God - A Summary

[David Sklansky]

Here are many of the reasons why some people believe that there is, or was, a "god", or at least some sort of supreme or superior being.

1. The universe was created, presumably by a Big Bang.

2. Specific subatomic particles, rather than other ones, were created.

3. Specific laws of physics, rather than other ones were created.

4. The weirdness of Quantum Theory including its, two things at once, and observer dependent stuff.

5. The creation of the Earth and the non living things on it.

6. Life coming into being from non life.

7. Simple life turning into complex life.

8. The human being.

9. The bible

10. Recent miracles (ancient miracles are part of #9)

11. Human consciousness significantly different than any animal.

12. Specific human consciousness, eg your "youness"

Many people think that these things can only be explained by some sort of supreme being. And in at least some cases, there is little doubt that they are wrong. However it is important to point out that just because there is a non- God explanation for something doesn't mean that God didn't do it. Conversely just because we don't have a non God explanation for something doesn't mean there isn't one. Obviously it would be nice for religious folk to show something cannot have a non God explanation since that would automatically prove the existence of God. But their failure to do that is only a major setback to those sects who insist God is both loving, and has every reason to expect you to believe in that sect and will punish you otherwise. Jews, Catholics and many other religions don't feel that way. In other words they do not have a strong interest in showing that the stuff I listed couldn't logically happen without God. They can admit that it could (at least most of it), while contending that it didn't. Please read the above again if you are not sure of the point I am making.

Not only is it true that God could exist even if there are good non God explanations for these things, it is also true that the God of many religions could exist even if he had nothing to do with most of the stuff on my list. Only Nos 1, 2, 11, and 12 on my list really matter. If those four things were done without God's intervention, the atheists are right.

Here's some short thoughts on these twelve things.

1. As far as I know, no scientist has ever seriously proposed a non god possible explanation. Except perhaps the idea that the universe keeps perpetually expanding, crunching and banging.

2. As far as I know, scientists do not have a non god possible explanation for why quarks and other basic particles,are what they are.

3. In the case of Newtonian physics, most, if not all, laws MUST be what they are. They derive LOGICALLY from common sense. If F=ma, E=1/2 mv squared. Trust me on this. I will not debate with nitpickers. Even in the case of most of Einsteinean physics, I believe most of the results follow logically from a few simple facts (the invariance of the speed of light, etc). In other words almost all physics LAWS are obtainable through THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS. But such is not the case, I don't think, with the rules of subatomic particles. At least not yet.

4. Although Quantum Theory gives one piece of ammunition to the atheists (the apparent existence of pure randomness) the spooky aspects of the theory , while easily calculated statistically, have not yet been well explained.

5. All scientist believe in a non god explanation for this. Even the beauty of snails, mountains, and snowflakes is easily explained with simple math. Any religious person who invokes these things to try to prove his point is making a fool of himself.

6. Although I don't believe scientists have yet come up with a good way this could have happened without the intervention of a supreme being, I'm guessing they will soon. Again, however that doesn't prove that the non god explanation is the right one. And again even if it is, most religions shouldn't care.

7. Only nuts think that there isn't a non god possible explanation. Only semi nuts doubt that the non god explanation is the right one. Again most religions shouldn't care. Catholics and Jews are on record saying they don't.

8. The physical human being is simply a special case of #7.

9. The bible could obviously have been written without God's existence. The fact that it exists might have been a halfway decent argument for God, if all, or most of the non atheists all believed in it, and didn't have big arguments about what it said. As it is, any one who thinks that the bible, BY ITSELF, is a very good logical reason to believe, is silly.

10. As I've said before, if amazing clearcut miracles were actually taking place, that would be strong evidence for some type of superior being. But a knwoledge of magic, psychology, and statistics, should lead everyone to doubt their existence.

11. Although scientists are desperately trying, none of them have been able to show why the brain knows it exists in a way that computers don't. On the other hand they have have never been able to build a computer that knows it exists or even state what physical attributes the computer would have to cause such self aware knowledge.

12. Besides not knowing what it takes to create an entity that knows it exists, the harder and even more important question is knowing what it takes to create an entity that is YOU. Atheists are fond of saying there there already is a machine that creates the right combination of atoms that knows it exists. It's called a woman. But that woman can't make you. (By "you" I mean your own sense of self. It wouldn't change if you had an arm amputated or even had a sex change information. Some might call it your "soul"). I have often wondered whether it took a precise sperm and egg to make you. Obviously religious people don't think so. Scientists are just guessing. If they ever can show how even this (create another "you") can be done without God, common sense should force logical thinkers to lean heavily toward deism at the very least. We shall see.

[siegfriedandroy]

wow, sklansk. looks interesting. i got up to the part where you begin discussing the twelve things. but then my head started pounding and i realized i will have to finish reading later. i need to quit drinking. wow, the preceding sentence is insane

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
i got up to the part where you begin discussing the twelve things. wow, the preceding sentence is insane

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's some short thoughts on these twelve things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I'll say.

[chezlaw]

1-12 ways people rationalise their belief in god

chez

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
5. All scientist believe in a non god explanation for this. Even the beauty of snails, mountains, and snowflakes is easily explained with simple math. Any religious person who invokes these things to try to prove his point is making a fool of himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post. This part of your post is the summary point: if you aren't ignorant about how things work, then you don't need a "god" concept to explain things. If you are ignorant, you will be more inclined to think the "god" concept might be right.

[Chairman Wood]

David,
I think i'm slightly confused and maybe its a typo [ QUOTE ]
I have often wondered whether it took a precise sperm and egg to make you. Obviously religious people don't think so. Scientists are just guessing. If they ever can show how even this (create another "you") can be done without God, common sense should force logical thinkers to lean heavily toward deism at the very least.

[/ QUOTE ] Wouldn't this force logical thinkers away from anything deist and into fullblown atheism? Or were you trying to say that those logical thinkers that previously held on to some form of more extravagant religious thinking would be at the minimum pushed to give that up to take up deism?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5. All scientist believe in a non god explanation for this. Even the beauty of snails, mountains, and snowflakes is easily explained with simple math. Any religious person who invokes these things to try to prove his point is making a fool of himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post. This part of your post is the summary point: if you aren't ignorant about how things work, then you don't need a "god" concept to explain things. If you are ignorant, you will be more inclined to think the "god" concept might be right.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much evidence do we need to conclude that many religous people dont care whether or not there is another explanation?

Complexity naturally resulting from simple stuff isn't hard to understand (not even simple maths is required) and many of the religous posters claim its nonsense when they're obviously intelligent enough to understand it. Why is that?

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
1-12 ways people rationalise their belief in god
chez

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you, chez.
As I read DS's post, I was trying to conjure up a person that believes in a god because of those reasons ... even totalling them up. Belief is something that occurs for psychological reasons not in response to events in the world that 90% of the population don't think about and understand poorly when they do.

#6 life from non-life. a good example of my last point. There is no dividing line between 'life' and 'non-life'.

luckyme

[Alcibadies]

Thought provoking stuff.

Please hurry and complete your book on No-Limit Hold'em.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
1-12 ways people rationalise their belief in god


[/ QUOTE ]

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

1. As far as I know, no scientist has ever seriously proposed a non god possible explanation. Except perhaps the idea that the universe keeps perpetually expanding, crunching and banging.

[/ QUOTE ]

there are quite few non-god theories, but not none of them provide a hypothesis that can currently be tested with current data.


