Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

4. I see the scurrying has already started.

Reply to BridgeTheGap (Original post)

Thu Feb 20, 2014, 02:56 PM

Feb 2014

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

187 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Where Do We Come From?: The 7 Most Intriguing Philosophical Arguments for the Existence of God [View all] BridgeTheGap Feb 2014 OP

To the addled and brain-dead they offer "food for thought" skepticscott Feb 2014 #1

The author himself admits that many are "easily refuted" philosophically. And they have been Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #78

The most-interesting question is actually "why is there something instead of nothing?" stopbush Feb 2014 #135

Yeah, but... What is there in "nothing" that can be unstable? Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #165

Lawrence Krauss addresses that question in his book, "A Universe From Nothing." stopbush Feb 2014 #166

Krauss is talking about empty space. Jim__ Feb 2014 #170

Empty space? stopbush Feb 2014 #171

Maybe that's where your author is coming from: "space" implies certain presuppositions/things Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #185

That's not really the thrust of Leibniz's argument Act_of_Reparation Feb 2014 #186

While I find the whole argument about the existence of god cbayer Feb 2014 #2

There are many, many things that we cannot "(prove) one way or another"... trotsky Feb 2014 #14

Abortion was not murder according to the early Catholic church. stopbush Feb 2014 #29

They couldn't even prove it to themselves! trotsky Feb 2014 #36

These are funny, thanks! trotsky Feb 2014 #3

As to your #1 Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #6

LOL, that could quite possibly be true! trotsky Feb 2014 #13

I just recommended it to a friend heading to that area Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #16

Agreed. n/t trotsky Feb 2014 #20

The computer simulation idea is just another example of religionist thinking stopbush Feb 2014 #17

Good points! n/t trotsky Feb 2014 #19

The simulation conjecture has some pretty solid math and physics behind it. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #57

Indeed. Here's my answers to those. longship Feb 2014 #41

This message was self-deleted by its author Th1onein Feb 2014 #72

Even if number 5 is true, SheilaT Feb 2014 #128

There is pretty much zero evidence that Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #130

A single confirmed example edhopper Feb 2014 #132

Like I said, wait for it. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #133

The trouble with AI edhopper Feb 2014 #134

i cant be sure of you either, thus the turing test. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #137

perhaps edhopper Feb 2014 #142

A hypothetical. Aliens arrive at planet earth. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #147

I don't doubt that machines can gain consciousness edhopper Feb 2014 #149

But imagine what a joke it would be on the God believers SheilaT Feb 2014 #136

I see the scurrying has already started. rug Feb 2014 #4

Do you really think these are "intriguing"? Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #7

They are for the most part thoughtful and old arguments. rug Feb 2014 #8

Here's the most laughable one Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #9

You should read Anselm's original argument then. rug Feb 2014 #10

You should really read Gaunilo then. Goblinmonger Feb 2014 #11

Flaws do not make an argument laughable. rug Feb 2014 #12

Most philosophers today would call them "semantic." They play on oddities of words; "equivocation" Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #81

Epicurus, then, must no longer be relevant. rug Feb 2014 #82

I got to go with you on this one rug edhopper Feb 2014 #85

Epicurus they say, did not believe in God. He's one of the better ancient philosophers Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #122

Interesting read. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #5

Why? stopbush Feb 2014 #15

Did you read it? Did you find it interesting? cbayer Feb 2014 #18

I did read it. These are old and hackneyed arguments that can be dismissed with stopbush Feb 2014 #21

The author acknowledges that many can be easily dismissed, cbayer Feb 2014 #24

The author says many can be easily dismissed, I say all can be easily dismissed. stopbush Feb 2014 #26

I think the alien and hackers theories probably post-date Aquinas. cbayer Feb 2014 #30

But those aren't religious ideas, are they? stopbush Feb 2014 #34

That's the point of the article. cbayer Feb 2014 #37

Here ya go: stopbush Feb 2014 #46

So an uncited picking from wikipedia is what you base your definition of god on? cbayer Feb 2014 #49

Playing games, are we? stopbush Feb 2014 #52

Perhaps playing games and I think the clock has just run out. cbayer Feb 2014 #55

Wow. You believe a few casual posts in an internet discussion group stopbush Feb 2014 #60

Nothing personal, I was just really done for the day. cbayer Feb 2014 #87

Fair enough. No offense taken. stopbush Feb 2014 #97

One would hope that the anti-religionists could come up with anything - anything - new. rug Feb 2014 #69

