Either there is a God, or there isn't.

[Birdjaguar]

That sounds like an entirely novel form of ad populum.

An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "if many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."

Well not quite. Ad populum tries to support a proposition based on its popularity among ordinary folks: free health care is a good thing because everyone wants it.

What I was saying was that the claim (perf's suggestion) that rationality dominates human behavior is probalby wrong and to look at life as if it does is a misguided notion that neglects most of the way people actually behave. Our actions speak louder than our words. To fully understand who we are and why we do things, we have to embrace the irrational and blindly emotional too. (Not just study it.)

And I would further add that since most of our behavior is guided by our genes, that troublesome irrationality is hard coded into our being. I think that there is a real difference between my position and an ad populum stance, but I will listen to why I might be wrong.

 

[JohnRM]

There is no other way out (strangely enough). Both possibilities are frightening. If there is a God then we'd better find out who he is and what he wants!

If there isn't a God, then we are hurtling through space at 66,000 MPH with nobody to care about us.

Which side do you take?

I believe there is a God, because whichever way you believe, it is by purely faith. There is no imperical evidence to support the (non)existence of a God. Frankly, I would rather believe that we were created by a loving God who has a purpose for us than to believe we came from a rock and are getting better progressivly. In effect, evolution teaches us that we are Gods. We are slowly becoming more and more like perfect Gods through a slow process.

What is your take? If you don't believe in a God (Atheist) then tell me, in some relative detail, what (or who, more specifically) defines right from wrong? The government?

No personal attacks please.

Roman Catholic, here.

 

[The Last Conformist]

What I was saying was that the claim (perf's suggestion) that rationality dominates human behavior is probalby wrong and to look at life as if it does is a misguided notion that neglects most of the way people actually behave. Our actions speak louder than our words. To fully understand who we are and why we do things, we have to embrace the irrational and blindly emotional too. (Not just study it.)

There's a leap of logic here; that people commonly act irrationally does not by itself imply that one needs to be irrational to understand human behaviour.

 

[rodders_]

I believe in God. Someone change my opinion.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I believe in God. Someone change my opinion.

Rodders is suddenly bathed in golden light, and a great echoing voice speaks to him:

God: Actually Rodders, you dont believe in me, its the other way around, I believe in you.

 

[Birdjaguar]

There's a leap of logic here; that people commonly act irrationally does not by itself imply that one needs to be irrational to understand human behaviour.

There are probably more than one. My point was that irrationality is such a large part of human life that to claim observation and reasoned thought has all the answers is a mistake. Experiential "learning" that is not quantifiable or replicable is a valid path to truth.

Can you fully understand sex (and the sex drive) if you have never had sex?
Can you understand another culture if you only observe it and never participate in it?
Can you effectively teach parenting if you have never been a parent?
No, no and no again.

And...
You cannot know what it is like to have the flu without getting the disease
or what a car accident is like without being in one either. For bad experiences, sometimes it is better to not learn by experience, but enduring such things can be very enlightening.

Experience creates faith. Experiences that are unique, unquantifiable and not independently replicable. You can hook up electrodes or watch a mystical experience on a cat scan and identify all the areas of the brain that light up, but you will still not know what it is like.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Welcome to OT Rodders! Savour BE's welcome, it is a classic.

 

[member66170]

I do not believe that there isn't no god.
I do believe that there is no god.

Why always view atheism as a negative?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Because not collecting stamps isn't a hobby?

BTW, "Jeebus McChrist" - would that be the guy with the halo?

 

[Sidhe]

There are probably more than one. My point was that irrationality is such a large part of human life that to claim observation and reasoned thought has all the answers is a mistake. Experiential "learning" that is not quantifiable or replicable is a valid path to truth.

Can you fully understand sex (and the sex drive) if you have never had sex?
Can you understand another culture if you only observe it and never participate in it?
Can you effectively teach parenting if you have never been a parent?
No, no and no again.

And...
You cannot know what it is like to have the flu without getting the disease
or what a car accident is like without being in one either. For bad experiences, sometimes it is better to not learn by experience, but enduring such things can be very enlightening.

Experience creates faith. Experiences that are unique, unquantifiable and not independently replicable. You can hook up electrodes or watch a mystical experience on a cat scan and identify all the areas of the brain that light up, but you will still not know what it is like.

Dangerous argument, it has merits but Rasputin said "one cannot speak of sin unless one has sinned" it's an immoral advocation, I wouldn't tell anyone who spoke out against something they hadn't practiced, to go find out about the sin first by indulging it

As you say though experience is a good guide, I would rather not experience anything of suffering though or imorality if I can help it, neither has any merit if they can be avoided.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, Thanks for reminding me of that Erik Mesoy.