[ QUOTE ]
4. Although Quantum Theory gives one piece of ammunition to the atheists (the apparent existence of pure randomness) the spooky aspects of the theory , while easily calculated statistically, have not yet been well explained.


[/ QUOTE ]

again, they actually can easily be explained, however, the interpreations generally aren't subject to any rigirous falsifiacation.

check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_many-worlds_interpretation for a good example.

[BluffTHIS!]

I was contacted by another catholic poster regarding making a post in the Viruses of the Mind thread, but have been considering just how to make that post since it is broader in scope. This thread seems to be the place to tie all this together.

Richard Dawkins said in the article referenced in that thread:

"Roman Catholics, whose belief in infallible authority compels them to accept that wine becomes physically transformed into blood despite all appearances, refer to the ``mystery'' of transubstantiation. Calling it a mystery makes everything OK, you see. At least, it works for a mind well prepared by background infection. Exactly the same trick is performed in the ``mystery'' of the Trinity. Mysteries are not meant to be solved, they are meant to strike awe. The ``mystery is a virtue'' idea comes to the aid of the Catholic, who would otherwise find intolerable the obligation to believe the obvious nonsense of the transubstantiation and the ``three-in-one.'' Again, the belief that ``mystery is a virtue'' has a self-referential ring. As Hofstadter might put it, the very mysteriousness of the belief moves the believer to perpetuate the mystery.

An extreme symptom of ``mystery is a virtue'' infection is Tertullian's ``Certum est quia impossibile est'' (It is certain because it is impossible''). That way madness lies.''

Tertullian's entire passage in question is this:

" The Son of God died: it is immediately credible--because it is silly. He was buried, and rose again: it is certain--because it is impossible. But how can these acts be true in him, if he himself was not true, if he had not truly in himself that which could be crucified, which could die, which could be buried and raised up again--this flesh, in fact, suffused with blood, scaffolded of bones, threaded through with sinews, intertwined with veins, competent to be born and to die, human unquestionably, as born of a human mother? "

So Dawkins derides our beliefs as little more than silly stories or superstitions, and the product of gullible and illogical thinking. But Tertullian was making a point echoed by Aristotle, namely that many stories about fantastic things that are said to have taken place would never have been believed unless they were true or nearly so. Of course I do not believe this entirely because of the obvious fact that so many different world religions believe different contradictory things about God and creation. But as a catholic, I acknowledge that any part of the truth in another even non-christian religion comes from God. David has said in one of his short thought chapters in Poker, Gaming & Life that:

"With 100 different religions believing 100 different things, the number of religions that believe something that is incorrect may be all 100, but is at least 99."

But there is a flip side to that as well. And that is if all or most of those religions do agree on something, then that subset of beliefs that are agreed upon is in fact more likely to be true than not, especially when such beliefs have originated over greatly dispersed distances geographically and in time. And of course the existence of a supreme being who created the known universe is that agreed upon belief among the vast majority of differing religions, although the "details" are different.

David has also said in previous threads that the fact that emminent scientists with high IQs say there is no God, makes the probability of that being true very high. But I disagree and the reason is in fact the arguments that Dawkins makes regarding viruses of the mind. The virus in this case is a refusal to acknowledge a greater possibility of religious explanations being true because the very history of science shows time and again that even the very emminent in their fields upon making certain ground-breaking discoveries, seem to ossify in their thinking and are unable to see the possibility of the next level of discovery. They cling to the latest discovery, while refusing to see that there are more and deeper questions still left unanswered, and close their minds to many possibilities. And one of the things many such scientists are close-minded about is the existence of paradox and the possible explanations for same.

The history of science and mathematics shows that so many of the great theories and discoveries are the result of profound intuition by brilliant thinkers who posit those theories before any empirical means even exist to test them. And they are derided until the empirical data comes in proving them right. Similar are mathematical conjectures that are not just the result of analyzing a table thousands of empirical results and inducing same, but rather directly intuited. And religion, especially of the mystical variety show in both christianity and such religions/philosophies as Zen and Taoism, shows that thinkers who lived thousands of years ago were able to grasp intuitively profound aspects of the underlying reality of things.

And the history of particle and cosmological physics is indeed a very good way to examine this whole question. Not only as David has pointed out in his post here, has science not produced a scientific explanation of the origin of the primordial quantum singularity that produced the big bang and thus the basis of causality, but in the "spooky" realm cannot explain either quantum entanglement or the nature and operation of the so-called "God particle", i.e. the Higgs-Bosun particle and the Higgs Field in which it operates. When you add to this the question of the cosmological constant and dark matter and energy, along with the question as to why there does not exist in our universe equal parts of anti-matter and matter as seems likely to have been produced by the big bang, then it is clear that something very permeates the entire universe and sustains its existence. For without the Higgs particle and field nothing can exist since every action that happens in the universe is a result of particle interactions (vertices) in which that particle and field is always a necessary part.

As christians we believe that God sustains the universe in existence from moment to moment and indeed is present in all things. Thus He is not standing outside the universe He created, but permeates it. And this belief of the underlying reality of things corresponds to our ever increasing knowledge of cosmological physics. Even Stephen Hawking calls the First Cause "God", even while not believing in a personal god. But the reason so many non-believers resist this terminology or even "first cause", is because of the implications of doing so. And yet, there is not now nor can there ever be an alternative explanation, because of the non-existence of observable data anywhere in the universe of the things and time that preceded the big bang.

Another "virus of the mind" exhibited by many non-believers in God is that they are unwilling to accept many accounts of miraculous happenings both in the past and present, not just because of the possibilities David mentioned of magic, statistics or even psychology and the possibility that we just don't yet have a scientific explanation for things we one day will, but also because such non-believers have an inflexible stereotype of how a hypothetical god would choose to act. As I have said in the past, I believe that many miraculous actions are taken by God through normal everyday physical and natural processes to achieve His purposes. And that when God does manifest a miracle that breaks the known laws of physics, He does so not on a planetary scale, but to smaller groups of people whose testimony is to be passed on to others. This is because He desires faith, a concept that the inflexible stereotype of non-believers refuse to credit is a possible manner in which God would choose to "interfere" in our lives.

The points David makes about human consciousness are very important as well. Although animals have certain consciousness and dolphins even have the intelligence estimated to be that of a 3 or 4 year old human child, only we of all the creatures on this planet (and as far as we know the entire galaxy at least), possess this high degree of consciousness. And this corresponds exactly to Christian teaching that God made us in His own image, an image spiritual rather than corporeal in nature, and reflected in God's very Name and definition of himself in the OT: "I Am Who Am".

So my summary of God is this:

1) There is a First Cause of everything in the universe (remember that apparent random causation on a subatomic level can reasonably be explained by either insufficient scientific understanding of the causes of same or by quantum entanglement);

2) The Higgs-Bosun Field and particle shows that something underlies and permeates the entire universe and the universe could not exist without it;

3) The vast majority of religions, even while disagreeing on the details, nonetheless have believed throughout history in the existence of a supreme being (and no major religion now except Hinduism posits polytheism);

4) Human consciousness is exactly reflective of being created in a certain likeliness of a supreme being as it is a fundamental attribute of such a supreme being;

5) The reason that God chooses not to manifest miracles and the truth of His religion to all human to the point of 100% certainty is that He desires faith, i.e. making that leap between the evidence for the truth of Himself found in scripture, human reason, science, and personal evidence of the experience of living that faith by oneself and others, to a belief in Him. And this faith is not merely belief in His existence, but trust in Him as child trusts its father.

6) Catholic Christianity accepts all scientific theories on evolution and physics and incorporates them into its theological views of Creation, and its theology does not contain internal logical contradictions, and is thus the most likely of all religions to be right;

7) The above points have not been and cannot be proved false. And while the same could be said of atheism, those points add up to a greater likelihood of the existence of a supreme being (whether called “First Cause” or whatever) than that there is not one.

[godBoy]

6-8 evolution has accounted for hasn't it?

The problem I have for Darwinian evolution in the first place is...
Darwin was not seeking answers like why is it so? or what is the truth here?
He wanted to know if there was another theory that could explain complex life without God. This is where the ID scientist are getting pelted with stones, because they are seeking evidence where the bloody big arrowhead is pointing.
Darwin ruled out possibilities from the outset which coloured his pure religious theory. Well of course there are other possibilities that COULD explain creation...namely FSM... Evolution is not a search for truth any more than the FSM.

[siegfriedandroy]

not what i meant!

[Cooker]

I think this is a reasonably good post. I would like to point out that Einsteins General Relativity is not quite as "obvious" as you might think. Without going into too many details, the crux of the construction is based on relating space-time curvature to the stress energy tensor in the simplest way possible that is consistent. However, the choice of "simplest way possible" is a little arbitrary. Also, the correspondence principle is a further extension of this "simplest way possible" idea. There are in fact an infinity of sublte changes that could be made and people do play around with these choices.

I agree that 11 and 12 are among the most interesting things which science is currently working on and are very poorly understood. I am thoroughly diappointed with the current state of AI research and their strong focus on computer power and mimicry.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1-12 ways people rationalise their belief in god
chez

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you, chez.
As I read DS's post, I was trying to conjure up a person that believes in a god because of those reasons ... even totalling them up. Belief is something that occurs for psychological reasons not in response to events in the world that 90% of the population don't think about and understand poorly when they do.
luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm puzzled by all of this. In a previous thread many moons ago I thought DS agreed that religous people believed all this stuff because they believed in god not the other way round, maybe I just imagined it.

Oh well, he'll keep posting it, we can keep pointing out the obvious and he can ignore us. Or maybe we will get honoured with an explanation. I pine for the good old days days when we at least got blessed with 'do you know how silly you sound' or 'everyone else know what I mean'.

chez

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
5. All scientist believe in a non god explanation for this. Even the beauty of snails, mountains, and snowflakes is easily explained with simple math. Any religious person who invokes these things to try to prove his point is making a fool of himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice post. This part of your post is the summary point: if you aren't ignorant about how things work, then you don't need a "god" concept to explain things. If you are ignorant, you will be more inclined to think the "god" concept might be right.

[/ QUOTE ]
How much evidence do we need to conclude that many religous people dont care whether or not there is another explanation?

Complexity naturally resulting from simple stuff isn't hard to understand (not even simple maths is required) and many of the religous posters claim its nonsense when they're obviously intelligent enough to understand it. Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even if all of the workings of the universe were fully understood, people would still believe in a god. Perhaps fewer people, and even still, the believers would lean more toward deism than theism.

My point was that people don't need a god concept to explain how the universe works, if they aren't ignorant. And if one ignorant person uses the god concept to explain something that an informed person knows more about, the informed person thinks the ignorant person is a fool. That's why DS thinks someone is a fool to claim that only God can make the beauty of snails or snowflakes or mountains or trees, but he thinks they might not be a fool to think that only God can make a universe or human consciousness.

[Madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Specific subatomic particles, rather than other ones, were created.

2. As far as I know, scientists do not have a non god possible explanation for why quarks and other basic particles,are what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this remains a largely untestable theory (to my knowledge), doesn't superstring theory offer up a logical, non-god explanation of the existence and properties of the most basic particles?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm puzzled by all of this. In a previous thread many moons ago I thought DS agreed that religous people believed all this stuff because they believed in god not the other way round, maybe I just imagined it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This forum is not representative of the general populations theists or atheists, both groups on here are much too logically weighted. Yet even reading the most logical theist you'll find comments like "chance can't occur because there is a god" or "if evolution disproves god then I disbelieve evolution", etc. These are not from the troubled youth like sigfried and godboy.

Now, think about the college grads that Jay Leno stops on the street, the ones that think E=MC2 is a rock band. Does DS think they've weighed 1-12 with an open, knowledgable mind and came to their faith on the basis of quarks being a bit too spinny?

DS needs to go down the bowling alley in Macon and strike up a conversation about Dennett's Multiple Drafts or gravitons and how they relate to peoples beliefs... but leave the car running. Or listen to the 8year old on TV explaining how all who don't come to jesus are going to burn in hell. Cheeesh.

People believe in god for psychological reasons ( a major source of the specifics being nutured memes)
and once there - then their approach to other ideas must conform. I have no idea why DS would think that views on quarks and bigbangs and whether apes are self-aware are inputs rather than outputs. Even the posters that come on and claim "I've studied x,y and z and I came to believe .." quickly exhibit a void in their knowledge of other religions, physics, biology, etc.

DS is a god-of-the-gapper, he just demands a chasm and not a crack, but gaps of any size have never been ‘proof’ of anything and never can be ( or it wouldn’t be a gap). His mathematical mind just has trouble accepting that others can leap quite readily and quite far and spends his time looking for logical bridges when there aren’t any.

luckyme

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a reasonably good post. I would like to point out that Einsteins General Relativity is not quite as "obvious" as you might think. Without going into too many details, the crux of the construction is based on relating space-time curvature to the stress energy tensor in the simplest way possible that is consistent. However, the choice of "simplest way possible" is a little arbitrary. Also, the correspondence principle is a further extension of this "simplest way possible" idea. There are in fact an infinity of sublte changes that could be made and people do play around with these choices.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the most fascinating developments along these lines in recent years has been the work of Jacobson (in 1995) and Padmanabhan more recently, who essentially derived Einstein's equations for GR from thermodynamics. This suggests that GR may be generically true for a large class of "microscopic" quantum theories (basically those that lead to entropy proportional to horizon area), but this stuff has not been explored enough, in my opinion. Both the entropy and temperature appearing in the derivation have no concrete justification for taking the form they do, except for the fact that they seem natural, and that they lead to the correct Einstein equations. Still, practically everyone I've talked to about this agrees there is something profound going on here, but are not quite sure what it is!

Here's a link to Jacobson's original paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504004

[RxForMoreCowbell]

Of course, with the exception of #9, there is no attempted God related explanation to any of these either.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Here are many of the reasons why some people believe that there is, or was, a "god", or at least some sort of supreme or superior being. </font>

I think the keyword here is "some" people. If you were to do an exit poll on all churches in America on any given Sunday, I suspect you'd find that "most" theists haven't spent 10 minutes contemplating these 12 things, let alone be able to provide well thought out answers. That "some" of them have and "some" of them are intelligent enough to make a reasonable case for a god doesn't seem too significant to me. ALmost any popular belief is bound to attract a share of intelligent followers. But the fact remains that these debates need to take place primarily because of the many who haven't even thought much about it.

Before I'm called a hypocrite, I wonder if the same can be said for atheists. Yes, I imagine some were just born into a godless home and haven't thought much about it. Yet I suspect many more atheists than theists arrived at their position by thinking more than 10 minutes about your 12 items. Please understand that I am NOT talking about the majority of theists on this forum. Am I wrong?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was that people don't need a god concept to explain how the universe works, if they aren't ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]
and my point is that the religous people DS is refering to don't in general give two hoots about the question of how the universe works.

As I asked before, how do you explain why posters clearly clever enough to cope with the simple idea of natural complexity are seemingly unable to understand it? IS DS right to think they are fools because they cant understand it? or is he right to think they are fools for making bad rhetorical choices?

chez

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point was that people don't need a god concept to explain how the universe works, if they aren't ignorant.

[/ QUOTE ]
and my point is that the religous people DS is refering to don't in general give two hoots about the question of how the universe works.

[/ QUOTE ]

When DS wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Here are many of the reasons why some people believe that there is, or was, a "god", or at least some sort of supreme or superior being.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he was talking about the people who do care about these things. True, most believers don't, but he's talking about those who do. At least that's how I took his comment.

[ QUOTE ]
As I asked before, how do you explain why posters clearly clever enough to cope with the simple idea of natural complexity are seemingly unable to understand it? IS DS right to think they are fools because they cant understand it? or is he right to think they are fools for making bad rhetorical choices?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think luckyme is right. They have been brainwashed. Their perceptions are now heavily shaded by their convictions. But, if their parents and teachers and society had understood more about the universe, and had brought them up actually answering the "why" questions instead of saying "because that's how god made it", then those same believers, I think, would be less inclined to fall for the god of the gaps concept, and if they still believed in a god, they would be more deist than theist (that's my hypothesis, anyway).

[David Sklansky]

For the last few weeks or so, you are the only one who seems to fully get things. Why is that?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
For the last few weeks or so, you are the only one who seems to fully get things. Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure, but I did find Lestat's yearbook photo:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c153/Borodog/AfroSklansky.jpg

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he was talking about the people who do care about these things. True, most believers don't, but he's talking about those who do. At least that's how I took his comment.

[/ QUOTE ]
If his talking about some as in almost no-one then fair enough but it seems a bit wierd. All we have is almost no-one believes for 12 reasons and here's some thought on those 12 reasons, whats the point of that? Maybe next we shall have some thought on the 12 days of christmas 1) partridge in a pear tree ...

I's still like to know what DS means. Does he mean almost (and possibly exactly) no-one believes for these 12 reasons or does he actually think that lots of people do believe in god for these reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
But, if their parents and teachers and society had understood more about the universe, and had brought them up actually answering the "why" questions instead of saying "because that's how god made it",

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by actual answers to the "why" question but if you mean that people were well educated and taught to think for themselves they would be less likely to fall for bad ideas like the gap argument then I agree. Although DS appears to be evidence that that might not be true, I'm not sure about that as he never explains what he means.

At least we've progressed from 'everybody else knows what I mean' to 'lestat knows what I mean' /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[Darryl_P]

Chez,

This is the sentence that got Lestat onto the elite list of understanders:

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact remains that these debates need to take place primarily because of the many who haven't even thought much about it.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to get there yourself, just mention how important it is for people to improve their logical abilities and assume that if someone disagrees with what DS says, then he's not logical enough (or misunderstood something which means he was not focusing enough on logic while reading). Make statements to that effect and you'll be "getting it" before you know it.

Don't worry about trivialities like why something's important. That's off topic anyway.

[Darryl_P]

Taking it a step further, here is the anatomy of a typical DS thread....

OP takes a given set of assumptions, some stated, others implied (among these, some are obvious if you know DS or if you're just a geek, while others are less obvious if you can't get into either DS or geek mode), then makes a couple of logical steps to arrive at a conclusion.

DS now expects a few things to happen:

1) Everyone realizes the purpose of the post is to go through the logical exercise and therefore only discusses the validity of the logical steps, questioning the assumptions only to understand the starting point so that the logical steps can be examined later.

2) Everyone shares the belief that developing logical skills are the most important thing in life, so 1) should be obvious

3) Those who agree the issue is interesting will post, while others will not. To question why it is interesting is off topic. Those who agree it's interesting, though, will be deemed to have superior logical abilities, or at the very least have superior potential because they recognize an important issue when they see one.


Then to DS's surprise, the following happens:

1) People get more concerned with questioning the assumptions rather than the logical steps. They don't state this explicitly because, being mature adults, they assume those are more important than a tiddly winks exercise, even if it is advanced tiddly winks.

2) DS praises those who play the tiddly winks game and recognize its importance and reminds others that they don't understand, without following through and making them realize what it is they don't understand (he's a busy man and there are lots of posters so that's understandable I suppose).

3) Posters know DS has a high IQ, not to mention a lot of authority, so they want his approval. Since they didn't get any they are left dejected. DS is dejected too because he didn't get the support he was expecting despite calculating the logic flawlessly and being extra-precise in his wording.

End result: An unhappy day for all.

P.S. The part that makes me want to laugh or cry (not sure which) is that this theme has recurred at least 30 or 40 times and everyone goes through the same motions each time.

[chezlaw]

I'd be happy with logical tiddlywinks but I don't think this is correct:

[ QUOTE ]
DS now expects a few things to happen:

1) Everyone realizes the purpose of the post is to go through the logical exercise and therefore only discusses the validity of the logical steps, questioning the assumptions only to understand the starting point so that the logical steps can be examined later.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think DS thinks he is making points about actual religon and errors made by real (more than almost none) religous people. I think lestat thinks so to.

If they dont think the premises are true then obviously I agree with them /images/graemlins/grin.gif

chez

[Darryl_P]

What you just said doesn't contradict what I said in your quote. DS is surely making points about actual religion and logical errors made by real people, but he is presenting it in the way I described. There is a set of assumptions (which he thinks is true, of course) and the rest follows logically.

If you do not agree with the assumptions, you have two choices (according to the anatomy outlined above):

1) Play along with the tiddly winks exercise which in this case (for you) means assume that many people think that way and go from there, or

2) Simply ignore the thread because it doesn't apply to you. The topic was not about questioning assumptions.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What you just said doesn't contradict what I said in your quote. DS is surely making points about actual religion and logical errors made by real people, but he is presenting it in the way I described. There is a set of assumptions (which he thinks is true, of course) and the rest follows logically.

If you do not agree with the assumptions, you have two choices:

1) Play along with the tiddly winks exercise which in this case (for you) means assume that many people think that way and go from there, or

2) Simply ignore the thread because it doesn't apply to you. The topic was not about questioning assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
okay but there's a third option which I prefer which is to question the assumptions. It may not be what DS wants but so what?

DS is clever if I disagree with his assumptions then I may be wrong. IF DS is right then questioning is the way to learn and even if DS wont defend his assumptions then others may.

Also if DS is making the mistake he appears to be making (dare I say foolish mistake) then understanding how even such clever people make mistakes is interesting. Again questioning is the way to go.

The only reason not to participate is if DS doesn't believe anything about the truth of the premise and is just logic chopping.

chez

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, if their parents and teachers and society had understood more about the universe, and had brought them up actually answering the "why" questions instead of saying "because that's how god made it",

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by actual answers to the "why" question but if you mean that people were well educated and taught to think for themselves they would be less likely to fall for bad ideas like the gap argument then I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's what I mean. And, where we don't know, the answer to the "why" question is "we don't know", not "because that's the way god made it, dear".

[Darryl_P]

Fair enough. I added the part in brackets in case you thought I thought that, when in fact I only think DS has that implicit expectation. That would be consistent with his ignoring and rejecting assumption questioning anyway.

Naturally I'm all for assumption questioning, as I think all mature adults should be. My point is that this kind of thing leads to DS being disappointed in the way his threads pan out. Not that we should be too concerned about that of course.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Here are many of the reasons why some people believe that there is, or was, a "god", or at least some sort of supreme or superior being. </font>

I think the keyword here is "some" people. If you were to do an exit poll on all churches in America on any given Sunday, I suspect you'd find that "most" theists haven't spent 10 minutes contemplating these 12 things, let alone be able to provide well thought out answers. That "some" of them have and "some" of them are intelligent enough to make a reasonable case for a god doesn't seem too significant to me. ALmost any popular belief is bound to attract a share of intelligent followers. But the fact remains that these debates need to take place primarily because of the many who haven't even thought much about it.

Before I'm called a hypocrite, I wonder if the same can be said for atheists. Yes, I imagine some were just born into a godless home and haven't thought much about it. Yet I suspect many more atheists than theists arrived at their position by thinking more than 10 minutes about your 12 items. Please understand that I am NOT talking about the majority of theists on this forum. Am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

The point you are making, and which David likes, is not really that important at, unless you feel it necessary to dissuade people from religious belief, which David does. This is because in any group, from a familty to a corporation to a nation, all the individuals specialize in different things and rely upon the advice and teaching of those specialists in other fields. It is the same in the Catholic Church, where the faithful in the pews rely upon theologians and philosphers in the church regarding the types of things David has discussed, without themselves possessing such a detailed knowledge. And you are forgetting or denying that, for us who are believers, and even those with much less theological and scientific knowledge than I might have let alone that of experts in the church, through their daily practice of the faith they believe God confirms those things that they believe even while not fully understanding all the implications and underpinnings of those beliefs.

Can an atheist say the same? That is, that the daily experiences of their lives reinforce their conviction that there is no supreme being? For logically this would be a negative reinforcing a negative.

[BluffTHIS!]

I think you make some valid points about how David's threads are made and play out. But even though David does believe it important to dissuade people from religious belief because he thinks it a waste of time and energy that could be put to better use, he also has attempted to get atheists to see that many of their specific arguments against relgion are wrong as well. And many of his points about logical contradictions in the belief systems of certain believers including those of various christian denominations, are accurate from my catholic perspective, and in fact I too have debated fellow believers regarding these things.

Nevertheless, I think that in my long first post in this thread, that I have addressed many of the assumptions and conclusions regarding science and of how a supreme being would operate that non-believers inaccurately believe in themselves.

Also regarding David's posts, note carefully in any thread he starts as the thread progressess, the posts of others rebutting various points of his that he does not then rebut. Those ommissions are telling.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It is the same in the Catholic Church, where the faithful in the pews rely upon theologians and philosphers in the church regarding the types of things David has discussed, without themselves possessing such a detailed knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're skipping the only step that matters. That's a mega choice to make, allowing others to decide my religious stand without understanding it myself. It's "That" belief and how they arrive at it that would be the belief that falls into 'the cause of belief' study, not the belief they are now told to have.

Obviously none of the 1-12 points DS raised have any bearing on the belief that it's best to let some other person decide what you believe. I think DS is down to about 1 homeless guy in Flatbush.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is the same in the Catholic Church, where the faithful in the pews rely upon theologians and philosphers in the church regarding the types of things David has discussed, without themselves possessing such a detailed knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're skipping the only step that matters. That's a mega choice to make, allowing others to decide my religious stand without understanding it myself. It's "That" belief and how they arrive at it that would be the belief that falls into 'the cause of belief' study, not the belief they are now told to have.

Obviously none of the 1-12 points DS raised have any bearing on the belief that it's best to let some other person decide what you believe. I think DS is down to about 1 homeless guy in Flatbush.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Ironically that mega-step is one that DS seems to endorse. I dont know if you were around back then.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a set of assumptions (which he thinks is true, of course) and the rest follows logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only that were true. Or is "Everybody knows it" no longer a fallacy?

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
For logically this would be a negative reinforcing a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I am NOT 7ft tall. Every time I walk upright through a door that belief gets reinforced. What's the prob?

If I believed elves made it rain, then every raindrop is proof of elves.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

You guys,(except for Lestat) are all nuts. My original post was meant to discuss many of the the things some religious people point to regarding their belief in god. I never said they use all of these reasons. I never said that most religious people use any of these reasons. I never denied that many who espouse some of these reasons aren't simply trying to rationaliz preexisting belief. The post wasn't really about people at all. It was about those twelve reasons. And in at least a few cases (much more often 100 years ago) some of those reasons really are the main basis for their belief

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys,(except for Lestat) are all nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]
Linda: *You cracked the code*! 11 months, and you suddenly come up with it out of the blue. How?

Sebastian: The usual: coffee and Twinkies.

Matt: My 5th grade teacher told me, that "Genius is the ability to go from A to D without having to go through B and C." Sebastian can do that, but for me, I gotta have the B and C.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The post wasn't really about people at all.It was about those twelve reasons . And in at least a few cases (much more often 100 years ago) some of those reasons really are the main basis for their belief

[/ QUOTE ]

Reasons? Reasons for what? The OP certainly reads that those are 'reasons for belief' for "some" and a explanation for "many".

We are not nuts and even if we were it doesn't buttress your case. You actually have to produce counter arguments to do that :-))

Those are positions taken because of their faith. The faith is the Reason for those positions not the other way around. There are a myriad of reasons for the faith; need for 'meaning', 'absolutes', a fear of death, etc. Nobody 'believes' because the top quarks spin would wobble if there was no god to hold it steady. If they did, they wouldn't believe in the xtrian god or the like, they'd believe in a some techno-nerd type, perhaps one introduced to them by aliens, since saltification of women isn't suggested by a worry about the nature of the big bang.

luckyme. no claim to sanity implied.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys,(except for Lestat) are all nuts. My original post was meant to discuss many of the the things some religious people point to regarding their belief in god. I never said they use all of these reasons. I never said that most religious people use any of these reasons. I never denied that many who espouse some of these reasons aren't simply trying to rationaliz preexisting belief. The post wasn't really about people at all. It was about those twelve reasons. And in at least a few cases (much more often 100 years ago) some of those reasons really are the main basis for their belief

[/ QUOTE ]
Well lets clear some of this up.

We haven't said that you have said they use all those reasons.
We havent said that you said most religous people use any of those reasons.
We havent suggested you deny that some people are just rationalising beliefs.

So that leaves the idea that in some cases people believe in god for some of the twelve reasons - this is the contentious point and its not the first time it has come up. I'm unconvinced that anyone (or any but a few) believes in god for any of these reasons although I obviously agree that many people claim to believe in god for these reasons. As we talk about god and beliefs so often it seems kind of important.

If all you are doing is saying if someone believes in god for reason Y then here's some thought on the reasonableness of believing Y-&gt;god then ok that's what DarrylP said you were doing.

However there's a risk of some sleight of hand here. If you give the impression that some people believe in god for reason Y when they dont and then correctly show that such reasoning is foolish it appears that you have exposed religous belief as foolish when in fact you haven't shown any such thing.

So apart from it being interesting as to whether any but almost none believe for any of reasons 1-12, its also a matter of avoiding this potential sleight of hand.

To paraphrase Bill Hicks: I dont mean to sound like I'm nuts but I am so thats how it comes out.

chez

[David Sklansky]

"Those are positions taken because of their faith. The faith is the Reason for those positions not the other way around."

