• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

God and The Meaning of Life

Angel said:
The cosmological and other constants are scientific claims which point to a fine-tuned universe. That's from science.
What a theist does with that scientific information is use it in a rational inference to the existence of a Creator God.
Click to expand...

No, they are observed phenomena, not claims, and they don't point to any such thing. You're imposing your belief onto them of what you want them to represent.
 
devildavid said:
I found peace of mind when I became an atheist.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that you didn't have peace of mind until the moment that you became an atheist? Could you describe the peace of mind that you have? (such as, does knowing that god(s) don't actually exist give you comfort?) I'm just curious why you feel like you have peace of mind... I'm asking from an inquisitive point of view.
 
devildavid said:
If you don't limit your thinking, how can you possibly know whether or not your thinking is delusional? If anything can be real and true, how do we know what is imaginary or false?
Click to expand...

If you don't expand your thinking, how can you possibly know whether or not your thinking is whole?
 
gfm7175 said:
True, and that's another thing that is wonderful about faith... If I am wrong, I have nothing to lose. It is a win-win situation for me. I will either have an eternal perfect life with God, or I will have a confident and satisfied feeling during this lifetime.
Click to expand...
That's basically Pascals wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Of course the problem with that is what if it is the Hindus or the Sikh or the Buddhists who a e correct?
Not trying to attack your faith just pointing out that it isn't a reason to believe in any religion


Agreed. My story is anecdotal, and something that can't be measured in a physical sense. It requires the mind to think "beyond the physical world", and if someone thinks that to be delusional or thinks that there is no such thing, then they will forever be limited in their thinking by their taking of that position. I obviously don't mean that in a bad way or anything, but it's just another "not-yet-proven" option, for lack of better terminology. Any position "beyond the known" that a person takes requires faith on their part, whether that be religion or whether that be scientific theories.
Click to expand...
The difference is science requires that a hypothesis be testable in some form to get to the level of theory (which scientifically speaking is not the same as what theory means in common usage). Religion is based completely on belief and is beyond any form of testing that can be shown to others. They really are two different animals. What interests me is those who claim they can prove their religion, as it seems to me only those who lack faith would actually try to do this. Of those who have tried none has ever even come close to succeeding.

I commend you for your respectfulness and intelligent conversation. You certainly were blessed with a mind of high technical intelligence and comprehension.
Click to expand...
Thank you I am sure there are others who would strongly disagree with you on that ;)
Personally I find your attitude to be respectful and intelligent as well. There are those who are rather rabid and illogical in their beliefs, I tend not to be as polite with them.
 
Angel said:
I have an argument for my thesis; I have no argument for your thesis, i.e., your mischaracterization of my thesis.
Click to expand...

Sorry I must have missed that argument can you repeat it?
 
Quag said:
That's basically Pascals wager
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Of course the problem with that is what if it is the Hindus or the Sikh or the Buddhists who a e correct?
Not trying to attack your faith just pointing out that it isn't a reason to believe in any religion
Click to expand...
Perfectly valid point, of which I overlooked... and it's not why I believe in my religion btw, but I guess my view there comes more from my assumption that my faith is the correct one, and I can see the "bonus" I describe as a result of that assumption... but you do make a valid point that it's not a reason to believe in a particular religion.

Quag said:
The difference is science requires that a hypothesis be testable in some form to get to the level of theory (which scientifically speaking is not the same as what theory means in common usage). Religion is based completely on belief and is beyond any form of testing that can be shown to others. They really are two different animals. What interests me is those who claim they can prove their religion, as it seems to me only those who lack faith would actually try to do this. Of those who have tried none has ever even come close to succeeding.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they really are different animals... And yes those who claim they have proof of their religion (or as a counterpart to that, those who can definitely say that God does not exist) can be interesting to listen to. I would think, barring their God actually showing them-self, that their religion would be quite difficult to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt... I would think the best a person could argue is that their religion (or [non] belief) is "more probable" than another religion (or [non] belief). It seems to me that no matter what, there's always at least an element of "belief" when discussing the existence or non-existence of God, especially when pondering questions such as "how did the universe begin, assuming it is non-eternal?" because what we think we definitely know today, could very well turn out to be incorrect some other day in the future...

Quag said:
Thank you I am sure there are others who would strongly disagree with you on that ;)
Personally I find your attitude to be respectful and intelligent as well. There are those who are rather rabid and illogical in their beliefs, I tend not to be as polite with them.
Click to expand...
;) ... and thanks. I try my best to not be rabid and illogical, as I have the same temptation to not be so polite towards people who are. That's when I tend to "walk away", if some sarcasm doesn't slip out first, knowing that the particular conversation will not be fruitful in any way.
 
