The existence of God

Post Reply New Topic

You mean that there are living things on the world, and that the world undergoes change. That is different than saying that the planet is alive. The planet is an inanimate object, and that's how our science works so effectively. The planet has on it an amazing chemical activity, but it isn't even a person by any stretch, and certainly not a god.

If it wasn't alive it wouldn't be able to support life, it's as simple as that. Your science, as I said, is not helped nor hindered by this fact but it is something we must take responsibility for. We simply don't do enough to rectify the catastrophic damage we have inflicted on our earth, our "god" if you will, and thusly on ourselves; if we don't change our ways humanity, earth and all the life that inhabits her is simply doomed, we won't get a second chance.

Most of the planet is hot rocks. Living stuff exists near its surface. The planet as a whole is neither conscious nor sentient.

ruveyn

How can you prove that it isn't sentient?

Umm...... "If it wasn't alive it wouldn't be able to support life" rests on the hidden premise that "only things that are alive can support life". This premise is false though, as there is no reason to believe it to be impossible for non-life to support life.

Well, the problem is that if there is "free will" then there is a limitation to natural science's ability to manipulate matter. If there isn't then there is no limitation. We don't see a limitation, so why believe in one?

Actually if we're clever enough, we probably could get all sorts of additional chances. Heck, if we think enough about the pollution in advance, then we could probably cover the world in smog and still survive.

Can a rock think?

ruveyn

Why not? In society human beings work as part of a "hive mind", there's work been done that suggest insects work the same, why not a collective conscience?

Ok, wait a second, I think I've found a good way to convey this.

Would you consider bones to be "alive" as it were?

Honestly, I think our intuitions about "alive" are overblown. Such an argument relies upon some essential "alive"ness. There is no such thing. The issue is just that the earth does not show tendencies that reflect what we generally consider to be "alive" or what we consider to be "sentient". I mean, one can rape the terms to make the argument, but simply speaking, the earth does not have processes that can meaningfully be described in teleological terms, but rather it does things without deliberation.

As it stands, if someone asked me if bones were alive, my answer would be one of the following:
a) No, because in order to be alive, an entity has to exhibit certain properties, including acquisition of food resources, and reproduction, and bones do neither, the human beings they are a part of do.
b) Sure, in some sense in that bones are comprised of entities that are engaging in biological metabolizing processes, but in a sense no better than bacteria colonies.
c) The question is confused. "Alive" is just a conventional term for dividing the world into living and non-living things. It isn't a set and firm category, but rather asking the question is like asking "Is this really just a very purple shade of blue, or a very blue shade of purple?", a question with no real answer.

^^ Hello everyone,

I am sorry ruveyn, however I perhaps disagree with your point somewhat. I believe that the burden of proof is on the individual who wishes to convince an individual of something. Many religious individuals are happy to carry out their faith and are open-minded about what other individuals believe.

Therefore, if an atheist wished for these religious individuals to be atheists, then theoretically atheist must prove that the religious individuals beliefs are incorrect.

Similarly, if the religious individual wished for the atheist to be religious, the religious individual must convince the individual to do so.

In this case, existence and non-existence of a deity are two statements. To whom the burden of proof falls depends upon the wish to prove, not the beliefs themselves.

In this way, I find devout scientists very similar to devout priests. After all, they are both individuals with strong beliefs that wish to pass their beliefs on the others.

(I, personally, am happily agnostic).

I can understand that. Often I think people conceive of "burdens of proof" as if each belief had just emerged from the void, rather than recognizing that most beliefs people hear are not spontaneous hypotheses, and this is a problem. To some extent, your notion of the burden of proof makes more sense.


It depends on what you mean by "devout", are you referring to "devout" scientists as being devout to science? Or scientists who are religious? I am going to assume the former for now.

