Hypothetical: God is disproved (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 02:53:44 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Hypothetical: God is disproved (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Hypothetical: God is disproved  (Read 6256 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,713
United Kingdom


« on: May 20, 2016, 08:58:13 PM »

I asked how people would feel and how they'd live their lives if somehow there was 100% concrete evidence there was no higher power and no afterlife.

An impossible question for anyone to answer for reasons that should be fairly obvious. However. Why do you think this question is one worth asking? Now that is an interesting question.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,713
United Kingdom


« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2016, 07:07:08 PM »

That's not obvious to me.  Please explain.

God must exist beyond that which is objectively verifiable else God is not God.

Or, rather, the only conception of God that might be technically objectively provable/disprovable would be a particularly boring and pedantic Deistic conception (which I would not recognise as 'God' in any case) and, frankly, don't we all have better things to be worrying about that that?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

But a) stupid and b) ultimately masturbatory and therefore not honest and therefore, from one point of view, impossible to truly answer.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If a question can't be answered honestly (this one can't) then it's a useless question and is probably only being asked for rhetorical purposes. Or at least that's my suspicion.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,713
United Kingdom


« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2016, 02:34:04 PM »

So, you're effectively making the argument that I just rebutted.  Please explain why you disagree with the rebuttal.

Which rebuttal is this?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which part is vague?

I don't know whether boring pedantry is automatically invalid, but who honestly has the time for it?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's not shift things too much. It was the question I labeled as stupid. I'd argue that any philosophical question that can't be addressed honestly is kind of stupid. I suppose I'm using 'stupid' to mean 'pointless and unproductive' rather than 'lacking in intelligence', but that's not unusual in this context. No one else has to agree, but that's my settled view.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite possibly. You can't know how you'd react to most hypotheticals which does make them problematic from the honesty perspective (which is important). The idea that we have control over our feelings is risible.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if I am being defensive.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,713
United Kingdom


« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2016, 05:47:09 PM »

...and importantly this silly question isn't being raised as a 'haha I has a question now lol' but as a barely concealed broadside. Inevitably the tone of responses is not going to be particularly friendly.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.