The Student Room Group

Any Athiests who now believe in God?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Radioactivedecay
Actually thats quite easy, Aristotle did this years ago. He said I think therefore I am. So you easily prove if you exisist if you simply, well, think but not that otheres exisist.


HAHAHA! Aristotle did not mate :smile: It was René Descartes.

Also it's an argument that's completely flawed too pretty universally agreed upon tbh, thinking itself could also be a product of someone elses dreams.
Original post by cman123
HAHAHA! Aristotle did not mate :smile: It was René Descartes.

Also it's an argument that's completely flawed too pretty universally agreed upon tbh, thinking itself could also be a product of someone elses dreams.


Oh snap you're right ma bad, too many Greek philosophers lol.

Also you cant just someone claim is flawed withouth giving any reasons to back it up, especially when that person spent a good chunk of his lofe thinking about questions like that.

No one has proved that it's illogical or flawed, so no, it's not 'pretty universally agreed upon'.
Original post by Radioactivedecay
Oh snap you're right ma bad, too many Greek philosophers lol.

Also you cant just someone claim is flawed withouth giving any reasons to back it up, especially when that person spent a good chunk of his lofe thinking about questions like that.

No one has proved that it's illogical or flawed, so no, it's not 'pretty universally agreed upon'.


You really have to be careful when you use the word "proved" in the field of philosophy since it's completey different to the general use of the word, e.g. in scince we use the proved in the sense of either real world maths or objective evidence.

In philosophy we can't really objectively say that this or that is proven since philosophy dives into the realm of logic and reason alone (mostly) not empirical evidence alone like in the sciences.

The "Proof" as u may put it is simply that we have no possible idea wheather or not the act of thinking (or conscienceness) is nessecarily linked to that or a corporical body or brain uniquely, you could just exist in the mind of someone else, meaning that your entire life and thoughts is a simply a very small part of a higher collective conscience with a compleatly different body, mind, and brain.

What i meant by universally agreed upon is that Decartes' idea of what "cogito ergo sum" meant by using the phrase is pretty much wrong universally by the contemporary philosophers in the same field. Just like how Newton is wrong about his theory of gravity and it's been revised by Einstein.

Look just because he's wrong about his philosophy on how someone can know he's alive or not in the sense of a living being, and his views on animal ethics (btw he said that animals just don't feel pain in order overcome the unethical treatment of animals), it doesn't mean that his entire life is worthless.

For example he was a damm genius when it came to the field of mathematics. Ever heard of the cartesian graph (x,y axis graph)??

Many people in the world actually live there entire life without achiveing much in the grand scheme of things, it's just fact. it's depressing but true.

People who work in the field of quantum mechanics, and theoretical physics their entire life will most likely achieve nothing or very little through all their hard work.

We can't all be winners.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by chazwomaq
A topologist has no problem with that...


On a flat surface.

Also, may I add another example:

If you are omnipotent:

You can make anything

Apart from a stone you can't lift.
Original post by Radioactivedecay
Actually thats quite easy, Aristotle did this years ago. He said I think therefore I am. So you easily prove if you exisist if you simply, well, think but not that otheres exisist.


That was Descartes.
Originally I was the atheist but the started to think that opposing beliefs is stupid simply because the complexity of universe implies the existence of almost anything in context of time space.

But I adhere to certain beliefs myself though I am not trying to enforce on anybody.
Original post by Chucke1992
Originally I was the atheist but the started to think that opposing beliefs is stupid simply because the complexity of universe implies the existence of almost anything in context of time space.

But I adhere to certain beliefs myself though I am not trying to enforce on anybody.


Bad argument. If the complexity of the universe requires a creator then why doesn't God? After all, he's supposed to be the most complex thing that exists.
Sometimes I see a perfectly crafted butt and almost shift from agnosticism to some form of actual theism but it's never quite happened.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Bad argument. If the complexity of the universe requires a creator then why doesn't God? After all, he's supposed to be the most complex thing that exists.


Who mentioned a creator? I said that there are possibility of god existence, not necessary creator. In my own definition humanity can reach at least demi-god stage. I do not exclude that there might be a creator but at the same time I do not defend that he doesn't exist.

You see, NPC in games - we don't know for sure - might consider us creators but they cannot comprehend our existence.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Chucke1992
Who mentioned a creator? I said that there are possibility of god existence, not necessary creator. In my own definition humanity can reach at least demi-god stage. I do not exclude that there might be a creator but at the same time I do not defend that he doesn't exist.

You see, NPC in games - we don't know for sure - might consider us creators but they cannot comprehend our existence.


This is exactly the problem. In your own definition. We need some less subjective parameters so people can't move the goalposts.
Original post by Unkilled
This is exactly the problem. In your own definition. We need some less subjective parameters so people can't move the goalposts.


So? I said

But I adhere to certain beliefs myself though I am not trying to enforce on anybody
Original post by Chucke1992
So? I said


Well what you said is wrong.

Read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.
If you are smart enough to give up religion it’s unlikely that you will suddenly become dumb.
Original post by Unkilled
Well what you said is wrong.

Read "The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.


What is wrong in saying that I have my own beliefs? ? I said that there might be creator or might be not (I don't care whether he interferes or not at all though). My point is that the complexity of university implies existence of almost anything. I don't share an idea that humanity is the peak of the universe development. Planets might be atoms for some higher level existence for all I care.

I'll look into The Age of Reason though.
Original post by Thomazo
If you are smart enough to give up religion it’s unlikely that you will suddenly become dumb.


But if you were never brought up in religion in the first then you still might later convert.
Original post by zeldor711
But if you were never brought up in religion in the first then you still might later convert.

Yes if the reason you are an atheist is because that’s how you were brought up, not because you are able to see why religion is nonsense.

If you are smart enough to see why religion is bs, then there’s no chance you will convert.
Original post by Thomazo
Yes if the reason you are an atheist is because that’s how you were brought up, not because you are able to see why religion is nonsense.

If you are smart enough to see why religion is bs, then there’s no chance you will convert.


Yep, completely agree.
Original post by Chucke1992
My point is that the complexity of university implies existence of almost anything.


Don't really know what you mean by this and how it relates to God.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Bad argument. If the complexity of the universe requires a creator then why doesn't God? After all, he's supposed to be the most complex thing that exists.


I only believe in the power, conscious force and organisation bit- a God symbiotic with the world - my beliefs about creation(or not) are more abstract and scientific.

To think we have consciousness and are minute specs in terms of the cosmos and matter, and then rule out a higher conscious force completely seems like wishful thinking to me, and quite banal-

But, I didn't get there my rationality, it was revelation.

For the record
Original post by Radioactivedecay
Oh snap you're right ma bad, too many Greek philosophers lol.

.


He was French:wink:

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you