I think you are almost always right about highly religious Christians. Often worng about moderately religious Jews. And completely wrong about millions of people who think there is a God while simultaneously regarding specific religions as pretty ridiculous.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, that's what I mean. And, where we don't know, the answer to the "why" question is "we don't know", not "because that's the way god made it, dear".

[/ QUOTE ]One of the key things to understand is that this isn't an explanation at all, and you don't need fractal geometry or magic to understand it. "God done it" explains nothing, unless you also explain God. It doesn't explain "First Cause" or complex organisms, or anything else.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
"Those are positions taken because of their faith. The faith is the Reason for those positions not the other way around."

I think you are almost always right about highly religious Christians. Often worng about moderately religious Jews. And completely wrong about millions of people who think there is a God while simultaneously regarding specific religions as pretty ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm actually wrong about none of them. Any of them that have those positions will have them because of their faith and not have arrived at their faith for those 'reasons'.

I claimed "asthma doesn't cause hamsters, hampsters cause asthma". If we see wheezing we can assume the latter, and it's not invalidated by his non-wheezing friend.

luckyme

[David Sklansky]

"God done it" explains nothing, unless you also explain God."

Statements like this are silly. Everybody understands that if, for instance God created the Earth 6000 years ago, it doesn't mean that we have an explanation for how he did it.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody understands that if, for instance God created the Earth 6000 years ago, it doesn't mean that we have an explanation for how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ] /

God is a "lock box" that we put all the "what we don't understand" in. How is pointing to the "lock box containing mysterious forces" and saying "IT did it" any form of explanation? We aren't any further down the road of understanding, we've merely created a convenient grouped reference point.

'Everybody understands that if, for instance we claim LockBox created the Earth 6000 years ago, it doesn't mean that we have an explanation for how IT did it.' Yeah, I think that was sorta the point.

luckyme

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Can an atheist say the same? That is, that the daily experiences of their lives reinforce their conviction that there is no supreme being? For logically this would be a negative reinforcing a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For logically this would be a negative reinforcing a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I am NOT 7ft tall. Every time I walk upright through a door that belief gets reinforced. What's the prob?

If I believed elves made it rain, then every raindrop is proof of elves.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reply to the above statement of mine is not logically correct. Allow me to elaborate. The example of your height not corresponding to a certain measurement, is not a matter of logic, but of empirical measurement to a certain degree of accuracy. And your statement regarding elves, is not an example of a negative premise, but of a positive one, and is fallaceous because there is no middle term.

The logical syllogism of the believer is:

1) If there exists a supreme being, then He will answer prayer
2) Events that are unlikely or unexplainable and follow chronologically close to prayers for said outcomes, are the result of intervention by that supreme being
3) I or other Christians who pray for a certain unlikely/unexplainable thing receive such an outcome very closely following such prayers, therefore the supreme being exists.

The syllogism of the atheist is:

1) There is no supreme being
2) I will not see/experience/believe what are termed miracles, because even if something occurs that is not likely, explainable or seems to violate the physical laws of the universe, I will attribute same to insufficient scientific knowledge;
3) Therefore, nothing can prove the existence of a supreme being.

That syllogism is an example of the logical fallacy of exclusive premises because both are negative, and of affirming a consequent from a negative premise.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
1) If there exists a supreme being, then He will answer prayer


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would that be so? You seem to have a great sense of self-importance or self-worth! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Is it ego inflation?

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) If there exists a supreme being, then He will answer prayer


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would that be so? You seem to have a great sense of self-importance or self-worth! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Is it ego inflation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. There has been at least one religion that believes in a single supreme being, where they absolutely believe he is completely indifferent to this world.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"God done it" explains nothing, unless you also explain God."

Statements like this are silly. Everybody understands that if, for instance God created the Earth 6000 years ago, it doesn't mean that we have an explanation for how he did it.

[/ QUOTE ]Oh dear, even the prodigal son agreed that saying 'god done it' isn't an explanation of anything. So in your example, just what got explained by saying god done it?

chez

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
The logical syllogism of the believer is:

1) If there exists a supreme being, then He will answer prayer
2) Events that are unlikely or unexplainable and follow chronologically close to prayers for said outcomes, are the result of intervention by that supreme being
3) I or other Christians who pray for a certain unlikely/unexplainable thing receive such an outcome very closely following such prayers, therefore the supreme being exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw God answer a prayer when I flopped the nut full-house (Aces over Kings), and this schmuck hit runner runner quad 2s.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) If there exists a supreme being, then He will answer prayer


[/ QUOTE ]

Why would that be so? You seem to have a great sense of self-importance or self-worth! /images/graemlins/smile.gif Is it ego inflation?

[/ QUOTE ]
BluffThis has God, life and religion all figured out. This seems to happen to a lot of bright folk - Nietzsche was another who went down that route.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
"God done it" explains nothing, unless you also explain God.


[/ QUOTE ]

Precisely.

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody understands that if, for instance God created the Earth 6000 years ago, it doesn't mean that we have an explanation for how he did it.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you do not have an explanation for how he did it, then you cannot justify a claim that he did it.

Just say the Earth was created 6000 years ago by an unknown mechanism. You might label this “god”, but then god will be nothing more or less than a mechanism that created the Earth 6000 years ago.

[hmkpoker]

No Kip, that's the Catholic god Cathol punishing your heathen butt /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh dear, even the prodigal son agreed that saying 'god done it' isn't an explanation of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh FSM, I'm the prodigal son? How did I get this title?

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Events that are unlikely or unexplainable and follow chronologically close to prayers for said outcomes, are the result of intervention by that supreme being

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is true, then it demonstrates correlation, not necessarily causation. People pray for events that are otherwise unlikely, not for God to let their refrigerator door open today.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The logical syllogism of the believer is:

1) If there exists a supreme being, then He will answer prayer
2) Events that are unlikely or unexplainable and follow chronologically close to prayers for said outcomes, are the result of intervention by that supreme being
3) I or other Christians who pray for a certain unlikely/unexplainable thing receive such an outcome very closely following such prayers, therefore the supreme being exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Miracles would gain a lot more credible ground if they were more specific. For example, "I pray that $1,243.38 manifests in my safe this time tomorrow" and having it fulfilled is pretty impressive. "I hope a certain person (presumably suffering hardship) pulls through ok" is a more common type of prayer, and there are a lot of things that can fulfill such an abstract request. It's comparable to the striking (albeit imprecise) accuracy of newspaper horoscopes. Plus, the abundance of prayer makes it likely that a similar event will eventually coincide.

What is to be said for the thousands of people practicing Wicca who claim that their spells work?


[ QUOTE ]

The syllogism of the atheist is:

1) There is no supreme being
2) I will not see/experience/believe what are termed miracles, because even if something occurs that is not likely, explainable or seems to violate the physical laws of the universe, I will attribute same to insufficient scientific knowledge;
3) Therefore, nothing can prove the existence of a supreme being.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we declared everything that was difficult to explain to God, a mystery, a miracle, or whatever other metaphysical cause, we'd still be living in the dark ages.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh dear, even the prodigal son agreed that saying 'god done it' isn't an explanation of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh FSM, I'm the prodigal son? How did I get this title?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, we are mere ravioli, I was talking of the Lestat.

chez

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2) Events that are unlikely or unexplainable and follow chronologically close to prayers for said outcomes, are the result of intervention by that supreme being

[/ QUOTE ]
If this is true, then it demonstrates correlation, not necessarily causation. People pray for events that are otherwise unlikely, not for God to let their refrigerator door open today.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you noticed how I worded that syllogism, you will see that #2 is a premise and not a conclusion. Thus I did not commit a fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc or of concommitant variation. But I am also not talking about one isolated instance being proof of anything. But rather, that from a large sample of such happenings, that premise can be induced.

