No such thing as God.

[Solace]

iconoclast, you've still done nothing to prove that belief in God is causing the human race to go extinct. All you have is a theory, and a poorly founded one at that. Other than saying the same thing over and over, just in a somewhat different manner each time, you've said nothing new for a good many posts. My advice is to leave it alone unless and until you get something fresh.

[NeitherExtreme]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

There are, as you say, values that cannot be scientifically justified within these ideas - the survival of the human species for example, is a value with no ultimate scientific justification.

That's all I was saying. So aren't you simply substituting your subjective ideologies for someone else's? I'm not saying you shouldn't or can't, my only point is that those ideologies do not have the authority of being called "scientific".

[Justin]

Hmm... went back to refresh a bit on the this discussion, a good one with a lot of valid points. Doesn't seem like any of it is difficult to understand.

Looks like God brought us into evolution and based not on my book experience, I see that we evolve continually in all that we do. Mankind is an ever evolving life force that changes hourly. Evolution, not the argumentative semantics of the word or the perception of what it means to others, simply means change and evolving. Everything around us evolves how are we supposed to say different? We can argue where it evolved from and guess on how humans evolved but does it really make all that much difference in how we evolve into tomorrow?

God, would seem to me like it is and only will be what we perceive it to be. This explains why God is different to so many people and God has different meanings to each personal autonomously. Some of us walk around in doubt, while others follow the doctrines of another man. There's really a God if we believe there to be... isn't there? It's what we believe God to be that makes the difference? However, in all we argue and all we discuss about who, why, what, where... etc., it is still man who has created computers, it's man who flew the first airplane, it's man who stepped on the moon, it's man who is participating in the creation of mans' world. So no matter what, history shows us one thing, man reaps what he sows. History has taught us that peace is much more productive than war and Love more productive than hate.

God hasn't show his face since Adam and Eve, (according to man) and he certainly had nothing to do with what man has and continue to creates... or does he? Man wrote the books, man created the ideology, man creates the peace and man creates the hate. Nature responds in balance to what mankind takes out of balance. God is what one believes God to be. Right, wrong or indifferent, we are only creating the idea of God yet everyday we create.

Is there really no such thing as God? Doesn't that all depend on how you choose to look at it? No matter what happens in the past, isn't the only thing we can control is our perceptions and actions in the future? Is God in control of that or are we?

[Zetetic11235]

I normally wouldn't post in a thread of this size as I'm too lazy to read every post, hopwever, i'm tempted to anyway so....
It seems irrational to prove or disprove belief in a being which is beyond our physical universe and understanding by definition. It is almost like proving logic through logic only even more absurd as it tries to apply logical thought to an unknowable object whith unknown properties that is by definition beyond human limitation, which is essentially nonsensical to consider but still unprovable.
As far as your thesis is concerned(that god is causing mankind to go extinct), you have to define what is harmful and what is not to claim that this manner of belief is such, and waht is harmful and what is not harmful is contingent upon what direction we want to go in. Even the extinction of mankind being 'bad' is presumed and this must be dissected
To say it flat out, you can't prove it. You would have to answer every single question in philosophy.

[simon]

There's no such thing as me either.

Sorry for that rushed and sadly lacking comment - had to nip out!

This sounds to me like the age old "theres no such thing as me" comment. If you asked a child "do you exist?" you'd most likely get the simple answer "yes". Does it make you wonder why that answer isn't enough?

It seems the nature of science is to break things into their component parts, label each one of them and all the forces that act on them, then declare the thing being studied as a net effect.

In simple terms, you may study the parts of the engine, catalogue the forces at work on each part, but you still have an engine. I've not seen an arguament against consciousness yet. I've seen lots of attempts to identify the parts or forces at work. If the combined sum of the forces can't be described as consciousness, the question should be changed to "what do we mean by consciousness"?

In the same manner, to label god as non existant would be pointless if the nature of god was not first defined.

