God's Existence Irrelevant?

[panther.jd]

Consider the following proposition: It is impossible to determine with reasonable certainty which, if any, religion is true.

If we accept this proposition as true, does it follow that it doesn't matter whether god exists or not?

[FeatsofClay]

Consider the following proposition: It is impossible to determine with reasonable certainty which, if any, religion is true.

Not really. It COULD be proven rather easily. It may have been already.

If we accept this proposition as true, does it follow that it doesn't matter whether god exists or not?

No. Different gods give different orders. Thus whether he/she/it is real or not it still matters which you choose to follow, or don't.

[Northcott]

Consider the following proposition: It is impossible to determine with reasonable certainty which, if any, religion is true.

If we accept this proposition as true, does it follow that it doesn't matter whether god exists or not?


Clay's points hold great validity, but personally I ascribe to a theory akin to the above. Or phrased more accurately for my opinion; "Whether we believe in a divine presence or not is irrelevant". If the divine exists, then our belief or disbelief means nothing in relation to that truth. The same goes for the reverse: if it doesn't exist, the only way we find out for sure is by dying... and at that point it really doesn't fucking matter anyway. :) It's not like you'd be aware to tell the difference.

It's why I have no patience for fuckwits who spend their time proselytizing. That's an activity undertaken solely out of a combination of hubris and disregard for others.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

It's irrelevant to me

[panther.jd]

Consider the following proposition: It is impossible to determine with reasonable certainty which, if any, religion is true.
Not really. It COULD be proven rather easily. It may have been already.
It is easy to prove which religion is true!!!!! :shock: Well, don't keep me in the dark, what should I believe?????


If we accept this proposition as true, does it follow that it doesn't matter whether god exists or not?
No. Different gods give different orders. Thus whether he/she/it is real or not it still matters which you choose to follow, or don't.But wait in this doesn't it NOT matter which religion is true or if god exists?

If different belief systems give different orders, or results in behavior, then it certainly makes a difference which one is followed. But that doesn't have anything to do with whether it is true or not.

In your statement you say: Thus whether he/she/it is real or not it still matters which you choose to follow :confused:

It seems to me you are saying that my point is right, that the "truth" of god's existence is not relevant in the context of the outcome of the belief system followed.

{As a note, my original question was if you accepted my proposition for the sake of augment you don't have to actually believe it, does my conclusion follow?

If you could show that my proposition if false, you might show that my conclusion is also false (this does NOT necessarily follow.)

My original question is not is my proposition true, it is does my conclusion logically follow from my proposition.

But this is an interesting direction anyway.}

[Limper]

In any practical sense... yep its irrelevant.

[FeatsofClay]

Consider the following proposition: It is impossible to determine with reasonable certainty which, if any, religion is true.

It is easy to prove which religion is true!!!!! :shock: Well, don't keep me in the dark, what should I believe?????




I said it COULD be proven, not that I could prove it. A giant hand writing in fire above each town on earth "THE BAPTIST ARE RIGHT" or "ALLAH IS THE TRUE GOD" would do it for most people, maybe with a sudden reversal in the spin of the earth or some such. This would prove it to all but the most obstinate folks immediately.

[Northcott]

I said it COULD be proven, not that I could prove it. A giant hand writing in fire above each town on earth "THE BAPTIST ARE RIGHT" or "ALLAH IS THE TRUE GOD" would do it for most people, maybe with a sudden reversal in the spin of the earth or some such. This would prove it to all but the most obstinate folks immediately.

I'm pretty stubborn. I demand demi-god-like power and a lottery win before I'll buy into it. :D

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Consider the following proposition: It is impossible to determine with reasonable certainty which, if any, religion is true.

If we accept this proposition as true, does it follow that it doesn't matter whether god exists or not?

Surely that means you'd better hope that there is NO god. Because if there is one, chances are you're worshipping either a false god or you're an atheist - and that means you're probably going to be in serious trouble when you get to the afterlife.

It's this point that's always made me think that Pascal's Wager was an argument for anti-theism - for hoping fervently that there was no god.

(Note, the way round this is if you believe that there is no punishment for non-believers in the One True God (TM). But several faiths teach otherwise, which means that we'd better hope that at least those ones are wrong.)

[there_is_no_bob]

Consider the following proposition: It is impossible to determine with reasonable certainty which, if any, religion is true.

