Dec 4 2012: people need rules & a system - otherwise would be anarchy. religion gave them a simple set of rules "imposed by god" to keep them a bit in their spot.
Also people have needs that religion fulfils - partly (need to be part of a group, need for structure, leadership, feer of death, need for an "ultimate" goal like redemption, and MOST IMPORTANT : THE NEED TO FEEL THEY MATTER & ARE SPECIAL - which most religion tells them)
SO... if you take away religion without puting an alternative phylosophical system in place would by worse. The needs religion fulfils so far would go unfulfilled, people would be unhappy, disturbed, violent, etc
Specialy if you do it by force - they become martyrs.
If through culture & education you convince people that religion is bullshit & they chose to have another phylosophical system to guide them (like most atheists today) - then things qould change to the better (like Sweeden or Japan)
Dec 4 2012: we can argue forever - unless we have a definition of what we're talking about. cause i'm talking about God/deity haveing "x" definition in my mind, someone has "y" definition and other person can have "z" or "m" definition. and we all call him/it god
basis on that definition we can discuss
eg: "god is that which is above all laws of physics" - that means he probably has no personality - because as we know it personality is developed by brain cells, hormones & such
and so on
personaly i think it's imossible for al all powerful - all knowing - being with personality to exist (as we most know God should be) & that religion is dependant on where you are born
Dec 3 2012: and actualy... if we define "supernatural" being as a being "above" the laws of physics = we are constrained by the KNOWN laws of physics.
Therefore we can postulate there can be beings more advanced than us (aliens) that can be above our known laws of physics, but constrained by a superior set of laws of physics - unknown to us (yet. or forever)
So... at this point - for us those beings would seem to be be "supernatural" (as per the definition above) - but NOT GODS/DEITYS (because are not "all powerful", imortal, etc. just seem like that to us at this point, if we take into consideration our known set of limits - which they surpass)
just like a "being who lives for 1000 years, flies with his fiery magic cape & wields thunder" would be a god to a human person in the year 1000 BC - but which can be a regular human with cool gadgets in a few generations - if science advances continue at this rate
Dec 3 2012: 1) as per your definition god is not a "being" - therefore is not a deity (because a deity is a "being")
2) also as per your definition (all in all) it does not have a personality - as per our understanding of "personality"
Both of above are in contrast to ALL religious definitions of gods - as far as i know
= therefor your attempt to define "god" is just to put the name of "God" on "univers/existence" - so through it to "detach" "god" of all the characteristics that are given to beings - an attempt to make him/it above all.
which is just as correct as me putting the name of "butterfly" to a tomato and through this "proving" a "butterfly" is a vegetable :)
Dec 3 2012: to answer that question first you need to have an accepted definition of "supernatural" and "deity". and based on those definitions - you could logicaly argue about the existance/nonexistance of the deity.
so if you define "deity":
1) a being who is all-powerfull - you could argue with the paradox: can it create a problem so complex that it can't be solved by anyone (including her)? If can't create the problem = not all powerful. Can't solve the problem = not all powerful. therefore such a being can't exist
for each "characteristic" you add to the "deity" it gets easyer to prove it can't exist as per the definition (is good = why it lets bad happen if is all powerful and can stop all the suffering)
2) some started to define "god" as "that that is above human mind" - in this case it becomes impossible to find the characteristics, get a definition, etc. But to this you could argue that 1000 years ago thunder was "above" what the human mind could know - thought to be god/made by gods - and now we know better. etc.
and so on
so...1) first you need a definition.
2) based on thet definition you can try to prove if it's possible to exist such a thing or not.
3) so far all definitions of "god/deity" are inconsistent with human logic - therefore you can attack them logicaly. doesn't mean that "a god" can't exist - just that it can't exist as we tried to define it so far.
Nov 26 2012: USUALY truth is considered good/lying is bad because based on information - people make decisions. bad information = bad decisions. & usualy people lie/give bad info so another person makes a bad decision in the lying person's favor
BUT IF you know a person's "decision making abilities" are flawed & by giving him bad info you lead him to a decision that's better for him... it's good or bad to lie?
IF one lies to save a jew Hunted by nazis in Germany during Holocaust - is he good or bad?
But if one lies to save a fugitive hunted by police in modern day USA is good or Bad?
If one lies to save an afghan rebel hunted by the USA army for an attack on an USA camp in Afghanistan - is the liar good or bad?
What if one lies to save an USA soldier hunted by rebels in the same Afghanistan? Is the lier good or bad?
Nov 26 2012: My answer:
like all actions/decisions - telling the truth or a lie can both be good or bad - depending on the purpose.
Clarification (short):
1) the same action can be considered "good" or "bad" depending on purpose = "god" action or "bad" action are dependant on pourpose = good/bad are relative terms to a pourpose (nothing is pure good/pure bad)
simple example: eating french fries (action) is good if purpouse is to stop your hunger/quench a craving. is bad if purpose is to lose weight & you're on a diet
2) considering good/bad = relative terms (to a purpose) - we can postulate that depending the influence it can have on the (most important) purpose - both truth/lies can be good or bad.
simple example of "good lie/bad truth":
you're a soldier comming from batle. your mate Dan died in battle 1 hour ago. You meet Dan's mother - she's sick & will die in a few minutes. She asks you if Dan is OK. If u tell the truth (Dan is dead) she'll be very sad & hurt & will spend her last minutes alve very unhappy.
If you lie to her (Dan is OK) you can make her happy for the last few minutes of her life.
So: if your purpouse is for you to feel "good & honest" = you tell the truth = she dies unhappy. You hurt another person - but you were honest while doing it. Selfish? fair? Honest?
if your purpouse is the happiness of others = you lie to her. She dies happy, you amde her happy - by lying. Dishonest? bad?