And here I disagree. I see scientists as people who test their understanding by empirical evidence, empirical evidence being what most people consider reality and thus nearly universally accept, while most priests don't seek to test their understanding but rather maintain their faith and that of their flocks by almost any excuse. And because of this, I find that the priesthood is more likely intellectually immature. Now, theologians are a different matter, however, just the same, I believe that most theologians are also reasoning in the void (aka "making stuff up") more than scientists, as theologians invoke ideas and properties, but care a lot less about rigid logical analysis, or empirical analysis than I would think scientists do.

I mean, relativism is nice, and it seems cool, but frankly, most people reject it in their day-to-day living, and just pay lip-service to the idea because they are stupid and intellectual cowards (not to be insulting here, but I am very cynical and skeptical to relativism), but not because it is really right. This issue can be seen with this comic.


It can also be seen with the fact that we consider people who disagree with our views too much to be "insane" or "criminal", labels that carry a lot of connotations above and beyond the definition: "a person who disagrees with me".


And I am the STRIDENTest of all atheists in the land. (there was a vote, and I have a very good campaign staff)

^^Yaye thankee for responding Awesomelyglorious.

I certainly very much agree with you that the practices of a priest and a Scientist are often very different.

However, the similarities that I see with priests and scientists is perhaps more within how the they preach their beliefs (I am sorry if I was very silly and using incorrect terms beforehand).

Throughout their lives both the scientist and the priest have experiences that have caused them to have very strong beliefs (although the way that these beliefs come about may differ greatly).

I am very sorry if I was horrible within my post.

Conversations are ALWAYS a matter of using terms and hoping the other person gets them. Human languages don't have a strong relationship to computer languages, in that human language can be very contextual, and computer languages tend to be algorithmic. So, it is no real problem.

As for "preaching", I guess you would say that both scientists and priests tend to be accepted on their authority? I apologize if I am not understanding you here, but that is actually somewhat true. The big question just comes down to justifiable authority, and generally speaking, I think that scientists have a more justified authority than priests of any sort. Disagreement with a scientist is generally taken as a lack of concern about truth, but disagreement with a priest is just a matter of perhaps having a different religion.


Absolutely, and this is the same with everybody else. The real issue is that scientists still seem to give us more and better answers than priests, and when I say "more and better", I simply mean that scientific answers allow for more progress, and that they are testable, even with daily usage in many cases.


You weren't bad. If you've ever been on the internet, then misunderstandings occur no matter who the two parties in dialogue are. This even happens in person where there is often more information richness, and even if both parties can perceive this richness. It is just part of being human, as we have ideas, we translate these ideas into language, the language we use is dependent upon how we've learned it, and our own personal quirks, and maybe we miss a few things because they are just "obvious" to us, and other people translate back based upon what they've learned and their personal quirks, and misinterpret things based upon it being "obvious" to them.

So because ignorant civilizations thought earthquakes were caused by a premenstrual Gaia and not the shifting of tectonic plates proves that she exists. There is nothing mystical about nature, grow up. AG is absolutely correct you are very guilty of anthropomorphism, the earth like AG is AWESOME (STRIDENTLY so), the intricate dance of chemicals is exquisite in its complexity, but that does not equate to it being mystical. As has been pointed out the understanding of the fundamental laws of physics on this planet allow us to manipulate and create, if the planet was sentient we would still be praying and sacrificing to ensure good good natural outcomes, maybe you do, but trust me it is an exercise in ignorance.

Proof that they worshiped nature spirits? Sure. Proof that nature has a spirit? Hogwash.

Proof that they lives depended on a innate understanding of the vagaries of the seasons, the earth and the weather? You bet. Proof that a collection of autonomous agents whispered in the ears of early humanity to warn them of the spirits capricious plans? That is a steaming pike of crap.

Once when I was younger I tried to hump a hole in the ground, but it felt gross and dirty, just like gay sex, therefore nature is a guy. I proved it, so stop saying otherwise.


Lately British Petroleum guys,
are dropping dead like flies.
Wait one second.. wait,
that hasnt been their fate,
your posts are just full of lies.