The long drawn out death of rationality.

[Poi E]

Only a fool believes that the world of the senses is the "real" world. It is the world of *appearance,* and appearance is by definition distinct from reality.

You've figured out reality? We could sell that, my son.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes, some people need it. I find the beauty that I divine from the world around me to be enough, though. Maybe I'm blessed with the love of family, friends and a special someone.

Yes, but that is no reply to my question. Life has no certitudes. You oculd be in a totally different position in a nanosecond from now (not that I wish you to be).

Maybe some people have a "need" to believe in God but in my view that is already a fundamental error in their perception. It is dishonest to "believe" in God because of some self-serving idea behind this decision.
I was of course raised religious and I even made of Islam my first academic discipline. Yet I came to the conclusion that God exists by means of own rational observations.

salaam.

 

[Poi E]

Yes, but that is no reply to my question. Life has no certitudes. You oculd be in a totally different position in a nanosecond from now (not that I wish you to be).

Maybe some people have a "need" to believe in God but in my view that is already a fundamental error in their perception. It is dishonest to "believe" in God because of some self-serving idea behind this decision.
I was of course raised religious and I even made of Islam my first academic discipline. Yet I came to the conclusion that God exists by means of own rational observations.

salaam.

Yes, I have experienced drastic change.

Considered self-assurance is an admirable thing. I cannot fault your desire for knowledge, whether it be corporeal or not.

 

[Fruitloop]

I guess it's safe to say there may well be unicorns then?
Anyway, let's not get onto the existence of god. As much as it seems like a contradiction, I think it's possible to believe in god but still approach the material world in a rational way (as Aldebaran kinda points out)

I reckon it's all dependent on exactly what kind of deity you believe in, and precisely what he is supposed to have done or be doing. Some versions are congruent with a modern understanding of the world (although they are never provable as such), whereas others are purely squirrels.

Given that there are so many theisms, an individual atheist can't really be specifically against all of them.

 

[laptop]

Oh, my Flying Spaghetti Monster. The probabalistic argument.

D'oh. My previous argument was entirely wrong. I confused the integers and the cardinal numbers.

The only thing we know about gods is that their number is an integer.

We can imagine universes containing -∞... -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3... ∞ gods.

We can take the negative numbers to be demons, antichrists and so on. (What is the plural of "satan"?)

We have no grounds* for assuming that the universe we inhabit is in any way special.

Therefore the expected number of gods is the middle of the range: 0.

* Of course if there are gods they will try to tell us that the universe is special because it contains them, but on average their godliness will be 0, so we can ignore them.

 

[Jonti]

I came to the conclusion that God exists by means of own rational observations.

Nope.

That's not to deny that you may be right. It is only to deny that reason and observation (and rational discourse!) compels one to that position. You can take that as a theological nicety, if you wish; but it's also a scientific fact.

God allows us choice, you might say. He does not compel belief.

What is about the World, may I ask, that comples belief in you?

 

[Poi E]

Ever noticed the lack of romance in reason?

 

[Fruitloop]

Ever noticed the lack of romance in reason?

What, being a bag of near-infinitely unlikely, self-aware, self-replicating proteins in a universe that's expanding at an ever-increasing rate is a bit dull for you?

 

[Poi E]

What, being a bag of near-infinitely unlikely, self-aware, self-replicating proteins in a universe that's expanding at an ever-increasing rate is a bit dull for you?

I need a distraction.

 

[laptop]

I need a distraction.

Is this distracting enough for you?

 

[Fruitloop]

Recreational drugs do a cracking job IME.

edit: laptop got there first

 

[Poi E]

And women. God they're gorgeous. They make me believe in a divine being.

 

[Stigmata]

Yeah, the fact that we reproduce sexually counts in favour of divine intervention for me too.

 

[Poi E]

After seeing the way some creatures achieve it, I reckon we're blessed. Although the elephant, he a lucky beast.

 

[Aldebaran]

Nope.

? (You know more about my methods and reasonings then I do myself?)

That's not to deny that you may be right.

Truth is beyond all of us and most probably (I would even say one can be certain of this) something completely different then we are able to observe and conclude about.

It is only to deny that reason and observation (and rational discourse!) compels one to that position.

You state here as much that I am not able to
reason
observe
have a rational discourse.
?

A conclusion can never stand on or be the result of compulsion. (If that is your conviction, you can't possibly defend such an argument rationally.)

You can take that as a theological nicety, if you wish; but it's also a scientific fact.

What is a scientific fact? That I can't come to a rational conclusion about this issue?

God allows us choice, you might say. He does not compel belief.

It is exactly the choice to believe or to not believe that leads people to research God, or anything else.

