Do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Patrik
- 24,487 comments
- 1,132,205 views
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
-> is an arrow
A->B means A implies B.
wikipedia article on modus tollensIn propositional logic, modus tollens[1][2][3][4] (or modus tollendo tollens and also denying the consequent)[5] (Latin for "the way that denies by denying")[6] is a validargument form and a rule of inference. It is an application of the general truth that if a statement is true, then so is its contra-positive.
The first to explicitly describe the argument form modus tollens were the Stoics.[7]
The inference rule modus tollens validates the inference from {\displaystyle P}implies {\displaystyle Q}
and the contradictory of {\displaystyle Q}
to the contradictory of {\displaystyle P}.
The modus tollens rule can be stated formally as:
{\displaystyle {\frac {P\to Q,\neg Q}{\therefore \neg P}}}
where {\displaystyle P\to Q}stands for the statement "P implies Q". {\displaystyle \neg Q}
stands for "it is not the case that Q" (or in brief "not Q"). Then, whenever "{\displaystyle P\to Q}
" and "{\displaystyle \neg Q}" each appear by themselves as a line of a proof, then "{\displaystyle \neg P}" can validly be placed on a subsequent line. The history of the inference rule modus tollens goes back to antiquity.[8]
Modus tollens is closely related to modus ponens. There are two similar, but invalid, forms of argument: affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent.
I believe what you were doing is called denying the antecedent (which is an incorrect application of logic).
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
You can't prove either one of those things. For practical purposes, we have to assume that what we can observe is real. If our observations lead us to conclude that parallel universes are real, then it's reasonable to assume that those are real as well. But it's an assumption, a premise.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
The existence, or not, of extra universes is crucial to the debate over the existence of God!
The reason is, if there are extra universes, then our universe can be considered random.
If there there are no other universes, then our present universe can be considered less random (more designed).
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
What observations are there that would lead to the conclusion that there are extra universes?
I say there are none. But I can't prove it.
Variations in background radiation from the big bang. It's a theory that happens to fit the facts observed so far.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3836881.htm
- 13,891
- Adelaide
- Neomone
You need to stop doing this. You jump in with both feet but then as soon as people start actually engaging in a way that might mean that you'd have to demonstrate some thought you throw up your hands and say "woah, you guys are too serious for me!"
If you want to talk, then talk. If you want to troll around throwing out pseudoscience and conspiracy theories, please consider keeping it to yourself.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
There seems little more to discuss regarding belief in God. Our poll is cast in iron; half don't, half do, or maybe do. Science, physics and math don't seem to be crucial to the question. But how about deep cultural beliefs in nature gods?
Who's up for faerie trees?
Thomas the Rhymer meets the faerie queen under the Eildon Tree by Katherine Cameron
Eddie Lenihan and the faerie hawthorn at Lagoon
The Guardian Oak at West Kennet with Silbury Hill in the background
https://deadbutdreaming.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/the-metaphysics-of-faerie-trees/
Who's up for faerie trees?
Thomas the Rhymer meets the faerie queen under the Eildon Tree by Katherine Cameron
Eddie Lenihan and the faerie hawthorn at Lagoon
The Guardian Oak at West Kennet with Silbury Hill in the background
https://deadbutdreaming.wordpress.com/2017/05/09/the-metaphysics-of-faerie-trees/
DLR_Mysterion
(Banned)
- 365
- United Kingdom
As the son of God, He would be able to show the example by which men live
Again, I'm not sure. This evolves in Christian societies by virtue of a consensus. Christ preached forgiveness and the golden rule, and this message influences our laws.Yttrium99
God isn't human. The rules are for humans.Yttrium99
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Hypocrisy is divine.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The curiosity of humans seems to far outstrip that of any other animal. If it doesn't then what makes our curiosity special is the way we can share, pool and evolve ideas between us.
If you think of ancient man it would have been clear to them that things happened which they didn't understand. The lights in the sky moved around and had different effects on the land. The water at the land's edges would move and could kill very easily, but some things were able (allowed?) to live in there. And some of those were very tasty. The water would tolerate being handled, or floated on, but sometimes it would go away and crops would die. Sometimes it would be violent (angry?) and destroy land, people or property.
