Proof of God

[edge]

Originally Posted by Paulhoff
I’m sure that we all here are atheist about Peter Pan.

I'm not, Peter Pans some good peanut butter! Straw man.
Damn you like to yell a lot.

 

[Paulhoff]

Belief in God is abundant to the regret of an Enlighten group of Practical Thinkers. Therefore regretting belief in God is totally useless!

Herzblut

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

Disbelief in God hardly exists. Therefore disbelieving in God is useless!
Paul

Hey, swallow it. Thanks to your ample experience you're very good in making up crap.

But I'm better, if I want!




Herzblut

BTW, did you know?

Disbelief in God does not tell you how anything works!Therefore disbelief in God is useless!
Paul

 

[Herzblut]

I'm not, Peter Pans some good peanut butter!

Maybe cause Peter Pan is Marzi Pan's brother?

Damn you like to yell a lot.

He thinks that the louder the messenger the true'er the message.

Herzblut

 

[D'rok]

Anyway, you need to offer your own arguments.

Done plenty of that. Repeating them ad nauseum becomes tedious as I'm sure you'd agree. It degenerates into a pissing match. I've presented my arguments, you've presented yours. Neither one of us has convinced the other. Go figure.

 

[D'rok]

That special attribute being that believers posit god as the answer to the ultimate questions of our existence.

--snip--

Because these characters [unicorns] have no similar atribute: no one claims they do anything, let alone answer the ultimate questions of our existence.

Sounds like unicorns have exactly the same properties as the god of deism - i.e., none. So I guess it's ok to accept the non-existence of deistic god.

But what if I made the claim that unicorns are the demiurge and that faith in unicornism answers the ultimate questions of our existence? That somehow renders a ridiculous claim (existence of unicorns) more legitimate? This "special attribute" of yours means that we should less sceptical about a fantastic claim that has just been made more fantastic by the addition of this special attribute?

C'mon. Give me a break.

 

[BillyJoe]

Sounds like unicorns have exactly the same properties as the god of deism - i.e., none.

[mock serious tone]
Do you have a hearing disorder or something?
The deist god is ever existing and created everything else.
How many goddamn times do I need to tell you that?
[/mock serious tone]

So I guess it's ok to accept the non-existence of deistic god.

I have won this debate.

But don't worry, you are a winner too.
"There is no god" is now "It's ok to accept the non-existence of god".
When you learn something new, you are a winner. Well done.

But what if I made the claim that unicorns are the demiurge and that faith in unicornism answers the ultimate questions of our existence?

Well, then you would have to prove
- that the demiurge is a unicorn.
- that faith in this unicorn answers the ultimate questions of our existence.

I hope you remember from your assiduous reading of this thread that I have not, repeat not (because I'm going to have to repeat it anyway so I may as well do it now), made these claims for the deistic god.

That somehow renders a ridiculous claim (existence of unicorns) more legitimate?

Where have I spoken about legitimacy?
All I am saying is that you cannot say "There is no god" because you have no proof that god does not exist (and we all agree, don't we, that proof of the non-existance of god is impossible)

This "special attribute" of yours means that we should less sceptical about a fantastic claim that has just been made more fantastic by the addition of this special attribute?

Where have I asked you to be "less sceptical"?
I want you to be more sceptical.
I want you to provide evidence for your claim that "There is no god".
If you don't have that evidence I want you to refrain from making that claim.

 

[Herzblut]

Sounds like unicorns have exactly the same properties as the god of deism - i.e., none.

In god billions of people believe, in unicorns maybe 20.

Please explain this empirical fact in relation to your assertion that both share exactly the same attributes.

So I guess it's ok to accept the non-existence of deistic god.

I guess it's ok to accept the existence of death. I don't accept anything else without good reason. You telling me what to accept is no reason at all.

But what if I made the claim that unicorns are the demiurge and that faith in unicornism answers the ultimate questions of our existence?

Go out to the streets and market places and convince the people.

That somehow renders a ridiculous claim (existence of unicorns) more legitimate?

Ask the people.

This "special attribute" of yours means that we should ...

We? Who is "we"? Who entitled you to tell people what they should do? First of all: exclude me! I speak for myself and don't take any orders from you. That includes what I should accept or not, as already said.

Herzblut

 

[Mobyseven]

That special attribute being that believers posit god as the answer to the ultimate questions of our existence.

[...]

Because these characters have no similar atribute: no one claims they do anything, let alone answer the ultimate questions of our existence.
(questions, which, by the way, science has seemingly no hope of answering)

In that case you should have no trouble listing the 'ultimate questions of our existence' and the answers to these questions, should you?