Al Qur'an, surat al-bakara (II), 256

"There is no compulsion in religion. Reasonable insight is clearly distinct from wickedness. Who then does not believe in the Thagut and believes in Allah he holds the firmest handle, which shall not break off. And Allah is hearing and knowing."

What is about the World, may I ask, that comples belief in you?

It is not confined to what we perceive as "the world" and there is no compulsion in me to "believe".
Nobody could ever make me believe or do something just because "it should be done" or "should be believed". If no explanation about the "why" could (or can) be given my conclusion must be that those who make the claim or demand follow a reasoning that has no foundation in any solid argument.

I could agree with you if your argument was that "belief" in the existence of what is described with the word "God" always has a type of component in it that could be described as irrational if you like, but the same - and to exactly the same extend - can be said when one concludes to have reasons for not believing in God.

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

? (You know more about my methods and reasonings then I do myself?)

Well, sure I could. But that's not what I said. I said reason and observation do not compel one to believe in God. Nor do they necessarily impel one to disbelief, for that matter. It's more that the theist layer is otiose. If God made the World, why could not the World itself have made the World.? Anyone who thinks their belief in God is logically necessary, is wrong. That's just the way it is.

To put it in theological terms, God does not compel belief. Humans might try to, but that's another issue.

?Truth is beyond all of us and most probably (I would even say one can be certain of this) something completely different then we are able to observe and conclude about.

Suppose this is true (as you claim) "Truth is beyond all of us". How on Earth did you discover this truth that truth is beyond all of us? And if it is, why are you wasting your time on this debate. It must be pointless for you -- you've just admitted you couldn't recognise the truth if it bit you on the bum!

 

[Aldebaran]

Well, sure I could.

You must be psychic. So tell me about it how I reason please?

But that's not what I said. I said reason and observation do not compel one to believe in God.

I said I am not "compelled".
I said I came to my - independent - conclusion.
I said compulsion can't lead to a conclusion, it can only lead to cumpulsion.

Nor do they necessarily impel one to disbelief, for that matter. It's more that the theist layer is otiose.

I'm not sure what you mean by "otiose" (had to look that up in Webster's) in this context. Can you use an other word?

If God made the World, why could not the World itself have made the World.? Anyone who thinks their belief in God is logically necessary, is wrong. That's just the way it is.

1. What is "the World", in your view?
2. What is logical, in your view?
3. What is necessity, in your view?
4. What is wrong, in your view?
5. Why do you think your right isn't wrong?
6. What is the way it is, in your view?
7. Why do you think your way is the only possible way?

Don't you think you make a lot of assumptions exposing a rather defective, hence incomplete up to illogical, way of reasoning behind your conclusions?

To put it in theological terms, God does not compel belief. Humans might try to, but that's another issue.

You say exactly what I said, so what is the argument here?

Suppose this is true (as you claim) "Truth is beyond all of us".

I am most certain that it is. Everyone capable of the most basic logical reasoning must come to this conclusion.

How on Earth did you discover this truth that truth is beyond all of us?

I simply used the capability to logical reasoning of functioning braincells.

And if it is, why are you wasting your time on this debate. It must be pointless for you -- you've just admitted you couldn't recognise the truth if it bit you on the bum!

No matter the issue or research I never said nor shall I ever say that I discovered "truth".
Yet not being able to find the truth or the whole truth of an issue under research does not prevent conclusion.
No research would exist and no progress in no matter which field would be possible if "no truth=no conclusion possible" was the rule.

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

To put it in theological terms, God does not compel belief. Humans might try to, but that's another issue.

You say exactly what I said, so what is the argument here?

Beats me.

I said reason and observation (and rational discourse!) do not necessarily lead one to believe in God. This was in response to your claim that rational observations had led you to that belief.

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but that's all I'm trying to clarify with you.

So, *are* we are both agreed that reason and observation do not necessarily lead a person to believe in a Deity? That they do not prove the existence of God?

 

[Jonti]

I guess I'll have to take your silence as a "Yes". Now we're agreed that reason and observation do not logically impel one to believe in a Deity, let's turn to this claim of yours ...

I came to the conclusion that God exists by means of own rational observations.

But if reason and observation do not logically impel one to believe in a Deity, then there must be something besides rational observations that leads you to Believe that God exists. You follow the reasoning, I hope. Perhaps for you it's a personal emotional thing; or perhaps it's a cultural thing. I dunno. So I asked, politely enough, what that extra ingredient might be in your case. And you said ...

It is not confined to what we perceive as "the world" and there is no compulsion in me to "believe".

I'm afraid I don't find this at all clear. You seem to be stating here that the reason you Believe is something to do with the supernatural (not confined to what we perceive as "the world") but that your experience of this supernatural something is not what makes you Believe.

In other words, you say you have a direct intuition of the supernatural, perhaps of the Divine, but that's not what lies behind your Faith. Fine. So what does?

