Gott Mit Uns: Open Letter to Atheists and Theists

[Skyybird]

“ Existence is illusory and it is eternal. ”
Fyodor Dostoevsky

I put to this discussion that before we can even try to dicipher what does exist....one must first of all clarify and identify what is meant by the word exist. Perhaps that way we can make a better decision regarding what actually exists and those things which we would sincerely love to see but that can never be proved due to the lack of physical evidence.

Does this idea exist in our minds or in our reality?

Should we judge those who believe, based on the fact that they can not produce evidence?

The word "existence" comes from the Latin word 'existere', meaning to appear or emerge or stand out. Exist can also be shortened to "is". A grammatical predicate you might say. May I give an example? 'A Four-leaved clover exists.' can be rephrased as 'There is a clover with four leaves.'. Funny...I found the same sentence analogy almost word for word on wikipedia! But I think we all agree it is a right and proper example of the use of the word exist.

Having said that Philosphers of the world have tried to put forward the arguement that "existence" is not only a grammatical predicate but that it implies a notion of logic. I could go on for hours about mathamatical formula's to illustrate the circumstances of existence. I shall not, because I feel it would lead us away too far from the actual topic of this post, not to mention that I am not a mathematician and would likely not convey their theories accurately.

I prefer to look at the question from this position; 'Existentialism is a philosophical movement which posits that individuals create the meaning and essence of their lives, as opposed to it being created for them by deities or authorities or defined for them by philosophical or theological doctrines'.

Basically we all believe what we believe, some of us need proof, others need no more than a suggestion to see the benefit of faith in the existence of "god", or some such other entity. Even religious men of the past have debated the truth behind the gospels, the Old and New Testament are often quoted in support of the existence of God...but in themselves are admittedly a collection of stories from individuals, who claimed to be there during the life of Christ, yet the gospels were written down in some form of order many years after their passing. Are we basing a society around the incredible talents of a story teller who took a legend or a handed down story from his fathers mothers cousin who worked for the boss of Matthew, Mark Luke or John?

Great stories of mystery and wonderment...based on actual events? Who can say.

I'm afraid I am a scientist at heart. I know that paracetemol gets rid of my headache so I believe in it. I've experienced it and have scientific proof to back it up.

In my childhood, I went to church many times and even prayed to god, I have never seen God, although I have witnessed a community coming together in his name to support and care for each other without the need for thanks or remuneration. But honestly, that was just nice people being kind right?

Anyway....I'll go back to my fence and see where the discussion goes next.

[leo9]

Does this idea exist in our minds or in our reality?

Or as JK Rowling put it, "Yes, this is all happening in your head. But does that mean it isn't real?"

The computer you are sitting at started as an idea in someone's head. The point at which you could say that the idea had "real" "existence" (quotes used to indicate that these terms cry out for definition) is as fuzzy and arguable as the point where a zygote (fertilised ovum) becomes a human being. And as that simile shows, it's not a neutral question: people have ideological reasons for arguing one definition against another.

Should we judge those who believe, based on the fact that they can not produce evidence?
<snip>
I'm afraid I am a scientist at heart. I know that paracetemol gets rid of my headache so I believe in it. I've experienced it and have scientific proof to back it up.

Dangerous example for a scientist. A headache is subjective: it may have detectable physical causes, but the pain itself cannot be measured with any instrument except the sufferer's mind. (A "dolorometer" that could measure pain as objectively as a theromometer measures fever is something medical research would be devoted to, if only they had the slightest clue where to start.) Therefore, your belief that paracetamol cures your headache is subjectively based, and the "scientific proof" is only that a lot of other people have been found to share your subjective experience. Yes, more people have their headaches cured by paracetamol than by placebos, but only statistically: placebos still have a pretty good success rate. There are million-dollar patent medicines based entirely on that fact.

In my childhood, I went to church many times and even prayed to god, I have never seen God

I've touched and been taught by mine, but I don't call that proof. It changed my life, but so does falling in love, and you can't get more subjective than that.

I often think that the wisest prophet was Vonegut's Bokonnon, who said "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

[Thorne]

I often think that the wisest prophet was Vonegut's Bokonnon, who said "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

I prefer the lies that would make me sickeningly rich. I guess I'm just not a good enough liar.

[leo9]

I prefer the lies that would make me sickeningly rich. I guess I'm just not a good enough liar.

A lot of people have been trying that lately, which is why we're in this mess.