You made the claim, now show us the evidence.

So why bother about the atom-faery.
You do not seem to have it doing anything.
(At least believers in god have him creating the universe - something out of nothing - about which science has nothing to say)

That is exactly the point! The atom-fairy is completely unobservable, and so we may dismiss it from the equation. As for the part in brackets - I do not know how many times it has to be repeated that science is not about immediately knowing all the answers. There are scientists out there who are at this very minute doing work on explaining the creation of the universe, just because right now we don't have an explanation does not mean we never will. For Ed's sake, we still don't understand gravity! And as a second note for the part in brackets, what proof is offered up to support the claim that god created the universe? If there is no proof, then god is as useless as my atom-fairy - an undetectable being that in reality explains nothing!

Your atom-faery is then like santa claus, the tooth faery and the easter bunny. Why should I bother about them if you don't actually have them doing anything?

And similarly, why should I bother about god when there is no evidence that god actually does or did anything? Burden. Of. Proof. Those are the three most important words you may ever learn, so please, please learn what they mean soon!

Quite frankly I find your assigning one imaginary being more legitimacy than another imaginary being childish and silly - it seems to be little more than Pascal's Wager hiding in a veil of obfuscation: "You should assign greater legitimacy to god than to fairies, because god can be used to explain life's great mysteries, while fairies are just cute."

It's not exactly Pascal, but it's close. Let's call it a Pascalesque Wager.

In the other post you said:
"The do-nothing exist-nowhere god is the easiest to dismiss first using Occam's razor"
If by "dismiss" you don't mean "prove", then excuse me if I dismiss Ockham's Razor as the last word about whether or not god exists.

I'm sorry, do you need a bleeding dictionary or something? When I said that, "The do-nothing exist-nowhere god is the easiest to dismiss first using Occam's razor," I said 'dismiss' because I meant 'dismiss'.

Consider the following two equations, two definitions for the newton SI unit of force:

N = (kg x m)/s^2

...and...

N = ((kg x m)/s^2) + (0 x A)​

As you can see, the two equations are actually identical. In the second equation, however, we have introduced the ampere into the definition of a newton. How did we do this? Simple! We just multiply it by zero and then add the result to the original equation.

Obviously the ampere in the second equation is superfluous - it is what one might call an unnecessary entity (in the context of this equation).

As such, it is far easier to simply dismiss the ampere from the equation entirely! Certainly one could keep the ampere in the equation, but it adds nothing to the explanatory power of the definition. God is like the ampere in that second equation: Certainly we could include him in our theories, but he wouldn't have any function in the context of science. Since we don't need god, we can dismiss him from the 'equation' as it were. That is where Occam's razor comes into play.

If I say "you cannot prove there is no god", and you say "you cannot prove a negative", do you not see that you are saying exactly the same as I am. Yet you insist in saying "There is no god". And when I ask you to prove it, you say "you can't prove a negative". But, if you cannot possibly prove a negative, how can you say "there is no god"
So I ask you, who has the problem here?

You do. You are still failing to grasp the concept of burden of proof here. A person who states, "There is no god," is not making a positive claim, they are simply demonstrating a lack of belief in god. The burden of proof does not fall upon them, because it is a logical impossibility for them to prove their statement - they no more have to 'prove' that god does not exist than they have to prove that invisible underwear gnomes that sneak into the Clinton residence at night and play Monopoly in the delicates draw do not exist!

This does not mean that one cannot say, "There is no god." "There is no god," is in fact the rational stance to take in the absence of evidence - the burden of proof lies with the believers to prove that god does exist.

I'll repeat that again: The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, in this case, "There is a god," to provide evidence in support of their claim.

And you have used Ockham's Razor to say "there is no god".
This is an illegitimate use of Ockham's razor.
For the purposes of doing science and in the light of our present knowledge, you may use Ockham's Razor to presume there is no god, but you cannot say "there is no god".

Quote where I used Occam's razor to say, "There is no god."

You cannot, because that's not what I said. Occam's razor is used to demonstrate that god in unnecessary. Not that god does not exist.

The statement, "There is no god," comes from the simple fact that there is no evidence that god exists. Until evidence to the contrary is provided, there is no reason to doubt the statement, "There is no god," just as one would not doubt the statement, "There are no invisible underwear gnomes."

[mock serious tone]
Do you have a hearing disorder or something?
The deist god is ever existing and created everything else.
How many goddamn times do I need to tell you that?
[/mock serious tone]

Evidence?