Quag said:
Sorry I must have missed that argument can you repeat it?
Click to expand...
You didn't miss it; the argument hasn't been made yet. We were trying to clarify, for you, what my thesis is. Anyway, see below.

devildavid said:
Sorry, but that is not how gladness is defined. Once again, you are wrong. Gladness is essentially a feeling that can arise from many causes, no cause moreso than any other. When you feel gladness you are experiencing a human emotion, not one necessarily qualified by the word "religious".
Click to expand...

All emotion is essentially religious in nature; man is essentially a spiritual being, and all modifications of spirit (emotions included) are therefore religious in nature -- religioius in the originary sense of a bond (religare) to Spiritual Reality.

You, David, and you, Quag, are religious animals whether you know it or not, and whether you like it or not.
 
Angel said:
You didn't miss it; the argument hasn't been made yet. We were trying to clarify, for you, what my thesis is. Anyway, see below.



All emotion is essentially religious in nature; man is essentially a spiritual being, and all modifications of spirit (emotions included) are therefore religious in nature -- religioius in the originary sense of a bond (religare) to Spiritual Reality.

You, David, and you, Quag, are religious animals whether you know it or not, and whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

Ok then lay out your argument
 
gfm7175 said:
Perfectly valid point, of which I overlooked... and it's not why I believe in my religion btw, but I guess my view there comes more from my assumption that my faith is the correct one, and I can see the "bonus" I describe as a result of that assumption... but you do make a valid point that it's not a reason to believe in a particular religion.
Click to expand...
I didn't actually think that was your argument but it was a pretty classic example of Pascals wager so I thought I should point it out


Yeah, they really are different animals... And yes those who claim they have proof of their religion (or as a counterpart to that, those who can definitely say that God does not exist) can be interesting to listen to. I would think, barring their God actually showing them-self, that their religion would be quite difficult to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt... I would think the best a person could argue is that their religion (or [non] belief) is "more probable" than another religion (or [non] belief). It seems to me that no matter what, there's always at least an element of "belief" when discussing the existence or non-existence of God, especially when pondering questions such as "how did the universe begin, assuming it is non-eternal?" because what we think we definitely know today, could very well turn out to be incorrect some other day in the future...
Click to expand...
I dont even think you can argue that one religious belief more probable than another but I suppose someone can try

;) ... and thanks. I try my best to not be rabid and illogical, as I have the same temptation to not be so polite towards people who are. That's when I tend to "walk away", if some sarcasm doesn't slip out first, knowing that the particular conversation will not be fruitful in any way.
Click to expand...
Yeah but sometimes ya need to just let it out ;)
 
Quag said:
Ok then lay out your argument
Click to expand...
This time you did miss it. The argument is where you were directed to see, i.e., below in that post.

Here it is in deductive form:

All men are religious animals.
Quag is a man.
Therefore, Quag is a religious animal.

All modifications of spirit are religious in nature.
Emotions are modifications of spirit.
Therefore, emotions are religious in nature.

All emotions are essentially religious in nature.
Gladness is an emotion.
Therefore, gladness is essentially religious in nature.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
No, they are observed phenomena, not claims, and they don't point to any such thing. You're imposing your belief onto them of what you want them to represent.
Click to expand...
The universal constants are mathematical, and they point to intelligence in the design of the universe.

Here's another video that may make the point to your satisfaction.

 
Angel said:
This time you did miss it. The argument is where you were directed to see, i.e., below in that post.

Here it is in deductive form:

All men are religious animals.
Quag is a man.
Therefore, Quag is a religious animal.

All modifications of spirit are religious in nature.
Emotions are modifications of spirit.
Therefore, emotions are religious in nature.

All emotions are essentially religious in nature.
Gladness is an emotion.
Therefore, gladness is essentially religious in nature.
Click to expand...

Those are claims not arguments
 
Quag said:
Those are claims not arguments
Click to expand...
Those are all valid deductive arguments. If you care to challenge a premise, then by all means do so. Let's hear your argument.
 
Angel said:
This time you did miss it. The argument is where you were directed to see, i.e., below in that post.

Here it is in deductive form:

All men are religious animals.
Quag is a man.
Therefore, Quag is a religious animal.

All modifications of spirit are religious in nature.
Emotions are modifications of spirit.
Therefore, emotions are religious in nature.

All emotions are essentially religious in nature.
Gladness is an emotion.
Therefore, gladness is essentially religious in nature.
Click to expand...

Nice list of unsubstantiated claims. Word games do not make reality. Emotions are physical states that are reactions to stimuli affecting the brain and nervous system. They have nothing to do with the concept of religion at all.
 
Angel said:
Those are all valid deductive arguments. If you care to challenge a premise, then by all means do so. Let's hear your argument.
Click to expand...


