Theism/atheism debates

How do you know that?

  1. If god had to comply with human logic he wouldnā€™t be god, he would be human.

  2. Existence implies non-existence just as dark implies light and short implies long. Thus, saying that god does exist is the same as saying that god does not exist. They are merely human categories that donā€™t have to apply to god.

Why? Maybe the rules of logic are universal and apply to gods as well as humans. How would you know?

In other words, if thatā€™s the case, how can we know anything about gods at all?

Do gods do anything that can be perceived by us, at all?

  1. Existence implies non-existence just as dark implies light and short implies. Thus, saying that god does exist is the same as saying that god does not exist. They are merely human categories that donā€™t have to apply to god.

This sounds like a god that has no effect on us and that we can know nothing about. Itā€™s the same as saying we have no idea, which is fine as far as Iā€™m concerned, as we obviously have no idea why the universe exists at all, when it clearly does within the limits of our perceptive capacity.

1 Like

We canā€™t grasp god by our rational faculties. God, the ultimate reality or non-reality, can only be directly experienced. Thatā€™s what religion is all about. You can call it enlightenment in Buddhism or mystic experience in Christianity. You may also have a profound experience when listening to music or looking at art, etc. A scientist may have an intuition that leads to a new discovery. The intuition comes before it coagulates into rational thought. But the coagulated thought wonā€™t get to back to where it came.

If you can experience it, how can you not make any statement as to whether it exists or not. That makes no sense. Anything that far outside our understanding canā€™t have such a direct relevance to us, and may as well not exist essentially.

You could also just call that a profound experience when looking at art, or an intuition, or a mystic experience. These things are easily explainable as manifestations of our ordinary brain processes.

Thereā€™s no way science can explain religious experience by brain function nor can science explain life or the existence or non-existence of the universe.

Why not? The brain does all kinds of seemingly strange things. If religious experience is just something perceived by the individual mind than you really have nothing at all.

The question of life is trivial next to the existence or non-existence of the universe. Life is just an arrangement of atoms. Science has gone a very long way towards understanding it. Where the atoms came from is another question. Science certainly cannot explain it currently, but that doesnā€™t mean it never will be able to. Even if the possibility of that explanation seems infinitely remote, at least itā€™s trying. ā€œReligionā€ canā€™t explain it currently either, and doesnā€™t have any hopes of doing so at all as far as I can see.

Science cannot explain reality. Only religion can do that. Itā€™s a fallacy to believe that science gradually accumulates knowledge until one day in the distant future we have a complete picture of the universe. I wonā€™t happen. The universe or god is infinite, what is infinite cannot be contained in the finite rational mind of humans.

In fact, science has reached a limit beyond which it cannot go without resorting to religious concepts. Quantum physicists who have delved into the world of subatomic particles have discovered that matter does not exist just like Mahayana Buddhism discovered emptiness (sunyata) nearly 2,000 years ago. To them matter is coagulated mind reminiscent of the mind-only school (Yogacara) of Buddhism and reality is potentiality.

You keep saying religion can provide some form of understanding of something that our minds canā€™t understand. Now that is a fallacy. You couldnā€™t even hope to explain the existence or non-existence of god on this basis, by your own admission. How you hope to explain reality by it is beyond me. If thatā€™s beyond my understanding, well Iā€™ll just recognize the limits of my understanding and leave it at that.

Your second paragraph is pure claptrap in my opinion. Scientists are finding out more and more the more they look. We have tools for understanding the nature of matter that couldnā€™t even have been imagined just one hundred years ago. Scientists are finding out their previous assumptions are false in many cases, but they are also finding out new things. Iā€™ll stick with the scientists and a rational examination of our universe within the limits of our understanding.

1 Like

Donā€™t judge so hastily: Buddhism and Quantum Physics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5ZOwNK6n9U

"Panel debate with William Lane Craig, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Wilson, Lee Strobel, and Jim Dennison. Sponsored by The Christian Book Expo and Christianity Today.

  • March 1, 2009"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoNxbSPKMag

1 Like

Some cool podcasts been listening to lately

Conversational one-man podcast, seems like a pretty cool guy with a sense of humor

Logic-based rebuttals to various Youtube videos, most of which are pretty weak, but some interesting ones mixed in

Time for a little gravedigging.

