential nature of humans is pursued, the question of Being, which is separate and different from the beings themselves, they will be confronted by the ontological difference: that beings are differed from Being. If this is so, two main questions arise: 1) What is Being, and 2) What does this difference say about our worldview? I agree with the way that Heidegger approached the problem: that we can perhaps leap out of this problem, but that the west has chosen one specific way to approach the problem, namely the onto-theo-logical constitution of metaphysics, and this is the ultimate foundation of all beliefs.
So, to break this out into simple assertions, based on my understanding of metaphysical concepts:
1.) A human is a thing whose major concern is Being;
2.) Being is largely undefinable, but can perhaps be defined as "the opposite of nothingness";
3.) Humans define the world categorically (e.g., I am MALE);
4.) Humans also define the world existentially (e.g., I AM male).
So, how do we get from this to "God exists"?
Brian888 on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
But I will attempt a quick try right here: I believe that the human person is a being whose major concern is about his or her Being.
Only humans?
What about chimps? Fish?
Where's the cutoff, and why is there a cutoff?
I think that chimps are certainly capable of being such a being. For instance, I think the videos of elephants painting is an incredible display of animal Dasein. However, humans seem to be almost infinitely more concerned with the question of Being, and are much more concerned with possibility outside of a pain/pleasure analysis.
I never bring up my atheism unless someone specifically asks me or starts trying to preach to me about something.
Same. And I tried to make it that way in my house, because I don't want to raise my kids with any particular religion, but I also have no desire to try and make them agree with my atheism.
I just want them to go out into the world, equipped with the ability to evaluate ideas on their merits, and I expect that they're likely to not buy into anyone's religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, that got fucked up by a series of semi-conspiratorial actions on the part of my grandmother-in-law, my mother-in-law, and my wife...so now I have to deal with my 5 year old occasionally lecturing me for not believing in God, because apparently God gets mad when you don't believe in him.
She doesn't know jack shit about what she's saying, but is perfectly content to take every single thing she was told over the course of a few visits to her great-grandmother's house as fact, and anything I say as clearly wrong. Needless to say, I'm pretty fucking frustrated with it, but I'll get through to her eventually.
I never bring up my atheism unless someone specifically asks me or starts trying to preach to me about something.
Same. And I tried to make it that way in my house, because I don't want to raise my kids with any particular religion, but I also have no desire to try and make them agree with my atheism.
I just want them to go out into the world, equipped with the ability to evaluate ideas on their merits, and I expect that they're likely to not buy into anyone's religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, that got fucked up by a series of semi-conspiratorial actions on the part of my grandmother-in-law, my mother-in-law, and my wife...so now I have to deal with my 5 year old occasionally lecturing me for not believing in God, because apparently God gets mad when you don't believe in him.
She doesn't know jack shit about what she's saying, but is perfectly content to take every single thing she was told over the course of a few visits to her great-grandmother's house as fact, and anything I say as clearly wrong. Needless to say, I'm pretty fucking frustrated with it, but I'll get through to her eventually.
Ask her how she knows that God gets angry.
Brian888 on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Well, if we pursue the question of Being, we find that it is omnipresent (there can be no beings where there is not Being) omnipotent (there can be no beings that are not "presenced" in Being) omniscient (nothing can be true unless it IS true) and infinite (wherever there is beings there is Being, but we can never know whether there is Being without beings.
This argument can just be turned around again in the other direction.
I'll believe in god until there is sufficient evidence that He does not exist.
etc. etc.
One way leads to many absurdities that virtually nobody sincerely believes and therefore seems to be such an inconsistent stance as to be useless.
It is not a consistent argument, but neither is just asking to get proof of the existence of god. Laying the burden of proof on religion and then demanding an answer doesnt invalidate religion when they can't answer every question you have.
I know I can't answer all the questions but the moral and spiritual framework is still something I believe in.
It seems an affront to history to think that God and his relationship with his people isn't at the very core of Judaism.
You'll have to find a way to sleep at night with that genetic fallacy yourself, then.
Since the destruction of the second temple a couple thousand years ago, judaism has been a religion less and less about God, and more and more about the actions of the individual.
Is nobody bothering to read bava metziah 59b? I'm not mentioning it for my health, here; I've already read it many times.