The guy with the halo is great, sort of an antithesis of the buddy christ

 

[Kilroy]

There are probably more than one. My point was that irrationality is such a large part of human life that to claim observation and reasoned thought has all the answers is a mistake. Experiential "learning" that is not quantifiable or replicable is a valid path to truth.

Observation and rationality do have all the "answers," however, if you're interested in predicting events. That is, while I may not know what it's like to walk a mile in your shoes, I can, with enough information, make reliable predictions of your behavior. I can even map the chemical reactions in your brain that are causing you to say the things you do and make the decisions you do. To actually experience what you experience, however, is of course impossible. I'm not you, and I can never "take over" your sentience or anything like that.

 

[The Last Conformist]

There are probably more than one. My point was that irrationality is such a large part of human life that to claim observation and reasoned thought has all the answers is a mistake. Experiential "learning" that is not quantifiable or replicable is a valid path to truth.

Can you fully understand sex (and the sex drive) if you have never had sex?
Can you understand another culture if you only observe it and never participate in it?
Can you effectively teach parenting if you have never been a parent?
No, no and no again.

I don't think any of those behaviours is necessarily irrational.

.... queue the big semantic debate about the precise meaning of "irrational".

Experience creates faith.

Experience has killed all faith (in the religious/mystic sense) I ever had.

 

[Sidhe]

Please don't suggest those philosophers become obsessed with semantics, I've seen plenty of threads that go on for hours about nothing much, go look up the meaning in a dictionary quick before it's too late

Observation and rationality do have all the "answers," however, if you're interested in predicting events.

Obsevation and rationality do not have all the answers if they do then all philosophers are out of a job, nice work

 

[Norseman2]

Both possibilities are frightening.

Only the first is.

If there is a God then we'd better find out who he is and what he wants!

Because if you don't, you burn in hell for all eternity.

If there isn't a God, then we are hurtling through space at 66,000 MPH with nobody to care about us.

Meh. If we crash (I assume that's what the signifigance of your 66 thousand MPH figure was for) we die. Once we're dead, we're dead. Any fear or panic before the crash will be very temporary, so it's quite bearable. Burning in hell for all eternity is a much worse fate.

Which side do you take?

Atheist here.

 

[Norseman2]

I believe in God. Someone change my opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

In case you question the existance of evil, I present to you the Dark Lord himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney

 

[Kilroy]

Obsevation and rationality do not have all the answers if they do then all philosophers are out of a job, nice work

Read what you quoted. Philosophers are not generally in the business of predicting events. When they are, (if they're smart) they restrict themselves to areas where we either can't collect the necessary data to make a prediction, or we can't properly analyze it. This is why philosophers no longer concern themselves with things like, for example, gravity, whereas they still have lots of room to maneuver when it comes to human behavior. If we were to ever develop a rigorously-tested and working model of the human brain, there wouldn't be much philosophy left there, either (as of now, there isn't much for them to do in that realm, anyway).

Science doesn't put philosophers out of work, rather philosophers mark the directions in which science might next proceed. And of course there are some problems science will likely never solve, such as the direct inspection of human consciousness. (Not say it will never happen, but I can't concieve of how it ever possibly could.)

 

[El_Machinae]

I believe in God. Someone change my opinion.

Define "God" first.

 

[Sidhe]

Read what you quoted. Philosophers are not generally in the business of predicting events. When they are, (if they're smart) they restrict themselves to areas where we either can't collect the necessary data to make a prediction, or we can't properly analyze it. This is why philosophers no longer concern themselves with things like, for example, gravity, whereas they still have lots of room to maneuver when it comes to human behavior. If we were to ever develop a rigorously-tested and working model of the human brain, there wouldn't be much philosophy left there, either (as of now, there isn't much for them to do in that realm, anyway).

Science doesn't put philosophers out of work, rather philosophers mark the directions in which science might next proceed. And of course there are some problems science will likely never solve, such as the direct inspection of human consciousness. (Not say it will never happen, but I can't concieve of how it ever possibly could.)

I was tending to think that you meant science had all the answers if that was the case then philosophy is dead, as is I guess science.

I'm in a tentative agreement with you on the hard problem, I'm not sure we could ever solve it, I think an alien race might be able to do it objectively though.

 

[Phlegmak]

Define "God" first.

Here he is.

EDIT: Looks like the picture isn't showing up for some reason.

 

[Kal'thzar]

I've always thought that what people mean by God is perfection.