What If There Is a God?

[PairTheBoard]

I'm not criticizing you for asserting your beliefs and giving your reasons for your beliefs. You may not do what I'm talking about. But what I'm talking about is when you take one of those beliefs and use it to conclude something else then claiming that conclusion is a fact because it follows from your belief. For example, you believe the Christian God does not exist. Based on that you then conclude there is no Judgement day. Maybe you then give a lot of reasons for why you find the idea of a Judgement day abhorent. Finally you conclude with, "So it's a Fact. There is no Judgement Day and I've proved it".

I hope you can see the fallacy there. The last statement amounts to just a proclamation of your original Belief that there is no Christian God. That belief is no longer the assumption in the argument. It's become a presumption for which you claim conclusions as fact.

I don't see you doing that in anything you wrote in your post. So I'm not criticising those things.

The hypothesis of the "What If" in the OP is two part. First, suppose there is a Source of Existence which we can commune with in prayer and/or meditation. Let's call it God. Second, suppose the various religions in history have been the result of our limited attempts to understand and interpret our communion experience with this "God".

Under those two suppositions, what happens to the most Radical Atheist attacks on Religion? The ones that say Religion is irrational and should therefore be abolished. Isn't the only justification for that argument the Atheist belief that Religion is basically irrational? And doesn't that view depend on the Atheist Belief that the two suppositions I suggested can't hold?

PairTheBoard

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
he hypothesis of the "What If" in the OP is two part. First, suppose there is a Source of Existence which we can commune with in prayer and/or meditation. Let's call it God. Second, suppose the various religions in history have been the result of our limited attempts to understand and interpret our communion experience with this "God".
PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I love "let's pretend" exercises, so let's do it.

1) there is a SoE ( formerly known as god) which we can commune with.
2) Religion has been trying to understand #1 experiences.

Granted, what the heck, should be as much fun as "what if I won the 30 million".

How would we know #1? oops, nevermind, it's granted. The 'can' in #1 is strenghtened to "have been" in #2. So, the discussion is going to be, er, uh, ...

actually, not as much fun as I'd hoped.

ok, now if I won the #30 mil...

luckyme

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
Under those two suppositions, what happens to the most Radical Atheist attacks on Religion? The ones that say Religion is irrational and should therefore be abolished. Isn't the only justification for that argument the Atheist belief that Religion is basically irrational? And doesn't that view depend on the Atheist Belief that the two suppositions I suggested can't hold?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the presumption of this attack is that you don't get any universal non-subjective truths from your 'spiritual experiences'. I can't claim that as a fact but I can think of it to be the most likely option. You can never disproof anything. I just think that the chance of spitual experiences actually conveying these truths is so low that I'm willing to take the risk and actually support abolishing the dogmatic religions because of the fruits it ultimately bears. I can't claim any of this as a cold fact but I can say that it is based on reason.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a tricky thing that I think Atheists make too much of. He's not claiming scientific knowledge. It's really a peculiar religiously technical use of the word that they understand in their special way.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's nothing wrong with "spiritual understanding". Faith is a fine thing. If the mechanists need an explanation to fit into their framework, you can think of it as viewing the world with a different, more functional part of your brain.

However, when this understanding crosses over into the real world, you are directly in the realm of science, and you ARE claiming scientific knowledge. The realm of science extends to claims of Jesus walking on water, rising from the dead, prayers working, God picking your lotto numbers, etc. The fact is that science has shown that all of these are far more likely to be false then true. And the fact is that science makes a joke of any other epistemology when it comes to the real world. Including warm fuzzies and i-just-know-its-true's.

Why are people so slow to learn the lessons of history, and read between the lines? Most atheist arguments are not assuming or positing a lack of a God. It's more subtle than that. They assume the lack of a privileged position for humans, and lack of a hand directing nature. And those are simultaneously two of the most insulting notions to theists, and two of the most successful hypotheses in the history of thought and observation. Up there with gravity.

Ironically, it's human nature to believe exactly the opposite of these assumptions. Look at the history of belief about nature, God, the universe. This says something very powerful about the credibility of theist psychology - if you care to look.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
I think NotReady will admit he can't prove it. But he will claim that he "knows" it. It's a tricky thing that I think Atheists make too much of. He's not claiming scientific knowledge. It's really a peculiar religiously technical use of the word that they understand in their special way.

There is some merit to it in my opinion. There are a lot of situations where once you decide to go for it, you are better off going for it with gusto than to just making a "tenuous" effort.

[/ QUOTE ]

NotReady "knows it" just like many people "know" online poker is rigged. They can be aware there is no scientific proof of it, but they understand what they mean.

There could be merit in it. Maybe they have a gambling problem and the belief allows them to quit. We only have problems when they start telling other people their belief, or try to influence political policy or similar. Then we should want to see a PT database or prevent them polluting the minds of vulnerable recreational players.

They may say that online poker being rigged cannot be measured emperically and can only be tested by one-off bad beat stories. Or that the sites do rig the deck but go to a lot of deceptive effort to ensure that we can't be sure they did it.

Some people say that 'rigged' is not to be used literally, and describes states of mind like tilt that create a self fulfilling prophecy, and that praying to the poker sites can help not because they will listen, but if you believe it will work.

But none of that is as simple or efficient as learning to use maths, logic and pyschology to just play well.

[rpr]

I agree that proclaiming there is no God is equal to proclaiming your religion represents the one true God. Neither positions are likely to analyze the foundations of their beliefs or consider changing them based on new understandings. It is only, I have seen the light and truth I now know. It is the fact that people claim a perfect understanding of God (or lack of) that prevent us from knowing God.