I never bring up my atheism unless someone specifically asks me or starts trying to preach to me about something.
Same. And I tried to make it that way in my house, because I don't want to raise my kids with any particular religion, but I also have no desire to try and make them agree with my atheism.
I just want them to go out into the world, equipped with the ability to evaluate ideas on their merits, and I expect that they're likely to not buy into anyone's religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, that got fucked up by a series of semi-conspiratorial actions on the part of my grandmother-in-law, my mother-in-law, and my wife...so now I have to deal with my 5 year old occasionally lecturing me for not believing in God, because apparently God gets mad when you don't believe in him.
She doesn't know jack shit about what she's saying, but is perfectly content to take every single thing she was told over the course of a few visits to her great-grandmother's house as fact, and anything I say as clearly wrong. Needless to say, I'm pretty fucking frustrated with it, but I'll get through to her eventually.
Ask her how she knows that God gets angry.
She's stuck on this idea that God is there *because* you can't see him. She's not the logical thinker of my two kids, and tends to be very emotional about pretty much everything.
I wager her attachment to this idea will fade with the knowledge that Santa, fairies, and all that other stuff is not real.
She's stuck on this idea that God is there *because* you can't see him. She's not the logical thinker of my two kids, and tends to be very emotional about pretty much everything.
I wager her attachment to this idea will fade with the knowledge that Santa, fairies, and all that other stuff is not real.
Don't get too patient about the childhood magic. My grandma had my dad believing in the Easter Bunny et al up until puberty.
Well, if we pursue the question of Being, we find that it is omnipresent (there can be no beings where there is not Being) omnipotent (there can be no beings that are not "presenced" in Being) omniscient (nothing can be true unless it IS true) and infinite (wherever there is beings there is Being, but we can never know whether there is Being without beings.
Earlier I tried to define Being thusly:
Being is largely undefinable, but can perhaps be defined as "the opposite of nothingness"
Operating from this definition, which admittedly could be faulty, I don't see how it is proper to attribute qualities like omniscience, which further requires sapience, to what is merely "the opposite of nothingness."
So, changing the suject a little, is it possible to be a "weak atheist" if you have previously been theistic? I mean, if you have previously stated, "There IS a god" but you now no longer believe in god, wouldn't your only options be either a stement that God does not exist (strong atheism) or else a statement that you do not know/it is unknowable (agnosticism)?
Well, if we pursue the question of Being, we find that it is omnipresent (there can be no beings where there is not Being) omnipotent (there can be no beings that are not "presenced" in Being) omniscient (nothing can be true unless it IS true) and infinite (wherever there is beings there is Being, but we can never know whether there is Being without beings.
Earlier I tried to define Being thusly:
Being is largely undefinable, but can perhaps be defined as "the opposite of nothingness"
Operating from this definition, which admittedly could be faulty, I don't see how it is proper to attribute qualities like omniscience, which further requires sapience, to what is merely "the opposite of nothingness."
Derrida has a concept of erasure, whereby things can only be discussed if a master word is put under erasure and never defined. Being is not a being, can take no predicates, etc. The only proper way to speak about being in this way is to say [strike]Being[/strike[/i] whereby you do not actually say it, but simultaneously you are saying something. I don't like to speak of Being in terms of predication, i.e., Being is the opposite of reality, because that means that Nothingess is the opposite of Being, which cannot be true because Nothingness cannot BE anything.
I would believe in God if there was sufficient evidence (proof).
I promise not to close my eyes to any evidence.
Okay, so go ahead. Lay it on me. I'd like to think I'm a fairly intelligent person, but complex, tricky philosophical language just doesn't compute in my brain - it doesn't translate into actual ideas for me. Plain English, though, works just fine. So use common English.
Alright: Go!
This argument can just be turned around again in the other direction.
I'll believe in god until there is sufficient evidence that He does not exist.
etc. etc.
In the end faith is faith, and it goes both ways.
One is believing things that can be proven to be true, and then adjusting your beliefs when new information if provided.
The other is blindly believing in something until it is proven to not exist (and as Melkster kinda alluded to, proving a negative isn't scientifically possible).
You don't see a difference between those two? I'm not saying that one is more correct than the other, but they are clearly different things.
