Does God Suffer From Vanity?

Lack of empirical data doesn't prove something to be false. All it proves is a lack of empirical data.

If that were the case that a lack of empiracal data makes something false, then X-Rays would have been false for millenniums due to lack of empirical data...which is contrary to science.

Therefore, anyone who claims to know that God is false, is deeply confused as to what constitutes true and false.

In addition, there is no logical argument that has been accepted universally by logicians and philosophers that demonstrates God is necessarily false.

Consequently, atheists (apart from the turnip brain variety) practice an active faith in non God, and theists practice an active faith in God.
Quote from james_bond_3rd:

God is not known by any method of empiricism to be true. So what's your point?
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Lack of empirical data doesn't prove something to be false. All it proves is a lack of empirical data.

If that were the case that a lack of empiracal data makes something false, then X-Rays would have been false for millenniums due to lack of empirical data...which is contrary to science.

Therefore, anyone who claims to know that God is false, is deeply confused as to what constitutes true and false.

In addition, there is no logical argument that has been accepted universally by logicians and philosophers that demonstrates God is necessarily false.

Consequently, atheists (apart from the turnip brain variety) practice an active faith in non God, and theists practice an active faith in God.
More...

Making a fool of yourself again.

If "lack of empirical data" does not prove something to be false, then you should also believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Maxwell's Devil, Invisible Freddie, and Unicorn-in-a-flowerpot. This isn't a shred of empirical data on any of these. Why do you pick only a man-like God?

You are again making false claims about science. In science, anything that cannot be proven empirically is false. Without empirical data, even if you hit the jackpot and guess that there is something out there, your guess would be wrong because it won't be fact based. Empirical data is what separates real science from pseudoscience. You're equating God with pseudoscience.

There is no logical argument that has been accepted universally by logicians and philosophers that demonstrates God is necessarily true.
 
In the following quote of yours, I hope you realize that you're asking atheists to prove a negative. By saying, "God is not known by any method of empiricism to be false" you are essentially saying, "prove God doesn't exist."


Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

God is not known by any method of empiricism to be false, God may be believed to be false by the empiricists, but now known to be false. That is why it is an active practice of faith to hold God as true or non God as true once the concept of God has been understood.

We are talking about matters of faith in this thread, not mathematics...right?

Oh, and people can make themselves believe whatever they want, we witness that every day...
More...

anyway, I actually do get what you're trying to argue in the posts subsequent to the one I quoted above. But what I'd like to get you to see is that no one chooses to believe anything. For various reasons I don't want to get into right at this moment, they just believe what they believe.

If one were able to actively and consciously choose what to believe, then they would be able to choose to believe something they know to be false as easily as something they hope to be true. There is little difference between what you know to be false and what you hope to be true. Both have no tangible evidence of ever being true on a consistent basis.

For instance, they would be able to make themselves believe that green is actually black. Short is actually tall. Poor is rich. 2+2=5. But they can't. They can't even delude themselves into believing these things because reality will cause a significant amount of doubt.

This is an important distinction because you berate atheists for not believing as if they had a choice. But they don't because you're asking them to believe something they reasoned to be false given their mechanism for arriving at a truth. Yet all the while, you can't even make yourself believe that 2+2=5 using the same method atheists use when it comes to dieties and the like.

This is why atheist claim that believers are suspending reason for believing in such things. But reason and belief are two seperate constructs. Reason is never suspended. It's just not strong enough to overcome the belief. It merely causes doubt in most. Why that's the case is still under study.
 
ZZZ,

Empiricism is concerned with trial and experimentation on the tangible, the quantifiable, that which can be measured. Therefore, to try to prove or deny God’s existence by empiricism is a non-starter.

“ there is no logical argument that has been accepted universally by logicians and philosophers that demonstrates God is necessarily false”. Is there a logical argument that demonstrates God is necessarily true?

There is no rational or logical argument that demonstrates God’s existence – all can be dismissed by first-year Philosophy undergraduates: ontological argument, teleological argument, argument from contingency, argument from religious experience, utility argument, etc.

Now, provide a rational argument or explanation for the existence of God.

Grant.
 
Empiricism rests on the fallability of senses and intellect, both of which have shown with regularity to be flawed and inconsistent from time to time, in addition to having no means of calibration outside of senses and intellect themselves, which logically renders conclusions possibly circular in nature and fully subjective as a result.

I am not knocking empricism, I think it is great and has its place in the world, but when applied to God and the concept of God it fails miserably due to its limitations.