 

[sleaterkinney]

I came to the conclusion that God exists by means of own rational observations.

How can you rationalise something which you cannot prove exists?

 

[Gmart]

Exactly!

There is no such thing as truth as we all sense the world through our own senses, thus meaning that there is no such thing as a truth in Metaphysics. Truth in Metaphysics needs a step of faith of some sort.

Thus, to return to the op, we are indeed emerging from a Rationalist world into a Moralist world, eventually presumably peeking into a Relativist world.

 

[Aldebaran]

So, *are* we are both agreed that reason and observation do not necessarily lead a person to believe in a Deity? That they do not prove the existence of God?

Of course. Where did I say that such a conclusion was an inevitable one?

I guess I'll have to take your silence as a "Yes".

A strange reasoning. Where is the rational and the logic in concluding "no immediate reply = agreement by default"?
(hint: people tend to have a life outside message boards)

But if reason and observation do not logically impel one to believe in a Deity, then there must be something besides rational observations that leads you to Believe that God exists. You follow the reasoning, I hope.

I follow that you (still) follow a defective reasoning to begin with.
Again: How can you be compelled to come to a conclusion? Compulsion is the opposite and undermines every attempt to independent reasoning before you even start.

Perhaps for you it's a personal emotional thing; or perhaps it's a cultural thing.

No.

You seem to be stating here that the reason you Believe is something to do with the supernatural (not confined to what we perceive as "the world") but that your experience of this supernatural something is not what makes you Believe.

No. I never said that. (I didn't even mention "supernatural"). Observation can be linked or intertwined with personal experience, but that is not a requirement to be able to observe, don't you agree?

In other words, you say you have a direct intuition of the supernatural, perhaps of the Divine, but that's not what lies behind your Faith. Fine. So what does?

I didn't say that at all.
A rational reasoning behind a logical conclusion does not rely on "intuition", although no researcher shall completely exclude the influence of "intuition" since you can't exclude on a constant basis all of your emotions, feelings, ideas interfering with your thinking process. (I already use nothing but my intuition to write this language.)

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

How can you rationalise something which you cannot prove exists?

How can someone who claims "God" does not exist rationalise that something doesn't exist while there is no proof for this claim? It is a comparable process and I would say I have much more reason to believe my theory then they have to believe theirs.
To give one tiny example: Who says there is only one universe and who says what is called "big bang" followed by expansion - if that theory is a correct one - didn't happen over and over again?

I do not limit my reasoning to what I perceive with my limited senses and to what can be "proved" with - by default inadequate and hence incomplete- scientific methods.

salaam.

 

[kakuma]

Divine???????

religion takes away the natural emotions that we all have that are deeper and beyond the everyday irritaions, contentment, pleasedness that we all feel and replaces them by convincing us that some bullshit god is making us feel that way thats why religion is shite


thats waht i think anyways

 

[Crispy]

You can disprove the idea of god just as well as you can disprove the idea that there are bright pink hairy land octopuses in the forests of scotland. Proving a negative is always impossible. It's just that, personally - and for a lot of other people - those two concepts are equally absurd.

 

[kakuma]

exactlty, thankyou

the idea theres a god is absurd

 

[Aldebaran]

You can disprove the idea of god just as well as you can disprove the idea that there are bright pink hairy land octopuses in the forests of scotland. Proving a negative is always impossible. It's just that, personally - and for a lot of other people - those two concepts are equally absurd.

You can disprove the idea that there is no God just as well as you can disprove the idea that there are bright pink hairy land octopuses in the forests of scotland. Proving a negative is always impossible. It's just that and for a lot of people those two concepts are equally absurd.

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

How can you be compelled to come to a conclusion?

By. Reason. And. Evidence.

How about you?

 

[Jonti]

You can disprove the idea that there is no God just as well as you can disprove the idea that there are bright pink hairy land octopuses in the forests of scotland.

No, that's just bad logic, I'm afraid.

What you should have said is You can disprove the idea that there is no God just as well as you can disprove the idea that there are *no* bright pink hairy land octopuses in the forests of scotland.

That's quite different from your starting point above, where you've argued the existence of a Deity is logically proven just because of the impossibility of proving something's (anything's!) non-existence. But that doesn't follow at all -- you've started from a logically faulty position.

Logically, "A" exists is not the same as "no A" exists.

It's true one cannot prove God doesn't exist. But so what? One cannot *prove* the non-existence of a teapot orbiting Mars. There's no positive reason to believe in either, that's the point.

So why do you believe in God? What is the positive reason for your belief?

 

[phildwyer]

It is really, really *stupid* to speak of God as though He were the Yeti or the Loch Ness Monster--a material creature who may or may not "exist." God is an idea. The proper form of the question is: do *ideas* exist?