We know from the archaeology that some people began to track the movements of the lights in the sky and that patterns were discovered. It seems to have become clear that these patterns were to do with what happened on the land, particularly the cycle of life and death. Cultures differed on where the light went at night - some believed it went through the earth, some believed it went below, some believed it was swallowed by a goddess and then excreted the next morning to be rolled across the sky by a giant scarab. Some cultures (Nordic and Baltic in particular) recognised that a tree looks nearly the same both-ways-up and figured that maybe the world did too - they had various versions of the day/night life/death cycles to reflect that thinking.
Once we understand the amazing things that people are really trying to explain we realise that they're having to create a lot of explanations that are way beyond any science they might have understood (experiential skills notwithstanding). The spirits (or essences) of the natural world can easily become personified in this context. This personification not only enables understanding of the function (or intent) of natural features, flora or fauna but also creates an avenue for communication with the persona. We'd call that worship. There's significant evidence of water being deliberately worshipped in the paganus (countryside) throughout British and European history by many different peoples. The same is true of the Sun, of the Moon, of mountains, of rivers and so on. That persists today in some places.
By the time modern religion came along there were well-established methods for civilising, organising and - perhaps most importantly - policing and taxing large networks of settlements. Natural worship had ceded to fully-personified worship (deities). The Romans and Greeks were poly-deistic and happily assimilated other cool gods as they discovered them during their forays across Europe and Asia. The other modern super-religions rolled all the supernatural attributes up into one great big shiny god.
The problem for the authorities who disseminated these super-religions was that those in the paganus (or the pagans) still weren't quite sold and still practised their own worship, ceremonies and timely observations despite these being strictly outlawed by the church. By the beginning of the 20th century the word "pagan", normally used to describe such observers of "natural" religion begins to become a Bad Word.
To finally get around to answering your question... I suspect that nature gods are as much victims of the spread of atheism as the Super God(s), but there are also other factors in their decline. Rural communities that have existed since before the Danelaw are no longer static. Country living has become a thing that the rich do while the poor crowd the edges of towns and cities to avoid spiralling energy and transport costs. With this breakup of The Old the final remnants of local legends are dying away. We can only hope that as many are recorded as possible to aid our understanding of the history of humanity in a religious, scientific and social context.
DLR_Mysterion
(Banned)
- 365
- United Kingdom
- 87,253
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
His kid was - and Christians believe that his kid was also God.
You still haven't shown where, in the book you get the rules from, the rules are made species-specific.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,597
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Who should then?It's not up to me to judge God
Or is God above judgement and if so, why?
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
IMO, if God exists (unlikely), then it is not for man to judge him. My reasoning is thusly:
- Most of the universe is inorganic stars, nebulae, interstellar medium and planets, most of which is unsuited for biology or for man. Earth is an anomaly, a freakish place which does not fit the norm.
- Obviously God's highest priority is to create stars, and man's creation was either incidental or accidental.
- So only the stars should judge God.
- It would be the height of folly and ignorance for man to judge God. We could condemn him for making mistakes, or praise him for making the mistake of allowing human life to exist. But either way, it is useless.
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,597
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Given the tiny fraction of the universe we have been able to observe, and that we ae limited in time frame that's a rather bold assertion to make.
The spots on Earth that are now desert (of any form) are sparse in terms of life, yet that's not the norm for the Earth, nor has it always been the case for those spots.
Based on what we have observed of the universe and the every, very limited time frame we have observed it for you are correct, but that's quite different to it being a universal truth that has always been and will always be.
Why is it obvious? The Bible barely covers the subject.
Because they were created by God. So was man (according to the Bible), who was also given 'special' status and dominion over at least one of those stellar bodies. I've not seen a single word in the Bible that ranks stars above man, but I have seen one that ranks man as pretty damn high in the 'I created a load of stuff' order of things.
Your not basing your view here on the material on the subject that is available.
So anyone who holds any form of power should not be judged? That's the argument you are using here.
We don't need the authority of anyone to hold an opinion on, and make a judgement on anything.
What I would agree on is that based on the texts it would not make a difference given the rather fickle and genocidal nature of God.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Not exactly, most of the stars we see are soo far away that we are looking at their states millions of years in the past, enough time on our planet to take us well beyond the years when there was little much more then bacteria on our planet.
The way that light works in travel basically means we are just seeing the past then the actual real time sceniaro.
Given the Amounts of planets we have seen in distanced parts of the galaxy very few of those do we even know what lies on their surfaces, for all we know there could be many with life forms just at the early end of what we started from on earth.
Similar threads
