When we look at the greatness and perfection of nature it seems that all has been created with intended purpose, gravitational laws, physic laws, natural laws, this goes for all natural bodies present in our universe.
However natural bodies are unintelligent, they are incapable of deciding of these laws by themselves, however they all act towards a defined end, for example, a planet will orbit around the sun.
The complex array of cells of the human body all have specific functions, acting towards an end is a characteristic of intelligence.
Now that this has been said it is obvious that there exists an intelligent being that guides all that exists and dictates these laws.
Sorry to reopen this topic again, but I remebred something that may be useful to know :
All the thinkers who deny the existence of god, assume that all these creatures and objects around us are created coincidentally and developped by natural factors.
If we look at a human being, such a complex creature, althogh it's rather irrealistic to think a human is created coincidently, but let's assume it's possible with a very low probability (1/1000000000000000.......000) a very low probability, if we consider the big complexity of our structure, but still scientifically "possible".
But that's only possible if we look at the material part of a human : you know, atoms, molecules, organs,... Now let's focus on a more important organ : the mind !
I know a mind can be created without a God. It can be created by coincidence. We already created a computer (artificial intelligence, computing), ... But let's say it's possible that a computer can be created by coincidence : let's suppose that a bomb exploded in an electronics factory (you know all these big- bang examples), and all the wires and electronic chips and transistors were spread in the air and then they fall down together and, some how, they got connected by coincidence, in a perfect way so we finally got a computer created by coincidence. Yes that's possible, even though the probability is very low, but still possible. And you see we can have a mind created by coincidence, even our mind can be created by coincidence : you know it's composed from cells and chemicals, may be some group of atoms under some climate condition(high temperature, pressure) formed a first nervous cell (the elementary unity of human intelligence) and this cell was duplicated by coincidence many times to form a goup of nervous cells connected forming a human mind : the human intelligence !
but that's one aspect of our mind : the anatomy, the behaviour (intelligence, memory). But there is one other aspect of our mind that, in my opinion, escapes from this coincidence theory : the consciousness. We humans are conscious about our existence (and so are all the animals), we are conscious when we are thinking. and may be that consciousness is the origin of our emotions.
CONSCIOUSNESS, EMOTION : these are parts of us that we can't imagine how they appeared according to natural coincidence theory. Why ? Because we don't find them in material objects.
We can create a human-like robot, with all the human abilities, and with a perfect (artificial) intelligence. But a robot has no consciousness about his existence, so are any material constructions. A robot is just executing a program we put in his memory, this program can be so sophisticated to handle with all the input he recieves and to simulate human behaviour/intelligence but that's totally different from the real human intelligence. The robot is not conscious about himself or about his life, but he's doing automatic operations. A robot has not emotions : he don't get angry when you insult him, even if ingeneers try to simulate the human emotion towards a number of situation, but that's totally automatic, and the robot does not have feelings even though we can program some automatic reactions in his memory.
So we can suppose that the material part of humans can be created by coincidence. But the many other aspects : consciousness, emotions, they can't be created by a material (natural) coincidence. Where did they come from ???
I think the mysterious origin of the spiritual part (consciousness) of the human composition may undermine the whole Coincidence Theory and may be the Evolution Theory evenly.
The only indication of the origin of this spiritual part (as the scientists are unable to define) is found in religions as a creation of God. This was mentioned in all religious books (abrahamic religions) that the material part and the spiritual part of a human were created by God at the same time. I can't mention all the religious books references, but let me mention the verse in the Qur'an showing that. I'm not learned about the bible, but I'm sure the bible says the same thing (may be another member can post a reference to the bible):
In the qur'an, surat Al-hijr (chap15), verse 29, Allah says talking to the angels when creating Adam, the first human : "فَإِذَا سَوَّيۡتُهُ ۥ وَنَفَخۡتُ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِى فَقَعُواْ لَهُ ۥ سَـٰجِدِينَ" "So, when I have made him and have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him."
Last edited by marwen; 04-09-2010 at 05:29 PM.
Reason: Formatting+correction
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
Sorry to reopen this topic again, but I remebred something that may be useful to know :
All the thinkers who deny the existence of god, assume that all these creatures and objects around us are created coincidentally and developped by natural factors.
