Essay on god does not exist - essays on citizenship


 

Manage



 
 

Search

 
 
 

News

 

Comments

essay on god does not exist

essay on god does not existEssay on god does not exist -While a few are aware of some tired tropes that they can bring up to incense skeptics, almost all are narrowly concerned with their god of choice, and not with anything involving multiple gods across history or cultures.A debate over god and evil soon sidetracks into a debate over the extent of our knowledge of god.More than anything it is the job of science to continually improve itself, while at the same time it seldom finds anything that could really be termed an “absolute” in spite of what the various vested interests might profess.Now, keep in mind that today’s scientists are rightly skeptical about alien life, in the sense that we do not yet have good evidence of alien life.These facts about Santa encourage the “strong anti-Claus” stance, but they can simultaneously encourage the weak anti-Claus stance, too.The entire dichotomy between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ stances breaks down completely here, and the same situation holds for the existence of god.Conversely, religion often tends to begin with absolutes and then dissolves into an increasing level of mush in the interest of self-interest and/or increasing the membership rolls of their “faithful”.There are two basic ways to design non-existence proofs.Recently science inquiries on moral principles is showing good results (as Marc’s theories) so I think we’re almost there to link biological structures to religious thoughts ad believers will have to live with it… But anyway, even if we demonstrate that religious thought are pre-determined and limited by pre-established structures on our brains… Why religious thought is so linked to humans in the history of evolution? Ginger Campbell’s “Brain Science Podcast” which has covered this and a great many other topics applicable to the thoughts currently being exchanged here such as Noam Chomsky’s theories and the degree of “hardwiring” actually being found by neuroscientists as opposed to the degree of “plasticity” in the brain and how we learn, forget and even re-learn the things which allow us to partake of this world. I submit the following for consideration: “No error exists in our knowledge, if it completely agrees with the laws of our understanding, nor can there be an error in a representation of the senses, because they involve no judgment, and no power of nature can, of its own accord, deviate from its own laws.For those that want it, this may even lead far beyond ‘New Age’-thinking and help make the Does God or gods exist?But perhaps the intellectual’s gods don’t really count.Nobody can say that humans and religious thought are not linked. Therefore neither the understanding by itself (without the influence of another cause), nor the senses by themselves could ever err.“Kant : Critique of Pure Reason, A292.When theists speculate as to immaterial or disembodied beings, just remind them that science has shown that the “mind” is just a property of matter. When we gain better understanding of cognition on the one hand and more evidence about the historical development of the earliest religions on the other, it will be possible to come to a full natural understanding of metaphysical beliefs and church history (of every persuasion ever dreamt up).When talking about alleged supernatural beings, there aren’t many successful options.There are many ways for Christian theology to reply to this argument, and we will cover the ensuing debate in a later blog entry.And as “God” was therein invoked as the ultimate authority giving the colonists the right to cast off the British Crown rule, perhaps some would now say that such blood was shed only “in the interest of fairness” (or self-interest) instead of for God and feelings for a country that didn’t even yet exist – but I digress.While “senses” are presumed by Kant to “involve no judgment”, we now know from scientific study of the human brain and it’s mental processes that many if not most of the perceptions derived from our sensory inputs either remain incomplete or are selectively filtered as such information is processed within the brain - wherein lays a lifelong set of biases, rationalizations and instructions on how to interpret such sensory input.Misperceptions are aplenty and “normal” while at the same time the unconscious mind tries to tackle much that the conscious is apparently unprepared for.In the absence of a definitive proof that this amazing Santa doesn’t exist, the weak anti-Claus stance is the more reasonable alternative.If we look at recent theories from Marc Hauser on moral judgments or also from Noam Chomsky on linguistics we realize that our brain is born with a lot of a-priori bio-structures that define our capacity to learn and our capacity to generate ideas and moral judgments of a certain kind.essay on god does not existAfter all, if Santa is admittedly so mysterious and so unnatural, it is very hard to imagine how to show that he doesn’t exist!The skeptical atheist – the original and genuine atheist – has competition even among atheists.Distinctions between ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ atheism, and between ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ atheism, have appeared in recent literature.The “dialectical non-existence proof” argues that two or more characteristics of a specific god are logically incompatible.To further appreciate the magnitude of the task of proving that no god exists, compare it to the task of proving that no extraterrestial life exists.This “evidential non-existence proof” attempts to demonstrate that some specific god cannot exist if something else (the “disprover”) actually does exist.When an atheist proudly claims that god can be disproven, he overstates the actual achievement, ignores imaginative theology, and encourages religious believers to suppose that the only reasonable atheist is the one who can prove that their god does not exist. The ordinary believer cheers on theologians protecting god from refutation, but the needed theological refinements to god in turn make god more and more mysterious, which in turn forces atheists to design ever-more intricate arguments against god, and when these arguments fall short, the believers rejoice at the atheists’ dismay and congratulate themselves for their blind faith in incomprehensible mystery.Nor can scientists reasonably assert that alien life does not exist.Scientists cannot reasonably