God.

[Keronians]

There is one more implicit axiom: that other humans having minds like yours is important to how to treat them.

Not really. Them having minds is sufficient to show that they have intrinsic value which, by the very definitions as uses of language, means that you SHOULD treat them with a certain sort of consideration.

If they do not put any value to their lives, however, do they still have intrinsic value?

EDIT: You know, if they want to commit suicide or something.

[Farnhamia]

Well I will be the first to admit that science is not my strong suit. But all the same people have been arguing this point for centuries. I respect your opinion but I wont agree with it. But the way I see it science is a flawed field. And it will never answer everything. And I will quote Men in Black. Thousands of years ago we knew the world was the center of the universe.
Hundreds of years ago we knew the world was flat.
Imagine what we will know tommorow.
The thing is science changes as time passes but the Bible remains the same. Plus if this world is the best it gets well then that just sucks. And the ironic thing is I used to be an Athiest. But there was a big void that science just could not fill and it seemed that if we are all just accidents then there is no purpose to life.(I even attempted suicide) But after I put my faith in God and accepted his truth I was given purpose and now I am a person with new life. But I'm not a preacher and I dont want to add to a never ending debate. So this will be my last post on this thread. But I continue to respect your opinion.

True. The bible remains the same (discounting the latest revisions of course ), and for the most part, it's followers refuse to evolve as well.

They evolve. They evolved into Eastern Christians, Western Christians, Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Conservative Jews, Reform Jews, Sunni Muslims, Shi'ite Muslims, Young Earth Creationists, Old Earth Creationists. Everything evolves, even people who deny evolution.

[Jasonovia]

There is one more implicit axiom: that other humans having minds like yours is important to how to treat them.

Not really. Them having minds is sufficient to show that they have intrinsic value which, by the very definitions as uses of language, means that you SHOULD treat them with a certain sort of consideration.

What is it about having a mind that gives intrinsic value?

[Unhealthy2]

If they do not put any value to their lives, however, do they still have intrinsic value?

EDIT: You know, if they want to commit suicide or something.

I suppose not, but it is rather hard for the murder to know that, isn't it? More often than not, someone values their existence. It is thus very likely to be very wrong when you kill someone.

[Unhealthy2]

What is it about having a mind that gives intrinsic value?

It is what is done with most minds, self-valuation.

[Keronians]

Not really. Them having minds is sufficient to show that they have intrinsic value which, by the very definitions as uses of language, means that you SHOULD treat them with a certain sort of consideration.

What is it about having a mind that gives intrinsic value?

The fact that you value your existence.

Do you want to die? No? Then you have intrinsic value.

[Unhealthy2]

Science will never be able to answer everything. It has many things it can answer, but it cannot answer everything because not everything is observable and testable.

Very few claims are TRULY untestable. Many are not testable in practice, but that is different and subject to change.

Of those claims that are truly untestable, they are all infinitely improbable because there are infinitely many such claims that could possibly be true, and thus any given untestable claim represents only one point in an infinite space.

As for other philosophical problems that can't be answered by a combination of science and reason, I hold that many, if not all of them are just meaningless questions brought upon by using language improperly.

[Jasonovia]

What is it about having a mind that gives intrinsic value?

It is what is done with most minds, self-valuation.

That could be a false valuation. Or only apply to yourself for some reason.

[Keronians]

Science will never be able to answer everything. It has many things it can answer, but it cannot answer everything because not everything is observable and testable.

Very few claims are TRULY untestable. Many are not testable in practice, but that is different and subject to change.

Of those claims that are truly untestable, they are all infinitely improbable because there are infinitely many such claims that could possibly be true, and thus any given untestable claim represents only one point in an infinite space.

As for other philosophical problems that can't be answered by a combination of science and reason, I hold that many, if not all of them are just meaningless questions brought upon by using language improperly.

OK, so how is God testable?

[Unhealthy2]

OK, so how is God testable?

Depends on the god. Most gods are said to have intervened. Since the earth is demonstrably not 6000 some years old, that version of god is falsified. Since there, to within a very high degree of certainty, was no global flood, that god is falsified.

The problem is that people keep inventing a new god every time the old one is falsified. However, unlike scientists admitting past failures, these people act as if this latest version of god was always the god that was proposed. As such, they turn a blind eye toward all of their modifications. Furthermore, the kind of modifications they use are to preserve the general truth of the idea of there being a god. Rather than considering the best explanation for the evidence, they consider any explanation that fits all the evidence and still lets their god be true. This theory-saving modification combined with the blind eye behavior is a sort of informal logical fallacy called ad hoc reasoning. It's fundamentally dishonest.