The problem with God and religion is semantics. The understanding of nature, the universe and spirituality seems purposely obfuscated by those with other agendas (e.g. the Catholic Church).

You either believe in what I believe, or nothing at all. You can't be a Muslim, Jew and a Christian despite the fact they all believe in the same God. Aren't they all essentially denominations of one great religion?

Most seem to give up and say, "I believe in God, I'm spiritual but not religious". Yet there's no spiritual development to rival that of a major religion. It's more a surrender to a minimalist faith with logic and reason resigning you to the belief that God is obscure.

However, approximately half the world (~3.5 billion) believe in the God of Abraham. They merely disagree over the details. Muslims and Jews fight over the righteous descendant of Abraham like Shiites and Sunnis fight over the righteous descendant of Mohammad.

They all agree Jesus was a prophet.

Yet Christian Evangels say Jesus is God, worship him! Not Jesus is balanced with God, be like him. They say faith is greater than reason and questioning faith is denying God. However, the truth is -- only the truth will be discovered by knowledge and reason even if it's in the Gospels.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under those two suppositions, what happens to the most Radical Atheist attacks on Religion? The ones that say Religion is irrational and should therefore be abolished. Isn't the only justification for that argument the Atheist belief that Religion is basically irrational? And doesn't that view depend on the Atheist Belief that the two suppositions I suggested can't hold?

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the presumption of this attack is that you don't get any universal non-subjective truths from your 'spiritual experiences'. I can't claim that as a fact but I can think of it to be the most likely option. You can never disproof anything. I just think that the chance of spitual experiences actually conveying these truths is so low that I'm willing to take the risk and actually support abolishing the dogmatic religions because of the fruits it ultimately bears. I can't claim any of this as a cold fact but I can say that it is based on reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't realize it but you are denying your own antecedent. The "reason" on which you base your conclusion is your feeling or thinking of what's "likely". Just using the term "likely" doesn't make it rigor, despite what Sklansky might have misled you to believe. So you are now asserting something you can't prove, based on Your subjective evaluation which You think is reasonable, just like NotReady does. And your denial of your antecendent is a conclusion that denies the validity of just such kinds of subjectively based assertions.

PairTheBoard

[JussiUt]

And I'm not denying that. That's why I chose the word "likely" and not probability or some other more scientifically sounding word.

I said: "I can't claim that as a fact but I can think of it to be the most likely option". I, subjectively, think it's more likely. I didn't in any place bring mathematical probabilites into this. Just because you have issues with Sklansky doesn't mean that I can't use the word "likely" especially when I explained what I mean by that. I think "likely" is a word that doesn't have to be banned if you don't mean to claim any scientifical authority with it.

Again, I have 'a belief' that these spiritual experiences do not convey any universal non-subjective truths. I can't prove it but I can explain why I believe so. I believe so because science has shown the enormous capabilities that human mind has to create illusions, for example schizophrenia. Science tries to study human brains and human conciousness and it has not yet found some third dimension which isn't the rational nor the emotional dimension of humans (the phrasing sucks, I know).

You could say that I have a belief that is based purely on science, you could say that in order to believe something I need to have scientifical proof. And you would be right. I believe I can love but we don't know what love actually is yet. But I do have a belief that science can someday tell us why we love and how it alters our neurological system or whatnot. The question why we fall in love with one particular person in a particular way may be too difficult for science to solve at least for a long, long time but the fact that we have a super complicated brain and super complicated emotions don't mean that they are somehow supernatural and beyond science.

EDIT: And yes, I'm a moron too by Sklansky's terms.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't realize it but you are denying your own antecedent. The "reason" on which you base your conclusion is your feeling or thinking of what's "likely". Just using the term "likely" doesn't make it rigor, despite what Sklansky might have misled you to believe. So you are now asserting something you can't prove, based on Your subjective evaluation which You think is reasonable, just like NotReady does. And your denial of your antecendent is a conclusion that denies the validity of just such kinds of subjectively based assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being a logician or a mathematician and almost certainly being a SklaMoron, does the same argument hold when somebody tells me that they think it's likely pigs can't fly and I argue that "they might be doing it only when we're not looking". Certainly, they can't prove that pigs can't fly, can they? Pigs could be using techniques we haven't heard of, or do it in invisible mode or something.

Are we both on equal footing as you suggest above?

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't realize it but you are denying your own antecedent. The "reason" on which you base your conclusion is your feeling or thinking of what's "likely". Just using the term "likely" doesn't make it rigor, despite what Sklansky might have misled you to believe. So you are now asserting something you can't prove, based on Your subjective evaluation which You think is reasonable, just like NotReady does. And your denial of your antecendent is a conclusion that denies the validity of just such kinds of subjectively based assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being a logician or a mathematician and almost certainly being a SklaMoron, does the same argument hold when somebody tells me that they think it's likely pigs can't fly and I argue that "they might be doing it only when we're not looking". Certainly, they can't prove that pigs can't fly, can they? Pigs could be using techniques we haven't heard of, or do it in invisible mode or something.

Are we both on equal footing as you suggest above?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

boy, what a great bar bet.
If I can get 5 or so math profs to sign a paper saying that 'pigs can fly' and 'pigs can't fly' are equally likely because they are both based on subjective evaluation, I wouldn't have to be hoping to win the 30M lottery.

Does anyone know a few names I could email that are likely to sign that ( I'm not sure if PTB is a prof or not).

I guess I could use "the Yeti exist and are 12 ft tall" vs "they don't" and attract even more bettors, or does anyone have an even more enticing matchup?

luckyme