[atrifix]

Fair enough. The deduction seems valid to me, at any rate. However, I am still not convinced of the truth of the 2nd premise. I don't think the premise can be induced from even a strong correlation in a large group of events, because there is the confounding factor.

[atrifix]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am not yet well versed enough in the SMP literature to know everyone's title and philosophical positions.

P.S. There is no God--do you see why?

[luckyme]

My elf comment was not an example of a negative anything it was a comparison with this claim of yours -
[ QUOTE ]
they believe God confirms those things that they believe

[/ QUOTE ]

If I believed elves made it rain, then every raindrop is proof of elves. Yes, both claims are fallaceous examples of circular reasoning, that was my point.

finally we agree, luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The logical syllogism of the believer is:

1) If there exists a supreme being, then He will answer prayer
2) Events that are unlikely or unexplainable and follow chronologically close to prayers for said outcomes, are the result of intervention by that supreme being
3) I or other Christians who pray for a certain unlikely/unexplainable thing receive such an outcome very closely following such prayers, therefore the supreme being exists.

[/ QUOTE ]

To correct the 'logic' -
1) there is a supreme being that answers prayers.
2)3) oops, we don't need these anymore since they are contained in premise 1.

and we're back to gloomy elves again.

luckyme

[BluffTHIS!]

It is obvious that you don't know squat about logical circles or syllogistic fallacies but are quite well versed in trollic circles.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Can an atheist say the same? That is, that the daily experiences of their lives reinforce their conviction that there is no supreme being? For logically this would be a negative reinforcing a negative.

[/ QUOTE ]

My quote above in an earlier post here, has caused this thread to get off topic in the direction of logic. So forget my last sentence in it. But I would be interested in serious replies by atheists to my question.

Does you daily life experience reinforce your conviction that there is no god, and how so? And note that observations about what you believe to be the stupid behaviour and beliefs of religious believers is not what I am referring to as reinforcing reasons, since those are based on certain detailed beliefs in a god, and not just a supreme being in general.

So through just your own daily routine life experiences and interactions with others and the world at large, and your understanding of how that world operates scientifically.

[yukoncpa]

Hi Bluffthis!
[ QUOTE ]
1) If there exists a supreme being, then He will answer prayer
2) Events that are unlikely or unexplainable and follow chronologically close to prayers for said outcomes, are the result of intervention by that supreme being
3) I or other Christians who pray for a certain unlikely/unexplainable thing receive such an outcome very closely following such prayers, therefore the supreme being exists.


[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this testable? I'm not talking about a placebo effect, but rather, if you took a group of random atheists and a group of random believers each dying of cancer, would you not expect a higher recovery rate from the believers than the atheists? Also, if a group of dying people were segregated randomly, and one group's names and personal information were given to a prayer group and the other's weren't and the dying people were not informed as to who was being prayed for, would you not expect the prayed for group to recover more rapidly than the non-prayed for group? If such tests have been made, could you please supply a citation?

[New001]

I would say my daily life's activities provide no evidence for or against a God of any kind. In other words, if I had no prior knowledge of religion, I wouldn't even think to attribute anything I've seen to a supreme being. Is this along the lines of what you're asking?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
But I would be interested in serious replies by atheists to my question.

Does you daily life experience reinforce your conviction that there is no god, and how so? And note that observations about what you believe to be the stupid behaviour and beliefs of religious believers is not what I am referring to as reinforcing reasons, since those are based on certain detailed beliefs in a god, and not just a supreme being in general.

So through just your own daily routine life experiences and interactions with others and the world at large, and your understanding of how that world operates scientifically.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. As I have said elsewhere my rationale for atheism is two-fold. First, regarding evolution etc.. it is the simplest answer.

Secondly, regarding an intelligent prime cause to it all. Something I cannot prove or disprove in scientific terms, therefore I fall back on morality. In that sense, even if there was such a thing, I would absolutely not support it at all, as I see it as the cause of suffering, at least by tolerating it, if not committing it. I would/do find such a cause immoral, unacceptable and don't want a bar of it. Even if it has negative expectation, ie. even at the risk of eternal damnation, I would rather exercice/experience the human quality of compassion and reject its existence outright. It is, to me, too monstruous to entertain, in any case.

My daily observations of myself and the world constantly reinforce my position on this. Don't get me wrong I do not deny the good and goodness and beauty etc... I have no issue with that. My concerns are with the suffering and/or evil that I see.

I am sure that there may be other justifications for atheism, but that is very firmly mine.

[yukoncpa]

I concur with Midge, I simply find certain Christians to be repugnant morally. This week, I wanted to see the movie Munich with a friend, but was told it was too Jewish. They had it coming.
I recently opined that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, and was told that there is nothing wrong with gay people, it's just the act that's immoral.
And my own mother, when hurricane Katrina hit, opined that "God works in mysterious ways. They must be wicked down in New Orleans."
I can't prove that the Christian God doesn't exist, but if he does, I won't worship him. He's morally repugnant.

[luckyme]

I believe there is a natural cause for everything. I find this view reinforced all day long every day. I rely on it to solve new problems in virgin territory.

"You can't fall up" reminds me that there are no accidents.( or miracles), and I haven't ran across any evidence that there is.

I wonder if theists find that the daily experiences of their lives reinforce their conviction that there is no natural cause for many events? For logically this would be a negative reinforcing a negative. ?? or did I screw that up again? :-))

luckyme

[yukoncpa]

The three repugnant views above were opined in this order by: A methodist, a baptist, and a mormon.

I'm not saying that any of these religions endorse (in the least) the words from the mouths of their practitioners.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My daily observations of myself and the world constantly reinforce my position on this. Don't get me wrong I do not deny the good and goodness and beauty etc... I have no issue with that. My concerns are with the suffering and/or evil that I see.


[/ QUOTE ]
It all small beer compared to a god who condemns those who he made unable to believe in him without good reason. That's pure evil.

chez

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, regarding an intelligent prime cause to it all. Something I cannot prove or disprove in scientific terms, therefore I fall back on morality. In that sense, even if there was such a thing, I would absolutely not support it at all, as I see it as the cause of suffering, at least by tolerating it, if not committing it. I would/do find such a cause immoral, unacceptable and don't want a bar of it. Even if it has negative expectation, ie. even at the risk of eternal damnation, I would rather exercice/experience the human quality of compassion and reject its existence outright. It is, to me, too monstruous to entertain, in any case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Usually it is the religious who find their principles more precious than truth. Not that I believe you, though.

[MidGe]

Ironkind,

As I said: "It is, to me, too monstruous to entertain, in any case".

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[IronUnkind]

Boldness tends to shrink in the presence of The Monster Itself.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Bluffthis!
[ QUOTE ]
1) If there exists a supreme being, then He will answer prayer
2) Events that are unlikely or unexplainable and follow chronologically close to prayers for said outcomes, are the result of intervention by that supreme being
3) I or other Christians who pray for a certain unlikely/unexplainable thing receive such an outcome very closely following such prayers, therefore the supreme being exists.


