Does God's Actual Existence Even Matter?

[Recidivist]

My logic is as follows:

There is no solid physical evidence for the existence of any diety at this time. At the same time, there is no way the existence of any deity can be disproved. Because of this, anyone can make any claim about any deity and that claim cannot be disproven nor proven. Therefore all claims are subjective and valid only to the individual and to other individuals who share the same view.

Because of this, the actual existence of any deity does not make any difference. The only thing important is the IDEA of the existence of the deity. A new idea about a deity creates a new diety, and the destruction of a group of ideas about a diety destroys a diety. I think this is called a meme... sort of an intellectual abstraction that is inherited socially.

My point is, all this arguing about whether or not some god or other exists is completely irrelevant. As long as people have the idea for a god, that god exists to the fullest extent that any god can exist. Therefore, all dieties which people concieve of exist (though only to that person) and arguing about whether or not they can be proven to exist physically is a waste of time.

So stop it.

[---Beany---]

Since I accepted that god existence is more probable than not, I've learnt soo many things about life and people (the minds of people) that all relate nicely to my beliefs.

I can't be assed arguing to someone about gods existence, but I would argue for people to consider his existence and think about how his existence would relate to life if it was true.

Another thing I'd argue is not to accept anyones beliefs apart from your own, but to never become attached to beliefs. Let them constantly grow and be corrected if needs be. It doesn't matter if you are wrong, coz if you have an open mind it'll get there eventually.

quote:Originally posted by Recidivist:



My point is, all this arguing about whether or not some god or other exists is completely irrelevant. As long as people have the idea for a god, that god exists to the fullest extent that any god can exist.

You're just playing with words. The latter statement is technically true - the "fullest extent" meaning "not at all, except in your feeble mind." But so what? That doesn't mean it's irrelevant to discuss it. Does it occur to you that maybe some of us enjoy arguing? I know I do, and if you don't like it, drag your ass back to Spurious. Christ, the fucking audacity...

[Craftian]

No, you know what needs to be stopped? Philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

Things don't pop in and out of existence just because you think of them. And it does matter, because if no deities exist, then there is no basis for most religion, probably the single most influential thing ever to exist.

[Recidivist]

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

No, you know what needs to be stopped? Philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

And it does matter, because if no deities exist, then there is no basis for most religion, probably the single most influential thing ever to exist.

I'm not arguing the importance of religion through history. Religion has been extremely important in many ways. That doesn't necessarily mean that it has to have any valid basis, however. Take for instance the notion of biological race. Throughout history, people have viewed other populations of people as being "naturally" (biologically) different from them in a meaningful way. This has been the basis for race. We are learning now, however, that genetically there is no way to classify humans into discrete races for many reasons. One is that every population of humans has mixed with all of the populations around them to the extent that no single population is meaningfully different from all other populations. In this way humans across the globe display clinal rather than discrete variation. So, biological race has no scientific validity whatsoever. This doesn't mean that the social notion of race is not important. Despite the fact that there is no basis, race shapes the lives of just about everyone in the world. Same with religion.

Second, I'm not even saying that there isn't any basis for religion. I'm saying that since there is no way to differentiate between a basis that exists in the physical world and a basis that exists only mentally, the differentiation is itself meaningless in arguing the validity of any religion. Thus any religion can be valid merely by being concieved.

As for philosophical mumbo-jumbo, you should realize that everything said on this board is philosophical, and just because my brand of philosophy takes a bit more though than yours doesn't mean you should discredit it.

[Recidivist]

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

You're just playing with words. The latter statement is technically true - the "fullest extent" meaning "not at all, except in your feeble mind." But so what? That doesn't mean it's irrelevant to discuss it. Does it occur to you that maybe some of us enjoy arguing? I know I do, and if you don't like it, drag your ass back to Spurious. Christ, the fucking audacity...

You say you like arguing. Arguing is nothing but playing with words. Words represent ideas. We use words to articulate our ideas. Therefore saying that anyone is "just playing with words" discredits your own argument just as much as it discredits theirs. What a stupid thing to say.

Also, the fact that I've seem to upset you so much means that you're disturbed by what I've said, which is good. My purpose is to challenge other peoples notions of what is correct.

Words represent ideas, this is true. but when you take ideas and shift their meaning, they lose their definite meaning, thus destroying their value in debate. The fact remains that you're telling me to stop it, and thus you're an idiot who can't stand debate.

You upset me because you seem so devoid of any intellectual integrity whatsoever. "What does it matter"... it matters because there is a right and wrong answer, dipshit. Reality is not subjective.

[marvin]

quote:Originally posted by Armed&Angry:

You upset me because you seem so devoid of any intellectual integrity whatsoever. "What does it matter"... it matters because there is a right and wrong answer, dipshit. Reality is not subjective.

The argument over whether ot not something is worth arguing over, is a valid argument. I really don't see what's so stupid about what Recidivist said. He argued that God's existance cannot be proven or disproven by logic, and so there is no way to reach an answer that falls into "right and wrong". Now if you think what he's speaking is total bullshit - prove it. You can say he's wrong, but what on Earth is so idiotic about it?

Also claiming "reality is not subjective" as if that's the most obvious thing in the world seems to be devoid of any intellectual integrity.

Motherfucking...

Okay, I'm gonna explain this one more time. The burden of proof rests with the affirmative side of any debate. Come on, haven't you guys even taken a speech class? Perhaps an example would be helpful. Suppose I were to claim that the universe was created by a cabal of cosmic mimes. Maybe I even believe that these mimes continue to rule over us and answer our prayers. Of course, I can't prove this. But can you empirically disprove it?

Of course not. Given the omnipotent nature of these cosmic mimes, they could easily obscure themselves from we feeble mortals. So how do we determine the existence or nonexistence of these cosmic mimes?

Put simply, the only intellectually defensible means of ascertaining truth is to believe only that which can be proven. If there's no proof of something, I have no reason to believe in it. Why would I? Hell, why would you? So, in the above example, we would conclude that the cosmic mimes do not exist. Surely, it's possible, but in theory everything is possible. Proof is what distinguishes the possible from the actual.

As for the concept of objective reality being "devoid of any intellectual integrity,"... wow, kid, you're just a walking ball of fallacies, aren't you? Well, in the name of science, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and conducted a little experiment. I sat in my dorm room for a few minutes, repeatedly declaring to myself, "Sylvia Saint is standing in front of me with a bottle of Glen Livet and a carton of Luckies." To my shock and horror, this did not occur. Hence, we can logically conclude that reality is not affected by the private, fallacial claims of one individual. Shucks, and I was in the mood for scotch.

[Galen]

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

No, you know what needs to be stopped? Philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

Things don't pop in and out of existence just because you think of them. And it does matter, because if no deities exist, then there is no basis for most religion, probably the single most influential thing ever to exist.

Philosophy is not "mumbo-jumbo". It is the practice of not <b>blindly</b> accepting other's views. It allows humans to use their power of reasoning which sets us apart from other life-forms. So without practice in philosophy things would be left in mystery because their would be no inquisitive minds to unlock the secrets of the world or even beyond this world. Those who practice philosophy are not influenced easily, they do not "fall in line." You are a sheep if you chose to follow someone else's path and do not experience life for yourself.



[This message has been edited by Galen (edited 10-06-2003).]