assert that alien life exists, even if they suppose that such life has a fair probability of existing somewhere else out in the vast universe.Avoiding dialectical non-existence proofs is, from theology’s point of view, just another way for humanity to learn more about god. The other kind of proof confronts a specific kind of god with the actual existence of something else, where it is necessarily impossible that both can exist together.My point was that we already have so many a–priori “structures” in our brain that already condition the way we see the world and in a way they establish the boundaries to the way we interact with it.Perhaps we’ll even figure out “ultimate power” before something kills us all and we become a moot point to whomever or whatever is left. I’m not a big fan of philosophy as a tool for considering the nature and shape of reality. People have been inventing stories about gods throughout history. Those statements should not be taken to leave the door open to the existence of a god any more (or less) than the statement that there is no evidence that invisible green unicorns exist. However, if you tell me that an omnipotent being (a) created the world this way, having the power to make it any way he chose or (b) that eternal torment in hell is part of God’s justice, then I do not believe you have fully thought through your values. Some of the recent, greatly honored and quite valid scientific research efforts in this regard are beginning to sound to most of us as being at least as “wild” as the collective dreams of the shamans. ”, however, we do not live in an ideal world but one more prone to conformism.Just as scientists get comfortable, someone who makes a breakthrough must then fight against the established order which will move heaven and earth to prevent any shaking up of their own foundations until at some point they might finally be shamed into accepting any startling new knowledge.This “weak anti-Claus” stance seems too weak to someone convinced that Santa does not exist, for lots of reasons involving the extreme implausibility that Santa does exist.I see no reason to think that it’s a reliable method of inquiry in that sphere of inquiry. That is a complete and fully adequate explanation for theistic belief. Some have historically been taught that this unknown factor is called “God”. If we try we realize that each religion have different ideas of God, even each person, and we will also realize that the definitions are not satisfactory on a scientific point of view… There is no doubt that the idea of God DOES exist in all humans as we all think we understand what we mean with this word.So what’s a billion years or so of space-time difference worth? ) product might even appear to us as all-powerful, all-knowing, immortal, etc.(sound familiar? Assuming we can absolve ourselves of our own “center of the universe” complex, is it still impossible that this level of advancement has already occured somewhere in an infinite universe?There simply isn’t enough evidence at present for either the ‘weak’ or ‘strong’ position about alien life.No one sees Santa, his North Pole hideout hasn’t been discovered, his Christmas eve schedule would violate natural laws, etc.The only useful category remaining is skepticism, pure and simple: all scientists should be skeptical about alien life, and everyone should be skeptical about god. I recommend answering, "a skeptical atheist." The nice thing for most of us atheists/skeptics/infidels/non-believers/agnostics/heathens/freethinkers/humanists/devil-worshippers/pagans/people otherwise supposedly anti-Christian/anti-religious and bound for eternal damnation, is that your average believer is as ignorant of academic theology as he or she is of the Bible, with the notable exception of some “pop theologians” who have written best-selling literature.So, how very wrong must the above statement appear in the shining light of our current state of medical science? essay on god does not exist And even if these refinements go badly and one characteristic of god must go, theology is often flexibly accommodating to such modifications to its conception of god.Do we dare assume that such processes have now stopped or does not also occur elsewere within our universe?Revising god (well, our conception of god) is endlessly productive and profitable for theology. Does natural evolution prove that god did not specially create humanity?Correction: I equivocated between the word “believer” and the more narrow Christian believer by comparing ignorance of theology to ignorance of the Bible. Blame it on being an American non-believer from the Deep South; they’re most of what I’ve had to deal with, in terms of metaphysical harassment. It is very easy to take a perfectly logical and often too lengthy path to nowhere.Definitions of these types of atheism vary across atheists.Argue theology with them, and you’re on their turf. Essays like this, about theological immunity to proof, are also a good step in that direction (as is Dan Dennett’s ‘Breaking The Spell’).Nevertheless, that accomplishment, though nobly executed, is hardly the same thing as successfully proving that no god could possibly exist.Returning to god, can the positive/strong atheist conclusively eliminate the possibility that no god exists?What ‘positive’ and ‘strong’ atheists have in common is their view that one is justified in believing that no god exists, and they regard ‘weak’ or ‘negative’ atheists as only holding the lesser view that one is only justified in not believing that any god exists.Simply not believing in their god is enough to infuriate them and provide for an entertaining discussion, if you’re the “militant” type.God help us (really) as various religious leaders increasingly ignore the tenants of their own faith while at the same time an ever increasing number of outright frauds and charlatans enter the self-service of God, or whatever it is they call upon.Theologians are attracted towards investigating the validity of a proof’s logical steps, but ordinary believers have a notoriously expeditious way of disposing of the problem, by stubbornly denying the existence of the disprover. What sort of evil could disprove the existence of god? Or, expressed from the theologian’s perspective, what sort of god would permit getting disproven by any actual turn of affairs?For example, some atheists are so impressed by the argument from the existence of evil that they conclude that this argument proves that god cannot be omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent.Just as