While wasting time on YouTube, I found that Jordan Peterson is quite an interesting guy (especially if youā€™re viewing from the angle of a middle-aged, reactionary old grouch). He does an intriguing lecture on the subject of emergent morality that both theists and atheists might be interested in:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI

His basic point - which is one I raised a while ago - is that people who grew up in a culture which has been steeped in Judeo-Christian morality for several centuries cannot conceive of an equally-rational culture that rejects the views they think of as normal human instinct. He points out that God doesnā€™t actually need to exist; all that matters is that the idea of God (as the source of moral transcendence) is created and propagated within a culture.

1 Like

He really is!

Heā€™s been more interesting than here though. If the foundation for your argument is a passage from a novel, you may have some problems :slight_smile:

Itā€™s a little unclear what arguments heā€™s speaking against. He mentions Harris and Dawkins, and that they seem to think eliminating religion will result in some kind of rationality taking hold in its stead. Very fair, and itā€™s hard to argue against that point in my opinion.

He starts leaping all over then. Itā€™s equally rational to be some kind of psychopathic ā€œrationalā€ actor taking whatever they want. Dawkins and Harris came from a world based on presuppositions and their ethics are a consequence of the history of religion and mythology. A transcendent morality underlies Western culture, and you canā€™t remove it without leaving the culture in mid-air without any support.

Thatā€™s just all over the place, and none of it is supported. Thereā€™s all kind of problems with those assertions, but Iā€™ll bring Hitchens in. Thereā€™s no point to responding to this kind of stuff. Maybe thereā€™s more to his talk, I donā€™t know. I was meaning actually to watch some of his talks with Harris over the holiday; maybe that will give a bit more to go on.

Did he say quite that? Never mind. Itā€™s hard to say in my opinion. Human instinct lies much deeper than the level of culture. Culture is important too, but ā€œJudeo-Christian cultureā€ā€“I always get a kick out of thatā€“has a couple of big problems here. It and its various offshoots made themselves the only game in town, state and continent by hook or by crook. The resulting sample size of 1 makes it impossible to say what itā€™s responsible for and what itā€™s not, and itā€™s highly dubious moral history on many levels makes its claim to be the founding source of rationality highly questionable. Certainly Christianity has had an influence, but the history of our rational culture is far more complicated. Various portions of the former Christian Realm are leaving the fold, and do not seem to be suffering from a loss of rationality, or more relevantly, any kind of moral shock as a result of the idea of God falling out of propagation. I agree that religion is important to people and plays an important role in society, and IMO always will. But itā€™s far from the only underpinning of rationality or morality either on a social or individual level, and claims that everything is owed to religion and its influence on thought strike me as unfounded and arrogant.

He points out that God doesnā€™t actually need to exist; all that matters is that the idea of God (as the source of moral transcendence) is created and propagated within a culture.

Thereā€™s something to that, though the importance of the idea is overstated. Again I donā€™t think the idea can simply pass away and be replaced by some kind of pure rationalityā€“thatā€™s not who we are. Then again, people are adaptable and other social constructs could take its place. He doesnā€™t have much cause to rail against Dawkins, Harris et al in that sense. The idea of God isnā€™t written in stone anywhere in our makeup, and itā€™s track record doesnā€™t suggest that it deserves that kind of respect. Nothing will be replacing it without the social force behind it to make it a viable alternate proposition.

From rational to completely irrational ā€¦sigh . When will people just stop this stupidity .

Thereā€™s a strong argument for atheism but I find many atheist donā€™t really even know them. They just think religion is nonsense and group all religions together.

Iā€™ve always been in between believing in the Christian faith and deistism to atheism. But I seem to act in a way that reflects that the judeo Christian god exists so I guess Iā€™m a believer because my actions are such. And I actually found Christianity on my own. My family are mostly Buddhists and Taoists. Christianity is the only religion I found that gives answers to my questions. My only doubt is if the resurrection.

And I also despise pluralism.

I wished more atheist would actually be more educated, most just think all religions are equally ā€œstupidā€ to them. The ignorant ones refusal to consider the possibility that a higher being exist is frustrating.

I also think the idea that science and religion are mutually exclusive and compatible to be ridiculous. And that the idea that religious people are not educated or scientific.

I love Peterson. I just ordered his book after he wreck Cathy Newman.

Logic is reasoning based on truth. This doesnā€™t make sense, God may have reasons that we canā€™t grasp with our finite mind but there isnā€™t a different set of truths for god and humans.

What? Of course science can explain reality.