All men are religious animals.
Quag is a man.
Therefore, Quag is a religious animal.

All modifications of spirit are religious in nature.
Emotions are modifications of spirit.
Therefore, emotions are religious in nature.

All emotions are essentially religious in nature.
Gladness is an emotion.
Therefore, gladness is essentially religious in nature.
Click to expand...
The bolded are all just claims
You claimed that all emotions are essentially religious in nature.
I asked for your argument of that claim and all you did was repeat the claim then add a therefore after it. That is not an argument for the claim at all it is merely a claim
The others are the same, just unsupported claims there is no argument to be made when your starting point is the problem.
 
devildavid said:
Nice list of unsubstantiated claims. Word games do not make reality. Emotions are physical states that are reactions to stimuli affecting the brain and nervous system. They have nothing to do with the concept of religion at all.
Click to expand...
That "list" is called logic. And my "word games" have an advantage over your "word games" -- mine aren't dictated by doctrine like yours, and mine reflect an open mind.
 
Quag said:
The bolded are all just claims
You claimed that all emotions are essentially religious in nature.
I asked for your argument of that claim and all you did was repeat the claim then add a therefore after it. That is not an argument for the claim at all it is merely a claim
The others are the same, just unsupported claims there is no argument to be made when your starting point is the problem.
Click to expand...
Look, Quag, I don't want to engage in another twenty posts trying to correct your misunderstandings/mischaracterizations of my points and arguments. The thesis we were discussing is "gladness is essentially a religious emotion." That thesis appears as a conclusion in my arguments. How about an argument from you? Pick one of the premises you bolded and explain why you think it is problematic. I have arguments for all of them, but first you've got to offer more in our exchanges than assertions of non-acceptance. I would like some reasons from you for your challenges.
 
Angel said:
The universal constants are mathematical, and they point to intelligence in the design of the universe.

Here's another video that may make the point to your satisfaction.

Click to expand...


Yes, they are mathematical and, no, you are simply superimposing your desire for a creator over them. They do not point to intelligent design. The Anthropic Principle confirms this.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Yes, they are mathematical and, no, you are simply superimposing your desire for a creator over them. They do not point to intelligent design. The Anthropic Principle confirms this.
Click to expand...
How does the Anthropic Principle "confirm" your view, and in turn how does your view escape the Anthropic Principle?
 
Angel said:
How does the Anthropic Principle "confirm" your view, and in turn how does your view escape the Anthropic Principle?
Click to expand...

The universe isn't particularly fine-tuned for our existence. If it and it's conditions were different, we would be different.
 
Quag said:
I didn't actually think that was your argument but it was a pretty classic example of Pascals wager so I thought I should point it out
Click to expand...
This is why I said you were "blessed with a mind of high technical intelligence" :)

Quag said:
I dont even think you can argue that one religious belief more probable than another but I suppose someone can try
Click to expand...
One would have a better chance at doing that than arguing that it is definitely true.

Quag said:
Yeah but sometimes ya need to just let it out ;)
Click to expand...
:lol: Definitely.
 
Angel said:
That "list" is called logic. And my "word games" have an advantage over your "word games" -- mine aren't dictated by doctrine like yours, and mine reflect an open mind.
Click to expand...

The list is not logical at all. You opened your mind and logic escaped.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The universe isn't particularly fine-tuned for our existence. If it and it's conditions were different, we would be different.
Click to expand...

And most of the universe would kill us instantly.
 
Angel said:
Look, Quag, I don't want to engage in another twenty posts trying to correct your misunderstandings/mischaracterizations of my points and arguments. The thesis we were discussing is "gladness is essentially a religious emotion." That thesis appears as a conclusion in my arguments. How about an argument from you? Pick one of the premises you bolded and explain why you think it is problematic. I have arguments for all of them, but first you've got to offer more in our exchanges than assertions of non-acceptance. I would like some reasons from you for your challenges.
Click to expand...

The claims are problematic because there is no reason for them to be true
I could rewrite them with anything and be at exactly the same place.
You cant start a logical argument to prove something from an unproven claim, that is not logical.
All men are religious animals is a claim. It has no more validity than saying all mean are made from ice cream
All modifications of spirit are religious in nature is a claim. It has no more validity than saying all modifications in spirit are lactose in nature
All emotions are essentially religious in nature is a claim. It has no more validity than all emotions are essentially are lactose in nature
I challenge you because you made an unspported claim then when I asked for your evidence to back up the claim your provided just more claims and no actual arguemnt that backs it up.
Now if you want to admit that your claim is nothing more than a belief that is fine but since you have stated that you have an argument to defend the claim please provide said argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom