Microsoft exists?

the dude with the killer trolls trying to kill him is troubled,but i am at peace,i have a certainty about where i am going in life,even if i have troubled times im not falling to pieces becasue i know that god is with me and i ahve nothing to fear

 

Weither or not you are at peace or not is not the case - it's a case of what you *believe* - now if this person is of such a mind that he has to punish himself by imaganing trolls, then yes, he is troubled, but don't you realise.. you're doing the same thing, you're imaginaning god because it makes you feel better...

What about the guy that thinks he's nepolian? The person that sees faries everywhere? The guy that thinks he is jesus? These people are all doing the same thing, they're not able to see the diffrence between reality and fantasy.

 

Clearly, evidence should be a prequisite for believing in a thing. I'm sure you'd agree on this for all things excpet for God, which most theists make an exception for. Atheists don't make that exception.

I see what you're saying: that it is impossible to prove Microsoft exists because it's a mental construct. The documents say it, the products say it, but there is no entity "microsoft" save what we believe (and the law simply confirms and legitimizes our belief).

So, I agree, it is not possible to prove Microsoft exists, in fact, in a sense it doesn't. It is nothing but a collective belief. But to say Microsoft doesn't exist at all is to deny the fact that humans think and have mental constructs. We all know that isn't the case, and we also understand that Microsoft functions like a club, facilitating the coming together of people in order to make and sell things.

But this example can't apply to God, a qualitatively different sort of entity alltogether. God is supposed to be the First, the Creator. Everyone knows man created Microsoft, but to claim that God made man...thats quite different. That's like saying a mental construct created man (and everything else). But mental constructs come from man, not before him.

If you want me to admit that since I can't prove Microsoft exists and thus it doesn't, I don't see your point, because the analogy doesn't work. We KNOW Microsoft exists because we (humans) created it. I can't prove to youthat I'm thinking right now, but I don't think you will doubt that I am, because we know humans think, and we often think of things like clubs and companies. The God question is different. I suppose in the end Microsoft doesn't exist except in our minds, but that is just fine for its purposes. I don't think the same applies to God. Would you agree that God existing in your head is fine for your purposes? Probably not.

 

If I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that Microsoft only exists because we believe in it? We created the entity microsoft in our minds as a way of making life easier - if so, then that's exactly true of god - something that people believe in because it makes life easier - just because you believe in something, does not make it real. That makes perfect sence to me

So, in answer to the original poster, no, microsoft does not exist, but neither does god

 

If said "thing" exists in euclidian space, then yes, before we *claim* that it exists as fact, we should have some evidence for it. However, evidence for something is not required to believe per se. I have never been to Timbuktu, I have never seen it (even a photograph). I lack any and all sensory evidence of the geographical location. Do I, therefore, deny its existence? Nope. I believe that it exist until contrary evidence arises.

It is not necessary to experience (or have evidence) in order to believe, but to claim as fact, then yes, evidence should be presented.

Actually, I don't make that exception. I expect evidence too. However, I have not limited my concept of evidence to spatial existence which will be/can be demonstrated time and time again.

That is the conclusion, but how does the atheist deal with the fact that Microsoft clearly exists? In the US, it has all rights, legal powers, etc. that an individual has. It can own land, enter contracts, break the law, etc. More than that though, the issue is the soundness of the atheists argument:

If X exists, there will be evidence.
There is no evidence.
Therefore X does not exist.

The argument is valid (Denying the Consequent), but I question whether premise one is true. We have a case where Microsoft exists, but without evidence. So, the argument seems unsound as premise one appears false. The key to it is, again, evidence. What constitutes evidence for a non-corporeal entity?

I agree that they are qualitatively different entities. However, both are non-corporeal entities. So, it comes back to evidence. What constitutes evidence for a non-corporeal entity? The key would be to find something for which a created entity (like a company or club or government) qualifies, but for which a non-created entity does not.

That is not what I want you to admit. I am trying to address the soundness of the argument put forth by "evidence seeking" atheists.

I agree with what you said here. Again, this isn't my focus. Thank you, though, for the continually well-written, respectful posts. I apologize for my confusion and poor explanations of what I am looking for. Thanks for your patience.

 

microsoft is an instance of a CONCEPT, being a company, created by man

unless you are trying to say that god is a concept created by man, i fail to see your point.

 

That's how I read it...

 

Microsoft is more than a concept, it is a real entity with very real power (much like several world governments). These are non-corporeal entities, but they do exist.

And I am starting to sound like a broken record. The issue is the soundness of the atheist argument from "lack of evidence," not whether Microsoft or God actually exists.

Let me try again:
Many atheists I talk with say: How can you believe without evidence?

The formal logical argument to this is:

1. If God exists, then evidence for God will also exist.
2. There is no evidence for God.
-----
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

Usually, the evidence looked for is scientific (e.g. empirical) in nature. However, God and other non-empirical entities do not have scientific evidence to back them up. Based on the criteria of evidence alone, the atheist seems to be confronted with the issue of denying the existence of something known to exist (Microsoft) or allowing for the existence of something without empirical evidence (God). If the first choice is utilized, then the atheist has undermined his own reason and sanity (by denying the existence of something that is known to exist); if he choses the second, the argument is completely undermined by showing that premise one is not at all necessarily true.

A third option would be to define "evidence" more clearly. What evidence could be put forth that would support the existence of Microsoft that could not be used to support the existence of God?

 

They only have power because people give them power... without the people that run microsoft, it would die... much like god...

I'm sorry, but you're failing to convince anyone of anything, all you're managing to do is prove that god is just a human concept used to explain things that you don't understand - to make things easier.

PS, I don't think there is such a thing as an atheist argument... We work on the idea of using logic and knowledge to live in the world around us. Due to this, if someone claims something, we want proof of it.

Someone says they've invented a flying car, we say 'prove it'.
Someone says they've been to mars, we say 'prove it'.
Someone says that god exists, we say 'prove it'... It's as simple as that.

 

i never said microsoft was a concept
i said that companies are a concept, which is nationally, if not globally accepted
i said that microsoft was an instance of a company

to prove that microsoft exists as a company, we must only show that it fullfils those requirements which are defined in the concept of a company.

this type of proof cannot pertain to a god, as there is no universal concept of what a god is. Everybody has their own ideas about what their god is, and what qualifies them to be a god.

 

But nothing you have said affects the fact that Microsoft exists. Something that does not exist cannot have power. A square circle cannot have power in the real world. Microsoft has ACTUAL power to destroy homes, ruin lives, create wealth, etc.

'There is no God'... does the atheist say 'prove it'?

And that you think that there is no such thing as an atheist argument is kind of scary. There are several well-known atheists who have spent and spend a great deal of time not demanding proof, but forwarding arguments that there is no God.

BTW, one of them was a prominent British philosophical atheist Dr. Anthony Flew... he recently came to the conclusion that God exists.

 

nope, im afraid yer wrong here.
its the people that control microsoft that have this power

 

No, I think that you're mistaken, microsoft itself doesn't have any power, it's the people that run it that have the power, and even then, they only have power because they have money, and money is what controls the western world.

Again, all I'm seeing is that microsoft was invented by men, and so was god.

Why would an atheist say this? An atheist would agree with some one that says this.

You see, you've got it all backwards.. when you make a claim (such as having been to the mars or a flying car), it's not then our job to disprove it to you, it's your job to prove it to us. Do you understand this concept? Because until you get past this stage, you won't progress.

So one guy decided there has to be god... that's just his own opinon, and since when is this person an authority on anything? also, how do I know you've not just invented this person? I've never heard of him before, what type of research did he do, what did he base his findings on?

It's just like your belief in god is your opinion, and my non-belief in god is also just my opinion.. sure enough, I might not be able disprove god, but as I said above, that's not my job, you're the one making the claim that god exists.. prove it (however, what I can do is ask lots of questions that many theists find hard to answerm questions that I think are quite important, but have not yet heard any reasionable arguments against).

 

It may not be your job to disprove the existence of God. Then again, I haven't seen anybody tell you that you could write your own job description. Why don't we just make it your job? What are your salary requirements?

 

Huh? Now you're just being silly...

 

Here's the thing, there are people that control the entity Microsoft, yes. But the only reason they have power is because the entity itself has power and they control it. It is the entity Microsoft itself that has assets, contracts, production facilities, etc. You said that "they only have power because they have money." It is true that they have money, but it is Microsoft's money that they control that makes them powerful. Their own personal bank accounts are nowhere near the value of Microsoft's own accounts.

But this is still a side issue.

That is not at all what I have said. Open your mind and try reading again.

You said "I don't think there is such a thing as an atheist argument... We work on the idea of using logic and knowledge to live in the world around us. Due to this, if someone claims something, we want proof of it."

There are MANY atheists who claim that there is no God. Not simply that they lack belief, but that positively, there is no God. Do you accept that a priori or do you ask them to prove it? If you accept it a priori, then you are inconsistent.

And what would you consider to be proof? Many atheists I have spoken with say "there is no evidence" and I say, "what would qualify as evidence?" The vast majority of answers is either "I don't know" or "I have to see it." The desire to see it is understandable, but the demand for empirical evidence is a limiting factor for what might also constitute evidence. The demand betrays a naturalistic worldview.

That "one guy" is one of the most influential British atheists of the last 100 years. He is considered an expert in philosophy (specifically philosophical atheism) by secular and religious scholars across the world. I suggest you do some research on him. Is he the most profound atheist, no, not at all, but he definitely is up there with the heavy hitters on the forefront of atheistic thought. At least, he was.

At what point can I provide evidence that would satisfy your desire for "proof"? What constitutes evidence for the existence God?

 

It's all symantics (sp)... Sure, there is a bank account that is owned by Microsoft, and without the correct authorisation, none of the people that control microsoft can use it for anything... but it works the other way around.. without the people that control microsoft, it would be nothing, it would not exist - wow.. just like god.

I've got a perfectly open mind, It's not my fault that you're trying to use flawed logic.

When an atheist says that there is no god, it's because lots of people have come forward and said 'there is a god', and they've said 'prove it', and they've not been able to.. Sure, I admit there are arguments against god, but the fact remains that we don't need them, because you're unable to provide the proof that's needed for us to accept that he exists.

Again, I've never heard of him before, but I'm going to do some research into this.

OK, lets put it this way.. god is all seeing and all knowing, right? Due to that, before god created me, he knew that I would be an atheist, because he's planned out my entire life... So, right now, I'm an atheist... but I'm also a fair person, and if someone can prove something to me, I'll accept it.... due to this, god surely know's what I would need to become a believer, because he's all seeing and all knowing.. and he's the one that made me who I am... so why hadn't god given me this evidence?

In addition, if god knew I was going to be an atheist, why did he even bother making me in the first place? He knows that I'll probally send the rest of my life being an atheist, and that I'll probally end up dieing an atheist (trust me, there will not be a deathbed conversion from me), so I'm doomed to hell? In that case, why did god made me? He knew from the start that I was going to end up in hell, so why did he even bother?

 

What we have here is a logical fallacy. Specifically a 'False Analogy' and maybe throw a little subverted support in there as well. The whole comparison is just bad logic.

 

Well, Timbuktu CAN be proven in Euclidian space (pardon my ignorance, but that means 3d type space, right?). Plus, a place in a far away country is not a difficult thing to imagine. God, on the other hand... I'd want some evidence for that extraordinary claim.

Not entirely without evidence. It does things, makes and sells things, pays taxes, etc. I cant "see" this thing because it's an idea, but there's no reason to say it doesn't exist. Such a thing is so common in the human experience, to deny Microsoft for this reason it to deny all our ideas, much of what makes us human. I doubt anyone would agree to that.

Besides, doesn't it stand to reason that if something exists there will be evidence? Unless it does not interact with anything, it will necessarily have some effect on the world, and effects can be measured.

Because, like a far away place in a strange land, a company is not a hard thing to imagine. It's basically a club, and we've had those for all human history (what is a "tribe" but an idea under which people live?). Microsoft is an idea under which people work...we can understand ideas. Our world is filled with clubs and ideas. God has no comparison in our world, no thing in our world prepares us to understand that concept. I'm not saying you're wrong, that one can't prove the existance of an idea. But I feel the huge difference between a company and a god is important to consider in this issue. Yes, both are noncorporeal entities. But they are very different in nature; too different, I think, to

 

I would, because it's as much a positive assertion as "there is a god". I'd want to know how this person knows there is no god. Any honest atheist would want the same evidence, though there are fundy atheists out there too (like the ones who use some of the arguments you listed in your other thread).

But I'm not a true atheist, being more of the pantheist persuasion, so who knows. Maybe they wouldn't ask for proof.