Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
Dotes:
But the problem about defining God so broadly is that he ceases to fit the definition of a "God." If God is just a part of the human experience (imagination?), then what, pray tell, are Christians worshiping? Why do they pray? Why do they continue to speak about him like a personal friend of theirs? Why do they keep telling me he loves me and wants me to go to heaven?
I really just don't get it. That's my biggest problem with the theist argument. It always ends up running around in a circle.
(Every time I try to walk away, they pull - me - back - IN!)
Edit: Ugh. I can't help myself. I shouldn't get into this discussion, but it's all anyone seems to want to do, so should I feel guilty? I dunno.
Saints:
--- Quote from: Surgoshan on 19 Dec 2008, 05:43 ---
--- Quote from: Saints on 19 Dec 2008, 03:13 ---Science does not refute the idea of god. It doesn't attempt to. It doesn't want to. It just attempts to explain our world. That is it.
The idea of god is NOT irrational because of scientific evidence. Science has offered absolutely no evidence that suggests a god doesn't exist.
It's offered no evidence that the Christian God doesn't exist.
Do not assume that you are a more rational person because you are an atheist. Do not assume that rationality holds no sway in deist/theists/Christian/Jew/whatever's life.
--- End quote ---
The god that most people believe in is an overwhelmingly interventionist god. It interacts with the universe on a minute-to-minute basis, altering things for the benefit of its believers. It helps football players score touchdowns, it alters traffic to get believers to work on time, it opens up parking spaces, it heals the sick, it watches out for children, etc.
Anything that interacts with the world must be observable due to the fact that it's interacting with things we can observe. Time and time again, there has been a complete lack of observation.
Try this analogy.
Anna and Kate are walking down the street when they come to an empty lot.
"Look at that beautiful garden!" cries Anna, "It must be tended by a particularly skillful gardener!"
"What are you talking about? It's an empty lot full of weeds! It couldn't possibly be tended by a gardener." is Kate's reply.
"He must tend it to grow that way."
"I have never once seen a gardener there."
"You must have simply missed him. He must come only at night, when you don't walk by here."
So Anna and Kate decide to watch the garden. They keep watch for days, and don't spot a gardener.
Kate shrugs and says, "I guess there's no gardener."
"He must be invisible."
"... invisible?"
"Yes, that's why we couldn't see him."
So Anna and Kate build a fence. When Anna suggests he might be able to fly, they put a net over the fence. When Anna suggests he might be very small, they put a solid dome over the entire plot. Then Anna suggests he might be intangible. Kate gets fed up.
"You've got an invisible, intangible, flying gardener whose garden looks exactly like there isn't a gardener. What's the difference between that and a gardener who doesn't exist?"
In strict, deductive logic, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. But in life we mostly deal with inductive logic. Thousands of years of observation have completely failed to turn up evidence of the invisible gardener. Absence of evidence, when one would expect evidence, is evidence of absence. There is no gardener.
--- End quote ---
Who says that god is necessarily interventionist?
Also, typically the idea of god happens to be an idea of omnipotence. If that really is the case, then god could do whatever he pleases in any manner he pleases. Why attach human reasoning and logic to something that is inherently separated from human reasoning and logic? If anything, that's illogical.
Science has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of god. It has offered no evidence of his existence or non-existence. To say that someone is illogical or irrational for believing in a higher power/being/god is just wrong.
Saints:
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 19 Dec 2008, 04:11 ---So the idea of fairies is not irrational; Russell's teapot is fine; and there's a pig flying behind that cloud? Oh, and there's this other world that science does not attempt to explain...
We've been there (in the Discuss forum). Simply saying that something can't be disproved doesn't make it true, nor does it even provide a basis for believing in it.
--- End quote ---
I didn't say it makes it true. I simply said that a belief in god/gods/whatever is not irrational or illogical.
And why must belief be based on fact? I believe my fiancee won't cheat on me. There are no facts to support this. Only interpretations and assumptions that I make. Does that make me an illogical and irrational person?
tragic_pizza:
Q: "Is there evidence that God exists?"
A: "Do you want to believe that God exists?"
Spluff:
--- Quote from: Surgoshan on 19 Dec 2008, 05:43 ---In strict, deductive logic, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. But in life we mostly deal with inductive logic. Thousands of years of observation have completely failed to turn up evidence of the invisible gardener. Absence of evidence, when one would expect evidence, is evidence of absence. There is no gardener.
--- End quote ---
There are thousands of things science cannot explain, constant reports of unexplained phenomena, events occurring that were so unlikely that people didn't even acknowledge the possibility of them even happening. The whole bible was written about proofs of God.
Are these proofs fictional, the events co-incidences, and the phenomena imagined? Perhaps, but perhaps not. Some choose not to believe that just because modern science can't explain it, it can't have ever happened, and instead take these things as proof of God.
You cannot possibly attempt to examine the possibility of God if you do not even attempt to accept the opposing sides arguments, and just dismiss anything that contradicts your beliefs as 'untrue'.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version