Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
The existence - or lack of - a God is one of humanity's fundamental questions. Since the first birth, the first sunrise, the first death, humans have sought to explain the world around them. The whole of human existence, in the end, comes down to this: Is there a God?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
This is logic
Possibility ...
Even "possibility" must have supportable reason for claiming it. I must ask you this: is there anything in human discovery and understanding that would even remotely support the possibility of a flying plate of spaghetti with superpowers? We ought not fling "possibility" about so carelessly.
For a thing to be possible, it must follow from what nature is capable of like anything else.
Even possibility needs proof. When we attempt to treat what we can only imagine as equal to what we know to be true, we spit in the face of fact and logic and, rather than increasing our awareness, we return to childish sleeping.
- Naumadd
September 8, 2008 2:51PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Possibility...
I think the problem here is in the terminology. Possibility does not require proof. Literally anything is possible until proven impossible. That is the nature of the term, it's not a matter of a point of view. With that in mind, when we make claims about the natural world, it is fairly simple to prove the impossibility of a wide range of things. It is simple to say that strictly in a natural sense, a flying spaghetti monster or a god cannot possibly exist within the framework of our knowledge of the natural world. We need to respect that this argument isn't about the natural world.
Your claim, "For a thing to be possible, it must follow from what nature is capable of like anything else," is only true when discussing notions limited to the natural world. Any claim about god is a claim about something beyond the natural world. Personally, as a weak atheist (look it up), I believe that either claim (god exists or god does not exist) is baseless and unfounded. I think that none of us has any real knowledge to say anything about an issue with NO compelling evidence on either side. You can believe in a flying spaghetti monster, but you shouldn't be surprised if some people don't buy it, even though you think it exists.
What I will say about it is this, having some unfounded beliefs can be OK. For some people religious belief is comforting and a source of good in the world. For other people, believing that there is no god can be positive as well. On both sides there are those that treat their beliefs improperly by degrading or discriminating against others based on their views of religious belief.
The moral of my story is that possibility is not equal to things that are proven, but the possibility of the supernatural exists, and you would be a fool to claim otherwise. Possibility does not need proof, which makes the claim that something is possible fairly weak, but a true claim until proven otherwise. Just because something is possible does not mean anyone should believe it, and it doesn't mean they shouldn't. Even claims with no support are still possible despite their weakness; your argument that possibility requires proof is quite simply false, in a purely logical sense.
- roy1167
September 8, 2008 7:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.