No, not all. Some have refuted god based on the attributes given by believers. Even if we did not assume that, it would be possible to refute the existence of god, because we do not need to have any other theory in order to prove that the existing theory is wrong. We could just say, "I don't know yet".
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
If we look at a human being, such a complex creature, althogh it's rather irrealistic to think a human is created coincidently, but let's assume it's possible with a very low probability (1/1000000000000000.......000) a very low probability, if we consider the big complexity of our structure, but still scientifically "possible".
You've just figured out "Irreducible complexity"? Look up "intelligent design", and you'll see why this argument doesn't work.
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
But that's only possible if we look at the material part of a human : you know, atoms, molecules, organs,... Now let's focus on a more important organ : the mind !
I know a mind can be created without a God.
Good.
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
It can be created by coincidence. We already created a computer (artificial intelligence, computing), ... But let's say it's possible that a computer can be created by coincidence : let's suppose that a bomb exploded in an electronics factory (you know all these big- bang examples), and all the wires and electronic chips and transistors were spread in the air and then they fall down together and, some how, they got connected by coincidence, in a perfect way so we finally got a computer created by coincidence. Yes that's possible, even though the probability is very low, but still possible. And you see we can have a mind created by coincidence, even our mind can be created by coincidence : you know it's composed from cells and chemicals, may be some group of atoms under some climate condition(high temperature, pressure) formed a first nervous cell (the elementary unity of human intelligence) and this cell was duplicated by coincidence many times to form a goup of nervous cells connected forming a human mind : the human intelligence !
This has nothing to do with any modern theory.
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
but that's one aspect of our mind : the anatomy, the behaviour (intelligence, memory). But there is one other aspect of our mind that, in my opinion, escapes from this coincidence theory : the consciousness. We humans are conscious about our existence (and so are all the animals), we are conscious when we are thinking. and may be that consciousness is the origin of our emotions.
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
CONSCIOUSNESS, EMOTION : these are parts of us that we can't imagine how they appeared according to natural coincidence theory. Why ? Because we don't find them in material objects.
Yes we do, it is precisely why we have in our possession substances that alter moods and levels of consciousness. Please give this some thought. Whether these substances are prescribed by doctors or grown in basements or gardens, we have known about these for hundreds, if not thousands of years. We also aren't the only animal to know about mood altering substances.
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
We can create a human-like robot, with all the human abilities, and with a perfect (artificial) intelligence. But a robot has no consciousness about his existence, so are any material constructions. A robot is just executing a program we put in his memory, this program can be so sophisticated to handle with all the input he recieves and to simulate human behaviour/intelligence but that's totally different from the real human intelligence. The robot is not conscious about himself or about his life, but he's doing automatic operations. A robot has not emotions : he don't get angry when you insult him, even if ingeneers try to simulate the human emotion towards a number of situation, but that's totally automatic, and the robot does not have feelings even though we can program some automatic reactions in his memory.
What's your point? This is strictly a moral philosophy question, not in any way related to your previous points.
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
So we can suppose that the material part of humans can be created by coincidence. But the many other aspects : consciousness, emotions, they can't be created by a material (natural) coincidence. Where did they come from ???
Assuming we know nothing about origin of consciousness and emotions, we do know that they can be altered by manipulating the brain with chemicals and electrical impulses. Does that not mean there is a physical/material component?
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
I think the mysterious origin of the spiritual part (consciousness) of the human composition may undermine the whole Coincidence Theory and may be the Evolution Theory evenly.
FYI there are people looking at the brain to determine which parts of them are active when we "feel" spiritual.
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
The only indication of the origin of this spiritual part (as the scientists are unable to define) is found in religions as a creation of God. This was mentioned in all religious books (abrahamic religions) that the material part and the spiritual part of a human is created by God at the same time. I can't mention all the religious books references, but let me mention the verse in the Qur'an showing that, I'm not learned about the bible, but I'm sure the bible says the same thing (may be another member can post a reference to the bible):
In the qur'an, surat Al-hijr (chap15), verse 29, Allah says talking to the angels when creating Adam, the first human : "فَإِذَا سَوَّيۡتُهُ ۥ وَنَفَخۡتُ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِى فَقَعُواْ لَهُ ۥ سَـٰجِدِينَ" "So, when I have made him and have breathed into him of My Spirit, do ye fall down, prostrating yourselves unto him."