This is just a simple example - usualy most situations are more complicated.
Conclusion: if telling the truth / lying is good or bad one must analyse the whole situation & the cosnequences for all involved.
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Will the absence of Religion make the world more peaceful ?
Also people have needs that religion fulfils - partly (need to be part of a group, need for structure, leadership, feer of death, need for an "ultimate" goal like redemption, and MOST IMPORTANT : THE NEED TO FEEL THEY MATTER & ARE SPECIAL - which most religion tells them)
SO... if you take away religion without puting an alternative phylosophical system in place would by worse. The needs religion fulfils so far would go unfulfilled, people would be unhappy, disturbed, violent, etc
Specialy if you do it by force - they become martyrs.
If through culture & education you convince people that religion is bullshit & they chose to have another phylosophical system to guide them (like most atheists today) - then things qould change to the better (like Sweeden or Japan)
A comment on Conversation: Can anyone prove the existence of a supernatural deity?
basis on that definition we can discuss
eg: "god is that which is above all laws of physics" - that means he probably has no personality - because as we know it personality is developed by brain cells, hormones & such
and so on
personaly i think it's imossible for al all powerful - all knowing - being with personality to exist (as we most know God should be) & that religion is dependant on where you are born
A comment on Conversation: Can anyone prove the existence of a supernatural deity?
Therefore we can postulate there can be beings more advanced than us (aliens) that can be above our known laws of physics, but constrained by a superior set of laws of physics - unknown to us (yet. or forever)
So... at this point - for us those beings would seem to be be "supernatural" (as per the definition above) - but NOT GODS/DEITYS (because are not "all powerful", imortal, etc. just seem like that to us at this point, if we take into consideration our known set of limits - which they surpass)
just like a "being who lives for 1000 years, flies with his fiery magic cape & wields thunder" would be a god to a human person in the year 1000 BC - but which can be a regular human with cool gadgets in a few generations - if science advances continue at this rate
A reply on Conversation: Can anyone prove the existence of a supernatural deity?
2) also as per your definition (all in all) it does not have a personality - as per our understanding of "personality"
Both of above are in contrast to ALL religious definitions of gods - as far as i know
= therefor your attempt to define "god" is just to put the name of "God" on "univers/existence" - so through it to "detach" "god" of all the characteristics that are given to beings - an attempt to make him/it above all.
which is just as correct as me putting the name of "butterfly" to a tomato and through this "proving" a "butterfly" is a vegetable :)
A comment on Conversation: Can anyone prove the existence of a supernatural deity?
so if you define "deity":
1) a being who is all-powerfull - you could argue with the paradox: can it create a problem so complex that it can't be solved by anyone (including her)? If can't create the problem = not all powerful. Can't solve the problem = not all powerful. therefore such a being can't exist
for each "characteristic" you add to the "deity" it gets easyer to prove it can't exist as per the definition (is good = why it lets bad happen if is all powerful and can stop all the suffering)
2) some started to define "god" as "that that is above human mind" - in this case it becomes impossible to find the characteristics, get a definition, etc. But to this you could argue that 1000 years ago thunder was "above" what the human mind could know - thought to be god/made by gods - and now we know better. etc.
and so on
so...1) first you need a definition.
2) based on thet definition you can try to prove if it's possible to exist such a thing or not.
3) so far all definitions of "god/deity" are inconsistent with human logic - therefore you can attack them logicaly. doesn't mean that "a god" can't exist - just that it can't exist as we tried to define it so far.
A comment on Conversation: Telling the truth: are there limits?
BUT IF you know a person's "decision making abilities" are flawed & by giving him bad info you lead him to a decision that's better for him... it's good or bad to lie?
IF one lies to save a jew Hunted by nazis in Germany during Holocaust - is he good or bad?
But if one lies to save a fugitive hunted by police in modern day USA is good or Bad?
If one lies to save an afghan rebel hunted by the USA army for an attack on an USA camp in Afghanistan - is the liar good or bad?
What if one lies to save an USA soldier hunted by rebels in the same Afghanistan? Is the lier good or bad?
A comment on Conversation: Telling the truth: are there limits?
like all actions/decisions - telling the truth or a lie can both be good or bad - depending on the purpose.
Clarification (short):
1) the same action can be considered "good" or "bad" depending on purpose = "god" action or "bad" action are dependant on pourpose = good/bad are relative terms to a pourpose (nothing is pure good/pure bad)
simple example: eating french fries (action) is good if purpouse is to stop your hunger/quench a craving. is bad if purpose is to lose weight & you're on a diet
2) considering good/bad = relative terms (to a purpose) - we can postulate that depending the influence it can have on the (most important) purpose - both truth/lies can be good or bad.
simple example of "good lie/bad truth":
you're a soldier comming from batle. your mate Dan died in battle 1 hour ago. You meet Dan's mother - she's sick & will die in a few minutes. She asks you if Dan is OK. If u tell the truth (Dan is dead) she'll be very sad & hurt & will spend her last minutes alve very unhappy.
If you lie to her (Dan is OK) you can make her happy for the last few minutes of her life.
So: if your purpouse is for you to feel "good & honest" = you tell the truth = she dies unhappy. You hurt another person - but you were honest while doing it. Selfish? fair? Honest?
if your purpouse is the happiness of others = you lie to her. She dies happy, you amde her happy - by lying. Dishonest? bad?
This is just a simple example - usualy most situations are more complicated.
Conclusion: if telling the truth / lying is good or bad one must analyse the whole situation & the cosnequences for all involved.