They did. It's called science. stopbush Feb 2014 #73

Actually, science is completely mute on religion. rug Feb 2014 #80

Science also works in collecting evidence for phenomena edhopper Feb 2014 #83

To date I have not seen a single experiment to test the theory of God. rug Feb 2014 #84

How did you not understand my post edhopper Feb 2014 #86

I did, quite well. rug Feb 2014 #88

Yes edhopper Feb 2014 #90

If you can give me one experiment to test that hypothesis. rug Feb 2014 #92

Only if you maintain that edhopper Feb 2014 #93

If you want to take that route you must design the experiment. rug Feb 2014 #94

Since i see no evidence for the existence of God edhopper Feb 2014 #98

There is no such example other than what an cbayer Feb 2014 #100

No, I don't "know that" edhopper Feb 2014 #104

Yes, I would say that if there was a god, "he" would be pretty vague, cbayer Feb 2014 #107

The problem is edhopper Feb 2014 #110

I won't admit what? cbayer Feb 2014 #111

because to think that edhopper Feb 2014 #112

Of course their religious beliefs may have a major impact on their actions. cbayer Feb 2014 #113

Epicurus' argument against god is entirely philosophical. rug Feb 2014 #101

I quote him edhopper Feb 2014 #103

No I don't see the implication, if the intent is to relate his paradox in some fashion to science. rug Feb 2014 #105

It's what I implied edhopper Feb 2014 #106

By that I take it you mean within recorded history. rug Feb 2014 #108

and that would leave me with my view edhopper Feb 2014 #109

Which leaves me with my view that religion does not exist to explain how the universe works. rug Feb 2014 #114

But why does God exist? edhopper Feb 2014 #116

If I ever see him that will be my first question. rug Feb 2014 #117

Suggested reading: "God - The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor Stenger. stopbush Feb 2014 #96

At least two of the eight attributes in his "Scientific God Model" game the results. rug Feb 2014 #102

And what would those two attributes be? stopbush Feb 2014 #118

Three and eight, pages 42-43. rug Feb 2014 #119

Those aren't Stenger's parameters, per se. They're the parameters that are common to stopbush Feb 2014 #120

No, that model is precisely what he attempts to disprove over the next 200 pages. rug Feb 2014 #121

Could you give your definition then edhopper Feb 2014 #123

Simply, it is transcendent. rug Feb 2014 #125

Yes, something from nothing is an interesting question edhopper Feb 2014 #126

Those are the questions I find compelling. rug Feb 2014 #127

When you say outside natural experience edhopper Feb 2014 #131

It is that but it's also something so far outside physical laws as to be unreachable. rug Feb 2014 #138

I actually think edhopper Feb 2014 #140

Let's back up a bit in this discussion. stopbush Feb 2014 #129

Stenger's position as a philosoper is a fact, not a ploy. rug Feb 2014 #139

This message was self-deleted by its author edhopper Feb 2014 #141

All I'm doing is providing you with citations of scientists who believe stopbush Feb 2014 #143

Your puzzlement is unnecessary. rug Feb 2014 #144

"As I said, I'll wait to see if his math holds up after others trained in it examine it. " edhopper Feb 2014 #145

Peer review is not an appeal to authority. rug Feb 2014 #146

So why wouldn't a professor of both particle physics edhopper Feb 2014 #148

When the number of names dropped reaches four, it's a safe bet there's an appeal to authority. rug Feb 2014 #151

That sounds rather arbitrary edhopper Feb 2014 #153

Those scientists are not mute on the subject; science itself is. rug Feb 2014 #156

Says you edhopper Feb 2014 #157

And thus this subthread reaches its nadir. rug Feb 2014 #158

This message was self-deleted by its author stopbush Feb 2014 #150

Here's an easy experiment to disprove the existence of the Christian God: Brettongarcia Feb 2014 #174

It is interesting to see why people might believe in God. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #22

My experience has been that ultimately, belief in god is a conceit. stopbush Feb 2014 #23

Well the question of how did God get created is an interesting question. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #25

I think we all know how god was created: evolution. stopbush Feb 2014 #27

We disagree but that makes life interesting. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #28

Why do you hope there is something beyond this life? stopbush Feb 2014 #32

Is that how you view our beliefs? hrmjustin Feb 2014 #35

Me neither. It's a fairy tale apparently created by some who reject it. cbayer Feb 2014 #38

Yes it is ironic. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #39

How do you as a Christian reconcile Jesus saying that he will condemn to eternal hellfire stopbush Feb 2014 #42

I pray that prayer in the BCP everytime I am about to receive communion. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #44

