Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
I don't claim to know anything, I just know what I believe.
And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that's not the same thing.
|
so you don't claim to know something but you do claim to know something? no, it's not the same thing, it's a flat-out contradiction.
still, i essentially see what you're saying. as kierkegaard put it, there is no room for faith without doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by right-track
Best post in this thread. ^
The onus isn't on disproving the existance of God but, on discovering what is the truth.
There is no reason to believe in anything of which there is no evidence.
|
what sort of evidence do you expect God to leave behind? it's like you're looking for God's signature in the world, when the world
is God's signature. as Leibniz put it: "why is there something rather than nothing?" why do things
want to exist? is it really that subjectivity is a phenomena of objects (what does that even mean?) or is it rather that objects (the very idea of an object) is a phenomena of subjectivity? everyone seems to start from what they don't know (ie, what they've been taught--science) rather from what they do know... emotions, interpersonal relationships, desire--for meaning, companionship, reward for overcoming urges that set us against others... why isn't all that
evidence? basically what people seem to be looking for when they demand evidence of god's existence is a miracle, that is, they expect God to undo the logic of his own creation. why would he do that? because you want him to? the entire atheistic attitude towards God is entirely backwards, which is why they have a hard time understanding Christian arguments.
here's my suggestion, stop paying attention to fundamentalists, start reading Kierkegaard or Pascal.
even Schopenhauer, just to get over the stifling spirit of positivism. if the only connections you look for in life are factual connections, you won't get very far. in fact, nobody does this. everyone assumes, extrapolates, uses analogies and metaphors to understand things in general, in abstract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freebase Dali
They usually do it via counter-logic.
The funny thing is that everyone is sitting there arguing the logic of the existence of god, when the logic used is specifically bound in the constraints of our known universe.
Since no one knows for sure what exists outside our universe, it's kind of hard to assume that the rules of logic that exist, in this universe, apply to anything outside it.
After all, logic is based on observation of fact. You can't make a logical argument based on an unknown factor.
What that means is that no one knows. So there's really no point in arguing it. That's why "faith" has such a large following... it's the only alternative for most.
|
it goes beyond that, it's not just that logic can only express our universe, logic in fact can only express itself. that is, logic can only express tautologies and the general logical form of the tautology, which is to say that logic can't really express anything. it's just a game with symbols and rules that define how the symbols interact--when you derive propositions from axioms you don't gain information, you only unfold the information in the axioms.
to wittgenstein!
6.41 The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no value exists--and if it did exist, it would have no value.
If there is any value that does have value, it must lie outside the whole sphere of what happens and is the case. For all that happens and is the case is accidental.
What makes it non-accidental cannot lie within the world, since if it did it would itself be accidental.
It must lie outside the world.
by this, to deny God is to deny sense and meaning, which as I have already pointed out are subjective phenomena which compose the immediacy of our experience, rather than the mediated 'information' about the world we get through them.