TheCanMan on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
So, changing the suject a little, is it possible to be a "weak atheist" if you have previously been theistic? I mean, if you have previously stated, "There IS a god" but you now no longer believe in god, wouldn't your only options be either a stement that God does not exist (strong atheism) or else a statement that you do not know/it is unknowable (agnosticism)?
The short answer is yes.
Strong atheism isn't strictly supportable without a collection of caveats.
But I will attempt a quick try right here: I believe that the human person is a being whose major concern is about his or her Being. I disagree with both Cartesian/Lockean subjectivity and the analytic subject of people like Russell and Dennett. I think that the human person is a self who discovers themselves and the world as both categorical, by which I mean predication. i.e., I am in New York City, and existential, i.e., I AM IN new york city. If the existential nature of humans is pursued, the question of Being, which is separate and different from the beings themselves, they will be confronted by the ontological difference: that beings are differed from Being. If this is so, two main questions arise: 1) What is Being, and 2) What does this difference say about our worldview? I agree with the way that Heidegger approached the problem: that we can perhaps leap out of this problem, but that the west has chosen one specific way to approach the problem, namely the onto-theo-logical constitution of metaphysics, and this is the ultimate foundation of all beliefs.
It sounds like you are simply stating that the existence of observers logically implies that there is something apart from the observers (Being) to observe. This something apart can also include themselves and the method and experience of observation itself.
Would you agree with the way I've put this?
If you do, it makes my previous question all the more important. Is an "observer" necessarily a conscious animal? At what level of brain activity, then, does something cease to be an observer?
My answer is that there is no such point, and that this explains why both quantum mechanics and relativity deal with the abstract ideas of observers and reference frames. An electron can act, in physics, as an observer. However, quantum mechanics sheds even more light on this idea. It basically allows us to define observation itself as an interaction between two particles. Some interactions produce entanglements such that two spatially separate particles act as a single "observer."
Moreover, the particles themselves can be defined, more fundamentally, as wavefunctions that yield probability amplitude. Does the probability amplitude exist? That depends on what you mean by exist. The probability amplitudes are just information. They don't observe anything. The wavefunction itself is just information. It doesn't observe anything. Only when these quantities of information interact in certain ways does "observation" happen.
Earlier, I brought up the idea that the "reality" of physics emerges from a deeper layer of information or mathematical reality. But mathematical quantities do not "observe" each other.
So basically, what I'm saying here is that I think you've got the cart before the horse. You are looking at the idea of observed/observer as evidence for some metaphysical force. But it seems to make much more sense to simply define the quality of observation as "existence."
So, changing the suject a little, is it possible to be a "weak atheist" if you have previously been theistic? I mean, if you have previously stated, "There IS a god" but you now no longer believe in god, wouldn't your only options be either a stement that God does not exist (strong atheism) or else a statement that you do not know/it is unknowable (agnosticism)?
The short answer is yes.
Strong atheism isn't strictly supportable without a collection of caveats.
I wouldn't mind the long answer.
As far as I can see it, once you have ALREADY been a theist, the only options open to you are either agnosticism or strong atheism. Short of some kind of traumatic memory loss, of course, that removes the entire concept of a god from your mind.
Posts
Well, no, that's a little different. Proving the "negative" is a bit different. You could say "I'll believe in God until the reasons I believe in God are demonstrated to, in all likelihood, be incorrect." Which is what happened to me.
Edit: I will go on record as someone who has been genuinely convinced by rational arguments. I've changed positions on homosexuality, the existence of God, the morality of abortion (twice!), and many others. My mind is changeable.
This brings us to an idea that I'm not sure Podly has thought about, though—the total pointlessness of the idea of "supernatural."
When you label something "natural," you are basically saying that it is within the realm of observation and deduction. Lightning is a "natural" phenomenon because we can observe it and deduce the physical properties that cause it.
When you label something as supernatural, what you are really doing is asserting that it is immune to any investigation or attempt at understanding. Lightning was considered "supernatural" when people thought it was the weapon of gods. But even this is sort of a natural explanation, as it's an attempt to explain the physical cause of the phenomenon.
When you say something is supernatural, then, it is essentially an admission of ignorance and an assertion that said ignorance cannot ever be remedied. Thus, the very category of "supernatural" makes no sense to me. It undermines itself; it is an expression of nothing except comfort with a hole in one's knowledge.