Where have I asked you to be "less sceptical"?
I want you to be more sceptical.
I want you to provide evidence for your claim that "There is no god".
If you don't have that evidence I want you to refrain from making that claim.

And we're back to square one again.

BillyJoe, repeat this after me:

"There is not god," is a negative claim. One cannot prove a negative. Ergo, one cannot prove evidence for a negative claim. This does not mean that one cannot assert a negative claim, because a negative claim is falsifiable, whereas a positive claim is not. The negative claim is heuristic, whereas the positive claim is not. The negative claim allows for the fact that it may be wrong, the positive claim does not. This is why the burden of proof lies on the positive claimant, and not the negative claimant.

How many times must you have this explained to you?

I have won this debate.

Why is it that the most ignorant people claim victory in a thread where they refuse to learn anything and just repeat the same bunk arguments over and over again? Are you employing this as a rhetorical device, or are you actually blind to your own shortcomings here?

I think I'm about done with you, quite frankly. When somebody declares victory in their own eyes, they're usually beyond helping. I'm sorry I wasted my time here with you.

 

[Herzblut]

I'll repeat that again: The burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, in this case, "There is a god," to provide evidence in support of their claim.

Religion doesn't function like this, don't you know? The people don't make a scientific claim. Or do you know a science paper that published such claim?

People express a so called - I explain it slowly to you - statement of belief. It goes like "I believe that xyz exists..." This is also called "credo". It is a personal (and also social) committment to this belief.

You can follow so far?

Fine. Then these people mostly don't give a **** about the burdon you feel entitled to put on them. They already made a committment and your requests are irrelevant for them. Other people feel insulted and think you're an arrogant ***hole. In no case you will receive any positive feedback. You will cut-off yourself from any discussion with them.

But maybe that's your intention?

Herzblut

 

[zooterkin]

Then your problem must lie elsewhere.

It's called jumping to conclusions.

Or perhaps you need to improve your communication skills.

Would I need an apology if you jumped to the conclusion that I was a homosexual?

What a peculiar thing to ask! Do you see sexual orientation and religious belief as comparable things? But of course, if, based on what you had said, I made a statement implying you were homosexual, and you weren't, I would apologise. Similarly for heterosexuality, left-handedness or being a Southampton supporter.

While we are on the subject, however, you are the one making allegations about the sexual practices of other posters; perhaps you'd like to take the opportunity to apologise?

That special attribute being that believers posit god as the answer to the ultimate questions of our existence.

Because these characters have no similar atribute: no one claims they do anything, let alone answer the ultimate questions of our existence.
(questions, which, by the way, science has seemingly no hope of answering)

Let's get this straight, as I think there are others who think may they are arguing on your side; you are talking specifically about a Deist god, who created the universe and then did nothing else. You are saying that we cannot say he does not exist, merely because of the question his existence may answer?

 

[Mobyseven]

Religion doesn't function like this, don't you know? The people don't make a scientific claim. Or do you know a science paper that published such claim?

So long as religions make claims about the world, they are operating within the realm of science. Science doesn't care much about respecting superstition and belief, as well it shouldn't.

That the religious believe that their pet beliefs should be beyond criticism is arrogant and hypocritical.

 

[BillyJoe]

In that case you should have no trouble listing the 'ultimate questions of our existence'

Goddamn, has everyone got defective hearing around here.
Okay, then, here they are again.

How do get something from nothing? or
How do you explain time/space without beginning?

Remember them?
No, I don;t suppose you do.

...and the answers to these questions, should you?

First show me where I stated I have the answers.
Then explain to me how my knowing the answers or not is even relevant in the context of this discussion.

I'm not the one claiming to have all the answers and stating with all confidence (let's put it out there on its own):

"THERE IS NO GOD"

I do not know how many times it has to be repeated that science is not about immediately knowing all the answers.

Except, apparently:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

There are scientists out there who are at this very minute doing work on explaining the creation of the universe, just because right now we don't have an explanation does not mean we never will.

And, if we don't have the answer right now, then how can you right now state, with puffed up confidence:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

And as a second note for the part in brackets, what proof is offered up to support the claim that god created the universe?

None. I haven't said otherwise.

If there is no proof, then god is as useless as my atom-fairy - an undetectable being that in reality explains nothing!

See my previous answer on this point.

And similarly, why should I bother about god when there is no evidence that god actually does or did anything?