Glad you don't believe in hell, but Jesus certainly did. stopbush Feb 2014 #61

I think that is all a matter of interpretation. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #62

That would be the Gospel of Thomas. stopbush Feb 2014 #63

That is one of them but thats not the one I was thinking of. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #64

Most likely some other Gnostic tome. Many of them agree on basics like the "no hell" meme. stopbush Feb 2014 #65

Lol the mets are purgatory. hrmjustin Feb 2014 #66

Certainly you can provide citations for your claim that Jesus said that. cbayer Feb 2014 #45

Of course I can provide citations. stopbush Feb 2014 #50

I can see how you could could come to the conclusion that you did cbayer Feb 2014 #53

"God exists in the minds of man and nowhere else" - talk about conceit. cbayer Feb 2014 #31

Try these: stopbush Feb 2014 #33

Try this: There is no god because it doesn't exist cbayer Feb 2014 #40

The difference between me and believers (like you) is that you disbelieve in only ONE fewer gods stopbush Feb 2014 #43

I'm not a believer, but I understand why you might label cbayer Feb 2014 #48

Actually, the "one fewer god" argument is a great argument that never goes out of style. stopbush Feb 2014 #58

Wrong. okasha Feb 2014 #152

So you don't understand the edhopper Feb 2014 #154

We don't "automatically assume" that skepticscott Feb 2014 #155

Just playing the percentages, my dear. stopbush Feb 2014 #160

And it would be just playing the percentages okasha Feb 2014 #187

No, it's just another piece of dogmatic tripe pulled from the usual play books. cbayer Feb 2014 #163

Says the room's champion skepticscott Feb 2014 #164

Anybody taking the "religion" side in these arguments can't really demand original ideas stopbush Feb 2014 #167

L. Ron was pretty edhopper Feb 2014 #168

And just as valid as any other religion, if we're to be honest about it. stopbush Feb 2014 #172

What exactly do you think the "religion side" is? cbayer Feb 2014 #169

Activism isn't exactly an idea, let alone a new idea. stopbush Feb 2014 #173

And I can assure you that my experience was very different than yours when cbayer Feb 2014 #175

What are YOU looking for? Apparently, you want it both ways. stopbush Feb 2014 #177

I am looking for common ground instead of the same old tired arguments cbayer Feb 2014 #178

There's your problem. There really is no common ground between religion and atheism. stopbush Feb 2014 #179

Of course there is. cbayer Feb 2014 #180

True, but that common ground is found outside of our religious belief or non-belief. stopbush Feb 2014 #181

No necessarily. Some religious people are on that ground because cbayer Feb 2014 #182

I find that sad, ie: that people would need to turn to religion stopbush Feb 2014 #183

Sad? Somehow I doubt that, and I also doubt that they need your pity. cbayer Feb 2014 #184

Oh stop it. Warren Stupidity Feb 2014 #59

Aha!! Got you here, my friend!!! longship Feb 2014 #51

Good points all, but this was a specific response to this specific person cbayer Feb 2014 #54

I know that. longship Feb 2014 #56

How arrogant of you skepticscott Feb 2014 #89

It sounds like you take Anselm's ontological argument seriously muriel_volestrangler Feb 2014 #75

Except that no one says that, cbayer. It's just something else you made up skepticscott Feb 2014 #91

Can you prove that statement is wrong? trotsky Feb 2014 #47

Do you find death desirable? rug Feb 2014 #68

I find it to be the natural order of things. There's no getting around it. stopbush Feb 2014 #74

Why do you question why people have different reactions to the fact of death? rug Feb 2014 #77

I didn't compare death to Disneyland. I compared belief in an afterlife to Disneyland. stopbush Feb 2014 #95

Our parents. Next. nt Deep13 Feb 2014 #67

I suppose it might be interesting to unpack these arguments, to see the underlying mechanisms, struggle4progress Feb 2014 #70

Still a great topic for philosophy goldent Feb 2014 #71

Those are absolutely pathetic arguments and here are their rebuttals: DetlefK Feb 2014 #76

Sense. Iggo Feb 2014 #99

When philosophy entertains this question, has it left the realm of philosophy? BridgeTheGap Feb 2014 #79

I would say it's definitely a philosophical question. Jim__ Feb 2014 #115

I think of philosophy edhopper Feb 2014 #124

None of these are intriguing... MellowDem Feb 2014 #159

These are incredibly antiquated questions/answers. AtheistCrusader Feb 2014 #161

God is love...so it says groovedaddy Feb 2014 #162

at least some of these can be equally used to "prove" that god doesn't exist unblock Feb 2014 #176