There a lots of arguments for God. None are universally accepted of course, but there are arguments, perhaps the strongest being the ontological variety. You can look them up if you are interested, there is no sense in repeating them here in this thread, there are lots of threads where they have been discussed.

As far as arguments being dismissed, almost any philosophical argument can and has been dismissed by detractors from time to time, you should know that if you took any philosophy courses.

Anyway, you are taking this off course from my comments, which clearly showed that theists hold an active belief in God, atheists hold an active belief in non God, and the agnostic holds an active belief that he is unable to determine God or non God both.

Atheists and theists both rely equally on faith to maintain their belief systems, as there is no proof of God that is universally accepted, and no proof of non God that is universally accepted.



Quote from Grant:

ZZZ,

Empiricism is concerned with trial and experimentation on the tangible, the quantifiable, that which can be measured. Therefore, to try to prove or deny God’s existence by empiricism is a non-starter.

“ there is no logical argument that has been accepted universally by logicians and philosophers that demonstrates God is necessarily false”. Is there a logical argument that demonstrates God is necessarily true?

There is no rational or logical argument that demonstrates God’s existence – all can be dismissed by first-year Philosophy undergraduates: ontological argument, teleological argument, argument from contingency, argument from religious experience, utility argument, etc.

Now, provide a rational argument or explanation for the existence of God.

Grant.
More...
 
Lack of empirical data of gamma rays did not make gamma rays false.

Or are you saying that what we can't measure, absolutely does not exist?

That would be a most foolish and illogical statement...

I think when it comes to your understanding of "science" you need to go back to school.

Just ask a scientist how to measure how much his love is for his kids...

Then tell him since he can't measure it empirically, his love for his kids is false...because he can't prove it empirically.

Quote from james_bond_3rd:

Making a fool of yourself again.

If "lack of empirical data" does not prove something to be false, then you should also believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Maxwell's Devil, Invisible Freddie, and Unicorn-in-a-flowerpot. This isn't a shred of empirical data on any of these. Why do you pick only a man-like God?

You are again making false claims about science. In science, anything that cannot be proven empirically is false. Without empirical data, even if you hit the jackpot and guess that there is something out there, your guess would be wrong because it won't be fact based. Empirical data is what separates real science from pseudoscience. You're equating God with pseudoscience.

There is no logical argument that has been accepted universally by logicians and philosophers that demonstrates God is necessarily true.
More...
 
Believers have a reason to suspend reason in favor of faith, as do lovers, as do enjoyers of the arts, etc.

Suspension of reason though in favor of faith, does not necessarily result in false conclusions...as no atheist has shown that God is a false conclusion, they just believe God is the wrong conclusion. Their "best efforts" are to compare God to Santa Clause and the like, which I find odd, because I don't know anyone who teaches that Santa Clause is God.

Atheists have and hold their faith tightly, and actively. That's their faith, faith in non God.

Quote from ddunbar:

In the following quote of yours, I hope you realize that you're asking atheists to prove a negative. By saying, "God is not known by any method of empiricism to be false" you are essentially saying, "prove God doesn't exist."




anyway, I actually do get what you're trying to argue in the posts subsequent to the one I quoted above. But what I'd like to get you to see is that no one chooses to believe anything. For various reasons I don't want to get into right at this moment, they just believe what they believe.

If one were able to actively and consciously choose what to believe, then they would be able to choose to believe something they know to be false as easily as something they hope to be true. There is little difference between what you know to be false and what you hope to be true. Both have no tangible evidence of ever being true on a consistent basis.

For instance, they would be able to make themselves believe that green is actually black. Short is actually tall. Poor is rich. 2+2=5. But they can't. They can't even delude themselves into believing these things because reality will cause a significant amount of doubt.

This is an important distinction because you berate atheists for not believing as if they had a choice. But they don't because you're asking them to believe something they reasoned to be false given their mechanism for arriving at a truth. Yet all the while, you can't even make yourself believe that 2+2=5 using the same method atheists use when it comes to dieties and the like.

This is why atheist claim that believers are suspending reason for believing in such things. But reason and belief are two seperate constructs. Reason is never suspended. It's just not strong enough to overcome the belief. It merely causes doubt in most. Why that's the case is still under study.
More...
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Atheists and theists both rely equally on faith to maintain their belief systems, as there is no proof of God that is universally accepted, and no proof of non God that is universally accepted.
More...





Amen, that is why I prefer to stay in the middle with a little lean towards pascals wager.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top