Sorry, this is circular logic at best and an argument from ignorance at worst, or maybe the other way around.
No, not all. Some have refuted god based on the attributes given by believers. Even if we did not assume that, it would be possible to refute the existence of god, because we do not need to have any other theory in order to prove that the existing theory is wrong. We could just say, "I don't know yet".
I said : the thinkers who deny God's existence. If you say : "I don't know yet", you are not affirming that God doesn't exist.
This has nothing to do with any modern theory.
Ok, so what ?
What's your point? This is strictly a moral philosophy question, not in any way related to your previous points.
No, it's related to the previous and the next points : the example of artificial intelligence (his limits) shows the difficulty to define what is the human consciousness.
Yes we do, it is precisely why we have in our possession substances that alter moods and levels of consciousness. Please give this some thought. Whether these substances are prescribed by doctors or grown in basements or gardens, we have known about these for hundreds, if not thousands of years. We also aren't the only animal to know about mood altering substances.
Yes there is substances acting on human moods, and every thing in our entourage (climate, nature, objects) is also acting on human mood. But that doesn't show that these sustances are the origin of human emotions. Music alters our mood, does that mean our mood is music ?
Assuming we know nothing about origin of consciousness and emotions, we do know that they can be altered by manipulating the brain with chemicals and electrical impulses. Does that not mean there is a physical/material component?
the same response above + yes there is a material part, but it only doesen't suffice to define the mind components.
Sorry, this is circular logic at best and an argument from ignorance at worst, or maybe the other way around.
Can you explain me how did you get this conclusion?
All the best.
Last edited by marwen; 04-09-2010 at 06:50 PM.
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
I said : the thinkers who deny God's existence. If you say : "I don't know yet", you are not affirming that God doesn't exist.
The point is, you don't need any assumptions other than what is provided by the believer to show that god does not exist. I realize that the rest of your argument follows from the necessity of the dilemma you presented, but it's not a matter of choosing only option 'A' or 'B'.
No theory affirms that god cannot exist, and it is not necessary to find a theory to replace god in order to disprove god's existence.
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
Ok, so what ?
No, it's related to the previous and the next points : the example of artificial intelligence (his limits) shows the difficulty to define what is the human consciousness.
Okay, I'll let it carry through.
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
Yes there is substances acting on human moods, and every thing in our entourage (climate, nature, objects) is also acting on human mood. But that doesn't show that these sustances are the origin of human emotions. Music alters our mood, does that mean our mood is music ?
the same response above + yes there is a material part, but it only doesen't suffice to define the mind components.
What are the non-material mind components? Do we have evidence they are non-material, or are we assuming because we don't know about all the material components? Is this a case where "I don't know yet" might be an acceptable answer or do we have to conclude that god did it?
format_quote Originally Posted by marwen
Can you explain me how did you get this conclusion?
I saw only one of two arguments.
1] I assume "x" religion is right, "x" religion states "Y" causes "Z", science has not yet discovered all the natural causes for "Z", therefore "Y" is the cause (Where "Y" is the cause whenever we don't have an answer to a question, i.e. a "mystery")
2) "A" is true if and only if "B" is true, "B" is true if and only if "A" is true, I have assumed "A" or "B", therefore they are both true.
What are the non-material mind components? Do we have evidence they are non-material, or are we assuming because we don't know about all the material components? Is this a case where "I don't know yet" might be an acceptable answer or do we have to conclude that god did it?
"I don't know yet" can be a good answer but as a first basic assumption. But if we look at the nature of purely material objects, we can't find these characteristics of autonomy and consciousness. All pieces of material are the same, no? a piece of wood, a piece of iron, a group of molecules ... There can be interaction in the interiour of a material object, but these are electrostatic, chemical, mechanical interactions and processes : Material has no consciousness, that's a property of any piece of matter. (please don't tell me a rock is conscious)
The second argument is that material objects conserve their material nature by composition: I mean if I join tow pieces of material to form a big one piece, the new piece of material formed by composition will conserve the characteristic of material. And any pure material structure (formed by composition) have these characteristics.
