I remember somebody made this argument a long time ago, - #104639710 added by spetsnaztm at my belief

Refresh

Options

asd

Reply+7

(10/25/2013)[-]

Being asked to prove that he does not exist makes no sense; you can't prove a negative. (The negative in this case being that he does not exist.) Plus the burden of proof lies with the person making the proposal, and since there is no proof of god, it is their job to prove it.

#120 to #115 - spetsnaztm

Reply0

(10/25/2013)[-]

I remember somebody made this argument a long time ago, and it is still, by far, one of my most favorite ones. Thumb for you good sir.

#132 to #120 - fnoogernooger

Reply+2

(10/25/2013)[-]

That somebody you are thinking of is Descartes. He proved the existence of a divine, omniscient, all powerful being in his Meditations of Philosophy.

#225 to #132 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

We seem to have run out of replies as of www.funnyjunk.com/my+belief/funny-pictures/4855090/224#224

Now, it's true that it shouldn't. But we can never say with 100% certainty that it will always happen like that. Mutations could occur, chemicals could mix up, or anything like that, and the product of the DNA template could be a ball of flesh and sludge that could only be called a cow because it used that DNA template.

All I'm saying, is that modern science doesn't use 100% sure, because we can't be 100% sure. And that's where Descartes reasoning in the meditations falls apart.

#230 to #225 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

The thing about DNA and the ball of flesh and sludge is that what you're talking about is a miscarriage. That is almost always the cause of miscarriages: the DNA of the offspring is so far off of what the norm is supposed to be that the host parent cannot care for it, resulting in a null creation.

I see the point you're making, I just see holes through it, just as you see holes through mine. We've progressed as far as we can, as I see it.

Good debate, sir. I'm sure the Father of Dialogues would approve.

#231 to #230 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

Indeed. Thank you for conversing with me. It's been a while since I've been so engaged. Consider yourself thumbed.

#166 to #132 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

Rene Descartes proved the existence of 'god'? Give me a link so I may read this.

#170 to #166 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

Correction, he proved the existence of a divine, omniscient, all powerful being. Not necessarily "God" in the Christian sense of the term. In further writings, he actually never uses gendered pronouns for talking about God (because he wrote almost everything in Latin).

Have fun reading something that I've been studying in class since September and am only halfway through: You need to login to view this link (This isn't close to the translation I'm reading, so you might take different things from this.)

#172 to #170 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

I use the word 'god' to mean Divine, Omniscient, All powerful being.

The fact remains however that it is impossible to prove something like that. From what I've read of Descartes is that he rationalized that he exists, thus something must've made him, thus god must exist. Which is a logical fallacy.

I am going to read these Meditations right now, and when I'm done, I'll likely be able to point out every error in logic he used. That's just my prediction, I could be wrong.

#180 to #172 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

>> From what I've read of Descartes is that he rationalized that he exists, thus something must've made him, thus god must exist. Which is a logical fallacy.

Also could you explain this fallacy. I don't quite see the flaw in this (aside from it's not what Descartes thought).

#183 to #180 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

It's not logic, that's all. It's assumptions that have nothing to do with the things he bases them on. If you exist, nothing has to 'make you'.

#190 to #183 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

Well, I personally believe that I came from somewhere. I didn't just poof into existence. I was created by the gametes and zygotes of my mother and father, just as in turn, they were created in the same way, all the way back to our unicellular ancestors.

I do believe, however, that God (Chrisocentric) made all of the decisions along the way about how we were made. All of the "random" changes in our DNA code. Speaking of the topic of randomness, it's a proven fact that ALL of the random number generators lost their randomness on 9/11 for about four hours.

#195 to #190 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

Even if our human made random number generators fail, it doesn't mean randomness doesn't exist...

Mind you, when I say randomness, I mean the unimaginably large amount of interactions on a subatomic level between particles that happens every microsecond. Such that it may as well be random to our cognizance.

I also believe that if we had the correct equation, and were able to input all the data concerning everything that ever happened, we could predict with 100% accuracy what will happen, forever. Simply because everything we know is the product of innumerable physical interactions. Know all that come before, and we will know where all will go.

#192 to #190 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

I came from the same genetic process. However, I believe that no God (Abrahamic), can exist. It simply doesn't make sense to me. What you attribute to god I attribute to Randomness. I believe that given billions of years, and the kind of dynamic universe we exist in, life and everything we know will simply fall into being through random chance.

Where some place god, I place time and entropy.
Given that particles move, it is almost inevitable that some will collide, and begin to form bigger particles, which will collide, and collide. And so on until we have atoms, and molecules, and then chemical reactions taking place where one molecule reorganizes others to be like it. And then many molecules clump together to form a cell, and so on. Until, billions upon billions of years later, a time more immense than any human can possible hope to conceive, life as we know it has come about through randomness.

That's my view on it.

#178 to #172 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

That is not really what he's talking about. A brief summary of his thinking is that he wanted to prove that he could know things, so in the Meditations he decided to set aside all of his prior beliefs as false. This left him with things he knew were true, and things that were very likely true. He then realized he couldn't accept things that were very likely true as true, so he had to put those aside.