Because the ultimate questions he is posited to answer, have not (yet) been resolved

Burden. Of. Proof. Those are the three most important words you may ever learn, so please, please learn what they mean soon!

Ditto for your claim:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

Quite frankly I find your assigning one imaginary being more legitimacy than another imaginary being childish and silly - it seems to be little more than Pascal's Wager hiding in a veil of obfuscation: "You should assign greater legitimacy to god than to fairies, because god can be used to explain life's great mysteries, while fairies are just cute."

See previous answer.
Pascal's Wager? - please explain the relevance to this discussion.

It's not exactly Pascal, but it's close. Let's call it a Pascalesque Wager.

I see you've begun to catch yourself out now.
Anyway let's not.
You've already had trouble enough with Ockhamesque Razor.

Consider the following two equations, two definitions for the newton SI unit of force:

N = (kg x m)/s^2​

...and...​

N = ((kg x m)/s^2) + (0 x A)​

As you can see, the two equations are actually identical. In the second equation, however, we have introduced the ampere into the definition of a newton. How did we do this? Simple! We just multiply it by zero and then add the result to the original equation.

Obviously the ampere in the second equation is superfluous - it is what one might call an unnecessary entity (in the context of this equation).

As such, it is far easier to simply dismiss the ampere from the equation entirely! Certainly one could keep the ampere in the equation, but it adds nothing to the explanatory power of the definition. God is like the ampere in that second equation: Certainly we could include him in our theories, but he wouldn't have any function in the context of science. Since we don't need god, we can dismiss him from the 'equation' as it were. That is where Occam's razor comes into play.

Isn't it interesting that the ampere is dismissed but still exists.
Isn't it interesting that the deist god is dismissed but could still exist.
I'm not claiming victory here, though, you just have a bad analogy.

You do. You are still failing to grasp the concept of burden of proof here.

I understand "burden of proof".

A person who states, "There is no god," is not making a positive claim, they are simply demonstrating a lack of belief in god. The burden of proof does not fall upon them, because it is a logical impossibility for them to prove their statement

Just because a person who says:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

has no "burden of proof" (because it is impossible for them to prove their statement), does not mean that they are able to say it with impunity. Instead, the very fact that it is impossible to prove is the very reason they should not be saying it.

- they no more have to 'prove' that god does not exist than they have to prove that invisible underwear gnomes that sneak into the Clinton residence at night and play Monopoly in the delicates draw do not exist!

Leave the poor gnomes alone already.
(meaning: see previous reply)

This does not mean that one cannot say, "There is no god." "There is no god," is in fact the rational stance to take in the absence of evidence - the burden of proof lies with the believers to prove that god does exist.

The "burden of proof" lies with the believers (though they won't accept it as a burden of proof, because they accept it as a article of faith - yes, I have read Herzblut's reply, incase you;re wondering).
Your burden, should you choose to accept it, is to refrain from saying:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

Quote where I used Occam's razor to say, "There is no god"
You cannot, because that's not what I said. Occam's razor is used to demonstrate that god in unnecessary. Not that god does not exist.

You have said the burden of proof is on the believers who say "There is a god". Because there is no proof for the claim "There is a god", you feel entitled to say that god is unecessary and that entitles you to say:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

You have therefore used Ockham's Razor to say "There is no god"

The statement, "There is no god," comes from the simple fact that there is no evidence that god exists. Until evidence to the contrary is provided, there is no reason to doubt the statement, "There is no god,"

And if, at a later date, evidence for god is found, then your statement:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

will be proven wrong.
Doesn't that give you just a bit of a hint that your statement is misplaced?

Evidence?

Really there is no more appropriate response than that.

But, anyway, for your benefit, when I said the deist god is ever existing and created everything else, I was giving you a damn DEFINITION.
(Well it wasn't you, it was DTL, so perhaps you'd be better off leaving him to give his own replies.)

"There is no god," is a negative claim. One cannot prove a negative. Ergo, one cannot prove evidence for a negative claim. This does not mean that one cannot assert a negative claim, because a negative claim is falsifiable, whereas a positive claim is not. The negative claim is heuristic, whereas the positive claim is not. The negative claim allows for the fact that it may be wrong, the positive claim does not. This is why the burden of proof lies on the positive claimant, and not the negative claimant.

""There is no god," is a negative claim."
"The negative claim allows for the fact that it may be wrong"

Therefore when you say:

"THERE IS NO GOD"

You are allowing for the fact that it may be wrong???
Just read that statement again

"THERE IS NO GOD"
"THERE IS NO GOD"
"THERE IS NO GOD"
"THERE IS NO GOD"

I don't get it.
Where, in that statement is the allowance that it may be wrong.
Converstional convention?

