Does God exist? (17 Viewers)

[braintic]

I don't think it does by necessity point to a specific version per-say.

Per-say?? Surely you mean per se.

 

[dan964]

Per-say?? Surely you mean per se.

yes

 

[Drsoccerball]

Statistical uncertainty acts against your service, because there will always be a roughly uniform distribution of the entire spectrum of morality.

Just want to say this since I'm very busy at the moment. You claim that my belief doesn't allow society to benefit and that your disbelief benefits society? I say this not for bragging purposes since my reward is only with God, but My friends and I have established over 6 wells in poor countries over the past year raised money (35k) all year to refurbish an orphanage in Africa, Raised a lot of money for blind schools in 3rd world countries, feed a large amount of people in third world countries each year, provide free education for alot of people around the world,(We funded some poor schools technology but it was in aus)funded this and many more which I didn't mention and this was just in the past year... And all of us did this for the sake of God and religion. How do you benefit society with your unbelief?

 

[Paradoxica]

Just want to say this since I'm very busy at the moment. You claim that my belief doesn't allow society to benefit and that your disbelief benefits society? I say this not for bragging purposes since my reward is only with God, but My friends and I have established over 6 wells in poor countries over the past year raised money (35k) all year to refurbish an orphanage in Africa, Raised a lot of money for blind schools in 3rd world countries, feed a large amount of people in third world countries each year, provide free education for alot of people around the world,(We funded some poor schools technology but it was in aus)funded this and many more which I didn't mention and this was just in the past year... And all of us did this for the sake of God and religion. How do you benefit society with your unbelief?

I don't participate in charitable activities, in case you haven't noticed by now. I have my own mental problems to deal with, there is no time for helping the external world. Priorities.

 

[Drsoccerball]

I don't participate in charitable activities, in case you haven't noticed by now. I have my own mental problems to deal with, there is no time for helping the external world. Priorities.

So who's benefiting society more ?

 

[Paradoxica]

So who's benefiting society more ?

Extending that logic, I may as well not exist.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Extending that logic, I may as well not exist.

I didn't say that... I was just responding to your post. You shouldn't feel like that

 

[Paradoxica]

I didn't say that... I was just responding to your post. You shouldn't feel like that

You don't understand the sheer depth of this emotional chasm.

And you never will.

You think you have seen it all, but as you said, one year.

I've been in it for longer and deeper than you ever will.

Don't assume your experiences are sufficient to draw connections.

And also, I don't have to be actively instilling change to be a benefit to society.

Mathematics is the Queen of the Sciences, after all.

If a person is more valuable for contributing to society more, then you accept a system of ethics where the relative value of everyone is impossible to determine.

I've been through this argument in my own head, don't begin to try defending that belief now.

 

[Drsoccerball]

You don't understand the sheer depth of this emotional chasm.

And you never will.

You think you have seen it all, but as you said, one year.

I've been in it for longer and deeper than you ever will.

Don't assume your experiences are sufficient to draw connections.

And also, I don't have to be actively instilling change to be a benefit to society.

Mathematics is the Queen of the Sciences, after all.

If a person is more valuable for contributing to society more, then you accept a system of ethics where the relative value of everyone is impossible to determine.

I've been through this argument in my own head, don't begin to try defending that belief now.

Not sure what you're talking about... How are you a benefit to society though? I know this is a tough thing to say but if you would to die tomorrow would the world even notice ? (Not specifically talking to you, I think this about myself as well)

 

[Paradoxica]

Not sure what you're talking about... How are you a benefit to society though? I know this is a tough thing to say but if you would to die tomorrow would the world even notice ? (Not specifically talking to you, I think this about myself as well)

No, that is reasonable.

However, I upscale the question to the entire universe, because the existentialist insight from cosmic insignificance makes the precious life that exists on this planet something worth keeping alive.

But, it is what it is, the universe is apathetic to our petty squabbling... It couldn't care less about several billion barely out of the tree apes.

Solar storms and asteroid strikes... I wonder if we'll wipe ourselves out before the universe does.

*continues rambling*

 

[nerdasdasd]

Not sure what you're talking about... How are you a benefit to society though? I know this is a tough thing to say but if you would to die tomorrow would the world even notice ? (Not specifically talking to you, I think this about myself as well)

MAybe family would.

Maybe friends would.

Does it matter if the world notices?

 

[Paradoxica]

Briefly, he is saying that one cannot propose a universal, standardized and absolute system in which the contribution of each individual to society is quantifiable. Extending this line of thinking a tad bit further, you must appreciate that it is wrong to use this as a measure of anything. The standards in your proposed system are just that, yours: molded by your own predispositions and experiences. If you disagree with him that is fine. However, you are entering a position that is incomparably more philosophically complex than you can imagine or have given thought for, and you have not yet demonstrated anything to support your standing.