[/ QUOTE ]
Isn't this testable? I'm not talking about a placebo effect, but rather, if you took a group of random atheists and a group of random believers each dying of cancer, would you not expect a higher recovery rate from the believers than the atheists? Also, if a group of dying people were segregated randomly, and one group's names and personal information were given to a prayer group and the other's weren't and the dying people were not informed as to who was being prayed for, would you not expect the prayed for group to recover more rapidly than the non-prayed for group? If such tests have been made, could you please supply a citation?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know of any tests, but given the caveat you made, you would simply attribute any such prayer positive results to sample size and placebo anyway I assume.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I concur with Midge, I simply find certain Christians to be repugnant morally. This week, I wanted to see the movie Munich with a friend, but was told it was too Jewish. They had it coming.
I recently opined that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, and was told that there is nothing wrong with gay people, it's just the act that's immoral.
And my own mother, when hurricane Katrina hit, opined that "God works in mysterious ways. They must be wicked down in New Orleans."
I can't prove that the Christian God doesn't exist, but if he does, I won't worship him. He's morally repugnant.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a tired old canard. You are imputing the views of certain christians to be those held by all christians, which is not the case. Your strawman christian god is not the real Christian God.

And even David, if he believed he were given concrete proof of a god who acted in what he thought was a malevolent manner, would not refuse to worship him but to increase his eternal EV by doing so. Those kind of statements to the contrary are silly.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say my daily life's activities provide no evidence for or against a God of any kind. In other words, if I had no prior knowledge of religion, I wouldn't even think to attribute anything I've seen to a supreme being. Is this along the lines of what you're asking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Somewhat. But my point was would your daily life experiences cause you to have increased confidence that there was in fact no supreme being.

[AceofSpades]

[ QUOTE ]

DS needs to go down the bowling alley in Macon and strike up a conversation about Dennett's Multiple Drafts or gravitons and how they relate to peoples beliefs... but leave the car running. Or listen to the 8year old on TV explaining how all who don't come to jesus are going to burn in hell. Cheeesh.

People believe in god for psychological reasons ( a major source of the specifics being nutured memes)
and once there - then their approach to other ideas must conform. I have no idea why DS would think that views on quarks and bigbangs and whether apes are self-aware are inputs rather than outputs.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

When you say Macon are you talking about Macon, Ga? I'd agree that most people that believe in God don't begin their belief on a logical argument, although some do. However saying that "once there - then their approach to other ideas must conform," I think doesn't give enough credit to people that believe. I think that most people when faced with convincing enough proof that their faith is wrong would stop believing in that faith. However I do think that the burden of proof would be in the other direction...(ie something to disprove)

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know of any tests, but given the caveat you made, you would simply attribute any such prayer positive results to sample size and placebo anyway I assume.



[/ QUOTE ]
My natural inclination would be to be skeptical. So you are correct. However, the reason I asked you in the first place is that a friend of mine insists that there is proven evidence of the efficacy of prayer. If such evidence does indeed exist, I like to think I have an open mind. My friend could provide me with no citation. You, I thought, perhaps have some evidence to back up your claims. I'm not trying to be argumenitive. I just find that even the claim of evidence to be interesting, and I had hoped to persue my discussion with my friend further by querying you.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
My natural inclination would be to be skeptical. So you are correct. However, the reason I asked you in the first place is that a friend of mine insists that there is proven evidence of the efficacy of prayer. If such evidence does indeed exist, I like to think I have an open mind. My friend could provide me with no citation. You, I thought, perhaps have some evidence to back up your claims. I'm not trying to be argumenitive. I just find that even the claim of evidence to be interesting, and I had hoped to persue my discussion with my friend further by querying you

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with any such a test is getting God to cooperate. If you created a test to determine the efficacy of prayer and it turns out that prayer has no effect, how do you know its just not God refusing to lower himself to the status of a lab rat?

Stu

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with any such a test is getting God to cooperate. If you created a test to determine the efficacy of prayer and it turns out that prayer has no effect, how do you know its just not God refusing to lower himself to the status of a lab rat?


[/ QUOTE ]
Hi Stu,
Why would God not want us to know that prayer ( talking to him) is a good thing?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would God not want us to know that prayer ( talking to him) is a good thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people who believe in God already believe that talking to him is a good thing.

If God exist then he can certainly prove his existence beyond any showdow of a doubt. He doesn't need a prayer study to do it.

Perhaps we are God's lab rats and the experiment he set up for us requires our belief in him to be faith based.

Stu

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps we are God's lab rats and the experiment he set up for us requires our belief in him to be faith based.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

say Stu, I'm very tired and going to bed now, so I won't be able to reply further for about 8 hours. Thanks for the conversation.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]

And even David, if he believed he were given concrete proof of a god who acted in what he thought was a malevolent manner, would not refuse to worship him but to increase his eternal EV by doing so. Those kind of statements to the contrary are silly.


[/ QUOTE ]
I think you invoke DS accurately but from the past. I believe he renounced his views that this was silly.

Sure an evil powerful beast could scare me enough to act in any manner he wished. He can get me to act like I worship him but no more. He doesn't even need to be omnipotent (or all that powerful).

I do wonder what satisfaction that could possibly be to an omnipotent being.

chez

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
I do wonder what satisfaction that could possibly be to an omnipotent being.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do wonder what satisfaction that could possibly be to an omnipotent being.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

[/ QUOTE ]
Me, who is much happier having given up the daylight Job.

chez

[malorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are many of the reasons why some people believe that there is, or was, a "god", or at least some sort of supreme or superior being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
9. The bible

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes now were talking.

[ QUOTE ]
Many people think that these things can only be explained by some sort of supreme being.

[/ QUOTE ]

And then you go and mess it all up... /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

At least for point nine you have this the wrong way round. I believe in God because the bible tells me about him, not because I don't think people can write books without divine help.

The biblical narrative and its historicity is a fundamental axiom in my foundationalist epistemology. God creates faith. Its not a conscious decision and thus not based on rational support for the base axioms.

"Jesus loves me this I know, because the bible tells me so."

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

If we knew with absolute certainty that God exists would we really have free will? Perhaps it is faith which gives us freedom to do what we choose while absolute knowledge of God would inevitably bind us to specific actions.

Stu

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

If we knew with absolute certainty that God exists would we really have free will? Perhaps it is faith which gives us freedom to do what we choose while absolute knowledge of God would inevitably bind us to specific actions.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe just that absolute knowledge is not possible for imperfect beings like us.

chez

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure an evil powerful beast could scare me enough to act in any manner he wished. He can get me to act like I worship him but no more. He doesn't even need to be omnipotent (or all that powerful).


[/ QUOTE ]

If that beast wanted you to worship him but not be coeirced, the beast could never fully reveal his existence to you. The beast would have to make you aware enough of his existence to facilitate worship while keeping enough of it hidden to remove coersion.

If God wishes to be worship un-coerced than creation through a process like evolution is almost a necessity.

Stu

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure an evil powerful beast could scare me enough to act in any manner he wished. He can get me to act like I worship him but no more. He doesn't even need to be omnipotent (or all that powerful).


[/ QUOTE ]

If that beast wanted you to worship him but not be coeirced, the beast could never fully reveal his existence to you. The beast would have to make you aware enough of his existence to facilitate worship while keeping enough of it hidden to remove coersion.

If God wishes to be worship un-coerced than creation through a process like evolution is almost a necessity.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]
or it could try being worthy of worship. A necessary property of that would be to not demand worship.

chez

[Edit just watched the highlights and Ponting is worthy of a bit of worship]