That's the definition of material for me, if I'm wrong I'll be glad if you correct my conception of material.
And if an object (like the mind) has other characteristics (consciousness) than the material ones, it'll be considered non-material, or not totally material. Therefore, a mind in my point of view is not totally material, even though I can't determine the frontieres between the material part and the non-material part.
format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin
I saw only one of two arguments.
1] I assume "x" religion is right, "x" religion states "Y" causes "Z", science has not yet discovered all the natural causes for "Z", therefore "Y" is the cause (Where "Y" is the cause whenever we don't have an answer to a question, i.e. a "mystery")
2) "A" is true if and only if "B" is true, "B" is true if and only if "A" is true, I have assumed "A" or "B", therefore they are both true.
hmm, that's a pretty good reflection, it seems to me very logical, except that it's not quite what I was saying.
I don't assume a religion X is right. I began with an objective point of view,if I can't say an atheist point of view (I mean neutral : not theist, and not atheist). Then I found that it's difficult to give a scientific explanation of the topic. Then I looked for a proposition about the origin of consciousness out of science. And I found a religious argument (I suppose I'm not religious/ and I suppose I'm not atheist(to not exclude the religion element)), that's all we have. If we can't refute this religious argument, then it's worth to accept it until we can refute it.
I don't see a circular reasonning here.
Peace,
Last edited by marwen; 04-10-2010 at 11:36 AM.
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
hmm, that's a pretty good reflection, it seems to me very logical, except that it's not quite what I was saying.
I don't assume a religion X is right. I began with an objective point of view,if I can't say an atheist point of view (I mean neutral : not theist, and not atheist). Then I found that it's difficult to give a scientific explanation of the topic. Then I looked for a proposition about the origin of consciousness out of science. And I found a religious argument (I suppose I'm not religious/ and I suppose I'm not atheist(to not exclude the religion element)), that's all we have. If we can't refute this religious argument, then it's worth to accept it until we can refute it.
Why is it worth accepting it? It is the equivalent of literally inventing an answer. Resolving another unknown with a different unknown.
"I know how to fight
I know how to sing
I know the way"
but that's one aspect of our mind : the anatomy, the behaviour (intelligence, memory). But there is one other aspect of our mind that, in my opinion, escapes from this coincidence theory : the consciousness. We humans are conscious about our existence (and so are all the animals), we are conscious when we are thinking. and may be that consciousness is the origin of our emotions.
CONSCIOUSNESS, EMOTION : these are parts of us that we can't imagine how they appeared according to natural coincidence theory. Why ? Because we don't find them in material objects.
I have no idea what the 'natural coincidence theory' is, as it seems to be unique to yourself. If you mean evolution by natural selection (which has nothing to do with 'coincidence' - what do you claim is/are co-inciding?) a considerable amount of work that goes way beyond 'imagination' has been done on this topic by Ekman, de Sousa and others. Both present 'biological' theories of emotion; suggesting that there was/is a survival benefit(s) in having them.
The mind/body problem is, of course, a very old and still unresolved one but there again a considerable amount of work has been done and thought expended. Churchland and other 'eliminative materialists' have presented strong (although far from conclusive) arguments that consciousness, emotion and all other mental states could be completely reducible to the physical as part of a complete neuroscience.
I have no idea what the 'natural coincidence theory' is, as it seems to be unique to yourself.
I mean by coincidence theory the idea that all the creatures appeared by coincidence, without an intentional creation by God : natural factors, climate conditions, and other material causes ...
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
If you mean evolution by natural selection (which has nothing to do with 'coincidence' - what do you claim is/are co-inciding?)
No I don't mean evolution, Actually evolution can explain the development of creatures by natural selection, but doesn't really explain the origin of these creatures.
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
The mind/body problem is, of course, a very old and still unresolved one but there again a considerable amount of work has been done and thought expended. Churchland and other 'eliminative materialists' have presented strong (although far from conclusive) arguments that consciousness, emotion and all other mental states could be completely reducible to the physical as part of a complete neuroscience.