Gottfriend Liebniz believed in God, but he approached God as within the bounds of nature, struggling to incorporate God into his philosophical system of monads (which, in some ways, resembles Einsteinian relativity). This kind of God is not supernatural. It is simply an unknown quantity that awaits further explanation in a natural framework.
"Atheism is faith" only works with Strong Atheism.
Lacking a belief in something is not a belief, unless you use a meaningless version of the word.
But I will attempt a quick try right here: I believe that the human person is a being whose major concern is about his or her Being. I disagree with both Cartesian/Lockean subjectivity and the analytic subject of people like Russell and Dennett. I think that the human person is a self who discovers themselves and the world as both categorical, by which I mean predication. i.e., I am in New York City, and existential, i.e., I AM IN new york city. If the existential nature of humans is pursued, the question of Being, which is separate and different from the beings themselves, they will be confronted by the ontological difference: that beings are differed from Being. If this is so, two main questions arise: 1) What is Being, and 2) What does this difference say about our worldview? I agree with the way that Heidegger approached the problem: that we can perhaps leap out of this problem, but that the west has chosen one specific way to approach the problem, namely the onto-theo-logical constitution of metaphysics, and this is the ultimate foundation of all beliefs.
I'll believe that there is a tiny teacup orbiting Alpha Centuri at a distance of 18.723 light-minutes until you provide sufficient evidence that there is not.
I'll believe that Quetzalcoatl raped and murdered a young girl until you provide sufficient evidence you didn't.
Etc. This is why the burden of proof is on the positive assertion.
It strikes me as trying to define the world in one's own terms so that one's knowledge set can be the primary method of understanding.
Like if a carpenter tried to define the universe as a construction project.
that's metaphor, which is rather different
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
What about chimps? Fish?
Where's the cutoff, and why is there a cutoff?
I did not mean in metaphor.
I think that your reading of Leibniz is incorrect, especially since most Leibnizian critics believe that Leibniz thought that monads were not actually constitutive of the world, but folded from the monad world to the physical world. Deluze has a fanastic book about this.
Also, concerning your discussion of nature. Heidegger, in the first chapter of Introduction to Metaphysics, has a pretty fascinating discussion on the transition from the greek phusis (appearing, enlightened) to the latin natura (birthed, originated) and the effect that it had on the way we view the physical world. You might find it interesting.
So, to break this out into simple assertions, based on my understanding of metaphysical concepts:
1.) A human is a thing whose major concern is Being;
2.) Being is largely undefinable, but can perhaps be defined as "the opposite of nothingness";
3.) Humans define the world categorically (e.g., I am MALE);
4.) Humans also define the world existentially (e.g., I AM male).
So, how do we get from this to "God exists"?
I think that chimps are certainly capable of being such a being. For instance, I think the videos of elephants painting is an incredible display of animal Dasein. However, humans seem to be almost infinitely more concerned with the question of Being, and are much more concerned with possibility outside of a pain/pleasure analysis.
Same. And I tried to make it that way in my house, because I don't want to raise my kids with any particular religion, but I also have no desire to try and make them agree with my atheism.
I just want them to go out into the world, equipped with the ability to evaluate ideas on their merits, and I expect that they're likely to not buy into anyone's religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, that got fucked up by a series of semi-conspiratorial actions on the part of my grandmother-in-law, my mother-in-law, and my wife...so now I have to deal with my 5 year old occasionally lecturing me for not believing in God, because apparently God gets mad when you don't believe in him.
She doesn't know jack shit about what she's saying, but is perfectly content to take every single thing she was told over the course of a few visits to her great-grandmother's house as fact, and anything I say as clearly wrong. Needless to say, I'm pretty fucking frustrated with it, but I'll get through to her eventually.
Ask her how she knows that God gets angry.
Well, if we pursue the question of Being, we find that it is omnipresent (there can be no beings where there is not Being) omnipotent (there can be no beings that are not "presenced" in Being) omniscient (nothing can be true unless it IS true) and infinite (wherever there is beings there is Being, but we can never know whether there is Being without beings.