Why is it that the most ignorant people claim victory in a thread where they refuse to learn anything and just repeat the same bunk arguments over and over again? Are you employing this as a rhetorical device, or are you actually blind to your own shortcomings here?

Again you'd better leave DTL to supply his own answers.
He might have recognised the humour, who knows?
He seemed to be backing off a little from his dogamtic statement "There is no god", modifying it to "I guess it's ok to accept the non-existence of deistic god". I jumped on this minor "victory". I'm sure it's illusory though, in case you're wondering.

I think I'm about done with you, quite frankly. When somebody declares victory in their own eyes, they're usually beyond helping. I'm sorry I wasted my time here with you.

See above re "declaring victory".
And don't be sorry - the circle jerk got off good and proper.

But seriously, discussion like this are never a waste of time.
Who knows, I may remember this thread in a while and realise you were right all along.
It has happened before on a number of occasions.

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Paulhoff]

Hey, swallow it. Thanks to your ample experience you're very good in making up crap.

But I'm better, if I want!

Living around magical people all my life, it is easy to come up with this BS, I heard it all the time here in the States. But you my delusional friend are anything but better then me, since you seem to be defending a magical cause. Because defending something that doesn’t need, doesn’t find, and changes facts that show it to be wrong, because it needs not to be base on facts, is being nothing but being delusional and a magical thinker.

Paul

 

[Herzblut]

So long as religions make claims about the world, they are operating within the realm of science.

Don't distract. Explain why the statement "(I believe) God exists" is within the realm of science.

Also explain why the following "claims about the world" are within the realm of science:

- "Murder is wrong"
- "I could have been a rock star"
- "Chocolate ice-scream tastes better than vanilla ice-scream"

Science doesn't care much about respecting superstition and belief, as well it shouldn't.

Please provide evidence to what science cares about or respects. Explain what science has to do with care and respect in the first place.

Justify why science should follow your advices.

What do you mean by science? Human beings can care but not the entity called science. Please explain.

That the religious believe that their pet beliefs should be beyond criticism is arrogant and hypocritical.

Why did you all of a sudden jump to normative statements about who and what should do? Should..should..should..

Please give scientific evidence to all of your normative statements!

Especially explain why anybody should give a **** about what you think he/she should do.

Herzblut

 

[Paulhoff]

In god billions of people believe, in unicorns maybe 20.

Billions of people believe in billions of different so-called gods, no two people will have the same idea of a so-called god, just look how many different church are in the States. Billions of people believed that earth was (and many still do) the center to all things.

Paul

 

[D'rok]

[mock serious tone]
Do you have a hearing disorder or something?
The deist god is ever existing and created everything else.
How many goddamn times do I need to tell you that?
[/mock serious tone]

The only part of that claim that is a property is eternal existence. So now we have an imaginary being that has the property of eternal existence combined with the claim that this being created the universe. How will you provide evidence for this being? How is this being's existence more worthy of belief than that of unicorns? How is disbelief in this being's existence less reasonable than disbelief in the existence of unicorns?

The deist god is the demiurge. He has your "special attribute". Zooterkin asked why you would accept the statement "there are no unicorns" but not "there is no god". You answered that it is because god has this "special attribute" and unicorns do not. This "special attribute" thus somehow makes the ridiculous fantasy of god more believable then the ridiculous fantasy of unicorns.

Do you understand the question now?

I have won this debate.

Sigh. If you would slow down a little and try to think before you type, you'll see that this particular passage was discussing your disbelief in unicorns, not my disbelief in god. The suggestion was that according to your criteria for disbelief that you stated in the passage to which I was replying (lack of "doing anything" or "answering ultimate questions") it is OK to accept the non-existence of deist god in the same way that you accept the non-existence of unicorns.

Your response was that deist god has the property of "eternal existence" and that he created the universe. So by attaching your "special attribute" you made god more fantastical but somehow, in your eyes, more believable, or, at least, less legitimately subject to disbelief than unicorns.

But don't worry, you are a winner too.
"There is no god" is now "It's ok to accept the non-existence of god".
When you learn something new, you are a winner. Well done.

Double sigh. My position has not changed. There is no god. Has my explanation above cleared things up for you?