There is not really scientific results about the topic. Emotions I don't know, but consciousness cannot be considered as a mental state that can be explained by phisological or chemical/electric phenomena. I don't really have a big experience in neuroscience, but a simple philosophic reflection can show it's beyond scientific proving.
peace.
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
Why is it worth accepting it? It is the equivalent of literally inventing an answer. Resolving another unknown with a different unknown.
I don't want to call it inventing a new solution, let's say finding an existing answer that can be false or can be true. It's worth accepting it because the tow different consequences of accepting it or not accepting it :
A/ Accept that God created us ==> God exists ==> defines our destiny (avoid punishment / get a reward)
B/ Not Accept God created us ==> God can exist ==> potential punishment / or nothing
(remember Pascal's reflexion : Gain all, loose all or get nothing).
peace.
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
I don't want to call it inventing a new solution, let's say finding an existing answer that can be false or can be true. It's worth accepting it because the tow different consequences of accepting it or not accepting it :
A/ Accept that God created us ==> God exists ==> defines our destiny (avoid punishment / get a reward)
B/ Not Accept God created us ==> God can exist ==> potential punishment / or nothing
What a horrific psuedo-pascal response. Are you suggesting that accepting a truth-claim regarding the conscience has everything to do with the avoiding of punishment and the desire for reward? Even Ignoring the immorality of your proposition, it does not even have anything to do with truth. That our motive in this should not be accuracy, or a genuine objective to discern the reality of the situation but to avoid punishment? Do you operate in general according to these principles?
This is not only a contradictory argument, but an immoral one that prohibits personal responsibility and an objective for the truth in favour of self-interest. I have no desire to worship or follow the edicts of a being that would have me tortured otherwise. Your entire argument has now, by your own admission been reduced to "You better believe it, or else!"
Last edited by Skavau; 04-10-2010 at 01:35 PM.
"I know how to fight
I know how to sing
I know the way"
(remember Pascal's reflexion : Gain all, loose all or get nothing).
Yes I do. It is a bogus dichtonomy that ignores personal responsibility, ignores the nature of belief and insists convictions be covered up for the objectives of self-interest. It is the very definition of intellectual suicide. It can have nothing to do with truth.
If I am wrong about Islam then I will go to hell. But then equally, I respond - what if you are wrong? What if you are wrong about Christianity? What if you are wrong about Hinduism? What if you are wrong about Judaism? What if you are wrong about Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Zoroastarianism, Baha'i, Animism (any form - take your pick) or even Scientology? The objective reality is that everyone can be wrong about their beliefs. A contention of faith is not indicative of fact, nor an implication of evidence - rather all it is a standpoint of belief.
And you can only believe if you are convinced. I am not convinced in Islam and therefore I cannot sincerely profess to be a Muslim. By asserting Pascal's Wager (a man who was in fact, ironically a Catholic) you ignore the very basis for belief - which is to be convinced of a certain truth claim. Since I am not convinced by Islam, any threats of a cosmic response per Islam are totally meaningless to me as are the threats of going to the realm of hel as per Norse Mythology is to you.
The main flaw in Pascal's Wager comes regarding its truth value of proclaiming that believing in X has better results than Y. It is false. If the Fundamentalist Christians are correct then you will be burning in hell for all eternity. If even various Islamic sects are correct then you yourself might be burning in hell for all eternity. Anyone could end up being wrong about any self-proclaimed truths and consequently anyone could end up burning in hell for all eternity for their beliefs. So the premise of the argument is rendered redundant.
"I know how to fight
I know how to sing
I know the way"
..That our motive in this should not be accuracy, or a genuine objective to discern the reality of the situation but to avoid punishment? Do you operate in general according to these principles?
Not at all, I was not saying that and I don't know how did you understand that. If you read my whole original post you'll find that I'm not saying we should accept a statement because we are afraid of punishment. We should always seek the truth. But if we are in a situation where we don't know the truth and all the responses are equi-probable, then it's wise to choose the answer having best potential consequences. Hope it's clear.