[Unhealthy2]

That could be a false valuation.

How does that make any sense? This form of value is literally the only logically possible origins for intrinsic valuation.

Or only apply to yourself for some reason.

What?

[Distruzio]

Given the fact that science cannot disprove Him, and that He is always the unattainable goal, I'd say that it's rather obvious that God exists. For every discovery science reveals to us, a dozen more pop up just like that as a result of said discovery. No matter what scientific field, no matter how descriptive the hypothesis is, more mysteries are always the result of any scientific revelation. Being that Christians proclaim God to be the impossibly perfect thing ever beyond our reach. I'd present that God is all those new mysteries we discover. It isn't necessarily important that we attribute to God the imagery of an "invisible man in the sky." What is important is that we can never reach Him. For traditional orthodox (Anglican, Catholic, and Orthodox) Christians, who hold that God became man in the flesh in Christ while not limiting Himself in anyway (hence the trinitarian theology), this is perfectly plausible. God is not merely man. Nor is God solely spirit. God is wholly alien to our understanding. Period. He is always the impossible and the possible. He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A Triune God, singular in essence but distinct in Person. Which means that all the babble about how we cannot prove that He exists is actually true. As is our emphasis that we can, indeed, prove that He exists. He is beyond us.

If it pleases you to disbelieve, then do so. God is not confined by your concepts of reality. If I choose to believe, then I do so. God is not confined by my concepts of reality. He is always beyond our abilities. He is always mystery. So what if we choose to attribute the existence of mystery to a God. It in no way threatens you unless some nutjobs claiming to be Christians begin to infringe on your person. At which point you should resist any and all attempts to foist our faith upon you coercively.

"Science doesn't explain everything" is not proof of the existence of a god.

I see your inability to understand what you read is present even when not discussing politics. I said that what ever is not explainable yet, is attributed to God. Whatever is not explained, is proof of God. He is the mystery.

[Jasonovia]

That could be a false valuation.

How does that make any sense? This form of value is literally the only logically possible origins for intrinsic valuation.

Or only apply to yourself for some reason.

What?

People have been wrong before about assigning value, why not on this? And someone could consider himself/herself inherently superior to everyone else.

[Distruzio]

Given the fact that science cannot disprove Him, and that He is always the unattainable goal, I'd say that it's rather obvious that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. For every discovery science reveals to us, a dozen more pop up just like that as a result of said discovery. No matter what scientific field, no matter how descriptive the hypothesis is, more mysteries are always the result of any scientific revelation. Being that Pastafarians proclaim the Flying Spaghetti Monster to be the impossibly perfect thing ever beyond our reach. I'd present that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is all those new mysteries we discover. It isn't necessarily important that we attribute to the Flying Spaghetti monster the imagery of an "invisible noodle in the sky." What is important is that we can never reach Him.

Feel free to replace with "Invisible Pink Unicorn", "Zeus", or "Leprechauns", since you seem to think "I believe it to be so" constitutes valid evidence, they're all just as valid as "God".

Nope. The Church has defined how we are to relate to God. Unicorns, no matter how invisible or Pink, Leprechauns, or Zeus do not have the support of the Church. I believe that 2000 years of Church history is valid evidence of Gods existence and perpetuity. Until the Church embraces Unicorns or Leprechauns, it is safe to say they aren't valid.

[Unhealthy2]

I see your inability to understand what you read is present even when not discussing politics. I said that what ever is not explainable yet, is attributed to God. Whatever is not explained, is proof of God. He is the mystery.

So you're making an atheistic argument, right? Because this seems to be saying that god is just an excuse we use to fill in gaps in our knowledge that haven't been given a better explanation yet.

[Keronians]

OK, so how is God testable?

Depends on the god. Most gods are said to have intervened. Since the earth is demonstrably not 6000 some years old, that version of god is falsified. Since there, to within a very high degree of certainty, was no global flood, that god is falsified.

The problem is that people keep inventing a new god every time the old one is falsified. However, unlike scientists admitting past failures, these people act as if this latest version of god was always the god that was proposed. As such, they turn a blind eye toward all of their modifications. Furthermore, the kind of modifications they use are to preserve the general truth of the idea of there being a god. Rather than considering the best explanation for the evidence, they consider any explanation that fits all the evidence and still lets their god be true. This theory-saving modification combined with the blind eye behavior is a sort of informal logical fallacy called ad hoc reasoning. It's fundamentally dishonest.

