I didn't say they couldn't. I said their existence is proof of God(s). — Prishon

According to this argument... Why the universe is not a proof of human's awareness?

argument — javi2541997

"Why the universe is not a proof of human's awareness?"

Human awareness indeed shapes the universe. It shapes the perception of it. There is not a true shape to create a true perception. Perception and reality are interdependent. But this whole process of percept and shape is a process that is part of a universe created by god(s).They didn't shape the world in a fixed form. Even the Aboriginal dreamtime is a part of it. The big question is though where the gods themselves came from and if we really need them .I don't.

The big question is though where the gods themselves came from and if we really need them .I don't. — Prishon

No, this is the big question here: is there really anything considered as God (s)?
I don't know if "we need them" I think as you I guess not but with this argument we lose faith in humanity and their behavior. To be honest, I understand it because I lost it too but I do not need "Gods" to explain what is going on.

t is impossible to be an atheist but in the other hand, it is "possible" to believe in something you do not have proofs about as God. — javi2541997

To be a genuine atheist, one has to be silent, when asked "Does God exist?"

Sorry if my reply was not appropriate. I will not involve in debates nobody asked me to again.

Sorry if my reply was not appropriate. I will not involve in debates nobody asked me to again. — javi2541997

Your reply was appropriate. Don't feel like that.
I was just trying to elaborate more in Wittgensteinian manner on the argument. :)

How do you make decisions when you don't know (something)?

Say you don't know whether it'll rain tomorrow or not. How will you plan for the morrow? You have to assume either that it'll rain or not, right?
— TheMadFool

There’s no final decision either way to be made here. As you say, either it’ll rain or not. You can plan for only one outcome, taking a calculated risk, or choose to include both possibilities in your plans. And all of this regardless of what you believe, which could well change every time you ask yourself the question, or check the forecast. Why lock yourself into a plan until you have to? — Possibility

It seems I've failed to make my point. If you don't know whether it'll rain or not tomorrow, what do you plan to do the coming day with your umbrella or Mackintosh?

It is impossible to be an atheist. Because, to say that God does not exist, one must know what God is. If one knows about God, then God must exist, because one cannot know what does not exist. — Corvus

Nonsense. You "know about" Sauron, don't you? And "about" Klingons too? Also "about" Zeus? (vide Meinong.) Every (mono)theist "knows about" at least one other g/G she doesn't worship which she "knows does not exist". I only have to disbelieve in any g/G which you believers say you believe in and thereby define as real. So define your g/G (i.e. select a deity actually worshipped by any religious tradition), claim it is more-than-imaginary, and I will show that that claim is untrue (by falsifying whatever its predicates entail) or show that that claim is incoherent (i.e. too vague or self-inconsistent to make sense as a claim); and therefore demonstrate that such a g/G is only an empty name and an untrue belief.

To be a genuine atheist, one has to be silent, when asked "Does God exist?" — Corvus

On the contrary (pace Tillich), a freethinker replies If there is sufficient evidence to rule out that nature alone suffices to account for nature itself, then g/G, or something like it, must exist. According to apophatic theology, however, "one has to be silent" iff g/G exists.

understand — javi2541997

"is there really anything considered as God (s)?"

Yes there is. Really.Is there really only the universe we live in? No. There are gods, dreamtimes, walhallas, quarks, leptons, curved spacetimes, Calabi-Yau manifolds, nirvana, witches, shamans, ghosts, vampires, dadaist programmes, field fluctuations and virtual particles, art, poetry, photographs, a zillion languages (though that number is decreasing rapidly to be taken over by English and math, the allegded native tongue of Nature), Bessel functions, hidden variables, untrue Higgs mechanisms, rishons, lies and deceptions, Tavistock manufactured shocks, deliriums, drugs, visions, dreams, jealousy, parables, allegories, computers, quantum fields of gold, musical trance, false flags and black ops, conspiracies, trains of thoughts, solitude, moonlight drives, strange little girls, Siouxies, Aboriginals, Hopi (though less and less, psychoses (maybe drug induced), euphoria, fears, mosques, temples, proofs, etceteras, and many more. If that is no proof of god, I don't know what is. What is a proof of god? An actual encounter? Who would believe you? Mozes spoke to him. Received messages. There were even mass revelations. But normally they don't show themselves. Especially in these days. They showed themselves to the old Greek untill the One-entity, this monster of Xenphanes replaced them. Still around today...

Probably you can experience this:

An actual encounter? — Prishon

Taking that: :death:

deliriums, drugs, visions, — Prishon

drugs — Prishon

You think Mozes was high on dope?

