Quote:
Originally Posted by renderator  Only those variants of God that can influence on the world we live in is important for rational cognition.
If God exists but cannot influence on the world (deism) it has no impact on rational cognition. We can easily abstract from Him, of course only if it is not the issue of the origine of the world. |
The Deist God may have only been the cause of all matter, but that itself is an influence. Your statement would be true if it is a fact that God does not exist; therefore a nonexistent entity could not have influence over anything. I understand Deism alone does not have any real practical applicability as a belief, but that does not mean there is no influence whatsoever. Also, I don't think you answered my question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renderator
Deism is not a form of theism. It's another Weltanschauung (ideology), different from theism. The difference is that deistic God does not influence on the world around us, but theistic God does.
Ideologies are not based on dogmas. "God exists and does not influence" - is not a dogma. It's the definition of deism (confinement). Dogmas can be inside ideologies, after you have defined the latter.
|
Thanks for the correction; I see it's a philisophical idealogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renderator Russian. |
Cool, I think Russian would be an awesome language to learn. It seems everyone Russian guy I know is a badass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renderator Of course, it's not science's realm. But without having taken the premise that God does not exist(atheism) scientists can prove nothing. In fact scientists use even more restrictions that atheists do, but because science is not belief, so atheism is not belief too. |
I disagree, frist, that is not the premise of atheism; see my post to Marmalade. Two, can you give a specific example of how a scientist can "prove nothing" without assuming God does not exist? When developing vaccinations, a scientist will make observations which lead to a hypothesis that a vaccine will help provide immnity against pathogens. After experimentation they will observe if their hypothesis is correct and if it has a great success rate then it leads to proof for a cure. Does the assumption of God play any part in this or have you made a terrible generalisation?
Quote:
|
Yes, it's relevant! You cannot say that the physical body you have put on the scales really weights 5kg for example if you haven't assumed that there are no quickly hiding fairies inside your scales who can fake the result of your experiments. Of course these premises are formulated more seriously in science.
|
You're right, I realize that theological and supernatural claims ARE subject to scientific methodology and in your analogy, I agree that the fairy must be dismissed as any form of valid explanation to be included in a scientific conslusion.
Quote:
No, the burden of proof is on you, not on me, because only positive statements are to be proved. It's impossible to prove that smth does not exist, only that smth exists. So if it is you who advances the hypothesis of God, then you have to prove it.
It's impossible to prove that there are no fairies in the Universe, but it's possible to prove that there they are. You just only need to catch one of them.
The fact is that before you begin proving(not persuading me) the existance of God, you have to take the premise that God does not exist and you will come to contradiction.
|
It is not impossible to prove a negative. Hypothertically, if I was showing you my new pet finches and I unveiled the cage( in which there are no birds) and said "there are eight finches in here" but you, as a rational atheist said "there isn't anything in there," and would proceed to prove the negative by touch, sight, sound, etc. And I don't think I have ever asserted that God exists, correct me if I'm wrong. I would be silly to do so simply because I cannot substantiat it. So a negative statement can be proved as long as it is feasible. I will say that since God is incapable of being proved or disproved, it is an irrelevant hypothesis to a scientific person, but it should not be denied unless there is evidence proportionate to the claim.
Quote:
|
The thing is that you cannot cognize anything rationally if you give to God even a small possibility to exist. If you give Him this possibility (even if it is very small) you become a believer in everything.
|
I disagree, giving mental assent to God's existence is unequivalen to believing in God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by romansh renderator
what I was trying to say what you call "positive" and "negative" are a function of language ..... In Russian(?) and English theism is positive (existance) and atheism is negative (non existance) ...... but in a hypothetical language (or perhaps culture) it could be the other way round?
I agree I can't prove or disprove Thor or Zeus or any other theistic god .....I think theistic gods are highly unlikely..... I have had 'a proof' explained to me regarding the impossibility of theistic gods (the proof should work for "revealed" fairies and the like aswell). I have attached the post/explanation ...see if you agree? .... Quote:
Originally Posted by Og Yah, I frequently do.
The nature of the universe is that there are no ultimate boundaries or individual entities. What is the case with the universe is that it is one gigantic process where all things that you might call an individual are, in fact, expressions of everything else............. | I'm not sure I agree with the 'proof' and of course this says nothing about a deistic god. |
I don't understand much of what this man says, and this is no exception. Romansh, can you please paraphrase Og's message for me? What is it a "proof" of exactly?