If your parents told you that Santa brought you gifts on Christmas Eve, then you certainly would have to disprove his existence later on in life. You are begging the question when you say that Santa Claus is absurd and thus doesn't require disproving.davidm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:30 pmWhich has nothing to do with my point. That point is that you cannot disprove a universe negative statement. "Prove that Santa Claus does not exist." I cannot prove that. Nor can anyone disprove the existence of ICan's monstrous god, who in his "ultimate goodness" throws people into a lake of fire for eternity after they die for not believing in him. To be an atheist does not requite that one disprove the existence of this or any god, just as being an a-santaist does not require that one disprove the existence of Santa.
The meaning of life?
Re: The meaning of life?
Re: The meaning of life?
Then why use the example of Santa Claus? Certainly because it is absurd! Also, why are you not responding to the rest of my post?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22708
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The meaning of life?
"Trumps"? It doesn't. That's not how evidence works. But I believe what I do because my judgment is exactly the opposite of the judgment you claim to be making. Unless I misunderstand what you're claiming, you say you've considered the evidence and prefer the rebuttals. I have considered the rebuttals and find them inadequate. We both claim to side with the better evidence. We only disagree about what that evidence consists of.davidm wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 9:00 pmOh? So why is your view that the "evidence" trumps the rebuttals more plausible then my view, that the rebuttals trump your "evidence?"Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:38 pm Actually, everybody has to take a view of that. So it's no surprise that I do.
The method is (presumably) identical.
Yes, I do find the rebuttals more compelling. And?
And I don't. For example, I see no adequate answer provided by Atheists to questions of causal regression, nothing by way of a plausible cosmology, a wildly implausible attempt to account for design, zero on meaning, and nothing remotely plausible on the Moral Argument, just for starters. From where I'm looking, it looks like the Atheists can't really answer anything fundamentally important.
In response, it's shallow mockery that they attempt (Celestial Teapots, Spaghetti Monsters, leprechauns, unicorns...). But it's only testimony to the poverty of their grasp of the issues, really. They don't even notice their own category errors; and that's if we take them at their word. They can't get the difference between "contingent" and "necessary," let alone wrap their heads around the concept of First Cause or Supreme Being. They think "God" means Zeus or Thor...contingent, imaginary, non-supreme entities, like super-powered aliens, and they make fun of that. They mock those constructs of their own imagination, and think they have an answer that will stand up to God. That's silly, if not also suicidal.
So what can one answer to such a contemptuous stupidity, such a raw refusal to think? As the book of Proverbs says, one can only "answer a fool according to his folly," and "answer [him] nothing, lest he be wise in his own eyes."
Re: The meaning of life?
I would try to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus by showing that nobody was claiming he did exist, meaning that the attributes that were supposed to identify Santa Claus are self-contradictory.
With God, it is hard to know what it means to assert the existence of God. It is usually made clear that if God is said to have particular attributes they are not to be understood in the same way as we use those same descriptions about material things. But then the consequence is that his 'existence' cannot then be understood to mean what is normally understood by 'existence'.
In that case, what is the point of arguing whether God 'exists', since nobody knows what that claim implies?
With God, it is hard to know what it means to assert the existence of God. It is usually made clear that if God is said to have particular attributes they are not to be understood in the same way as we use those same descriptions about material things. But then the consequence is that his 'existence' cannot then be understood to mean what is normally understood by 'existence'.
In that case, what is the point of arguing whether God 'exists', since nobody knows what that claim implies?
Re: The meaning of life?
I have quite a good idea of what God is.Londoner wrote: ↑Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:00 pm I would try to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus by showing that nobody was claiming he did exist, meaning that the attributes that were supposed to identify Santa Claus are self-contradictory.
With God, it is hard to know what it means to assert the existence of God. It is usually made clear that if God is said to have particular attributes they are not to be understood in the same way as we use those same descriptions about material things. But then the consequence is that his 'existence' cannot then be understood to mean what is normally understood by 'existence'.
In that case, what is the point of arguing whether God 'exists', since nobody knows what that claim implies?
Re: The meaning of life?
We ask because we are here and there is a reason for it. If but for to know why.
If we can't know why, then we make due otherwise.
For the sake of what we love, we live.
God worth it, or otherwise.
make it count nevertheless.
If one has able time to know God, where is God? and what's the gain of knowing Him?
Someone created us and put us here, what can we do for that someone? what can that someone do for us?
Time ticks on! Evidence , where?
If we can't know why, then we make due otherwise.
For the sake of what we love, we live.
God worth it, or otherwise.
make it count nevertheless.
If one has able time to know God, where is God? and what's the gain of knowing Him?
Someone created us and put us here, what can we do for that someone? what can that someone do for us?
Time ticks on! Evidence , where?
Re: The meaning of life?
I, personally, believe with Leibniz: "Happiness is the lasting pleasure of the mind grasping the intelligible order of reality."
Re: The meaning of life?
Meaning is a thing which can be perceived/experienced. It is not a concept that you can put it on words tell it to other that what it is.
Re: The meaning of life?
the purpose of life is to love and to serve. that's not all. it is also to know God & our relationship with him. please read :
https://www.vedabase.com/en/bg
https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb
author : HDG A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad
https://www.vedabase.com/en/bg
https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb
author : HDG A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad
Re: The meaning of life?
To love and serve whom? A love of what? Torture? Chaos? Service to whom? A corrupt wannabe dictator?visheshj wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:17 pm the purpose of life is to love and to serve. that's not all. it is also to know God & our relationship with him. please read :
https://www.vedabase.com/en/bg
https://www.vedabase.com/en/sb
author : HDG A C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad
Must the love and service only be towards humans or are other feeling animals included?
Which God? The one that hates homosexuals and sends abortionists to Hell? Why is God "Him" and not "it"?
Another way of putting it would be to simply enjoy that which is good in your life, try to be generally helpful to those who could do with it, and try not to do more damage than is needed to live healthily.
Re: The meaning of life?
The meaning of life is to serve the living machine called universe through the transformation of substances which includes being defeated and eaten by greater and greater things. Man is unique in that it serves the mechanical purpose all organic life on earth serves but also has the potential to serve a conscious purpose.