In saying that, I wouldn't label your standards arbitrary as mentioned. Arbitrary is too strong of a word. They may obviously be dismissed as false and thus labelled as such -- or perhaps labelled not sound or ambiguous -- but doing so shows they have a grounding in reality, to evidence (however contradicting they may be) and a context. It feels like I'm being overly fastidious (I can't help this, but this is not necessarily a bad thing) but I think an important distinction should be made here between arbitrary and false.

Interrupting myself from explaining the difference between arbitrary and false/ambiguous/not sound, me pointing out the need for a distinction between arbitrary and false is not itself a sound* thing to do because it implies all other terms used in this conversation beforehand are interpreted by the same semantic and pragmatic competence. This is obviously not true since the reading a few pages back you can see the battle of semantics occurring. The most rational thing to do would be to establish a set of agreed terms to which we can use to draw conclusions (given the direction of this discussion). Since our ability in semantic and pragmatic interpretations are different, everything discussed thereafter is ambiguous. But alas, this is the typical for internet debate and our discussions are limited as such.

*if my goal was sympathetic to the philosophical discourse in this thread

Thankyou for giving a brief on the philosophical context I am attempting to pinpoint. And as for semantics, well, it's the end without a means and serves only to confound everyone involved, so we should tread lightly.

 

[Phantexceed]

If there is no proof that something exist, does it mean that it does not exist? Or it neither exist nor doesn't exist?

 

[Paradoxica]

If there is no proof that something exist, does it mean that it does not exist? Or it neither exist nor doesn't exist?

Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence, but neither is it Evidence of Presence.

 

[porcupinetree]

If there is no proof that something exist, does it mean that it does not exist? Or it neither exist nor doesn't exist?

The amount of evidence for a particular thing does not change whether or not that thing exists, rather, it can give us insight into predicting the probability of that thing existing. The existence of a thing is independent of the amount of evidence that we perceive its existence to have.

And what do you mean by 'proof' anyhow? Would you expect there to be airtight 'proof' (in the mathematical sense) of the existence of, God, per se?

 

[dan964]

So who's benefiting society more ?

Sociological arguments fail miserably, even in some religions, you don't follow God (or at least shouldn't) because he will fix your marriage.

And secondly, rather than end up in a whole which religion is better argument, which this statement is a play on (if you consider ideologies more broadly), then I'd rather not answer that question.

 

[dan964]

Just want to say this since I'm very busy at the moment. You claim that my belief doesn't allow society to benefit and that your disbelief benefits society? I say this not for bragging purposes since my reward is only with God, but My friends and I have established over 6 wells in poor countries over the past year raised money (35k) all year to refurbish an orphanage in Africa, Raised a lot of money for blind schools in 3rd world countries, feed a large amount of people in third world countries each year, provide free education for alot of people around the world,(We funded some poor schools technology but it was in aus)funded this and many more which I didn't mention and this was just in the past year... And all of us did this for the sake of God and religion. How do you benefit society with your unbelief?

Who is the 'us'? (more of a curiosity)

I am sorry but there are many people who have done similar, who have been from different faiths, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, secular (atheists too). Contribution to society is not something that be easily measured, if at all; generally speaking.

I will comment that people do all sorts of things in the name of God and religion; or likewise in the name of other non-religious ideologies (e.g. communism, atheism, pragmatism), doesn't prove that the religion/ideology is true or worth following. All it proves is that you are somewhat consistent with your interpretation of what that religion teaches.

I understand that you are trying to disprove the baseless claim implied; and show instead that one can have faith and have a positive impact on society, at least in a range of different opinions...

With the same measure you use it will be measured to you...

 

[dan964]

If there is no proof that something exist, does it mean that it does not exist? Or it neither exist nor doesn't exist?

I don't know what I am getting by asking this:
But do you think you can prove that the universe exists? Or do you just assume it exists with sufficient evidence (or in the case of some people, not exist?)

But even then, as others have mentioned, the lack of a definitive proof does not mean there isn't:
(i) evidence of existence
(ii) existence of such thing.

 

[Phantexceed]

So others just turn to figments of their imagination and subjects derived from myths, lets say, for reassurance and consolation.


If god did exist, why would they allow for the occurrences of cruelty in the world, such as religious warfare and genocide?

 

[Phantexceed]

The amount of evidence for a particular thing does not change whether or not that thing exists, rather, it can give us insight into predicting the probability of that thing existing. The existence of a thing is independent of the amount of evidence that we perceive its existence to have.

And what do you mean by 'proof' anyhow? Would you expect there to be airtight 'proof' (in the mathematical sense) of the existence of, God, per se?

Well if there is no physical evidence nor mathematical proof - even if it does allow us to make predictions and create ideas, does this mean that god doesn't exist, or that we have yet to find evidence to prove of their existence?