If we accept this proposition as true, does it follow that it doesn't matter whether god exists or not?
I hate you now.


I already have too much in brain. I'm sure I've now forgotten something important! apparently, that it is my brain...


I'd say that "following a religion is likely a losing proposition, provided god exists" follows. With caveats, 'cause not every religion has a god that gives a damn about whether or not you believe in them...

...Gah. This is damned near impossible to evaluate. If it was possible to determine which religion was true, the existence or non-existence of god would matter. Or would it? I mean, it would be definable and effectively unquestionable

If it was impossible to determine whether 1+1=2,1+1=3, etc.

Would it matter whether or not 1+1 has an answer?

...I think it would. I don't think it would be a good idea to do anything that relies on the answer of 1+1, but I think it still matters.

So I'm gonna say that conclusion does not follow proposition, but I don't have much faith* in my answer.


*Intentional joke, but still true

[Freedom Canadian]

I agree totally, Panther. In fact, that is my whole approach to religion in a nutshell.

[Northcott]

I'd say that "following a religion is likely a losing proposition, provided god exists" follows. With caveats, 'cause not every religion has a god that gives a damn about whether or not you believe in them...

Not neccessarily. :) After all, there are a number of religions where the doctrine doesn't match the root, so there's a strong indication of mortal bungling in the face of the divine.

Let's look at one of my favourite nitpick subjects: the Catholic Church. The notion of Limbo was recently brought up: Limbo being seperate from Purgatory. Limbo was a state of perfect happiness and bliss where it was thought children might go after death, if unbaptized or not having received last rights -- bearing in mind that it was never an official part of the doctrine, but one theory on what happens. The other prevalent theory, put forth by St. Augustine (iirc) was that we're all damned by original sin and so babies burn in Hell. Suck it up, bitches!

How saintly.

Anyway, we can then step back to the "Red Letter Christian" approach, flip open the Bible, ignore what the Guy In The Big White Hat says, and look to that hippy guy, Jesus. There's several passages where he talks about not impeding the path of children to him, relating the innocence of children to the Kingdom of Heaven -- he even makes a comment (again, iirc) about how you're better off having a millstone tied around your neck and being dumped into the ocean than harming or corrupting a child.

This doesn't sound like a guy who thinks babies should burn in Hell. Capice? Doctrine of religions and the root of faith don't necessarily play nice together.

[there_is_no_bob]

Not neccessarily. :)

...

Doctrine of religions and the root of faith don't necessarily play nice together.
Northcott, darling, could you maybe re-read that post you quoted? Maybe even just the little bit you quoted. Note in particular the words "religion" "likely" and "caveats". :plankton:

I know you love having your little spats with Atticus, but I'm not him.:patrick:



I just felt the need to use spongebob smilies.

[Northcott]

Smartass! You know if I were sniping at you, I wouldn't have bothered with a smiley... except maybe that big-toothed grinning bastard right after an insult. :D Yeah, that guy there.

I'm just pointing out that certain religions with infamously short-tempered dieties have a bad habit of bungling their own rules. So even if they're the "right one", there's still a potential escape clause.

At least that's what I'm gambling on.

[there_is_no_bob]

Smartass! It better be- I spent a good chunck of money buying all those seat cushion textbooks!:neenerneener:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

It's irrelevant to me

Isn't that just a little misleading?

As I understand it, you think the question "Does God exist?" is a category error, like asking "Is blue heavy?" or "What time is angry?".

In other words, you don't think that the question is irrelevant, you think it's non-sensical, right? If god is the "ground of all existence" that it makes no sense to ask if he exists, right?

[panther.jd]

"What time is angry?". It's always angry time!!!! :D

[Atticus_of_Amber]

It's always angry time!!!! :D

For one poster on my ignore list at least, so it would seem.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

As I understand it, you think the question "Does God exist?" is a category error, like asking "Is blue heavy?" or "What time is angry?".

In other words, you don't think that the question is irrelevant, you think it's non-sensical, right? If god is the "ground of all existence" that it makes no sense to ask if he exists, right?

Precisely.

[Insertion]

Well, since I have far too much free time on my hands:

Religion:

If we are to consider one end of the spectrum (God's existence or non-existence and it's impact on the human race) of your statement regarding our inability to empircally prove the correctness of any of the world's religion, we must also consider the inverse: Could not all relgions be correct? Your first statement could be seen as an answer to the question that follows it. If any or all of the world's religions are correct (and we cannot prove that they aren't correct, than God's existence would be very meaningful indeed.