It is not a consistent argument, but neither is just asking to get proof of the existence of god. Laying the burden of proof on religion and then demanding an answer doesnt invalidate religion when they can't answer every question you have.
I know I can't answer all the questions but the moral and spiritual framework is still something I believe in.
You'll have to find a way to sleep at night with that genetic fallacy yourself, then.
Since the destruction of the second temple a couple thousand years ago, judaism has been a religion less and less about God, and more and more about the actions of the individual.
Is nobody bothering to read bava metziah 59b? I'm not mentioning it for my health, here; I've already read it many times.
She's stuck on this idea that God is there *because* you can't see him. She's not the logical thinker of my two kids, and tends to be very emotional about pretty much everything.
I wager her attachment to this idea will fade with the knowledge that Santa, fairies, and all that other stuff is not real.
Just don't try to make supernatural claims as if they were factual and we don't have a problem.
Don't get too patient about the childhood magic. My grandma had my dad believing in the Easter Bunny et al up until puberty.
Depends which Nones.
A lot of Nones still believe in magic.
And being a None doesn't automatically make you intelligent or ethical.
insufficient data
Earlier I tried to define Being thusly:
Operating from this definition, which admittedly could be faulty, I don't see how it is proper to attribute qualities like omniscience, which further requires sapience, to what is merely "the opposite of nothingness."
or believe that the stock market is supposed to make sense
Invisible Hand counts as magic. :P
no, the invisible hand is very real
but much like the Jewish god, it is NOT a benevolent force trying to do good. It is entirely neutral.
Couldn't be worse!
*rimshot*
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
And wants you to fear it. :P
Oh, come on
which god would you expect to be controlling the economy?
Derrida has a concept of erasure, whereby things can only be discussed if a master word is put under erasure and never defined. Being is not a being, can take no predicates, etc. The only proper way to speak about being in this way is to say [strike]Being[/strike[/i] whereby you do not actually say it, but simultaneously you are saying something. I don't like to speak of Being in terms of predication, i.e., Being is the opposite of reality, because that means that Nothingess is the opposite of Being, which cannot be true because Nothingness cannot BE anything.
One is believing things that can be proven to be true, and then adjusting your beliefs when new information if provided.
The other is blindly believing in something until it is proven to not exist (and as Melkster kinda alluded to, proving a negative isn't scientifically possible).
You don't see a difference between those two? I'm not saying that one is more correct than the other, but they are clearly different things.
Neither better nor worse, just different.
The short answer is yes.
Strong atheism isn't strictly supportable without a collection of caveats.
It sounds like you are simply stating that the existence of observers logically implies that there is something apart from the observers (Being) to observe. This something apart can also include themselves and the method and experience of observation itself.
Would you agree with the way I've put this?
If you do, it makes my previous question all the more important. Is an "observer" necessarily a conscious animal? At what level of brain activity, then, does something cease to be an observer?
My answer is that there is no such point, and that this explains why both quantum mechanics and relativity deal with the abstract ideas of observers and reference frames. An electron can act, in physics, as an observer. However, quantum mechanics sheds even more light on this idea. It basically allows us to define observation itself as an interaction between two particles. Some interactions produce entanglements such that two spatially separate particles act as a single "observer."
Moreover, the particles themselves can be defined, more fundamentally, as wavefunctions that yield probability amplitude. Does the probability amplitude exist? That depends on what you mean by exist. The probability amplitudes are just information. They don't observe anything. The wavefunction itself is just information. It doesn't observe anything. Only when these quantities of information interact in certain ways does "observation" happen.
Earlier, I brought up the idea that the "reality" of physics emerges from a deeper layer of information or mathematical reality. But mathematical quantities do not "observe" each other.
So basically, what I'm saying here is that I think you've got the cart before the horse. You are looking at the idea of observed/observer as evidence for some metaphysical force. But it seems to make much more sense to simply define the quality of observation as "existence."
I'm pretty happy with the idea of a more genuine attempt at the separation of church and state. Less personal feeling in policy making.
Though I should come clean and say that I dont live in the country in question.
I wouldn't mind the long answer.
As far as I can see it, once you have ALREADY been a theist, the only options open to you are either agnosticism or strong atheism. Short of some kind of traumatic memory loss, of course, that removes the entire concept of a god from your mind.