Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.

I actually prefer to use those words, as they describe the situation better.. without highly charged labels, that are used pejoratively. But it is still hard to get any militant atheists to admit to having a different opinion about the nature of the universe.. just a simple difference of beliefs. They get all bent out of shape, & say, 'No! You have religion!! I have science!', and the 'debate' just turns into orwellian word juggling, with no common definitions for anything that describes a person's basic 'worldview', philosophy, belief system, religion, or whatever you want to call it. They insist in putting the 'religious!' people in a separate box.. so they can ridicule them more easily, i suppose. But you (generically speaking) cannot dodge the simple reality that people just have different beliefs about the nature of the universe. Even though the militant atheists deny that, too. 'No! We have no beliefs! We are purely rational beings with no opinions about anything!'

I'm poking a bit of fun at these guys.. many of whom i ignore, because of their over the top hostility toward anything or anyone 'religious!!' But try it sometime. Ask one of our resident militant atheists what they believe.. you will be surprised at the answer. They will not say, 'i don't believe in God', which is a simple statement about your worldview, philosophy, opinion, or whatever you want to call it.

I would not want to get involved in a 'debate' with them over the word, 'love'! I value my sanity (such as it is) & would not like the flat spots on my head from banging it into the wall...

 

RE Anselm's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God.
※→ One Mind, et al,

It would probably be best if you don't put "Atheism" in one set group; even the group that rejects the belief in a Supreme Being, and another group that goes through life without considering the existence of the phantom supernatural power. While there are constituents in "Atheism" that see (for the most part) that such belief in these fantasy systems as harmless, they are alert for the potentially dangerous fundamentalist, radicals and cultist. (ie Jim Jones - David Koresh - Stewart Traill - Joseph Di Mambro - Marshall Applewhit - etc)

(COMMENT)

The religious materialism (that all thing in the universe have a relationship between the mass of the object and equivalency in energy) is not necessary an opposing to a belief in a Supreme Being. Most people do not make that connection or think on that plain. Most "atheist" disregard the idea of a prefect and benevolent Supreme Being simply because of all the evil that occurs in reality.

In terms of the "immeasurable:" we simply do not have enough data points to make that presumption, given that the Uncertainly Principle, as applied to quantum mechanics, is a probability; as we understand it today. It has absolutely nothing to do with any belief system. There can be one deity, an unlimited number of deities, or no deity at all --- it would not change the the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle given a constant reality we have today.

The problem here is that one cannot use a belief system to make judgments on scientific observations (test-ability) --- or --- vice versa.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Geez. The whole frigging planet is on acid.

 

Science models however are fundamentally based on faith as well, in some areas bears more reality than other. Science is always proven wrong and modified throughout time.

 

The point, that i think @One Mind was getting at, is that a purely materialistic view is just circular reasoning. It is based on several assumptions, that have not been proved as Natural Conditions of the Universe.. they are merely assumptions.

1. What we see & observe with our natural senses is the Natural World.
2. Anything that we cannot observe is supernatural or unnatural.
3. Science deals with the natural world.
4. Therefore, anything supernatural, unknown, or unobservable is not science.

As is seen with QM, and the theory of relativity, not everything 'science' deals in the material world. There are many abstract concepts in science, & the possibility of other dimensions or spheres of reality cannot just be dismissed by definition.

' Because we cannot see it, touch it, or measure it, it is not real.'

That is the pure materialist talking, but there are possibilities beyond our material senses. This requires abstract thinking, which brought us here in the first place, but also must go beyond mandated, assumed, materialism.

And yes, i agree that you cannot use a MATERIAL belief system, to explain a supernatural one. You can do it, somewhat the other way around, because the more open view of reality can posit other possibilities. The material is the one stuck in the human senses limitations.

But the basic worldviews are still mostly binary:

1. The universe originated by natural processes, from the material world, with no supernatural intervention.
2. The universe originated by supernatural processes, which also originated natural processes, life, & any other reality, seen or unseen.

Both of these are unknown, seemingly unknowable processes.. that we are unable, at this time, to repeat, observe, or scrutinize. We know & agree on the proven, demonstrable material processes, but have different opinions about the possibility of a supernatural Cause.

 

Yeah, you gotta pick your battles. If I stopped to correct every militant or mistaken religionist, I'd never get anything done.

I especially love the scriptural literalists who mistake their rationalized beliefs for 'logic.'

 

Atheists are looking for something simple and concrete and build their belief systems around that model. As a few have said there is a much larger very real world beyond what one is simply able to touch and that world is all extrapolated by faith. Where atheists get into endless trouble is when they try to claim their belief constructs are something other than just another religion.

 

To be fair, i try not to 'debate' with any religionists, who just take a dogmatic position, & ignore reason. I include theists, atheists, absurdists, & agnostics in that category. Those are human attributes, that do not reflect necessarily on the ideology. But, i also avoid discussions about religious texts, as they tend to generate more heat than light.