God's (Non)Existence:

Each and every human being on the planet defines his or her own reality. Each individual human is the center of their universe; they define what is real and what is not real by experiencing and interacting with other entities, objects and so forth. Therefore, each person on the face of the planet has it within them to create and give tangibility to a deity or God.

Whether or not other humans share or agree with the existence of such a deity is irrelevant. As stated, we define our realities. The only way another person's opinion or beliefs can nullify the existence of the deity would be if the believer allowed such thoughts to modify his or her personal definition of what is real or not-real.

Obviously such influences can be incredibly persuasive, such as the threat of violence, ostracization, shame, ridicule or any number of other negative reactions to the belief in question.

Nevertheless, if the believe continues to believe, the God will continue to exist- even if it is just for them.

This is the essence of faith, as I see it.

Society:

On a less abstract level, the existence and belief in God (and more specifically, organized religion) is an excellent tool for societal control.

The thief who scoffs at the threat of imprisonment for a year will think twice when the punishment is eternal damnation.

The combination of the secular and the spiritual is a phenomenally powerful one, especially when the populace is ignorant and poorly educated. One has to look no further than the Middle Ages to see how brutally effective the Catholic church was as a tool of state. In more recent times, the arcane and draconian measure implemented by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan make for a fine example of how a secular entity can increase it's power by claiming divine mandate. The faith of the leader's is a non-issue. All that matters is that the people believe what they are told to believe.

In such cases as these, God's existence is clearly meaningful.

Conclusion:

So in conclusion, God's existence or non-existence is meaningful if a person or group of people choose to make it so. If such an all powerful entity exists, it will be well aware of our human failings, and if it is a compassionate God it will forgive us for them. If the God is instead capricious and cruel, then it is unworthy of our worship or even our consideration.

So. God's meaningfulness is meaningful if that God exists.

[Brynja]

For one poster on my ignore list at least, so it would seem.



Dude Ed is not always angry. I think at this point we can all conclude you both like riling each other up. If you have -no- idea why your posting style may piss him off you sir need to be hit with a clue by 4

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Dude Ed is not always angry. I think at this point we can all conclude you both like riling each other up. If you have -no- idea why your posting style may piss him off you sir need to be hit with a clue by 4

I don't enjoy riling him up - why would I try to put him on ignore if I enjoyed his outrageous behaviour?

And I genuinely have very little idea why my posts set him off into such a rage (for example, posts which I write fearing that my set him off, he often approves of; and post that I expect him to approve of send him into Hulk mode; I find his behaviour genuinely baffling and, I'll admit, often infuriating). If you want to explain, I'd be happy to listen.

[Northcott]

Fun Stuff

I like the cut of his/her jib!

[Northcott]

Dude Ed is not always angry. I think at this point we can all conclude you both like riling each other up. If you have -no- idea why your posting style may piss him off you sir need to be hit with a clue by 4

http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?p=16419#post16419

:) I figure; I devoted an entire thread to Atticus specifically so that other threads would be less cluttered by this dynamic. So I responded there.

I do like "clue by 4" though. I'm swiping that. :D

[Brynja]

As long as I get royalties ;)

[panther.jd]

Conclusion:

So in conclusion, God's existence or non-existence is meaningful if a person or group of people choose to make it so. If such an all powerful entity exists, it will be well aware of our human failings, and if it is a compassionate God it will forgive us for them. If the God is instead capricious and cruel, then it is unworthy of our worship or even our consideration.

So. God's meaningfulness is meaningful if that God exists.I would disagree. In the cases you state, surly what is important is the belief in God's existence, not God's actual existence.

You can make a case that whether people believe God exists makes a difference in their behavior, but this doesn't have anything to to do with God actually existing or not existing, whether God exists or not does not change the belief in God's existence, so God's existence is irrelevant, while belief in God is significant.

--There is an indavidual reality for each person, but there is also a real reality that everyone exists in, and this real reality exists independent of the people in it. What I am saying is that whether God exists independent of people is irrelevant, it doesn't effect the indavidual realties that people create for themselves and the God or god's that they may create for themselves.

[Northcott]

As long as I get royalties ;)

I'll even paint your name on my clueX4.

[Brynja]

Can I have my name wood cut into it so when you hit people with it, the welt will read "Brynja"

[Northcott]

That works.