For example : if I am emprisoned in a closed room and I have tow doors Door1 and Door2. On the Door1 it's written "if you enter that door then you can get killed or you can return to this room (nothing)". On the Door2 it's written "if you enter that door, then you can escape(be free), or you can return to this room (nothing)". If the tow doors were open for me what door should I choose ? Door2 of course.
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
Yes I do. It is a bogus dichtonomy that ignores personal responsibility, ignores the nature of belief and insists convictions be covered up for the objectives of self-interest. It is the very definition of intellectual suicide. It can have nothing to do with truth.
If I am wrong about Islam then I will go to hell. But then equally, I respond - what if you are wrong? What if you are wrong about Christianity? What if you are wrong about Hinduism? What if you are wrong about Judaism? What if you are wrong about Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Zoroastarianism, Baha'i, Animism (any form - take your pick) or even Scientology? The objective reality is that everyone can be wrong about their beliefs. A contention of faith is not indicative of fact, nor an implication of evidence - rather all it is a standpoint of belief.
And you can only believe if you are convinced. I am not convinced in Islam and therefore I cannot sincerely profess to be a Muslim. By asserting Pascal's Wager (a man who was in fact, ironically a Catholic) you ignore the very basis for belief - which is to be convinced of a certain truth claim. Since I am not convinced by Islam, any threats of a cosmic response per Islam are totally meaningless to me as are the threats of going to the realm of hel as per Norse Mythology is to you.
The main flaw in Pascal's Wager comes regarding its truth value of proclaiming that believing in X has better results than Y. It is false. If the Fundamentalist Christians are correct then you will be burning in hell for all eternity. If even various Islamic sects are correct then you yourself might be burning in hell for all eternity. Anyone could end up being wrong about any self-proclaimed truths and consequently anyone could end up burning in hell for all eternity for their beliefs. So the premise of the argument is rendered redundant.
I'm not talking about a specific religion. I'm just speaking about accepting the existence of God, as a first step, to reduce the probability to go to hell . Then finding the right religion is another problem.
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
Not at all, I was not saying that and I don't know how did you understand that. If you read my whole original post you'll find that I'm not saying we should accept a statement because we are afraid of punishment. We should always seek the truth. But if we are in a situation where we don't know the truth and all the responses are equi-probable, then it's wise to choose the answer having best potential consequences. Hope it's clear.
Of course, from my perspective - since I see no reason to believe that Islam is at all true or at the very best, see no reason to distinguish Islam favourably over other religious beliefs - I would not choose based on the hypothetical consequences of dissentation.
It also, and you have not addressed this - presents a rather foul image of Islam that would possibly torture those who simply perhaps were confused, or did not have enough evidence to proceed. I would not out of principle operate with a perspective that is loaded with veiled threats or justifies following it through veiled threats.
For example : if I am emprisoned in a closed room and I have tow doors Door1 and Door2. On the Door1 it's written "if you enter that door then you can get killed or you can return to this room (nothing)". On the Door2 it's written "if you enter that door, then you can escape(be free), or you can return to this room (nothing)". If the tow doors were open for me what door should I choose ? Door2 of course.
This is hardly comparable to my perspective. I have no reason to believe Islam is true. I have no reason to believe specifically that Islam is true over the possibility of Christianity (not withstanding its thousands of sects), Judaism, Baha'i, Scientology, Zoroastarianism, Shinto, Hinduism, Sikhism, Animism, Jainism, Paganism, Rastafarianism, Buddhism and many others. Many of which, I suspect and know have just as equally benign assertions about aspects of reality to which we have no real or objective answer for.
It is not the case, for me that I am choosing between a door of death and a door of life.
I'm not talking about a specific religion. I'm just speaking about accepting the existence of God, as a first step, to reduce the probability to go to hell . Then finding the right religion is another problem.
So sincerity means nothing to you when it comes to non-descript theism. This is subservience to authority expressed. You inform us of the fear of punishment immediately when you suggest that everyone ought to be theistic on the basis of minimalising the chance of punishment. I will not, and indeed cannot become a theist or even a deist unless I am given a convincing argument or specific evidence that suggests the existence of a deity.