our increased understanding of the human mind can perhaps show us where some errors may have occurred with earlier ways of rationalizing ideas and how we might communicate them more effectively, so can science and religion work together to find (or perhaps rediscover) an immutable universal truth which in the final analysis, is one.Figuring out how a perfect being can suffer requires some fancy refinements to god to avoid the harsh verdict of a dialectical non-existence proof.Well then, god must have designed the natural laws responsible for humanity’s origins.The atheist can offer impressive proofs that specific and inflexible gods do not exist.Keeping god out of harm’s way from actual evidence has also helped to keep theologians employed and busy.For example, many Christians believe both that god is perfect and that god can suffer along with us.It still appears that either one divided by the other will give the answer “1” or perhaps “0” if you want to try to go that way. It is the belief of many that we have proven the big bang theory simply by reversing through time our observed perceptions of the universe while at the same time realizing that major factors such as “time zero” and dark matter still remain unexplainable for the most part. Ideally, each should represent the character of the child who is free to point out the fact that,“the Emperor is naked! essay on god does not exist But suppose, just for a minute, that there really is a perfectly valid argument for that negative conclusion. Only one thing: that one specific kind of god cannot exist: a god having omnipotence, omniscience, and benevolence. First, the atheist is reminded that there might be other kinds of gods.Unfortunately, the number of potentially conceivable supernatural entities (some have already been thought of, but most have not) far outruns the number of disprovable gods.Assuming that fate disallows any more planetary catastrophes, then into what kind of being or form will homo sapiens (or any other such strange entities as may exist in the universe) ultimately transform given an exra several million years or so? There is no mathmatical difference between the infinite simplicity (is that an oxymoron or what?This does not, however, discount any number of inherited mental mood or reactionary tendencies which I view as being every bit as genetic as eye color. Neuroplasticity Yep, good point, neuroplasticy is an area that is giving us a new understanding of how the brain works and seems promising but we have to be careful here.Not surprisingly, Christian theology has already carefully insulated god and god’s plan for the universe from any and all possible evidence.On the reasonable assumption that a definition of something having logically incompatible characteristics can only be the definition of a necessarily non-existent entity, dialectical non-existence proofs can prove that specific kinds of gods cannot actually exist.It is, contrary to legend, quite possible to prove a negative. It all depends on the kind of negative, the non-existence of something, that you aim to prove.But, at this point, I would mention the idealist Schelling on his idea of “positive philosophy” where he basically believes that philosophy (today we would include science in here) based only on concepts can only explain things that fit on “concepts” but reality, as infinite and absolute, does not fit on concepts and he thought humans shouldn’t forget religious approach as also essential to understand the property of infinite and absolute of the reality.The human imagination will, in all likelihood, forever outrun reason’s logic or science’s facts.Humans are, however, endowed with an innate sense of curiosity and need to understand things, particularly those which seem in some way important. We don’t know yet how it works and what is the impact of that plasticity in our capacity of reasoning and our a-priori (hardwired) structures that other studies demonstrate that exist beyond what we thought.What exactly would be the difference between concluding that one should believe that X does not exist, and concluding that one should not believe that X exists? Could I say, “I should not believe that Santa exists, but I should not believe that Santa does not exist.” If I can’t bring myself to believe that Santa doesn’t exist, I am admitting that for all I know, Santa might exist.Personally I’m a “defender” of reason and secularism but I think religion is an important reality of humans world that has also to be inquired. Neuroplasticity is an often heard buzz word in many episodes of Dr.Would any scientist, no matter how skeptical about alien life she might be, eagerly undertake such a demonstration?Since it is that evolution and emergence are now the given processes of change, it is from stardust and slime we were derived to become our current somewhat more complex form.)of a “big bang” singularity and the infinite complexity of a universe that expands even faster than the speed of light. Yes, that would be a very difficult color to prove. It is expected that those who receive such a degree exhibit the ability to think and thus make advancements beyond that which they have been taught by others.If reductionism seeks knowledge by extrapolating into the past that which we have managed to perceive thus far of the universe, so too can an even slightly fair degree of holism extrapolate likewise into the future.Spirituality, rainbow-like, will be explained as the completely worldly (brainy) phenomenon that it is.What appears to be evil really isn’t; what we must nevertheless declare to be evil (such as the Holocaust) still has some inscrutably divine sanction, for all we know.This has been proven innumerable times by both sides of the theology (or not) question. Mankind’s various perceptions of inexplicable things has forever represented an itch that must be scratched one way or another. This essay shows that engaging theologians on the existence of God via arguments like the problem of evil is not very useful, since they can create endless new fictions such as the free will defense, or even purely evil beings such as demons.To be anchored in dogma allows a scientist to go no where at all. essay on god does not exist More than anything it is the job of science to continually improve itself, while at the same time it seldom finds anything that could really be termed an “absolute” in spite of what the various vested interests might profess. essay on god does not exist




Status: FreeWare
OS: Windows|Mac OS
Autors 2079
Update: 26-Nov-2017 18:05
Cat: Home »