So define your g/G (i.e. select a deity actually worshipped by any religious tradition), claim it is more-than-imaginary, — 180 Proof

I don't know anything about God you listed. I was just demonstrating the logical argument, and it proved with the conclusive truth. It could have been about any object X. It was just a logical argument.

The fact that you have written down "God" means that you are a theist according to the conclusion of the argument. Even if you say that you will try to disprove it as empty concept, you have already proved that you know it exists by writing the word "God".

If you really did not believe it existed, then there would be nothing to say about it, even the name.

Your "logic" is merely semantics. Mention is not affirmation. And I notice you completely avoid how one can address another's claim (e.g. "God exists") without assenting to that claim. Must be you're not educated enough to have been acquainted with Aristotle's maxim

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

No need to thank me, Corvus, it's par for the course.

Your "logic" is merely semantics. Mention is not affirmation. And I notice you completely avoid how one can address another's claim (e.g. "God exists") without assenting to that claim. Must be you're not educated enough to have been acquainted with Aristotle's maxim
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
No need to thank me, Corvus, it's par for the course. — 180 Proof

It is so simple. Don't try to complicate it.

You believe something, then you must know it. You cannot believe something that you don't know OK?
For you to know something, the thing must exist. You cannot know something not existing.
Therefore even if you say I believe that X doesn't exist, you are admitting X exists, when you utter the statement. You are contradicting yourself by uttering the statement.

My logic is semantic? All logic is semantic. Reason is semantic, and without language we are just zombies.

:roll:

:nerd:

existence — Deus

No. But it is a more cowardly position.

define — 180 Proof

You are a believer just as well. You believe they dont exist or dont bother. You believe that only a smaller part of the world is important for you. And rightly so. Realities are different. There is not one true and only reality.

I am not a "believer" just because I discuss a believer's deity in order to consider and then reject her ontic claims as untrue or incoherent; it does not follow from merely mentioning an idea that one believes it is true.

Must be you're not educated enough to have been acquainted with Aristotle's maxim:

'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.' — 180 Proof

Clearly, Prishon, you have the same problem as Corvis.

There is not one true and only reality. — Prishon

Tell me how you know this to be the case. :chin:

Better in what sense? I assume you mean "better" in the sense of being more rational in light of the available evidence, but maybe you mean "better" in the sense that one leads to a happier or more fulfilling life?

And what is rationally warranted may well (and very probably does) differ depending on what form of theistic god-claim we're talking about: are we talking about the god of evangelical Christianity, based on a literalist reading of the Christian Bible? The remote, impersonal god of deism, or some forms of philosophical theism? Pantheism? Something in between, or something else entirely? Its not a given that the answer will be the same in all cases.

I'd suggest that atheism is the more rationally warranted (i.e. more consistent with the evidence) wrt the creator-intervener God of popular Abrahamic monotheism (Christianity in particular), but agnosticism is more rationally warranted wrt more vague and abstract god-concepts posited by philosophers and theologians (i.e. Aristotle's First Mover, Spinoza, Kant, Tillich, etc etc) for which there is little empirical evidence either for or against.

It seems I've failed to make my point. If you don't know whether it'll rain or not tomorrow, what do you plan to do the coming day with your umbrella or Mackintosh? — TheMadFool

It seems so. Another poor analogy, I’m thinking.

I’ll take my umbrella with me, obviously. That doesn’t mean I’ll be upset if I don’t have cause to use it.

My point is that I fail to see the necessity of permanently locking in one belief or another. The only reason I can think of is that it renders my actions more predictable for others. There is an overall pattern to my actions in some areas of life that could be interpreted as a belief in God, and others that could be construed as atheism. But I don’t think the apparent contradiction is my problem, really.

If you come up with a better reason, let me know.

I’ll take my umbrella with me, obviously. — Possibility

So, not knowing whether it'll rain or not tomorrow means you'll take your umbrella.

What about if you know it'll rain tomorrow. You'll take your umbrella, right?

Being agnostic about tomorrow's precipitation status is the same as knowing tomorrow will be a rainy day. What's the point of being an agnostic then? After all, an rain-agnostic taking the umbrella is equivalent to assuming it'll rain and doing the same.

Another poor analogy, — Possibility

This isn't an analogy. It's a real-world example of how being agnostic won't cut it when it comes to decision-making.

My point is that I fail to see the necessity of permanently locking in one belief or another. The only reason I can think of is that it renders my actions more predictable for others. There is an overall pattern to my actions in some areas of life that could be interpreted as a belief in God, and others that could be construed as atheism. But I don’t think the apparent contradiction is my problem, really. — Possibility

:up: :ok:

So, not knowing whether it'll rain or not tomorrow means you'll take your umbrella.

What about if you know it'll rain tomorrow. You'll take your umbrella, right?