But in any case, the fact that you're "not talking about specific religion" means nothing here. You know, as well as I do (it is the case with Muslims too) that many different religions speak proudly of punishment towards those that believe in the wrong God, or infer the characteristics of God incorrectly. If If you assume that certain concepts are true based on ignorance, then inevitably you have to assume that anything related to that could be true. You have no real way, by your own admission of actually knowing whether or not you have increased or decreased the chance of punishment in a hypothetical hellfire as very possibly, you could be convicted of worshipping an idol.
"I know how to fight
I know how to sing
I know the way"
There is not really scientific results about the topic. Emotions I don't know, but consciousness cannot be considered as a mental state that can be explained by phisological or chemical/electric phenomena. I don't really have a big experience in neuroscience, but a simple philosophic reflection can show it's beyond scientific proving.
From a philosophic point of view, you need to read some Dan Dennett. Start with "Consciousness Explained" .
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 04-10-2010 at 03:44 PM.
The main flaw in Pascal's Wager comes regarding its truth value of proclaiming that believing in X has better results than Y. It is false. If the Fundamentalist Christians are correct then you will be burning in hell for all eternity. If even various Islamic sects are correct then you yourself might be burning in hell for all eternity. Anyone could end up being wrong about any self-proclaimed truths and consequently anyone could end up burning in hell for all eternity for their beliefs. So the premise of the argument is rendered redundant.
And moreso, many of the Gods we read about (including the judeo/christian/muslim God) speak out against worshiping false Gods FAR more than they do against not worshiping any God. The first commandment is "Thou Shalt have no Gods before me", not "Worship me"
Of course, from my perspective - since I see no reason to believe that Islam is at all true or at the very best, see no reason to distinguish Islam favourably over other religious beliefs - I would not choose based on the hypothetical consequences of dissentation.
Even though you don't believe in Islam, these hypothetical consequences are still hypotheses that can be true or false; untill you refute them.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
It is not the case, for me that I am choosing between a door of death and a door of life.
Not a good decision. You have to count the death risk possibility, untill you become totally sure it's false.
format_quote Originally Posted by Skavau
But in any case, the fact that you're "not talking about specific religion" means nothing here. You know, as well as I do (it is the case with Muslims too) that many different religions speak proudly of punishment towards those that believe in the wrong God, or infer the characteristics of God incorrectly.
I should accept God exists at least, then in a second step, to find out his characteristics to identify him and to choose the right religion. Yes there can be wrong religions that can take us to hell. But that doesn't mean it's better to not accept God's existence at all.
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
Even though you don't believe in Islam, these hypothetical consequences are still hypotheses that can be true or false; untill you refute them.
No I don't. That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You might as well insist I refute the existence of Xenu.
Not a good decision. You have to count the death risk possibility, untill you become totally sure it's false.
Perhaps Thor has something more burdensome for me in the afterlife. Perhaps the real God is a God that punishes those who believe in him. Perhaps the real God is a malevolent entity that punishes everyone anyway (which is just as plausible as a benevolent one when we look at the destruction that nature causes). We have no real reason to discriminate in any favour against any possible God in the perspective of absolute ignorance.
I should accept God exists at least, then in a second step, to find out his characteristics to identify him and to choose the right religion.
Not only am I unwilling to do that, I actually cannot do that. You propose reasons to assert God from appealing to consequence, which is not only based in self-interest, it also cannot at all be steadfastedly asserted from the perspective of ignorance.
Yes there can be wrong religions that can take us to hell. But that doesn't mean it's better to not accept God's existence at all.
What reason do I have to believe in a God, over say Thor, or even the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Since you've basically nulled your position down to "what if?" then I can just as reasonably ask "what if" regarding other things.
"I know how to fight
I know how to sing
I know the way"
which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
let me see, by "dismissed" you mean : I'm not sure it's true, or I'm sure it's false ?
if it's the second definition then, your logic is not really right. If you hear a news or an information without evidence then you directly affirm it's wrong.
the rest of your post follows this idea.
Thor, Spaghetti Monster, ... : it's irrealistic+without evidence, but for me if I can show it's impossible (spaghetti can't logically fly), then I can say it's false.
And the minimum God's characteristics can't be applied to these mythical "Gods", no need to mention them.
"O you who believe! Fear ALLAH as He should be feared" [aal 'Imraan, 102]
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks