Psalm 14: Who was Jesus' grandpa?

[Fenn]

The existence or non-existence of God has absolutely no bearing on the question of solipsism

Got it. But I did say ANYTHING, including my own conscious, if that changes anything. And do you accept solipsism? Not sure if you answred this before. Since solipsism only recognizes the true existence of consciousness and thought, would that open up not necessarily the belief in, but the possibility of an eternal consciousness since the idea of consciousness being linked to matter, which is external, is not trusted? Note that the argument that things occured before one's conscious existence is also invalid because these events are also external and thereby distrusted.

And there could be aliens on other planets. And there could be Godzilla in the mariana trench. And there could be a parallel universe where, right now, I am having sex with Scarlett Johansson, Christina Hendricks, and Kim Kardashian. and And everything you think you know could actually be wrong and you are the victim of the most organized and massive conspiracy ever as literally every single person you have ever met has been lying to you and part of this conspiracy.

There are infinite possibilities and most things are impossible to disprove. This is why skepticism is necessary. You must prove propositions, not disprove them. This is why the onus of proof is always on the theist. They are the one positing a thing, and thus they must prove that thing.

Of course. But isn't science itself based on searching for explanations to events? Even though there is not way to be 100% sure something is a coincedence, an attempt to try to find an answer to coincedences that appear "suspicious" is not unjustified, providing you know when to stop (and provided that the coincidence even matters).

Basically what I'm trying to say is, i don't BELIEVE in this other "thing" which I cannot describe, but have a hunch/instinct/hypothesis something else big in importance is out there.

No, it would not. There is something very foolish about saying "There is something affecting us in ways we don't understand! I literally know nothing about what this thing is, or how it is affecting us, or what its effects are, but somehow I know it exists even though I literally cannot name a single quality about it and ergo am completely full of nonsense!"

And something equally foolish in saying "there is certainly nothing else affecting us; we know everything." Sometimes I have interpreted your argument as saying that the times of scientists discovering earth-shattering revelations about existence are over and we know all we ever will about the "big questions."

That's only a mystery if you assume that matter and energy were created. If you assume a steady state universe (in regards to the amount of matter in it, not the configurations, obviously) then this is not a problem at all. Also, again, it has nothing to do with God since using God to "solve" this "problem" just makes it worse.

For the billionth time, here's why.
The argument from first cause:
Premise 1. All things must have a creator.
Premise 2. The universe exists.
Conclusion 1. The universe has a creator.
Conclusion 2. The creator is God.
Now ignoring the fact that none of the premises suggest, let alone necessitate, that second conclusion, here is why that argument is literally worthless. If we accept the first premise then we run into:
Premise 3. God exists.
Conclusion 3. God has a creator.
Premise 4. God's Creator exists.
Conclusion 4. God's Creator has a creator.
Premise 5. God's Creator's Creator exists.
Premise 6. God's Creator's Creator has a creator.
So on and so forth into infinity. The apparent solution to this is to, of course, say that God is different and has no creator. But then you've modified the argument. Now the initial argument has become this:
Premise 1. Most things have creators.
But by modifying that first premise you now have weakened the argument. It's no longer a logical necessity, now it's merely a inductive argument. Thus the theist must somehow prove that God is uncreated but that the universe requires a creator. If they cannot offer any evidence either way then the logical thing is to resort to occam's razor in which case we assume that the universe is uncreated since that is the simpler explanation.

I always understand stuff better when you frame it like that. You must be getting tired of repeating yourself though.

Anyways, I just feel like humankind takes far too selfcentered of an attitude towards everything. As if they do not realize that our life may just as well be a fraction of the absolute reality. Yet no one can pull themselves away to see the pure beauty of the fact that there is an existence. This doesn't have anything to do with God except the way people view the world. Theists see God at the center. Remove God, and what becomes the center? Known reality, or individual consciousness? Is there no center? What is the nature of existence? Looking at life out-of-body one might realize how absolutely incredible it is that anything exists at all, let alone that a part of existence can realize said existence.

Since God does not explain existence at all, what does? And even if there is no answer, what can be said about the nature of existence versus non-existence?

[Delphinus]

The centre of reality? There is only one certainty to reality: COGITO ERGO SUM - I THINK THEREFORE I AM. You may have heard of it. Although modern philosophy makes a slight alteration: THERE ARE THOUGHTS THEREFORE THERE IS A THINKER.

Everything else is just a matter of belief, aside from a priori statements (which are ultimately only about the nature of language). 1+1 must equal 2 by definition. By definition, a batchelor must be an unmarried man. By definition, God cannot exist. All of these are tautologies.

A batchelor is defined as a male human who is not married to another human.

[Fenn]

The centre of reality? There is only one certainty to reality: COGITO ERGO SUM - I THINK THEREFORE I AM. You may have heard of it. Although modern philosophy makes a slight alteration: THERE ARE THOUGHTS THEREFORE THERE IS A THINKER.

Everything else is just a matter of belief, aside from a priori statements (which are ultimately only about the nature of language). 1+1 must equal 2 by definition. By definition, a batchelor must be an unmarried man. By definition, God cannot exist. All of these are tautologies.

A batchelor is defined as a male human who is not married to another human.

BINGO! So why has that not become the center of human perspective? Everyone seems to forget that that concept is the most important thing. They find the need to cling to God, or other external existences for purpose. I guess then the question is, why was God "created" persay, and why can't we shed him now?

[Bacon_Barbarian]

Why? You're kidding? To explain shit, and give some primitive people hope for something better later on. And-um... Who knows why he can't be shed. Same reason I guess. Life sucks, people, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, want something better later on. Even if it is foolish.

[Fenn]

Why? You're kidding? To explain shit, and give some primitive people hope for something better later on. And-um... Who knows why he can't be shed. Same reason I guess. Life sucks, people, INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, want something better later on. Even if it is foolish.

Yeah...the first part might have been a stupid question. But the second...it frustrates me that the majority of the human race still cannot grasp the concept of logic.

[Rio]

There will always be the part of humans that defies logic. Love. Dreams. Hopes. Why we prefer to buy items that are a penny or a dollar short of a round number. If you have a world where all humans think on logic and only logic, I suspect we'll become a monotonous, boring world. We'd be no better off than being robots.

Anyways, I think humans still believe in God because we do not understand everything. We put a name to the things that happen at that are unexplainable, horrendous, miraculous, and so on. Maybe we do not want to be alone. Maybe we want someone out there who unconditionally love us for who we are and can attribute things that happen that we cannot explain in any logical manner.

[Saith]

The problem with people who believe in the God of the Gaps is that, when a gap is bisected, they claim there are simply two gaps to fill.

The problem for people who believe in the God of the Gaps is that as every proof of His existence is revealed to be merely, you know, actual stuff, it's incredibly embarrassing to admit so, and it definitely lowers your credibility.
Basically, if God's existence were on trial, a Theist would be discounted as an unreliable witness.

That's why I don't think God should be the default answer for what we don't understand.

And, I mean, if you agree with certain anthropologists, Love, Dreams and Hope are all certainly logical behaviour. Logic doesn't really mean lacking emotions or being the most efficient, it's rather the word used to describe the method of rationally following one thought with another.

[Kodos]

There will always be the part of humans that defies logic. Love.

Emotions work on logic. Simply a faulty and fallacy ridden form of it, but they are still rooted in logic. When you love person you love them for reasons. It is a logical argument of some sort.
Premise 1. This woman is fun to be around.
Premise 2. This woman is intelligent and witty.
Premise 3. This woman is single and unrelated to myself.
Premise 4. This woman has rocking titties.
Conclusion. I am in love with this woman.

There is a reason people become friends and/or lovers only with certain people and don't treat everyone equally.

Dreams. Hopes.

See above.

Why we prefer to buy items that are a penny or a dollar short of a round number.

Quirks and phobias are irrational but still rooted in logic. Every single thing a human does is rooted in logic with the possible exception of extreme cases of schizophrenia. Our brains are hardwired and run on logic. It's like talking about a computer and assuming it is somehow able to run programs that don't use programming code of some sort.

If you have a world where all humans think on logic and only logic, I suspect we'll become a monotonous, boring world. We'd be no better off than being robots.

Except we do. And there is no difference between a sufficiently advanced robot or computer and a human mind except that one uses meat for hardware while the other is plastic and metal.

Anyways, I think humans still believe in God because we do not understand everything. We put a name to the things that happen at that are unexplainable, horrendous, miraculous, and so on. Maybe we do not want to be alone. Maybe we want someone out there who unconditionally love us for who we are and can attribute things that happen that we cannot explain in any logical manner.

Except it's still logical. Just bad logic. Ultimately we get back to the fact that no one can argue against logic.
Premise 1. Something unexplainable happened!
Premise 2. God has the power to do anything.
Conclusion. God did it!

[Fenn]

Rio I don't think a focus on "correct" logic (to utilize Kodos' argument) would bore the world. There are really very few logical rules that need to be followed to create a safe society. You can live based on correct logic and still be romantic, creative, and even silly because nothing says you have to follow what is held as "common logic." In fact it may still be logical. I'm gonna try doing Kodos' premises/conclusion thing. Correct me if I'm wrong, buddy.

Premise 1: My actions should not hurt anyone else.
Premise 2: I can use my imagination as long as I recognize reality when needed.
Premise 3: I want to enjoy life.
Premise 4: Imagining that I am in an action movie does not hurt anyone else.
Premise 5: I realize that I am not really in an action movie.
Premise 6: I enjoy imagining that I am in an action movie in my daily life.
Conclusion: I will imagine I am in an action movie!

[PWhit]

I'm wondering why nobody is a satanist after any of this religious debating. I already am to begin with.