Nonetheless, let's parse this sentence a little: "It's ok to accept the non-existence of god." According to this sentence, god does not exist - i.e., there is no god. Or do you have an alternate interpretation of "the non-existence of god"? The point of the sentence is to assure the reader that accepting this fact (god's non-existence) is perfectly alright, just as it is perfectly alright to accept the fact of the non-existence of unicorns.

Well, then you would have to prove
- that the demiurge is a unicorn.
- that faith in this unicorn answers the ultimate questions of our existence.

I can't. But it is funny how my god is subject to positive claims for evidence before you will believe, but deist god is not.

I hope you remember from your assiduous reading of this thread that I have not, repeat not (because I'm going to have to repeat it anyway so I may as well do it now), made these claims for the deistic god.

You have not made the claim that deist god has the "special attribute"? I'm afraid you are contradicting yourself quite extraordinarily.

Where have I spoken about legitimacy?
All I am saying is that you cannot say "There is no god" because you have no proof that god does not exist (and we all agree, don't we, that proof of the non-existance of god is impossible)

According to you in your response to zooterkin:
Unicorns = legitimate disbelief
God = illegitimate disbelief

Where have I asked you to be "less sceptical"?
I want you to be more sceptical.

You have asked me to be less sceptical in god than I am in unicorns because the god has the "special attribute". This is reason to be more sceptical about the existence of god, not less.

I want you to provide evidence for your claim that "There is no god".
If you don't have that evidence I want you to refrain from making that claim.

Sigh. "There is no god" is not a positive claim, it is a negative one. In the absence of evidence for the positive claim "there is a god", I am perfectly justified in making the negative claim. This is your stumbling block in this whole fiasco of a thread.

 

[D'rok]

In god billions of people believe, in unicorns maybe 20.

Please explain this empirical fact in relation to your assertion that both share exactly the same attributes.

Argumentum ad populum. The relative popularity of belief in god or unicorns has no relation to the truth of claims about their attributes.

Having said that, the only attribute I assign to both god and unicorns is non-existence.

I guess it's ok to accept the existence of death. I don't accept anything else without good reason. You telling me what to accept is no reason at all.

Lost in translation. I was pointing out a logical consequence of BillyJoe's statements, not telling you what to accept.

Go out to the streets and market places and convince the people.

Ask the people.

Popularity is not truth-functional.

We? Who is "we"? Who entitled you to tell people what they should do? First of all: exclude me! I speak for myself and don't take any orders from you. That includes what I should accept or not, as already said.

Herzblut

Lost in translation, as already said. All I was doing was extrapolating from BillyJoe's claims. I was not giving any orders.

 

[Herzblut]

Argumentum ad populum. The relative popularity of belief in god or unicorns has no relation to the truth of claims about their attributes.

I didn't say that. I questioned your approach to declare god and unicorns as identical against empirical evidence about their effect on humans. Please explain the plausibility of your approach.

Having said that, the only attribute I assign to both god and unicorns is non-existence.

Do so. Then please explain the empirical difference in number of adherents. It's an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? Or do you say you don't care? Why are you discussing religion then? Just for bashing, without real interest? That's nothing but poor, man.

Popularity is not truth-functional.

No? Then how do you define "truth" independent from human notions?

I was not giving any orders.

Good. Sorry, when I misunderstood.

Herzblut

 

[D'rok]

I didn't say that. I questioned your approach to declare god and unicorns as identical against empirical evidence about their effect on humans. Please explain the plausibility of your approach.

My contention is that a belief in unicorns-as-god would have the same salutary effect on humans as does belief in god. Belief is the culprit, not the entity believed in.

Do so. Then please explain the empirical difference in number of adherents. It's an interesting phenomenon, isn't it? Or do you say you don't care? Why are you discussing religion then? Just for bashing, without real interest? That's nothing but poor, man.

It certainly is an interesting phenomenon. I find the psychological need for supernatural explanations to be quite fascinating. I'm even willing to entertain the idea that, as an artifact of self-consciousness, god-belief is socially useful. However, none of that has any effect on the truth of the existence of god.

No? Then how do you define "truth" independent from human notions?

The answer to your question is embedded in your question. I would define truth as that that holds regardless of human notions. In other words, the "truth" of the existence of god is independent of the belief in the existence of god.

The difficulty is separating human "notions" of truth from the empirical reality of truth. This is where the evidence-based paradigm for belief comes in. But it is an ongoing and possibly never-ending process where "truth" must constantly be re-evaluated in light of new evidence.

So, in a sense, truth is never independent of human notions. But the evidence-based paradigm is the best we can do. Faith-based belief may be socially useful, but it is not useful for making "true" statements about the universe.