Being agnostic about tomorrow's precipitation status is the same as knowing tomorrow will be a rainy day. What's the point of being an agnostic then? After all, an rain-agnostic taking the umbrella is equivalent to assuming it'll rain and doing the same. — TheMadFool

Oversimplification, but I’ve come to expect that from you. It’s only ‘the same’ with regard to the specific decision to take or not take an umbrella with you.

This isn't an analogy. It's a real-world example of how being agnostic won't cut it when it comes to decision-making. — TheMadFool

Won’t cut what? Being agnostic is, by definition, not knowing. That doesn’t stop me from either acting or making decisions. We don’t act based on knowledge alone, nor do we act based only on belief systems. We relate knowledge, beliefs and ongoing sensory information (and lack thereof) to determine action in an ongoing predictive process, which includes (among other elements) a consideration of alternatives as well as how much time/effort/attention we have available before any decision may be irreversible.

Granted, being a theist/atheist would make some decisions seem easier to make, but are arguably less accurate. A stopped clock is correct twice a day; the rest of the time it’s subject to a variable degree of inaccuracy. It’s about how much inaccuracy you’re willing to overlook, I suppose.

I just no longer think the question definitively answered by atheists/theists is a useful one to ask. The useful question isn’t “do you believe it will rain tomorrow?” but rather “do you believe you should/will take an umbrella tomorrow?” That one I will have an answer for.

Oversimplification, but I’ve come to expect that from you. It’s only ‘the same’ with regard to the specific decision to take or not take an umbrella with you. — Possibility

Correct the scenario then - make it better, add/delete as it seems fit; remember, you have to be agnostic about some claim and make a decision based on that uncertainty, then compare that too how you would make the decision based on knowing i.e. you have to be certain about whatever it is that you're agnostic about.

The ball, I sense, is in your court, Possibility!

Clearly, Prishon, you have the same problem as Corvis. — 180 Proof

It sounds like you are rejecting logical argument. Philosophy devoid of logic? cannot be philosophy.

Correct the scenario then - make it better, add/delete as it seems fit; remember, you have to be agnostic about some claim and make a decision based on that uncertainty, then compare that too how you would make the decision based on knowing i.e. you have to be certain about whatever it is that you're agnostic about. — TheMadFool

Aye, there’s the rub. There is no way to be certain in making a decision without some degree of ignorance/exclusion. As I said, it’s about how much inaccuracy you’re willing to overlook.

Aye, there’s the rub. There is no way to be certain in making a decision without some degree of ignorance/exclusion. As I said, it’s about how much inaccuracy you’re willing to overlook. — Possibility

Assume, Possibility, let's go hog wild, you're totally uncertain, say God's existence is 50/50. Do you pray or not? Why?

Agnosticism is greater, because it's acceptable that one may be disinterested in the existence of God.

Theism is acceptable, as it's wholly acceptable that one has an interest in God.

Atheism? What's that. Theism doesn't preclude an interest in science or humanity.

Atheism doesn't seem to preclude an interest in dogma or fighting.

It's just the staunch belief that this one particular possibility can't, in any form, exist.

There is no way to be certain in making a decision without some degree of ignorance/exclusion. As I said, it’s about how much inaccuracy you’re willing to overlook. — Possibility

If I pray to God Im 100% certain He exists. I dont pray (I dont care about Him). But if I did I would do it with full conviction. Not while thinking there is a 63% chance he doesnt get my message.

Assume, Possibility, let's go hog wild, you're totally uncertain, say God's existence is 50/50. Do you pray or not? Why? — TheMadFool

Well, that depends on a number of other factors. Not least of which is: what would count as ‘prayer’?

You see, I could believe in God’s existence, and still decide to not pray. Or I could behave in a way that I consider to be along the lines of prayer, yet some theists would be of the opinion that it isn’t prayer. Or I could not believe, and yet communicate with an awareness of possibility in the universe that would have some theists claim that I’m ‘really praying’.

But to keep it simpler, I don’t pray in the conventional way I was taught to, but I do sometimes put my thoughts or desires ‘out there’ with a vague sense that this can make a difference in some situations. At the very least, it orientates my sense of self in relation to existence.

But that’s probably not the answer you were looking for.

If I pray to God Im 100% certain He exists. I dont pray (I dont care about Him). But if I did I would do it with full conviction. Not while thinking there is a 63% chance he doesnt get my message. — Prishon

That’s a choice you make, sure. I’ve had the luxury of gradually deconstructing my belief system. So, yes, there have been times when I’ve technically prayed - with about 63% certainty that anyone might be listening.

But perhaps you aim to do everything with 100% conviction, because that’s just how you see the world. My son is like that. The difference between his perspective and mine is a bit like a particle and a wave.

I think that conviction is different to certainty, though.