Yes, His so-called actions can be falsified, but not the being himself. It just suggests that whatever the Bible is saying God did, he didn't really do. OR, they kept adding details (exaggerating His actions, perhaps?) to the point where it became contradictory and simply false.

Not to mention that the book was written by humans.

The thing is, whilst this is ad hoc reasoning on my part as well, it's not strange for that to have happened. For the humans who read the Bible, to have then exaggerated everything. It still happens today.

"Oh, that guy was huge. He was like 10 feet tall."

As such, the primary deed of God was to create the Universe. We know that this was done via the Big Bang (at least, that's the most likely thing that happened, and the most widely accepted). However, since we don't know what there was before the Big Bang, and thus cannot test or observe it, we have no way of testing or observing God's primary deed, or God Himself, since He, if he exists, obviously He exists outside of our known Universe.

[Unhealthy2]

Nope. The Church has defined how we are to relate to God. Unicorns, no matter how invisible or Pink, Leprechauns, or Zeus do not have the support of the Church.

Galileo didn't have the support of the church either. We saw how correct they were then.

I believe that 2000 years of Church history is valid evidence of Gods existence and perpetuity.

Then there's valid evidence for a shit ton of claims made throughout history. Do you honestly believe Christianity is the oldest religion?

Until the Church embraces Unicorns or Leprechauns, it is safe to say they aren't valid.

No, until evidence is produced that they exist, it's safe to say they aren't valid. Oops! We can't use that honest and symmetric criterion because it also applies to god. Better invent something that let's us keep god but not anything else without evidence.

[Unhealthy2]

Yes, His so-called actions can be falsified, but not the being himself.

Really? By the same criteria I've just used against god, you've probably declared the non-existence of other things. Why apply an unfair standard to god?

The thing is, whilst this is ad hoc reasoning on my part as well, it's not strange for that to have happened. For the humans who read the Bible, to have then exaggerated everything. It still happens today.

Except that it's even more likely for it to have pretty much no basis at all. The historical claims were somewhat correct and anything in the book mentioning god at all is an exaggeration. That's the best explanation.

As such, the primary deed of God was to create the Universe. We know that this was done via the Big Bang (at least, that's the most likely thing that happened, and the most widely accepted). However, since we don't know what there was before the Big Bang, and thus cannot test or observe it, we have no way of testing or observing God's primary deed, or God Himself, since He, if he exists, obviously He exists outside of our known Universe.

No, we cannot test or observe it YET. You can't assume that our present lack of observational capacity is insurmountable. Besides, you're assuming that there had to have been something before the universe. Why make that presumption?

[Unhealthy2]

People have been wrong before about assigning value, why not on this?

Really? When?

And someone could consider himself/herself inherently superior to everyone else.

Self-valuation is what matters, remember. It really is irrelevant to morality how he extrinsically values others.

[Jasonovia]

People have been wrong before about assigning value, why not on this?

Really? When?

And someone could consider himself/herself inherently superior to everyone else.

Self-valuation is what matters, remember. It really is irrelevant to morality how he extrinsically values others.

I thought an item I had was worth more than it was until I checked ebay. For less trivial examples, how about slavery or abortion?

How are we all to agree that self-valuation is what matters?

[Farnhamia]

Feel free to replace with "Invisible Pink Unicorn", "Zeus", or "Leprechauns", since you seem to think "I believe it to be so" constitutes valid evidence, they're all just as valid as "God".

Nope. The Church has defined how we are to relate to God. Unicorns, no matter how invisible or Pink, Leprechauns, or Zeus do not have the support of the Church. I believe that 2000 years of Church history is valid evidence of Gods existence and perpetuity. Until the Church embraces Unicorns or Leprechauns, it is safe to say they aren't valid.

And yet here you are, one of our most fervent apostles of "you are not the boss of me," willingly and, I daresay, blindly accepting what "the Church" says about how to live your life. Curious.

[Kormanthor]

God. Do you believe in him? Or is he not real? Please share your opinions/beliefs.

(the Christian God is the one I am talking about)

Of course I believe in him, because he is definately real

[Ceannairceach]

God. Do you believe in him? Or is he not real? Please share your opinions/beliefs.

(the Christian God is the one I am talking about)

Of course I believe in him, because he is definately real

As this entire thread shows, debatable.

[Kormanthor]

Non-existent entity created to quell people's fears of the unknown and to give the masses someone to blame when things go wrong.

Boy do you have a surprise coming your way

[Kormanthor]

Of course I believe in him, because he is definately real

As this entire thread shows, debatable.

You people love to debate, but this isn't debatable. GODS continued existance isn't decided by mere mortals