If our perception of consciousness is the combined effect of these forces at work, and the greater whole was referred to as god, by what logical arguament could the greater whole not be capable of consciousness when each of the smaller parts (us) each has a perception of it?

[boagie]

Originally Posted by simon

Sorry for that rushed and sadly lacking comment - had to nip out!

This sounds to me like the age old "theres no such thing as me" comment. If you asked a child "do you exist?" you'd most likely get the simple answer "yes". Does it make you wonder why that answer isn't enough?

It seems the nature of science is to break things into their component parts, label each one of them and all the forces that act on them, then declare the thing being studied as a net effect.

In simple terms, you may study the parts of the engine, catalogue the forces at work on each part, but you still have an engine. I've not seen an arguament against consciousness yet. I've seen lots of attempts to identify the parts or forces at work. If the combined sum of the forces can't be described as consciousness, the question should be changed to "what do we mean by consciousness"?

In the same manner, to label god as non existant would be pointless if the nature of god was not first defined.

If our perception of consciousness is the combined effect of these forces at work, and the greater whole was referred to as god, by what logical arguament could the greater whole not be capable of consciousness when each of the smaller parts (us) each has a perception of it?

Simon,

Consciousness is reaction, in its elemental development as well as in its more complex developments. Traditional science is about reductionism, try cybernetics and/or systems theory/ systems science, the science of wholeness, it will expand your philosophy in new ways.

[simon]

Will do ) I'm a DBA by trade so the tecchie bits are more up my street. The "Philosophy" I've taken more interest in my spare time. Typical scenario. Young kid gets bullied. Young kid wonders why, how everything works, what everything is, how it all fits together, what the purpose of everything is etc etc..

[boagie]

Originally Posted by simon

Will do ) I'm a DBA by trade so the tecchie bits are more up my street. The "Philosophy" I've taken more interest in my spare time. Typical scenario. Young kid gets bullied. Young kid wonders why, how everything works, what everything is, how it all fits together, what the purpose of everything is etc etc..

Simon,

Your in the right place, that is what philosophy is all about, WONDER!!

[iconoclast]

Dear All, Sorry about the absence. Will have broadband at home soon. Further to YUXI:

One might think that if y were areasonable solution to the problems caused by x – (i) would be listened to, or (u) would arrive at these conclusions some other way. However, x is a rationale unto itself, rather than a rationale unto reality, and this undermines (u)’s ability to order real world priorities. Circumstance and disposition have allowed (i) to see beyond the rationale of x – while the majority remain tied into this rationale by the ongoing negotiation of social, political and economic activities in these terms.
That the impending extinction of the species is not held to be a non-contingent priority demonstrates the psychosis induced by belief in x, and this constitutes the problem. The psychosis lies in the apparent justification of x by action and thought in terms of x, whereas (i) has been able to view x from the outside and see that while internally coherent, x externalizes large parts of reality. These externalized realities, mounting for generations, now threaten the very existence of the species. However, (u) is unable to recognize these threats, less yet address them, for they lie outside the conceptual framework of x.

I think this addresses some of the points raised. I just wanted to take the time to thank solace for the advice:

'iconoclast, you've still done nothing to prove that belief in God is causing the human race to go extinct. All you have is a theory, and a poorly founded one at that. Other than saying the same thing over and over, just in a somewhat different manner each time, you've said nothing new for a good many posts. My advice is to leave it alone unless and until you get something fresh.'

Did you know this is a philosophy site? We're still debating issues discussed by the Greeks over two thousand years ago. In comparison this is something fresh - afterall, humankind hasn't been threatened with extinction before the present era. Every previous generation has been able to have kids and raise them in the knowledge that while they themselves may die, thier children carry thier genetic and intellectual legacy onward. But not us - not unless we get this right. Am i boring you?

[Solace]

No, icono, you weren't boring me. Sorry for being terse before, but since you were saying pretty much the same thing each time you posted it started to feel like a rant. Not that the extinction of the species isn't worth ranting about.