Then he had to come to terms that he couldn't come to terms with all of the things he knew as true because some of them relied on his senses, and he knew that the senses often deceive us, so he had to assume that we were dreaming. Some things were proven to be unbelievable if in a dream, so he had to throw out even more "truths". He then had to assume that what was believable in a dream was also wrong due to a higher being always deceiving him. This left him with almost no beliefs, except for one: he was thinking. By thinking he couldn't be deceived that he wasn't thinking.

So by that means that the assumption that the higher being wouldn't be malevolent, since the assumption was proven false. And then he goes on to talk about the nature of ideas. The ones that matter in this case are the ideas which come from outside of our consciousness, and the idea of gods comes from outside of all human consciousness. To prove that you just have to ask yourself where the idea of gods came from. From religious people? Well where did they get the idea from? The idea of gods dates back to time immemorial, so is taken to be an idea which is present in all sentient beings.

#181 to #178 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

Well then... In all of that, I see... ********. From what I understand it's like the Matrix cop out. 'We could all be in a simulation'. That doesn't prove the existence of a god any more than it proves we're in the matrix. There's no proof either way.

I suppose it doesn't help that my opinion on Descartes has been, for years, that he's an idiot who put too much stock in the idea that our senses deceive us.

#186 to #181 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

>>I suppose it doesn't help that my opinion on Descartes has been, for years, that he's an idiot who put too much stock in the idea that our senses deceive us.

Noooooooooooo. That's not what Descartes believed at all. He believed in his senses entirely. The purpose of the Meditations was to discuss the understanding of the world around us, rather than the goodness of what we should do as people (like most other philosophers until he did).

His very first thing that he talked about is the fact that he wanted to take a scientific approach to this (since he was a scientist mainly as well, you know the x,y grid that we use? Descartes made that), so he said that he had to be 100% sure of whatever he was going to believe in, just as in science you have to be sure of what you are saying to be able for it to be accepted in text books and by peers. Because he knew his senses often deceived him (think of a person who lost a limb, they will often feel phantom sensations from the lost limb).

I'd like to finish by saying that the best way to learn about this is to actually read it and think about Descartes' thought process in each step of his actions, rather than have someone explain it to you. (Also might be good to leave your prejudices at the door before reading it because if you think he's a *********** from the beginning, you very likely won't hear what he has to say.)

#188 to #186 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

The thing is, that the '100% sure' idea is flawed. You cannot ever prove something is 100% true. There is ALWAYS somewhere you haven't looked. Modern science requires a 99.999% sure rate. I read the first bits of his Meditations and I don't really feel like continuing. I do value logical reasoning and scientific thought. However I find Descartes to, as I said before, be an idiot. I find his 'logic' flawed and his reasoning unsound.

#196 to #188 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

Well it looks like we've reached the end of this discussion. I've put all of my facts on the table about this, and you've refused to consider them due to your belief that Descartes is an idiot.

As Bill Nye said to Marc Morano (Climate Realist who doesn't believe in climate change), "We're working from different, conflicting fact sets, we can't debate any further."

#197 to #196 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

I have considered them, however, I've pointed out that Descartes ideas are flawed...

#198 to #197 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

You've pointed out that they are flawed by saying that you cannot accept them.

#201 to #198 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

"The thing is, that the '100% sure' idea is flawed. You cannot ever prove something is 100% true. There is ALWAYS somewhere you haven't looked. Modern science requires a 99.999% sure rate."

That is the flaw in Descartes reasoning. We CANNOT prove ANYTHING 100%...

#208 to #201 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

The idea of a triangle of having 3 sides is 100% true. I have proven that we can prove things as 100% true, and as your counter argument is based on that, it appears to fall to pieces. I'm sure that from this point on we'll just be talking in circles...

#209 to #208 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

Now if you can't see the flaw in that idea, then there's nothing we have to say to each other.

#211 to #209 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

The thing is that I'm actually really curious as to what the flaw that you see in the idea is. So if you'd indulge me once more I'd love to hear it.

#212 to #211 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

First, I'd like to say that upon some googling, I have found that I confused Renes Descartes with Blaise Pascal.

Second, the Triangle is a human construct. Any supposed triangles occurring naturally will have billions of 'sides' when you look close enough. Simply because of the reality of how atoms and molecules bind together to make larger objects.

#219 to #212 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

The flaw that I see in that is that regardless of it being a construct of anything, it will still have the same properties wherever you are (which is why many scientists who believe in extraterrestrial life say to upon first contact draw a triangle and write the Pythagorean equation since math is math and will be universal wherever). The idea of a triangle having more or less than three sides goes against its definition of existence. If you'd prefer an example from nature, we could examine a cow for example. We could say that all cows are animals which have the same DNA sequence template. Then by definition an animal which has the same DNA template will always be that cow, whereas other templates will create other animals.

#222 to #219 - hermaeousmora

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

Fair enough. But, there is always the chance, no matter how improbable, that some screw up happens and a thing that uses that DNA template comes into being that is not a cow.

That DNA template is a very good way to say that it's a cow, but it is not the end all to the argument. There is always something we don't consider.

#224 to #222 - fnoogernooger

(10/25/2013)[-]

Now, I'm no geneticist, so I'm going off of only what I've learned through my readings of the literature, but I am fairly certain that things of the same DNA template will never differ greatly. Simply due to the fact that DNA decides what is created and how stuff works.

#141 to #132 - spetsnaztm

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

Have a thumb, friend.

#143 to #141 - fnoogernooger

Reply+1

(10/25/2013)[-]

And many thumbs for you, sir!