Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

But #2 introduces a bunch of "unnecessary elements." To accept #2, one needs to accept the belief in microscopic organisms, accept that they can be transmitted from person to person, and accept that they can cause illness. That makes it "inferior" by your proposed criteria to the answer that does not involve introducing unnecessary elements...or perhaps there is a flaw with your criteria?

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

But even today, as was true 10000 years ago, people don't mind understanding the structure of what's going on while still interpreting the intention behind that in extremely different ways. If I want to interpret someone getting sick as a punishment from God, it's not really that hard to slip into doing so, is it?
Well for me it would be because I don't believe in God, but back when I did believe I had some interesting thoughts about what caused what.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I also believe the argument that introduces unnecessary elements is always inferior to the argument that does not.

[/ QUOTE ]

For someone living hundreds/thousands of years ago, which of the following is inferior based upon your own criteria?
1) People get sick because God is punishing them for their sins
2) People get sick because there are these tiny microscopic organisms that swim around their body. These organisms, too small to see with the naked eye, jump from person to person spreading the disease.

It would have seemed like #2 included unnecessary elements, so by your criteria it would have been deemed inferior, even though we know it to be correct with a great deal of certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]

#2 was inferior for people living thousands of years ago. I don't think #1 was great, either, but #2 was worse. #2 is better now because we have more information - information that supports #2.

If someone shuffles a deck of cards and chooses one at random, I'm correct in saying "that card is unlikely to be the ace of spades." If the card happens to be the ace of spades, that doesn't make me any less correct. And if I proceed to look at all of the other cards, finding every card except the ace of spades, then I am now justified in concluding that the mystery card is the ace of spades (because I have more information).

But I don't think we need to get deep into the philosophy of science here. This is a much simpler case. Let's call a the fact that something (rather than nothing) exists, let's call b the existence of God, and let's call c the existence of the universe. Our goal is to explain c. Let's say that the > operator means "to explain."

Here are two methods of explaining c.

1) a>c
2) a>b>c

These explanations are logically identical. We're not considering the question of b at all. We're trying to find the ultimate explanation for c, which is a in either case. Introducing b into the logic is inefficient. We can actually simplify b out algebraically.

In fact, algebra makes a good analogy. You're basically saying, "x - 4 = -2," and I'm saying that it's better to say "x = 2." That's all there is to it. No matter how much you like the term "-2," that term is not useful in considering this particular equation. And this equation has no bearing on the question "is y equal to -2?", regardless of whether you represent the equation with a -2 or not. Neither -2 nor y matter, because our task is to solve for x.

(A similar example is that x+y=2+y is uninteresting and, since we're solving for x and not y, we should eliminate the ys. Even if we have x=-y, y=-2, we should still simplify down to x=2 if we're solving for x.)

That there is something other than nothing has no bearing on the question of whether God exists. I agree it's an interesting mystery, but it has no bearing on God. If I say "the universe exists because there's something rather than nothing," and you say "the universe exists because God created it, and God exists because there's something rather than nothing," you have said by extension that the universe exists because there's something rather than nothing.

Now instead of having the question of why there's something rather than nothing, we also have the questions of why and how God created the universe. Far from solving the basic question of the universe, we have just introduced greater complexity. God gives no answers, but adds more questions. Thus, the dilemma of the universe isn't a logical justification for belief in God.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
God gives no answers, but adds more questions. Thus, the dilemma of the universe isn't a logical justification for belief in God.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that God gives no answers, it's more that He answers questions that in turn lead to related questions. The questions are essentially shifted. The difficult questions about how the universe began can be answered more easily by accepting the existence of God, but that then leads to similarly difficult questions about how God came to exist. I don't purport to think that accepting the existence of God is a completely comfortable way to answer these questions, but I feel it's a little more comfortable than the alternative. I don't mean to imply that I have solved the dilemma.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

mickey,

You're basically using the argument from incredulity to make your point. I probably can't give the definition justice here but you can google it if you're interested in what I'm saying.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

The question of how God came into existence in your scenario and the original question of how the universe came into existence are the same questionl, unless you can ascribe some attribute to God that makes is "easier" for him to exist.

But I don't think you can. And since God introduces elements of complexity, if the God idea doesn't provide some inherent benefit then it's a mistake. How you feel doesn't bear on the question of whether your belief is rational.

(And to go on from there to belief in a specific God is even more fallacious.)

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he would be. He would trend towards the very simple and elegant. Just look at the laws of science for an example.

It's the process of results and the possible complexity of the tasks that might seem unthinkable to humans, at least thinking ones.

I disagree with you, madnak, in that such higher powers can't be known. Reasonable, logical speculations can be made. Like quantum weirdness and the lack of randomness, they cannot be proven.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he would be. He would trend towards the very simple and elegant. Just look at the laws of science for an example.
...


[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the laws of science, as you understanding of them deepens, they become more and more complex, messy in fact. Hey wait that is a god attribute... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isnt God like crazy complex though? So the answer is pretty much always 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think he would be. He would trend towards the very simple and elegant. Just look at the laws of science for an example.
...


[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the laws of science, as you understanding of them deepens, they become more and more complex, messy in fact. Hey wait that is a god attribute... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Messy only to these who don't take the time and have the patience. Already covered in my second sentence though.

Re: The Better Intelligence-Religion Correlation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Messy only to these who don't take the time and have the patience. Already covered in my second sentence though.


[/ QUOTE ]

If so, then a god notion is even more unthinkable to anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Surely the source/s of consequences of unthinkable complexities is/are more unthinkable and therefore less plausible.