But the other factor, that is usually not taken into account, is the level & prevalence of indoctrination, as the engine of philosophical proselytizing. These are the True Believers, that i mention on occasion, & they generally reflect the Status Quo of modern education.. since that is where most indoctrination these days takes place. But i include the media, entertainment, music, pop icons, govt, & even religious institutions, who are very active in the shaping of worldviews.

 

I think the more militant ones, that we are all familiar with, just make the PRESUMPTION of naturalism, & try to force their assumption on everyone else. If it is not a naturalistic explanation, then it is 'sky fairy!' or 'superstition!' or some other pejorative term of endearment.

But their BELIEF that the universe is ONLY naturalistic, is only that: a belief. Nobody has to accept their worldview, or opinion about their more narrow view of the universe. Some have the ability to see beyond the material, & to consider other possibilities. Fortunately, Science has historically been in the latter camp, & has thought outside of the box, to consider what minds stuck in materialism cannot grasp.

 

Well, I don't agree that everything exists merely in our brains.

Regardless of what's happening in the real world (and whether than in itself also has its source in our brains) maths is a way for us humans to think about the world. I don't have a problem saying maths is real, I would say it is a perspective. Perspectives are real, but they are not the only way to think about it. As such, if God was real in the same way, it would be possible to merely disregard his existence.

Now, such a God one could say exists but it would call many other things about God into question, like the idea of power. Just like maths, or any perspective, it is contingent on the things it refers to, which is against many ideas of God.

 

I'm curious what your woldview is. Do you have a religious or non-religious term you identify as?

 

I have a philosophy/worldview/religious opinion about the nature of the universe, just like everyone else. I'm not a special snowflake that has to be different from everyone, & feel unique. I don't care much for labels, as they are mostly used to pigeonhole people so you don't have to listen to what they say.

I am a theist, who believes in a Creator, who made the universe & everything in it. I am also an existentialist philosopher, at times, & can feel the angst & despair of life & death flowing through me. And, i'm a sometimes poet, who likes colorful words, & unique ways of looking at the universe.

 

Fair enough, adopting a label comes with both benefits and pitfalls. Existentialism has rung true for me, in statement if not in tone, since Philosophy 101 many a moon ago. We are born into this world with no inherent purpose -- we have only that purpose which we project onto it.

Does your creator have a name, a mythology, an ethical directive, etc.?

 

I would be called a 'christian', by most here, i am sure. I am a student & follower of the teachings of Jesus, which i find to be The Most Amazing words ever written, & they convey The Most Amazing concepts ever considered.

How about your label?

 

Do you not consider yourself a Christian? Or do you just not like the label?

I hold human compassion guided by human reason above all other values. I am a Humanist.

 

I'm just not into labels, i guess. Plus the term 'christian' has been diluted, bastardized, & distorted so much, it has little meaning, as a descriptor. But it is the term i use, most of the time.
But in my experience, especially on forums, the labels are used as pejoratives, to distort any discussion & deflect from whatever point is being made. It is like other personal information.. it is almost always used against you, distorted to promote a phony caricature. I always hope that the words speak for themselves, but too many people love the ad hom, & go for that every time.

 

If not in your brain how do you perceive anything what so ever? I did not intend that to mean anything outside the brain is nonexistent. Our understanding of everything is built on constructs. You may or may not accept the constructs, however nonacceptance does not disqualify them.

 

How do I un-watch this thread?

:EDIT:

I'm OK now...

 

There is no issue if there are gods and goddesses all they need to do is Openly Reveal Themselves is that so hard for super powerful beings to do? Seriously short of that I would argue philosophical arguments are cute but pointless.

 

Yeah it does happen. I've not yet had Humanism thrown at me as an epithet, but just starting my Humanism thread demonstrated the hate and lies that can be thrown at it. My own mother-in-law has some strange fears about Humanism, I've recently discovered. I've got a good idea of who fed her the lies she's afraid of, but I haven't gotten a chance to talk to her about them.

Anyhow, peace to you and yours.

 

Some have said JC is a humanist

The biggest problem you have is destroy religion and all you have left is state. good luck with that.

 

I think we're talking about different things then. Our understanding is in our heads, but we're talking about whether God exists, not whether we can understand him.

 

Oh? if a person cant understand physics will they agree that an atom exists?

 

Are you saying they have not?

So as far as you are concerned God is not in compliance with some manual or standardized revelation procedure.

Seems to me your statement isnt at a point of arguing metaphysics or supernatural, and your basic reasoning needs to be sorted out, starting with what particular form are you demanding God reveal themselves to you? It seems God has revealed themselves to countless others over the ages so how do you explain that?

 

The burden of proof lies with the one who claims there is one.